Just not relevant at all.

I agree, it seems to be up to 15 points adrift in places. Positively misleading really.

It is and always has been just a guide to whether it is worth listing the school on your CAF. It should never be a definitive rule of what scores get in and what don't.

For my daughters year she was Amber on the guide but got in on offer day.

Its why you should ALWAYS list the schools in genuine order of preference because scores fluctuate.

As I have said on the other thread, there has been a very big increase in scores above 350. With 200 more boys scoring above 350 compared to previous years, (suppose the same with girls), CSSE should have factored in the higher cut offs, as they obviously know the results before releasing them.

Although that doesn’t change the allocation, we would know what to expect.

To be fair, the guide has never claimed to be a definitive indicator of successful entry. It only gives historical data over the last 4 years, not the current year's results. This year's results, as we know, have moved significantly to the right, particularly for the Southend schools, but it is no fault of CSSE. Age standardisation, after all, came about from a parent complaint, so if anything, I feel CSSE has tried to address this issue, but the outcome is results are bumped up, partly because of adjusting for age, but also quite possibly, children have simply been getting higher marks.

Very high scores by candidates sitting the 2019 intake paper has blown the guidance apart. For example, the score that was 'far exceeding' the requirements for a place at KEGS over the past 4 years; 345 would not get you an offer this year. 345.05 has received a 'not offered' response !!!

As we attempt to understand this year's results and offers, it is worthwhile reading more about it in a thread called: "Exceptionally high scores due to exceptional cohort" on the Essex forum.

However it is a guide and you should always list the schools you genuinely want your child to go to. Including your local comp.

If you did that you won't be disappointed with the school your child was allocated.

Couldn’t agree more

Being one of the "lucky ones" who were offered Kegs with 356 I feel most would feel "cheated" by the fact that

1. The Consortium had the new inflated scores (10 to the left/10 to the right/5 mid)
2. Could have sent out a NEW updated traffic light

Due to this, parents made secondary applications in ranking order with misleading information.

IF a new traffic light system would have been sent with the scores... moving the scores up

For example
2018 2019

KEGS i/c now KEGS i/c
amber 334 now amber 339
yellow 338 now yellow 343
green 345 now green 350

and If knew I only obtained 340 I WOULD NEVER HAVE PUT KEGS AS MY FIRST CHOICE. Your total application would have changed. Parents are distraught, misled and up in arms because the consortium failed them and their child by issuing misleading information.

BUT due to the trustworthy traffic light - we chose to put down all 4 grammars and then perhaps another two other alternatives. Some were offered no 4 instead of 1 due to the shift in numbers. Some only put down one (I know one parent) who put down only KEGS (yes very risky- but ) as her DS scored 345.123 - guess what - she did not get an offer from KEGs. I'm sure if the 2019 traffic light told her 350 i/c for 2019 is not the norm, a much more informative choice would have been made.

The green column says 'most likely' I think the head of KEGS made this very clear to people when he had the open day after the results, the slide he showed stating this and that scores are high was posted on this forum.

I appreciate not everyone knows about this forum.

I do feel for those who did not get in, more have passed this year right down to boys who maybe got 293 (raw) now having 303 (and a place if live in Southend/WC) if born in August so this has just shunted everything.

10 points is a lot when you look at the decimal places involved in those that did and didn't get in say with 345 at KEGS.