4+ assesements 2024

[tps123]

Hello

I thought I'd set up a new thread for those sitting 4+ in 2024 for September 2025 start date.

Any tips for prepping?

What schools are people considering?

Ivy House School seems to fit what you’re looking for… Nurturing, small classes, co-ed, good grounds, on the heath and very very good 11+ exits..

What area are you looking at? The first that come to mind are Aldenham, Edge Grove and Radlett.

Aw, sorry about this. Have you considered Manor Lodge? It’s a lovely school with incredible facilities (even a meditation garden). I suspect some people will be releasing places shortly and they did speak about being open to adding a class, IIRC. I also really liked St Hilda’s in Harpenden. You don’t say where you are based but be reassured that there are many great schools, both independent and state; and if you are specifically after a girls’ school, I heard an education expert say there more good girls’ schools in London than boys’.

Did you hear anything on your other assessments? Don’t feel guilty: it’s all experience for them and more traumatic for the parents 💆🏼‍♀️☺️

Thank you all for your encouraging posts. We are very flexible to move according to DD school but looking in south west of london as DH and I have to be in office in London

@notatigermom sorry to hear your experiences and understand your disappointment, however I do think there is some merit in the 4+ process - it’s definitely less random than people envisage - I think most of the randomness people experience are getting offers from one and not the other, but a lot of DC do get all their offers or don’t get any offers as well.

And to imply people with connections get into these schools - that's not the case for superselectives. We have no connections and got all our offers when my dc did 4+ and we are just working professionals (as opposed to to super wealthy). They are definitely not looking at my postcode.

In terms of ballot - I will be very interested in how Wimbledon high school results become in the coming years since they moved to ballot at 4+ last year (I personally think it’s a bad idea). At Bute House, girls from the ballot typically don’t fare as well as those from 7+ or siblings (although most would get an excellent education and go to good schools - someone I met from the ballot ended up at Sth Hampstead).

I have heard such great things about Ivy House also - the class size is so small (which is a good thing) I wonder why? And how do they survive with 9 in a grade - is that why they went co ed?

We had a mix, half the parents came as couples whilst the other half had just the father or mother attend. It was honestly a really pleasant experience and all parents were very respectful to one another.

And thank you, my son came out really happy but I can never gauge these things correctly. They went off as a group of 5 and it sounded like the teachers would ask the children questions individually but also did certain activities as a group such as running.

It’s hard to imagine that any of these schools have a very scientific way to judge what the future path of progress is looking at a [3-4] year old. At best they can gauge which ones fall into the bracket of well trained and easily trainable in being less reticent, more willing to listen to instruction (for now) and following a conventional model of disciplined and well behaved.

It is therefore a laughable process which at best creates stress amongst parents and at worst a false sense of pride/achievement having passed such an assessment only designed to catch a given preset of behaviour. Were this not the case then so many people wouldn’t offer tuitions for 3 year olds who claim to teach the right “traits” to be picked.

The most shocking thing about this is that most of the brilliant people I encountered through life almost always end up lying somewhere on the edge of the norm and not in its median which these schools are seemingly bent upon catching. No wonder the current crop of the greatest minds sitting at the very cutting edge of most scientific fields you pick are not coming out of the British education system. And it was never a game of sheer numbers before someone points that out as a flaw in the argument. [25-100]y ago the country punched well above its weight and now it punches far below it. Unfortunately I think at its very core and foundation the system is poorly built starting right at this very random process of 4+ assessment.

I must say that I agree with you to a certain extent, but not totally. I don’t think they’re just looking for pliable, obedient kids who follow instructions. My guess is that it’s a combination of trying to gauge IQ as well as attitude, a capacity for independent and original reasoning and readiness to learn.

Of course, it’s not possible to do this effectively in all little people, whose brains will be developing into their 20s, so it’s flawed. It’s not that they will catch all the bright, brilliant children by any stretch: just that those they do, probably will do very well. They are not the cleverest or best. There is no such thing.

I loved what you said that often the greatest minds come from the fringes, and I agree. But I also think that can have absolutely nothing to do with (conventional) education at all; and also, let’s not forget the positive impact you can have on the world by being kind, or creative, or bold and brave.

