Age Standardisation - is it fair?

[jabba7]

So much impacts a child's learning and when they start school is only part of the story of their life.

I think taller children are treated as older by most people and have seen how smaller children are often treated as younger. There is little we can do about this but does it make taller children act older as they are treated as older and therefore mature quicker.

[ToadMum]

So much impacts a child's learning and when they start school is only part of the story of their life.

I think taller children are treated as older by most people and have seen how smaller children are often treated as younger. There is little we can do about this but does it make taller children act older as they are treated as older and therefore mature quicker.

You may have something here. For a bit of light relief - ten days ago,I was on the gate at DS2's school fête. Current year 7s and 'incoming' year 7s were taking part in a competition and we're to be sent to the registration area. As one father (whom I didn't recognise) came in with his son, I automatically asked whether the lad was "current' or 'incoming'. Then looked again and realised that he was a former friend of DD's - and just coming to the end of year 10.

[southbucks3]

I can never understand why people object to age standardisation in bucks, the way it is administered simply means a child's score will only be compared with peers born in the same month. The adjustment is neither to the benefit or detriment to anyone sitting the 11+ as it merely neutralises age difference by dividing the cohort.
I could understand the argument if it was simply a case of slapping an extra five marks on summer term children, but this is not the case.

Tall children are definitely treated as if they are older, this is probably fine from secondary age, but in primary and early years it's a guaranteed way to knock the stuffing out of anyone. Imagine walking into a room and everyone who talks to you is speaking at an intellectual level you simply cannot comprehend, what do you do; retreat into a corner and hope no one speaks to you!
Also tall children are always always always put at the back of performances, photos etc. This really rubs off on shyer tall kids, until you find they are at the back of every crowd and every queue as its where they naturally migrate to.

[Guest55]

a child's score will only be compared with peers born in the same month.

It is unfair to very premature children. A child born in October, but due in January is compared with October born children.

[Peridot]

Yes agreed G55 - my son was premature. He also didn't start Reception until after Easter which had a devastating effect on his friendship groups for a long time as everyone else who started in September had already made friends with each other by the time he and the other summer-borns started. I'll always remember his sad little face then!

[Peridot]

I can never understand why people object to age standardisation in bucks, the way it is administered simply means a child's score will only be compared with peers born in the same month. The adjustment is neither to the benefit or detriment to anyone sitting the 11+ as it merely neutralises age difference by dividing the cohort.
I could understand the argument if it was simply a case of slapping an extra five marks on summer term children, but this is not the case.

Tall children are definitely treated as if they are older, this is probably fine from secondary age, but in primary and early years it's a guaranteed way to knock the stuffing out of anyone. Imagine walking into a room and everyone who talks to you is speaking at an intellectual level you simply cannot comprehend, what do you do; retreat into a corner and hope no one speaks to you!
Also tall children are always always always put at the back of performances, photos etc. This really rubs off on shyer tall kids, until you find they are at the back of every crowd and every queue as its where they naturally migrate to.

There is of course also the opposite problem of being very short in stature. Luckily, for their sakes, my children are already taller than me, which as they've said themselves didn't take much.

[southbucks3]

a child's score will only be compared with peers born in the same month.

It is unfair to very premature children. A child born in October, but due in January is compared with October born children.

This is of course the exception, but again only affects a tiny minority of children, they would have a good case in an appeal if they scored the same as a January child, but they were peer compared with October children.

I think there are two sides to every thought, taller/shorter older/younger loud/shy
First born/youngest. Fair play to those that simply take life as,it comes and don't expect any favours anywhere along the line.

For me the biggest challenge these children face to passing the 11+ is the quality of their primary education, or not even the quality, but the direction it is driven in years 3/4 5.

You could say the eldest, non premature, middle born (parents know the test routine), tallest, loudest children attending a school judged not on sats results but 11+ pass rate,,allowed to sit the test in their own small classroom, should have a great big whomper amount of marks deducted, when compared to their youngest, last born, shortest, meekest, crappiest primary educated peers, sitting in big scary grammar school halls with thousands of strangers.

I would like to see the standardisation table for that lot.

[Lillie]

Well said, as always, Southbucks.


The real issue (and I suspect the underlying worry of the author of this thread) is that the 11 plus is inherently unfair, on so many levels. Age is just one of them, but it is clearly an obvious one. Making a child who has barely had their 10th birthday sit the same test as one who is about to turn 11 is unfair.

Anyway, I'm not an avid reader of academic research, but I did find the original article from the Financial Times (it is a few years old - there may be something more recent). Basically, those grammar schools who do not make allowances for age have a disproportionately high number of children that are autumn born compared to summer borns.

Hope the link works:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d40cb696-d937 ... z3fxkdkm00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mike1880]

I don't have a dog in this fight (our two are both April birthdays) but there's ample research evidence that the education of summer-born children is disadvantaged by primary teachers' perceptions (or, more charitably, possibly by the demands and constraints of classroom reality) so it's simplistic and erroneous to believe that spending the same amount of time at school somehow provides a level playing field to summer children.

I believe there's some mention in the linked threads of "top tables" being stuffed with autumn born children; the research I read, last time I took an interest in the subject, confirmed that anecdotal evidence and posited it as quite likely the main reason for the difference in attainment between autumn and summer children. In simplistic terms, teachers (in general) see the more mature (in general) autumn children as brighter so they get the extension work, summer-born children are seen as less able and will tend to be given less challenging work.

There will always be exceptions which we can all quote ad infinitum (including me, a late July birthday who contended for top place in most subjects at primary and secondary with an August-born girl). However, individual anecdotes don't constitute evidence. If they did, all heavy smokers would live to 104 and all healthy, fit people would drop dead of heart attacks at 30, but we all know the tendency is rather the other way.

The developmental disadvantages of premature birth are of course on an entirely different scale but also, it should be pointed out, an entirely different subject.

Mike

[Guest55]

The developmental disadvantages of premature birth are of course on an entirely different scale but also, it should be pointed out, an entirely different subject.

Sorry, I disagree, these children take the 11+ too!

It's interesting that the national data at KS1 is measured for autumn, spring and summer borns separately but not at KS2. Some schools do get KS1 data showing no statistical difference in the month of birth ...