What do school report phrases like 'working at the expected standard' actually mean?
They are criterion-referenced judgements — statements about whether a child has met a defined body of content — rather than marks, positions or percentages. Parents read them as grades, which is why they generate so much anxiety and so little information.
The core vocabulary at primary level:
Working towards the expected standard — has not yet met all the criteria for the year.
Working at the expected standard — has met them. This is the intended outcome for the majority of children, and reading it as "average" or "nothing special" misunderstands what it is describing.
Working at greater depth — has met them and can apply the same content in unfamiliar, reasoned or more complex contexts. Crucially this means depth, not acceleration: it is not about working on next year's material.
What is genuinely hard to interpret:
The criteria are all-or-nothing. A child meeting almost every criterion but missing one is recorded as "working towards", identically to a child far behind. The label alone cannot distinguish them, which is why the teacher's comments matter more than the judgement.
Effort and attainment grades are separate, and mixing them up causes most misreadings — a high effort grade with a lower attainment grade is meaningful information, not a contradiction.
Standardised scores appear in some reports, centred on 100 by construction, and are relative to a national sample rather than to the class.
Secondary reports typically use different scales again, frequently including a projected outcome — which is a forecast built on current evidence, not a ceiling.
The questions worth asking at a parents' evening:
What specifically would move them on? Better than "how are they doing?"
Where is the gap — knowledge, fluency, confidence, or writing it down? These need different responses.
Is this consistent across subjects?
How are they with other children? Reports cover this poorly and it matters.