I went to a UK state school and have seen some talented, potentially “brilliant” minds find it hard to build a path forward because at worst, the system thwarted, diminished and gave up on them. Some state schools are lovely communities but so many either can’t teach how they want to, don’t have the budgets for equipment or despite wanting to do the best for each kid, find themselves up against large class sizes or pressures to meet targets. We started looking at some of these indies because the school day is long and sitting in stuffy classrooms of sometimes over 30, in a set-up that many find dull, doesn’t seem a great use of time, and some of the independent schools value (and have resources for) experiential learning, setting their imaginations wild and giving them the space and motivation to find the answers for themselves.
We never really considered NLCS, but were sucked into the language around girls breaking the norms and doing things differently.

But let’s not forget in this process that kids and people are more than the grades they get or the jobs they happen to end up doing ~ and that anyway, the former and the latter don’t always need to be connected; and that the latter is also not the sum of who one is in life.
As for who gets in and who doesn’t, there are of course not only an exact 20, 40 or 60 applicants who would do super well in those environments, and a whole load more opportunities than one or two assessments when they’re 3 or 4 years old.

🤔🌻

We’ve not yet got to the 4+ stage and I was surprised on learning that such assessments existed for this age group. It seems rather ridiculous to me. However, if a school has chosen a selection criteria I would much prefer it were based on merit and ability than cronyism – favouring those 'with the right connections'.

Does anyone know when Glendower shares the results?

Yes I am really not clear as to which NLondon schools let you in with the right ‘connections’ - certainly thirty years ago but not now! Perhaps some of the smaller preps are more inclined to pick based on families / history with the school? But definitely not the bigger selective ones.

We went for second round NLCS last week and DD stayed 10-15mins longer than other kids. She told me that the last exercise was difficult. I think the teachers were being kind and gave her more time to finish the puzzle! She came out happy and smiling, but I think this is the end of road for us for NLCS, atleast for now.

Exactly the same as us! We deduced the same thing as you. My daughter also said it was tricky. I’m impressed they gave them a bit more time. It’s probably unwise to speculate but we had the same experience and thought process! Good luck 🤞🏼

I am not so sure about this to be honest. Ultimately if you throw into question the testing/assessment process (as to its efficacy and applicability), then wouldn't you rather take the onus on yourself to find the right connection to get in? I certainly am not a believer to stress out my 3/4yr old over assessments.

IMHO there is no such thing as merit/ability when it comes to a 3-4 yr old human (certainly not measurable)

Sorry, I’m not quite sure what you mean. Firstly, I haven’t questioned the effectiveness of the 4+ assessment process (so that cannot be taken as given). Like most, I only have a superficial understanding. If this were not so, we would not have innumerable threads from anxious parents seeking advice on how to prepare their DC.

Secondly, while I may not be an advocate for school assessments for children aged 3-4, I do not support cronyism as part of any selection process – academic or otherwise. It serves no one except those that benefit from such a corrupt system. The ultimate effect of this practice is the promotion of mediocrity. This does nothing for the pursuit of raising standards in education.

All the NW schools that are being frequently discussed here have some scope to manoeuvre in case they have to accept a “special request”. I don’t know many people whose kids go to Habs or Highgate so cannot comment but I know of such examples for every other school.

sorry for the confusion. The assessment if for this year reception itself but I clarified with the parents and it is an exception as they could not make their allocated date. Don’t know much details as the parents are a bit cagey but will keep the group informed if I find out.

I can’t complain against the schools as they are all very nurturing and we chose to apply for these schools only because we heard good things from parents and students first hand. I also feel that wherever possible the teachers/school try to be as sweet and helpful as possible. The fact that The Hall sent an introductory video and also gave snacks to kids was very sweet. Highgate was also nice enough to offer another date to the parent whose child did not go in at all the first time around. UCS, I would say was a strange experience but I am sure they had there reasons as well or maybe it was a one off incident. My point is not to blame the school or the assessors. I am raising a question about the process.

I feel it is a pointless process as I genuinely believe that you cannot assess such young kids and I even more strongly believe that you should not train/coach them for these assessments. And I am not just saying it now, I believed in this even before this process started and hence I never made my son do the ‘tasks’ and ‘holiday homework’ sent by the school in order to prepare. I do believe in imparting knowledge to kids from a young age in a natural organic way and not in a teaching/forceful way. For example I don’t understand this obsession with forcing kids to start writing as soon as possible lest they are asked to do that in an assessment. I am in my late 30s and have never come across a single person in my life who cannot write. So I am sure he will learn it at some point.

