NFER Mental maths 119
NFER Non Verbal 135
NFER Verbal 139
Reading Age 13.6
Spelling Age 12.1
She was 10yrs and 11months at the time of these tests.
She is a bright bunny! VR and NVR are right at the top of the range and place her in the category of "Gifted", and the Mental maths score is "Well Above Average". All three scores place her comfortably in the top 25% nationally (112 - 141). The top 30% of children qualify in the Bucks 11+ test, so statistically she should have been one of them.
A panel would usually like to see a spelling and reading age around 2 years ahead of the average, but the spelling age is still a very respectable score.
HT filled out summary today which was really positive. HT gave her 5 for her SAT scores and a 2:1.
Excellent. Does she specify Levels for the SATs? It would be helpful because if they are a's and b's that makes your case even stronger. Do you have any Year 5 Optional SATs results? What were the KS2 results? Anything that shows high ability will help. Are her books up to scratch? What sort of marks are there on her school reports?
It's filled it out a little incorrectly in that where DD 11+ scores should have been written, her NFER scores from school have been entered. I guess I can explain that in my letter.
Hmmm ... You have two choices. You can get the Head to correct it, or explain it in your letter. In the latter case the LA Rep assigned to the Appeal should then call the Head to clarify the point. That can have its advantages, because it gives the Head a chance to talk about your DD, and it has been known for an LA Rep who has had a conversation with a really supportive Head to start supporting the parents' case at the hearing. On the other hand, if the LA Rep is a touch sloppy and doesn't do that before the appeal, it could result in an adjournment on the day if the panel want the LA Rep to clarify it by phone. If the Head or other senior member of staff isn't around your appeal could be adjourned to another day. It's tricky, but on balance I would probably get the Head to put it right now.
I can't really explain why her marks were low in the real test apart from nerves/exam pressure.
Would it be enough to just explain her academic ability without extenuating circumstances?
You do not necessarily need extenuating circumstances when you have some good NFER scores, the HT's support and predicted Level 5s. Your argument is that, for whatever reason, the Bucks VR test did not allow her to demonstrate her full ability, and does not reflect her very strong academic record. ("In fact that might be why she achieved the same score on both papers ...?")
The gap between her NFER VR/NVR scores and the 11+ is so huge that a panel will certainly be asking themselves that very question. Should a panel member fall in to the trap of saying "Well, those are only two tests" you reply sweetly "And so is the Bucks 11+"! CATs or NFER scores in the high 130s simply aren't a fluke, particularly when there are two of them, and the 3rd score is very respectable as well.