Complete Answer Guide for Taking care of education an evaluation of the education of looked after ch
https://ebookgate.com/product/taking-care-ofeducation-an-evaluation-of-the-education-oflooked-after-children-1st-edition-david-dobelober/ Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Formation of Reason Journal of Philosophy of Education 1st Edition David Bakhurst
The Impact of Comparative Education Research on Institutional Theory Volume 7 International Perspectives on Education and Society 1st Edition David P. Baker
An evaluation of the education of looked after children
Rachael Harker
David Dobel-Ober
David Berridge
Ruth Sinclair
The IlilllllllIiII Charitable Foundation
national children's bureau making a difference
The National Children’s Bureau promotes the interests and well-being of all children and young people across every aspect of their lives. NCB advocates the participation of children and young people in all matters affecting them. NCB challenges disadvantage in childhood.
NCB achieves its mission by:
• ensuring the views of children and young people are listened to and taken into account at all times
• playing an active role in policy development and advocacy
• undertaking high quality research and work from an evidence based perspective
• identifying, developing and promoting good practice
• disseminating information to professionals, policy makers, parents and children and young people.
NCB has adopted and works within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Child and Family Welfare Unit was established 10 years ago and is located at the University of Luton, directed by David Berridge. Recent research has focused on services for difficult adolescents, peer violence in children’s homes and family support for South Asian communities. The Unit works closely with central and local government, the National Children’s Bureau and NSPCC. It is also part of the national network Making Research Count, which aims to bring together more closely the worlds of research and social work practice.
Published by the National Children’s Bureau, Registered Charity number 258825. 8 Wakley Street, London EClV 7QE. Tel: 02078436000. Website: www.ncb.org.uk
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any person without the written permission of the publisher.
[BLANK PAGE]
4.7
Mean SDQ Pro-social behaviour ratings (and standard deviations, sd) at original (T1) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 100
4.8 Mean ASES ratings (and standard deviations, sd) at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 101
4.9 Mean ASM ratings (and standard deviations, sd) at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 102
4.10 Mean PSSM ratings (and standard deviations, sd) at original (T1) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 103
4.11 Mean CFES ratings (and standard deviations, sd) at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 104
4.12 Mean educational progress estimates (and standard deviations, sd) at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews in each local authority and overall 107
4.13 Frequency of young people reporting same progress ratings at original and follow-up interviews (percentage of original ratings of each kind for authority or overall sample in parentheses) 108
4.14 Positive shifts in educational progress estimates between original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews 110
4.15 Negative shifts in educational progress estimates between original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews 114
5.1 Staff perceptions of Allborough's information collection and sharing capacity and project impact in this area 124
5.2 Staff perceptions of Nettbury's information collection and sharing capacity and project impact in this area 128
5.3 Staff perceptions of Wentown's information collection and sharing capacity and project impact in this area 131
9.1 Percentage of young people in follow-up sample who reported availability of educational supports in care placements at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interview 217
9.2 Percentage of reported availability of educational supports according to care placements type at original (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interview 218
2.1 Schematic representation of project implementation framework in
2.3 Schematic representation of project implementation framework in Nettbury 48
3.1 Percentage of young people according to type of care placement at original and follow-up interviews 69
3.2 Percentage of young people experiencing placement stability or change according to placement type at original interview 70
4.1a Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 2 or above on Key Stage 1 Reading task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 79
4.1b Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 2 or above on Key Stage 1 Writing task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 79
4.1c Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 2 or above on Key Stage 1 Spelling task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 80
4.1d Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 2 or above on Key Stage 1 Maths task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 80
4.2a Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 4 or above on Key Stage 2 English task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 82
4.2b Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 4 or above on Key Stage 2 Maths task in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 83
4.2c Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 4 or above on Key Stage 2 Science task in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 83
4.3a Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 5 or above on Key Stage 3 English task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 85
4.3b Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 5 or above on Key Stage 3 Maths task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 86
4.3c Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving level 5 or above on Key Stage 3 Science task in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 86
4.4a Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving at least 1 GCSE grade A to Gin 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 88
4.4b Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving 5 or more GCSEs grade A to G in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 89
4.4c Percentage ratio of looked after children to all children achieving 5 or more GCSEs grade A to C in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 89
4.5a Percentage of looked after children missing 25 or more days schooling in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 92
4.5b Percentage of looked after children experiencing a permanent exclusion in 1999/2000,2000/2001 and 2001/2002 93
4.5c Percentage of looked after children experiencing three or more placement moves per year in 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 94
4.6 Original, follow-up and expected percentages of young people classified according to SDQ scoring categories 97
4.7 Percentage of overall sample describing their education as progressing Very Well, Well, Average, Badly, or Very Badly at initial (Tl) and follow-up (T2) interviews 106
8.1 Percentage of responses to questions on the benefits of designated teachers from young people who were aware of the role (frequency of young people displayed within bars) 195
8.2 Percentage of responses to questions on the benefits of designated teachers from young people who were not aware of the role (frequency of young people displayed within bars) 195
8.3 Percentage of responses to questions on the benefits of PEPs from young people who were aware of PEPs (frequency of young people displayed within bars) 205
8.4 Percentage of responses to questions on the benefits of PEPs from young people who were not aware of PEPs (frequency of young people displayed within bars) 207
Acknowledgements
This evaluation project has required the help of a range of individuals and organisations. The evaluation could not have taken place without funding from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. We are grateful to the Foundation for its continued commitment to the education of looked after children, and especially for the interest shown by Matthew Williams, Gatsby's representative on the project, in our work.
