re:raw scores and appeals

[Angela12]

Hi Dorothy

Thanks for posting. Not sure if you got an answer from Sally Anne as to whether your son's raw score of 87.5% was considered to be a good result and whether it would be worth mentioning at the appeal. My daughter is a March birthday and got a raw score of 66/80, 83% on both of her papers in the Bucks 11+ and got 119 and 118 in her two papers although she scored the same mark of 66 in each.
Also we were told by County that they did not pass on the information provided to parents, to the appeal panel so we understood that unless we mentioned it at the appeal meeting they would not know the raw score or the analysis of questions. Could SallyAnne or Etienne clarify?
Good luck on your appeal.

[Sally-Anne]

Hi Angela12

This is from the Head's 11+manual - the bold type is mine:

Ensure that parents are aware that information relating to their child’s performance in the tests (including raw scores and test paper analysis where provided) and any request for adjustments to the test material or conditions (made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) will be included by the LA in the selection appeal case.

Hope that helps.

Sally-Anne

[Etienne]

And from page 26 of the 'Transfer to Secondary School' Guide:

on request and
upon payment of the appropriate fee, the Data
Protection Act provides for the release of raw
test scores, test papers to be remarked and
for test paper analysis. ...... Where provided, this information will be
included in the papers submitted to the
independent appeal panel when hearing a
selection appeal on behalf of a non-qualified child.

Not sure if you got an answer from Sally Anne as to whether your son's raw score of 87.5% was considered to be a good result and whether it would be worth mentioning at the appeal.

Please see my previous post.

[flossie]

Hello, I have just received my daughter's raw scores. Her birthday is 30th January. We are out of county.

First test 69/80 and 120
Second test 63/80 and 113

I have also received confirmation from Bucks CC that the first test one was standardised without the second test 1 candidates results who were standardised from last year's results as it was last year's paper (if any of that makes sense?).

They confirm that the second cohort of test 1 was small - this would have been the out of county children. Children who 'opt in' ie out of county, historically achieve higher scores so the first cohort who did test 1 would have been standardised without having these children's scores added in therefore, raising the pass mark.

I wonder if anyone else find this situation unfair, I do, especially as my daughter didn't pass with a score of 69/80!

Is it worth rechecking the standardisation of her test 1 score?

[dorothy11]

Hi
I think there have been some mistakes with the standardization this year. I rang county to ask about my child's standardization and they said that they had no idea, it seemed strange so to bring it up at appeal!

[flossie]

I agree Dorothy. I just had another thought - not only was the first cohort advantaged by the lack of opt in testers being included in their standardisation, but my dd's score was standardized with not only one lot of the opt in testers from last year's exam but then another lot ie this year's was added-in which I feel must have raised the pass mark even more.

I think this is very unfair, but I don't think there's anything I can do about it so off to appeal we go!

[Tree]

Hi all I don't know if this is valuable but being a little sad and nerdy i have done some statistical fitting of the raw score and standardised score for this years tests based on raw results quoted here from and some other people who have let me know. In summary the result shows that

the magic 121 seems to represent 66/80 for youngest cohort and 71-2 for the oldest cohort

the difference between raw vs standardised score is approx 1 mark between the 2 tests with the first test being 1 mark harder

the spread of scores across the 1 year age gap seems to be a consistant 5-6 marks difference across the range of scores ie for example 134 would represent 72-73 for the youngest and 77-78 for the oldest child

I have made some tables so if anyone wants to know roughly what a particular score would equate to as a raw score let me know

There are some weaknesses to this analysis mainly because as obviously no one who has passed has requested raw scores i don't have any data for scores over 120 and so these have been extrapolated also i only have 14 results which is a fiarly small data set and the mathematical model assumes a normal distribution of scores and i have no way of knowing if this is correct

i hope its interesting

good luck all appealers

tree

[Morning Glory]

Tree

Your figures are interesting and I am amazed anyone can make any sense of the standardisation.

Just wondering if you can figure this one out. My DS is Dec born got 104 in test 1 and 106 in test 2. In test one he told me he only got down to the 50's and in test 2 he told me he did get down to the 60's. This sort of make sense cause in the practice papers I worked out he was only completing 70 -75 %. In previous CATs and raw scores I know he normally gets 92 -94 % correct.

Just wondering if it is possible to tell whether these scores are reasonable when only completing 70 - 75% of question paper.

Thanks
MG

[Tree]

hi morning glory the problem with predicting raw scores from standardised scores of 104 or so is that most of the results that i put into the model were around 110-120 so the extrapolation to a standardised score of 104 is likely to be less accurate however my model gives a score or around 53 for 104 and 55 for 106 for dec born child and if he only answered 60 odd questions then this is not far off 90%

[Morning Glory]

Tree

Thanks for taking a look much appreciated.

MG