Typical proportion of children working at 'greater depth' in a class

[Getbackinthebox]

I wondered if any teachers could tell me what proportion of children in a class you would typically expect to be working 'at greater depth' and what proportion at 'age related expectations'? I am just trying to get a feel for where my daughter is in relation to her peers when she is mostly at 'age related expectations' (she gets the occasional 'greater depth' in something)?

Wow, I posted this question expecting to come back and see a couple of answers posted. Thank you for so much insight! I wanted to know the proportion of GD children versus 'ARE' because I am considering whether to prep my DD for competitive entry schools and what chance she might have. It helps me to know, therefore, where she is relative to others. If I wasn't considering this I would probably be quite content with ARE scores. I am considering the hurdles that need to be jumped in 11+ tests.

For goodness sake, just stop. If she's happy leave it alone

Getting GD doesn’t mean you will get a grammar place, the competition is intense!

I’m so grateful my area does not have grammar schools. My child will go to the local school in our catchment area.

In Kent here and so gladc we do. DS went to a superselective and he could not have had a better experience.

@Wahoobafoo a lot of the London grammars have places without any distance restrictions hence the competition.

She'll probably need some prep to at least get used to the format of the tests. They are very different to SATS or any other assessments they do at school, at least in my area.

She was GD at the end of y6, but didn't score high enough to get into grammar. That was ok because we had good options.

I'm a primary teacher, and it completely depends on the cohort. I've got 31 kids in my class this year, and I only have two children who I would say are greater depth writers, and 3 at greater depth in maths. In reading, I've got around six children who I think are GD. If I had to give an 'average' for a class of 30, however, I'd say around 6 children max.

Thank you all. That gives me a reasonably good idea. My daughter is happy at the moment but quite a few of her friends are aiming for competitive entry to one school or another so it is something I need to consider. Her older brother is in a competitive entry private school so I also need to take this into account as I believe both children should have the same opportunities presented to them even if our second DC ultimately prefers a different path or suits a different path better. My first DC wasn't always an obvious academic 'star'. I think there is an element of nurturing needed for many children but it is helpful to gauge just how much work may be needed to get them to the level they need to be to have a chance. My DD has a competitive nature and supposedly concentrates well in class so she has some qualities that may help her.

This 100% depends on the school op, it's greater depth compared to all kids in the country not a certain percent from each class.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether it’s useful to know where your child is in relation to others. For some parents, it’s very useful information. If, for example, you’re in a highly selective area or you’re thinking about trying for a super selective grammar then there’s really no point unless your child is consistently in the top 10-15% of the class.

My whole point was that the top 10% of one class can be performing very differently to the top 10% at a different school, depending on so many factors. A child who isn't in the top 10% of their own class can easily be outperforming someone else who is considered top of their class in a different school.

Of course, but the aOP only need to know vaguely what the school is like in relation to others in the area to know roughly what percentage of their own class is likely to pass the 11+. The teachers, schools and parents are usually very clued up about this. For example, in the area I live in now which does have ss grammars, roughly the top 20% of the kids stand a chance in my daughters’ school (school preps for the test plus smaller classes) whereas in the 3 other closest school to me a child would need to be in the top 5-10% to stand a good chance

I am so pleased to live in an area where Grammar schools and the 11+ are not a thing. The whole idea of pitting children against their peers, competing academically at such a young age, feels so vulgar. I'm so pleased it's an alien concept to the children I teach as it can't do young children's mental health any good.

Parents feeling they need to know how their child compares academically to their peers just seems so wrong.

There’s good and bad to the system, like most things but yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of it. At this age it’s not really about them pitting themselves against their peers as such, though, but rather just indicating to their parents whether they stand a realistic chance so they can make an informed decision about whether they want to direct their resources and energy in that direction or not.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I'm afraid. However you dress it up, children know they're being compared to each other in such a system and that's why I find it so vulgar. Frequenting this board has really opened my eyes to a different side of education, given that grammar schools and private schools are systems I have no personal experience of. It never fails to shock me whenever I read about how much pressure so many of our youngsters appear to be under from such a young age to outperform their peers.

Absolutely this. We are in an area with super selective grammars. Unfortunately, tutoring is necessary to prepare for the tests as the state schools do not do any prep work at all. I would never put my child through that (and spend my money) if they didn’t have a realistic chance.

Whilst I agree that the proportion of GD children will vary school to school, I’d also expect the teachers to have a rough idea of each child’s ability/potential, based not just on a comparison with their current class, but with other classes that the teacher has taught, and the knowledge of where other children have ended up.

If the answer is a clear yes or a clear no it’s straightforward. I imagine would be a more difficult choice if it’s a maybe (as I’m sure it often/mostly(?) is).

To be fair, private schools are a different ball game altogether. There’s generally much less pressure there, not more.

