October 2012 Results

[MSD]

Agreed Okanagan!

But not sure if the standardized score will be the same even if the raw score is lower. I think the exceptionally bright will still perform well irrespective of the school holidays. Therefore, the standardised score for this bunch will remain the same. But it's the next tier down where the raw score will go down, which will also bring down the standardised score as it has to be relative to the top ones.

MSD

[Okanagan]

isn’t there also an increase of 400 applicants up from last year? Now, where did they come from??

That will be the Warwickshire people using Birmingham as a free CEM mock, as the Birmingham people used to do with Warwickshire Actually that might account for a few, but nothing like 400 - there weren't that many doing the late sitting for Warwickshire, even including those who are genuinely trying for both!

[sss]

I think you'll probably find that the cut-off scores will be very similar to the last 2 years & maybe slightly lower than the average of the last 2 years. This is the first year where we get the scores first (& the cut-off scores for the last 2 years), to base our preferences upon, so the schools/cem don't want an embarrassing outcome because of surprised/disgruntled parents & children.

[Okanagan]

not sure if the standardized score will be the same even if the raw score is lower. I think the exceptionally bright will still perform well irrespective of the school holidays. Therefore, the standardised score for this bunch will remain the same. But it's the next tier down where the raw score will go down, which will also bring down the standardised score as it has to be relative to the top ones.

Standardised score is relative to the mean and the standard deviation of the scores, not specifically to the top scores. So although those high fliers have some input into that equation they don't really have that much influence. Say the scores for the top 10% of candidates stayed the same, but for all the rest they dropped by a few marks. The mean would drop, but conversely the standard deviation would go up - so the standardised scores at around the point where cutoffs would be applied are not likely to be greatly influenced.

[mike1880]

The earlier exam date will have no effect on qualifying scores. Qualifying score is affected by (1) number of children taking the exam and (2) number of places available. Nothing else. It represents the percentage of children that can be offered a place; if more children apply then a smaller percentage can be offered places and the qualifying score is higher.

So what about the extra 400 candidates? Won't they push up the qualifying score? Well, yes, if they exist. But every year we hear from unimpeachable sources (often a teacher at exam day or wherever) that it's a record year, but when the actual figures are published later in the year by the KEF it turns out not to have been. So I would treat suggestions of an extra 400 candidates with extreme scepticism. There was an increase a couple of years ago when the Consortium was formed, because people who in previous years would only have taken the Sutton Coldfield exams were suddenly included (about 400 people - now can that be a coincidence I wonder??? ), but generally the trend in recent years has been for declining numbers of applications, simply because the number of applications pretty much follows the demographics. In fact, unless I have my dates wrong this should be the year with the smallest number of children in the cohort.

What's been happening, though, is that more and more parents (as a proportion of the cohort) have been putting the "top" (perceived) schools as first preference rather than their nearest (the number of first preferences for BV, SC and KEA has plunged fairly dramatically). Qualifying scores for the "top" schools have therefore been climbing whereas the overall qualifying score (i.e. for the least popular) has stayed fairly static. In other words, it's no harder to get a GS place than it ever has been, but it's much more difficult to get that place at CHB or (to a less extreme degree) at CHG or FW.

I imagine that this year there will be some re-balancing of scores, in that a lot of parents will discover in advance that there is perhaps very little point putting CHB as first preference. That won't necessarily lead to an increase in qualifying scores at the less popular (or even cause a decrease at the more popular) if the only effect is for people to put, say, Five Ways as first choice and get a place there rather than put it as second choice and get a place there.

It might (and this will be interesting to see) cause some re-balancing of the gender mix at Five Ways.

However, unless I'm confused about dates there will be a steep upturn in qualifying scores due to increasing birth rates, starting next year unless the B'ham GSs expand rapidly (2002 was the year with the fewest births if I remember correctly).

Mike

[Okanagan]

However, unless I'm confused about dates there will be a steep upturn in qualifying scores due to increasing birth rates, starting next year unless the B'ham GSs expand rapidly (2002 was the year with the fewest births if I remember correctly).

2001 and 2002 were very close (good news for this year's cohort) UK wide 669,123 in 2001 and 668,777 in 2002 - this had risen to 807,271 by 2010. Looking at just England and Wales 2001 was actually the lowest year. (source if anyone's interested)

[mike1880]

Indeed, in calendar years 594k vs 596k. But I seem to remember (I may be wrong) that 2002 edges it if you look at it in terms of school year (Sept to Aug); there's a government or ONS spreadsheet somewhere that has monthly figures. But fine detail apart, the overall conclusion has to be that scores will start going up quite steeply from next year unless the schools are expanded to meet increased demand.

[sss]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... Obmc#gid=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You're right Okanagan - 2001 & 2002 have the lowest live births in England & Wales since 1999.
We're definitely clutching at straws now!

[Dave1879]

So what about the extra 400 candidates? Won't they push up the qualifying score? Well, yes, if they exist. But every year we hear from unimpeachable sources (often a teacher at exam day or wherever) that it's a record year, but when the actual figures are published later in the year by the KEF it turns out not to have been. So I would treat suggestions of an extra 400 candidates with extreme scepticism. There was an increase a couple of years ago when the Consortium was formed, because people who in previous years would only have taken the Sutton Coldfield exams were suddenly included (about 400 people - now can that be a coincidence I wonder??? ), but generally the trend in recent years has been for declining numbers of applications, simply because the number of applications pretty much follows the demographics. In fact, unless I have my dates wrong this should be the year with the smallest number of children in the cohort.

I'm inclined to agree with Mike - every year there seems to be the same rumour - record number of applcants - definitely take with a pinch of salt.

I think you'll probably find that the cut-off scores will be very similar to the last 2 years & maybe slightly lower than the average of the last 2 years. This is the first year where we get the scores first (& the cut-off scores for the last 2 years), to base our preferences upon, so the schools/cem don't want an embarrassing outcome because of surprised/disgruntled parents & children.

Also inclined to agree with sss on this point - first year of the new arrangements & nobody at the schools, CEM centre etc want any slip-ups so I personally think the scores will be no more than last year's.

[nicolajane1971]

Really interesting information, definitely correct on the low birth year, many children are in my eldest DS school year from long distances away from his primary, couple of miles compared to less than 300m for the last few years, previous posters are correct, definitely clutching at straws!

So on that general basis and working on the fact that we are hoping for BV, I can probably revise my 240 down to 220!! Can I?!