Consistency of appeal decisions
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Consistency of appeal decisions
[Moved from "Professional Appeal?" as I think the issue of consistency deserves a thread of its own! - Etienne]
Anyway, panels have to look at all evidence submitted, so if SATS predicted results are sent to us, we look at them. But we also realise that they are just that - predictions[ by a teacher (unless the appeal is a late one after the results are out - and then it's interesting to compare the predictions & results - I've noted the predictions are often higher). So not a lot of weight is put on them.
Of much more interest are CATS / VRQ's and the like - something that children are not tutored for, and are used by teachers to assess progress year on year. Most schools will do some kind of test of this nature, be they state or otherwise, and some parents submit this with the appeals docs. Not all realise that 100 is an average score, and not suitable for grammar, especially when they've been getting glowing school reports. Then again, some do and don't bother sending the information!
Panels are used to getting different information for each appeal, and part of our job is to allow for that without being prejudice against any section of the community.
That sounds to me as if you're referring to SATS - not taken in private schools. It's a little bizarre that some parents choose private as they don't 'over-test' the children with SATS, but then find they would have been useful as evidence in an appeal.Rob Clark wrote:For example, it seems manifestly unfair that tests some children don’t even take can be used as the main determinant in other children’s appeals.
Anyway, panels have to look at all evidence submitted, so if SATS predicted results are sent to us, we look at them. But we also realise that they are just that - predictions[ by a teacher (unless the appeal is a late one after the results are out - and then it's interesting to compare the predictions & results - I've noted the predictions are often higher). So not a lot of weight is put on them.
Of much more interest are CATS / VRQ's and the like - something that children are not tutored for, and are used by teachers to assess progress year on year. Most schools will do some kind of test of this nature, be they state or otherwise, and some parents submit this with the appeals docs. Not all realise that 100 is an average score, and not suitable for grammar, especially when they've been getting glowing school reports. Then again, some do and don't bother sending the information!
Panels are used to getting different information for each appeal, and part of our job is to allow for that without being prejudice against any section of the community.
Capers
I'm sure Rob was referring to CATs, but the point could equally apply to other types of evidence, and just highlights the complexity of non-qualification appeals.
Some schools do not do SATs. Some schools do not do CATs. Some heads are over-optimistic. Some heads – especially outside the LA – may refuse to co-operate. Some parents show school reports, some don’t. Some parents bring school work, some don’t. Some parents pay for an ed. psych. report. Sometimes all these bits of academic evidence are contradictory.
At present it's a fundamental principle of appeals that panels must be free to weigh up whatever evidence they are presented with - and it's not an easy task!
If anyone has a better system, I'm still waiting for the details (including what weight to give to extenuating circumstances) ......
Some schools do not do SATs. Some schools do not do CATs. Some heads are over-optimistic. Some heads – especially outside the LA – may refuse to co-operate. Some parents show school reports, some don’t. Some parents bring school work, some don’t. Some parents pay for an ed. psych. report. Sometimes all these bits of academic evidence are contradictory.
At present it's a fundamental principle of appeals that panels must be free to weigh up whatever evidence they are presented with - and it's not an easy task!
If anyone has a better system, I'm still waiting for the details (including what weight to give to extenuating circumstances) ......
Etienne
Those that are the subject of appeals are the candidates who have normally "failed" the objective assessments, typically the 11+.Rob Clark wrote:
Personally, I have two issue with the appeals process (in my area, at least). One is that it’s too subjective to command respect – different panels give more or less weight to different criteria.
I accept Etienne’s point that an appeal can never be wholly objective, but I do feel that the process could be considerably tightened up and made more transparent. For example, it seems manifestly unfair that tests some children don’t even take can be used as the main determinant in other children’s appeals.
So therefore, surely the purpose of an appeal is to make a subjective assessment, with the panel being able to take into account the criteria it deems relevant.
-
Looking for help
- Posts: 3767
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: Berkshire
I think then that training of panels needs to be more rigorous to ensure that panels take into account the same sorts of things in all areas.dadofkent wrote: So therefore, surely the purpose of an appeal is to make a subjective assessment, with the panel being able to take into account the criteria it deems relevant.
But that is the nature, indeed almost the definition, of subjectivity. No one said life was fair.Guest55 wrote:dadofkent - the problem is that different panels faced with exactly the same evidence will make different decisions - that is just not fair.
If people want an objective, or transparent, system, that is easy to devise. Pass the 11+ you are deemed appropriate for a grammar education. Fail the 11+ you are deemed innappropriate. No appeals.
I am not saying I advocate such a system.
The appeals process, in blunt terms, gives a second bite at the cherry. I feel it is therefore a little unfair for people to criticise the vagaries and subjectiveness of the process (unless there fas been an obvious failing)
I agree with dadofkent. LAs are bound by objective criteria, which means consistent decision making. Panels, on the other hand, are 'unfettered' and can exercise discretion, which means some inconsistency is inevitable.
When you add to that the complexity of the information being considered (with different kinds of evidence, some of it conflicting), it becomes even harder to achieve consistency.
I would go so far as to say that, with the most difficult of borderline cases, even the same panel, on a different day, could take a different decision!
I don't agree with LFH because there is no way you could standardise what sort of things panels can take into account - just try devising a system in detail!
Generally speaking, IMHO, the current system probably delivers the right answer in the majority of cases. The strongest cases will usually succeed, the weakest won't. The ones in the middle, where the decision could go either way, are particularly difficult.
Not much comfort - I know - for the minority who don't get the 'right' decision.
When you add to that the complexity of the information being considered (with different kinds of evidence, some of it conflicting), it becomes even harder to achieve consistency.
