What was the kent maths paper really like this year?

[salsa]

Yes, makes sense. I have heard of some 'unexpected' results where very mathematically able children either did not make or just scraped the pass mark. I think it's fair to assume that the time element was the issue here. It seems even more of a problem in the Bexley test (about 28 q's in 11 mins or so?) where some L5A/6 maths kids didn't pass because they just couldn't work at that speed and didn't finish

I agree, CEM is just awful with timings. Please remind me, if you do not pass one of the papers in Bexley, can you still pass the whole test overall? Or is it like in Kent?

[mystery]

Yes, makes sense. I have heard of some 'unexpected' results where very mathematically able children either did not make or just scraped the pass mark. I think it's fair to assume that the time element was the issue here. It seems even more of a problem in the Bexley test (about 28 q's in 11 mins or so?) where some L5A/6 maths kids didn't pass because they just couldn't work at that speed and didn't finish

It's hard to say isn't it. Under the old style timing they would have had between 20 and 21 questions in 25 minutes. So are we saying that some children panicked timewise at some point part way through when they realised they couldn't do 30 questions in 25 minutes? As they only needed to get about 11 right to pass it maybe suggests that they were just having "a bad day" anyway. But it also suggests that the questions were not at the very easy end of the spectrum as otherwise very able mathematicians could have completed 30 questions "just requiring being good with your number facts" (as has been suggested to me this year's maths paper was) in 25 minutes, or most definitely managed a good deal more than 11 correct in 25 minutes.

The Bexley maths element isn't really 28 questions in 11 minutes is it? Surely that's a piece of misinformation - unless your questions really are pure arithmetic and no need to read the question and work out how to solve the problem?

I would still put money on this year's Kent maths questions being fairly representative of the questions in the GL assessment practice papers. My child tells me the practice questions beforehand were mostly just a bit of arithmetic but that the main paper was like the practice papers. So I wonder if the teachers who told me it was just "number facts" had not seen the main paper but had seen the practice questions?

Are people who invigilate supposed to read the main paper during or after the test or is that forbidden by Kent rules?

[frangipani]

I don't think the maths was like the practice papers. I'll tell you why...
My DS whizzed through the GL practice papers taking around 38-40mins to complete the 50 Q's and achieving 85-95%. (Never lower than 85%)His mistakes were almost always silly mistakes and he didn't need any help to correct them, as he knew how to answer them. He found all 8 Maths practice papers relatively easy. But he would not do any written workings (not even a smudge of pencil work) and insisted on doing all calculations in his head (he is very stubborn and would not listen to advice) He would also misinterpret some of the questions. So the majority of his wrong answers would be silly mistakes from no written workings or not reading the question properly.

In the real test he did not finish all the questions, and said the Q's were more difficult than he has seen before (my guess is that they were presented differently). So he was not able to show his full ability in maths although has achieved a good score, but not as high as expected. So i think the questions probably involved multi-stage problems that would be difficult to do mentally without making mistakes; or worded in a way that may have been confusing to him; or pitched at a higher level than he had been taught at school; or a combination of these factors. He hit the year five ceiling at the beginning of year five and wasn't able to progress ahead at school, despite finding the work far too easy. We are still having this problem in year 6 and he regularly complains about it. It might also be relevant that he did not sit any mock exams and is at a fairly standard (not particularly high achieving) Kent state school.
My son did say that the English paper was easier than the practice papers and the Reasoning was about the same as the practice ones.

His % results were higher than practice papers in English, around the same in Reasoning, but maths was much lower than practice papers, and lower than i ever would have expected to see. I expected maths to be his highest and strongest result, as it always has been his main strength, but he was not able to show this for one reason or another.

A teacher I know who saw the paper said it was very difficult and more like level 6-7 difficulty, not much level 5 Q's. Which I'm quite annoyed about as the school did not progress my ds on to level 6, despite being ready for it ages ago, (i understand why though and was reluctant to push him ahead myself as i felt it was unnecessary and he may end up bored in year 6 at school, just like year 4 &5). Also KCC had stated that the test would be pitched at level 5. Then there is also the lucky guess factor, but that's a whole other debate...

Anyway, we're well over it now and don't really care anymore, but hopefully others will find this information useful
FP

[salsa]

Very useful, thank you.

[Guest55]

There's no way it would be level 7 - that is just alarmist!

I suspect the questions were set in a problem solving format; this would make it seem unfamiliar.

[frangipani]

Sorry, I was just repeating what i was told but i should have been more precise with the statement. What was actually said was in this persons opinion the maths test was mostly level 6 difficulty and some Q's even looked like level 7. But It's just one persons opinion so i wouldn't read too much into it, although i did suspect level 6 Q's had cropped up, so do believe that. I don't know but i suppose it could be possible that the last couple of questions could have been that difficult, who knows

I think it was largely the different format that was difficult, for my ds at least.

[mystery]

I don't think the maths was like the practice papers. I'll tell you why...
My DS whizzed through the GL practice papers taking around 38-40mins to complete the 50 Q's and achieving 85-95%. (Never lower than 85%)His mistakes were almost always silly mistakes and he didn't need any help to correct them, as he knew how to answer them. He found all 8 Maths practice papers relatively easy. But he would not do any written workings (not even a smudge of pencil work) and insisted on doing all calculations in his head (he is very stubborn and would not listen to advice) He would also misinterpret some of the questions. So the majority of his wrong answers would be silly mistakes from no written workings or not reading the question properly.

