When do prep schools out kids in sets

[Rainbows18]

My daughter in reception in a coed school but seems to be finding most of the english and maths too easy. The teacher does give 1-2 kids challenges but all the teaching is focused on the main level. I feel my daughter isn’t as an engaged she would usually be in her learning. Just wondering what everyone else has experienced with how prep schools teach and manage the advanced children, what ages do they set children for core subjects and what happens in the everyday teaching. Thanks in advance for the advise.

There is a big difference between streaming, setting and in-class differentiation ('groups'). Research shows (please don't ask me for a link, I really can't be bothered to wade through papers) that one of the things that makes the biggest difference to rate of progress is the teacher's expectations. If teachers have low expectations of a lower set, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Personally, I think mixed ability with 'teaching to the top' and differentiated support where needed gets the best results out of everybody.

This with bells on. 88% of kids who get put in sets in reception are still in the same sets at the end of Y6. Only the very brightest benefit (and even that is debatable). In Finland it is illegal to set before age of 15 and it has one of the best education systems in the world.

@PresentingPercy

No one ever said all private school kids are ahead as that would be absurd. I said at an academic / selective prep which is true.

OP you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, just read the ISI reports. They often discuss this explicitly and always provide information about the ability of the pupils for context (average, above average or well above average). At a London prep with high ability pupils the teaching is typically 1 year ahead of the national curriculum. It’s a verifiable fact that I also know personally to be true.

You simply don’t know if that’s true or not. I see x years ahead quoted all the time. There’s little evidence for this snd certainly no need for it. Plenty of state school DC are “ahead” of their peers. However they are stretched and achieve highly. They would hold their own against those other dc whose parents pay. The idea that prep schools that select are stuffed full of the brightest and the best is nonsense.

My DC are at a prep which streams the children from Reception for reading/writing and from Yr 2 for maths. However it seems like they don't really bother with the more able kids and just leave them to it, rather than trying to keep them stimulated, especially with maths. If the kids need any extra help they don't seem to get that either. Overall the school has been very disappointing and thankfully both my DC are moving to selective preps for Year 3.

She's 5 surely you can easily knock up some sums for her to do if she was doing subtraction to 20 see if she can do it to 30

Children are split into two sets in Y1 for English and Maths at our prep. I say set but it’s more of a split between those who pick up concepts very quickly versus those that don’t. They do exactly the same work but the “top” set races through it and does extension work whereas the other set just concentrates on securing the knowledge. Children move between sets regularly. It’s a non selective prep.

More formal setting starts in Year 3 when they are split into three sets. Top and middle set working on the same lines as before with bottom set really concentrating on those who need a lot more support. Top sets always have the most children in and again children regularly move between them.

I wouldn’t worry about setting at such a young age if the ability intake is similar across the year group though. If the teacher provides extension work etc to meet the needs of the most able then I think it’s honestly fine.

Note that a lot of the very selective secondary schools, both grammar and independent, do not set children at all. There is no need as all children are working at the same level.

@PresentingPercy I don’t entirely disagree with you. I have evidence it’s true due to my experience for my DD as well as knowing the work my friends’ children are getting at other academic preps.

However, our local state schools get large portions of the class to greater depth by year 6 which isn’t that different of a standard. A state school with the resources for differentiation will absolutely aim to do the same and this is easier financially the larger the ‘more able’ cohort is.

I do think it’s necessary for children to be taught and challenged to their ability (as does most everyone in education both state and private) so I disagree that it’s not ‘necessary’ as you suggest. A lack of challenge can create a host of difficulties for bright children which is why differentiation in state schools is mandated. It’s really budget that prevents all schools from doing it well.

A selective academic school where the entire cohort is ‘more able’ can easily cover the national curriculum one year ahead and often does more that that so they have time in year in year 6 for exam prep for the 11 plus.

Anyway, this is less important for reception but research suggests that by year 3 it becomes increasingly important for able children.

OP for now, just follow her interests and support her at home. Speak to the teacher as well to see what they think but don’t be too concerned just yet as she is very young.

Also, an academically selective prep is stuffed full of very bright children. There are also very bright children in state schools
and average children is mixed ability independent schools and state schools. All of these things can be true at the same time.

Who can run circles around who is silly.

Some state primaries are as good as the best independent schools and some independent schools are terrible and there is everything in between you can imagine.

Picking a school isn’t about the sector but about which school is best for your child all things considered taking into account where you can actually get into.

Very academically selective preps are a London thing. Few preps in other areas can be ultra selective. They are academically selective though but a not full of the brightest.

