GlosMum19 wrote:
I guess the case is the same and it is just semantics whether we call it non-qualification or oversubscription?
I'm inclined to agree!

Quote:
With regards to the CAF, the school we are appealing for was first choice, the allocated school was second choice. Both are grammar schools and neither are particularly close to where we, or this other child, live. We had no knowledge of the intentions or results of the other child regarding the 11+ and did not know their school choices until allocation day. Is it possible that would weaken the case?
No - that sounds fine. I hadn't realised the other school is also a grammar.
It's just that in this sort of situation - which happens not infrequently! - the allocated school is often a non-selective school which the vast majority of local children attend.
In view of the distance I assume there could be a problem if the other boy is travelling to and from the same school.
Quote:
Academic ability (achieved a qualifying score and significantly exceeds expectations across the board)
I would quite like to see something about 'underperformance on the day', e.g. "
Although he achieved a qualifying score, he significantly exceeds expectations across the board, and was expected to score even more highly in the test."
Quote:
Minimal provisions at the allocated school for the sport he excels at
It might help if you could also find an academic argument such as a preference for the foreign language options on offer.
Or did either school previously have a specialism that suits your son?
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appea ... school#c34(If so, you could argue that although you know there is no longer any funding for specialisms, the resources and expertise that the school built up over the years are not going to vanish without a trace!)