Appeal Information - Bucks

[Woolford]

This morning I have received the documents relating to my ds appeal.

I am trying to make sense of the bar graph enclosed. It on the whole fluctuates quite normally until you get to the 141 score, which is considerably much higher than all the other scores and sticks out like a sore thumb!!. Having never been through this process before, is it normal for that amount of children to have scored maximum marks and does this affect the standardised scoring for the rest of us?

Also, does this graph only show the highest of the two scores obtained, or both?

Thank you - just trying to make some sense of it all!

[WP]

You would normally get a bell-shaped distribution, with long tails of increasingly infrequent scores trailing off in both directions. But because extreme scores aren't very meaningful (and don't matter for this purpose anyway), they record everyone over 140 as 141 and everyone below 70 as 69. So that spike is the long tail all scrunched up at one point. It's just a matter of presentation, and has no effect on the rest of the scores.

[Sally-Anne]

Just to add to what WP says, the Bucks graph looks the same every year.

S-A

[Woolford]

Thanks for your prompt reply, and sorry if i have not understood it properly. The graph I am looking at shows the number of pupils between 150 - 180 with scores of betwen 99 -106 and then drops off slightly, before escalting to the highest peak of 141 which shows approx 270 pupils. You are quite right, in that it looks like a bell shape, except for this huge peak at the 141 point.
Am i misinterpreting it??!!

[Jules7]

Hi, to try and explain further the peak at 141 you mention - it is actually representative of all those who achieved greater than a certain raw score so it is a composite of not just one raw score but a few. As the number of children scoring 78, 79, 80 (for example) will be very small they are all lumped together and standardised as 141. That's why it looks a hump- because the 141 score represents several high end raw scores. I don't know if the size of the 141 hump is greater than previous years meaning more children would have achieved very high raw scores?

Does this help or have I confused things further?

[Sally-Anne]

I don't know if the size of the 141 hump is greater than previous years meaning more children would have achieved very high raw scores?

I usually describe the hump as being more like the Eiffel Tower!

The number of scores on 141 each year is usually around 250 - 270, so this year is not unusual in any way.

[Woolford]

[Post moved here by moderator to keep all info in same thread and to preserve other thread for its original poster

Glad to see somebody else is panicking, like me

DS school rated DS a 3:2 arghhhh. On the appeal pack form 11 were rated 3:2 like this and none passed! Presumably this is bad news for us? Although the school had no recommendations in the 3 ratings in the attitude section, which I found odd and of the 2:1 5 were recommended and 1 passed and 2:2, they recommended 5 and 2 passed!

Overall of 56 children, in what was a high achieving school only 13 passed. 22 were not recommended at all - of which 1 passed!

Where does that stand us in our appeal Help

[TraffordMum]

Glad to see somebody else is panicking, like me

DS school rated DS a 3:2 arghhhh. On the appeal pack form 11 were rated 3:2 like this and none passed! Presumably this is bad news for us? Although the school had no recommendations in the 3 ratings in the attitude section, which I found odd and of the 2:1 5 were recommended and 1 passed and 2:2, they recommended 5 and 2 passed!

Overall of 56 children, in what was a high achieving school only 13 passed. 22 were not recommended at all - of which 1 passed!

Where does that stand us in our appeal Help

You haven't given us the full breakdown (ie what were the 1:1, 1:2 etc figures) but if the 2:1s were 5 (1) and the 2:2s were 5(2) that suggests to me (and I am no appeals' expert, just a mod who has read countless threads like this before) that the headteacher's ratings are not at all accurate and therefore shouldn't prejudice your case. It would have been worse if the head's predictions for all 1s and 2s had all passed, because that would suggest that he/she was a pretty accurate judge and got it right.

[Woolford]

Thank you all for your help- it appears much clearer now !!!

[Woolford]

Hi Trafford Mum ... thank you so much for stepping in and helping!

More detailed results, if this helps:

1:1 9(8)
1:2 2(1)
1:3 0(0)

2:1 5(1)
2:2 5(2)
2:3 0(0)

3:1 1(0)
3:2 11(0)
3:3 1(0)

22 not recommended (1) passed

Hope this helps - really appreciate your opinion on whether the recommendations are accurate or not?