Appeal: retroactive extra time & close score in 11+ exam

[Guest55]

You don't have to prove NVR ability - it isn't even taught at school.

KS1 levels, Y3, Y4, Y5 assessments and KS2 predictions [preferably 110+ and GDS].

Reading age, CATs if you have them.

Do go through Etienne's thread about appeals.

Is the school full? If so you also need to address over-subscription and why your child should have a place.

[anotherdad]

I don't think you should be looking for evidence of NVR ability. You need academic evidence to show suitability for grammar school, not evidence to show ability in the things tested in an 11+ test. It's about showing that reading, writing and maths at school are all at a level that is suitable for grammar school because your extenuating circumstances will hopefully be accepted as the reason why the test score was lower than the academic evidence suggests it should have been.

Make sure to heed Etienne's advice on the third part of your appeal. If you successfully prove the academic case and can convince the panel that the score didn't reflect ability, you still have to win a place at a school that is (probably) full.

[Etienne]

Isn’t that best decided by the educational psychologist who subjects the child to a battery of tests

I used to read a lot of educational psychologist reports, and found them very interesting and helpful, although - if there was a recommendation for extra time - I cannot immediately recall a single one that didn't come up with the precise figure of 25% !!!
I suspect that the experience of admission authorities may be similar, and that they may therefore be rather cautious with regard to 25% recommendations.

I'm not in a position to comment on the particular school you're appealing for, but nationally, looking back at the huge number of appeal cases we've dealt with over the years, I think Guest55 is quite right in saying that 25% is rarely given for the 11+.

Admission authorities also seem reluctant to allow extra time when such an arrangement is not already in place at school.
This presents a problem in the event of a late diagnosis, but it is of course a matter that can be raised at appeal.
(Just be sure to make it no more than a third of your case! )

Our DS best subject is NVR

What tests did the educational psychologist administer? WISC and BAS are the most commonly used.
Usually there is an NVR component (although it may have a different name).

Surely that is a better test of “grammar school ability” than say subjective KS2 predictions?

Irrespective of whether you're right or wrong, you cannot assume what an appeal panel will think.
Individual panel members are totally independent, and - so long as they consider all the evidence - they are free to decide what criteria to use (and they may well disagree among themselves!). You can never be entirely sure what will sway a particular panel.
This is why I always suggest that the academic evidence should be as wide-ranging as possible.

• • • The more evidence of high academic ability, the better:
    http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... cation#b11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With regard to an alternative 11+, the wording in the Q&As B50 is deliberately cautious.

There have been some cases where other 11+ outcomes (not scores) appear to have been taken into account. It may depend on whether the other grammar schools are viewed by a particular appeal panel as equally (or even more) prestigious.

For example, there was this helpful post by TraffordMum in 2012.

• • The appeal panel at AGGS will expect that the appellant will have taken other exams and has been known to ask for the outcome of those exams. I know one set of parents who were asked this question at their appeal some years ago and were then scolded by the panel for not telling them first as it was important information! This girl did go on to get a place at the school.
    
    However, whilst passing other exams does show ability, I think there has been a definite shift in recent years towards elitism at AGGS and I am not as convinced that it will have a large amount of weight any more. So passing for other schools like Loreto won't prejudice an AGGS panel against you but they might well think that the Loreto exam is not comparable to the AGGS exam.

[PlaceQuest]

I have read Etienne's excellent Appeals Q&A from start to finish and I give my thanks for the sound advice and hard work contained in it.

Regarding non-qualification, I am still wondering why a head teacher’s letter of recommendation and SATs predictions is a better evidential substitute for the deficit of marks in the 11+ test than say another comparable test.
Surely the question that the Panel should be asking is; if the extenuating circumstances didn’t happen or if the extra time in the exam had been in place, then would the candidate have got the required mark? I assume that this question is decided on the balance of probabilities (better than 50%)?

The grammar school requires a certain mark in the exam. The school's entrance requirements don’t specify an endorsement from the head teacher or a teacher’s opinion of the likely marks in SATs. This primary school evidence certainly won’t do any harm and it clearly gives the panel additional reassurance that the candidate would make a success of grammar school.

Not everyone has CAT scores, or a highly supportive head and school; if they don’t then they will be unfairly at a disadvantage.

Unlike A levels, late resits in the 11+ are not offered. I wonder if anyone has thought of getting their child to take a suitable mock exam to get evidence for the appeal?

[PlaceQuest]

You don't have to prove NVR ability - it isn't even taught at school.

I don't think you should be looking for evidence of NVR ability. You need academic evidence to show suitability for grammar school, not evidence to show ability in the things tested in an 11+ test.

This goes to the question of what the grammar school is really looking for. If you don’t have to prove your ability in say NVR, why does the school have it as part of their entrance requirement? They could easily require a good recommendation from the head teacher instead.

[PlaceQuest]

I used to read a lot of educational psychologist reports, and found them very interesting and helpful, although - if there was a recommendation for extra time - I cannot immediately recall a single one that didn't come up with the precise figure of 25% !!!

