Pass marks over the years?

[Chocolatey Mum]

Using the actual scores over several years may not be a good idea as I looked back and my son and daughter had the exact same score for maths 29/50 but the score given was:-
test taken sept 2008 feb born score 124
Compared to test taken sept 2011 oct born score 126

So as I understand it standardisation should have made my oct born score LOWER not higher.
Therefore comparing like for like over different years is not so reliable.

I completely see why you want to do this as I have done similar things myself making comparisons between children and all the stats I could get my hands on. We do these things when obsessing about the 11+.

At the end of the day I think the scores are worked out by some kind of unseen force with a special formulae that is not of this world.

[tigger2]

We need someone like Committed to come along and explain but I suppose that it just means that a bit of re-tweaking is done to ensure that they get the top 21% of the cohort. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way but the only reason I can think of is that this is a mechanism to ensure that there are more fails . Kcc would probably argue that there has to be a reasonable standard of performance to be deemed grammar suitable though

[twellsmum]

It was definitely 114 in September 2008 - I think it was slightly lower than "usual" as it was the first year it was taken in September (and so four or so months earlier than most parents of that age group were expecting it to be!).

Would be really interested to see if anyone has got the 2011 required raw scores like someone did for 2010. I have my son (third child) sitting 11+ in September - the two oldest are girls though and a bit more predictable, I shall definitely be grey-haired by October 2012 - LOL!