Appeal Ahead...Info Posted..
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
But presumably that entails the HT admitting they they got something wrong in the first place?
I’ve got to be a little careful here because I post under my own name, but my wife and I (politely) challenged our HT about this when she first said it to both of us and gently suggested that the HT’s recommendation was not meant to be based solely on CATs scores.
Her reply was, essentially, that that was her opinion and she was sticking to it…
Given that, I doubt requesting a letter is going to work. Can we still bring it up without it appearing like we’re criticising the HT?
I’ve got to be a little careful here because I post under my own name, but my wife and I (politely) challenged our HT about this when she first said it to both of us and gently suggested that the HT’s recommendation was not meant to be based solely on CATs scores.
Her reply was, essentially, that that was her opinion and she was sticking to it…
Given that, I doubt requesting a letter is going to work. Can we still bring it up without it appearing like we’re criticising the HT?
Hi Rob etc...well Ive been trying to figure out and make sense of the HT Handbook..can anyone help me with the following bits on recommendations..Its the number 3 i am looking at..
So, what will happen from September 2009 entry onwards?
You will recall, that putting together an order of suitability was a two-stage process:
1) Prior to the test results being known and in liaison with Y5 and Y6 class teachers
headteachers considered the two recommendation criteria and the children were identified
as, for example, a 2:1
2 = Headteacher’s recommendation of ‘Highly recommended’,
1 = Attitude to work of ‘Self starter, independent worker, consistent, highly
motivated’
You will still need to do this part of the exercise.
2) Then once you had worked out the recommendations for each child, the groups of
recommendations were sorted into a final ‘order of suitability’. It was recognised that this
part of the process proved the most complex, with experienced headteachers finding it
difficult to split children, and this part of the process has now been dropped.
3) The link between recommendation level and expected score has been broken, so your
recommendations no longer have to be matched with a predicted score (which you
advised us often did not equate to the actual strength of your recommendation).
Thanks..
Phil
So, what will happen from September 2009 entry onwards?
You will recall, that putting together an order of suitability was a two-stage process:
1) Prior to the test results being known and in liaison with Y5 and Y6 class teachers
headteachers considered the two recommendation criteria and the children were identified
as, for example, a 2:1
2 = Headteacher’s recommendation of ‘Highly recommended’,
1 = Attitude to work of ‘Self starter, independent worker, consistent, highly
motivated’
You will still need to do this part of the exercise.
2) Then once you had worked out the recommendations for each child, the groups of
recommendations were sorted into a final ‘order of suitability’. It was recognised that this
part of the process proved the most complex, with experienced headteachers finding it
difficult to split children, and this part of the process has now been dropped.
3) The link between recommendation level and expected score has been broken, so your
recommendations no longer have to be matched with a predicted score (which you
advised us often did not equate to the actual strength of your recommendation).
Thanks..
Phil
Dear Phil
Point 3 simply means that the headteacher is no longer specifying any sort of predicted score.
Under the old system, for example, a "3" recommendation meant "recommended with reservations, and a score of 111-120 is anticipated". Under the new system it means "recommended with reservations" - nothing more.
When you get the answer you want, go on to say "I do have some concerns because our head tells me this is not how she is working out her recommendations." There's no need to make any critical remarks. Just answer any questions factually.
Point 3 simply means that the headteacher is no longer specifying any sort of predicted score.
Under the old system, for example, a "3" recommendation meant "recommended with reservations, and a score of 111-120 is anticipated". Under the new system it means "recommended with reservations" - nothing more.
Rob, I think you should bring it up. Start with a question (after the LA case): "Am I right in thinking the headteachers manual states that .........?"Rob Clark wrote:Can we still bring it up without it appearing like we’re criticising the HT?
When you get the answer you want, go on to say "I do have some concerns because our head tells me this is not how she is working out her recommendations." There's no need to make any critical remarks. Just answer any questions factually.
Etienne
If that was the only factor taken into account, then I suspect not! The HT Manual states "it is not possible to directly translate a test score in another test to the 11+. This does not mean that they are not informative – they are - but it is not possible to say that if a child achieves scores of 121+ in CAT tests that they will definitely score at that level in the 11+."Phil wrote:The HT said that his '3' was due to getting 119VR in his year 5 CATs
So is that going to correct?
You may be on somewhat weaker ground when the CAT score is below 121, because the standardisation for national tests like CATs is not as tough as for the 11+. However, I would still argue that a single test score cannot be regarded as entirely reliable. NFER have always published confidence intervals with CAT results, and clearly state "“a pupil’s score is only an estimate of true ability …..â€
Etienne
Hi Etienne,
Thanks for that. 30th isn’t a disaster to the extent that usually around 35 children pass from our primary school.
I guess I was wondering whether including a specific ranking was a procedural error which could be considered ‘prejudicial’, ie. with a specific ranking like this, it makes it very easy for one of the panel to think (or even say) “well DD was obviously only ever borderline as the HT has ranked her right in the middle of the cohort for the past 3 years.â€
Thanks for that. 30th isn’t a disaster to the extent that usually around 35 children pass from our primary school.
I guess I was wondering whether including a specific ranking was a procedural error which could be considered ‘prejudicial’, ie. with a specific ranking like this, it makes it very easy for one of the panel to think (or even say) “well DD was obviously only ever borderline as the HT has ranked her right in the middle of the cohort for the past 3 years.â€
I hesitate to say that this is a procedural error, but it's a very good question, Rob, and there is certainly a discussion to be had at the hearing about what is going on here!
The panel must look at "30th" in the context of a very high performing school. I'm pretty sure they will work this out for themselves before the hearing, but you should hammer home the point anyway.
The panel must look at "30th" in the context of a very high performing school. I'm pretty sure they will work this out for themselves before the hearing, but you should hammer home the point anyway.
Etienne
Is that Etienne speak for ‘possibly, but I’m too nice to say so…’ 
I suppose if the panel ask or say something like ‘the HT has only ranked her 30th so she clearly wasn’t that strong a candidate’ we can reply that she was ranked 30th in a school from which more than that have passed in each of the past 5 years.
I’m more concerned that the panel might think it but not expressly say it, which is why I wanted to try to address the issue myself in an attempt to disarm it.
I suppose if the panel ask or say something like ‘the HT has only ranked her 30th so she clearly wasn’t that strong a candidate’ we can reply that she was ranked 30th in a school from which more than that have passed in each of the past 5 years.
I’m more concerned that the panel might think it but not expressly say it, which is why I wanted to try to address the issue myself in an attempt to disarm it.
