Diabetes
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Etienne,
According to the clerk’s notes:
1. Yes
2. The only mention I can find in the notes relating to this are where the clerk informed the panel that we had not requested any extra measures. This is quite true, which is why I was wondering whether the school had any responsibility here. It is also recorded that when the LA rep spoke to the school, the HT told him that they “don’t have to modify anything [for DD] as she copes very well.â€
According to the clerk’s notes:
1. Yes
2. The only mention I can find in the notes relating to this are where the clerk informed the panel that we had not requested any extra measures. This is quite true, which is why I was wondering whether the school had any responsibility here. It is also recorded that when the LA rep spoke to the school, the HT told him that they “don’t have to modify anything [for DD] as she copes very well.â€
I think you're entitled to see the flowchart.
If the panel said 'Yes' to the second of my two questions, then they found the school to be at fault.
If they said 'No', then they would appear to have accepted the school's argument that they “don’t have to modify anything [for DD] as she copes very well.â€
If the panel said 'Yes' to the second of my two questions, then they found the school to be at fault.
If they said 'No', then they would appear to have accepted the school's argument that they “don’t have to modify anything [for DD] as she copes very well.â€
Etienne
Sorry, seem to be taking up a lot of your time today!
The school, if you recall, did not consider DD to be covered by the DDA. The panel, however, decided (rightly) that she was. I’m sure you’re right in that the school would plead ignorance re. the need for adjustments and thus cover themselves, though I think it’s pretty poor that they never initiated any discussions with us.
You are correct to say that the school’s feedback was only introduced during the LA rep’s summing up, and we were too taken aback to pick up on comments such as most teachers other than DD’s form teacher wouldn’t even know she had diabetes and that it was never at the forefront of the school’s mind.
I share your opinion that this was procedurally incorrect, we’re trying to work out whether it’s a big enough issue to warrant an appeal to the ombudsman.
The school, if you recall, did not consider DD to be covered by the DDA. The panel, however, decided (rightly) that she was. I’m sure you’re right in that the school would plead ignorance re. the need for adjustments and thus cover themselves, though I think it’s pretty poor that they never initiated any discussions with us.
You are correct to say that the school’s feedback was only introduced during the LA rep’s summing up, and we were too taken aback to pick up on comments such as most teachers other than DD’s form teacher wouldn’t even know she had diabetes and that it was never at the forefront of the school’s mind.
I share your opinion that this was procedurally incorrect, we’re trying to work out whether it’s a big enough issue to warrant an appeal to the ombudsman.
Sorry, just to clarify, it’s true that DD copes very well on a day to day basis, which is why her schoolwork is excellent and her SATs predictions good. However she does find stressful situations have an adverse effect on her, and I don’t think anyone would deny the 11+ is a stressful situation. One-off exams are always problematic for her, which is probably why her CAT scores a re a bit all over the place.
