Ada123 wrote:It looks like Buckinghamshire, whilst using the written format for their appeal, still managed to offer their appellants the opportunity to respond to any questions the panel had, as well as ask their own questions. This was something that we were not offered, preventing the panel from making a decision which is fair and transparent, as we were not able to fully present their case. On viewing the clerk's notes, we feel this affected the outcome of the appeal.
It could be worth trying this argument, as you go on to give specific examples.
- In the notes there is a question mark around my son's working at GD in writing - this despite several references in the evidence supplied clearly stating him working at GD in this area. Would this be considered a procedural error?
It depends. If the panel considered the evidence (which is procedural), but came to a different conclusion (which is a matter of judgement), the ESFA could well take the view that it was a decision that the panel would have been entitled to make.
It doesn't help that some schools are over-optimistic when providing support for an appeal, and panels find it difficult to understand an unexplained jump from EXS in Y5 to GDS in Y6. I realise this doesn't apply in your case - it's just an example of why a panel might doubt the evidence. (It's also an example of how a question & answer session could have settled whatever doubts the panel may have had in your particular case!)
- The notes refer to my son being borderline grammar/high (despite evidence from Y5 and Y6 pointing to him working at GD in all subjects and all teachers considering him grammar school material). If they believe him to be borderline would further discussion/questioning have been beneficial to offer clarification?
In my view, yes.
- When referring to our extenuating circumstances, the notes question why all papers were not equally affected. We believe they were. For example, the English score was lower than expected given teacher assessment in this area. However, there was no opportunity for us to respond to this query.
Noted.
- The notes state that more data was required to support our extenuating circumstances. When we submitted out written appeal and evidence we stated that we were in the process of acquiring further evidence, though the situation with COVID was delaying this - no one responded to us on this point.
You weren't to blame for the situation, but neither were the panel. They could only judge the case on the evidence available.
In theory, if significant new information comes to light after an appeal, which was not -
and could not have been - available at the time, then there is the possibility of a re-hearing.
Unfortunately, the decision whether or not to grant a re-hearing in this situation is at the discretion of the admission authority.
Finally, I am waiting to hear back from the clerk with regards to how the panel met to discuss each appeal/make their decision - eg. video/telephone conference? If they met like this, why could appellants not join the hearing? At no point were we asked if we had the facilities to engage in this way.
Once the decision was made to use written information only, it's not really possible to argue that you would have preferred some use of technology.
After the hearing, the panel may well have deliberated by means of a telephone or video conference, but their deliberations are in private, not part of the hearing.
Assuming they did use technology, though, it does raise the question: what evidence was there for not conducting all the hearings in the same way (which was the DfE's preferred format)? From what you say, it sounds as if the clerk didn't consult all the appellants to find out whether everyone could access telephone or video conferencing.
I think it rather depends on the number of appeals. If it was a huge number, as in Buckinghamshire, it would not be unreasonable for the clerk to argue that it was inevitable someone wouldn't be able to use the technology, or that some appellants were bound to need technical support which he/she would not have time to provide.
If it was a smallish number, then in my opinion it would have been reasonable to consult with appellants before deciding to use the DfE's fallback option (a written procedure).
I assume you've seen our advice on making a complaint, which is here:
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/ombudsman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You probably have enough to make it worth seeing what the ESFA think - but unfortunately I do not find them as receptive to reasoned argument or as thorough as the ombudsman (whose investigators used to handle all school appeals).
Best to keep expectations low!
Do let me know if I can be of any further help.