Second Report - Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it

We were highly concerned to be told by the Department that their most up-to-date data on characteristics of children in children’s homes is from an ad-hoc 2016 data release—now seven years out of date.

The Department must annually publish statistics on looked-after children, disaggregated by placement type, including key metrics on gender, ethnicity, age, special educational needs, and rates of out-of-area placements. (Paragraph 6) Overcoming the odds: education outcomes and the lack of post-16 funding

The Department’s data on the educational outcomes of children in care does not distinguish between placement type. Existing data is not good enough, it does not provide the visibility into the education of children in care that we would expect to see. The poor-quality data is a barrier to scrutiny and accountability, and hinders the development of targeted, evidence-based interventions that could raise the attainment of looked-after children.

The Department must urgently tackle the black hole of data on the educational outcomes of children in children’s homes. It must commit to annual data publication through a data dashboard on outcomes for looked-after children which is disaggregated by care placement type, including flagging when the child is living in unregulated provision. We would expect this to include data on progress, attainment, attendance, suspensions and exclusions.

It is welcome that the Department has announced a further year of funding for the extension of Virtual School Head duties to include all children with a social worker. Children with a social worker face significant barriers to education, but unlike looked-after children, have not had the benefit of a Virtual School Head to champion their progress and outcomes. Virtual School Heads will be able to make a difference by intervening early in the child’s life to address barriers to poor education outcomes and support their progress.

The new Virtual School Head duty to promote the education of children with a social worker must be given a statutory footing by 2023, with statutory guidance to accompany this. The statutory powers of Directors of Children’s Services towards the education of children with a social worker should be delegated to the Virtual School Head. Local authorities must be held accountable via Ofsted for allocating education funding for children with a social worker, and tracking its impact on their education outcomes.

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

Local authorities must annually report to Ofsted, accounting for how every penny of their Pupil Premium Plus grant is being spent. The Department must strengthen its guidance on the grant, stipulating that all funding must be allocated via the Virtual School Head, and the Virtual School Head be awarded powers to sign off on the use of the grant. Local authorities must evidence that the grant is being spent on specific educational interventions and not being used to plug funding gaps elsewhere. Ofsted’s inspections of local authority children’s services must scrutinise the measurable impact Pupil Premium Plus is having on progress and outcomes for looked-after children. Where local authorities are not spending Pupil Premium Plus allocations within the terms of grant, or where it is having insufficient impact on outcomes, local authorities should face clear consequences via capped Ofsted judgements.

There is a cliff-edge in Pupil Premium Plus funding when a looked-after pupil turns

The needs of looked-after pupils do not suddenly cease to exist when they turn

The case for extending Premium Plus is clear. The Department must extend Pupil Premium Plus funding beyond age 16 to ensure looked-after pupils are receiving the support they deserve to succeed throughout their education.

When rolled out nationally, post-16 Pupil Premium Plus funding must be calculated using the same funding formula as for the pre-16 cohort. Virtual School Heads must ensure Post-16 Pupil Premium Plus funding is used on specific, evidence- based interventions to improve progress and outcomes of looked-after pupils. Given that 41% of care leavers aged 19–21 are not in education, employment or training, Virtual School Heads should also ensure post-16 Pupil Premium Plus is being used to commission careers mentoring and advice. (Paragraph 38) Getting looked-after children into the best schools: the state as not-so- pushy parent

The School Admissions Code is not working in the interests of looked-after children. The admissions system is weighted in favour of schools, and against the interests of looked-after pupils. The absence of sanctions means it is a risk-free process for schools to refuse to admit a looked-after child. This enables some schools to take an adversarial stance against admitting looked-after children without facing any consequences.

The Department must take greater responsibility for policing the school admissions system to ensure it is working in the interests of looked-after children. There must be a clear sanctions mechanism in place for schools who consistently refuse or delay admissions of looked-after children. The lever for this accountability should be the impact on the school’s Ofsted judgement. Where schools are refusing to admit looked- after children, this should be a limiting factor for their Ofsted rating.

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.

The Schools White Paper sets out a new backstop power for local authorities to direct trusts to admit children. This is a very welcome step forward. It would enable the local authority to immediately secure an education place for the looked-after child, putting the onus on the school to justify its rationale for appealing against admitting the child. We call on the Department to introduce this new backstop power without delay.

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.

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.

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.

All too often children in care face a David versus Goliath battle to gain admission to their local good or outstanding school. Despite the law clearly stating that good and outstanding schools should be prioritised for looked-after children, children in children’s homes are in fact less likely to attend the best schools than their peers. This is indefensible.

Responsibility and accountability for getting looked-after children into their most appropriate local good or outstanding school should lie with the Virtual School Head.

