I am feeling very nervous, someone told me that the older children are actually at loss in the exams and around 7 marks for deducted from the raw score
. DS is Autumn born, how many marks is he likely to loose. Please guide me anyone with an older child success story?
I won't be so rude as to say, here we go again
, but I'm assuming that you didn't employ the 'search' function on this site before posting? If you had, you would have been able to put your own mind at rest, because there are plenty of posts explaining that age standardisation means comparing children of similar 'fine' age group within the cohort (usually birth month) with each other. Not taking marks away from older children. Not adding marks to the scores of younger children. It's a way of trying to ensure a fair representation of all ages
The average raw score each sub-group will be the standardised score of 100 for that group. For each sub-group, a score of above 115 will normally mean having done better than about 84% of that group (it doesn't mean that you need to get 84% in the exam); in a normal distribution, 68% of candidates will fall in the range 85 - 115. The sub-groups are then 'reassembled', with the effect that all standardised scores of, say, 121 are now regarded as equal, even though there may be as many different underlying raw scores as there are sub-groups.
The 'natural' (and assumed) pattern is for younger groups to get lower raw scores and therefore their '100' will reflect a lower underlying paw score than that of the older sub-groups. However, if there is a particularly bright bunch of e.g.May-born children in the cohort, their average raw score may actually be higher than that of e.g.the December-borns.
I do hope that this helps to allay your fears