SEND Trends and the Academisation EffectPresentation at NPD User Group Meeting, London

Alison Black, Yi Liu, Alexey Bessudnov, Brahm Norwich20 October 2017

University of Exeter

Background of the study

Background on academisation in England

• Establishment of Academies and Free schools• Existing schools encouraged to convert to Academies and be

self-governing (converter type of Academies).• Existing schools required to convert because of poor performance

to become an Academy under the control of a sponsor (sponsoredtype of Academies).

• New schools set up under the initiative of parents, voluntaryorganisations or religious groups (free schools).

• All have more autonomy than maintained schools (organisation,curriculum and staffing) though they are not permitted toformally select pupils by attainment / abilities.

• Maintained schools (under control of Local Authority) still exist.

1

Breakdown of Schools by classifications

Type Year Primary Secondary State Special PRU / AP Total

Maintained schools2011 16800 2911 956 425 210922014 14961 1426 842 333 175622017 13009 1070 728 236 15043

Sponsored Academies2011 0 255 0 0 2552014 500 454 11 0 9652017 1069 601 38 15 1723

Converter Academies2011 35 98 0 0 1332014 1186 1276 89 16 25672017 2514 1455 171 43 4183

Free schools2011 0 0 0 0 02014 53 68 8 18 1472017 118 137 23 34 312

Total2011 16385 3264 956 425 210302014 16700 3224 950 367 212412017 16710 3263 960 328 21261

2

Background on SEND and policy change

• All pupils with a Statement of SEN or EHC Plan have to beadmitted to an Academy if the school is named in the Statementor Plan (DfE, 2014).

• Proportion of all pupils with significant SEN in English specialschools:

• Decrease from early 1980s to early 2000s (Norwich, 2002).• 2000 - 2006 more or less unchanged.• Since 2006 has started to increase, for the first time in 30 years

(Black and Norwich, 2014; Ofsted, 2016).

• New Education Act and Code of Practice (DfE, 2014) changedidentification processes regarding classification of SEN

• Pupils with most severe SEN (Statements before 2014;Educational, Health, Care (EHC) Plans after).

• Pupils identified with SEN at less severe level (School Action andSchool Action plus before 2014; SEN support after).

3

Background on SEND and policy change

• Different percentages of pupils with significant SEN betweenacademies and maintained English secondary schools (Norwichand Black, 2015)

• Converter Academies (the most autonomous of the types) had thelowest percentage of pupils with Statements of SEN,

• Sponsored Academies (required to convert and governed byoutside sponsor) had the highest percentage of Statements,

• Maintained schools (remaining as local authority schools) hadpercentages between these levels.

• Anecdotal evidence of Academies being more unwilling to offerplaces to pupils with significant SENs, deploying covert selection(IPPR, 2014).

4

Data sources

• “National statistics on specialeducational needs in England”

• https://www.gov.uk/

government/collections/

statistics-special-educational-needs-sen

• Underlying data file for eachyear (2011 – 2017)

5

Variables of interest

• School level data

• Number of pupils with statements / EHC Plans

• Number of children on SEN support

• Type of schools

• Date of conversion (if applicable)

6

Descriptive statistics andstatistical analysis

Academisation and SEN – overall trends

88%84%

79%74%

71%68%

64%

1.1% 1.3% 2.4%4% 5% 6% 7%

0.6%

5%8%

11%13%

14%17%

0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.5% 1.7%

10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Others

Maintained schools

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Year

Per

cent

a a a a aMaintained School Sponsored Academy Converter Academy Free School Others

Schools

17.79%16.99%

15.95%15.14%

12.62%11.60% 11.55%

2.71%2.73%

2.81% 2.82%2.83%

2.80%2.82%

Statement EHC Plan

SEN Support

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

12%

14%

16%

18%

2.75%

2.80%

Year

Per

cent

a aSEN Support Statement EHC Plan

SEN variables

7

Academisation of schools

100% 98% 94%90% 86% 82%

78%

0.1% 1.1% 3.0% 4% 5% 6%0.2% 2.0% 5% 7% 9% 12% 15%

0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Primary Primary Sponsored

Primary Converter Primary Free School

Primary Mainstream Schools

89%

65%

51%44%

40% 36%33%

8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 17% 18%

3.0%

25%

36% 40% 41% 43% 45%

0.8% 2.1% 3.3% 3.8% 4%0%

25%

50%

75%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Secondary Secondary Sponsored

