Standardised Scores
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Standardised Scores
I used to work for an extremely large LEA where they analysed all the pupil data many years ago. There still was a statistically significant difference in performance at GCSE between Autumn born and summer born children. This is one of the reasons why over the years it has become more common to admit children younger into reception so that the younger ones receive a similar amount of time in school as the older ones ......... otherwise there is a double whammy - not only have they not lived as long, they have not spent as much time at school.
Purplerose, you must see both sides of the argument just a little bit as the parent of an 11+ hopeful.
Purplerose, you must see both sides of the argument just a little bit as the parent of an 11+ hopeful.
-
rubyrubyruby
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:35 pm
Re: Standardised Scores
although...
as a governor at an infant school and nursery which operates 3-term entry into reception, we discuss this matter and review the data long and hard.
1) there is no doubt that when you track the children (boys and girls separately and maths and english separately as the paths are different) the summer borns underperform by some way in reception and years 1 and 2, although the gap is closing by end of year 2. I have no data on older children but I understand the gap persists.
2) the trade off at very young ages is between more time in reception (which most parents want) and more time in a more suitable and developmental age appropriate setting (like a nursery) which is what most of the professionals believe is better for the youngest children
in reality, the quality of the foundation stage learning depends on many things, not just how long a child is in reception- particularly the quality of the teaching in both nursery and reception, and the ability of the school to address a wide range of developmental ability in a single class throughout the early years. I can only assume this continues at secondary school.
The 11 plus remains for this (and many other reasons) a blunt instrument, and I guess the appeals process attempts to iron out some of the bumps by giving children near the pass mark the opportunity to make their cases.
R
as a governor at an infant school and nursery which operates 3-term entry into reception, we discuss this matter and review the data long and hard.
1) there is no doubt that when you track the children (boys and girls separately and maths and english separately as the paths are different) the summer borns underperform by some way in reception and years 1 and 2, although the gap is closing by end of year 2. I have no data on older children but I understand the gap persists.
2) the trade off at very young ages is between more time in reception (which most parents want) and more time in a more suitable and developmental age appropriate setting (like a nursery) which is what most of the professionals believe is better for the youngest children
in reality, the quality of the foundation stage learning depends on many things, not just how long a child is in reception- particularly the quality of the teaching in both nursery and reception, and the ability of the school to address a wide range of developmental ability in a single class throughout the early years. I can only assume this continues at secondary school.
The 11 plus remains for this (and many other reasons) a blunt instrument, and I guess the appeals process attempts to iron out some of the bumps by giving children near the pass mark the opportunity to make their cases.
R
Re: Standardised Scores
One thing I've always wondered about this.
The cohort taking the test within each county will in some cases not be THAT big. Once you divide it into 12 unequal parts to standardise the children born in each month, some of those parts will be quite small indeed - small enough to produce some random untypical effects, I would have thought.
It would therefore seem likely that in some years, the pattern of low-to-high average marks doesn't exactly match the pattern of early-to-late birthdays. For example, in a cohort that happened to have a particularly small number of April birthdays, but with a particularly high percentage of high scorers among them, the average raw scores might be:
August: 40%
July: 40.2%
June: 40.6%
May: 41%
April: 43%
March: 41.5%
February: 42.4%
January: 43.2%
December: 44%
November: 44.3%
October: 45.1%
September: 45.5%
ie, the average score of April-born children in the cohort is higher than that of March and February-born children.
How would they standardise this? Would the April-born children really be standardised against this average? (which would seem unfair on the slightly lesser-ability ones, who are being punished by being in a small cohort with some high performers). Or do they "smooth out" the averages over September to August as a whole, to arrive at more abstract standardisation measures not dependent on the individual cohort?
I'm in Kent. My son was born in June and passed handsomely with the highest possible standardised score in 2 of the 3 papers, so it doesn't matter to me personally. I'm just interested.
The cohort taking the test within each county will in some cases not be THAT big. Once you divide it into 12 unequal parts to standardise the children born in each month, some of those parts will be quite small indeed - small enough to produce some random untypical effects, I would have thought.
