Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:50 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:38 am
Posts: 1043
Location: West Midlands / warks border
I have tried to collate 2016 information to assist those waiting for results.

The allocated scores on offers day are correct and have been taken from KE consortium website. However the lowest scores offered is purely from information collated by UM from info passed to her. This will not be 100% accurate, but will give an idea of what happened this year.

Table will be 1.3.16 offer, lowest offer, date offered & position on waiting list

If anyone does have any further details they could pass on it would be helpful.

MODERATORS - could you add this as a sticky at the top please?


BV 220 217 27.5.16 31st

HGS 209 205 20.7.16 45th offered 6/16

KEA 221 219 4.5.16 25th

CHB 239 236 15.4.16 24th

KEFW 233 230 26.4.16 43rd (although approx 55th offered)

CHG 235 232 12.7.16 26th (211 offered PP 5/16)

KEHGS 223 221 27.5.16 34th (Handsworth girls)

SCGSG 218 217 29.4.16

As I say, not 100% accurate, but will give a little bit of an idea.

Interestingly, the 2016 score for CHB was much lower than 2015 and the CHG score was higher than KEFW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 989
Location: Birmingham
Thanks for this nervousmum.

Is this the first time Warks and Birmingham have combined? If so, do you think it will have an impact on the cut-off scores?

_________________
UmSusu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:29 am
Posts: 43
I think they were also combined last year. From posts over on the Warwickshire site, it looks as though a lot more might have taken the exam this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:03 pm
Posts: 1380
Yes, last year was the first year the tests were combined. I don't know anything about B'ham, but in Warks the qualifying scores went up. Whether this was because of the joint arrangements or because, as seems to be the case this year, the test was reported to be very straightforward, who knows?? :?

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 2826
I seem to recall we spoke about this last year James Dean, and summised as the results were coming in that it was because the test was simpler - I seem to recall results were higher and more bunched but the rankings stayed fairly static, despite it also being the first year for PP for many schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1425
I am not sure the test was simpler, or more straightforward, but the cohort averages seem to be slightly lower than expected for the cohort that started this year. People were assuming average raw scores between 55-60%.

If I understand it right the cohort averages were in the lowish 50's. If the test was straightforward surely the average scores would have been higher. There is no reason to think the the CEM QA processes don't work well.

I think there was a degree of surprise on allocations day, when the scores panned out as they did, some much higher a few unexpectedly lower.

Any concerns about growth will be more marked for sitters next year. The potential numbers of sitters next year, should be markedly higher than 2015 sitters, for a range of reasons.

I wonder whether it is time for the foundation to review the 50% weighting on VR. If numbers are increasing, then good readers are going to start to push out more of those that are relatively good at NVR and Maths. No wait don't do that we have done nothing but read with DD2 so far :oops:

Does any one know why the Birmingham one has a 50% weighting in VR??

Post edit found this in another region, last year sort of on the same lines.

https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 71&t=42381


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 2826
I think JD and I were talking about Warks rather than Bham. The scores in Warks were coming in higher than the previous year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:03 pm
Posts: 1380
kenyancowgirl wrote:
I think JD and I were talking about Warks rather than Bham. The scores in Warks were coming in higher than the previous year.

Yup, I don't follow the Brum scores in as much details :)

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 989
Location: Birmingham
Thanks for the replies. I didn't realise we had taken it with Warks last year too - in that case, there wasn't really a significant impact on cut-off scores here.

_________________
UmSusu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:40 am
Posts: 44
Petitpois wrote:
Any concerns about growth will be more marked for sitters next year. The potential numbers of sitters next year, should be markedly higher than 2015 sitters, for a range of reasons.


Can you expand on the reasons please, Petitpois?
Anecdotally there was a definite increase, and I know a larger number of pupils from DS2s school took it this year from a far wider range of abilities than when DS1 took it two years' ago. Also I know the number of children registering in reception increases every year as population increases in Warwickshire... but are there other reasons for the increase?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: veryhopeful 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