Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
Point taken guys!! May be my opinion is a bit biased as both my son's are December born. We will be doing this all over again in 3 years time
Just out of interest are the SAT's or the other GCSE, A level exams also age standardised?
MSD
Just out of interest are the SAT's or the other GCSE, A level exams also age standardised?
MSD
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
MSD, I don't think they are so you won't have to think about it again for a while
UmSusu
UmSusu
UmSusu
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:18 pm
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
KS2 SATs are not age standardised but they do issue an age standardisation chart for information.
I think also the age standardisation effect can be variable year on year depending upon the differences in scores between the oldest and youngest children, so if there is a lot of difference between September and August then age standardisation will have a larger effect than if scores are similar, if that makes any sense.
I think also the age standardisation effect can be variable year on year depending upon the differences in scores between the oldest and youngest children, so if there is a lot of difference between September and August then age standardisation will have a larger effect than if scores are similar, if that makes any sense.
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
You can find the tables here:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/tea ... s2-results
For more in depth analysis of methods used for the age standardization of test scores see: Schagen, Ian P. (1990). A method for the age standardization of test scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 387-393. doi:10.1177/014662169001400405
VZA
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/tea ... s2-results
For more in depth analysis of methods used for the age standardization of test scores see: Schagen, Ian P. (1990). A method for the age standardization of test scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 387-393. doi:10.1177/014662169001400405
VZA
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
Once the 11+ is over standardisation is not used in any other exam. It is also not used in school so a younger child who has had their score "artificially" enhanced may well find themselves surrounded by older children with higher scores from their first day at school.
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
Have there previously been any "surprise" years in Birmingham or Walsall ? If so what was different about those years?
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
While KS2 SATS and GCSEs are not standardised by age, schools will receive a yearly data analysis report from the DFE.
This is known (currently! - the name seems to change with each government) as RAISEonline. The acronym is for 'Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through Self Evaluation'. Ofsted will (for better or worse) also use this document to underpin and decide school gradings during inspection.
This report does record the birth term of children (Autumn, Spring, Summer); it records that year's national average point score for children born in different terms, as well as obviously, the data for the individual school.
There is a very clear pattern of Autumn-born children performing statistically significantly better than those born in Spring, and particularly those born in Summer. This is very pronounced in KS1, but, while still present, is a little less pronounced in KS2 and beyond.
This is known (currently! - the name seems to change with each government) as RAISEonline. The acronym is for 'Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through Self Evaluation'. Ofsted will (for better or worse) also use this document to underpin and decide school gradings during inspection.
This report does record the birth term of children (Autumn, Spring, Summer); it records that year's national average point score for children born in different terms, as well as obviously, the data for the individual school.
There is a very clear pattern of Autumn-born children performing statistically significantly better than those born in Spring, and particularly those born in Summer. This is very pronounced in KS1, but, while still present, is a little less pronounced in KS2 and beyond.
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
PS. As can be seen on the sticky, there have been no 'surprise years' in Birmingham in recent history.
Generally the 'last score in' edges up by a few points each year.
If anything, last year was a surprise in that the 'last point in' for a few schools went down slightly.
Generally the 'last score in' edges up by a few points each year.
If anything, last year was a surprise in that the 'last point in' for a few schools went down slightly.
-
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:08 pm
- Location: Not in a hole in the ground but in a land where once they dwelt-the Beormingas
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
They're all fairly consistent so no surprises. The only schools that went down slightly last year were KEA and BV. But still, it's not really a surprise as you can still see that the figures for KEA, for example, over the last 8 years does tend to wave...
KE ASTON
324, 327, 324, 328, 328, 331, 217, 216
(108)(109)(108)(110)(110)(111)(109)(108)
(216)(218)(216)(220)(220)(222)(218)(216)
Just looking at the last 2 previous years of QS can be misleading. Take CHG, for example and see Ken's table.
If this system existed in 2007 and we were given the previous two years to go by; converting them to the new format, we'd get:
(216) (220) (214). And 220 QS for KECHG would have been regarded as anomalous
But we now know it wasn't as the marks are on an upward trend: (216)(220)(214) (218)(220)(220)(222)(226).
Not sure what QS this year will bring as it seems to be full of surprises.
KE ASTON
324, 327, 324, 328, 328, 331, 217, 216
(108)(109)(108)(110)(110)(111)(109)(108)
(216)(218)(216)(220)(220)(222)(218)(216)
Just looking at the last 2 previous years of QS can be misleading. Take CHG, for example and see Ken's table.
If this system existed in 2007 and we were given the previous two years to go by; converting them to the new format, we'd get:
(216) (220) (214). And 220 QS for KECHG would have been regarded as anomalous
But we now know it wasn't as the marks are on an upward trend: (216)(220)(214) (218)(220)(220)(222)(226).
Not sure what QS this year will bring as it seems to be full of surprises.
Re: Statistics can be manipulated to say what you like?
I can recommend the book 'Outliers' to anyone who doubts the need for age standardisation. The chapter on Canadian ice hockey teams made my jaw drop!
The truth is that summer born children HAVE been exposed to the same curriculum. But they are far less likely to have accessed the same higher tables in the early years, so missing out on extension tasks/ acceleration work/ confidence building / a feeling of being one of the clever ones in the class. The knock on from this is likely to be more detrimental than a few points will make up; far fewer summer borns are even in a position to apply for selective schools.
I found Outliers so illuminating, it changed my whole perception on education, chance, and the language I should use.
The truth is that summer born children HAVE been exposed to the same curriculum. But they are far less likely to have accessed the same higher tables in the early years, so missing out on extension tasks/ acceleration work/ confidence building / a feeling of being one of the clever ones in the class. The knock on from this is likely to be more detrimental than a few points will make up; far fewer summer borns are even in a position to apply for selective schools.
I found Outliers so illuminating, it changed my whole perception on education, chance, and the language I should use.