North London prep schools- help please!

[angelpuffs]

Hello everyone
I'm new to mumsnet and would really appreciate some advice from people with experience of private schools for 4+ entry.
My May born DD will be due to enter school in sept 2017 at age 4 and we'd like to sit her for the assessments at NLCS, SHHS and Channing. We've applied to SHHS already, and looked at NLCS last week (and loved it). I know how hard all these schools are to get into, and initially I wanted to sit her for a back up school- we were thinking of Grimsdell. However we've decided that, instead of Grimsdell, the best thing would be to try for a small prep school which would be able to prepare her well for 7+ or 11+ entry to a good school, rather than her be at Mill Hill which is not great academically (so I've heard).
I'd love to hear opinions on any good prep schools that don't require the child to be registered from birth- I'm looking at St Christophers in Hampstead soon but don't like the idea of the staggered entry in reception and year 1 that they have there. Anyone know anything about Hampstead Hill school? I'm also looking at Norfolk house in Muswell hill but it's first come first served there, and non selective. It's so confusing! All advice would be welcomed.
Feel free to suggest anywhere else I haven't mentioned. We live in East Finchley so anywhere within reasonable distance of there.
Thanks xx

Sorry. I was unclear in my post. At 10 months, I was too late to apply for an assessment for my December born son.

To broaden the discussion, I do have a bit of sympathy for these schools. They are hugely over-subscribed. If they go on waiting list only, you get people ringing from the labour ward to put their child's name down - or the answer that I got when I rang Trevor Roberts school, that I was far too late to put my then 5 month old son's name down.

I'm sure they know that there is no reliable way to test intelligence at 3, 4 or 5. OK, you might spot an absolute genius, but no way to separate out the top 10% from the rest. So what they do, is to run assessments and choose children who they think will fit in with their school. Presumably considering a balance of ages throughout the year (hmmm...), mix of introverts/extroverts, ethnic and religious mix, balance of gender for co-ed schools etc. But they run the same sort of assessments year on year, and they are easy to tutor for.

But they can't say that. They can't come out and say "we have an impossible job, so we're going to take the kids that we like, the ones who fit in". They have to stick to the party line that they are selecting the bright kids, and those who don't get in would struggle if admitted. The woman in charge of admissions at NLCS told me that they could easily take half of the people who applied and they would do well at the school, they just don't have the space.

Dare I say it - maybe all these schools should just have a ballot?!

Hi broken mouse. I see what you're saying but surely that's slightly insulting to those kids who do get in. I actually asked the admissions secretary what the standard of the 250 applicants they get at 4+ was. I wanted to know specifically that- are they all super bright kids or, despite the schools reputation, are there a range of abilities? She told me that some of the children were clearly not of the academic level the school was looking for and that the parents had perhaps not realised the type of school NLCS was. She said they could easily fill 60-70 places but they only have 40. However that still leaves a lot of kids who would still have been rejected even if 70 places were on offer. So for that reason a ballot wouldn't make sense. And as someone said earlier in this thread, certain schools operating a ballot just "screen" on different criteria- such as parents financial situation.

Charterhouse school allocates places by ballot and get s very good results. I would be very careful about feeling that a child at the age of 2 or 3 who passed an 'assessment' that is neither scientific and certainly not validated is somehow superior to those that didn't. I think perhaps that's drinking the cool-aid! We are talking about toddlers. Even the brightest little ones will have bad days. And some of the worlds most blindingly brilliant people were labelled as delayed as children. My personal opinion is that if a school is truly academic with gifted teachers they should run a ballot or at least take from all birth months.

Monster- I wasn't saying that girls who were accepted by NLCS were superior. I simply meant that saying that the assessments are random- even though the school then goes on to produce outstanding results with the girls chosen- might sound a bit like a case of sour grapes.
And re charterhouse square- do you think it's fair that they select on parents financial situation (as someone said earlier- I don't know if this is true as have no knowledge of CHS)? I'd personally rather have my daughter at a school where girls were selected on ability rather than on their parents bank balance!

They are selecting on finances. The ability to pay the fees is absolutely selecting children based on their parents bank balances. If a school takes a bunch of middle class, mostly autumn born girls, who are well supported at home and gets good results I'm not personally all that impressed. I'd expect them to be able to get nearly all those girls over the line. A work colleague of mine sent his DD to NLCS and she missed her offer for Cambridge and ended up at York. He was clearly very disappointed and wasn't sure at the end it was all worth it. I think it can be a hard place to be a girl who doesn't achieve what are very high expectations. She's a lovely girl who if she'd gone anywhere else would have been seen as having succeeded. Instead she felt as though she'd failed. It's just another thing to think about. I think people pay for education for a very wide range of reasons. I hope I'm not derailing your thread. I genuinely find it interesting to hear other people's opinions on the whole system.

I'm with Monster. I honestly think it's a disservice to tell children aged 3 that they must be very academic to have passed an entrance test. Talk about fixed mindset. Or that they've 'failed'.

Highgate, for example, seems to want to have it both ways. They 'academically select' children at 3 and then get rid of up to a quarter at 7. The only difference between these ages is four years teaching at the school. So either their teaching is flawed or their method of selection is.

Another prep school in North London apparently likes boys who have Oxbridge educated parents, with the father working in something high-powered and the mother having given up her high-powered job to be a full-time nurturing parent. Like Monster's example above, these are probably boys who are likely to do well, by and large, without this perceived magical teaching.

