1. SEN, school engagement, attainment, and long term social and economic outcomes
Samantha Parsons, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL
Lucinda Platt, Department of Social Policy, LSE

2. Overview SEN, school life and educational engagement
Millennium Cohort Study [MCS] age 11 survey (2012) and age 14 survey (2015)
Social and family outcomes of those with SEN across 3 generations
MCS age 14 survey (2015); Next Steps (LSYPE 1) age 25 survey (2015/16); National Child Development Study / 1958 Cohort [NCDS] age 50 survey (2008)
Economic outcomes of those with SEN(D) across 2 generations
Next Steps age 25 survey (and prior history); NCDS age 50 survey (and prior history)
Key conclusions and implications

3. Part 1: School life and educational engagement

4. Approach Comparison of In relation to:
Those with SEN at age 11 and age 14 surveys, compared to no SEN at either survey
In relation to:
School life and engagement and educational outcomes
At age 11 and at age 14
At age 14 conditional on age 11 outcome, sex and cognitive ability
Can tell us whether negative (and some positive) experiences in primary school persist into secondary school and potentially deteriorate

5. School engagement at age 11 and age 14
Age 11
Age 14
No SEN
SEN
How much do you like school? % ‘not at all’
5.0
16.1* --
How much are you looking forward to going to secondary school? % ‘not at all’
4.2
9.5* -
How do you feel about the school you go to? % very unhappy (1, 2 /7)
5.9
10.2*
11.0*
How often do you feel unhappy at school? % ‘all the time’
1.2
6.4*
2.6
5.8*
How often do you try your best at school? % ‘all the time’
57.4
56.6
31.6
37.5
How often do you find school interesting? % ‘all the time’
14.6
17.9
4.8
12.2*
How do you feel about your schoolwork? % very unhappy (1, 2 / 7)
3.4
8.8*
7.8
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
I am good at English: % strongly agree
26.6
22.5
22.7
12.6*
I am good at Maths: % strongly agree
43.1
43.4
27.6
17.0*
I am good at Science: % strongly agree
25.0
33.9*
24.9
20.6

6. And conditional differences at age 14 (significant differences only)

7. Aspirations age 11 and 14 No SEN SEN SEN
No SEN
 SEN
SEN
Do you want to stay on at school or college full-time when you are 16? % Yes
57.5
44.4*
How likely do you think it is that you will stay on at school after age 16? [0-100%] mean
-- 
87.2
75.9*
You need qualifications to have a job worth having. % strongly / agree
 --
85.9
75.3*
How likely child will go to university? % Not at all
3.2
25.6*
How likely do you think it is that you will go to university? [0-100%] (mean)
68.9
49.9*
When you grow up what would you like to be?
Professional or Managerial occupation %
34.1
23.4*
36.7
24.0*
Average gross hourly wage of occupation (mean)
25.06
23.50
21.00
19.83
Average share women in occupation (mean)
43.1
35.9*
44.4
32.7*

8. Looking a bit more at educational aspirations at age 14…
Looking a bit more at educational aspirations at age 14…. Distribution of age 14 aspirations
Boys: All
Boys: Top 50% cognitive score
Average: No SEN = 72.3; SEN=60.4 (sig lower)

9. Looking a bit more at educational aspirations at age 14…
Looking a bit more at educational aspirations at age 14…. Distribution of age 14 aspirations
Girls: All
Girls: Top 50% cognitive score
Average: No SEN = 79.2; SEN = 70.6 (sig lower)

10. And what share think they are very unlikely (0-10%) or very likely (90-100%) to attend

11. And conditional averages

12. Part 1: Conclusions Mixed picture of school engagement
Commitment to school but lower self-concept and less happy and lower aspirations for continuing in education
This is true at age 11 and age 14
It is also true at age 14 conditioning on cognitive ability and earlier response
Some children with SEN will need alternative options as they reach age 16, but others may be withdrawing from education and the future opportunities it offers earlier than they need to.

