Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:23 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:21 pm
Posts: 107
I am just wondering if I am the only parent who thinks something is wrong with age standardisation on 11+ ?

I can see what they are trying to do but, to my mind, all the children have been educated for the same amount of time and should have the same knowledge. In fact, some children would have gone to preschool which might give them a head start. Maturity levels should not come into it and, indeed, could be influenced by other factors such as if the child is the only one or has siblings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:05 pm
Posts: 4024
Location: Reading
Tbh it doesn't actually make a huge difference anyway, one or two marks typically. It's also not a case of giving extra marks to younger children. They are just only compared with those born in the same month.

However if you take a child born on the 31st August and one on the 1st September, that's a whole year difference. Which at the tender age of 10 (which the August born one will only just be for a Sept exam) is 10% of their life so far. That's a whole year of brain mature and a whole year of life spent taking in vocabulary. Of course other factors come into play, an August born child whose parents have always encouraged conversation and reading will be more advanced than a September born with parents who haven't.

I have a July born DD and was July born myself. I started school just after turning 4 and wasn't anything like ready for it, took me many years to overcome the knock back to confidence. DD started at Easter, later than 2/3 of the year, and the other two classes were in front, again took her a while to catch up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:21 pm
Posts: 107
Good argument... I was just pondering as I have an Autumn born only child who never went to nursery (you can see why the question was on my mind!) Not saying it is wrong, just always wondered why if they all been at school for the same length of time there should be any weighting, however small (given that maturity can't really be judged on age alone and that they may have attended preschool) :-) They didn't used to do that in the good ol' Bucks days did they?

Though surely the one born 31st August starts school a year later than the one born on 1st September, so they are still all getting the same actual years of education and going through the same curriculum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11954
I've posted this before but the one set of children severely disadvanted are the premature children, especially those born 8 or more weeks early.

They are compared to those born at the same time not those born when they should have been.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:21 pm
Posts: 107
Can see that could be a problem, but we have a premature child in DS year who has achieved v well. So still thinking it is more down to the time educated rather than the age.

I am not trying to be controversial here, just asking the question out of interest as it has been on my mind for a while. I am only now in the right place to ask the question, but it does genuinely puzzle me. If everyone has spent 7 years learning, say, their 12 times table then surely all of them should have an equal chance (factoring out intelligence).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 2828
NanoNano wrote:
Good argument... I was just pondering as I have an Autumn born only child who never went to nursery (you can see why the question was on my mind!) Not saying it is wrong, just always wondered why if they all been at school for the same length of time there should be any weighting, however small (given that maturity can't really be judged on age alone and that they may have attended preschool) :-) They didn't used to do that in the good ol' Bucks days did they?

Though surely the one born 31st August starts school a year later than the one born on 1st September, so they are still all getting the same actual years of education and going through the same curriculum.



No...a child born on the 1st September 2015 and a child born on the 31st August 2016 are in the SAME school year. Hence, on the day they start school the 1st September baby will be a whole year (minus a day) older than the August baby. There are a massive number of threads on this topic on this forum alone.

Fundamentally, it any parent is relying on age standardisation to get their child into a GS then frankly that is foolish - the "benefit" is so small that it is almost negligible and, as children are compared with children born in the same period as them, as has been said before ad infinitum, it could be that if the July children, for e.g., do exceptionally well, then in fact they may have to do better than children who are October born, for e.g., if they don't do so well.

As Guest says, premature babies have far more of a fight on their hands in terms of all types of development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:05 pm
Posts: 4024
Location: Reading
If that was the case, then due to how age standardisation works (comparing children to others born in the same month) it wouldn't disadvantage those older anyway.

My DD had two terms less education than some as she didn't start until Easter. If years of education were as important, then maybe they should standardise for that instead.

If theory the August born and September born could start school at the same time, however there are huge differences in maturity between 4 and 5, and from my own experience that makes a big detrimental impact on some summer borns.

Premmies are disadvantaged two ways, in that they are deemed 'older' than they should actually be and the effects of being premature usually has an impact too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:19 pm
Posts: 245
Having an end of August daughter who is now almost 11 in Y6 she has hugely matured this last 6 months (emotionally). This I do feel was her disadvantage last year taking the test, when only just 10 she was extremely stressy. If she was taking the test now I would be confident to say she would be fine. She is more confident developed belief in herself .which I'm afraid is what you really need for the CEM speed 11+ test. Just my view on my daughter. Dollyxxxx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:20 pm
Posts: 371
My son was premature and when he was born the consultant said that premature children catch up with development by the time they are 5, so it really shouldn't be an issue by the time they sit their 11+. My son is just about to complete his first year at Grammar school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11954
It depends HOW premature they are ... a child born at 24 weeks will not catch up by 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  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