Appeal update / banding and aptitude test results

Elsewhere OP says it was “compassionate grounds”.

Just shows that Mumsnet posters are not to be relied on for any meaningful advice.

That's a bit harsh @XelaM ! I guess what it shows is that there’s always a chance. I’m glad for the Op and her ds that she has won if the school is the right place for him. The advice on this thread was in many cases from posters with a lot of experience.

OP hasn't given the grounds on which the appeal was successful, so not sure what makes you so certain on this?

Well done OP for being so incredibly tenacious and I hope your son has a great time at this school. 👏🏼

Just shows that Mumsnet posters are not to be relied on for any meaningful advice.

I don’t think there’s much point rehashing whether DS should or shouldn’t have sat the test. I think a lot of us would have gone for the “try your best on the day” even if we fully knew the procedures, just in case it wasn’t deemed serious enough for a move to the contingency day and we missed the chance altogether.

However, there’s normally a period in which you can submit evidence for mitigating circumstances and it’s not clear if op did this at the time or waited months until the allocations were out.

Regardless of the above - DS was not guaranteed a place whichever band he was placed in because of the random selection, which OP cannot seem to understand precludes a panel from doing anything to give her a place using the band allocation information!

For the GP to have diagnosed an illness at 17.11 on Friday your child must have been feeling unwell for some time beforehand , both for you to realise he was unwell and to have obtained a GPs appointment. Plenty of time to have found out what the procedure for sick children is, even if it appears that your HT husband has no idea himself, or no contacts to approach for advice!

Great post @FlockofSquirrels

OP, I can tell you've been frustrated by a lot of the responses you've gotten on this forum. I know that they haven't been encouraging. I also understand that this whole school place allocation result feels unfair because your DS has ended up without a place at any of your listed preferences; as a parent you desperately want the best for your child. The unfortunate truth is that the bar for a successful appeal to this school is likely to be incredibly high - they're very oversubscribed, they already agreed with the LA to offer over PAN for a second year in a row, and last year's appeal success rate was 1 out of 42.

The common ability/banding test illness argument is just not a great one to begin with, because the reality is that there will be plenty of children who didn't achieve the same score they did on mock SATS at their home schools (for better or worse), being in a higher band doesn't give you priority for admissions, and within the bands applicants are selected at random once you reach the last admissions criteria. The only way this might have any shot of being convincing is if you could present numbers that the odds in band B and C would have been dramatically better than the odds in band D because band D had a very disproportionate number of places taken up by LAC, FSM, staff children, siblings, aptitude places, and catchment. Even then it's honestly not a strong argument. And if the odds were better in his tested band then it's completely worthless to point out.

His drama aptitude score being one point off the highest mark is worth including when (if) you discuss why it's important for your DS as an individual to attend a school with strong drama provision. But there's nothing there in terms of unfairness of the process towards your DS specifically. There are 4 drama spots, 4 music spots, and 4 dance spots (for a total of 12 performing arts) plus 9 sports spots, and students could sit any or all of the tests if they chose. There has to be a set number of places for each aptitude so there will always be a cutoff score for each and the tests don't need to be standardized from one aptitude to another (so it doesn't matter whether only 4 students scored above an 88% on the dance test but 24 did on drama). Nothing you've described has unfairly disadvantaged your child specifically in getting a place.

Focus your appeal on why the specific provisions of the appeal school are vital in addressing individual needs of your DS - that's your best shot.

@NeverDropYourMooncup yy - and staying on the waiting list for the faith school as likely to be highest up the list there once the faith evidence update has been accepted

With the different appeals you have going in, the chaotic way you handled the application process for change of phase is the greatest detriment to your child. Not the varying ways you have sought to claim that all of the schools have made mistakes or been unfair to your child.

You've claimed he was ill, that you forgot to submit proof of faith, that your husband has to be registered as living somewhere else in order to be regarded as a carer, that he's great at drama, but hasn't done much but has done loads; at this point, you're better off (and more to the point, so is he) with you going with the accepted place and then applying for an in year place if he doesn't gain one through normal movements between now and September.

