Sorry Mulrano, only just seen your reply and I never got back to you, how rude of me!

We ended up moving DS to a different school, not the supposedly academic one. In the end we decided to trust that the school would make him perform to a standard he was capable of regardless of whether it was aimed at very bright children (not saying that DS is very bright). The school we went with has a lot of emphasis on extra curricular things and on the children themselves deveoping good social skills etc.

It's probably a bit too soon to say but so far he seems to be doing really well. To cover smart's point, he is really behind in languages because he didn't do them at his old school, and his marks reflect that, but on the whole at his age (10) I am more interested in his effort marks than his attainment scores, I suppose that may change in the next couple of years.

Do you ever know if you have done the right thing as a parent?!

thanks iamdisappointedinyou.

His teacher says that reading age is more of an indication of future potential than the tests themselves? That being the case; why do the tests in the first place.

I do not understand the modern education system. Well he seems to be getting good grades, above average, so I will just see how he develops.

Who'd be a parent.

I have the opposite to you, smart2. DD scores well in nfer tests but it does not translate into GCSE etc results.

I think that the important word is 'potential'. You can have the biggest brain in the world but it won't get you very far if you don't apply yourself. You can wing it at GCSE but not AS, A2 etc: that needs hard work and application. I would be delighted with actual results instead of potential ones.

You said that your DS is only 7yo. Is the anomaly just because he is not used to the format of the test? He may improve with practice.

My youngest son age 7 has just taken his nfer tests in the usual, maths, english, NVR, VR. His scores were low. Top 90s for english, maths, NVR. Only 87 for VR. He scored highly in the reading section, reading age of 10.4 years. He has also just received his grade card for the first half term. His scores in the nfer bear no relevance to his grade card, all As and Bs. His teacher is unable to explain why this is? He always scores low in tests. My eldest always did well in the tests and in school work and at 15 has already taken 3 GCSEs all A*. I do not know what to make of these tests, are they a true indication of all children's potential? I am lead to believe this is the correct assumption; if so, where does this leave my youngest achieving As and Bs with low test scores?
Has any one else experienced this anomaly.

Southern softie...what will you do now..? will you choose another school...or are you happy with where you are considering?

I found this link quite helpful www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/assessment/standardised-scores-and-percentile-ranks.cfm

I think your DS is a budding Einstein!!! He's only 9 at the mo.

Thanks to all for the very helpful comments and information. Sounds like my ds is pretty able but nothing compared to margotfonteyn's ds. Ah well, no budding Einstein then.

This has been really informative, I may yet start to take an interest in statistics instead of fluffy chick lit that is usually more my level!

For gaining a place(not just passing the test!) at our 'super' selective GS it appears children should be scoring 130 - 140 on the standardised Nfer Verbal Reasoing papers, the score is 105ish for the 'normal' grammar schools. So your son has done very well, but also the school obviously isn't as selective as it claims!

I think the standardised marks are also done in conjunction with the ability of the cohort taking the test, if you see what I mean. So if the average mark was very low, say 30%, that would be standardised as 100 and then if someone (ie your son) got 75% and it was the top mark that would be 140 I think, but I am ready to stand corrected!

My son applied to 3 grammar schools and was given the standardised marks for the two schools he wasn't allocated a place, they were different scores even though it was the same test because it was a different cohort he was competing with. The school at which he was given a place (the 'super' selective) did not give out the scores for the successful candidates so there was no 'showing off' when they started there I think.

It's pretty complicated because they also take into consideration birth dates as well.

A pass mark of 108 means that roughly the top third of ability range are accepted.