What does "top 5%" equate to at a primary school?

[AChickenCalledKorma]

I'm wondering whether any teachers or Governors can help me shed light on a comment made by a friend of mine, who is a Governor at my daughters' primary school. He was talking about recent statistics which show that children in "every quartile" at the school are making better than expected progress. So far so good. But then he mentioned that "quartile" was a misnomer, because the school (in his words) "doesn't actually have anyone in the top 5%".

Now, I don't know what statistics he was talking about, but I'm assuming it must be something like attainment at FS or at end of KS1 - otherwise they wouldn't have any data about progress since then. But the more I think about it, the more it seems dubious. I could name half a dozen children in the top years of the school who seem, on the face of it, super-bright. I'm amazed to hear that statistics say that 1 in 20 of children elsewhere are brighter than them.

But I don't know whether I need to take off my rose-tinted spectacles, or whether to challenge the data. Are there really no "top 5%" children in the school ... or could it be that the school not very good at spotting them in the infant years? (Which could be of personal relevance since I have a child in Yr2 who I think is capable of a lot more than she lets on at school! But maybe I just have to take off my rose-tinted spectacles!)

Would anyone know what statistics he might have been referring to? Or, assuming they are based on NC tests, what kind of levels a child in the "top 5%" at primary school would be likely to be achieving at the end of KS2?

Surely the "Top 5%" in a school is, erm...the top 5%?

If he is talking about comparisons with other schools and what THEIR top 5% consists of in terms of levels, then I suppose one school may not compare with another ie. in one school some kids may get $'s at KS1, in another 2a may be the highest; but by definition surely every school must have a top 5% that is particulaR TO ITSELF?

...that should be 4's BTW, not $'s.

We do a fair amount of work identifying the schools which have many/few children in the top 20% of attainers for the COUNTY - so that might be where she's getting confused. A school may have no children in the top 20%.
But not sure what she means by top 5% - is she getting confused that 20% is the top fifth?

Sorry, yes, he was talking about the top 5% in the County, I think - or possibly in England. And commenting that none of the children at our school are classified as being in that top 5%. I realise my thread title was misleading - should have been "at primary school" not "at a primary school".

I'm thinking about some pretty bright kids who do go to our school and am surprised that there is another 5% of ability above what they are achieving. Hence my question - what do you have to be doing to be in the top 5% nationally. Or if it's County based, where could I find out what the top 5% in our County looks like?

Have you had a look in the DfE performance tables (just google that phrase) you might find somethng there

How big is the school? That is going to be very important in getting a child in the top 5% whether county or national.

Found this table implying you would need level 5a or above for top 10%. Level 6 is quoted as top 1%. Therefore high level 5A or above for top 5%. All for year 6 SATs.

I am sure that if these children are as bright as you feel they are that some should be in this bracket especially if looking at the whole school cohort (especially if it is large ).

Not sure how valid my source is please check yourself.

OPPS!

www.pakemanprimary.co.uk/userfiles/file/what_nc_levels_mean.pdf

Thanks Iggly - that's exactly the kind of thing I was after.

Interesting that the band between "top 10%" and "top 1%" is so narrow. I guess, in that case, what I'm hearing is that the school may have a number of people hitting good level 5s, but just not quite rising to the borderline of level 6. Which is plausible.

But he wasn't talking about attainment, he was talking about progress, so whatever he meant, he was confusing two different things. Unless, of course, he meant that the better than expected progress achieved wasn't the best expected progress that the school ought to be able to achieve (or was implying the school was underestimating children's achievements on entry to the school so as to make progress look better than it actually was, which would be a hard one to pull off when OFSTED came to visit). If he just meant that the school hadn't attracted the brightest cohort of children in the world, then I'm not sure in what way that is a helpful comment!!!!!!

