We just heard the news that our review was not successful as the panel not wholly agree with head teacher' 1/1 and her predicted performance which was reading 111-120
Writing: GDS and Maths 111-120. His attainment in his previous school years was consistently on top. In his recent SATs practice tests also he exceeded head teacher's predictions which she provided to the panel but panels says the predictions were OPTIMISTIC as the reason for disagreement with the head teacher in the ASSESSMENT REVIEW. This we think is UNFAIR and want to APPEAL against as we think my son contributes a lot to Grammar School environment and benefits at the same time. He also does lot of sports including football, tennis and have lead the teams and selected for man of the matches.

Any ideas whether we have a point?
Cheers

Have you read Etienne's post from 2017 in the Bucks section? No doubt she will update it soon.

You can only appeal if you can show the review was NOT 'Fair, consistent and objective' - just disagreeing won't be enough. You need to focus on academics not extra-curricular reasons.

I am sorry but I was asking whether we have a point in appealing per our circumstance that I described earlier? I am not simply disagreeing with the panel.

Read Etienne's post -

What score did he get? What exactly did the Head say for KS2 predictions? What were KS1, Y3, Y4, Y5 levels?
Are you in Bucks or a partner school?

You need to prove the review wasn't FCO before they look at anything else.

This is the link viewtopic.php?f=12&t=50029

If I’m honest, no, I don’t you don’t have a point I’m afraid but do read the guidance others have pointed you towards and see if you can find evidence that the review wasn’t FCO. From what you have described I think it was FCO.

Your points about contributing to grammar school, all the sports and the sporting achievements are irrelevant in this context. Those things can be done at any school, and his sporting contributions would be valued at all types of schools. The process is about demonstrating academic suitability to a grammar school, not what a child can bring to the school.

I don't understand how the panels comments are FCO when all the schol reports puts him on top including the recent SATs and the headteacher supports these?

Puts him on top of what? The class? He might be performing at the top of his class but that doesn’t necessarily translate to the level the panel were looking for.

It’s also possible that the HT’s recommendation was overly optimistic because she has a track record of recommending too many children too highly. A 1:1 from a teacher that dishes them out frequently won’t carry as much weight as a 1:2, a 2:1 or a 2:2 from a HT with a more judicious approach to recommendations. You will have seen people on here today having had successful reviews with less than a 1:1.

On what grounds do you think the review wasn’t carried out fairly, consistently or objectively? That’s what you’ll have to justify if you are to take this to appeal.

He consistently scored top grades one could get in his year group not just he scored top in his class. His headteacher predicted on his current performance status and not just assuming that he would go from 1 to 2 but saying that he is today 2 and would (predict) go to 2 again this year.

Yes but how high performing is the school? We need to know more - see my questions which you may answer by PM if you prefer.

Nothing of what you've told us says the review wasn't FCO ... in the past bits of the feedback have been wrongly ticked or missing.