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?

Only one of children are “top of their class” their teacher told us at parents evening. She is gifted so it was obvious. I also have three children who have disabilities that require a lot of extra support and are in the bottom few children in their class.

@FlamingoAndJohn
I talked about my sons reading age - he was assessed by the Ed psych probably 10 years ago now so yes He was assessed

People who’s children are middle or don’t know aren’t likely to come on and comment on this thread so statistically you will get more people who’s children are top of the class. It won’t be a true representation of all children. You see the thread title and think ‘yes my child was/is too of the class’ so you click on the link and comment. If your child is normal you are more likely to just skim past the thread.

If a child is in normal range then I agree with you - being top of a class could mean not being very clever, just cleverer than the others in your class and likewise being bottom of the class could just mean you are in a class of clever children.

But when a child is working at levels years ahead of what is expected and teachers are creating special activities/challenges for them to do while the rest of the class do spellings as there isn’t many words they can’t spell then you can safely assume the are top of the class / extremely able.

It's not something that I would ever discuss with other parents in RL, but if your child is an academic outlier, you do generally tend to know about it. There are lots of clues, often from an early age. People were always bowled over how "advanced" dd was from when she was very tiny (though that won't always be the case, of course). Then there were the awkward conversations with other parents at the school gate about what reading level she was on, when I didn't want to say that she'd been taken off the reading acumen scheme altogether. Then the primary school called us in at the end of her reception year for a meeting to talk about whether we wanted to move her up to the year above (we didn't). We frequently heard at parents' evenings etc how "exceptional" she was, and there have been discussions throughout her school life about how to stretch her appropriately, always led by the teachers and not instigated by us. Now she is in year 1O, her predicted grades are another indicator. I don't really know how we know, we just know. I'd never mention it to anyone else though, it's different on an anonymous forum.

I teach my own child so I know exactly where my child is in the class.

Plus I have 3 kids. Only 1 us ‘too of the class’ so it’s not just me believing what I want as otherwise I would think all 3 were top wouldn’t I??

It’s funny isn’t it. If a child is an amazing gymnast or footballer or pianist or similar it’s fine to boast and to say they are top of thier field etc but when it comes to academic ability people don’t like it!

No idea. For example I know my eldest is in the top set for everything and my middle child is,in the middle set for everything but I have no idea,where they are in the class. I have never heard anyone in RL say their child is too of the class.

@ShinyFootball

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.

Yes! This is so true.

I was deaf as a child but no one had any idea until I was 17. In the meantime my school work varied wildly and I was absolutely appalling at certain things. It wasn't because I wasn't clever it was because I those things were so much harder for me than a hearing child. Overall, I tended to do better as I went through school and the focus switched from being drilled on details to being able to write essays...

This is equally true of any child that can't learn by rote, or has dyslexia etc.

The emphasis on certain very rigid forms of assessment, like times tables tests makes children feel (and appear to some adults) that they are stupid, when they absolutely are not, the curriculum is just focused in a way that is inaccessible to them.

@Mistlewoeandwhine

What you said on page 5 is so true!

All children are different though and I believe my DD who although not stupid is just normal academic ability will do far better in life than her older brother. He has no social skills where as she does and is able to problem solve and think outside the box where he is very black and white. She has the other skills like empathy and common sense that means she will probably do far better in the real world than DS1

Teachers have told us (primary).

Just to quote myself up there. I don't think any child is stupid to be perfectly honest. Every child is capable of finding the thing they are good at with the right support, including academically. Unfortunately, huge numbers of children don't get the right support.

I hate the concept of top of the class but it's so unnecessarily competitive in a context where it should be about everyone achieving.

But yeah, like PP - for now. When I was in school, I found some years easy, others i was very much middle of the road. Plus, think my daughter could learn to be less selfish and she can't learn that doing times tables. So who cares?

I hate the concept of top of the class but it's so unnecessarily competitive in a context where it should be about everyone achieving

I completely agree.
The most able can be plodding along making good progress while a less able child is flying and making amazing progress. They still won’t be ‘top of the class’ but they have made amazing achievements.

My children are not top of the class. I know this because there are distribution codes on their report cards for each subject. So we can see the percentage of students who get A's, B's, C's etc.

@TabbyMumz

My child also figured out that certificates were given to the naughty of less intelligent kids, to encourage them to be better.

