Test - Help

[newdawn]

Real scores that clarify the situation. Thank you


Same raw scores lead to a difference of 13 marks in the age adjusted scores that lead to two children that are about 2 1/2 months apart being 37th and 80th. That is amazing.

If your child has to be in the top 47, or what ever it is, given the new priority circles to get in, you are indeed very lucky if your child is "young" and lives in the new circle.

Old child and out of catchment seems almost impossible!!

[mitasol]

In a typical class in England and Wales, it is usual that most pupils are born between 1st September in one year and 31st August of the following year, which means that the oldest pupils are very nearly 12 months older than the youngest. Almost invariably in ability tests taken in the primary and early secondary years, older pupils achieve slightly higher raw scores than younger pupils. However, standardised scores are derived in such a way that the ages of the pupils are taken into account by comparing a pupil only with others of the same age (in years and months). An older pupil may in fact gain a higher raw score than a younger pupil, but have a lower standardised score. This is because the older pupil is being compared with other older pupils in the reference group and has a lower performance relative to his or her own age group.

Sorry if you have already read this.
PS Sept-June = 10 months

[Dadof3]

The C67/Ed's Mum results are enlightening. The extra 13 standardised marks are indeed significant. I had not realised that each individual test was standardised then the scores added together to produce a 'cumulative' standardised score.

However, I still take heart from the fact that both children (in above example) would have qualified under the new rules as 80th position would roughly equate with top 40 position for either gender.

Also worth noting that above example was based on NFER test and presumably NFER standardisation. Not sure what difference CEM test/standardisation will make.........but not going to lose any sleep over it!

[newdawn]

Dear dadof3

I agree with your comments.

But 1 or 2 marks difference when combined with the age standardisation and your child will be what ?150th.

You cannot put your child under so much pressure that a few marks can mean the differeence between the top 40 and the top 90 odd. Let them do the exam and see what happens.

[fm]

My advice to parents is always to completely ignore age standardisation when considering whether their children will succeed or not.

My experience has been that the September/October children are so much more confident and capable when it comes to tests that any advantage the younger ones get is completely eroded by their immaturity, so basically it evens out the playing field -- which is exactly what it is meant to do.

In fact, my eldest daughter's experience at grammar school was that the vast majority of her classmates were born pre-Christmas and the only post-June children were in the mega-clever category.

[Guest55]

Interesting! Each year I survey 'month of birth' in Y7 - my analysis in Bucks (top third selected by VR) is that the numbers from each month are pretty much in line with births.

[mitasol]

I thought that was the whole point of age standardisation. Roughly the same proportion in each month will achieve the pass mark.

[fm]

Perhaps this was an anomaly in my daughter's year. Or possibly when you are selecting the top 5 to 10% as the KE's do in Birmingham that age is more significant.

Certainly in my younger daughter's year there were very few June onwards birth dates in the top maths set and subsequently fewer young ones even attempting grammar school entry.

Also, our entry exam relies heavily on superior English and maths skills (as does Warwickshire's now) so how children are doing at school probably has more significance than an exam which is based on verbal reasoning only.