[senco-forum] (no subject)

Maggie, you are right - I did assume you were asking about SEN.  Howeer, the
sytem I described can be used for anychidl to judge whther attaiment matches
potential, rpoviding you also understnd that some facotrs can mask IQ.  (and
theseneed not be SEN.  1 in 5 chidlren has an undiagnosed vision problem for
example.  Vision problems fal into one of two or both categories -
1

kngbrndn at aol.com wrote:. But I'm still suspicious that the data gathered
will pop up as an underestimation statistically of the depth and extent of
SEN nationwide. Brendan King

I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Brendan.  Referring back to the
question I asked earlier, about expected progress for struggling readers,
the detailed answers I received (thank you, Philippa & Klaus) appeared to
make the the assumption that the children I was asking about were all
children with SEN.  They most definitely are not.  Only a small number of
them have any underlying difficulty.  The majority have underachieved
because they haven't been taught to read properly, not because they can't
learn to read.  They are learning now and having no problem with it
whatsoever.  But they are on our SEN 'register'  at SA by virtue of their
poor level of literacy and will, I assume,  be reported on the PLASC.  Thus
contributing to/inflating the statistics.

It seems to me to be a strangely Catch 22 situation. If I weren't working
with them they wouldn't be on the register and our register would be some 40
children 'lighter'.  But then, of course, we wouldn't get those all
important 'points' for them when it comes to calculating our CVA.  Hmmm...

Maggie