2017 Birmingham Consortium entry

[nabila1050]

Hi
Would anyone know what a score of 234 is equivalent to as a %. Also is there somewhere to look for results for the whole of the Birmingham Consortium? just want to get an idea of how DS did in comparison to peers
Thanks

[phoenix45]

Hi
Would anyone know what a score of 234 is equivalent to as a %. Also is there somewhere to look for results for the whole of the Birmingham Consortium? just want to get an idea of how DS did in comparison to peers
Thanks

on a standard scale it is 117 (234/2), and this translates to 87% according to this: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre- ... ile-ranks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[11plus_enthusiast]

Hi
Would anyone know what a score of 234 is equivalent to as a %. Also is there somewhere to look for results for the whole of the Birmingham Consortium? just want to get an idea of how DS did in comparison to peers
Thanks

on a standard scale it is 117 (234/2), and this translates to 87% according to this: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre- ... ile-ranks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 87% you have mentioned is only the percentile which represents how many children are above you for every 100 children. 87th percentile means there are 13 children scoring higher for every sample of 100 children.
I found another way of calculating the actual percentage from ray scores. The Warwickshire letter specifies the raw scores for VR + Maths & NVR and the maximum attainable score in each of this. If I remember correctly, the max attainable score is approximately 285. So a score of 234 (assuming the raw score is also 234) means it is 82%

[imranb]

Hi
Would anyone know what a score of 234 is equivalent to as a %. Also is there somewhere to look for results for the whole of the Birmingham Consortium? just want to get an idea of how DS did in comparison to peers
Thanks

on a standard scale it is 117 (234/2), and this translates to 87% according to this: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre- ... ile-ranks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 87% you have mentioned is only the percentile which represents how many children are above you for every 100 children. 87th percentile means there are 13 children scoring higher for every sample of 100 children.
I found another way of calculating the actual percentage from ray scores. The Warwickshire letter specifies the raw scores for VR + Maths & NVR and the maximum attainable score in each of this. If I remember correctly, the max attainable score is approximately 285. So a score of 234 (assuming the raw score is also 234) means it is 82%

Yes that sounds right. I have received the Wark letter, and my DS's 248 = 88% in terms of raw scores.

[phoenix45]

Hi
Would anyone know what a score of 234 is equivalent to as a %. Also is there somewhere to look for results for the whole of the Birmingham Consortium? just want to get an idea of how DS did in comparison to peers
Thanks

on a standard scale it is 117 (234/2), and this translates to 87% according to this: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre- ... ile-ranks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 87% you have mentioned is only the percentile which represents how many children are above you for every 100 children. 87th percentile means there are 13 children scoring higher for every sample of 100 children.
I found another way of calculating the actual percentage from ray scores. The Warwickshire letter specifies the raw scores for VR + Maths & NVR and the maximum attainable score in each of this. If I remember correctly, the max attainable score is approximately 285. So a score of 234 (assuming the raw score is also 234) means it is 82%

Incorrect, since you are NOT given the raw scores for these components.

All we have are standardised scores as the letter clearly states, with a maximum possible standardised score for each section. One cannot perform simple divisions on standardised scores as that'd be incorrect. You can use the same standard scale to get percentiles for each section, but that once again would show how well one has done on that section of the test relative to other test takers.

If we were given raw scores (such as some other counties do, NVR 35/55 etc.,) then, simple percentages can be calculated, and they would provide raw percentile scores.

I hope this explains and clarifies.

Standardised scores and percentiles are perhaps a better guide of competency as they show relative strengths and competitiveness of children.

[Three2go]

phoenix45 is right raw score and standardised does not correlate in % sd score depend on how difficult the test is
last year my dd score around 90% raw score for nvr and math this converted to sd score if 123
whereas in VR she score 75% raw score this converted to sd score of 120

[Petitpois]

There was loads of debate around this last year and two things emerged

1) There were some pretty clever statistics used to ensure the difficulty of test remained comparable year on year

2) There is a secret testing regime for each years test. My understanding is that Year 7's at carefully selected schools sit the test and then CEM analyse the test results before releasing for our DC to sit.

