| | | |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
 |
Home | Topics | About | News | Publications | Consultations | Search | Links | Contacts | Help |  |
| Publications > Care & Social Work |
| |||
< Previous | Contents | Next > Learning with Care: |
| David (10) has been looked after since May 1996 as a result of his mother being unable to cope with his behaviour. David has been living with his foster carers for 3 years. He has attended 3 different primary schools. His mother moved him from his first school as she was concerned about the company he was keeping and also had concerns about bullying. His foster carers, in conjunction with his social worker, have since moved him to a school in their village. This means that David no longer has to travel a distance to school each morning and can form better friendships with children in the village. The move was planned carefully and David is now well settled into school, has a group of friends and his behaviour in school has improved. Although his educational attainments are below average he is now receiving support for his learning and has an individualised educational programme. |
Evaluation and recommendations
4.2 In all the authorities inspected, good arrangements were in place for looked after children to attend school. There was a general principle of maintaining children in their current schools when they became looked after, where this was in their best interests. In a few cases, however, social workers felt that they had to press for transport costs to be paid when a substantial period of time was involved. In one authority there was no clear policy covering safety arrangements for the transport of looked after children to and from school. Local authorities should ensure that they have policies for the school transport of looked after children which cover funding and safety requirements, including Scottish Criminal Records Office checks of drivers and escorts.
4.3 Forty eight of the 50 children in the sample were enrolled full-time in a school at the time of the inspection. Two were excluded and were without any alternative educational provision. Most had placements in mainstream schools, although a significant minority were placed in specialist provision (see Appendix 1). In almost all cases, the placements in specialist provision were appropriate for those concerned.
4.4 A number of the children had had their education disrupted. Two in the same local authority had attended 8 different schools before they had become looked after. In most other cases, school moves were either as a result of moving from primary to secondary, from mainstream to specialist provision or, in 2 cases, at the request of parents or foster carers. However, in one local authority a foster carer had moved a child’s school placement without consultation with the child’s social worker. Although this school move had been for a good reason, and the child was now settled in the new school, it was inappropriate for this change to have been made without full discussion with all parties concerned. When children did move schools, appropriate procedures were in place for admission to school and for transfer of information and records.
4.5 The 2 inspection visits to each local authority were separated by 10 weeks on average. During these periods, one young person in foster care and 5 children in residential care moved care placement and one young person in residential care returned home. This degree of movement suggests a high level of instability in care placements. Fortunately, this movement was not associated with school moves and considerable efforts were made to maintain continuity of school placement.
4.6 Attendance had been a problem for the majority of children prior to becoming looked after. For a small minority, mainly those at the secondary stages, it remained a problem. In one local authority 3 children had missed more than 20% of their schooling through absence, and one of those had missed over 40%. However, in the majority of cases, attendance problems had reduced as a result of the children becoming looked after, with those in foster and relative placements having better attendance than those in residential units. One young person said that her foster carers insisted that she went to school, whereas she claimed there had been little encouragement to attend in her previous residential unit.
| Sharon (16) lives in a children’s unit. She has a baby son who lives with a foster family. Sharon has had erratic school attendance since the age of 12. Now she does not attend school at all, but goes to a home tutor service for about an hour each week. Her social worker has expressed concern at the insufficient amount of schooling Sharon receives. She gets homework from the tutor service but rarely bothers to complete it. Sharon sees herself as having outgrown life at school and as having moved into adulthood. Although she has been described as being "quite an able girl", Sharon will leave school without any Standard Grade qualifications. |
4.7 In 4 of the local authorities some of the children had been without school placements for a number of months at some point in their school career. This was the result of being excluded from their original schools, with the authority finding it difficult to place them in alternative provision. One young person had no school placement for 7 months and 2 had been without a placement for 3 months. Two had been "informally"14 excluded from school with no clear arrangements being made for their education. These examples all concerned boys. When there had been no permanent school place for these young people the education authorities had, in some cases, made arrangements to supply an element of vocational education. In addition to these examples, 2 young people had their education delivered through a home tutoring service. Except in exceptional circumstances, local authorities should ensure that all looked after children have permanent full-time education, however that may be organised.
4.8 National statistical information indicates that looked after children, although they make up only 1% of the school population, account for 13% of all exclusions. In the 5 local authorities inspected it was found that 21 of the 50 children in the sample had had at least one exclusion from school during their school career. Although most of these children had only been excluded on a few occasions, a significant minority had been excluded many times. This had resulted in a total of 5 young people in the sample being educated in schools and units specialising in social emotional and behavioural difficulties. Local authorities should take urgent steps to reduce the exclusion rate of looked after children. They should monitor progress against set targets for the reduction of exclusions among looked after children.
| Ragvir (16) sat 3 Standard Grades. He achieved one award at General and 2 at Foundation level. He was excluded from his school for pupils with social, emotional and behaviour difficulties when he was still only 15. His unit manager tried to appeal against the decision that Ragvir should never return to that school. The Children’s Rights Officer was also involved. However, the local authority was unwilling to consider an appeal not made by a parent. After the exclusion, a meeting was quickly called by Ragvir’s social worker and an educational plan put in place. This included 10 hours per week of off-site tutorial time from school staff, and 5 hours per week tutorial time from the local authority’s home-school link worker. Ragvir’s residential unit supported him with his homework. He had his own room and computer, and staff bought him computer magazines. He hopes to study computing at college. |
4.9 Parents have a right of appeal against an authority's decision to exclude their child from school, but carers have no such rights. Children looked after away from home, who have little or no contact with their parents, are thus disadvantaged in comparison with other children since they have no one to appeal on their behalf. However, any child with "legal capacity"15 has the same right of appeal against exclusion as his or her parents. Local authorities should ensure that looked after children are advised of their right of appeal against exclusion from school and are supported appropriately to appeal, if they wish to do so. A situation may arise where a local authority has parental responsibilities for a child who is subsequently excluded from school. These circumstances should not deter the local authority appealing against the exclusion even although this may mean, in effect, that the local authority is appealing against the decision of the education authority. In certain cases, the involvement of a Children's Rights Officer could be very helpful.
Main recommendation 3
Except in exceptional circumstances, all looked after children should have permanent full-time education, however that may be organised. (4.7-4.8)
< Previous | Contents | Next >
|
|
|
|
Home | Topics | About | News | Publications | Consultations | Search | Links | Contacts | Help | |
| Crown Copyright | Privacy policy | Content Disclaimer | General enquiries |