1 | P a g e

2 | P a g e

The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (ACPNS)

Queensland University of Technology

A list of all the Centre’s publications and working papers is available from

www.qut.edu.au/business/acpns and digital downloads are available through

QUT ePrints at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

CRICOS code: 00213J

© QUT September 2018

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to The Pyjama Foundation for supporting this research project and demonstrating an

ongoing commitment to improving the educational outcomes for children in foster care.

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction and context............................................................................................................................... 5

The problem: Children in out-of-home care and poor educational outcomes .......................................... 5

Children in OOHC and their educational outcomes: risk and protective factors ........................................... 8

Individual risk and protective factors ........................................................................................................ 9

Family risk and protective factors ........................................................................................................... 11

Community risk and protective factors ................................................................................................... 12

Policy context .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Australian interventions .............................................................................................................................. 17

International interventions.......................................................................................................................... 21

Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 26

References ................................................................................................................................................... 28

4 | P a g e

Summary

Approximately 48,000 children in Australia are living in out-of-home care (OOHC). While there are many

different reasons why children are placed in OOHC, most children who have been removed from their

parental home have a range of complex needs and challenges. One of those challenges is the significant

level of educational disadvantage they experience.

This review assesses the literature that describes the risk and protective factors for children in OOHC

experiencing educational disadvantage. It describes evidence-based interventions that improve

educational outcomes for children and young people in OOHC in Australia and overseas. In conclusion the

review identifies opportunities for further research.

This review identified:

Children in OOHC are struggling to reach national literacy and numeracy benchmarks. They need

effective interventions to increase their literacy levels in order to reduce the risk of disengagement

from school and subsequent lower levels of earning potential and financial dependency.

Risk factors that pose barriers to children engaging well in education include trauma, poor stress

regulation, low self-esteem and self-efficacy, a lack of fundamental language and pre-reading skills,

poor access to books at home and schooling disruptions due to moving between care placements.

Protective factors that support a child include developing literacy skills early in life, personal self-

efficacy and resilience, family stability with a carer who is supportive of educational and

extracurricular activities, and access to literacy materials. Protective factors also include having

supportive adults (teachers, case workers, carers) who act as mentors or tutors for at least 12 months

to build the child’s cognitive and social skills. Participating in extracurricular activities also supports

children in OOHC to learn skills and engage in learning.

Government policy around Australia acknowledges the importance of children being engaged in

learning and education, yet a lack of effective communication and planning between carers, child

protection and schools continues to inhibit effective interventions and outcomes for children in

OOHC.

Interventions play an important role in helping children to develop their literacy and learning skills;

however, there are a limited amount of interventions that effectively strengthen all of the protective

factors known to improve educational engagement.

The interventions that have had some success are attachment-based, and utilise relational pedagogy

by placing the human relationship (such as the mentor/mentee, teacher/student, or foster

carer/foster child relationship) at the centre of the educational exchange. Effective programs are

trauma informed with flexible learning contexts in order to support the creation of lifelong learners,

not merely school completers (A. Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2015).

Importantly, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions should be a high priority so that children in

OOHC are provided with quality support that reduces their educational disadvantage.

5 | P a g e

Introduction and

context

The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and

Nonprofit Studies (ACPNS) conducted this

literature review in collaboration with The

Pyjama Foundation, a nonprofit organisation

with a mission to improve the educational

outcomes of children in foster care.

The review set out to determine what research

exists concerning the educational outcomes of

children and young people living in foster

care/out-of-home care (referred to as children in

OOHC) and the risk and protective factors that

reduce or improve educational outcomes.

Relevant research was identified by searching

the research databases for studies, with articles

obtained primarily from Scopus, PsychINFO,

MEDLINE, and ERIC. Literacy, education, self-

efficacy, resilience, and attachment were the

key words used alongside OOHC in the key word

searches. Alternative terms for OOHC were also

included in the key word searches, including:

looked after children, foster children, and

children in care.

To capture relevant unpublished research and

government policy, a broad internet search was

conducted. General interventions without

published studies about their effectiveness were

not included in the report.

The report concludes with a synthesis of the

findings and key considerations about future

research opportunities.

The problem: Children in

out-of-home care and poor

educational outcomes

Children and young people in OOHC are children

under 18 years of age unable to live with their

parents/primary caregivers for various reasons

including experiences of abuse, neglect, or

parents being unable to care for their children

(AIHW, 2018). OOHC may be short or long-term

and includes several types of care arrangements:

foster care, relative/kinship care, residential

care, and other arrangements (AIHW, 2018). The

two main forms of OOHC are kinship care

(22,639 children in 2017) and foster care

(18,098 children in 2017) (AIHW, 2018).

In Australia, around 48,000 children are in OOHC

nationally (AIHW, 2018). Indigenous children are

nine times as likely as non-Indigenous children

to be in OOHC (AIHW, 2017).

Table 1 breaks down the ages and gender of the

OOHC population in Australia at 30 June 2017.

There are slightly more males than females in all

age groups. Most of the OOHC population are in

the 5-9 years age bracket (30.81%) and the 10-

14 years age bracket (32.28%). These are critical

ages when children and young people learn

language and literacy skills that predict their

later literacy development, learning and earning

potential (Arpino, Guma, & Julia, 2018; Nathan,

Stackhouse, Goulandris, & Snowling, 2004).

6 | P a g e

OOHC is considered a last resort intervention

(AIHW, 2018) as removing children from their

family can mean the child will experience further

challenges as they navigate the care system. A

majority of children experiencing OOHC are also

experiencing a care and protection order (AIHW,

2017). Such orders often involve the transfer of

legal guardianship to an authorised government

department or individual, as well as supervisory

orders in which guardianship is not affected

(Australian Institute of Criminology, 2017).

Studies show that the OOHC cohort are children

and young people at higher risk of experiencing

extreme disadvantage including socio-economic

disadvantage, trauma, and poorer mental and

physical health compared to the general

population (Usher, Mills, Moss, & Tracey, 2018).

Additionally, they may suffer from low self-

esteem, low self-efficacy, behavioural and

emotional problems, as well as difficulty bonding

(Cepukiene, Pakrosnis, & Ulinskaite, 2018).

Without support and intervention, these

outcomes are likely to continue into adulthood

(Usher et al., 2018).

Education all too often takes a backseat to

other, more urgent issues facing the OOHC child

due to the crisis driven nature of OOHC

(Parliament of Australia, 2015). Indeed, when

they leave state care these children and young

people are more likely to struggle in all areas of

life (education, employment, income, housing,

health, substance abuse and criminal

involvement) compared to their peers from the

general population (Gypen, Vanderfaeillie, De

Maeyer, Belenger, & Van Holen, 2017).

Poor engagement in education is a particular

concern as studies have established that

children in OOHC are more vulnerable to

adverse outcomes in the education system, and

may experience higher levels of disengagement,

suspensions, and expulsions than their non-

OOHC peers (Townsend, 2011). On average

Table 1: Age and gender breakdown of the Out-of-home care population

Note. Adapted from “National framework for protecting Australia’s children indicators” by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018 (https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/nfpac/contents/national-framework-indicators-data-visualisations/0-2-out-of-home-care). Copyright 2018 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Age Total % Male % Female % age total

< 1 1344 52.31% 46.95% 2.81%

1 to 4 9297 52.34% 47.56% 19.40%

5 to 9 14760 51.88% 48.12% 30.81%

10 to 14 15468 51.42% 48.57% 32.28%

15 to 17 7044 50.33% 49.66% 14.70%

Total 47913

7 | P a g e

children in OOHC struggle more with gaining an

education and perform at a lower academic level

than non-OOHC groups (AIHW, 2018; David &

Wise, 2016; Tordön, Vinnerljung, & Axelsson,

2014; Townsend, 2011, 2012). OOHC students

nationally meet fewer literacy and numeracy

benchmarks compared to those not in OOHC

(AIHW, 2018). An Australian study confirmed

that children in OOHC scored significantly lower

than the general population in literacy and

numeracy tests and Indigenous children in

OOHC score significantly lower in literacy and

numeracy compared to all Indigenous children in

NSW (Townsend, 2011, 2012).

Every year the National Assessment Program

collect data and publish reports, referred to as

NAPLAN, about the educational outcomes of

Australian students. Usually, OOHC status is not

identified even though data is collected about

other demographic variables such as gender,

Indigenous status, language background other

than English status, parental occupation,

parental education, and the location for every

year level and test domain. In 2013 however, the

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

(AIHW) published a report that linked the child

protection national minimum data set (CP

NMDS) with the NAPLAN data set for the 2013

testing year. The findings emphasise the

academic disadvantage of the OOHC cohort,

with these children achieving 13-39% points

lower across the assessment domains for all year

levels compared to all students in Australia

(AIHW, 2013).

The career aspirations of children in OOHC are

also reportedly lower than children not in OOHC

and this can result in poor future employment

outcomes (Creed, Tilbury, Buys, & Crawford,

2011). This leads to children in OOHC

experiencing lower levels of earning potential, a

higher chance of unemployment, and a greater

reliance on social security (Wise, Pollock,

Mitchell, Argus, & Farquhar, 2010).

