Raw scores
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
In my experience there is no gain to be got from an obsession with raw scores. So, one child got a higher 140 than another - gee. A raw mark is meaningless unless it is standardised to the difficulty of the test. That's why some bought tests are useless in terms of assessing ability.
At the end of the day, scores reflect performance on the day and are only a guide to ability whatever that is. Wherever there are grammar schools, then admission is decided by performance in a set of tests that vary from county to county, in some cases from school to school. Kent has a powerful advantage over many other authorities with grammar schools in that its appeal system allows a second chance for many children who have underperformed for whatever reason. In Bexley, almost no children get through on appeal!
Primary schools do their best to advise, but it is a very inexact science and that advice varies from school to school (apart from those who give none!). At the end of the day, parents have to take responsibility over whether to enter children for grammar school. Under the new Kent admission rules abolishing first preference first, there is no longer a penalty for sitting a grammar school test, such as losing out on an appropriate non selective school, if you select schools sensibly (but too many parents are still badly advised, or don't read the rules carefully).
Some of the above does not apply to West Kent with the cutthroat highly selective grammars.
Sorry, its a rant, but do try and keep a sense of proportion.
At the end of the day, scores reflect performance on the day and are only a guide to ability whatever that is. Wherever there are grammar schools, then admission is decided by performance in a set of tests that vary from county to county, in some cases from school to school. Kent has a powerful advantage over many other authorities with grammar schools in that its appeal system allows a second chance for many children who have underperformed for whatever reason. In Bexley, almost no children get through on appeal!
Primary schools do their best to advise, but it is a very inexact science and that advice varies from school to school (apart from those who give none!). At the end of the day, parents have to take responsibility over whether to enter children for grammar school. Under the new Kent admission rules abolishing first preference first, there is no longer a penalty for sitting a grammar school test, such as losing out on an appropriate non selective school, if you select schools sensibly (but too many parents are still badly advised, or don't read the rules carefully).
Some of the above does not apply to West Kent with the cutthroat highly selective grammars.
Sorry, its a rant, but do try and keep a sense of proportion.
neurotickentmum2 - why does your dh want to know the raw scores? Can he explain what he would do with the information one he has got it? I really wish, on reflection, that parents weren't told thier children's scores - just what school they had been allocated. i suppose I would have to allow people considering an appeal to know, but I don't think anyone else should. I have to admit a personal interes here - my dd, who passed with OK but not brilliant scores, is being given a hard time by another child in her class "You won't be able to cope at Grammar school with a score like that!" and other similarly charming remarks. I shudder to think wnat would happen if the raw scores were available!
-
neurotic kent mum 2
kentmum1
If I had a penny for the times I've heard "you need 100% (literally) to get into the Judd", then I'd be v wealthy! However, after reading their website on standardised scores, I was simply curious to find out son's raw scores, to see what this year's 140 did actually equate to. It seems that most think that 140 literally means no errors. Even our headteacher thought that when he congratulated our son. I don't think it's irrelevant to knowthe raw scores, especially if considering the Judd. However, I'm not at all upset as to this year's equation. Why should it upset anyone? 140 still means the highest marks were gained, against that particular cohort, on those particular days. They've all done well just to pass. The errors simply indicate just how much time pressure and stress they are under. It's not something I'd ever use to compare against another child. At the end of the day, we should be entitled to know this info, if we 'want' to. The info is v easy to obtain, I just rang KCC with son's ID no. They were more than happy to divulge.
I feel it's best that the standardised scores are not obtained before choosing a school. A high score does not necessarily mean a highly selective school is more suitable. Parents might be swayed by these scores and be tempted to match them to a school, rather than what best suits the child. This test is not the best indicator of future success, especially with the high level of coaching.
As far as school practice tests are concerned, I will never be too influenced by these again. After teaching our first, and in the future, our second and third, I now feel confident to go along with my own judgements!
I feel it's best that the standardised scores are not obtained before choosing a school. A high score does not necessarily mean a highly selective school is more suitable. Parents might be swayed by these scores and be tempted to match them to a school, rather than what best suits the child. This test is not the best indicator of future success, especially with the high level of coaching.
As far as school practice tests are concerned, I will never be too influenced by these again. After teaching our first, and in the future, our second and third, I now feel confident to go along with my own judgements!