Just Received Raw Scores for March Born DD

[anotherdad]

There is also the argument "it is a very bright cohort", but I have never quite bought into that. 7,000+ children must surely average out at pretty much the same level every year?

It's a pretty sizeable sample size so yes, I would be surprised if there were a sudden change in the collective ability of the tested cohort over one year. I won't win many friends on here for saying this, but with selection being such an emotive (and seemingly increasingly expensive) subject in Bucks, I think that many parents look for any possible flaws in the system they can find to justify why their child didn't "pass". Many of these flaws turn out to be based upon supposition or rumour, or a misunderstanding of standardisation. I have my own opinions on selection at 11+ and the nature of its execution in Bucks. There are, in my opinion, some fundamental problems with fairness and equity in the process. For me, those problems are a far greater problem to tackle than OOC applicants, test difficulty and standardisation method.

Yes, it's galling when one's child misses an arbitrary score by one mark. Believe me, I know. However, the make-up and content of the papers along with the method used to standardise the scores and the process being open beyond Bucks is known to us all when we embark on the selection journey. Wherever the line is drawn there will be relief just one side of it and anguish the other. Lower the qualifying score and the same thing happens.

[Booklady]

And a completely random comment!:

The three grammar schools in Aylesbury put siblings higher than catchment area pupils.

Why the BFP, based in Wycombe, feels the need to comment on the admission policies of 3 schools in Aylesbury, I am not sure! All the grammar schools give priority to siblings over catchment.

Sorry to contradict (not usually necessary as SA is one of 'the experts' in my eyes) - but this last point is sadly not true for BHS at least. I have one DD who is at BHS - and one in Y4 so hopefully going there soon - but we live about 100m out of catchment - and all the catchment kids take priority over my little one (assuming she passes). Wish it wasn't that way - but it is!!

[jabba7]

In my opinion there is a reason most tests/exams in life have a pass rate of 50%. The reason is to allow fairness. If I understand the current sitting correctly a child born in September needed to get 77 out of 80 questions correct to pass, if they got 76 they would miss out.

A fair testing system would not require almost 100% pass rate as this does not allow for any error or stress or nerves on the day.

In my opinion better to set a harder paper and have a lower pass rate than what seems to have happened this year.

[anotherdad]

In my opinion better to set a harder paper and have a lower pass rate than what seems to have happened this year.

I think the problem is that Bucks don't know if a test is harder or easier than earlier papers until after the papers are sat. Who is equipped to say which questions and in which combination a sample group will find easier or harder?

[anotherdad]

.....there is a reason most tests/exams in life have a pass rate of 50%.

Is this true? Which tests in life have a pass rate of 50% because I can't think of any?

[Sally-Anne]

Sorry to contradict (not usually necessary as SA is one of 'the experts' in my eyes) - but this last point is sadly not true for BHS at least. I have one DD who is at BHS - and one in Y4 so hopefully going there soon - but we live about 100m out of catchment - and all the catchment kids take priority over my little one (assuming she passes). Wish it wasn't that way - but it is!!

Sorry, booklady - using shorthand when I shouldn't. What I meant is that siblings in catchment take priority over other catchment children. Unfortunately, as you point out, siblings not in catchment come after all catchment children have been allocated places.

[Marylou]

What I meant is that siblings in catchment take priority over other catchment children. Unfortunately, as you point out, siblings not in catchment come after all catchment children have been allocated places.

While this may the case for many schools, the oversubscription policies of the Aylesbury schools do not specify that the siblings have to live in catchment. Out out of curiosity I checked the policies for the schools in North Bucks and was surprised by what I found for AHS (sections 3 and 8 ): http://www.ahsonline.co.uk/Mainfolder/A ... r-2013.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And even more for AGS (sections 3 and 9): http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/assets/conten ... ns_AGS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also SHF http://www.sirhenryfloyd.bucks.sch.uk/n ... toryid=111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RLS in Buckingham still prioritizes catchment over OOC siblings.

I wonder if the wording for the Aylesbury schools is an oversight or deliberate? It seems strange to prioritize OOC siblings over in-catchment non-siblings. I can see some problems in store there...

[Sally-Anne]

While this may the case for many schools, the oversubscription policies of the Aylesbury schools do not specify that the siblings have to live in catchment.

You are quite right, Marylou - I had forgotten about that quirk. I guess they justify it on the grounds that families should be kept together? I quite like the rule, although I can also see trouble when siblings living 20 miles outside catchment are admitted ahead of a child living perhaps 10 miles away but in catchment. Hopefully it won't arise!

[anotherdad]

There's another quirk to AGS's oversubscription policy: Siblings of boys who have attended Aylesbury Grammar School previously. This takes precedence over exceptional medical or social needs, boys living in the catchment area and then the straight line distance.

I can see the sense in the "on-roll sibling" rule. I'm not sure I like the connotations of the "alumnus sibling" rule. I can't think of any justification for it? What next? I'm an AGS alumnus....should that give my son priority over other applicants if the school is oversubscribed?

Edited to say: Sorry Marylou - I see that this is what you were referring to a couple of posts ago.....

[Marylou]

Edited to say: Sorry Marylou - I see that this is what you were referring to a couple of posts ago.....

No problem, I did notice that quirk but didn't mention it...waiting for someone else to pick it up! (Are you all paying attention? )

SFH also has the same policy regarding alumni. It does seem strange, especially as a few years ago we had to go to appeal (in the pre-academy days) as our younger daughter was refused admission to a Bucks GS under the sibling policy because her sister was about to enter the sixth form and didn't count for priority purposes. This is still official BCC policy for non-academy schools.

However, I think the "former pupil" rule only applies to older siblings not parents!