Secondary Converter Secondary Free School

Secondary Mainstream Schools

99% 97%92%

88%84%

80%75%

0.4% 1.1% 2.2% 2.9% 3.9%1.7%

6%9% 11%

14%18%

0.3% 0.8% 1.4% 2.0% 2.4%1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9%

Others

Maintained schools

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

75%80%85%90%95%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

a

Maintained Special Academy Sponsored Special

Special Converter Free Schools Special

General Hospital

State Special Schools

100% 100% 98%91%

84%78%

72%

1.4%3.7% 5%

0.2%4%

7%9%

13%

1.3%5%

8% 9% 10%

Others

Maintained schools

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

80%

90%

100%

0%

5%

10%

Year

Per

cent

a

a

a

a

Pupil Referral Unit

Academy Alternative Provision Sponsor Led

Academy Alternative Provision Converter

Free Schools − Alternative Provision

Pupil Referral Units

8

SEN support

18%18%17%

24%

16% 16%

22%

15%15% 15%

19%

14%

12%13%

15%

12%11%

12%

14%

11%12% 12%

14%

12%

10%

Primary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Primary Primary Sponsored

Primary Converter Primary Free School

SEN Support, Primary Mainstream Schools

19%

26%

15%

19%

24%

15%

18%

22%

15%

23%

17%

20%

14%

18%

13%

15%

11%

15%

12%

14%

10%

12%11%

13%

9%

11%

Secondary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Secondary Secondary Sponsored

Secondary Converter Secondary Free School

SEN Support, Secondary Mainstream Schools

1.9%

34%

2.1%0.5%

37%

2.3%1.1%0.8%1.2%

32%

1.9%1.1%2.9%0.5%

44%

2.0%0.6%2.8%0.2%

43%

2.2%1.7%2.5%1.2%

43%

2.1%2.1%2.5%1.1%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

a

Maintained Special Academy Sponsored Special

Special Converter Free Schools Special

General Hospital

SEN Support, State Special Schools

64%68% 69%

81%

62%

67%

81%

51%

70%

88%

74%

52%

67%67%70%

47%

67%71%68%

52%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a

a

a

a

Pupil Referral Unit

Academy Alternative Provision Sponsor Led

Academy Alternative Provision Converter

Free Schools − Alternative Provision

SEN Support, Pupil Referral Units

9

Academisation and SEN support – regional breakdown

10

Statistical approach – propensity-score matching

First, from the sample (2011 - 2017) of never-academised schools andpredecessor schools, we select four subsamples: primary schools,secondary schools, state special schools, and pupil referral units.

And for the following academisation treatment policies:

1. Conversion to a sponsored academy or a converter academy(general effect);

2. Conversion to a sponsored academy;

3. Conversion to a converter academy,

we construct their respective balanced sample usingpropensity-score matching, with these baseline (2011) covariates:total pupils, local authority, SEN support proportion, SEN statementEHC plan proportion.

11

Statistical approach – regression model

We then estimate the following regression model with fixed effects:

Yit = δAit + γi + λt + ϵit

i = 1, . . . ,N;t = 2012, . . . ,2017

• Yit: Percentage of pupils with SEN support SEN SupportTotal Pupils × 100;

• Ait ∈ {0,1}: = 1 when school i has received the academisationtreatment at time t;

• δ: δ% change to pupils with SEN support associated withacademisation;

• Whole sample: δ̂ = E(y1it)− E(y0

it)

• PSM sample: δ̂ = E(y1it|Ait = 1)− E(y0

it|Ait = 1)• γi, λt: Individual idiosyncratc effects and time effects.

