You can insult and bluster all you want. You can claim that the whole world is agin’ you. Actually it would appear that the whole education world is against you.

No wonder you feel so defensive and angry.

You do some digging for a change. Find some solid academic research which backs up the 11+. Go on.

What is AQE’s position. Or did you fall out with them as well.

Are you Stephen Elliot in disguise?

….”Openness

Many of the difficulties associated with the technical aspects of the Transfer Test have not come to light because access to the necessary information is prohibited.

This study highlights the importance of openness in high stakes tests such as the Transfer Test. Modern validity inquiry – which interprets all validity as construct-referenced – includes a consideration of the social consequences of testing. Given that significant adverse consequences for individuals can arise from interpreting the grade sequence C2, C1, B2, B1 as a perfect hierarchy, those responsible for designing and administering the Transfer Test have a clear responsibility to admit to the Test’s frailties. This report represents a call for greater openness and accountability in respect of a test which can have a profound effect on a child’s future.

Clearly, no test is perfect and the Transfer Test’s designers may feel, with some justification, that in order to eliminate misclassifications, they face the impossible task of reducing the standard error of measure to zero. Nevertheless this report calls for information on the Transfer Test and its weaknesses to be conveyed clearly to the public.

Standards for Test Administration

… the British examination bodies have always avoided
the publication of data bearing on the technical fidelity of their assessment instruments. The silence on Transfer Test information in Northern Ireland rings loud when contrasted with the approach taken in just three of the AERA Standards:

Standard 1.1 (on Validity)

A rationale should be presented for each recommended interpretation and use of test scores,
together with a comprehensive summary of the evidence and theory bearing on the intended
use or interpretation.

Standard 1.2 (on Validity)

The test developer should set forth clearly how test scores are intended to be interpreted and
used. The population(s) for which a test is appropriate should be clearly delimited, and the
construct that the test is intending to assess should be clearly described.

Standard 2.1 (on Reliability and Errors of Measurement)

For each total score, sub-score or combination of scores that is to be interpreted, estimates of
relevant reliabilities and standard errors of measurement or test information functions should
be reported.

The Transfer Test is a high stakes test and Northern Ireland pupils deserve the protection of
technical fidelity standards which apply to children elsewhere in the world. This report
demonstrates that the grading has potential for significant misclassification; the
inference that a pupil with a grade B1, for example, has more ‘ability’ than a pupil graded B2
simply cannot be validated.

While testing agencies can be held to
account for the validity and reliability of their instruments, one could be forgiven the
impression that British testing agencies are accountable only for their question setting and
marking. Parents who dispute their child’s Transfer Test grade have recourse to a re-mark
Parents with more fundamental concerns have no recourse except perhaps to the law.
However, the secrecy that surrounds the Transfer Test leaves the courts with few options
other than to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Test score and the
child’s ‘ability’.

Adoption of the Standards would quickly disabuse the courts of this viewand would give test developers, administrators and candidates alike access to powerful evidence if the need arises for them to argue their case.”….

Spelled out for you Willis in black and white. The Department of Education and CCEA were identified in 2000 as the responsible parties for validity and reliability for the 11-plus. Their solution to the problem? Create an anti- 11-plus hysteria permitting them to end the use of the instrument entirely. Problem solved. Notice how the 11-plus has been used continuously since 2000 without reference to the responsibilities of DENI or CCEA. John Gardner (the computer academic) allowed the criticisms of the 11-plus to be used by anti-selection radicals but stayed silent on the role of CCEA and DENI. In fact he continued to profit from their contract work and was made Head of the School of Education.

Now Willis if I need to go over this slowly for you I can. BTW did you ever find out about the funding arrangements for the Testing the Test project?

Keep digging. It’s not the test stupid!

“Indeed perhaps you should get a copy of Testing the Test from QUB (2000) and read up on the 11-plus transfer test. (written by one of its critics with his fingerprints currently all over the revised curriculum assessment arrangements)”

This gave me some hope that you actually wanted to have a rational debate. Unfortunately you had simply found yet another piece of research which judged the 11+ a poor piece of work.