Members of the evaluation advisory group have provided ongoing advice and encouragement for the project, and we are grateful to David Crimmens, Harry Daniels, Carol Hayden and Sonia Jackson. We would also like to thank members of the Taking Care of Education Reference Group, in particular the chair Anne Sofer, for their interest and help. Within NCB we are grateful to colleagues in the Pupil Inclusion Unit for their contribution. In the research department we would especially like to thank Isabelle Brodie for carrying out much of the editing on the final draft. Thanks are also due to other colleagues at NCB and the University of Luton for the support they have provided in our work.
The three local authorities that participated in the evaluation, anonymised for the purposes of this book, deserve particular thanks. We are especially grateful to the Project Lead Officers for the considerable time and hard work they devoted to the evaluation, and to the IT and administrative staff who supported them in this. Carers, teachers, social workers and local authority officials were also kind enough to find time in busy schedules to be interviewed, often more than once. Finally, the evaluation has benefited
Introduction
This book is concerned with the education of children and young people looked after by local authorities and living in foster and residential care. That this is an issue that continues to require attention may seem surprising, given the evidence suggesting that most looked after children recognise the importance of education and enjoy school (see, for example, Social Exclusion Unit 2003). However, despite many developments in policy and practice, the academic outcomes for this group continue to be poorer than for their peers. This absence of educational achievement at school has correspondingly negative implications for the later life chances of looked after children in terms of employment and income. Over recent years these issues have attracted growing amounts of attention from policy makers, and a number of programmes have been initiated to improve the educational outcomes for looked after children, though there is a lack of reliable evidence to enable evaluation of the relative effectiveness of these interventions.
The book stems from a development programme initiated by the National Children's Bureau (NCB), with funding from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, to support local authorities in their efforts to promote educational opportunities and outcomes for looked after children. The Taking Care of Education development project aimed to support a small number of local authorities in deploying a range of good practice tools and techniques, policies and practices to improve the educational achievements of looked after children.
The Gatsby Charitable Foundation also provided funding for a detailed independent evaluation of the development programme carried out by the Research Department of the National Children's Bureau in conjunction with the University of Luton. The evaluation project began in September 2000 and aimed to develop an informed picture of the processes involved in establishing and maintaining a whole authority approach to improving the educational opportunities and experiences of looked after children and young people. This was done by carefully documenting local authority activity in terms of changes in policy and practice, alongside an analysis of the educational outcomes and experiences of young people who are looked after. This study therefore provides important new information about the educational progress of a group of looked after children and young people across time. Inevitably, it has not been possible to include at this stage of the study analyses of all the issues which might be examined - for example, the relationship between gender, ethnicity and the educational experiences of looked after children. These will be taken forward into the next three-year phase of the evaluation.
We begin by describing the policy and research context in which this project has operated. This has been a period of considerable change in policy relating to children looked after and children in need, and these developments have informed the way in which the project has unfolded. Chapter 2 describes the Taking Care of Education development programme, and the different ways in which the project was implemented in the participating local authorities. Chapter 3 focuses on the design of the evaluation and the composition of the young people's samples, while Chapter 4 examines the evaluation's findings regarding outcomes for looked after children in the three local authorities. Chapters 5 and 6 go on to discuss, respectively, corporate approaches to the education of looked after children and the nature of inter-professional working in the local authorities. Chapter 7 examines the different ways in which looked after children were motivated and engaged in different aspects of project activities. Chapters 8 and 9 consider findings related to the experience of young people, in school and in the care system, and the way in which this is perceived by young people, carers and social workers themselves. In Chapter 10, the key findings from the evaluation, together with their implications for research, policy and practice, are presented.
1. The education of looked after children
Introduction
Since the 1960s a number of research studies have commented upon the apparent educational underachievement of children 'looked after' by local authorities ('in care'). However, establishing a general overview of the magnitude of such underachievement has, until recently, been a difficult task as reliable data covering school progress and attainment of looked after children was not available (Jackson and others 2002). This chapter examines data regarding the educational performance of looked after children, and the policy measures that have been implemented in recent years to address the educational disadvantage that a disproportionate number experience. Then, drawing on research evidence, consideration is given to the different ways in which this disadvantage might be explained.
The ed ucational performance of looked after children
There are some 60,000 looked after children in England at anyone time, the majority of whom are of school age (Department of Health 2003a). However, until very recently no national statistics were collected regarding the educational performance of this group and general education statistics do not currently include looked after children as an identifiable group.
Official statistics concerning test and examination results for looked after children were first collected in April 1999 via Department of Health returns
relating to the looked after population. Responsibility for collecting such returns passed to the Department of Education and Skills in 2003.
