CATs score in top schools

[ramennoddles]

What kind of scores would be expected at a highly selective school? Do CATs truly show potential? Why does the 11+ use reasoning?

I don't know what the scores are but agree about 120 or 125 may be more usual. I certainly remember who was at North London Collegiate school which will often beat some of the schools mentioned above for A level grades etc and is certainly on a par said there was even there a range of girls - some who were clearly genius level at everything and others middle or bottom of the class - even there the range of abilities exists - albeit everyone probably has the traditional UK grammar school level of about 120.

Our view was have a go. We put them in (in terms of sitting the entrance test) for the most academic schools at 5 on the basis that might be easier than getting in at 11 (or 13 for boys) when all the state school pupils pile in. Eg daughter 1 got into Habs but not daughter 2, at 5. Daughter 2 got into North London at 7 (in those days NL did not have a 5+ entry). They by the way each tried for the other's school just to see at 11+ and neither got into the other's for some reason but were happy where they were to age 18.

There was a chance the Habs one would not get into her seniors so she sat for about 6 schools at 11+ including Habs but got in anyway so no problem but it did illustrate that lots of people are trying for lots of schools. Also if there are quite a few you would like and can explain that to the child then the whole thing is just a bit of fun. It is when the parents make it feel really important that children get a bit stressed over it.

pickledonion99 You are way out on the numbers in Y7. I think most of those schools will be nearer 100 than 500 in a year. Certainly the one I know (SPGS) is around 110 places at Y7.

Sorry, ignore me, typing on the train and missed that you were saying 500 for all the schools.

Yes, sorry FlumePlume, I didn't make it clear that the 500 places referred to the combined Year 7 capacity of the handful of top schools.

It's also likely that some of the wealthier very high achievers in London will be leaving the city for boarding schools (I bet Eton and Winchester have tons of Londoners), again reducing the pool competing for day school places. I'm guessing that the obverse is rarely true (large numbers of children commuting from outside London to St Pauls etc)

However, it occurs to me that there is another flaw in my argument, and that is tutoring. Does this raise CATS scores? If so, then the proportion of kids achieving high CATS in Year 6 may be artificially elevated.

I would still argue that these school are unlikely to be looking for any more than a raw untutored CAT score of 125ish.

@PickledOnion99

Your estimates of the number of boys with scores exceeding 125 assumes that the mean is 100. That's unlikely to be true in London and especially among the boys whose families can afford independent schooling.

While there is a great deal of debate about whether the cause is genetic or environmental, the evidence is quite strong that there is a positive correlation between family socioeconomic status and measured IQ. The average income in London is considerably higher than in the UK as a whole so I'd expect that the mean IQ of all children in London is higher than 100, perhaps something like 103. This is a small difference in the mean, but it is enough to increase the number of children with high scores by about 50%, i.e., expecting more like 3600 boys than 2400 boys with scores over 125, or 800 boys rather than 500 boys with scores over 135.

On top of that the families that can afford to pay for independent schooling are clearly better off than the London average. I'd expect that the mean IQ of children from the 20% or so of London families which can afford to pay for independent schooling would be higher than the London mean, perhaps something like 108. That would imply that there could be something like 1300 boys with scores over 125 and 350 boys with scores over 135 just from families who could afford to pay for independent schooling.

I regard Westminster and SPGS as the most academically selective schools for boys and girls in London. They have approximately 120 and 110 children each year in secondary, respectively. So, in theory, they could select with a minimum score of 135. I don't happen to believe they do this, if only because I am under the impression that the results of the pre-tests are not the primary selection criterion at these schools. However, I do believe it is possible the mean scores at these schools could be 135. And I also believe that anyone whose academic achievement is consistent with a score much less than 125 is likely to have a hard time keeping up at these schools.

That's interesting Expat. You could well be right about the average IQ in London being a touch higher than 100, and that the average IQ of those who are in the market for private schools higher still. But, what we don't know is the standard deviations of these means - particularly the latter. It's possible that it's not even normally distributed in that population. I'm not a statistician (although know the basics) but I suspect that makes it really difficult to guesstimate how many will score over, say, 135 in the way that you have. I'm prepared to be corrected though.

