Do the primary school league tables include those children with SEN?(44 Posts)
Trying to figure out how a school with a high % of children with statements achieved 100% 'Expected level in English and Maths'.
60 pupils at the school with the 2% SEN. 22 pupils at the other school.
How many pupils in the year group at the school with 2% SEN? If it is a bigger school it could actually work out to be the same number of pupils.
Interesting. Quite surprising this is all lumped together in the school results. Its vastly different.
SEN = Special Educational Needs
On MN some posters get cross that 'SN' (special needs) isn't clearly defined as being different, but when schools input data, the only option for a child with a Statement is 'having a Statement'. It could be the Statement is for physical needs or medical needs and the child has no cognitive difficulties whatsoever. Or, it could be that a child with a Statment has a developmental age many years lower than their actual age. So, in terms of exam results, you would get very different figures.
SA+ is a 'stage' of the SEN Code of Practice.
First stage is School Action - where it is a level of difficulty that the school should be addressing from within it's own resources.
If there is a higher level of difficulty, then they look for support from outside agencies.... it could be a physio or OT or Ed Psych or the Local Authorities Autism Team or Behaviour Team, etc. This is School Action Plus.
If the child is not (and I quote from the CoP - it's not a phrase I like) making "adequate progress", then the school, or the Parents can apply for a 'Statutory Assessment'. The Local Authority has to gather evidence and then decide whether to issue a Statment or not. Trouble is, this is a legal document which states the child's difficulties, and what the local authority has to provide to meet those needs, so there is a bit of a conflict of interest in what's written in the Statement.
Thanks for all the info/experience.
I'm comparing two schools and wondering if I could choose between them which I would choose. Reality is I've already submitted my one first choice for September. My choice was based on long term performance and reputation.
I've started to look into the 'primary school league tables' from the DfEducation. I don't have a sinister motive and wont be changing any choices. Just trying to make some sense of the statistics and work out why some of the stats weren't what I'd anticipate.
I think the main diff are the class size. 22 v's 60.
Yes it says SEN or school action plus. Going to find out what that is now.
15% with a statement or school action plus is quite high. It could mean that the school have a very good SENCo who is good at getting the educational psychologist to come in and assess the pupils, which moves them up from SA to SA+?
Sats results can also vary tremendously year to year. That school may have had a very good cohort in Y6 last year, it does happen. My DS's school has varied from 100% gaining level 4 in Maths and Literacy one year to 64% the next, in a one form entry (30 ish) school. Same teachers, same methods, different children.
OK, so 15% with a statement is much higher than the national average. But, as we've agreed, in a small school, the average doesn't mean a lot. I assume in your previous post, you muddled up which way around you meant the results were (the one with more SEN has better results?), hence your surprise.
From only information you've given, I would deduce that school A (the higher SEN one) is both attractive to parents of children with SEN, and also good at getting good results from all its children. But, who knows, especially since we are talking about small numbers of students. And we have no idea about their general intake, or the types of things the statemented children have their statements for (whether they would impact on their attainment at all).
I wonder if you are interested just as a general query because the figures seemed odd or because you have a child with SEN/suspected SEN yourself? Or (I hope/assume not) trying to avoid too many other children with SEN?
Either way, I think we agree you'll have to visit/read inspection reports to be much the wiser!
Are they both quoting the same statistic? Are you comparing like for like? On the DFES data they do not differentiate between pupils on school action plus and those with a statement, the two groups are put together in the stats. Then there are those on school action only. <2% with a statement isn't that unusual, but < 2% with a statement or school action plus is low.
The stat they are quoting is 'Percentage of pupils with SEN statement'
So BackforGood if nationally only 2% have a statement, the school with the < 2% is typical. Even though 20% have a SEN, only 2 % have a statement.
The school with 15 is high?
And yes I will take much more interest in the actual school! Just started looking at these figures and now I want to make some sense of them.
I was looking at 'Percentage achieving Level 4 or above in both English and mathematics'. Not the 'achieveing 2+ levels of progress' measures.
What Dora said ^^
Nationally, around 20% of the population have an SEN, although only 2% have a Statement of SEN.
Of course, in a very small cohort, figures get hugely distorted.