Yes DD worked out a couple of months into Reception that the goal posts for certificates etc were not the same for every child. It is very hard to explain to a tearful 4 year old why Child B was awarded a certificate for Sitting Nicely on the Carpet On Friday when she always sits nicely on the carpet and gets no thanks for it!

School will tell you how your child is tracking against their peer group if you ask. But most parents pack it up anyway I suspect. DD has always been about a third of the way down the class. A little above average. Yr 6 SATS of 106-110. Definitely not top of the class.

It depends.
In primary the children work out very quickly which is the top table and to a certain extent what the order is. It becomes pretty obvious when 1 & 2 are set harder work than 3 & 4, and sometimes 2 & 3 are set different work to 1 etc.
They don't necessarily know who is top of each table.

You've also got that 1 out of 30 is actually top. But there's different subjects, even at primary. So you could have a top for reading, top for writing, and top for maths. Which is actually 10% of pupils if they're all different. At secondary there's even more scope for that!

Ime the teachers rarely say that the specific child is top. They may say "working at the top" or "doing the hardest work" or at secondary "aiming for the top grade." But it's rare for them to say that they are top-sometimes "top in the last test" and occasionally with one "he's clearly got an interest outside class, which means he's working ahead of them" (or correcting the teacher in one case, luckily she thought it very funny).

However my experience (and speaking to relatives who are teachers, their experience too) is parents hear "top" when the teacher doesn't mean that. So "working at the top of their ability" or "producing their best work" "working well ahead of expectations" etc.

Parents do hear what they want-or expect-to hear. I had one parent sympathising that my dc wasn't in the top maths set with her dc when they'd just set them. It was a little embarrassing because I knew that mine was and hers wasn't. It took her two terms to find out.

Dm, as a teacher, had a very difficult conversation with a parent. She was predicting B/C at A-level and the parent kept making comments like "I can't imagine any child is likely to be better than them ever." No they weren't disputing the predicted grade (and he did get it) and dm was trying to help them see that he wasn't going to be getting the university he wanted which required A. There were two pupils in the class predicted A and A.
When they went out I heard them telling the parents in the village the next day that they'd been told he was the best pupil the school had ever had and was top by miles.

We were told by the teacher that DS was the only child to get full marks in both parts of the standardised testing.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Mine is on the second to top table and I believe there are 5 tables. I kept trying to work out the order surreptitiously but in the end I just asked the teacher at parents' evening. Quite happy for her to be there. I wasn't ever top and I've done fine.

@cabbageking

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

I like that quote!

Society needs brain surgeons AND bottle washers. One cannot do their job without the other. Of course, there is a hierarchy; it would be invidious to deny it, you should all be glad I am not a surgeon because I'm quite clumsy. But everyone deserves respect for the role they have, as long as they do their job with commitment.

Society needs brain surgeons AND bottle washers.

But being top of the class has very little to do with this.

@brieandchilli - yes, but what does 'assessed' actually mean in practical terms?

I'm dyslexic so have been assessed several times while I was in education, and I'm invariably in the top tiny fraction of a percentage for reading comprehension. I'm way off the charts; I can read a paragraph by looking at it and I extrapolate the content faster than most people read the first few words.

I'm still not someone who was often 'top of the class'. In fact I shocked people at my secondary school when I started doing well enough to not be in the bottom set, because they assumed I was a bit stupid. I am, often.

OTOH, I know the people who were 'top of the class' and 'gifted and talented' in my school year. None has proved to be particularly bright in academic terms. Most went to university and, of those, many got decent enough degrees. But nothing stellar.

It's just very hard to say how a child will develop, and the most important thing is for that child to be happy.

Some schools do actually do placements. A local primary gives a year place in each report - it's one of the reasons I didn't send dd there . They are notoriously pushy and my friend who expected her dd to be bright as she was really struggled when her dd ripped up work because it wasn't "good enough" or needed work to be "perfect". In year 3 they discovered she needed glasses and had been missed by the reception school visit. She's struggling less now but my friend is sure her confidence was shot through in those early years.

FWIW I was terrible in primary; loads going on at home and changed schools 4 times. I went on to be in the top 10% at senior school and second highest in my cohort for BSc. I can't get a job at the moment because I don't have a Masters and am now apparently over qualified for admin.

Some of the people in the lowest class in my secondary are now GP's and lawyers. One from the middle set is a respected cardiologist. It really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Because they come home with all A’s. Don’t get me wrong, I have no idea how my child does it, born clever? I mean we’re great parents but we’re not super clever or anything, some children just have a talent for learning I suppose.