The Children’s Commissioner’s Office’s programme of data work on childhood vulnerability aims to shine a light on the children growing up with additional needs or issues that may need more help to succeed. These include educational disadvantage, severe poverty, special educational needs or disabilities, risks of abuse and neglect, mental health needs, youth violence and exploitation, homelessness, and other issues. Our work on this area has set out to show the scale and nature of childhood vulnerability and how they interact.
Many children grow up facing at least one vulnerability: even before the pandemic – 2.3 million children in England were growing up in a family vulnerable family with a serious and complex need1. Even more concerning are the children who face multiple overlapping vulnerabilities – risks that compound each other and collectively chip away at children’s ability to thrive. Unfortunately, it is these kinds of more severe vulnerabilities where data and insights are lacking the most.
Our work on vulnerability has made valuable inroads, by showing the 100,000 children living in a household affected by all of the so called ‘toxic trio’ issues – domestic abuse, parental mental health issues and parental drug and alcohol dependency2 – or the 140,000 teenagers with two or more high needs (including dropping out of school, special educational needs, or having a social worker)3. Despite this, it is still too difficult to assess the numbers, experiences and outcomes of the children that we should be most worried – those living with multiple and persistent vulnerabilities.
One area where we can make more progress is in understanding the impact of vulnerability on education. It is well known that disadvantaged children tend, on average, to have lower levels of educational attainment. Children eligible for free school meals (FSM) are only around half likely as likely as the rest of the cohort to achieve a strong pass in English and Maths GCSE. Furthermore, children with identified special educational needs (SEN) are only a quarter as likely to achieve this benchmark, compared to children without SEN.4. The Department for Education’s Child in Need (CIN) review5 indicates that children who have ever needed a social worker are around a half as likely to achieve this, compared to other children. More recent evidence from the Bristol and Oxford Universities shows that within the group of children too often we consider one vulnerability at a particular point in time. These separate pieces of evidence are powerful and important on their own, but what has too often been missed is that in many cases they could be examining the same child from three different lenses. In other words, these groups often overlap – and most vulnerable children will belong to more than one group.
Data analysed for this report, focusing on the cohort of children taking GCSE exams in 2019, shows the degree of overlap. Of the children who have needed a social worker in the past six years, 4 in 5 also had another disadvantage (FSM or SEN) in the past six years. Of the children who had been FSM in the past six years, more than half also been CIN or had SEN over that period as well. And nearly half of the children who had had SEN over the past six years and had also been CIN or FSM over that period. As these disadvantages compound, so too does the additional support that may needed. Some children – around 1 in 25 of the Year 11 cohort – had all three of these characteristics.
This report also shows the extent to which these issues persist over time. It finds that less than half (44%) of the pupils who have had a social worker have only done so for one year; the rest have had a social worker for multiple years. Among those who have had SEN, only around three quarters have done so for more than a year, and among those who have had FSM this is more than four-fifths.
As well as looking at the intersections of these different groups, this analysis also looks within these groups to see how education outcomes vary amongst children with needs identified at different thresholds – for example, children in care or children with an Education, Care and Health Plan (EHCP).
This report finds only around 2 in 5 of the broader group of children – those who have been CIN, FSM or SEN – achieved a pass in GCSE English and Maths in 2019. But children who only have one vulnerability will still do well on average. For example, nearly two thirds of children who only had a social worker – and not FSM or SEN – achieved these passes. The same is true of children who only had FSM. These rates are actually in line with the average pass rate across all pupils.
But as vulnerabilities coincide and become more severe or persistent, outcomes can rapidly deteriorate. Of the children who have had a social worker and been on FSM and had SEN, only 13% passed GCSE English and Maths. The rate falls to as low as 4% if the child was continually on FSM throughout school and also had an EHCP.
The proportions of children who have these various types and levels of need is therefore a crucial way of understanding the overall of educational vulnerability. Overall, these groups collectively account for the clear majority of children failing to achieve basic qualifications in England. Of all the children not achieving levels 9-4 in GCSE English and Maths, nearly three-quarters – 72% – have been CIN, FSM or SEN in the last six years.
We also need to recognise that these rates vary considerably across the country: in some local areas, nearly 3 in 4 pupils have been CIN, FSM or SEN in the past six years. But there is also wide variation in the outcomes that these children achieve: in some areas more half of these pupils managed to pass English and Maths GCSE, whereas in other areas less than a third of this group managed to do so.
