Go to navigation
It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:31 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:29 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Bucks/Berks
I have a child in year five who has scored 127 VR NFER at school, he is June born.

We have been thro an unsuccessful appeal(118 in 11+) with my son who scored 121 and 131 in these test at school. It seemed at the appeal the panel and LEA rep made a big point that these previous good scores couldn't be taken in to consideration 'as the standardisation is not comparable to Bucks'

As he was Sept born I didn't think he would have gained any extra standardised marks.

Thank you in advance for any help on this.

Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11931
The NFER tests are standardised to national (mean 100, standard deviation 15, I think)

However, the 11+ in Bucks is standardised to mean 110 or 111 and unknown sd - basically the scores are manipulated so that the 'right' number qualify.

This year was a smallish cohort so the qualifying raw score was possiby lower than in some years - does this help???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Quote:
It seemed at the appeal the panel and LEA rep made a big point that these previous good scores couldn't be taken in to consideration

It would be perfectly fair to say that there is no precise correlation with the 11+, but it would not be fair to say these alternative scores cannot be considered at all at an appeal.

In the same way, predicted level 5s for SATs are not the same sort of measurement as an 11+ score - but they're still good evidence of ability, and worthy of consideration.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:29 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Bucks/Berks
Dear Guest55 and Etienne

Thank you for your replies.

I now think I should have put this on the appeals section because it has made me wonder if I should complain about the appeal. We thought we had a strong case but are Clerk's note say not enough academic evidence.
Maybe this comment from LEA rep and Chair didn't help our case. It seems as soon as my husband had said 'our' bit the Chair was ready to challenge the previous VR scores with the aid of the LEA rep.

Kind Regards

Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Dear Sarah

Would you like me to move this topic to Appeals?

There's a further comment I could make there.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:29 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Bucks/Berks
Dear Etienne

Yes please!

Thanks

Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Dear Sarah

If the impression was really given that the other NFER scores couldn't be considered at all, then I suggest you start by writing to the Appeals Team at County Hall, Aylesbury. There is no charge involved (unlike getting a copy of the clerk's notes).

It's important to say that you fully understand that a score of 121 standardised nationally is not the same as a score of 121 in the 11+. However, you should go on to make the point that the appeal panel surely had a duty to consider carefully the NFER score of 121 and especially 131 as alternative evidence of ability.

This is particularly relevant if the reason given for not upholding the appeal was insufficient academic evidence.

If the clerk's notes support your interpretation of what was said, you will be in a stronger position.

Let me know if I can be of any further help.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:12 pm
Posts: 1300
Location: Birmingham
Hi Sarah & Etienne

Before writing to the Appeals team I would suggest you try to check up the facts about the Age Standardisation process for the trial NFER tests in the schools.

It's perfectly true that these may be Standardised against a national sample but that wouldn't much sense as it wouldn't be much use to parents when trying to assess the chances of their child passing the Bucks 11+. It would make much more sense to Standard against a sample that is at least similar in nature to the actual cohort.

As regards the actual Bucks Standardisation process, as it's done by NFER this will use the method published by I.P.Schagen of NFER (Applied Psychological measurement - Vol 14. No 4 Dec 1990) - which is effectively a curve fitting transformation process. The interesting thing about this process is that it always produces a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The only way that I can think of for Bucks to have a mean of about 110 or 111 is to do a linear shift after the standardisation process. ie add 10 or 11 to the Standardised score, except where the score is 129 or above when you give all a score of 140.

Once you have found the facts about the trial you can then make some very clear quantitative statements about what percentile you child was in both the trial and actual tests.

Ken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11931
KenR,

I understand that NFER do a special standardisation exercise for Bucks - not just a linear shift - this is according to Admissions and NFER themselves.

I suspect the other tests are those taken in some schools from the 'normal' NFER battery and are marked in the usual standardisation method.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Quote:
I suspect the other tests are those taken in some schools from the 'normal' NFER battery and are marked in the usual standardisation method.

I'm sure this is so, and my experience was that local IAPs were expected to consider such evidence, just like KS2 predictions, provided no direct comparison with 11+ scores is made.

I don't think Sarah needs to go into the technicalities.

My concern in this case is that there may have been a suggestion the evidence was inadmissible.

If so, it would be like saying SATs predictions are inadmissible, and all the other academic evidence is inadmissible, because nothing correlates precisely with the 11+.

The whole point of the appeal is to consider alternative academic evidence.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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