Proving selection panel not “fair, consistent, objective”

[Elsie]

Thank you so much. I have sent to the mailbox.

[Etienne]

Sorry - it's not quite in focus and I'm struggling to read much of it.

Could you try again?

Thanks

[Elsie]

Really sorry about that. I have tried again in a better light so I hope they are clearer. If not please let me know and I’ll try something else. They should be in the mailbox now.

[Etienne]

It's better, except for section 4 of the head's form which is very faint both times.
Could you possibly type out for me?
There's also a handwritten comment in the top right-hand corner of section 4 which I can't read, so I don't know if it's of any importance.

[Elsie]

Thanks and yes, absolutely, I’ll type it out now and send it to the mailbox. The hand written comment is mine and not relevant - just me trying to understand the CAT scores!

[Etienne]

Thanks.

When they say the result was "broadly in line with academic profile and other data", I think one of the things they've done is to look at the overall CAT scores, and note that they were within a few marks of the overall 11+ score.
Of course, we can't tell for certain if the overall CAT scores were a major factor because it's not clear what criteria they were using.
This is the argument to make - if they don't have clear criteria, how can the process be FCO?

I suspect they were also concerned about EXS for Writing, but they haven't said so!

One very specific point they have made is to query the prediction for Reading - something which I think you could challenge.

They refer to non-qualification in three elements of the test which seems fair enough - except that I notice from other cases on here that they've also criticised those who didn't qualify in two elements; and there's even one case where they've highlighted the failure to qualify in one element!!!
Why is this even worth mentioning when the sole criterion for qualification in the transfer test was the final score? Presumably there were pupils who managed to qualify with a very high score in one element, but below 121 in the other two. (Admittedly this won't work if all three elements are below 121, so I probably wouldn't pursue this line of thought!)

My suggestions for the first part of your case would be along the following lines:

• • FCO
    • We would firstly wish to challenge the SRP's statement " .... broadly in line with academic profile and other data".
    We cannot tell for certain if the overall CAT scores were a major consideration because of the lack of transparency - but if the SRP were indeed referring to CATs, they should know that overall CAT scores can not be directly compared with the transfer test result because the standardisation and weighting are different.
    If they were also referring to the progress chart in section 3, it would make little sense because (a) NVR is not part of the school curriculum, and (b) maths is clearly shown to be one of X's strengths.
    Without knowing what criteria were being used, and how those criteria were applied, it is not possible to determine whether the process was fair, consistent and objective.
    The burden of proof lies with the admission authority.
    
    • Secondly, we think the SRP's comment regarding the school's prediction for Reading was prejudicial.
    The school stated that X would progress from EXS in Y4/Y5 to 111-120 at KS2. They stand by their judgement, and point out in their letter to the Appeal Panel that the results of recent tests show the predicted reading score to be correct.
    They were never asked to justify their professional opinion in section 3 of the review form, but to "follow the instructions regarding the format of the academic information that the panel are requesting" - which is precisely what they did. If the SRP wanted schools to explain any accelerated progress, they should have said so, and indicated a space for comments in section 3.
    Was this matter a factor in the SRP's final decision? We cannot tell because of the lack of transparency.
    If it is not clear how the SRP reached its decision, it is open to IAP members to conclude there is not evidence to show that the review was fair, consistent and objective.
    
    • Thirdly we would question how 'exceptional circumstances' were dealt with so as to enable the SRP to make consistent judgements.
    
    • There may be further points we shall wish to raise at the hearing, but we have not yet had sight of the Admission Authority's case for 'fair, consistent and objective'.
    Moreover, with respect, we would draw attention to para. 3.13b of the Appeals Code which puts the onus on the admission authority to prove its case for 'fair, consistent & objective', not on parents to disprove it."

I hope this helps, but to be honest you need to be lucky with your panel.
FCO is a very vague concept.
What one panel might accept, another might not.

[Elsie]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. I’ll digest this but one quick thing I want to check is about the CAT scores. I thought a score over 111 was over the standard deviation and therefore in the category of “greater depth”. The most recent reading score (SAT paper, not CAT) was 114. And this is what the head is using to justify his prediction.

I’d be very great full for your view on what an “acceptable” CAT score is so I don’t inadvertently draw attention to something I don’t want to!

[Etienne]

It is confusing!
SATs use scaled scores, and that is where one would be looking for 111-120.
CATs (and EP reports) use nationally standardised scores, and it is debatable what is required. For what it's worth my view is here:
https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appea ... cation#b57" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I don't know what your extenuating circumstances were, but if they were weak, best not to say much about them now - except that the result of the transfer test was a 'blip' - and then move swiftly on to your academic case. It sounds as if your EP report may have come up with some high standardised scores, so I think your academic case should really stress greater maturity, rapid progress, and really encouraging results in Y6.

[Elsie]

Thank you. I’m so very grateful for your advice. The Ed Psych used BAS scales and I’m now thinking some scores are a bit low from what you’ve said. Eg, maths 134, verbal reasoning 127. But non-verbal was 111 and spelling was 112. Word reading was 119. Well I will just have to go with what we have and hope for the best.

You’re right about the extenuating circumstances - definitely weak so I’ll take your suggestion and focus elsewhere!

My son was exceeding at everything at the end of KS2 so looks like rapid progress, plateau, rapid progress!

I have no idea why the SRP didn’t mention the writing (I would have done if I was them!) but I have a sentence from the year 5 report saying that he “made exceptional progress in his writing which has seen a great sense of maturity and quality” so I have that if I need it.

I do realise it’s a long shot but we have to do what we think is best so am giving it a go. Thank you again.

[Etienne]

What was the overall score (the GCA) for British Ability Scales?

I do realise it’s a long shot but we have to do what we think is best so am giving it a go.

You're right to try, and couldn't possibly be doing more.