SATs Expectations and Progress

[drsimonlee]

My bright daughter (IQ 140-50) received a 3a for reading, 3b for Maths and a 3C for Science at the end of Year 2. That was a little disappointing, especially the Reading side of things, given she can already cope well with the Lord of the Rings etc. However, I've been told the SATs test involves reading aloud, so she's working on that this year. Nevermind.

She improved from an assessment of 1b in Maths to 3c (5 sub-levels) from Year 1 to Year 2. This was good news. Her Science improved by a similar extent.

I have a meeting with the Head/class teacher next week to discuss expectations and progress (a meeting I initiated) and I wonder what I will ask them to achieve with my daughter this year? If the average child is improving two sub-levels a year on average (from what others say on this site) then is a whole level of progress a reasonable expectation? Obviously more would be desirable and I'm already thinking that 4 sub-levels would be great. It's pretty obvious that children will improve more in the early years so academic progress isn't linear (I understand this a former Uni. lecturer) but I'd still like to see progress commensurate with her general intelligence level.

When you consider how many areas are fully comprehensive, the top sets of them should really be comparable to state grammars. And yet they're not.
The top comprehensives are mainly more selective than any grammar. Because they select on postcode which means it's parental income, which sucks even more.
To have that number of grammars in the top 500 when you consider that the vast majority of secondaries are comprehensives says a lot too.

Lurkedforever1 When you consider how many areas are fully comprehensive, the top sets of them should really be comparable to state grammars. And yet they're not.

I don't agree. Grammar schools select only a very small number of top set children from a very large pool of primary schools. Many of the children at grammar schools were top of the top sets at primary school.

Top set in one school may only be at the level of upper middle group in another school.

The top comprehensives are mainly more selective than any grammar. Because they select on postcode which means it's parental income, which sucks even more.

I agree but would also add that some of the top comprehensives also select some of their intake on academic ability. To get an academic place at Parmiters in Hertfordshire, a DC would need to gain an 11 plus score that would place them in the top 5% (approx.) of their exam cohort.

It doesn't matter how many primary schools a grammar creams off the top from. Many areas have no access to grammars. So that top 5%, or 10% or whatever comparable figure you use as the % at grammars in any 11+ area will therefore be spread throughout the comprehensives. Individual comprehensives top sets won't necessarily compare to individual grammars due to intake. But taken as averages, the top 5/10/15 % in selective areas should match the top 5/10/15 % in comprehensive areas. And they don't.

Lurkedforever1 the top sets of them should really be comparable to state grammars. And yet they're not.

Not ever child in a top set at a comprehensive will be grammar standard. Bear in mind sets are compiled in relation to the cohort within that particular school and not set by a national standard.

To reiterate the point, top set in one school may be more compatible to middle/upper middle in another school.

"Reading between the lines, granted I could be wrong here, many of these children are not also G&T at literacy/English."

Y8 DD loves her very whizzy maths most, but despite not liking it as much she is also whizzy at English, especially the comprehension/analysis side. My experience is that a child that is good at one academic subject is typically good at the others and there is a variety of high-quality research saying that is how it works. On average. There are always exceptions, but to date I've only come across one 'spiky-skilled' child who was very whizzy at maths, but middling at English.

"Many of the children at grammar schools were top of the top sets at primary school. "

That is simply about the numbers. In a county which retained grammars those schools might select the top 20-25% (I read it's 30% for Bucks), so in principle they won't be significantly different from the top set of four in a comp in a similar SES area of a comp-only county.

Lurkedforever1 But taken as averages, the top 5/10/15 % in selective areas should match the top 5/10/15 % in comprehensive areas.

I suspect it would be more accurate to identify the top 5/10/15%, deduct those who go to grammar, deduct those who are HE, deduct those who go indie etc. what is left is the number for comprehensives.

It's presupposing that the top 5% in primary schools will be evenly distributed among possible secondary schools whereas it's much more likely that parents will choose the school with the best results for their able child resulting in one high achieving school in an area rather than all.

