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

[Sally-Anne]

The statistics contained in the Schools' case are quite interesting. As Etienne says, from the numbers given we can deduce this:

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

The schools are very keen to tell us how assiduous panel members were, in spending "an average of 5 hours" preparing for each SRP, but they are apparently rather less keen to tell us how much time was spent discussing cases in the 20 plenary sessions themselves. However, we can also work back in the other direction using the information provided.

Let's assume that each SRP spent an average of 15 minutes on each case - not an unreasonable amount of time to consider all the evidence and discuss it, I would have thought?

:: 859 reviews x 15 minutes = 12885 minutes = just under 215 hours.

:: The SRPs met on 20 occasions, so each SRP would have lasted for 10.75 hours, very much longer than the working day.

It is therefore clear that the SRPs spent nothing like an average of 15 minutes on each case, and it is likely to have been rather less than that.

If we reduce each case to 10 minutes on average, each SRP would have needed to meet for 7 hours. As that would have required them to work non-stop, even the figure of 10 minutes seems to be exaggerated.

Etienne's question becomes yet more pertinent:

Moving on to the review panel meeting, can you tell us exactly how long the panel spent discussing our case?

If no answer to that is forthcoming, I would be inclined to add these follow-up questions:

How long did the longest SRP meeting last? And the shortest? And how many cases did they review at each of those?

Cans. Worms. ...

[EmzMum]

Brilliant Etienne, thank you!

If only we could submit a collective case against the FCO criteria, it would save time and the poor panels are going to be sick of hearing the same thing over and over!

[Sally-Anne]

How long did the longest SRP meeting last? And the shortest? And how many cases did they review at each of those?

Cans. Worms. ...

I think I now have the answer to the second question, and it is truly shocking.

I have been told that the last of the 20 Selection Review Panels met early in the week in which the results were posted to parents - a mad dash for the finish line.

The meeting was scheduled to last 3 hours and in that time the panel was due to consider 60 cases.

3 minutes per case.

Which part of that is "Fair"? Which part of it is "Consistent"?

I think we may have unearthed the reason why the Clerks' notes were all destroyed ...

[KKT]

Etienne and Sally-Anne,
Thank you so much for this comprehensive approach to the FCO argument! This makes me feel more at ease to tackle this part of the appeal.

The stats on the time spent per case are truly shocking
As SA mentioned...no wonder they destroyed the clerks notes.
BTW - looking at my paperwork there are errors in the way the notes were transposed to the spreadsheet!

[Sally-Anne]

BTW - looking at my paperwork there are errors in the way the notes were transposed to the spreadsheet!

There have been several reports of this happening. I have seen the paperwork in some of the cases and there are glaring errors in the recording of the decision on the spreadsheet.

[ConfusedAylesburyMum]

Thank you so much for all the above - now need to get it in my head (and in note format for use on Monday). It would have been impossible without your help. Anecdotally I heard today that the appeals are causing a massive headache.

But on to my questions - Am I being daft?

How can you tell there are errors as I dont seem to have anything to compare to?

The request for handwritten notes simply gave me the transcription of "Insufficient evidence" but the onyl other thing I suppose is the letter we received - is that what you are comparing to?

Many thanks

[Sally-Anne]

How can you tell there are errors as I dont seem to have anything to compare to?

Clear errors of transcription, where the Decisions recorded on the spreadsheet contain incorrect factual data (e.g. predicted SATs levels) compared with the original Review submissions.

Is it just a typing error? Did the Panel not read the submission properly? Was the correct decision recorded against the correct name on the spreadsheet? No one knows the answer because the Clerk's notes have gone "pfft" ...

[Etienne]

There were also some examples mentioned earlier on in this thread:

• • • 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).

It was assumed at the time that these were errors made by the panel, but equally they could have been errors in transcription.

Difficult to know what happened without the original notes that have now been destroyed ......

[EmzMum]

Sally-Anne,

How would we know if our particular case was one of those heard in the 'mad dash for the finish line' sittings? I assume if it were that would be good evidence against FCO in our particular case. Could the question as to the time spent still be posed otherwise?

EmzMum

[KKT]

Hi Emzmum,
On your paperwork for the school's case, there is the panel meeting date. This is on top of the, virtually blank, form with just the child's details. Our SRP was heard on 23/1/13, so not in the 'mad rush' week, but it sounds like all the SRs were rushed anyway!