Appeal update / banding and aptitude test results

Surely having his band changed now further disadvantages him.
If less children were offered plaves from the band you perceive he should be in, there is lower probability that someone from that band will decline their place than the band you are currently in. He is therefore less likely to be offered a place in that band than your current band. You are arguing to lower his chances of getting a waiting list place…

It must be very hard for your child to know how much he has disappointed you.

The panel will not be able to place him in another band. Panels cannot touch waiting lists, or direct the school/admissions authority to place a child in another category.

I really wouldn't spend much if any time on this in the appeal, it really will get you nowhere.

There will be a route for children who are unwell on the day. Some of these children will fall ill the night preceding the test. There is a phone number to ring in our county snd these children take a second test that takes place a couple of weeks later. School won’t have told you he has to take the test even if ill. Ignorance of this (and with a teacher parent I’m sceptical) is not going to help. Neither is ‘‘I didn’t have time’.

- a different band may have resulted in a different outcome.

Your words - “may have”

• Panels must assess whether allocation materially affected the likelihood of securing a place (Section 2.14).

The rules - “ must asses whether…materially affected”

The panel cannot grant you a place on this basis because of the randomisation. Surely you see that?

If it was distance within band and the upper band went out to your address when the middle band didn’t, there would be something to assess about material effect. But in your case, there isn’t.

, no one could say he has been fairly processed following the admission policy.

Me, me, I would say he has been fairly processed following the admission policy. The test gave him a band, some kids in the band were allotted a random space, he was not. That’s exactly the policy.

I think you might have a case to change his band for the waiting list - though that might disadvantage you compared to your current position. Do they re-randomise the list every time someone new comes onto it in a given band?

experts on the thread - would the panel be the one to decide on a band change in these circumstances or would that be some other route?

But you’ve no idea if he was disadvantaged because it is random allocation and he may well not have got a place in the banding above. And again, you let him sit the test on the day. If this came to a panel I was on we would not give any credence at all to this argument. I really think you are clutching at straws.

But he was not medicated on the day. Your argument is “may have resulted in a different outcome” but you cannot show that it did. If he were placed in a different band he might still have missed out.

The key phrase from the bit you quote is

• Panels must assess whether allocation materially affected the likelihood of securing a place (Section 2.14).

Allocation to Band 2 instead of Band 1 (or whatever) probably didn’t “materially affect the likelihood” of getting a place (indeed, you may well have had a higher chance of a place from Band 2 as that had more random selection spaces available).

Why is it that you consider a disadvantage arose from the banding achieved on the day?

No, it sounds like was advantaged not disadvantaged. It also sounds like you'll decrease his chances of getting a place off the waiting list if this is upheld.
Don't waste your time with this, it's not going to help and feels like clutching at straws.

So after siblings etc, there were (say) 20 spaces for random allocation in the band he scored on the day, but there were only 15 places in the band that school assessments would have put him into?

Do you know how many applicants were going for random allocation in each band? Because if there were 16 applicants in the upper band and 50 in his current band, then yes, his chances of a random allocation in the upper band would have been higher. But if there were 30 applicants in both bands, then he had a higher chance in the random allocation in his current band than in the upper band.

YY ArtAngel

And - rehashing a post on a prior thread - even if the 'proper' band for DS admitted 20 out of 30 and the current band for DS admitted 20 out of 50, I don't think it's something the panel can do anything about as some kids have to be in the unlucky group.

In that case, moving bands might make sense for the waiting list as OP then has a better chance of WL within her band, but the panel can't say 'oh, you would have been one of the lucky 20 out of 30 rather than one of the unlucky 30 out of 50, so we'll create a space for you' as that would be unprovable.

IIRC it’s random selection within each band so talk of distance doesn’t apply in this case.

So unless there were fewer applications in the higher band the OP still does not know whether being in the higher band would have increased the chances of a place.

Our S London banded lottery admission school tends to attract parents of high achieving children from miles around so I imagine competition is intense in the higher band.

IIRC it’s random selection within each band so talk of distance doesn’t apply in this case.

@OutofIdeas86 in respect of the drama aptitude, I would expect if 4 children got 25/25 - or possibly more if that’s rounded from the decimal place - then at least 4 got the same score as your son ie 24/25.

It’s good for your “son is talented at drama which this school supports” case. But it’s just another strand, not a slam dunk.

That makes sense! Guess it depends what OP's area is like.

Interestingly most of the schools near me that have banding tests see the opposite, the higher bands admit to further distances. The number of places admitted in each band is proportional to the number in each band. One school has 4 bands, with the top 25% in band A, next 25% in band B etc. Other schools do it on scores, so it follows the bell curve but the places reflect that e.g. 10 spaces in band 1, 15 spaces in band 2 etc. So in theory you have an equal chance in each band.

However in reality what happens is the invested parents prepare their kids more, and so more of these kids end up in the top bands. But a lot of these families aren't putting all their eggs in one basket. They are also applying to private schools or grammar schools or sitting music/sport/drama aptitude tests. In some cases they don't really want their child to attend the banding school as they prefer another school or the banding school is too far away, but are doing this 'just in case'. So when it comes to applying, lots of these families list the banding school as a lower preference. They end up with places at one of their higher preferences and so the banding school offers further down the list in the top bands.

There is one very popular comprehensive near me that has a banding test and puts children into 9 bands. There are grammar schools nearby. Often the school doesn't fill all the spaces in it's top band, as the kids in that band usually also quality for the grammar school, so the places are offered to children in the next band, pushing out the distance in that band much further. Obviously the grammar school is skewing this, but it still occurs to a lesser extent in other areas.

FWIW, my expectation would be that being in a higher band would decrease his likelihood of getting a place. For two reasons.

• Ability is a bell-curve. There will be more places available for people in the middle of the curve than at the top and bottom.
• Generally speaking, the parents who are willing to jump through the extra hoop of banding tests are those parents who are more invested in their children's education. So their kids tend to score higher than average. This means that as the school is trying to create a comprehensive intake, they're likely to have less competition for the lower bands and more for the higher.

But it only makes a difference if he would have hit a place based on the criteria had he been in a different band.

Fir example if that band has a greater distance (in our school the top and lowest bands spread out across the widest distance) OR if it is a lottery within bands, were there fewer in the higher band making the competition less intense?

Yes, it’s likely on the relative scores that he would have been on a higher band had he been well, but how would being in the higher band have increased his chances of a place?

It is a discrepancy but it's not clear if it's one that would have cost him a place. Is your argument e.g. that in the higher bands, the distance went out further and you are within that distance?

You would need to find out how many children were allocated to each band AND THEN the number of children from each band who were allocated a place. So, if there were the same number of children in each band ( say 150) but 10 of band D were allocated a place and 100 of band B, then you MIGHT have a point as it would be easier to get a place from band B than from Band D. But if the places were allocated on a percentage basis then the actual band your son was placed in makes no difference, surely?

Just seen that LIZS has said exactly the same thing but more succinctly!

Yes this. As people have said again and again, just being in a different band might not mean he would have got a place. Depending on numbers, it might have made it less likely. I’ve not seen a post where you say how many were in the higher band?

But unless the odds of getting a randomly allocated place are greater from the higher band ie 20 places allocated to B vs 10 to Band D, assuming same number of applicants(say30) are placed within each band then your argument won’t work.