Selection review - missing info

Consult our experts on 11 Plus appeals or any other type of school appeal

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

Mock and roll
alpha40
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:58 pm

Selection review - missing info

Post by alpha40 »

Hi,

DC narrowly missed pass mark for Bucks and we are considering review.
HT (along with input from teacher) submitted very strong recommendation (1:1) and evidence on academic grounds (GDS).
DC suffered from anxiety (specifically related to 11plus) in months leading up to exam. There is a brief mention in HT's comment of anxiety being a contributing factor to test outcomes and not reflection of true ability. However, nothing mentioned in exceptional/extenuating circumstances section. (HT was under impression this section was to highlight something like sudden bereavement).

We know school has other supporting evidence (SEN lead/teacher observations) relating to the anxiety which we feel could have been highlighted in more detail in special circumstances section.

Given HT has already submitted their recommendation, is HT able to amend and update their submission after requesting more information from SEN/teacher?

Thanks in advance
MaRaBucks
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2023 7:15 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by MaRaBucks »

If it is narrow miss I mean if its very close score and with 1:1 recommendation and GDS in Y5 and Good Prediction KS2 Y6 scores, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Etienne
Posts: 8978
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:26 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by Etienne »

Welcome!
alpha40 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:02 am Given HT has already submitted their recommendation, is HT able to amend and update their submission after requesting more information from SEN/teacher?
I don't think they can change the review form after it has been submitted (it might be different if we're talking about a draft version).

However, if the head (or SEN teacher with the head's permission) were willing to write a separate letter as additional evidence, this should be possible.
If they don't want to do that, you could try explaining the situation (as concisely as possible) in your own statement.

Although it is stated that the SRP will normally expect there to be strong evidence of exceptional reasons for underperformance in the tests, if the score is very close to 121 I agree that they seem not to look very closely at extenuating circumstances.
Etienne
alpha40
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:58 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by alpha40 »

Thanks for your feedback Etienne, much appreciated.

I have received copy of HT submission from council so it's not a draft unfortunately.

Will request supporting SEN letter from school, otherwise will elaborate myself as part of parental submission.
alpha40
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:58 pm

Re: Selection review - Bucks

Post by alpha40 »

Unfortunately our SR was unsuccessful.

We are going to appeal as we feel our case was strong:
1) Close miss (117) – VR 127, Maths 104, NV 110
2) Very strong HT recommendation, 1:1
3) strong current (and improving through the years) attainment:
End Y5 Y6 Predicted
Reading GDS 111-120
Writing EXS GDS
Maths GDS 111-120

4) Extenuating circumstances with supporting Dr letter and SEN head from school (as well as statement from HT referencing that ET would have contributed to test outcome).

In SR decision letter received, we were told:
A) the gap between Maths score relative to VR score is not explained by ET.
Implies they think ET carry more weight when child scores badly across all the sections (!)
B) the academic info provided does not suggest GS suitability – how can they say that when HT provides 1:1 recommendation and Y5/Y6 attainment is highest across all 3 components (with exception of EXS in writing for Y5)? I know I can’t question judgement here, which brings me onto whether process is FOC….

To me A) raises the following issue: Is every selection review panel being fair and consistent by applying the same treatment and effectively rejecting candidates with low scores on certain sub-components of test?
There is no minimum pass score required for each sub-component, simply an aggregate score of 121 - technically a child could get 152 (VR) /90 / 90 and still achieve 121 overall.
Their argument should imply that no child with a certain differential between highest and lowest sub-component mark should pass a SR (assuming no ET).
Is that consistently applied to all SR panels, as it seems quite arbitrary and subjective in this instance?

Any other thoughts welcome.
Aethel
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:24 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by Aethel »

Hi: there are several things going on here: I totally understand why you feel your child underperformed on the day, and sympathies that this did not result in a pass.

As you say, the panel need to discuss if the review was FCO.
it’s always a bit of a closed box how one judges fairness, and one apprpoach to your role in querying this is to raise a question that they can’t answer to disprove unfairness.

