Nice and interesting paper about school life of children with type 1 diabetes in Saudi Arabia from the perspective of parents of children with type 1 diabetes and of school teachers irrespective if they have pupils with type 1 diabetes or not in their classes. The picture is quite discouraging with 24.2% of students with no help at school to perform blood glucose measurement, 255 with no hypo correction available, and quite 40% omitting insulin. It is not a surprise that students with no available help to correct hypoglycemia at school or inject insulin had a higher HbA1c and poor academic performance.

There are a few concerns, however, addressing which could be of help to improve paper quality.

1. No mention in the text about survey coverage. How many students with type 1 diabetes in Saudi Arabia? How many answered the survey? And in a similar way, how many teachers have been reached up? 983 answers out of how many? This is an important information to give to readers to understand how much is this survey representative of the Saudi Arabian situation.

2. In which way academic performance has been evaluated? Which are the reasons why insulin has been omitted?

3. Authors mention a mean HbA1c of respondents above 9%. Later they declare that pupils struggling to measure glycemia in school or correct properly a hypo have impaired HbA1c and academic performance. Is it possible to have mean values for both groups?

4. Is there any attitude difference of teachers about glycemia measuring, insulin injections and glucagon injections between teachers that never had a diabetic pupil in her/his class and the ones who had any?

5. Table 4 and 5 are not needed since they do not change the meaning of the results. A very quick summary in the Results section stating if there is any difference among different regions in the country is more than enough. In a similar way Figure 3 is not enough clear and explanatory. A table maybe? Or just a quick mention in text of the most interesting findings.

6. Discussion session is someway too long and repetitive. I suggest shortening it and focusing more on commenting the results.

Manuscript is improved and a bit more focused. Interesting data,