Child Language Teaching and Therapy 2002 Knox 103 24

8/10/2019 Child Language Teaching and Therapy 2002 Knox 103 24

1/23

http://clt.sagepub.com/Therapy

Child Language Teaching and

http://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1191/265659002ct230oa

2002 18: 103Child Language Teaching and TherapyEmma Knox

impairment at year 6Educational attainments of children with specific language

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beChild Language Teaching and TherapyAdditional services and information for

http://clt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://clt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 1, 2002Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103http://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://clt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://clt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://clt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.full.pdfhttp://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.full.pdfhttp://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.full.pdfhttp://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://clt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://clt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/content/18/2/103http://clt.sagepub.com/


2/23

Educational attainments of children withspecic language impairment at year 6

Emma KnoxHuman Communication and Deafness, School of Education,

University of Manchester

Abstract

The present study examined the performance of a group of children with

Specic Language Impairment (SLI) in National Curriculum Key Stage 2

(KS2) assessments of key curricular subjects. One hundred children (86 boys

and 14 girls), who previously had all been in full-time attendance at specialist

provision in the form of language units, participated in the study. The sample

of participants were recruited in their nal year of primary school education

(year 6) and were divided into two groups, matched for ability, dened by the

nature of their current educational placement. The Mainstream Education

group comprised 50 children attending mainstream education with or without

some level of additional support. The Special Education group consisted of 50

children attending special education in the form of either a language unit, a

language school, or a special school. Participants performance in the

National Curriculum KS2 assessments was measured, together with an

examination of assessment procedures concerning the application of special

testing arrangements. It was found that participants performed poorly relative

to national levels of expectation and achievement across the curricular

subjects of English, mathematics and science in both KS2 tests and teacher

assessments. The Mainstream Education group of participants was found to

perform signicantly better than the Special Education group in the mathe-

matics and science tests. Furthermore, special arrangements were made for a

large number of participants who did take the tests.

Address for correspondence: Emma Knox, Human Communication and Deafness School of Education,University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Part of this work was presented by the author as part fullment for the degree of PhD.

# Arnold 2002 10.1191=0265659002ct230oa

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014clt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/http://clt.sagepub.com/


3/23

Introduction

Specic language impairment and education

Specic language impairment (SLI) is known to affect around 7% of the

school population, with a higher incidence in male children than in female

children (estimated at a ratio of approximately 3:1) (Leonard, 1998). Children

with SLI are essentially characterized by a failure of normal language

development in the absence of any other major neurological, physical or

global impairment.

Traditional thinking around the education of children with SLI has

suggested that early primary placement in specialist language provision

would remedy difculties prior to the commencement of secondary educa-

tion. However, many longitudinal and follow-up studies have indicated that

such thinking has not been reected in reality. It is now evident that the actual

prevalence of children with SLI who continue to experience linguistic, social

and educational difculties following periods of intensive therapy and provi-

sion in the primary education years is substantial (e.g., Baker and Cantwell,

(1987); Bishop and Adams (1990); Catts (1993); Magnusson and Naucler

(1990). Furthermore, despite the existence of over 200 language units andlanguage schools across England, many primary-aged children whose

problems are identied primarily as a language disorder are now educated

in non-specialist mainstream schools.

In a follow-up study of 27 children (mean age 11: 11 years) who had

primary-age attendance in a language unit, Davison and Howlin (1997)

found that over 50% remained in specialist educational provision. Further-

more, a large proportion of the total sample showed continuing difculties inmany aspects of language, with 89% of the sample still found to have

inadequate reading skills. Notably, many of these children were attending

mainstream schools and would therefore have been subject to educational

structures adhering to the national curriculum and its standardized assess-

ments, access to which is heavily dependent on competent abilities in

literacy.

Stothard et al.s (1998) review of long-term consequences of languageimpairments reported a consensus that through childhood, between 50 and

90% of children continue to exhibit language difculties. This is supported by

research work such as that by King, Jones, and Lasky (1982). In following up

50 young adults and adolescents rst diagnosed with, and who received

therapy for, a developmental language disorder as preschoolers, they found

that 52% had required academic support at some time during school. Aram

and Nations (1980) follow-up study of children with initial diagnosis of

104 Child Language Teaching and Therapy



4/23

developmental speech and language disorders also established a persistence of

language or speech impairments in 40% of the sample, four to ve years after

initial intervention. Research by Dockrell and Lindsay (2000) identied skills

in both mathematics and handwriting as being highly vulnerable in children

with language impairments, thus highlighting an overspill of language

difculties into the broader regions of the academic curriculum.

Collectively, such studies contribute evidence to the growing awareness of

the pervasive nature of SLI and the persistent academic vulnerability of

children with SLI. As noted by Haynes and Naidoo (1991; p. 225), based on

the ndings of their longitudinal study of children attending a school providing

intensive speech and language therapy and education to children with severe

disorders of language, A specic language impairment is pervasive and long-

lasting in its effects, even when good progress has been made.

