Go to navigation
It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:50 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
streathammum wrote:
Could there not be some sort of standardisation check across the two different cohorts? If the numbers are large enough in each cohort - those with rubbers and those without - you would expect that the average scores would be similar. If it turns out that the average scores of those without rubbers is significantly lower than the average scores of those without, some remediation could be done, maybe?

It's all getting a bit complicated. We need names for the two cohorts.

"Rubber souls" and "Sole rubber"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 8056
streathammum wrote:
Could there not be some sort of standardisation check across the two different cohorts? If the numbers are large enough in each cohort - those with rubbers and those without - you would expect that the average scores would be similar. If it turns out that the average scores of those without rubbers is significantly lower than the average scores of those without, some remediation could be done, maybe?

I suggest you call and offer your services to Warks council as this sounds like the answer to their no doubt ever more desperate prayers. Set your price high as it will undoubtedly be cheaper than all the court cases or appeals they are going to face fairly soon if they don't come up with something.

anothermischievousdad wrote:
It's all getting a bit complicated. We need names for the two cohorts.

"Rubber souls" and "Sole rubber"


You're a bad man, Mr Gum. :lol:

ETA your solution sounds like an 11+ word problem as well streathammum. I see a rosy and lucrative future for you here. 'If 27 children with access to rubbers scored an average of 65% and 49 children with limited or no access to rubbers scored an average of 40%, which 25 children should be offered a place at the school? Your answer should include reference to age standardisation'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
streathammum wrote:
Could there not be some sort of standardisation check across the two different cohorts? If the numbers are large enough in each cohort - those with rubbers and those without - you would expect that the average scores would be similar. If it turns out that the average scores of those without rubbers is significantly lower than the average scores of those without, some remediation could be done, maybe?

It would bring a whole new aspect to standardisation. I suppose age-standardisation puts children in discrete birth-month pots, so rubber-standardisation would create two cohorts within which the children's scores could be standardised, with age-standardisation done within each group. It's a Goodyear for it.

I still think WCC will try and brave it out. They need to bounce a few ideas around but all the other options are a bit of stretch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:02 pm
Posts: 1014
Awful punning aside, I think there is precedent for this sort of thing. I seem to remember last year there was a problem with one of the questions in the maths paper in Sutton and all the papers were reviewed and adjustments made so that no one was disadvantaged. Not sure it was called standardisation specifically but it amounts to a similar thing.

In reality, I don't think that the rubber situation will have impacted enough children to a big enough extent for it to be possible to do a standardising correction - not much comfort if your child was waiting for 10 minutes for a rubber, I know, but I'd be surprised if there were real problems across the piece. (I could be wrong.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
I agree, but of course lots of parents won't see it that way and once this becomes an openly-known concern it will be seized upon by anyone with a disappointing result who was at an affected test centre.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:44 pm
Posts: 101
anotherdad wrote:
I agree, but of course lots of parents won't see it that way and once this becomes an openly-known concern it will be seized upon by anyone with a disappointing result who was at an affected test centre.


It won’t be seized upon by myself, but I am disappointed for my daughter given the effort she had put in to prepare for the test and the unnecessary distraction this caused her. As such I feel it appropriate to raise my concerns with the council and will most definitely be raising it if an appeal is deemed necessary based on her results, I’m not sure what is wrong with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1763
Mumofgirls wrote:
anotherdad wrote:
I agree, but of course lots of parents won't see it that way and once this becomes an openly-known concern it will be seized upon by anyone with a disappointing result who was at an affected test centre.


It won’t be seized upon by myself, but I am disappointed for my daughter given the effort she had put in to prepare for the test and the unnecessary distraction this caused her. As such I feel it appropriate to raise my concerns with the council and will most definitely be raising it if an appeal is deemed necessary based on her results, I’m not sure what is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, and I'm sorry if it came across differently. My point was more a warning for WCC rather than criticism of parents taking issue with it. I think it's unfair and should be acted upon to ensure equality for all applicants.


Last edited by anotherdad on Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:02 pm
Posts: 1014
I agree. I think that for a few children it will have had a significant impact but for most it won't - if you're one of the few who's been significantly affected you are within your rights to try to seek a remedy. Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 5701
Bearing in mind the usual caveat that no amount of extenuating circumstances on their own, will win an appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stationery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 8072
kenyancowgirl wrote:
Bearing in mind the usual caveat that no amount of extenuating circumstances on their own, will win an appeal.
Agreed.

There are likely to be three parts to an individual case.

1. It would be a good idea to let the appeal panel have copies of correspondence and any other evidence relating to the incident, and ask them to consider whether the admission arrangements are lawful and have been "correctly and impartially applied" in this case.

2. Secondly, extenuating circumstances. Ask the panel to take into account any impact on your child.

3. Thirdly, academic evidence and the arguments for wanting or needing a place. This would be the main part of any appeal for grammar school entry because of what the 2012 Appeals Code states:
      Quote:
      .... the panel must only uphold the appeal if it is satisfied:
      i) that there is evidence to demonstrate that the child is of the required academic standards, for example, school reports giving Year 5/Year 6 SAT results or a letter of support from their current or previous school clearly indicating why the child is considered to be of grammar school ability; and
      ii) where applicable, that the appellant’s arguments outweigh the admission authority’s case that admission of additional children would cause prejudice.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2019