Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Children in care to be placed in best schools?

46 replies

UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 14:33

Wanted to put "best" in inverted commas, but I can't.

here

Okay, so it's only a green paper, but what would it mean? Would they get preference ahead of people who live in the catchment?

And it's an interesting admission that there are such things as "better" schools, which seems to be contrary to the usual spin about state education. And these "best" schools are often the most over-crowded ones. What about those with all the empty spaces?

OP posts:
Piffle · 09/10/2006 14:36

Amazing how they glaze the facts when it suits them.
BUT FWIW I know children in care oftedn fail drastically at school, whether its down to the schooling or care system needs to be evaluated first off methinks.
A typical new labour band aid proposal IMO

nearlythree · 09/10/2006 14:44

Surely the most important thing would be to get these kids out of the care system in the first place?

And, let's face it, if the 'better' schools have to take any quantity of children in care, the middle classes will desert them in droves.

geekgrrl · 09/10/2006 14:46

I'm happy with anything intended to help children in care to be honest. Place them at the top of the queue by all means. I think this is an honest attempt at changing the lives of the most disadvantaged children in the country for the better. So what if they're ahead in of the catchment children in the queue? That's been the case for years with most schools anyway.

hulababy · 09/10/2006 14:46

I think "cared for" children have always been part of admission crtria. Certinly at the very good state school I worked at they were on there (not unlimited numbers I don't think though)

geekgrrl · 09/10/2006 14:49

hula, that's what I've noticed too when looking at admission criteria. they come even before statemented children. Fine with me.

Blu · 09/10/2006 14:52

Hmmm. This looks more like a move to ensure that schools respect admissions criteria so that looked-after children can get into their local (good) school. IME looked after children are the ones going miles across the borough to the only school which has any places left - oh yes, that would be the failing school, then.

If looked after children are allocated places fairly, they will be in equal numbers across a wide range of schools. atm because they get moved around so much, they may not be in a catchment for a school at application date, so ebd up wherever ther may be places. the most vulnerable kids travelling miles away, no freinds where they live.

I'm in support of anything that addresses this. Poor things - the children most badly failed by adults.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 14:55

Sure, I agree, put them at the top of the queue for a school place. But does it automatically have to be a "better" school? Why should it be? Why can't it just be the nearest school to the foster family/foster home?

Surely if the council does this, it is admitting that some of their schools aren't very good, or would fail cared-for children. And if they would fail cared-for children, then that surely opens up a whole debate about whey they supposedly aren't failing the children who have to go to them...

OP posts:
beckybraAAARGHstraps · 09/10/2006 14:56

Blu is right. Often cared-for children arrive in the middle of a term with little notice. So they only get places in schools with places available.

Jimjams2 · 09/10/2006 14:56

Yes agree with Blu. Also suspect that without a parent to remind the LEA of their duty there's no chance of this actually happening.

(as a comparison when at ms ds1 had a statement which said that he should receive x amoutn of speech therapy- in the part of the statement that made it a legal obligation on the lea- which was a battle in the first place, and I STILL had to threaten them with the local govt ombusdman to get it provided.- who isa going to be doing that sort of chasing for looked after children?)

Original poster
UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 14:56

Sorry, looked-after children was what I meant. Getting the terminology wrong.

OP posts:
Gobbledispook · 09/10/2006 14:56

Unquietdad - theydo anyway.

In our LEA criteria, 'cared for children in the catchment' are at the top of the priority list for admission to community schools.

Jimjams2 · 09/10/2006 14:57

And it will mean jack-all gdg. Just like all these supposed regulations.

geekgrrl · 09/10/2006 14:58

UnquietDad, probably because currently, academic attainment of cared for children is utterly dismal, and university attendance is in the low single figure percentages. At least this will be a big boost, and at secondary level plenty of children don't attend their most local school, anyway.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 14:58

They are in our LEA criteria too. But this green paper (link below) suggests putting them into the "better schools", rather than just those nearest where there are places, which is my point of contention.

OP posts:
beckybraAAARGHstraps · 09/10/2006 14:59

I can't tell whether it's saying that they need to go to the 'best' school in the area, or whether they should get into their local school despite it being oversubscribed. Whether that is an omission by the government or the BBC I'm not sure.