Indeed, it is indisputable that language is a principal foundation of all

educational processes, and that language skills are an essential requirement for

accessing education. Almost every aspect of the curriculum demands multi-

farious usage of language, and so with respect to its nature, almost every

modern mainstream curriculum assumes a certain basic skill level of language

and literacy in the educational population that it serves. Further, suchnecessary skills are expected to develop throughout academic life in order

to keep pace with the corresponding curricular demands. However, another

observation made by Haynes and Naidoo (1991) was that improvements

observed in the language and literacy abilities of children with SLI attending

specialist provision seldom kept pace with time. Such evidence implies that

with increasing curricular demands, decits in language and literacy skills will

have greater negative impact on educational performance. This contradictshistorical theories of short-term resolution through intensive provision and

further alerts us to the continuing educational requirements and difculties

from which children with SLI are at risk. Thus, the risk is not only one of

continuing difculties in these children as a characteristic of the primary

language impairment, but in its secondary manifestation as a range of

difculties experienced in the educational context.

Previously conducted research aiming to examine outcomes of childrenwith earlier diagnosis of SLI have usually focused dening variables in

domains other than those concerned directly with educational achievements.

Much attention in both longitudinal and retrospective studies of outcome has

been given to the specic examination of language, literacy and cognitive

skills through psychometric testing (Davison and Howlin, 1997; Grifths,

1969; Johnson et al., 1999; Paul and Cohen, 1984; Rescorla and Schwartz,

1990; Stothard et al., 1998; Weiner, 1974).

Educational attainments of children with SLI at year 6 105



5/23

No doubt standardized psychometric test scores have provided, and will

continue to provide, a valuable contribution to researchers and specialist

practitioners in furthering widespread understanding of the abilities of children

with language-disorders across time. Indeed, they may actually be more

informative measures of language, literacy and cognitive abilities than

formal educational assessments, in a clinical or research domain. They are,

however, unfamiliar tools in the more general educational community and the

interpretation of such data and their impact in a practical sense is mostly

limited to a specialist eld of professionals with experience and knowledge

about the realistic implications of such shortcomings in skills. Although

language and literacy abilities as measured by standardized psychometric

tests may be good predictors of educational outcome overall, they do not tell

us how well any child with SLI would actually perform on formal assessments

as set, for example, by national assessment boards with the purpose of

monitoring the progress and abilities of all children nationally.

Interestingly, there is a lack of available research concerning primary-level

national school attainments for children with SLI. However, Conti-Ramsden,

Donlan and Grove (1992) did examine the National Curriculum Key Stage 1

assessment scores of a group of 12 children with a diagnosis of SLI, comparedwith the attainments of age-matched peers. These attainments were examined and

discussed in combination with standardized psychometric test scores covering a

variety of language, literacy and cognitive skills. The overall ndings indicated

that while the SLI samples National Curriculum test attainments were found to be

poor relative to national and control levels of expectation and achievement,

informative correlations between the National Curriculum test scores and any of

the standardized psychometric test scores were not established. This study servedto provide preliminary insight into the likely test performance of children with

SLI educated in the National Curriculum. In doing so, it highlights the need for

researchers to be aware of the educational importance of National Curriculum

testing, both to the teaching and parental community, irrespective of its inform-

ative value in understanding the specic characteristics of children with SLI.

National curriculum assessments

Despite a lack of research interest, it is nevertheless a fact that most children

with SLI take National Curriculum Key Stage assessments (unless disapplied)

and are assessed for academic skills against normally developing peers

through these national measures.

National Curriculum assessments are commonly referred to by parents and

the educational community as SATs (Standard Assessment Tests). These are




6/23

mandatory assessments of all pupils educated according to the National

Curriculum in schools across England. The assessments are designed to

monitor educational progress and standards, providing data for individual

schools, local education authorities and the UK government. They provide

teachers and parents with a measure of each childs performance, relative to

local and national standards of educational achievement, in core curricular

subjects. The annual publication of national league tables, based on the overall

performance of all state schools in England also enables schools to examine

their own standards of achievement with a local and national perspective. Over

recent years, the league tables have gained widespread recognition in the eyes

of teachers and parents in setting the standards of attainment to which schools

and pupils should aspire, providing a motivation for achievement as opposed

to simply existing as a measurement.

Although the Qualications and Curriculum Authority (QCA, 2000) report

that the National Curriculum and its assessments are designed to be accessible

to as many pupils as possible, special consideration in testing and assessment

arrangements is given to children who have special needs, which may limit

their access. This may entail disapplication from the test, or more usually by

accommodating individual needs with special testing arrangements as detailedin ofcial teacher guidelines (QCA, 1999, 2001). Special testing arrangements

are designed to support childrens abilities in a way that is compatible with

their everyday classroom support, without providing them with an unfair

advantage. The selection and application of special testing arrangements

currently occurs at the discretion of individual teachers.

A way forward

The growing signicance of National Curriculum Key Stage assessments in

the educational community has been emphasized, and their relevance and

application to the population of children with SLI has been noted. Given the

above, the current study attempts to address an opening in existing research for

examining true educational attainments, as measured and recognized by the

government and whole educational community, as a complementary measure-ment of outcome to studies focusing on the specic characteristics of language

disorders. This facilitates a preliminary examination of the extent to which the

educational attainments of children with SLI are at risk in the context of the

modern curriculum.

