How to appeal for a Bucks GS place 2015 (Appeals/Reviews)
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
Ah - I see. That's great! Sure it will be useful to all of us in this process!!Etienne wrote:Thanks, heartmum.
The FCO case is identical, I think, whereas the oversubscription/prejudice case has to be specific to each school.Booklady wrote:Etienne - are all the schools cases different to each other? Or is there a common thread through them with just some separate pieces?
Thanks
It's the FCO case I was going to have a look at to see if there have been any changes.
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
Received with thanks, heartmum.
Will study it and report back!
Will study it and report back!
Etienne
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
The review case for 2015 is very similar to last year's which can be seen here.
Some generic points below (in red).
Explanation of Selection Review Process [2015]
The Selection Review Process (SRP) was designed to comply with paragraph 3.13 of the
Admission Appeals Code which states:
3.13 An appeal panel may be asked to consider an appeal where the appellant believes
that the child did not perform at their best on the day of the entrance test. In such
cases:
a) where a local review process has not been applied, the panel must only uphold the
appeal if it is satisfied:
i) that there is evidence to demonstrate that the child is of the required academic
standards, for example, school reports giving Year 5/Year 6 SAT results or a letter of
support from their current or previous school clearly indicating why the child is
considered to be of grammar school ability; and
ii) where applicable, that the appellant’s arguments outweigh the admission authority’s
case that admission of additional children would cause prejudice. ’
b) where a local review process has been followed, the panel must only consider
whether each chi|d’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent arid objective way and
if there is no evidence that this has been done, the panel must follow the process in
paragraph 3.13a) above’
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.
Buckinghamshire grammar schools developed the Selection Review Process in conjunction with
the Local Authority and primary school headteachers during 2012/13, and revised the process
for 2015 admission. At the core of the process is a decision, based on written academic
evidence and any extenuating circumstances, made by a panel of three experienced
headteachers with clear understanding of the academic requirements of grammar schools. The
panel's decision was recorded by an independent clerk. The phrase "and observed by an independent moderator" was in the 2013 case, but has disappeared from the 2014 and 2015 versions. Why are independent moderators no longer welcome as observers?
Paperwork provided to the Panel
On receipt of the Secondary Transfer Test results, parents were provided with options as to
what to do if they felt that their child was suitable for a grammar school, which included
information to enable them to compile a written case in support of their child. Parents
completed a request form and asked their child’s primary headteacher to provide some
standard information (a pro-forma was provided for this purpose). Primary headteachers were
given clear guidance about the information they were to provide.
The following is an extract from the handbook provided to Buckinghamshire LA and Partner
School headteachers who were all also invited to a meeting to set out the SRP requirements.
"Key information that the panel needs to make a decision
• The progress chart - this is a key piece of information and should be completed with
sublevels to show the pupil's performance since the end of Key Stage 1.
• The headteacher recommendation and statement of support
• Parents are asked to evidence the ill health of a child at the time of testing. They are
also asked to evidence parental illness, and to provide evidence from their
employer/senior officer to explain lengthy absences such as parent serving in armed
forces abroad in combat zone. Additionally, evidence of exceptional circumstances in
the lead up to the test may be provided e.g. significant issues such as evidence of house
move, death of close family member. Please confirm where you have seen evidence of
any exceptional or extenuating circumstances by ticking the box. The 2013 case stated: "The SRP will normally expect there to be strong evidence of ....... exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests." Curious that this wording has been dropped from the 2014 and 2015 versions - especially when the headteachers manual still says: "The SRP will normally expect there to be ........ exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests." Is this a normal requirement or not? If it is, is it being applied consistently?
Information that the panel does not need to make a decision
• School Work - if it is provided, school work will not be included in the paperwork
provided to the panel as they made the decision not to consider it as the school work
cannot easily be put in context and the overall performance in schoolwork should be
clearly evidenced by the Key Stages and sub levels in the Progress Chart. No change - there still appears to be no provision for home schooled children, or children who have been out of the system for whatever reason.