Without career aspirations and social support,

many young people who leave OOHC find

transitioning from school to work very

challenging, particularly because of additional

changes being tackled, such as an abrupt end to

the legal protection and formal state assistance

between the ages of 16 and 18 (Creed et al.,

2011). Compared to their non-OOHC peers

those leaving care are significantly less likely to

complete high school and more likely to become

parents at a young age (Creed et al., 2011). This

cohort are also more likely to face subsequent

challenges as young adults such as suicidal

behaviour, substance abuse, criminal behaviour,

homelessness and dependency on the welfare

system (Creed et al., 2011; Tordön et al., 2014;

Vinnerljung, Tideman, Sallnäs, & Forsman,

2014).

Higher education generally leads to social

networks, positive citizenship behaviours, future

employment opportunities and greater earning

potential which is why educational attainment is

so important (Tilbury, Creed, Buys, & Crawford,

2011). However, both national and international

research reveals that only a small percentage of

young people leaving OOHC undertake higher

education (Cameron, Jackson, Hauari, &

Hollingworth, 2012; Harvey, Andrewartha, &

McNamara, 2015a; Harvey, McNamara,

Andrewartha, & Luckman, 2015b; Mendes,

Michell, & Wilson, 2014). This is partly due to

8 | P a g e

poor educational outcomes, but also due to

inadequate social and financial support because

this cohort are left out of the National Equity

Framework 1990 as a disadvantaged group

(Harvey et al., 2015a).

As a result of the current care and protection

system failing to adequately prepare children

and young people in OOHC for life beyond care

(Mendes, Johnson, & Moslehuddin, 2011), there

are documented social and economic costs

placed on society. Without all the benefits of

good literacy and the motivation to continue

learning or earning, those leaving care ‘tend to

make significant and ongoing demands on

Australian income security, housing/homeless

support, health and welfare, criminal justice, and

other crisis intervention systems’ (Mendes et al.,

2011, p. 1).

It is clear from the evidence that children in

OOHC face many educational challenges

(Pecora, 2012) so it is important to address the

problems associated with poor literacy,

disengagement from school and poor

educational outcomes. Without effective early

interventions that help children engage in

learning and education, the literature suggests

that children in OOHC may experience long-term

social and economic challenges that interfere

with achieving a successful life (Cunha,

Heckman, & Schennach, 2010).

Children in OOHC

and their educational

outcomes: risk and

protective factors

Learning is said to occur at the intersections of

multiple arenas (Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders,

2012), meaning there are many experiences

within the home, school and broader community

that intersect in a child’s life for learning to

occur. The risk for children in OOHC is that they

will disengage and fail at school due to home

and school instability, as well as poor mental

health and difficult attachments. All of these

challenges inhibit their ability to effectively learn

(Moffat & Vincent, 2009). Children in OOHC

frequently have a complex personal history

(ACWA, 2017; AIHW, 2018; O'Higgins, Sebba, &

Gardner, 2017; O’Higgins, Sebba, & Luke, 2015)

which makes it difficult for them to be available

for learning. The OOHC population all too often

face a variety of challenges relating to emotion

regulation, prosocial abilities and self-esteem,

which further decreases their ability to engage

positively with learning opportunities

(Mainwaring, 2014; Wise et al., 2010).

Due to the crisis driven nature of OOHC the

focus is often on the negative risk factors. But,

nurturing protective factors for the OOHC

cohort have been recently emphasised in

research as a helpful way forward instead of

fighting risk factors and negative outcomes

(Cepukiene et al., 2018). Gilligan (2004) states

that focusing on building positive protective

9 | P a g e

factors can improve a person’s resilience. When

a person has resilience it is understood that they

can avoid the full impact of adversity (Gilligan,

2004, 2007, 2008). Additionally, when resilience

is strengthened, it can bring about improvement

such as better psychosocial functioning

outcomes (Cepukiene et al., 2018).

Protective factors are associated with positive

outcomes and help to mitigate the negative

effects of risk (Murphy, 2017; Schoon & Bartley,

2008). In addition, if a protective factor is

lacking, for example a supportive family, then

the risk factor increases (Schoon & Bartley,

2008). Protective factors are essential to

children’s development, supporting them to gain

a positive identity and develop to their full

potential (Coatsworth, Palen, Sharp, & Ferrer-

Wreder, 2006). In the general population it is

considered important for children to play and

engage well with school, as these educational

experiences have important implications as they

mature and seek lifelong wellbeing (Park, 2004).

Enhancing protective factors such as a secure

home environment, possessing good self-

esteem and having a sense of self-efficacy all

play their part in strengthening resilience

(Gilligan, 2004, 2007, 2008).

Individual risk and

protective factors

At the individual level, several risk factors can be

attributed to either the pre-care experience or

the in-care experience. The experience of

trauma and/or disadvantage in early life can

result in many additional risks for a child in

OOHC, including:

trauma, poor stress regulation, a delay in

social, emotional, and intellectual

development (Gribble & English, 2016);

exposure to less breadth of language in their

early life putting a child at greater risk of a

developmental language disorder. This

disrupts the process of learning to read as

reading is basically a linguistic task (Snow,

2018);

not developing fundamental pre-reading

skills such as phonological awareness;

(Hancock & Hancock, 2017);

confused identity formation (Wise et al.,

2010);

low self-esteem and low self-efficacy

(Cepukiene et al., 2018);

lack of bonding (Cepukiene et al., 2018); and

greater susceptibility to various mental

health disorders (Cepukiene et al., 2018).

Once in OOHC, additional risk factors include:

being left out of the decision-making process

about their own life, which can result in a

lack of agency for the child (Grace, Miller,

Blacklock, Bonser, & Hayden, 2018;

McDowall, 2013a, 2016);

professionals such as educators lacking skills

and awareness to appropriately respond to

the complex learning needs and styles of

children in OOHC (Wise et al., 2010);

lower academic achievement (Cepukiene et

al., 2018); and

the OOHC system’s inability to appropriately

respond to trauma including lack of stability

or unavailability of suitable placement (Wise

et al., 2010).

Protective factors equip a child facing

disadvantage and hardship to be resilient. At the

individual level, protective factors include:

10 | P a g e

literacy skills which enable a child to gain

confidence to achieve in school (Stuart, Hill,

& Radford Julia Olisa, 2004);

engagement in challenging activities; and

a positive identity, positive self-esteem, high

self-efficacy, and social skills (Murphy, 2017;

Park, 2004).

The two individual level protective factors

highlighted in the literature are literacy skills and

self-efficacy.

Developing literacy skills early in life is seen as a

crucial protective factor because these skills

form the foundation for learning and

subsequent success in achieving an education

and for doing well in life (Gilligan, 2004, 2007;

Martin & Jackson, 2002; Murphy, 2017; Snow,

2018; Stuart et al., 2004). Attaining basic

academic skills is further viewed as a protective

factor that will lead to improved outcomes as an

adult (Harper & Schmidt, 2012). Gaining the skill

of reading is said to result in increased

engagement as a learner (Coghlan et al., 2009).

Literacy skills are fundamental to achieving

other positive life outcomes such as wellbeing,

employment and future income (Murphy, 2017).

For these reasons, it is particularly important for

the OOHC cohort to have ‘literacy-inducing care

environments to ensure future success’ (Moffat

& Vincent, 2009, p. 136).

A high level of self-efficacy is seen as another

powerful protective factor and an essential

component of developing resilience (Cepukiene

et al., 2018). The strength of a person’s belief in

their effectiveness in relation to a task will

determine whether or not they will even

attempt the task (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy

expectations are important in determining the

amount of effort a person will put towards

achieving a task and their level of persistence,

especially in the face of obstacles (Bandura,

1977). Self-efficacy is essentially the belief in

one’s ability ‘to cope, manage and master

different/various situations that precede

developmental and change outcomes’

(Cepukiene et al., 2018, pp. 81-82).

Academic success is generally accompanied by

high self-efficacy because the student expects to

do well (Doménech-Betoret, Abellán-Roselló, &

Gómez-Artiga, 2017). The complexity of a task

also affects the relationship between self-

efficacy and performance, so the relationship is

said to be strongest with relatively simple tasks

(Lane & Lane, 2001; Multon, Brown, & Lent,

1991).

Cepukiene, et al. (2018) conducted a study with

adolescents in foster care researching how self-

efficacy levels could be increased using a

solution-focused approach. They note that:

Self-efficacy is an important cognitive

personal characteristic as well as a

changeable one; and

Increasing self-efficacy levels during an

intervention can lead to better outcomes in

adolescents’ psychosocial functioning.

Creed et al. (2011) also found that when

comparing a group of adolescents in OOHC and

a group not in OOHC, the OOHC group

responded more positively than the other group

when their self-efficacy level was increased.

Specifically, they engaged more in career

exploration when their self-efficacy and

confidence increased. These findings suggest

11 | P a g e

that increasing the self-efficacy of children and

young people in OOHC is a beneficial and

promising protective factor.

These studies suggest that interventions that

raise the self-efficacy level of children in OOHC

are invaluable because as the child develops

belief in their ability to undertake various tasks

they will become more confident as learners.

This has immense benefit not only for their

educational outcomes but more broadly in their

development of life skills and social interactions,

and ability to navigate challenges in life.