Gobbledispook · 09/10/2006 15:00

Oh yes, 'looked after children'. Here is the criteria adopted in cases of oversubscription in our LEA

  1. "Looked after" children (as defined in the Education Act 2002 - Admissions).
  1. Those children who live in the catchment area of the requested school who will have a sibling attending the requested primary infant or junior school at the time of the applicant's proposed admission (This includes half/step/adopted/foster brothers or sisters, and any other children, who are living at the same address as part of the same family unit).
  1. Those children who live in the catchment area of the requested school.
  1. Children, who live outside the catchment area of the requested school, with a sibling attending the requested primary, infant or junior school at the time of the applicant's proposed admission (This includes half/step/adopted/foster brothers or sisters, and any other children, who are living at the same address as part of the same family unit).
  1. Children who live nearest to the requested school, measured in a direct straight line on the appropriate Ordnance Survey map from the front door of the child's permanent place of residence to the main entrance of the school.
Gobbledispook · 09/10/2006 15:02

OK, sorry, I see your point now.

'Better' decided on what criteria though? Will someone go and look at all the schools and decide which is better for that specific child? Because it's not always the one at the top of the league table results-wise that is best for a child is it?

nearlythree · 09/10/2006 15:02

Yes, surely the issue is the fact that there is such an imbalance in the state school system.

I would have a lot more sympathy if this were about improving the care system as a whole, and getting these vulnerable young people out of the system in the first place. It doesn't matter what background you come from or what school you go to, without stability you are at a disadvantage.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 15:02

I know that's true geekgrrl, but still not convinced. It seems like an admission that some schools are better for certain types of kids than others, which seems to me like a total backtrack on the line we are usually peddled about the state comprehensive sytem. Doesn't it?

Surely if some schools aren't "right" or "good enough" for cared-for/looked-after children, that should lead the parents of children who DO go to them - some of whom will also have issues with motivation and achievement etc - to wonder why they're thought good enough for their own kids to go there?

OP posts:
nearlythree · 09/10/2006 15:06

Very good point about schools at the top of the league tables being best for every child, gobbledespook. Just proves that this government values nothing in education bar academic achievemant (and that of a very dubious nature).

Original poster
UnquietDad · 09/10/2006 15:16

Blu - take your point about travelling miles away not being good. If this green paper is implemented it will surely have this effect - e.g. if a child is in foster care on the east side of the city and all the so-called "better" schools are in the west (as is the case with a city not a million miles from me). It's surely not in their interests to bus them across town. It's not in anyone's interests, looked-after child or otherwise. If only everyone could just go to their local catchment school... and if only they didn't differ vastly.

To put my cards on the table, we had to appeal last year to get DD into the local catchment primary school, 0.1 of a mile away - which really stuck in my throat, especially when people were parachuted in from out of catchment.

OP posts:
SNORcacKLE · 09/10/2006 16:49

The trouble is steps need to be taken so that the looked after children stay at the school they are initially placed in for a good length of time. A lot of the time they get moved about so much they have no continuity in their education. Until you solve that issue, which school they actually attend for a few months here and there is far less important in my opinion.

peegeeweegeeWITCH · 09/10/2006 22:24

Interesting you should bring this up. I have just filled in the form for dd to go to our local infant school. It is a very very good school, has been a beacon school for many years, and is always oversubscribed.

The accompanying booklet listed the entrance criteria, and it clearly stated that first priority was to be given to 'looked after children', and went on to explain these are children in the care of the council.

Second priority was special needs, third siblings and fourth was distance to the school.

cece · 09/10/2006 22:30

It is common practice ime of having prioroity for 'looked after' children in admission policies. Also xchildren who have a statement that names that school.

motherinferior · 09/10/2006 22:31

Nearlythree, a number of children and young people in the care system are neither in a position to return to the family home, nor to become part of a new family through adoption. One of the things the green paper has, I understand, taken on is the necessity to overhaul and look at the whole issue of long term fostering and therefore to assure that stability to which you refer. And education, clearly, is an intrinsic element of that; the government has at least taken on the issue of the appalling educational record of looked-after young people.

(I work on foster care issues part of the week. But I haven't done so for very long, so please don't grill me!)