Department of Health 'OC2' returns collate information concerning the young people who have been looked after for at least 12 months and include details of National Curriculum Key Stage test results, rates of young people with special educational needs and exclusion and attendance rates. The most recently released statistics (Department of Health 2003b) illustrate that in the academic year of 2001/2002, on average 50% of looked after children in the appropriate age group achieved level two at Key Stage 1; 40% level four at Key Stage 2; and 22% level five at Key Stage 3. The comparable percentages for all children in English schools were 85%, 78% and 66% respectively. In school year 11, 53% of looked after children obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ compared to 95% of all school children. Only 8% of looked after children obtained at least five GCSEs at grades A *- C, compared with 50% of all children.
In addition, a higher proportion of looked after children (27%) had statements of special educational needs (SEN) and experience of permanent school exclusions (1 %) than had children in general: 3% of all school age children in England had SEN statements and 0.1 % had experienced a permanent exclusion in the academic year 2001/2002. Furthermore, 12% of looked after children missed more that 25 days of school in 2001/2002 (comparable figures on attendance are not collected for all children by the Department for Education and Skills).
Figures indicate a slight trend towards improved attainment oflooked after children since records began in 1999. However, as a similar trend towards improved performance is apparent across all children, the differential between looked after children's performance and that of all children remains relatively constant over the three years. That is, the gap between the performance of looked after and non-looked after children remains the same.
It is also worth noting that around 12-19% of looked after children go on immediately to further education compared with 68% of the general population (Department for Education and Employment/Department of Health, 2000) and only one in 100 looked after children reach university compared to one in 3 of all pupils (Jackson and Sachdev 2001).
The research context
Perhaps in contrast to many other areas of social care policy, research has had a real influence on the development of policy and practice regarding the education of looked after children and, although many gaps remain, there has been a steady growth in the amount and quality of information available.
Jackson and others (2002) suggest that research into the educational failure of looked after children can be categorised around two broad themes. The first strand of research focuses upon the pre-care experiences of looked after children and individual attributes, to argue that they may already be educationally disadvantaged before entering the care system. A second strand of research, whilst accepting that pre-care disadvantage can contribute to poor performance, highlights the role that the care and education system can play in diminishing the educational potential of looked after children or failing to compensate for earlier disadvantage. The following sections discuss research drawn from each of these perspectives.
Explaining underachievement: pre-care experiences
The educational underachievement of looked after children was first highlighted in the mid-1960s (Ferguson 1966; Pringle 1965), and was further reported upon in the 1970s (Essen and others 1976), although at this stage it received little attention from policy-makers or practitioners. This may well be because the authors of such reports were reluctant to attribute low attainment to the care experience itself. Since the majority of young people in care in such studies came from socio-economically deprived backgrounds, this level of disadvantage was seen to hold most explanatory power in explaining educational underachievement.
Indeed, more recent studies have highlighted that looked after children may have come from homes where education is given a low priority (St Claire and Osborne 1987) and their adverse pre-care experiences may place them at an educational disadvantage (Borland and others 1998; Sinclair and Gibbs 1998). Thus, most ifnot all looked after children will have experienced
family disruption and breakdown, neglect or abuse of different kinds. As the statistics described earlier in this chapter indicate, many looked after children have educational and behavioural difficulties, including SEN (Heath and others 1994; Berridge and Brodie 1998). In some cases educational and behavioural difficulties and exclusion episodes can contribute to becoming looked after (Francis 2000).
It must be acknowledged that the individual characteristics and pre-care experiences of looked after children can contribute to an explanation of the low educational attainment for this group. Children who are socially disadvantaged are much more likely to become looked after (Bebbington and Miles 1989) and there is a well-documented link between social disadvantage and poor educational performance (McCallum and Dernie 2001; Vacha and McLaughlin 1992).
However, it is unlikely that pre-care disadvantage has sufficient explanatory power to explain all instances of underachievement amongst the looked after group. Indeed, a number of longitudinal studies indicate that controlling the sample for socio-economic disadvantage reduces but does not completely eliminate the association between being looked after and low educational attainment (Aldgate and others 1993; Cheese borough 2002; Cheung and Heath 1994).
Explaining underachievement: system failure
Alternative explanations for the poor attainment of looked after children began to emerge from 1987, when significant attention was drawn to the area in a seminal paper by Sonia Jackson (Jackson 1987). Jackson was the first researcher to suggest that the poor performance of looked after children was due to the looked after system's failure to adequately meet young people's educational needs. Jackson's work was soon to be reinforced by a National Foundation for Educational Research report (FletcherCampbell and Hall 1990) covering the policy and practice of 12 local authorities in addressing the education of looked after children. The report concluded that the failure of Social Services and Education departments to work together contributed to the low attainment of looked after children in these authorities.
These early works outlining deficiencies in the education and care systems have been followed by a range of other research studies and governmental reports, which also highlight that certain structural features of the care and education systems can lead to impoverished educational opportunities and experiences for looked after populations. A review of research in this area can be organised around six main themes relating to:
• inadequate corporate parenting
• failure to prioritise education
• inappropriate expectations
• the care environment
• placement instability
• disrupted schooling.
