Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report for Information

1) Purpose of Report:

1.1. The report describes outcomes for pupils with SEN in terms of value added data and comparison with national benchmarks and statistical neighbours.

2) Contextual Issues:

2.1. The Terms of Reference of the Education Advisory Panel are mainly related to strategic developments in education, the performance of individual schools, and the performance of schools overall. However, there is scope for the panel to consider the performance of subsets of the pupil population - children from ethnic minority backgrounds, young parents, etc. This report considers the performance of another important subset of the population: those children and young people with SEN.

3) Background:

3.1. The data used in this report have been taken from four sources:

a) The National Strategies DCSF Special Educational Needs/Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Data Set Part III - January 2008.

b) Analysis to support Self-Evaluation, Fischer Family Trust and Hampshire Local Authority 14.11.2007.

c) Secondary school achievement and attainment tables 2007:

i. Key Stage 2 to 4 CVA

ii. GCSE (and equivalent) results

d) DCSF Research and Statistics site published March 2008. Performance by SEN at key stage 2, 3 and 4.

3.2 This paper reports on 2007 data. It is too early to report on 2008.

3.3 All the above sources identify groups of pupils using the school's own census returns. For example, pupils with `no identified SEN'; `school action'; `school action plus'; `SEN without a statement'; `SEN with a statement'; `all pupils'.

3.4 Before firm conclusions can be drawn it is important to note that Hampshire has drawn up criteria for pupils identified as at `school action' or `action plus' and has criteria for drawing up a statement of special educational needs. However, schools in Hampshire are free to identify pupils on their census return without reference to the criteria guidance. In addition there are no national criteria for SEN or statements, and this results in school by school and LA by LA differences in numbers of pupils with SEN in general, and statements in particular. Parents are able to appeal via a tribunal system against an LA which refuses to carry out a formal assessment of SEN.

3.5 In Hampshire it is the case that not all pupils with the same degree of learning difficulty will have (or not have) a statement. For example, pupils do not require a statement in order to access resourced provision for secondary aged pupils with dyslexia, but a number of pupils across the authority do have a statement identifying dyslexia as a special educational need.

4) Primary:

4.1. The National Strategies data set uses two indicators: below level 2 attainment at key stage 1 and below level 3 attainment at key stage 2.

4.2. At key stage 1 Hampshire continues to do well compared with England in reading, writing and mathematics. This is also reflected in the provisional statistics for below level 1 performance.

4.3. At key stage 2 the figures for 2007 are again better in English and maths than England. However a new indicator, which highlights the gap between the performance of Year 6 pupils with SEN compared with pupils without SEN at level 4+ in English and maths, shows that for Hampshire the gap is wider than England and is an area for improvement. This is also a national priority.

4.4. Key stage 1-2 CVA data from source b) Fischer Family Trust, indicates that it is the performance of pupils at `school action' that is significantly lower than expected in English, maths and science. Performance of pupils at `school action plus' is more varied, for example at level 5+ performance is significantly higher than expected in all three subject areas of English, maths and science, but significantly lower than expected at level 4+ in English.

4.5. CVA performance of pupils with statements is significantly higher overall and is better than all other identified groups of pupils key stage 1-2. At key stage 1 a very similar pattern emerges.

4.6. When Hampshire performance at level 4+ at key stage 2 is compared with statistical neighbours there is scope for improvement in English, maths and science. For example, in English, Hertfordshire pupils at `school action' and `school action plus' achieved 52% level 4+ compared with Hampshire 44%. Results for maths are also disappointingly similar: Hertfordshire 51%; Hampshire 45%.

4.7. At the end of key stage 1 the results at level 2+ are consistently higher than the mean for the group of statistical neighbours across all areas.

4.8. It could be concluded that the impact of quality first teaching, in conjunction with wave 2 interventions, is not as effective as it needs to be within key stage 2 in order to accelerate the progress of pupils, particularly at `school action'.

5) Secondary:

5.1. The National Strategies data set also has two key `below level' attainment indicators: below level 4 at one end of key stage 3 and achieving less than 2 GCSE's or equivalent.

5.2. Hampshire performs better than England on both measures in addition to a higher percentage of pupils with SEN achieving 5A*-C including English and maths.

5.3. Hampshire NEET (not in education, employment or training) figures for pupils with SEN/LDD in 2006 were outstanding: 7.8% when compared with 15.5 % for England.

5.4. The new SEN/non-SEN gap indicator achieving 5A*-C including English and maths is disappointingly lower than England, even though SEN pupils do well against England figures for the 5A*-C including English and maths. Interestingly the National Strategies LA monitoring visit discounted this measure as an issue for us.

5.5. Using CVA measures key stage 2-3 2005-2007, pupils with statements performed significantly higher than expected in English, maths and science at levels 5+ and 6+. Pupils at `school action plus' met expectations in all areas except level 5+ maths. The performance of pupils at `school action' was significantly lower in the majority of areas, however this performance was still better than that recorded for `all pupils'.

5.6. CVA measures key stage 3-4 2005-2007: The performance of SEN groups on this measure was inconsistent. However it is one where pupils at `school action' performed significantly higher than expected in a number of areas notably 5A*-G with English and maths and average point score.

5.7. Comparisons with statistical neighbours performance at the end of key stage 3 and 4 again demonstrates room for improvement, particularly in English at key stage 3, for example 51% of Hertfordshire pupils at `school action' achieved level 5+; Hampshire 37% level 5+.

5.8. At key stage 4, although overall just below the mean for our neighbours the SEN group of pupils did perform better than at key stage 3.

6) Secondary special schools:

6.1. Overall MLD, BESD and two of our CLD schools with MLD aged secondary pupils continue to perform well on value added measures key stage 2-4. However within the results there is a wider range of point scores than could be expected 1098.9 to 984.8.

6.2. Key factors include the size of the cohort, 4 in one school, and the average number of qualifications taken by students which range from 2.6 to 9.0. Special schools are now more aware of the need to consider nationally accredited courses and this has resulted in a positive impact on CVA performance. There is also evidence that the performance tables have raised expectations in some schools, which in turn has had a positive impact on teacher and pupil performance.

7) Conclusions:

7.1. As identified above there is much to celebrate when considering the performance and progress of pupils with SEN/LDD.

7.2. There is also scope for greater and faster improvement in Hampshire, particularly in relation to pupils at `school action', and generally in comparison with the best of our statistical neighbours.

7.3. As a result of Hampshire's practice in relation to pupils with SEN, both in mainstream and special provision, the authority has been selected as one of ten good practice local authorities nationally to become a hub for SEN/LDD. This will involve liaison with the 19 authorities in the South East (ranging from Kent to the Isle of Wight and Oxford to Milton Keynes). The work will focus on three priorities initially: the dissemination of the Inclusion Development Programme, pupil progress and specialist provision.