4As in Yr4 - how unusual?

[SilverBellsandCockleShells]

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!

[mrz]

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to them rabbitstew

[rabbitstew]

I doubt, mrz, they are hugely interested.

[swallowedAfly]

errr no rabbit that's not what i think or assume but don't let reality stand in the way of a bit of hyperbole and being like a dog with a bone.

[rabbitstew]

90 is clearly not considered sufficiently disadvantaged for there to be any kind of genuine impediment to learning. So stop talking about learning disabilities...

[rabbitstew]

swallowedAfly - please do explain again what you do mean, because it is unclear to me... So far I have got that you disagree with psychologists on the meaning of learning disability and average IQ, and disagree with the dictionary on the meaning of able.

[mrz]

Perhaps because they aren't aware of the fact.

[swallowedAfly]

i never did call it a learning disability i said it was a disadvantage to have lower intelligence than the bulk of the population. i have literally never called it a learning disability - i don't think i've used, or would use, the term 'learning disability'. i have pointed out that i would expect children without SEN, disabilities or low IQ to do better than average in education.

i'm lost as to what you're arguing with because it shifts all the time. you accuse me of saying/believing something i don't, i point out i've never said that, you shift the argument onto the next thing.

it's an odd manner of discussing things.

[swallowedAfly]

my point was that i wouldn't consider performing above average to be such a big deal given the spectrum of abilities, upbringings, ability to access education etc that is out there.

i also said that children without any impediments to prevent it and with supportive family taking interest and involvement in their education were likely to be performing above average and i'd be concerned if they weren't. which i believe is what you were arguing with at one stage then seemed to agree with.

bit lost now to be honest.

[lljkk]

SwallowedAFly, Do you truly believe that it's not fine for NT kids with supportive families to be about average academically? Where's the urgency, What are those parents supposed to do about it?

[rabbitstew]

swallowedAfly - I'm arguing with your view that an IQ of 90 is low... You are in the majority of the population if you have an IQ of between 90 and 110 so it is wrong of you to argue that this IQ is officially "low. "

[mrz]

Did I suggest it was a scandal LaQueen?

[Elibean]

swallowed interesting theory, but no....apart from the fact that I'm a governor and would probably know (involved as I am) if there were fiddling going on or, indeed, individuals capable of fiddling, my dd has also had a few sessions with a tutor to catch up on some previous maths 'gaps'. Tutor agrees with school levelling, pretty much.

But I checked with dd. It's actually not the school teacher, but the volunteer maths teacher who comes in to work with top set once a week who said dd should be aiming for level 6. She's probably spotted the undeniable truth that dd is a) bright and b) lazy

[mrz]

it struck me rather silly that someone who claims to have the data wouldn't know the difference between statistics and expectations LaQueen

[rabbitstew]

Rubbish, mrz, you were trying to imply I didn't have access to data I claimed to have access to because I wasn't entitled to it. Your argument therefore looks rather silly.

[23balloons]

Hi Ds1 was in a very able year group and quite a few were at that level in year 4. 66% got L5 in Eng & Maths in Y6 and a number got L6. Ds although identified at g&t in Maths in Y5 wasn't even entered for L6, he got 97% in his L5 paper and is now comfortably working at 6b in year 7.

Be proud of your ds he is obviously doing really well but I wouldn't say it was exceptional to be at that level. We live near grammars & a lot of ds1's classmates were tutored, around 10 of his year group (from an average state school) got in to super selective grammars.

Ds2 is in the same school & also got 4a in y4, his year group are definitely not as able and I think he will be entered for L6. The reason being ds1 wasn't liked by the teachers but ds2 is. A lot is down to individual teacher's decisions. Anyway good luck & hopefully your ds will progress as he should in this new school.

[rabbitstew]

mrz - having access to the data I do, I know it is perfectly reasonable for my children's school to expect a fair proportion of its children currently working at 4A in year 4 to reach level 6 in year 6, because the statistics so far back that up (albeit that there isn't exactly much data on level 6, yet!). Obviously, the school's expectations may be confounded. That doesn't mean your expectations and statistics trump mine... it just means mine relate to my children's school and my children's school is NOT a weird anomaly out there on its own, whereas yours is a paragon of standard virtue.

[mrz]

rabbitstew I didn't say otherwise ...what I said was your DSS school is an anomaly ...as the statistics show.

[mrz]

and as I said early in this thread, with government pressure on primary schools to produce level 6 at the end of KS2 (level 5 being the expected level for 14year olds) level 4 in Y3& 4 will become more common.

[rabbitstew]

All schools are an anomaly on that basis, then, mrz - every school has a different profile of results. Some won't have got any level 4a children to level 6 between years 4 and 6, and some will.

[rabbitstew]

mrz - will it become more common if the levels are being scrapped?????

[swallowedAfly]

anyway OP - well done to your child - def doing well. i'd forgotten this part of the board was worse than aibu! hope you don't regret starting the thread.

[lottieandmia]

My Y4 dd is level 4b atm. There are two in her class already on a level 5.

Tbh though I don't think the NC levels necessarily show what GCSE or A levels a child will be capable of. Just what stage they are at in much the same way as some children being able to read at 3 and some much later. They are not an IQ test.

[mrz]

It will prior to the levels being scrapped rabbitstew. I know lots of schools entering pupils for the level 6 tests who haven't done so in the past and i also know lots of unhappy secondary teachers