Grammar School Appeals

Two situations where this ground has real strength

For selective schools, an effective appeal usually rests on one of two things: a specific, evidenced issue with how the entrance test or assessment was actually administered, or - where the child narrowly missed the qualifying score - genuinely exceptional, documented circumstances that the panel should weigh alongside that narrow miss.

Test administration issues

• A documented access arrangement (extra time, a quiet room, and similar) that was requested but not actually applied on the day
• Contemporaneous evidence of illness, disruption, or a specific incident on the test day that was reported to the school or test centre at the time
• A discrepancy between the child’s actual answers/marking and the score recorded

Evidence reported at the time carries far more weight than a reason raised for the first time at the appeal - if something happened on the day, documenting it as soon as possible (even a contemporaneous email) makes a real difference later.

If the school already reviewed or re-marked the result

Where a school has already carried out its own review of a test result or borderline score, an appeal panel’s role is narrower than it might sound: it can only consider whether that review was carried out in a fair, consistent and objective way - it does not re-do the review itself. If no proper review took place at all, or the one that did happen wasn’t fair, the panel may instead look at whether there’s evidence your child is of the required academic standard, rather than only checking the review process.

Near-miss cases

Where the child narrowly missed the qualifying score, a panel may weigh exceptional, evidenced circumstances - but this needs to be a specific, documented situation (illness, bereavement, a disrupted test environment) rather than a general sense that the mark should have been higher.

Where this ground tends to fail

A general belief that your child is capable of grammar-school-standard work, without more, is a weak version of this ground on its own. Academic evidence may still be relevant, particularly where a child narrowly missed the qualifying standard, but it’s generally strongest when combined with evidence explaining why the test result may not reflect the child’s true ability - for example a specific circumstance on the day. Panels do not normally re-mark examination papers themselves.

Common mistakes parents make with this ground

• Raising a test-day issue for the first time at the appeal, rather than reporting it to the school or test centre at the time it happened
• Requesting an access arrangement but not confirming, in writing, before the test, that it had actually been approved and would be in place
• Arguing general ability or potential, rather than pointing to a specific, evidenced problem with how the test was administered or marked
• Treating a near miss on its own as automatically exceptional, without documented circumstances that explain why the score doesn’t reflect the child’s actual ability on the day

Evidence that helps this ground

Contemporaneous records carry the most weight: an email or letter reporting a problem on the test day, written confirmation of an approved access arrangement, medical evidence that covers the test date itself rather than a general diagnosis with no date link, or documentation of the specific incident that affected performance.

Quick FAQ