I spoke to dd's teacher today who said she would fully support our appeal and predicts level 5's across the board for next year's SAT's. She also mentioned that dd relies on her natural ability and could do with a push which she feels dd would get at grammar school - if I mentioned this would it go against her as dd would appear lazy?
The 11+ is all about ability, so for the purposes of an appeal I think it's probably a better recommendation to be bright and lazy than working flat out and not getting there! I suspect panels generally give more weight to academic potential than to motivation.
My dd only had two months preparation for the 11+ with me, is it worth mentioning this?
After the first test (score was 120) she said a girl kept looking over at her work during the exam and she had to keep covering it up, is this worth mentioning as well?
I am not sure how to explain her second test score of 113, she thought she had done quite well afterwards?
She also was on antibiotics for an ear infection, which wasn't bothering her at the time of the tests should I include this in the appeal?
My colleague and friend at work died in a drowning accident the week before dd's test and I have been a bit distracted and upset at home, would it be inappropriate/unnecessary to include this information?
I think I would take the view that she had an 'off day' when scoring 113. Mention the extenuating circumstances briefly, but play them down. You don't want to give the impression of making mountains out of molehills. I would be inclined to say: "She was on antibiotics for an ear infection at the time, but didn't appear to be affected ...... she was distracted by another girl during the first test - I don't know if this could have accounted for the one mark she needed ..... there was some bad news the week before the test which shook me - but I can't be sure if this in turn had any effect on her." (Don't go into detail - wait for the panel to ask for further information if they want to.) Get a letter from the GP to confirm the antibiotics.
There is also the issue of the standardisation of the two test one's which I am trying to find out about at the moment, (Bucks council very unhelpful and secretive) do you think if they were not standardised altogether in one group this would have disadvantaged my dd?
I would steer well clear of this issue! Unless it can be proved that your daughter would definitely
have qualified but for what happened, the only thing an appeal panel can do is look at the alternative evidence of ability.
Finally (phew!) dd's birthday is 30 January, would her test's have been standardised with children born almost a month earlier i.e 1 January? Ideally if we could find one point from somewhere that would be great!!
Yes, there's no distinction as far as I know between the beginning and end of a month. I wouldn't raise it, however. We've already got three issues lined up - a fourth starts to look like desperation!