Appealing Fair Consistent and Objective to IAP after SRP

[baloo]

Having been unsuccessful at SRP we are now going to IAP. Achieved 116, was ill 2 weeks before, during and after test (not recovered until end of Sept), GP letter obtained. Predicted to pass with HT recommendation of 1:1. Working to GDS in all subjects at end of y5 and predicted at GDS for end of yr6 as stated in HTS. SRP dismissed appeal on grounds tracking does not reflect y5 rpt. No numerical values given in yr5 rpt, so not sure on what grounds this was based on. Panel also questioned GDS in writing, and did not agree with the HT outcomes, but no explanation given. End of yr 5 scores, Reading GDS 116, Writing GDS, Spelling GDS 140, Maths GDS 130. How much more academic evidence can i provide. I am not sure on what grounds the SRP dismissed our appeal, I thought we had very strong academic evidence but this was not enough. Has anyone been in a similar situation? If the SRP provides a form for the HT to complete to provide academic evidence and this is then dismissed, what else is a parent supposed to provide? What can we say in IAP to strengthen our appeal?

Many thanks in advance.

[Guest55]

The numbers you post for Year 5 are puzzling as 120 is the highest in KS2 test format; what does the 140 represent?

I guess the panel also windered why the test was taken if unwell as the guidance is to wait.

Are you in a Bucks primary or partner school?

What were KS1 and other Y3, Y4 levels?

[baloo]

KS1 reading 3c, writing 2a, maths 3c, working at GDS in reading, spelling and maths yr3,4,5, writing EXS in yr3 and 4 then GDS in yr5, this has been explained in a letter by the HT for the IAP appeal. Yr 6 teacher also confirms GDS now in all areas.

The school uses the NFER testing suites at Y3,4 and 5. These provide robust tests for the pupils attainment at the end of each year and are
age standardised. The results are designed to reflect expected standards (EXS) and greater depth standards (GDS) for that particular year and to provide reliable predictions for the following year. I think these values come from this system. I guess I need to question this with the school?

This is a Bucks primary. Test is taken at school, if ill then child is not allowed to mix with other children until test is taken. Starting yr6, was ill on and off, lots of different symptoms, question is how long could I justify keeping off school just because of the test? In hindsight probably should have but for how long? Didn't want to take lots of time off just for the test, under normal circumstances would have dosed up and sent in, but obviously was not performing at 100%on the day!

[Guest55]

Did other 1:1s qualify? Does the school get good KS2 results ie what % got higher standard last year? The panel will know the school's data and maybe that was a problem?

[baloo]

Very good school, headteacher very strict on what predictions given as these have to be submitted before test, school was in shock at panel decision!

[Guest55]

Only 43% of Selection reviews on 116 were succesful.

Have you read Eitenne's post in the Bucks section here: https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=53659" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would go through that in detail.

[baloo]

Thanks, I am going through this as I write my letter. The HT is very strict to give correct predictions as they know it can have an impact on future appeals. There were 5 appeals, 2 were 1:1 (inc ours) neither got through (not sure why the other didn't get thro'), 2 were 2:1 and both got through on SRP and one was lower (i think 2:2). I don't know the scores for the 2:1's that got through or if there were extenuating circumstances?

[anotherdad]

Hi baloo. On what grounds are you challenging the fairness, consistency and objectivity of the review panel? I suspect you have already read the sticky relating to appeals but if you haven't, section D relates to your situation. At appeal, you are challenging the process, not the judgement, so in your case it would seem that you are challenging them to prove that they gave the academic evidence and the HT's recommendation fair consideration. Did they provide sufficient time to go through your case? Do they have evidence to justify their responses to those questions?

I would put the illness to one side because the guidance is quite clear on that and if a child sits the test, the parent(s) have deemed him/her well enough to do so. On-and-off symptoms probably weren't considered to be exceptional extenuating circumstances.

Only 28% of reviews with a score of 116 were successful, much lower than in previous years so even with a strong academic record and a good HT recommendation, without exceptional extenuating circumstances it was always going to be a tough one. Those 28% will have convinced the panel that their test score was unrepresentative of the expected performance in the test which was diminished by exceptional circumstances.

[baloo]

Our grounds would be that the SRP did not consider the evidence given by the HT as no explanation has been given as to what grounds they have dismissed this evidence. If this was dismissed, then did they review the extenuating circumstances as this has been recorded as noted on the outcome form and the form has not been fully completed for this section, i.e. illness was a major factor in missing the mark which was supported by a letter from the GP.
With the illness, it was not a good choice of words to say in this forum that symptoms were on/off. I provided the SRP with a list of events, and a GP letter. How long can I justify keeping off school just so that the test can be done, especially as this is the final year of school. At the end of the day, performance in test was not reflective of a child being at 100%. Yes in hindsight I should have kept from school!
Should academic evidence in such cases count for more? I know I need to justify my decision on the day.

[Guest55]

I think illness will just be ignored as parents are told not to send them in. OOC candidates even have to provide a 'fitness to test' form. The test can be taken at any time, delaying a month would not have been an issue.