I would go so far as to say that, with the most difficult of borderline cases, even the same panel, on a different day, could take a different decision!
I don't agree with LFH because there is no way you could standardise what sort of things panels can take into account - just try devising a system in detail!
Generally speaking, IMHO, the current system probably delivers the right answer in the majority of cases. The strongest cases will usually succeed, the weakest won't. The ones in the middle, where the decision could go either way, are particularly difficult.
Not much comfort - I know - for the minority who don't get the 'right' decision.
If you want a more objective, more transparent system, you already have it – it’s called the 11+. The 11+ provides rough justice (because no testing system is perfect), but it’s very clinical. There are no arguments. You reach the qualifying score or you don’t. There is no discretion. [Q&As, B30]
Etienne
-
Looking for help
- Posts: 3767
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: Berkshire
I have to disagree Etienne because as far as academic evidence is concerned there must be a way to standardise weighting given to eg prediction of SATs results, optional yr 5 SATS etc. It is not fair if one panel agrees that the primary schools predictions are good, and another does not. It is also not fair if one set of parents have paid for an ed psych report and another can't afford to.
I agree that in terms of extenuating circumstances it must be difficult, and I know that we did not have much in that area. However that said we had only one test result that was not of the required standard on the day and that was the only piece of evidence available to suggest our son was not of 'grammar school' ability.
The fact that his SATS predictions of level 5s in reading, writing, Maths and Science were in fact correct putting him in the top 10% of boys nationally is cold comfort.
There must be a fair way to ensure appeals are held properly with appropriately trained staff and a correct record of the proceedings maintained in case of questions after the fact. It is a legal process whether we like that or not. I know that they are all volunteers, but so are school governors, and we have access to the correct training in order for us to carry out that job properly otherwise we are held accountable.
LFH
I agree that in terms of extenuating circumstances it must be difficult, and I know that we did not have much in that area. However that said we had only one test result that was not of the required standard on the day and that was the only piece of evidence available to suggest our son was not of 'grammar school' ability.
The fact that his SATS predictions of level 5s in reading, writing, Maths and Science were in fact correct putting him in the top 10% of boys nationally is cold comfort.
There must be a fair way to ensure appeals are held properly with appropriately trained staff and a correct record of the proceedings maintained in case of questions after the fact. It is a legal process whether we like that or not. I know that they are all volunteers, but so are school governors, and we have access to the correct training in order for us to carry out that job properly otherwise we are held accountable.
LFH
Hi, LFH
I know you have some specific concerns about your appeal, with which I do sympathise. However, I'm talking here about appeals in general, and about panels who for the most part are properly trained, do a good job, and whose decisions are constantly open to scrutiny by the ombudsman (and occasionally by the Tribunals Service and by High Court Judges).
I have no difficulty with a "standardised" approach to KS2 predictions in general terms - there is in fact usually a general expectation of three 5s. In practice, of course, it becomes more complicated. Presumably, if a child has been through horrendous extenuating circumstances for the past 2 years, is predicted two 4s and a 5, but has alternative evidence of very high ability (three 3s at KS1, and CAT scores of 130+), we might give less weight in this instance to the KS2 predictions and more weight to the other factors?
Don't even get me started on the fact that some primary schools are noticeably more optimistic with their predictions and forecasts than others. I'm not sure how your standardised approach would deal with that ...
I thought originally you were referring more to different types of evidence. If by a standardised approach you mean everyone should have the same sort of evidence, it would certainly make appeals much easier - but this is the bit I find absolutely unworkable.
Optional SATs can be useful in showing whether a child is on target for the predicted KS2 results (we know what the normal progression should be in a year). It's not clear to me what you would do about the fact that not all schools do optional SATs. Ban the evidence?
What about children from independent schools that do not do SATs? Must their appeals be automatically refused?
What about children from abroad, both British ex-pats and foreign, who've been in a different educational system until recently?
What about children with disabilities whose parents pay for an ed. psych. report so that they have some sort of evidence to show what their children can achieve when the testing is done differently?
And I haven't really got started on the complexities of extenuating circumstances yet .....
I know you have some specific concerns about your appeal, with which I do sympathise. However, I'm talking here about appeals in general, and about panels who for the most part are properly trained, do a good job, and whose decisions are constantly open to scrutiny by the ombudsman (and occasionally by the Tribunals Service and by High Court Judges).
I have no difficulty with a "standardised" approach to KS2 predictions in general terms - there is in fact usually a general expectation of three 5s. In practice, of course, it becomes more complicated. Presumably, if a child has been through horrendous extenuating circumstances for the past 2 years, is predicted two 4s and a 5, but has alternative evidence of very high ability (three 3s at KS1, and CAT scores of 130+), we might give less weight in this instance to the KS2 predictions and more weight to the other factors?
Don't even get me started on the fact that some primary schools are noticeably more optimistic with their predictions and forecasts than others. I'm not sure how your standardised approach would deal with that ...
I thought originally you were referring more to different types of evidence. If by a standardised approach you mean everyone should have the same sort of evidence, it would certainly make appeals much easier - but this is the bit I find absolutely unworkable.
Optional SATs can be useful in showing whether a child is on target for the predicted KS2 results (we know what the normal progression should be in a year). It's not clear to me what you would do about the fact that not all schools do optional SATs. Ban the evidence?
What about children from independent schools that do not do SATs? Must their appeals be automatically refused?
What about children from abroad, both British ex-pats and foreign, who've been in a different educational system until recently?
What about children with disabilities whose parents pay for an ed. psych. report so that they have some sort of evidence to show what their children can achieve when the testing is done differently?
And I haven't really got started on the complexities of extenuating circumstances yet .....
Etienne