LSS admission policy

Eleven Plus (11+) in Warwickshire

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now
guest201
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by guest201 »

guest201 wrote:My understanding reading the admissions policy was that an inner area DC with a lower score (over AQS) gets priority over a DC with a higher score in the outer area and outside priority area. Isn't that correct?
Inner area DC with lower scores (over AQS) will not get priority over outer area DCs with higher scores because these scores will also be over the AQS. The AQS is the same for inner and outer area and is set so that the school takes the top 120 kids (taking into consideration PP) So if a kid in the inner area gets a place with a lower score than a kid in the outer area they have made a mistake setting the AQS.
The DCs who live outside the priority area have to score higher to get an offer in the first round of offers.
Healey
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:43 pm

LSS admission policy

Post by Healey »

guest201 wrote:
Healey wrote:If you have a very low score, move in to the inner area where places are offered at very low scores. If pupil premium qualified, extremely low scores can gain a place.
Not sure that is quite right.

The so called inner area are allocated their 55 places before the outer area (i.e. higher scores). Then the outer area are allocated their 55 places, therefore the lowest scores admitted are allocated to the outer area, however if you are in the inner area you are also in the outer area which is the advantage of living in the inner area. What I am trying to say is that you do not know where the lowest score will come from.
If you are not sure, contact the Council and ask for data. They will respond.

The lower scores are from the inner area. Rugby is deprived and the outer area children tend to score higher marks. The figures are available under the FOIA. Just ask the Council for figures. This inner and outer area is outdated and needs to be scrapped. We know the top 84 children in the Eastern area score on average lower than the Southern area. Look at the 84th child score at KES and at Lawrence Sheriff and calculate the mean. This will provide an insight. Eg the 15th ranked boy in Eastern area may be as low as 45th in the Southern. Some claim it is because the Southern area is more affluent. We do not know and people get upset if discussed, so better not to go there.

The AQS is used to manipulate the intake. It is set after a test. Why not before the test?

Even the weightings are not stated in the admissions policy and can be changed after the test as in 2014 to "to ensure suitable candidates gained places." Which test do you know changes weightings after marking? Increase English/VR to ensure people whose first language is not English/VR get lower scores! In 2013 and before it was 1/3 for each. In 2014 it was changed after marking as confirmed by CEM, without notice. Yet, no complaint is possible as it was not specified in the admissions policies. NVR is more an indication of intelligence and is effectively language blind. The problem is statistics show ethnic minority intake has rapidly grown at LSS in the last 7 years. The only way to reduce this is increase the English/VR weightings. The data is available from the Council using the FOIA, which shows a massive increase in Asian and non-British born intake.

Draw your own conclusions.
guest201
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by guest201 »

Are you talking about the two priority circles in the Eastern area, or comparing the Eastern and Southern areas? It is not really very clear from your post.
Also I don’t know why you refer to the increase in ethnic minority intake at LSS as a “problem”. The children are selected on score, not skin colour
Healey
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:43 pm

LSS admission policy

Post by Healey »

guest201 wrote:Are you talking about the two priority circles in the Eastern area, or comparing the Eastern and Southern areas? It is not really very clear from your post.
Also I don’t know why you refer to the increase in ethnic minority intake at LSS as a “problem”. The children are selected on score, not skin colour
To be clear:

1. Outer priority circle (excluding inner) has a higher mean score than inner (and top scores).
2. Southern priority circle has higher mean score than Eastern (and top scores).
3. Children are selected by score, not skin colour, but skin colour/ethnicity of intake can be manipulated by weightings. Higher weighting for English/VR reduces the scores of children whose first language is not English (Asian/Eastern Europeans) on average. Until 2013 the weightings were 1/3 English/VR, Maths. NVR. Why change? In 2014 it changed without notice with English/VR bumped up to 50%, but NVR is the language blind indicator.

Feel free to ask for figures from the Council and ask them to recalculate scores for 1/3 weightings for 2014-17 and ask them to compare this to 50% English/VR and how this changed the places awarded based on ethnicity. The School has a breakdown of ethnicity of pupils, so one could even ask for these children's score to be recalculated to see if non-white British scores increases under the 1/3 weightings.

Data shows non-British Asian scores were on average higher under the 1/3 weighting system.

Some children do achieve identical standardised scores for the 3 sections as mine did, so if he were non-British Asian the score would not change, but this is rare.

