11 Plus Exams Forum

We now have new evidence from Primary School which clearly ranks DD as second in cohort of children who passed 11+. Also we have new evidence which shows that DD was disturbed several times and complained about it which was not revealed by the LEA at the non statutory appeal.
At what stage should we introduce this? I was thinking of:
1) Asking the LEA about the conduct of the test, the invigilation process,
and the witholding of crucial evidence after the rep first speaks;
2) Using the Rankings when discussing DDs academic record and then
3) Referring to the fact that we did not have access to this info at the first appeal when discussing oversubscription. Our point being that if the info had been revealed then, we would have been more likely to have been successful, and therefore this is the most compelling reason why she needs a place at that particular school.
Btw all new evidence is officially documented and has been sent to panel, but it will be a different panel from the one at the first hearing, so they won't specifically know that it is new, or that the reason we were rejected was on lack of evidence, not unsuitability.
What do you think?
Bouga

Dear Bouga

If I remember correctly, when you say "first appeal" we're talking about a review.

Could you just remind me, is yours one of the authorities where the review can affect what happens at a statutory appeal?

I don't think so. It's North Yorkshire. We have the opportunity to go to a non-statutory appeal review, which is supposed to identify children in catchment who should have passed the test, and then they get priority over out of area children. If you are unsuccessful, then you can then go to statutory appeal.
What seems to be happening is that some Primary Head Teachers are sending in more evidence than is required by the LEA, and that the non-statutory review panel have taken it into account. E.g. us being asked for an official ranking. The parents who had this evidence presented their case at the beginning of the same day that we were the last appellants.

As far as I can see, then, you would be right to discuss the evidence as you suggest.

Thanks Etienne