Inadequate corporate parenting
Corporate parenting requires local authorities to develop systems, policies and practices to ensure that all relevant departments and agencies work together to provide the best possible care for looked after children. It involves effective collaboration between different departments and professionals to ensure that an adequate overview of a young person's developmental progress is maintained and their rights are championed. Research indicates that, in the past, such collaborative working was not common practice. A general lack of communication and coordination has been reported between Education and Social Services departments (Audit Commission 1994; Social Services Inspectorate/Office for Standards in Education 1995); and these two key departments appear to have foundjoint working and information sharing a difficult process (Firth and Fletcher 2001). Local authority departments may use disparate and incompatible paper- and computer-based systems to record educational information about looked after children, which can prevent effective information sharing (Gatehouse and Ward 2002). Even where systems and a commitment to joint working do support information sharing, the extent of accurate information held about looked after children's educational performance and progress through Key Stages may be limited (Fletcher-Campbell and Archer 2003). In addition, Social Services departments may not hold central records of the
schools that looked after children attend, and schools may be unaware that they have looked after pupils on roll, or whom to inform if they have concerns about their performance or behaviour (Gower 1999; Evans 2000). Direct contact between schools and social workers has been found to be limited; and this has numerous implications for opportunities to maintain an overview of children's educational progress and share relevant information. Likewise, foster carers are often confused about their responsibility for young people's education in relation to that of social workers and young people's birth families (Borland and others 1998). Even where local authorities clearly identify the role of carers in promoting young people's educational interests, there is often little or no guidance as to how this may be achieved (Borland 1996; Gower 1999; Social Services Inspectorate/Office for Standards in Education 1995).
Failure to prioritise education
There is evidence that when young people enter the care system, continuity of schooling is not always prioritised sufficiently when making care placement decisions (Office for Standards in Education 2002). Social Services departments do not tend to pay attention to the educational background of foster carers and their ability to support young people's education (Jackson and Sachdev 2001); and the education and training of residential carers is generally limited (Jackson and others 2002).
In addition, at an operational level, field social workers, teachers and carers do not always give looked after children's educational progress sufficient priority (Social Services Inspectorate/Office for Standards in Education 1995). Social workers tend to view the educational needs of looked after children as having a lower priority than placement issues, maintaining family relationships and dealing with emotional and physical needs (FletcherCampbell and Hall 1990; Francis 2000). At school level, children who are looked after represent a very small proportion of school populations, usually under 1 %, and the motivation of teaching staff to assist them may be outweighed by their obligation to the majority of school pupils (Jackson and Sachdev 2001). Within care placements, primary carers are not always expected, or equipped, to provide sufficient support for young people's
educational progress (Social Exclusion Unit 2003). Inadequate support and encouragement from carers, teachers and social workers are not conducive to educational success (Borland and others 1998; Morris 2000).
Inappropriate expectations
On a broad level, government targets relating to the educational attainment of looked after children have been criticised for communicating low expectations of looked after children's abilities (Jackson and Sachdev 2001). Young people themselves report that the target of obtaining at least one GCSE grade A to G can be de-motivating (Evans 2000). In addition, the low academic expectations that carers and teachers may hold for looked after children may not foster success (Borland 2000; Bullock and others 1994; Firth and Horrocks 1996). Conversely, social workers have been found to hold higher than realistic expectations for young people's progress, often based on misperceptions of what would constitute acceptable age-related progress (Francis 2000; Heath and others 1994). It has been argued that this could contribute to social workers' failure to prioritise the educational needs of looked after children, that is if they assume their performance is in keeping with their peers (Jackson and Sachdev 2001).
The care environment
The care environment may not support basic educational needs, such as promoting literacy skills or enjoyment of reading (Bald and others 1995; Griffiths 1999; Who Cares? Trust 2001). Residential placements do not always provide basic material support for education such as quiet study areas and key books (Berridge and Brodie 1998; Rees 2001). Nor may residential carers be able to promote adequately the educational progress of looked after children through ignorance of their attainment level or failure to conceive low attainment as a problem (Rees 2001). There are some reports of residential staff tacitly accepting non-attendance at school (Biehal and others 1995) and having only limited awareness of the homework requirements of young people (Berridge and Brodie 1998). Berridge and Brodie also found that where residential staff had limited educational qualifications themselves,
they were reluctant to approach schools - to deal with problems of nonattendance and reluctance to complete homework - because they feared being patronised by teachers. Other studies have found that residential staff with limited educational qualifications feel inhibited about approaching schools or offering young people educational support (Bald and others 1995) Although foster care is generally considered to be more conducive to young people's educational success (Biehal and others 1995; Quinton and others 1996), foster carers are not a homogenous group and there may be considerable variation in foster care practice (Harker 2001; Harker and others 2003). Where the educational attainment of foster carers themselves is low to modest, their ability to support the education of the children they look after may be limited (Jackson 1987; Triseliotis and others 1998). As with residential care settings, foster homes may also lack basic forms of material support for education such as a quiet place to study, key books and access to computers (Harker 2001; Harker and others 2003; Jackson and others 2002).
