A Western Australian mother is pushing for school support funding for children with type 1 diabetes to continue throughout primary school, arguing that an age-based rule does not reflect how the condition is managed in a busy classroom. Alana Marshall, from Capel in the state’s South West, has begun a petition calling for a change to the current approach. Education Minister Sabine Winton says support beyond Year 2 can be granted on a case-by-case basis and that the relevant departmental policy is due for review.
Marshall’s son Declan was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was five. His school has received additional support for his early years, and his application for Year 3 assistance was approved. That detail is important: the family’s complaint is not that he has already been denied every form of help. It is that support beyond Year 2 must be renewed, potentially requiring families and schools to justify the need year after year for a condition that does not disappear when a child turns eight.
In WA, individual disability allocation funding for pupils with type 1 diabetes is generally provided until the end of Year 2. Schools may apply for an extension based on medical evidence and the circumstances of the child. Funding can help provide education assistant time and support classroom staff with the student’s health management. The minister says the extension process considers individual circumstances; Marshall argues that a presumption against ongoing support after a particular school year is a poor starting point.
Type 1 diabetes requires attention to blood glucose and insulin, and children at school may need help understanding or responding to changes in their levels. Activities such as sport, excursions, lunch and unexpected timetable changes can affect management. Modern glucose monitors and pumps have transformed many aspects of care, but they have not removed the need for adult awareness and practical planning. A device that displays a reading is not a substitute for an age-appropriate response to it.
Marshall says Declan uses a sensor that provides frequent readings to a connected device, while adults around him monitor his levels. She has explained the strain of the continuous mental workload on family life, including decisions around food, exercise and the possibility of sudden low blood glucose. Her account is a family experience, not a universal description of the support required by every child with diabetes. It nevertheless challenges an assumption that advancing from Year 2 to Year 3 creates an abrupt change in medical needs.
The petition is intended to remove the Year 2 limit and extend the ordinary funding period to the end of primary school. More than 800 people had signed at the time of the reporting. Shadow education minister Liam Staltari, who is facilitating the petition, describes the current rule as outdated in light of technological developments and the demands on young students. That is a political criticism of the funding framework, while the minister points to the flexibility of applications for an extension.
Perth Children’s Hospital diabetes clinical lead Dr Craig Taplin says management of type 1 diabetes has changed substantially with the growth of pumps and continuous glucose monitoring. He stresses that children and their carers still make many decisions every day, from accounting for meals to administering insulin. Medical technology can reduce part of the burden while introducing further information that an adult must interpret. The presence of a connected watch should not be mistaken for a guarantee of independent self-management.
The issue illustrates a broader challenge for disability and health-related support in education. Schools must balance finite resources, staffing arrangements and diverse individual needs, while families need confidence that a child can participate in ordinary learning and activities safely. Policies based on an age threshold offer administrators a simple starting rule, but they may be less responsive to conditions where the level of independence varies significantly from child to child. A student who needs help in Year 3 should not be treated as identical to every other student of the same age.
Annual renewal also creates work for schools, clinicians and parents. A request can require supporting medical evidence and administrative coordination, even where little has changed since the previous year. A child may have the same diagnosis but different class routines, teacher availability and extracurricular activities. Families may therefore favour a stable support arrangement with periodic reviews that focus on changing needs, rather than a presumption that help should expire at a particular milestone.
Winton says she has asked the Department of Education for further advice on the extension process and how schools assist families through it. She has indicated the student health care policy is due for review in the near future. Those statements do not amount to an announcement that the funding rule has already been abolished. The result of any review, its timing and whether it leads to a new statewide entitlement remain unresolved. Families should therefore rely on existing school procedures while monitoring official changes.
Parents seeking support often face costs outside school as well. The ongoing condition can affect working hours, transport, medical appointments and the practical responsibilities shared between home and classroom. The debate is not about guaranteeing one staffing model for every child. It is about the criteria used to decide how a school will meet a documented need, how consistent decisions are across locations, and whether evidence must be resubmitted more often than necessary.
The number of families directly affected by this particular school funding rule has not been quantified in the reporting. Taplin has described approximately 1,300 children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes in WA, but that figure covers a broader population and should not be treated as the number of students losing support at Year 2. Any reform proposal will need to distinguish the overall prevalence of the condition from the students whose individual circumstances require extra classroom assistance.
For now, Marshall’s campaign has placed the question before politicians while the minister considers departmental advice. Her son’s Year 3 support demonstrates that exceptions are possible; her argument is that the system should offer clearer continuity to families rather than making an ongoing condition seem temporary on paper. The next test is whether the review produces transparent, consistent guidance that helps schools plan ahead while continuing to assess each student’s genuine needs.
Schools also have to translate a student’s health plan into everyday practice. It is one thing to agree that staff will respond to an alert and another to ensure that the right adult is available during sport, lunch, an excursion or a staff absence. A consistent arrangement can be especially important when a class changes teachers or a child moves into a different year group. Families may be more concerned about whether a practical plan survives those transitions than about the precise name of the funding program behind it.
Age-based funding rules are often defended on the ground that children gradually develop skills and independence. That principle does not imply that every student reaches the same level at the same time. The ability to recognise an alert, assess what it means, seek help and respond appropriately may change with maturity, individual health circumstances and the demands of the school day. An assessment built around functional needs rather than a single year level can better explain why support continues for some children and changes for others.
A policy review could ask how extension decisions are communicated, whether schools receive enough guidance to prepare strong applications and what families should do if the school disagrees with the level of help available. It could also consider whether funding approvals should be aligned with a documented care plan rather than repeatedly reopened when the child’s needs remain stable. Such options are matters for policymakers to evaluate; none has yet been announced as the government’s decision. The minister’s request for advice is an early step, not an enacted reform.
Technology makes coordination more important, not less. A glucose reading may be visible to a parent remotely, a teacher on a connected device and a child carrying equipment, but the school still needs an agreed response when a reading suggests action is required. That response should be based on a plan developed with appropriate health professionals, not assumptions made from a media report. Staff responsibilities, communication with families and procedures for activities outside the classroom must be clear to the people involved.
The financial argument is not simply about the cost of more education assistant time. Parents may lose working hours when schools cannot confidently support a student, while school staff may spend additional time obtaining and reviewing medical information. Those are possible indirect costs that deserve consideration in a formal policy review. They should not be presented as verified statewide expenditure without published figures. Careful evaluation would compare the administrative cost of repeated applications with the benefits and costs of providing more predictable support.
Marshall’s case may also give the government an opportunity to set out what the current extension system is achieving. If many applications are approved, ministers may argue that flexibility is working, though families may still object to the uncertainty and paperwork. If applications are often rejected despite continuing documented needs, the case for review would be different. Data on extensions, decisions and reasons would allow the debate to move beyond isolated experiences while keeping the individual needs of children at its centre.
