Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:02 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:06 pm
Posts: 123
I've just got some information from KCC about the number of children with July/August and September/October birthdays from Kent primary schools who both took the Kent test and passed it in the last 3 years.

I enquired about it as the lack of age differentiation in the new test was bothering me, and I wanted to see if my anecdotal experience of children with autumn birthdays vs those with summer birthdays was borne out by data. (I know lots of middle ability children with autumn birthdays who have passed but no summer ones - the summer ones that pass I know of are all higher ability/top table).

Age standardisation only looks at part of the picture ie those that actually take the test. I was interested therefore to see how many actually took the test - summer vs autumn birthdays, as well as those that passed.
The disparity seems quite striking to me, I'd be interested to hear others views on it.

No. who sat Test
1. 2014
2. 2015
3. 2016
No. assessed suitable for grammar
4. 2014
5. 2015
6. 2016


September birthday
1. 854
2. 929
3. 932
4. 368
5. 392
6. 415
October birthday
1. 852
2. 925
3. 927
4. 353
5. 415
6. 374
July birthday
1. 759
2. 846
3. 772
4. 320
5. 327
6. 341
August birthday
1. 756
2. 775
3. 826
4. 303
5. 315
6. 330


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:24 pm
Posts: 629
Location: Petts Wood, Bromley, Kent
So I also heard from DDs friends who were winter borns and didn't pass that the standardisation seemed to strike winter borns harder. There will always be reason, real or otherwise. I have a Feb born so she is neither early nor late in this.
Of those summer borns who sat there is no major difference in the percentage passed. Ultimately it is the parent's choice whether to sit their child or not. Perhaps these figures will encourage summer borns to sit the test knowing that they have an equal chance as their winter born counterparts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
Interesting to have this data, but what is the striking disparity the op has noticed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:24 pm
Posts: 629
Location: Petts Wood, Bromley, Kent
mystery wrote:
Interesting to have this data, but what is the striking disparity the op has noticed?

fewer summer borns sit the test in the first place. Eg Sept 16 places test there were 925 Sept sitters and 772 July sitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:06 pm
Posts: 123
Indeed I am specifically looking at the number that sit the test. Presumably mainly those that think they are in with a chance. The difference becomes more striking when you add Sep/Oct together and July/Aug together.

I have a winter born DS and I wouldn't say the Kent test was unfair to him in any way, age wise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8228
Ah ok, yes there seem from that data always to be fewer July/august sitters compared with September/October sitters. are the birthdays definitely evenly distributed? I thought a lot of families round here planned their reproduction in order to have children who were old rather than young for the year?!!! And aren't more children conceived in the long, dark, cold days?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:30 am
Posts: 2248
Lol! As if that kid of planning can ever be relied on!! Never occurred to me, that if I'd hung onto my boys for just two weeks longer, they'd have been in the next year and oldest. Could have put off that c-section too!
Anyway, wish they were old for year rather than young, but yes, I'd been warned that less summer borns are put in for the test and I do think that, as was the case with mine, the fact of being summer born does have an impact on how they sit with the year and they do need to be that bit brighter (cf other summer borns, not autumn borns) to be 'ready' for it at almost a year younger than September counterparts.
ANd I understand the number of late summer borns is also lower in GS - whether that is borne out in the porportion who take the 11+ and qualify, or whether its that less qualify, I couldn't say. Mine both qualified, but I still feel they feel the disadvantages of being young for year in different ways even if not academically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:06 pm
Posts: 123
Yes I think what concerns me is the fairness of the system. If middle ability autumn borns have an advantage over middle ability summer borns, which does seem to be the case. The problem is high ability summer borns are often held up as a great example of how well the system works. Which isn't comparing like for like.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:30 am
Posts: 2248
SOmeone was saying, but I can't explain the maths, that each monthly cohort of children is only compared with their equivalents. So, for example, the standardisation for July/Aug born children means that the score reflects where they sit within that group as opposed to being compared with a September born. Do you see what I mean? SO a middle year born would still in effect ony be compared with those within thier couple of month cohort too. Age standardsiation not a case of just slipping a few extra marks to the youngers, but more a statistical way to ensure like is compared with like. SO in theory no one should be disadvantaged.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 4597
Location: Essex
Yamin151 wrote:
SOmeone was saying, but I can't explain the maths, that each monthly cohort of children is only compared with their equivalents. So, for example, the standardisation for July/Aug born children means that the score reflects where they sit within that group as opposed to being compared with a September born. Do you see what I mean? SO a middle year born would still in effect ony be compared with those within thier couple of month cohort too. Age standardsiation not a case of just slipping a few extra marks to the youngers, but more a statistical way to ensure like is compared with like. SO in theory no one should be disadvantaged.


You are correct. When you see 'marks added for young age' type reports, this is just showing what the effect was for that exam. It is usually that way round, but if the sub-cohort within a certain birth month has a higher average raw score than an older group, then they will need a higher raw score to achieve the same standardised score rather than the 'expected' lower one.

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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