Disabilities and the appeal

[Morning Glory]

mm - we won our appeal so didn't get a rejection letter. I did however request the clerks notes as I was interested to see exactly what was considered and as I knew I was going to be requesting a Statuatory Assessment for DS, thought they would be useful in my next battle!!!

If you want more details with regards to the clerks notes I can PM you, just let me know.

MG

[Etienne]

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

Hi Globalinc

I understand your concern. At an appeal, of course, you have an opportunity to put these points to the panel - while, for their part, the panel has a duty to consider fully and properly all the evidence, and to "operate within education and other relevant legislation".

I've no way of knowing what happened in your case, but I hope your enquiries lead to some satisfactory answers - if not, you could consider asking the ombudsman to investigate.

[mm23292]

Having requested the clerks notes soon after we lost our appeal, I was almost loathe to open them yesterday when they eventually arrived. They have certainly reignited some feelings of discord over this whole process, particularly when the decision seems to have been unanimously founded on the basis of the report that was put forward as an additional extenuating circumstance. Careful not to label, as I had been advised, the panel certainly attempted to do that, and then in rejecting it, dismissed our appeal out of hand. The disability form was filled out with a 'dyslexia' contention, and every single summary on decision, made reference to the fact that the evidence was not conclusive enough to imply dyslexia, as it merely made references on the basis that it just 'may' be. The academic evidence was not even mentioned, other than a very brief summary in the notes somewhere.
So although the letter I had received, stated that DD was not deemed academically suitable, the notes indicate that the appeal was rejected on the basis of the extenuating evidence..all very confusing. This really does indicate to me, that it is down to how the appeal information is heard and collated on the day. The report was intended to try and explain a possible contribution towards underperformance, i.e....spelling weakness, regardless of any underlying reason, and we had the analysis of the 11plus tests that reflected this too. No time issues, comprehension and maths etc..all correct, she lost her marks on the questions which required words to be broken down. And despite all this, the panel concluded that without a formal diagnosis..it proved nothing.
It didn't help my frustration with these notes, to hear that a boy in her class, who has drawn complaint from a few parents in the past for how can I say it...extremely lewd and very concerning behaviour...is in ability sets lower than DD, scored 117 in the test...and won his appeal. And on top of that, she scored easy 5's in her SAT mocks, and I couldn't help but notice his red box 3 for literacy, and a very modest 4 for Maths on the screen while the results were being discussed. How on earth can this appeal process be so random?? I almost wish I had never appealed, particularly when we had another option available to us, it really was not worth the shadow of cynicism and doubt that it has managed to cast over us. In a way I think thank heavens she is out of the system altogether, despite the fact that our hard earned taxes will continue to contribute to a system that is so terribly flawed.
I did question at the outset, whether presenting a report that highlighted a weakness without actually having a formal diagnosis, could be a problem, and it seems I was right to question that. So for anyone reading this for future appeals, please beware.