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!

In maths NC level 5 is roughly equal to a E/D grade GCSE

such hyperbole! no average is not 'very bad'. it's average. no crime in thinking that a child without barriers and with good support should be above average.

not sure how this causes such upset and horror.

Hi, SchmaltzingMatilda - what was the actual research finding, though? I've heard something about the UK's top maths students at age 10 performing at a similar level, but ending up a couple of years behind by age 16 at secondary school (ie falling behind in the secondary years), but not about UK primary school children on average performing 2 years behind the "average" child in HK????

swallowedAfly - there's no need for you to claim people are upset and horrified when they simply disagree with you. I enjoyed your reference to others' hyperbole, though, considering...

OK. Sorry, swallowedAfly, I confess I have been very irritating this pm! Was feeling in a sour mood... We didn't actually disagree with each other at all on your main point, which was, I think, that higher than average SATs levels are only to be expected of children who are able and have had the right sort of input from school and/or home to help them. We just disagreed on the meanings of able and average and whether, therefore, someone of "average" IQ should expect to exceed expected levels just because their parents are involved in their education, how the "expected levels" were set by government in the first place, and whether it was fair to tell someone you didn't think their child was likely to be scholarship material just on the basis of having had their year 4 SATs results reported to you.

thanks rabbit. but i didn't say that their child was unlikely to be scholarship material - i said that higher than average nc levels in year 4 would not be enough to tell you whether they were scholarship material and that higher than average at this stage just told you that you, they and the school were doing a good job and they didn't have any significant barriers to educational success.

i was using 'able' in the sense of not disabled in any way - having nothing fixed or inherent that will actively stand in their way of being 'able' to achieve well in education. i was using average in the common sense of the word and in response to others talking about higher than average. i didn't say children of average IQ should out perform - i think it was you who brought in IQ and we just disagreed on whether an IQ of 90 was a disadvantage compared to others of higher IQ then somehow you extrapolated that i was calling people with an IQ of 90 disabled i think - which obviously i wasn't.

misunderstandings mostly i hope.

i hope you're feeling in a better mood today

Yes, thanks, swallowedAfly!

I have friends whose kids were given level 4c at the end of yr2. but it was an infant only school with very inflated grades! Apparently this is not unusual and the junior school recalibrated them all at the end of yr3. My point is the levels at this stage are just teacher assessed so take them with a pinch of salt.

I think the word 'able' when discussing education has come to mean' above average/gifted). Which is a perversion of the dictionary definition, but that's probably because we aren't allowed to say that our children are above average and therefore a euphemism is needed.

I have friends whose kids were given level 4c at the end of yr2. but it was an infant only school with very inflated grades! Apparently this is not unusual and the junior school recalibrated them all at the end of yr3. My point is the levels at this stage are just teacher assessed so take them with a pinch of salt.

But the junior school would still have to make sure they converted two levels, so those children would have had to reach level 6 in Y6 or the school would be in trouble, so it's hard to dismiss them.

I don't think the problem in separate infant schools is the fact that teacher assessment per se is shaky - rather that they are less likely to moderate their results within feeder junior schools. Most schools are not separate and use rigorous teacher assessment reached through whole school assessment procedures.

My Oxford English Reference dictionary defines able as "having great ability; clever; skilful."

So I'm not sure it is really a perversion of the dictionary definition to use it to refer to above average/ gifted children??????? (she said to annoy, as she knows pointythings thinks less is more when it comes to punctuation ).

circular again i'm afraid but if average contains all those who are 'dis' abled for one reason or another and then of course those who are not 'dis'abled are going to be above average.

able
to have the skill, intelligence, opportunity, etc. needed to do something

Related to ABLE

Synonyms
competent, capable, equal, fit, good, qualified, suitable

So the Oxford English Reference dictionary is wrong, then, mrz?

Sorry, swallowedAfly, I don't really understand. Why would "average" contain all those who are disabled? And if it does, then why would it not also contain those who are hugely talented? And if it contains both, then everybody is average.

Maybe I'm being unkind, but I would not describe a child as able unless I thought they were considerably more competent at something than the average person.

Well that is from the Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary and the synonyms are from Websters

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines able as: "marked by intelligence, knowledge, skill or competence." I would not think of someone of average intelligence as being marked by intelligence, myself. Also, as has been said already, whether it is a modern perversion or not (and my dictionary is not that new), it does tend to be used in the context of describing people who are brighter than average, rather than to describe people who are not disabled.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary also lists able as the opposite to disabled

Not in the online version, it doesn't. It neither has it as an antonym, nor as meaning "the opposite of disabled."

Ds is in Y4 he goes into y5 for reading with about five other children, he is a level 5 but I can't remember what sub level the teacher said, I am assuming c. He has a level 4a for maths and the table he is on are working at similar levels but obviously I don't know their individual levels. He is however only at 3c for writing and has moved up in Y4 from 2b.

He does have SN which affects his learning though, but judging from others in his class, I would say your ds is working at above the average, but within normal levels.

Dd is in Y7 and I am regretting not trying for grammar school, I don't know a single child that doesn't attend one of the three local schools within a two mile radius. Grammar school is about nine miles away. Dd has no barriers to learning and was also L4 across the board in Y4, she got L5's in Y6. There were no children put in for L6.

She is currently getting L5's for new subjects like French, but has just been assessed at 7b for science.

If you think he will thrive in a competitive school and you have some close by, don't have regrets, you have nothing to lose by applying.

Antonyms
able-bodied, abled, nondisabled, unimpaired

Related Words
special-needs; halt, lame, paralyzed, quadriplegic; immobile, immobilized; ailing, diseased, ill, sick, unfit, unhealthy, unsound, unwell; blind, deaf, hard of hearing, mute

Dictionaries aren't very consistent, are they? In the online version they are as follows:

antonyms: incompetent, inept, poor, unfit, unfitted, unqualified
related words: accomplished, ace, adept, experienced, expert, master, masterful, masterly, practiced, proficient, seasoned, skilled, skillful, veteran, overqualified, prepared, schooled, trained, apt, ready, willing, all-round, protean, versatile.

In the online Webster dictionary definition, able means: to have a particular physical or mental skill.