Have moved this here as it's easier to discuss your case if you have your own thread.
1.) Our EP Report gave DD age 16 in WIAT test scores. When I mentioned this, the non-lay panel member rolled her eyes!
This certainly shouldn't have happened.
It begs the question "Why did she do this
Do such results lack credibility?
Any evidence from a professional deserves careful consideration.
It might be worth getting hold of a copy of the clerk's notes which may - or may not - tell you a bit more about how the panel member viewed your case.http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/ombudsman#d4
If so what do they look for in an EP report?
The higher the percentile or 'age equivalence', the better!
You have to remember, though, that a panel consists of three fallible human beings, each of whom will have his or her own views.
2.) We sought to make a point that since many Bucks pupils take annual CATS tests (DDs school doesn't do them), this goes some way to preparing the children for the kind of questioning they will face in 11+. Does anyone know what proportion of Bucks primaries do CATS tests?
I doubt whether there are any statistics. My guess is that only a few do annual
Rather like "Many children are tutored, but mine wasn't
", I think general
arguments such as this are very unlikely to carry weight at an appeal, and would advise you not to go down this road.
3.) We were asked whether DD finished the tests and how she felt. What bearing could the answers to this have?
Questions are discussed in the Q&As. For example:
Sometimes (especially when all the important questions have already been put) a panel member will ask you a question of no real significance so that you don’t leave thinking “Panel Member X showed no interest at all – couldn’t even be bothered to ask me anything”! Favourite ‘filler’ questions at a non-qualification appeal are sometimes “What does your child do in his/her free time?”, “What did he/she say on returning home after the test?”, “Does he/she know you’re here today?”
From the chair:
Q. “How did he think he did in the test?”
A. “He thought he did well and would pass; I think he may have been a bit too confident after the first test and maybe relaxed a bit which could have been why his second score was a bit lower.”
Just occasionally, the answer to a seemingly pointless question might be revelatory .......
Basically our academic case was that DD was VRTS 3 points short, but is predicted straight 5A SATS with a 6 for maths. This was apparently not good enough so I'm at a loss to know what they are looking for....
As above - a panel consists of three fallible human beings, each of whom will have his or her own views.
It's not an exact science. A different panel could come to a completely different judgement!
We have another appeal coming up soon, so any advice would be much appreciated....
You're not necessarily doing anything wrong.
This is a subjective process, and you need a little bit of luck on top of everything else!
You don't say what the other score was. If it was much lower, it could make your task more difficult, especially if there are no persuasive extenuating circumstances..
I assume you've assembled as much academic evidence as possible:http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b11
If you haven't got any extenuating circumstances, it's always best to say so up front, and shift the focus on to academic evidence: "We honestly don't know why she underperformed on the day, but hope the panel will consider the range of alternative academic evidence that suggests a grammar school place would be appropriate.
You could repeat this point in the summing up.
(I think the summing up is quite important in so far as it's your last chance to sway the panel.)
See if you can adapthttp://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b49
to suit your circumstances. For example:
(1) We’ll be quite brief. (2) Thank you very much indeed for being so generous with your time, and for having given us the opportunity to present our case in person. (3) We fully understand the admission authority’s position, but - with respect - do not believe they have provided you with evidence that the review was in practice fair and consistent and objective. (4) We would ask you, please, to consider the range of alternative academic evidence that suggests a grammar school place would be appropriate in this case. Thank you very much.