4As in Yr4 - how unusual?(242 Posts)
I went to parents' evening yesterday. We've recently moved our 8yo son because we knew he was bright and felt he was underperforming and our decision appears to have been vindicated! After predicting a 3a for him by the end of the year after their initial assessments, they have now assessed him as 4a for maths, and 4b for English, and reckon he will improve to 4a by the end of the year if he continues to focus and improve as he is doing.
Obviously this is good! I was just wondering how good. Are they the kind of levels you would expect the top children in a yr4 class to be achieving? Or is it more exceptional than that. I'm vaguely considering scholarships but don't want to push him if he is just averagely outstanding, if such a thing exists!
I'm glad I read this thread. I had no idea.
We were told that children should be achieveing a level 4 in Yr 4.
We were told, if children come in on a level, teacher expects child to move up 2 sub-levels,
i.e in on a 3B up to a 4C.
Teacher said he was doing really well, really happy. He is not on the top table. He does not want to be, and I do not want him to be. Apparently he is high in his group, and he is happy with that, and so was I. I thought he was bright and achiveing well. She said he was "above average". Now, I read this thread. And now i am not so sure.
Oblomov - Education Boards on MN are hardly indicative of the population as a whole.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Just been to parents' evening for DS yr4. He's 4's across the board
and because the teacher had a sheet with everyone's grades it was easy to note he isn't the only one (no I didn't read upside-down names just looked at the columns). Not exceptional but doing well in a state primary in the sticks.
Oblomov exactly. Your DS is doing well. As is my Y4 DS who also does not have a whole string of 4As to his name. This thread is horribly skewed. And some of the posters definitely give the impression that if your Y4 is not achieving this (top <10% result by my reckoning) that is down to poor parenting, poor teaching or poor child.
Please don't worry.
SwallowedAfly - you said, "the 'average' is calculated from everyone ergo the result is affected by everyone. there are more people with learning disabilities, brain injuries, sen etc than there are genius' so yes they'd be included but would have less of an effect on the 'average'." I still don't understand this. I thought IQ followed a bell curve and thus, the average IQ was the most commonly found IQ in the population (ie the mode) with a fairly even distribution either side of it, because (although I didn't study statistics, so may be wrong) with averages that follow a neat bell curve, the mean and the mode generally coincide and the curve looks fairly symmetrical... Surely that means just as many people are above average as are below? And so to say you think an able child ought to be able to perform above national expectations (because all those disabled people are lowering national expectations), but a child with an IQ of 90 may not be able to perform above national expectations, because they are disadvantaged in comparison to someone with an IQ of 100 and above, how is that not implying that you think someone with an IQ of 90 is in some way disabled - ie not able? And if they are disabled/not able, then almost half the population are disabled/not able.
i've never mentioned IQ - we've been talking about attainment levels - you keep going back to IQ.
also rabbit i haven't even posted on this thread for DAYS and you're still trying to pick an argument with me. i've actually deliberately avoided this thread even though asked a question because of you but even not posting doesn't make a difference it seems.
and yet again i have never never said someone with an IQ of 90 is disabled! it is pointless discussing with you because you just make things up, i clarify and say that's not what i said or meant and you ignore that and repeat the lie. honestly don't have the energy or inclination to argue with someone who doesn't even stick to the facts.
But if someone with an IQ of 90 is not disabled, then they are able, and therefore ought to be able to perform above national expectations.
Or at least, that is what I think you have said.
And that is sticking with the facts - you have said a supportive parent ought to be sorely disappointed if they had an able child who only got a 4A in year 6 and that this would be a sign that the school had done bugger all with your child. And you have said that able means without barriers or learning difficulties and is the opposite of "dis"-abled. So, surely you are either able or disabled - or do you have an in-between category for people with an IQ of 90? Or do you think people with an IQ of 90 should be performing above national expectations and if they are not, that their parents should be sorely disappointed?
my point was always clear: that if someone had no disabilities, health problems causing absence, learning difficulties or other SEN and no other disadvantages that act as barriers to learning and achieving then one would expect them to do better than average. i also already said that yes i'd call an IQ of 90 a disadvantage - never have i called it a disability.
yes 90 is in the 85-114 average band (where the bulk of the population sits) but it is at the lower end of that average band which clearly means they are at a disadvantage compared to the vast majority of that average band. is this really so complicated or are you just intent on deliberately twisting everything i say and trying to pick fights with me even when i don't post for days on end?
and no that is not what i said - that is the rita skeeter bollocks version of what i said. you should consider writing for the daily fail.
But swallowedAfly - this is a direct quote from what you wrote on page 1 of this thread: "if you have an able child and are an involved parent you'd want to be sorely disappointed with 4a at the end of year 6 because it would likely mean the school had done bugger all with your child."
This is a direct quote from what you wrote on page 3: "able MEANS without barriers or learning difficulties. to me it is the opposite of 'dis'-abled."
So, are you saying that someone with an IQ of 90 is able, or aren't you? And if they aren't, then what are they? Are you saying that you can be neither able nor disabled, but disadvantaged?
they are the bottom end of average according to the charts on IQ. i'm saying able is without disability, sen, illness, any other disadvantage or barrier to learning and achieving - as clarified multiple times now. someone with an IQ of 90 would not be my idea of able as as i have clarified they do have a disadvantage at being the bottom end of average in IQ.
are we willy waving here or something rabbit? have i somehow offended your ego hence the whole campaign at me? you haven't at all explained as to why you're so gunning for me even when i don't post on here for days.
i think it is altogether better i ignore you from now on given this is clearly somehow quite personal for you.
No, I'm not willy waving, swallowedAfly. You just keep failing to answer direct questions in a direct way. Surely it would have been much simpler to respond to my question with, "yes, there is a category of people who are neither able, nor disabled, but who are intellectually disadvantaged." And to admit that what you really mean by able is someone of above average intelligence.
SwallowedAfly - before accusing other people of taking things personally, I suggest you think about the number of times on this thread you have been quite offensive and accused people of hyperbole, willy waving and using too many question marks for your liking, etc, etc.
Join the discussion
Please login first.