4As in Yr4 - how unusual?

(242 Posts)
SilverBellsandCockleShells Fri 15-Mar-13 07:15:28



rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 10:25:24

SwallowedAfly - before accusing other people of taking things personally, I suggest you think about the number of times on this thread you have been quite offensive and accused people of hyperbole, willy waving and using too many question marks for your liking, etc, etc.

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 09:54:35

No, I'm not willy waving, swallowedAfly. You just keep failing to answer direct questions in a direct way. Surely it would have been much simpler to respond to my question with, "yes, there is a category of people who are neither able, nor disabled, but who are intellectually disadvantaged." And to admit that what you really mean by able is someone of above average intelligence.

they are the bottom end of average according to the charts on IQ. i'm saying able is without disability, sen, illness, any other disadvantage or barrier to learning and achieving - as clarified multiple times now. someone with an IQ of 90 would not be my idea of able as as i have clarified they do have a disadvantage at being the bottom end of average in IQ.

are we willy waving here or something rabbit? have i somehow offended your ego hence the whole campaign at me? you haven't at all explained as to why you're so gunning for me even when i don't post on here for days.

i think it is altogether better i ignore you from now on given this is clearly somehow quite personal for you.

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 09:25:28

But swallowedAfly - this is a direct quote from what you wrote on page 1 of this thread: "if you have an able child and are an involved parent you'd want to be sorely disappointed with 4a at the end of year 6 because it would likely mean the school had done bugger all with your child."
This is a direct quote from what you wrote on page 3: "able MEANS without barriers or learning difficulties. to me it is the opposite of 'dis'-abled."

So, are you saying that someone with an IQ of 90 is able, or aren't you? And if they aren't, then what are they? Are you saying that you can be neither able nor disabled, but disadvantaged?

and no that is not what i said - that is the rita skeeter bollocks version of what i said. you should consider writing for the daily fail.

my point was always clear: that if someone had no disabilities, health problems causing absence, learning difficulties or other SEN and no other disadvantages that act as barriers to learning and achieving then one would expect them to do better than average. i also already said that yes i'd call an IQ of 90 a disadvantage - never have i called it a disability.

yes 90 is in the 85-114 average band (where the bulk of the population sits) but it is at the lower end of that average band which clearly means they are at a disadvantage compared to the vast majority of that average band. is this really so complicated or are you just intent on deliberately twisting everything i say and trying to pick fights with me even when i don't post for days on end?

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 09:10:53

And that is sticking with the facts - you have said a supportive parent ought to be sorely disappointed if they had an able child who only got a 4A in year 6 and that this would be a sign that the school had done bugger all with your child. And you have said that able means without barriers or learning difficulties and is the opposite of "dis"-abled. So, surely you are either able or disabled - or do you have an in-between category for people with an IQ of 90? Or do you think people with an IQ of 90 should be performing above national expectations and if they are not, that their parents should be sorely disappointed?

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 08:46:46

Or at least, that is what I think you have said.

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 08:45:51

But if someone with an IQ of 90 is not disabled, then they are able, and therefore ought to be able to perform above national expectations.

and yet again i have never never said someone with an IQ of 90 is disabled! it is pointless discussing with you because you just make things up, i clarify and say that's not what i said or meant and you ignore that and repeat the lie. honestly don't have the energy or inclination to argue with someone who doesn't even stick to the facts.

i've never mentioned IQ - we've been talking about attainment levels - you keep going back to IQ.

also rabbit i haven't even posted on this thread for DAYS and you're still trying to pick an argument with me. i've actually deliberately avoided this thread even though asked a question because of you but even not posting doesn't make a difference it seems.

rabbitstew Wed 20-Mar-13 08:20:59

SwallowedAfly - you said, "the 'average' is calculated from everyone ergo the result is affected by everyone. there are more people with learning disabilities, brain injuries, sen etc than there are genius' so yes they'd be included but would have less of an effect on the 'average'." I still don't understand this. I thought IQ followed a bell curve and thus, the average IQ was the most commonly found IQ in the population (ie the mode) with a fairly even distribution either side of it, because (although I didn't study statistics, so may be wrong) with averages that follow a neat bell curve, the mean and the mode generally coincide and the curve looks fairly symmetrical... Surely that means just as many people are above average as are below? And so to say you think an able child ought to be able to perform above national expectations (because all those disabled people are lowering national expectations), but a child with an IQ of 90 may not be able to perform above national expectations, because they are disadvantaged in comparison to someone with an IQ of 100 and above, how is that not implying that you think someone with an IQ of 90 is in some way disabled - ie not able? And if they are disabled/not able, then almost half the population are disabled/not able.

redskyatnight Tue 19-Mar-13 17:09:39

Oblomov exactly. Your DS is doing well. As is my Y4 DS who also does not have a whole string of 4As to his name. This thread is horribly skewed. And some of the posters definitely give the impression that if your Y4 is not achieving this (top <10% result by my reckoning) that is down to poor parenting, poor teaching or poor child.

