Bucks HT Rating..statistics?

[mm23292]

Just out of interest, is there any statistical correlation between HT rating and appeal success in Bucks? For instance, are the vast majority of successful appeals those that were rated 1.1 or 1.2..or would 2.2 statistically stand a similar chance? I know that the overall academic picture is taken into account, but I was pondering this one on the basis that most of the advice seems to highlight the fact that in relation to CAT scores or HT ratings, the higher the better. Would a child with predictions in the lower 121 to 130 range, and a HT rating of 2.2, generally stand much less of a chance on appeal, than a child with predictions of 130+ and a rating 1.1?

Thanks!

[Etienne]

Interesting question. I wouldn't expect there to be much of a correlation because panels know that schools vary in how they arrive at a '1' or a '2' recommendation. It's not exactly an objective measurement. A '2' recommendation from a head who's rather 'strict' could be worth much more than a '1' from a head who appears to have been over-generous.

(I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'predictions' as there's no longer meant to be a link between recommendation and score.)

The only analysis I'm aware of is of the correlation between scores actually achieved and successful appeals.
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 12&t=17816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(The correlation here looks quite good. There's a blip at 111 and 110, but the number of appeals at these scores was relatively low.)

[mm23292]

Although I have read that there is no longer a link between the recommendation and the score..I got the impression from my discussion with HT, that her academic 2 prediction, was very much bound with an expectation for her to nudge the early to mid 120's. The VR CAT tests they performed a couple of weeks prior, seemed to be a confirmation of sorts before submitting the summaries, well it certainly was for my DD! My question is based on wondering whether the panel will generally choose the higher scoring individuals, regardless of the existence of an extenuating circumstance or not? For instance, there are many mentions across the forum, along the lines of 'with scores like that, you don't need much of an extenuating circumstance', however, is it not the case, that if a child is predicted a 2, and VR tests generally reflect the lower end of the 121+ spectrum, then surely it takes less of an extenuating circumstance, to bring them below that threshold, as opposed to a child who has consistently scored much higher? It seems a little unfair that a borderline child might be viewed less favourably in that regard, afterall, I am sure a large proportion of the thriving GS population, must well have been just that.
Anyway, all elementary I suppose! Random rant over

[rubyrubyruby]

The whole system is unfair I guess, I think the only way to stay sane is to not really expect fairness but at least some degree of consistency and reasonableness..

ultimately there is no simple way to test a huge number of children in a way that accurately reflects both their current and potential suitability for something like a GS. It seems to me that the whole reason that the appeal committee have such a great deal of leeway, and no hard and fast rules as to what to accept, is because of the variability of every single factor and to capture the basic fact that the 11-plus is not the only way to measure the children...the headteachers reports, the cat and sat scores, the childrens own capabilities, the support they have had and the circumstances surrounding them on the day all vary wildly.

I suspect we have to take Etiennes simple advice "the further away from the pass mark the more evidence required" to also capture a more broad series of trade-offs- so if the HT gives a great report but seems to be unreliable that has less weight than if you are the only 1:1 to have failed so you need to prove more, similarly with lots of the arguments in these pages around standardisation- it isnt perfect by any means and is statistically very suspect now that the pass mark is into the 90% range for the older children, but it is probably fairer than nothing (if much less good than it could and perhaps should be) and there are few arguments that will make much impact on the standardisation.

I have decided to work on the basis that the panel will be broadly fair-minded and sensible, that the standardisation has broadly been fair, and that the HT's report and other school data will be viewed within the context of his other reports so will probably be fair. None of these may be true, but since I cant affect them it may well not be a bad working assumption and may stop me from fretting any more than I am!

good luck!

RRR

[mm23292]

I agree RRR, and that's a sensible approach for sure. Unfortunately, it doesn't make it easier to digest that judicial approach. There are two elements of evidence..the academic evidence, and the extenuating circumstances. By saying that more of one negates the need for the other, seems rather unbalanced, particularly when the margins are reduced in those whose potential lay closer to 121. I suspect in a lot of cases, the extenuating circumstances are similarly weak, but is it the case that for two children of similar circumstance, and similar 11+ scores..it is the child who is deemed a 1 that will be favoured over a child that is graded a 2? That was why I posed the original question. I know it's not necessarily unfair in the entire scheme of reasoning, but why should the extenuating circumstance for a 1, be less important than the more precarious placed position of the vulnerable 2... The things we ponder with all this. I will be glad when it is over..

[Etienne]

.... but the extenuating circumstances are usually viewed in relation to why the child underperformed in the 11+, not in relation to the HTRs. The question the panel would like to understand is "If the child is as bright as the school (or you) say, why didn't he/she score at least 121? - If their two 11+ scores were 120, there really isn't much to explain in terms of extenuating circumstances. If their best score was 108, there's an awful lot of explaining to do!

I got the impression from my discussion with HT, that her academic 2 prediction, was very much bound with an expectation for her to nudge the early to mid 120's.

The headteacher has clearly not shaken off the old system. I don't believe it's how the average appeal panel is going to look at it.

it is the child who is deemed a 1 that will be favoured over a child that is graded a 2 .....

..... but the headteacher recommendation (which may or may not carry weight) is just one bit of the academic evidence.

It seems to me that the whole reason that the appeal committee have such a great deal of leeway, and no hard and fast rules as to what to accept, is because of the variability of every single factor

Precisely! (If anyone is seeking a rigid system, it's called the 11+. )