Unsuccessful Review can we appeal

[Genie05]

Hi Eitenne
We have now received the support from the headteacher I am unsure as to whether or not it covers enough in terms of academics as the school doesn't do Cats and has only mentioned mock SATS results and predictions. Is it at all possible to send to appeals box for you to cast your eyes over and advise? Many thanks.

[Etienne]

Hi Genie05

Not sure I can add anything useful regarding the amount of academic evidence.
If you go to:
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appea ... cation#b48" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
you can see for yourself what I suggest should normally be included.

Because you went to review, the headteacher has already written a report for the SRP, which will automatically go to the appeal panel.
The head may take the view - not unreasonably - that any letter provided now is just a short update. The two pieces of evidence have to be looked at together.
Are there any glaring omissions for which the school is responsible?
I'm not referring to CATs when I talk of "omissions", because if the school doesn't do CATs, they can't be included. You could consider an alternative to CATs, but I'm afraid it's costly and there's no guarantee it would deliver the results you would want:
http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
B11(h).

[Genie05]

Thanks Etienne.

Just wondering where to go from here. We completed the appeal form soon after allocation day and simply wrote 'full case to follow' in our reasons for appeal.

Now that we have the headteachers letter would it be right to submit this sooner rather than later with a brief statement along the lines of

Quote - lifted from a couple of your other posts -

"We don't think the review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', because of the lack of criteria used in assessing academic evidence. We would also question how 'exceptional circumstances' were defined so as to enable the SRP to make consistent judgements.
There may be further points we shall wish to raise at the hearing, but we have not yet had sight of the Admission Authority's case for FCO. 
Moreover, we would respectfully point out that para. 3.13b of the Appeals Code puts the onus on the admission authority to prove its case for 'fair, consistent & objective', not on parents to disprove it." ".

Thanks

Genie05

[Etienne]

If you think your case is complete (FCO + update to academic evidence + reasons for wanting a place), then yes.

If you are expecting any further evidence, it might be better to wait than to submit information in dribs and drabs.

[Genie05]

Thanks Etienne.

I am still slightly confused re the FCO having read all the info on here. I think from what I have said so far, you mentioned that you cannot see that the review panel did anything wrong....so I am struggling slightly here as we see it quite differently. Perhaps I haven't explained myself clearly. Is there any chance of you taking taking a look at the review outcome report as seeing the bigger picture may help? I would be extremely grateful.

Many thanks

Genie05

[Etienne]

you mentioned that you cannot see that the review panel did anything wrong....so I am struggling slightly here as we see it quite differently.

Could you first tell me what you think the review panel did incorrectly? Is this a new point?

[Genie05]

Perhaps not the selection review panels error as such but maybe the lack of understanding of what was required on the schools part and lack of information provided by them despite our request. Where since Y4 we had been telling the school bullying was affecting academic performance it is only now that these issues have been resolved that they have seen rapid progress and predicted GDS for maths and reading in light of recent mock SATS. This is now all included in the appeal letter.

So in terms of fco we feel that they didn't actually have a full case in order to make an informed decision - but I am unsure whether such a reason can be used.

When we recently met with the head she was adamant we didn't need to prove it was fco and in fact didn't know what fco meant. So in some ways we feel misguided and completely confused as to what we need to do. There is alot more to it but the forum perhaps isn't the best place for posting it.

[Etienne]

Perhaps not the selection review panels error as such but maybe the lack of understanding of what was required on the schools part and lack of information provided by them despite our request.

In that case I would stand by my previous answer. The headteacher had a part to play in the review process.
If the school did something incorrectly on the review form, and this seriously disadvantaged you, it is arguable that the process could not have been 'fair, consistent & objective' (FCO).

I cannot guarantee that an appeal panel would accept this - one panel might, another might not.
But you have other points to make as well, such as the criteria used for academic suitability and extenuating circumstances.

Where since Y4 we had been telling the school bullying was affecting academic performance it is only now that these issues have been resolved that they have seen rapid progress and predicted GDS for maths and reading in light of recent mock SATS. This is now all included in the appeal letter.So in terms of fco we feel that they didn't actually have a full case in order to make an informed decision - but I am unsure whether such a reason can be used.

I think an appeal panel would take the view that it was open to you to explain the history, and present the full case to the SRP. The FCO argument would be the very specific point that the school declined to provide some supporting evidence, saying that it was not necessary.
You have a comment from the SRP proving that it was necessary.

[Genie05]

Great thanks Etienne I feel a little more comfortable now with what we need to write for fco.

So just to confirm our main point for fco should be that the school declined to provide some supporting evidence saying it was not necessary (should we include a copy of the email to the school asking to speak re question we had on the review form although we didn't mention what we needed to discuss?)

We should then also mention the extenuating circumstances and that the school have now confirmed the impact this has had?

Once again thank you so much for your time and apologies for all the questions, these forums have been invaluable in guiding us with this process.

[Etienne]

So just to confirm our main point for fco should be that the school declined to provide some supporting evidence saying it was not necessary

One of your points, yes.

(should we include a copy of the email to the school asking to speak re question we had on the review form although we didn't mention what we needed to discuss?)

My suggestion would be to take it with you to the hearing, and say that they are welcome to see it - but concede straight away that it only proves that there was a question you wanted to raise.
If you submit it now, the panel will be considering it before the hearing and focusing on what it doesn't say rather than on what it does say.

We should then also mention the extenuating circumstances and that the school have now confirmed the impact this has had?

Keep this for the second part of your case (academic information/extenuating circumstances).
The point to put across for FCO is simply that the school failed to provide important information.

I think the case is taking shape:

• • FCO
    • We would firstly submit that primary school headteachers have an important role to play in the review process. Whether or not the process is 'fair, consistent & objective' depends not only on what the SRP does, but also on the participation of the headteacher.
    We specifically asked the school if they would explain the jump from EXS to GDS, but they were adamant this was not necessary.
    We would draw the IAP's attention to the comment made by the review panel where they highlight the lack of any explanation from the school.
    This omission on the part of the school meant that the review process as a whole could not be fair.
    
    • Secondly, we do not believe the review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', because of the lack of criteria used in assessing academic evidence. We would also question how 'exceptional circumstances' were defined so as to enable the SRP to make consistent judgements.
    
    • There may be further points we shall wish to raise at the hearing, but we have not yet had sight of the Admission Authority's case for FCO.
    Moreover, we would respectfully point out that para. 3.13b of the Appeals Code puts the onus on the admission authority to prove its case for 'fair, consistent & objective', not on parents to disprove it."
    
    Academic Evidence & Extenuating Circumstances
    • Rapid academic progress - see attached evidence which the school declined to make available to the SRP.
    • Predictions for KS2 - see attached evidence.
    • Mock SATs results - see attached evidence.
    • Bullying in Y4/Y5.
    •
    •
    •
    
    Reasons for wanting a place
    •
    •