Now coming to the point of crying/adjustment issues/shyness and bilingualism. Again I do believe that schools do want to try to accommodate but do they have the resources to? Imagine being a teacher tasked with assessing kids. You have 8 kids coming each hour and statistically speaking you have to select 1 of 8, if not fewer. At this point you want to find reasons to reject kids and not go out of your way to try to bring out the best in every kids and trying to make them comfortable. There is no time or resources to do that. The kids are assessed for 45-60 minutes and they have to go through 3-4 exercises to assess various aspects. Where is the time to pacify distressed kids or go out of your way to include a kid with weaker language skills.

Now someone made a good point that kids who don’t fuss show maturity and flexibility. Fair point. But why are these skills preferred over intelligence, perseverance, critical thinking, creativity, etc.

Finally a few people implied that they believe that the school results would suffer if they dont assess kids. I would encourage them to look at the results for the House and the Arnold House. Also, schools like the Hall, UCS and Highgate have further intake at 7+/11+ levels, which are also assessment based. Some parents whose kids got into these schools say that kids entering at this level through assessment are usually more advanced than their existing students - if the 4+ assessment is already working and the process is so amazing then how is this happening? Are they taking smart kids and making them less smart? In any case, there is no clear data to figure out what percentage of the final school results come from 4+ entry vs 7+ entry vs 11+ entry. This makes me respect schools like Arnold house and Hereward house even more as they take students at 3-4 without assessment and then just work with them to produce amazing results.

The Hall doesn’t have a +7 entry point

I feel it is a pointless process as I genuinely believe that you cannot assess such young kids and I even more strongly believe that you should not train/coach them for these assessments.

@notatigermom you mentioned previously that your DS attends a nursery that prepares children for these assessments. How is that different from “training/coaching”. This already puts your DS at an advantage compared to children who don’t attend such settings. I would even go so far as to say that it’s an unfair advantage. I’ve toured such a place recently and I personally would not send my DC to the one I saw. DC who lack the finger strength being made to draw and write at very young ages really put me off.

A lot of other points I do agree with. I assume these assessments are a lot of “tick box” exercises. Either the child does what is asked of them and does it correctly, in which case they’re through, or they do not. There is no way to holistically asses the whole child in an hour or less. Shy or reserved kids are likely at a disadvantage as they will probably be a bit more reluctant to complete said tasks, or prefer to observe for a while first. The schools have said they know how to get the “best” from the children, but it seems a lot of what they want to know is whether they’ve already been taught to read and write.

I have heard such great things about the Ivy House. Does anyone have any first-hand experience and wouldn't mind sharing? We are registering for their taster day next Friday!

I'm replying to this more because I know a lot of parents lurk on these threads so don't want to let some incorrect statements go unchallenged.

You have already mentioned sending your child to a feeder nursery, as a PP mentioned, so you're obviously aware that they would have started to learn letter recognition and formation - but this isn't peculiar to feeder preschools. Any childcare setting following early years guidance would have started work on these skills as well. Some children take to it sooner than others and yes, obviously some are much more adept at a younger age. As you say this doesn't mean they won't learn eventually, but it does mean the children who are more able / mature in their learning at a younger age can all start reception at a similar level and progress together without the teacher having to spend a lot of extra time getting them to the same standard, as would happen in a non selective school.

The pacifying crying children and issues with bilingualism - I'm not sure if you saw my previous post but it pointed out that anecdotally there are around a third bilingual children in my child's class at Highgate, with a few of those trilingual. I would hate to think anyone with multiple languages in the household would be put off applying as my experience has been Highgate (and the other NLondon schools attended by my other children) are incredibly positive and welcoming to other languages and cultures, and it doesn't disadvantage applications at all.

RE pacifying crying children - you described even in your own experience that they did make efforts to accommodate. I think it's unfair to say that they're looking for reasons to reject - they are spending a huge amount of time and resource on identifying the children they think would best suit the school and it wouldn't be in anyone's interests to reject shyer candidates too quickly.

