CAT score 134

[Lougle]

Does anyone know about CATS? DD3 scored 134 for English. I know it's a high score because the average range is 85-115, but DD3 goes to a comprehensive state school, so I don't know if it's a 'wow, your child is amazing!' score or 'she's bright but not exceptional' score, because the school just types the number on a report. Just curious, really.

Thats super high. I think it only goes up to 142. What were her other results?

it's hard to say in isolation, obviously anyone can have a good or bad day, (say) an average of 134 across a number of years and tests would count for more than a one-off.

just taking it at face value and assuming that not a one-off, I'd say that 134 is really good, good enough to get into any grammar or selective private school, good enough to hope for top grades at GCSE and A level and a good degree at a good university and to consider no career off limits. maybe not quite good enough for Oxbridge (unless you were at Eton or somewhere like that which throws loads of money at supporting applications) and almost certainly not good enough to expect Stephen Hawking type rocket scientist type academic achievements.

^ What @puffyisgood said. 134 is extremely high. The only bit I disagree on is whether it's Oxbridge level. I would say yes, for sure, if that's what the child wants.

It's 99th percentile (or 98.8th to be more precise). CAT scores are constructed to be mean 100 standard deviation 15, so 134 is 2.3 standard deviations above the mean. In other countries, scores above 130 are called gifted; DfE (or DCSF as it was then) formerly referred to it as "exceptionally able".
In a comprehensive with 200 kids per year group, you'd expect 2 or 3 kids at least this able per year group. In a "superselective" where most kids are in the top 10% of ability, there might be around 20 kids at this level per year, so enough to fill one set.
CAT scores measure aptitude / raw ability. oxbridge take around 1% of each cohort, thus there are plenty of kids around this level of raw ability at oxbridge (and somewhat lower, if they've been to a good school...), but getting in is based on formal exams / interviews (i.e. subject-specific developed ability, which depends on hard work and facilitation over several years).

Thanks, that's interesting. @puffyisgood she's year 8 and has had 3 English CATS she got 134 at the start of year 7, 134 at the start of year 8 and 133 in summer of year 8, so fairly consistent.

@AceSpades54321 I don't have her year 7 CATS in maths, but she got 125 in year 8. Having said that, she came home really upset because the monitor had glitched and she missed a question or two as a result (I think the teacher tried to turn it off and on again but in doing so the question moved on or something).

She's clearly very bright, reading age of 17 despite not enjoying reading and never reading by choice, but she can be a bit slower with her processing at times.

It just made me wonder if she should have been somewhere that would stretched her. She achieved 'mastered' in science and Spanish this year and her Spanish teacher said that she only scored slightly lower on a test because she had used year 9 vocab sightly inaccurately that she'd taught herself, rather than using the year 8 vocab she'd been taught.

*stretch not stretched.

I thought people might say 'high for a bog standard comp but nothing of note in the selective world.'

Where I am in London the year 6 transition teacher at DD’s old private prep advised that children needed to be scoring 128 and above in English, maths, Nvr to be considered to have the aptitude to prepare for a super selective grammar or a selective private school. Prob about 80% of the kids at DD’s prep fell into that bracket, but it was a selective prep! DD got 140 in a couple of cat assessments but it hasn’t translated into amazing grades in year 9 as she doesn’t try.

So to answer your question, your dc would likely cope well in a selective grammar or private school.

Would second what other posters have said. Indicates that your DC will be well suited to a super selective grammar or private. My DC scored 140 consistently across CATS at the same age as your DC. Both have attended top grammars, one had all A stars at A Level and the other is predicted the same. They have both sailed through at the top end of the cohorts in their schools. It is definitely indicative, especially when they are getting such results without any preparation.

And I would disagree about Oxbridge comment too. You need 135 I believe for Westminster and plenty of those DC end up at Oxbridge.

Oh yes, there wouldn't have been any preparation. They are literally told, 'Make sure you have your headphones on Wednesday'. The school only sets for Mathematics, Science, and PE. All the rest of the classes are mixed ability.