In a 3 form entry school, each child counts as a little over 1%, but in a 1 form entry school, each child counts as slightly over 3%.
In a village school, where there might only be 5 children in Yr 6, then each child is 20%, so it's difficult to compare just on %s.
To be honest <2% SEN levels looks a bit wierd to me given that it is so far below national averages, would make me suspect that they are unwilling to either identify SEN or to offer appropriate support to children who need it, and that there would either be children there with SEN struggling along without appropriate support, or that children with SEN end up getting encouraged to go elsewhere.
No, expected level doesn't mean expected progress. That's different.
Expected level can mean expected progress which is 2 levels higher than KS1 result . So if a child got level 1 at KS1 they would be expected to get level 3 at end of KS2
My OP was based on the fact that I'm currently comparing two schools. One is the only one in the area that has 100% in the KS2 tests.
One has SEN of <2% and the other nearly 15%. The former does better than the latter in the KS2 results and I'm looking for reasons why this would be when it would appear that there are more children in the former who should be finding it harder to do better (for whatever reason)
I suspect Books is right and the smaller class size has something to do with.
I have not implied that children with SEN couldn't achieve expected levels.
Even a physical disability would make it harder for a child to achieve (in terms of for eg missed time for hospital appts)
That is true in theory but often appointments in school hours do not mean a whole day off aso the child returns halfway through the school day and can immediately make sure they get anything they've missed.
My DS got all high level 5's for all his SATS (DD yet to take hers but will probably do as well). Both of them miss half a day of school most weeks to attend various appointments, clinics, checks and treatments due to physical conditions that they both have.
Maybe they'd be doing even better if they didn't miss this but it certainly hasn't meant they have done badly. I am sure a child who needed weeks or months away at a time would find it harder but thankfully conditions that necessitate that are rare.
SEN and statementing are also not the same thing. A child can be clased as disabled but not be eligible for a statement if their condition does not affect their ability to access the curriculum to such a great extent that intervention above and beyond reasonable adjustments are needed. Most children with additional needs can have those needs met without a statement. Just as having a statement does not indicate that a child will have learning difficulties. or any problems exceeding national learning targets.
Others of us were responding to the implication that SEN children couldn't possibly achieve 'expected levels', which displays a shocking ignorance of what SEN (or 'statemented') means
It's Ok, I'm used to it, my son was on the SEN register throughout primary and secondary. He's currently at University studying Financial Mathematics, I don't understand the syllabus, let alone the work involved
Definitely. If you're researching for your own child, you really must make a decision based on a visit and not statistics or results. A school with lower SEN on paper but really disengaged parents or an underlying low 'potential' in a cohort can get varying results from one with high SEN but excellent teaching or one with high SEN but where those SEN are not 'academic' or from one where there's a fantastic potential in the cohort but no effort on the school's part to push further etc etc etc or one with a very pushy/mc intake where all the results are achieved by external tutors. There are probably as many different kinds of schools as there are schools. IMO...
Ok, so 'your' school is only double the size of ds's so that's 2-3 pupils per year group with SEN (whatever that will encompass). You have no way on paper of judging what they've done with those pupils - or the others - above and beyond or, indeed, less than another school would have. Tricky, isn't it?!
yes it is small ?22 pupils that must make a big difference.
That's from the dfe website. But, as I say, includes all pupils on register, not just statements which is much lower. And, of course, in a small school you're only talking a few pupils either way (for SEN, FSM, Sats results) or any other measure!
interesting, wonder if thats national or local.
ok 15% seemed like a lot to me because I'm comparing it to a school that has 2%. Perhaps its the latter thats unusual.
Ok, apparently the 2011 figure is 17.8% of children in mainstream schools have an SEN. So the school in question in the OP is below average.
In an inverse proportion, CVT!!! ie, only the schools with a low income catchment get decent pots of SEN money - meaning schools with higher amounts of SEN (like a reputation for being good with autism, say, or happen to have more children with physical SEN) but an average or higher than average house price bracket get much less money. Hence my sarcasm.
Sounds Kafkaesque, but true. I asked the Head of SEN at the LEA why they thought only poorer people had SEN and she couldn't give me an answer.
Join the discussion
Please login first.