Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

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

999 replies

PermaShattered · 29/04/2013 19:35

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?

OP posts:
Floggingmolly · 21/06/2013 10:04

Deliberately circumnavigated the appeals code to issue their own verdict based on their prejudice
Come off it, lougle Hmm. They're a (supposedly impartial) Appeals panel, why would their default position be to be prejudiced against op's dd? Especially since the code they're required to follows is allegedly enshrined in law?

tiggytape · 21/06/2013 10:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lougle · 21/06/2013 10:13

"Deliberately circumnavigated the appeals code to issue their own verdict based on their prejudice
Come off it, lougle hmm. They're a (supposedly impartial) Appeals panel, why would their default position be to be prejudiced against op's dd? Especially since the code they're required to follows is allegedly enshrined in law?"

They would be prejudiced because as people have shown on this thread, the situation opens a whole can of worms. If they weren't prejudiced, or at least ill-informed, they would have ruled in the OP's favour.

Nerfmother the difficulty is that this should have been decided (in the OP's favour) at stage One. So it should never have got to stage 2. This appeal was never about Perma's DD 'deserving' a place in Grammar school (although she is undoubtedly GS material), it was about the correction of an administrative error.

HabbaDabbaDoo · 21/06/2013 10:14

Well, in a few weeks time, when the final decision is rendered, either Yellowtip or a lot of other posters are going to look rather silly. My money is on Yellow to be proved right.

And no, I am not wishing for Perma to fail. I am merely supporting Yellow's logical reasoning.

FormaLurka · 21/06/2013 10:17

"she is undoubtedly GS material"

Why 'undoubtedly'? The friend "got substantially higher score than my DD - and she is 188 on waiting list". I suspect that there are a lot of other kids between 188 and where the OP's DD is at.

tiggytape · 21/06/2013 10:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Floggingmolly · 21/06/2013 10:29

Yes, FormaLurker, a lot of the support for the op's dd seems to hinge on the premise that she somehow deserves a place, and would have got one by right if only the stars had been properly aligned in the heavens on the morning of the tests.
They weren't, apparently, and she didn't and being 188th on the waiting list gives the lie to her being outstandingly academically able.

Nerfmother · 21/06/2013 10:34

Lougle, my first point was on stage 1 - ie had the mistake not been made a place would not have been offered, rather than a place would have been of the mistake hasn't happened.

FormaLurka · 21/06/2013 10:36

"She didn't decide to fight for a grammar place...Her DD was rejected and she never challenged it"

Isn't that a point against her, rather than for her?

If I thought that my DD was 'GS material' and that the test results was not representative of her true abilities then appealing the results would have been the first thing I did. Perma was quite happy to accept the fact that her DD wasn't 'GS material' up to the point when the cock up threw her a life line.

lougle · 21/06/2013 10:44

"either Yellowtip or a lot of other posters are going to look rather silly."

Why? Hmm I don't think anyone who is wrong looks silly, they are just wrong.

Nerf, I saw that, sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was only responding to your later point.

It is complicated by the fact that the mistakes are layered. The question needs to be applied to each mistake, really. That's where it gets tricky.

If the rules had been applied fairly and impartially, Perma's DD would not have been offered a place.

If the rules had been applied fairly and impartially, Perma's DD would not have had the place offered, removed.

If it comes down to 'which was the bigger error', I think they need to consider the impact of each error. The removal of school place has a far bigger impact because there was legitimate expectation of a place, so far as to remove almost all chance of the 2nd choice school appeal being successful.

Perma's DD is GS material. It just happens that there were at least 2-300 people who were also GS material ahead of her.

FormaLurka · 21/06/2013 10:46

Floggin - You, me and a few others seem to be the minority in this lovefest, which I find strange given the fact that a lot of MNetters like to jump on people who post that the outstanding non-selective isn't good enough for their DCs.

lougle · 21/06/2013 10:46

Formalurker she didn't accept that she wasn't GS material. She accepted that her DD didn't get a high enough score on the day to give her a place, which is common when you have 800 people who are GS material and only 250 places.

lougle · 21/06/2013 10:49

This isn't about the merits of Grammar Schools or whether Perma's DD deserves a place.

This is about:

-Transparency - the Code is there to ensure that appeals are fair and clear.
-Justice - the LGO (in this case EFA) is there to ensure that appeals are heard correctly and panels are held to account.

Whether or not you agree with Perma's DD getting a place on merit (and as it happens I don't, because she didn't perform on the day), the fact remains that appeals should be fair and just.