Family risk and protective

factors

Children in OOHC who have experienced

instability in the home environment with little

engagement from parents or carers often lack

exposure to language and literacy; consequently

they become easily disadvantaged as learners

from the outset (Hancock, 2017). This may be

the reason why OOHC students are typically two

years behind in skills such as literacy and

numeracy when they begin school (Flynn,

Marquis, Paquet, Peeke, & Aubry, 2012;

Hancock & Hancock, 2017). Some of the other

risks attributed at the family level include:

placement instability (Osborn & Bromfield, 2007);

living in poverty and low parental education (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Sirin, 2005);

difficult relationships with birth family members resulting in the inability to concentrate at school (Wise et al., 2010);

inappropriate involvement behaviours such as giving children the right answer or completing the assignment without the child’s

involvement (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008 p. 1043);

less-rich language experiences and social conversation (Maier, Vitiello, & Greenfield, 2012);

poor access to children’s books in the home environment (Zadeh, Farnia, & Ungerleider, 2010); and

fewer resources spent on encouraging the child to engage in school (both financial and intangible supports) (Donnellan, Martin, Conger, & Conger, 2013).

While the risk factors are significant barriers for

children, there are protective factors that the

literature has determined can increase literacy

and engagement with learning and school. They

include:

stability in the living arrangement and carer characteristics (e.g. socio-economic status, health, parenting style, social support) (Paxman, Tully, Burke, & Watson, 2014);

warm, responsive, and consistent parenting styles (Watkins & Howard, 2015);

living with a parent/carer who is supportive of educational and extracurricular activities (Murphy, 2017; Townsend, 2011);

early exposure to literacy and literacy materials (Moffat & Vincent, 2009);

exposure to oral language, through conversation and reading books with a parent (Hart & Risley, 1992; Sim, 2012); and

access to a study space (Martin & Jackson, 2002).

The literature clearly indicates that a supportive

and safe environment is fundamental (Martin &

Jackson, 2002; Moffat & Vincent, 2009).

Engaged parents and a supportive home

environment activates intellectual and social

development as the parents/carers show

12 | P a g e

interest in the child’s learning, by reading to and

talking to children about books, films, and school

(Emerson et al., 2012; OECD, 2012).

All too often however, the child in OOHC has

lacked exposure to a literary environment prior

to being in foster care and depending on OOHC

environment, may have minimal such exposure

whilst in OOHC. Promisingly, the Pathways of

Care Longitudinal Study (Australian Institute of

Family Studies, Chapin Hall Center for Children

University of Chicago, & New South Wales

Department of Family and Community Services,

2015a) reported that 89 percent of 565

caregivers reported reading a book every week

to children in their care aged 3-35 months and

94 percent reported reading a book every week

to children aged 3-5 years of age. This indicates

foster carers can increase some protective

factors if they are intentional about reading to

children and have books in their home for

children to access.

Community risk and

protective factors

Townsend (2011, 2012) reports that multiple

transitions in a child’s life, either over a period of

time or several occurring concurrently, has

negative effects on a child’s ability to function

and cope. In particular multiple changes of

school (more than four schools in the study)

were found to significantly decrease academic

outcomes and overall behavioural functioning

(Townsend, 2012, p. 7).

Further risk factors for children in OOHC are:

schooling disruptions and lack of school attendance due to a change in placement, court appearances, or parental visits (Moffat & Vincent, 2009; Wise et al., 2010);

truanting and dropping out of school. (Flynn, Tessier, & Coulombe, 2013; Townsend, 2011; Wise et al., 2010);

education providers being unequipped for a student whose learning is mediated through a history of trauma and displacement (Gribble & English, 2016);

lack of exposure to a high-quality classroom environment (Maier et al., 2012);

poor communication, coordination, planning and commitment between the relevant parties (e.g. caseworker, carer, school) (Wise et al., 2010); and

lack of participation in school-based opportunities and extracurricular activities (Wise et al., 2010).

In addition to these risk factors, many children in

OOHC experience an abrupt end to formal care

between 16 and 18 years of age, which also

means an abrupt end to the support networks

and housing they have had throughout their

time in OOHC (Mendes et al., 2014). The loss of

stable accommodation and financial support can

make it feel impossible for a care leaver to

consider higher education or employment.

These risk factors reiterate the importance of all

stakeholders in the child’s life supporting them

to feel motivated and confident about

continuing their education and career pathway

when they become a care leaver.

13 | P a g e

Community level protective factors that support

a child to connect and engage with learning and

education include:

a sense of belonging to school and to the broader community (Murphy, 2017);

flexible learning programs (A. Morgan et al., 2015);

safe and supportive relationships with educators and adults who work in person-centred, trauma informed approaches outside the boundaries of traditional classrooms (A. Morgan et al., 2015; PWC, 2017);

treating mental health problems that may act as barriers to classroom success (Pecora, 2012); and

mentoring or tutoring interventions (Murphy, 2017).

Mentoring interventions discussed in the

literature often describe the positive outcomes

for children. Research has found many benefits

to being partnered with a caring, supportive

adult (mentor) who supports a child engage with

learning (Duke, Farruggia, & Germo, 2017;

Gypen et al., 2017; K. C. Johnson & Lampley,

2010).

Mentoring builds a consistent and secure

relationship with a trusted adult (Hancock &

Hancock, 2017), and is viewed as a powerful

protective factor that can have far-reaching,

positive impacts including improved self-esteem

and attitude towards schooling (Chan et al.,

2013; Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2009;

Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, &

McMaken, 2007). Mentoring is an effective way

to improve language and reading skills (Harper &

Schmidt, 2012; Rittner, 2002).

Mentoring has been described by Martin and

Jackson (2002) as an important factor helping

care leavers achieve higher education. The study

interviewed 38 care leavers in order to better

understand the factors that enabled them to be

resilient in the face of adversity. Most of the

interviewees highlighted that they had

experienced a special relationship with at least

one adult who had acted as a mentor or role

model and had encouraged them to gain an

education. They recommended mentoring

relationships should be: consistent, supportive,

understanding of the child’s strengths,

weaknesses and needs, and the relationship

should be ongoing for many years (Martin &

Jackson, 2002).

The timeframe of a mentoring intervention is

considered important. In a study involving 262

young people in foster care, Johnson, Pryce, &

Martinovich (2011) found that improvement

occurred only if the young people were

mentored for at least 12 months. In contrast, an

intervention of six months actually showed a

decline in improvement.

The Pyjama Foundation’s Love of Learning

Program (Knight, 2013) also established that the

length of the mentoring relationship was

important. An evaluation study investigated the

correlation between the mentor relationship

and the child’s literacy improvement and

engagement. The findings showed that the

factors which had a significant impact on the

mentors’ perceptions of the children’s

improvement in literacy skills were: the

relationship with the child, the child’s

engagement and tenure in the program, and the

frequency of meetings. A positive relationship

14 | P a g e

with the mentor was found to have the most

influence on the child’s engagement and

improvement (Knight, 2013).

Policy context

Each Australian state and territory government

is responsible for administering and funding

child protection services. OOHC and family

support services are delivered by a combination

of government and non-government

organisations, but most are funded by

government due to the legal responsibility that

government has for children in OOHC. Each

state and territory, however, adheres to a

slightly different framework. In New South

Wales the non-government sector delivers

OOHC services, and OOHC education

coordinators are appointed to implement

educational support planning for children

(Australian Parliament, 2015). In Queensland,

the Department of Child Safety, Youth and

Women makes funds available, when required,

under the Education Support Funding Program

(ESFP) to the Department of Education and

Training. These funds are not provided for any

particular intervention or program, or

consistently across the OOHC cohort. They are

provided on a needs basis to enhance education

support services for individual students in OOHC.

When a school identifies a need, funds can be

accessed for literacy and numeracy support,

mentoring or coaching programs, life skills

programs, carer support initiatives and

flexible/alternative education options, etc.

(Queensland Government, 2011).

What all governments agree on is the

importance of educational participation,

retention and attainment of children in OOHC.

The Australian, state and territory governments

worked together to design The National

Standards for out-of-home care, a priority

project as part of the National Framework for

Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). The

purpose of these standards is to improve the

outcomes and the experiences of those in

OOHC. Education is included in the standards as

one of the key areas, which are:

health;

education;

care planning;

connection to family;

culture and community;

transition from care;

training and support for carers;

belonging and identity; and

safety, stability and security.

One of the standards states that children in

OOHC should be able to access and participate

in education and early childhood services and

have the same opportunities as other children.

The importance of early exposure to education

is particularly highlighted as the most effective

way to help children reach their potential. The

effectiveness of services and interventions are

measured by the proportion of children and

young people achieving national reading and

numeracy benchmarks and the number and

proportion of three and four year old children

who participate in quality early childhood

education and child care services

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).

15 | P a g e

A growing awareness and concern from policy

makers about the educational welfare of

Australian children and young people in OOHC

was evident during a Senate inquiry about OOHC

in August 2015 (Parliament of Australia, 2015).

A report published following the proceedings of

the inquiry recommended that all children have

updated education plans. Further, the report

recommended that the National Framework

develop and implement a nationally consistent

approach to:

provide additional education support for children and young people in OOHC; and

increase participation by young people in OOHC in education and training opportunities.

At the state level, The Queensland Department

of Communities, Child Safety and Disability

Services (the department previously appointed

responsibility of children in OOHC) published a

practice paper in 2013. Titled ‘Valuing and

improving educational outcomes for children in

out-of-home care’, it explored the educational

outcomes of children in OOHC (Queensland

Government, 2013). The paper includes

examples of interventions discussed in the

literature that support children to achieve their

educational potential. The report revealed that

there is a lack of effective communication and

planning between the core adults (teacher, case

worker, carer) in the child’s life with regards to

education and other needs, even though there is

educational support planning available in

Queensland. The report recommends that

strategies to improve the outcomes for children

should include proactively engaging all

stakeholders in a child’s life and involving the

child in the planning of their educational needs.