It is a great score and your daughter is clearly bright. I wouldn’t rush to move her based on the score alone though. In non grammar school areas, there will always be a group of kids each year at state secondary schools with great scores - who if they work hard and are well supported at home, will achieve excellent results. If a top university is her eventual aim, excellent grades from a comprehensive may even benefit her application as they contextualise results.

Some children, like my son, can also benefit from attending a comprehensive school as it easier to develop confidence in less academically competitive environments. I am a fan of setting, particularly for maths, science and languages, but I think it is more important that a school is building an aspirational culture and is on top of low level disruption and bullying.

I don't think I would try to move her - we can't afford private and we're not in a grammar area. I was just interested to know if that score was considered 'good' even in the independent world. So many people have high flying children on MN and at DD3's school they only grade them in terms of expectations for the year, no actual 'grades' so it's hard to know just how well a child is doing.

You don't need 128 for (super)selective schools, and you don't need 135 for Westminster. 128 is top 3%, 135 is top 1%.

1. There aren't enough kids that bright to fill the places. Some of the superselective grammars get 10 applicants per place, but the school typically has to to go much further down the 11+ ranking list than their PAN because strong applicants will have 3 or more offers. So top 15% would likely be enough.
2. If a school was genuinely full of kids in the top 3%, or indeed 1%, of ability, every pupil should be getting straight A*'s at A level. But no school gets near this (looking at numbers up to 2019, before covid grade inflation). So either there is a much wider spread of ability, or the teaching and academic standards are so poor that a large chunk of a cohort in the top 1%/3% of ability can't get the top grades. The former is far more likely.
3. Every selective school, no matter how selective, has a low tail of ability because selection procedures are not perfect, some pupils may have been intensively tutored, etc.

These numbers are folklore / expectation management. It may suit a prep school to claim you need 128 for certain schools, but that's to give them a defence against irate parents if a child doesn't make the grade. It might also suit Westminster to have people believe all their kids are that bright, but if that were the case they'd have serious questions to answer about their exam results and the added value from the teaching.

It's very good - my DS went to a super selective grammar and is currently waiting on a Cambridge offer after predictions of four A stars in his A levels (results next week....) He consistently scored above 130 in his CATs at school, so you have a bright DD. May be worth investigating private scholarships/bursaries?

It's probably too late now, though, isn't it? She goes into year 9 in September.

@Lougle DS had 134 as well, and he’s certainly not considered special or a genius in his London independent selective school. He is in the top set for one or two subjects, but there are easily about 20 children ahead of him in all subjects. Not sure what their cat scores are. He is also not considered scholarship material. Just saying this to give you a context from the selective school world - a cat score is not practically very useful and may not even be an indicator for oxbridge potential (subject passion / knowledge is considered more important for this).

For us, the CAT and eleven plus scores were excellent indicators for DC's chosen path. Top 1% in those exams correlated exactly with where he ended up with clinical entrance exam at seventeen. He said everyone he knew who had got very high CATs and eleven plus had done exceptionally well in their clinical entrance exams which is a key element of entry to medical school. Of course there are other hoops to jump through though.

Not necessarily - I know they start some of the GCSE courses in late Y9, but the bulk wouldn't be until Y10. Obviously budgets are under huge pressure in schools - even the independent (selective or not) ones - so there is less money around to be distributed, but it's definitely worth looking at. Also, if you are in a slightly 'odd' profession, there are grants and help available (eg my cousin is a CoE vicar and his children went to Westminster and St Pauls via this sort of help) so that could be worth looking at if you are in that sort of situation?! We actually turned down a top scholarship for our DS for various reasons - but he's done brilliantly in the state system anyway, despite my guilt at the time that both DH and I were privately educated all the way through and our children 'should' be too...but they've all got into superselective state grammars and seem to be thriving and on target for Oxbridge/Russell Group offers or excellent results generally. They've also had access to more 'private school' stuff like fencing, significant sporting opportunities with Saturday matches v local private schools, debating, high level music, drama, trips to the UN etc, so I know we've been very lucky with the schools they are at).

