Are we missing the point when looking at the so-called “attainment gap” in academic achievement of some disabled pupils?
A recent article in the Guardian (19 September 2024), reported an “‘incredibly disheartening’ decline in special needs pupil attainment”, describing how children with special educational needs are slipping further behind and that this is cause for concern. Our article today examines this statement, and asks—is there another explanation for the attainment “gap” and is it a fair measurement?
The article was based on research undertaken by Assistant Professor, Dr Johny Daniel from Durham University. He is quoted as saying ‘This gap highlights a systemic issue where the necessary training and resources are not adequately provided, making it challenging for educators to apply best practices in the classroom’.
This ’gap’ between pupils who are disabled/have special educational needs and typically developing peers, is often cited as a cause for concern. A quick Google search will find education blogs and articles going back many years discussing the need to narrow or even close ‘the gap’. For example, a blog from Engage Education states ‘It’s going to take time and significant resources to completely eradicate the attainment gap, but with targeted intervention, ongoing assessment and additional funding, SEND providers and inclusive settings can maximise the opportunities available to their SEND pupils’.
The previous government argued it was necessary to have higher standards in education, to “help every child reach their potential” setting out a mission that ‘by 2030, 90% of children will leave primary school having achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, up from 65% in 2019.’
What is the research about?
The research from Dr Daniel seeks to explore the ‘dynamic nature’ of the achievement gap between students labelled with having SEND and typically developing peers. The study draws on SATS results for pupils in Year 6 in four different year groups, sitting their SATS between 2015/16 and 2018/19. One of the study aims is to assess the effectiveness of the Children & Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice 2015, asserting that academic achievement of students with SEND is a key indicator of effectiveness.
There are – of course – two limitations to this inquiry that Dr Daniel fails to mention in his article. First, many students in Year 6 may still have had a Statement of Special Educational Needs dating from the previous legislation, as they were only being phased out between 2014-2018. If they did have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) under the new legislation, it may have only just been put in place in Year 6. This is because the transfer process from SEN Statements to EHCPs took place at key transition points, e.g. the move from primary to secondary education. Most of these children’s education journey would have been completed under the previous legislative framework. Second, Dr Daniel fails to mention that many pupils with SEND do not sit standard SATS examinations. He instead states ALL students in England are assessed on reading, maths and spelling, punctuation & grammar (SPAG) at the end of Year 6. For instance, my daughter who has Down’s syndrome, falls within the cohorts being examined in this study, and yet her primary school did not put her in for the examinations, instead giving her a set of papers tailored to the level that she was working at.
A ’concerning trend’?
Dr Daniels was looking to answer three questions:
- What is the average reading, maths, and writing gap between students with and without SEND?
- To what extent does the achievement gap in reading, maths, and writing vary by the type of students’ SEND identification?
- Do differences in achievement between students with SEND and their typically developing peers persist over time?
He concludes that when looking at the total cohort of pupils categorised as having SEND, in comparison to typically developing peers, the achievement gap in reading has remained consistent over time, the writing gap has improved slightly, and the gap in maths has widened consistently across the four years. The gap itself is not quantified other than in a statistical ‘effect size’.
An academic “attainment gap is unsurprising
When comparing pupils with different categorisations of SEND, Dr Daniel found that—unsurprisingly—pupils achieving the lowest results, ie with the biggest ‘gap’ were those with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD), or Severe/Moderate Learning Disabilities (S/MLD). I don’t think we needed detailed statistical analysis to tell us this. What is more surprising is that the research suggests students with profound intellectual disabilities on average performed only 1.5 – 1.8 years behind typical peers’ in reading, and 2.6 years in both writing and maths.
Over time, Dr Daniel reports, that ‘students with profound, multiple, and moderate intellectual disabilities show a concerning trend where the gap in reading, writing and maths is widening’.
Dr Johny Daniel, the author of the research and an assistant professor at Durham’s school of education, said: “There have been several positive developments and improvements in approaches to support pupils with SEND. However, the study’s findings indicate that these developments have not yet fully translated into improved outcomes for these students. Quote in the Guardian article
A PMLD gap is not a deficit
The NHS website defines Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities as being ‘when a person has a severe learning disability and other disabilities that significantly affect their ability to communicate and be independent. Someone with a profound and multiple learning disability might have difficulties seeing, hearing, speaking and moving.’ It is unsurprising, therefore, that this cohort of pupils are demonstrating the biggest ‘gap’ between their attainment and typically developing peers. It is also unsurprising that this gap will widen each year. Anyone with any contact or relationship with pupils who have PMLD or even moderate learning disabilities will realise there will be differences in levels of attainment when compared to non-learning disabled peers, especially when using standardised tests that are not designed for all pupils to succeed. These differences should not be seen as deficits.
What this research, and the current ‘closing the gap’ narrative, fails to recognise is that for some students—maybe a large percentage of those who have SEND—‘the gap’ will not close. Indeed, for many, including people like my daughter, the gap will continue to widen throughout their education journey. And that is okay—with one proviso.
