Appeal update / banding and aptitude test results

[OutofIdeas86]

I know i've posted a few time on this topic, to people's annoyance, but we had an update from the school yesterday (their appeal response has been sent to us).

It includes result of our DS CAT4 assessment data and his aptitude test results.

In the appeal we are arguing that due to tonsilitis (as diagnosed by a doctor a day) he wasn't fairly/ correctly banded.
His primary school has been us a CAT4 scaled score of 108, his CAT4 assessment was 98. So there is a big variation. I guess our argument here is he was incorrectly banded, and in not being offered a place was disadvantage by this.

On the drama aptitude test, he scored 24/25 - but only 4 children got a drama place, they all got 25/25. But on the other offered aptitude test - dance, sport, music, children with as low as 88% scoring were successful. I guess my argument here is he was unfortunate to not be selected with a 96% score.

I don’t think there is much new in your update, sorry. You let him sit the test on the day, presumably having signed a fit and well form. Even if he did underperform there is no guarantee he would get a space in the other banding if that was random selection. He did not score as highly as rhe other students in the drama test. Yes, he scored well but not enough. I think you need to accept (as many said on your other thread(s)) that your arguments have little merit and are not likely to win, especially when up again 25 or 100 other appeals.

I don't think you will get very far with the drama test. I understand your disappointment, but it was applied fairly. Either the drama test was easier or the standard was higher, but the places went to the top scorers. He likely wasn't the only one who scored 24.

Again I understand your frustration about him being ill, but you can't evidence he would have got a place if he had been in a higher band. It's hard when you feel he has just missed out twice, but you can't 'add them together' so to speak.

Whilst you can make the case outlined above, it's unfortunately likely to be pretty weak unless you have other strong arguments as to why he really needs to attend this school.

So what is missing from your post is the numbers admitted from the band you say he should have been in? If (say) he was banded in band 3, which saw 22 DC selected out of 50, and he should have been in band 1, which saw 22 DC selected out of 30 (numbers totally random and no idea if that's even how it works, or if it is a % from each band) – in that case, yes he would have had a higher chance of a place. Still no guarantee then. I think it’s very weak in terms of appeals, sorry.

And the drama thing – well yes that is close but not close enough. If the cut-off for a 9 at GCSE history is 85% and you score 83% – well that's a good mark and a strong grade but not good enough for a 9. And maybe the % for a 9 in geography, which you did not take, is only 75%. That's life. You can't use that to argue that your history grade should be a 9. There has to be a cut-off and there has to be someone who is just below it.

The schools admission policy states;

• Alternative evidence, such as recent school assessments, may be used if a child is too unwell for standard testing.
• The allocation process aims to ensure fairness and accuracy, including consideration of extenuating circumstances.

The Appeals code;

• Appeals may be made if illness or exceptional circumstances affected test performance (Sections 2.6, 2.8).
• Panels must assess whether allocation materially affected the likelihood of securing a place (Section 2.14).

I feel both the CAT4 Illness and the aptitude test falls under this?

I guess I am not saying do I have enough to win, but more is this a credible argument?

No, they aren’t a credible argument as you.let your son take the test having presumably signed a fit and well form. I’m a panel member and every year we have parents who claim the underperformance on the day was due to an illness yet the parent let them sit the test. The exceptions would be when a child becomes ill during a test which couldn’t be foreseen or the child has a chronic illness which likely wouldn’t be any better for the test reserved for those with medical issues on the original date. That is the route you should have gone down. Ignorance (especially from a child whose parent is a head teacher) is no excuse. I sense your desperation but you have been advised over and over that your reasons are not credible.

But you made a choice for him to sit the test when unwell. What was the contingency process in event of illness? Would 108 have really changed the band?

Drama was a near miss but others did better on the day. He may not even have got a place had 3 scoring 25 and 1 scoring 24 did, or maybe more than 4 scored 25, what is the tiebreak criteria in that case? If one turned their place down do they continue down the wl for drama places? Where might he be on that?

But this isn't an entry test - it is for the purposes of banding

I can see your point if it was an 11+ type test.

If they've out him in Band D, and his class teacher says from school data he should be in Band B - that feels like a clear discepency?

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.

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?

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!

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?

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?

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.

IIRC, his sports aptitude was part of your appeal. The board are going to ask whether he sat the sports aptitude test, and what he scored on it. And if he didn't, why not?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Yes so it's a bit like this.
There were more spaces free for 'random allocation' in his tested band, than the band we are presenting he should've been in.

But because it is a randomised allocation, is there a point in saying he was still disadvantaged by not being considered in the 'right' band

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.

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.

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?

A small score difference can push you into a different band and significantly affect your allocation chances. It is a randomised process, but he was certainly in the wrong band - a different band may have resulted in a different outcome.

I guess our point is, even if the policy itself is applied “correctly” (placing him in the band according to test score), the outcome cannot be considered fair because his true ability is not reflected, due to medicated illness.

So disadvantage caused by circumstances.

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.

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.