With the data available, it is difficult to explain what is driving this local variation, even after taking into account other local factors including deprivation and rates of access for SEN and CIN support. We still need to know more about what it is that enables some of these highly vulnerable children to succeed – either because of the area they live in, or because of personal or family factors that enable them to thrive regardless. What is clear, however, is that re-examining the data on disadvantaged children in this way helps us to see which groups – on average – are the most left-behind and need the most help
This analysis examines the Key Stage 4 (KS4) results for the following groupings of disadvantaged and vulnerable children:
We examine Key Stage 4 results for children at the intersections of these groups to examine what (if any) additional disadvantage children face when they have multiple identified vulnerabilities. We also look within these groups and examine how KS4 results vary amongst children with needs identified at higher thresholds. We investigate this amongst the most recent cohort of children to take GCSEs that were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic - those who sat their GCSEs in summer 2019. The main outcome measure in this analysis is whether these children achieved Levels 9-4 in English and Maths GCSE.
Our key questions to answer are:
What are the Key Stage 4 results for children with varying combinations of these CIN 6, FMS 6 and SEN 6 characteristics?
How do results vary in relation to the length of time that they have been CIN/FSM eligible/identified SEN over the past 6 years?
How do these results vary by local authority for children with combinations of these characteristics?
Overall this analysis echoes previous work suggesting that large numbers of children have these identified vulnerabilities and that (on average) they have notably worse outcomes at Key Stage 4. However, the key addition is that it also demonstrates there is considerable variation within these groups in children’s Key Stage 4 results based on their combinations of these vulnerabilities.
Children with any of these CIN/FSM/SEN 6 – that is, CIN 6 or FSM 6 or SEN 6 – characteristics represent a substantial proportion of this cohort, accounting for just under 1 in 2 children sitting GCSE exams in 2019.
They have notably lower rates of achieving levels 9-4 in KS4 English and Maths. Around 4 in 10 of this group achieve at least a level 4 in these subjects compared to a cohort average of just over 6 in 10. Around 1 in 4 achieve at least a level 5, compared to 4 in 10 in the cohort overall.
Children with any of these CIN/FSM/SEN 6 characteristics account for 72% of the children in this cohort not achieving levels 9-4 in KS4 English and maths and 61% of those not achieving levels 9-5.
Rates of achieving at least level 4 in these subjects are lowest among those that have had an EHC plan in the last 6 years (12%), and among those that have been looked after at some point in the last 6 years (23%).
The specific combination of children’s CIN/FSM/SEN 6 status makes substantial differences to their performance at KS4: Nearly two thirds of children that are CIN 6 only – i.e. CIN 6 but not FSM 6 and not SEN 6 – achieve at least a level 4 in English and Maths. This is similar to the average rate for the cohort as a whole (64%). The lowest rates are amongst children with an EHC plan in the last 6 years in combination with an open CIN episode and being FSM eligible throughout the 6 years achieving at least a level 4 in English and Maths (4%).
Children with an EHC plan in the last 6 years combination with other CIN/SEN/FSM 6 characteristics have the lowest rates of achieving at least a level 4 in English and Maths.
There is substantial variation by local authority in rates of these children achieving at least a level 4 in English and Maths.
We base our analysis on the cohort of children who took Key Stage 4 (KS4) exams in 2019 and can be matched in the Summer term school census 2019 (n = 548,610). Note that since the School Census primarily covers state-funded schools only, the resulting matched cohort largely excludes who were not enrolled in a state school6.
We then link this base cohort to every termly pupil level school census over the six year period from 2013/14 to 2018/19 (via the anonymised pupil matching reference) in order to add information on each pupil’s SEN and FSM status in each term during this period7. We also link in the children in need (CIN) census datasets over the same time period to add information on whether each pupil had an open CIN episode with children’s social care.
We then link this base cohort to the termly pupil level school census (hereafter the NPD) and annual children in need census datasets from 2014-2019 (inclusive) via their anonymised pupil matching reference and UPN respectively8. This creates a longitudinal record of this cohort’s number of terms with identified SEN and FSM eligibility as well as years when they have an open CIN episode with children’s services.
