How to appeal against refusal of a Bucks GS place March 2013

[ConfusedAylesburyMum]

We sent our documents with the forms and are using our selection review evidence as well. So have nothing further to send.

Our dates are 29th April and 3rd May.

Hope that helps.

[Etienne]

A number of parents have expressed concern about the following letter which they received from the Appeals Team:

• • "As you followed the selection review process, in accordance with the School Admission Appeals Code, the IAP must first consider whether the selection review process was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. If you believe this was not the case, you must submit your supporting evidence for the first stage of the appeal as soon as possible, if you have not already done so.
    
    You must also submit any supporting evidence of academic ability at the same time..."

We will put to one side for the moment the fact that parents followed the selection review process because they were wrongly told they had to do this if they wanted to keep open the option of an appeal.

"As you followed the selection review process, in accordance with the School Admission Appeals Code, the IAP must first consider whether the selection review process was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way."

That bit is all right - it amounts to what the Appeals Code says.

If you believe this was not the case, you must [our underlining] submit your supporting evidence for the first stage of the appeal as soon as possible, if you have not already done so.

That bit is not in the Appeals Code!

Nor is it in the official guidance from BCC Legal & Democratic Services to which Sally-Anne has previously drawn attention:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 12&t=31020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- where there is a significant difference:

• • If you consider that the selection review was not carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way, you may wish [our underlining] to submit evidence in support of that argument.

The above wording in the official booklet makes much more sense, in our view.

Most parents, we suspect, will want to question/challenge the admission authority's case at the hearing by raising some specific points, not by producing 'evidence' - but of course, if they do happen to have any evidence suggesting that the process wasn't fair, consistent or objective, they really ought to submit it in advance. We doubt that there will be many instances of this, but we have been made aware of a few, for example:

• • • there is email correspondence showing that someone was (wrongly) instructed by Admissions to take part in a review when they clearly wanted to go straight to appeal;
    
    • the summary of the clerk's notes is incorrect (it refers to a criticism by the Review Panel that some specific academic evidence was missing, when that particular evidence was clearly included with the parental submission);
    
    • the summary of the clerk's notes shows that the review panel have clearly misunderstood some medical evidence (the sort of error that can creep in when there is no opportunity for panel members to ask questions and for parents to respond).

If - like most parents - you do not have any specific written evidence against 'fair, consistent & objective', our advice is as follows:

Either:
(a) Ignore the letter.
Note:

• • You do need to be prepared for the possibility that either the representative of the admission authority, or the appeal panel, could turn to you at the hearing and ask "On what basis - or with what evidence - are you challenging 'fair, consistent & objective'?"

• • The response to this could be:

• • "Paragraph 3.13(b) of the Appeals Code refers to whether or not there is any evidence that each child’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. It does not appear to require evidence from parents that the review was not carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way.
    
    I respectfully submit that the onus is on the admission authority to prove its case to the satisfaction of the Appeal Panel - not on parents to disprove it.
    
    However, there are several points I would like to raise, and bring to the panel's attention. Could the presenting officer please tell us ......."

• • If you would not feel comfortable doing all this 'on the spot', that might be an argument for submitting the letter below, because it is likely the letter would then be included with the appeal papers.)

Or:
(b) If you want to respond to the letter you've received, write back saying:

• • "Thank you for your letter dated ......
    
    With respect, I would point out that the instruction given in the letter (that we must submit supporting evidence if we believe the review was not carried out in a 'fair, consistent & objective' way) differs from your own official guidance which states "you may wish to submit evidence ......" (A GUIDE TO BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SCHOOL ADMISSION APPEALS, page 7).
    
    It is perfectly understandable that parents who happen to have written evidence that something was done incorrectly should submit that evidence in advance.
    
    However, paragraph 3.13(b) of the Appeals Code refers to whether or not there is any evidence that each child’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. It does not appear to require evidence from parents that the review was not carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way.
    
    I respectfully submit that the onus would seem to be on the admission authority to prove its case to the satisfaction of the Appeal Panel - not on parents to disprove it.
    
    We do wish to question and challenge the admission authority's case, but we have not yet had sight of it, and therefore are not yet in a position to comment on it."