This will be shown through presenting the National Curriculum Key Stage 2

(KS2) attainments of a sample of children with SLI at 11 years, examining

outcomes relative to national standards of achievement and expectation, and




7/23

by considering some of the testing procedures applied to the sample as a

subgroup of the population with specic special educational needs. Further-

more, in view of the current range of placement types providing education to

children with a history of SLI, the present study aims to examine differences in

the NC KS2 test procedures and attainments between mainstream and special

education.

Methodology

Participants

The participants comprised 100 children, 50 attending mainstream education

and 50 attending special provision, matched for age, gender and on four

measures: estimated non-verbal IQ, short-term memory, expressive vocabu-

lary, and comprehension skills.

The participants in the present study are a subgroup drawn from an

extensive longitudinal study examining a variety of issues surrounding English

children attending language units (Conti-Ramsden and Botting, 1999; Botting

et al., 1997, 1998). The original study examined 242 children (186 boys, 56

girls) in school year 2 (mean age 7:0). Criteria for inclusion in the original

study required each child to be attending a language unit for more than half the

school week and to exhibit no signs of hearing impairment. No other

exclusionary criteria were applied to the recruitment of participants although

only three children presented with non-verbal cognitive abilities below the

2.5th centile. The children were drawn from 118 language units representing

most counties of England.For the purpose of the current study, the families of the 100 children were

contacted as the children approached their nal year of primary school. Each

parent or guardian gave written permission for their child to be visited and

assessed in school during school year 6.

Educational placements at year 6. Each childs educational placement type

of attendance in year 6 (previous to the secondary education transition) wasrecorded according to ve broad categories representative of various place-

ment types: 20 children were attending mainstream education with no

additional learning support; 30 children attended mainstream education with

additional supported learning; 29 children continued to attend a language unit

attached to a mainstream school for at least half of the school week; six

children were in full-time attendance at a language school; and 15 children

were in full-time attendance at a special school with provision for various




8/23

special educational needs. Most children continued to have formal statements

of special educational needs, the remainder were at least recognised on their

schools register of special needs. For children in attendance at dual or

integrated placements, their principal placement was considered to be that

where attendance accounted for more than half of the school week.

The ve placement categories were compressed for the purpose of the

present study and two groups were formed, dened by the nature of the

childrens educational placement in school year 6. The rst group comprised

50 children attending mainstream schooling, with or without some level of

support. This represented a group of children whose schooling could be

described as predominantly mainstream in the structure and content of its

teaching. Thus, throughout the present study it will be referred to as the

Mainstream Education group. The second category group comprised chil-

dren attending any of the specialist placements, i.e. language unit, language

school, or special school. Each of the 50 children in this group continued to

receive education with special provision for either language impairments or

other special difculties that could impact upon learning and the educational

experience. With reference to the nature of this type of educational provision,

the second group of participants is labelled the Special Education groupthroughout the present study.

The 50 children from each group were matched on a number of criteria

including age, gender, and a variety of language and cognitive abilities. Thus

the nature of the groups educational placement became the dominant

differential variable.

Measures

Group matching variables. The Mainstream Education group and the

Special Education group both consisted of 43 males and 7 females. At the

time of study the mean age of participants in the Mainstream Education

group was 130 months (range: 122140 months); and the mean age of the

Special Education group participants was 131.5 months (range: 121141

months).Other than the variables of age and gender, the two educational placement

groups were also matched for estimated non-verbal IQ, short-term memory

ability, expressive vocabulary, and comprehension skills. A description of each

of the standardized tasks that were used to match the two groups of children is

given in the following sections. The battery of psychometric tests was

designed to give reliable measures of ability, without being exhaustive or

especially demanding on the child.




9/23

Estimated non-verbal IQ: WISC-III Picture Completion. The rst of the

two performance subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, third

edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1992) used to obtain an estimated non-verbal IQ

score for each participant was Picture Completion, a test of spatial memory

and reasoning that requires participants to identify the important missing part

in a series of pictures.

Estimated non-verbal IQ: WISC-III Block Design. The second WISC-III

subtest contributing to the measure of estimated non-verbal IQ was Block

Design. This further tests visuo-spatial cognitive abilities where it requires the

child to physically manipulate the testing materials, replicating patterns

depicted in the stimulus material.

Estimated non-verbal IQ. The scores from the Picture Completion and

Block Design subtests were combined to give an estimated value of non-verbal

IQ for each participant. The composite non-verbal IQ score was derived by

prorating the sum of the two scaled scores. The resulting scaled score

corresponds with an IQ equivalent on the WISC-III conversion table, ranging

from IQ 46 to 155. It is recognized that this method does not provide a non-verbal IQ score that is strictly legitimate, as the IQ is pro-rated from only two

subtests. It is used here only to provide a guide to the childrens non-verbal

abilities, and scores should be interpreted with caution.

The Mainstream Education groups mean estimated non-verbal IQ score was

94.7, while that of the Special Education group was 93.4. Thus, according to

the measure employed, every child possessed an estimated performance IQ

score above 69 and so was broadly considered to have non-verbal cognitiveability within the normal range.

