Recommendations & Conclusions
13 items
7
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Processes to scrutinise how local authorities are spending their Pupil Premium Plus grant are insufficient. There must be strengthened accountability with clear penalties for local authorities who are not properly spending the grant on raising the educational attainment of looked-after children. (Paragraph 30) Educational poverty: how children in residential care …
Read more
Processes to scrutinise how local authorities are spending their Pupil Premium Plus grant are insufficient. There must be strengthened accountability with clear penalties for local authorities who are not properly spending the grant on raising the educational attainment of looked-after children. (Paragraph 30) Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it 45
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government will consider further changes to the guidance and specifically whether it should stipulate that the VSH must sign-off on all use of the funding and whether more detailed financial information should be included in the Virtual School Annual Report provided to Ofsted, but …
Read full response →
Department for Education
14
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Under section 497 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State has the power to take legal action against local authorities who are not meeting their statutory duties 46 Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it relating to the …
Read more
Under section 497 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State has the power to take legal action against local authorities who are not meeting their statutory duties 46 Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it relating to the provision of education. The Department must provide clearer guidance setting out how it will identify and sanction local authorities who are breaking the law in failing to secure school places for their looked-after children. The Department must also set out clearer guidelines on the responsibility of central government when an authority is non-compliant.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Department will consider how its power under section 497 of the Education Act 1996 may be used more effectively where a local authority fails to ensure a looked-after child is able to access a school place.
Read full response →
Department for Education
17
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
The Department must introduce a reporting and accountability requirement for local authorities to provide data on how many admissions of looked-after children have been contested or refused by schools. It should be made mandatory for local authorities to report all instances of schools blocking admissions to Office of the Schools …
Read more
The Department must introduce a reporting and accountability requirement for local authorities to provide data on how many admissions of looked-after children have been contested or refused by schools. It should be made mandatory for local authorities to report all instances of schools blocking admissions to Office of the Schools Adjudicator. This data must also be published annually by the Department.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department recognizes the importance of data collection and publication and will consider how this might be done, including the cost and burden of any new reporting requirements on local authorities, but makes no firm commitment.
Read full response →
Department for Education
18
Conclusion
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Much more needs to be done to speed up school admissions for looked-after children. We heard from Ofsted that it can take “many months” for a local authority to go through the admissions adjudications process.
Government response AI summary
The department agrees on the importance of timely school admissions for looked-after children and is working with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) to explore how the timeliness of decision making can be improved, for example, by prioritizing cases involving looked-after children.
Read full response →
Department for Education
19
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Where the involvement of the Schools Adjudicator is required for admissions decisions for looked-after children, these decisions must be made within a maximum 20-day timeframe.
Government response AI summary
The department agrees on the importance of timely school admissions and is working with the Office of the Schools Adjudicator to explore how decision-making can be improved, but made no commitment to a 20-day timeframe.
Read full response →
Department for Education
43
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
All looked-after children must have an independent advocate whose function is to champion their best interests, ensuring they are admitted to the best, most appropriate schools, and that they are fully supported to appeal to SEND tribunals where their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan does not meet their needs. …
Read more
All looked-after children must have an independent advocate whose function is to champion their best interests, ensuring they are admitted to the best, most appropriate schools, and that they are fully supported to appeal to SEND tribunals where their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan does not meet their needs. Virtual School Heads should play a key role here, advocating for the child’s needs to be identified, understood and met, ensuring that the child’s EHC Plan is appropriate, and where it is not, supporting the child to appeal.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees that looked-after children need access to a trusted individual and states that it is the role of VSHs to provide this advocacy in respect of looked-after children’s education, but is looking at the recommendation alongside the broader package of recommendations made by …
Read full response →
Department for Education
45
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
The Government must also increase its investment in SEND provision to ensure that children in care, alongside all pupils with SEND, get the support they need to thrive in education. Children in care are more likely to have experienced educational disruption compared with children not in care. We recognise that …
Read more
The Government must also increase its investment in SEND provision to ensure that children in care, alongside all pupils with SEND, get the support they need to thrive in education. Children in care are more likely to have experienced educational disruption compared with children not in care. We recognise that those with special educational needs are more likely to be impacted by educational disruption. (Paragraph 109) 50 Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it The cliff-edge transition from residential care to independent living
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the need for all pupils with SEND to get the support they need and highlights its investment in the SEND system. They state resources should be targeted more at strengthening early intervention and meeting the needs of children and young people at …
Read full response →
Department for Education
50
Conclusion
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Just 2% of care leavers go on to do an apprenticeship. The apprenticeship wage rate— £4.81 per hour for apprentices aged 16–18 or aged 19 and over and in the first year of their apprenticeship—is prohibitive for young care leavers living independently. This rate is not designed with the needs …
Read more
Just 2% of care leavers go on to do an apprenticeship. The apprenticeship wage rate— £4.81 per hour for apprentices aged 16–18 or aged 19 and over and in the first year of their apprenticeship—is prohibitive for young care leavers living independently. This rate is not designed with the needs of care leavers in mind. The £1,000 bursary for care-experienced apprentices is welcome, but the Department must eliminate economic barriers for young care leavers who want to do an apprenticeship.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government recognizes that care leavers face additional barriers to apprenticeships, which is why they introduced the £1,000 bursary for care leavers, but believes employers should pay apprentices wages.