This new process was set up hastily, with limited consultation, and with little understanding of how it would really work in practice in a large selective area such as Bucks. It must be far from easy for all those now involved in managing the much more complicated post-review appeals.

And it is particularly hard on parents, as we always said it would be.

Just my view .......

[Siena_1]

Hi all

I just wanted to thank Etienne and all other mods for the above info, Its going to be an interesting and challenging few weeks/months ahead and I wish everyone in the same situation as mine all the luck with their appeals.

Kind regards & have a super weekend
Siena

[EmzMum]

Our appeal date is 30th April. Until (or, rather, unless!!) we prove our case in the first round, we won't know the date for the second stage oversubscription appeal. The paperwork says they will write to us with this information if we are successful at stage 1. Not ideal if you have angry bosses, I'm sure! Hopefully they'll understand that, for now at least, your child has to take priority over work. Good luck to everyone going through this process, I already feel like I've gone a few rounds with Tyson, goodness knows how I'll feel after all this!

[ConfusedAylesburyMum]

We also have our dates 29th for one and 3 May for other school. However I am slightly confused as the form for the selection review is almost completely blank with absolutely no comments part from basics like my daughters name, school & 11+ scores.

In addition we submitted evidence of her school work and it is not included in ghe evidence pack and finally we requested her raw scores and that had also been included (although not an issue but they don't tell you they will do that).

I need to fully read the response for AHS (I assume it is a generic one for all grammars and is just branded AHS) to say the review was fair and consistent.

[buzzybee]

ConfusedAylesburyMum, the form we received with our papers for the Selection Review for our dd was pretty blank! Apart from personal information, there was no indication on the form how the decision of the review came to be made.

Both appeal papers that we have for 2 different grammar schools are the same, just on different headed paper stating that there was 'insufficient evidence' to deem dd qualified for a grammar place. Makes you wonder what the review panel were looking for

Wish you all the best.

[EmzMum]

I do recall reading something about the paper analysis being made available to the selection review panel. I don't recall seeing anything about the information also being shared with the IAP but I suppose it's to be expected that the appeals team will include all the information the selection review panel considered, including paper analyses. Our form is also blank other than basic info. I assume they did not include the schoolwork as this would not have been considered by the selection review panel. One possible drawback of the selection review process is that they would not consider schoolwork, unlike an IAP. I think the appeals team are just making sure the IAP have access to all the information that the selection review panel would have considered in making their decision.

[Etienne]

I just wanted to thank Etienne and all other mods for the above info, Its going to be an interesting and challenging few weeks/months ahead and I wish everyone in the same situation as mine all the luck with their appeals.

Thanks, Siena - we appreciate that.

Thank you too to everyone who has sent in a copy of a school case (following an unsuccessful review).

The same case appears to be being used by each school, as we guessed it might.

Sally-Anne & I have been discussing the case, and ideally we would have liked more time to consider it, but we appreciate that the first appeals may be imminent.
Rather than keep everyone waiting for a more polished version, we set out below a first draft of some suggestions for questioning/challenging the school's case following an unsuccessful review.

Many of these points have been made on here before, but we can now put them in sequence (according to how the case for the admission authority has been set out).

Some new points have come to light. For example, we learn officially that the clerk's contemporaneous notes have been destroyed.

Destroying the evidence? Who would have thought it possible?


First draft

Introduction

We feel sure that review panel members acted very professionally and did their best in the circumstances - but the issue is whether the process was fair, consistent & objective.

The case for the admission authority sets out in general terms the procedures that were adopted, but it does not prove that those procedures were applied fairly, consistently and objectively in each case.

If you are asked at the hearing for evidence that the review process was not fair, consistent & objective, you must keep insisting that you are very happy to raise concerns, but that this is the admission authority's case, and it is for them to provide evidence that the process was fair, consistent & objective.

Address your questions to the presenting officer (the person who is representing the school).

The presenting officer is just doing his/her job by trying to reflect the views of the school, but is not personally responsible for the review process.
It is the school that is responsible (even though the LA carried out the process).

Be polite. Be reasonable. Try to stay calm!

