The topic "raw marks" seems to serve two purposes: (1) to give parents a way to show how happy and proud they are, and (2) to give some indication to those preparing for the test about how well one needs to do to pass. Given the off-the-charts results being usually reported, I'd say it serves the first purpose better than the second. Indeed, it is hard to infer what is the pass mark in each subject.

Ignoring age, the lowest pass marks that I was able to find in that thread are:

Maths 14 (out of 25)
English 14 (out of 26)
Reasoning 47 (out of 80)

Taking age into account:

Maths 0m: 14
Maths 1m: 14
Maths 2m: 15
Maths 3m: 17
Maths 4m: 17
Maths 5m: 17
Maths 6m: 17
Maths 7m: 17
Maths 8m: 17
Maths 9m: 17
Maths 10m: 17
Maths 11m: 17

English 0m: 14
English 1m: 14
English 2m: 18
English 3m: 18
English 4m: 18
English 5m: 18
English 6m: 18
English 7m: 18
English 8m: 18
English 9m: 24
English 10m: 24
English 11m: 24

Reasoning 0m: 47
Reasoning 1m: 47
Reasoning 2m: 48
Reasoning 3m: 55
Reasoning 4m: 55
Reasoning 5m: 55
Reasoning 6m: 55
Reasoning 7m: 55
Reasoning 8m: 55
Reasoning 9m: 59
Reasoning 10m: 59
Reasoning 11m: 59

All these numbers are minimum *known* based on the "raw scores" thread. The real pass marks might be lower. (In fact, they probably are: I bet you need less than 24 in English even if you are 10y11m -- but no such lower score was reported in the other thread, yet.) Also, I filled in some data based on the assumption that the pass mark for younger pupils cannot be higher than for older pupils.

It would be great if you could provide lower raw marks that were enough to reach the 110 threshold.

Don't understand this; the table looks like you're suggesting a 10 y 11 mo old child needs to get 24/26 in English to scrape a bare 110 pass, while a younger child needs 10 correct answers less. Am sure that is not the case. If 24/26 happens to be the lowest raw score reported but came out as a much higher standardised score, then I don't see the point of the table

The point of the table is to encourage people to report pass marks, rather than brag about how smart their children are.

So, yes, as I already said, 24 for English is unreasonable, but that's the kind of reporting that is currently found on these forums. It would be much better to report the lowest passing marks so that we can update this table, so that it will actually be useful, rather than just a vehicle for boasting.

I can honestly say I don't think that I have seen people bragging about how smart their children are. There are always a couple of people that sign up just to boast what their DC scored but you will never be able to stop that.

I'm not sure that filling in some data based on your own assumptions is that helpful and, could in fact, be misleading.

There has been a raw scores thread on the Kent section for many years and people find it helpful. It may be worth looking back at previous years threads and the associated comments rather than just signing up to criticise.

_________________
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad !

The table has exactly the same data as in the "raw scores" thread, except I put it in table form. What "assumptions" are you talking about?

Your words not mine.

_________________
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad !

I think people like to be reassured that their own child's standardised/ raw scores are in line with others.

I think quite a lot of people posted scores last year and more were closer to the pass mark so it was easier than for this year (so far) to work out what raw score seemed to be needed last year to pass. We also wanted to work out what raw score was needed.
I calculated that the pass mark was around the following last year. But in some cases no child had a standardised score of exactly 107 (which was the pass mark last year), so I had to do some back-of-envelope extrapolation and then there's the age standardisation.
Maths: 62%
English: 46%
Reasoning: 52%

This year fewer have provided scores so far, and as you say they tend to be higher. Based on the scores provided so far I think the raw pass marks seem to be approximately the following but the back-of-envelope extrapolation is even less certain this year so far:
Maths:50%
English: 54%
Reasoning: 44%

2 things that does sort of make sense about the apparent change in pass marks this year is:
- They included some brand new reasoning questions which stumped nearly everyone I guess so you would expect the pass mark to drop.
- GL/KCC may well aim to have similar pass marks for the 3 subjects so may have made the maths paper harder than last year (given the high scores last year) and made the English a little easier.

This is just my view and the "calculations" above are not necessarily reliable. However, we did use those pass marks above as guidance which was helpful in preparation for the test.

I do think it's human nature that those with higher scores will be more likely to post their scores than others. But I don't think we can blame them for that when they are just responding honestly to a thread request. And similarly we can't expect everyone to respond to the request.

The people on this forum are really very generous natured and I am sure those with lower marks will post on the raw scores thread in time but, obviously, their first priority will be dealing with their dc's disappointment.

_________________
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad !

I'm not an expert but I think there's some truth to your comments. I expected my son to do better. Maths because that's his strongest subject but was quite surprised that he got higher marks in English. Similarly, a few parents have commented on other posts that there children did not expected marks in Maths.