Don't worry- you're not derailing my thread. I don't have a daughter at NLCS (or any other school- yet) so am just speaking on experience of what I'd like in the future. Surely everyone applying to charterhouse square must feel they can afford the fees or they wouldn't apply? I'm not sure what the school has to gain by selecting the wealthiest parents only? Again, just a genuinely interested question...

Thankgod- didn't see your reply until I'd sent mine. So do you think it's better to select kids based on the parents bank balances like CHS does? My husband is Oxbridge educated and does something high flying in the city- and I've given up my job to be a full time mum. But I wouldn't like my kids school places to be allocated on that basis any more than I would on our financial situation! If schools are non selective that's great- but I can't see how selecting on financial ability or parents career is any better than selecting on merit of the children- it's much worse in my opinion!

Do prep schools really 'get rid' of children after a few years because they might not contribute to the school's shining results?

How awful for those children and their families.

But they all select on the basis of their parents' bank balances, don't they? They're private schools. I don't know that Charterhouse selects on finances any more than any others. NLCS is hardly a beacon of equality. I'm sure they offer bursaries, but that will only be for secondary and for very few children.

Yes, Christina, prep school that have senior schools do get rid of children who aren't quite as academic as these apparently rigorous tests on 3-year-olds would suggest. Except they say something like 'we feel little Johnny would be happier somewhere else'.

BTW none of my children go to local state school so I've no personal beef about assessments, but I know a lot of people who did them and it was, from the outside, grim to watch.

Junior schools don't tend to give bursaries so I'm working on the assumption that everyone who applies to private junior schools such as CHS or NLCS can afford the fees. So why cream off the richest of those people? I don't see how that's really relevant!

Which school orders applicants in terms of parental finances?

Yes Angel you seem to holding to an idea that there's a school that orders kids by parental finances. There isn't! How could there be when schools would have no way of knowing how rich parents were other than their self-declared ability to pay private school fees.

I was told- either on this thread or another- that charterhouse square selects on finances. I'll try and dig it out and repost it. I must admit I was surprised by this....

Not sure how to repost- but on this thread on 29/10 someone said charterhouse square is financially selective.
On 23/10 there was a lot of discussion about CHS and the face that 23 out of 26 of the kids had tutors in one of the classes.
This is all I've been going on so if I'm wrong, I apologise :-)

Hmmm - I know it's stressful but i think there's a fair amount of rumour spreading and inaccuracy on this thread, certainly where Highgate is concerned. Their intake is spread across the year in terms of birthdays (if the head really did say 60 percent Autumn/winter this actually means there might be one or two more Autumn/winter kids in a class - but the rest would be spring and summer!) Also they don't shove out numerous kids before the junior school - the presumption is that kids go through, unless they are obviously struggling and wouldn't suit the junior school - happens very rarely...

Like I said, it's obviously stressful for parents making decisions as to what schools to try for, but little point whipping people up into a frenzy and suggesting schools are much more ferocious than they really are!

Ps - the fees thing is WAY off also. No private schools, afaik, ask to see bank statements!!

Same policy of progression through the school at NLCS. It is very unusual for a girl to leave. I actually think that the 4+ does its job well. The girls in DD1's year were like a different species to all but 1 of the children in her nursery (the 1 followed DD to NLCS at 7). Very bright, quick, highly imaginative, verbally sophisticated, no answers ever taken at face value, always a follow-up question or 10, very focused. They are all reading fluently by the end of the 1st term of reception and writing simple stories by the end of the year. The selection process is anything but random. However and as with all stages of entry to highly academic schools, there is self-selection amongst most of the parents before any assessments take place. Most parents are sensible enough and know their DCs well enough to understand that an extremely shy, not very verbal or immature DC won't suit these schools. I have seen the odd clearly deluded parent when doling out coffee and biscuits at the assessments- but not that many.

Sorry if I've been spreading misinformation about Highgate - I was told the statistic of almost a quarter leaving from pre prep to prep by someone at the school, but it was a good few years ago. I also know of three pupils who did leave because they were managed out but maybe, coincidentally, I just happen to the very few who were.

Do parents really know their children when it comes to an assessment? I wouldn't have had a clue how my first born would perform relative to others at the age of 3? At a guess, I'd have thought he'd have done pretty badly and wouldn't have been offered a place. He's now gone from his state primary to one of these much vaunted north London selectives and seems to be ahead in some subjects relative to those who've come from the junior school.

The current Highgate cohort who have started year 3 this September all went through from year 2 i.e no-one was blatantly asked to leave at the end of year 2. Usually a few are. I don't think it's as many as 25%. However a couple of children from that cohort have left at the end of reception/year 1, I don't know whether that was other reasons or they were "managed out". most schools that take at 3 don't guarantee progression at 7.

Horsemadmom- when you say the girls in your DD1's year at NLCS were like a different species to this girls at her nursery (bar the girl that got into NLCS at 7) does that mean that your DD was the only girl in her year to get into NLCS from her nursery? Which schools did the other girls go to- from what you can remember?

Hi!
Two girls went from her year but the other was a September birthday and they were never in the same class at nursery (DD1 is a July baby). We met her for the first time just before they started NLCS. In DD1's year, some went to SHHS, Channing and St. Christopher's. Many stayed on to 7+.

Thanks- I love snippets of info like that :-). It sounds like they all got into great schools. How old is your dd1 now?

PMed you. All did well and with a minimum of stress.....for the girls.