If you wish to make the following points, highlight the relevant quotation in your copy of the school's case so that you can find it quickly - and can also help the panel find it, e.g. "Please turn to page 2 of the school case, the end of the 3rd paragraph".

In fact, you could prepare 5 copies of the school case, with the relevant bits underlined, and a reference number by the side, e.g. "1" would correspond with point 1 below.
If you hand these out, it will make it much easier for everyone to follow.

You could also consider giving a copy of your questions to the clerk to ensure an accurate record.

Questions

Admissions Code, 15(b):
Consultation must be for a minimum of 8 weeks and must take place between 1 November and 1 March of the year before those arrangements are to apply. For example: for arrangements which are to apply to applications in 2012 (entry in September 2013), consultation must be completed by 1 March 2012. This consultation period allows parents, other schools, religious authorities and the local community to raise any concerns about proposed admission arrangements.

Could you please tell us when exactly the school consulted on the review process prior to incorporating it into its admission arrangements?
I've not been able to find any evidence whether this was done.

1. There is no requirement set out in the Code that a local review process should replicate or replace the independent appeal process as there is still a right of appeal remaining

It is correct, isn't it, that a review doesn't replicate an appeal - not least because those setting up the review can choose whatever rules they want? If they want to exclude a particular type of evidence, they're free to say "We won't consider school work"?

Isn't it being rather economical with the truth to say "there is still a right of appeal remaining" when that right could be severely eroded by 'fair, consistent & objective'?

Are you aware that parents were told by Admissions and by primary school heads that they had to go through a review if they wanted to keep open the option of an appeal?
Are you aware that anyone who requested an appeal form was automatically sent a review form?
In other words, parents felt compelled to submit to a review which - potentially - could restrict their right to have their case for selection considered in full by an independent panel?
How can that be fair?

2. The SRP will normally expect there to be strong evidence of ..... exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests

Did Review Panels consistently follow their own stated rules?
Are you saying that the vast majority of successful reviews really had exceptional extenuating circumstances?
(This is an extraordinarily high threshold, and it seems inconceivable that even a majority did!)
Are you saying that the exceptional circumstances required for a score of 120 were no different from what was required for a score of 110?

3. There are often significant factors that mean the child will not have been able to perform to the required level

What objective criterion was used to determine what is a significant factor, or an exceptional circumstance?
If there isn't one, you're conceding that these were subjective judgements?

4. The Selection Review panel did not consider school work

Presumably this was for purely logistical reasons - but how can it be fair that any restriction was placed on the right of parents to ask for relevant evidence to be considered?
Is there any other quasi-judicial process you can think of that excludes relevant evidence?

5. They [primary school heads] were also advised the following in reference to completing the Selection Review Summary Sheet for Headteachers

Could you explain how inconsistencies between primary school heads were dealt with?
For example, my child had a 2:1, and the analysis of the school's recommendations seeks to put that into context. If other headteachers were more generous - or less generous - with their recommendations (and I'm sure you realise from other papers you've seen that this can and does happen) what strictly objective adjustment would the panel have made?

6. Be aware that your [the headteacher's] choice of language on the form is important

So we have the somewhat subjective choice of language, followed by the review panel's interpretation?

7. Declaration of interest forms were completed

Can you confirm that our personal data (name and current school) was not anonymised?
Can you tell us who sat on the review panel hearing our case?
How can it be fair that we have been given no opportunity to satisfy ourselves that no one on the panel had a 'conflict of interest' in hearing our case?
What if a panel member's perception of what might be a conflict of interest is not the same as ours?

8. Panel members report that they spent on average five hours' preparation in advance of each hearing

Would you agree that that is at best anecdotal evidence?
And no one can say how long was spent on our particular case before the hearing?

Panel members were hardly likely to understate their preparation time, as they must have known that this information was being gathered to show how carefully they went about their work - but let's for the moment take the figure of 5 hours at face value.

:: There were 20 meetings of SRPs

:: They had 859 cases to consider between them.

:: Each SRP therefore considered on average 43 cases at each sitting

:: Panel members spent an average of 5 hours (300 minutes) preparing for each sitting

:: Each panel member therefore spent an average of just 6.9 minutes studying in advance each case and "individually formulating a provisional initial decision".

