Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:29 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:01 am
Posts: 11
Hi, i m very curious. Most children said Berks exam was easier than bucks, they came out more relieved as well. What went wrong in the scoring? How come Kendrick n reading scores have been comparatively higher than the Slough scores? Everywhere I hv heard its kids failing Berks test specially those who took tests in Slough. Has there been a marking error or is it there genuinely typo mistake on some results? Loads of students have missed out on Slough from 1-5 marks. How come top results came crumbling down from 165-167 last year to 136 this year? What n where exactly did both the parents n kids go wrong?

BTW CEM said their test was tutor proof but I think not tutored kids didn't stand a chance to pass unless they were extra ordinary bright Mensa types. Sorry no offence intended to anyone, apologies in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:05 pm
Posts: 4024
Location: Reading
Slough standardised their scores differently last year and had a wider range of scores than this year. I have no idea why.

Anyone having their raw score shared across Berkshire will have two scores, one for Slough and one for the Reading/Kendrick. The score is standardised agains the rest of the cohort sitting that test.

Btw I don't think many will disagree with you about tutoring and CEM. Even CEM don't actually claim it is tutor proof tbh, just that it is less affected by the effects of intense tutoring.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:25 pm
Posts: 2610
Can't help you with your area scores but I think CEM have given up saying the test is tutor proof.

What they say is we don't produce any sample papers. The fact that numerous other publishers do and that professional tutors have years if feedback at their fingertips goes uncommented on.

Crossed with tinkers :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:01 am
Posts: 11
Hi, if on average there is a 30 mark difference at the top end then those kids who failed at say 105-6-7-8-9-10, would hv ideally scored 130+ Or at the least 120+ last year and would hv qualified for Langley grammar school, the top one, easily, I suppose?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:51 am
Posts: 865
Hi Buckbeak,

If anybody out there thinks people don't know about CEM, then they are seriously disillusioned! Sorry! I feel children enjoy the CEM type exams more than they would have old style NFER VR/NVR. There are tutors and parents out there which know CEM so well by now. From what I've heard back about this year's CEM exams is there were no surprises.

What about the children who did make the predicted cut-offs or those that performed particularly well? They were obviously well prepared, I know of a number of local places that are enjoying lots of success at the moment. With regards to Bucks, again, all I've heard of is successful passes, everything else I read or hear on this forum.

Sadly, a lot of children/parents have found that its not such good news when receiving their Reading scores after receiving the Slough scores. You'll always be up against a much stronger cohort including the children targeting the Surrey and London schools. We have a very good primary schools in Reading but just very limited places at Grammar school which serve large catchments. Therefore, the parents know we are up against it for places so a lot of the candidates are well prepped before that all important Saturday test. What we will see hopefully again this year like last year (and I know a lot of people are relying on this) is a lot of the highest scorers not taking up Reading places because they will secure desired places elsewhere.

Btw, I've heard this morning that someone has put in a FOI request to CEM for 2015 Reading scores and I'm also aware of someone else who has asked Kendrick school how many of the top 250 scorers are living in the designated area. I'm not sure if anybody has asked Reading Boys.

Sona


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:42 pm
Posts: 25
Blackbuck wrote:
Hi, i m very curious. Most children said Berks exam was easier than bucks, they came out more relieved as well. What went wrong in the scoring? How come Kendrick n reading scores have been comparatively higher than the Slough scores? Everywhere I hv heard its kids failing Berks test specially those who took tests in Slough. Has there been a marking error or is it there genuinely typo mistake on some results? Loads of students have missed out on Slough from 1-5 marks. How come top results came crumbling down from 165-167 last year to 136 this year? What n where exactly did both the parents n kids go wrong?

BTW CEM said their test was tutor proof but I think not tutored kids didn't stand a chance to pass unless they were extra ordinary bright Mensa types. Sorry no offence intended to anyone, apologies in advance.


Hiya Blackbuck,

Maybe I can help explain things, though I'm still fairly new to some of this (my DD sat the Berks test last month. She didn't sit the Bucks one).

1) for the sake of argument, let's say that 3600 kids sat the test in Berks.
2) CEM take the raw score (ie the actual number of correct answers) for each child.

3) this then get's "standardised" - all the raw scores are added up and then divided by 3600 to give a number. This number is then called "100" with all the raw scores being compared to it.
4) to add to the confusion, the dc are also compared to kids born in the same month - this way you're comparing kids of a similar age and, in theory, school learning/knowledge.
(ie approx 200 kids in each month).

5) ultimately this then get's you a range of results, ranging from very poor to very good with "100" in the middle.

Because children are bring compared with each other, the range will be different for each area, as different kids will have sat the tests.

Due to the statistical nature of the results, most of the kids will be between 2 "cut off" points, with a small number either side. Hence the 69-136 range.

I know that a lot of people in West London view the Slough Grammars part of "their" catchment, which tbh I think is wrong (but then I live here ;) ). But it will skew the results.

As to coaching /tutoring - i went down the DIY route as our dd is very bright. We've helped her, by talking to her about what's going on/ practising maths with her, etc since she was little. Her score reflected all the work we put in over the last year (some how we didn't kill each other :D).
However, I did ask if she could have sat the test with no tutoring at all and she said no.

CEM might be trying to make this harder to tutor, but some prep still needs to be done :)

I hope this has answered why there's a difference in score/ ranges for the results.
I know that somewhere on here are the pretty graphs showing all the stats and how it works.
Also something to think about - this is the first cohort to have sat the 11+ test who are studying the new National Curriculum.

H :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:55 pm
Posts: 8
Hi hel_tcw

Thanks for the explanation. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 11:59 am
Posts: 10
CEM is tutor proof! Even VW knows that you can prepare for any test! :wink: Tuition houses are now fuller than ever before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:03 pm
Posts: 52
Blackbuck wrote:
Hi, if on average there is a 30 mark difference at the top end then those kids who failed at say 105-6-7-8-9-10, would hv ideally scored 130+ Or at the least 120+ last year and would hv qualified for Langley grammar school, the top one, easily, I suppose?



Yes the scores this year are definitely unusually low as compared to the other years and very heart breaking for parents whose kids missed out for few marks, but that's what has shaken the faith of many. I would say that a not pass by few marks doesn't make any child less intelligent in any case, just plain unlucky. Yours is a very smart comparative analysis, n I give a thumbs up to u for coming up with this. Would be interesting to see how all this low score change effects the admissions this March.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What went wrong?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:41 pm
Posts: 13
I don't think the idea was for the test to be "preparation-proof". As with any academic endeavour, a child will always be better off with some preparation even if only to have the sharpness and speed of thought. Even for the very bright, not having any preparation can't be a clever strategy. I think the goal is not to give advantage to those who can afford tutoring over those who can not - something that parents spending time to coach perhaps can provide. Of course this isn't always possible so there will still be potential losers out there...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016