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.

But I think that is the whole idea, we have no way to know whether a different score would've led to a different outcome.
But as the whole system is based on norm-referenced bands - and he wasn't in the right band, no one could say he has been fairly processed following the admission policy.

It is not our only argument, by any means, but we think it challenges the fairness of the process for our son. Even if it just means his band is changed for the waiting list.

You, and other posters, say things like 'you let him sit the test'.

He saw a doctor at 5pm, got a prescription, with the test the next morning at 8:40am (saturday) - I had no opportunity to call the school and enquiry, and had been explicitly told by school everyone must take the test.

, 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?

- 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.

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’.

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.

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

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…

This is too hypothetical. Saying if he was in a different band might have led to a different outcome, with no evidence it would have done is a pointless argument. The whole point of a banding test is to be fair to all ability bands. It doesn't always work in practise, but with no evidence he would have got a space from another band more easily, it's not going to get you anywhere.

With random allocation there is a degree of luck. You may have been unlucky, but within the published admissions policy, so it's not unfair.

Rather than trying to argue he should have got a place, you would be better off focusing on your arguments about why he really needs this school.

If he was unwell enough for you to make gp appointment tbe previous day, you or your h (iirc he is a primary head) could have checked the contingency plan for those circumstances. It does sound very much that you only considered this after allocations did not go your way.

@OutofIdeas86 does the fact that every poster is raising the same point about the banding give you any pause over whether this is the right thing or not?

Just to hammer the point, ypu say ypu were told by school you ‘had’ to take the test. This would be the school your husband is head of which your son attends? So you’re asking yourself for advice? And giving yourself the incorrect advice? And if you mean the school at which your son took the test, there is no way they will have said he had to go ahead, ill or not. They would have signposted you to the medical test

I think the key word is 'likelihood'. Not whether he would have got a place. But whether his likelihood was affected. Anyone could argue that in a parallel universe they might have been randomly selected. Saying "well, if he'd been in a different band he might have got a place" is a bit like saying "well, if they'd done the random selection on Tuesday like they usually do instead of Wednesday, he might have got a place." He might have. But his likelihood would have been the same. And in your case his likelihood was increased, not decreased.
Your son could still get a place from the waiting list, OP. Don't reduce his chances for an argument that isn't going to get you anywhere.

The head of the SECONDARY school obviously, why would his primary school mandate we attend an entrance test for a secondary school.

I've repeated this 1000000 times - gp told us tonsilitis at 17:11 on a friday, test is scheduled at 8:40 saturday morning....over 2000 children taking the test - we have to drop our son at a sports hall door. Where is this opportunity to get all this information?

The waiting list is totally independant of the appeal - why do you think telling an independent panel he was ill when he took the test would impact his waiting list position?

Not everyone has read the admission policy. Norm-referenced banding is extremely complex, they even layer in date of birth, it's a nightmare to decipher and I have been told by someone who appealed for this school 2 years ago that there are a lot of challenges about the transparency of their selection.

This school assigns every child a number sorted high to low, in each band. When the score is the same they sort by DOB and then alphabetically.

I think its worth challenging that essentially the band and his lottery number wasn't fairly allocated, because it wasn't. If mock SATs place him 10 points higher.

I still don’t understand why having a different “ number” would make him less likely to have been given a place if the numbers are randomly selected. So, if he should have been number 25 and instead was number 125, the chances of being randomly selected is still the same- he is only given one number!

I think its worth challenging that essentially the band and his lottery number wasn't fairly allocated, because it wasn't. If mock SATs place him 10 points higher.

The band was fairly allotted based on test marks. Later information provided by you/GP may mean it was incorrectly allotted.

Do you actually know the mock SAT score range of the band above yours? I would imagine on the day many kids did somewhat better or somewhat worse than their mock SAT score would indicate.

The lottery number wasn’t unfairly allotted, it’s a lottery number.

The panel cannot rerun the lottery for the current or the higher band. So, again, how does this help your appeal? Not the debating society argument about the hypothetical situation where your son had been put in the higher band before the lottery. What do you want the panel to do with your argument?

