KaB£H1s3 wrote:Does anyone know what the objections were last time the school tried to join the CEM consortium?
I think the objections were around the timeframe for consultation plus removing sections , rather than joining CEM
A few paragraphs from the adjudicator's report
78. Although it was lawful for the school to make changes to the
examination, I conclude that there was insufficient consideration about the
effect of that change on parents who would then have to familiarise, since the
school promotes familiarisation, their sons for a new English test being
introduced into the entrance examination in September 2014. I am not
persuaded that introducing this change after relatively short notice is fair and
so I uphold this part of the objection.
79. The school also decided to remove the NVR assessment from the
entrance examination, which will be potentially unfair for EAL and children
with SEN. As NVR may be the most appropriate test to reflect accurately the
ability and potential of EAL students and dyslexic candidates, I have not been
persuaded from the evidence available to me that it was appropriate for the
school to have removed the NVR test in favour of introducing an English
paper, particularly as making reasonable adjustments in order that EAL
candidates can access the English test would be so difficult. I consider that
the decision to remove the NVR component from the entrance examination is
unfair due to the potential disadvantage to EAL candidates and children with
SEN, and so I also uphold this part of the objection.
80. There is the also the suspicion that the purpose of removing the NVR
test (and the critical writing test) was to make time in the examination
schedule to introduce an English test for the purpose of improving English and
literacy skills in the school. More importantly, the implications of removing the
NVR test whilst, at the same time introducing the new English test, do not
appear to have been fully explored by the governors, particularly the impact of
those changes on EAL candidates and children with SEN. In making the
decision to modify the entrance examination, I also note the weight given to
doubtful evidence from the non-representative trial test, anecdotal evidence,
unsubstantiated assertions, and unreliable data analysis, although the report
commissioned from the assessment company was very helpful.
Detailed report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 6_June.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;