Age Standardisation

[Leighmum2019]

Standardisation Guidance here - https://www.csse.org.uk/images/simplefi ... -10-18.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've checked DD's score without age standardisation- 305.7 compared to 312.77 (end of April birthday). Quite significant!

[Wontsleeptonight]

So it seems that a child born on 31 Aug would score 10 points mote than one born 1 Sep...This means that the average overall scores are going to be higher this year on average by 5.3 points (unless in my hurry I missed something.) That might affect the coloured zones.

[Inspired111]

This is why I was worrying about this as it is comparing across the whole year but not comparing the same children who were born in the same month.

This made a significant difference!

[Wontsleeptonight]

For clarity, it is absolutely fair that they age standardised, but their method means that we no longer see 300 as the mean score, it will be around 305.
What my concern is that we are for the first year seeing a cohort with inflated scores that are not comparable to the prior years, and people may not realise this when considering the red, amber green guidance.


I would suggest that to get a real feel for where your child sits within the coloured tables you carry out the calculation without the age factored in...this might help anyone on the borderline.

(Actual score ( out of 60) - mean score )/standard deviation

Then multiply this by 15 and add 100.

Do this for maths and English and get the total then multiply that by 1.5.

This should give a score a little less than the official score but will be more realistic in terms of where you are on the tables.

[htm]

So it seems that a child born on 31 Aug would score 10 points mote than one born 1 Sep...This means that the average overall scores are going to be higher this year on average by 5.3 points (unless in my hurry I missed something.) That might affect the coloured zones.

That's right.

In my opinion, it is totally unfair. CSSE, doing age standardisation for the first time, has failed to take into account the significant impact of age standardisation on chances of many students. CSSE has clearly got it wrong (probably poorly advised or just analytically dumb).

Elsewhere (i.e. in other boroughs), I have seen age standardisation make very small difference, sometimes in the order of 1st decimal place. But 10 points here and there, can make or break chances. Can CSSE explain why 10 points difference, why not 5 or why not 15?

First of all, I am not convinced that early and late-borns have any distinct relative advantage or disadvantage, 10 years after their birth. You are welcome to test my thesis empirically by looking at non-age standardised scores to see if there is any pre-ponderance of Sep-Dec born candidates in top score bracket. Candidate's aptitude, hard work, tutoring (whether DIY or tuition centre) etc. are the main key differentiators. Age is hardly a factor. To think of it, candidates themselves have no control or choice on when they were born!

At the very most, if age has to be considered a factor, use it only for tie-breaker to decide which of the two tied candidates on waiting list gets the offer (younger one to get nod). But to let a lower scoring candidate get a 10 point advantage over another by virtue of being younger is gross injustice.

To any objective mind, age-standardisation is scientific junk (pseudo-science). It's anti-ageism and politically incorrect to boot. If anything (and this is proven by medical studies), it is children who are born pre-mature who suffer from disadvantage, rather those who are born in June-August. Should CSSE or other school/council admissions be asking which child was born pre-mature and who was born after the term, to ensure level playing field?

I say this as someone who is neither personally affected (adversely) by age-standardisation nor is a parent of any early-term born to be taking sides.

[TheVMan]

So it seems that a child born on 31 Aug would score 10 points mote than one born 1 Sep...

If true, that is so unfair. My daughter is a September baby.

[anotherdad]

So it seems that a child born on 31 Aug would score 10 points mote than one born 1 Sep...

If true, that is so unfair. My daughter is a September baby.

Why is it unfair? It's been standardised for age after being tested to see if age adjustment was necessary. That's the very definition of fairness.

[Oguledoen]

Standardisation Guidance here - https://www.csse.org.uk/images/simplefi ... -10-18.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've checked DD's score without age standardisation- 305.7 compared to 312.77 (end of April birthday). Quite significant!

I am so happy for you and you Dc given the prior concerns you raised

[TheVMan]

So it seems that a child born on 31 Aug would score 10 points mote than one born 1 Sep...

If true, that is so unfair. My daughter is a September baby.

Why is it unfair? It's been standardised for age after being tested to see if age adjustment was necessary. That's the very definition of fairness.

If you were hiring, would you offer the role to an under-perfoming candidate, just because he/she was a day younger? That would be called ageism.

All the kids have had enough time to prepare for the exam, and that should negate any perceived advantage of being a few days/months older.

Where will this stop? For how long do you want to fiddle the numbers, to the detriment of slightly older kids?

[AlP80]

On that example, we're talking about 364 days difference to a 10/11 year old. That's a considerable difference. But for one day either side, the children could've been 2 school years apart...

My child is a middle-of-the-yearer btw, so not really affected to this extent.