Late Grammar School offer: over the moon but stressed/flummoxed

[PermaShattered]

What a 3 days we've had - any insightful comments welcome. In short:

1. Our daughter was offered 3rd choice (her 11+ score was about 30 down on passmark);
2. 3rd school is outstanding but we appealed to 2nd choice school as was our preference;
3. Last Friday took calls from our local Ed admissions authority saying why appealed when have offer from grammar school?
4. Said we hadn't. She made further calls to other relevant admissions authority and came back and told us we definitely have an offer and it would be in post next day (Saturday just gone);
5. It duly arrived, and we posted our acceptance same day (they should have got it today) - verbal acceptance of place given by phone on Friday;
6. On Friday the Authority also withdrew both our place at 3rd choice school and our appeal to 2nd choice school;
7. Today i take a call from a friend whose daughter got substantially higher score than my DD - and she is 188 on waiting list;
8. I call our admissions auth to check they received our acceptance (they said still in posttray but will be dealt with this afternoon);
9. I query whether there could possibly an error and i'm told categorically 'no'. And if there was, we have a written offer, accepted it and they can't take it off our daughter;

10. Finally, my other DS is that grammar school.

I'm perplexed. What could be a possible explanation?

Yellowtip - The rules about withdrawing offers apply to all schools, selective or otherwise.

As I understand it this school doesn't have a pass mark below which a child will not be admitted even if places are available. It simply uses the score to place applicants in order. So if there had been fewer applicants the OP's daughter may have got a place with the score she achieved. It is going to be very difficult for the school to argue that the OP's child is not of the right standard even if it was relevant. But it isn't relevant. A place was offered and was withdrawn too late. That is all that matters.

A few comments - interesting reading by the way. Not sure who said it, but we're not taking advantage of an error. That's really unfair. As lougle infers, the admission rules are critically important. They are there to ensure correct procedure is followed and there are remedies where there is a breach. They are there to protect people like my DD.

yellowtip But something seems very wrong in admitting the DC in a case like this with so many people above her on the waiting list.

It's not a case of 'please please let my daughter in.....' There's far more to it than that...

And it's not fair or indeed middle ground to give her her 2nd choice school. Given her expectation of the GS place if she goes to any other school, she (in her own words) will always be thinking "what if....?" Ie what if it hadn't been an error and her few days of planning on going to the school etc etc had not been in vain...? As her mum, I can see the emotional and academic damage that could do to her if the place isn't reinstated.... call me soft, but so be it.

yellowtip the error actually took 5 weeks to uncover. Not just a few days.

Re whether the case law applies to GS: it is something I've thought about and have had assurances about it. And there was a case last year in Milton Keynes where a grammar school place was offered in error, withdrawn after 5 days, and reinstated on appeal.

biscuits I also think habba has an axe to grind somewhere. Either that or s/he has some major underlying issues and I'm bearing the brunt.... whatever it is I'm not rising to it.

tiggy your musings are spot on. I make clear to both LEAs concerned that given the errors on their parts they have exposed themselves to the highest level of scrutiny. Their decisions/admin can no longer be trusted.

As for update - the school's last net capacity assessment was more than a decade ago. Interesting!

There are clearly some knowledgeable appeals people on here but, with respect, an appellant needs to have a very compelling case to win a place at a superselective. Which in real terms means very strong mitigation.

Admittedly I may be on the less touchy feely side as a mum but seriously perma, would there be emotional or academic damage because you had to tell your DD that the place she should never rightfully have had (by test score), she now can't have? Are you quite clear you're not hijacking things here?

Yellowtip,

All my understanding is that the fact that the school is a superselective has no bearing whatever on the case. Any school, of whatever type, is bound by the admissions code, which governs the fact that a place cannot be withdrawn after a certain time, and case law has established that time as a few days.

Even had the OP's daughter been of very, very low ability [which is absolutely not the case here], these rules mean that the place MUST be reinstated on appeal - and the school has to deal with the consequences. It cannot argue anything about the pupil's ability, as that is not relevant. It is of no relevance that the school is selective, nor whether the OP's daughter had a particular score or not. A mistake was made in the admissions process, and the admissions code lays down what must happen as a result - the place must be reinstated.

Yellowtip, also, as it happens, the OP's daughter is of suitable abiility - good Level 5s are well within the usual ability range of superselectives. But that is absolutely irrelevant. Even if she had Level 3s, because the place has been offered and not withdrawn in a timely fashion, the place should be hers.