13. Part 2: Social outcomes across three generations

14. Comparative analysis looking beyond current generation of children with SEN
Compare friendship and other social measures among
Outcomes at age 14 among those with SEN at age 14
Outcomes at age 25 among those who had SEN at age 13/14
Outcomes at age 50 among those who had SEN(D) at age 16
Can tell us about the extent to which SEN in childhood is associated with more restricted social and family lives not only in childhood but also in adulthood
Doesn’t tell us the mechanisms – i.e. not suggesting SEN effect is causal, but nevertheless highlights a concern that those who are identified with SEN are those who are more susceptible to very different social outcomes – still relevant from a policy perspective

15. Background
SEN has been shown to be associated with increased risks of in-school bullying at young ages and with social stigma.
Are social relations better for children who had SEN once they are adults?
How do the effects accumulate and play out over time?
Social contact and companionship are basic human needs, and loneliness also has consequences for other aspects of wellbeing (e.g. Berkman 2000)  
Loneliness and its consequences can accumulate throughout the lifecourse, bringing substantial costs to individuals and society
People with SEN(D) may be more likely to experience factors that make them at cumulative risk of poorer social outcomes through the life course (Powell 2003) resulting at later ages in exclusion from key social experiences.

16. Approach
We can’t project the experience of current schoolchildren forward, but can investigate experience of older cohorts and compare them with younger ones.
So compare 14-year olds (MCS) with 25-year-olds (Next Steps) and 50 year olds (NCDS).
And we can see the impact of SEN (including all the intervening mechanisms) on the accumulation of social relations
We don’t attempt to evaluate these intervening mechanisms, but we do control for those factors that may make individuals more at risk of SEN in the first place (and precede in time, the life course outcomes) namely, family background, cognitive ability and child sex.
NB1: measurement of SEN is temporarily specific, but we take the measure that was used at the time, as that is where the ‘need’ or ‘problem’ was perceived – given also the contemporary education system.
NB2: for NCDS we use multiple imputation to take account of attrition and the fact that those with SEN(D) are more likely to drop out of the study
Can provide more technical information on this if required.

17. How do social outcomes of children with SEN differ from those with No SEN at age 14?
Compared to teenagers with the same cognitive ability, those with SEN are around three times more likely to lack a close friend, more than twice as likely to never spend time with friends and nearly three times more likely to be bullied most days.
They are also less likely to have someone to turn to, to trust, and more likely to be depressed or self-harm.
Predicted probabilities adjusted for family background, child sex and cognitive ability at age 11.
All differences are significant at p<=0.05

18. How do young adults who had SEN at age 13/14 differ from in relationships at age 25?
Predicted probabilities adjusted for family background, child sex and highest qualification.
All differences are significant at p<=0.05

19. And how do adults who had SEN(D) at age 16 differ in their family and social relationships at age 50?
Predicted probabilities adjusted for family background, child sex and highest qualification.
All differences are significant at p<=0.05

20. And what are the implications for wellbeing?
Predicted probabilities adjusted for family background, child sex and highest qualification.
All differences are significant at p<=0.05

21. Part 2: Conclusions
Social relations, friendships and communication are more constrained with those who had SEN in adolescence among those currently in school, youth and among those aged 50.
These effects are not driven by differences among SEN / No SEN in family background or cognitive ability.
By age 50 the consequences are stark. Those who had SEN at age 16, are much less likely to have social contacts, and also less likely to have the ability to foster virtual or remote relationships; they are more depressed and go out less, which is also likely to impact on their physical as well as mental health.
They are less likely to have children or living parents. While some of these effects may result from the cumulative economic impacts of SEN, not all of them are directly linked to economic well being.

