Selection Review Stats - 2018

[Guest55]

Yes I agree that the Heads should be looking to select the top 35% [or even slightly more] then the tourists would fall out on distance grounds and local children have more chance of qualifying. They should also get rid of reviews and go back to IAPs before allocation but they won't because it costs too much money. They can rattle through reviews at a fast rate [20 an hour?] and the only costs are the time of Heads and travel costs.

[anotherdad]

Yes I agree that the Heads should be looking to select the top 35% [or even slightly more] then the tourists would fall out on distance grounds and local children have more chance of qualifying. They should also get rid of reviews and go back to IAPs before allocation but they won't because it costs too much money. They can rattle through reviews at a fast rate [20 an hour?] and the only costs are the time of Heads and travel costs.

That’s a disgraceful consequence of the move to reviews, and I expect the time pressure is very keenly felt on the latter reviews to be heard. One can well imagine them getting behind in the process and running out of time. We’ve all been in meetings where early agenda items are discussed at length and later points are rushed through. I’m sure it happens with reviews too. Was every case allocated sufficient time to consider what can be a complicated and detailed submission? How well did the schools resource the extra reviews they faced this year, I wonder? Can the grammar schools demonstrate that they treated every case fairly, consistently and objectively?

I suspect that if the parents of every reviewed case were told exactly how much time was taken over their review, there would be a mountain of appeals on the basis of there not being a fair, consistent and objective process in place, and who could blame them for appealing? I think the grammar schools are playing with fire. By running the transfer test in the way they do, they invite large numbers of reviews and need to ensure they have the resources to deal with them properly.

[Etienne]

I suspect that if the parents of every reviewed case were told exactly how much time was taken over their review, there would be a mountain of appeals on the basis of there not being a fair, consistent and objective process in place, and who could blame them for appealing?

The start and end time of every single appeal is recorded.

There has been a very deliberate decision not to do the same for each selection review.
The "defence" will be that there is no legal requirement.
One can only speculate whether the real reason is that it wouldn't "look good".

[anotherdad]

The start and end time of every single appeal is recorded.

There has been a very deliberate decision not to do the same for each selection review.
The "defence" will be that there is no legal requirement.
One can only speculate whether the real reason is that it wouldn't "look good".

I’m sure it is the real reason. The risk the grammar schools are running is that one day, a parent with determination and deep pockets will employ a lawyer to challenge them on this process.

[Plato]

I think it was the number of scores near 121.

I agree. This is speculation, but it appears to me that a different algorithm was used to calculate the standardised raw scores this year. The distribution graph is squashed compared to previous years: it shows a much lower top score, fewer very low scores, and a larger clump around the 121 mark. The have even changed the scale on the Y-axis to accommodate this.