I could hardly disagree.

Tell you what. Find a research document which defends the 11+ (The University of Buckingham is your best bet) then we can discuss something you agree with.

Sending me research reports which back my arguments up, while very kind, does not make you look very good.

BTW insulting an academic because his background is in Computers is not going to wash with me. Especially on a blog.

Of course I’m not slow. I know that 42/0.7 = 60. Which is a lot more than you have managed.

Check out the background of John Gardner of QUB School of Education. What is his area of expertise? A clue …..computers and IT

Now ask “Who funded this research?”

Then ask “Why was there only one reference to Testing the Test in the DENI funded Gallagher and Smith research into the selective system of education in Northern Ireland?”

After all opponents of academic selection railed against the 11-plus endlessly; they still do.

Why did the DENI or CCEA not publish or apply for a licence to publish the work?

It shouldn’t take long Willis for even you to figure out that all is not as it seems.

Take the following:

“The ‘easiness’ of the Test is a serious design flaw as children would have been awarded a
D grade with 70% of the available marks. It is difficult to justify how a perceived ‘fail’grade, a D, can be awarded to children who have done so well”

Note Gardner and Cowan’s citation of Please (1971) in Testing the Test.

Please identified the problem with measurement and reporting of same and suggested a way of recording it. What did Gardner do except ignore this practical problem.

John Gardner is one of the key individuals who “sold” CCEA the cop out of Assessment for Learning” to cover up the problems of the DENI/CCEA/NFER adulterated Transfer Test.

Testing the Test was published in 2000. Eight years later the same 11-plus test is still used. No improvements, alterations, or adjustments. The DENI solution? End the 11-plus. Bury the problem.

So having authored such a statement John Gardner did what? He promoted a form of description of attainment in schools which ignores assessment of learning and replaces it with assessment for learning.

A step backwards into the abyss. The descent into chaos hasn’t stopped yet but many of the architects of this disaster have retired or been promoted.

So where’s the replacement for the 11-plus? Or where are the lawsuits against the “immoral” test for academic selection?

You can’t have it both ways.