It would therefore seem likely that in some years, the pattern of low-to-high average marks doesn't exactly match the pattern of early-to-late birthdays. For example, in a cohort that happened to have a particularly small number of April birthdays, but with a particularly high percentage of high scorers among them, the average raw scores might be:
August: 40%
July: 40.2%
June: 40.6%
May: 41%
April: 43%
March: 41.5%
February: 42.4%
January: 43.2%
December: 44%
November: 44.3%
October: 45.1%
September: 45.5%
ie, the average score of April-born children in the cohort is higher than that of March and February-born children.
How would they standardise this? Would the April-born children really be standardised against this average? (which would seem unfair on the slightly lesser-ability ones, who are being punished by being in a small cohort with some high performers). Or do they "smooth out" the averages over September to August as a whole, to arrive at more abstract standardisation measures not dependent on the individual cohort?
I'm in Kent. My son was born in June and passed handsomely with the highest possible standardised score in 2 of the 3 papers, so it doesn't matter to me personally. I'm just interested.
-
purplerose69
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:26 am
Re: Standardised Scores
How wonderful that there is no standardisation of scores in Kent. Standardisation does not exist when applying to independent schools either. They look at your exam results, interview and school report. It should not matter how old the child is, why should it matter???? These children are all applying for 11 PLUS, for YEAR 7 and not for different things. As I said earlier, and it is not only my opinion, the fact that someone is 10 or 11 - should make no difference as every child ( or let's say 98%) is coached and prepared, simply because NVR and VR are not even taught in school, and the level of English and Maths is not of the required level. Without preparation there is simply no point doing 11+ exams.We all know that. Therefore, the standardisation is entirely unfair system and it is good that at least some areas in the UK and independent schools have not taken that route.....
Re: Standardised Scores
Really?purplerose69 wrote:Without preparation there is simply no point doing 11+ exams.We all know that.
mad?
Re: Standardised Scores
You are not interested in the evidence because you've got the proverbial bee in your bonnet. If you truly believe what you are saying then it follows that you must also believe that Summer-born children are less intelligent that Autumn-born children.KeepCool wrote:What are you disagreeing with? It is a fact that younger children do not perform as well in tests. Are you saying it's because Summer born children are less intelligent than Autumn born children? It doesn't matter what year they started preparing in - they have been alive for a shorter amount of time!purplerose69 wrote:Sorry, allow me to disagree! If anyone is going through this 11+ saga, as I said earlier, then obviously the child is being prepared whether at home or coached by a tutor. Well, without preparation there iso point doing 11+ anyway. I have friends who start from Year 4 - it is entirely up to the family and the individual case. The score should be rough and not standardised!!!They all apply for Year 7 at the end of the day. Why should a younger child be given a chance to make more mistakes than a slightly older? IT IS AN EXAM AND THE CONDITIONS SHOULD BE EQUAL TO EVERYONE!!! We are not applying for year 6, 7 and 8 - we are applying for year 7 ONLY!!!! It is a tough time, that's true, but this standardisation is the most unfair system ever created. I do wonder who was so "clever" that invented it!!!!
Re: Standardised Scores
Purplerose,
Your child is basically in a competition for places with other children who are the same age in years and months. You really don't need to fret excessively about those who are younger or older, they are in a competition for the places allocated within their own age group.
PS They do standardise in Kent.
Your child is basically in a competition for places with other children who are the same age in years and months. You really don't need to fret excessively about those who are younger or older, they are in a competition for the places allocated within their own age group.
All that is required, is to be highly ranked within your own age group.Nfer on standardistion wrote: However, standardised scores are derived in such a way that the ages of the pupils are taken into account by comparing a pupil only with others of the same age (in years and months).
An important consequence of this is that, in whatever month pupils were born, roughly the same proportion will achieve the specified pass mark. This is because pupils are, in effect, only being compared with other pupils of the same age as themselves.
PS They do standardise in Kent.
Re: Standardised Scores
Mitasol is correct about the standardisation in Kent!
Re: Standardised Scores
Yes - all I meant was that it doesn't matter to me personally because my son has already passed the test (in Kent).
Now does anyone know the answer to my question?
Now does anyone know the answer to my question?
Re: Standardised Scores
Obviously a founder member of the Flat Earth SocietyTherefore, the standardisation is entirely unfair system
