AQE Exam Results

Ms_Optimistic

Aka3

Thank you!

Excellent post.

Excellent information

I feel you have made extremely valid points on this post and throughout the thread.

Thank you again :T

BangorMum

v._interested wrote: »

Ms Optimistic - if you look at both score ranges sent out by AQE i think you'll find the illustrative one is slightly different from the actual one.

But the 113+ and the 87 stayed the same . Such experts those AQE ones that without any prior history in the tests nor practice run they anticipated 20% of the children gaining a score of 113+ and they were totally correct in their predictions??!!

Ms_Optimistic

BangorMum wrote: »

But the 113+ and the 87 stayed the same . Such experts those AQE ones that without any prior history in the tests nor practice run they anticipated 20% of the children gaining a score of 113+ and they were totally correct in their predictions??!!

This was exactly the point I was trying to make.:T

beccasmum

Does everyone not think that the AQE are more likely to have used a tried and tested method like NFER. I get results like this from our school every year and haven't a clue how they come to the final mark and to be honest never really felt the need to ask. At the moment I am more concerned about this new enriched cirriculum which seems to be dulling down our children's rate of achievement so that they will find tests set at levels higher than their school level a totel nightmare. I was at parent teacher meeting and they more or less told me the new cirriculum would be completely in place by next year and that it is a slower pace than the old one which I feel is ridiculous. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this as it will a big concern for children sitting the AQE exams in the future.

BangorMum

Beccasmum:
My child who did both tests in this mad experiment (oh God what do we put our kids through) was actually part of a pilot scheme going back in the 'early years curriculum' which has since been implemented into all schools. I found it slow to start off (with the learning through play etc. etc.) but have to say I found it brilliant. It let the kids develop at their own pace but by P4 they were up with their peers. And all the children in her class have done well.

leftieM

beccasmum wrote: »

I was at parent teacher meeting and they more or less told me the new cirriculum would be completely in place by next year and that it is a slower pace than the old one which I feel is ridiculous. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this as it will a big concern for children sitting the AQE exams in the future.

There's a lot of research to back up the idea that formal learning shouldn't be introduced until age 6 and that, longer term (at age 15), those who have been allowed to delay formal learning fare better in tests. The problem is that the research compares one country against another so on mainland Europe children fare better than here, but there may be different social and cultural factors at play that influence this. I assume educators are happy that delaying formal education brings benefits and they have evidence to support this decision.
I know many believe that NI has this fantastic education system but we have a huge rate of underachievement - iirc 10% of all school leavers have no GCSEs. Pushing children who are disadvantaged to learn too early tends to alienate them. As for the middle class kids - they do well whatever the system.
Don't fear that delaying formal education means there is no learning going on - it just allows them to learn at their own pace. I love seeing my little one (P1) trying to read now and sound out words, even though we haven't had a word box or a text book through the door yet!

AKA3

BangorMum wrote: »

But the 113+ and the 87 stayed the same . Such experts those AQE ones that without any prior history in the tests nor practice run they anticipated 20% of the children gaining a score of 113+ and they were totally correct in their predictions??!!

This is a standardised bell shaped curve. Yes, it can be predicted that in an exam 2.1% will fall in the outlying areas - very high and very low scores, the vast majority 68.2% in the middle and 13.6% in the remaining groups. About 2/3 (i.e., 68%) of those tested obtain Standard Scores between 85 – 115.

A score of 115 is usually the start of the 13.6% group i.e 15.7% above this score. 2% are above 130. I suspect AQE have incorporated those at or above 113 and this has equated to 20% of those who sat the exam.
I don't think that there has been any predetermined grouping but that this is simply what is always statistically expected.

I think that for whatever reason AQE have released limited information. The old 11 plus did this as well but in a grade language that all understood.
AQE have released results but haven't clarified how to interpret them - this is my own interpretation above.

The release of a percentile table and raw scores has routinely been given by other examining bodies. Parents and teachers should also have access to this information from AQE and this could be generated very simply.

The answer to how they have age standardised should be even easier. Standard Scores are converted to grade equivalent scores with tables provided by the test manufacturer, what means did AQE use?

JosieJoBelfast

AKA3 - i remember our Primary Principal telling us about bell curves and where the scores would fall...I glazed over at the time but seeing it makes it clearer - thank you.

You talk about percentiles - if you know the AQE score (117) and Victoria have indicated that this is a Percentile rank of 90 - have you any idea how they would have worked this out. Asking you as you seem to have a grasp of these things!

BangorMum

Uh Duh!! I have been so stupid . Thanks AKA3 for pointing me in the right direction. The AQE say they didnt use standardised scores like NFER and thats what has been confusing me. But look at the NFER Standardised score/percentile rank below and I now know where they got the 113 (80%) and 87 (20%) so whilst I thought my child's score was out of 145 - in fact it was just putting her in a percentile rank (so much % were above/below her). And now I know what the scores in school mean too . So using this and based on the fact that 38% (percentile ranking 62) of children who sat the old 11+ got an A (quoted from AQE) then the equivalent grades with AQE are 105+ = A, 102+ = B1, 99+ = B2, 96+ = C1 and so on. However, they havent factored in the children who did both tests and that there were lower numbers sitting so using the GL scores: 102+ = A, 98+ = B1, 95+ = B2, 91+ = C1 or am I totally losing the plot!!:)
_______________________________________________________________

www the following (it wouldnt let me link) or google 'standardised scores and percentiles'

nfer.ac.uk/nfer/research/assessment/eleven-plus/standardised-scores.cfm

kingston_2730

Confused-dad wrote: »

I think Kingston 2730 has been kidnapped byt the AQE, she hasn't posted anything for 2 days.:D

:rotfl:I've infiltrated the AQE camps in search of meaningful data