Extenuating circumstances etc.

[Etienne]

Thanks Etienne,
I was just glad it would be available at the appeal, as it will back up my evidence.

Yes - that's the main thing.

Just being a bit cautious! There might be something in the wording that you're unprepared for - but it's only a remote possibility.

There's also the principle of natural justice:

• • 2.21 Appeal panels must operate according to the principles of natural justice. Those most
    directly relevant to appeals are ......
    c) written material and evidence must have been seen by all the parties.

[ofsoundmind]

I'm sorry Etienne, I'm not quite sure what you mean??

Are you saying I am entitled to see the log? What could be in the wording?
Do you think I should push and ask exactly what has been recorded?

Sorry if I seem a bit dim

[Etienne]

There's unlikely to be a problem - honestly! - and my last post was intended to be reassuring.

But if you want to be ultra-cautious .......

An example of a letter requesting information under the DPA can be found here:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You would have to ask for "a copy of the invigilators report for [date], showing in full any entry relating to my son, but with the names of any other persons redacted".

You could then add:
"With respect I would also draw your attention to the Appeals Code which states:

• • 2.21 Appeal panels must operate according to the principles of natural justice. Those most
    directly relevant to appeals are ......
    c) written material and evidence must have been seen by all the parties.
    
    2.8 Admission authorities must comply with reasonable requests from parents for information which they need to help them prepare their case for appeal."

[ofsoundmind]

Thanks Etienne.
You really had me worried then. I think I might be over thinking things now.
I certainly won't be ofsoundmind by the end of this appeal
osm

[ofsoundmind]

Balanced case??

Hi Etienne,

I would be extremely grateful for you opinion

osm

[Etienne]

I would be extremely grateful for you opinion

About ..... ?

If it's "What's a balanced case?", and we're talking about non-qualification & oversubscription, then - excluding supporting evidence - very roughly:

• at least one-third should be about academic evidence,
• an absolute maximum of one-third about extenuating circumstances (much, much less if they're weak),
• approx. one-third about reasons for wanting a place at the school.

FCO, where applicable, doesn't come into it because it should normally be dealt with by raising questions.

[ofsoundmind]

I'm sorry Etienne
I forgot to mention, I sent info to the appeals box
osm

[Etienne]

Ah, I see. The appeals box is unmonitored ......

I'm afraid we don't normally have time to look at individual cases.

Having quickly glanced at it, however, it doesn't seem too long, or 'unbalanced'.

The academic evidence needs to be more prominent. I think it would be better if the first section was split into two, and started with academic evidence.
The second section would then be 'extenuating circumstances'.

If I was a panel member, I wouldn't know what to make of "as previously discussed". Perhaps it should be "as previously discussed with the school"?

I would start point 6 with "Although we realise the panel cannot really take account of this, it was very reassuring for us as parents that the results ...... "

[ofsoundmind]

The academic evidence needs to be more prominent. I think it would be better if the first section was split into two, and started with academic evidence.
The second section would then be 'extenuating circumstances'. "

Do you think there is enough academic evidence? Or just needs to be switched around?

If I was a panel member, I wouldn't know what to make of "as previously discussed". Perhaps it should be "as previously discussed with the school"?

Sorry again Etienne, I meant as previously discussed with you Oh dear!!

Thank you so much for your time,
osm

[Etienne]

Do you think there is enough academic evidence?

It looks sound to me - but I can't speak for your particular appeal panel ......

Sorry again Etienne, I meant as previously discussed with you Oh dear!!

You're trying to confuse me, aren't you?