Selection Review , prove it wasn't FCO

[bucksdad8623]

My DD sat the 11+ yesterday, fingers crossed she'll make it but because of her dyslexia I'm not hopeful.
If the worst comes to the worst, we'll probably find ourselves sitting in front on an appear panel next June.
So I know this is early but I'm trying to do some ground work now.
My question is, if we appeal to more than 1 grammar and successfully overturn the non qualification part of the appeal does that mean she will be considered qualified for all the grammars we'd applied for (even for those in which an appeal was unsuccessful).
I accept the schools might be full at this point but my DD could go on their waiting list.
Sorry if this is a daft question, I vaguely remember ages ago reading that this was possible.
Thanks

[Guest55]

No, each appeal is separate.

A succesful review does but that can be a risky strategy imho.

[bucksdad8623]

That's a shame, oh well.
Why would you say a review is risky, is it just the risk of not overcoming FCO in the appeal?

[Guest55]

The review system is very flawed [in my opinion] as it seems to depend on having a Head who is 'in the know' about key vocabulary to use. I can't see how it is fair to have a system where the same raw evidence presented in a 'more focused way' then makes one case more compelling.

The time spent on cases seems very small from what I've seen and anything 'a bit different' seems to not be successful.

I wish they would bring the old system back of IAPs in Jan/Feb but it is costly and the GS have to pay for it now!

[Etienne]

I vaguely remember ages ago reading that this was possible.

You're right, it was - until "selection appeals" in January/February were replaced by reviews following the 2012 11+.
The outcome of a "selection appeal" was that you could be qualified for all Bucks grammar schools - or qualified for none!

That's a shame, oh well.

What about the reverse situation? Let's say you're appealing for 3 grammar schools, and lose the qualification part of the first appeal. Would you really want that decision to be applied to your remaining appeals for the other grammar schools?
There may be something to be said for several bites of the cherry.

[Bigbirdcw]

You also need to be aware that proving academic ability is the easy (relatively) part.

You will also need to convince each appeal committee why your child's need
For a Place at the school is greater than the detriment caused to the school by admitting over PAN (assuming that the school is full). These reasons will probably be different for each school and need to be specific to that school, and not just "my child would flourish with a grammar school education"

[Etienne]

You also need to be aware that proving academic ability is the easy (relatively) part.

I wouldn't go quite that far.
Many parents struggle to prove academic ability, perhaps because their school isn't very good at wording its support.
Some state school heads are opposed to selection and won't co-operate fully.
At the other extreme, some heads exaggerate their support to the point where it becomes unrealistic and devalued!

You will also need to convince each appeal committee why your child's need
For a Place at the school is greater than the detriment caused to the school by admitting over PAN (assuming that the school is full). These reasons will probably be different for each school and need to be specific to that school, and not just "my child would flourish with a grammar school education"

I strongly agree. I get the impression many parents spend too little time on this, resorting to generalities and platitudes ("He needs to be stretched"!).

[Bigbirdcw]

You also need to be aware that proving academic ability is the easy (relatively) part.

I wouldn't go quite that far.
Many parents struggle to prove academic ability, perhaps because their school isn't very good at wording its support.
Some state school heads are opposed to selection and won't co-operate fully.
At the other extreme, some heads exaggerate their support to the point where it becomes unrealistic and devalued!

You will also need to convince each appeal committee why your child's need
For a Place at the school is greater than the detriment caused to the school by admitting over PAN (assuming that the school is full). These reasons will probably be different for each school and need to be specific to that school, and not just "my child would flourish with a grammar school education"

I strongly agree. I get the impression many parents spend too little time on this, resorting to generalities and platitudes ("He needs to be stretched"!).

I was just trying to make the point that you could have all the evidence in the world of academic ability, but if your reasons were strong enough your appeal would more than likely fail if it was against oversubscription as well as non-qualification.

[bucksdad8623]

Hi Everyone,
Congratulations to all those who were successful on Saturday, unfortunately we weren't one of them.
My DD scored 104 in October, she has been diagnosed with profound dyslexia and was awarded 10% extra time in her verbal only by the special access panel. The Ed Psych recommended 25%, but they all do, which probably didn't help our case.
We asked for her case to be reviewed on the grounds that she wasn't given more extra time for verbal and wasn't given any extra time for maths which I've been reliably informed included questions which were 'wordy' in nature. She passed the non verbal part of the test without requiring extra time.
We also had what we thought were good extenuating circumstances, she suffers from chronic asthma and eczema which affected particularly badly last summer. We made numerous visits to her GP due to her chronic fatigue who was sufficiently concerned that he ordered blood tests, which came back as ok fortunately. Her GP submitted a letter which we included as part of our evidence to the SRP.
We weren't expecting to be successful but were disappointed that the SRP didn't seem to consider any of our evidence, our next step is appeal and to hope we come up against a sympathetic panel. We need to get past FCO, the apparent slap dash approach of the SRP may give us an opportunity.
In section A, the panel agreed that my DD was disabled but didn't tick the box confirming they were supported by an Ed Psych.
Am I correct in thinking that this has to be ticked in cases of a disability such as dyslexia?
In the evidence of medical reasons in section C, there is no mention of the chronic fatigue.
The SRP also said her CATs and academic evidence are in line with the test score, I find this hard to believe given her CAT scores, I'd like to know what evidence they used for this, can anyone suggest how they arrive at this conclusion.
It looks like the panel didn't consider the Ed Psych report as part of the academic evidence as this placed her in the top 1% in cognitive ability.

Sorry for the ramble

[Etienne]

Relevant tick boxes should not be left unticked.

All the extenuating circumstances should have been covered.

There are wider arguments you can also put forward to counter FCO.
See the sticky:
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=41358" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The SRP also said her CATs and academic evidence are in line with the test score, I find this hard to believe given her CAT scores

They may be right or they may be wrong, but it's not possible to challenge the panel's judgement. Focus on the process. (See the sticky referred to above.)
A better approach would be: "What CAT scores would review panels have found acceptable? What criteria were they using to ensure that their decisions were objective and consistent? Where are these criteria published so that everyone can see that the review process is fair and transparent?"