PiqueABoo by whizzy do you mean G&T?

"by whizzy do you mean G&T?"

Yes. It doesn't tend to upset some people as much as "G&T".

PiqueABoo That is simply about the numbers. In a county which retained grammars those schools might select the top 20-25% (I read it's 30% for Bucks)*

Bucks is top 25% but doesn't have any comprehensive schools (that I'm aware of).

You're missing my point mum. Lots of comprehensive areas don't lose any of the top kids to grammar. And both grammar and comprehensive areas will have kids that are at independents or home ed.
Let's say town A for arguments sake has only 1 grammar and 9 comprehensives. ( therefore grammar takes top 10%). Town B has no grammar and 10 comprehensives. The outcome for the top 10% of town B's pupils should be the same as the grammars.
And by outcome I don't mean gcse only. How those same ability kids do at a-level, which universities and professions they end up in.
The fact is the outcomes aren't the same.
That either comes down to the fact kids in fully comprehensive areas are on the whole less able than their grammar area peers, which is highly unlikely. Or that comprehensives taken on the whole are failing the most able.
Some comprehensives are managing it. But it's not the majority, otherwise sheer force of numbers dictates the most able comprehensive pupils would be dominating the likes of Oxbridge.

Lurkedforever1 But it's not the majority, otherwise sheer force of numbers dictates the most able comprehensive pupils would be dominating the likes of Oxbridge.

This is assuming that the proportionate number of children in comprehensives are actually applying in the first instance.

"This is assuming that the proportionate number of children in comprehensives are actually applying in the first instance."

That is part of the problem i.e. why do fewer children at a comp apply compared to their intellectual equivalents in a grammar?

My DD is bright enough to be a contender, but she goes to a comp and (assuming she wants to) won't get to Oxbridge unless we do a lot of stuff at home that appears to be routine at most grammar schools.

PiqueABoo that appears to be routine at most grammar schools.

Such as? Genuine question as my DC has just sat the 11 plus.

pique yy.

"Such as?"

First and foremost, understand that they are credible contendors and encourage them to aim high e.g. for Oxbridge or wherever the best place is for their choice of degree subject.

Next support them. She has only just turned 12 so this is a guess, but she'll likely want to do maths and would pick Cambridge because she knows and likes the town. That means she would have to do STEP and some help with that from the school would help...

..as would the school being signed up to things like the UKMT mentoring scheme with children like her doing it from Y7 onwards.

..as would them doing something, anything, for G&T/Most Able/Whizzy children, but absolutely nothing happened in Y7 here and although they used to do a few things I suspect they may have stopped doing them now because that would be labelling them and Mathew Syed, a journalist, keeps telling credulous school-folk that G&T provision turns bright children into dullards. Anti-intellectualism rulez OK. Especially in many comps.

PiqueABoo First and foremost, understand that they are credible contendors and encourage them to aim high

In my area this comes from the parents. The schools simply reinforce this message. Ambition is encouraged by parents at primary school at starts with the 11 plus prep.

Read up about the QE Barnet A level cull (Hertfordshire Other and North London) if you really think that grammar schools are better at helping children reach their academic potential. The school has been know to refuse to allow children to sit A level maths after gaining A* at GCSE.

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewforum.php?f=64

PiqueABoo That means she would have to do STEP and some help with that from the school would help...

Now that's news to me. I will certainly be asking about this over the next few weeks when I do the school visits. Certainly the local children I know have had to use a tutor for this, the schools gave them no assistance what so ever.

..as would the school being signed up to things like the UKMT mentoring scheme with children like her doing it from Y7 onwards.

When I looked around the schools last year, not a single school mentioned this. I will ask about now though so thank you.

..as would them doing something, anything, for G&T/Most Able/Whizzy children,

I've tried to ask about this but the attitude is very much along the lines of a child being considered academically able at primary level may not be considered academically able at an academically selective school. Basically it's a case of wait and see if your DC makes the cut.

