Non Qualification Selection Review adv-Inconsistent Rounding

[anotherdad]

anotherdad, I've made a slight edit to my post to reflect the fact that I agree with your statement that it is a nonsensical approach mathematically speaking.

But I don't think it is a nonsensical approach, mathematically speaking. It's mathematically entirely acceptable. It's true that rounding up from 0.5 or more is more commonplace, but there are several circumstances where one would choose to round down to an integer. The birthday/age one is perhaps most common (one cannot vote if the election falls a day before one's 18th birthday for example), but there are examples in other fields as well and especially where there is a "finish line" to be crossed. I am a critic of much of the new process, but on this point, I think that CEM has chosen a method of rounding that is entirely suited to the context.

[Sally-Anne]

OK, OK.

But it doesn't get away from the fact that there have been two different rules applied in this case.

And without mentioning the dreaded standardisation process, is there rounding involved there, and if so, is the policy applied consistently throughout that as well?

Bit of a can of worms, really, and galling when it is such a near-miss.

(It's a bit like saying that, because DS2 was born at 8.27pm, he can't vote until that time if an election were to fall on his 18th birthday.)

<splits hairs with anotherdad>

[LeprechaunQueen]

Can I just re-iterate the advice to abzee to use all your energies to prepare your data for Review rather than take the panel to task for the rounding? (I was in your position give or take a decimal point the year before last). I know it's infuriating. I put as my first point something like "With a score of 120.xx, DS must have achieved one of the very highest non-qualifying scores in the county" and left it as that - brevity winning out over sarcastic fury. We were successful at Review.

[anotherdad]

(It's a bit like saying that, because DS2 was born at 8.27pm, he can't vote until that time if an election were to fall on his 18th birthday.)

...and how many seconds into the 28th minute?

[Sally-Anne]

0.59, of course.

[Tolstoy]

Commiserations abzee, galling as it is to have only missed by decimals take comfort in the fact that it does equal a higher percentage for success at review. so goodluck.

I hope you don't mind me asking questions on your thread but it is relevant to your particular case.

I notice that you like us have comfortably passed in two areas with a significant drop in just one area. I have also seen mention of an Ed psych being part of the review panel ( i.e someone who would understand that inconsistent results can be related to un-diagnosed SEN)). Does anyone know if there is a higher likelihood of success in these cases, particularly if

a, there is a good explanation for the dropped discipline

and/or

b, in CATs results this severe drop in the one discipline didn't happen.

[Sally-Anne]

Does anyone know if there is a higher likelihood of success in these cases, particularly if

a, there is a good explanation for the dropped discipline

and/or

b, in CATs results this severe drop in the one discipline didn't happen.

Yes, there should be a higher chance of success, although the more CATs there are to show consistent ability, plus other academic evidence, the better.

A case a couple of years ago: A boy who was a very able mathematician, top of his year group in the subject, several years' worth of CAT results showing exceptional mathematical ability. Bombed the maths in CEM. Possibly he lost his place on the answer sheet, or he just had a bad day for no obvious reason. Whatever the cause, everyone was truly baffled by his score. The Review was successful.

[Etienne]

I have also seen mention of an Ed psych being part of the review panel ( i.e someone who would understand that inconsistent results can be related to un-diagnosed SEN))

Just for the record, the review panel consists of three headteachers.
An Ed Psych is not part of the review panel, but is brought in to offer advice to the headteachers in specific cases (e.g. where the parent has raised SEN issues).

[Tolstoy]

Thank you Etienne.

[BucksBornNBred]

Does anyone know if there is a higher likelihood of success in these cases, particularly if

a, there is a good explanation for the dropped discipline

and/or

b, in CATs results this severe drop in the one discipline didn't happen.

Yes, there should be a higher chance of success, although the more CATs there are to show consistent ability, plus other academic evidence, the better.

A case a couple of years ago: A boy who was a very able mathematician, top of his year group in the subject, several years' worth of CAT results showing exceptional mathematical ability. Bombed the maths in CEM. Possibly he lost his place on the answer sheet, or he just had a bad day for no obvious reason. Whatever the cause, everyone was truly baffled by his score. The Review was successful.

Tolstoy, we went to appeal (not review as he was not well supported by HT). DS bombed one discipline despite being top percentile in that discipline in all 3 CATs taken. We presented this evidence and it was considered/commented on by the panel and formed part of their decision to grant the appeal. I obviously have no expertise on any of this but just wanted to say it did make a difference in our case.