My comments earlier were about early years. I don’t believe 5 year olds should be set. The OP’s DC is in YR. Later on there should be a scholarship set (Or more) and lower sets for dc who need more time. I agree this depends on the school. I’m not sure the academically selective preps get 100% dc with scholarships or even into the most selective senior schools. They certainly don’t around me! We are presumably a bit thick.

My dc’s are at a non-selective prep, the only reason I’m paying for it is for the smaller classes so each child should get more individual attention....one of mine struggles, the other is way ahead, and the school have managed to differentiate work appropriately for them both all the way through. I love the fact that they are just who they are and have the scope to develop. If a private school with small numbers aren’t able to differentiate work I’d be questioning what I’m paying for.

@PresentingPercy you are right, London is a world onto itself for schools (in a bad way). I agree setting isn’t appropriate for EYFS. I’m not aware of any school that sets that young though almost all do differentiation from Reception. Setting / steaming starts at year 4 at the earliest and usually only for maths.

@bridgertonian
Most parents who have DC in prep schools have no idea if DC are way ahead. They have no way of judging the majorty of DC elsewhere. I have no doubt local people using prep schools near me thought DC were "way ahead". However it was local DC in state schools who went to Cambridge to do maths and others to Oxford. So who, exactly, was "way ahead"?

It is perfectly to OK to say you have chosen the right school for DC, but so many people kid themselves that DC are doing so much better than state educated DC and it is not true. I have had DC in both state and private and have been a primary Governor so I have seen a variety of DC in both types of school.

Our prep set from Y4. More than just maths. However they chased scholarships so, even though it was non selective, the quality of the school meant the very ambitious parents chose it. It was also easlily the best prep for girls around and had high standards. Not all the ones who seemed brightest at the time though went on to be at the best universities later on. Some did but plenty did not. Those state educated DC turned out to be pretty bright too.

My dd is at a non-selective independent (NW not London) and they start setting in Yr3 for maths only.

However there is differentiated work for the kids to do, extra tasks that they can do to practice what they've learned and dd attends 1-1 extension lessons with her teacher (over zoom at the moment).

So at this age it should be more about differentiation than formal setting to give each child the chance to develop

@PresentingPercy I’m really confused why you have brought up state v private. I said in my experience, one dc struggled and one was way ahead, but teachers were able to differentiate their work. This is true of them and their peers, it’s nothing to do with whether they are at state or private. Since you brought it up though, I’m state educated gained A’s across the board and went on to get a first at university. With two parents and several cousins who teach in the state sector, I actually do have a good idea of where my children sit nationally. I still maintain I’d be concerned if I was paying for an education and with such small numbers work wasn’t differentiated, whether children were set or not, that was the only point I wanted to make.

ISI are not Ofsted and really should not comment on DC in state schools because they don’t go into them.

I brought up state because the implication of DC being “a year ahead” begs the question: of whom? Or of what? It’s not remotely accurate if you have no knowledge of DC in other schools or indeed how far ahead they might be. It’s a very dubious measurement of money well spent.

My DD did go to a very prestigious prep. The teaching wasn’t the same as her sister’s state primary. The curriculum in the main core subjects wasn’t much different. However for the other subjects it was markedly different.

It wasn’t me who thought private school dc are ahead. I didn’t mention it first.

It’s relative the national curriculum which is the standard age related expectation and is a published document that everyone in education refers to including the ISI.

There are kids ahead and below expectations in both the state and independent sector. Please stop jumping at shadows that aren’t there. No one is saying anything even remotely controversial...

Both my DD and DS preps both set from year 3 onwards for Maths/Science and English. That suited them as both good at Maths/Science. DD was in set 1 for English too but DS was in set 2 and was annoyed but we told him if you want to be moved up you have to show teacher you are more able. Don't write minimum for each sentence, more details and elaboration.

@caringcarer and was DS ever moved up? just wondering re the earlier post about lower expectations / children staying in the same set.

Iirc spellings and maths from year 2 within class, then across year group from year 3.

Mine were / are state educated and they have been “grouped” since reception. To be honest the grouping was more extreme at reception age (where a small group of the highest ability were taken out from the three classes) than they are in juniors - where the grouping is more class based.

It isn’t that surprising - some children start reception able to read fluently whilst others don’t know which hand they want to hold a pencil in. (And in the case of my ds - he started school able to read fluently and unsure which hand he wanted to hold his pencil in! We got to see both ends of the groupings as a result.)