flow chart
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:07 pm
I have come to understand it as a kind of flow chart. I am sure one of the resident experts will shout loudly if I've misunderstood or oversimplified. This is for oversubscription appeals, not non-qualification which have an additional step.Mindthegap wrote:We have 3 areas to discuss - extenuating circumstances, her academic growth since taking the test and the emotional impact on her of not getting the grammar she wants. It's all very clear in our statement but we will go through it all again.
Is there anything I've missed? Am very very nervous and I'm fairly sure I will cry.
Panel assesses whether the admissions rules were correctly applied, and whether the school is actually full.
Has school shown it would be unreasonable to admit ALL appellants? If no, allow all appeals. If yes, move on ...
The school might have taken their PAN of 200 but actually have space, funding, teaching capacity, etc for 210, and there are five appeals. In that case it wouldn't matter how strong the appellants' arguments are, they'd be in. Panel is looking over the school's written evidence in advance, plus the discussion in the one big meeting or all the individual first five minuteses.
Has school shown it would be unreasonable to admit ANY appellants? If yes, reject all appeals. If no, move on ...
"If the Appeal Panel is not satisfied that all the appellants' children could be admitted to the school before prejudice is established, it must go on to Stage 2." In other words, Panel thinks some additional children could be admitted as the school isn't completely full yet, but thinks that the school would be unreasonably full if all the appeals were allowed. So who gets in?
The next bit is where they have to balance needs of the appellants against the prejudice to the school, as though they rank the appellants in order of their cases as submitted and as argued on the day, then allow one at a time until the prejudice to the school of admitting outweighs the prejudice to the appellant of rejecting. Someone who would have got in but for an an error in how the the oversubscription criteria were applied would presumably come top. The prejudice to the school rises as you allow each additional appeal; the prejudice to the appellant lowers as you go down your ranked list.
Is it better overall to admit the most compelling appellant than reject them? If no, reject this appeal and finish. If yes, allow this appeal and move on...
Is it better overall to admit the second most compelling appellant than reject them? If no, reject this appeal and finish. If yes, allow this appeal and move on...
Is it better overall to admit the third most compelling appellant than reject them? If no, reject this appeal and finish. If yes, allow this appeal and move on...
Continue until you run out of places you can reasonably give, or until you run out of appellants.
The parents' job is to make as good a case as possible, so that the prejudice to your child of not being admitted is thought to be as high as possible, which gets you as high up the rankings as possible, but also makes your individual balancing act stronger. If parents (individually or as a group) can convince the panel that the prejudice to the school is as low as possible, that also helps.
Sorry, that's probably clear as mud.