The Queensland Department of Child Safety,

Youth and Women is now responsible for

children and young people in OOHC. This

department administers the Child Protection Act

1999 and funds the ESFP. The Department

appoints Child Safety Officers as caseworkers for

children in OOHC and collaborates closely with

government and non-government organisations

to deliver foster care and support services.

The Queensland Department of Education and

Training published a policy statement in 2016

titled ‘Students in out-of-home care policy

statement’ (Department of Education, 2016)

which outlines a list of expectations for schools

working with children in OOHC.

Schools are expected to use a whole of school approach to implement evidence-based practices that improve educational outcomes for students in OOHC.

Schools are expected to raise awareness of the special needs and vulnerabilities of children in care.

A buddy/mentor should be appointed for each student in OOHC by the school to provide additional support.

An Education Support Plan (ESP) should be developed for each OOHC student (who meets eligibility criteria). The ESP should be developed in partnership with the student, carer, Child Safety Officer and other key stakeholders. The ESP should be reviewed regularly to ensure it meets changing academic, social and emotional needs.

In collaboration with the Child Safety Officer and other professionals, the carer should ideally be provided with support to be able to

16 | P a g e

actively engage with the child or young person’s learning.

No literature was found that examines or demonstrates the outcomes and impact of this policy and the collaborative relationship between the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women and the Queensland Department of Education and Training.

There is only limited evidence that some state governments fund research and initiatives.

Pathways of Care – New South Wales

The New South Wales Department of Family and

Community Services (FACS) is funding a large

scale longitudinal study about Australian

children and young people in OOHC (Australian

Institute of Family Studies, Chapin Hall Center

for Children University of Chicago, & NSW

Department of Family and Community Services,

2015b). It is being funded due to the lack of

research on the contribution of various services

and interventions to wellbeing in different care

settings. Data is being collected in waves from

2011 until 2020. Focus areas include information

about the safety, permanency and wellbeing of

the OOHC population with particular focus on

child developmental areas of physical health,

socio-emotional wellbeing and

cognitive/learning ability. The study is tracking

the development of participating children from

early childhood until they turn 18 years old

(Family and Community Services, n.d.). Data

collection includes accessing the database of

child protection and OOHC records, interviews

with children and carers, online surveys with

caseworkers and online surveys with teachers.

The study has released some initial findings

which concur with other literature that the risk

and protective factors in OOHC include:

placement characteristics (e.g., type of

placement, if placed with siblings,

neighbourhood); carer characteristics (e.g.,

socio-economic status, health, parenting style,

social support); the services and supports

provided to the child or young person and their

carers; and contact with birth family. The study

has identified that while most 7–11 year olds

appeared to have positive perceptions of their

school life, a larger proportion of 12–17 year

olds did not (e.g., close to half of 12–17 year

olds ‘rarely/never’ or only ‘sometimes’ enjoyed

being at school) (Australian Institute of Family

Studies et al., 2015b).

The Discovery Book Club – Western Australia

The Freemantle and Perth Discovery Book Club

is a project initiated by the Western Australian

Department for Child Protection and Family

Support (DCPFS) (Cain, 2017; Government of

Western Australia Department of Communities

Child Protection and Family Support, n.d.). When

a child enters foster care DCPFS introduces them

to the Discovery Book Club as part of the

Education Service Intake model.

The program has reached children across

Western Australia in partnership with

organisations such as The Aboriginal Literacy

Foundation (Aboriginal Literacy Foundation,

2017).

Table 2 provides an overview of the components

of the Discovery Book Club. The first component

involves book parcels being sent to the child, the

second component provides educational

support and resources to foster carers to be able

17 | P a g e

to better support the child educationally, and

the third component is a mentor program.

Table 2: Components of the Discovery Book Club

The Discovery Book Club

1. Book parcels Four book parcels over 24 months

2. Foster Carer Support

Education session, morning tea’s, books and resources

3. Student Teachers Recreational Reader Support

One-on-one recreational reading with a child in care

Note. Adapted from “Discovery Book Club”, Government of

Western Australia Department for Child Protection and

Family Support.

The mentoring program component is called

‘Whale of a Tale: Reader Mentor’ and is

delivered in collaboration with the University of

Notre Dame Australia School of Education and

the DCPFS. Research by Cain (2017) has

reported that the program has a positive impact

on the lives of the children in care.

Australian

interventions

Australia research confirms that children in

OOHC as a cohort are struggling to reach

national literacy and numeracy benchmarks

(Townsend, 2012; Australian Institute of Family

Studies et al., 2015; Wise et al., 2010).

Therefore, interventions play a vital role in

helping children to improve their literacy and

school engagement.

Interventions should cater to the child’s

development needs (Gribble & English, 2016)

and can be achieved through individually

tailored learning programs (Mendes et al.,

2014). Interventions that tackle literacy and

numeracy deficits are particularly valuable as

reading, in particular, is considered a foundation

of learning (Gilligan, 2007; Osborne, Alfano, &

Winn, 2010).

Interventions in Australia

Research about the effectiveness of

interventions to improve educational outcomes

of children in OOHC is scarce. However, the

relevant interventions that have published some

evidence of their effectiveness predominantly

fall into two categories:

interventions that use mentoring to improve literacy; and

interventions that are collaborative and provide a range of supports to children in several contexts (school, the care system, and home) – also referred to as a wraparound intervention.

The interventions for children in OOHC that have

published some research about their

effectiveness are described in Table 3.

Mentoring/literacy interventions

The Love of Learning Program (Knight, 2013) and

The Whale of a Tale Reader Mentor Program

(Cain, 2017; Gordon-Smith & Cain, 2017) are the

only two interventions identified as mentoring

programs that focus on improving literacy. Both

promote a love of reading through one-to-one

reading sessions with a mentor.

18 | P a g e

Knight (2013) conducted a statistical data

analysis based on survey data from 121 Love of

Learning Program mentors known as Pyjama

Angels. These mentors are recruited from the

community and trained to be volunteers. The

findings of the study emphasised the importance

of building a positive mentoring relationship

with the child. Notable strengths of The Love of

Learning Program (The Pyjama Foundation,

2018) that actively develop protective factors for

the child include:

continuous mentoring relationship between the Pyjama Angel and the mentee (the mentor stays with the child even if they move placements);

mentoring occurs in the child’s home, not in the school environment so learning can be play based if required;

children receive literacy items as gifts, encouraging a sense of pride in their identity as a learner and the experience of owning books and other items;

activities and affirmations deliberately promote the child’s self-efficacy;

children are encouraged to be the decision-maker in the sessions and determining their own goals; and

children are encouraged to role-play characters in books to support identity exploration as well as providing a sense of agency.

Table 3: Australian evidence-based education and literacy interventions

Name Managed by Location Format Who delivers content?

Reference Research Methodology

Mentoring/ literacy

interventions

The Love of Learning Program

The Pyjama Foundation

QLD, VIC & NSW

A mentor meets the child at the foster carer’s home for 1-2 hours weekly.

Trained volunteers (Pyjama Angels).

(Knight, 2013)

Quantitative. Survey conducted with volunteer mentors.

Whale of a Tale: Reader Mentor Program

Department of Communities: Child Protection and Family Support and the University of Notre Dame Australia School of Education

WA A student teacher meets the child weekly at the child’s school for an hour a week for two school terms.

Volunteer pre-service teacher students.

(Cain, 2018; Gordan-Smith, 2017)

Qualitative. Data collected via focus group interviews and online communication. Thematically analysed.

Collaborative / holistic

education interventions

Collaborative Education Program

Life Without Barriers and Edmund Rice Education Australia Youth +

QLD Individualised interventions.

Educational Psychologists provide support to students.

(Mainwaring, 2014)

Qualitative case studies.

TEACHaR

Anglicare Victoria VIC Individualised interventions lasting for various periods if time (6 months; 6-12 months; and more than 12 months).

Qualified teachers deliver content / provide support to students.

(David, 2015; (David & Wise, 2016)

Mixed methods. TEACHaR Assessment and Outcomes Measurement Tool. Data collected every six months starting at service entry (baseline).

The Early Years Education Program

Children’s Protection Society

VIC Children receive 25 hours a week high-quality education and care for 50 weeks of year for 3 years.

Highly trained staff.

(Jordan et al, 2014; Fordham, 2016)

Randomised Control Trial.

19 | P a g e

The Love of Learning program has an outreach

of 1440 foster children each week across three

states (QLD, NSW, VIC). The continuity of the

program allows foster children the chance to

develop a sustained meaningful relationship

with their Pyjama Angel who mentors the child

within the home environment each week.

The Whale of a Tale: Reader Mentor Program in

Western Australia similarly uses mentors but this

program is limited by the timeframe of weekly

meetings for two school semesters. The

program promotes a number of protective

factors including:

A mentoring relationship between the pre-service teacher (university students in their fourth year) and the OOHC student. The mentoring lasts for two school terms and is school-based; and

Recreational reading in weekly sessions with a mentor to develop emerging literacy skills.

Cain (2017) conducted qualitative research to

evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Data

was collected from a discussion forum, focus

group interviews and reflective journals kept by

25 volunteer mentors. The research design

initially intended to also collect data about the

children’s self-perception using a reading

questionnaire, but it was later deemed

inappropriate. Cain’s (2017) study reports that

‘it was felt that the program had positive impact

of the lives of the children in care’ and it helped

build the student’s sense of self-esteem (Cain,

2017, p.64). However, studies have yet to verify

if this short intervention has achieved

sustainable impact over time.