• Sporting/Music or other non-academic achievement certificates.
• Photographs of the child (medical or otherwise).
Parents have been asked not to send original documentation, school work or sports or
music certificates or photographs of their child. lf they do then it will not be copied and
included for the panel to consider, it will be securely disposed of."
Compilation of the Selection Review Panel
Each SRP consisted of three serving headteachers - two grammar school headteachers and one
primary school headteacher. The headteachers sitting on any panel were taken from the
trained pool of 15 primary headteachers and 13 grammar headteachers. The panels sat on 26
occasions and considered approximately 750 cases, with a maximum of approximately 30 cases
per session. The panel members were advised that there was no limit or quota to the number
of children they may qualify. When challenged about how little time is spent on each case (on average), the knee-jerk response is sure to be "Ah, but headteachers spent time studying each case before the hearing"!
If that is so, where is the evidence?
At least in the 2013 case some anecdotal evidence was included: "Panel members report that they spent on average five hours preparation in advance of each meeting." Presumably, when parents worked out in 2013 that the average amount of time spent preparing each case was under 7 minutes, the figure didn't impress.
No figure has been included in the school case since then.
Print off a copy of the 2013 case here, take it to the group hearing, and ask why they are afraid to provide any such evidence now.
Remind them that they are required to prove that the process was FCO!
Declarations of interest forms were completed and collected in advance from panel members
and this information was used to ensure that headteachers did not consider any cases where
they had knowledge of the child or a link to the primary school. This remains the same - which rather begs the question why one of the grammar school heads in 2014 came up with a completely different definition at a group hearing, and is on record as saying it only applies if "it is for example [a primary school] where his wife works", or "he knows a parent or child personally or socialises with the head".
Information about a family's secondary school preferences was not provided to the SRP. Unchanged from last year - but we assume the family's home address was provided, so the review panel could potentially be influenced by what some of the grammar school preferences were likely to be. For example, if the head of a grammar school in Buckingham were to see an address in Marlow, he might reasonably conclude that that child was unlikely to be applying to his school. But what about a child with an address in north Bucks/Milton Keynes?
In all cases, the paperwork was available to the panel members seven days in advance of the
meeting. Prior to the meeting, the panel pre-read and individually formulated a provisional
decision. At each meeting, sufficient time was provided for each case to be considered
carefully. At no time was the panel required to make a decision without having sufficient time
to consider the case.
Training
All the panel members have been trained This remains the same - but is it one-off training? Or do they aspire to improve by means of regular training
and the training focussed on:
1) The attributes needed to perform well in a grammar school (delivered by grammar school
staff who support Y7 pupils),
2) Key Stage 1 and 2 performance data, availability, recording and expectations (delivered by
primary headteachers),
3) Issues surrounding disability awareness (delivered by an Educational Psychologist)
4) Discussion regarding exceptional reasons, their relative impact, the importance of
establishing timeframes and seeking third party confirming evidence,
5) Discussion and example cases,
6) All of the panel members for 2015 had also been involved in the 2014 selection review
process.
Process of considering cases
Parents had 21 days [This is a marked improvement from the 14 days allowed in 2013 and 2014 - the change is commendable.] to request a review once the test results had been published. Cases were
allocated to panels in no particular order or category except for cases either
a) previously considered by the Special Access Panel (panel that sits prior to the tests to
consider requests for any special adjustments to the test materials, conditions or
timing).
b) cases where an educational psychologists report had been submitted as evidence.
These were allocated to a panel which was supported by an experienced Educational
Psychologist who had no vote, and whose role was to provide professional information to the
panel members. Where the case had already been considered by the Special Access Panel then
the paperwork from this panel was provided to the SRP, including the pro forma used to record
the Special Access Panel's decision.
The paperwork compiled for each child comprised:
a) A sheet which set out key information about the child (e.g. test dates, test scores,
school attended)
b) The parent's submission including the primary headteacher's report (where the parents
chose to submit it)
c) Summary data of the pupils at that school (available for LA primary and partner schools)
d) A bar chart to show the overall score distribution achieved by the whole cohort ·
The case papers considered by the Selection Review Panel are attached as Appendix 5.