Read full response →
Department for Education
55
Conclusion
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
A record 80,850 children are in care. Early intervention is key to tackling the needs of vulnerable families and children before they escalate. The record rise of children in care cannot be disconnected from the 48% reduction in early intervention spending over the last decade. Short-changing early intervention is a …
Read more
A record 80,850 children are in care. Early intervention is key to tackling the needs of vulnerable families and children before they escalate. The record rise of children in care cannot be disconnected from the 48% reduction in early intervention spending over the last decade. Short-changing early intervention is a false economy and represents poor value for taxpayers, who end up funding less effective and costlier interventions downstream. Most importantly, it means children are suffering harms that could and should have been addressed earlier in their lives. Investing money early in the lives of vulnerable children offers better value for the taxpayer, better outcomes for the child, and would overall reduce the number of children needing to enter care in the first place.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the rising number of children in care and the reduction in early intervention spending. They reiterate existing investments in local services and vulnerable families but maintain that councils are best placed to decide how to spend their funding.
Read full response →
Department for Education
56
Conclusion
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
Local authorities must tackle the imbalance between the 48% reduction in early intervention spending, and the 34% rise in spending on costlier downstream interventions over the last decade. Local authorities cannot simply achieve this by reshuffling spending priorities and reducing essential support for children at the crisis end. The independent …
Read more
Local authorities must tackle the imbalance between the 48% reduction in early intervention spending, and the 34% rise in spending on costlier downstream interventions over the last decade. Local authorities cannot simply achieve this by reshuffling spending priorities and reducing essential support for children at the crisis end. The independent review of social care recommends increasing the overall funding envelope for early family help through a £2 billion one-off injection of cash over five years. This one-off injection has clear cost-benefit implications—it could ensure better overall value for the taxpayer by reducing spending in the longer-term, and could ensure greater numbers of vulnerable children are not subject to preventable harms.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the imbalance between early intervention and downstream spending and reiterates existing investments in local services and vulnerable families. They state that local councils are best placed to decide how to spend their available funding.
Read full response →
Department for Education
57
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
The Department must set out their response to the £2 billion expenditure proposed by The independent review of children’s social care, indicating how much additional funding they believe is necessary to ensure the care system is fit for purpose, how the additional funding would be deployed and the longer-term cost-benefit …
Read more
The Department must set out their response to the £2 billion expenditure proposed by The independent review of children’s social care, indicating how much additional funding they believe is necessary to ensure the care system is fit for purpose, how the additional funding would be deployed and the longer-term cost-benefit analysis. If Government sign off on the £2 billion funding injection, it must ensure this is ringfenced via a more intelligent funding formula that sets a minimum budget for local authority early intervention spending. In this way, additional funding would not be swallowed 52 Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it up by rising placement costs or expensive downstream social care interventions. This would rebalance the system to place greater weight on early intervention, rather than intervening at more costly crisis points downstream.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that it is carefully assessing the recommendations of the care review, including the recommendation to introduce a new funding formula for children's and young people's services, but provides no specifics on the funding request.
Read full response →
Department for Education
58
Recommendation
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
For far too long, some private providers have extracted significant profits from the public purse, operating under a monopoly market. At the same time, they have not demonstrated equivalent value for taxpayer money in terms of improved outcomes for the vulnerable children they care for. The Government must consider whether …
Read more
For far too long, some private providers have extracted significant profits from the public purse, operating under a monopoly market. At the same time, they have not demonstrated equivalent value for taxpayer money in terms of improved outcomes for the vulnerable children they care for. The Government must consider whether The independent review of children’s social care’s recommendation to levy a 20% windfall tax on the 15 largest private children’s homes and independent fostering providers would be effective. The Government must also take a wider look at the market, and consider whether it would be more appropriate for children’s homes to be run by organisations such as not-for-profit community interest companies, and for negotiations on pricing to be undertaken nationally rather than locally.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government shares concerns that some providers are making excessive profits and are investing £259 million of capital funding to increase the number of places in open and secure children’s homes run by local authorities. The government will present the implementation strategy which will outline …
Read full response →
Department for Education
59
Conclusion
Second Report - Educational poverty: ho…
Acknowledged
We continue to be extremely concerned by media reports of children’s homes— including the recent case of Calcot Services for Children—failing to meet the needs or ensure the safety of the vulnerable children in their care. In the case of Calcot, their children’s homes had been rated good or outstanding …
Read more
We continue to be extremely concerned by media reports of children’s homes— including the recent case of Calcot Services for Children—failing to meet the needs or ensure the safety of the vulnerable children in their care. In the case of Calcot, their children’s homes had been rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Ofsted must assess its whistleblowing and safeguarding procedures for inspecting children’s homes, and must write to us outlining how these have been strengthened in order to prevent future cohorts of children being failed. (Paragraph 137) Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it 53
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges concerns about children's homes and states that the Minister met with Ofsted to discuss actions being taken. Ofsted will write to the Committee separately on the issue.
Read full response →
Department for Education