Placement instability
Borland and others (1988) point out that continuity of relationships at home is an important foundation for educational success, and indeed care placement moves are associated with poor attainment (Stein 1994; Francis 2000; Social Exclusion Unit 2003). Unfortunately, a significant number of looked after children experience placement change. For example, recent government statistics indicate that 15% of looked after children experienced more than three placement changes in a 12 month period (Department of Health 2003a). There can be a tendency for moves of placement to reflect the needs of foster carers or agencies rather than childrelated factors (Berridge and Cleaver 1987); and this is perhaps especially evident in the alarming practice of moving Year 11 pupils into independent living shortly before GCSE examinations (Evans 2000; Jackson and Thomas 2001). Not only is care placement change, in itself, disruptive to young people's lives it can also necessitate a change of school and all the ensuing educational disruption that may entail. Failure to consider educational issues in cases of care placement moves can result in inappropriate changes of school (Morgan 1999). Even where local authorities consider educational
findings about the negative impact of placement instability, disrupted schooling, inadequate corporate parenting and low expectations.
Lessons from success
It should not be assumed that being looked after inevitably leads to poor educational outcomes. Indeed, in general, children who are looked after for longer periods do better educationally than those looked after for a shorter duration (Department of Health 2001 b). Where looked after children have the benefit of such factors as supportive carers, stable care and school placements, successful peers, and opportunities to develop out-of-school interests, their educational attainment can be positive (Jackson and Martin 1998; Gilligan 2000; Martin and Jackson 2002). Some studies report children who feel their educational progress was enhanced through being looked after: that is, by being able to focus on their studies thanks to feelings of stability and safety in care placements; and by receiving enhanced support and encouragement from carers and teachers (Fletcher 1993; Lynes and Goddard 1995; Shaw 1998). In addition, where local authorities adopt a corporate parenting approach to the education of looked after children, including effective liaison between Education and Social Services departments, higher commitment to children's educational success is evidenced and young people are more likely to be maintained in school (Who Cares? Trust 1998; Vernon and Sinclair 1998).
The policy context
The introduction of the Taking Care of Education project, and its associated evaluation, arose within a context of increasing governmental concern over the comparatively poor educational attainment of certain social groups, one of these being looked after children. The Government expressed a firm commitment in Opportunity for All to achieving a more inclusive society where all citizens have the opportunity to achieve their potential (Department of Social Security 1999). Opportunity for All identified the eradication of child poverty as the key to tackling disadvantage. A major element of this policy
was to ensure that all children get a high quality education, with particular emphasis given to supporting vulnerable children and young people, including looked after children. The Opportunity for All report is updated annually to reflect how various government departments are progressing towards the aim of reducing social exclusion.
General education policy has noted that the number of young people who become disengaged from education, who fail to achieve any qualifications and leave learning at the age of 16 is unacceptably high (Department for Education and Skills 2001). To combat this issue and enhance the educational opportunities of all young people, the government has introduced a plethora of initiatives, many of which are likely to impact upon the looked after population. The most significant of these initiatives are listed below.
Tackling school absence and exclusion
Improving school attendance and reducing exclusion is a key element of governmental strategy to address underachievement and disengagement amongst schoolchildren. Significant attention has been addressed towards discovering the extent of truancy and exclusion in English schools, as well as establishing underpinning causes and strategies to address the problem (Social Exclusion Unit 1998). Target-setting has been introduced at both school and local education authority level in an effort to reduce truancy and exclusion rates (Department for Education and Employment 1998). The government has also extended the use of legal sanctions enforcing school attendance and introduced further powers to hold parents accountable for young people who are persistent truants (Home Office 1998).
Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)
As part of the government's commitment to improve participation in further education, the EMA offers weekly payments of £30 to young people enrolled on further education courses if they cooperate with the terms of a learning agreement. The scheme was introduced in pilot form in 2000 and a positive evaluation of the pilot (Maguire and others 2001; Maguire and others 2002) means that the EMA will be introduced nationally from September 2004.
(school, Further Education college or training provision) and encourage them to remain in education. The strategy also contains the New Start programme to specifically target young people aged 14-17 who are disengaged from learning and at risk of becoming socially excluded.
Children's Fund
(Children and Young People's Unit 2000)
Provides funding to local partnerships who bring together voluntary organisations, schools, faith groups, statutory agencies and children and young people to develop a range of preventative services to address the needs of children and young people at risk of social exclusion.
This range of education-based policies designed to address social exclusion issues may also have some general impact upon the educational experiences of looked after children, particularly given that they tend to be overrepresented in exclusion figures and many come from socio-economically deprived backgrounds. However, some commentators argue that current educational policy includes contradictory elements whereby those directed towards a more inclusive system are offset by an emphasis on high academic standards that may cause schools to focus on higher achieving pupils rather than those at risk of social exclusion (Blyth 2001; Gerwitz 1999).
Policy directly relating to the education of looked after children
In addition to general policy initiatives and strategies that could arguably have some impact on looked after children, the government has also shown interest in developing policies and practices that specifically target the education of the care population.
