Lower cut off score?

[UmSusu]

I don't think they would.

They give the results before the CAF to give an indication (they didn't even do that until last year!), but after that you wait. I know it's difficult to wait but we don't have any more at stake than the thousands of others who didn't sit selective tests - they are just as anxious to know where they will end.

[Okanagan]

Hi all,
I understand schools cannot say much about individual child until March (when allocations are declared), but can they atleast tell the cutoff for each school after some time....may be around/after Christmas?

That can give some idea to parents about their DS/DD.

They'll know who has applied and have placed them into ranking order by Christmas, so they'll have an idea by early January but it's an iterative process and they'll not know the final scores required until February - as per the timetable below (extracted from the Coordinated admissions arrangements)

31-Oct-13 Final closing date for receipt of applications
18-Nov-13 Data exchange with other Local Authorities
27-Nov-13 Unranked preferences forwarded to Birmingham Admission Authorities
27-Nov-13 Sibling reports sent to schools and academies (not relevant for selective admissions)
18-Dec-13 Ranked preferences from Birmingham Admission Authorities and sibling reports from community schools/academies to be returned to Birmingham LA
06-Jan-14 Offer exchange with other Local Authorities - 1
20-Jan-14 Offer exchange with other Local Authorities - 2
03-Feb-14 Offer exchange with other Local Authorities - 3
10-Feb-14 Offer exchange with other Local Authorities - 4
03-Mar-14 Offer day – letters posted
17-Mar-14 Acceptance of any offer should be made by this date
31-Mar-14 Any appeal should be received by this date. (20 school days following notification that application was unsuccessful)
17-Jun-14 Appeals received on-time should be considered by this date (40 school days)

They'll not reveal anything about the scores required until offer day though!

[sceptic]

KenR, do you not need to factor in the anticipated year on year improvement in scores? ie if average scores move up 2/3 points each year and increasing the entry brings it down by '2/3 points', won't the minumum entry score just stay around the same as last year?

[moseleymum]

KenR, do you not need to factor in the anticipated year on year improvement in scores? ie if average scores move up 2/3 points each year and increasing the entry brings it down by '2/3 points', won't the minumum entry score just stay around the same as last year?

Statistics are really not my thing but why do you assume there would be a year on year improvement in scores? It's the 11+ not GCSEs!

My understanding is that scores are standardised so the average mark is always 200 and then scores change accordingly. If the average is always made to be the same, then extra places will bring down scores. The only other variable, as I understand it (and I might be wrong) is the number of children sitting the exam and that's why the birth rate for any given year is important.





**runs away waiting for someone who actually understands statistics to chime in**

[UmSusu]

You are better than you think at stats, mm!

The main variables that drive up cut-off scores are the number of candidates and the number of applicants to each school. There may/may not be increase in the raw scores needed to achieve a certain score but we are not privy to that info as candidates are only compared to that particular year's cohort with 200 being the average score each time and the rest of the scores distributed either side.

So, there is no garuntee that QS will go up: last year they went up both because there were an extra 500 candidates compared to the previous year and Heads seemed to have been a little over-cautious on allocations day, but soon started taking from the waiting list with slightly lower scores. This year there has only been an increase of 100 in the number of candidates.

[Happy dad]

One factor not mentioned will be the fact that last year KES admitted an extra class. If they don't do that this year then the increase in places for boys will effectively be reduced by one KES class size compared to last year ( based on the assumption that the alternative to KES will likely be a Kze grammar)

[moseleymum]

One factor not mentioned will be the fact that last year KES admitted an extra class. If they don't do that this year then the increase in places for boys will effectively be reduced by one KES class size compared to last year ( based on the assumption that the alternative to KES will likely be a Kze grammar)

I am not sure this is a factor.

KES always over offer to a certain extent as many boys will reject it for a KE Grammar. They over offered as normal, and more boys than expected accepted. It wasn't their intention initially to have a six form entry as far as I know. I'm sure Mr Claughton said it was the first time they had done a six form entry as they had no choice. On their website it says that each year they admit 125 boys into Year 7 (known as Shells). This would fit in with five forms http://www.kes.org.uk/11and13plus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

There are a certain number of boys (and we know many) who would never consider a Grammar school at all. Yes, shocking as it may seem, some families don't bother with the Consortium Exam at all. If they don't get KES, they will go for Solihull, Bromsgrove or Oldswinford, and you could argue that anyone who would have met the standard for a KE grammar (if they had bothered to sit the exam) will definitely get one of these.

[Okanagan]

Yes the average will always be 100 per compenent of the final score (i.e. in this case 2). The other scores will relate to the percentage of candidates getting each score - so by definition more candidates means more on each score. If we want a fixed number qualifying, the score required will go up.

If extra candidates are as a result of a wider spread of abilities taking the test - to take an arbitrary example if the top 30% of the all-ability cohort took it, rather than the top 25%, then the raw score required for a standardised score of 100 would actually go down. But conversely scores above that would go up - so a score which used to get 110 would be achieved by 25.25% of the original cohort. But in the new enlarged cohort those 25.25% would according to a normal distribution only be 21.04% of the candidates - so we'd expect them to be getting scores of 112. Same students qualifying, same raw scores - but an expanded range in the cohort has given them higher scores.

Hence the extra candidates each year are probably the cause of the rising qualifying scores, rather than a rise in absolute standards.

[Bob1892]

Yes the average will always be 100 per compenent of the final score (i.e. in this case 2). The other scores will relate to the percentage of candidates getting each score - so by definition more candidates means more on each score. If we want a fixed number qualifying, the score required will go up.

If extra candidates area as a result of a wider spread of abilities taking the test - to take an arbitrary example if the top 30% of the all-ability cohort took it, rather than the top 25%, then the raw score required for a standardised score of 100 would actually go down. But conversely scores above that would go up - so a score which used to get 110 would be achieved by 25.25% of the original cohort. But in the new enlarged cohort those 25.25% would according to a normal distribution only be 21.04% of the candidates - so we'd expect them to be getting scores of 112. Same students qualifying, same raw scores - but an expanded range in the cohort has given them higher scores.

Hence the extra candidates each year are probably the cause of the rising qualifying scores, rather than a rise in absolute standards.

So if there are only 100 extra candidates this c.f. last year then would there be no increase in the QS but in fact a 4-5 point drop due to the increases in PAN; and was the surprisingly large increase in QS last year due to the 500 extra candidates c.f. with the previous year. If last year saw one of the largest % increases in test takers in recent years it certainly wouldn't have much relationship to the birth rate as 2001 had one of the lowest birth rates seen for some time.

[Okanagan]

Correct - it's all due to the larger cohort, and the probable increased spread of abilities of that cohort. This year isn't a dramatically different cohort size to last, so I'd expect to see about a 4 point drop due to the extra places available.