Article: The absurd precision of 11+ test scores

[Deb70]

https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/absu ... us-scores/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting!

[Tolstoy]

My son got his place not by tossing a coin but by having his name drawn out of a hat, apparently. That's when you realise how absurd the system is.

[Moon unit]

There have been several articles in the papers about this mans desire to prove that the Bucks system is unfair.
When his son didn’t qualify he wanted to prove to his son the system is unfair.
Without age standardisation the 11 plus would be even more unfair not less.

[streathammum]

That's true to a degree, but can you really standardise age to the day? Would it not be fairer to standardise to a month and then if there are tied scores use a different measure to separate them, such as distance from school?

It feels counter-intuitive to me that results are given to two decimal places when the tests have only about 150 different possible raw score outcomes.

[Deb70]

There have been several articles in the papers about this mans desire to prove that the Bucks system is unfair.
When his son didn’t qualify he wanted to prove to his son the system is unfair.
Without age standardisation the 11 plus would be even more unfair not less.

Really? Oh dear that's a bit sad. The system is unfair but probably best to accept the result now and put his efforts into supporting his son wherever he goes to school now.

[Moon unit]

If you click on links within this article it takes you to the background to his fight.
His son went to a small primary and is described by the father as the smartest child in the school.
This was 4 years ago.
He has made it his mission ever since to prove to his son the outcome was unfair.
If age standardisation is fair then I think doing to the day makes it even fairer.
I suspect it’s one of those situations where proving a point becomes an all consuming passion.
Not necessarily a good thing in my opinion.
There are always surprises in the 11+.
In a small school the top child might not be anywhere near the top in a bigger school.

[streathammum]

If age standardisation is fair then I think doing to the day makes it even fairer.

I don't think that's right. I think it's true that someone who is two months older than your child definitely has an advatage, but I don't see how you can say that someone who is two days older definitely does. If your child and your neighbour's child are born two days apart and get the exact same raw score, would you be happy for your child to be ranked lower because he's two days older?

I don't think academic progression is so linear than it can be reliably measured in hours.

I agree with your other points - the author of the article should probably try to come to terms with what happened and move on.

[yoyo123]

Standardisations are done in years and completed months so, theoretically, a day could make a difference. E.g If you are born on 16th May 2010 today (15th May 2020) you would be 9yrs 11m for standardisation purposes. A child born on 15th May 2010 would be 10yrs 0m for standardisation purposes.
But standardisation is a statistical tool used often, especially in education. It can be a blunt tool but there have to be cut-offs.

[Moon unit]

This fathers complaint is if I have understood it correctly against age standardisation and the fact his local scores end up being to two decimal points.
Are the Bucks/Berks scores standardised so that 100 is the norm?
Is that the reason they are to two decimal places?
Locally to me the top score at the girls grammar is 420.
There aren’t 420 questions it is just standardised differently and no scores have decimal places.
Candidates have to be ranked somehow.
I don’t think perusing this for four years and going to court over it can be at all helpful for his son.
Other children of the same age scored higher on the day.No amount of arguing about it changes that.
A good friend of mine is a PE teacher. He gets loads of emails from parents asking why their sons aren’t in the first team etc.
It is hard for some parents to accept their child isn’t the best at something.
My experience is children can accept it if the parents help them to.

[streathammum]

Standardisations are done in years and completed months so, theoretically, a day could make a difference. E.g If you are born on 16th May 2010 today (15th May 2020) you would be 9yrs 11m for standardisation purposes. A child born on 15th May 2010 would be 10yrs 0m for standardisation purposes.
But standardisation is a statistical tool used often, especially in education. It can be a blunt tool but there have to be cut-offs.

I know there will always be borders, but I think the borders should be 30 days apart and not 24 hours apart. I just don't think there is a statistically valid difference between children born a day apart.

Are the Bucks/Berks scores standardised so that 100 is the norm?
Is that the reason they are to two decimal places?

He is saying (and I don't know if it's actually correct) that they can get to two decimal places because they standardise to a day, not to a month, and that this is unfair.

Candidates have to be ranked somehow.

Yes - and they could use distance from school for a tie-break, like many selective schools do (including super-selectives). What they are effectively using as the tie break is number of days old, so that if you have two children on the same raw score, the one who is one day older will miss out. By wrapping this up as 'standardisation' it doesn't feature in the admission policy and can't be challenged.

I don’t think perusing this for four years and going to court over it can be at all helpful for his son.
Other children of the same age scored higher on the day.No amount of arguing about it changes that.
A good friend of mine is a PE teacher. He gets loads of emails from parents asking why their sons aren’t in the first team etc.
It is hard for some parents to accept their child isn’t the best at something.
My experience is children can accept it if the parents help them to.

Agreed.