Rob Clark wrote:
There seem to have been one or two threads recently from people who have been appealing on the basis of medical extenuating circumstances, so I was wondering whether these ever succeed and if so, in what circumstances?
Could I ask Capers and others who have experience of sitting on appeal panels whether they have ever accepted a child’s medical condition as the primary reason for allowing an appeal?
If so, what swung the argument? Was it the evidence that was provided (and by whom, HT, medical personnel, someone else…)?
If not, was it because panels find it difficult to quantify the impact a medical condition has? Or because it’s hard to compare different medical conditions?.
Sorry - been away for the weekend!
Yep, medical evidence has swung appeals - both ways!
It could be genuine illness on the day of the exam - for instance sickening for plague that only became apparent in the evening after the exam, and accompanied by a letter from the hospital giving full details. Sickening for a cold, accompanied by a hand written sick note would not swing it.
OR long term medical problem that genuinely affected the outcome of the exam - where the child would have been capable of passing, but the medical problem prevented them from doing so. Now there needs to be proof that the child IS bright enough to be at a grammar school. Saying that they're Autistic would not do, but Aspergers end of Autistic might be enough (if the panel felt the child would be best suited to a grammar ed). Looking back on my own schooling, there were several, if not more, people in my year who probably had aspergers. I sometimes wonder about myself!