11+ for September 2008

[c'est la vie]

C'est la vie - I don't understand your post.
What do you mean by, "the ethics involved in testing before preference"?

Why is knowing the results before submitting the CAF, "anathema to natural justice"?

Sorry, I'm probably being dim, but I just don't understand what you're getting at. Surely it's got to be fairer for parents to know if their children have passed the 11+ before making school choices (not creating false expectations etc).

First, I would seek a change in the allocation process in relation to the disregard of ineligible schools. If, having been told their child is not suitable for grammar school, parents persist in naming a grammar school on their preferences, they should be allocated accordingly; the current practise of treating their lower preference non-grammar school as their first preference (to the disadvantage of other parents) should cease.

The main issue is the unfair advantage given to those passing the 11+ who will be assured of a place at a grammar school whereas all others will not have any certainty of any of their preferences. This is flying in the face of natural jusice and fairness with, in effect, two parallel admissions systems.

Para 3.20 of the 2003 Admissions Code states "...in those areas where grammar schools exist, parents should be asked to express school preferences before they know the outcome of selective tests. Adjudicators have consistently held that to delay the expression of preferences until parents interested in grammar schools know whether their children do or do not meet selective schools' entry standards is unfair to other parents who want a place only at a non-selective school or schools. In deciding on their co-ordinated scheme, LA's in areas with grammar schools should consider the interests of all groups of parents."

This extract, which was based on comments made by Sir Peter Newsam, the then Chief Adjudicator, are as applicable today as five years ago and cannot be dismissed.

Looking at the proposed scheme for parents who aspire to have their child educated in an academically selective system: LA officers are adamant that, if the Kent scheme is implemented, primary heads should not advise parents who know their children have failed the test to put a grammar school on their list of preferences. Many will consider that this instruction is wrong. A parent may wish to appeal that the test result was wrong (if the child's papers were not submitted for H/T assessment) or unfair (the assessment was not carried out in a fair and consistent manner). If they have not put down a grammar school, they may find themselves in the invidious, even absurd, position of appealing against the refusal of a place they have not applied for.

It may be that a mechanism can be found to overcome this difficulty, but, if so, such parents would feel at a disavantage before the appeals panel when compared to those parents who had put the school on their list of preferences.

This scheme does not bring clarity or transparency to the process but adds layers of complexity to the existing system.

Nor does it reduce the likelihood of appeals. A significant number of 11+ passers have had to lodge appeals this year as they have been allocated grammar schools many miles from their homes. This scheme does nothing to stop the increasing number of grammar schools that are 'top-slicing' from the rank order of 11+ passers, and following the abolition of First Preference First, more parents are facing the prospect of their children making long journeys away from their first preference grammar schools to distant schools. This is environmentally and educationally unsustainable.

In essence, the scheme defeats the underlying aim of the Code of Practice to make secondary admissions simpler and fairer in favour of a doctrinaire adherence to one piece of guidance, and Kent should be urged to think again.

Sorry for the long rant, but it angers me to see all parents and particularly their children facing increasing stress at what is an extremely stressful time regardless.

[Janedingdong]

So thats it then the date is definitely September.

My daughter is going to be 11 on the 18th September so thats a nice birthday present.

As she will be one of the older children taking the test does this mean she has a disadvantage over the younger ones in her year?

[One Down]

hi Jane,

Sympathy to your daughter - my daughter's friend was in the same situation last year! Suppose somebody has to be the unlucky one!

Wrt disadvantage, I think the extra marks (max 5% if born 31st Aug according to KCC) are balanced out by the greater maturity of the Sept-born children.
Also, in the standardisation process, your daughter will only be compared with those born in the same month and (I believe - please correct if anyone has more info) the top however many percent taken from each birth month.

It's stressful at either end of the age scale - daughter no. 2 is stiil only nine and will be just ten by September! Time for a rename to 10+?? DD1 was a middly-one, which seemed easier.

[Janedingdong]

Sorry to appear thick (it won't be the first time or the last methinks) but what does "Standardisation Process" mean

[reddebs]

Standardisation means taking the score your child actually receives (known as raw score) making adjustments for age of child (young child gets points added, older child deducted complicated formula that I do not know) so that a standard age is reached in the theory that all children are now equal.
After that the scores are grouped into categories of achievement and marked to a maximum of 140 for the tip acheiving downwards.From that the "pass mark" is then set.
Hope this helps!
red_debs

[One Down]

I think most of us arrived here knowing very little but searching for the answer to an urgent question. Luckily, there are plenty of kind people here willing to share their knowledge and experiences.

My urgent question was also about standardisation, as my elder daughter's teacher had told me after a practice test that, being Jan-born and getting only two questions wrong, she couldn't score higher than 126.
This seemed wrong to me - would three questions wrong (at 7marks per question)mean a fail? How could older children possibly pass at all? Info on here proved that this standardisation was completely incorrect, and 140 is nowhere near 100% of questions right - this was confirmed in the actual test, where my daughter ran out of time in VR (as many did that year) and left out the last 10 questions, but still scored 140.

This link to the NFER website gives a basic overview of how they standardise, but the actual calculations still seem to be secret. The average mark is 100 and I believe the marks for each month of age are fitted to this curve and the pass mark adjusted to allow the correct number of children overall (same amount from each month) to obtain places.
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/as ... sation.cfm

This is another interesting link about the effect of birth month on academic success, but it's a bit depressing for us mums of summer-borns. Destined from birth to try to catch up
http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/born_matters_summary.pdf

Having as much info as possible makes us feel more in control, but in the end we are stuck with this system so we have to accept it and go forward.

Another point for discussion: elder daughter is in top set at GS and almost the youngest with Jan b/day. Maybe there is something in that doc afterall....or it could just be a coincidence this year. Could be a good project for somebody....

[dadofkent]

The teacher is talking an absolute load of rubbish. In broad terms a score of 140 is the top few per cent (about 4 per cent) of the cohort. A score of 120 indicates about the top 25 per cent of the cohort. It has been reported that in 11plus exams in Kent a score of 140 is achievable with a 75% mark in the exam, although the precise figures will vary from year to year. That would imply for most papers getting 10 or more questions wrong.

[tonbridgemum]

Very interesting links - thank you! My question about age standardisation is, is each paper individually standardised (Maths/NVR/VR) or is it all added up first then age standardised at the end?
Also, how many points are we talking? My son is a June birthday. He has just taken a Maths Practice NFER at school and scored 117 but i assume this has already been standardised. If so, how many points had been added to his original score? Many thanks if anyone knows!

[Guest55]

I think the problem in Kent is that there is not one qualfying score as in Buckinghamshire - many of the issues highlighted would disappear. Also appeals are heard BEFORE allocation so again it is fairer to all children.

[perplexed]

Tonbridge Mum
I think you can only ask the school a bit more about the maths practice NFER paper in which your son scored 117, how this score was arrived at, and where it places him relative to the population as a whole.

I suspect if your son attends a Kent state primary that this was some kind of CAT and they should be able to tell you what percentage of the population it places your son in (after age standardisation).

Are you looking just to pass the Kent 11+, or to get a really high 11+ score for Skinners or Judd? If the former, it will be reassuring to see if it places your son approximately in the top 25% of the population for maths.

I don't think the age standardisation is quite as simple as adding on or knocking off a few marks, but it does have a similar effect!!