Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:24 am
Posts: 96
From the results I know (admittedly a very small sample of the thousands taking the test this year), I am wondering whether bringing the test date forward has benefited girls versus boys. In my son's class of 25 kids taking the test there are at least 3 girls with maximum marks (420), which is remarkable. There are a good number of clever boys in the class but the scores I have heard from them are all below maximum by 1 to 15 points. I'm wondering whether there has been a benefit to the girls from having the test earlier, given that girls generally mature at an earlier age. It may be that the "cut off" scores for the super-selective boys school will be slightly lower this year as a consequence, and those for the s-s girls schools slightly higher.

This is just speculation, although it does possibly explain the strange remark from the Judd head that he expected the "cut off" mark for Judd to be lower this year than last year's 411. This doesn't make sense unless the boys underperform relative to the girls (since simply having the test earlier will not change the profile of the standardised marks).

Anyone noticed a similar (or contradictory) effect?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:05 pm
Posts: 515
Certainly raises an issue that has previously perplexed me. I think it is generally accepted that at age 11 girls are academically ahead of boys. Therefore if the 11 plus takes off the top 25% say, then there should be far more girls passing than boys (even before the test was brought forward). However, this does not seem to be reflected in available GS places. In my bit of Kent there are as many, if not more, boys places than girls places. Is there a bit of covert gender standardisation?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:55 pm
Posts: 851
Location: Bexley
DadofKent - I wondered the same thing. In Bexley we have 2 single sex grammars (1 boy/1 girl) and 2 mixed. So, unless the mixed have more girls than boys (which I don't believe to be the case), surely there must be some "adjustment". I firmly believe that girls are more academically advanced and mature at 11 (or should we say 10) than boys. I know a few high-achieving, extremely intelligent adults who failed the 11+ - all men.

I would love to get some details from my LEA such as raw data for boys and girls; percentage of passes from the independent sector, and percentage of passes from out-of-borough applicants. Just nosiness of course! Do you think I stand any chance of getting it under FoI?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:54 pm
Posts: 205
I am wondering whether girls are generally better at non verbal as it is a visual ability, so this years easier maths and harder nv would have been better for them. I am sorry if this sounds terribly sexist, I have 2 girls too and they are good at nv.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:42 pm
Posts: 21
Location: Tunbridge Wells
I suspect you are right shuff. Girls mature earlier and tend to be better at VR maybe NVR, boys tend to be better at maths. Girls probably also respond better to tutoring too!

If so hard NVR and easy maths would mean that the marks needed for girls should be higher this year (or one needs to be nearer the school) and vice versa for boys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 48
Location: Aylesford
When my 18 year old son took his Kent 11+, it was the first year they changed the system and introduced NVR. We were told by the Headteacher at the time that it had been changed to be more boy-friendly, as the number of boys passing at the time was considerably less than girls. The year he took it, 8 boys passed and only 3 girls, and, in the case of my daughter's current school, many more boys both took and passed the tests this year. I think, personally, that it is too Maths based now, even the VR has codes, which suit a Mathematical brain. My son could always see the NVR answers straight away, whereas my daughter had to be systematically taught. Both did well, and achieved high scores.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:01 pm
Posts: 47
It is my understanding that boys and girls scores are standardised separately therefore if a boy and girl born in the same month both scored, say, 128 this could equate to different raw scores


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:49 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Kent
tired_dad_2008 wrote:
From the results I know (admittedly a very small sample of the thousands taking the test this year), I am wondering whether bringing the test date forward has benefited girls versus boys. In my son's class of 25 kids taking the test there are at least 3 girls with maximum marks (420), which is remarkable. There are a good number of clever boys in the class but the scores I have heard from them are all below maximum by 1 to 15 points. I'm wondering whether there has been a benefit to the girls from having the test earlier, given that girls generally mature at an earlier age. It may be that the "cut off" scores for the super-selective boys school will be slightly lower this year as a consequence, and those for the s-s girls schools slightly higher.

This is just speculation, although it does possibly explain the strange remark from the Judd head that he expected the "cut off" mark for Judd to be lower this year than last year's 411. This doesn't make sense unless the boys underperform relative to the girls (since simply having the test earlier will not change the profile of the standardised marks).

Anyone noticed a similar (or contradictory) effect?


I really don't mean to burst your thought bubble, but truth is, it is all relative. It wouldn't matter which month or year the test was taken at the eleven plus stage as the maturity levels for such a small period of time, whichever, sex would equate to the same. So such an argument could always raise its head, regardless.

_________________
Thursdays Girl. :)
One World, One People, US!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:24 am
Posts: 96
Don't think I follow your argument. If it is the case that girls are developmentally more advanced than boys at late primary age but that boys catch up at some point, then it MUST be the case that changing the test age could change the extent of the development gap between the genders.

What would be interesting to know (following 2stressed's comment) is whether the genders are standardised separately or not. I've never heard of this being the case - but it would make all the difference to my argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:54 pm
Posts: 205
I would be interested to know too, I'm clutching at straws, but could there be a chance that the highest passes could be girl heavy which would make the boys score line drop lower?!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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