Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:17 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 508
Is there any statistically competent person on here (or known) who could do a proper comparison between the CATs scores shown here on page 15-16
http://www.testingforschools.com/help/CAT3-guidance.pdf

and the 11+ curve from here

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/2651966 ... y-test.pdf

As we had no end of Y5 SAT scores (independent school) I think the review body have inappropriately compared CAT scores directly with the 11+ score. I am pretty sure this interpreted use of cats instead of sats is the issue we have here.

Can any stats whizz-brains help me? Nice little challenge for you!! :) :lol: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11956
I teach Stats A level - what are you wanting to compare? I'm unsure what you are asking ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 508
Guest55 wrote:
I teach Stats A level - what are you wanting to compare? I'm unsure what you are asking ....


To be honest I am not absolutely sure!!

My dd's CATs scores were 117 (quant), 119 verbal), 131 (NVR) and 122 (mean). She had no end of Y5 SAT scores (independent school) but predicted Y6 Reading 5c/6c, Maths 5a, Writing 5c.
They did not doubt she could get level 5's, but said academic results in school consistent with exam score. Unsuccessful review.

It seems to us they are looking for much higher CAT scores - but on what basis? How do these %iles compare to the 11+ - which is supposed to select the top 30% in the county? The link to the CATS booklet shows these CAT scores are top15% or so at their lowest!!

I've gotta go out now - and now sure if what I am saying makes sense? Does it?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11956
The problem is that CATS are standardised against a national cohort.

The Bucks test is standardised against the children that sit it - ie a more able group of children. The lowest ability don't take it and able children 'with a chance of qualifying' from partner schools do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 508
Guest55 wrote:
The problem is that CATS are standardised against a national cohort.

The Bucks test is standardised against the children that sit it - ie a more able group of children. The lowest ability don't take it and able children 'with a chance of qualifying' from partner schools do.



So is there any logical way at all to prove / throw doubt on these likely comparisons? Why should kids be expected to be in top 4-5% of country standardised CATs to be good enough for top 30% in Bucks - that just seems illogical and wrong - and means kids who have CATs but not SATs seem to get skewed against.
Or am I looking at it wrong?!? :roll: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 3579
Tbh, the sats are given very low significance according to the LA rep and head teachers from last year's appeal panels, I suspect cats are compared with local statistics of those in grammar school, or maybe even against those that have also entered the review process at the same time. Our state primary school does place great significance to the correlation of cats scores above 125 and 11+ success, with a desired >130 in vr. They seem to be fairly accurate in their predictions.
Unfortunately the bar for success does seem to be set incredibly high in recent years, with upper schools receiving many children who have high level 5 or even level 6 sats and cats above 120.
Whether this is reflected in the natural ability of those who have accessed the grammars is another debate entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 508
southbucks3 wrote:
Tbh, the sats are given very low significance according to the LA rep and head teachers from last year's appeal panels, I suspect cats are compared with local statistics of those in grammar school, or maybe even against those that have also entered the review process at the same time. Our state primary school does place great significance to the correlation of cats scores above 125 and 11+ success, with a desired >130 in vr. They seem to be fairly accurate in their predictions.
Unfortunately the bar for success does seem to be set incredibly high in recent years, with upper schools receiving many children who have high level 5 or even level 6 sats and cats above 120.
Whether this is reflected in the natural ability of those who have accessed the grammars is another debate entirely.


What proportion of schools do CATs though? Seems like a lot of those who got through on review this time didn't have anything other that Y5 SATs, predicted Y6 SATs, and the HT report. How can that be objectively assessed against CAT scores? And why would they look for >130 when this is top 2-3% of the population! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 3579
"They" have just realised over the years that those figures represent the highest likelihood of 11+ success in my sons school,only one of my boys achieved >130 in vr, he sat the old style test and did get a v high score, the one who didn't pass got 118 in be 125 over all, the youngest got 119, 128 over all, his cats scores pretty much replicated his 11+ scores.

In order of importance the LA rep and gs head teacher rated as such:
Closeness to 121 on test
Cat scores or other independent nationally recognised intelligence tests.
Level 5 sats.

Head teacher predictions are only good if they assessed a near correct number of passes at the predicted rate, e.g. 5/7 at 2:1
As for the ht speel, this can be subjective, one panel dismissed it as "why should we take their word for his ability"

When asked by a parent, what happens about children with no cats, he suggested some parents paid for independent educational psych reports, the reply to this was the obvious barrier....the prohibitive expense of producing such a report.

Bottom line is, evidence of very high ability throughout ks 2. And the ks 1 level 3 seems to be the ticket if there is no extenuating. Particularly evidence that shows high ability in the weakest area of the test.
Son number two had a pretty even spread of near miss on the test, which thankfully bolstered our version of events regarding mitigating circumstances.

Good luck, sorry it is very stressy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 508
I guess my point is how can it possibly be FCO when they have different data from different schools, some have no other data than SATs!

Anyway - points I shall be asking questions on ..... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:19 pm
Posts: 245
Book lady, I'm not sure if it helps but we didn't have any cat scores or extenuating circumstances other than a very late Aug child and we were successful at review. I'm not sure if this year cats have been as important as previous years. Dollyx


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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