Ajoint Social Services Inspectorate and Office for Standards in Education report in 1995 (Social Services Inspectorate/Office for Standards in Education 1995) combined with a government commissioned review in 1997 (Utting 1997), drew attention to the continuing underachievement of
looked after children and stimulated a government response (House of Commons Health Committee 1998; Ministerial Task Force on Children's Safeguards 1998). Subsequently, a range of policies was initiated that includes the promotion of the education of looked after children as a major aim. Of particular importance were the following policies.
The Quality Protects programme
The Quality Protects (QP) initiative (Department of Health 1998, 1999, 2001d, 2003c) was introduced to improve the management of services and outcomes for children in need, with particular emphasis given to those who are looked after by local authorities. QP is mentioned in the government's annual Opportunity for All reports as a significant element in addressing the needs of looked after children and aiming to improve their educational attainment. The QP agenda represents a significant progression in acknowledging the central importance of educational achievement for looked after children and young people's future development. Objective Four of the programme includes the need for looked after children to 'gain maximum life chance benefits from educational opportunities' and qualifies this as 'perhaps the single most significant measure of the effectiveness of local authority parenting'. Other QP objectives, for example those relating to placement stability, are also expected to have an impact on educational outcomes.
QP sets local authorities specific targets for rates of young people leaving care with GCSE qualifications, levels of school attendance and levels of school exclusions. Other targets, for example in relation to improving levels of placement stability, are also expected to have educational benefits. Local authorities are required to outline their plans for action with reference to meeting such targets and routinely record and report information on performance indicators relating to these. In general, local authorities are making progress towards these targets but the rate of progress is slower than expected (Robbins 2001; Social Services Inspectorate 2003).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Penfold, J. Corpl. G/12663
Pennell, R. H. Sgt. G/18563
Phillips, J. Pte. 8116
Phillips, J. A.
L.-Corpl. 6486
Phillpott, D. Pte. 7944
Pickering, H. Pte. G/19129
Pickford, R. E. Pte. G/17441
Platts, A.
L.-Corpl. 6779
Poole, J. T. Sgt. 9405
Port, C. W. Corpl. 7851
Potter, A. G. Sgt. 1054
Powdrill, T. B. Pte. 202928
Powell, E. A.
L.-Corpl. G/1589
Pragnell, W. J. Corpl. G/13306
Prebble, F. R.
L.-Corpl. G/659
Price, W. Pte. G/9956
Purkiss, W. Pte. 990
Rainford, J. Pte. G/375
Rainsbury, C. L.-Corpl. 242321
Rand, F. C. Sgt. L/10038
Randall, T. E. Sgt. 9703
Ratti, R. A. G. Corpl. 20243
Ravenscroft, F. Corpl. 1731
Rayner, F. W.
L.-Corpl. G/9320
Reed, W. W. Sgt. G/1147
Reeves, J. Corpl. 13068
Reynolds, A. W. Pte. 2773
Richards, G. T. Corpl. 6625
Richards, J. H. Corpl. 10478
Richardson, W.
L.-Corpl. G/23924
Ride, S. E. Pte. 265245
Roady, T. J. Pte. 8303
Roberts, A. B. Pte. 8935
Roberts, B. R. Pte. 1666
Rose, H.
Rose, W. C.
L.-Corpl. 4329
Corpl. 4741
Ross, A. G. Sgt. 2260
Rowland, C. Corpl. 15674
Rudman, J. B. Sgt. 270221
Russell, E. M. Sgt. L/9075
Sage, W. C.
Pte. 12715
Saunders, G. E.
Pte. 10292
Saunders, H. Pte. G/17456
Schofield, F. B. L.-Corpl. G/23929
Scott, C. W. Pte. 270928
Scott, H. Pte. 270269
Scott, S. Pte. 7767
Scrivener, F. Pte. 10105
Seager, R. Pte. 15681
Searle, J. V. Pte. 12880
Seath, S. Pte. 148
Setchfield, E. Pte. G/23611
Setterfield, A. V. L.-Corpl. 347
Setterfield, J. E. Pte. 5456
Setterfield, W. Pte. 10
Shackcloth, E. Pte. G/22266
Sharp, T. Pte. 874
Sharp, W. J. Pte. G/26582
Shaw, T. Pte. 5394
Sheen, C. L.-Corpl. 6919
Shelley, W. J. Sgt. 240668
Sidwell, F. Pte. L/10660
Sindon, G. Corpl. 8891
Smith, F. W. Sgt. 5705
Smith, H. Pte. 7628
Smith, H. D. Pte. G/24040
Smith, J. Sgt. S/R11074
Smith, J. H. Pte. G/3961
Smithers, E. G. Pte. G/22478
Smurthwaite, J. T. Sgt. 206148
Snook, C. Pte. 13248
Soulsby, J. C. Corpl. G/14914
Spalding, R. Pte. 2778
Spark, J. G. Sgt. G/13170
Spenceley, F. V. Pte. 728
Spiller, W. C. Sgt. 9872
Stapley, B. J. Pte. 203963
Steed, A. Pte. G/597
Steeting, R. L.-Corpl. 18687
Stevens, A. E. L.-Corpl. 5268
Stevenson, G. E. Pte. 1489
Stevenson, M.
