Greater depth at all subjects

[RememberingGoodTimes]

My son has ended Year 3 with a school report saying he’s working at greater depth in all subjects. This isn’t a huge surprise to us as he’s had nothing but praise so far at school, he’s a good boy, loves school and is able to focus well.

I’m wondering if this is rare or if it’s common for those who work at greater depth to do so across all subjects, as opposed to the odd one.

We’re in a grammar school area with some super selective schools nearby and I’m just trying to gauge where he’s at. He’s my eldest so secondary is alien to me. I’m not a pushy parent at all, I just want to understand what this means for his future options really, if he continues to progress at the same rate.

I think it really depends on the school and the cohort. I am a governor for a very middle class high-achieving primary school. Around a third get greater depth in everything in any given year group, but the national averages are much lower. Up to 40% in some years.

It will vary from school to school, cohort to cohort. It means they’re bright, but not a genius! My daughter just finished primary school with GD in all subjects. She’s bright and a hard worker, but by no means exceptional.

It’s achievable for a bright pupil, a good indication your child is likely to land in the “More Able” / top set slice and would have a good shot at 11+ if that’s your jam

I was a primary school governor until recently and our year 6 used to get anywhere from 15 to 50% GD in any subject. National average was about 25%. Writing always the lowest. Reading usually the highest. The ones with GD at primary tend to have targets of grades 7 to 9 at GCSE. So yes, having GD across the board indicates high potential but not necessarily exceptional as it’ll encompass a wide range.

Both my children got "greater depth" across all subjects. Yr6 SATS in the 116-120 range across all subjects.

One got top GCSE and A level results, one got decent, but unremarkable exam results (mostly 6s &7s, then BCC at A level).

One has just graduated with a first from a top tier Uni in a science subject. The other is limping through a tech degree at a mid tier Uni. I'd imagine 2:2 standard.

There was nothing between their Primary School performance, in fact the one who is now the higher achiever scored a couple of points lower than their sibling. They are both absolutely bright, doing well and we're proud of them, but I don't think their performance at Primary school was a great predictor for their long term outcomes.

What I think you can take away is that your DC is bright, and doing well. It's not some predictor of genius, but it's certainly an indication that they are capable and doing well. And what more could you want?

At our school in a very middle class area greater depth is the top 20%. Of those only the top 5% got into a super selective grammar with tutoring. The rest of the greater depth kids mostly went to other grammars.

Yes, but this will vary massively from school to school. It wouldn’t surprise me if some schools get 50% and others 0. It’s primary, so schools where a lot of the cohort have English as a second language, or even no English at all, aren’t going to do as well.

Congratulations. I would say if he is studious, definitely consider grammar.
Comprehensive is not always easy when you’re academic.

My daughter was always Expected but going to Grammar in September as she passed 11+. I wouldn't read too much into it, but he's clearly doing very well.

I was looking this up the other day and the variation is massive across schools. Nationally something like 8% got all three for 2025. In the top 100 schools this was at 40-70% which is better than some schools for ‘expected’.

My school was at 17% for all GD, 50% for maths and 90% expected so probably in top 300 nationally but not one of the very best performing nationally. I’m amazed by some of the results some of the top 10 state primaries are getting. By contrast, my nephews are at one where GD is around 3%, expected 50% and they are moving as not happy with the school.

Not at all rare in my experience, bright primary aged children are very often bright across the board.

When you say across all subjects @RememberingGoodTimesdo you mean English, maths, reading plus wider curriculum subjects such as geography, science, music etc?

At primary level, children who are good readers and writers and have good learning behaviour skills generally do well in other subjects too as there is a big emphasis on learning through reading and writing. Teachers are not generally specialists and subject specific skills are quite low level so a generally bright child can do well across the curriculum.

It depends on the school, our primary has a high % of GD SAT results vs national average. I wouldn’t say it would automatically mean a grammar place but again depends on the area.

I don't think it's unusual, my grandchild got greater depth for every year they were in primary school. They are now at a non selective state comprehensive school and still doing very well. I don't think it's necessary to go to a selective school to do well

There is a band above Greater Depth called Above. If achieving the expected standard corresponds to an age-standardised score of 100, then Greater Depth is typically around 112. The Above band extends beyond this, with age-standardised scores reaching up to around 134.

Our school hasn’t mentioned that and it’s not on the list of options on the report.

Yes, DD2 got ‘above’ (130) in reading comprehension.

is this in the year 6 SATS? the top scaled scale is 120.

@Bunnycat101 you need to factor area in. Leafy Trafford is near me and has selective grammars. As such high % are tutored from Yr4/5. On maths and English etc and 11+ It massively inflates SATs results.
Near by there is an area at the other end of the spectrum. It’s impossible / unfair to compare really

I think my observation then is that if the test has a maximum Standard Age Score (SAS) of 120, then it’s effectively capped. That means it can’t distinguish between children who are simply “above average” and those working at greater depth.

Your child may well be performing above that level, but the test can only report a maximum SAS of 120.

The Standard Age Score (SAS) and Stanine (ST, short for “standard nine”) are linked. For example, an SAS of around 112 equates to a Stanine 7, which is roughly equivalent to an A in the old grading system. An SAS of 134 would correspond to a Stanine 9, which is more like an A*.

So, if a test is capped at 120, it loses the ability to differentiate between very high-performing pupils.

Also, working at greater depth is working at greater depth within the expected level for that age. It doesn’t mean they are achieving beyond age expectations.
Your son sounds like a hard working, bright child - you should be proud.

Needless to say, Greater Depth is a fantastic achievement.

My older child achieved Greater Depth, went on to excel at A levels, and graduated with a 2:1 from a top university. My younger child also achieved Greater Depth and has done very well throughout secondary school. However, A-level results are never guaranteed; Greater Depth is an indicator of potential, but what happens next is ultimately down to the individual and the effort they put in.

Mine too

The report unless y6 are not accurate.
My dc consistently greater depth reading only 110 on sats. But just met for maths and got -115 and spag 120. Though writing was only met.
Our school consistently scores low on reports.

I agree with pp though its not necessarily predictive either as dd is targeted only 4-7 grades at gcse. Though is 7 on maths/eng/
sci.

Oh give over, it’s not ‘rare’ by any stretch! Certainly not the majority, but normally a good handful in an average class. Rare makes it sound like it’s rarely seen…