Clerking
The panel meetings were clerked by committee clerks from the council's Democratic Services
Team. Prior to the SRP meetings, a training session was held to explain the role required of the
clerk. They were required to record the panel's decision for each child and to note any specific
reasons the panel gave in coming to their decision. They completed a decision sheet on behalf
of the panel. Where there was an application that cited disability, the panel worked through
the disability decision-making process and recorded the outcome of that deliberation. Their
handwritten record was provided to parents along with the decision letter and is included in
the SRP paperwork in Appendix 5 if applicable.
Moderation
The Moderation process re-considered the cases of 120 non-qualified pupils. Cases were
included according to the following parameters:
• Non-qualified referrals from the panels (all panels were advised this was an option
available to them}
• Non-qualified pupils with a STTS of 120-118 inclusive
• Non-qualified pupils with a STTS of 117-113 inclusive with a 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1
recommendation from their current headteacher
This has changed from the 2014 case which used the following parameters:
In view of the lack of consistency in headteacher recommendations, it was absurd to have a 1:1 restriction, so the extension to 1:2 and 2:1 is to be welcomed. They probably ought to go a bit further and include any positive recommendation. After all, there's no evidence that a child with 2:2 is any less suited to grammar school than one with a 2:1!
Anyone with a 1:3 or 2:2 could reasonably ask what objective criteria primary school heads were meant to use to arrive at their recommendation.
This is meant to be an objective process, isn't it?
Of course, headteachers are absolutely entitled to their professional opinion - but a review process must satisfy three separate criteria at the appeal stage: 'fair, consistent & objective'.
It has not been used since!
Not surprising really, when one of the grammar school heads struggled to explain the objective criteria used in the review process. The gist of the oft-quoted conversation was follows:
Question: "What objective criteria were used?"
Response: "There is no tick list. It's a 'weighing up' of the evidence."
Question: "Isn't that subjective then?"
Response: "The information needed is clear."
Question: "Yes, the form specifies what school results should be given, but it does not set out what thresholds are required?"
Response: "There is no tick list or list of criteria but a 'weighing up' of the information provided which is different in each case."
Question: "So it's a subjective judgement?"
Even if the school's general case were flawless - which we suggest it clearly isn't - there would still need to be evidence that the review process was applied fairly, consistently and objectively in each individual case. For this the 'clerk's record' will require very careful scrutiny.
See D12 in the first post of this thread for a report on a group hearing in 2014.
Some generic points below (in red).
Explanation of Selection Review Process [2015]
The Selection Review Process (SRP) was designed to comply with paragraph 3.13 of the
Admission Appeals Code which states:
3.13 An appeal panel may be asked to consider an appeal where the appellant believes
that the child did not perform at their best on the day of the entrance test. In such
cases:
a) where a local review process has not been applied, the panel must only uphold the
appeal if it is satisfied:
i) that there is evidence to demonstrate that the child is of the required academic
standards, for example, school reports giving Year 5/Year 6 SAT results or a letter of
support from their current or previous school clearly indicating why the child is
considered to be of grammar school ability; and
ii) where applicable, that the appellant’s arguments outweigh the admission authority’s
case that admission of additional children would cause prejudice. ’
b) where a local review process has been followed, the panel must only consider
whether each chi|d’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent arid objective way and
if there is no evidence that this has been done, the panel must follow the process in
paragraph 3.13a) above’
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.
Buckinghamshire grammar schools developed the Selection Review Process in conjunction with
the Local Authority and primary school headteachers during 2012/13, and revised the process
for 2015 admission. At the core of the process is a decision, based on written academic
evidence and any extenuating circumstances, made by a panel of three experienced
headteachers with clear understanding of the academic requirements of grammar schools. The
panel's decision was recorded by an independent clerk. The phrase "and observed by an independent moderator" was in the 2013 case, but has disappeared from the 2014 and 2015 versions. Why are independent moderators no longer welcome as observers?