Collaborative/holistic education interventions

Holistic wraparound programs take on a

collaborative approach given the multifaceted

systems and environments a child operates

within (McNamara, 2016).

An example of an intervention that uses this

approach is TEACHaR, a program for children in

OOHC in Victoria. The model was developed

utilising evidence-based research, in particular

research by Wise et al., (2010) titled ‘The Care

System Impacts on Academic Outcomes (CIAO)’

which established the need for such an

intervention.

Students in TEACHaR receive educational

support from registered and experienced

teachers (educators) in a combination of one-to-

one tuition, group learning, informal learning,

and other interventions specific to their

educational attainment needs.

The TEACHaR team works with the Department

of Education, schools, carers, and OOHC staff to

develop appropriate plans for children in the

program. Educators play a key role in the

holistic and collaborative process and are ‘the

voice of OOHC in schools and the voice of

education in OOHC teams. They act as an

informed communication bridge between

systems.’ (David & Wise, 2016, p. 40).

The interventions key aims are to:

encourage school attendance;

increase self-belief and expectations (of self and of supporting organisations);

utilise a strengths-based approach (focusing on the student’s strengths and interests); and

20 | P a g e

bring carers and OOHC staff together and support them to prioritise the importance of education.

The program supports extracurricular activities

and provides learning resources to the students.

The length of the program varies between under

six months, between 6-12 months, and more

than 12 months. Outcomes have been measured

using the TEACHaR Assessment and Outcomes

Measurement Tool (developed specifically for

the TEACHaR program). An evaluation (Anglicare

Victoria, 2016) shows students increased their

engagement in learning (54.7% to 73.8%), and

improved their literacy skills (from 25.4% to

42.4% in six months, up to 53.7% in 12 months

and 60.8% in 24 months).

Another intervention, The Collaborative

Education Program was initiated by Life Without

Barriers and Edmund Rice Education Australia

Youth + (Mainwaring, 2014). In this program

educational psychologists advocate for children

in OOHC who are actively given a voice in the

decision-making of their Education Support

Plans. The program utilises a wraparound

framework alongside various theoretical

underpinnings including attachment-based

interventions, relational pedagogy and a trauma

informed lens (Mainwaring, 2014).

A third intervention that uses a collaborative and

holistic approach is The Early Years Education

Program. This is an early intervention program in

Victoria targeting at-risk children under three

years of age. The program is not solely for

children in OOHC. Risk factors are assessed by

the Department of Human Services and children

experiencing significant family stress and social

disadvantage are referred to the program,

including children in OOHC.

Table 4: The Early Years Education Program model

The EYP model (Jordan, Tseng, Coombs, Kennedy, & Borland, 2014).

1. Infant mental health consultation

2. Early years education pedagogy

3. Wraparound family services

4. Parental involvement

5. Nutrition

6. Attachment framework

Note. Adapted from “Extending the reach of the early years education program: The EYEP: Q” by Fordham, L., 2016.

The Early Years Education Program is an early

intervention program, so provides support for

young children over a three-year period

preparing them for school. Children receive at

least 25 hours a week of high-quality education

and care for 50 weeks of the year for three

years.

The program utilises a trans-disciplinary

approach (partnerships between educators and

parents); high staff to child ratios; qualified staff;

attachment-focused and trauma informed care;

a child-centred curriculum; integration with

family support services; and support from infant

mental health professionals (Fordham, 2015).

The program focusses on relationship strategies

to reduce the children’s behavioural and

emotional dysregulation to allow them to be

more available for learning (Jordan et al., 2014).

Strengths of the program include:

it is early intervention for children under three years old when they enter the program; and

21 | P a g e

a key person is provided for up to 3 years to work with the child and family.

An ethnographic study about the program noted

that building trust with children (many of whom

have experienced trauma and disadvantage) and

having a sense of belonging is vital if children are

to be open to learning. This takes time and

requires skilled educators along with a holistic

approach towards curriculum and relational

pedagogy to support and enhance every child’s

capacity as a learner (Fordham, 2015).

International

interventions

Mentoring/literacy interventions

A 12 week literacy and mentoring intervention

(Murphy, 2017) was developed in the UK with

the aim of improving children’s literacy and

resilience. Although conducted outside of school

hours, the intervention utilised school facilities

and class teachers as the mentors.

The intervention promoted the following

protective factors:

school teachers mentoring children one-to-one, providing them with individualised literacy activities;

children were part of the decision-making process about the session content; and

activities focussed on building relationships, peer relationships, self-esteem and resilience.

The study found marked improvement in the

children’s confidence as a result of the

mentoring relationship. However, a limitation

was that the mentors were also school teachers

and several mentors were the actual teacher for

the same child during class times. In addition, as

the program only lasted 12 weeks it is difficult to

know if there any long-term benefits for the

participants. Murphy (2017) reports that many

of the mentors decided to informally continue

the mentoring relationship after the program

ended as they found it was mutually rewarding.

Tyre (2012) conducted a study in the US

assessing how a school-based educational

support model could, through the use of

mentoring and advocacy, improve reading skills

of children in OOHC. This model used an

Educational Liaison (EL) approach, enlisting a

professional such as a teacher or social worker

as an intermediary communicating with both the

school system and the social services system.

The study focused on assessing the reading skills

of students who were provided EL support by a

private nonprofit organisation in the US.

The intervention:

used stable adult mentors (a teacher and a tutor). Tutors are university students and made a minimum one year commitment;

provided individualised sessions to address each student’s needs. Along with providing academic tutoring the tutors provided encouragement and empathy for the social, emotional, and behavioural challenges of the mentees;

provided frequent weekly sessions, on average three times a week for one hour; and

students receive either free or reduced-price school lunches as an incentive to stay engaged.

22 | P a g e

The students’ oral reading fluency (words read

correctly every minute) and reading

comprehension (based on number of words

read correctly) were tested three times during

the school year. The study found that in

particular there were significant improvements

in the reading and comprehension. A limitation

of the study however was there was no

comparison or control group so the

improvement could have been attributed to

other factors.

Literacy promoting interventions

The Paired Reading Literacy Intervention is

based on the structure of paired reading as

discussed by Morgan (1976). The initial

intervention took place in the UK and was

evaluated by Osborne, Alfano and Winn (2010).

The intervention has been replicated in Sweden

with studies by Forsman (2017) and Vinnerljung,

Tideman, Sallnäs, and Forsman (2014).

The intervention promotes the following

protective factors:

the carer reading with the child; and

the child’s exposure to literacy materials.

Paired reading sessions occur within the home

environment and involve the carer reading with

the child in an interactive way. The sessions

occur at least three times a week for twenty

minutes per session for 16 weeks.

Studies by Osborne, et al. (2010) and

Vinnerlung, et al. (2014) both used pre-post

measures to measure improvement in reading

ability. Both studies reported the program

increased the child’s reading ability. However, a

limitation of the intervention is the reliance on

the carer as the person delivering the program.

Additionally, although improvements were

observed, the intervention only lasted 16 weeks.

It is unknown if the participating children

experienced long-term improvement.

Another program in the UK is the Letterbox Club

(Dymoke & Griffiths, 2010). This intervention

began as a joint initiative between the BookTrust

and the University of Leicester. The Letterbox

Club sends monthly packages to the

participating children’s foster homes with the

goal of improving their educational attainment.

The packages consist of reading materials, story

CDs, stationery and mathematic games.

Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness

of the Letterbox Club (Dymoke & Griffiths, 2010;

Hancock & Hancock, 2017; Roberts, Winter, &

Connolly, 2017; Winter, Connolly, Bell, &

Ferguson, 2011), with the strengths of the

intervention being established as:

children experience a sense of pride and ownership in receiving books and other literacy materials; and

the intervention promotes a strengthened relationship between the child and their carer who is encouraged to read with and engage in literacy activities with the child prompted by the contents of the parcel.

Limitations of The Letterbox Club include

confusion amongst carers who did not always

realise that they could engage with the child as

part of the intervention. This indicated that a

mentor type relationship was not necessarily

achieved. In addition, the intervention only

lasted for six months (six parcels are sent each

23 | P a g e

month during this time), so it is unknown if this

short timeframe has any long-term benefit for

the educational attainment for the child.

Another UK program is ‘Catch Up Literacy’

(Clipson‐Boyles, 2000), a structured one-to-one

intervention for children who find reading

difficult. It is delivered in schools by teaching

assistants in 15-minute sessions, twice a week.

The tutor reads with the child for three minutes,

the child then discusses what they have read for

six minutes, then they complete some linked

writing for six minutes.

Studies that assessed the effectiveness of the

intervention reported that students who

received the program made double the reading

age gain of a control group of children who

received individual literacy support for the same

amount of time (Catch Up, 2018). Importantly, a

comparative experimental study that assessed

the impact of the program on children in the

Catch Up Group compared to children in the

Matched Time Group and children in the control

group identified that merely allocating extra

time to a child was not enough to help these

children make accelerated literacy gains.

However, the additional time did reap a slightly

better result compared with the group where no

intervention was made at all. The greatest

improvements were seen when systematic time

was structured into an individually-focused

teaching framework (Clipson‐Boyles, 2000).

