Moderators - What are the scores suggesting?

[Shabbo_uk]

Dear all moderators and people who have been looking at scoring for a few years....
What do the scores in general represent? Are they similar to last year it has there been a significant drop in scores? Many people I have spoken with suggest that the exam was tough and many children scoring less than anticipated. Is this true? If so do you think that the schools will decrease their cut off points??

[Tonythetiger]

I'm not sure the scores are necessarily lower than expected. At my DD's (state) school there hasn't been much that's been unexpected apart from a couple of pretty high (240s) scores. The others have done as you would expect really - some in the 220s, some in the teens and others lower but no exceptionally bright kids that have scored significantly lower than expected (of the ones I know about, that is )

[Petitpois]

Nothing overly unusual in the spread of scores has emerged,but no one is going easily analyse the myriad of post on here and its not a reliable data set anyway. We don't know is the honest answer

FO do, but won't say a word.

If the cut offs, jump or slip you'll only see this first time on 1/3/16.

[kenyancowgirl]

My interpretation, based on a good few years observation and the scores that have come out on the forum (and to me personally) - which are admittedly a small select sample - is more that the scores are much more bunched around the "normal" scores (you have the usual few high/low scores but the middle ones are much more bunched.) This means that a score that last year would have guaranteed a place, is now a much lower ranked score (as more children are on the the same point or points around it). The fact that a score that last year would have guaranteed you a place and isn't this year, is also possibly indicative of a slightly "easier" test...although easy/hard is obviously subjective.

[nervousmom]

I have just posted the following under UM's 'Birmingham Last Scores' post


As I haven't had my Birmingham letter I am not 100% sure what I'm saying, but bear with me

When sending results, I assume the last 2/3 yeas scores for each school are listed, which as we know are scores on offers day and not eventual scores.

As we know 2015 were higher due to no initial offers over PAN. This has got me thinking that the eventual score for CHB might be lower but FW and etc higher. This is my reasoning

Someone not in the know, gets a score of 240. We all know this is enough for CHB. However, these people might see the 243 and think they have no chance of getting in, so look to other schools with lower AQS.

Am I taking any sense, because this has slightly worried me a little as to how it will effect the score for FW.

Any thoughts anyone?

[kenyancowgirl]

Yes...!! MESSAGE TO EVERYONE - spread the word:

If you have the space on your CAF, list your schools in YOUR TRUE PREFERENCE ORDER. Make sure you have at least one realistic option (e.g. your catchment state school) and get your CAF in, in time. You have no way of second guessing what preference other people will list their school choices in; you have no way of second guessing what the AQS will be; you have no way of second guessing if the total cohort of a school is lower than expected which means that, unexpectedly, they are able to offer over PAN in Y7 to make up the shortfall.

You have no way of knowing and, therefore, no way of controlling these factors. You can, however, control the filling in of your CAF with your true preference order. Control the controllables and try not to worry not, till March.

[Newbee :)]

Hi all,
Have just had a conversation with Admissions Team at BV and CHSB who say, judging from the queries they have dealt with, generally they have seen a fall in the 11+ results this year. Apparently much more parents are calling to discuss lower than expected results this year. Not sure what to make of this.

[Petitpois]

Yes we had a spate of quite high scores on the WSC around 360ish mark.

225 mark is the highest I can see. I have been gob smacked this morning. 220 KE 360+ WSC.

I really do believe they didn't go for difficulty on the KE but used speed as the distinguishing factor. Every one I have spoken to say they got hood winked by the speed, to some degree by speed

Where weaker scores occurred on WSC they also tend to occured on KE so 310 / 204 or 270 / 170 or 285 / 195

There are people posting scores the other way round, but I find it interesting that for the ones I know universally have come down in the KE.

I am worried as this could make borderline a huge problem for this year

[Newbee :)]

I really do believe they didn't go for difficulty on the KE but used speed as the distinguishing factor. Every one I have spoken to say they got hood winked by the speed, to some degree by speed

This is spot on! This is exactly what my little one said after sitting both exams - he said the Walsall exam made him "think" but the KE was "easy but ran out of time"

[Petitpois]

CEM would never be transparent on this point. But it would suggest to me that for as many that would have easily been able to cope with the level but not the speed, there will have been euqla amounts that would have been okay with the speed and mostly okay with the level.

Cut offs thus stay stable hopefully.

Could be horrible for WSC though with loads of brummies bussing in for school in Walsall and WGHS