Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:15 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:10 pm
Posts: 12
My son is a September birthday and appears to have been deducted 27 points, does this seem high and can you ever use standardization as a reason for Appeal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 464
Location: South Bucks
A fairly recent study in conjunction with the Financial Times concluded the opposite, ie that the lack of sufficient age standardisation might be the grounds for legal action.

As far as I understand it (at least in our parts) no points are ever deducted, it simply means that each child's performance is compared with other children the same age (born in the same month)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:49 pm
Posts: 36
Standardisation isn't something I agree with, but doesn't mean I am correct in my reasons :lol: In Kent you are indeed compared to DC of the same age so the scores are considered a reflection of comparing each child to their direct (in age) counterparts. The raw scores needed are different depending on age and no, you can't appeal on the basis that if your child had been born in August rather than September they would have passed.... It simply doesn't work like that (much to my personal annoyance).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 464
Location: South Bucks
WillowTheWisp wrote:
you can't appeal on the basis that if your child had been born in August rather than September they would have passed.... It simply doesn't work like that (much to my personal annoyance).


Because, statistics tell us that had you child been born in August rather than September that their raw score would have been even lower and they still would not have qualified.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:30 pm
Posts: 24
Quote:
A fairly recent study in conjunction with the Financial Times concluded the opposite, ie that the lack of sufficient age standardisation might be the grounds for legal action.


Any chance of a link to this study!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 464
Location: South Bucks
Des wrote:
Any chance of a link to this study!


I knew someone would ask. I'll have to look. I made a copy of it because you can only view a few articles on the FT before you have to pay - but that is probably on the other (ancient) computer. I seem to remember that it might have been done in conjunction with the Good Schools Guide.

Upshot was that they looked at the birth month profiles of many Grammar Schools and found that, despite claims of standardisation, intake was still weighted (quite heavily in some cases) in favour of children born early in the academic year. The conclusion was that the standardisation needed to be improved to ensure that schools were indeed selecting the most able children and not just those, who at age 10 or 11 were at the peak age as regards reaping the cumulative benefits of being oldest in the year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:45 pm
Posts: 4606
Hope&Faith wrote:
My son is a September birthday and appears to have been deducted 27 points, does this seem high and can you ever use standardization as a reason for Appeal?


How do you know they have been "deducted" 27 points? What area are you in?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:47 pm
Posts: 464
Location: South Bucks
Go to www.ft.com and search for "Younger pupils fail grammars’ test" by Simon Briscoe and David Turner

If you register I think you can view a few articles for free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:30 pm
Posts: 24
Younger pupils fail grammars' test
By Simon Briscoe and David Turner
Summer-born babies are less likely to win a place at England's coveted grammar schools, research by the Financial Times and Good Schools Guide reveals.
The news will alarm the thousands of middle-class parents with summer children who, hit by the credit crunch, want a school offering pupils a good chance of a place at a top Russell Group university but without the expense of private schools.
The findings add to earlier studies, including last year's report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, showing pupils born in September get better national exam results throughout school than August-born children, on average. The FT/GSG research suggests a possible reason: younger children are less likely to get into high-performing schools.
The most common explanation for why summer children do worse is because they have had fewer months of intellectual development. The research suggests they may enter a vicious circle: they are less likely to go to grammars because they are less developed, and their inability to get into grammars impedes their intellectual development further.
The vast bulk of grammars select more children with autumn than summer birthdays than would be expected given the year's pattern of births. A third show a degree of autumn dominance unlikely to be explained by random statistical effects, FT analysis suggests.
The most extreme example of autumn dominance is Colyton Grammar in Devon. Over the past three years a total of 64 pupils taking A-levels were born in September and October - but only 27 in July and August.
The research measures selection procedures several years ago, when pupils were chosen at 10 or 11. Each organisation contacted was asked about current and past testing procedures. None had recently materially changed.
Some grammars in Essex, including Colchester Royal Grammar - the highestperforming state school in England in the FT's rankings - also have a disproportionately low number of summer-born children.
Parents intent on a particular private school could face the same problem. Some of the most sought after, such as the academically selective James Allen's Girls' School in London, also have a low number of summer children. Marion Gibbs, the headmistress, said she was "unable to research this properly".
The finding may provoke parents to press for change. Many schools adjust entrance test results to allow for age. But the research suggests many do not do this enough for age-blind selection. Some do not do it at all. Elizabeth Ward, chairman of the Consortium of Selective Schools in Essex, said: "As is the case with many other tests of academic ability in this country, including public examinations, the scores achieved in the selection test administered by the Consortium are not adjusted for the age of the candidate."
That grammar schools select fewer summer-born children could make them vulnerable to legal challenge by parents under the national school admissions code. The code says grammars have to apply a "fair and objective means of assessing ability".
Paul Evans, headmaster of Colyton, supplied figures suggesting part of the answer may be self-selection by families, who at his school were more prone to enter autumn-born children for the "11-plus" grammar exams. Mr Evans, who says his school adjusts results for age, described the difference in success rates between autumn and summer applicants as "minimal".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:45 pm
Posts: 4606
Interesting. I don't think Buckinghamshire can be accused of this, I have seen figures posted by someone (?Sally-Anne) showing that the same percentage (more or less) qualify from each month of birth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bigbirdcw 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