The bad news is that DD on previous VRQ's from yr 3 to yr 5 received a score of 113, 118 and 109 respectively. His head wants to leave these out but isnt sure if it will look suspicious to omit them?
The guidance to headteachers states:
When quoting any test batteries such as CATS all results should be included, please do not quote partial or selected elements only.
This appears to me to mean that if a child were to sit CATs - the three elements of which are VR, Q, and NVR - the head shouldn't just report the one or two 'elements' most favourable to the child!
Where there are completely separate tests (as in years 3, 4, and 5), arguably this might not prevent a head from selecting which ones to report. Of course, if the highest score had been in year 5, the head could very legitimately point out that he was providing the most up to date information.
Sometimes, in the past, appeal panels have spotted that different children from the same school appeared to have taken a different number of tests! They might perhaps have asked parents about absence from school - but a review panel will have no opportunity to question parents.
The so so news is apparently the review panel looks for a consistent academic track record from yr 3 to 5. You are expected to have acheived level 3s by the end of yr 3 and level 5's by the end of yr 5. DD acheived 3's for Maths and English but a 2 for writing at the end of yr 3 and level 5's again for Maths and English and level 4a for Writing. He is expected to acheive level 5a's for Maths and English by the end of yr 6 and a level 5c for writing. As i said previously he is working at a level 6 for Maths and is on the schools gifted list for Maths.
Do you mean 'year 2' above?
Broadly I would agree that level 3s at KS1 (year 2) are an encouraging sign, but I would have thought there ought to be provision for children who make rapid progress later on in primary school. I've no idea how rigid review panels are going to be.
But, again his head isnt sure if a Grammar school would expect him to have better results for writing as a lot of their work is writing based. But, then maybe his overacheivement in Maths would counterbalance this. Thoughts?
For an appeal, I would see this as an argument that a panel might consider. For a review ..........
I am also confused as why would a panel be looking at level 5 scores by the end of year 5 arent they looking for a level 4 and then level 5 at the end of year 6? As a level 5 is the maximum they can achieve when leaving primary school? Confused
Level 5s by the end of year 5 would be setting the bar very high, and on that basis the success rate for reviews would be much lower than for appeals! (And yet we are told the expectation is that a similar number of children will qualify through the review process. As with 'exceptional extenuating circumstances, it doesn't quite add up.)
Just as a footnote to my first comment the head said in 2011 those who appealed with a 119 score only 48% were successful.
I've not seen that figure, but am aware that the overall success rate for selection appeals was unusual last year.