Paperwork provided to the Panel
On receipt of the Secondary Transfer Test results, parents were provided with options as to
what to do if they felt that their child was suitable for a grammar school, which included
information to enable them to compile a written case in support of their child. Parents
completed a request form and asked their child’s primary headteacher to provide some
standard information (a pro-forma was provided for this purpose). Primary headteachers were
given clear guidance about the information they were to provide.
The following is an extract from the handbook provided to Buckinghamshire LA and Partner
School headteachers who were all also invited to a meeting to set out the SRP requirements.
"Key information that the panel needs to make a decision
• The progress chart - this is a key piece of information and should be completed with
sublevels to show the pupil's performance since the end of Key Stage 1.
• The headteacher recommendation and statement of support
• Parents are asked to evidence the ill health of a child at the time of testing. They are
also asked to evidence parental illness, and to provide evidence from their
employer/senior officer to explain lengthy absences such as parent serving in armed
forces abroad in combat zone. Additionally, evidence of exceptional circumstances in
the lead up to the test may be provided e.g. significant issues such as evidence of house
move, death of close family member. Please confirm where you have seen evidence of
any exceptional or extenuating circumstances by ticking the box. The 2013 case stated: "The SRP will normally expect there to be strong evidence of ....... exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests." Curious that this wording has been dropped from the 2014 and 2015 versions - especially when the headteachers manual still says: "The SRP will normally expect there to be ........ exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests." Is this a normal requirement or not? If it is, is it being applied consistently?
Information that the panel does not need to make a decision
• School Work - if it is provided, school work will not be included in the paperwork
provided to the panel as they made the decision not to consider it as the school work
cannot easily be put in context and the overall performance in schoolwork should be
clearly evidenced by the Key Stages and sub levels in the Progress Chart. No change - there still appears to be no provision for home schooled children, or children who have been out of the system for whatever reason.
• Sporting/Music or other non-academic achievement certificates.
• Photographs of the child (medical or otherwise).
Parents have been asked not to send original documentation, school work or sports or
music certificates or photographs of their child. lf they do then it will not be copied and
included for the panel to consider, it will be securely disposed of."
Compilation of the Selection Review Panel
Each SRP consisted of three serving headteachers - two grammar school headteachers and one
primary school headteacher. The headteachers sitting on any panel were taken from the
trained pool of 15 primary headteachers and 13 grammar headteachers. The panels sat on 26
occasions and considered approximately 750 cases, with a maximum of approximately 30 cases
per session. The panel members were advised that there was no limit or quota to the number
of children they may qualify. When challenged about how little time is spent on each case (on average), the knee-jerk response is sure to be "Ah, but headteachers spent time studying each case before the hearing"!
If that is so, where is the evidence?
At least in the 2013 case some anecdotal evidence was included: "Panel members report that they spent on average five hours preparation in advance of each meeting." Presumably, when parents worked out in 2013 that the average amount of time spent preparing each case was under 7 minutes, the figure didn't impress.
No figure has been included in the school case since then.
Print off a copy of the 2013 case here, take it to the group hearing, and ask why they are afraid to provide any such evidence now.
Remind them that they are required to prove that the process was FCO!
Declarations of interest forms were completed and collected in advance from panel members
and this information was used to ensure that headteachers did not consider any cases where
they had knowledge of the child or a link to the primary school. This remains the same - which rather begs the question why one of the grammar school heads in 2014 came up with a completely different definition at a group hearing, and is on record as saying it only applies if "it is for example [a primary school] where his wife works", or "he knows a parent or child personally or socialises with the head".
Information about a family's secondary school preferences was not provided to the SRP. Unchanged from last year - but we assume the family's home address was provided, so the review panel could potentially be influenced by what some of the grammar school preferences were likely to be. For example, if the head of a grammar school in Buckingham were to see an address in Marlow, he might reasonably conclude that that child was unlikely to be applying to his school. But what about a child with an address in north Bucks/Milton Keynes?