http://gtcni.openrepository.com/gtcni/bitstream/2428/6312/1/Testing the Test.pdf

KEY FINDINGS
Based on the 1998/1999 Test papers and the large samples used in this study:
· The Test does not measure a singular attribute of the candidate; it measures three:
mathematics, English and science. In the same manner that it would normally not be good
practice to add the marks from GCSE mathematics, English and science tests, their
addition in the Transfer Procedure Test is questionable.
· Since the Test does not measure a singular attribute of candidates, it cannot be used as a
proxy for any particular attribute, for example children’s ability or their potential to
benefit from a grammar school education. The common perception that it does provide
some such measure cannot be substantiated by the research.
· The Tests would be perceived as ‘easy’ by many pupils since more than 65% of them
answered over 70% of the questions correctly.
· The ‘easiness’ of the Test is a serious design flaw as children would have been awarded a
D grade with 70% of the available marks. It is difficult to justify how a perceived ‘fail’
grade, a D, can be awarded to children who have done so well.
· With such an ‘easy’ test format, it is very likely that the children will know or will at least
have a sense of how well they did. The consequences for their self-confidence, of being
awarded a D for such high scores, has not been assessed in this study but must be
considered a serious issue.
8
· There is evidence that the science section of the Test contributes significantly to the
‘easiness’. The average science score for the three tests studied was 19 out of 23 i.e. 83%
correct compared to 70% for the mathematics and English sections.
· The lower weighting and relatively high average score in science can lead to disadvantage
for those who have relatively low scores in the science sections. Despite having the same
overall Test score to begin with, candidates with low science scores may end up with
lower final scores (after age adjustment, standardization and weighting) than candidates
who score relatively more in mathematics and/or English.
· The three tests were found to be highly reliable, averaging 0.90 against a maximum
possible of 1.00. However, examination of the Standard Error of Measurement for the
combined sample for Test1 and Test 2 indicates that a child’s true score2, with 95%
confidence, will lie somewhere between 10 marks above or below their Test score.
· The Test works effectively to identify 12% of the candidates as secure A grade candidates
(scaling up to 2,053 children in the total cohort) and 18% as secure D grade candidates
(3,099 children). Its capacity to allocate grades accurately to children whose scores lie
between the score ranges of these groups is highly questionable.
· The boundaries between the six Test grades (A, B1, B2, C1, C2 and D) cover only 18
marks out of a total of 150. Within the 95% confidence range (10 marks above or below
the Test score) the Test therefore has the potential to misclassify pupils by up to three
grades above or below their given grade.
· For example, 23% of the candidates (scaling up to 4,487 children in the total cohort) have
A grade scores up to 10 marks above the score at the A/B1 boundary. Their true grade
could be an A or depending on how close they are to the boundary, it could be any grade
down to a C1. Similarly 12% of the candidates (2,148 children) have D grade scores up to
10 marks below the score at the C2/D boundary. Their true grade could be a D or
depending on how close they are to the boundary, it could be C2 or a C1. Finally, 33% of
the candidates (5,818 children) have scores between and including the A and D grade
boundaries. Grades in the middle of the range, e.g. C1, could be any grade up to A or
down to D.
· No consistent pattern of significant differences was found in the mean scores of the
groups of candidates from the different education and library board areas.
· The mean scores of the preparatory school candidates were significantly higher than any
of the other groups characterized by their school management types. There was no
significant difference between the mean scores of the groups of candidates from the two
main primary school sectors: controlled and Catholic maintained.
· The mean score of candidates from schools with high free school meal (FSM)
entitlements (51%+) was significantly lower than the mean scores of groups from the
other lower FSM entitlement (<10, 11-30 and 31-50%). The mean score of the group of
candidates in schools with <10% FSM entitlement was also found to be significantly
higher than those of other categories for Test 1 and Test 2.

There is more but I would max out the page.

Your answer proves all my points.

“The “grammar effect” adds a significant positive difference to attainment outcomes.”

Even to grade ‘D’s!

So who gets to choose which Ds get through?

If you think “Testing the test” is so devastating to my arguments send me a link to the whole thing.

I’m liking what I see so far.

42% of pupils attend grammars because the quotients are applied to the entire cohort not just those taking the 11-plus. If this rule were changed then there wouldn’t be the same degree of nonsense of some B, C and D grades getting a grammar school education while others do not. The “grammar effect” adds a significant positive difference to attainment outcomes.

Open enrolment plays a part also and no school has volunteered to reduce intake.

DENI and CCEA are responsible for these rules; hence the justified criticism of the educationalists.

Ok let me try again. If 30% do not seek a place at a Grammar School and 42% overall get a place at a Grammar School then 60% of those who sit the 11+ get a place at a Grammar School.

Yes or No?

Actually that would make a good 11+ question.

Would you pass?

Or Pass in the Mastermind sense?

“30% of pupils do not take the exam” would be a reference to those who do not wish to seek a place at a grammar school. Once again Willis you attempt to mislead but cannot escape the relentless evidence stacked against your poor argument.

Perhaps you will also eat some humble pie over your statement “I said “ensured”. As far as I know only a A grade (Top 25%) “ensures” you a Grammar School place.”

Place a call to the BELB or look up the admissions/applications figures for Grosvenor Grammar School in Belfast and retract yet another mistaken statement.

Indeed perhaps you should get a copy of Testing the Test from QUB (2000) and read up on the 11-plus transfer test. (written by one of its critics with his fingerprints currently all over the revised curriculum aqssessment arrangements)

Laff? Mock? Willis it’s time you started doing some homework. Do you have the disposition?

Now with 42% of post-primary pupils attending grammars in Northern Ireland please identify in what way the 12-17% you ignore are failed through grammars?

