Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 34
I believe that the data from Bushey Meads clearly shows how the marks have risen this year. Band A relates to the 25% of the children who took the test and got the highest scores, band B is the next 25% and so on (for a better explanation please refer to their website)

Ability Band/Year Band A Band B Band C Band D
2012 Score 276-217 216-197 196-178 177-138

2013 Score 277-218 217-200 199-179 178-139

2014 Score 281-223 222-202 201-181 180-69

So the Consortium organisers would have known that the marks were higher this year. I believe that it was wrong for the applicants to be told their mark, which was then used to decide what schools to apply to, without also telling them that the marks had increased. It gave a lot of applicants the false belief that they would be offered a place in the school of their choice. E.g. if you had scored 248 and lived in the inner catchment area for the Watford Schools you would have assumed that there would be an offer, based on the lowest mark offered in previous years (around 242). I know that the information from the schools is only an indication, but being given the data in isolation has proved misleading. Does anyone else agree?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:08 pm
Posts: 105
I am not sure I agree or not. I am surprised by the upshift of the scores across the consortium.

I am sure that this cohort were the best prepared.

What I am finding mysterious is this - I have asked for the raw scores for my DC and have been told that the consortium have now made it a policy not to release them. I would like to compare them to older DC (fairly similar score) for my own amusement (I think this is may be possible under a Freedom of Information request to the school).

BTW the banding for Bushey Meads is for applicants to the school - not across the whole cohort who sat the test.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 1326
Location: Watford, Herts
HenryVIII wrote:
What I am finding mysterious is this - I have asked for the raw scores for my DC and have been told that the consortium have now made it a policy not to release them. I would like to compare them to older DC (fairly similar score) for my own amusement (I think this is may be possible under a Freedom of Information request to the school).

Freedom of Information excludes personal information. This would be a subject access request (on behalf of your child) under the Data Protection Act.

HenryVIII wrote:
BTW the banding for Bushey Meads is for applicants to the school - not across the whole cohort who sat the test.

Their published arrangements (section 4) say it's "the population taking the tests".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:10 pm
Posts: 227
Schools now have a legal obligation to give out scores before application process so schools have no say in this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 239
i'm not sure they have to give the actual score, as I dont think DAO do, they give a ranking. Maybe this would be more helpful in future years as it makes no difference as to whether an easier or harder paper, or if more children apply than expected, you just know where you are on the list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 6691
Location: Herts
This is incorrect. DAO give out every piece of information that you could possibly get. They tell you your score for all three papers, they tell you your total score, they tell you your rank and they tell you where you are on the waiting list and the rank of the last person to get in.

QE tell you your score but not your rank as the Watfords do which is how lots of people got caught this year as they did not know their score in context of everyone else. 225 seems like a great score if you don't know about all the boys who have scores in the 230's upwards.

HBS tell you only that you are in the top 250 and have not yet told those who did not get in if they are first or in the hundreds on the waiting list. So yes you were supposed to get your score but HBS has ignored that and is now planning to have a second round exam in Jan, 12 weeks AFTER the CAF is due in.

All Y5's should now assume that the distance to get into a school will go down and the mark will go up every year. So be prepared to work harder and do better. DG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 239
i stand corrected, i had thought that you only got the scores if you requested them. i have always said that the score is irrelevant as it depends on how everyone else has done, not how you did. I wonder if some people will appeal this year on the basis that they got none of their 4 choices because they had used the information given to them and that they believed they had a strong chance of getting into 1 of those 4 so did not need to pick a 'back up' school that did not require entrance via exam or where they qualified for a distance place?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:08 pm
Posts: 105
I was interested in the RAW score ie. maths score out of 50 and VR out of 100.

With the uplift of scores, one of the interesting consequences is several families I know of who have gone for the Bushey Academy instead of Bushey Meads (and some who didn't even bother to sit the consortium test). I do know families who got their 2nd or 3rd choices of the selectives. The only NRAs I heard about were families who went for faith schools (specifically Jewish secondaries) and as there are only 3 in the vicinity, they must be MASSIVELY oversubscribed.

Not everyone uses all their ranked schools - we didn't need to, but unless you have a guaranteed sibling place (not x), future applicants would be advised to use all 4. Look at all schools with an open mind. I am still reeling at the comment a former acquaintance said to me that they didn't go and look at "those" schools (the ones we looked at and ultimately sent our DCs to!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 239
11% of children in my ds junior school did not get a ranked school. IN some watford schools it is even higher. Most believed that they had a strong chance of getting a ranked school putting 4 partially selective schools down. If say ( and this is a completely hypothetical child) their DS got 223 in the test and they lived within 300m of WGSB. They should have a reasonable expectation of meeting admission criteria for WGSB ( distance) Rickmansworth ( test), Queens ( test) and then pot luck with the banding on bushey meads. In past years they would have met the criteria for 3/4 schools and possible the 4th with Bushey meads, yet this year their only possibility would be Bushey. I do not feel that these would have been foolhardy choices to make as they have not chosen schools far beyond their reach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:50 pm
Posts: 34
In some areas of Hertfordshire, such as Aldenham Parish, I think as few as 75% were given one of their ranked schools, and at my son's school 18% were given a non ranked school. Also, you cannot always rely on the (cross) sibling rule as 5 boys were not offered a place at Watford. So people should always use all four choices rather than relying on sibling/distance/high marks in the consortium, but be aware that their choices might be ignored!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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