Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: CRGS Failed Appeal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:51 am
Posts: 9293
There is a post here explaining how to send documents to the appeals box viewtopic.php?t=9907


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CRGS Failed Appeal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 2:22 pm
Posts: 6
Thank you. I have sent the document.

Specific points have not been recorded from the appeal, highlighting my son's scores in mocks as given by his school reference, and the clear comparison with the children who scored more than 350 and gained a place on first offer round. This is testament to my son's abilities and his likelihood of being offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied.

There is reference to 3 scores being under average, which I cannot correlate what that is in reference to.

There is no reference to the very important answer by the school to the question of how common is it for a child to be moved desks twice. The answer was given as no statistics available, however, it has only happened once before in the knowledge of the school representative, the Assistant Headmaster. This is a vital a point.

Many thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CRGS Failed Appeal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:26 pm
Posts: 8106
Hi

I've been looking through the clerk's notes of your appeal at Herman's request.

As far as I can see, your case was all about the admission arrangements, not on reasons which outweigh the prejudice to the school.

I think it would be worth seeing what view the ESFA take, but there is no guarantee of success.
For full details see: https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/ombudsman

I've drafted the following as possible grounds for a complaint. You will need to quote the paragraph numbers of the Appeals Code that I've mentioned.
Please check carefully. I don't know whether the invigilator's report was in the case papers - if it was, then please remove this reference.


    Our case was not handled correctly by the panel and clerk. It was based entirely on non-compliance with the admission arrangements, not on reasons which outweigh the prejudice to the school.

    The appeal has been classified in the clerk's notes as S2 ("the reasons for the preference are not sufficient to outweigh the prejudice - appeal dismissed") rather than S5 ("the panel is satisfied that the AA did not apply its published admission arrangements correctly and this was to the detriment of the appellant").

    The definition accompanying S5 does not comply with the Appeals Code.
    Para. 3.2 of the Code refers not to the "published admission arrangements", but more broadly to the "admission arrangements," which would cover issues such as proper administration of the test.

    The clerk's notes fail to record some important information in breach of para. 2.26 of the Code:
        Quote:
        Specific points have not been recorded from the appeal, highlighting my son's scores in mocks as given by his school reference, and the clear comparison with the children who scored more than 350 and gained a place on first offer round. This is testament to my son's abilities and his likelihood of being offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied.

        There is reference to three scores being under average, and I cannot correlate what that is in reference to.

        There is no reference to the very important answer by the school to the question of how common is it for a child to be moved desks twice. The answer was given as no statistics available. However, it has only happened once before in the knowledge of the school representative, the Assistant Headmaster. This is a vital point which can easily be verified with the Assistant Head.

    Section 9 of the clerk's notes (the school's summing up) is meaningless in this case because it makes no reference to the admission arrangements.

    Section 12 (the balancing stage) is irrelevant because this case had nothing to do with parental preference v. prejudice.
    There is a reference to the invigilator's report, but this was never included in the case papers in breach of para. 2.21(c) of the Appeals Code.

    Our main contention is that the panel failed to give proper consideration to para. 3.5(a) of the Appeals Code.
    Strictly speaking, according to the Code, the admission arrangements are a matter for stage one. However, it cannot be appropriate for appellants to have to discuss their private case at a group hearing.
    In fact, the clerk's notes appear to show that no decision on the admission arrangements was taken at the end of stage one, and that we were able to raise our concerns at stage two.
    Nevertheless, although the grounds for our appeal were very clear, the panel persisted in treating it as a prejudice case.

_________________
Etienne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2019