Go to navigation
It is currently Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:31 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 9:02 am
Posts: 17
Does anyone have access to data that shows whether age standardisation actually works?

I am interested to know if all age groups are evenly represented in Year 7 at Warwickshire Grammar schools. I have made an FOI request over a month ago, but have had no response from the County Council.

I know this is just the tip of the iceberg, for a full analysis would have to look at the age ranges of children who took the test and so on; but I think it is important that there is not a disproportionate number of older (or younger) children being offered places.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:20 pm
Posts: 1706
Location: Warwickshire
The Freedom of Information Act gives 20 working days to respond to requests. (i.e. Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays). If it has been longer than this since you submitted the request you should contact them again to point this out, and tell them that you will be referring the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office if you do not get a prompt acknowledgement and response to the original request.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 9:02 am
Posts: 17
It has been longer than 20 days and I have lodged a complaint.

I just hoped that I wasn't the first person to ask this question and that the information was already out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:10 pm
Posts: 8204
Location: Buckinghamshire
This question came up on the Bucks forum a few years ago, where there is a somewhat larger cohort: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22795&hilit=month&start=0

Code:
Month of birth         Not qualified   Qualified    Total   Allocated Grammar
September 1999            410             231        641            197
October 1999              436             246        682            185
November 1999             436             237        673            176
December 1999             427             193        620            145
January  2000             394             213        607            172
February 2000             370             209        579            158
March 2000                394             210        604            168
April 2000                406             216        622            179
May 2000                  379             213        592            167
June 2000                 375             194        569            148     
July 2000                 368             218        586            173
August 2000               370             225        595            174
Total                     4775            2613       7388          2042


The conclusion was that there wasn't much difference between success rates by month of birth, and therefore standardisation probably does its job.

It will be interesting to see what information you get from Warks in due course, and how it compares with the stats above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 9:02 am
Posts: 17
Thanks Sally-Anne. Was this the same system of standardisation?

I have an appeal hearing on Monday and had hoped that I could look at the data from my FOI request to see if there were any anomalies. It looks like the delay has scuppered that particular route....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:10 pm
Posts: 8204
Location: Buckinghamshire
Tramps13 wrote:
Was this the same system of standardisation?

I am not sure how CEM do their standardisation. Okanagan may know.

Quote:
I have an appeal hearing on Monday and had hoped that I could look at the data from my FOI request to see if there were any anomalies. It looks like the delay has scuppered that particular route....

I assume your child is summer-born? In which month? Was s/he premature at all?

I have dealt with cases where birth at full term would have tipped the child into the next academic year, and that really makes an impact upon a panel. A birthday in the last few days of August seems to resonate with them as well, but it is worth drawing their attention to a birth date at any point in July or August.

I think you can take it as read that an appeal panel will know that a summer-born child is at a disadvantage - there are dozens of studies that show that. (I think there is a fairly recent one from the Sutton Trust, a well-respected body.)

You might m,ention that, and then say: "I would ask you to consider the possibility that the standardisation process cannot compensate fully for the disadvantage of having been born almost a full year later than the oldest children in the cohort ...?"

You shouldn't expect a reply, but it just adds another little strand to your case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:20 pm
Posts: 1706
Location: Warwickshire
Sally-Anne wrote:
Tramps13 wrote:
Was this the same system of standardisation?
I am not sure how CEM do their standardisation. Okanagan may know.
Bucks I believe is a nominal whole-population standardisation, CEM in Warwickshire is cohort standardisation, so they are a bit different, although both should make age adjustments.

Some figures I can give you from last year to give an idea of the effect of standardisation in Warwickshire - these were for a September born child and show how much higher the score would have been for that particular set of raw scores had the child been born in later months.

September 2001 = standardised score as per results score
October 2001 = +1
November 2001 = +3
December 2001 = +3
January 2002 = +4
February 2002 = +6
March 2002 = +6
April 2002 = +7
May 2002 = +8
June 2002 = +9
July 2002 = +10
August 2002 = +11

In this case the age standardisation would actually have made a difference as to whether the child was offered a place or not.

Admissions may be able to give you the equivalent month-by-month breakdown for what the standardised score would have been for your child's raw scores.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 9:02 am
Posts: 17
Its probably just a coincidence, but I received all of the FOI requested data today.

I have tried to total everything out over the three Southern Grammars and over three years in order to take out odd intakes.

20.83% (165 pupils) are Sept/Oct births
15.78% (125 pupils) are July/August births

There are no years in any school where the July/August birth intake exceeds the Sept/October birth intake.

If you take June/July/August births against Sept/Oct/Nov births, it is 23.1% against 28.5%.

It is important to remember that I have no figures for the spread of births that took the exam.

Thanks to Sally-Anne and Okanagan for all your help.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:10 pm
Posts: 8204
Location: Buckinghamshire
If you would care to email the statistics to us, we can look at putting them on the Warks forum to benefit others.

The confidential AppealsBox is the address to use: appealsbox [at] elevenplusexams.co.uk , replacing the word at with @.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Age standardisation
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:47 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Warwickshire
I'm very glad my daughter was born in May. I know many children are later to develop, especially those born in summer - but my daughter is not one of those, she's always been quite quick (lucky her!) so being born in May was just a bonus when it came to the 11+.

I'm not sure how fair I think it is, for those born in September for example. I'm just glad she was born in May! Ds2, year 2, was born in February, not so good ... I presume the age standardisation varies from year to year?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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