HT recommendations

[Rob Clark]

Hi Sally-Anne and Etienne (and anyone else!),

I was wondering whether you’d mind interpreting our HT’s recommendations as I think I’ve noticed a slight anomaly.

1:1 9/8
1:2 0/0
1:3 0/0
2:1 18/13
2:2 0/0
3:1 8/5

I’m not sure if this is relevant in any way, but in addition 5 of the 24 children not recommended by HT passed.

[Etienne]

The "1s" and the "2s" look very good to me.

On the other hand, 5 out of 8 "3s", and 5 out of 24 "non-recommendations", look like remarkably high figures.

The accuracy of the "1s" and the "2s" may not help if you're querying the head's reliance on CATs, but the other figures suggest that she's been too severe.

It's unusual.

Just my view.

[Rob Clark]

Actually Etienne, what struck me as odd is that in a year group of 59, not a single child scored a '2' or a '3' for attitude. Not one.

So 35 of the year group score a '1', ie are highly motivated, self starters who can work independently and 24 of the year group lack self organisation.

But not a single child in the entire year group falls anywhere between those two extremes.

I'm not a statistician, but I think data showing that sort of spread would be treated as extremely suspect in most walks of life. Surely there must be some children whose output varies a little?

[Etienne]

I don't disagree with you that the attitude grades are also unusual.

My interpretation is based on the fact that panels tend not to pay much attention to attitude. The 11+ is about ability.

For this reason, when I comment on HTRs, I usually lump all the "1s" together, then all the "2s".