Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:47 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Posts: 10
We have our Appeal at the end of this month. It is mainly based on our belief that due to a vocal tic disorder our child underperformed on the day of the tests. we have evidence of this.
We also appreciate that we have to illustrate that our child has the academic ability notwithstanding the condition (the condition, it is anticipated, will diminish over next year or so). He has predicted level 5's, good school reports and is a steady worker.
We have obtained an Ed Psychol Report ( which we have sent to the Appeals Box). This puts him above average on the 87th percentile, makes some positive remarks and seems helpful.
However looking at the various individual results which make up this average (it is broken down into Verbal comprehension 106-percentile 66,perceptual reasoning 115-percentile 84, working memory 129 -percentile 95 and processing speed 103-percentile 58) some seem to us more helpful than others. Do the Appeals board look at the report results in detail, or just an overview and the average results. Should we rely on the report? Any advice would be welcome as we don't want to send in this extra evidence if it is unhelpful.
Frederick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Dear Frederick

Thanks for sending the EP report.

Before I try and answer your question, could you give us a bit more background information. For example:
Quote:
If it is an Appeal against non-qualification, what was the pass mark, and what was your child’s score?
- Please give us all the individual scores, if applicable, not just the total, and tell us what they were for (e.g. VR, NVR).
- Has the result already been considered by a local Review Panel?
(for an explanation of reviews, see:)
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/11plus ... rs.php#b18

- Please say whether any places were allocated according to how high a score was achieved.

You can reply here or to the Appeals Box, whichever you prefer.

If you reply here, please keep to the same thread - it will make it much easier to follow your case.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Posts: 10
Thanks for your reply.
The Appeal is against non qualification. The passmark was 236, our childs score was 226.
Regarding the individual scores of the 11 plus itself (which I assume you mean as the scores of the Ed Psychol are in the report and my initial question-please let me know if I've interpreted it wrong), I will just repeat exactly what is said on the results form:

Standard score Test 1 112
Standard score Test 2 114
Total verbal reasoning test score 226
Required Grammar school Standard 236
referral to independent assessment Board No

Our Head has said that she does not consider it in her remit to refer for independent assessment or in fact to provide a letter of support. we specifically asked her this after reading points in your forum on these matters. She was quite adamant so we will emphasise this if queried in the Hearing. That said, she did provide us with data, and basically left out data that was not so helpful in a school headed note paper.

I hope this is enough information.
Regards
Frederick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
Thanks, Frederick.

The format of your local 11+, with its focus on VR, is a factor because the EP assessed your son's FSIQ as at the 87th percentile, but his verbal comprehension index was lower. You do not, therefore, appear to have the evidence to argue that the 11+ VR score was a blip.

As I wrote in another thread, I would usually be looking for something around the 90th percentile (as a very rough guide). I might revise my view if it were known what national percentile the local pass mark corresponds to, but this information probably isn't widely available.

Interestingly, your son did much better at perceptual reasoning, although still falling a bit short of the 90th percentile. Not surprisingly, he is stronger at Maths/Science than English.

The March 2009 SATs levels quoted by the EP are not as high as I would be looking for, and do not IMHO strengthen your case. I would have been happier if these had been the "working at" levels in year 5. (I'm assuming the date is correct?)

I suggest two options for you to consider.

a) If the headteacher's letter makes no mention of the March 2009 SATs levels, but is predicting three level 5s, it would probably be better not to use the EP report.

b) If the headteacher's letter (or any other evidence you are submitting) does draw the panel's attention to the March SATs levels, you've probably nothing to lose. You could use the EP report and try arguing that your son is very bright but his strengths are more on the perceptual reasoning and Maths/Science side, and the format of the local 11+ does not fully reflect his abilities.

Hope this helps. Just my view based on the information available.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Posts: 10
Hi Etienne
We are very grateful for your time and considering your response and our own concerns we are not likely to submit the report. In particualr, the lower VR test result, as you say, could totally weaken our claim that our child had a blip on the days of the tests. That said please can we just clarify something. You query the SATs figures.
Our Head has said our childs results in May 2008 (year 5) are
R 4C
W 4A
M 4C
S4B

Our child has not has his SATS yet for year 6 (not sure if they are done at different times throughout the Country) but his current teachers assessments (which we understand to be estimates at this stage) given in March 2009 (these are the figures put in the Ed Report) are

R 4B
W 4B
M 4A
S 4A
We are told this puts him in line for the 3 x level 5's ( as also predicted by his Y2 sats).

we assume that we are best then not to rely on the Ed report but for the avoidance of doubt if the above clarification of data alters your advice in any way please confirm.
once again very grateful for your help.
Frederick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7059
I'll defer to Guest55 for SATs, but my understanding is that in years 3-6 pupils are expected to go up 2 sub levels a year.

If we take level 5c as a minimum expectation for GS, then working backwards from May 2009 I would be looking for at least 4b last May.

By March 2009 the "working at" level should be teetering on 5c minimum - but this seems to me very borderline, and it's why I suggest that a prediction of level 5s on its own should be OK, but I don't see how the March 2009 levels (or even those from May 2008) will help.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016