Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
code of practice help needed(29 Posts)
Can anyone point me in the tight direction for the quotes re academic progress and does anyone know if a child is on the p scales and no where near the targets for key stage one if it can still be said they are making adequate progress?
SEN Code of Practice
"5:42 Adequate progress can be defined in a number of ways. It might, for instance,
be progress which:
closes the attainment gap between the child and their peers
prevents the attainment gap growing wider
is similar to that of peers starting from the same attainment baseline, but less than
that of the majority of peers
matches or betters the childs previous rate of progress
ensures access to the full curriculum
demonstrates an improvement in self-help, social or personal skills
demonstrates improvements in the childs behaviour."
Progress will depend on where the child started and the trajectory of progress. As long as they are improving, then progress is being made. Whether that is the adequate, will depend on the above.
So a child who goes from P4-P5 can be making as much progress as a child who started school very advanced, say 1b and moved to 1a.
So if there is a wide gap between them and their peers then this is progress but not adequate progress?
There is an acceptance that there will be a gap but the key is whether the gap is getting smaller, staying the same or getting wider.
Lougle posted a link a couple of weeks ago - 'Here is a link to the "DfE: Children with Special Educational Needs: An Analysis - 2012". It gives progression statistics for 2010/11 in Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4.' www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001092/index.shtml
There must be an equivalent for KS1 too.
Thanks - Is there any data for how social communication and interaction progress is assessed?
Also how can progress be shown simply by a witness's word or would they have to produce hard evidence of this?
Depends what it says on the IEP whether or not measurements can be quantified such as 'DC will engage in conversational turn-taking with others across 3-4 conversational turns, 4/5 opportunities to do so (topics initiated by self/others)' or 'DC will follow classroom rules and directives given visual and verbal prompts x% of the time'.
This is why IEPs need to be SMART - the 'M' being measurable (objective) otherwise progress is determined subjectively (witness's word).
Even if the gap is getting wider between DC and peers, progress can still be deemed to be adequate if their own rate of progress now is the same as previous progress rate.
Would a school Ep report that said despite a high level of support the child is still experiences difficulties supersede the subjective words of a witness?
And the independent EP - The child is experiencing significant difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills compared to his peers despite having had access to appropriate learning opportunities.
"The child is experiencing significant difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills compared to his peers despite having had access to appropriate learning opportunities."
All this tells you is that the child is not progressing as fast as peers. It doesn't tell you if the rate has slowed, stayed the same or increased following 'appropriate learning opportunities' and it doesn't tell you if 'appropriate learning opportunities are a) the same opportunities as all children have b) some extra help c) specialised input and resources.
So, this sentence isn't very clear. You could have 3 different children that the phrase applies to, with very different outcomes:
"Tom is experiencing significant difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills compared to his peers despite having had access to appropriate learning opportunities. Since the start of Year 4, all children have been given the same tuition. Tom's peers have progressed 2 sub levels on average, whereas Tom's progress is static."
The LA might say 'well, the school needs to move Tom onto School Action and give extra support.'
"Dick is experiencing significant difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills compared to his peers despite having had access to appropriate learning opportunities. Since the start of Year 4, Tom has been given adult support for literacy and the use of a scribe. Despite this, his progress has been much slower than that of his peers and has not increased despite this intervention."
The LA might say 'well Dick needs to be given Reading recovery, etc., and given consistent adult support.'
"Harry is experiencing significant difficulties in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills compared to his peers despite having had access to appropriate learning opportunities. Since the start of Year 4, Harry has had 1:1 support, Reading recovery, outside agency x has been involved and pen grips, sloping writing boards used, etc......He has made no progress at all."
The LA might say 'Ok, Harry has been given all the resources that the school should be expected to offer. Harry needs a statement.'
Those aren't very realistic scenarios, but it starts to give you an idea about how wooly those phrases are.
In combination with a school report marked at a D for progress (meanining requires improvement) and with a full scale score of 71 for IQ and a reading ability score of 0.01 percentile would that make the picture clearer?
I don't know..but I would wonder if there was a specific issue with reading, because an IQ of 71 would be seen as 'borderline' on the scale. The reading ability score is obviously desperately low, so I would guess (and it is a guess) that if it were all down to general lowish intelligence, then his ability to read would be 'borderline' too.
The discrepency is there as well despite his low IQ - He can't read or write yet and thats with support from both home and school, numbers although he knows them to 20 are written backwards ect as well. Working memory is 4th percentile.
Does the EP report state that there is a discrepancy between achievement and ability? Is there a spiky profile in the WISC subtests?
To be honest, from what you're sharing here, I'd say that you need to worry less about the 'severe' angle (although some of those scores are severe) and pin everything on 'complex'.
Complex is just as good a route to get a Statement by. DD1 isn't 'severe' -she has Moderate Learning Difficulties - but she is complex.
Also did the indi EP carry out classroom observation? In my experience the broad overall conclusions of reports have been accepted but this has resulted in one new IEP target rather than the level of support really increasing. It also depends who the witness was - teaching staff may not disagree with the conclusions but the recommended action is ignored. On one occasion the lea learning support co-ordinator observed DS completely failing to engage with the curriculum and unable to begin a task despite 1:1 support but then accepted the teacher's excuse that things are normally different and maybe it was down to difficulties in 'processing' - I asked them to be more specific - what type of processing - auditory? phonological? sensory? Errrr...
This is his standard scores on the wisc in the subtests range: 2,3,5,6,7,7,8,9,10,10
Quote Indi EP: "there is a significant discrepancy between childs verbal comprehension index score and his perceptual (non-verbal) reasoning index score. Childs perceptual reasoning skills would appear to fall within the average range, albeit towards the lower end. This significant discrepancy between Childs verbal and non-verbal skills and his apparent weak working memory skills is suggestive of a specific learning difficulty.""
more qoutes: ""I completed an ability achievement discrepancy analysis using the verbal comprehension index calculated from the Wechsler Intelligence Scales IV as I considered it more appropriate to use this index score rather than a Full Scale IQ score, given the significant discrepancy between childs verbal and perceptual (non-verbal reasoning) reasoning skills.
The ability achievement discrepancy analysis that I performed revealed a significant discrepancy between childs verbal skills and his word reading skills at the 1% level (p<0.01). This means that less than 1% of children of the same age as child would experience such a discrepancy.
I performed a discrepancy analysis on the other subtests (reading comprehension, spelling and pseudoword decoding) using the verbal comprehension index score to predict ability and compare with actual performance. None of the other comparisons yielded significant results.
Yes the EP did observe, she has the opinion that he may fall in the ASD spectrum as well as his ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other difficulties.
His needs are complex I agree Lougle and it is mystifying that the Judge just went on the the SEnco's word in the tribunal that he was progressing socially and academically and that the judge did not see the the scores of 0.01 for reading ability or 71 Full scale at all choosing to go with the attention and concentration difficulties aka ADHD causing his difficulties with learning.
The trouble is that a single score does not indicate progress rate. You need to collect data over time. An EP report can be treated as a one-off. Maybe in the absence of any alternative longitudinal data the judge accepted the senco's subjective report of adequate progress?
DS1 is similar but different iykwim - ASD, ADD, APD, dyslexia, dyspraxia etc. We went to see Daphne Keen. It can be difficult for all but the most expert to see that a child with other difficulties is also on the spectrum.
The Judge had 3 EP reports to choose from. He even concludes that in key stage 2 as his needs are so complex he may need a statement if he fails to progress......
Join the discussion
Please login first.