I suppose the only point at which ability might arise would be if there were many, many children affected - for example if through some glitch 100 or so extra children were offered places and the mistake was not noticed for over 5 days. then tere might be an argument to be made about those who should retain the places and those who wshould not. But it seems that OP is in a unique situation, and so the question does not arise.

It may not be 'logical'. But it is what the rules and case law say, and the school is not at liberty to re-write those because it is a selective school.

I have to say, in the OP's place, and knowing that my DD was bright but seemed to have underachieved in the 11+ [many children with much lower than Level 5 SATs get into selective and superselective grammar schools each year - our local superselective has set up specific classes for those over-coached children who have scored highly on the day but are actually of low academic ability overall], I would have assumed when the place was offered that a remark had taken place that had affected her score. i would not even have mentioed her 'initially given' score in any discussions, simply because I would have assumed that a new score had been assigned which had resulted in a place. Marking errors can and do appear - disputed GCSE and A-level scripts every year are mis-marked, have pages missed out, fail to add up marks correctly etc etc, and their turn-around times for marking are MUCH longer than for the 11+ which might therefore be much more subject to marking errors.

I was about to respond to Yellowtip but I see that teacherwith2kids has already given a full and accurate summary of the situation. It is as near to an open and shut case as you can get in an admissions appeal. The academic ability of the OP's daughter should not play any part in the panel's decision.

The Appeals Code lays down the decision making process that the appeal panel must follow. The first question the panel must ask itself is whether or not the admission arrangement comply with Admissions Code and relevant law, and whether they were applied correctly and impartially. If the answer to that question is no and the child has missed out on a place as a result the panel must uphold the appeal without considering any other matters.

It does not matter how selective the school is. The appeal panel must follow the decision making process in the Appeals Code. If they reject the appeal on the basis that the OP's daughter is not of the right academic standard that decision will be overturned by the LGO. Under the Appeals Code that decision is not available to the appeal panel.

prh as the school is an academy I don't think the LGO is relevant is it?

teacher my point about superselectives was specifically in response to the relative ease with which a poster had claimed they were allowed and on that s/he is wrong.

Yes I know about poorly marked scripts. One of DS3's was sent by the authorities to Mr Gove last year :)

Sorry, ease with which.. poster claimed appeals are allowed.

Oh yes, it was tiggy. I think you're missing the point tiggy. You're focussing too much on the presence or absence of the word 'mitigation' in the Code.

I don't have an axe to grind Perma. Both my DCs are in selectives so its not as if I am or because mine didn't get a place.

Sorry. Forgot this is an academy. It is the EFA rather than the LGO if the appeal panel fails to follow the Appeals Code.

It is irrelevant to the OP tiggy but I suppose worth picking you up on the point you made about what it takes to make a successful appeal in an 'ordinary' case with a superselctive. The case has to be very, very strong. I call that mitigation, in its broadest sense. It's slightly semantic. Bottom line is: exceptionally strong evidence to account for underperformance on the day or exceptionally strong reasons as to why it is very important for this child to come to this school (which has to assume the ability to come and not struggle).

Perma I can't find the bit of the thread where you said what the HT had said to you - I'm interested to know what s/he said. Presumably you know the HT through your elder DD? Could you point me to the page, or repeat it, if you can be bothered?

No, I've had no contact with the HT yellowtip. What was the issue in relation to?

I must be getting my wires crossed about a post which was deleted. That's a shame: I thought the HT had phoned you up! I'm curious to know what a HTs take would be.

Tiggytape you mention upthread that OP's DD cannot have a fair appeal for 2nd choice school now since it is a late appeal. But OP, in ber post of 2nd may at 17.07 says that the appeal for her 2nd choice had been reinstated for a few days time but she had requested it be delayed even though she had been told that it would make no difference to her appeal for the GS place. I think OP should simply stick to the one argument which the admissions experts say is virtually watertight, I.e. that offers can't be withdrawn after 5 days. If OP starts trying to introduce a suggestion that she hasn't a fair chance for her 2nd choice school, doesn't she run a risk that an appeals panel may question why she herself chose to delay the appeal?

PermaShattered - thanks for the update. Sounds like you have a wonderful best friend. Hope everything works out. Good luck.