We have highlighted the need for clear sanctions for schools who refuse to admit looked-after pupils, enforced through the impact on the school’s Ofsted judgement. We have also highlighted the need for much quicker decisions to be made by the Schools Adjudicator when the admissions code is breached. And the new backstop power set out in the White Paper would give local authorities the power to automatically place a child in an academy. Together, these measures would tilt the system in favour of looked-after children, ensuring they can access the best schools, without suffering delays to their education. (Paragraph 59) Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it 47

Ofsted must make outcomes for looked-after children a limiting judgement on a school. If a school is not delivering good or outstanding progress and outcomes for looked- after pupils, it should not be able to gain a good or outstanding judgement. Ofsted should amend its education inspection framework to reflect this.

Access to specialist mental health support is essential in supporting children in care, and the Government must commit to funding specialist mental health support for every school. It must also invest targeted funding to fully level-up spend per-child on mental health, and to reduce mental health waiting lists to no longer than one month. (Paragraph 61) A national scandal: children missing from education and in unregulated ‘education’

Research by Ofsted has identified that of a sample of 2,600 children living in children’s homes, 9% of children in residential care are receiving ‘education’ in unregulated settings, and a further 6% are not in education, employment or training. The true picture may be even worse. We’ve heard concerns that even the Department does not know how many looked-after children not in school, and that its current processes for tracking the education of looked-after children are insufficient.

All looked-after children should be receiving full-time education in a DfE registered school—it is unacceptable for local authorities to settle for unregulated education provision as an alternative.

The 2022 Schools White Paper proposes a new statutory framework to govern children’s movements to ensure that education placements are made in the child’s best interests, especially where the child is vulnerable. Looked-after children, who are particularly at risk of moving between schools and missing education, must be prioritised within this new framework.

The 2022 Schools Bill sets out a new duty for local authorities to maintain a register of children not in school. Alongside this, the Department must issue guidance to clearly outline how it will hold Directors of Children’s Services to account where the looked- after children they are responsible for are not in school.

As part of the proposed register of children not in school, the Department must set out how it will collect and publish data on how many looked-after children are falling through the gaps by missing education or being ‘educated’ in unregulated education provision. This data should form part of a regular statistical release, published at minimum, annually.

Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on local authorities to provide children with suitable full-time education. However, there is no Departmental guidance outlining how this responsibility should be implemented, and no clear consequences for non-compliance. Given that Ofsted has identified that 9% of a sample of 2,600 children in children’s homes are attending unregulated ‘education’ provision, and a further 6% are not in education, employment or training, it is clear that the law is not being complied with. (Paragraph 72) 48 Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it

Before the start of the next academic year—at the very latest—the Department should issue robust guidance on how the section 19 duty on local authorities to provide children with a suitable full-time education should be fulfilled by local authorities. Where local authorities are failing to discharge this duty, the sanction should be in the form of limiting their Ofsted rating.

The Department has banned unregulated accommodation for children under 16. We hold deep concerns that children aged 16 and 17 can still be placed in unsafe, unsuitable accommodation without care or oversight. No looked-after child should be living in a setting without some form of regulation by Ofsted. It is right that the Department will be introducing a set of mandatory national standards, overseen by Ofsted, for governing unregulated settings for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The Department must aim towards banning unregulated provision for looked-after children once it has addressed placement sufficiency issues using the mechanisms outlined by The independent review of children’s social care. In the meantime, while these reforms are being undertaken, the new set of standards for unregulated provision should be implemented on a sliding scale so as to provide regulated care, with flexibility for children for whom greater independence is in their best interests.

41% of looked-after children are placed outside of their local area, and 8,098 children had at least two placement moves over 12 months. A system that is working well does not boast these numbers. Frequent placement moves are destabilising for the child, and all too often result in missed education, especially when the child is placed outside of their local area.

Where this is in the child’s best interest, every looked-after child should be cared for in a local care placement, receiving their education at a good or outstanding local school. The Department must take greater responsibility for overseeing the placements system and for driving funded system change to reduce the current dependence on out-of-area placements. A national approach to commissioning of care places must consider the location of children’s homes in relation to local good and outstanding schools. Except in exceptional evidence-based cases, children should not be moved to residential placements where they cannot reasonably access good or outstanding local schools.

Current national-level data is not available to illustrate the scale of gaps in education for looked-after children. It should be a priority for the Department to ensure this data is collected and published, so that responsible parties can be held to account when looked-after children are missing education.

The Department must make it a priority to collect and publish national data on how often school places are not being provided within the statutory 20 school days timeframe for looked-after children under an emergency care order. The lack of data means there is currently no visibility into the scale of the issue.