(or should I say, wasn't the best "better than expected progress" that the school ought to be able to achieve - ie other schools achieve even better "better than expected progress" at the top level....).

ps in a class of 30, 5% of children is 1.5 children, ie only 1 or 2 children. A school with only 30 children in a year could quite easily have years when none of their children perform that well and other years when several of them do, without it being any reflection on the quality of teaching or ability of staff to identify the most gifted children and push them forward. One year's worth of statistics is therefore not going to tell you anything useful about the ability of the school to identify particularly gifted children and to push them to a higher level.

I think he was talking about progress - which the stats show to be good at each ability level. But he mentioned in passing that none of the children the statistics referred to were in the top 5% of overall marks.

There are 60 per year, but it's a school in an area of high social deprivation, which is avoided by a large proportion of snobs more affluent families. The overall SATs results are below County average but there is a significant minority that bucks the trend.

In an area of high social deprivation a child achieving level 5s in year 6 may well be in the top 5% of their class and need differentiation if everyone else is achieving levels 3. The child isn't a genius, but they might be the only child in that class with more than two functioning brain cells.

Even special schools for children with learning difficulties have a gifted and talented register. I have to admit I find this a bit odd.

What a lovely post, reallytired.

I particularly like the connection you make between children from areas of high social deprivation and having 'more than two functioning brain cells'.

It's charming, really, really charming.

When my son was at Primary he was one of the highest achievers in his class, I was told by his teacher he was in the top 3 or 4 kids.
When sitting common entrance for a selective grammar school he didn't do well.
We were surprised as he had been tutored and still we were told he was very bright. He is now at an academic fee paying school, he got in by the skin of his teeth, now I see why. Some of the kids are astoundingly clever. most of them were achieving level 6 at the end of yr 6. Many of the kids had been to prep school where the teaching at year 6 is far more advanced than in the state sector. When state kids are up against prep school boys, in general the prep school boys have had more learning oppertunities. Not to say things don't level out at a later stage though.

Agree with academyblues re: reallytired's post.

Words fail me.

PS Reallytired - you are making the absolute opposite point from my OP. My observation was that, in this school, in an area of high social deprivation, there are several children that are achieving at a very high level.

The school is, in fact, excellent at differentiation. As evidenced by the fact that children in every ability cohort that is represented at the school are making better than expected progress.

And I dislike the implication that my children's close friends - and indeed the children of my own close friends - may be lacking functioning brain cells. There are some that could be said to be lacking certain opportunities, but definitely not lacking in brain cells.

I'm sorry that the language I used was offensive, however there is an element of truth that some schools have a lot of SEN where as others almost have none.

There are secondary moderns in grammar schools areas where the 20% have been creamed and people move hell and high water to avoid sending their kids there. Ie they find God or move house. In spite of having hard working teachers the results are very low because the children just don't have the academic ablity. A child with an IQ of 120 would stand out considerably in such a school.

However in a grammar school a child with an IQ of 150 might stand out less.

An MLD special school has a gifted and talented register to help children who are reaching normal levels in one or two subjects.

My son school does not have a gifted and talented register, but they do have a more able register. I feel this is a more sensible term as truely gifted children are extremely rare.

Where ever a child goes to school they may need to be protected from bullying if they are top of the class. Sad to say, but jelously brings out the worse in both parents and children

Sorry to join this late but...
Hearing you talk about levels 5A and 6 at the end of Year 6 puzzles me as I have been told that the maximum level a primary school will give a child at the end of Year 6 is plain level 5, whether they are beyond it or not. Is this true? My DS was 4b at the end of Year 4, his teachers say he will be level 5 at the end of Year 5, and I was told by other parents that this would not change at the end of Year 6 because that's as much as they are allowed to grade. I was even told they would avoid giving a child level 5 at the end of Year 4 because then they would have less improvement/progress points or something like that...

They're reintroducing the level 6 tests in yr 6, so hopefully he'll be able to do those.

Found this table implying you would need level 5a or above for top 10%. Level 6 is quoted as top 1%. Therefore high level 5A or above for top 5%. All for year 6 SATs.

I thought that very few if any schools tested above 5A at KS2? And some only test to 5B and report it as "5" no more detail? (as ever)

Joyn,
thanks, I had not heard. D'you know whether that will be compulsory for schools, or optional?