A year-long study adapting the Catch Up Literacy

program for children in OOHC was conducted in

England in collaboration with Compass (a

fostering service). Foster carers were trained to

implement the program with 10 foster children

within the home environment (Fraser, Barratt,

Beverley, & Lawes, 2008). The evaluation found

that the intervention made a difference for

children in OOHC and that it can be delivered

effectively by foster carers in the home

environment.

A limitation to the intervention involved the

attitudes of the carers some of whom reported

finding it difficult to deliver the intervention

within the home environment. The results

showed a direct correlation between committed

and organised carers and high levels of success

(Fraser et al., 2008).

Dialogic Reading Gatherings (DLGs) is a program

developed in Spain. DLGs are discussed at length

in a book by Flecha (2014) about educational

and social inclusion in Europe (Soler-Gallart,

1999). The DLG approach helps children develop

their self-esteem, overcome inequalities and

promote social cohesion. The program involves

students reading a classical literature book (as

Romeo and Juliet, the Odyssey, Don Quixote)

and then openly sharing their meanings,

interpretations and reflections with the dialogic

learning methodology (Llopis, Villarejo, Soler, &

Alvarez, 2016).

A case study about the program has been

published by García-Carrión (2015) who explains

the approach has shown how significant

relational experiences enable children to achieve

more, to understand other children’s minds and

confidently face challenges (García-Carrión,

2015).

While children in OOHC are not the primary

focus in the studies mentioned, a study by

24 | P a g e

Garcia Yeste, Gairal Casadó, Munté Pascual, &

Plaja Viñas,(2018) evaluated the effectiveness of

DLGs with a group of OOHC adolescents in

residential care (a foster care centre) between

the ages of 12 and 17. The participants

attended five sessions over five consecutive

weeks (one hour each session).

Garcia Yeste, et al. (2018) conducted qualitative

research using participant observation and semi-

structured interview data. They reported that

the DLGs provided the participants with an

increased sense of community as a result of the

adolescents reading together as a group.

Language skills were also developed as a result

of increased oral expression. Additionally, the

participants expressed feeling a stronger sense

of self as a result of interpreting the literature.

One adolescent commented: “With this book,

you realise what happens to everybody. This

book is similar to what occurs to us.”(Garcia

Yeste et al., 2018, p. 67).

While this study appears to yield several benefits

for participants it is limited by the short

timeframe of five weeks, making it difficult to

assess whether the intervention has any long-

term benefit for the children in OOHC.

Tutoring interventions

Teach Your Children Well (TYCW) is a tutoring

intervention that follows a method developed by

Maloney (1998). Two separate studies in Canada

(Flynn et al., 2012; Harper & Schmidt, 2012)

have adapted the TYCW model for OOHC

children in recent years with slightly different

formats.

The first study by Flynn, et al., (2012) used a

one-on-one tutoring method with foster carers

to deliver the program. Seventy-seven children

aged six to 13 years participated in a randomised

control trial. The foster carers had to meet

certain criteria in order to participate including

being able to read well themselves.

The study provided tutoring to approximately

half of the children over a 30 week period.

Results reveal that the children in the

experimental tutoring group experienced

improvements in sentence comprehension,

reading composition, and maths, but did not

make improvements in word reading or spelling

(compared to a waitlist group).

The second study by Harper and Schmidt (2012)

used a small group format (i.e., four children per

group) and university student volunteers to

deliver the program. Sixty-eight children (grades

two to eight inclusive) in long-term foster care

participated in the two-year randomised control

trial. The findings established meaningful effect

in the size differences, in the small-to-moderate

range, in favour of the tutoring intervention with

respect to reading, spelling, and mathematics

skill development. The study found that children

who received tutoring demonstrated significant

improvements in reading and spelling scores

relative to their same aged peers in a control

group (Harper & Schmidt, 2012).

This study validates other studies that show

generally, one-to-one tutoring is an effective

intervention for children at risk for school failure

or those with a learning disability (Elbaum,

Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000; Flynn et al.,

2012; Maloney Method, 2012).

25 | P a g e

Another intervention is the Skolfam model

(translated into English as school-family care). It

was initially implemented in 2005-2008 in

Helsingborg, Sweden with 25 foster children

aged seven to 11 years. It is an intervention that

is based on an educational and psychological

assessment supplemented by individual

coaching plans that chart the child’s progress.

The results of the program include

improvements in cognitive performance,

spelling, word comprehension, and reading

speed as well as improved relationship and

socialised behaviour (Tideman, Vinnerljung,

Hintze, & Isaksson, 2011; Tordön et al., 2014).

Tordön, et al. (2014) reviewed the Skolfam

model to see if the results from the initial

Skolfam model intervention could be achieved in

other cities. Twenty-four children were initially

included in the study, with 21 completing the

post-intervention test. The study focused on

children in a fairly stable foster family placement

that was expected to last a minimum of three

years. Environmental factors were assessed

regarding their influence on the child’s academic

school performance. This included the carer’s

ability and willingness to positively encourage

the child’s schooling. The study revealed that

the children’s self-concept increased

significantly by 18.2 percent. Other

improvement areas included intellectual

capacity, literacy and numeracy skills. The study

indicated the educational performance of those

children in OOHC can be improved if children are

provided adequate support (Tordön et al.,

2014).

The Skolfam model has now been adapted in

Finland into an intervention called the Sisukas

project – it is also referred to as the “foster child

at school” model (Pesäpuu ry, 2018). The Finnish

word ‘sisukas’ broadly refers to resilience.

Similar to the Skolfam model, psychologists and

special education teachers test the baseline

psychological wellbeing and behaviour of

participating foster children. The results are

communicated to the child, their foster carer,

teachers and social workers. This promotes

communication and a positive working

relationship between the child, who is

considered a member of the team, and

everyone responsible for the child. The

psychologist and special education teachers act

as mediators and rarely work directly with the

child. Based on the test results an individualised

education plan is developed for each child. After

24 months the child is retested and goals are

adjusted accordingly. (Pesäpuu ry, 2018).

Pirttimaa and Välivaara (2018) report that

participants of the Sisukas project experienced

improvement predominately in the areas of

mathematics and writing skills. Improvement

was also observed in the participants’ individual

wellbeing. The findings highlight the uniqueness

of each child and their changeable needs over

time. The Sisukas project promotes the

cooperation of the various stakeholders within

the child’s life in developing their individualised

education plan and to achieve effective

outcomes (Pirttimaa & Välivaara, 2018).

26 | P a g e

Discussion

This literature review has identified that the

cohort of children and young people in OOHC

frequently have poor educational outcomes due

to a range of personal, family and community

level factors that put them at risk of disengaging

from school and not achieving the educational

attainment needed to thrive in many areas of

their life.

Despite the significant risks for children in OOHC

and the negative lifetime impacts of poor

literacy and educational attainment, extremely

limited research exists about interventions that

aim to increase the educational attainment of

children in OOHC and improve established

protective factors. There is also a notable lack of

relevant government policy or practice research.

This could be due to a research funding lack or

due to the culture of relatively low educational

expectations for care leavers (McNamara,

Harvey, & Andrewartha, 2017).

The studies that have been conducted have

confirmed a number of protective factors that

can support children in OOHC and minimise the

effects of the significant risk factors these

children experience. In particular, interventions

that have had some success strategically address

either individual, family and community level

factors, or a combination of these factors.

Studies suggest that interventions should

consider:

the child’s personal attributes and ability to

engage and learn

the carer’s ability to support the child’s

development and learning

the child’s support network working

collaboratively with the child and each

other, to achieve positive outcomes, and

the intervention’s approach and duration.

Importantly, safe, kind and loving relationships

with carers, mentors and teachers, which

develop a child’s self-efficacy, their literacy skills

and resilience while learning, could be the most

important success factors. In addition, given the

specific needs of the OOHC cohort, a trauma

informed approach that builds trust and

communicates effectively with these children is

critical.

These are positive indicators and assumptions,

but more research is needed to rigorously

examine which approach can achieve the most

effective outcomes.

Future research directions

The gaps in the literature suggest that further

research needs to be conducted to gain a much

better understanding of which interventions

most benefit children in OOHC (Forsman &

Vinnerljung, 2012; Hambrick et al., 2016; Tordön

et al., 2014), and which interventions support

and improve their protective factors most

effectively.

There is no doubt that developing interventions

to support children in OOHC to grow their self-

efficacy and resilience is important and

meaningful. Further research should explore

what might be the best way to build these

psychological skills and attributes. How

improving social, cognitive and emotional

27 | P a g e

abilities and skills such as self-efficacy improves

their engagement in school and learning

opportunities should also be researched.

Current evidence suggests the Australian

interventions are creating positive outcomes,

but if further research were conducted, social

investors and policy makers in Australia would

be able to more reliably fund and support

interventions that have proven to achieve

significant social impact and identify factors that

improve attitudes towards learning and school.

Future research would also be able to assess if

school-based interventions represent a better

possibility for supporting children whose home

life may make them vulnerable, or, if children

respond better to home-based interventions

where they feel they are provided with

individualised support from a mentor or carer.

Another issue is the lack of research about which

interventions support Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander children living in OOHC. Further

research should pinpoint what approaches are

most culturally appropriate and effective.

Conclusion This review was conducted to explore the risk

and protective factors that reduce or improve

educational outcomes for children and young

people in OOHC. It has examined interventions

that aim to improve these children’s educational

outcomes, and identified there is a need for

further research so that policy makers and

funders can reliably invest in interventions that

show they are making a positive impact.

