Verbal and Non verbal reasoning tests are supposed to be "scientific" - so you would expect the scores to be similar on your BAS tests.
Here’s an extract from the NFER website that confirm this.
>>Reasoning tests are used for secondary selection because of their high reliability and their high predictive validity. Examples of the former are typical internal consistency reliabilities (KR-20 and KR-21) of between 0.94 and 0.97 for verbal reasoning tests and between 0.90 and 0.93 for non-verbal reasoning tests.<<
so you would expect the scores to be similar on your BAS tests.
yes, you would, but in practice, it is not always the case as shown on this thread. If the results are different these two tests can’t both be accurate in measuring a child general ability.
Does this mean that our schools are not selecting highly able children because their ability is not 'across the board'.
Probably, particularly in areas with only one type of test like Bucks. In addition, I think that the amount of coaching is a factor because I know that my child improved dramatically through coaching and I don’t think that he reached saturation after just a few sessions.
Unfortunately, bright children who are taking tests that don’t suit their ability or who haven’t been tutored enough might not pass, whereas others not so bright, might.
That surely a child who has a high BAS ll result and then fails their 11 plus must have underperformed on the day and the appeals could take this into account.
After having read Etienne posts on the Bucks appeal section, I understand that he panel takes this into account, but if the score is lower than one or two points below the pass mark, parents also have to demonstrate both the child academic ability and what precisely affected the performance on the day.