I'm struggling with the concept of a decision being "wrong in law".
We lost our Refusal to Assess appeal a few weeks ago. The decision has many inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and it seems our evidence was barely paid any attention, the LA's case was swallowed hook line and sinker, and (imo) pertinent evidence and discussion was simply ignored.
For example, the decision noted (drawn from different paragraphs in the decision):
- if a child flat lined, the school would call in further help
- the school had not asked for more support
- the LA conceded scores particularly in Maths and Science were going down rather than increasing
- we found there was evidence of consistent progress
The actual evidence showed 1 SL progress in 2 years for Maths and Science, and 2 SL in 2 years for English which we drew specific attention to at the hearing.
The inconsistency here to me is bizarre and perverse, but I am told there is nothing "wrong in law" with the decision.
I simply cannot understand how the panel can summarily dismiss this lack of progress and for it not to be challengeable in law.
I just don't get it.
Any comments appreciated...