Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:04 pm
I thought I would set out some lessons learned from my own experience last year to help those going to an Independent Appeal Panel in Bucks, following receipt of a negative Selection Review. I am no expert, and will look to others to correct any mistakes:
AA= Admissions Authority
SR = Selection Review
IAP = Independent Appeal Panel
The following relates to trying to address the need to show that the SR was not FCO:
1. It is for the Admissions Authority to prove that the SR was FCO, and not for the parent to prove that it was not. This may appear as semantics, but is a key point. You should ask for every piece of information, notes of meetings etc from the AA to support their view that the SR was FCO. If they are unable to provide, then this will help your case.
2. Do not worry about anyone elses case (ie general answers from the AA) and do worry about asking the AA to be specific about your child. You want the AA to prove that YOUR CHILD'S SR was FCO. Therefore, they should be specific in answering questions about the time spent reviewing your child's case, the discussions which took place and provide the minutes from the meeting relating to your child. Averages and general answers are not good enough
3. Do not be afraid about asking the AA as many questions as is reasonable. This is important. I would add that the AA did not answer many of our questions. This did not stop me using these points in my IAP showing how my case could not possibly have been FCO
4. If you have provided medical evidence, ask the AA how the panel considered this. Did they overrule the findings of a GP, or optometrist etc? If so, what were the medical qualifications of the panel members who considered (and very possibly rejected) the advice of medically qualified professionals
5. If your child is young in the academic year, consider asking the AA how the panel compared the academic support of children of different ages in their SR meetings - or did they ignore this point. By this, I mean if Child 1 scored 115 and was born on 1 Sept, and had a great HT report. Child 2 is born 1 August and scored 115 and had a good HT report. is this difference in HT recommendation merely down to the fact that Child 1 is more mature and has more learning. Can the process ever be FCO if the SR is comparing aged standardised 11+ scores, with non-aged standardised school reports. Please note that the SR form does not ask the HT to age standardise any of their recommendations (1:1, 2:1 etc) or comments included in school reports or otherwise [I should say that I struggled to get this point over last year in my IAP hearing, but to me it is fundamental - the HT recommendation is not aged standardised, and hence there must be a natural bias towards older children, all other things being equal]
6. Decipher every word in the notes from the SR meeting. If emotive words are used (such as "poor", "lack of support" etc) challenge whether this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence submitted. The SR panel is only allowed to consider the evidence submitted.
7. Ask whether your child's submission was considered for moderation and if so, make sure you get the minutes from that meeting too. This is particularly appropriate for high scoring children who got rejected at SR.
I got great help from this forum last year and would like to think that the above would be useful to parents preparing for an IAP. A couple of caveats. I have no legal or practical experience in the education field other than my own experience last year, and therefore I will bow to the expertise of others on this site if any of my points are incorrect. Secondly, please be aware that the process may have changed from last year, so please make sure you familiarise yourself with any changes
AA= Admissions Authority
SR = Selection Review
IAP = Independent Appeal Panel
The following relates to trying to address the need to show that the SR was not FCO:
1. It is for the Admissions Authority to prove that the SR was FCO, and not for the parent to prove that it was not. This may appear as semantics, but is a key point. You should ask for every piece of information, notes of meetings etc from the AA to support their view that the SR was FCO. If they are unable to provide, then this will help your case.
2. Do not worry about anyone elses case (ie general answers from the AA) and do worry about asking the AA to be specific about your child. You want the AA to prove that YOUR CHILD'S SR was FCO. Therefore, they should be specific in answering questions about the time spent reviewing your child's case, the discussions which took place and provide the minutes from the meeting relating to your child. Averages and general answers are not good enough
3. Do not be afraid about asking the AA as many questions as is reasonable. This is important. I would add that the AA did not answer many of our questions. This did not stop me using these points in my IAP showing how my case could not possibly have been FCO
4. If you have provided medical evidence, ask the AA how the panel considered this. Did they overrule the findings of a GP, or optometrist etc? If so, what were the medical qualifications of the panel members who considered (and very possibly rejected) the advice of medically qualified professionals
5. If your child is young in the academic year, consider asking the AA how the panel compared the academic support of children of different ages in their SR meetings - or did they ignore this point. By this, I mean if Child 1 scored 115 and was born on 1 Sept, and had a great HT report. Child 2 is born 1 August and scored 115 and had a good HT report. is this difference in HT recommendation merely down to the fact that Child 1 is more mature and has more learning. Can the process ever be FCO if the SR is comparing aged standardised 11+ scores, with non-aged standardised school reports. Please note that the SR form does not ask the HT to age standardise any of their recommendations (1:1, 2:1 etc) or comments included in school reports or otherwise [I should say that I struggled to get this point over last year in my IAP hearing, but to me it is fundamental - the HT recommendation is not aged standardised, and hence there must be a natural bias towards older children, all other things being equal]
6. Decipher every word in the notes from the SR meeting. If emotive words are used (such as "poor", "lack of support" etc) challenge whether this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence submitted. The SR panel is only allowed to consider the evidence submitted.
7. Ask whether your child's submission was considered for moderation and if so, make sure you get the minutes from that meeting too. This is particularly appropriate for high scoring children who got rejected at SR.
I got great help from this forum last year and would like to think that the above would be useful to parents preparing for an IAP. A couple of caveats. I have no legal or practical experience in the education field other than my own experience last year, and therefore I will bow to the expertise of others on this site if any of my points are incorrect. Secondly, please be aware that the process may have changed from last year, so please make sure you familiarise yourself with any changes