Appeal next week

[nibbee]

The appeal papers came in todays post and the OoS is as follows:
141 1 1:1
141 2
138 3
126 4
123 etc
127
135
133
141
131
137
136
133
134
129
132
129
139
141
127
137
129
136
129 1:3
115 2:1
132
116
127
120 2:1 29 (our child)
116
134
123
133
135
118
124
117
114
131 3:1
125
120
119
113
106
112
118
108
108
The total no of children was 90 and 36 scored 121 or more.

I have a meeting with the head next week, but would appreciate any comments/advice in the meantime. There are children below ours who have passed and I hope this will in some way help.
Many thanks.

[Etienne]

Dear nibbee

I'd rather not spend time adding up the "1"s.

If you'd like to re-do the table, showing the rank order, the HTR, and "Q" or "Y" for qualified (it makes it much easier to see at a glance how they're distributed), I'd be happy to comment.

I know the information can all be deduced, but life is too short ........

[mummalea01]

Dear nibbee, good luck with your appeal and hope all goes well...fingers crossed for you!

[Sally-Anne]

Hi Nibbee (and Etienne )

Despite my ageing eyesight I have added up the figures - I do hope they are correct!

1:1 23 ranked, 100% passed
1:3 1 ranked, 100% passed
2:1 14 ranked, 60% (8 pupils) passed
3:1 10 ranked, 20% (2 pupils) passed

2 children above your child did not pass, and 7 below did. (And I would like to bet that the child who passed with 131 on a 3:1 ranking was a girl! )

The Head's OoS is really very good. To rank the top 24 accurately as passes is no mean feat, and very many of them achieved the 131 - 141 that would be expected for a 1:1 ranking. I feel (although Etienne may disagree with me ) that this is a an exceptionally good OoS for that reason.

I think that it is very important indeed to emphasise how many children above your child passed. No. 29 on the OoS would be poor evidence in many appeal cases - top 20 is usually preferable - but it is not in this case, as the Head was so accurate.

The fact that among the 2:1s the Head also achieved 60% accuracy is also good, and - as you say - several children below your child passed.

The panel will see the Head's summary and perhaps think "ranked 29, not great" and you need to draw their attention to the accuracy of the OoS above your child's ranking.

On 120 you do not have a tremendous amount to prove, and this OoS will help you.

Just keep pulling together the academic evidence!

Best wishes
Sally-Anne

[nibbee]

First, here is the revised OoS for Etienne. I was very busy yesterday and completed the last one in a hurry.

1 1:1 Q
2 1:1 Q
3 1:1 Q
4 1:1 Q
5 1:1 Q
6 1:1 Q
7 1:1 Q
8 1:1 Q
9 1:1 Q
10 1:1 Q
11 1:1 Q
12 1:1 Q
13 1:1 Q
14 1:1 Q
15 1:1 Q
16 1:1 Q
17 1:1 Q
18 1:1 Q
19 1:1 Q
20 1:1 Q
21 1:1 Q
22 1:1 Q
23 1:1 Q
24 1:3 Q
25 2:1 NQ
26 2:1 Q
27 2:1 NQ
28 2:1 Q
29 2:1 NQ (our child)
30 2:1 NQ
31 2:1 Q
32 2:1 Q
33 2:1 Q
34 2:1 Q
35 2:1 NQ
36 2:1 Q
37 2:1 NQ
38 2:1 NQ
39 3:1 Q
40 3:1 Q
41 3:1 NQ
42 3:1 NQ
43 3:1 NQ
44 3:1 NQ
45 3:1 NQ
46 3:1 NQ
47 3:1 NQ
48 3:1 NQ

Secondly, thank you Sally-Anne for your valued comments. I realise that the panel must be experts now in looking at this tables and can obviously read a great deal from them. Should I also highlight to them the children below ours who passed.

[Etienne]

Dear nibbee

The "1"s are clearly outstanding.

The "2"s are a bit above average for accuracy (50%), but the qualifiers are scattered around. [Contrast this with the OoS we were looking at a day or two ago, which was far too optimistic regarding the "2"s, but where the child in question was well-placed with the qualifiers at the top.]

I agree with Sally-Anne that, although 29th may sound a low position, it needs to be seen in the context of 26 children above you qualifying (and some below).

The two children in 25th and 27th position are better placed than you for an appeal ........ but you have the advantage of a better score!

I realise that the panel must be experts now in looking at this tables and can obviously read a great deal from them.

Not entirely sure I agree with this. Some panel members might look at the OoS in the sort of detail Sally-Anne and I spend so much time doing, but I suspect many will just glance quickly to see if they can draw any immediate conclusion.

[nibbee]

Many thanks for your words of wisdom Etienne. I am aware of at least 2 children from this year group who have recently been successful at appeal. Maybe they were the ones ranked above our child? Although the OoS lists 48 children, there was a total of 90 who took the 11+. I am not sure why these are not included in the rankings. I have been to visit the head this morning who is fully supporting this appeal and is happy to write an updated letter regarding our sons academic ability/progress etc. The form teacher is also writing a letter. I will then finalise our statement for later this week. Again many thanks for all the help I have been given in preparing for this appeal (including that from Sally-Anne). It is wonderful to know that there is so much support out there, especially at such a stressful time. I wish all those in the same position the best of luck. We all want the best for our children, who have to work hard in such a competitive.

[nibbee]

Sorry did not appear to finish that last sentence I meant in such a competitive environment.

[Sally-Anne]

Hi Nibbee

You can edit your posts if you need to - button at top right.

Although the OoS lists 48 children, there was a total of 90 who took the 11+. I am not sure why these are not included in the rankings.

Heads are told not to include any child ranked below "3" on the OoS, so the remaining 42 would have been in that category.

The new letters sound as though they will be very helpful ...

Good luck this week - let us know how you get on!

Sally-Anne

[Guest55]

nibbee,

Taks six copies if you are taking new evidence - and good luck