You will understand that the Review Panel was dealing with a matter of enormous importance to us. Do you really think 6.9 minutes adequate or fair?

I suspect that an appeal panel spends much more time than that assessing each case!

Moving on to the review panel meeting, can you tell us exactly how long the panel spent discussing our case?
If the length of time spent deliberating on our case had been recorded in the clerk's notes, would you agree that at least there would have been some evidence that our case received proper consideration, and that the decision was not rushed?

9. In line with council clerking policies they [the clerks] then destroyed the handwritten notes

So there are no contemporaneous notes available showing exactly how the decision in my child's case was arrived at?
What we have is a summary typed up by the clerk at a later point in time?
How do we know that no errors were made in transcription?

Although "the Clerk's notes for council meetings are destroyed", full minutes of each council meeting are prepared and published. How can a couple of words on a spreadsheet be considered to perform the same function?

The council may choose to destroy the clerk's notes following council meetings, but what has that to do with a selection review? Why not choose as a model what the council's own Appeals Team does - it retains the clerk's notes for a minimum of two years?

Would the appeal panel, I wonder, prefer to have had sight of the contemporaneous notes in order to understand how the decision was arrived at, rather than a brief summary typed up at a later date?

Our summary states "insufficient evidence"? Could you explain what objective criterion was used for determining sufficient or insufficient evidence?

10. Each panel was attended by a 'moderator' who identified a small number of cases to be considered within the moderation meeting

So that we can see the extent of the moderation, could you please tell us what that small number was?
And in how many cases was the original decision reversed?

What objective criterion was used to determine whether or not a case needed to be considered within the moderation meeting?
And what objective criterion was used to determine whether or not to reverse the original decision?


Summing up

As we all know, paragraph 3.13(b) of the Appeals Code refers to whether or not there is evidence that each child’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way. It does not appear to require evidence from parents that the review was not carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way.

I respectfully submit that the onus is on the admission authority to prove its case to the satisfaction of the Appeal Panel - not on parents to disprove it.

Nevertheless we have made clear many concerns.

We feel sure that review panel members acted very professionally and did their very best in the circumstances - but that is not the issue.

The case for the admission authority sets out in general terms the procedures that were adopted, but it does not prove that those procedures were applied fairly and consistently and objectively in each case. We submit that it does not pass any one of those three tests, let alone all three.

• It cannot be fair that parents were forced into a review when they had the right to opt out, which would have guaranteed them a full hearing of their case for selection in front of an independent panel.
• It cannot be fair that evidence has been destroyed.
• There are no objective criteria at all - judgements have been made in good faith, but they are essentially subjective judgements.
• The fact that moderators were appointed to try and ensure consistency doesn't prove that consistency was achieved.
• There were no objective criteria for moderators - they were making subjective judgements, just like the review panel members.

I'll spare you all the other points!

• If the process is inherently flawed, then it is flawed in each individual case.
• I would ask you to find that the process was not fair, consistent and objective in our particular case.

• We hope that you will therefore feel able to take a completely fresh look at our case for selection.

• • • If there is any evidence that should ideally have gone before the review panel, but didn't, it is because two weeks in the lead up to Christmas did not give us enough time in which to prepare our case properly

• and/or

• • • There is further evidence that was not available at the time of the review.

• We would ask you, please, to take into account the extenuating circumstances [if applicable], and to consider the range of alternative academic evidence that suggests a grammar school place would be appropriate in this case.

• Thank you very much indeed for being so generous with your time, and for having given us the opportunity to present our case in person.


You should be asked at the very end if you've been given enough time to state your case.
Do not say 'Yes' if you haven't, as this could be used in evidence against you in the event of a complaint.
Say "I'm really sorry, but no, I really needed more time to explain .........."


Any questions or general points are welcome below - but for specific points relating to your own case please use your own thread in the Appeals forum.
Thank you.

[buzzybee]

Thank you Etienne, that's very comprehensive! Breaking out into a cold sweat here

[ConfusedAylesburyMum]

That's fantastic!

Thank you so much for that as I really did not know where to start. You have taken the headache away from me as I was starting to panic about how to prove anything!