How exactly do you know your child is top of their class

[shadesofsun]

As per the title, I am curious as to how so many parents claims their child is top of the class, so who tells you that?

Are teachers really telling parents this or giving a hierarchy of where the children sit?

My ds is 17 and in his first year of A levels. He was never ever considered to be top of the class for maths/science but was fantastic at English, art and French. He was diagnosed at age 8 with Aspergers.

Secondary school was a little different because they set based on SAT’s results and he got 5 English 4 maths 3 science so was placed in quite a low ability set and gradually moved up.
When he chose his options for GCSE in year 8 ( 3 year GCSE’s ) he chose his favourites and ended up with grade 9’s in them and a very respectable set of results in general and won so many prizes at prize giving after results that he hardly sat down!

To me, top of the class or not didnt matter. He excelled at what he was good at. When he was diagnosed I was told to “play on his stengths and work on his weaknesses” which we did.

Looking back at primary school I would never have believed he would be doing so well. I’m just pleased he’s doing what he enjoys and is good at.

My child sits on a certain table, so I know she's certainly one of the brightest on her class. Also got told by a TA that her and another child are having extra time with said TA as they are doing really well. I don't really care though. I want her to be happy and be kind.

Sorry, hit POST too soon. This lad had Aspergers. He had a TA from diagnosis at age 7 to completing his Maths MSc. He was good at all subjects and exceptionally talented in that area. He now teaches maths from primary to post grad level. Him having an assigned TA in no way indicated he wasn’t top of his class - it indicated he had special educational needs.

I've no idea. Both my DC seem to me be exceptionally bright but I'd begun to doubt myself because their teachers kept telling me "they're exactly where they should be." I remember wondering, when DD got full marks on all of her Y2 Sats, what on Earth that meant for the rest of her class.

It wasn't until I had a meeting with the Head, about something else entirely, and he mentioned "of course, they're both extraordinarily clever" that I realised the school had noticed and I wasn't going mad. It was something of a relief.

He and aforementioned friend also did their year 2 SATS in year 1

@TheFormerPorpentinaScamander
How is this possible? SATs are standard national tests and cannot be sat a year early, the whole point is that the government use the results to provide achievement data on schools, it's not a qualification like GCSEs for the child.

It might be that the school used a past SAT paper to provide them with a clearer idea of what level your child was achieving in Y1. And if your child was achieving so highly they certainly would have sat the test in Y2 to boost the school's results.

I teach in primary. Top of the class is meaningless. Each cohort is different. I’ve taught classes with a high proportion of high achieving children followed by a classes which were mostly middling or lower achieving. The tops of those classes wouldn’t be remotely comparable. I haven’t grouped children by ability in class for a long time. Low threshold, high ceiling. All exposed to the same teaching and support given were needed, including to extend. In maths, children self-select their own work and are mostly spot on at choosing tasks pitched for their ability level.

My children's teachers always told me when they were within their class. I also knew who was their equal academically, as did the kids. Never caused any problems. We were always clear about our children's abilities, the school just confirmed it.

My DD’s school also seats kids according the kagan structure. I think it does the top achiever a disservice while bringing up the average, so I don’t like it.

Many years ago as a very young and eager NQT in a Year 1 class, my first topic with my class was Minibeasts. I decided to name my groups after different little creatures...sliders, ladybirds and so on! Over the summer I did all the labels, spent hours printing, laminating and matching name trays, coat pegs etc to their groups. I had grouped the children according to the assessment information I'd been given.

A couple of days into the first week one of the mums asked me for a word. She was very upset that her son was now in 'snails' group, when quite clearly he should have been a 'butterfly' as he was always in the top set in Reception.

I had to explain that the minibeasts were not grouped by their 'speed or agility' in the natural world 🤦‍♀️😳

'Spiders' not 'sliders'

Sorry not to pick this post out but I am- not at all a go at the person who posted it but a different perspective from a different child who could have been in your class:

'I realised because I was the first kid in my class to learn my times tables up to 12. That was back in the day where you had to stand up and recite them in front of the whole class (I was a shy child and remember being confident because I knew them).'

I am genuinely pleased that gave you confidence. That is properly great.
What I don't like (and is not to do with you) is this focus on learning by rote esp maths and science.
It seems to be pressed by the government now as well.

The thing is I could never learn by rote. I just couldn't. I have found out recently (thanks to MN!) at least some of why. Apparently some people can visualise things in their head to the point that can see the times table?

I can't see anything! Apparently it's called aphantasia. Point is I can't learn by rote. Just can't do it. It doesn't stick. I need to understand and then I know. Just a different sort of brain.

So what bothers me with the focus on times tables is that people like me would get the idea they were 'bad' at maths and give up.

But I have 2 maths a levels and a degree in physics. I love working that stuff out.

I suppose it comes down to what is school for. It can't cater to everyone. What should state schools teach? Reading writing tables? While private/ public schools go further?

These are open questions. I don't know the answers.

I do know that, from my perspective, the focus on learning by rote in maths pisses me off. Most other subjects are about being able to recall. Geography, English, history, etc. What is left for clever children who can't perform this because it's not how they work.

My youngest is only year 1 but both years at parents evening we have been told he is top of the class. Not surprising really as he’s an early September birthday so also oldest in the class... He’s that 6 year old reading Harry Potter, the one who got all above expecteds for his end of reception report. For my older child, who I think is rather less academic, I have no real sense of where he is in the class as we’ve never been told. I know he’s not at the top and I know he’s not at the bottom, but who knows beyond that.

