Year 6 SATs and 11 plus passes- correlation?

[Guest55]

Both the KS2 results [raw scores] and the 11+ scores were on the assessment system; yes I did formally test the correlation. It is low and not significant and you'll just have to believe me.

This was for the old Bucks VR test ...

They tested completely different things so why would you expect correlation?

[Aethel]

Of course I believe you, if you have actually done that and found it’s a low level of correlation: that’s far more believable than no relation at all.

I guess that the reason I’ve been querying you is simply that if you take a bunch of intelligent and fairly intelligent children who have passed one set of exams, you’d ecpext them to be geneally fairly decent at taking other exams, even if the other ones have a different syllabus.

For example. Take a group of children who have all passed an instrument exam at grade 5 with merit by the time they are 15. Then look at their English GCSE grades (I’m not using maths so as not to confound the data by picking a subject musicians may have a natural flair for) . Would you expect those children to mostly get fairly good grades in English GCSE ?
The two subjects are different: but that group of children will tend to be pretty able in general unless they have SEN affecting their scores. They will also be good at practicing/complying with learning pieces and playing. Can you see how general ability may be high in this group?

[Guest55]

I think you have misunderstood correlation - low correlation is not significant ie the variables are not connected.

No, I don't think ability works like that at all. No, I can think of many good musicians who were not strong at English; again I'm not sure why you would think this is how 'achievement' works.

[guest201]

Six boys from my sons school "passed" 11+ they all scored above 110 in SATs. However there were other children who also scored above 110 but were not successful in 11+.
What does this show?
Nobody who was successful in 11+ scored below 110 in SATs
Some children who scored above 110 in SATs weren't successful in 11+
It was of course a very small group so make conclusions at your peril.

[mystery]

110 is nothing to do with GS suitability -

The old Bucks 11+ [VR] was pretty hopeless with levels from 3 to 5 joining Year 7. The KS2 levels tended to be more reliable than the 11+ score - there was very little correlation.

Yes, the old Bucks 11 plus test was madness itself. Anything had to be an improvement. Why they didn't buy some more rounded testing from GL has always puzzled me.

[mystery]

There will be correlation if the content of the papers is similar. So the score on the comprehension part of 11+ English paper is most likely correlated to KS2 reading scores. And 11plus maths paper is most likely correlated to KS2 maths test scores.

But that's about it.

I'd guess that the correlation between the Kent maths paper and KS2 maths will have reduced with the introduction of the new maths KS2 curriculum as it has been considerably watered down for more able pupils, particularly in schools which are a bit pedantic about keeping to what the curriculum suggests for year 5 for children who the teacher has not picked out of a ha as being amazing maths geniuses. I would guess that the difference between tutored and non-tutored 11+ maths scored will have widened as a result ie tutored children will get higher 11 plus scores in the maths paper becuase they will have had the benefit of a tutor teaching them the content needed for the 11 plus maths.

[anotherdad]

Six boys from my sons school "passed" 11+ they all scored above 110 in SATs. However there were other children who also scored above 110 but were not successful in 11+.
What does this show?
Nobody who was successful in 11+ scored below 110 in SATs
Some children who scored above 110 in SATs weren't successful in 11+
It was of course a very small group so make conclusions at your peril.

As well as being a small group, how do you know the scores you were told were truthful? As with 11+ scores, there are plenty of parents who will lie to boast, be modest or just to obfuscate. Whenever I was asked by someone I thought was being nosey about my daughter's SATs, 11+ score, GCSE grades, etc., I was never honest. It was a good bit of sport.

[Guest55]

I'd guess that the correlation between the Kent maths paper and KS2 maths will have reduced with the introduction of the new maths KS2 curriculum as it has been considerably watered down for more able pupils, particularly in schools which are a bit pedantic about keeping to what the curriculum suggests for year 5 for children who the teacher has not picked out of a ha as being amazing maths geniuses.

The new Primary NC actually has MORE content not less; a number of KS3 objectives were moved down. Yes you are correct that acceleration is not approved but the children are meant to be challenged in more educational ways ie new contexts and broadening.

[guest201]

Six boys from my sons school "passed" 11+ they all scored above 110 in SATs. However there were other children who also scored above 110 but were not successful in 11+.
What does this show?
Nobody who was successful in 11+ scored below 110 in SATs
Some children who scored above 110 in SATs weren't successful in 11+
It was of course a very small group so make conclusions at your peril.

As well as being a small group, how do you know the scores you were told were truthful? As with 11+ scores, there are plenty of parents who will lie to boast, be modest or just to obfuscate. Whenever I was asked by someone I thought was being nosey about my daughter's SATs, 11+ score, GCSE grades, etc., I was never honest. It was a good bit of sport.

Who said the scores came from parents!

[anotherdad]

Who said the scores came from parents!

Good point! I'll re-phrase my post:

As with 11+ scores, there are plenty of children who will lie to boast, be modest or just to obfuscate.