Short-term memory: WISC-III Digit Span. The Digit Span subtest task was

also taken from the WISC-III battery and utilized independently in this study

as a measure of verbal short-term memory. The Digit Span subtest comprises a

series of orally presented number sequences that the child repeats verbatim to

complete Digits Forward, or in reverse order to complete Digits Backward.The Digit Span mean centile score for the Mainstream Education group was

21.7, while for the Special Education group it was 17.3.

Expressive vocabulary: WISC-III Vocabulary. This WISC-III subtest was

administered to provide a measure of each childs expressive vocabulary. The

mean WISC-III Vocabulary centile score for the Mainstream Education group

was 7.9, and for the Special Education group was 5.2.




10/23

Verbal comprehension: WISC-III Comprehension. Also a part of the

WISC-III test battery, the Comprehension subtest provides a measure of

each childs use of language in discourse, together with an insight into their

understanding of standard social conventions and strategies of approach to

everyday scenarios. The mean WISC Comprehension centile score for the

Mainstream Education group was 14.4, while for the Special Education group

it was 9.5.

Receptive vocabulary: BPVS-II. This BPVS-II (The British Picture Voca-

bulary Scale, second edition (Dunnet al., 1998), was employed to provide an

effective measure of each childs receptive vocabulary. The Mainstream

Education groups mean centile score was 26.3, while that for the Special

Education group was 19.2.

Summary of group matching variables. The mean centile scores of each

groups performance in the battery of group matching variables are

summarized in Table 1. The nal column of the table indicates the level

of statistical signicance of between-group differences, resulting from a

Table 1 Mean centile scores and standard deviations achieved by the MainstreamEducation and Special Education groups on the battery of group-matching variables tasks

Mean score (SD)

MainstreamEducation

group

SpecialEducation

group pvalue

Gender 43 males=7 females 43 males=7 femalesAge 130 months (4.79) 131.5 months (4.89) 0.124WISC-III

EstimatedNon-verbal IQ

94.7 (14.42) 93.4 (19.63) 0.711

WISC-IIIDigit Spancentile score

21.7 (25.12) 17.3 (26.12) 0.384

WISC-IIIVocabularycentile score

7.97 (15.145) 5.2 (11.379) 0.308

WISC-IIIComprehensioncentile score

14.4 (23.58) 9.5 (18.25) 0.251

BPVS-IIcentile score

26.3 (20.64) 19.2 (21.44) 0.095

SD standard deviation.

pvalue signicance value from one-way ANOVA between group scores.




11/23

series of ANOVAs conducted to compare the mean centile scores for each

test (except the category of gender, where both groups have identical

distribution).

As illustrated by Table 1, there are no statistically signicant differences

between the performance of the participants in the two educational placement

groups on any of the measures described (p> 0.05 in all cases). Thus, the two

groups are considered to be well matched in their non-verbal ability, short-

term memory, expressive vocabulary, and comprehension skills.

Comparing educational outcomes Key Stage 2 (KS2) assessments. Fol-

lowing the cognitive and linguistic proling of the present sample the current

study proceeded to examine and compare the National Curriculum Key Stage

2 assessment experience of the two groups. National Curriculum assessments

are currently used by ofcial education bodies as key indicators of the

academic and educational abilities of the national year 6 population in the

main curricular subjects at Key Stage 2. As such, targets of attainment set by

national levels of expectation and achievement are already in existence and

enable valuable comparisons with data obtained in the present study. The

national level of expected attainment at KS2, as recommended by thegovernment (QCA, 2000) is level 4. Therefore, any score achieved below

this level at KS2, in any academic subject, is considered to be an indication

that current performance is outside the expected range. Although in practice

the full assessment process also involves complementary Teacher Assessment

awards, which in turn have signicant inuence on decisions of test entry, data

were collected by the present study with regard to nal test attainment levels

only and any additional special arrangements that were made for participantsduring their undertaking of the tests.

National Curriculum KS2 attainment levels are awarded to all children

attending primary school year 6 across England according to their test

performance in the three core curricular subjects of English, mathematics

and science. The mathematics and science test scores are originally single

scores, while the English test score is an aggregated score derived from

separate reading and writing test scores. Children who are not entered for thetest have usually attained a teacher assessment level justifying their non-entry.

The nationwide applicability of assessment and scoring procedures sets a

national standard of expectation and achievement against which all childrens

performance levels can be measured, as is the case in the present study.

The present study has also examined the type and level of application of

special arrangements made for each child during the written tests. As an

integral part of the assessment procedure, particularly for children with




12/23

registered special educational needs, special testing arrangements were felt to

be an issue of essential consideration in a comprehensive examination of

educational performance according to National Curriculum assessments.

Procedure

Collection of standardized psychometric test data. Following written

consent from the families, participants were each visited and assessed on

the battery of standardized psychometric tests by the researcher in their school,

during year 6 of primary school education (199899). In each instance, a

suitably quiet and private area in the school was sought. Only the examiner

and participant were present during the assessments. The order in which thestandardized tests were administered was not varied between children, and the

testing was usually completed in one sitting.

