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?

Just parroting what other people have said but if you're carers change every other month and every adult hwose cared for you has just gone (in your eyes anyway) wouldn't being at one school for 5-6 years where there are teachers who knows you and look out for you and people who have known you for years; friends and aquaintances...
Wouldn't that make a big difference, you wouldn't always be the new kid, you would have one constant in your life...

The reason is that they often have very little continuity of care during their formative years. Many may have had highly disrupted home lives, may have been the victim of violence and/or neglect.

As a consequence they may well be disruptive, suffer from attachment disorders and underachieve for their true ability level.

A good school for these children is vital. They, more than any other child, need the calm, secure environment that a really good school can offer. That way they are more likely to achieve their full potential.

And in doing so may break the cycle of dysfunction and neglect that they sadly found themselves part of during their child hood.

Not only is it in their best interests, it is also in the best interest of society as a whole, financial, economically and ethically.

wow, didnt expect this thread to be so long when i finally managed to make it back to mn.....
to those of you who think it bothers me, it doesnt. i am merely questioning the logic behind it, as i couldnt figure it out. thank you to those of you who clarified it. yes, continuity and stability. not always having to be the new kid in the class. having at least one part of your life that doesnt change regularly, assuming th ekids manage to stay in the local area.

and my second post was simply in reply to the first reply i got. i was reiterating what she said, as her explanation really didnt clarify anything to me.

and to repeat myself, it doesnt bother me in the least. i am questioning something i dont understadn the reasons behind. thats it.

wow, thank you for that vote of confidence quintessentialshadow.
you humble me..

Some of the replies about the practical reasons for Looked After children to be top of the admissions criteria were things I didn't know.

I think a lot of us have always been happy for Looked After children to be prioritised because we have simply wouldn't want them to have any more upset, and haven't really asked about the actual reasons.

thank you edam. my query was obviously quite naive. but honest. thank you for standing up fo rme.
in amongst all the negativity hurled at me, , i feel this thread has answered my question. thank you to all of you who have given information.

I have worked in LA run childrens homes for 6 years and I have seen some kids develop and acheive and others who havent. More often than not the damage that their parents have done to them emotionally let alone physically prohibit them from developing into well adjusted adults.
The school DOES play a massive part in helping these kids but more often than not in my experience, shooling and education are just not important to them at that time, they usually have many many other MAJOR issues / obsticles in their way to be able to concentrate on an education, therefore unfortunately they sometimes do under acheive.

This is NOT ALL Looked after children though!!!

Some children are better adjusted and with the help of a good school, good staff / foster carers etc can go onto be VERY successful, its uaually the children who have had the support, security, stability and LOVE from those mentioned above that do, thus why it is important that Looked after children to have a chance and take priority.
So what if they still do under achieve? So what if its thrown back in our faces? its really not the childrens fault they are in this position in the first place and they deserve a fighting chance.

As someone who gave you a hard time and assumed the worst I apologise for jumping on you

apology accepted.

see, i must never leave the side of a computer. a whole day without accessing mn, and look what happens.

I would have made my first reply more illuminating but I was just about to run out of the door on the school run and didn't have time.

When I came back other people had made some really good points.

mrsspnut, just before the morning school run is a bad time to be start threads on mn. as i found out when i returned this evening. my honest query had been misinterpreted in so many different ways.
but a lot of good information was imparted, and that is a good thing.

Hope you're feeling not attacked Pukka

Kezza- you're right but its worth remembering that some kids in care or looked after kids haven't necessarily ended up there through abuse- parents die or become terminally ill or disabled and cant cope, things they cannot be blamed for. Some kids are in care but loved- MIL was in care after her Mother ran away and her dad couldn't cope at first but he got her out of there as soon as he could manage to set up care etc for when he was working.

I apologise for jumping on you pukka

apology accepted wildcats.

hatrick, yes this question needed to be asked, as the answer was not obvious to me.

peachy, i am not feeling attacked at all. but loved. odd i know, but all the negativity happened whilst i was not here, and i have been really humbled by some mumsnetters support of me, from theire run ins with me on other threads. [smile

Pukka, apologies if i jumped on you a tad too. Your OP was one of those that can be taken in several ways depending on where you place your emphasis.

