AIBU to think this can’t be true are SEN numbers

[Marmite2021]

My dd’s school had pretty dire SATS results a year or two ago and they explained this by saying 20% of that year’s class had special educational needs and that the rest of the class had achieved above average attainment. Their ofsted report suggest they had below average numbers of SEN children and that the ones they did have were being fully supported and making good progress.
For starters 20% SEN pupils in one mainstream class seems extraordinarily high, and it that is “below average” what on Earth is the average??

"20%" of a class of 30, is 6 children. Within that 6 your SEN can range from moderate ASD needing 1:1 attention, to some low level issues with reading comprehension. I think it's more likely you underestimate the ongoing prevalence of children with SEN, particularly because in recent years "inclusion" has meant that more and more pupils who would previously have been educated in the special sector are being crammed into mainstream.

Is the Ofsted report by class or for the whole school?
You can certainly have 'bunching' of SEN, more in some years than others. Plus if a school has only 1 year group it can make a massive difference to results as each child is 3%.

You can be making 'good progress' and still be below average if your starting point (end y2 or start of school) was much lower.

Schools can also get reputations for being 'good with SEN' which then encourages more to go to the school. very much a double edged sword for the school.

My oldest son was on the SEN register at primary school,he struggles academically ,this has always been the case in schools though ,some children need extra help ,and of course there will also be a percentage of children with EHCP,s ,.

Two year 6 classes so I guess 12 children. Mathematically it doesn’t make senses as the really low scores are removed when calculating the SATS results and I worked out that the whole of year 6 had to have performed really badly (on average) to achieved such low overall results.

The percentage of children in upper key stage 2 tends to be higher than in younger classes as it can take some considerable time to identify additional needs, you needs lots of supporting evidence first. So the overall school percentage may well be lower than year 6. Our school overall percentage is 25% but currently year six have over 30% and Reception just 10%

They obtained -5 in writing and -3 in maths. Reading was also negative. So everything well below average.

Schools can decide for themselves which kids they classify as having SEN. Some kids, all schools will view as having SEN eg, kids with severe autism, kids who really struggle to learn, kids with downs syndrome etc. But for others, there will be more ambiguity. For example, a child who has some difficulty learning to read in one school may be identified as having SEN, but in a different school, they might be identified as just making slow progress.

“For starters 20% SEN pupils in one mainstream class seems extraordinarily high, and it that is “below average” what on Earth is the average??”

It’s just under 15% of all pupils and averages about 11% of primary pupils, I’m pretty sure.

So they could quite easily have less than 11% throughout the school but have high numbers in some year groups and low in others.

What I’m saying is that if 80% of the class got “above average” scores, how on Earth did 20% of the class (the lowest scores not even being included) pull the scores down to well below average?

And does nobody else think that one in five children having special educational needs seem outrageous? We need to be asking why and not just accepting this as normal.

What is it you're actually getting at here?

@Marmite2021

And does nobody else think that one in five children having special educational needs seem outrageous? We need to be asking why and not just accepting this as normal.

So what do you want to do? Stop diagnosing kids with SEN? Kick them out of school? What??

I wondered if the school was just performing badly and blaming the number of SEN kids, but irrespective of that, it does seem awfully high to me. I don’t mean this in a disbelieving sense, but more in a “why do so many kids have SEN?” sense.

I once worked in a school where 60% had EAD needs (English as an additional language) on top of that I would say 20 - 30% of the class had additional needs on top of that ranging from hearing issues to dyslexia. Added in behavioural issues for a small 10%. I also worked in another school (both were long term supply) where 60% of the entire primary school had special needs ranging from 1:1 autism to spinabiffida. They were the only school in that area who would take children with that level of Sen because, as you said, the results would be affected. Ofsted don't in the main care what the home lives are like, what the SEN needs are. All they care about is results and making you feel like a shit teacher because a child in your class, who was being bumped around the care system, and for whom it was an achievement to just focus on the lesson, can clearly, with all that emotional distress, attain the national average result of a child from a wealthy loving family who can afford extra tuition. The system is fucked up, basically.

DressingGownofDoom Two issues. Why is the school blaming SEN kids for their poor results when mathematically they weren’t to blame? And why do so many children have SEN? I mean in reality. Why do so many of our children have cognitive and/or physical issues that affect their learning? Is this just accepted as a normal level of disfunctiin in a population of children? I find it shiocking!

Children have always had sen OP. It's just been in the last twenty years where they haven't been dubbed naughty kids, and actually diagnosed and given support. The inclusion into mainstream instead of shoving them to the side in a special school is wonderful. It's just the government and Ofsted need to take it into account and not make kids out to be numbers and stats, and look at them.as an individual person with their own personality and just a different set of challenges to a NT child
They're still children irrespective of Sen. I'm not sure why children being diagnosed where they wouldn't thirty forty years ago, is so outrageous to you.

DressingGownofDoom you are clearly on the defensive. I am not for one second suggesting they shouldn’t be diagnosed. I want to know why so many kids have these struggles. What is driving these numbers?

20% of kids with special needs does not surprise me. Only some of those kids will have an EHCP, the school may also include kids who have needs but cannot/ do not need an EHCP.

These days extra needs are identified and kids are (hopefully) helped and supported. 30 years ago when I was in school, kids with issues were probably just ignored and assumed "stupid" unfortunately. Certainly a friend of mine was told that he didn't need to know how to read or write, as he would just be a farmer (he's later diagnosed ASD and dyslexic, with a degree in adulthood).

"I worked out that the whole of year 6 had to have performed really badly (on average) to achieved such low overall results."

Are you assuming it's the SN kids who have brought down your calculations? Why?

My SN kids are incredibly high academic achievers, they have scored the highest possible grades throughout their schooling - maybe partly due to their SN.

My brother has SEN and a statement and he is one of 4 in his year group (year 6) with recognised SEN. 21 kids in his class so I guess that makes it around 19%.

Because children with SEN can have a negative 17 or even negative 21 score, we have several every year. It is impossible to get a positive score anywhere near that level to " balance" things out!

Whiskeylover45 It has nothing to do with being diagnosed now when they wouldn’t have been 30 years ago. Where have I implied that? It’s about overall proportion of our children who have SEN. Why? Why so many in general, whether diagnosed or not?

A friend has 5 pupils with EHCPs in her Y4 class. Only one other in the whole one-form entry school. Pupils with SEND aren't always evenly distributed.

spanieleyes but anything below -14 (I think, but will check) is removed from the calculation as an outlier.

"the really low scores are removed when calculating the SATS results" is this true? I thought they were all included?

Bagfull I am not assuming anything. These are the words of the headteacher. She said the SATS scores were bad due to 20% SEN kids, and that the rest of the kids had an above average score.