Collection of National Curriculum assessment data. Towards the end of

June 1999, printed forms were sent to the schools of all participants requesting

information regarding the outcomes of the National Curriculum KS2 written

tests that were undertaken in May 1999. The application for all informationwas made by the author and accessed within three months of the ofcial

national testing dates. With regard to each of the academic subjects of English,

mathematics and science, the levels awarded for the written test were requested

in the same format as data were submitted to the local education authorities.

Analysis of test scores was then enabled around the nationally-set levels of

expectation and achievement for KS2, that of level 4.

Finally, teachers were also asked to give details of any special testing

arrangements that might have been made for the child for completion of the

written test. Possibilities provided as examples on the form included: use of a

reader, use of a scribe, support from specialist language staff or classroom

assistants, provision of a separate classroom, or additional time provision for

completion of the test. However, opportunity was also provided for teachers to

detail any special arrangements not already suggested on the form.

Results

Firstly, participants National Curriculum KS2 test scores are reviewed by

an educational placement group (as dened in year 6), followed by an

examination of the level of agreement between the scores of the two groups

(Mainstream and Special). Throughout the section, much emphasis




13/23

is given to the attainment of level 4 in the KS2 tests, as this represents the

standard of achievement expected of pupils being assessed by KS2 and is

also the minimum standard attained by the population majority in each

subject test. The wider testing experience of the sample is then addressed by

examining the level and nature of special arrangements that were applied to

the KS2 tests.

National Curriculum Key Stage 2 test outcomes

Summarized performance levels of all participants in the National Curriculum

KS2 tests are illustrated in Tables 24, where score levels have been collapsed

into two categories. Reecting the emphasis placed on test achievements

relative to national standards of expectation, the tables divide participant

counts into those who achieved at least level 4, and those who achieved below

level 4. The participant counts are presented by educational placement group

for each academic subject examined by the tests.

Tables 24 reect the test attainment levels of the total participant sample

(n 100). Therefore, where test entry did not occur, the test attainment level

of the relevant participants is counted in the category of achievement levels

below that of 4 (since they still failed to achieve that level by virtue of no

entry). The particular aim of the tables is to illustrate the number of

participants in the present study who have achieved at or above the national

level of expectation for children of their educational stage.

English test. As illustrated in Table 2, both groups of participants

performed poorly relative to national levels of expectation and achievement.

Only 11% of the total sample (n 100) achieved the expected level 4 in the

English test, comprising 14% of the Mainstream Education group participants

Table 2 Count and percentage of children who achieved a KS2 English test resultlevel above or equal to level 4, and below level 4 (including those who did not takethe test), by educational placement group

Count (%)

MainstreamEducation group

SpecialEducation group

Totalcount

Score< level 4* 43 (86) 46 (92) 89Score level 4 7 (14) 4 (8) 11

Total 50 50 100

*Includes those who did not take the test.




14/23

and 8% of participants from the Special Education group. In 1999, the year in

which these tests were taken, the national average of children who achieved at

least level 4 in the English test was 69.7%.

Fishers exact probability test undertaken on data presented in Table 2 found

no statistically signicant difference (p 0.525) between the Mainstream

Education group participants and the Special Education group participants,

when comparing the performance of the two on the KS2 English test, relative

to national attainment expectations. Therefore data presented suggest that

English test performance, relative to attainment at level 4, is not necessarily

related to the type of educational placement attended.

Mathematics test. Table 3 illustrates how a higher percentage of the total

sample (n 100) achieved within the expected level on the mathematics test

than on the English test, with 24% of all participants scoring level 4 or aboveon the test. As with the English test, the Mainstream Education group

boasted a higher percentage of such achievers at 36%, while 12% of the

Special Education group participants scored at least the expected level.

Table 3 Count and percentage of children who achieved a KS2 mathematics testresult level above or equal to level 4, and below level 4 (including those who didnot take the test), by educational placement group

Count (%)



Totalcount


Total 50 50 100


Table 4 Count and percentage of children who achieved a KS2 science test resultlevel above or equal to level 4, and below level 4 (including those who did not takethe test), by educational placement group

Count (%)



Totalcount


Total 50 50 100





15/23

Meanwhile 68.2% of the national population scored at or above level 4 in the

mathematics test, a considerably higher proportion than that of the present

sample.

Fishers exact probability test performed on data illustrated by Table 3

revealed a statistically signicant difference between the two educational

placement groups scores (p< 0.01) relative to the national level of expecta-

tion. It was found that the Mainstream Education group performed at a

signicantly higher level when compared with the Special Education group,

thus suggesting that with reference to the nationally expected attainment level

of 4, the educational placement type of attendance may be a factor relating to

participants performance in the KS2 mathematics test.

Science test. Table 4 illustrates how more of the total sample of participants

(n 100) achieved at least the expected level of 4 in the KS2 science test than

in the other two academic subjects examined. The 39% of such achievers

comprised over half (54%) of the Mainstream Education group and almost a

quarter (24%) of children in the Special Education group. However, 61% of

the total sample failed to achieve at least the nationally expected level 4,including 76% of Special Education group participants. In addition, the overall

standard remains low when compared to the 77.9% of the national population

who scored at least level 4 in the science test.

