Read this if standardisation intrigues you...

Ed's mum · Post by **Ed's mum** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:58 am

Have 'phoned for raw scores and have got some very interesting information.

This will amuse LBSWM - Ed & DD got EXACTLY the same score in each paper!!!! We toyed with the idea that they give out the same info to each parent nosey enough to ask, but dismissed it.

Ed's birthday early Sept. DD's late June. Scores were: Paper 1 66/80 - paper 2 71/80.

Standardised scores & positions were:

Ed - paper 1 - 110 paper 2 - 120 = 230 = 80/739
DD - 118 - 125 = 243 = 37/739

Food for thought?

Charlotte

Just thought the wider population of the forum may find this interesting!!
Charlotte and I have become friends through this forum and have happily compared info...

KenR · Post by **KenR** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:49 pm

Hi Ed's Mum

What interesting about this is the impact of Age on the Standardised score between an early Sep't birthday and a last June birthday (circa 9-10 months) for the same raw scores.

For paper 1 the spread was 8 points on the Standardised score and for paper 2 it was 5 points.

I think I'm correct in saying these were 11+ papers set by NFER.

Useful empirical data for parents in other LEAs using NFER to give an idea of the impact of Age on Standardised scores. Of course these do vary from exam to exam due candidate population.

Thanks for this

Best of luck for the future.

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:07 pm

Ok, I get that there are quite a few extra marks to be had for summer babies but.....sorry for being completely dim but what does the 80/739 and 37/739 mean???

Charlotte67 · Post by **Charlotte67** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:13 pm

Position on list out of 739 who took test, with 1 being highest score. 218 of the 739 were offered grammar places

Tracy · Post by **Tracy** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:22 pm

So how come the child with the higher standardised score has a lower placement or am I not reading this right?

Charlotte67 · Post by **Charlotte67** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:34 pm

Probably me not explaining it properly!

Children scored same mark in tests (66 in paper 1 and 71 in paper 2).

Older child standardised to 110 + 120 = 230 - Position 80 out of 739
younger child standardised to 118 + 125 = 243 - Position 37 out of 739

218 grammar places in area.

Pass mark was 214 so both children were comfortably "in" at their chosen schools.

Is that better?

Bad Dad · Post by **Bad Dad** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:09 pm

This is brilliant! Maybe someone more intelligent than me can extrapolate from this data and tell me roughly what actual score my January-born son would need to score on average in order to get a standardised 214?

Over to you KenR.... !

Charlotte67 · Post by **Charlotte67** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:30 pm

Sorry, Bad Dad, I really don't think this helps with prediction... Particularly as the test is changing significantly this year. Each year the different cohort will mean a different standardisation. BUT what is does show is that children do not need to score 90% to pass as has been suggested. In my opinion the system works. Those that should have got in did, even those below the pass mark.

I don't mean to offend any of those whose children did not "pass"; I'm sure there are many with geniune grounds for appeal. Just my experience this year. I'm trying to say that there is less reason to worry than you might imagine - just make sure your child is well prepared and they will (usually) perform to their ability. If they don't and are considered GS material by their school, they should be fine too.

Good luck to your child Bad Dad and DON'T WORRY!

Bad Dad · Post by **Bad Dad** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:28 pm

Hi Charlotte67 - thanks for your help and to Ed's Mum for the v. interesting info.

You say this information doesn't help with prediction, but then you say that the data strongly suggests children don't need 90% to pass. Surely that does constitute a prediction?

I appreciate that the new exam won't be NFER, but you also say that "the right people got in" under NFER. Therefore, if my son is one of "the right people" based on his usual NFER scores, then maybe I can conclude that if the new test is equally successful in selecting, he would also be chosen under that system. So maybe I CAN use his usual NFER scores to predict the outcome next year.

Then again, maybe I am rambling....!

Charlotte67 · Post by **Charlotte67** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:54 pm

Oh I give up... Have tried to help you to stop thinking about possibilities as it's not going to change things. You're obviously going to continue to worry (and ramble) anyway. Predictions are not my speciality but I know a woman who does..... Please visit rehab. It might seem a little early but for you it might help.