11 Plus Exams Forum

Or do we reckon we can stay in denial until after half term?

24 days to go, so if you have any left-over advent calendars, you could use one of those...

I quite liked your comment 3b1g

What - and risk a chocolate every day for a month - and then a crashing nothing on the 2nd of March???

So who are betting folk here:

Will this year's cutoffs be consistent with last years?

Revert to historic averages?

Or go up yet further?

My prediction is that the 2015 cut-offs will be somewhere between 2013 levels and 2014 levels. Anecdotally, the current Y7 has an unusual number of gifted mathematicians. This conjecture is based on chatting with Y6 teachers at more than one WD postcode school and noticing the attendance demographic at Maths g&t workshops in the L.B. of Harrow.

The current Y6 in the schools that I know of includes a few very high-scoring children (270 and above) but my feeling is that there are not as many of them as last year. I could be wrong though, as I know nothing about the applicants from independent schools. The current Y8 at WBGS is made up of boys from 80 different primary schools, so it's difficult to extrapolate from a small sample.

My view is that the scores can't go much higher without opening up the SW Consortium to challenge on whether the test is fit-for-purpose to discriminate at that level.

It is a challenge to design a test that can discriminate the bottom quartile (for Bushey Meads band D) - and also accurately identify the top 3% or performers.

The scores are now so high - and based on such short & relatively easy papers - that I think what divides successful candidates (e.g. Scores 260-282 WBGS outer catchment 2014) and near-miss candidates (say score 245-259) is as much age-standardisation and luck as preparation and aptitude.

I don't think that the age standardisation makes much difference, if the tests are easy and the scores are high, the difference between children and different months will be less significant.
From the little I have heard discussed there has been a broad range of scores which in theory would suggest that the tests are working (but who knows as it is such small number). So quite a few round the 200 which makes sense as it is average, a few 240 to 255, and I know of only one over 270 in our school.
Some bright kids with the lower scores, which I think proves that the right prep is key, and that it is accuracy that pays off in the end, so the key is being taught how not to make silly mistakes.

That's fine if the scores broadly mean-revert (i.e. 220+ means hopeful for Queens; 230+ means hopeful for Ricky, 240+ hopeful for inner grammar and 250+ means hopeful for outer grammar).

But if the scores go up again - say to 265 lowest offer Watford Boys outer catchment - I think an age 'penalty' of up to 5 standardised points becomes significant - and the raw scores will be near or at 100%. Would it be acceptable if more than 18 boys (say) got 100% maths and dropped one mark on VR, and the choice between them was made purely on age standardisation?

At a certain point it would be more honest to set a 'maximum possible cutoff' - and then select within that by lottery.