With regards to the school results compared between intakes at reception and 7plus - it is notable that Channing got rid of its 7plus intake entirely a few years ago, and Highgate has recently switched to take the majority of new pupils at 4plus instead of 7plus. I spoke to the Highgate PP head about this and she said that their experience has been that there is no measurable difference between children taken in at those two different points when it comes to further up the school / exams. There is a bit of a gap between ability at year 3 when you get all the tutored kids entering at 7plus stage, but according to her this doesn't last past that year.

The main point that needs calling out though is your implication these schools take children based on parental connections. As I said in my previous post, all of the selective North London schools have put a huge amount of time and effort into moving past the 'old boy' network that used to exist with generations of families all sending their children to the same place. It is absolutely not the case now that more money, celebrity or familial connections can buy you places at any of these. I'm sure that's not the case at some of the non-selectives but those weren't the ones you were talking about.

Effectively what all of these previous posters are saying is - there are lots of wonderful schools in North London, and I really hope you and your son find one that suits you and he flourishes at. Just because UCS/Highgate didn't work for him at 4 plus doesn't mean you should discount later on, our children can change hugely during their school lives and you might find one of these selectives work very well for him once he's had a few more years at a nurturing pre-prep.

There it is—you said it. I know several students who were rejected by UCS and Highgate at the 4+ stage but were later accepted at 7+. I’m certain I’m not the only one aware of such instances, and my point here is not without merit.

If we break this down, it seems these schools expect someone else—often pre-prep schools or, more commonly, parents—to prepare children to meet their high standards. The message appears to be: If you didn’t make it at 4, go back, prepare more, and try again at 7.

This is my fundamental issue.

First, rejecting a child at the age of 3 or 4 says little about their long-term potential. It merely reflects their current level of preparedness, compliance, or ability to adapt—essentially, how easily they fit into a classroom environment without causing disruption. Second, the role of a school educating children at this young age should be to nurture and shape them, not to shift that responsibility onto parents or other institutions. It shouldn’t be a case of only admitting children once they’re ‘ready.’

We also need to distinguish between ability and preparedness. While a school may not be able to change a child’s inherent ability beyond a certain point, it should at least take responsibility for helping them become the best-prepared version of themselves within their natural capabilities.

I completely understand that children have varying abilities—whether due to age, development, or other factors—and that grouping similar-ability children can be beneficial. However, for schools as large as HH, Hall, or UCS, which run multiple forms each year, accommodating this diversity shouldn’t be an issue. From what I’ve heard (and I’m open to correction), schools like Wetherby already follow such a model.

I completely agree with everything you said. I chose the nursery for my son because it was the most convenient option logistically and came highly recommended by other parents in my neighborhood. When I registered him, I had no idea about the entire schooling system—the 4+, the "desired" schools, and all the associated stress. Some parents told me, “Send your kid here, and you won’t have to worry about anything,” and I liked the idea of relying on the school to handle my child’s education, especially given the hefty fees we pay for private schools.
However, I was in for a rude awakening as the reality began to unfold. Even the nursery started asking parents to "help out" to better prepare the kids. Some parents hired tutors, either individually or in groups. I chose not to do either. At that point, a few parents reassured me, saying, “Don’t worry about tutoring or preparing. These schools know how to get the best out of kids regardless of their personality and can assess their true ability.” This notion sounded absurd to me.
Even if I had wanted to prepare my child, I had very limited options. Both my husband and I work long hours and have to go into the office. We need to do so to afford sending two kids to private school in London while also covering the cost of childcare for before and after school hours.
I completely agree that the existence of nurseries focused on "preparation" creates an unfair system—not only for kids who don’t have access to such resources but also for the kids attending these nurseries and being "tutored" at such a young age. My son’s nursery runs for seven hours a day, but they spend only 45 minutes to an hour outdoors. So, whenever I get time with him, I prioritize outdoor activities, letting him explore and simply be a child. It’s clear how much he loves it.
These nurseries exist only because the 4+ assessments exist. These tutors, who reportedly charge £250 per hour, exist because the 4+ assessments exist.
The only positive I can see in all this is that perhaps I should quit my job and become one of these tutors—if I can manage to silence my conscience first.