Saint Olave's Results - Not Age Standardised

[turnip08]

I've always thought it curious that the school chooses not to age adjust, especially as I understand that Newstead does, not to mention all the GL/CEM assessed grammar schools.

Interestingly, looking into the 2017 data, there is quite a stark difference with 51 children born in September listed as 'to proceed', 48 born in October and only 32 born in August. Especially given that the general birth rate for the months of Aug-Oct are not dissimilar.

[scary mum]

I'm not from your area, but I had a look on the school website under Admissions, which states:

Scores will be standardised and then aggregated, together with the SET marks, to allow a ranking of candidates.

[streathammum]

You can standardise the cohort across a standard deviation without standardising for age.

[turnip08]

As above, you can standardise scores without doing so for age (age adjusted).

[mitasol]

Essex used to claim age standardisation was unnecessary. A complaint was made to the school adjudicator and the process in Essex has now changed.
If your interested then the adjudication is here.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... h_2018.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do uphold the seventh aspect of the objection, that the lack of any age standardisation of the test results is unfair to summer-born girls. Most 11 plus test providers do standardise for age. The school has argued that this is unnecessary for their tests, as statistical analysis undertaken on its behalf does not show any correlation between date of birth and test result. Examination of this analysis by a professional statistician at the DfE has shown that analysis to be flawed. The same statistical tests applied correctly to the same data show that there is a correlation and a smaller proportion of summer-born girls than would be expected obtain places at the school. I find that this is unfair to summer-born girls.

[Sorrel]

Even in an age standardised system you can get fewer summer borns, though; I just found this in another post referring to Kent:

"Below is a table showing the number of pupils assessed suitable for entry
to Kent Grammar school broken down by the month of birth within the range
September 2005 to August 2006

Month Assessed suitable for
Kent Grammar schools
September 1355
October 1378
November 1206
December 1263
January 1171
February 1066
March 1173
April 1103
May 1196
June 1198
July 1168
August 1089"

The younger children in a year may have lost confidence over the years through generally playing catch up, or they aren't perceived as so academic and encouraged to apply? Like football players being mainly autumn born.

[PettswoodFiona]

If I remember that Kent post it does clarify that numbers entered for summer borns is lower so when you take that into account the chance of passing is equalised. It is more about parent perception so fewer summer borns are entered in the first place?

[Sorrel]

I expect so. And the lower numbers for Feb probably reflect it's a shorter month?

[turnip08]

Yes, absolutely a fair point re birth month, and it just shows the huge advantages for those who are oldest in the year, with each month seeing a decrease. Having had another look at the data, it looks as if 32 out of the 91 August borns sitting Olave's 'proceeded', whereas for the September born, it was 51 out of the 113. So, more September borns sat the exam but there is still a significant difference which, in my mind, justifies age adjustments.

I've also read studies which show that because kids start school (including setting) so early in the UK there are more cases of dyslexia and special needs identified so again being born later in the school year is a disadvantage. I guess in countries where school starting age is 7, more of the children have a chance to catch up. In the UK, apparently some 18% of secondary kids (GCSE/A-level) have some sort of EHCP and extra time (even more in the indies). Basically 1 in 5 have some sort of SEN - it does seem very high, doesn't it? But that is for another discussion!