25% is the maximum allowed extra time. It is possible that some people’s disability requires more than 25% extra time but it is capped at this figure which makes it look suspicious.

[Etienne]

Regarding non-qualification, I am still wondering why a head teacher’s letter of recommendation and SATs predictions is a better evidential substitute for the deficit of marks in the 11+ test than say another comparable test.

And my response would still be the same.

• • Irrespective of whether you're right or wrong, you cannot assume what an appeal panel will think.
    Individual panel members are totally independent, and - so long as they consider all the evidence - they are free to decide what criteria to use (and they may well disagree among themselves!). You can never be entirely sure what will sway a particular panel.
    This is why I always suggest that the academic evidence should be as wide-ranging as possible.

The only thing I would add is that, if an appeal panel were challenged for having given priority to a headteacher’s letter of recommendation and SATs predictions, it could point to the fact that this is the only example of academic evidence given in the DfE Appeals Code.

Surely the question that the Panel should be asking is; if the extenuating circumstances didn’t happen or if the extra time in the exam had been in place, then would the candidate have got the required mark?

My preferred wording would be:
If the extenuating circumstances hadn't occurred, is it more likely than not that the candidate would have got the required mark, taking into account all the alternative academic evidence?

However, the current Appeals Code makes absolutely no mention of extenuating circumstances. It refers only to academic suitability, and to reasons that would outweigh any prejudice to the school.

I wonder if anyone has thought of getting their child to take a suitable mock exam to get evidence for the appeal?

Yes, although I wouldn't encourage this.
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 27#p663351" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my opinion, if a private assessment is needed, it would be better to opt for a WISC or BAS test, if one can afford the fee for an educational psychologist.

This goes to the question of what the grammar school is really looking for. If you don’t have to prove your ability in say NVR, why does the school have it as part of their entrance requirement? They could easily require a good recommendation from the head teacher instead.

I would have thought the issue for us on here, in trying to be of some assistance to you with regard to an appeal, is:
What is it an appeal panel might be looking for?
They determine what criteria they will use, not the school!

Unfortunately there's no easy answer, because no two independent panels will necessarily think alike.

I myself would be cautious about relying on one bit of evidence.
To take two main examples:

• Headteacher recommendations can be subjective and inconsistent.

• Reasoning tests can never be 100% reliable:

• • a pupil’s score is only an estimate of true ability ….. (GL Assessment / NFER)
    
    It is important to appreciate that, however carefully educational tests are constructed, an element of error is likely to appear in the results they produce. For individual children, marks and scores should not be taken completely at their face value; they provide only an estimate of a pupil’s ability. This is …. not so clear when a numerical value is given; its accuracy and precision can easily be overestimated. (GL Assessment / NFER)

...... which brings me back to the totality of the evidence. I would like to see evidence that is as wide-ranging as possible.

25% is the maximum allowed extra time. It is possible that some people’s disability requires more than 25% extra time but it is capped at this figure which makes it look suspicious.

Yes - but I never came across a figure lower than 25% !
(I feel sure that somewhere there must have been the very occasional recommendation for 10, 15, or 20% - but I never saw it!)

I have read Etienne's excellent Appeals Q&A from start to finish and I give my thanks for the sound advice and hard work contained in it.

Thank you - not everyone gets as far as the very end!

[kenyancowgirl]

PlaceQuest, it is great that you are reading all the information provided by Etienne so closely and hopefully you realise now that it is the totality of academic evidence, plus why a place at that particular school, is so important? Give a nod to the extenuating circumstances, as in, if her diagnosis had come before we got the results of the 11+, she would have likely been entitled to extra time, which may well have made the difference to her score. The appeal is not the place to criticise the process under which you applied - ie not the place to argue whether a result from another unrelated 11+ should be considered more highly than a heads recommendation etc. As Etienne says, the panel consider the evidence in front of them, and as long as they consider it all, you can never be sure what will sway a particular panel.

Good luck!

[PlaceQuest]

I used to read a lot of educational psychologist reports, and found them very interesting and helpful, although - if there was a recommendation for extra time - I cannot immediately recall a single one that didn't come up with the precise figure of 25% !!!

I think that is because since about 2014 most 11+ exams follow the JCQ guidelines for extra time, which is normally a flat rate of 25%.
The Equality Act 2010 requires an Awarding Body to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person would be at a substantial disadvantage in undertaking an assessment.

[PlaceQuest]

Sadly our appeal failed on academic evidence.
The Panel took the view that there was not sufficient evidence to determine that if our DS had received extra time in the entrance test in September 2017 that this would have materially impacted on his test score. This statement directly contradicts the professional opinions of the Educational Psychologist, the Headteacher, the recommendations for access arrangements from Standards & Testing Agency and the test arrangements of the grammar school itself (which would have allowed extra time). The Panel did not explain in the decision letter how they reached the above conclusion and did not provide any evidence or argument in support of their view.
There were other irregularities which we have sent to the Appeals Box.
We welcome PM's especially if anyone is in a similar situation.