Hi OP. Saw your post scrolling through. Just to say, I remember my DS having scores of 134 in those CAT tests at primary. He did manage to get into one of the London super selective schools, but it was by no means a foregone conclusion that he would. While there, he was very average, I'd say. Definitely didn't ever feel he was one of the 'clever ones' in any shape or form. Never got a prize or any particular mention for anything. Because he thought his friends were much 'cleverer' then him, he worked really hard for his GCSEs and was amazed to get all 9s. He did go for Oxbridge in Year 13, but didn't get in. But he did get all A-stars at A-level and decided to take a gap year and he reapplied and did get in second time around. I think mainly, it's about how much they enjoy a subject. You see some very bright ones who get scholarships at 11 plus, but then burn out. Others don't come into their own until 6th form. It's hard to predict how CAT scores translate into performance across the curriculum really because so many other issues can come into play such as working memory, confidence, interest, motivation etc. And the scores do fluctuate over time.

Extrastromgmints has it spot-on regarding the wider ability range in top schools, than is often touted.

The top schools will have a higher percentage of their cohort with the very top CAT scores, but all have a ‘tail’ of differing lengths and couldn’t fill their places otherwise.

Notice that even quite poor schools will have some children who score similar results and gain all top grades at GCSE and A Level. Numbers might be very low, but they exist.

Largely speaking, the results of schools reflect their intake….the school isn’t the biggest determinant in their results. So, lots of bright kids with high CAT scores will do well. They are generally easy to teach and retain information and can pick up skills quickly.

There are advantages (and disadvantages) of being in a cohort where most are of similar high ability. Students can bounce ideas off each other, they are likely to have similar high aspirations, less disruption and the class can move at a fast speed. These features often lead to a more pleasant learning experience, rather than the results themselves being drastically different to what might be achieved elsewhere. Although selective schools can have difficult to teach students, what selection often brings as a key benefit for any parents in reality, is social selection and the ‘benefits’ of that, rather than in reality significant result outcome differences.

A disadvantage is the lack of experience of a range of society. Personally I see that as a disadvantage, although others choose selective precisely for this factor. Especially when children are in selective or private education from 4-18, their narrow little bubble might have protected them, but also excluded them from a key part of education, which is learning about other people and how to mix with a range of people.

134 is a great score and bodes well for your DD. Having a family who are interested in education and will support her in whatever school she goes to is also a key advantage she has that many lack and nothing else can really compensate for.

Thanks everyone. I think she's happy and she's doing well, so we'll leave her as she is.

Completely agree. Good enough for Oxbridge. However going to Eton does not mean a high probability of going to Oxbridge unfortunately these days and they do not throw money at it.

Just the throw in a different perspective, I think it's not really down to the CAT score, but what the individual chooses to do with their ability. My DS had similar scores on entry to secondary, and got put into top sets (very diverse comp) with lots of similarly able children. Many of them ended up with all 8s and 9s, great A level grades and now have places at top universities. No need for grammar or private school. DS, meanwhile, is not a very academic kind of boy despite being very able. Got all 6s and 7s at GCSE apart from one 9 for drama, about which he is passionate. Didn't do A levels - he would have been able enough but I knew he would get bored and under-perform - he took a more vocational route and excelled at that, and is now at drama school aged 18 which is quite a feat. His intelligence shows up in his dealings with the wider world, the ease with which he relates to older adults and enjoys discussion of a wide range of topics, the maturity of his world view, his creativity, his intelligent response to theatre he sees and his ability to get on with people. I don't think his CAT scores were wrong, but high CATS don't mean you will automatically emerge at 18 with top grades, whichever kind of school you choose. A bright child will learn and progress well in any school if they have the intrinsic motivation and a scholarly bent, but CAT scores alone don't mean everything.