so why do children in care get priority over children who live with a parent?

[pukkapatch]

i dot understand that. why should they be entitled to priority over chilcren with parents? whats the deal there?

Wasnt going to post, but am truly intrigued to know what promted this thread. Pukka are you still around? Care to share your thoughts?

To put whats been already said another way, the two main 'institutions' involved in raising a child are the family and education. For most children, the 'best' family for them is the one they are born into. Where that is not the case, the state may be entrusted with that responsibility. Part of that role is to ensure that cared for children are placed in the best school for that child. That may not be the highest achieving academically, or the nearest.

But, a cared for child may not:

have a sibling already at the school;
live within the school's catchment area;
may not live nearest the school.

I will also make the point that 'priority' and 'advantage' are NOT the same thing.Cared for children are in no way being advantaged by this system.

Or is your concern about something else? Are you worried that all the 'underachieving children in care' in high performance schools are skewing the league table results, or, worse still, denying some more deserving child who at least has the courtesy to not be 'in care'.

Im sorry, I thought and rethunk (I know this isnt a real word, but seems fitting to describe what im saying) this, and I just cant see where you are coming from with this.

I think it's a legal requirement for all admissions policies to put children in care/those with a defined social/educational need to go to that school as first on the list of priorities, ahead of catchment or siblings. For very good reasons, especially the practical ones outlined by Mamazon (who is a social worker). Kids in care are often shifted about very suddenly - think there was some stat about children being moved up to five times a year due to the shortage of foster carers.

In practice I don't think it makes much difference to other parents applying to the school as the number of children who qualify for any one school in any particular year are vanishingly small.

Those in care are enormously vulnerable. The problems that led to them ending up in care, plus the sheer disruption of being moved around, means they have great difficulty in getting a good education. They are often very damaged. Report after report has shown, sadly, children in care are far more likely to end up homeless or in prison or addicted to drugs or selling their bodies.

Given they are 'in care' i.e. the responsibility of the state that means society - we - fail them dreadfully.

Totally agree Edam, we are still as a society failing children in care.

Maybe Pukka wants to temporarily put her dcs in care so they'll get into her first choice school

Think of all the times that you, as a parent, have had to go and talk to the school about some issue affecting your child, whether it's being unhappy at playtime or not having appropriate reading books. Do you suppose children in care have anyone with quite the same interest in speaking up for them as you do?

That makes me really sad, Hallergda

Nother reason they have priority ime is because many HAVE been so disrupted they display as less than ideal students (like SN kids with which I have more experience) and there are some schools that without the priority rules would fight to keep them out (having been through this with ds3)

Lord protect me though from a society where poor aprentless kids aren't given these little chances!

I don't think we should be too hard on Pukka, OP and second message read as genuine search for info about a topic she's not an expert on.

it is sad isn't it. It's one of the reasons that I don't listen to people who disapproved of my DS's adoption, every child deserves someone who thinks they are the best thing since sliced bread and will fight their corner if necessary.

I'm thinking that the kind of parents whose children are in care are not generally the kind of parents who are likely to be scrutinising the league tables and then demanding their kids go to the 'best' schools. The people who make the decision about which school the kids go to are more likely to be the foster carers and social workers who choose schools that are going to provide most stability and continuity for the children are going to help maintain their networks of friends and possibly relations and ones that are going to be convenient. Can't see a problem with that.

placing a child in foster care is extemely difficult in terms of location/ proximity to family members, continuity of social workers, professionals that are familiar with their case and sometimes to make sure that they are sometimes far enough away from their bad parents etc. There is a very serious shortage of foster carers so placement often results in an out of borough or less than ideal foster placement. So having to apply for a school then maybe not getting in is a ridiculous proposition.

It isn't just the 'best' schools that Looked After children get priority for, it is all schools. So, if it is decided (by SW'S/therapists/foster carers/foster carers circumstances that a Looked After child is best placed at a particular school, they will get priority, regardless of what the school is like.

Some children may be best placed in the school that is closest to their birth family, some in a school far away. Some are best placed in small schools, some in ones that have a special 'nurturing' scheme (more often found in not so 'successful' schools.

It is therefore NOT the case that Looked After children get priority for the 'best' schools - they get priority for the best school for them.

