Appeal 1st June-Glad it is over and now the wait!
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
So sorry for both of you, know how it feels.
Just a thought on the evidence thing - do you know the person who was successful at appeal?If so, it might be worth asking them if they'd tell you what academic evidence they provided. I'm only asking because this year we were unsuccessful at the non-statutory appeal in January, but when we spoke to another successful parent from a different Primary, we realised that they had sent another document in, one which neither we, nor our HT were aware was so crucial. This formed part of the argument in our successful appeal in April - that we did not have access to the same evidence, and the panel seemed to accept that, and indeed the LEA rep said that as a result HTs would be getting more training.
The document was the Fischer Family trust information which showed all children in DD's cohort 's performance in the KS1 SATs and from that predictions for KS2. All other children's names were blanked out but the girls who had passed the 11+'s scores were highlighted. This made it easy to see that DD was ranked the 2nd highest - apparently the panel prefer this type of information as it is based on actual scores rather than predictions.
The reason I'm telling you this is that if you do find out that your appeal was based upon a lack of evidence of which you were unaware of at the time, then you might have a case with the ombudsman. It might be a long shot, but in my case it was worth pursuing. Like you, the reference to "lack of evidence to the contrary..." niggled me.
All the best, I have no doubt that your children will do well because of the support given by yourselves. As someone said to me last year, remember that "cream always rises to the top" - I found it quite comforting, and hope that you will too.
Bougalou
Just a thought on the evidence thing - do you know the person who was successful at appeal?If so, it might be worth asking them if they'd tell you what academic evidence they provided. I'm only asking because this year we were unsuccessful at the non-statutory appeal in January, but when we spoke to another successful parent from a different Primary, we realised that they had sent another document in, one which neither we, nor our HT were aware was so crucial. This formed part of the argument in our successful appeal in April - that we did not have access to the same evidence, and the panel seemed to accept that, and indeed the LEA rep said that as a result HTs would be getting more training.
The document was the Fischer Family trust information which showed all children in DD's cohort 's performance in the KS1 SATs and from that predictions for KS2. All other children's names were blanked out but the girls who had passed the 11+'s scores were highlighted. This made it easy to see that DD was ranked the 2nd highest - apparently the panel prefer this type of information as it is based on actual scores rather than predictions.
The reason I'm telling you this is that if you do find out that your appeal was based upon a lack of evidence of which you were unaware of at the time, then you might have a case with the ombudsman. It might be a long shot, but in my case it was worth pursuing. Like you, the reference to "lack of evidence to the contrary..." niggled me.
All the best, I have no doubt that your children will do well because of the support given by yourselves. As someone said to me last year, remember that "cream always rises to the top" - I found it quite comforting, and hope that you will too.
Bougalou
Many thanks for your response Bougalou.
I have now spoken to the Clerk of the Appeals Panel just to clarify exactly what this sentence means and he basically said that the panel accepted that my DD would have been affected on the day by the mitigating circumstances but what they were not able to do is to judge how far this would have pushed her up the list of ranked order, hence this is why that particular sentence was used. The academic evidence provided obviously doesn't help them take a view on the balance of probability.
On this basis, it does therefore seem quite a hard task to get an appeal upheld.
I hope if anything this may help other people appealing to ensure they can get around this stumbling block.
I have now spoken to the Clerk of the Appeals Panel just to clarify exactly what this sentence means and he basically said that the panel accepted that my DD would have been affected on the day by the mitigating circumstances but what they were not able to do is to judge how far this would have pushed her up the list of ranked order, hence this is why that particular sentence was used. The academic evidence provided obviously doesn't help them take a view on the balance of probability.
On this basis, it does therefore seem quite a hard task to get an appeal upheld.
I hope if anything this may help other people appealing to ensure they can get around this stumbling block.
