Kent scores?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Guest
-
WorriedMan
There will be a cut off point but because the tests and the pupils taking them are different each year it won’t be known until the exam is marked and then it’s worked backwards from the ranking, although it would be nice to know what these marks have been in the past.
The reason that there are spare places could be that the test is ranked county wide but school admissions are more local, so one area may have more places than children pass whereas in another there could be more passing children than places for them. Sorting this out is a political quagmire made worse for KCC by the schools growing autonomy, the only way around having some overcapacity in the system is for the schools to have direct control over admissions, so if they have 120 places they take the top 120 scoring applicants. I think TW goes some way towards this as some schools want a higher mark for admission than the KCC pass mark.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the number of children taking the test this year, the ranking is done for all children irrespective of whether they take the test or not. In our local school the number of children taking the test seems quite high, mainly because with a failing school in the area non selective choices were limited. This led to a number of parents who knew their children weren’t really up to it putting down a grammar because the thought they didn’t need all 3 choices on the admission form and they might get lucky.
The reason that there are spare places could be that the test is ranked county wide but school admissions are more local, so one area may have more places than children pass whereas in another there could be more passing children than places for them. Sorting this out is a political quagmire made worse for KCC by the schools growing autonomy, the only way around having some overcapacity in the system is for the schools to have direct control over admissions, so if they have 120 places they take the top 120 scoring applicants. I think TW goes some way towards this as some schools want a higher mark for admission than the KCC pass mark.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the number of children taking the test this year, the ranking is done for all children irrespective of whether they take the test or not. In our local school the number of children taking the test seems quite high, mainly because with a failing school in the area non selective choices were limited. This led to a number of parents who knew their children weren’t really up to it putting down a grammar because the thought they didn’t need all 3 choices on the admission form and they might get lucky.
-
West Kent
As I have always understood it from speaking to teachers/heads standardisation was adjusting pupils scores based on their ages. In anyone year group you would find children who are almost a year younger/older than their peers. So standardisation is the process of making sure that the younger children are not disadvantaged, hence the younger they are the more marks are added to their raw score. Also some schools like the Judd add points to siblings. Hence it is very possible to gain 140 points without actually achieving 100% in your raw scores. This has been my understanding of things.In truth the standardised scores are just a way of ranking the children in order of ability, including those who don’t even take the test, so the top 20% of children can go be allocated to a grammar school.
-
WorriedMan
There are a number of methods of standardisation, the number one gets from KCC has been standardised not just for the child’s age but also for the difficulty of the test and the ability of the cohort taking the test. The figures are such that an 'average' child of 'average' age will score 100, the individuals score shows are how much that child is above, or below, that average.
Age standardisation adjusts the score based on the average for children in the same age band. In simplified terms if the average for all July children is 48.5% against an average for the whole group of 50% then the July children receive an uplift of 1.5%.
Test / Cohort standardisation adjusts the mark required to get a certain score up or down depending on how well the whole group of children did in this particular test on the day, this is why no one knows the ‘pass mark’ until the exam is marked.
Once they get this standardised result then an individual school can add 'points' depending on their own admission criteria e.g. for siblings.
Age standardisation adjusts the score based on the average for children in the same age band. In simplified terms if the average for all July children is 48.5% against an average for the whole group of 50% then the July children receive an uplift of 1.5%.
Test / Cohort standardisation adjusts the mark required to get a certain score up or down depending on how well the whole group of children did in this particular test on the day, this is why no one knows the ‘pass mark’ until the exam is marked.
Once they get this standardised result then an individual school can add 'points' depending on their own admission criteria e.g. for siblings.
-
WorriedMan
If you're still unsure of the information given earlier have a look at it on the Judd school web site (a.k.a. the horse's mouth). It gives 2005 Kent test marks required to get a standardised score of 140 ('top marks') and 120 (a safe pass), mentioning that the pattern for 2006 was similar. Outside of Tonbridge Wells it’s getting 119 or over that matters (117 for any one of the tests) after that other criteria are used to sort out oversubscription (siblings, distance etc.). My heart goes out to TW children (and parents) who have to chase top marks.
http://www.juddschool.org.uk/Documents/ ... %2006).pdf
http://www.juddschool.org.uk/Documents/ ... %2006).pdf
-
yetanotherguest
This Judd link is a bit bizarre... Saying 420 was the most common score last year means *most candidates* in Kent got 140 in each of the three papers. Can this be right? If so, standardisation is simply obscuring the true rank order rather than clarifying it.
And no-one, repeat no-one, is saying elsewhere that a raw score of ca 50% equates to roughly 120.
And no-one, repeat no-one, is saying elsewhere that a raw score of ca 50% equates to roughly 120.
-
guestkent
I think that you must have misread it. It says that the *maximum* score is 140 but this does not equate to 100% and that the *minimum* selective score is 120 and that this equates to about 50%. Or it might mean that 140 was the most common score for entry into the Judd.This Judd link is a bit bizarre... Saying 420 was the most common score last year means *most candidates* in Kent got 140 in each of the three papers. Can this be right? If so, standardisation is simply obscuring the true rank order rather than clarifying it.
And no-one, repeat no-one, is saying elsewhere that a raw score of ca 50% equates to roughly 120.
I think that people try scaring you about saying that their kids got 100% when in fact what they actually mean is 140 points. This then sends everyone into a blind panic that their kids are only getting 90% and thus are not getting a good enough mark.
What is important is that your child has tried their hardest, if they have and do not get a grammar school place, then obviously, whatever we might feel, then grammar school is probably not the right place for them. However, this might be difficult to accept as sometimes there is not a decent comp to send them to.
Like Proud Mum said, in a different part of the forum. yes Judd and Skinners do get slightly better marks than TW but they are more selective to begin with.
-
yetanotherguest
My point is simply that if Judd is right to say: "420 was the most common score in Kent in 2006" (as they do in the link above) then the standardising process is simply obscuring the differences between the brightest children, bunching large numbers of them at the top of the scale. How can that be useful?
It does seem that KCC is very happy to leave parents in a state of confusion about the processes of standardisation and the sorts of raw scores they should be looking for in practice papers. Our primary school advised raw scores of ca 75% as the target, as this was the probable pass mark (ie translating to 120). Judd, however, says that in 2005 and 2006 raw scores of that sort (ie 75%) translated to 140 per paper, with raw scores of ca 50% being a pass at 120.
Why should such confusion be allowed to persist?
It does seem that KCC is very happy to leave parents in a state of confusion about the processes of standardisation and the sorts of raw scores they should be looking for in practice papers. Our primary school advised raw scores of ca 75% as the target, as this was the probable pass mark (ie translating to 120). Judd, however, says that in 2005 and 2006 raw scores of that sort (ie 75%) translated to 140 per paper, with raw scores of ca 50% being a pass at 120.
Why should such confusion be allowed to persist?