I don't think all parents of able children do chose the schools with the best results. They certainly don't round here. Our grammars are fed by hundreds of primaries. My DC were in a very able year at primary. Out of over 60 kids only 7 applied for the grammars. 2 were mine. Many other able kids could have got in if they wanted to.

In non Kent like areas parents couldn't care less re grammars and if they have the choice of two other good comps frankly don't want to spend £100 per child a month on bus fares to grammar when they could get it for free to the Good feeder comp,or the hassle of the 11+.

There is more of a bun fight to the other Good comp with superb/better facilities and buildings than the 3 Outstanding grammars. My dc's year split 3 ways and I do think we're all lucky that we have choices to suit our dc's personalities.

The 60 were from just 1 feeder primary.

I find it interesting that people will disagree with kids going to grammars but will happily fight to get their DC into perceived better comps with better sporting results,facilities etc and stump up for non feeder school bus fares etc

I guess at the end of a day parents have differing priorities and children.

All parents don't have to Lily just enough to significantly dilute the data in other schools

But data is altered by those choosing to go to favoured comps.

And for many the data is altered before you even start due to needing a £250k and above house to go to the "better" comps.

The tiny number of grammar schools in the country isn't altering the data though. The absolute vast majority in the UK don't have any access to them. And as lily says not everyone with access always chooses them.
I don't even think it's the basic idea of mixed ability schools that is preventing the most able from reaching their potential. It's the way it's implemented in most cases that causes the problems.
If someones average or low ability child was spending the majority of their time at secondary working far below their ability level, and therefore not reaching their potential, the general consensus would be that the parents have a right to expect more from the school. People would say of course the parents should be supporting the child out of school too, but nobody would shrug and say they have no right to expect more from all that classroom time. When it's an able child its the opposite.

Lurkedforever1 If someones average or low ability child was spending the majority of their time at secondary working far below their ability level, and therefore not reaching their potential, the general consensus would be that the parents have a right to expect more from the school. People would say of course the parents should be supporting the child out of school too, but nobody would shrug and say they have no right to expect more from all that classroom time. When it's an able child its the opposite.

Perhaps if you understood things from my perspective you would see why some parents feel this way:

I have two children:

One loves school and has been known to cry when I've had to keep them off due to illness. Every year they have had awards for attendance. They have a good group of friends and are popular which has resulted in them being voted for class council etc. They get prominent roles in assemblies and plays as they can read narration scripts or learn a lot of lines easily, so they get a chance to shine and be recognise. They have found the work easy and never got stressed during test days etc. They never have to spend much time outside school doing homework as it is easy for them. They didn't have to spend time learning times tables as they just picked it up at school. They have plenty of time to relax after school and don't often get too tired after out of school clubs etc. They are given roles of responsibility and countless merits for achievement. They are given stretch work for in and out of class which they find interesting and prompts them to research into things independently at home. Their experience at school to date has been a very positive one.

The other DC openly says they hate school and often says they wished I would teach them at home. I've had long periods of time where I've had to force them into the class room crying every day. They have very low self esteem or confidence in their own abilities so are reluctant to try to tackle thing in case they get it wrong. They say their brain works differently to every one else and they have a bad memory. They think they are stupid and can't do anything. Although they get on with the children in their class they've not forged any close friendships. They don't understand why they don't get the best/biggest roles during assembly or plays (they always go to higher ability children). Homework takes hours and, when combined with the school day, often ends with them feeling extremely tired. They have been extremely upset about being bottom of the class despite the fact that they put a lot of effort into their school work. Their achievements to date have seen them placed in the average ability bracket. They get very upset about the fact that they don't get stickers or merits for their school work as much as other children in the class who always seem to do much better work. From helping them to read etc. I suspected they may have learning difficulties. The school refused to entertain the idea as their academic performance was normal for their age at that time. I paid for an in depth assessment and the report confirms they have dyslexic and dyspraxic traits and a number of underlying abilities that places them in the top 2%.

Of these two children, which one do you think I have to spend most of my time with in terms of help and support?