In all cases, the paperwork was available to the panel members seven days in advance of the
meeting. Prior to the meeting, the panel pre-read and individually formulated a provisional
decision. At each meeting, sufficient time was provided for each case to be considered
carefully. At no time was the panel required to make a decision without having sufficient time
to consider the case.
Training
All the panel members have been trained This remains the same - but is it one-off training? Or do they aspire to improve by means of regular training
and the training focussed on:1) The attributes needed to perform well in a grammar school (delivered by grammar school
staff who support Y7 pupils),
2) Key Stage 1 and 2 performance data, availability, recording and expectations (delivered by
primary headteachers),
3) Issues surrounding disability awareness (delivered by an Educational Psychologist)
4) Discussion regarding exceptional reasons, their relative impact, the importance of
establishing timeframes and seeking third party confirming evidence,
5) Discussion and example cases,
6) All of the panel members for 2015 had also been involved in the 2014 selection review
process.
Process of considering cases
Parents had 21 days [This is a marked improvement from the 14 days allowed in 2013 and 2014 - the change is commendable.] to request a review once the test results had been published. Cases were
allocated to panels in no particular order or category except for cases either
a) previously considered by the Special Access Panel (panel that sits prior to the tests to
consider requests for any special adjustments to the test materials, conditions or
timing).
b) cases where an educational psychologists report had been submitted as evidence.
These were allocated to a panel which was supported by an experienced Educational
Psychologist who had no vote, and whose role was to provide professional information to the
panel members. Where the case had already been considered by the Special Access Panel then
the paperwork from this panel was provided to the SRP, including the pro forma used to record
the Special Access Panel's decision.
The paperwork compiled for each child comprised:
a) A sheet which set out key information about the child (e.g. test dates, test scores,
school attended)
b) The parent's submission including the primary headteacher's report (where the parents
chose to submit it)
c) Summary data of the pupils at that school (available for LA primary and partner schools)
d) A bar chart to show the overall score distribution achieved by the whole cohort ·
The case papers considered by the Selection Review Panel are attached as Appendix 5.
Clerking
The panel meetings were clerked by committee clerks from the council's Democratic Services
Team. Prior to the SRP meetings, a training session was held to explain the role required of the
clerk. They were required to record the panel's decision for each child and to note any specific
reasons the panel gave in coming to their decision. They completed a decision sheet on behalf
of the panel. Where there was an application that cited disability, the panel worked through
the disability decision-making process and recorded the outcome of that deliberation. Their
handwritten record was provided to parents along with the decision letter and is included in
the SRP paperwork in Appendix 5 if applicable.
Moderation
The Moderation process re-considered the cases of 120 non-qualified pupils. Cases were
included according to the following parameters:
• Non-qualified referrals from the panels (all panels were advised this was an option
available to them}
• Non-qualified pupils with a STTS of 120-118 inclusive
• Non-qualified pupils with a STTS of 117-113 inclusive with a 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1
recommendation from their current headteacher
This has changed from the 2014 case which used the following parameters:
- "- Cases referred by the Selection Review panels (both qualified and unqualified children)
- All review cases for pupils scoring 120 - 115 inclusive who were still not qualified
- All cases for pupils scoring 114 to 107 inclusive who were not qualified and who were recommended as 1.1"
- "- Cases referred by the Selection Review panels (both qualified and unqualified children)
In view of the lack of consistency in headteacher recommendations, it was absurd to have a 1:1 restriction, so the extension to 1:2 and 2:1 is to be welcomed. They probably ought to go a bit further and include any positive recommendation. After all, there's no evidence that a child with 2:2 is any less suited to grammar school than one with a 2:1!
Anyone with a 1:3 or 2:2 could reasonably ask what objective criteria primary school heads were meant to use to arrive at their recommendation.
This is meant to be an objective process, isn't it?
Of course, headteachers are absolutely entitled to their professional opinion - but a review process must satisfy three separate criteria at the appeal stage: 'fair, consistent & objective'.