ETA your argument seems to stop at the point that you think it’s perfectly clear he’s in the wrong band, but without a way to “remedy” the past random allocation… so what?

I think you are being disingenuous about the severity of his illness and your decisions on the day of the test.
You are well enough educated and vocal enough to be writing all these posts and challenging the decision, but you expect us to believe that you thought an unwell child still ‘had’ to do an exam with no exceptions.
Anyone with half the intelligence you are presenting knows that if a child is honestly unwell there will be some sort of work around ( especially if they have a doctors appointment and antibiotics as proof). I just do not believe that you could not have recognised the need to keep him home that day and figure out the next steps after the event.

Agree, and op would have felt vindicated in making him sit the test had the outcome been favourable. It seems very odd that a head of a local primary school could not have found information about plans for illness on the day of admissions test even if they were not fully aware of the detail. At what point during the day did you think he was unwell enough to need a gp appointment. Did he attend school that Friday?

@OutofIdeas86 you may have mentioned it in a prior thread, but did you submit the medical stuff on the Monday after the banding exam, or only after bands were allotted?

Certainly in public exams, any mitigating circumstance information eg taken ill during exam must be sent as soon as possible afterwards - there will be a cut off date - even if it was not possible to do so before. It can’t wait until results are known.

With the different appeals you have going in, the chaotic way you handled the application process for change of phase is the greatest detriment to your child. Not the varying ways you have sought to claim that all of the schools have made mistakes or been unfair to your child.

You've claimed he was ill, that you forgot to submit proof of faith, that your husband has to be registered as living somewhere else in order to be regarded as a carer, that he's great at drama, but hasn't done much but has done loads; at this point, you're better off (and more to the point, so is he) with you going with the accepted place and then applying for an in year place if he doesn't gain one through normal movements between now and September.

@NeverDropYourMooncup yy - and staying on the waiting list for the faith school as likely to be highest up the list there once the faith evidence update has been accepted

OP, I can tell you've been frustrated by a lot of the responses you've gotten on this forum. I know that they haven't been encouraging. I also understand that this whole school place allocation result feels unfair because your DS has ended up without a place at any of your listed preferences; as a parent you desperately want the best for your child. The unfortunate truth is that the bar for a successful appeal to this school is likely to be incredibly high - they're very oversubscribed, they already agreed with the LA to offer over PAN for a second year in a row, and last year's appeal success rate was 1 out of 42.

The common ability/banding test illness argument is just not a great one to begin with, because the reality is that there will be plenty of children who didn't achieve the same score they did on mock SATS at their home schools (for better or worse), being in a higher band doesn't give you priority for admissions, and within the bands applicants are selected at random once you reach the last admissions criteria. The only way this might have any shot of being convincing is if you could present numbers that the odds in band B and C would have been dramatically better than the odds in band D because band D had a very disproportionate number of places taken up by LAC, FSM, staff children, siblings, aptitude places, and catchment. Even then it's honestly not a strong argument. And if the odds were better in his tested band then it's completely worthless to point out.

His drama aptitude score being one point off the highest mark is worth including when (if) you discuss why it's important for your DS as an individual to attend a school with strong drama provision. But there's nothing there in terms of unfairness of the process towards your DS specifically. There are 4 drama spots, 4 music spots, and 4 dance spots (for a total of 12 performing arts) plus 9 sports spots, and students could sit any or all of the tests if they chose. There has to be a set number of places for each aptitude so there will always be a cutoff score for each and the tests don't need to be standardized from one aptitude to another (so it doesn't matter whether only 4 students scored above an 88% on the dance test but 24 did on drama). Nothing you've described has unfairly disadvantaged your child specifically in getting a place.

Focus your appeal on why the specific provisions of the appeal school are vital in addressing individual needs of your DS - that's your best shot.

Great post @FlockofSquirrels

For the GP to have diagnosed an illness at 17.11 on Friday your child must have been feeling unwell for some time beforehand , both for you to realise he was unwell and to have obtained a GPs appointment. Plenty of time to have found out what the procedure for sick children is, even if it appears that your HT husband has no idea himself, or no contacts to approach for advice!