Age differentiation/standardisation - summer birthdays

[Chococat]

4 points in the English was not many questions. Appeal.

Thank you Mystery, I may appeal without telling him. He did get a head teachers review, which was obviously not successful!

[FortyNinePence]

I am now coming back with figures received for all Kent primary school Y6 children, as follows:

In 2015
Sep birthdays 1272
Oct birthdays 1269
Jul birthdays 1341
Aug birthdays 1364

(Relates to 2016 test figures on p1)

I also have figures for totals for 2014 and 2013, which are similar.

It highlights my issues even more. Shocking that, if one looks at Sep/Oct (autumn) combined, and Jul/Aug (summer) combined, that the totals are as follows for 2015 (sit for 2016 entry):

Autumn
Total 2541
Sat test 1859 (73%)
Passed test 789 (or 31% of total autumn population)

Summer
Total 2705
Sat test 1598 (59%)
Passed test 671 ( or 24% of total summer population)

It's shocking the difference in those that sat the test.

[Guest55]

That's not the correct comparison!

You should be comparing the % of those who passed compared to those who sat the test!

Autumn = 789 X 100/1859 = 42.4 % [one dp]

Summer = 671 x 100/1598 = 42.0 % [one dp]

I think that's pretty conclusive that age-standardisation has worked.

[FortyNinePence]

No, I suppose I am more interested in how unfair it is for summer birthdays. Perhaps I have worded the op wrong.

What I am interested in are the massive variations in those that sit the test. Look at how many more summer birthdays there are to start with. And then look at the numbers that pass. Sure, of the ones that take it, it's fair.

What about all those that don't take it as they assume they have no chance? It's massively skewed in favour of autumn birthdays.

[FortyNinePence]

59% vs 73% sitting the test. That needs investigating.

[Guest55]

No-one knows why summer borns did not enter - I'm not sure we can speculate - all we can say is that for those who did sit the test, the process was fair.

[Yamin151]

I suppose I can sympathise with what the OP is saying. I think that the standardisation clearly works, and my two are summer born and obviously that benefited them, quite rightly. We DID question putting them in, as there is no doubt that certainly emotionally, there was a big difference between them and the autumn borns. I think its hard on summers because presumably more of their parents don't enter them, on the grounds that they are not ready, emotionally or academically, and that that is due to the being so young in the year. I can certainly see that, and how much better it would be if there was a kind of cushion, for want of a better word, which meant that anyone born, say, in the summer hols, can enter a year later. But I also wish the same thing for reception entry. In practice of course, its hard to see how they could make that work for the 11+ with years and all, so it does the best it can with what it has. But I can see what the OP is getting at - there will be more summer borns who miss out because they are simply not ready for the exam but would have been if they had been older within that year.

[FortyNinePence]

No-one knows why summer borns did not enter - I'm not sure we can speculate - all we can say is that for those who did sit the test, the process was fair.

I think we should find out why so many summer borns didn't enter. I'm not interested in of those that sat the test the "right" amount passed. It's a red herring. There aren't enough summer born children in Kent grammar schools. It is unfairly skewed in favour of autumn borns.

[ToadMum]

[quote="FortyNinePence"]59% vs 73% sitting the test. That needs investigating.[/quote]

Yes, isn't Kent opt-out? Do teachers actively suggest to the parents of summer-born children that they withdraw them / don't enter them? Or, given that Guest55 has just pointed out that in reality, exactly the same proportion of summer- vs autumn-born children achieve a pass, is it just the school have rumour mill that informs some parents' actions?

We don't have age-standardisation here and the 11+ is opt-in. Our DC attended a pretty low opt-in primary school. In DS1's year, the passes were DS1 - June birthday - and two May-born children. I think it unlikely that all the unsuccessful kids were born even later in the year than them and no older children even entered. Four years later, DD and her friend, both September, we're among those who failed; the passes were a November-born, a late July-born and a box whose birthday I don't know. Two years on again, the passes were DS2 (October), September and April. One of the boys who failed celebrates his birthday on September 2nd, another in August. I've never heard the latter's mum express the opinion that he was hard done by at school due to his placement within the chronology of the school year; both she and 'September mum' took the attitude that their children had a go, but just didn't do well enough on the day.

[yoyo123]

Yes, isn't Kent opt-out?

Kent is opt in.