They do so for all the reasons given by the PP's, and so they should. As others have said, school can be the main provider of stability for these children, and let's face it, all the stats show that Looked After children lose out in almost every way (academic achievement, teenage pregnancy, mental health issues, offending, homelessness etc etc).

Pukkapatch, not all schools do this. In my borough state schools, Church of England and Catholic schools do it. School of other religious denomination have these children at the bottom list of priorities. I found that odd, to be honest.

As a foster carer, it saddens me that cared for children are still viewed in negative terms. They have had a crap start in life and need all the help and support they can be given.
We use a local school and its proven to be a godsend. The support the children ( and ourselves) receive, and the support we are able to give school as it is local, cannot be under estimated. The children are achieving, feeling positive and living a relatively normal life for the first time in their short lives and who can criticise that? Cared for children getting into the school that fits their needs is right and proper.Surely someone has got to give a damn about these kids?

Luckily I think most of us on here do feel that looked-after children should have priority betterhalf - for all the reasons others have stated: stability, ease of pick-up for foster carers, giving these vulnerable youngsters extra help after they have had a less than optimal start in their lives

Yes Marina, I noted all the comments other than the original poster's were positive and thats good to see. Shame the OP hasn't posted more recently to explain more fully the coments she made.I would havve liked to know what she was getting at.

Message withdrawn

RE SEN criteria in admissions procedure - DS was accepted by his school under the SEN criteria, even though he is not statemented. We applied on the grounds that is is a flat, level access school with no stairs, and also is a small school so less vulberable in the playground etc. We had a lot of medical evidence, statement from Doctor and consultant etc, though.
Think it depends a lot on the particluar LEA / governors. Another school in the LEA turned us down on appeal on the grounds that every school now had to have an 'action plan' to be accessible within 5 years! i.e when DS was in Yr5!

thanks for the info Blu, you are quite right, I now recall the boxes on the form for you to give info about educational needs!

ive been reading back through this again and again whilst being upset and quite angry. i know i have already posted but i dont care.

what do you want the LA to do? tell every child in care that they cannot go to school because some toffee-nosed bitch doesnt want them in the same school as her great, fantastic, better than them children???????

do you think that children in care do not derserve to go to school? or do you just not want them mixing with your children because the are 'under-achievers' and will amount to nothing????

im am sick to the back teeth of people like you who act so snobby.

its about time you realised that most of these kids are there through no fault of their own. whatsoever!!!!!!

sorry to everyone for the rant but this has really upset me

Why do children in care unachieve?

Well, I know one girl who foster mother goes to my church, apparently she spent the first 8 to 10 years of her life locked in a dark cupboard and was not sent to primary school.

No sh!t, she doesn't have the best SATS results and has literacy skills of a year 2 child. She has only had about 3 or 4 years of education. Is she really an unachiever?

Personally I think there are bigger issues with admissions. I would like a system where all mainsteam state schools were forced to have a fair share of SEN/ LAC /EBD /poor children. Schools struggle when they have a really large number of these children without the necessary resources.

Hang on, lets give Pukkapatch a chance to revisit her thread without fear of being torn to pieces.

Wildcats I can understand you are upset, I agree it was an unusual OP, but I have crossed posts with Pukkapatch before, and I think she just genuinely wants to understand the system.

Our local muslim school is putting children in care at the bottom list of priorities after siblings, geographic proximity, active in the community, etc. I would hope if I were to post on a forum and ask why this is I would not get flamed, but met with people who could explain without taking too much for granted about who I am and what I believe. There might be reasons I have not even thought about, because it is not something I have to ponder daily.

It may have been an ill advised OP, but still, I have had nothing but respect for pukka on other threads.

They have less opportunity for parental input at home, it provides continuity and stability (especially if they are living with other children who attend) otherwise lacking and they have noone else specifically to advocate their needs in the system. SEN children can also get priority where that school can provide for their needs, is that wrong too ? Reality is this it is likely to prove a small minority of places anyway.

quint, it was the fact that children in care are under achievers. i was in care and it has made my life a whole lot better. i may not have gone to school much but thats not the point. maybe pukka could of posted her query in a different context and worded what she wanted to say abit better.

im sorry for being rude and blunt, its been one of those days

*it was the fact that she said that children in care are under acievers...thats what i meant