Fishers exact probability test conducted on the above data illustrated in

Table 4 produced a statistically signicant difference in the achievements of

the two educational placement groups (p< 0.005), relative to level 4. It was

found that the Mainstream Education group again performed at a higher levelwhen compared with the Special Education group. The results therefore

indicate that in relation to national levels of expected attainment, the educa-

tional placement type of attendance may be related to participants perfor-

mance in the KS2 science test.

In summarizing the ndings presented in Tables 24, it could be concluded

that when the test achievements of both educational placement groups are

measured against the nationally expected standard of attainment for KS2pupils, the science test is associated with the best overall performance, while

the English test is associated with the poorest performance. In fact, as

illustrated in Figure 1, the pattern of relative attainment between KS2 tests

is similar for both educational placement groups. However, attainment was

statistically higher for the Mainstream Education group in the mathematics

and science tests only, compared with the performance of the Special

Education group.




16/23

Special arrangements for the tests. As discussed above, according to

ofcial QCA teacher guidelines, pupils taking KS2 tests, in all types of

educational placement, are entitled to receive special arrangements for thetests. Special testing arrangements are authorized and prepared in accordance

with the ofcial QCA test guidelines. Their application is at the discretion of

teachers, who must carefully consider the assessment needs of each individual

pupil and the type of support normally given as part of classroom practice (as

in the case of pupils registered as having special educational needs).

Table 5 details the number of participants for whom special testing

arrangements of the specied type were made, in any of the KS2 tests. The

Figure 1 Count of participants who achieved above or equal to level 4, and below level 4 inKS2 tests, across curricular subjects




17/23

types of special testing arrangements listed in the table correspond to QCA

guidelines for providing testing modications to children with special educa-

tional needs, categorized in accordance with the highest frequency responses

as reported by participants teachers. Data presented in Table 5 are based on

participants who took at least one of the three possible subject tests, and thefrequency counts of specic special arrangement applications may reect the

fact that more than one type of arrangement may have been made per

participant, per test.

Table 5 presents data that are available regarding the level of special testing

arrangements made in the tests for 79% of total participants. It is immediately

obvious from Table 5 that the number of participants who received special

arrangements for at least one academic subject test exceeds the number ofparticipants for whom no special arrangements were made in any of their tests,

for both educational placement groups.

Of the 79 participants for whom data is available, 70% received special

arrangements in at least one of their National Curriculum KS2 tests. Of the

children for whom special testing arrangements were made, 47% belonged to

the Mainstream Education group, while the remaining 53% of participants were

attending special education placements. So, where special testing arrangements

Table 5 Count of participants for whom special testing arrangements of the specied typewere made, in any KS2 test, by educational placement group (based only on participantswho took at least one test)

Count

Type of special testing arrangements

MainstreamEducationgroup (n47)

SpecialEducationgroup (n35)

Reader for any test No reader 16 19Reader 10 10Missing data 21 6

Scribe for any test No scribe 24 25Scribe 2 4Missing data 21 6

Extra time for any test No extra time 10 12Extra time 16 17Missing data 21 6

Other unspeciedsupport for any test

No other support 4 3Other support 22 26Missing data 21 6

Overall extrasupport or not

No support 19 5Support 26 29Missing data 2 1




18/23

were applied, the distribution of children requiring and receiving additional test

support was generally evenly spread between educational placement types. Of

the 30% of the 79 participants who did not receive any special arrangements in

any of their KS2 tests, 79% were part of the Mainstream Education group,

while the remaining 21% belonged to the Special Education group.

Table 5 indicates that while special arrangements were commonly applied to

the KS2 tests for the present sample children with SLI, among the most

popular types of specic special arrangements were the utilization of addi-

tional time in which to complete the test, and various other arrangements.

Under the heading of other special arrangements, teachers in the present

sample indicated that common modications to the testing situation were: to

allow the test to be taken in a separate room from the rest of the childs class;

and to allow the childs regular support assistant to be present in the testing

situation to provide support of morale in a more emotional context.

Discussion

The present study found that the overall performance of participants in allNational Curriculum Key Stage 2 tests was poor, relative to both nationally

expected standards of achievement and the national averages of children

achieving equal to or above level 4 in the 1999 KS2 tests. The breakdown of

percentage comparisons show that in the English test, nationally 58.7% more

pupils achieved equal to or above level 4 than in the present sample; in the

mathematics test, 44.2% more pupils nationally achieved at or above level 4

than in the present sample; and in the science test, 38.9% more achieved equalto or above level 4 than those pupils in the present study.

When these test outcomes are considered in relation to the ndings of

Conti-Ramsden et al. (1992), it is not particularly surprising to observe the

occurrence of an overall poor level of achievement when compared to both

national standards of achievement and expectation. Indeed, the present

ndings of test outcome provide support for the general ndings of studies

cited earlier (e.g., Conti-Ramsden et al., 1992) that the long-term educationalprognosis for children with SLI is discouraging.

