Thank you...

[TiffanyTwisted]

Are there others in a similar position?

Yes, I'm sure there are. But I don't think anyone has yet taken the LA to task over its broken promise.

Presumably 'exceptions can be made but floodgates will not opened'. If you were the only one (unlikely, I assume)
presumably that point would be beneficial. One place as opposed to several
or more.

The number of families still affected by this anomaly would be vanishingly small and will cease to exist altogether after next year, once anyone who joined in Y7 in 2004 enters Y13...

[Reader]

Good point and good luck.

[Etienne]

I'm reasonably happy with the above, just a bit concerned that someone might try to pick holes in the logistical argument - perhaps suggesting that the younger ones should give up their after-school activities to accommodate their sister's need for transport?

I don't believe anyone would make the latter point. Any 'holes' would have to be in terms of availability of transport or the reality of the commitments.

The fact is that the whole after-school thing is complicated enough at the moment, but being able to pick up DD2 at the same time as DD1 would inevitably be easier than having to drive to two schools in different directions when there are other children to be considered. The trouble is that on paper it looks quite straightforward, but in reality it's exhausting!

You should mention the latter point at the hearing.

is it sufficient to provide a schedule of our movements for this year on the basis that, even if the details vary slightly next year, it's likely to be no less complicated (but will be so if DD1 and DD2 are at different schools?)

It's worth bearing in mind that most appellants using the logistical argument haven't bothered producing a shred of evidence to substantiate their claim!

And would the panel give any credence to the argument that families build up a "relationship" with a school over the years, which would be diluted if they then have to devote time and energy to supporting children at several different establishments?

It merits a brief mention at the hearing.

You might not win an appeal on the basis of the above argument alone, but if it contributes a point or so to your case as a whole, it's well worth putting forward!

[TiffanyTwisted]

Thanks for that, Etienne - it certainly is only just one of a number of points in our argument. I just want to be sure that I'm presenting it properly.

[TiffanyTwisted]

I've got a question that has occurred to me from the Q&As:

Each time they admit an extra pupil, of course, the prejudice to the school has become greater, and they will be conscious of this as they move on to take their decision on the next case.

Does this effectively mean that, for a heavily oversubscribed school, the appeals that are considered earlier in the process effectively have an advantage? For example if the panel thinks the school could take an extra three pupils and has a "shortlist" of ten candidates who all would be admitted if it were possible, then surely it helps if your case is one of the first to be heard? Or do they "shelve" what they might consider borderline cases and come back to them once they have considered the other cases?

[Snowdrops]

From my understanding of it, they hear ALL the appeals for a particular school before they make a decision on which appeals to pass.

[Etienne]

Snowdrops is right. With multiple appeals (sometimes called "bulk appeals") no decisions can be taken until the very end.

Tiffany, if you go back a few lines before the bit you've quoted:

• "After hearing the timely appeals, the panel (and it has to be the same panel!) has to decide in each case whether the parental case outweighs the prejudice to the school.
  
  Panel members then have to consider whether the school could cope with that number of (potentially) successful appeals. If they decide the school could not cope, they put all the cases ....."

[TiffanyTwisted]

OK - got it now - thanks!

[TiffanyTwisted]

We now have dates for our appeal process. We still have some time to go but have not yet sent our supporting documentation in! There is nothing like a date in black and white to concentrate the mind, and so I have now managed to whittle the presentation summary down to three pages of A4 (1.5 line spacing so it doesn't look too overwhelming) with references to supporting documents in appendices, but am just wondering if it is still too long and wordy to be sent off with the supporting documents?

We are planning to use this summary as the basis for our actual presentation to the appeal panel which will probably be a bit longer and more detailed - should we also take copies of our presentation along for the panel members on the day? (This might also help the clerk?)

Also - one of our points is actually challenging the LA's case - should this still be included in our case summary for stage 2, even though it would have been addressed in stage 1?

The summary itself has been sent to the Appeals Box due to the nature of the information it contains. Thanks for your ideas!

[Etienne]

Hi, Tiffany

Although the presentation is longer than I would usually recommend, you have quite a lot of explaining to do, so I think it's justified. Copies on the day for 3 panel members, clerk and LA rep. would be a good idea.

we are convinced that this would benefit .....

Rather than "We are convinced," it might be better to say "It is generally accepted that ........ is a much better preparation for A levels and university." With a little research you should be able to dig up some supporting evidence.

As a professional ....... I consider the study of ....... important and want ......

Is it possible to move the emphasis away from you, and a bit more towards the family (and even an incipient interest on the part of your daughter)?

one of our points is actually challenging the LA's case - should this still be included in our case summary for stage 2, even though it would have been addressed in stage 1?

Strictly speaking, stage 1 issues should not be part of your case, but I see no harm in your conclusion. I would suggest changing "we feel" to some such wording as "we respectfully ask the panel to consider that any prejudice to the school in admitting an extra pupil is more than outweighed ......"

Hope this helps.