12

Effect of academisation on SEN

Sample Treatmentδ

Matched sample Whole sample

Main primary

General Academy-0.562 *** -0.991 ***(0.113) (0.106)

Sponsored Academy-0.314 -1.862 ***(0.234) (0.207)

Converter Academy-0.623 *** -0.635 ***(0.125) (0.119)

Main secondary

General Academy-0.256 -0.877 ***(0.281) (0.235)

Sponsored Academy-1.177 ** -2.176 ***(0.532) (0.484)

Converter Academy0.232 -0.229(0.283) (0.249)

13

Effect of academisation on SEN

Sample Treatmentδ

Matched sample Whole sample

State special

General Academy-0.043 0.484 *(0.309) (0.265)

Sponsored Academy1.708 *** 0.951 **(0.564) (0.407)

Converter Academy-0.106 0.398(0.347) (0.302)

PRU

General Academy0.986 -7.517 **(9.853) (3.331)

Sponsored Academy-20.680 ** -6.526(9.869) (5.286)

Converter Academy-24.170 * -8.074 **(13.530) (4.026)

14

What we found so far

Effect of academisation on SEN support:

• Effect sizes are small in magnitude;• Effects vary by school types.

We do not make claims on causal relationships, because:

• We need to control for more confounding factors;• We need to understand more about the underlying mechanisms.

15

Conclusions

Conclusions and next steps

• We see some academisation effect, however ...

• Need to engage with many other variables that might havecausal effects, which is why we are engaging with pupil leveldata in the NPD.

16

Thank you for your attention!

• Alison Black (A.E.Black@exeter.ac.uk)• Yi Liu (Y.Liu3@exeter.ac.uk)• Alexey Bessudnov(A.Bessudnov@exeter.ac.uk)

• Brahm Norwich (B.Norwich@exeter.ac.uk)

16

References i

References

Black, Alison and Brahm Norwich (2014), Contrasting Responses toDiversity: School Placement Trends 2007-2013 for All LocalAuthorities in England, Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

DfE (2014), Special educational needs and disability code of practice:0 to 25 years: Statutory guidance for organisations who work withand support children and young people with special educationalneeds and disabilities., Department of Education.

IPPR (2014), Whole System Reform: England’s Schools and the MiddleTier, Institute for Public Policy Research.

17

References ii

Norwich, Brahm (2002), LEA Inclusion Trends in England, 1997-2001:Statistics on Special School Placements & Pupils with Statements inSpecial Schools., Centre for studies on inclusive education.

Norwich, Brahm and Alison Black (2015), ‘The placement ofsecondary school students with statements of special educationalneeds in the more diversified system of English secondaryschooling’, British Journal of Special Education 42(2), 128–151.

Ofsted (2016), The Annual Report of HM Chief Inspector of Education,2015-2016, Ofsted.

18

Appendix: SEN Statement EHC plans

1.3%

1.1%

1.3%

0.9%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.3%

0.9%

1.4%

1.6%

1.4%

0.5%

1.4%

1.6%

1.4%

0.8%

1.4%

1.5%

1.3%

0.8%

1.4%1.4%1.3%

1.2%

Primary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.8%

1.2%

1.6%

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Primary Primary Sponsored

Primary Converter Primary Free School

Statement EHC Plans, Primary Mainstream Schools

1.9%

2.2%

1.5%

2.0%

2.1%

1.7%

2.0%2.0%

1.8%

1.3%

2.0%2.0%

1.7%

1.6%

1.9%2.0%

1.7%1.7%

1.8%

2.0%

1.6%1.6%

1.8%1.9%

1.6%1.6%

Secondary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.50%

1.75%

2.00%

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

Maintained Secondary Secondary Sponsored

Secondary Converter Secondary Free School

Statement EHC Plans, Secondary Mainstream Schools

97%

13%

97%99%

14%

98%96%98%94%

16%

98%99%96%100%

10%

98%100%96%100%

11%

97%99%97%98%

15%

97%98%97%99%

12%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a a

a a

a

Maintained Special Academy Sponsored Special

Special Converter Free Schools Special

General Hospital

Statement EHC Plans, State Special Schools

12% 12%

13%

17%

3.9%

12%12%

5%

12%

10%

14%

8%

10%9%

13%

7%

10%10%

14%

6%

4%

8%

12%

16%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Per

cent

a

a

a

a

Pupil Referral Unit

Academy Alternative Provision Sponsor Led

Academy Alternative Provision Converter

Free Schools − Alternative Provision

Statement EHC Plans, Pupil Referral Units

19