Diabetes

[Appeal Mum]

Hi Rob,

Having read through everything you have said, a couple of things came to mind.

My child also has Insulin dependent diabetes, I understand only to well how awful the condition is to manage.
I think because people are relatively aware of the condition, they assume they understand it.
My child also has the same trouble as yours with blood sugar readings, people generally take it more serious when he is suffering hypos. Mainly because it’s instant and very critical. However being a parent I know my child also suffers terribly at the other end of the spectrum, when he is hyper. His concentration is none existent and he cannot manage to focus on the most simplest of tasks.
My main concern is that diabetes is an extremely unpredictable condition and everything can affect blood sugars, I would certainly say that the added stress of the 11+ would almost certainly have played a contributing factor to your daughter’s readings that day.
This is all well known, documented findings and you should be able to have this confirmed pretty easily by your paediatric specialist diabetic nurse.

I’m also concerned that your child was not given any extra help, as you quite rightly say this condition does fall under the disability act and I would be inclined to take this matter further.

However along side these extenuating circumstances, you do need to focus primarily on your daughters academic capabilities. It is this that I believe wins appeals.

I wish you and your family all the luck in the world..

Take care..

AM

[Rob Clark]

Hi,

Thanks for the good wishes, I agree it’s a much more complex condition than people with only a passing knowledge of it realise.

We didn’t bother requesting extra time for our DD in the 11+ because, as I’m sure you will appreciate, if she was very high (or low), frankly 5 minutes’ more time wasn’t going to make any difference.

However, I know I’ve said it before, but I find it quite incomprehensible that the HT didn’t think DD had a medical condition worth mentioning…!

We are in fact appealing on academic grounds, but with the proviso that the Appeals Panel needs to fully understand the nature of DD’s condition and the possible impact thereof on her performance in any given one-off test.

[Rob Clark]

Dear Etienne and Sally-Anne,
Thank you so much for all the wonderful work you do here, even those of us who haven’t been successful really, really appreciate all your help and advice.

We’ve had a week now to reflect on our unsuccessful appeal and can’t quite shake the feeling that it wasn’t entirely satisfactory. I haven’t posted our full experience because it was so case-specific that I’m not sure how helpful it would be to anyone else – we had none of the normal questions, it all seemed aimed at establishing whether there had been discrimination (never part of our case) and our clerk was a fully qualified lawyer who was there ‘to clarify points of law’.

We’d be very grateful if you could answer a couple of questions:

The LA rep said that in light of the nature of our appeal he had gone back to the school to ask them for some more information. Is this normal? Should we have been informed that this was happening?

The LA rep reported back that the school now accepted they had under-estimated the effects of DD’s medical condition because ‘she copes so well we forget there is anything wrong with her’. However, he only brought this up in his summing up – is this acceptable? In a court of law you would not be allowed to introduce a new piece of evidence for the first time in the summing up without a very good reason.

We feel this should have been mentioned earlier, particularly since it was a crucial element of our case because of the bearing it had on DD’s CAT scores . We had no opportunity to explore this new ‘evidence’ properly.

Incidentally, we got no reaction at all from the panel to the point that HT had based her predictions solely on the CAT scores – shouldn’t they have acknowledged this? They also kept coming back to the fact that HT had ranked DD 30th which also probably shouldn’t have been allowed?

HT had previously admitted the school’s failings over DD’s medical care to us in private, but point-blank refused to put it on record, either in the HT’s summary or in the form of a letter, because they said if they did that for one child, they’d have to do it for everyone.

Our case was, in a nutshell, ‘could DD’s extenuating circumstances explain the shortfall in marks, given the other academic evidence’? While we accept the panel is at liberty to decide that they didn’t, we do want to be absolutely certain that they fully understood the nature and impact of her condition – particularly since it’s quite clear that the school did not.

Do you think it would be reasonable to request the panel’s notes? Not necessarily with a view to taking things any further, but just to satisfy ourselves that the extenuating circumstances were discussed and understood fully?

I’m not campaigning for DD (who seems quite happy and has been making plans to walk to new school with totpot’s DD!) so much as a better understanding of DD’s medical condition.

Thanks

[Guest55]

Rob,

Yes I would ask for the clerk's notes - these will help you know what factors were considered and whether the decision was split.

It will also help you decide whether to go to the Ombudsman.

[All Too Much]

Rob, I am following your case closely as we also have a Type 1 Diabetic son who failed the 11+ and we had an unsuccessful appeal - 4 years ago. We felt that the diabetes was not understood at all (he was diagnosed in January prior to the test in the Autumn).