This was the ringing endorsement/conclusion at the end of the 2013 case .......Conclusion:
The Selection Review Panel Process was 'fair, consistent and objective' in coming to the decision that there was insufficient evidence to deem [child's name] qualified for a grammar school education.
[2013]
It has not been used since!
Not surprising really, when one of the grammar school heads struggled to explain the objective criteria used in the review process. The gist of the oft-quoted conversation was follows:
Question: "What objective criteria were used?"
Response: "There is no tick list. It's a 'weighing up' of the evidence."
Question: "Isn't that subjective then?"
Response: "The information needed is clear."
Question: "Yes, the form specifies what school results should be given, but it does not set out what thresholds are required?"
Response: "There is no tick list or list of criteria but a 'weighing up' of the information provided which is different in each case."
Question: "So it's a subjective judgement?"
Even if the school's general case were flawless - which we suggest it clearly isn't - there would still need to be evidence that the review process was applied fairly, consistently and objectively in each individual case. For this the 'clerk's record' will require very careful scrutiny.
See D12 in the first post of this thread for a report on a group hearing in 2014.
Etienne
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
I note it does not say how long these review meetings were so we are still 'in the dark' about conistency between different panels.
Is there any times recorded on the review paperwork people got back? Are any names included of the review panel to check there was no link to the family?
Is there any times recorded on the review paperwork people got back? Are any names included of the review panel to check there was no link to the family?
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
No - we have neither piece of this information!!Guest55 wrote:I note it does not say how long these review meetings were so we are still 'in the dark' about conistency between different panels.
Is there any times recorded on the review paperwork people got back? Are any names included of the review panel to check there was no link to the family?
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
• Now that appeals are under way, please remember that this thread is available for general discussion.
However, if there are any specific questions about your own case, please use your own thread on the Appeals Forum - and please stick to one thread, as it helps us to have everything to do with your case in one place.
• We hope members will be willing to comment on group hearings (or any other part of the appeals process) - with a view to helping future appellants.
All contributions welcome, whether a brief comment or a full report.
We do rely on you for information about what is happening!
Comments/reports can be posted in this thread - or, if you'd like your contribution to remain anonymous, please PM to "Moderators".
Thank you!
However, if there are any specific questions about your own case, please use your own thread on the Appeals Forum - and please stick to one thread, as it helps us to have everything to do with your case in one place.
• We hope members will be willing to comment on group hearings (or any other part of the appeals process) - with a view to helping future appellants.
All contributions welcome, whether a brief comment or a full report.
We do rely on you for information about what is happening!
Comments/reports can be posted in this thread - or, if you'd like your contribution to remain anonymous, please PM to "Moderators".
Thank you!
Etienne
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
Very good post with feedback from 1lurker:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 03#p513403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A bit reminiscent of last year (same chair perhaps?).
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 03#p513403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Let's hope this wasn't a deliberate attempt to stifle discussion. Parents must be allowed to raise general points about the school case at the group hearing.Interestingly the group hearing did not go into FCO issues at all
A bit reminiscent of last year (same chair perhaps?).
- From May 2014: No big surprises on the day other than the panel had no questions re selection review. The chair asked the presenting officer to begin her summing up before she was interrupted [by parents] and then the selection review questions came.
- From May 2014:
Helpful to have all that explained.We were told 32 children were appealing 2/3 had qualified but could not be offered a place as they live out of catchment and others lived closer who have been allocated the available spaces (50% of the intake). The remaining 1/3 had not qualified, some of whom had been to review but not all. The hearing took 1 ½ hours. We were told at stage 2 non-qualified cases had an hour slot and qualified 30 mins.
A typo, we think, but it does nothing to instil confidence in the system.When we received the schools paper work we spotted a major inconsistency in the description of a level 3 recommendation. The school summary sheet refers to a level 3 recommendation as – Recommend WITHOUT reservation, whereas the HT manual and selection review form state a 3 recommendation as – Recommend WITH reservation. Our DD was the only child in her school of 80+ students who received a 3.1 with a ‘very slight reservation’. We put the point across that whichever wording was correct, it was a fundamental inconsistency in the process. The schools representative said it has always been ‘with reservation’ and played it down as a typo, however we were able to say that it is possible the review panel assumed the wording had been changed ......
