Adjudicator rules Essex 11+ unfair due to no age weighting

[Tinkers]

Thanks. Ive looked up GL on google and found stuff about the calculation and principles for age standardisation. I am still struggling to find anything that can quantify the impact or adjustment required. I’m preparing for an appeal in Southend, it’s the same consortium as Colchester school. My son is August born and I feel that this was a contributing factor. Any advice from anyone on how to quantify the impact of age?

You won’t find a definitive answer to what you are asking. Every test and every cohort is different, so any age standardisation applied will be different for every single test. In some cases the raw results will be looked at and no adjustment will actually be needed as there’s no effect.

If you are looking for appeal purposes then I wouldn’t dwell on it too much tbh. There are other aspects you should be concentrating on for that.

[KentMum5]

Sunshine1976 - If I had a narrowly failing August born child in a test ruled 'unfair' for summer-born children I'd definately mention that in my appeal! I know in Kent some forum posters looked at raw scores versus age standardised and learned it made about 3 or 4 raw marks difference.

So in a test with raw marks of English out of 25, Maths out of 25, Reasoning out of 80, an August child who scored 20/25 in English would get a standardised score the same as the oldest September child who scored 23/25.

It is only a few marks difference, and every test is different... but quite clearly that Essex test taking no account of age was just plain wrong. I seriously can't believe they did that for so long without noticing a problem. Lots of summer-borns must have failed, while September children got in.

[Sunshine1976]

KentMum5 - thank you! Do you know where I can find the posts from the Kent forum?

It was a very narrow margin for the non qualification.

[Guest55]

I think Etienne would urge you to focus on other academic evidence rather than arguing about the unfairness of the test. Focus on KS2 predictions [110+ and greater depth] and high reading age etc.

[KentMum5]

KentMum5 - thank you! Do you know where I can find the posts from the Kent forum?

It was a very narrow margin for the non qualification.

The raw vs standardised thread was here : https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 19&t=52403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a different test, but the same principle applies. I don't know how you'd get the same kind of info for Essex.

Good luck! I hope they'll be sympathetic to younger children in appeals due to that ruling.

[kenyancowgirl]

I hope they will be "fair" to all children during the appeal process, not just the younger ones....!

[KentMum5]

I hope they will be "fair" to all children during the appeal process, not just the younger ones....!

What is 'fair' in an appeals stage? It's just a guess that a child is a certain standard, but that standard isn't even defined properly, let alone checked for accuracy.

I'd afraid I'm super cynical about the whole selection process. My daughter failed and didn't even get a heads appeal (common in Kent) due to her handwriting being messy. She got straight As at GCSE and did better than every one of her friends who passed. So, now, here I am with my second due to take the test and I know for sure this test is no true test of 'ability'.

It doesn't seem that anyone much minds if tests don't use age standardisation. I guess it's just one more oddness to an already pretty arbitrary system. A tutor friend told me that the test is selecting among children of broadly similar ability, and a huge part of it is luck. I think there should be more openness about this, that way children who 'fail' know they can still go to Oxford!

[kenyancowgirl]

Many people are super cynical about selection at 11 full stop. It's interesting that despite your first child doing really well whilst "failing" the 11+ (which is proven time and time again in comprehensive schools up and down the country - children do still come out with straight top grades), yet you still feel the need to put your second child through a system you are super cynical about? Genuinely why? Why not just do what your first child did as they were so much more successful than their friends who passed? Universities are more favourable towards comprehensives than GS or private schools so it would be a win/win surely, without the unnecessary pressure?

[Proudmumregardless]

I'm a July born who took and passed the 11+ in Essex a couple of years before the CSSE scheme came in and have a spring born who is at an Essex grammar sat when weighting didn't exist.

When i sat it you got your raw score and then the weighted score. My year group had a significant number of summer born in it who all passed on raw score alone so I assume due to that - assuming it was across the board this happened - is why they dropped the weighting.

[Proudmumregardless]

The other thing to note in Essex the scores for the schools vary wildly with the Colchester schools entrance mark being significantly higher than the Southend and westcliffe ones. Chelmsford girls school sit CEM and the rest of the county CSSE. If you live in mid Essex you have the pick of the county really and if your child gets a 303 or higher can gain entry to the schools in the south of the county.

North of the county tends to be 330+ with a +/- of 5 or so for the lower marks.