Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
For those who sat the 11+ in October 2010, here are the pass rates broken down by the candidates' birth month (Source: Bucks CC)
Code: Select all
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
-
- Posts: 9235
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Buckinghamshire
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Dad40 emailed these to me earlier. No great shocks - the average is 35%, December is low at 31% but that will just be a variation in this cohort I suspect.
What I do find interesting is that 571 candidates qualified in the test but did not take up the option of a place at a Bucks GS. (Obviously Berks GS will be a big factor in that.) I think this is the first time we have seen actual numbers for that.
Well, small things like that do interest me!
What I do find interesting is that 571 candidates qualified in the test but did not take up the option of a place at a Bucks GS. (Obviously Berks GS will be a big factor in that.) I think this is the first time we have seen actual numbers for that.
Well, small things like that do interest me!
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Interesting ..
If you work out % qualifying from each month you get:
Sept 1999 36%
Oct 1999 36.1%
Nov 1999 35.2%
Dec 1999 31.1%
Jan 2000 35.1%
Feb 2000 36.1%
Mar 2000 34.8%
Apr 2000 34.7%
May 2000 36%
June 2000 34.1%
July 2000 37.2%
Aug 2000 37.8%
If you work out % qualifying from each month you get:
Sept 1999 36%
Oct 1999 36.1%
Nov 1999 35.2%
Dec 1999 31.1%
Jan 2000 35.1%
Feb 2000 36.1%
Mar 2000 34.8%
Apr 2000 34.7%
May 2000 36%
June 2000 34.1%
July 2000 37.2%
Aug 2000 37.8%
-
- Posts: 9235
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Buckinghamshire
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Sally-Anne wrote:Well, small things like that do interest me!
G55, has it ever occcurred to you that you and I need to get out more?Guest55 wrote:Interesting ..
-
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:29 pm
- Location: Trafford
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Well, I need to join you. Ever since I worked out that in my daughter's class (grammar) 40% are Sept-Dec birthdays, 50% are May-August birthdays and only 10% are Jan-April birthdays I've been dying to do a year wide comparison!
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
Surely a case of *could not* take up a place? Each year about 2500-2600 qualify but there are only about 2000-2100 places. Tis the OOCs that invariably lose out (or very often "choose out" as you imply).What I do find interesting is that 571 candidates qualified in the test but did not take up the option of a place at a Bucks GS. (Obviously Berks GS will be a big factor in that.) I think this is the first time we have seen actual numbers for that
However what your post has pointed out to me is that the table shows candidates that *qualified* (i.e. includes successful selection appeals) despite me asking in the FOI about candidates who *passed* the tests outright.
Not that it really matters I guess !
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
My excuse is that,as a mathematician, any data interest me ...
-
- Posts: 9235
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Buckinghamshire
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
The footnote to the stats says:Dad40 wrote:Surely a case of *could not* take up a place? Each year about 2500-2600 qualify but there are only about 2000-2100 places. Tis the OOCs that invariably lose out (or very often "choose out" as you imply).
Either someone is dissembling or we have to assume that Berks GS and private schools form the majority of the 571?3 Includes pupils allocated to a Buckinghamshire Grammar school only. The remaining qualified pupils generally attend selective secondary institutions elsewhere or withdraw from the Admissions procedure altogether.
Roughly 300 - 400 will have been successful appeal candidates. I have often pondered whether appeals by birth month vary in their success rates and Etienne and I have speculated in the past that having a July or August birthday might perhaps give a slight edge to an appeal.However what your post has pointed out to me is that the table shows candidates that *qualified* (i.e. includes successful selection appeals) despite me asking in the FOI about candidates who *passed* the tests outright. Not that it really matters I guess !
That might influence the stats, but if it does then it is obviously doing so correctly because (apart from the December blip) all the birth months look very similar.
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
On the subject of appeals (and while we've all got our anoraks on) the year by year stats for heard/successful are:
which still looks like remarkable luck that it's always around 340 successful! Maybe just being told that around 30% passed last year makes a difference to panels? Also for last year, below I've put data from Bucks CC for appeals for children eligible/not eligible for free school meals.
Code: Select all
2010 2009 2008 2007
Heard 952 850 859 911
Successful 337 343 331 339
%ge 35.4% 40.4% 38.5% 37.2%
Code: Select all
Appeal Type Pupils eligible Pupils Not eligible No data
Successful <5 211 113
Unsuccessful 8 302 326
Re: Stats - 11+ passes by birth month
im sorry im not sure i understand but the appeal for eligible fsm pupils were very low, so does this mean that children whos perants are on low income will not get threw because they might of got a few points more wrong then other children, and because of this disadvantage they are not sucessful.
What i mean is if these perants had made an appeal there must of (im asuming) must of mentioned that they are disadvantaged in some ereas , im babling now ! please help , do anyone know what i mean.
What i mean is if these perants had made an appeal there must of (im asuming) must of mentioned that they are disadvantaged in some ereas , im babling now ! please help , do anyone know what i mean.