Everybody tells you the appeal process for secondary school is awful. Actually awful does not begin to express quite how dreadful it was. It ranks right up there with some of the worst experiences I've ever had. I do know we were incredibly unlucky with the panel we ended up with, but even so, the whole process seems weighted towards the school rather than the child.
We did a lot of research before submitting the appeal document. You have to state why you want the school you are appealing for and why the allocated school is not the right one. Having the evidence was not an issue for us. The allocated school was the one that thought a drawer was sufficient support for Type 1 diabetes and despite already having children in the school with Type 1, had not been on training for at least five years. We had letters from the primary school head, the Y6 class teacher, the hospital consultant (who happens to be the leading paediatric consultant for Type 1 diabetes in the country) from a couple of my son's friends who would recognise the signs when my son was having difficulty with his blood sugar and a letter from a parent who lived right next to the school and would be able to look after my son if he was too tired or unwell to get straight home. (In fact a whole raft of people offered help and support and we just chose a couple of their letters) We had every angle covered and everyone said if we were not successful at appeal then they could not imagine anyone would be successful. Appeals were set up for exactly this sort of occasion and this type of appeal would surely be a shoe-in.
I know now that the appeal was never going to win no matter what we had done. The panel was clearly biased and not carrying out their duties properly from start to finish. Having never been to an appeal however, you do not know things are not working how they should be. The first part is where all the parents appealing are called together and the school states it's case about why they have not got a place. What I did not realise is that the appeal panel should have challenged the school on it's answers, so when they said they had lots of bullying (which was a pretty daft thing to state but it was obviously because one parent was appealing on the grounds of bullying) the panel should have followed that up by asking if they thought they had more than average levels of bullying and what they were doing about that. The school was never challenged on anything they said. So when they were asked why they did not admit on medical grounds, the glib reply was 'well you can always appeal'.
I admit I'm finding it difficult to write about the individual appeal panel, even though it was some months ago. It was nothing short of a personal attack on a woman by two men, one of whom should not have been saying anything at all. I went with my husband and it started ok, with me reading out from a prepared speech, because I knew I would get nervous and forget what I wanted to say.
I got to the part where I wanted to talk about blood tests. Children with Type 1 need to do blood tests- which are finger prick tests- to measure their blood sugar and make sure it is in range. These need to be done regularly throughout the school day and more frequently if the blood sugar is too high or low. The allocated school was arguing with me over my son being allowed to do this in class. The allocated school wanted him to go to an office to do all the tests, which is not good practise as the tests take a few seconds and if his blood sugar is too low he should not be going anywhere else but test on the spot. So I took a blood test kit to show the panel in case they had visions of tubing and gallons of blood.
I got the test kit out and the chair of the panel interrupted me with "put that away, it is not show and tell." Apart from being rude, it completely threw me and I lost the flow of what I was saying and I felt as if I was being told off.
I continued as best I could and then the Clerk to the panel interrupted me to tell me I was wrong about not being able to put a disability on the admission form. The clerk is only there to take notes and should not have been speaking except on a point of law, which this was not. He argued with me and when I tried to defend myself the chair told me that, if I was not quiet he would ask me to leave. Anyone who knows me will know I never raise my voice, I do not swear and I'm always polite even when disagreeing with someone. While the chair was telling me off I had one of those moments when you think . is this really happening? Is this man actually speaking to me like I'm a small child?
After this point I was shut down on everything I said. When I tried to explain why training was so essential (if my child has a severe hypo and no-one knows what to do, he could die) the chair said we should move on to questions now and I was unable to finish. Afterwards I realised they never did this to my husband, he was allowed to speak. The two women on the panel never said a word.
The final question was so shocking I actually could not speak at all. We were asked if we knew anyone who had died from Type 1. Yes, actually we do, but being asked that in that particular situation was so shocking I was unable to say anything. This was the very reason we were appealing, because we did not want our son to become a statistic and yes, our consultant was an expert witness against a school that had neglected to do it's duty.
At the very end the chair told us we could now sum up or just leave our notes and he urged us to just go. I was so battered by this point and already convinced they had made up their minds I just handed them the notes and left. I went outside and cried and said to my husband they were not going to find in our favour because they wanted to teach me a lesson. This is a panel that should have been neutral, yet it was the furthest from that point you can imagine.
When we eventually received the panel decision (I say eventually because it was delayed and our nerves were so frayed by that point we did not sleep that night) they of course did not find in our favour. That bit was no surprise, but their reasons were fabricated and twisted versions of what we had said. The response also contained factual errors with bits that were clearly not part of our appeal and even had the wrong name. The main reasons given for not granting the appeal were that he would make new friends (not anything we discussed in the appeal or on paper), that they had considered the consultant's letter but as anyone could access that hospital they gave it low weighting (no I didn't understand that either) and that all schools should be following the medical conditions in schools statutory guidelines. Yes, of course they should, but it is like saying all schools should be outstanding when they are clearly not. Worst of all we have no come back. We cannot say they have entirely missed the point and behaved in an unforgiveable way. Well actually we found out, for the latter we can.
You can complain if an appeal panel has interrupted you repeatedly, which they did, and if they did not allow you to sum up, which also happened. So we complained and the body overseeing academy appeal complaints found that there was evidence to investigate. But investigation consists of asking the appeal panel what happened and not asking us any of the details. Of course the panel is not going to say they did all the things they were being accused of (do any complaints ever get upheld?) and they wrote another piece of fabricated evidence, including that the whole thing went on for much longer than it actually did and apparently I started going 'um' and 'ar' so they had to interrupt me. Again we have no come back or right of response so we have to accept the allocated school at least for this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment