Late entrance test QMGS!

[stirpey]

I have asked this before but I wondered whether anyone on here has been through the process of their DC sitting the late entrance test which takes place in March? I have checked with QMGS who say you can apply online in Jan and the test will be sometime in March 2019 (it isn't just for people moving into the area). It would mean that you can then potentially be put on the waiting list. In hindsight I wish my DS had taken the test in Sept but he only took the B'ham one and scored 203. Anyone had experience of this or know of anyone at all? Many thanks I am still clutching at straws!

[crazycrofter]

I didn’t realise you could do that! I can’t see the downside to be honest. He’ll be six months older so surely an advantage? If he does well enough he could potentially go straight to the top of the waiting list and likely get a place in April/May. What’s to lose?!

[stirpey]

I didn’t realise you could do that! I can’t see the downside to be honest. He’ll be six months older so surely an advantage? If he does well enough he could potentially go straight to the top of the waiting list and likely get a place in April/May. What’s to lose?!

Neither did I - it does say on their web page though and we called the school to confirm. I think because its a late entry their ages aren't taken into consideration (he is mid Aug b'day) I still think its worth a try though if he is happy to do it. Just questioning whether I get the tutor back for a brush up. Thanks for your response, I don't feel so bad now for considering it!

[Rooroo]

I think your feelings are only natural as a parent. However, I would definitely consider a few things. How did your son cope with the realisation he hasn't made the cut the first time around? How would he cope with this potentially happening again? Both tests are CEM and whilst I'm sure there are rare occasions that a child would do a lot better on one than the other, the scores I have seen don't seem to suggest this. Also the score would still be age standardised and the content may possibly take into account he has also spent 6 months learning more of the curriculum in year 6 than those who took the test in the September. Can you see your son going through another 6 months of tuition and working at home?

Either way best of luck with your decision. As a parent I can imagine I'd want to go for it in your position but would have many doubts.

[KenR]

I didn’t realise you could do that! I can’t see the downside to be honest. He’ll be six months older so surely an advantage? If he does well enough he could potentially go straight to the top of the waiting list and likely get a place in April/May. What’s to lose?!

There is a downside, they will be 6+ months older on the day of the exam and therefore the age standardisation will come into play, this can be typically 3-4 points for each standardisation so could impact the overall score by say as much as 12 points compared to if they had sat the exam on the original date.

[stirpey]

I think your feelings are only natural as a parent. However, I would definitely consider a few things. How did your son cope with the realisation he hasn't made the cut the first time around? How would he cope with this potentially happening again? Both tests are CEM and whilst I'm sure there are rare occasions that a child would do a lot better on one than the other, the scores I have seen don't seem to suggest this. Also the score would still be age standardised and the content may possibly take into account he has also spent 6 months learning more of the curriculum in year 6 than those who took the test in the September. Can you see your son going through another 6 months of tuition and working at home?

Either way best of luck with your decision. As a parent I can imagine I'd want to go for it in your position but would have many doubts.

I agree, I have seen a few instances where children have scored lower than DS in the bham one but achieved a pass in the QMGS however I agree that on the whole they are fairly similar so I am not pinning my hopes on it. Had he scored much lower I wouldn't even consider it. He was disappointed but is over it now and happy to go where his older brother does so I don't feel as though we have anything to lose by doing it. I would only be talking about a few brush up sessions the month before so he wouldn't have any pressure. I was interested whether anyone else had done this. Many thanks

[MSD]

I didn’t realise you could do that! I can’t see the downside to be honest. He’ll be six months older so surely an advantage? If he does well enough he could potentially go straight to the top of the waiting list and likely get a place in April/May. What’s to lose?!

There is a downside, they will be 6+ months older on the day of the exam and therefore the age standardisation will come into play, this can be typically 3-4 points for each standardisation so could impact the overall score by say as much as 12 points compared to if they had sat the exam on the original date.

KenR - As far as I understood the age allowance wasn't fixed in advance based on age. The age allowance that is included is ‘empirical’, i.e. it is based on the actual extent to which older pupils score more highly, rather than an allowance that is fixed in advance before the test scores are known. Older children will only be penalized, if their month group together scored higher than the younger month group.

Essentially, they define 12 monthly groups starting September(eldest) to August(youngest). Then for each group an average raw score is worked out, which is then compared with other groups to work out the additions or deductions to SD scores. Hypothetically, it's possible for a younger group to have a higher raw average and get a lower SD score; Or two groups to have same average and maintain same SD without any alterations. So, not necessarily true that a late sitter, being older now, will be penalised as per my understanding.

[KenR]

KenR - As far as I understood the age allowance wasn't fixed in advance based on age. The age allowance that is included is ‘empirical’, i.e. it is based on the actual extent to which older pupils score more highly, rather than an allowance that is fixed in advance before the test scores are known. Older children will only be penalized, if their month group together scored higher than the younger month group.

Broadly correct, it does vary year on year and also exam by exam, although in practice there is always a difference. The figures I suggested were based on a couple of actual CEM standardisation tables for Birmingham that I obtained some years ago from the FO

Essentially, they define 12 monthly groups starting September(eldest) to August(youngest). Then for each group an average raw score is worked out, which is then compared with other groups to work out the additions or deductions to SD scores. Hypothetically, it's possible for a younger group to have a higher raw average and get a lower SD score; Or two groups to have same average and maintain same SD without any alterations. So, not necessarily true that a late sitter, being older now, will be penalised as per my understanding.

Again broadly correct, it's actually a more granular mathematical/statistical curve fitting exercise (based on well documented research papers) which results in an algorithm. The candidate cohort is then categorised by age into groups of about 4 weeks and the algorithm is then applied to produce and adjustment which is issued as a standardisation table. The original research on Age Standardisation was published by I P Schagen of NFER in 1990, however since that time the Univ of Durham Curriculum Evaluation and Management Centre(of which CEM is part) have done some more recent research by Professor Peter Timms which I believe is used in this case.

I generally agree that older sitters are not normally penalised by this approach (as they should perform better in the exam with age) except for one scenario, where the exam is relatively easy such that the majority of cohort are achieving high percentage scores. In this case older candidates have very little leeway if they make a few silly errors. This was the scenario which the infamous Warwickshire Moray House papers where very high marks were required for a pass.

[MSD]

Thanks Ken! That makes sense.

I remember receiving my son's score for Walsall under DPA in 2015.

His standardised scores were:

Verbal - 129
Maths - 132
Non verbal - 110

Which gives a total of 371 as standardised (keeping in mind all subject areas are weighted equally for Walsall)

But the surprise total weighted score was 375.

He is one of the oldest in class being a September birth. I would have expected that weighted score to be the same as 371, and, if for any reason they were referring to weighted as age standardised, I would have expected it to be lower, but it was higher by 4 points. Not sure how they worked it out.