Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:59 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:16 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:58 pm
Posts: 3
Have been lurking for a while, taken lots of very useful information to form the basis for our appeal but have a question to ask.

During the GS tests DC says that the practice paper and 1st test were on the desk when they arrived in the room.
They were given very clear instructions on how to start the practice paper and given 10 minutes to complete it.
As the invigilator collected the practice papers in, it appeared that one DC had actually started paper 1 and not the practice paper.
This caused some confusion and the invigilator after checking with someone outside decided that this DC could recommence paper 1 test 4 minutes after the others in the room.
This was signalled to the DC verbally whilst the other children in the room had already started the test.
I have submitted the appeal paperwork and after making numerous requests have finally received a copy of the invigilators notes which confirm this and that the DC got to Q11 in the 10 minute practice session.

Can someone let me know if they think that I should include this as part of the appeal? Is this maladministration of the actual test or conditions and a viable reason for an appeal?

I have strong academic evidence - DC currently working at level 6C in all subjects which is confirmed by HT who also strongly supports the appeal and both DCs Dr and consultant confirm a medical issue that occurred possibly as a result of the above issues during the tests.

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 7:51 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:51 am
Posts: 8598
Hi Tatters and welcome

Could you just clarify whether it was the child you are appealing for who started the actual paper instead of the practice paper?

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:01 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:58 pm
Posts: 3
Thank you Hermanmunster.
No it was another DC that started the actual paper.
My DC was in the room and that along with other disturbances contributed to the medical issue arising.

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:07 pm 

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:47 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Warwickshire
I'm an invigilator - I often say it's an easy job and it's not rocket science - but it is important to get it right.

I don't invigilate 11+ exams, but I'm surprised both tests were out on the desk. This won't help your case, either, but I would have thought practice papers should have been done and collected before giving out first papers. Otherwise, it would have been easy for a dc to start the actual paper by mistake.

Good luck with your appeal, Tatters.

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm 

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 7493
There are two separate issues here.

1. Maladministration

For appeal purposes, maladministration tends to mean more than 'something was done incorrectly'. The issue is whether you have therefore been deprived of a place to which you would otherwise have been entitled.

I don't know what the admission arrangements for this school are. Are places awarded in score order?
If so, and if the child in question gained a place, and if your child would have been next in line, then there could be an argument that you've been deprived of a place.

My advice at the moment would be to tread cautiously. Unless maladministration can be established, I wouldn't make it part of your case, or it could turn into a distraction, taking attention away from the rest of your case.

After the school has presented its case, there will be an opportunity for questions. My suggestion would be to refer to the incident at this point, to ask what steps were taken to ensure that the pupil in question was not placed at an advantage, and whether any other pupil or pupils could have been disadvantaged.

In other words, in the first instance you just try to establish the facts.

2. Extenuating circumstances
What occurred might help explain an underperformance in the test. It depends whether your son's medical condition could reasonably be said to have been affected by the disturbances.

possibly as a result of the above issues
If the connection is tenuous, don't overplay it! Just a sentence will suffice.

If you start talking about "possibilities", it might count for little.
Something in writing from the GP and consultant about a possible impact would carry more weight. The evidence could then speak for itself.


PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 9:18 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:58 pm
Posts: 3
Thank you Ginx and Etienne.

Totally understand the possible maladministration issue and will raise it as you suggest Etienne.

DC achieved the pass mark for this particular GS, just not high enough to get in this year. DC is on their waiting list.
We know what DCs score or rank is for each GS. DC does have a place at another GS.

Dr confirms in 2 letters that DC 'suffered the medical issue during the tests and in Drs opinion this would have affected DCs test results'.
We don't know what actually triggered the issue, we can only guess! But the circumstances described as well as others in the tests (invigilators phone rang, kids coughing, etc) are known to make the condition worse.

It is a long shot and we want (as we all do) to do our best for DC.
Fingers crossed and will post back with the outcome.
Thank you all again.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2018