Exceptionally high scores due to exceptional cohort

[Sarmum]

Sorry that’s not 192 CRGS, but 192 CCHSG places (Colchester)

[Sarmum]

Sorry, the Southend IC passes for 2019 entry is 245 and not 262. That’s another 17 unfilled places.

While IC passes for girls is the same as previous years, the increase in total number of girls sitting the test ha increased by about 200. This increase coupled with 100 more scores of >351 has led to higher cutoffs.

[Sarmum]

I was very interested to study the whole set of results rather than just the high scores.


2017 entry

303-325:Girls 489 - Boys 575
326-340:Girls 265 - Boys 298
341-350:Girls 148 - Boys 153
....>350:Girls 243 - Boys 215

2018 entry

303-325:Girls 558 - Boys 631
326-340:Girls 289 - Boys 316
341-350:Girls 152 - Boys 175
....>350:Girls 217 - Boys 272

2019 entry

303-325:Girls 599 - Boys 573
326-340:Girls 338 - Boys 336
341-350:Girls 170 - Boys 187
....>350:Girls 329 - Boys 448

Without a doubt, its the scores above 350 which has made a greater impact to the 2019 entry cut off scores. 100 more girls and 200 more boys have scored above 350 compared to previous years. That’s why I call it an exceptional cohort.

I know we have many disheartened, disappointed and distraught parents including myself who are trying to find out why they are not offered their higher choices despite their DC’s scoring above 335 for CRGS, WHSB and SHSB and above 340 for KEGS IC, and above 374 for OOC. This data may help you come to understand your realistic chances of waiting list places.

It is hard to accept that 335 to 345 have become borderline scores this year, while it’s been 320 to 328 in the past.

I do hope we all get our choices.

[DsMum2019]

Indeed. Thank you for a very informative input.

[DSDSDD]

@ Sarmum - I commend your efforts, but all "exceptional cohort" analysis is meaningless as you're not comparing like-for-like. The increase in the number of candidates should/will have a proportional impact on the frequencies, but as I've alluded to earlier in this thread, you're not accounting for the effects that age-standardisation has had on the 2019 "Total Scores". Had age-standardisation not been applied, a number of candidates currently scoring >351 would have actually fallen within the 341-350 band, with the same principle applying further down the range.

Only (if and) when the non-'age-standardised' scores become available, will a comparative analysis be possible and of benefit.

This effect of age-standardisation is quite apparent in the WHSB i/c intake, (with a hard cut-off of 303) which in previous years 2017/18 was unable to fill its i/c allocation. For 2019 entry, age-standardisation has 'bumped-up' the scores to above this threshold of those who would have non-adjusted scores of 292.340-302.999, thus making them eligible for consideration. The result is that the i/c cutoff has risen to ~308 (based on earlier posts).

[ayparents]

Age standardised cut off score of 303 vs 302.99, based on date of birth

Hypothetically,
Kid 1) A 2nd Sep 2007 born kid with non-age-standardised score of 302.9608, would have had 0.0292 points added for age-standardisation, with a final age-standardised score of 302.99.

Kid 2) A 31 August 2008 born kid with non-age-standardised score of 292.3104, would have had 10.6896 points added for age-standardisation, with a final age-standardised score of 303, tipping this score to be a standardised cutoff score.

In such a scenario, Kid2 would have possibly gained a GS place whereas Kid1 would NOT have.

I am sure there are very good reasons for age standardisation, but in case of Essex for this year at times, it has 10+ points change, which acts as a tipping balance for the admission cutoff scores.

[FTP12]

My DD was born early September. She scored 335.50. A child born in Aug would have scored around 345 and received a place. Sadly my DD missed out and is on the waiting list. Fingers crossed.

[Leighmum2019]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... Y.xls.html

This shows the breakdown of scores by birth month - even assuming that half of the May-August scores were bumped down a bracket (there will be some summer borns who performed well regardless of age standardisation) there still wouldn't have been enough ooc places to go around this year because of the increase in i/c passes.

[DSDSDD]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... Y.xls.html

This shows the breakdown of scores by birth month - even assuming that half of the May-August scores were bumped down a bracket (there will be some summer borns who performed well regardless of age standardisation) there still wouldn't have been enough ooc places to go around this year because of the increase in i/c passes.

But it’s not just half of candidates......ALL candidates had age-standardisation applied to some extent.....as long as it was enough to get you over a hard/soft threshold. In my example, it being WHSB i/c of 303.

[ayparents]

In my example, it being WHSB i/c of 303.

@DSDSDD,
I hope I didnt misread this comment. If yes, apologies in advance.
Are you stating your DC score is 303 and offered WHSB? If not, do you want to share the score of your DC?