< Previous | Contents | Next >

Learning with Care:
The education of children looked after away from home by Local Authorities

Appendix 1

Sampling information

A1.1 Thirty authorities returned at least one of the questionnaires sent to them; most returns were completed jointly by social work and education personnel even where they were in separate departments. Thirty two Children's Services Plans were examined but only about one third of authorities had supplied reviews of these Plans to the Social Work Services Inspectorate.

A1.2 The social work and education files of 50 children were examined, 10 in each authority. Twenty five of them were boys and 25 were girls; 25 were aged 9-11 and 25 were aged 15-16. All the younger children were in primary schools except for one who was in S1. All the older children were in, or of an age to be in, S4 or S5 at the time the samples were chosen. The children were mostly in mainstream schools. All the schools were managed by local authorities except one which was run by a voluntary organisation. In one case, the school attended was in the child's neighbouring authority.

A.1.3 Types of school attended by sample children and young people.

*Social, emotional and behavioural difficulties.

A1.4 At the time the samples were chosen the care placements were as follows:-

A1.5 This distribution was representative of the placement ratios found for children aged 9-11 and 15-16 in the 5 authorities. Four of the sample children were part of 2 sibling pairs and each pair was placed together. Almost all the rest of the sample children were in different placements. A considerable number of other children were in placements with siblings who fell outside the sample age range.

A1.6 Two children came from ethnic minority or mixed parentage background (4% of the sample). Whilst collection of national statistics on ethnicity of looked after children had not started at the time of the inspection, research has suggested that numbers of ethnic minority, and mixed parentage looked after children are likely to be less than 1% of all looked after children.

A1.7 Forty seven social workers or team leaders who were working with, or had very recently worked with, the sample children were interviewed. Social work case files were read for all the sample children from 1 April 1997, the point of implementation of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, except where it was necessary to read earlier sections in order to make sense of what had happened to the child more recently.

A1.8 By the time of the inspection, 48 of the sample of 50 children were, or had most recently been, enrolled in school; 2 young people had home tutors. Forty seven day schools were visited. In each school, inspectors interviewed the headteacher and the teacher who knew the sample child best and in 4 authorities, any learning or behaviour support teachers involved with the child. A wide range of staff was interviewed (details below). The home tutor of a girl receiving home tuition was also interviewed. The school files and Pupil Progress Record (PPRs) were examined for all the children for whom they were available, 2 were missing and 2 were still located in previous schools.

A.1.9 Number and types of school staff interviewed.

*In 2 small rural primary schools, the headteacher was also the child's class teacher.

A1.10 Thirty of the 50 children had contact with 31  parents. Parents were sent a short questionnaire asking them how far they were kept informed and involved with their child's education. Fourteen parents of 14 children returned questionnaires.

A1.11 Although the intention was to interview 25 children, only 21 were finally interviewed. A number were not approached for interviews because of their particular life circumstances. Of those approached, 9 decided not to be interviewed, sometimes not until the time of the interview. In a further 2 cases, carers decided that the child's current circumstances made an interview inappropriate. The following interviews took place:-

A1.12 In addition to gender disparity, these 21 children were not very representative of the group as a whole. They tended to be the more settled children, experiencing less educational difficulties and able to manage a 40-minute interview with an adult. Rich material was gathered from these interviews which has proved useful for illustrating points in this report. However, caution has been exercised about generalising from the children's interviews, except where a generalisation can be corroborated from another source.

A1.13  It was intended to interview the foster, relative/friend and residential carers of the children interviewed. In the case of residential units, joint interviews with the unit manager and key worker were planned. In cases where children refused interviews at the last minute, interviews with their carers were usually continued. Consequently, 14 sets of foster carers of 16 children, 2 sets of relative carers of 3 children and staff caring for, or who had cared for, 10 children in 9 residential units were interviewed.

A1.14 Education and social work senior managers with responsibility for looked after children were interviewed in all 5 authorities. The Reporter in each authority was interviewed, but only 2 Children's Panel Chairs were able to make themselves available for interview. Two authorities had children's rights workers in social work services and a third authority had a children's rights worker based in the education department. These staff were interviewed.

A1.15 Staff from 13 specialist projects or initiatives established to support the education of looked after children and also from projects which had a wider remit but which included looked after children were interviewed. These projects were nominated by the 5 local authorities. (see below)

A.1.16 Projects visited in the 5 sample local authorities

A1.17 A wide range of policy and other documents provided by the 5 local authorities was considered. These included foster carer handbooks and statements of functions and objectives from residential units.

< Previous | Contents | Next >