Cut-off scores for Judd and Skinners 2009

[Villagedad]

Does anyone have any information on cut-offs for TWBGS, eg score but distance in particular..?

[jimmymack]

Was discussed at the time. I think it was concluded that he demonstrated he had no understanding of the standardisation process

A bit unfair on Mr Masters. I was there when he made that remark and he seemed to be saying that the exams were that much earlier this year and, all things being equal, that would result in lower scores all round. Looks like something has gone very wrong with the scoring of the results this time around resulting in huge numbers of children getting higher results despite the earlier test and lots of children being pulled into the grammar stream who, in truth, should not have been.

I suspect there was an over-adjustment for the earlier tests by statisticians operating on the same basis as Mr Masters. Watch for the over-compensation next year with very low marks and far fewer kids getting 420.

Anyway, that is not Mr Masters fault. I have no doubt that he understands standardisation. I have had dealings with Mr Masters and he comes across as a thoroughly intelligent, decent, well-meaning person in a very difficult job. By the way, I am not a Judd parent.

[tonbridgemum]

If only the Judd pupils felt the same way... .( I'm an ex Judd parent!) sorry off topic
Sure you are right jimmymack.

[jimmymack]

If only the Judd pupils felt the same way... .( I'm an ex Judd parent!) sorry off topic
Sure you are right jimmymack.

Why don't you just spell it out?

[dadofkent]

Was discussed at the time. I think it was concluded that he demonstrated he had no understanding of the standardisation process

A bit unfair on Mr Masters. I was there when he made that remark and he seemed to be saying that the exams were that much earlier this year and, all things being equal, that would result in lower scores all round. Looks like something has gone very wrong with the scoring of the results this time around resulting in huge numbers of children getting higher results despite the earlier test and lots of children being pulled into the grammar stream who, in truth, should not have been.

I suspect there was an over-adjustment for the earlier tests by statisticians operating on the same basis as Mr Masters. Watch for the over-compensation next year with very low marks and far fewer kids getting 420.

Anyway, that is not Mr Masters fault. I have no doubt that he understands standardisation. I have had dealings with Mr Masters and he comes across as a thoroughly intelligent, decent, well-meaning person in a very difficult job. By the way, I am not a Judd parent.

Don't want to go over old ground, because this has already been discussed in detail. In simple terms, taking the test early will not affect standardised scores, because the cohort is srtill the same, just younger. The higher entry scores, which most contributors on this site predicted, was probably due to applicants with a high score applying who would not previously have had confidence to risk applying under the old system. Other variables such as the credit crunch may also have had an effect.

[tonbridgemum]

Nothing to add on forum jimmymack. Back to topic on scores!
villagedad, catchment for TWBG seems much smaller this year with Paddock wood boys not getting in and even north Tonbridge.

[tired_dad_2008]

Nothing to add on forum jimmymack. Back to topic on scores!
villagedad, catchment for TWBG seems much smaller this year with Paddock wood boys not getting in and even north Tonbridge.

I thought Paddock Wood was out of catchment anyway, since it's in the Mascalls (sp?) Scheme of Education. So they should never get in unless there are not enough in area boys to fill the places at TWBG. The catchment border is pretty close to T.Wells on the eastern side of the town.

[jimmymack]

In simple terms, taking the test early will not affect standardised scores, because the cohort is srtill the same, just younger. The higher entry scores, which most contributors on this site predicted, was probably due to applicants with a high score applying who would not previously have had confidence to risk applying under the old system. Other variables such as the credit crunch may also have had an effect.

Moving the test date will not materially affect the standardisation within the dataset but it will materially affect the adjustment of the overall dataset necessary to arrive at the desired distribution.

Where is the evidence that there was a sizable cohort of children capable of scores in the 410-420 range who's abilities both their parents and teachers had overlooked but who decided to 'give it a go' this time? Maybe a handful, but dozens or hundreds? Don't buy it without evidence.

[dadofkent]

In simple terms, taking the test early will not affect standardised scores, because the cohort is srtill the same, just younger. The higher entry scores, which most contributors on this site predicted, was probably due to applicants with a high score applying who would not previously have had confidence to risk applying under the old system. Other variables such as the credit crunch may also have had an effect.

Moving the test date will not materially affect the standardisation within the dataset but it will materially affect the adjustment of the overall dataset necessary to arrive at the desired distribution.

Where is the evidence that there was a sizable cohort of children capable of scores in the 410-420 range who's abilities both their parents and teachers had overlooked but who decided to 'give it a go' this time? Maybe a handful, but dozens or hundreds? Don't buy it without evidence.

The "give it a go" pupils would not have been in the 410-420 range, and are largely irrelevant to the issue. The higher cut off scores will have arisen from simply an increased number of qualifying applicants, because there will have been applications from those who scored higher than was expected, and who under the previous system (i.e 3 choices before scores were known) would not have risked using up a choice.

As said before, this subject has been already discussed on other threads.

[travelling man]

How the standardisation process affects the high scores is quite complex because the standardisation is around the average score, I don't think they do anything to the spread of the distribution. They just move it around to fix the average to the right standardised number.

The research on line about this asserts the variance (spread) doesn't change much from year to year. I'm not entirely convinced by the explanations of this but assuming they are right (and it is proper research) then standardisation will mean that the proportion getting 420s won't change from year to year. And indeed this year it seems to be around 2% of the total year 6 population, which appears to be a normal proportion based on previous years' threads.

What can change is the balance between girls and boys - one of the early theories was that because the exams were earlier boys would get lower scores because girls are maturing faster - and they don't standardise girls/boys separately. Doesn't look like that has happened.

I think the reality has turned out simpler than all of us stats trained people might have speculated (!):

i) The same proportion of the overall population as normal has maximum scores because of the standardisation (say 2%).

ii) It's a big year so there are more high scores in total

iii) There are no more grammar school places than last year therefore the cut-offs must rise because there are more high scores

iv) A contributory factor could be parents knowing the scores and therefore putting down Judd/Skinners/TGS when they might not have done before.