HT Recommendation... subjective?

Consult our experts on 11 Plus appeals or any other type of school appeal

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

Post Reply
11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
1lurker
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 11:19 am

HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by 1lurker »

Hi,

I am just trying to understand my DD recommendation.

She is predicted SATs levels - Reading 6C, Maths 5A, Writing 5B,
Spelling age at almost 11years as 15yrs 3 months,

Cats Scores Average 128 (VR 128, Q 121, NVR 135)

Recommendation 3.1 - Reservation - 'only slight concern re coping with Literacy and for her as she can worry a lot'.

Is this fair, or consistent in your experience, or really harsh!
:?
Etienne
Posts: 8978
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:26 pm

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by Etienne »

HTRs can never be completely objective - as is shown by the lack of consistency between primary schools.

I don't have access to all the information held by the school, but at face value a 3:1 suggests to me a child who gets good results in the curriculum through very conscientious, hard work.

However, the CAT score leads me to think that a 2:1 or even a 1:1 might be appropriate.

I don't think the point about being a worrier is really fair. The recommendation should be for academic ability - how a child might cope in future years shouldn't, in my view, detract from their ability!

We don't know if this is an isolated case, or if the headteacher has been too strict in general. If the latter, then a panel ought to pick this up from the "grid" (a comparison between the school's overall recommendations and the actual outcomes). Parents who go to appeal will normally get to see a copy of the grid.
Etienne
1lurker
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 11:19 am

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by 1lurker »

Thanks Etienne, I guess we will just have to wait and see!
1lurker
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 11:19 am

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by 1lurker »

I went back to the school again, and the Head has re worded her comments to say:

DD is a bright child and has an excellent attitude to learning hence the recommended ‘1’ in this area. A ‘3’ was given for her grammar school suitability as we have a very slight concern in regards to her ability to cope in literacy as she can worry about her writing (5B)..... Blurb about how wonderful she is and finally .... Her current and predicted levels would indicate that her academic attainment is strong in all areas and at a level suitable for a grammar school environment. I do not feel her STTS is a true reflection of her academic ability.

So it was definately worth going back for the 2nd time (first time there was a typo in the levels and no qualification of why she was a 3 not a 2 /1). We cant magic the 3 to a 2 but at least she has highlighted she has the ability.

She did say she has been talking to several local Head Teachers and that the pattern seems consistent with last year. All the 1.1s have passed and 'very' well (these children are L6 across the board the lowest score 136 highest 181) and virtually all the rest have failed and not come very close. No one has 'just' passed or 'just' failed by a few points.) And the school average is well below 100 despite being one of the highest performing primary schools in BCC.

I think BCC should change their advice if your child is not predicted L6 SATs think very carefully if you want to put your child through the trauma of sitting a test... as they are very unlikely to pass!
Booklady
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by Booklady »

1lurker wrote:I went back to the school again, and the Head has re worded her comments to say:

DD is a bright child and has an excellent attitude to learning hence the recommended ‘1’ in this area. A ‘3’ was given for her grammar school suitability as we have a very slight concern in regards to her ability to cope in literacy as she can worry about her writing (5B)..... Blurb about how wonderful she is and finally .... Her current and predicted levels would indicate that her academic attainment is strong in all areas and at a level suitable for a grammar school environment. I do not feel her STTS is a true reflection of her academic ability.

So it was definately worth going back for the 2nd time (first time there was a typo in the levels and no qualification of why she was a 3 not a 2 /1). We cant magic the 3 to a 2 but at least she has highlighted she has the ability.

She did say she has been talking to several local Head Teachers and that the pattern seems consistent with last year. All the 1.1s have passed and 'very' well (these children are L6 across the board the lowest score 136 highest 181) and virtually all the rest have failed and not come very close. No one has 'just' passed or 'just' failed by a few points.) And the school average is well below 100 despite being one of the highest performing primary schools in BCC.

I think BCC should change their advice if your child is not predicted L6 SATs think very carefully if you want to put your child through the trauma of sitting a test... as they are very unlikely to pass!

This sounds like great support now! Wishing you luck!!
Very interesting on the comments about scores - we had a few near misses at ours - my DD being one. I thought the 'average' was supposed to be 110 in Bucks - or have I dreamt that up?!?
Dollydripmat
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:19 pm

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by Dollydripmat »

Very interesting reading 1lurker .
Bumblebeez
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:55 pm

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by Bumblebeez »

I thought the 'average' was supposed to be 110 in Bucks
Average this year in Bucks is 100: in the notes at the bottom of p2 of the results letter it says "the 2015 test mean is 100". Before 2014 the mean was 111.
Guest55
Posts: 16254
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm

Re: HT Recommendation... subjective?

Post by Guest55 »

The mean changed when the test changed to CEM ...
Post Reply