Standardised scores
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
obiterdicta
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:55 pm
-
obiterdicta
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:55 pm
I have other points:
Head support
Expected 5s at Sats
Long absence from school owing to medical procedure
Reported incidents of bullying that affected education
Undiagnosed long sightedness (now wearing glasses)
Sis and bro both at school
No tutoring
School has specialism that is not served at other school
Late developer
It's been a long wait though from October and still no firm appeal date!
Head support
Expected 5s at Sats
Long absence from school owing to medical procedure
Reported incidents of bullying that affected education
Undiagnosed long sightedness (now wearing glasses)
Sis and bro both at school
No tutoring
School has specialism that is not served at other school
Late developer
It's been a long wait though from October and still no firm appeal date!
I agree wholeheartedly with Etienne. You have only one standardised mark shortfall and if you have strong evidence of academic ability and some mitigating circumstances, these are going to be the mainstay of your argument.Etienne wrote:It sounds as if you're in campaigning mode!August born babies are under represented at GS.
I sympathise totally with the point, but I think that to approach an appeal in this way is ill advised.
You have to remember that, although there may be several authoritative and convincing studies about the effect of being born late in the school year, the panel do not have the time to read, digest and evaluate these for themselves. How do they assess the validity of what you quote and what weight to give such evidence? You are questioning the system of testing and scoring, and whilst the panel may now look at this aspect, it has not been within their remit to do so until recently. Also, when you argue a general point about a system you are making that point for all the children in that system - if it is accepted that the system is unfair for an August born child then it is so for ALL the August born children not just your own child. My own feeling is that such points should be made carefully and always referencing them specifically to your own child. Thus by all means talk about the fact that your daughter is youngest in year, that she has been a late developer whose rate of progress has speeded up as she has matured and you can refer to what the studies have shown and say how this ties in with your own experience with your daughter, but I would be inclined to avoid making a major issue of it.
Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to "take on" the system at an appeal. Most reasonable panels will recognise that no 11+ system is going to be perfect, but they will also take the view that the system is what it is, and that, where there are anomalies, parents have the opportunity to present alternative academic evidence at an appeal, and to explain any mitigating circumstances specifically affecting their child.
In this case a letter from the headteacher stating that the 11+ came too early for Obiterdicta's daughter, and that as a "late developer" she would in the school's judgement now qualify, could be worth a hundred times more than any piece of research. It would - as Alex has suggested above - move away from generalities and focus on the child in question.
I'm also wary of the argument that a borderline test result for an August born child is itself evidence of high ability. Is every mitigating circumstance in a borderline case to be turned into evidence of academic ability?! In reality it is very difficult to know the extent to which a particular child's performance has been affected by mitigating circumstances.
Certainly it helps as a starting point to have a borderline score rather than a lower score, but the panel will then want to see the alternative academic evidence - and the more indicators of high ability, the better!
# Strong headteacher support
# Encouraging SATs predictions (e.g. three level 5s, or even better, 5a’s - 5b's)
# High standardised test scores from school (e.g. CATs at the 90th+ percentile)
# Good routine academic work, in the child’s own handwriting, that has not been specially selected, full of complimentary remarks by the teacher about achievement.
# Previous school reports (if there is reference to high achievement).
# An educational psychologist’s report (this may or may not help – might be useful if the other academic evidence is limited).
# A reading age 1½ – 2 years above average
The "August born" argument merits one sentence, and perhaps a one page appendix of supporting evidence that the panel can read at their leisure. As Guest55 suggests, turning this into a major issue will only serve to dilute the case.
In this case a letter from the headteacher stating that the 11+ came too early for Obiterdicta's daughter, and that as a "late developer" she would in the school's judgement now qualify, could be worth a hundred times more than any piece of research. It would - as Alex has suggested above - move away from generalities and focus on the child in question.
I'm also wary of the argument that a borderline test result for an August born child is itself evidence of high ability. Is every mitigating circumstance in a borderline case to be turned into evidence of academic ability?! In reality it is very difficult to know the extent to which a particular child's performance has been affected by mitigating circumstances.
Certainly it helps as a starting point to have a borderline score rather than a lower score, but the panel will then want to see the alternative academic evidence - and the more indicators of high ability, the better!
# Strong headteacher support
# Encouraging SATs predictions (e.g. three level 5s, or even better, 5a’s - 5b's)
# High standardised test scores from school (e.g. CATs at the 90th+ percentile)
# Good routine academic work, in the child’s own handwriting, that has not been specially selected, full of complimentary remarks by the teacher about achievement.
# Previous school reports (if there is reference to high achievement).
# An educational psychologist’s report (this may or may not help – might be useful if the other academic evidence is limited).
# A reading age 1½ – 2 years above average
The "August born" argument merits one sentence, and perhaps a one page appendix of supporting evidence that the panel can read at their leisure. As Guest55 suggests, turning this into a major issue will only serve to dilute the case.
Etienne
Alex,if it is accepted that the system is unfair for an August born child then it is so for ALL the August born children not just your own child.
I don't think the research is necessarily saying that. What many researchers say is that to be impacted they have to be a summer/August birthday AND have a lower maturity/Emotional Age at this stage of their development. In this situation they may, for example, be particularly nervous at the prospect of an External Examination and this is not adjusted for in the Age Standardisation process.
We are also appealing. My daughter is also an August baby and was only 3 points short, but do you not risk shooting yourself in the foot by pointing out the childs slow emotional development. As far as I see it GS is a place for children who can withstand a certain amount of pressure and "hothousing" and wonder if the child would be deemed not suitable for this type of education if you were at pains to point this out? I am asking a question not criticising as I assumed the eventual mark had taken all of this into account? I have no intention of mentioning my daughters birth date at our appeal but am relying on factual evidence of high ability, but am I correct?
Dear tillytonk
Like Guest55 I do think you're absolutely right to focus on the academic evidence, especially when you're close to the qualifying mark.
I see no harm in a brief reference to an August birthday, but (as Ken has in effect pointed out) it won't count for much without confirmation from the school that there really is an issue about the maturity of the child in question.
Your point is also valid - the panel should be in no doubt that the child is catching up fast. Ideally the school should be using phrases like "Recent rapid progress", "Ready for grammar school," and "If the test were taking place now, in our judgement a qualifying mark would have been achieved."
Like Guest55 I do think you're absolutely right to focus on the academic evidence, especially when you're close to the qualifying mark.
I see no harm in a brief reference to an August birthday, but (as Ken has in effect pointed out) it won't count for much without confirmation from the school that there really is an issue about the maturity of the child in question.
Your point is also valid - the panel should be in no doubt that the child is catching up fast. Ideally the school should be using phrases like "Recent rapid progress", "Ready for grammar school," and "If the test were taking place now, in our judgement a qualifying mark would have been achieved."
Etienne
