Unfortunately our SR was unsuccessful.
We are going to appeal as we feel our case was strong:
1) Close miss (117) – VR 127, Maths 104, NV 110
2) Very strong HT recommendation, 1:1
3) strong current (and improving through the years) attainment:
End Y5Y6 Predicted
ReadingGDS 111-120
WritingEXS GDS
MathsGDS 111-120
4) Extenuating circumstances with supporting Dr letter and SEN head from school (as well as statement from HT referencing that ET would have contributed to test outcome).
In SR decision letter received, we were told:
A) the gap between Maths score relative to VR score is not explained by ET.
Implies they think ET carry more weight when child scores badly across all the sections (!)
B) the academic info provided does not suggest GS suitability – how can they say that when HT provides 1:1 recommendation and Y5/Y6 attainment is highest across all 3 components (with exception of EXS in writing for Y5)? I know I can’t question judgement here, which brings me onto whether process is FOC….
To me A) raises the following issue: Is every selection review panel being fair and consistent by applying the same treatment and effectively rejecting candidates with low scores on certain sub-components of test?
There is no minimum pass score required for each sub-component, simply an aggregate score of 121 - technically a child could get 152 (VR) /90 / 90 and still achieve 121 overall.
Their argument should imply that no child with a certain differential between highest and lowest sub-component mark should pass a SR (assuming no ET).
Is that consistently applied to all SR panels, as it seems quite arbitrary and subjective in this instance?
Any other thoughts welcome.
We are going to appeal as we feel our case was strong:
1) Close miss (117) – VR 127, Maths 104, NV 110
2) Very strong HT recommendation, 1:1
3) strong current (and improving through the years) attainment:
End Y5Y6 Predicted
ReadingGDS 111-120
WritingEXS GDS
MathsGDS 111-120
4) Extenuating circumstances with supporting Dr letter and SEN head from school (as well as statement from HT referencing that ET would have contributed to test outcome).
In SR decision letter received, we were told:
A) the gap between Maths score relative to VR score is not explained by ET.
Implies they think ET carry more weight when child scores badly across all the sections (!)
B) the academic info provided does not suggest GS suitability – how can they say that when HT provides 1:1 recommendation and Y5/Y6 attainment is highest across all 3 components (with exception of EXS in writing for Y5)? I know I can’t question judgement here, which brings me onto whether process is FOC….
To me A) raises the following issue: Is every selection review panel being fair and consistent by applying the same treatment and effectively rejecting candidates with low scores on certain sub-components of test?
There is no minimum pass score required for each sub-component, simply an aggregate score of 121 - technically a child could get 152 (VR) /90 / 90 and still achieve 121 overall.
Their argument should imply that no child with a certain differential between highest and lowest sub-component mark should pass a SR (assuming no ET).
Is that consistently applied to all SR panels, as it seems quite arbitrary and subjective in this instance?
Any other thoughts welcome.
Statistics: Posted by alpha40 — Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:22 pm