Pte. 896
Stobart, T. W. Pte. 265341
Stone, T. G. Pte. 203492
Streat, C. Pte. 10486
Stuart, J. F. Corpl. 10026
Swain, F. G.
Pte. 17610
Swaine, H. F. L.-Corpl. 20162
Tamblin, W. H., D.C.M.
Corpl. 957
Tapley, E. Pte. G/26557
Taylor, B. L.-Corpl. 5233
Thirkettle, J. Pte. 2839
Thomas, M. L. Corpl. 241641
Thompson, G. Pte. 20966
Thompson, J. Corpl. G/3354
Tidcombe, H. J. Pte. 265063
Tidey, J. S. Pte. G/8988
Tillier, S. V.
Pte. G/24274
Timmins, W. Corpl. 270040
Tinmouth, F. L.-Corpl. 5429
Todd, F. Sgt. 8277
Todman, J. L.-Corpl. G/23935
Towersey, J. T. H. Pte. G/13382
Treadaway, A. E. Pte. G/17401
Tress, W. G. Sgt. 4455
Trew, E. C. Pte. 42015
Trigg, W. J. Sgt. 9435
Turner, J. L.-Corpl. S/R10695
Twelftree, A. T. L.-Sergt. 851
Tyler, H. N. Pte. 32566
Viggers, J. Sgt. 6163
Vincer, P. A.
C.Q.M.S. 7967
Voyle, J. H. L.-Corpl. 42440
Waby, R. W., D.C.M.
L.-Sergt. G/3424
Wakeham, S. W. L.-Corpl. G/673
Walker, A. E. L.-Corpl. G/4076
Wall, W. J. Corpl. 260
Wallace, R. L.-Sergt. 25149
Walters, C. Pte. G/2269
Walters, H. Pte. G/14568
Warner, W. J. L.-Corpl. 10482
Watkins, J. Pte. 814
Watts, F. G.
Corpl. L/8717
Webb, H. R. Corpl. 270814
Whall, R.
Whiddett, G.
L.-Corpl. 2279
Pte. G/4929
Whipps, A. Sgt. G/3569
Whiskin, E. W. Pte. G/6031
White, W. A.
L.-Corpl. 2248
Wicken, P. C. Pte. G/12941
Wickett, S.
L.-Corpl. G/13991
Wickington, H. G. Corpl. G/1300
Wiles, G. A. Pte. 270212
Willcocks, P. R. Pte. 421
Williams, F. J.
Corpl. L/10246
Williams, J. Pte. G/21464
Willis, A. W. Pte. 270872
Willis, C. W. L.-Corpl. 5092
Wilson, S., D.C.M. Pte. L/8827
Wire, H. L.-Corpl. 15714
Wise, D. W.
L.-Corpl. 3710
Wise, W. Pte. G/2504
Wood, A. Sgt. 9817
Wood, E. C. L.-Corpl. 10059
Wood, H. H. L.-Corpl. G/11670
Woodcock, J. Pte. G/42
Wraight, H. Pte. G/2509
Wren, W. H. Corpl. 6635
Wright, G. Pte. G/20179
Wright, G. F. E. Sgt. 12521
Wright, J. Pte. G/6329
Wykes, F. H. L.-Corpl. G/5587
Wynne, A. Pte. 10760
Wynne, T. W. Sgt. 10652
CLASP TO MILITARY MEDAL
Alexander, F. P., M.M. Pte. G/15501
Ashwell, W. E., M.M. Sgt. G/855
Barton, C., M.M. L.-Corpl. 1036
Bellchambers, E. J., M.M. Pte. G/8018
Berry, G. F., M.M. L.-Corpl. 3237
Bloomfield, J., M.M. Sgt. L/8917
Browne, G., M.M. Sgt. 3232
Cremer, A. H., M.M. Corpl. G/7649
Cude, R., M.M. Pte. G/2192
Dockerill, L. T., M.M. Corpl. G/21070
Farmer, H. T., M.M. Pte. G/25191
Galloway, G. H., M.M. Sgt. G/11537
Goodall, T. B., M.M. Sgt. L/8066
Hardiman, E. G., M.M. Pte. G/15610
Harris, W. O., M.M. Corpl. 3245
Holloway, G. R., M.M. Sgt. L/8120
Impett, S. A., M.M. Sgt. G/420
Kingsford, W., M.M. Sgt. 616
Macdonald, A. A., M.M. L.-Corpl. G/8208
Mason, L., D.C.M., M.M. Pte. G/4269
Parker, F. W., M.M. Pte. G/498
Pickering, H., M.M. Pte. G/19129
Purkiss, W., M.M. Pte. 990
Rainsbury, C., M.M. Corpl. 242321
Reeves, J., M.M. Sgt. 13068
Reynolds, A. W., M.M. Pte. 2773
Setterfield, W., M.M. Sgt. 10
Smith, C., M.M. L.-Corpl. 14635
Smith, J., M.M. C.S.M. S/R11074
Spenceley, F. V., M.M. L.-Corpl. 728
Stapley, B. J., M.M. Pte. 203963
Stuart, J. F., M.M. L.-Sergt. 10026
Swaine, H. F., M.M. Sgt. 20162
Tapley, E., M.M. Pte. G/26557
Wilson, S., D.C.M., M.M. L.-Corpl. L/8827
Wood, H. H., M.M. L.-Corpl. G/11670
Wright, J., M.M. L.-Corpl. G/6329
SECOND CLASP TO MILITARY MEDAL
Kingsford, W., M.M. Sgt. 616
MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL
Ambrose, J. L. Sgt. 8534
Austin, F. H.
