Hi,

My dd scored 116, was unsuccessful in selection review. I feel devastated as she is such an able child, she has been scoring full or nearly full marks in all her tests at school, however the headteacher who was very supportive gave her 2:1.
]Her KS2 progress is at
performance: end of yr 5 Predicted performance-jul 19
Reading : GDS 111-120
writing : EXS EXS
Maths : GDS 111-120

reading age: 12+
Spelling: 13 yrs 5m

the writing is at EXS only because she writes more and runs out of time to finish her test, as per what her teacher said to us and not because she is unable to write. she is very creative in her writing.

however,

the selection review panels decision on dd's case was;
The academic evidence does not demonstrate that dd would be suitable for the grammar school for the following reason ,

" The Panel noted ; did not meet two elements of the STTS. The academic evidence presented is in line with the test profile."


But the scores are
Age standardised score Weighted standardised score
Verbal 113 56.5
Maths 123 30.75
NVR 115 28.75

Now, my question is , how has she not qualified in 2 elements, the required was
VR: 50%
maths: 25%
NVR: 25%

so, as per her weighted scores she has qualified in all 3 elements.

Could we use these grounds to prove the appeal was not carried in a FCO.

In the selection review panel's decision with regards to the extenuating circumstances , they agreed that 2 of the reasons partially explained the shortfall, but the other 2 circumstances did not explain the shortfall.

"The Panel noted the extenuating circumstances but felt , taken together, they did not impact significantly on the test score."


Now, how can they say that the 2 reasons they agreed explained the shortfall is not enough to impact significantly. Is there anyway to use that to prove the appeal was not carried in a FCO.

Please help....many thanks

Welcome to Appeals!

My guess would be that EXS was the main problem at review, even though they haven't specifically said so.
Pupils are expected to cope with the fast pace at grammar school.

The reasons they give for turning down a review can be rather woolly ("The academic evidence presented is in line with the test profile"), and it is far from clear exactly what criteria were being used.
See D4 (vii):
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=57343


I think what they mean is - if you look at the age standardised scores, two of the marks were below 121.
(You could look at the weighted scores, but you would then have to adjust 121 accordingly.)

I do not find this a convincing argument because there is no requirement to achieve a pass in each element of the test.
If grammar school heads wanted a minimum score in each element of the transfer test, it was open to them to make it a requirement for qualification.

See D4 (v):
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=57343

As far as your appeal form is concerned, I would suggest:

Quote:
"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."

This would be quite sufficient for the present. You could raise more detailed questions at the hearing.

_________________
Etienne

thank you so much for your detailed reply.........hopefully we can make up a good case to present to the appeal panel, will keep you posted

Hi Etienne,

Just wondering if I can inbox you the documents of the decision of the review panel just in case you can find anything else that we could raise questions about at the appeal. we strongly feel our dd should have been given a place but just can't think of what other evidence we could gather to take to the appeal.

really appreciate your help.

many thanks,
Hlamb

Hi

If you're still concerned about FCO, I can't really add to what I've already posted.
I've suggested what you could write for your appeal submission.


I'm wondering if you've misunderstood the weighted scores? These are not required scores. It's a way of adjusting the final score (116) so that VR is as important as maths & NVR combined.

I've explained what they mean by not meeting two elements of the STTS.
They've looked at the age standardised scores, and noted that two of them were below 121.
I would query whether this justifies turning down a review.
Is it really one of the criteria they use?
We don't know. This is why I suggest you write "We don't think the review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', because of the lack of criteria used in assessing academic evidence ........"

_________________
Etienne

Thanks Etienne, will do...appreciate your help and advice.