Our daughter is at prep in an affluent area, and her high 130s CATS were the highest average in her year, which did surprise me at the time, as there was only one other child out of over 60 children, who had averaged over 130. I had somehow assumed that high scores would be the norm for an affluent area prep, but apparently the average, was not a lot more than the national average...

The average CAT score at DS' school was 123 this year and over a quarter of the year were above 132 (we get lots of data). It's a selective prep. Not sure if that is as a result of teaching/coaching by school, selection, parents tutoring etc... but don't think it would be unusual amongst the private London preps. You also need to bear in mind that KCS, Westminster and St Paul's boys all have their own preps whose boys take up a big chunk of the available spaces reducing the number available quite significantly from the figures being discussed.

There are a few things I'm struggling with here. Everyone is banging on about the fantastic results that the super selective schools get, yet if the children going to these schools have CAT scores (aka IQ) levels of 125+ surely you'd expect these results for these children regardless of where they go?
Equally why are the super selective schools still (at least in part) using the easier IGCSE exams to boost their results?
DS2 got exceptional GCSE results in his non selective state school - no idea of his CAT scores since they have never been measured but he's very academic. I firmly believe that paying massive school fees, having huge amounts of stress over 'is he bright enough to get into school x', and robbing his childhood by constant tutoring would have made no difference at all.

IGCSEs are not easier, or at least they weren’t before the GCSEs were overhauled. My DDs selective school now sit a combination of both depending on the subject and syllabus. They prefer the more challenging option whether it’s IGCSE or GCSE because a) the girls at the school are capable of it and b) it provides a better stepping stone to A levels which are much harder.

grumpy For me (can’t speak for other parents) I was looking for a school which taught at dd’s natural pace, where she didn’t stand out in terms of interests and abilities, where she would have lots of opportunities to do things beyond the curriculum (not sticking rigidly to what is needed to pass exams, but using class time to branch off into other interesting things). So it wasn’t a question of ‘Will this school ensure amazing exam results?’, which I agree should be a given if the intake is that selective. It was a question of ‘Given dd’s character and abilities, will she thrive here?’.

having huge amounts of stress over 'is he bright enough to get into school x', and robbing his childhood by constant tutoring

I appreciate that some parents do seem to approach it like this but that wasn't the case for us at all. DD had about 6 months of tutoring (one hour once a week, breaks for holidays) which mainly consisted of teaching her the best way to approach taking an exam and I wasn't worried about whether she was bright enough to get in because if she hadn't been I didn't actually want her to get in. She sat only for two schools, one state and one private, and got into both. Had she not done so we had a perfectly good nearby comprehensive which I would have been happy for her to go to.

The reason we did the exams was that DD wanted to - mainly because there were some subjects taught at the selective schools that she really really wanted to do. These were not available at the comprehensive choice which is honestly otherwise a really nice school. And two of the things she fancied learning weren't available at the state selective option (one sort of was but only as a weekly club rather than a GCSE or A Level option). As it turns out the thing she could not learn at any of the state options available to us is now one of her favourite subjects and she is doing really well at it. She wouldn't have suffered by not being able to do it. But she's definitely benefited hugely from doing so. Agree with Flume that I also wanted somewhere that wouldn't be stuck rigidly to the curriculum and somewhere that DD would feel at home.

I have DCs who got into the sort of schools requiring "135+" CAT scores and none of them have scores that high.....more in the 125-127 average. One DC was very spiky (i.e. scores ranged from 141 to 115) and the other was the same across the board. Both were academic scholars and both are in the top quartile at their schools. I remember getting really worried about their "substandard" CAT scores prior to pretests when I needn't have worried. It's just one data point out of many. Resilience, focus, drive, the ability not to get sucked into the party scene or let young love distract you too much are equally important when it comes to success at school (and beyond).....

I agree with Prufrockspeach. My DC got 125 and got offers on the Main List from W, SPS, Eton....beyond CAT and the exams they look for what the child can offer in terms of extra curricular activity too and how they come across in the interview. A top student at the school did not get offers because the child clammed up at interviews. Crazy process

Spoke to the Head of my son’s prep today and his view is that scores of 130 are required to get into UCS, which is not a tier 1 school, I thought. Sounds a bit bonkers to me.