Please don't worry.

toughdecisions Tue 19-Mar-13 17:05:22

Just been to parents' evening for DS yr4. He's 4's across the board and because the teacher had a sheet with everyone's grades it was easy to note he isn't the only one (no I didn't read upside-down names just looked at the columns). Not exceptional but doing well in a state primary in the sticks.

LaQueen Tue 19-Mar-13 16:15:54

Ob as I understand it, many children finish Yr 6, with Level 4s - and this is seen as perfectly satisfactory, and normal.

However, quite a few children finish Yr 6 on Level 5s, which is seen as very good. And, there are a few children who finish Yr 6 on Level 6s, and this is seen as exceptional, I think?).

Our friend's DS finished Yr 6, with all Level 4as, and still won a place at grammar school last September (albeit with tutoring, but most children are tutored around here, as a matter of course, even the ones on track for Level 6s).

So, I think your DS is doing perfectly well smile

Taffeta Tue 19-Mar-13 10:12:53

Oblomov - Education Boards on MN are hardly indicative of the population as a whole.

Oblomov Tue 19-Mar-13 10:06:58

I'm glad I read this thread. I had no idea.
We were told that children should be achieveing a level 4 in Yr 4.
We were told, if children come in on a level, teacher expects child to move up 2 sub-levels,
i.e in on a 3B up to a 4C.
Teacher said he was doing really well, really happy. He is not on the top table. He does not want to be, and I do not want him to be. Apparently he is high in his group, and he is happy with that, and so was I. I thought he was bright and achiveing well. She said he was "above average". Now, I read this thread. And now i am not so sure. sad

rabbitstew Tue 19-Mar-13 08:21:23

Oh no, lottieandmia, a level 5 just means your child is able (which means not disabled) and good GCSE results are normal for able children. If your child does not get good GCSE results, that will be their poor work ethic, poor parenting and poor teaching and it is abnormal. wink

lottieandmia Tue 19-Mar-13 00:31:45

I heard though, that different teachers may assess the levels differently. I too got the impression that the levels reflect, eg in English what kind of language a child can use in their work etc.

How long have these levels been used, anyone know?

I had thought that a 5 in year 6 (end) was thought to be good in terms of on track for good GCSE results.

Hamishbear Mon 18-Mar-13 23:56:10

I didn't think the levels were an indicator of ability, potential, or IQ: just a statement of the level that children were working at, according to a particular set of measures you are correct

A trouble/problem (?) with levels is that IMO many see them as a crude (?) measure of ability and a way to plot a child on the bell curve. Yes, they are generally seen as an approximate measure of potential, ability to learn and IQ. For example, a child working at level 5 in Y4 will generally be seen as having a higher IQ/ability than other peers.

Schmedz Mon 18-Mar-13 22:05:14

I teach in a selective primary school and the majority of Year 4 children are achieving within the various sub levels of 'level 4' by this stage of the year in English and Maths (most at top end) So it is obviously above the average nationally, but probably more common than you would think.

Be glad your child enjoys school and wants to learn. Levels are only a picture of certain abilities...an inquiring mind, determination and curiosity, problem solving skills and a positive attitude are the things that will bring happiness, fulfilment and success in life.

CuriousMama Mon 18-Mar-13 19:42:37

Ds1 was the same as your ds and he was and is exceptional so maybe a few years on there are suddenly many more like him? It is expected at year 6. Some average year 7s are getting 4s still. Well done to your son. I never pushed ds1 he's just naturally bright.

rabbitstew Mon 18-Mar-13 19:36:51

swallowedAfly - I'll just have to go back to what you said at the beginning of this thread and disagree with you, then. You said, "i would have thought 4's in year 4 was normal for an able child." That is not true. It is not normal for all children fitting your definition of able to be getting 4s in year 4 - unless the majority of the population are not able, or the majority of the able population have unsupportive parents and poor teaching.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 18-Mar-13 19:09:02

Swallowed and Mrz

I hope you haven't gone?

On page 1 you mentioned the basic mechanics of spelling, and above, reading and writing.
Are you saying that with practice of these mechanics progress is definate?
Do you think a dyslexic could learn the basic mechanics if they practised more than a none dyslexic?

I don't mind if you don't know, you just sound like you know what you are talking about.

SilverBellsandCockleShells Mon 18-Mar-13 07:21:12

Wow, wasn't really expecting this to take on such epic proportions! Thanks all for your input, certainly makes interesting reading.

Clearly he is doing well. More importantly, at the moment he is enjoying school and very much motivated to achieve. Long may that continue!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion


Register now