I said “ensured”. As far as I know only a A grade (Top 25%) “ensures” you a Grammar School place.

http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/85-schools/6-admission-and-choice/6-transfer-procedure.htm

30% of pupils do not take the exam so that 42% of pupils attending Grammar Schools becomes 60% of those taking the examination.

What was that percentage you mocked?

Willis surely you must see the irony of admission preference given to the children of teachers and governors? It is undeniably unmerited. Your comment on self-interest speaks for itself.

You claim “The only issue for parents is a decent education for their children.

The 11+ ensures that for 25-30% of children.”

Now with 42% of post-primary pupils attending grammars in Northern Ireland please identify in what way the 12-17% you ignore are failed through grammars?

I have not made comment on secondary schools since they are a natural complement to grammars. As with grammars some will be good, bad and indifferent. I only rail against so-called “comprehensives” that rely on academic selection to artificially create the impression of all ability intakes. Interestingly all are Catholic or Integrated.

Perhaps you should direct your energy on to them.

On “educationalists” the difference between them and parents is that the parents are not taxpayer funded failures.

“The only issue for parents is the legal regulated provision of a trusted, objective test used for the post-primary transfer of pupils at age 11″

Get a grip.

The only issue for parents is a decent education for their children.

The 11+ ensures that for 25-30% of children.

Either you think that the other 70-75% still get a decent education in which case a Comprehensive system isn’t so big a worry or you don’t really care about them as long as your kids are ok. If you are honest enough to say you don’t care then fair play to you but don’t expect to get on your high moral horse to “Educationalists”

What hacks me off is people who think that High schools do a great job but just for “other people’s children”

You are but one of the many lunatics in the “educationalist” asylum. The only issue for parents is the legal regulated provision of a trusted, objective test used for the post-primary transfer of pupils at age 11 The politicans are bankrupt of ideas – I provided the link to demonstrate same. Your eternal gratitude is welcome however you must realise that only genuine parental choice can save the education system from total chaos

What a link.

On the issue of increased grammar schools enrolments resulting in ‘sink’ secondary schools, the UUP proposed that this would be addressed by such schools becoming specialist schools with a high emphasis for example on pastoral care.

And you think I am a looney-tune!

No mention of rolling out the Dickson Plan when it mattered. Perhaps you should cancel plans to move to Canada and find a nice affordable place in Craigavon to run your campaign..

See http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/education/2007mandate/responses/note.htm

“A DUP representative on 27 June raised the issue of how we make the transition to the various types of school, e.g. grammar, secondary, specialist schools etc., with the children’s interest at the centre, rather than the various sectors wishing to maintain their particular ethos.

The individual sectors have been allowed to be the focus in education and the big decision now is that area-based planning should create total equality in education in the interests of the child. Only then would you get a natural resolution of the transfer issue.

Another DUP representative added that currently there is not sufficient protections in place for the controlled sectors. (more to come on this from the Essentialist)

The discussion moved on that segregation in our schools costs millions and we need to compromise – yet the various sectors are moving on with rationalisations within their sectors, e.g. CCMS.”……………..

Have you ever read such nonsense? The 1`1-plus is alive and well. No need to move position when the crusaders provide just heat rather than light in their campaign to steal the ground and to to slay the Dragon.

Seems to me as if the DUP are sliding towards compromise/ conceding. Not a wise move with the Assembly poised precariously. I wonder if they have adopted Sinn Fein’s equality of outcome/result ideology in order to stay close to the trappings of power while the rest of us feel the harsh bite of reality?

Area Based Planning decided by ESA’s Gavin Boyd and his “expert” goons. Don’t think so friend.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/io/noday.htm

Dickson Plan for Education

That this Assembly agrees that the Craigavon based Dickson Plan for Education has served the people of Craigavon well; and calls on the Minister of Education to ensure it is preserved in any future arrangements for post-primary transfer.

[Mr S Moutray]
[Mr D Simpson]
[16 September 2008]

That is both the DUPUpper Bann MLAs

David Simpson is the sort of politician for whom even the most potty-mouthed atavist might feel respect.