Hi,
Sadly we received an unsuccessful SR decision. Wondering if we have grounds to appeal. DS is upset, as he loves the school and all his friends seem to have passed even though apparently "less academic" on school metrics. Apologies in advance for this long post - hoping it covers all the important details.
Score was 113. We knew it would be tricky, but thought our academic and extenuating circumstance (EC) evidence was strong. In brief:
- Headteacher recommendation 1.1 (Bucks school) and application supported by teachers. Head apparently not overy-optimistic (so heads says). Very strong statement of support from head saying all DS's teachers were stunned DS didn't pass.
- Consistent, high results:
•Year 4 and 5 top group for Maths and English (at high-performing school)
•Year 4 and 5 prizes for academic performance
•Year 4 CAT average 129 (all elements between 127 and 131)
•Year 5 CAT average: 129 (all elements between 122 and 139)
•Year 4 and Year 5 CAT verbal reasoning score 130 each year (highlighted to panel as this was the worst area in the STT - 111)
•Highest predictions for KS2 of 111-120 (reading and maths) and GDS (writing).
The ECs (prolonged anxiety and insomnia) were substantiated by DS's doctor and headteacher, including before test). The panel said they agreed with the end of Y6 predictions. They also acknowledged the ECs and said they "partially explained the shortfall of marks". The reasons for rejection were:
1. did not qualify in any element of STT and considerable shortfall of marks.
2. the ECs evidence does not demonstrate that the circs set out significantly affected the score.
3. the panel took into account the ECs but did not feel the ECs wholly explained the shortfall.
We are aware we need to deal with FCO first. Initial thoughts on the reasons provided:
On 1 (Did not qualify in any element of STT and considerable shortfall of marks): This is flawed in our view as our argument was that the EC brought down his performance across all elements of the test. Surely if he had performed well in one or two elements then that would have been more of an indication that the ECs were not the root cause of the underperformance?
On 2: (The EC evidence does not demonstrate that the circs set out significantly affected the test score): Slightly baffled. How could any EC evidence "demonstrate that the circumstances significantly affected" the score? This is surely impossible unless the child sits a simultaneous exam where the circs are not present and passes the test. DS's doctor said they thought the ECs affected his mark and DS's headteacher said they noticed the impact and that it could be the only explanation given the otherwise impressive academic profile. What criteria did the panel use to decide the evidence did not demonstrate significant affect on the score if the two experts said it did? Some children pass SR on a score of 113 each year. Were their ECs assessed on the same criteria ours were? If the panel cannot answer this then it seems they cannot prove the decision was FCO?
On 3: (The panel took into account the ECs but did not feel they wholly explained the shortfall): a) The panel accepted the evidence partially explained the shortfall of marks. How is it possible for them to say what shortfall would be appropriate? I think Etienne made a comment elsewhere that Bucks said it was impossible to know in the context of special needs adjustment as every child is different (although can't find this now!) So how can they show they were fair in deciding here that the shortfall is too much? What objective criteria were used? b) We have found a previous case detailed on here which must involve the same headteacher as the support statement was worded almost identically. The academic position of that child was slightly worse (STT score of 112 and CAT averages and other academics a little lower, although close) and the parent said the ECs were minimal. The parent did not submit evidence beyond the headteacher's report but that child had a successful SR! Can we use that as evidence that the panel was not fair and consistent in DS's case? Or is the consistency test only applicable to our case (ie. need to show it was inconsistent in itself)? c) The panel said that the EC evidence was a doctor's letter evidencing consultation for prolonged anxiety and insomnia together with correspondence with the school regarding the issues DS was experiencing. However there is no mention of what the headteacher said about the significant effect the ECs had in the immediate run up to the STT. They only said that the ECs were substantiated by the head. This evidence is crucial to our case that the ECs significantly affected the mark in the STT. The form includes what seems to be a generic statement that "The panel considered all the evidence you provided for both academic and extenuating circs. Where information was included in your parent submission or other academic evidence was included in the headteacher's form then this was read and considered..." Is this enough as it was the evidence of ECs in the headteacher's form we wanted them to note, not only the academic evidence?
Apologies for the essay but it has actually been quite cathartic to write all this down! Thank you for reading and grateful for your valued help.