The review has established that children and

young people in OOHC are at risk of a significant

level of educational disadvantage, and this can

make it much harder for them to achieve

academic and life success. It is extremely

important to provide effective prevention and

early interventions so these children are

supported to have good literacy and learning

skills. When children have the disposition,

motivation and skills to learn, they can become

resilient lifelong learners. In the words of Dr

Seuss (Seuss, 1978):

‘The more that you read, the more things you will

know. The more you learn, the more places you'll

go.’ Dr. Seuss

28 | P a g e

References

Aboriginal Literacy Foundation. (2017). The Discovery Book Club. Retrieved from http://www.aboriginalliteracyfoundation.org/the-discovery-book-club

ACWA. (2017). SNAPSHOT Educational Engagement of Children and Young People in Out of Home Care in NSW Preliminary Findings.

AIHW. (2013). Educational outcomes for children in care: Linking 2013 child protection and NAPLAN data. Retrieved from Canberra: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/66f5ad4b-568a-4aa9-9673-845f59c8d5ec/18983.pdf.aspx?inline=true

AIHW. (2017). Out-of-home care admissions rising for infants and Indigenous kids. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2017/november/out-of-home-care-admissions-rising-for-infants-and

AIHW. (2018). National framework for protecting Australia's children indicators. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/nfpac/contents/national-framework-indicators-data-visualisations/0-2-out-of-home-care

Anglicare Victoria. (2016). Transforming educational achievement for children and young people in home based and residential care: Snapshot Report. Retrieved from

Arpino, B., Guma, J., & Julia, A. (2018). Early-life conditions and health at older ages: The mediating role of educational attainment, family and employment trajectories.(Research Article)(Report). PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0195320. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195320

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2017). Children on care and protection orders in Australia: Crime facts info no. 101. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi101

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Chapin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago, & New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services. (2015a). Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study: Outcomes of children and young people in Out-of-Home care in NSW. Sydney, NSW.

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Chapin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago, & NSW Department of Family and Community Services. (2015b). Wave 1 Baseline Statistical Report: Summary Pathways of Care Longitudunal Study: Outcomes of Children and Young People in Out-of_home Care in NSW. Sydney, NSW: Australian Institute of Family Studies, Chapin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago, & New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services Retrieved from https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/335867/POCLS_Brief_1.pdf.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

Cain, G. (2017). Chapter 6: The Whale Of A Tale Reader Mentor Program For Children Who Have Experienced Trauma. In S. Lavery, D. Chambers, & G. Cain (Eds.), Service-Learning (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education (Vol. 12, pp. 95-113).

Cameron, C., Jackson, S., Hauari, H., & Hollingworth, K. (2012). Continuing educational participation among children in care in five countries: some issues of social class. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 387-399. doi:10.1080/02680939.2011.644811

Catch Up. (2018). What is Catch Up® Literacy? Retrieved from https://www.catchup.org/interventions/literacy.php

Cepukiene, V., Pakrosnis, R., & Ulinskaite, G. (2018). Outcome of the solution-focused self-efficacy enhancement group intervention for adolescents in foster care setting. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 81-87.

Chan, C. S., Rhodes, J. E., Howard, W. J., Lowe, S. R., Schwartz, S. E., & Herrera, C. (2013). Pathways of influence in school-based mentoring: The mediating role of parent and teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 129-142.

Clipson‐Boyles, S. (2000). The Catch Up Project: a reading intervention in Year 3 for Level 1 readers (Research Note. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(1), 78-84. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00104

29 | P a g e

Coatsworth, J. D., Palen, L.-A., Sharp, E. H., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2006). Self-Defining Activities, Expressive Identity, and Adolescent Wellness. Applied Developmental Science, 10(3), 157-170. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1003_5

Coghlan, M., Bergeron, C., White, K., Sharp, C., Morris, M., & Rutt, S. (2009). Narrowing the gap in outcomes for young children through effective practices in the early years. Center for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services, London, UK.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). An outline of National Standards for Out Of Home Care. Retrieved from Canberra ACT https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/pac_national_standard.pdf

Converse, N., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2009). Evaluation of a school-based mentoring program for at-risk middle school youth. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 33-46.

Creed, P., Tilbury, C., Buys, N., & Crawford, M. (2011). The career aspirations and action behaviours of Australian adolescents in out-of-home-care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1720-1729.

Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., & Schennach, S. M. (2010). Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Econometrica, 78(3), 883-931. doi:10.3982/ECTA6551

David, L., & Wise, S. (2016). The TEACHaR program: Achieving better education outcomes for children and young people in out-of-home care. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(45), 33.

Department of Education. (2016). Students in out-of-home care policy statement. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/healthy/student-out-of-home-care-policy.html.

Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Academic Achievement: The Mediator Role of Students' Expectancy-Value Beliefs. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1193.

Donnellan, M. B., Martin, M. J., Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (2013). Economic Distress and Poverty in Families. In M. A. Fine & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories : a content-based approach, A Content Based Approach (pp. 338-355). New York: Routledge (Taylor and Francis).

Duke, T., Farruggia, S. P., & Germo, G. R. (2017). "I don't know where I would be right now if it wasn't for them": Emancipated foster care youth and their important non-parental adults. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 65-73. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.015

Dymoke, S., & Griffiths, R. (2010). The Letterbox Club: the impact on looked‐after children and their carers of a national project aimed at raising achievements in literacy for children aged 7 to 11 in foster care. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 52-60.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How Effective Are One-to-One Tutoring Programs in Reading for Elementary Students at Risk for Reading Failure? A Meta-Analysis of the Intervention Research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605

Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. A report by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) for the Family–School and Community Partnerships Bureau: Canberra.

Family and Community Services. (n.d.). Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study (POCLS). Retrieved from https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/resources/research/pathways-of-care/about-POCLS

Flecha, R. (2014). Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe: Springer. Flynn, R. J., Marquis, R. A., Paquet, M.-P., Peeke, L. M., & Aubry, T. D. (2012). Effects of individual direct-

instruction tutoring on foster children's academic skills: A randomized trial. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1183-1189.

Flynn, R. J., Tessier, N. G., & Coulombe, D. (2013). Placement, protective and risk factors in the educational success of young people in care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. European Journal of Social Work, 16(1), 70-87. doi:10.1080/13691457.2012.722985

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical Elements of Classroom and Small-Group Instruction Promote Reading Success in All Children. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00020

Fordham, L. (2015). Extending the reach of the Early Years Education Program:The EYEP:Q Research Report. Retrieved from Melbourne, Australia: https://arts-ed.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/2974000/EYEP_Q_-Research-Report_2016.pdf

30 | P a g e

Forsman, H. (2017). Foster carers' experiences of a paired reading literacy intervention with looked‐after children. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 409-418.

Forsman, H., & Vinnerljung, B. (2012). Interventions aiming to improve school achievements of children in out-of-home care: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1084-1091.

Fraser, A., Barratt, G., Beverley, J., & Lawes, J. (2008). Compass/Catch Up literacy intervention pilot for LAC. García-Carrión, R. (2015). What the Dialogic Literary Gatherings Did for Me: The Personal Narrative of an 11-

Year-Old Boy in a Rural Community in England. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(10), 913-919. doi:10.1177/1077800415614305

Garcia Yeste, C., Gairal Casadó, R., Munté Pascual, A., & Plaja Viñas, T. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out‐of‐home child care: Creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child & Family Social Work, 23(1), 62-70.

Gilligan, R. (2004). Promoting resilience in child and family social work: Issues for social work practice, education and policy. Social Work Education, 23(1), 93-104.

Gilligan, R. (2007). Adversity, resilience and the educational progress of young people in public care. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12(2), 135-145.

Gilligan, R. (2008). Promoting resilience in young people in long‐term care—The relevance of roles and relationships in the domains of recreation and work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 22(1), 37-50.

Gordon-Smith, C., & Cain, C. (2017). 'Whale of a Tale' Reader Mentor Program. Government of Western Australia, Department of Communities.

Government of Western Australia Department of Communities Child Protection and Family Support. (n.d.). Discovery Book Club. Retrieved from https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/ChildrenInCare/Pages/DiscoveryBookClub.aspx

Grace, R., Miller, K., Blacklock, S., Bonser, G., & Hayden, P. (2018). The Kids Say Project: Supporting Children to Talk about their Experiences and to Engage in Decision-making. Australian Social Work, 71(3), 292-305. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2018.1447589

Gribble, K., & English, R. (2016). Helping children with home education: How home education can enable good educational outcomes for children and young people in out-of-home care. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 7(2), 240.

Gypen, L., Vanderfaeillie, J., De Maeyer, S., Belenger, L., & Van Holen, F. (2017). Outcomes of children who grew up in foster care: Systematic-review. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 74-83. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.035

Hambrick, E. P., Oppenheim-Weller, S., Amp, Apos, Zi, A. M., & Taussig, H. N. (2016). Mental health interventions for children in foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 65-77. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.002

Hancock, A., & Hancock, J. (2017). Looked after Children’s Perspectives On Books Being Delivered To The Home During The Letterbox Club Scotland Project. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 8(3/4), 26-58.

Harper, J., & Schmidt, F. (2012). Preliminary effects of a group-based tutoring program for children in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1176-1182. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.040

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American Parenting of Language-Learning Children: Persisting Differences in Family-Child Interactions Observed in Natural Home Environments. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1096-1105.

