I'm going to make something crystal clear to forma and hubba and anyone else who think I'm hellbent on getting my DD into grammar school.
IF THIS HAD INVOLVED OUR 2ND CHOICE SCHOOL WHICH IS A NON-GRAMMAR SCHOOL WE WOULD BE APPEALING ON EXACTLY THE SAME BASIS
The fact that it's a GS is incidental - it just muddies the waters because of the selective nature of admissions.
forma comment about her GS ability has been covered to death in this thread.
The issue of deserving a place has come up yet again. This isn't about any child deserving a place. This is about fairness. You could say hundreds of GS entrants deserve a place because they are academically capable of doing well at GS. But capacity issues means a fair selection criteria needs to be implemented meaning that hundreds don't get a place. In our case, it's about fairness. We were told she had a place. Then it was withdrawn.
It's this last issue that's a real sticking point. I agree with much of Yellowtip's reasoning but without intending to be patronizing to anyone I'll point out as follows:
Legislation is supported (for want of a better word) by Codes and Guidance which must be adhered to when applying legislation.
Where there are grey areas (in this instance, when can an offer be withdrawn) the Code is silent. This is where case law steps in, and decisions of the regulator bodies such as the LGO. And this is where I struggle a little in our case. I don't think there is precedent for a child under the cutoff point who is appealing to have a GS offer reinstated who originally had a place at a non-GS.
However, and this is the critical point I think, the crucial issue is not the nature of the school but the length of time the child has had to 'get used to the idea' to use the judge's language. It's having that reasonable expectation of a place and acting on it. Seven days is too long. And so, the fact that it's a GS is irrelevant as the law stands at present.
Looking to the future, the LGO equivalent (EFA) should apply the law as is stands - it has no choice as it is bound by the law and existing Codes of Practice and Guidance. However, (and this is particularly for Yellowtip's benefit, it can take the view that the panel's decision was reasonable in the circumstances even though wrong in law, and the EFA could - and probably would - then recommend to the Secretary of State for Education/Education Minister etc - that the existing Codes need amending.
In the meantime, the law takes precedent even though you might think the outcome is not reasonable/fair/just.
I haven't even read all the latest posts yet!!!
I meant to say how Little Perma was/is. She was utterly devastated, nearly had a panic attack when i told her. She was heartbroken. But she's brighter this morning, though when she woke up she said: "It isn't a nightmare is it?"