Normalisation of marks
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Bexley Mum 2
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Bexley
Tracy - I wouldn't call an up to an extra 11 marks "measly"! The pass mark for Bexley is usually in the 430s (436 this year) and the top 180 scorers (out of 4-5k?) score over about 483. This means that the vast majority of children who pass the 11+ achieve a score within a range of less than 50 points - in that context, scoring up to 11 extra points for being young in the year can be very significant.
I'm probably going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I always feel slightly resentful that we have a system where two children of identical ability at school can achieve the same scores in the 11+ yet one might pass and one might fail simply because of when their birthdays fall. (Even more unfair if the younger child has been coached and the older child hasn't). I get the point that, in a system that uses intelligence tests such as VR and NVR, scores should be adjusted to reflect age, but why should this apply to maths and english? If LEAs want to persist in the mistaken belief that children aren't coached to pass tests, why should they think that a child with a September birthday has an advantage over a child with an August birthday in a subject like maths? Both children will have received the same lessons at school. If the younger child gets to grammar school on the basis of the extra points, will the grammar school make allowance in maths lessons and tests and, give them a few more points because they are young in their year? I don't think so!
I'm sure this will provoke all sorts of angry responses from people and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone!
I'm probably going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I always feel slightly resentful that we have a system where two children of identical ability at school can achieve the same scores in the 11+ yet one might pass and one might fail simply because of when their birthdays fall. (Even more unfair if the younger child has been coached and the older child hasn't). I get the point that, in a system that uses intelligence tests such as VR and NVR, scores should be adjusted to reflect age, but why should this apply to maths and english? If LEAs want to persist in the mistaken belief that children aren't coached to pass tests, why should they think that a child with a September birthday has an advantage over a child with an August birthday in a subject like maths? Both children will have received the same lessons at school. If the younger child gets to grammar school on the basis of the extra points, will the grammar school make allowance in maths lessons and tests and, give them a few more points because they are young in their year? I don't think so!
I'm sure this will provoke all sorts of angry responses from people and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone!
BM2,
Having had my daughters born at the start and at the end of the school year I can see the difference that it makes of when they start in the school year. They kids haven't had the same amount of schooling as their are two yearly intakes. But this aside how can two children, a year apart, grasp a new subject at exactly the same time.
Things like telling the time and tying shoelaces come with maturity. So when it comes to time problems in Maths how is a younger child supposed to compare with the elder one? Then all of a sudden it clicks but is this too late for the 11+?
When I was dealing with my eldest's 11+ (one of oldest in class) I was championing the younger ones! I didn't think it was fair and I still don't. I do accept that there has to be a cut off at some point though and am trying to have faith in the complex method of allocating those extra marks.
I still think 11 marks per paper isn't enough when the maximum score is 560 and some of those kids are almost a year older and that much more mature.
Having had my daughters born at the start and at the end of the school year I can see the difference that it makes of when they start in the school year. They kids haven't had the same amount of schooling as their are two yearly intakes. But this aside how can two children, a year apart, grasp a new subject at exactly the same time.
Things like telling the time and tying shoelaces come with maturity. So when it comes to time problems in Maths how is a younger child supposed to compare with the elder one? Then all of a sudden it clicks but is this too late for the 11+?
When I was dealing with my eldest's 11+ (one of oldest in class) I was championing the younger ones! I didn't think it was fair and I still don't. I do accept that there has to be a cut off at some point though and am trying to have faith in the complex method of allocating those extra marks.
I still think 11 marks per paper isn't enough when the maximum score is 560 and some of those kids are almost a year older and that much more mature.
-
Bexley Mum 2
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Bexley
Tracy. Goodness, I was thinking in terms of up to 11 marks overall, I hadn't thought of up to 11 marks per paper. That could add 44 marks to a child's overall score and this year could alter a child's score from a bare pass of 436 to almost being in the top 180! My gut feeling is that by year 6 the more able members of a class should be able to compete on equal terms in subjects that are taught in school, like maths and english - certainly they will have to when they get to secondary school. But then, as all three of mine have autumn birthdays I'm probably finding it difficult to look at the issue objectively!! My sister's birthday is 30 August so I ought to be more understanding!
Shouldn't the number of children who pass the 11+ break down evenly by birth month if the age normalisation process is working properly?
Does anyone know if this is true?
If more autumn or summer born children are passing this could mean that the age allowance is either under or over generous.
My feel from having a Feb and a June born son is that an age difference of a few months and starting school in Jan rather than Sept makes very little difference to the 11+ results.
To add 11 marks overall would in my opinion be far too many and to each paper absolutely ridiculous.
Does anyone know if this is true?
If more autumn or summer born children are passing this could mean that the age allowance is either under or over generous.
My feel from having a Feb and a June born son is that an age difference of a few months and starting school in Jan rather than Sept makes very little difference to the 11+ results.
