The key to the panel refusing our appeal was the "very poor school work " we submitted.This seems to have been the turning point even though the school work in question was ks2 type tests resulting in 5C's!
This is curious! Am I understanding correctly? The verdict "very poor school work" was based entirely on SATs papers showing 5c level???
Damning conclusions such as "very poor school work" would need to be based on hard evidence such as teachers' comments in exercise books or school reports, otherwise I think you would have grounds for a complaint.
References to the rankings can be ambiguous - it is not always clear whether they relate to the exact order in which pupils are listed, or to the headteacher suitability recommendations.
Panels should not
be saying that that as only 13 pupils out of the 27 that took the test passed, then only 13 should have been ranked to pass. If this is what was really said, then it's far too extreme. However, there is a problem in that schools on average are over-optimistic and tend to recommend far more pupils than actually qualify at the 11+.
As I said to you before, I would compare the headteacher's recommendations with the number of children who qualified (before
the appeals process - panels have absolutely no information about the outcome of other appeals which are ongoing). The more accurate the recommendations, the more confidence I would have in the school's judgement. Just my view.