Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:19 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:24 pm
Posts: 696
Hi! I hope I don't need to use this section properly but would welcome advice.
My DD sat the Bucks test, she was given extra time due to dyslexia and tested seperately.
She was listed to have a "prompter" but didn't seem to have this, just an invigilator instead of the CD.
To ensure she didn't leave questions blank I've always instructed her to stop at the one-minute-section-warning and ensure every question remaining has a guess marked (to prevent blank spaces).
However DD told me after the test that for 4 or so of the sections she had NOT been given a one-minute warning by the invigilator, just a five minute warning, and then told to stop. And therefore hadn't had time to mark her unanswered boxes as she would usually.

I am now waiting for the result scores like everyone else... but would the above count as maladministration and be considered an exemuating circumstance if she is a mark or two off, and so suitable for a selection review? It's frustrating when Bucks have been so good at accommodating her, that they have omitted the time management that she needs just as much as the other candidates.... especially as I would have thought a "prompter" role would remind her of a minute to go... there is no info in the Bucks special arrangements about what a prompter actually should be doing....

My other DD sat the test last year and said in her "regular" test every section had a one minute to go warning given.

Advice gratefully received....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 8480
Hi Aethel

An administrative error would be treated as an extenuating circumstance - but, whether or not there's been any sort of 'maladministration', rather depends on what the prompter was required to do.
Have you raised the issue with anyone?
Some written evidence would be helpful.

Quote:
My other DD sat the test last year and said in her "regular" test every section had a one minute to go warning given.
It may not carry as much weight, but quoting your previous experience, you could certainly ask the panel to consider what happened as an extenuating circumstance, even if there's no evidence of an administrative error.


What always matters most is the academic evidence. I think the best chance of a successful review would be a score as close as possible to 121, some really good alternative evidence of well-above average ability, and strong but realistic support from the current headteacher.
See: http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b11

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:24 pm
Posts: 696
Thanks so much for the advice, Etienne!

I will try contacting them politely to ask what was officially meant to happen with the prompter.
The only way to contact Bucks admissions is through email as they have no phone access, so I suppose at least any answer I do get will be written down.
It may be moot anyway, in the even that she is miles off it won't make much difference, or if she passes despite this. It will only be if she's very close to the mark and the invigilator *was* meant to tmekeep and didn't....

But thank you for clarifying that it's reasonable to consider selection review if this nudges her just under the mark. That's really helpful.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2021