To add 11 marks overall would in my opinion be far too many and to each paper absolutely ridiculous.
A couple of years ago, when I enquired about a lot of things to do with the 11+, I was told by one of our Council officials that it was approx 11-12 per paper.
A few years back, a friend's child scored approx 40 more than she thought she would have and I did say at the time that this was probably due to the standardisation, she is an Aug baby. A boy in the class with an early Sep birthday, who had always previously been at the top of the class, scraped a pass by a couple of points.
I have always taken this info with a pinch of salt and encouraged my kids to try to get the questions right without relying on any extra marks as there is so much wrong info that comes from are dear council. The latest gem is that they are telling people that to go on a waiting list for an oversubscribed school they must surrender the current offer! Nice one Bexley council.
I agree that if this standardisation process is working well then the grammars should have a mixture of all year round babies and that all kids would have been treated equally.
A few years back, a friend's child scored approx 40 more than she thought she would have and I did say at the time that this was probably due to the standardisation, she is an Aug baby. A boy in the class with an early Sep birthday, who had always previously been at the top of the class, scraped a pass by a couple of points.
I have always taken this info with a pinch of salt and encouraged my kids to try to get the questions right without relying on any extra marks as there is so much wrong info that comes from are dear council. The latest gem is that they are telling people that to go on a waiting list for an oversubscribed school they must surrender the current offer! Nice one Bexley council.
I agree that if this standardisation process is working well then the grammars should have a mixture of all year round babies and that all kids would have been treated equally.
Hi All
Age Standardisation varies from Test to Test and also between candidates samples, but if you want an example of what Age Standardisation has on raw scores take a look at the Standardisation tables at the back of the 2007 Key Stage 2 results:
http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/med ... 05_wo1.pdf
Despite what some people might think or say, the effects of Age on academic performance in children is scientifically well proven - although this diminshes rapidly once they get in their teens.
Essentially each Age Standardisation exercise is a curve fitting exercise - when you plot all of the scores on a graph without Age Standisation you get quite a big scatter effect, not a smooh upside-down normalised bell curve. So they perform an Age Standardisation using mathematical methods to produce a Normal Distribution, with a statistical mean of 100 and a Standard Deviation of 15.
If you are into heavy maths and statistics and want to see the Mathematical method used this is available at:-
http://apm.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/4/387
The thing to bear in mind is the 'typical' 11 marks difference that you mentioned may not be anything like as high as 11 marks and would refer to the difference between the very youngest and the very oldest in the candidate populate.
You can see the differences in the 2007 SATs figures above. I obtained a full set of Age Standardised conversion tables for the B/Ham KE Grammar test a few years ago and the maximum difference was 8 marks.
Hope this helps
Age Standardisation varies from Test to Test and also between candidates samples, but if you want an example of what Age Standardisation has on raw scores take a look at the Standardisation tables at the back of the 2007 Key Stage 2 results:
http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/med ... 05_wo1.pdf
Despite what some people might think or say, the effects of Age on academic performance in children is scientifically well proven - although this diminshes rapidly once they get in their teens.
Essentially each Age Standardisation exercise is a curve fitting exercise - when you plot all of the scores on a graph without Age Standisation you get quite a big scatter effect, not a smooh upside-down normalised bell curve. So they perform an Age Standardisation using mathematical methods to produce a Normal Distribution, with a statistical mean of 100 and a Standard Deviation of 15.
If you are into heavy maths and statistics and want to see the Mathematical method used this is available at:-
http://apm.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/4/387
The thing to bear in mind is the 'typical' 11 marks difference that you mentioned may not be anything like as high as 11 marks and would refer to the difference between the very youngest and the very oldest in the candidate populate.
You can see the differences in the 2007 SATs figures above. I obtained a full set of Age Standardised conversion tables for the B/Ham KE Grammar test a few years ago and the maximum difference was 8 marks.
Hope this helps
-
Bexley Mum 2
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Bexley
Hi Bexley Mum
For that particular B/Ham KE Foundation 11+ exam it was about 8 marks per section. There were actually only 2 papers but with a mixture of VR, VNR and Maths questions between the 2 papers. They collected the 3 type together and then Age Standarised each section:-
I've looked up some old postings on this, for VR it was 6:-
For that particular B/Ham KE Foundation 11+ exam it was about 8 marks per section. There were actually only 2 papers but with a mixture of VR, VNR and Maths questions between the 2 papers. They collected the 3 type together and then Age Standarised each section:-
I've looked up some old postings on this, for VR it was 6:-
In terms of SATs, they provide Age Standised tables in the report for comparison purposes but the actual results themselves are not Age Standardised. You can see the differences in raw scores in those tables.For example, in the Birmingham KE VR Tests in 2004 , to achieve a Standardised Score of 118 a child aged 11.18 years on the exam day would have to achieve score 71/100, whereas a child who was only 10.22 years would only have to score 65/100.
-
Bexley Mum 2
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Bexley