Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective”
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective”
Hi, I hope I’m posting in the right place. My son got 113 in the Bucks 11+. We were unsuccessful in the selection panel and are now considering appealing. But we have to prove that the selection panel was not fair, consistent and objective before the appeal panel will consider any further evidence.
In the selection review report, it said the panel wasn’t “wholly convinced” by the school’s predicted end of year 6 performance level (111-120). This was because he got Expected in years 4 and 5 (though exceeding at end of KS2).
Could this be an area to argue the panel wasn’t fair, consistent and objective as they are disregarding what the school says in this area but accepting what they said in other areas? The school gave him a 2:1 recommendation for grammar and fully supported the review.
Just wondering how to get over this first hurdle before the academic evidence can even be considered.
Thanks in advance.
In the selection review report, it said the panel wasn’t “wholly convinced” by the school’s predicted end of year 6 performance level (111-120). This was because he got Expected in years 4 and 5 (though exceeding at end of KS2).
Could this be an area to argue the panel wasn’t fair, consistent and objective as they are disregarding what the school says in this area but accepting what they said in other areas? The school gave him a 2:1 recommendation for grammar and fully supported the review.
Just wondering how to get over this first hurdle before the academic evidence can even be considered.
Thanks in advance.
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Welcome!
If you try this thread, particularly Section D, you may find some information you need. Good luck
"How to appeal for a Bucks Grammar School, 2019":
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=57343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you try this thread, particularly Section D, you may find some information you need. Good luck
"How to appeal for a Bucks Grammar School, 2019":
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=57343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
mad?
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Thanks, I did see that previously and it has lots of brilliant tips. But I wondered if the specific comment in our report would be an argument to use or if that would fall under judgement (which can’t be used) rather than process.
I’m guessing there’s a better chance if we can prove it on the specific case rather thsn general principles.
And then there’ll be the big hurdle of academic evidence!
I’m guessing there’s a better chance if we can prove it on the specific case rather thsn general principles.
And then there’ll be the big hurdle of academic evidence!
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Good point. Without seeing the form, it does sound like a judgement.Elsie wrote:I wondered if the specific comment in our report would be an argument to use or if that would fall under judgement (which can’t be used) rather than process.
(The words "not wholly convinced" suggest it might have been a close call!)
Probably, although a lot could depend on the individual panel.I’m guessing there’s a better chance if we can prove it on the specific case rather thsn general principles.
"The general" can affect "the particular".
For the present I would suggest you stick to the wording recommended in D11 (i)
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=57343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- "At the hearing we shall wish to challenge whether the Selection Review process was 'fair, consistent & objective', but have not yet seen the school's written case explaining why the process was FCO.
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".
Etienne
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Thank you, that is really helpful. The exact wording was “the panel could not wholly agree with the expected performance levels set out by the headteacher, or that the predicted outcomes could be achieved. The panel noted: panel questioned the security of the reading prediction given EXS in years 4 and 5”.
(It was GDS at end of year 3 so I will be asking the school why only EXS in year 5 and also for the latest reading assessment in year 6).
(It was GDS at end of year 3 so I will be asking the school why only EXS in year 5 and also for the latest reading assessment in year 6).
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Ah - it sounds as if they've grabbed a sentence from a list of optional responses!Elsie wrote:The exact wording was “the panel could not wholly agree with the expected performance levels set out by the headteacher, or that the predicted outcomes could be achieved.
The review panel was clearly concerned to understand the jump from EXS in Y4/Y5 to 111-120 at KS2.
Was it "recent rapid progress", I wonder.
Whatever it was, it will need explaining as part of your academic evidence for an appeal.
Etienne
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Hello and thanks once again for the earlier advice. I’m now nearly ready to submit the appeal. I’ve got better evidence now for academic suitability. The school has given me my son’s recent scores for reading and maths and they are in the greater depth range. The school has also said in a letter of support that the results of recent tests show the predicted reading score they provided to the selection review to be correct. I’ve also got an assessment from an educational psychologist who found he was in the top 10% for reasoning and word reading and in the top 1% for maths.
Given the above, in the section where I have to explain why the selection review wasn’t FCO, as well as writing the suggested text about the appeal code putting the onus on the authority to prove FCO, could I also put that the appeal was unfair and inconsistent in not accepting the school’s prediction? I’m getting a bit lost about whether this stuff should go in the FCO section of the form or in the section on explaining why child is suitable for grammar. I’m obviously worried that if it’s decided the panel was fair etc then they won’t even consider the academic evidence.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Given the above, in the section where I have to explain why the selection review wasn’t FCO, as well as writing the suggested text about the appeal code putting the onus on the authority to prove FCO, could I also put that the appeal was unfair and inconsistent in not accepting the school’s prediction? I’m getting a bit lost about whether this stuff should go in the FCO section of the form or in the section on explaining why child is suitable for grammar. I’m obviously worried that if it’s decided the panel was fair etc then they won’t even consider the academic evidence.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
I don't think so.could I also put that the appeal was unfair and inconsistent in not accepting the school’s prediction?
You have new evidence which wasn't available to the SRP at the time of the review.
The SRP made its judgement on the basis of the evidence that was available to them.
The new information would be part of your case for academic suitability.I’m getting a bit lost about whether this stuff should go in the FCO section of the form or in the section on explaining why child is suitable for grammar.
Etienne
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
Thank you, that is helpful and makes sense.
I am really concerned that I’m not going to be able to prove the appeal wasn’t FCO. So now my last hope for something specific to our particular review is the panel’s statement “The panel noted: did not qualify in any of the elements of the STTS. Score broadly in line with academic profile, and other data, over time.” Could I argue that the 11+ score was not in line with academic profile given that my son has never got anything other than greater depth in maths - also backed up by maths CAT scores, and the school’s recommendation of 2:1?
There really isn’t much to go on in the outcome letter. There are only three “panel noted” points. One is on the security of the reading prediction which, as discussed above, I think I can’t claim is FCO. One is the score being in line with the academic profile, and the last one is about not having strong enough extenuating circumstances (which I can’t ague about).
I am really concerned that I’m not going to be able to prove the appeal wasn’t FCO. So now my last hope for something specific to our particular review is the panel’s statement “The panel noted: did not qualify in any of the elements of the STTS. Score broadly in line with academic profile, and other data, over time.” Could I argue that the 11+ score was not in line with academic profile given that my son has never got anything other than greater depth in maths - also backed up by maths CAT scores, and the school’s recommendation of 2:1?
There really isn’t much to go on in the outcome letter. There are only three “panel noted” points. One is on the security of the reading prediction which, as discussed above, I think I can’t claim is FCO. One is the score being in line with the academic profile, and the last one is about not having strong enough extenuating circumstances (which I can’t ague about).
Re: Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective
If you'd like to send me a full copy of the headteacher review form and the SRP decision, I'll take a look...... One is the score being in line with the academic profile
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/general#a62" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Only if you want to.)
Etienne