Back, A. E.
Banks, E. R.
Barden, E. T.
Barrell, G.
Bennett, S. G.
Benstead, C. S.
Bishop, C. U.
Blackman, H. E.
Bloxham, B. N.
Bolton, E. L.
Brooks, F. H.
Col.-Sergt. L/8328
Q.M.S. L/8910
Pte. 10049
Pte. 240073
C.S.M. L/9036
Sgt. G/1278
Pte. 240113
C.Q.M.S. 240525
C.Q.M.S. L/8364
C.S.M. G/4865
R.S.M. L/5504
C.Q.M.S. G/3305
Brown, F. F. Sgt. 7629
Bryant, G.
Campbell, H.
Pte. 240248
Corpl. 4848
Carr, J. Sgt. L/8908
Clem, F.
Clift, W. B.
Coleman, A. C., M.M.
Constable, D. W.
Cox, H. W. G.
Dann, F.
Darby, J. R.
Denness, S. W.
Q.M.S. S/589
Sgt. 243307
Pte. G/1898
Sgt. 243277
Pte. 738
C.Q.M.S. G/2633
Pte. S/600
Pte. 240419
Dowse, E., M.M. Sgt. L/11008
Drew, A.
Dunn, G. W. H.
Edwards, W. S.
L.-Sergt. G/21837
Sgt. G/538
R.Q.M.S. 6397
Ephgrave, C. F. Pte. G/21598
Faulkner, P.
Fielding, A. W.
C.S.M. 270032
R.Q.M.S. G/1765
Filby, A. F. Sgt. G/22333
Flannery, J. M.
Flynn, J. P.
Follett, S. H.
Ford, H. G.
Friend, E. A.
Gibson, A.
Pte. 241095
Sgt. L/7089
C.S.M. L/6942
Sgt. 240364
Pte. 200581
Sgt. L/9484
Glover, F. Sgt. G/13686
Graves, F. R. Sgt. 10264
Hamblin, I. C.
Corpl. L/8825
Hayman, W. C. L.-Corpl. G/9312
Hearne, H. W. Sgt. 200585
Hemens, W. G.
C.Q.M.S. 242934
Hill, E. B. Sgt. 8373
Holloway, T.
R.S.M. L/3589
Hutchison, T. E. Pte. 6589
Ings, G. F.
Jenkins, A. R.
Q.M.S. L/7201
C.Q.M.S. G/1258
Johnson, A. W. Pte. G/824
Jones, H. A.
Julian, C.
R.S.M. L/2954
C.Q.M.S. G/3656
Lockyer, S. Sgt. G/15727
Martin, W. K.
R.Q.M.S. L/5886
Maulkin, A. G. Sgt. 200712
Middleditch, F. J.
Milnes, N.
Q.M.S. 240048
C.Q.M.S. 241649
Mount, A. E. Sgt. 4231
Munting, A.
C.Q.M.S. 200342
Ousley, F. W. Sgt. G/13631
Page, W. E.
R.Q.M.S. 20497
Pegrum, F. W. Pte. 240472
Perry, E. R.
C.Q.M.S. 240456
Pursehouse, W. H. Pte. G/18750
Richardson, J. H. S. Pte. 240421
Ronketti, P. A.
Salt, L.
Slender, A. F.
C.Q.M.S. 20491
C.S.M. 270013
C.Q.M.S. L/8725
Smith, H. J. Sgt. 270715
Smith, W. H. 6192
Sparrow, S. F. Sgt. 270432
Talbot, W. E. Sgt. 240372
Taylor, A. J.
Terry, B. N.
Thomas, W.
Pte. G/19355
Sgt. 241016
R.S.M. G/36901
Trafford, W. G. Sgt. G/1804
Turmaine, F. W.
C.Q.M.S. L/6662
Usherwood, A. E. Sgt. 203054
Webb, J. H.
Wiggs, E.
Williams, A.
C.Q.M.S. 3858
S.M.
Pte. G/19585
Williams, T. E. Sgt. 200497
Wood, F. C. S.
Woodruff, C. J.
Wyles, H.
C.S.M. 200034
C.Q.M.S. 200526
C.S.M. 200333
APPENDIX IV
FOREIGN DECORATIONS
ALL RANKS
(The ranks shown are those held at the time of award)
BELGIUM
ORDRE DE LEOPOLD
Chapman, Captain C. M. B., M.C.
Lee, Captain G., M.C.
Lynden-Bell, Major-General Sir A. L., K.C.M.G., C.B.
