Less than 1 in 5 get 5 good GCSE passes

[amberlight]

The 750 page "How Fair is Britain?" report, just out, from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, makes fairly shocking reading for most of us on this board.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/how_fair_is_britain_-_complete_report.pdf

Page 330: Pupils with SEN perform less well than pupils with no identified SEN at age 16.
For all pupils with SEN in England, 17 out of every 100 achieved 5+ good GCSEs or equivalent (including English and Maths) compared to 61 out of every 100 of pupils with no identified SEN.

If you have a Statement, the chances fall to only 6 out of every 100 pupils

What the...!

I did say "some children" rather than "all children with autism", to be fair.

The charities for hearing impairment are the main ones flagging up their concerns about the poor attainment of Deaf or Hearing Impaired pupils, and saying they are not happy with it at all. One would hope that they would have taken other disabilities into account before expressing their concern?

Well I don't see how they can tell from that report. To be fair my understanding is that the hearing impairment world is rather political with some big differences in opinion between native signers and those who use other means of communication. Not unlike the culture versus condition movements in autism I guess.

I am always very concerned that these types of reports will lead to further moves towards so called inclusion when this often causes a lot of damage.

They would be better obtaining a measure of daily living skills and measuring how that accords with GCSE success. Those with very poor dailiy living skills/independence probably shouldn't be taking GCSE's (obviously this doesn't apply in cases of severe PD).

saintly - I would have thought the opposite re:inclusion, that these sort of figures show how far inclusion and mainstream schools are failing pupils with SN.

That's what I mean about the figures though - surely we need to know how many of those children were in, for example SLD schools. I don't suppose a child leaves my son's school with a single GCSE (the vast majority leave on p scales) - but these are not children who have been failed, they have been given a very good and very suitable education.

The danger as I see it is that if GCSE's are deemed the measure of success for all children with special needs, and steps are taken to improve academic performance - well how does that impact on children such as my son who need an entirely different education.

The figures would make more sense if they were children in mainstream schools (but even then I would want to interpret with caution), but as they are for 'all' children with SN I don't see how you can tell. Look at the wording:

How are we judging performance. Ds1 certainly won't get a single GCSE, but that doesn't mean he's done 'less well' at school that his brothers who presumably could walk out with an armful.

I suspect students with statements are performing 'worse' because they are being judged on GCSE performance. In reality many of those children with statements might be well supported at special schools and doing very much better than their unstatemented in emotional terms fellows with SN in mainstream schools- you can't tell.

I really object to these reports that don't seem to identify the diversity of need within SN. Many children with Sn do not need GCSE's and not getting them is no sign of failure- it might actually be a sign that they're receiving an entirely appropriate education.

Is it the difference between equality and egality I wonder? I don't want ds1 to be given exactly the same education as his NT brothers, but I want people to think it's as important for him to reach his potential as it is for them to reach theirs. But that has to start with recognising that success for him is never going to be measured in academics and never should be.

yy I fully take your point that more information is needed, as GCSEs aren't always a relevant or appropriate measure for some children with SEN. But I do think amber is highlighting a useful issue, on the best figures available, however flawed they may be.

I fully admit my views are coloured by my experiences with DS - I suppose I would see a clutchful of GCSE passes as being a consolation prize for him going through the m/s school system unstatemented and with minimal support.

There must be better figures available though. They know how many children are in special schools- so you could take that number away from the statemented children (you don't get to special school without a statement) and then you have the number of children in mainstream schools without a statement and the number of children in mainstream schools with a statement. Then you can start to assess what is going on.

If they want to judge the success of statemented children I would suggest they use something other than academic exams to judge that success. Or at least separate out those with LD's before using academic success. Anyway it's a nonsense. I know some children with the same diagnosis as my son for whom success would be a semi -independent living environment. For my son success would be developing the behaviours that allows him to take part in any fully supervised activity (rather than needing 2:1 and challenging behaviours meaning many activities are out of bounds to him). Had he stayed in mainstream I'm fairly sure his behaviour would have been out of control within a few years (it was heading that way). Now he's in special school he can do all sorts, horse riding, surfing, swimming, can go to McDonalds, I can take him to the supermarket etc because he has been taught acceptable behaviour in an environment that allowed him to learn that) but that report doesn't even attempt to measure that sort of achievement, nor does it class it a 'success'. They don't even look at communication outcomes - part of the reason my son behaves better is that he is now supported to communicate his needs - again no measure of that.

Look at relevant ideal outcomes for your study group then your figures start to make more sense.

There is a lot of pressure from some sections to close special schools this for examples- apparently from Leeds university. This completely fails to take into account the needs of many of the children in special schools, (and paints an unrealistic picture of the vast majority). It doesn't even seem to understand what inclusion is. For many with significant SN inclusion is best achieved via specialist schemes - then the child gets included in life. Far better than being shut in a separate room away from all the 'normal' children (my son's experience of mainstream - not entirely the school's fault - he needs locks on doors, the NT kids don't).

