Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:12 pm
Posts: 6
Does the sitting for exams at a later date affect in a different standardisation formula as compared to the normal exam time?

Has anybody experienced something similar?

Any help will be appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 332
Can you give a little more detail? Do you mean the situation where a child is perhaps unwell for the original date and sits the exam a few days/weeks later, or are you referring to those people moving into the area and sitting the test well after children in the same school year?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:05 pm
Posts: 4084
Location: Reading
I'd think if they were only sitting a week or so later, then their results would be included in the main set of results as part of the normal standardised process. If however they take the test some time after and standardisation has already taken place, then I would think that their result is compared to the rest of the cohort. Statistically there will be very few compared to the main cohort.

However how they deal with the age difference and the fact the test is taken maybe a few months later, I'm not sure. Would they compare with those born in the same month, or would they compare with those born the same number of months older as the number of months later they took the test.

So if a July born doesn't take it in September but in January 4 months later. Are they compared with other July borns or march borns. I'd expect them to be compared with March borns myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 332
Tinkers wrote:
I'd think if they were only sitting a week or so later, then their results would be included in the main set of results as part of the normal standardised process.

I agree.

Tinkers wrote:
If however they take the test some time after and standardisation has already taken place, then I would think that their result is compared to the rest of the cohort. Statistically there will be very few compared to the main cohort.

However how they deal with the age difference and the fact the test is taken maybe a few months later, I'm not sure. Would they compare with those born in the same month, or would they compare with those born the same number of months older as the number of months later they took the test.

So if a July born doesn't take it in September but in January 4 months later. Are they compared with other July borns or march borns. I'd expect them to be compared with March borns myself.

That would be the fairest way of doing it, grouping all children of the same age (in years and months) at the time they sat the test.

From the OP's username and thread title, I infer that their child has sat the Bucks test some time after the standardisation of the main cohort and has not qualified.

OP, if my assumptions are correct and you are considering submitting a review or appeal, focus on collating the academic evidence that suggests suitability for a grammar school place rather than looking for ways that the system may not have worked in your favour. There's lots of good advice on here that will help you through that process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7073
anotherdad wrote:
OP, if my assumptions are correct and you are considering submitting a review or appeal, focus on collating the academic evidence that suggests suitability for a grammar school place rather than looking for ways that the system may not have worked in your favour. There's lots of good advice on here that will help you through that process.

I strongly agree. In my experience 'technical' arguments to do with standardisation had little impact on appeals panels.

No reason why you shouldn't ask the presenting officer "How was the standardisation done for late sitters? Is it possible they might have been disadvantaged?" - but leave it at that. Don't turn it into a significant part of your case.

If you're arguing against non-qualification, the significant part of your case should ideally be plenty of academic evidence of very high ability.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:12 pm
Posts: 6
Thanks everybody.
I take your point on the standardisation related to the age at the time of taking the exam and I also assumed so.
My question was, if there is any other standardisation formula used for late sitters apart from the age at the time of taking the exam.
I have all the academic evidence and support from the school, so will take your advice and look up on the forum for the next step.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7073
LoveBucks wrote:
I have all the academic evidence and support from the school, so will take your advice and look up on the forum for the next step.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=41358

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/

Good luck.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:12 pm
Posts: 6
Thanks!! Will read through and hoping for the best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:12 pm
Posts: 6
Sorry to be back again!
As mentioned earlier, my child appeared for the test at a later date and was offered adjustment (different to what was requested).
Given this situation and the fact that the child was offered to take the test after almost 6-8 weeks at a convenient location for the child, will it have any negative impact on the SR or appeal, whichever we take?

I have strong extenuating conditions because of the prolonged illness and also strong support from the HT for academic.

My elder one is at a GS but cannot get the sibling benefit due to non-qualification.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7073
Quote:
will it have any negative impact on the SR or appeal, whichever we take?
I can't immediately see any reason why it should.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2017