Don't take my word for it, seek the evidence under the FOIA. Satisfy yourself. They will respond, but won't like it. Others have the figures.
guest201
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by guest201 »

I presume your freedom of information requests would tell you the number of children in each of the two areas. Children who live in Rugby are more likely to do the test (many children who would probably not be considered “grammar school material” do the test) as the schools are on their doorstep, whereas children from further afield eg. Daventry or Lutterworth will only do the test if they think they have a good chance of passing. Maybe this would explain the average scores that you claim.
Wildfuture
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by Wildfuture »

You are suggesting under the FOI act that they recalculate scores. That is not a valid request as it is creating new data which they do not have to do.

You're implying the school are deliberately manipulating their intake to disadvantage a certain group. Yet you are so against PP criteria being used.
Fatnorville
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by Fatnorville »

Healey wrote:
guest201 wrote:Are you talking about the two priority circles in the Eastern area, or comparing the Eastern and Southern areas? It is not really very clear from your post.
Also I don’t know why you refer to the increase in ethnic minority intake at LSS as a “problem”. The children are selected on score, not skin colour

To be clear:

1. Outer priority circle (excluding inner) has a higher mean score than inner (and top scores).
2. Southern priority circle has higher mean score than Eastern (and top scores).
3. Children are selected by score, not skin colour, but skin colour/ethnicity of intake can be manipulated by weightings. Higher weighting for English/VR reduces the scores of children whose first language is not English (Asian/Eastern Europeans) on average. Until 2013 the weightings were 1/3 English/VR, Maths. NVR. Why change? In 2014 it changed without notice with English/VR bumped up to 50%, but NVR is the language blind indicator.

Feel free to ask for figures from the Council and ask them to recalculate scores for 1/3 weightings for 2014-17 and ask them to compare this to 50% English/VR and how this changed the places awarded based on ethnicity. The School has a breakdown of ethnicity of pupils, so one could even ask for these children's score to be recalculated to see if non-white British scores increases under the 1/3 weightings.

Data shows non-British Asian scores were on average higher under the 1/3 weighting system.

Some children do achieve identical standardised scores for the 3 sections as mine did, so if he were non-British Asian the score would not change, but this is rare.

Don't take my word for it, seek the evidence under the FOIA. Satisfy yourself. They will respond, but won't like it. Others have the figures.
So are you saying that the admissions authority deliberately changed the selection process to exclude non British children?

Have you got any actual evidence to back that up?

Please respond to the thread and not direct to me.
Moguie
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:15 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by Moguie »

Erm this is sounding to me as if the is a bit of racial prejudice coming on to the board. Can we stop it please before it becomes out of hand and more people jump on the band wagon.
Healey
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:43 pm

LSS admission policy

Post by Healey »

What I am saying is the weightings were 1/3 each. Without notice AFTER the test it was changed for 2014. Who changes markings after a test is sat? Is this acceptable? Before the test, parents who asked were told the weightings were 1/3 each.

CEM stated it was to ensure the schools offered places to suitable candidates. So, what is the judgment of suitable candidates?

You can ask for raw data of scores and calculate the scores yourself. Do it for your own child. If the standardised English score is lower than Maths/NVR then under the old system the final standardised mark is likely to be higher.

I am saying it is clearly possible to manipulate intake on the basis of weightings. This occurred by the admission of CEM. I am not saying it was racially motivated. I am stating children whose first language is not English tend to score lower marks in English/VR. (An English child whose first language was not French, is likely to score lower marks in a French test compared to a French child). I am saying the recalculated scores speak for themselves. It did not affect me. It affected others. The effect is clear.

Some people are aware in 2014 two questions were removed from marking as CEM claimed children guessed. Guessing is allowed. What CEM said was bright children got them wrong and weaker children got them correct, so the question did not function as expected. This is test manipulation at its best. The Council will admit to this. Parents were not told, so a child could have missed out on a place because they answered these questions correctly, but were not awarded marks. If this happened in any other exam there would be uproar.

I am saying the weighting should be declared before the test and no questions should be removed once the test is taken.
I am saying there should be a justification on weightings and why English is more a measure of innate ability than Maths or NVR.
I would say English/VR is a poor indicator of innate ability - what CEM claim to measure. I would like to see the test replaced by an IQ test from Mensa. Mensa creates IQ tests for 11 year olds and not 10 year old, so it is not possible unless they change.
kenyancowgirl
Posts: 6738
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: LSS admission policy

Post by kenyancowgirl »

Mods, Healey has taken this completely off topic. This is not about LSS admissions, this is a rant against CEM and WCC, again....
Post Reply
11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now