The idea that mainstream is best, and that all children should be achieveing academically is hugely damaging to children such as my son. I don't see that this report does anything except judge him against 'normal' and that will never lead to him being included in anything.

If I had a higher functioning child I would be very concerned by this line: Because it's not a huge step for cash strapped LA's to use that sort of comment as a reason not to statement. Entirely missing the point that the measure of success against which performance is being assessed 'less well' is inappropriate for many in the group.

am reading and taking in your useful and v. well reasoned posts. trying to come up with some sort of coherent response. Fully agree that outcomes other than the academic need prioritising - frankly its more important to me that DS comes out of the school system without a mental health comorbid and/or bullying than any GCSEs. If only I were more suited to Home Ed (too lazy and impatient).

Yes- I agree wrt to mental health, and by only looking at academic success there's no attention paid to that. I know people with (for example) AS who have fairly OK/decent academic results but are utterly unemployable. That to me is not a success story.

I honestly think there needs to be a rethink about inclusion and what it means. For my son inclusion (as an adult) means being able to go to a cafe, or being able to go for a walk on the moors, and being able to communicate (by whatever means) in a way that will be listened to. Being able to have an active fulfilled life I guess. For someone higher functioning I would see successful inclusion as being able to hold down a job that is of a type they want to do and being able to engage in social relationships and have friends and a social life.

Preparation for that cannot be measured in terms of GCSE's iyswim. And I worry how these sorts of findings are used, and also their focus.

A friend of mine has two lads who have been Statemented at school. Lad A - the specialised unit said he was going to be put into a lower stream for exams and put in for no more than 4 of them as that would be quite enough. He has an IQ that's off the scale for most intellectual things. The mum fought them, hard, and he was entered for 5 GCSEs including maths and English and passed all of them with high grades.

Lad B is predicted to get 9 GCSEs at A* A or B. The specialised college SEN person came to see him and his mum, and his opening words were, "As he has a Statement, I expect we're not looking at A levels or University, so I've brought some materials more suited to him" (paraphrased). His mum again gave the man a piece of her proverbial mind.

There just is an expectation in some of these units and even mainstream schools that any child in them must be incapable of achievement. Finding the right level for each child seems hugely important. Starting with the assumption that they are incapable doesn't seem like a sensible plan at all.

I'm dismayed by the lack of really good usable statistics online - I've been looking for ruddy days now and they're rubbish. Who collects this data? Is it so bad they actually don't want people querying it??

Yes I agree that it has to be individual.

And also that expectations have to be individual and appropriate for each child. But we also have to have a clear individual idea of what success is.

Your second example may reflect that statements aren't given often enough when children are academically able - so the person from the college may just never have met someone academically able with a statement. It may be that he is achieving well because all his needs have been supported allowing him to excel academically. He's probably the sort of student that comments like could do particular damage to.

I think lack of sensible stats partly reflects a poor understanding of what success is, and how it's best achieved. It's not the sort of data that is easy to interpret or analyse as 'success' is so individual.

saintlydame, the kind of life skills you describe are often taught and assessed as part of the ASDAN awards.

When I looked at secondary special schools for DS, there were a lot of them offering these qualifications. It has a range of levels which test things like visiting a local park (at bronze level) to comparing the cost of items in a shop (at gold level). It's more geared to every day life than academic study and it would be offered to pupils who aren't expected to sit GCSEs. Some schools also offered Entry Level GCSEs, which are academic but aimed at those who wouldn't get a grade G at normal GCSEs.

I think these types of qualifications are fairly new so perhaps that's why there aren't many statistics available on them. But there are certainly ways of recording and recognising achievements other than GCSE.

DS's school is a special school but takes pupils with average-above average cognitive ability; they can sit up to seven GCSEs but many also study ASDAN because they need to be taught every day skills in a systematic way. Our LA initially wanted him to attend a general special school which offered ASDAN but no GCSEs and I had to insist that he needed access to an academic curriculum in order to maintain his interest and also allow him access to an appropriate peer group.

Oh I think asdan's are great - but they're not something that all that many children at ds1's school could achieve. They're at a different level.

But it would have been good to have had them included in the report.

I suppose the thing that concerns me most about the report is that there seems to be an assumption that equality means improving gcse grades. Of course for some children with SN that is significant - but for many it is irrelevant and the report seems to ignore those children completely - as if they don't exist.

A further thought wrt to hearing impairments. If a child is profoundly deaf they may attend school with bsl as their first language - it may be their only language (especially if they are living in a family where bsl is the first language). In those cases children may be being taught in a second language. Imagine having to learn to read if your first language is bsl! Again further details are needed to unlock what is going on and consider how best to support the needs of those children.

Sorry am on iPod. I'm not saying the report is completely wrong - of course there are children underachieving at gcse's. I thought their point about the role of socio economic status was interesting - although whether that reflects underachievement or a poverty trap for those with more severely disabled children is anyone's guess!

They just seem to have very narrow definition of disability (ie cognitively able!)