The ofcial levels of achievement awarded to each of the sample children as

a result of their performance in National Curriculum KS2 tests are considered

to be signicant representations of their intellectual and academic abilities in a

variety of contexts in the eld of education. In particular, the ofcial awards,

together with other teacher=practitioner-based assessments, have long-term

implications for educational life.




19/23

The fact that the overall level of results was poor suggests that the majority

of the sample risk incurring negative teacher perception regarding their

educational and academic capabilities, especially in the mainstream sector.

This is particularly critical in the transition between primary and secondary

education, and inferences about skills and capabilities made from National

Curriculum KS2 test scores may possibly affect pupils future opportunities

and achievements.

As a group, children with SLI in the current study attending special

educational provision achieved markedly poorer outcomes than those educated

at mainstream placements in two out of the three core curricular subjects

tested. A comparison of the standard of outcomes by academic subject found a

consistent pattern of achievement for both educational placement groups. The

English test was found to yield the poorest outcomes, the science test

produced the best results, with the mathematics test producing a level of

attainment somewhere between the other two. When the importance of the test

results is considered, the difference observed between the attainment levels of

the two educational placement groups becomes increasingly relevant. Since

both groups of participants were originally matched on non-verbal ability,

language and cognitive skills, it would be reasonable to expect the educationalperformance of the two groups to be of a similar standard. This therefore

renders the actual difference between their results in the two academic subjects

mentioned both striking and worrying. As such, further examination of all

factors and procedures leading to such outcomes is required.

Literacy

The role that literacy skills play in educational assessment of this type cannot be

underestimated and should be considered as a factor affecting the outcomes of

all three academic subject tests. For example, in assessing mathematical skills

using a test format that places heavy demands on a childs literacy abilities, the

test outcome is not a pure measure of mathematical ability. Therefore, childrens

outcomes in the National Curriculum KS2 mathematics test may be attributable,in part, to the decits in their literacy skills, a factor not specically addressed

by this study but that is commonly characteristic of pervasive SLI (e.g., Bishop

and Adams, 1990). Differences in literacy skills between groups may indeed be

sufcient to produce the differences in attainments reported. Furthermore, if

such decits in literacy skills were to be held partially accountable for the

outcomes reported, then there are wider implications for access to curriculum

material in a learning context and not just in the assessment situation.




20/23

Special testing arrangements

This study was able to provide data on the special arrangements made in the

KS2 tests for 79% of the sample. Of this proportion, over two-thirds were

found to have received at least one type of permissible special arrangement for

at least one of the tests taken.

Despite an obvious methodological oversight in the range of options offered

on teacher questionnaires, the very fact that the category of other special

arrangements presented with such high frequency usage among both main-

stream and special education placements, even alongside the specic cate-

gories of arrangements, is indicative of the sheer breadth and diversity of the

range of special arrangements applied to support children with SLI in the

National Curriculum tests. Furthermore, there appears to be little difference

between mainstream and special education placements in the distribution of

use of the various special arrangement types, suggesting that their application

may not actually contribute to the differences observed in the attainments of

the two groups. However, it is still a factor of great importance in under-

standing the overall outcomes and one worthy of discussion.

Given the poor test results relative to national standards of expectation and

achievement despite considerable support during the testing, a question arisesof the level of effect that the special arrangements had on the whole samples

performance. Do the ndings indicate that the special arrangements increased

the standard of outcome the children would have achieved had they not

received any test support? In effect, the question might be: are children with

SLI even less well equipped to cope with National Curriculum tests than is

rst thought, when the test results are looked at independently of data

regarding special testing arrangements?This is an issue that cannot be resolved by data presented in the current

study. It is nevertheless an important issue of consideration for future

examination of the capabilities of children with SLI in National Curriculum

tests, and the impact that the currently available special arrangements have on

the test results.

On a negative note, the overall poor performance of the total sample in the

National Curriculum KS2 tests may be indicative that the special arrangementscurrently available to children with SLI are, in actual fact, relatively ineffectual

when compared with the actual needs of the SLI population in a test situation.

Indeed, a closer examination of the nature of the special arrangements

currently available for use may reveal that they are not meeting the needs of

the SLI population in the National Curriculum test situation.

In taking a middle-ground perspective, in view of the previous two points, it is

also necessary to consider the possibility that some of the special arrangements




21/23

currently available for use are more effective in raising levels of achievement

than others. Thus, many childrens National Curriculum test scores may have

been, to some extent, dependent upon their teachers ability to identify and apply

the special arrangement(s) particularly required. The apparently diverse and

inconsistent use of special testing arrangements across the whole sample may

indicate a heterogeneous requirement of support by the SLI population, while

highlighting a need for teacher knowledge both of pupilsspecic support needs

in the National Curriculum test situation and of the range of current special

arrangements that are applicable to the SLI population.

Throughout the guidelines referring to the application of special arrange-

ments, references are made to children with a range of special needs (e.g.,

bilingual children, hearing-impaired children, visually-impaired children,

children with motor disabilities, children with attentional difculties), high-

lighting the support that may be of most use to them. There is currently,

however, no mention of children with SLI which may affect their access to

these special arrangements.