Sadly we received an unsuccessful SR decision. Wondering if we have grounds to appeal. DS is upset, as he loves the school and all his friends seem to have passed even though apparently "less academic" on school metrics. Apologies in advance for this long post - hoping it covers all the important details.
Score was 113. We knew it would be tricky, but thought our academic and extenuating circumstance (EC) evidence was strong. In brief:
- Headteacher recommendation 1.1 (Bucks school) and application supported by teachers. Head apparently not overy-optimistic (so heads says). Very strong statement of support from head saying all DS's teachers were stunned DS didn't pass.
- Consistent, high results:
•Year 4 and 5 top group for Maths and English (at high-performing school)
•Year 4 and 5 prizes for academic performance
•Year 4 CAT average 129 (all elements between 127 and 131)
•Year 5 CAT average: 129 (all elements between 122 and 139)
•Year 4 and Year 5 CAT verbal reasoning score 130 each year (highlighted to panel as this was the worst area in the STT - 111)
•Highest predictions for KS2 of 111-120 (reading and maths) and GDS (writing).
The ECs (prolonged anxiety and insomnia) were substantiated by DS's doctor and headteacher, including before test). The panel said they agreed with the end of Y6 predictions. They also acknowledged the ECs and said they "partially explained the shortfall of marks". The reasons for rejection were:
1. did not qualify in any element of STT and considerable shortfall of marks.
2. the ECs evidence does not demonstrate that the circs set out significantly affected the score.
3. the panel took into account the ECs but did not feel the ECs wholly explained the shortfall.
We are aware we need to deal with FCO first. Initial thoughts on the reasons provided:
On 1 (Did not qualify in any element of STT and considerable shortfall of marks): This is flawed in our view as our argument was that the EC brought down his performance across all elements of the test. Surely if he had performed well in one or two elements then that would have been more of an indication that the ECs were not the root cause of the underperformance?
On 2: (The EC evidence does not demonstrate that the circs set out significantly affected the test score): Slightly baffled. How could any EC evidence "demonstrate that the circumstances significantly affected" the score? This is surely impossible unless the child sits a simultaneous exam where the circs are not present and passes the test. DS's doctor said they thought the ECs affected his mark and DS's headteacher said they noticed the impact and that it could be the only explanation given the otherwise impressive academic profile. What criteria did the panel use to decide the evidence did not demonstrate significant affect on the score if the two experts said it did? Some children pass SR on a score of 113 each year. Were their ECs assessed on the same criteria ours were? If the panel cannot answer this then it seems they cannot prove the decision was FCO?
On 3: (The panel took into account the ECs but did not feel they wholly explained the shortfall): a) The panel accepted the evidence partially explained the shortfall of marks. How is it possible for them to say what shortfall would be appropriate? I think Etienne made a comment elsewhere that Bucks said it was impossible to know in the context of special needs adjustment as every child is different (although can't find this now!) So how can they show they were fair in deciding here that the shortfall is too much? What objective criteria were used? b) We have found a previous case detailed on here which must involve the same headteacher as the support statement was worded almost identically. The academic position of that child was slightly worse (STT score of 112 and CAT averages and other academics a little lower, although close) and the parent said the ECs were minimal. The parent did not submit evidence beyond the headteacher's report but that child had a successful SR! Can we use that as evidence that the panel was not fair and consistent in DS's case? Or is the consistency test only applicable to our case (ie. need to show it was inconsistent in itself)? c) The panel said that the EC evidence was a doctor's letter evidencing consultation for prolonged anxiety and insomnia together with correspondence with the school regarding the issues DS was experiencing. However there is no mention of what the headteacher said about the significant effect the ECs had in the immediate run up to the STT. They only said that the ECs were substantiated by the head. This evidence is crucial to our case that the ECs significantly affected the mark in the STT. The form includes what seems to be a generic statement that "The panel considered all the evidence you provided for both academic and extenuating circs. Where information was included in your parent submission or other academic evidence was included in the headteacher's form then this was read and considered..." Is this enough as it was the evidence of ECs in the headteacher's form we wanted them to note, not only the academic evidence?
Apologies for the essay but it has actually been quite cathartic to write all this down! Thank you for reading and grateful for your valued help.
Statistics: Posted by Prism123 — Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:50 pm