Which exam typically kept scores down: Maths, VR, NVR ?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Bexley Mum 2
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Bexley
Yoyo - but then wouldn't that make a paper harder in which case actual raw scores would be irrelevant as standardisation would still pick out the more able children?
Re maths content, DS2 did Kent and Bexley tests two years ago and said there was "masses" (he's prone to exaggeration) of algebra. This year, DS3 said there was no algebra. I wonder if this was a blip or if it means that KCC has seen sense and has decided not to try and include subjects that only tutored children will be familiar with?
Re maths content, DS2 did Kent and Bexley tests two years ago and said there was "masses" (he's prone to exaggeration) of algebra. This year, DS3 said there was no algebra. I wonder if this was a blip or if it means that KCC has seen sense and has decided not to try and include subjects that only tutored children will be familiar with?
As far as I can ascertain from DS the content was well within what he had done at school in Yr5. All those extra areas in the published Nfer papers eg algebra, ratios, scales were not included in the tests this year. However DS commented that there had been some tricky questions which were designed to catch you out if you didn't read the questions properly. I think from what he said the questions were unlike the published Nfer papers - more problem solving
-
tired_dad_2008
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:24 am
I went into Maidstone last year to go through my son's 11 plus papers and the Maths didn't contain any algebra or anything beyond the Year 5 syllabus (except perhaps the conversions, although I think my children have done those at school anyway). This is in contrast to previous years, so I suggest that the people who set the papers are taking into account the fact that they are now taken at the start of Year 6, rather than halfway through the year.
That's interesting. It never really occurred to me that people going to check their papers at Maidstone could be a source of information on what is really on the papers, year on year.
It sounds sensible if they really have made a move to cut back the syllabus content on the maths paper, and make it more problem solving. This should result in fewer "surprises" - by this I mean children who are not that able passing the 11+ maths because they have been thoroughly tutored outside school or attend a school which covers the KS2 syllabus and beyond early, and children who are able failing the maths because they have not been tutored or attended a school where the KS2 syllabus as not been well covered by the end of Year 5.
It sounds sensible if they really have made a move to cut back the syllabus content on the maths paper, and make it more problem solving. This should result in fewer "surprises" - by this I mean children who are not that able passing the 11+ maths because they have been thoroughly tutored outside school or attend a school which covers the KS2 syllabus and beyond early, and children who are able failing the maths because they have not been tutored or attended a school where the KS2 syllabus as not been well covered by the end of Year 5.
Twinkle - my DS said very similar to yours. No algebra or topics he hadn't covered at school really.Twinkle wrote:As far as I can ascertain from DS the content was well within what he had done at school in Yr5. All those extra areas in the published Nfer papers eg algebra, ratios, scales were not included in the tests this year. However DS commented that there had been some tricky questions which were designed to catch you out if you didn't read the questions properly. I think from what he said the questions were unlike the published Nfer papers - more problem solving
Ditto. My DD said it was much easier than expected and there were none of the topics she was struggling with ie. ratios, algebra and the more complicated questions about areas and perimeters.
Which means that the paper must have been much fairer to all as has already been mentioned and that one or two silly mistakes could have made a much bigger difference on the marks.
Which means that the paper must have been much fairer to all as has already been mentioned and that one or two silly mistakes could have made a much bigger difference on the marks.
I'm not so sure that a paper that involved more problem-solving and less curriculum content coverage would necessarily be easier for all - although children might view it that way.
In the multiple choice answers, the answers will include the many common errors and guesses that a child might make. A child could therefore think they got the question right when they did not. If they did not see the harder topics (such as algebra, areas of complex shapes etc,) they will think it was an "easier" paper. But it may not have been.
I would have hoped that the NFER would have the skills to put together a paper that covered less "taught knowledge" and tested raw ability, and was appropriate for discrimination across the full ability range of pupils being tested in the September of Year 6 ........ or maybe I have too much faith in the NFER!!
We'll only know when someone finds out what raw marks equated to standardised scores of 120 and 140 as compared with previous years.
In the multiple choice answers, the answers will include the many common errors and guesses that a child might make. A child could therefore think they got the question right when they did not. If they did not see the harder topics (such as algebra, areas of complex shapes etc,) they will think it was an "easier" paper. But it may not have been.
I would have hoped that the NFER would have the skills to put together a paper that covered less "taught knowledge" and tested raw ability, and was appropriate for discrimination across the full ability range of pupils being tested in the September of Year 6 ........ or maybe I have too much faith in the NFER!!
We'll only know when someone finds out what raw marks equated to standardised scores of 120 and 140 as compared with previous years.