I hope i didn't offend you i was genuinely wondering why you had asked. Knew that from previous posts of yours that it wouldn't be a malicious post.

Hopefully you got the answers you were looking for?(and knowing MN a few things you didn't )

lol, yes i did mumof2.
i'm feeling really loved and accepted here.
dd wantst o know why i am grinning from ear to ear.

If a child is suddenly uprooted from its family it is usually because the child is at risk and by giving that child a school place that means the foster carer can get the child there ( bearing in mind due to lack of foster parents, there are sometimes a number of children in the same care home)then why shouldnt priority be given.
Also if the child is likely to have to be moved from home to home whilst its future is decided ,where possible ,surely giving priority to ensure at least schooling stability is reasonable.
It doesnt matter where we live schools are full and in each area every year there are hundreds of disappointed parents who cannot get theschools of their choice.
Why home in on children in care when there are several children who jump the queue for places for all sorts of reasons.
Appeals take place and some win.
I won three such appeals and my situation was as important to me as the next person.
I took on two teenagers from a different county, had to find local school places and had my own three children in local very good single sex schools and hoped my two charges could go along with them.
One is excelling at school and the other has
obtained 9 good G C S E results and is studying A levels.Not under achieving. Its wrong to generalise.

The actual comment was 'Because they are the group most likely to leave school having under achieved.' and this is true for nationally recognised academic achievement.

At GCSE, 60% of all children in England achieve 5 A*-C grades whereas just 10% of looked after children (LAC for 12 months or more) do.

However, you must also look at the fact that 28- 33% of those LAC have a statement of Special Educational Needs. That is before looking at the instability of placement factor (children having many moves of care placement), the amount of schooling missed, emotional barriers to learning etc.

Just to dispel a few myths- most LAC do have parents, indeed around 20% of children in care actually live with their own parents, though of course the majority do not.

Looked After Children are not bad children- only around 5% of children in care are there due to their own behaviour, and arguably in many of those cases, their behaviour is a product of their early childhood.

Many looked after children are extremely resilient, and show greater fortitude than adults facing similar circumstances.

All the statistics show is that actually 5 A*-C GCSE is not a very good measure of achievement! Many LAC have actually achieved enormously well in terms of overcoming the barriers to education they face.

They do have priority in admissions, but only to local community schools not to all schools (ie VA, VC, foundation, grammar etc).

Children in care very very often have an appalling rough time in education: less than 50% leave school with a single GSCE and only 6% or so get 5 good GCSEs, as opposed to 56% of other children . Statistics here.

That's a shameful, outrageous waste of talent and lives - a huge proportion (majority, as I recall) of the prison population has been in care.

Giving children in care priority for schools (as long as someone can be bothered to choose a good school for them) seems entirely reasonable to me. These children need someone to fight for them: since The System is looking afterthe, The System should do the fighting.

I heard a heart-rending documentary on the radio recently, about the educational experiences of children in care. One lad had never, ever, in eleven years of school while in care, had anyone come to a parent's evening for him. That made and makes me sad - and furious.

have only read op....
but it's because they need all the help / stability they can get.

only read the OP.

not to restate the blindingly obvious, but children in care are in that situation because their homelife was unsuitable even to live, much less go to school.

they need all the help they can get in every way, and i have no problem stepping aside for that.

my SIL was adopted from care, and i wouldn't wish her first 4 years on any child.

exactly expat.

Because if you are in care, you've already been dealt a shitty hand, and the last thing you need is to be side-lined into the worst performing school. If a positive school experience can turn a child around from their shaky start, in my view any amount of resources should be deployed to make that happen. Including giving looked after children priority in the school of their choice.

I'm all for this policy and just wish more could be done for children in care/foster homes etc. It's so deeply unfair that some children have such a disadvantaged start in life and this ruins the rest of their life as well. As is well known, abused and disadvantaged children often (not always)repeat the cycle in their adult life so as a society we should do everything possible to give them educational and financial benefits.