CAF
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: CAF
Hi Etienne.
Why did the IAP consider the other appeal cases when deciding that my case did not outweigh the prejudice to the school if they had determined she was not academically suitable.
Doesn't that raise the point they may have found her suitable, academically, to proceed with section 3.9 ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?
Why did the IAP consider the other appeal cases when deciding that my case did not outweigh the prejudice to the school if they had determined she was not academically suitable.
Doesn't that raise the point they may have found her suitable, academically, to proceed with section 3.9 ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?
Re: CAF
Because their appeals procedure is a complete and utter muddle!zeinab wrote:Why did the IAP consider the other appeal cases when deciding that my case did not outweigh the prejudice to the school if they had determined she was not academically suitable.
• First they should have taken a clear decision on grammar school suitability - 'yes' or 'no'. (Section 3.13a of the SAAC, as the EFA rightly point out.)
• If 'yes', they should have moved on to consider prejudice (the balancing stage).
But instead of taking a clear decision on grammar school suitability, they went straight to a balancing stage where they have said two different things:
1. They balanced academic ability against prejudice to the school, which is the wrong test.
("The panel had insufficient evidence to demonstrate **** was of sufficiently high academic ability to outweigh prejudice to the school.")
2. In what is called "the summary" of their decision, they balanced a range of factors (including extenuating circumstances for underperformance in the test!) against prejudice to the school.
Logically, if they went to the balancing stage, it ought to imply suitability, but I fear this wasn't their intention.Doesn't that raise the point they may have found her suitable, academically, to proceed with section 3.9?
Nowhere do they actually state that she is academically suitable.
By going to the balancing stage, and making comparisons with other cases, they then contravened section 3.9.
I feel sure they will be criticised for this shambles, but the difficult part of any complaint is deciding whether or not there has been an injustice.
In other words, if correct procedure had been followed, would the outcome have been different? Or would she have been deemed unqualified early on in the proceedings?
If they had omitted the last six words in "The panel had insufficient evidence to demonstrate **** was of sufficiently high academic ability to outweigh prejudice to the school" they might have been on safe ground!
Not sure which way this will go.
My guess is it's 50/50!
Etienne
Re: CAF
If the IAP have not given a clear decision on her academic ability, which is an important foundation on the success of a selective school appeal, then does it not raise further questions that most of the decision making built on that will be unfounded ?
And in the case of them using her test score (amongst other evidence) to balance the prejudice against the school ? Can that be right ?
Odds were clearly stacked high, against me, even before I entered that room.
And in the case of them using her test score (amongst other evidence) to balance the prejudice against the school ? Can that be right ?
Odds were clearly stacked high, against me, even before I entered that room.
Last edited by zeinab on Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: CAF
As happened with the decision letter, it might possibly be argued that the panel's reasoning was all right - it's just that it wasn't explained very well.
Not saying I would agree with that, but .......
Otherwise, if they come down in favour of the second part, I would expect them to criticise the IAP, but to argue that there has not been an injustice.
All we can do is wait ......
Not saying I would agree with that, but .......
- The final sentence from the EFA sums up the issue as they see it:
"On the face of it there is evidence that this process [section 3.13a of the Code] may not have been followed properly, or that the panel’s reasons for their decision were not clearly explained in accordance with paragraph 2.24."
[my underlining]
- The final sentence from the EFA sums up the issue as they see it:
Otherwise, if they come down in favour of the second part, I would expect them to criticise the IAP, but to argue that there has not been an injustice.
All we can do is wait ......
Etienne
Re: CAF
Hello Etienne
Just phoned the EFA for an update and was told the academy complaints team are still dealing with it.
Shall I send the complaints team an email or wait to hear from them as it's been over 6 weeks since their last contact ?
Just phoned the EFA for an update and was told the academy complaints team are still dealing with it.
Shall I send the complaints team an email or wait to hear from them as it's been over 6 weeks since their last contact ?
Re: CAF
Hello zeinab
No, I don't think it would help.
My guess is that the school have involved their lawyers, and there is much wrangling going on behind the scenes.
Over 6 months since the complaint was first made, and still counting .......
No, I don't think it would help.
My guess is that the school have involved their lawyers, and there is much wrangling going on behind the scenes.
Over 6 months since the complaint was first made, and still counting .......
Etienne