Welcome, however reluctant!

Imo wrote:
1. There was very inconsistent teaching throughout the year (8 teachers in total). It was all openly discussed with school who were totally cooperative and I understand it is sadly the case in many schools. However, I was particularly worried about the quality of maths teaching which has always been her strongest subject and would expect to exceed her other scores quite considerably - not the case.
I have proof of email correspondence throughout the year expressing my concerns and arranging to meet with the school to discuss further. Firstly, is this admissible evidence
I think so, although take care not to swamp the panel with too much email correspondence from throughout the year.
If the school is indeed co-operative, the best approach would be to see if the head would be willing to mention issues such as the 8 teachers in total on the headteacher review form.
Quote:
and if so, the emails mention names so should these be omitted? In one case I also go on to mention other concerns about one particular teachers behaviour - should I blank this bit out?
It would be diplomatic to do so.
Quote:
2. She was very anxious the week of the test due to a family illness among other things. I wrote to the school (on the morning of the mock as she had been really upset going to school that day) to warn them and ask them to keep an eye on her.
Good because the head should be able to confirm this.
Quote:
She came straight out on test day and said she had completely panicked, not helped by the disruption caused due to the problem questions, when her class were left while the issue was flagged up (understandable, had to be done). I realise mentioning the disruption is not ideal, but as her VR score is lower than the others and I had flagged up she was anxious a few days earlier do you think I could mention this?
Briefly.