Be aware of your own (understandable) bias that you personally feel your child is GS capable : but a decision you disagree with isn’t unfair because you are disappointed with the outcome.
talking about it here may help to work through what you feel is the best tactic to take…
Aethel
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:24 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by Aethel »

I am trying to be helpful, but be aware I’m playing devil’s advicate a little: this is not to be negative, but to help you consider what may be a resonable counter-argument for you to make in an appeal.

“ 1) Close miss (117) – VR 127, Maths 104, NV 110 “

117 isn’t VERY close, your child’s verbal score is double-weighted and as that was good, it counteracts the Maths and NVR, both of which were more than 10 points short of a pssing score. I suspect this is what swung the panel to feel the score was quite a bit short in two out of three elements.

HOWEVER, your argument that your child was super anxious on the day, doesn’t quite fit with doing really well in the VR section. If she was so anxious she bristled/panicked, I suspect they felt she’d have done equally poorly in all sections, rather than being composed, efficient and accurate for one section and then under par for the other two. (I appreciate that it’s possible your child is actually SUPER good at VR and without the anxiety would have scored 145 in the VR and 121 in the other sections, but there’s no way to prove that).

2) Very strong HT recommendation, 1:1


okay, so if you are a Bucks school the HT would have ranked all children BEFORE the exams. The panel have access to these rankings: Some HTs rate almost every child 1:1, and if so this would make the highnranking less convincing. the panel won’t tell you if this is the case.
If you’re outside Bucks, the ranking is made AFTER the results, and a lot of HTs do inflate the ranks in an attempt to give the appelant the “best chance”… but the panel knows this happens, and so again, a 1:1 ranking doesn’t always carry a lot of weight.

3) strong current (and improving through the years) attainment:
End Y5 Y6 Predicted
Reading GDS 111-120
Writing EXS GDS
Maths GDS 111-120

All this is good: although the strongest cases are those where the child has been exceeding/greater depth since KS1 year 2.
The SR wouldn’t usually hinge on this alone, so I doubt it was an issue in the no qualification UNLESS the panel felt the predictions were overoptimistic (it is hard as you say to query this as their judgement is their opinon).


4) Extenuating circumstances with supporting Dr letter and SEN head from school (as well as statement from HT referencing that ET would have contributed to test outcome).

We don’t know what the circs were: it maybne the panel thought they weren’t enough to justify the drop in marks.
scary mum
Posts: 8900
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:45 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by scary mum »

Have you read all of this section? I think it might answer some of your questions, particularly section D.
scary mum
Aethel
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:24 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by Aethel »

Regarding consistency: every individual case is different, and so all the panel can do is try to ensure that the general trend of decisions is consistent. I appreciate it’s a quite closed process: did the clerks notes for the SR reveal anything that suggests the panel decision deviated from the standard process? if so, you could argue that the process wasn’t consistent,

Other children who underperformed in two sections out of three are often unsuccessful in SR (if you look on previois threads you’ll often see this occurring. therefore there’s no inconsistency there I’m afraid.

Was there anything else you felt was non objective/inconsistent?
alpha40
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:58 pm

Re: Selection review - missing info

Post by alpha40 »

Dear Aethel,

Really appreciate your feedback on points I raised.

On 1) what you say is fair - DC was always stronger on VR than other 2 components so outperformance is consistent, however, like you say it's hard to prove ET led to overall drop in scores across all 3.

On 2) and 3) we are outside Bucks and can see your point on 1:1 HT rankings being inflated but we felt it was backed up by progress and current attainment.

The clerk notes have not been provided - just got the standardised letter from Bucks stating we were unsuccessful and only 2 sentences personalised as to why (referred to in my thread earlier).
Am I entitled to request access to the clerk notes prior to submitting appeal?

(Scary Mum - thanks, have read the link previously - it is helpful)
Post Reply