The main disadvantage indicators in this analysis are:
Table 1 and Figure 1 below show the proportions of the cohort that were CIN/SEN/FSM in the last 6 years. Just under 1 in 2 children in this cohort had any of these characteristics in the last 6 years and around 1 in 20 had all 3 at some point.
Table 1: Proportions of cohort that are CIN 6/SEN 6 or FSM 6
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | Number of pupils | % of cohort |
---|---|---|---|
CIN | Any CIN in last 6 years | 68138 | 12 |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 134207 | 24 |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 160444 | 29 |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 144938 | 26 | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 22581 | 4 | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 248298 | 45 |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 23960 | 4 | |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 242710 | 44 | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 20257 | 4 |
Figure 1: Venn diagram of intersections between CIN 6, SEN 6 and FSM 6 groups
Figure 1 also shows a notable degree of overlap between children in these groups. For example, 79% of the pupils in the CIN 6 group are also a member of the SEN 6 or FSM 6 groups. More than half – 57% – of the pupils in the FSM 6 group are also in the SEN 6 or CIN 6 groups. And nearly half of the pupils in the SEN 6 group are also in the FSM 6 or CIN 6 groups.
Tables 2, 3, 4 and demonstrates that these overlaps are larger than would be expected if the FSM 6, SEN 6 and CIN 6 were distributed randomly. Table 2 demonstrates CIN 6 children are over twice as likely to have had any identified SEN in the past 6 years compared to non-CIN 6 children.
Table 2: Proportions of CIN 6 group that are also SEN 6
SEN 6 | CIN 6 | Not CIN 6 |
---|---|---|
Not SEN 6 | 45% (30,352) | 74% (357,814) |
SEN 6 | 55% (37,786) | 26% (122,658) |
Table 3 demonstrates a similar strong association between children being CIN 6 and FSM 6. CIN 6 children are nearly three times as likely to have also been eligible for free school meals in the past 6 years compared to non-CIN 6 children.
Table 3: Proportions of CIN 6 group that are also FSM 6
FSM 6 | CIN 6 | Not CIN 6 |
---|---|---|
FSM 6 | 59% (39,900) | 20% (94,307) |
Not FSM 6 | 41% (28,238) | 80% (386,165) |
Table 4 demonstrates a similar strong association between children being SEN 6 and FSM 6. CIN 6 children are nearly twice as likely to have also been eligible for free school meals in the past 6 years compared to children with no identified SEN.
Table 4: Proportions of SEN 6 group that are also FSM 6
FSM 6 | Not SEN 6 | SEN 6 |
---|---|---|
FSM 6 | 19% (73,442) | 38% (60,765) |
Not FSM 6 | 81% (314,724) | 62% (99,679) |
Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrates the proportions of the cohort with identified higher threshold needs. Just over 1% of the cohort have been looked after in the last 6 years (LAC 6). Around 1 in 10 children have been either looked after, had an EHC plan or been FSM eligible for all of the possible terms in the last 6 years.
Table 5: Proportions of cohort with identified higher threshold needs in the last 6 years
Characteristic | Number of pupils | % of cohort |
---|---|---|
EHC plan in last 6 years | 22581 | 4.1 |
LAC in last 6 years | 7540 | 1.4 |
FSM for all possible terms in last 6 years - Persistent FSM | 38848 | 7.1 |
Any EHC/LAC/Persistent FSM in last 6 years | 62020 | 11.3 |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 214 | 0.0 |
Figure 2: Venn diagram of intersections between LAC 6, EHC 6 and Persistent FSM groups
Table 6 below demonstrates the relationship between these demographic characteristics and gender. It shows that there is mostly little relationship with gender, however those children who are SEN 6 are more likely to be male, driven by the strong gender disparity in the EHCP 6 group (72% of whom are male). Since children in the various SEN groups are more likely to be male, the various combinations that involve SEN are also more likely to be male.
