Raw score request

[Jpk]

The fact that summer born children are at a disadvantage is one of the main reasons that we have standardisation in the first place and, as mentioned above, those children are potentially still under performing when they come to take their GCSEs. I do not, therefore, agree with scary mum's comments that the fact that all children scored highly demonstrates that the younger children have caught up! In fact those children still have another 5/6 years to go until they do fully catch up (which is an equivalent period to the length of primary school education that they have had at the time that they sit the tests!)


Going back to pippi's post where he/she set out the raw scores per month required to achieve a standardised score of 121, a one mark difference (74 against 73) on the second test between an October born child and a July born child just doesn't seem to take age into account enough.

The problem seems to be that the tests were too easy and so many children scored so highly that not enough headroom was left for a fairer standardisation process to be applied this year. Are figures ever published setting out the percentages of children that passed according to the month that they were born in? That would be interesting (to me anyway!)

Agreed! Could this be available under foi request?

[scary mum]

My comment about them catching up was slightly flippant - my point was that you could say that this supports the argument - in fact I think the closeness of scores across the ages just shows the extent to which this type of 11plus has run it's course. (I have 3 summer born children and so have seen the effects of this on them over the years).

[scary mum]

The fact that summer born children are at a disadvantage is one of the main reasons that we have standardisation in the first place and, as mentioned above, those children are potentially still under performing when they come to take their GCSEs. I do not, therefore, agree with scary mum's comments that the fact that all children scored highly demonstrates that the younger children have caught up! In fact those children still have another 5/6 years to go until they do fully catch up (which is an equivalent period to the length of primary school education that they have had at the time that they sit the tests!)


Going back to pippi's post where he/she set out the raw scores per month required to achieve a standardised score of 121, a one mark difference (74 against 73) on the second test between an October born child and a July born child just doesn't seem to take age into account enough.

The problem seems to be that the tests were too easy and so many children scored so highly that not enough headroom was left for a fairer standardisation process to be applied this year. Are figures ever published setting out the percentages of children that passed according to the month that they were born in? That would be interesting (to me anyway!)

Agreed! Could this be available under foi request?

I have seen this on here somewhere before. I'll see if I can find it (my penance!).

Here it is - from 2010, presumably other years available too:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 12&t=22795" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sally-Anne]

I have seen this on here somewhere before. I'll see if I can find it (my penance!).

Here it is - from 2010, presumably other years available too:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 12&t=22795" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well done scary - I was just about to post it myself.

That thread went a little bit pear-shaped towards the end, so beware some of the deductions made on it. It does however show that an FoI request can be made, and it could be interesting to see comparative figures for this year, albeit the discussion would be academic. (Gives us something to do before 1st March, I suppose! )

I don't think there have been any other threads on the same topic containing stats - just a lot of speculation.

[Lillie]

There is also information on this forum which shows the raw scores needed to gain 121 by month, and I'm sure that the high 60s were required in past years for a summer-born child, not 72 or 73 - this would have been the level required for a September child in some previous years I think.

[Sally-Anne]

Lillie, I removed that thread from the forum a couple of weeks ago in case it caused confusion after the introduction of the new test, with which there will of course be no comparison on scoring.

These are the scores - from the 2010 tests:

Code: Select all

                  Paper 1                    Paper 2
               RS       SS               RS           SS  
Sep            71       121              74           121
Oct            70       121              74           121
Nov            70       121              73           121 
Dec            69       121              73           121
Jan            69       121              73           121    
Feb            69       121              72           121   
Mar            68       121              72           121
Apr            68       121              72           121
May            67       121              71           121
Jun            67       121              71           121
Jul            66       121              70           121
Aug            65       121              69           121         

[WD43]

those figures are interesting. Whereas last year there was a four mark difference between October born children and July born children on both papers, this year the difference on the second paper was only one mark which means the effect of age standardisation was completely flattened re that paper.

This is annoying because the accepted position (supported by my daughter's head teacher)and which I followed seemed to be not to raise the age issue in the selection review form for parents as it was already fairly addressed through the standardisation process.

[MollyB]

I do not think you should get too caught up with the issue of Summer born children I have 2 summer born and two Spring born one was 9 weeks premature. They all passed the 11 plus and 3 have taken A'levels and Gcse's one still to get there. When they were born has not been an issue at all. I was told with my premature baby that by 5 he would have caught up with full term babies and I have never treated him differently he is a strapping 18 year old with top A'level results at a top Uni. Please do not feel that your Summer born children will only catch up at GCSE's I think it is down to the individual child and once they get to Grammar school the work is not standardised as far as I know. I am so pleased this exam is about to change although it will not affect us now. Over the last few years my older boys when they were in the 6th form have had to mentor year 7 children in Maths and they often wondered how they managed to get to a Grammar School in the first place as they were so poor at Maths. Hopefully that may change in the future.

[WD43]

I agree with what you say MollyB but you will have to forgive me as I am in 'selection review' mode for another few weeks and am peeved that my daughter who is highly recommended by her head teacher, grammar school standard sats (predicted and actual) has just missed out on the magic 121 with a 120/ 72 raw score on that second test where she possibly may not have done so if age standardisaation had resulted in a greater differential between the older and younger children on that particular test paper and not just one paltry mark!

[MollyB]

Wd43 I am so sorry that you are having to go through the selection review you obviously have a very capable child and you sound as though you have the backing from your Headteacher. My heart goes out to all the parents having such a difficult time unfortunately this system is very stressful and does seem unfair at times. Our very good friends son scored 120 (sept birthday) they thought he was at a great disadvantage but he was a very able boy had great support from the Headteacher high SATS predictions and luckily they had very high CAT scores so the appeal was very straight forward, the panel were very nice and it was a very short appeal they were successful he is in top sets and has never looked back. Keep positive and the very best of luck.