Harvey, A., Andrewartha, L., & McNamara, P. (2015a). A forgotten cohort? Including people from out-of-home care in Australian higher education policy. Australian Journal of Education, 59(2), 182-195.

Harvey, A., McNamara, P., Andrewartha, L., & Luckman, M. (2015b). Out of care, into university: Raising higher education access and achievement of care leavers. Melbourne: LaTrobe University.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Public/Private Ventures.

Johnson, K. C., & Lampley, J. H. (2010). Mentoring At-Risk Middle School Students. SRATE Journal, 19(2), 64-69. Johnson, S. B., Pryce, J. M., & Martinovich, Z. (2011). The role of therapeutic mentoring in enhancing outcomes

for youth in foster care. Child Welfare, 90(5), 51.

31 | P a g e

Jordan, B., Tseng, Y.-P., Coombs, N., Kennedy, A., & Borland, J. (2014). Improving lifetime trajectories for vulnerable young children and families living with significant stress and social disadvantage: the early years education program randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 965. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-965

Knight, R. (2013). Reading with Angels: Improving Literacy among Children in Foster Care. Children Australia, 38(2), 54-60.

Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 29(7), 687-693.

Llopis, A., Villarejo, B., Soler, M., & Alvarez, P. (2016). (Im)Politeness and interactions in Dialogic Literary Gatherings. Journal of Pragmatics, 94, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.004

Maier, M. F., Vitiello, V. E., & Greenfield, D. B. (2012). A Multilevel Model of Child- and Classroom-Level Psychosocial Factors that Support Language and Literacy Resilience of Children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 104-114. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.06.002

Mainwaring, D. (2014). Educational Psychologists as advocates of children in out of home care: An innovative program model that empowers young people and the adults who support them. Educational & Child Psychology, 31(1), 101-123.

Maloney, M. (1998). Teach your children well: a solution to some of North America's educational problems. United States of America: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.

Maloney Method. (2012). The Maloney Method. Retrieved from www.maloneymethod.com Martin, P. Y., & Jackson, S. (2002). Educational success for children in public care: advice from a group of high

achievers. Child & Family Social Work, 7(2), 121-130. McDowall, J. (2013a). Participation of children and young people in decision-making in out-of-home care in

Australia. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(36), 41. McDowall, J. (2016). Are we listening?: The need to facilitate participation in decision-making by children and

young people in out-of-home care. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(44), 77.

McNamara, P. (2016). 3rs+: Improving the primary school years of Australian children in out-of-home care. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(45), 57.

McNamara, P., Harvey, A., & Andrewartha, L. (2017). Passports out of poverty: Raising access to higher education for care leavers in Australia. Children and Youth Services Review. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.015

Mendes, P., Johnson, G., & Moslehuddin, B. (2011). Young people leaving state out-of-home care. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Mendes, P., Michell, D., & Wilson, J. Z. (2014). Young people transitioning from out-of-home care and access to higher education: A critical review of the literature. Children Australia, 39(4), 243-252.

Moffat, S., & Vincent, C. (2009). Emergent literacy and childhood literacy-promoting activities for children in the Ontario child welfare system. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 4(2), 135-141. doi:10.1080/17450120902887350

Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2015). Relational Ways of Being an Educator: Trauma-Informed Practice Supporting Disenfranchised Young People. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(10), 1037-1051. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1035344

Morgan, R. T. (1976). ‘Paired reading’tuition: a preliminary report on a technique for cases of reading deficit. Child: care, health and development, 2(1), 13-28.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of counseling psychology, 38(1), 30.

Murphy, M. (2017). The Impact of a Literacy/Mentoring Intervention on the Outcomes of Looked After Children. UCL (University College London).

Nathan, L., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). The Development of Early Literacy Skills Among Children With Speech Difficulties. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR., 47(2), 377. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/031)

O'Higgins, A., Sebba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 198-220.

32 | P a g e

O’Higgins, A., Sebba, J., & Luke, N. (2015). What is the relationship between being in care and the educational outcomes of children. An international systematic review.

OECD. (2012). The Role of Families in Shaping Students' Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs Ready to Learn: Students' Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs (Vol. Volume III).

Osborn, A., & Bromfield, L. (2007). Outcomes for children and young people in care: Research Brief no. 3. : The Australian Institute of Family Studies. National Child Protection Clearinghouse.

Osborne, C., Alfano, J., & Winn, T. (2010). Paired Reading as a Literacy Intervention for Foster Children. Adoption & Fostering, 34(4), 17-26. doi:10.1177/030857591003400403

Park, N. (2004). The Role of Subjective Well-Being in Positive Youth Development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25-39. doi:10.1177/002716203260078

Parliament of Australia. (2015). Out of Home Care Report. Canberra: Senate Printing Unit Parliament House Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Out_of_home_care/Report.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent Involvement in Homework: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039-1101. doi:10.3102/0034654308325185

Paxman, M., Tully, L., Burke, S., & Watson, J. (2014). Evidence to inform out-of-home care policy and practice in New South Wales: An overview of the pathways of care longitudinal study. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(39), 54-71.

Pecora, P. J. (2012). Maximizing educational achievement of youth in foster care and alumni: Factors associated with success. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1121-1129. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.044

Pesäpuu ry. (2018). Foster children at school. Retrieved from http://sijoitettulapsikoulussa.fi/in-english/ Pirttimaa, R., & Välivaara, C. (2018). Educational intervention planning for children in foster care in Finland: A

case study. Education Inquiry, 9(2), 237-246. doi:10.1080/20004508.2017.1328932 PWC. (2017). ACWA Education Roundtable: A Summary Report of the Presentations Made on the Day and Key

Points for Future Action…. Retrieved from Queensland Government. (2011). Education Support Funding Program (ESFP) for Students in Out-of-Home Care.

Implementation Guidelines. http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/grants/state/targeted/education-support.html.

Queensland Government. (2013). Valuing and improving educational outcomes for children in out-of-home care. Rittner, B. (2002). The use of risk assessment instruments in child protective services case planning and closures.

Children and Youth Services Review, 24(3), 189-207. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(02)80005-6 Roberts, J., Winter, K., & Connolly, P. (2017). The Letterbox Club book gifting intervention: Findings from a

qualitative evaluation accompanying a randomised controlled trial. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 467-473.

Schoon, I., & Bartley, M. (2008). The role of human capability and resilience. Psychologist, 21(1), 24-27. Seuss. (1978). I Can Read With My Eyes Shut. London, United Kingdom: Random House Childrens Books. Sim, S. H. (2012). Supporting children's language and literacy skills : the effectiveness of shared book reading

intervention strategies with parents. (Doctor of Philosophy (Research)), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.

Snow, P. (2018). Oral language competence and early literacy: Setting all students up for success. Paper presented at the Doing School Differently Gold Coast.

Soler-Gallart, M. (1999). Sharing Words: Theory And Practice of Dialogic Learning. Harvard Educational Review, 69(4), 483-484.

Stuart, M., Hill, V., & Radford Julia Olisa, J. (2004). Findings of the Looked After Children Literacy Intervention. The Pyjama Foundation. (2018). About the Love of Learning Program. Retrieved from

https://thepyjamafoundation.com/ Tideman, E., Vinnerljung, B., Hintze, K., & Isaksson, A. A. (2011). Improving foster children's school

achievements: Promising results from a Swedish intensive study. Adoption & Fostering, 35(1), 44-56.

33 | P a g e

Tilbury, C., Creed, P., Buys, N., & Crawford, M. (2011). The school to work transition for young people in state care: perspectives from young people, carers and professionals. Child and Family Social Work, 16(3), 345-352.

Tordön, R., Vinnerljung, B., & Axelsson, U. (2014). Improving foster children’s school performance: a replication of the Helsingborg study. Adoption & Fostering, 38(1), 37-48.

Townsend, M. (2011). Are we making the grade? The education of children and young people in out-of-home care. Southern Cross University. Retrieved from https://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=theses

Townsend, M. (2012). Are We Making the Grade?The Education of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care NSW Government, Family and Community Services. Retrieved from http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/321731/education_oohc_report.pdf.

Tyre, A. D. (2012). Educational supports for middle school youths involved in the foster care system. Children & Schools, 34(4), 231-238.

Usher, H.-L., Mills, R., Moss, P., & Tracey, F. (2018). Drawing the threads together: How emerging technologies can help integrate the health care needs of children and young people in out-of-home care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 18(s1).

Vinnerljung, B., Tideman, E., Sallnäs, M., & Forsman, H. (2014). Paired Reading for Foster Children: Results From a Swedish Replication of an English Literacy Intervention. Adoption & Fostering, 38(4), 361-373.

Watkins, C. S., & Howard, M. O. (2015). Educational success among elementary school children from low socioeconomic status families: A systematic review of research assessing parenting factors. Journal of Children and Poverty, 21(1), 1-30.

Winter, K., Connolly, P., Bell, I., & Ferguson, J. (2011). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the letterbox club in improving educational outcomes among children aged 7-11 years in foster care in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Centre for Effective Education, Queen's University Belfast.

Wise, S., Pollock, S., Mitchell, G., Argus, C., & Farquhar, P. (2010). Care-system impacts on academic outcomes: Research report. Melbourne: Anglicare Victoria and Wesley Mission Victoria.

Zadeh, Z. Y., Farnia, F., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). How Home Enrichment Mediates the Relationship Between Maternal Education and Children's Achievement in Reading and Math. Early Education & Development, 21(4), 568-594. doi:10.1080/10409280903118424

34 | P a g e