Basically the tests are the same difficulty year on year and as this years Scaled scores from DFE showed, it is unlikely that your suddenly going to get 80% of kids getting 80%+ raw marks in a standardised test (even though they are not comparable, why would it be different for the CEM or any other 11+).

The rough raw averages for the cohorts seem to be in the range 51%-55% pretty consistently year on year, or have I misunderstood it all badly.

Any how what most people want to know, is it likely that cut offs will mean that my child's very good score, will suddenly mean that he/she won't get a place.

It certainly happens, last year at KEVIHS 219 got you in on 1st March, this year 219 got you in off the waiting list (and even then not all 219'ers made the cut.

For planning purposes it is nice to have a 2-3 point margin of safety, but that offers no guarantees. As soon as your into 8-12 points above, it going to take big big shifts to throw a spanner in the works, so in practice you can probably rest easy. Surely no one with 233 planning putting KEVIHS as their 1st choice preference would have any reasonable level of doubt that they would not get it??

Of course if NOT a single girl applied to CHG and they all instead applied to KEVIHS, all bets would be off, but is that really going to happen????

[OldTrout]

I think Petitpois is raising a very important point here.

Ultimately the cut off scores aren't just about kids results - it also is about how many children on the same score as your child or higher selected your first choice grammar school as their first choice grammar school. And then of course distance comes into the equation.

Now we've had all sorts of discussions here over the years - which grammar is best academically, which is best for sports, is co-ed or single sex best, is there a bias against some schools from some areas in Birmingham (or nearby), etc....

But the point is that once scores are known very personal decisions on how to rank school choices comes into play and that decision believe it or not can be based on where siblings are at, where friends are likely to be going, where you work (i.e. it's easier to drop off/ collect your child at x school than it will be for y school), logistics of the commute, etc....

I've even known parents who felt their child had only just made the cut off (or was a late wait list offer) and therefore would struggle at the grammar so opted to stick with the local comprehensives where they would remain top of the class.

There are so many decisions (and I have to say some families will include the child's opinion in all of this - I very definitely had a little fish in 2013 for starting in 2014 who had absolutely no interest in a 1 hour commute to school if it would mean less sports time after school. It influenced our decision against putting Handsworth Girls down as a choice although it was viable. We were in absolutely no doubt that it was a great school - but we had a kid in tears saying she didn't want to go there all by herself on a regular bus (actually 2) on her own. Papatrout was also very concerned about it - as little fish looked about 8 years old when she was 11. I was voted down 2 to 1 for putting it on the CAF and the rest is history).

So - yes kids came along and took the 11+- but each child & their family will have different opinions on which school is 1st choice, etc... based on a myriad of reasons and genuinely there is no predicting that.

Know that all of these grammar schools are excellent.

Know that all of them will be over-subscribed.

But know that each year which school is most popular or whether co-ed is preferable to single sex will be some of many many reasons why parents put schools down as 1st choice, etc....

We also know that there will be some families who may take the 11+ but actually will ultimately go private (my view is this is great news because it will free more places in state grammars!).

I'm so sorry that this isn't straightforward where once results are out you definitely know one way or the other - but there are benefits to this:

1) it delays the anxiety now until the spring (you can put this to the back of your mind and get on with life).

2) it keeps hope alive. If your borderline there is always hope - it's worth taking the chance really (at least in Birmingham) where we have 6 choices on our CAF.

3) it allows your child to focus on Year 6 and things Year 6 - which they deserve.

Enjoy Year 6 with your child. Soon Year 7 will roll around and Mum and Dad hanging about the school gate won't be so welcome. I sometimes feel my kids only speak to me when they want spending money these days

OT