The Department has set out a new legal requirement for local authorities to maintain registers of children not in school. The Department must issue clear guidance to local authorities on the definition of a child missing education, to ensure that all looked- after children not in the roll of a DfE registered school are recorded. (Paragraph 95) Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it 49

The Department must take overall responsibility for monitoring the register of children not in school, and must set out clear and robust accountability for local authorities who fail to secure full-time places at good or outstanding DfE registered schools for the children they are responsible for looking after.

The Department must ensure looked-after children are quickly able to access vital mental health support services in a timely way despite being placed out-of-area or moved around. The child must not be disadvantaged in terms of waiting times if they are placed out-of-area, and consideration must be given to maintaining continuity of service. (Paragraph 97) Improving outcomes for looked-after children with SEND

The Government’s SEND reforms must move towards a less adversarial system that places less strain on children and families.

Over 90% of SEND tribunal decisions are made in favour of the parent and child. But where a child with SEND lives in residential care, and does not have a school place or Education, Health and Care plan that meets their needs, they may effectively have no right of appeal to a tribunal if they have no parental figure willing to pursue an appeal on their behalf. We are concerned by the potential conflict of interest inherent in a local authority’s simultaneous roles as a looked-after child’s corporate parent, and decision-maker for a SEND appeal on the child’s behalf. A local authority is clearly unlikely to appeal against itself at a SEND tribunal. Although the child’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) has a vital role to play here, we have heard that IROs do not consistently ensure that the child’s special educational needs are effectively identified, assessed and met.

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.

The Government’s 2022 SEND Green Paper sets out proposals for a more inclusive education system with enhanced mainstream provision for learners with special educational needs. As these reforms are taken forward, the Government must set out its plan to ensure greater numbers of children in residential care—who are currently 20 times more likely than children nationally to be in special education—will be supported to enter and to thrive in good and outstanding mainstream schools, where this is in their best interests.

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

41% of care leavers aged 19–21 are not in education, employment or training, up from 39% in 2020. This is a shameful reflection of an education and careers system that routinely—and without consequences—fails far too many looked-after children. Too often, the potential of care leavers is not being realised. With enhanced support and guidance more care leavers would go on to achieve their ambitions.

The Department must publish education, employment and training outcomes data disaggregated by care placement type. The absence of disaggregated data is a barrier to scrutiny and accountability and hinders the development of targeted, evidence- based interventions.

Careers and employability outcomes for care-experienced young people up to age 25 should be a core part of the Virtual School Head remit. Every Virtual School should have a designated careers lead whose function is to promote and support the career outcomes of looked-after young people. This should be done through the extension of Pupil Premium Plus funding past age 16, which would resource career leads to commission bespoke careers mentoring and support for every looked-after child from primary up to age 25. Virtual School Heads should work with local charities and businesses to identify community support and mentoring opportunities.

The Government must expand existing the existing Civil Service care leaver internship scheme and other employment schemes, increasing the number of places so that more care leavers can take advantage of, and benefit from, these opportunities.

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.

Just 2% of care leavers go on to do an apprenticeship. To address this, the Department must strategically weigh the apprenticeship levy in favour of care-experienced young apprentices under age 25. Too much of the levy is going unspent, the Department reports that £250 million was unspent in 2020/21. Unspent levy funds should be used for an uplift to the apprentice minimum wage for care leavers, enabling them to receive the National Living Wage in recognition of the financial barriers young care leavers face.

Where a care leaver is over 25, and an apprenticeship would be their first qualification since leaving compulsory education, the Department must raise the age limit for receipt of the £1,000 apprenticeship bursary from age 25 to age 30. This would recognise that some looked-after children take longer to fulfil their educational potential due to the multiple disadvantages they have faced. As a care-experienced young person asked us, why, “After 25, should you just be dropped”? (Paragraph 122) Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it 51

The current lack of statutory support for young people leaving residential care is deeply unjust. The Department’s own evidence rightly acknowledges the “cliff- edge” transition from residential care to independent living at age 18. Staying Close offers a chance to fix this and the pilot has shown promising results including 75% reduction in eviction rates, 50% reduction in the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) and 55% increase in reported emotional well-being. A national rollout would end the current postcode lottery of support for young people leaving residential care, supporting care leavers to stay in their local areas where they have put down roots.

The Minister for Children and Families agrees that the Staying Close pilot has produced “very, very good evidence”. Without further delay, the Department must roll out Staying Close nationally as a statutory entitlement. Care leavers must have the right to opt-out of participating in Staying Close if they wish. Ahead of leaving residential care, each young person should have a mandatory meeting with the key adults responsible for their care and continuing education to ensure that participating in Staying Close is in their best interest. (Paragraph 127) Early intervention funding

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.

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.

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.

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.

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