In the real test he did not finish all the questions, and said the Q's were more difficult than he has seen before (my guess is that they were presented differently). So he was not able to show his full ability in maths although has achieved a good score, but not as high as expected. So i think the questions probably involved multi-stage problems that would be difficult to do mentally without making mistakes; or worded in a way that may have been confusing to him; or pitched at a higher level than he had been taught at school; or a combination of these factors. He hit the year five ceiling at the beginning of year five and wasn't able to progress ahead at school, despite finding the work far too easy. We are still having this problem in year 6 and he regularly complains about it. It might also be relevant that he did not sit any mock exams and is at a fairly standard (not particularly high achieving) Kent state school.
My son did say that the English paper was easier than the practice papers and the Reasoning was about the same as the practice ones.

His % results were higher than practice papers in English, around the same in Reasoning, but maths was much lower than practice papers, and lower than i ever would have expected to see. I expected maths to be his highest and strongest result, as it always has been his main strength, but he was not able to show this for one reason or another.

A teacher I know who saw the paper said it was very difficult and more like level 6-7 difficulty, not much level 5 Q's. Which I'm quite annoyed about as the school did not progress my ds on to level 6, despite being ready for it ages ago, (i understand why though and was reluctant to push him ahead myself as i felt it was unnecessary and he may end up bored in year 6 at school, just like year 4 &5). Also KCC had stated that the test would be pitched at level 5. Then there is also the lucky guess factor, but that's a whole other debate...

Anyway, we're well over it now and don't really care anymore, but hopefully others will find this information useful
FP

Head told me that it just required being good at number facts, no problem-solving whatsoever ----- don't know where she got this idea from but, equally, I don't think that it could have been level 6 or 7 as apart from some basic algebra my DD had not done anything which verged on level 6 material and she got a very respectable standardised score. I did tell her to expect the possibility of greater speed being required throughout than the practice papers and that as only around 50% was needed to pass not to worry.

Has your teacher friend seen the papers every year to make a comparison?

Is the problem that invigilators aren't really allowed to read the papers so even people in the room have only taken a hasty look so their impressions can be false?

I wonder if the " problem" (he got a good mark so it's not a problem) is the notion at your school that he hit the year 5 ceiling at the start of year 5 so they then gave him what sounds like a rubbish year of maths? Year 5 ceiling is presumably what you might expect as national standards at end of year 5 ( a 3a/4c) whereas Kent is expecting children who pass the 11 plus to be achieving level 5 by the end of year 5.

So one could say that the maths test was effective in your case - an able but badly taught child did get a good mark in the maths. But then, the puzzle is, as you say, that he got such high scores consistently in less than the given time in all the GL practice papers but you think he was "caught out" in the real thing in some way.

Do you know what raw score he did get and have you equated it, allowing for the different timings, to his raw scores in the practice papers? I think that the practice papers were thought, all taken together, to be similarish to the real things in the past with maybe some of the harder questions not in the real thing.

Could the difference be, if there is one, that he made more of his silly errors when feeling under pressure of it being the real thing?

[frangipani]

Head told me that it just required being good at number facts, no problem-solving whatsoever ----- don't know where she got this idea from but, equally, I don't think that it could have been level 6 or 7 as apart from some basic algebra my DD had not done anything which verged on level 6 material and she got a very respectable standardised score. I did tell her to expect the possibility of greater speed being required throughout than the practice papers and that as only around 50% was needed to pass not to worry.

Has your teacher friend seen the papers every year to make a comparison?

Is the problem that invigilators aren't really allowed to read the papers so even people in the room have only taken a hasty look so their impressions can be false?

I wonder if the " problem" (he got a good mark so it's not a problem) is the notion at your school that he hit the year 5 ceiling at the start of year 5 so they then gave him what sounds like a rubbish year of maths? Year 5 ceiling is presumably what you might expect as national standards at end of year 5 ( a 3a/4c) whereas Kent is expecting children who pass the 11 plus to be achieving level 5 by the end of year 5.

So one could say that the maths test was effective in your case - an able but badly taught child did get a good mark in the maths.

He was was level 5 at the beginning of year 5. I mean't that he seemed to hit the ceiling to which his school would teach/stretch him each year. It seems there is a limit to how high they will level him each year and once he hits it, he won't move until the next year. I think it's so they can show progress each year or perhaps it's as far as they teach each year. He whizzes through classwork and extension work and complains that it's not challenging enough. This has been going on for as long as i can remember. He is way above the rest of the class and it appears as if he's constantly being held back.
I'm hoping level 6 will keep him occupied this year but so far he still complains that it's not challenging enough

Next year though, is likely to be a whole different ball game

[mystery]

So maybe if you look at his raw score for maths you'll find it is comparable in some way with what he was getting in the GL practice papers and that any difference could be accounted for by random levels of carelessness or nerves on the day?

Has your school started level 6 maths work this term? Despite being told that my DD will be entered for it and that they are doing relevant KS3 work I still see no evidence of it whatsoever. I think perhaps that our school is not equipped to teach it or believes that anything with a KS3 label on it must be level 6 (when of course a lot of children enter KS3 on 4b or less).

[frangipani]

His raw score was very different to his practice papers. Something definitely went wrong for him on the day. But he probably still has a good enough score for his preferred school so it doesn't really matter now. Plenty of time to prove himself in the future.

Yes his teacher said they started level 6 a few weeks ago but DS says they are still doing quite basic stuff. It seems from what I can glean that they are going over fractions/percent/area etc... Perhaps slightly trickier ones, although nothing challenging enough yet. I think they must be preparing to get stuck in after Xmas and cram from Jan-May. Although that only gives them around 4 months which doesn't seem long enough to me but I assume they know what they are doing

I actually don't know what topics primary level 6 includes. But I'm familiar with secondary level 6 and have seen some primary past papers which appeared to be quite straight forward, so maybe they don't need to learn much level 6 material.
If anyone can enlighten me, or point me in the right direction, that would be great thanks