Hi zaggybuns and usernamealreadyexists! Do heads of prep school allow pupils to apply to super selectives if their CAT scores are considered low? DS has CAT scores ranging from 126 to 141 with a mean around 133 and the school was OK with us applying to a couple of super selectives. I believe, from what I read, that a 133 mean would be in the bottom end of the spectrum for super selectives... What do you honestly think? Thank you!

In a paper published by City of London School for Girls from 2014 the school state that their testing suggests most of their girls were top 5% nationally or higher. That is a floor not an average...

democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s42347/14%20Gifted%20and%20Talented%20Policy%20DRAFT%20-%20Sept%202014%20Annex%20N.pdf

@Tiredof11plus - 133 is a very good score. To have an average score higher than 130 across all batteries of test, statistically places a child far higher, than a high score on only one or two batteries. Our daughter’s recent CATS average was 139, and we were told by an EP that was well within top 1%. Out of 65 children, only 2 children scored an overall average higher than 130.

My dc scored 136 Vr 127 nonVr and recently got places at Alleyns and JAGS. But we know a few brilliant kids scoring higher and didn’t get offers.... which tells me that these scores aren’t really indicative of offers of places. The entrance exams /process looks at other skills etc too. That said you can’t progress to the Main exam unless you pass the VR/Non VR test at some schools..... JAGS for eg.

I remembered this debate when recently reading the ISI report for St Paul’s school:

“Its own assessments indicate that the ability of pupils is also well above average. Most pupils are in the top 10 per cent nationally and half are in the top 3 per cent”

The floor seems to be the top 10 percent but you are in with a much better shot if you are top 3 percent or above.

I think all the top schools select the top 10 percent as a floor and then it’s just a question of how many of the pupils are well above that. It’s say for the top tier schools probably have circa half being top 2-3 percent while the next tier down maybe only have 15-20 percent at that level with the bulk closer to or even below the top 10 percent mark.

www.isi.net/school/st-paul-s-school-7036

@LondonGirl83, what you say makes sense, and is actually compatible with what has been said elsewhere in this thread. Top 10% equates to a CAT score of 119, top 3% is a score of 128 or so.

I think the reason that schools talk about 130 plus is that these are scores achieved AFTER the DC have done lots of VR and NVR practice. Practice won’t make a DC whose underlying ability is 110 suddenly score 135, but it may boost scores by say 5% to 10%. So say a child before they have had any practice/tutoring, scores 120. After lots of VR and NVR tutoring, they instead score 125 to 130. This is then what the school Heads suggest is required in the competitive London schools where such tutoring is the norm.

Sorry for total state school naivety here but is CAT the same as ISEB? Thank you.

Fellow state school parent here! DS has now done both ISEB and CAT as part of various entrance processes for indie schools. CAT is supposed to assess the abilities that underpin academic attainment across different subjects, as described here: www.gl-assessment.co.uk/support/cat4-product-support/cat4-information-for-parents/

ISEB has verbal and non-verbal reasoning components (so also assesses abilities underpinning attainment), but also has maths and english components that assess attainment/ability in those specific subjects.

ISEB is supposed to be a pre-test for 13+ entry exams, but due to the pandemic, was used as an 11+ entrance exam by a lot of schools this year

Just found the ISEB info for parents too: www.iseb.co.uk/Parents/Common-Pre-Tests

Very interesting. Given what Atom have said about the difference between Atom/ISEB and CAT scores (i.e. that Atom scores tend to be 6-8 points higher than CAT), can we assume - broadly - that a CAT score of, e.g., 125 would translate to an ISEB score of 131-133?

Has anyone yet had the opportunity of comparing their CAT (or similar standardised) scores from their prep/private/state school with the ISEB ones?

Also, have anyone yet heard whether schools tend to look at the separate components of the ISEB or the total score, or does it depend completely on the school?

I do realise that many state schools do not do CATS and that even those that do, may not automatically disclose to parents.

Thanks