This one wasn't and that should worry anyone who believes that parents should have a right to a fair hearing with clear goal posts.

tiggytape · 21/06/2013 10:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

forheavenssakes · 21/06/2013 10:52

It isn't about selective versus non-selective, it's about the fact that the authorities made a huge cock-up, raising expectations then dashing hopes and thinking it's ok to walk away from the problem and leave the family to deal with the aftermath. That is why Perma is receiving the support she so deserves.

FormaLurka · 21/06/2013 10:58

"Perma's DD is GS material. It just happens that there were at least 2-300 people who were also GS material ahead of her".

I was Oxbridge material as well. It just so happened that there were at least 300 people ahead of me Hmm Nope, it doesn't make me feel better.

Assuming that the results are an accurate reflection of the DD's academic abilities, there is a large gap between her score and the last person to make the cutoff. Why would the OP want her DD to go to a school where her DD is 30 marks off the next kid in her class?

I can't help but think that the OP is too caught up in the idea of her DD going to the GS and ignoring what is best for her DD. I think that she said early on that they only did light prep because she didn't want to subject her DD to the stress. Yup, being in a form year where the 'thickest' kid still scored 30 points more isn't going to stress her out.

Going by the OP's words the non-selective that she was allocated is 'outstanding'. The OP should seriously consider whether this school is better suited to her DD rather than pursue the thought that GS is better and my DD should go to the better school.

lougle · 21/06/2013 11:07

I'm sure Perma will think through the issues for her DD, Forma. This thread is about the legal status of the appeal and how erroneous the decision is

tiggytape · 21/06/2013 11:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FormaLurka · 21/06/2013 11:09

I have no experience or knowledge about appeals and offers procedures so I'm not going to comment on whether the GS offer should stand. I just want to say that people are so caught up on the legal technicalities that they are ignoring whether the GS is the right school for the DD.

From what I read, I don't think that she is. Sure the mum thinks that her DD is 'GS material' but if that was a valid selection criteria I would have been admitted to Oxbridge.

tiredaftertwo · 21/06/2013 11:19

I think all this questioning is rather rude. Yes, the OP asked for technical and legal help about a technical and legal issue - that is what the thread was about. If people would like to debate what sort of child is suited to GS and under what circumstances, perhaps they could do it somewhere else, and allow somebody with a distressed child failed by the system to access the technical and legal help she needs?

The OP has made it clear she is aware of all the other issues, has considered them carefully and reached certain conclusions, which is reasonable, even if you disagree or would make a different decision (if you knew her child and the school in question and the local educational landscape well, which of course none of us do). She is not and never has been asking for advice on these aspects, nor has she failed to stay within the law or the rules.

Perma, good luck with the next stage and with getting your dd to buy into the idea of the other school. You have sounded really thoughtful and sensible in all your posts.

lougle · 21/06/2013 11:22

I'm shocked that someone would have the audacity to consider themselves in a position to judge whether a child they have never met has the aptitude for a selective school!

LaVolcan · 21/06/2013 11:24

FormaLurka - if you had been given a firm offer for Oxbridge and then had it taken away, would you be quite so sanguine, or would you be spitting blood? Why bother to make legal contracts if you are just going to rip them up?

Don't forget that this mess which is non of Perma's making has also cost her the chance of making a timely appeal for her second choice which from her first posting would seem to have been her preferred option.

Yellowtip · 21/06/2013 11:25

tiggy my reasoning is less focussed on the fact that the correct offer was made on March 1st so the child had already gone through the whole disappointment thing and far more on the fact that legally I would expect the admissions criteria peculiar to grammar schools to mean that the considerations are different. I don't have a difficulty in flipping the order of the process because on your interpretation of how things should be done (cut and dried at stage one) there would be no consideration of the academic criterion, which to my mind is crucial.

I don't really mind looking silly if I'm proved wrong. I still maintain that this is the right decision for the right reasons.

gazzalw · 21/06/2013 11:26

I am a bit Confused by all the legalese to do with the appeals process - and also sneakingly impressed at the knowledge-base exhibited by some Mumsnetters around this issue....It's awe-inspiring to have this expertise to tap into.... I for one, am learning loads from all of this....

What alarms me is that if Perma's appeal does mark a turning point in the way in which mistakes in the allocation of secondary school places are dealt with by "the powers that be", surely it will give the Councils carte blanche to be less than rigourous in ensuring that places are not allocated mistakenly in the years to come?

A question to those of you who work in Admissions: just how common are such mistakes?

HabbaDabbaDoo · 21/06/2013 11:27

Focusing on just the advice being sought and not getting judgy pants about the poster asking for advice. Hmmm. It will never catch on here on MN.