@OutofIdeas86 you may have mentioned it in a prior thread, but did you submit the medical stuff on the Monday after the banding exam, or only after bands were allotted?

Certainly in public exams, any mitigating circumstance information eg taken ill during exam must be sent as soon as possible afterwards - there will be a cut off date - even if it was not possible to do so before. It can’t wait until results are known.

Agree, and op would have felt vindicated in making him sit the test had the outcome been favourable. It seems very odd that a head of a local primary school could not have found information about plans for illness on the day of admissions test even if they were not fully aware of the detail. At what point during the day did you think he was unwell enough to need a gp appointment. Did he attend school that Friday?

I think you are being disingenuous about the severity of his illness and your decisions on the day of the test.
You are well enough educated and vocal enough to be writing all these posts and challenging the decision, but you expect us to believe that you thought an unwell child still ‘had’ to do an exam with no exceptions.
Anyone with half the intelligence you are presenting knows that if a child is honestly unwell there will be some sort of work around ( especially if they have a doctors appointment and antibiotics as proof). I just do not believe that you could not have recognised the need to keep him home that day and figure out the next steps after the event.

I think its worth challenging that essentially the band and his lottery number wasn't fairly allocated, because it wasn't. If mock SATs place him 10 points higher.

The band was fairly allotted based on test marks. Later information provided by you/GP may mean it was incorrectly allotted.

Do you actually know the mock SAT score range of the band above yours? I would imagine on the day many kids did somewhat better or somewhat worse than their mock SAT score would indicate.

The lottery number wasn’t unfairly allotted, it’s a lottery number.

The panel cannot rerun the lottery for the current or the higher band. So, again, how does this help your appeal? Not the debating society argument about the hypothetical situation where your son had been put in the higher band before the lottery. What do you want the panel to do with your argument?

ETA your argument seems to stop at the point that you think it’s perfectly clear he’s in the wrong band, but without a way to “remedy” the past random allocation… so what?

I still don’t understand why having a different “ number” would make him less likely to have been given a place if the numbers are randomly selected. So, if he should have been number 25 and instead was number 125, the chances of being randomly selected is still the same- he is only given one number!

I think the key word is 'likelihood'. Not whether he would have got a place. But whether his likelihood was affected. Anyone could argue that in a parallel universe they might have been randomly selected. Saying "well, if he'd been in a different band he might have got a place" is a bit like saying "well, if they'd done the random selection on Tuesday like they usually do instead of Wednesday, he might have got a place." He might have. But his likelihood would have been the same. And in your case his likelihood was increased, not decreased.
Your son could still get a place from the waiting list, OP. Don't reduce his chances for an argument that isn't going to get you anywhere.

Just to hammer the point, ypu say ypu were told by school you ‘had’ to take the test. This would be the school your husband is head of which your son attends? So you’re asking yourself for advice? And giving yourself the incorrect advice? And if you mean the school at which your son took the test, there is no way they will have said he had to go ahead, ill or not. They would have signposted you to the medical test

@OutofIdeas86 does the fact that every poster is raising the same point about the banding give you any pause over whether this is the right thing or not?

If he was unwell enough for you to make gp appointment tbe previous day, you or your h (iirc he is a primary head) could have checked the contingency plan for those circumstances. It does sound very much that you only considered this after allocations did not go your way.

This is too hypothetical. Saying if he was in a different band might have led to a different outcome, with no evidence it would have done is a pointless argument. The whole point of a banding test is to be fair to all ability bands. It doesn't always work in practise, but with no evidence he would have got a space from another band more easily, it's not going to get you anywhere.

With random allocation there is a degree of luck. You may have been unlucky, but within the published admissions policy, so it's not unfair.

Rather than trying to argue he should have got a place, you would be better off focusing on your arguments about why he really needs this school.