Disabilities and the appeal

[Globalinc]

mm, I share your frustration, and in the end decided to write an email so that I could have them clarify how they reached their decision. I don't recall any other questions besides the one where I was asked about why I though the EP hadn't recommended anything other than a "watching brief" under recommendations for school work/exams. I had no knowledge of the EQA prior to receiving my letter about not being successful (like you, we were new to the information in the report), but don't remember any mention of this or questioning around it.

In our case, the panel seem to have latched on to the fact that DC can cope and not struggling too much on a day to day basis now- but actually, I'd made quite a point of mentioning earlier problems to highlight recent progression and improvement (indeed, I went so far as to say my DC was "floating around" at school when he was younger, as he was so disorganised!), supported by comments from various reports to highlight the development of coping skills over time. I also now have spoken with the Dyspraxia Foundation (great organisation, decided to join) and they too expressed surprised that a panel would not consider a diagnosis as a disability (MG- I did clarify the point that you can have a diagnosis by EP or paediatrician- from what I was told, you can have both, but this is not necessary, and it is the former that deals with the cognitive elements). Regardless, the development of coping skills does not mean that you don't still struggle to do things that you achieve with a disability.

Evidence taken into account', it makes reference to the supportive HTR, SAT predictions and EP report being considered

- this is worded pretty carefully- mine says "evidence provided by you which included, but was not limited to..."- in other words, they could have considered the EP report but not mentioned it in this paragraph.

Maybe ask for the transcripts?

[Etienne]

Hi, mm.

Can they decide this disability aspect without raising it at all in the appeal discussion?

Yes, I would have thought so, if they were dealing with it just as a routine matter. Best not to get 'hung up' on disability, because disability leading to discrimination is not going to be an issue here, unless the authority knew about it - or could reasonably have been expected to know about it - before the 11+, and then failed in its duty to take reasonable measures.

There's more of an issue about whether the panel properly considered an extenuating circumstance - but the appeal would still not have succeeded unless the panel felt persuaded by the academic evidence.

They ...... are not sufficiently satisfied she is academically suitable at this time.

This may have been the main reason behind the panel's decision.

[Globalinc]

unless the panel felt persuaded by the academic evidence.

Why wouldn't the consideration of disability affect the way that the panel viewed the evidence provided?

[Morning Glory]

In my DS's case last year disability was considered in the first instance - it was concluded that the 11+ was not an appropriate way to test his ability and his 11+ scores were disregarded.

First hurdle over.

They then have to consider the academic evidence and whether they felt he was suitable for GS.

Luckily we got over this hurdle too.

But you could fly over hurdle one but still fail at hurdle two.

[Globalinc]

Agree with hurdle one, but I am not clear that the panel considered the dyspraxia when looking at work or marks (the latter being high). Perhaps they saw books and thought they were a mess? There is still work to do in the writing area- it's far from perfect.

Our letter states that they considered, among other things, "the mention of dyspraxia". I would feel more comfortable if it indicated that they considered the evidence in light of the dyspraxia. It doesn't seem possible to consider evidence justly without accepting the diagnosis.

[mm23292]

Thank you again for your response Etienne. I agree I should not get too hung up about the disability thing, but I really do believe that it was the weaknesses highlighted by that 'disability' that were central to the decision. I presented everything, as I had put it warts and all..but in reality, that was a bit harsh. Her reports merely showed her massive leap from Year 4 to Year 5..SAT scores of 4a, except 4b for writing, due to spelling weakness..and mock results just done..all 5's...all well on course I'm sure you would agree.
The HTR was very supportive, and most importantly, credible. There are not many ability sets of 30 children in a Bucks school, where 29 go through..and she is massively involved in extra curricular activities for school representation at the same time...no compromise anywhere. The only weaker point, was the VR CAT score of 122 two weeks before the test..but still not bad for someone who has difficulty spelling and has the panel helpfully pointed out, has a 'weak working memory'.
Why on the above basis, would a child be deemed not academically suitable for GS, and particularly when she has more than held her own amongst a large group of children who are without question considered able?
The panel seemed to accept the findings of the EP in terms of them suggesting to me, and ultimately deciding. that a 'spelling difficulty and a relatively weak working memory' would hinder progress in GS..whereas as an undiagnosed and therefore, untreated condition, it should have been considered as a VR test constraint, because as the EQA guidleines clearly state...'the usual coping methods for someone with dyslexia can break down under pressure, and that needs to be considered also'.
Regardless of the fact that I am very happy for my daughter to go to our alternative choice school, I find it hard to accept a decision that is decided inappropriately, and that is what I am struggling to come to terms with.
I have requested the clerk notes, so in the meantime, I simmer and stew

[mm23292]

Exactly Globalinc, that is the pill that cracks the tooth for me...'It doesn't seem possible to consider evidence justly without accepting the diagnosis'...and in my case, they considered it enough to question her suitability for GS..yet seem to have rejected it out of hand when trying to explain the reasons why she floundered in the test. It is very confusing...

[Etienne]

unless the panel felt persuaded by the academic evidence.

Why wouldn't the consideration of disability affect the way that the panel viewed the evidence provided?

Hi, Globalinc

I was talking about the criteria - extenuating circumstances & academic evidence - as set out in the county booklet: http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/assets/conten ... t_2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the IAP will then consider any clear evidence from you to support your claim that your child is of the required academic standard.

The academic evidence could indeed be affected by the extenuating circumstances, but a panel would still have to make a judgement about whether - in their view - it is sufficient. (I've written elsewhere that cases involving chronic conditions can be particularly difficult to decide, especially if all areas of the curriculum have been affected over a long period of time.)

The procedure where disability discrimination is concerned is different - the panel would be required to judge whether a qualifying score would have been reached if 'reasonable adjustments' had been put in place for the 11+ tests. I reiterate - this is for disability discrimination, not disabilty. As far as I can tell, the EQA is not going to apply in your case (or mm's) because the LA has the 'lack of knowledge' defence.

[mm23292]

Hi MG, did your letter specifically make reference to those hurdles? I am just wondering if the letter should make specific reference to the extenuating circumstance and whether it was accepted or not. And then do likewise with the academic evidence. It would make things so much clearer if this is how the rejection was conveyed. A letter which basically states they don't think DC is suitable, and no other explanation whatsoever, is just not very helpful at all!

[Globalinc]

Thank you E, for your reply; I am clear on what you are saying- but maybe I am still missing something? In the UK, many universities (including ours) use stickers for specific learning difficulties. When a piece of work or exam comes through with a sticker, I am required to view the work accordingly.

I am not trying to be stubborn or difficult. I really don't understand why the panel would not also be required to do the same? I do accept that they could still come to the same conclusion