@speakout

It means shit all. I have a huge regard for teachers but usually they have no understanding of life outside education.

Your first sentence is true - how your child compares to the rest of the class is irrelevant. What relevance does you second statement have to the question?

It really does depend on cohort, though. DD3 was in a very small school and some time after Y2 SATs the HT said to me "You know DD3 is really very bright, of course, because of how she did on her SATs." I shrugged my shoulders and said "Of course I don't - the report just says meeting expectations".

She was far beyond her class in times tables - so far that she never put any effort into learning them, because she moved on to a new table when she got 100% in her test and nobody was anywhere near her level.

DD3 moved to another, bigger, school in year 4. On her first day she came home and said "Mum, they do this thing called Times Table Rockstars at school. You have 3 minutes to do the test. I didn't finish it, but some kids are finishing in 2 minutes!!" I said "Well, baby girl, you've got some catching up to do then, haven't you?"

You don't know how they are, objectively. Just how they are in that class. DD3 is year 6 now. Scoring 100% in maths SATs practice papers and comfortably doing KS3 work online. It just means she is good at maths.

@ArtieFufkinPolymerRecords

That's what his teacher said. She said she'd never had a child work it out before grin

She lied. The kids always know which are the top and bottom tables.

It's hasn't been considered good practice to seat children on ability tables in primary schools for a few years now.

She probably did lie. But I never cared where he was in the class anyway. Ds1 was definitely at the lower end of his class and I never cared as long as he did his best.

It was a few years ago so I'm sure they don't seat them like that anymore. Meh. Whatever. He's distinctly average now. Although that's mainly because he's lazy not because he's unable.

Cleverness is overrated. My husband is v v intelligent but has a pretty average job with no interest in pursuing anything more. Eldest child who is similar (and probably autistic) could read simple phonics books at 2.5 and gets 100% in computer science but has poor social skills and I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting him go away to university as I don’t think he’d cope.
I’m a teacher and the kids I see faring the best are of reasonable sometimes just average intelligence but are motivated and have good social skills. That will get you much further in life.

Same @LaureBerthaud.
I must have had the only 'average' plodding along child in the world.
Delighted school days are over.

@FreakStar

He and aforementioned friend also did their year 2 SATS in year 1

@TheFormerPorpentinaScamander
How is this possible? SATs are standard national tests and cannot be sat a year early, the whole point is that the government use the results to provide achievement data on schools, it's not a qualification like GCSEs for the child.

It might be that the school used a past SAT paper to provide them with a clearer idea of what level your child was achieving in Y1. And if your child was achieving so highly they certainly would have sat the test in Y2 to boost the school's results.

I think they sat the paper but it was never formally submitted to wherever they go. DS just thought it was great because he was allowed croissants with the year 2s and got a frog rubber as a 'prize'.

They also sat them for real in year 2.

I don't remember claiming this, although it was probably true for one of my DC.
DD had highest yr6 SATs in her yr6 group, the highest GCSEs, excellent exam scores in 6th form that beat everyone else in some respects.

There are probably other ways to describe what is being 'top', but those were pretty good indicators she deserved the title.

RedHelenB Sat 27-Jun-20 20:28:23
It's the ones that read Harry Potter age 6.
.....
Don't most or something like? Being top in reading doesn't mean top of everything.

Oh another point

People who are genuinely brilliant are very often not very happy. Often, very troubled. I have only met a handful of genuinely incredibly intelligent prior in my life and they were all fucked up.

Be careful what you wish for.

Middle of the road, hard working, confident, happy and easy to get on with is way more desirable than proper serious brains. And will lead to better job progression and a happier home and family life.

The parents whose kids are truly ‘top of the class’ know this but don’t tell anyone. I’ve said this before on MN but my poor DM had to go into hiding following DB’s exam results. It was too cringe when other parents asked what he got and she had to say ‘he got 10 A stars’, especially when other parents were disappointed in their kids’ results.
The ones whose parents are banging on about them as child prodigies won’t get those results or anything like it. The parents of really able kids are saying not a word, I promise you.

@Mistlewoeandwhine

Cleverness is overrated. My husband is v v intelligent but has a pretty average job with no interest in pursuing anything more. Eldest child who is similar (and probably autistic) could read simple phonics books at 2.5 and gets 100% in computer science but has poor social skills and I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting him go away to university as I don’t think he’d cope. I’m a teacher and the kids I see faring the best are of reasonable sometimes just average intelligence but are motivated and have good social skills. That will get you much further in life.

I think this is probably true. My DD has no friends - she actually told me that lockdown wasn't a problem for her "because I haven't got any friends to miss Mummy", and my DS get horrendously bullied by the other kids in his class because he's different and stands out. He's only in Y1.

Actual top of the class, I don't know. But which table they sit on is a clue, their actual exam results (if your child scores a perfect score at a maths test for example, you can assume that they are at the top of the class, maybe jointly with other pupils), if they consistently are measured above expectation in all subjects. Sats results are a big clue, although they are moderated. Other children/parents are also good at telling you how well your child is performing!!

Thing is “top of the class” is not a consistent accolade. My current yr6 are gorgeous but “ top of the class” in writing this year would be a distinctly wobbly sixth or seventh last year.
So I’ll never tell parents information like that, I’ll talk about groups to provide extension or support. I don’t have seating groups set by ability (children move regularly) and I set several levels of work and the children choose the correct level for themselves, depending on their understanding. No, they don’t all go for the easy option ( I know who’ll try that and convince them to reconsider).