Table 6: Relationship between gender and disadvantage indicators
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | Female | Male |
---|---|---|---|
CIN | Children looked after at any point in the last 6 years | 48% (3,641) | 52% (3,899) |
Any CIN in last 6 years | 50% (33,772) | 50% (34,366) | |
Any Child Protection Plan in the last 6 years | 52% (6,488) | 48% (6,055) | |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 49% (65,829) | 51% (68,378) |
Children persistently FSM eligible over 6 years | 48% (18,715) | 52% (20,133) | |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 39% (61,938) | 61% (98,506) |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 40% (57,722) | 60% (87,216) | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 28% (6,211) | 72% (16,370) | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 45% (111,848) | 55% (136,450) |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 45% (110,390) | 55% (132,320) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 42% (10,002) | 58% (13,958) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 44% (8,986) | 56% (11,271) | |
Cohort average | 49% (267,686) | 51% (280,924) |
Table 7 shows that pupils with English as an additional language are slightly underrepresented in the CIN 6 and SEN 6 groups, but slightly overrepresented in the FSM 6 group.
Table 7: Relationship between first language and disadvantage indicators
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | English as additional language | English as first language | Unknown |
---|---|---|---|---|
CIN | Children looked after at any point in the last 6 years | 13% (958) | 86% (6,469) | 1% (113) |
Any CIN in last 6 years | 14% (9,569) | 85% (57,981) | 1% (588) | |
Any Child Protection Plan in the last 6 years | 11% (1,368) | 88% (11,046) | 1% (129) | |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 20% (27,419) | 79% (105,803) | 1% (985) |
Children persistently FSM eligible over 6 years | 19% (7,346) | 80% (31,272) | 1% (230) | |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 14% (23,040) | 85% (136,447) | 1% (957) |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 15% (21,177) | 85% (122,865) | 1% (896) | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 11% (2,517) | 88% (19,940) | 1% (124) | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 18% (43,740) | 82% (203,097) | 1% (1,461) |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 18% (43,113) | 82% (198,155) | 1% (1,442) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 10% (2,442) | 89% (21,240) | 1% (278) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 10% (2,035) | 89% (17,960) | 1% (262) | |
Cohort average | 16% (90,418) | 83% (455,764) | 0% (2,428) |
Table 8 shows that while ethnic minority pupils are not overall over or underrepresented in the CIN 6 group, they are overrepresented in the FSM groups and underrepresented in the SEN groups.
Table 8: Relationship between ethnicity and disadvantage indicators
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | Asian (exc Chinese) | Black | Chinese | Mixed | Other | White - British | White - other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIN | Children looked after at any point in the last 6 years | 6% (475) | 8% (638) | 0% (11) | 8% (592) | 3% (191) | 67% (5,072) | 5% (366) |
Any CIN in last 6 years | 9% (5,808) | 7% (5,034) | 0% (119) | 7% (4,533) | 2% (1,174) | 69% (46,686) | 5% (3,489) | |
Any Child Protection Plan in the last 6 years | 7% (912) | 6% (699) | 0% (18) | 7% (886) | 1% (164) | 72% (8,998) | 5% (599) | |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 12% (15,726) | 11% (14,204) | 0% (224) | 7% (9,476) | 3% (3,854) | 60% (81,168) | 5% (7,171) |
Children persistently FSM eligible over 6 years | 12% (4,835) | 8% (3,081) | 0% (65) | 7% (2,605) | 3% (1,245) | 64% (24,869) | 4% (1,521) | |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 9% (13,732) | 6% (10,368) | 0% (334) | 5% (8,234) | 2% (2,579) | 71% (113,249) | 6% (9,356) |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 9% (12,407) | 6% (9,389) | 0% (292) | 5% (7,451) | 2% (2,357) | 70% (102,017) | 6% (8,659) | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 8% (1,729) | 6% (1,343) | 0% (59) | 5% (1,155) | 1% (310) | 73% (16,581) | 5% (1,054) | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 10% (25,940) | 8% (19,853) | 0% (552) | 6% (14,483) | 2% (5,474) | 66% (163,450) | 6% (14,471) |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 10% (25,407) | 8% (19,628) | 0% (530) | 6% (14,272) | 2% (5,405) | 66% (159,283) | 6% (14,189) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 6% (1,407) | 7% (1,772) | 0% (15) | 7% (1,703) | 1% (319) | 72% (17,259) | 4% (991) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 6% (1,164) | 7% (1,450) | 0% (11) | 7% (1,468) | 1% (272) | 72% (14,599) | 4% (855) | |
Cohort average | 11% (58,389) | 6% (31,602) | 0% (2,011) | 5% (27,524) | 2% (9,680) | 69% (376,292) | 6% (35,278) |
Table 9 below demonstrates that children with these disadvantage indicators over-represent slightly amongst children in special schools and alternative provision or pupil referral units (PRUs) than the rest of the cohort. For example, 4% of children that have been CIN/FSM or SEN in the last 6 years were in a special school at Key Stage 4 compared to 2% of the overall cohort. These differences are larger for those at higher thresholds, for example 9% of those looked after at any point in the last 6 years were in a PRU or alternative provision at key stage 4 compared to 1% of the entire cohort.