It is also an assumption made by the guidelines that all children with special

educational needs are receiving the appropriate level of required support in the

everyday classroom setting, yet it is not unreasonable to suggest that somechildren with SLI may be taught, for example, by mainstream education teachers

who have little or no knowledge about the nature of their difculties or the

specic requirements of a child with SLI relative to National Curriculum tests.

The ndings of the present study therefore indicate that more detailed

research should consider the precise role of special testing arrangements in the

National Curriculum assessment of children with SLI, with a view to

developing the way in which teacher guidance for selection and applicationof special arrangements is presented, together with the actual nature of the

special arrangements that are available for use.

Concluding remarks

The present study can provide but the bare beginnings of an investigation intothe full and detailed scale of impact that SLI has on a childs educational

performance in the latter years of primary school. The evidence presented is

sufcient to suggest strongly that curricular difculties are a predictable effect

of SLI, yet the variation of performance level between different areas of skill

and knowledge demanded by the modern education system requires further

detailed research in order to explain its occurrence. The ndings support

research highlighting the persistent academic difculties experienced by




22/23

children with SLI throughout educational life (e.g., Davison and Howlin,

1987; Stothard et al., 1998) and complement it by contributing to a wider

perspective of subsequent educational needs. However, there is a limit to

which an understanding of SLI in the educational context can be achieved

simply through examining National Curriculum test results.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a Nufeld Foundation grant (DIR=28) to Gina

Conti-Ramsden.

References

Aram, D. and Nation, J. 1980: Preschool language disorders and subsequent

language and academic difculties. Journal of Communication Disorders

13, 15970.

Baker, L. and Cantwell, D. 1987: A prospective psychiatric follow-up of

children with speech=language disorders. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 26, 54653.

Bishop, D. and Adams, C. 1990: A prospective study of the relationship

between specic language impairment, phonological disorders and

reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 31,

102750.

Botting, N., Conti-Ramsden, G. and Crutchley, A. 1997: Concordance

between teacher=therapist opinion and formal language assessmentscores in children with language impairment. European Journal of

Disorders of Communication 32, 31727.

Botting, N., Crutchley, A. and Conti-Ramsden, G. 1998: Educational transi-

tions of 7-year old children with SLI in language units: a longitudinal

study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders

33, 17797.

Catts, H. 1993: The relationship between speech-language and readingdisabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 94858.

Conti-Ramsden, G. and Botting, N. 1999: Characteristics of children attending

language units in England: A national study of 7-year olds. International

Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 34, 35966.

Conti-Ramsden, G., Donlan, C. and Grove, J. 1992: Children with specic

language impairments: Curricular opportunities and school performance.

British Journal of Special Education19, 7580.




23/23

Davison, M. and Howlin, P. 1997: A follow-up study of children attending a

primary-age language unit. European Journal of Disorders of Commu-

nication 32, 1936.

Dockrell, J. and Lindsay, G. 2000: Meeting the needs of children with specic

speech and language difculties. European Journal of Special Needs

Education15, 2441.

Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C. and Burley, J. 1998: British Picture

Vocabulary Scale II. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Grifths, C. 1969: A follow-up study of children with disorders of speech.

British Journal of Disorders of Communication 4, 4656.

Haynes, C. and Naidoo, S. 1991: Children with specic speech and language

impairment. Oxford: Blackwell Scientic.

Johnson, C., Beitchman, J., Young, A., Escobar, M., Atkinson, L., Wilson, B.,

Brownlie, E., Douglas, L., Taback, N., Lam, I. and Wang, M. 1999:

Fourteen year follow-up of children with and without speech=language

impairments: Speech=language stability and outcomes. Journal of

Speech, Language and Hearing Research42, 74460.

King, R., Jones, C. and Lasky, E. 1982: In retrospect: A fteen year follow-up

report of speech-language-disordered children. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in Schools 13, 2432.

Leonard, L. 1998: Children with specic language impairment. Bradford:

Cambridge, MA.

Magnusson, E. and Naucler, K. 1990: Reading and spelling in language-

disordered childrenlinguistic and metalinguistic prerequisites: report on

a longitudinal study. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 4, 4961.

Paul, R. and Cohen, D. 1984: Outcomes of severe language acquisition.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 14, 405521.

Qualications and Curriculum Authority. 1999, 2001:Key Stage 2 assessment

and reporting arrangements. London: QCA.

Qualications and Curriculum Authority=BBC. 2000: Key Stage 2 English

Tests 1999 Parent and Child Guide. London: BBC.

Rescorla, L. and Schwartz, E. 1990: Outcome of toddlers with specic

expressive language delay. Applied Psycholinguistics 11, 393407.Stothard, S., Snowling, M., Bishop, D., Chipchase, C. and Kaplan, C. 1998.

Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal

of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 40718.

Wechsler, D. 1992: Wechsler intelligence scale for children. Third edition

San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Weiner, P. 1974: A language-delayed child at adolescence. Journal of Speech

d H i Di d 39 202 12


Documents

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 2002 Knox 103 24