The effect this lifetime, horrible illness has on a child is difficult for anyone to comprehend unless they experience it at first hand.

Will be watching closely.

All the best.

[Etienne]

Dear Rob

Sally-Anne is very busy at the moment, so I'll have a go at answering.

The LA rep said that in light of the nature of our appeal he had gone back to the school to ask them for some more information. Is this normal? Should we have been informed that this was happening?

I think it was right for the LA rep. to make enquiries and prepare for the hearing - after receiving your case - but I'm not sure whether you should have been informed.

The LA rep reported back that the school now accepted they had under-estimated the effects of DD’s medical condition because ‘she copes so well we forget there is anything wrong with her’. However, he only brought this up in his summing up – is this acceptable? In a court of law you would not be allowed to introduce a new piece of evidence for the first time in the summing up without a very good reason.
We feel this should have been mentioned earlier, particularly since it was a crucial element of our case because of the bearing it had on DD’s CAT scores . We had no opportunity to explore this new ‘evidence’ properly.

I agree with you.

Incidentally, we got no reaction at all from the panel to the point that HT had based her predictions solely on the CAT scores – shouldn’t they have acknowledged this?

Not necessarily at the time, but it would be interesting to see in the clerk's notes if the issue was mentioned later.

They also kept coming back to the fact that HT had ranked DD 30th which also probably shouldn’t have been allowed?

Did you query whether this ranking of 30th was legitimate? I suspect it may be a grey area.

Do you think it would be reasonable to request the panel’s notes? Not necessarily with a view to taking things any further, but just to satisfy ourselves that the extenuating circumstances were discussed and understood fully?

I think this would be entirely reasonable. The difficulty is that the notes will not be verbatim, but from the questions asked in the open hearing, and from the chair's summary of the key points afterwards, one should be able to form an impression of whether everything was properly considered. Write to Appeals, requesting the clerk's notes under the Data Protection Act, and enclosing a cheque for £10 made payable to BCC.

Thank you for your kind words, and I do wish the outcome had been otherwise.

DD .... seems quite happy and has been making plans to walk to new school with totpot’s DD!

That's good to hear!

Don't hesitate to ask if we can be of any further help.

[Sally-Anne]

Hi Rob

As Etienne mentions, I have been extremely busy.

I can only echo her comments, and say that I am very sad indeed for you and your DD that you were not successful.

My only question to you is what the "further information" was that the LA rep obtained from the school. What "new" information was disclosed during the hearing?

Regardless of my meandering thoughts, I hope that you have a good enough alternative for your DD for Year 7, and please do read my 12+ Sticky on Bucks.

Best wishes
Sally-Anne

[Rob Clark]

Hi,
Thanks for everyone's thoughts and good wishes, sorry I've not been able to reply over the weekend.

Etienne - we didn't exactly query the ranking of 30th, but we did point out that this was in a high-performing school where more than 30 children passed the 11+ each year, and I also mentioned that I believed the order of suitability was no longer in use so HTs weren't meant to be so specific in their summaries - but the panel didn't rise to that one

Sally-Anne - hope you are less busy now? As you're aware HT has been less than helpful with regard to DD's diabetes, refusing to write anything about it on the summary sheet or to write a supporting letter. The LA rep told us in his summary at the appeal that both HT and class teacher now accept that DD's diabetes is much more problematic than they had realised, which is the first time they have gone on record with this, and the clear inference was that their opinion of her had not really taken into account the diabetes at all.

If this admission had come to light earlier, we would certainly have applied more pressure on HT with regard to DD's recommendation and/or a subsequent letter (to date all children from our school with a '2' recommendation have got through their appeal, all those with a '3' or below have not), so stronger support from the school MIGHT have made a difference

In terms of the appeal procedure, my question would be: should the LA rep have mentioned this earlier? I also feel that having gone back to the school with quite specific questions, the LA rep probably should have asked HT straight out whether the additional information we have now provided would have resulted in the school offering stronger support. Wouldn't that have been an obvious question? If HT had said 'no' we would have been disappointed, but at least that would have been the end of the matter.

[Etienne]

Dear Rob

I am certainly uneasy that the Rep. did not report on his discussion with the headteacher until the summing up when you had no opportunity to question him.

I suggest you get the clerk's notes, and consider raising all your concerns with Appeals.

If you are still dissatisfied, you could then sound out the ombudsman - there is a helpline.

[Rob Clark]

Thanks, Etienne.

One quick query: if you are writing to request the clerk’s notes, do you have to give a reason for your request?