I was just using it as another example of a schooling system I have no personal experience of, which blows my mind to read about on here. I wasn't trying to suggest they're the same.

It's a different world. When people talk about 4+ assessments I just want to weep as it's totally at odds with my own personal beliefs.

I don’t understand why it is bad for children. A friendly competition can only make a robust and resilient adult that can face challenges in society. There isn’t any job that being handed to them, without competing with others. Competition will only become vulgar when people don’t learn how to deal with it.

Friendly competition? It's only 'friendly' for those whom accademic success comes naturally. It's an unacceptable level of pressure and stress to place on primary aged children.

As I said, the concept is alien to me as I grew up in the same area I live in now. We don't have grammar schools here and I'm not sorry about that at all. Funnily enough, the kids here are able to grow up resilient and able to face changes in society without such a system here.

Of course people are entitled to feel differently, but you won't get me to change my opinion on how vulgar it is that kids are pitted against each other in such a way at primary age.

I grew up in a different country, and I think I'm failing to understand some of the British context here.

Where I grew up, school children of all ages receive letter grades (A-F) for each subject at the end of the term. The grades that you get are not supposed to fuel competition, though some students may well be competitive about it. It isn't meant to inform parents of what their childrens' chances are in life, though I suppose it's a useful signal in that regard. The grades you get are there to tell the child how well they performed that term in that subject. Armed with that information, you know if you should could keep up the good work, or you know where there is room for improvement. So that's how I see grading. I see no difference between that and "expected" v. "greater depth".

Are the complaints against competition and pitting students against each other actually complaints about getting graded? Or is there something BEYOND grades that is triggering this reaction?

Yes you've misunderstood my point. I have no issue at all with children being assessed ("graded", as you term it from your experiences). That's an important part of education so individual children and their families know how they are doing, and what their targets are.

The grammar system sees those schools cherry picking the so called cream of the crop, the children capable of passing a non-statutory exam, to gain entry into their school. It sees children who don't make it feeling like a failure at a very young and vulnerable age. They generally take all the top students in that area, then the school and the parents of students who go there see the results they achieve as some sort of evidence of what an amazing school they are. It's hardly difficult to achieve amazing results when you only accept top students who generally have a great attitude to their learning and have families who support their education. Don't get me wrong, I understand why parents who live in such areas would want their child to get into a grammar school, as everyone wants the best accademic results for their child, but it's the culture which I find vulgar.

I've learned on here that most who undergo the 11+ have tutoring as apparently the school curriculum alone does not prepare children for these tests. That suggests to me that a) these tests do not test natural ability alone, as that is something which doesn't need to be 'taught' and b) suggests this system of schooling isn't as accessible to children from deprived backgrounds, as their families would be unable to fund this tutoring. A good education in this country should be accessible to all, not just those who can afford it. As someone who grew up in, and now works in, a very deprived area, this is something I feel very strongly about.

Some posts on this thread are suggesting it's ok for parents to want to know, and even be told, whether their child is working in the top 10% of their class, in order to know whether it's worth putting their child through the stress and pressure of the 11+. That's what I find vulgar. The idea that parents have a right to know about how other children are performing in order to pit their own child against them. Dog eat dog at 10 years old. Parents should only ever be privy to their own child's attainment imo. This idea of sharing that a child is working in the top 10% of their class feels so wrong to me, as someone who doesn't live in an area with such a system. We wouldn't dream of sharing such information with parents, as it's simply none of their business how other children are performing compared to their child.

My issue is with the grammar school culture of cherry picking, and parents in those areas in turn being privy to the attainment of the other kids in their child's class, not with schools assessing in general.

You think 10 years don't know who is in the top 10 %? 4 year olds know.

Working with 4 year olds myself, I respectfully disagree on that one. They are, for the most, oblivious to most differences between themselves and others at that age, unless others (ie the adults around them) choose to make a thing of it.

As for 10 year olds, I don't think I've ever suggested they don't get a sense of where they 'fit' within their class in terms of academic achievement? They know if they are doing well in a subject, they know if they're struggling. They naturally get a sense for where their peers fall too, given that they're working with these kids day in day out. Kids don't work in percentages though. No child goes around labelling themselves as within the top 10%, like some parents are obsessed with.

If you read my posts, I take issue with some people's beliefs that parents should be privy to this information (officially, obviously their kids may talk about who else in in their group etc, but parents shouldn't be officially fed percentages from the school based on how their child compares to others in the class).

I also find it utterly meaningless, given that the 'top 10%' looks very different in different schools.

Living where I do, I didn't realise it was such a thing until frequenting this board. It baffles me. Don't get me wrong, I do understand why it has become such a thing in grammar school areas, as the system is by nature that competitive. It's the system I have issues with.