It is okay as long as those pupils continue to make progress and that recognition that the gap will continue to widen does not result in low expectations or a lack of input and support. The current narrative about ‘the gap’ suggests that it exists and is something material, rather than being something produced through the testing mechanisms being used and the way that success is measured within our education system. It also suggests addressing the abstract ‘gap’ becomes more important than other educational concerns.
Dr Daniels concludes his report by stating that,
‘…this analysis illuminates a complex achievement gaps [sic] faced by students with SEND across reading, mathematics, and writing. The findings highlight the urgent need for targeted, evidence-based interventions and a re-evaluation of educational policies to better support the learning and development of these students. By addressing these gaps, educators and policymakers can work towards a more inclusive and equitable educational system that meets the needs of all learners.’
I disagree. The analysis does show that there are ‘achievement gaps’ across core curriculum areas. However, this doesn’t mean the gaps need addressing to ensure a more inclusive educational system. I would argue that when we measure the success of legislative changes and pedagogical practices on whether the gap is narrowing or closing, we are missing the point.
A different and more inclusive approach
We need to move away from the idea of a ‘gap’ that needs to be narrowed or closed. Some pupils—my daughter included—will always be seen as a ‘problem’ due to a perceived inability to ‘catch up’ with her peers within such an agenda. Instead, we need to be looking at wider criteria for what we consider to be attainment. We need to recognise the pace and achievements of typically developing peers will always be out of reach for some pupils. This does not mean that those pupils should not receive a high standard of education, nor that their achievements should be any less valued.
Approaches to inclusive education need to recognise that all pupils in the classroom are different and cannot all be expected to achieve the same levels of academic attainment. Inherent within the definition of pupils who are categorised as having SEND is the idea that pupils have ‘a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age’ and for some pupils, no amount of intervention is going to bring them up to the same level as everyone else of the same age. Instead, we should have high expectations for all students, providing the necessary support and high-quality teaching for all pupils to achieve the most that they can, as individuals, without any suggestion that the ‘gap’ is a systemic issue that is a cause for concern.
Please consider a one-off or regular donation to help SNJ keep going in 2025!
Also read
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document
- The Unacceptable Truth: 20 SEND legal rights at risk from the Government’s SEND reforms
- How health and family support systems are failing children starting school
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
Let's write the true narrative of the SEND reform proposals: We want your unfiltered-by-AI viewsJune 23, 2026
When “fine” at school isn’t fine at home: the hidden cost of autistic masking on familiesJune 16, 2026
Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SENAugust 4, 2026
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
- Beyond EHCPs: Why Inclusion Needs More Than a Document - September 11, 2026
- Why every child deserves Portage, wherever they’re born - July 24, 2026
- When hope has been drained, families struggle to trust promises to fix SEND - April 14, 2026
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sharon, I could not agree more. The important thing is for every child to get the right support to make progress (not just academic progress). It is most unfair to heap pressure on those who find learning difficult in the first place. Having said that, it’s crucial that artificial ceilings are not put in place – for instance some children with Down’s Syndrome do take some standard exams, with the right support in place. Progress is key and, as you say, difference should not be seen as a deficit.
I agree with your comments but would extend the context and reaffirm that this is both both systemic, (structural and organisational) AND the wrong way to measure what success looks like.
As you say, importantly, it also is one dimensional: what we are measuring is wrong, and how we are measuring it (and therefore valuing it) is wrong.
The ‘gap’ and the ways it is measured are, as you say, one of deficit, as progress and achievements are only meaningful when considered across more than academic achievement.
The attainment gap operates from the assumption that inclusion is already realised and everyone has an equal chance to achieve. That SATS assessment are conducted on a level playing field; SATS assessments are deemed as ‘valid ‘ based on this flawed assumption. That planned ‘interventions’ and ‘supports’ (hate these phrases) create equitable opportunities.
But as you say, we need to value and hero other measures of success for children.
However, I also think the attainment gap is rooted in structural and systemic barriers and these are happening at policy and organisational levels too. Educators and policy makers need to address this,
The gap exists due to inequitable, unfair and discriminatory provision (the absence of access to inclusive, equitable education). The gap therefore does not really measure what pupils can attain, but illuminates that a pervasive culture of compromise, ignorance and discrimination exists, so much that flawed measures of ‘attainment’ are currently the only ‘valid’ measure of attainment.
The gap is not due to the lack of attainment by pupils identified as ‘SEND’. The gap is due to the lack of equitable, inclusive education that enables all students to meet. Barriers that are structural (funding, school system, initial teacher education, etc.).
The gap is not about attainment, but about a lack of ambition, a lack of provision,.
What the gap measures is the very ceiling described in the comments above.
If you, as a pupil, feel othered, don’t belong, and never see yourself reflected and valued within the culture of the school, then any measure of progress, even if we had other assessment measures that captured these, would still be flawed.
We’ve not even touched on other measures of disadvantage (ethnicity/gender/socioeconomic status).
Sorry, I have not fully formed my thoughts, but wanted to get them down and share. Thanks for the article, Have the best week you can.