Etienne
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
The authority to which everyone must refer is the Code.MamaBear wrote:however the panel said for stage 2, people who went to review need to show why they think their case wasn't FCO.......so I need to include that in our notes, I thought we didnt need to "prove" it was FCO.
We've often quoted the key paragraph:
- "3.13 (b) where a local review process has been followed, the panel must only consider whether each child’s review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way and if there is no evidence that this has been done [our bold type], the panel must follow the process in paragraph 3.13(a) above."
There's nothing there about the parent having to disprove the AA case.
If the chair had said "may show....." or "have an opportunity to show ......", that would just about be acceptable.
However, if she said "need to show ....." or "must show .......", then we think she's wrong, because that's not what the Appeals Code says. There could be grounds for a complaint to the EFA.
Ideally someone should have queried this at the time:
- Could you just clarify that, please?
Isn't the onus on the AA to prove FCO?
Where in the Appeals Code is the onus put on the parent?
Have you had legal advice on this point?
If so, what was it?
If not, shouldn't you get legal advice before proceeding further?
- Could you just clarify that, please?
At the group hearing you can get away with being argumentative - but at stage two it's not a good idea to appear confrontational!
At your individual hearing you could begin with a polite request for clarification:
"Could you just clarify for me, please, that the onus is on the AA to prove FCO, and not on the parent to disprove it?"
If the chair still claims the onus is on you, then:
- (a) You'll have even stronger grounds for a complaint to the EFA.
(b) Politely state your position:
"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 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."
(c) Proceed to go through some of the generic points set out in A12 (see first post in this thread), and in the analysis of the school case (see post dated 2nd May above), if they weren't covered at stage one.
If they were covered at stage one, remind the panel of them by summarising briefly.
(d) Move on to any specific points in the clerk's notes that you wish to challenge.
- (a) You'll have even stronger grounds for a complaint to the EFA.
Good questions to raise with the EFA if necessary:Booklady wrote:[on the need for them to prove FCO (not us!!) - do they not understand this? Is it not part of their training? Do you know??!?
- What training were panel members given on this issue?
Was legal advice given on whether the onus is on the AA to prove their case, not on the parent to disprove it?
If legal advice was not sought, why not?
- What training were panel members given on this issue?
Etienne
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
Thank you Etienne, this is really helpful.
Re: How to appeal for a Bucks GS place, March 2015
Our son only achieved 97 in the bucks 2015 11+. 121 in VR and much lower in Maths and NVR.
We think this is due to his primary school not teaching to the required standards, the school received a 'Requires Improvement' rating from OFSTED only last year. By the time we realised our son was falling behind it was too difficult to get him up to speed.
We did not employ a professional tutor and in retrospect this was a mistake. We were also distracted from 11+ preparation by an illness in the family although this affected out ability to work with our son more than it affecting him personally.
Do you think that it is worth pursuing an appeal, either immediately with the Selection Review or later with a LA Appeal?
We would really like our son to attend a grammar school as his 2 older siblings are both at GS and have done very well and we feel that our son would be lost in the local non GS as it is a very large school.
The only other complication is that we are out of county!!!
Any advice you can give will be gratefully received.
We think this is due to his primary school not teaching to the required standards, the school received a 'Requires Improvement' rating from OFSTED only last year. By the time we realised our son was falling behind it was too difficult to get him up to speed.
We did not employ a professional tutor and in retrospect this was a mistake. We were also distracted from 11+ preparation by an illness in the family although this affected out ability to work with our son more than it affecting him personally.
Do you think that it is worth pursuing an appeal, either immediately with the Selection Review or later with a LA Appeal?
We would really like our son to attend a grammar school as his 2 older siblings are both at GS and have done very well and we feel that our son would be lost in the local non GS as it is a very large school.
The only other complication is that we are out of county!!!
Any advice you can give will be gratefully received.