appeal, unsuccessful selection review

[hilarion]

Hi Etienne, thank you for your reply.
Do you think we need to put these 2 points you have suggested or one of them would be enough?

- At the hearing we shall wish to challenge whether the Selection Review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', but have not yet seen the school's written case explaining why the process was FCO.
- 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.

I am thinking to add
- we have the impression that our letter sent in the SR was not considered, as in the SRP letter there is no comments for any point we mentioned in our letter.

Thank you

[Etienne]

Hi Etienne, thank you for your reply.
Do you think we need to put these 2 points you have suggested or one of them would be enough?

- At the hearing we shall wish to challenge whether the Selection Review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', but have not yet seen the school's written case explaining why the process was FCO.
- 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.

I am thinking to add
- we have the impression that our letter sent in the SR was not considered, as in the SRP letter there is no comments for any point we mentioned in our letter.

Thank you

I thought I'd already covered the important points in your letter which they appear not to have considered?

See the text I drafted for you at 17.27 on 21st March:

• • FCO
    • At the hearing we shall wish to challenge whether the Selection Review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', but have not yet seen the school's written case explaining why the process was FCO.
    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.
    • For the present we would draw the IAP's attention to the fact that the clerk's notes state "No further evidence to explain the gap between 114 and 121". This completely ignores the very high NFER scores shown in section 4 of the headteacher's review form.
    • Although the move from Syria, was noted, there is no evidence the SRP took into account that X arrived in the UK without knowing any English, and no real recognition of what has been achieved in a new country in the space of three years.
    • The SRP have not considered that X had to travel from Staffordshire in order to take the test, had a sleepless night in a hotel, and sat the test in unfamiliar surroundings.