11 Plus Exams Forum

Reading all of the past posts and the FAQs which are available, there is repeated mention of demonstrating Level 5s in all subjects to an appeal panel. However, this system is no longer used, and I can't seem to find any relevant info on how an appeal panel judges the results from the new system?

Does anybody have any links to an explanation of the new system, how it translates to the old "levels" system, and what evidence is necessary for an appeals panel to look favorably on your appeal?

Thanks.

Each school has its own system of assessments.

A common system seems to be the use of 'Year 5 exceeding' for the most able in Year 5.

Ok, thank you. Quite frustrating they've changed the system, which means it's harder to present a concise view of progress made over the last few years.

For Year 6 Bucks reviews advised Head teachers to use

A = below age expectations
B = at age expectations
C = above age expectations
D = well above age expectations

I interpret those as level 3, 4, 5 and 6 roughly.

A level 3 in KS1 should be above age expectations for 'expected progress'. Does that help?

It does, thanks very much for that.

Some more advice needed please.

So my son has always been a year ahead in terms of his "levels", under the old system. I.e. in Y2 he was performing at Y3 average, in Y3 at Y4 average, and in Y4 at Y5 average. This usually equates to 2 sub levels higher.

He's always been stronger in Maths, and for that he's always been 3 - 4 sub levels higher.

As I understand the material I've read, the panel are expecting level 5's (preferably high 5's) in Y5? Going by the old levels system, it'd be reasonable to assume he would have achieved this if he had continued to progress at the same rate. The problem is, the new system does not seem to correlate. Under the new system, we have 3 levels:

1 = Below Expectations
2 = Meeting Expectations
3 = Exceeding Expectations

It seems as though being 2 sub levels above the average under the old system (i.e. performing above age related expectations) seems to equate only to "Meeting Expectations". Whereas 3-4 sub levels above (i.e. performing well above age related expectations) equates to "Exceeding Expectations".

There's a post over on netmums which suggests similar (hope I'm allowed to link to it):

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/chil ... n-all.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It therefore seems as if it is much harder now to go to an appeal panel and show evidence of being above age related expectations, as the marking scheme is not granular enough, and being just below age related expectations, meeting them, or exceeding them, are all shown as "meeting expectations". Will the appeal panels be aware of this? Is it even possible to convince them that a "meeting expectations" is good enough under the new system, or is it only "exceeding expectations" that would suffice?

I appreciate the system is new so nobody will have a precise answer, but any input would be appreciated.

We went to review with a D,C,D using G55s example. It was unsuccessful. I know someone else on this site went to review with the same predictions and was successful.

I suspect the panels pay more attention to established results rather that predicted results. Which may well be the case for an appeals panel also. In your case if your DC has a good set of past SATs results then I think you will have a strong case. Our problem was that we didn't have this and our DC was penalised for being out of the system for a couple of years.

MrGrimes wrote:
http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/chil ... n-all.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That link is about reception which has a completely different system.

The 'new' system in many schools would mean you are looking for 'exceeding/well above Year 5 age expectations' as the equivalent to level 5 - has the school held a meeting to exlain their new system?

I really don't know why the system of levels was changed athough they did vary between schools! QCA tests were not new each year and so became 'known' and they gave inaccurate [ie too high] levels.

Tolstoy wrote:We went to review with a D,C,D using G55s example. It was unsuccessful. I know someone else on this site went to review with the same predictions and was successful.

I suspect the panels pay more attention to established results rather that predicted results. Which may well be the case for an appeals panel also. In your case if your DC has a good set of past SATs results then I think you will have a strong case. Our problem was that we didn't have this and our DC was penalised for being out of the system for a couple of years.

Do you mind if I ask how far your DC was off of the pass mark? The FAQs suggest that the further from the pass mark a child is, the more burden of proof required for academic suitability, though I suspect it depends on the individual appeal panels as to how true this actually is.

Guest55 wrote:
The 'new' system in many schools would mean you are looking for 'exceeding/well above Year 5 age expectations' as the equivalent to level 5 - has the school held a meeting to exlain their new system?

If that is the case, which Im fearing it is, it seems incredibly unfair that the new system is disadvantaging children who would have previously been deemed academically suitable, but now are not.