Children in care to be placed in best schools?

[UnquietDad]

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?

I think every LEA says looked-after children come first. But in practice it doesn't happen. These poor kids are failed so badly by us as corporate parents it's untrue. They get shunted from foster placement to children's home to foster placement, and so from school to school, often with no notice, sometimes dumped 100s of miles from their home town (especially if they are Londoners).

They get no qualifications, in general the girls end up pregnant, the boys in prison. Or (both sexes) sectioned. And these are the neediest kids in the first place, even before we start messing them up!

There are only about what, 60,000 children in care around the country, so if the rules are properly enforced, it's not going to have a major effect on any particular school's admissions. And even if it did, we owe them. Hugely.

i work in a special school and a majority of our kids are looked after children the LEA are always looking for ways to save money. Very irriting as there is never enough money to do our job properly it annoys me and i find it very frustrating. I think we fail the kids we are supposed to be helping.

The government are full off good intentions they need to put money where there mouth is

motherinferior, my cousin was in care (something I can't understand my family allowing to happen) so I do understand that most young people can't go to their family or adoptive homes. If the green paper is going to address the issue of stability then great, because the system truly failed my cousin. From what I can gather here the educational element is about ensuring schools do what they should be anyway.

Good post, edam. Education seems to me to be just a part of what looked-after children need. What they need above all else is love.

So if the entry requirements for schools is already to give priority to looked-after children, why isn't it happening?

If this story is typical then exactly which school these kids go to is irrelevent. The best solution I've heard proposed is that the government pays for a boarding education for them - at least then they'd have some stability in their schooling, although I suspect what they really need is a stable home life.

having a decent education is one way of empowering a young person. this is something that doesn't often happen. if the governments proposal offers just one child a better start for adult life then it has got to be worth it in anybodies standards. more often than not a looked after child lives with constant battles, they are often removed from their parents care, when the only place they want to be is at home. do they not at least deserve an education that will give them some grounding in life.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a decent education - I was just sceptical that the school placement would make much difference with all the other obstacles they face. Having actually read the article now I see that additionally they will provide free home-to-school transport so children can continue to attend even if they move home (as they do frequently); give guaranteed resources to the schools to care for them properly; and place a higher priority on stability of schooling when they are placing children in care. In my view these measures will be far more important than the actual school they attend, but if they are put in place then yes, I think the best schools should also be provided.

I'm still a bit and maybe a bit at this tacit admission that there are "best" and "worst" schools, which is not the usual vocabulary we have from On High.

I'm very cynical that any of this would work in practice. Yes looked after children and children with statements are often at the top of admission criteria - it doesn't actually mean they can gain entry to a school though.

Also cynical about transport. Its provided for children with SN who have to travel more than 3 miles (the same 3 mile rule would apply I'd imagine) and yet I still know parents who have had to do batttle to get it. The problem is to access all these "rights" you normally have to battle. Who on earth is going to do that for children in care?

What these children need (and the same has been said again and again about children with disabilities) is an overall co-ordinator whose job it is to co-ordinate all the different agencies (and not a co-ordinator who has so many children she's responsible for she can't spend more than 2 minutes on any one case). With someone like that the current provision may start to work. Without that then any wonder policy they introduce will continue to fail.

If I won the lottery I would consider setting up some sort of funding to do just that.

Children in care either dont have parents or have parents that dont want them or cant control them probably caused by lacsidasical (can anyone spell that word) parenting skills at the foundation age.

These kids are in the greatest need of any good help they can get cos they aint getting it from home and it isnt the childs fault.

We mnetters who must care soooo much for our kids cos we are on here all the time getting advice blah blah which help our lucky children to progress.

The education problems normally stem from home. The stats say that broken homes often produce the less able children, sadly There are always the exceptions of course, like me

Erm sadly was meant to be not

I think it's about time someone treated children in care properly. It is utterly outrageous and shocking how abysmally they are treated. There have been so many stories of abuse in care homes. These kids have no-one looking out for them. If they can get a stab at a decent education I think that will really make a big difference in their future lives.

Tenalady i agree with some of what you say but my dd has terrible behaviour problems and i cant control her but im not sure i like being put in the bad parenting category. She has also been a looked after child to protect her from herself but im not a bad parent and she has had plenty of disipline

I agree with you totally jimjams. It's about someone co-ordinating all their needs (whether a special needs child or a child in care) - someone who liaises with all the right people on behalf of the child (so being independent of the council/social services/funding issues).

A sucessful school placement with support from godd staff can make a big difference to the outcomes and the current experience of a looked after child. As can a sense a stability and a least one adult who they can trust. Hopefully the money will be found to fund the iniatives in teh green paper (proper pay for foster carers, better education opportunities, a bursary for uni and most importantly trying to keep them with the same social worker) in other words soemone to do what a parent would do, and hopefully this will improve teh dire future mant looked after children face (from low educational achievment low paid jobs, homelessness, drug abuse, sexual exploitation and teenage parenthood)

In our LEA they already get prefernce for choice of school, essentialy they can go to whatever school they (or carers) wish...quite right too.

I just wish that kids in care had longer term fostering....seen a load of kids badly affected by constant chopping and changing. They need as much stability as possible

Totallyt with Saadia, anything that gives these poor failed mites a leg up, then YAY!

Althpugha swith JimJams have oncerns over access but I do believe intention is better than nothing

'Best' should be the best for them, no? Not necessarily academic: some have good drama facillities, sports facillities etc etc etc

i think that a child having no home is a good enough reason for them to get at least one advantage in life.

anyone who disagrees needs to take a trip to a care home. speak to some care leavers who were placed in sink schools, moved 15 times between 8-15, dealt with the abuse or neglect that caused them to be palced in care in the first place.

those who cannot get a place for their own child in one of these schools have children lucky enough to have a parent who cares enough to TRY and get them in.

This has been the case in mos, if not all LEAs for quite a while as part of the 'Every Child Matters' policy.

Children in care very often fail in school. In part this is often due to the lack of continuity of care that they get, getting shunted from one care home/ foster carer to the next.

A calm environment in school, where the teachers have fewer very challenging children to look out for, is one of the few advantages that the educational system can give them.

at least by having continuity of schooling they stand a better chance of leaving with some qualifications.

I think it is a very sensible policy. Compassionate and understanding.

Now if only they could sort out better long term foster care for them as well (and this isn't a pop ar social workers btw, I know that their hands are often tied in this due to lack of foster carers)

Oh bugger , just realised that this is an old post re-born and I'd already posted on it!