Table 9: Proportions of children that are CIN/FSM/SEN 6 by school type at Key Stage 4
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | Mainstream - Free school | Mainstream - LA maintained | Mainstream - academy | Other | PRU/AP | Special school |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIN | Any CIN in last 6 years | 3% (1,717) | 23% (15,859) | 59% (40,201) | 0% (95) | 6% (3,977) | 9% (6,289) |
Any Child Protection Plan in the last 6 years | 2% (252) | 23% (2,925) | 57% (7,146) | 0% (21) | 9% (1,175) | 8% (1,024) | |
Children looked after at any point in the last 6 years | 2% (131) | 22% (1,696) | 53% (4,007) | 0% (21) | 9% (710) | 13% (975) | |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 3% (3,994) | 26% (34,663) | 63% (85,033) | 0% (168) | 3% (4,515) | 4% (5,834) |
Children persistently FSM eligible over 6 years | 2% (883) | 26% (10,235) | 62% (23,899) | 0% (37) | 3% (1,090) | 7% (2,704) | |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 3% (4,726) | 24% (38,496) | 62% (99,560) | 0% (222) | 4% (6,400) | 7% (11,040) |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 3% (4,576) | 25% (36,667) | 65% (94,916) | 0% (214) | 4% (6,204) | 2% (2,361) | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 1% (296) | 13% (3,001) | 34% (7,618) | 0% (33) | 3% (698) | 48% (10,935) | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 3% (7,375) | 25% (62,860) | 64% (159,849) | 0% (307) | 3% (6,863) | 4% (11,044) |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 2% (548) | 20% (4,872) | 50% (12,072) | 0% (53) | 11% (2,708) | 15% (3,707) | |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 3% (7,299) | 26% (61,971) | 65% (157,442) | 0% (305) | 3% (6,823) | 4% (8,870) | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 3% (527) | 23% (4,589) | 56% (11,440) | 0% (51) | 13% (2,637) | 5% (1,013) | |
Cohort average | 3% (13,998) | 26% (140,050) | 68% (375,632) | 0% (698) | 1% (7,187) | 2% (11,045) |
Note: figures below exclude children with no LSOA recorded in the summer school census or where their recorded LSOA indicates they live outside of England
Table 10 demonstrates that there is large variation between local authorities in rates of children who have been CIN/FSM/SEN in the last 6 years. Rates of those with any of these characteristics range from under 1 in 3 to nearly 3 in 4 across English local authorities. The biggest variation is in the FSM 6 group, which ranges from 9% of pupils to 58% of pupils across LAs.
This table also indicates large variations in rates of children that have identified SEN in the last 6 years and those with time in contact with children’s services in the last 6 years. These range from 21% to 42% and 5% to 24% respectively across LAs in England.
Table 10: Variation in proportion of cohort in each LA who have CIN/FSM/SEN characteristics in the last 6 years
Disadvantage type | Disadvantage indicator | Lowest LA rate (%) | 25th percentile | Median | 75th percentile | Highest LA rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIN | Any CIN in last 6 years | 5 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 24 |
Any Child Protection Plan in the last 6 years | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | |
Children looked after at any point in the last 6 years | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
FSM | Any FSM in last 6 years | 9 | 18 | 25 | 31 | 58 |
Children persistently FSM eligible over 6 years | 1 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 27 | |
SEN | Any SEN in last 6 years | 21 | 27 | 29 | 32 | 42 |
Any SEN without a statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 19 | 24 | 27 | 30 | 42 | |
Any statement/EHC plan in the last 6 years | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 9 | |
Summary | Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years | 32 | 41 | 46 | 52 | 72 |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 10 | |
Any CIN/SEN/FSM in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 30 | 39 | 45 | 51 | 71 | |
CIN 6 & FSM 6 & SEN 6 in last 6 years exc. EHC plans | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 |
Figure 3: Proportion of KS4 cohort in LA with each CIN/FSM/SEN 6 characteristic