22. Part 3: Economic outcomes across 2 generations

23. Background
Disabled adults have poorer employment outcomes and lower qualifications than non-disabled adults
Effects have been shown to work in both ways (Jenkins and Rigg 2004), and most disability is acquired in adulthood and later life rather than childhood.
We ask: what are the economic outcomes for those who had SEN in their school years?
Does there look to have been any improvement among the Next Steps cohort compared to the NCDS?
Education is now more important, but also much more awareness of discrimination and more attention to needs
What are the long-term outcomes for the NCDS?
How much of any differences in employment outcomes can be accounted for by education?
We focus mostly on a measure of “EET” (Education or Employment or Training), but we have also considered some other measures (e.g. wages for those in work).
As in Part 2: we use the measure of SEN(D) that was applicable at the time the study members were children; we address (differential) attrition through multiple imputation

24. % with no qualifications by SEN(D) status, gender & cohort
Big gaps by SEN status in shares with no qualifications.
But particularly marked for older cohort (NCDS).
And among SEN gender gap has reversed.

25. % with a degree by SEN(D) status, gender & cohort

26. % employed in mid-20s by SEN(D) status, gender & cohort

27. Comparison of the percentage of men in EET by SEN(D) status and cohort in each year between age 17 and 25

28. Comparison of the percentage of women in EET by SEN(D) status and cohort in each year between age 17 and 25

29. EET Gap explained by differences in qualifications
EET Gap explained by differences in qualifications? Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition technique
Men
Women
Next Steps
1958 cohort
Months in EET: No SEN(D)
94.2
91.4
92.8
78.6
Months in EET: SEN(D)
88.4
67.3
80.1
42.7
Gap in EET months 17-25
5.8
24.1
12.7
35.9
Months gained if same qualifications as Non-SEN
5.0
7.5
5.4
12.6
% explained by qualification differences
86%
31.1%
42.5%
35.1%
% unexplained (discrimination)
14%*
68.9%
57.5%
64.9%
* non-significant

30. Percentage of Men and Women in EET by SEN(D) status between January 1975 and December 2008 (1958 cohort)

31. EET Gap explained by differences in qualifications
EET Gap explained by differences in qualifications? Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition technique
Men
Women
1958 cohort
Months in EET: No SEN(D)
310.1
259.5
Months in EET: SEN(D)
198.3
120.3
Gap in months in EET 17-50
111.8
139.2
Months gained if same qualifications as Non-SEN
37.1
42.2
% explained by qualification differences
33.2%
30.3%
% unexplained (discrimination)
66.8%
69.7%
On average, men with SEN(D) have spent 9.3 years less in EET between 17-50;
women with SEN(D) have spent 11.6 years less in EET between 17-50

32. Part 3: Conclusions
Young people with SEN continue to be much less well qualified than their non-Sen peers
They also face employment gaps, though the gaps are much smaller than they were for the older cohort.
Gaps are larger for women with SEN in both cohorts.
For younger cohort most of the gap for men (but not for women)can be explained by differences in qualifications – continuing to support acquisition of qualifications where possible may tend to equalise outcomes.
For the older cohort (where educational qualifications less typical), education explains less of the gap either in the short or the long term.
Overall EET gap for the older cohort is (very) large, but patterns over time suggest that attention to disability and equality in the 21st century may have benefitted them.
Disadvantage for SEN women (who are a minority of those with SEN) particularly marked and may warrant specific attention

33. Conclusions and implications
SEN is associated with more negative school experiences and with poorer social and economic outcomes in later life.
These are not determined by education and by cognitive ability.
SEN casts ‘a long shadow’.
However, effects not inevitable.
Those who were formerly SEN seem to be particularly at risk of poor social outcomes – over and above educational focus: attending to social integration of those with SEN may have payoffs.
The reduction in the employment gap over time, suggests that changes in policy environment and opportunities may matter and that disadvantage is amenable to intervention.
Increasing as far as possible educational performance (and aspirations) of young people with SEN may bear fruit in labour market (particularly for men)

34. This is work in progress, we’d welcome your comments and suggestions
This is work in progress, we’d welcome your comments and suggestions. Thanks you!
Dr Sam Parsons:
Prof Lucinda Platt: