MEASUREMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUT-OF-HOME-CARE

2nd International Conference of the International Society for Child Indicators

4–5 November 2009

Iain Matheson

What is educational success in OOHC?

Success has a different meaning for each child or young person you foster. Success means fulfilling their potential, or enough of their potential to fulfil their dreams...For one young person, success may be learning to communicate discomfort and pleasure. For another young person success may mean...a place at University. Either could be an under-achievement compared to what they might have been able to achieve (Collis, 2008).

Overview

1. Quantitative measures and methods used by researchers2. Measurement approaches in five jurisdictions3. Challenges and opportunities

BackgroundChildren and young people in out of home care• ‘Out-of-home care’ (Burley & Halpern, 2001), • ‘Looked after’ (Barnardo’s, 2006; Berridge et al., 2008), • ‘Children in continuing custody’ (Mitic & Rimer, 2002), • ‘Children on guardianship or custody orders‘ (Australian

Institute for Health and Welfare, 2007)• ‘Children in care’ (Flynn & Biro, 1998)

Some Numbers• New Zealand (4962); Australia (23,695); Canada (76,000);

United Kingdom (74,817); United States (489,003) (Thoburn, 2007)

Some Limitations

Measures/methods used in research• Carrying out reading and maths tests with a sample of children

in care as part of a longitudinal national development study (Essen, Lambert and Head, 1976)

• Analysis of existing Education standard assessment/key stages tests – data merging and comparison with general population (Flynn and Biro, 1998; Burley and Halpern, 2001; AIHW, 2007). Other measures included:

• Grade 12 (US) completions (Burley and Halpern, 2001)• Repeated a year (Flynn and Biro, 1998; Burley and Halpern,

2001)• School changes (Flynn and Biro, 1998; Burley and Halpern,

2001)• Enrolled on special education programme (Flynn and Biro,

1998; Burley and Halpern, 2001)• Performance of indigenous children (AIHW, 2007).

• Testing and comparing with other disadvantaged children (Packman, 1986; Heath & Colton, 1994)

• Small-scale surveys of ‘care leavers’ (Stein & Carey, 1986; Stein, 1990; Biehal et al., 1992; Biehal et al., 1995; Barnardos, 2006)

• Secondary analysis of existing longitudinal on school and post-school educational experiences (Blome, 1997)

• Surveying foster carers and/or professionals (Allard & McNamara, 2003; Ritchie, 2003; Gilligan and Ward, 2005; Gilligan and Ward, 2009)

• Surveying adults formally in care, on their education (Cheung and Health, 1994; Pecora et al. (2006)

• Interviewing adult high achievers on extent to which they ‘escaped from disadvantage’ (Jackson1994; Jackson, 2005)

• Surveying and interviewing children and young people in OOHC - included a question about their ‘perception of educational progress’ using a Likert style response scale (Harker et al., 2003)

England

Government has been publishing national comparative data on LAC, performance on standard assessment tests (English, maths and science scores at end of year 2, 6 and 9 (ages 7, 11 and 14). and setting national targets, since 2002. Key measures are:• One GCSE Grade A*-G or a GNVQ equivalent• Five GCSE’s (or equivalent) at Grade A*-G• Five GCSE’s (or equivalent) at Grade A*-C

Having failed to meet earlier national targets, the Government has set three national targets for 2011. (Local Authorities are also required to set targets) These are:• for 20 per cent of all LAC who have been in care for 12 months to achieve 5 A*–C GCSE

grades • for 55 per cent of all LAC who have been in care for 12 months to reach level 4 at Key

Stage 2 in mathematics • for 60 per cent of all LAC who have been in care for 12 months to reach level 4 at Key

Stage 2 in English

Victoria*

Victoria Continuing Custody Orders (CCO) v all other children (including children in temp care)

• Number and Per Cent of Children Under a Continuing Custody Order in Special Education Programs excluding Gifted Children – and by Special Education Category and Aboriginal Status

• Per Cent in Age Appropriate Grade by School Year Children Under a Continuing Custody Order and All Other Children – also by grade, gender and Aboriginal versus Non-Aboriginal

• Grades 4 and 7 Foundation Skills Assessment Continuing Custody Orders and All Other Students – also by Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

• Grades 10 and 12 Maths and English, Per Cent Pass Children Under a Continuing Custody Order - and All Other Children - also Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

• Six-Year Completion Rate for Children Ever Under a Continuing Custody Order for any of Their Grade 8 to 12 years

• Graduation rates (eligible to graduate)

British Columbia

• Per Cent in Age Appropriate Grade by School Year, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order and All Other Children

• Per Cent in Age Appropriate Grade by Individual Grade, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order and All Other Children

• Per Cent in Age Appropriate Grade by Gender, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order

• Per Cent in Age Appropriate Grade, Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order

• Grade 4 and 7 Foundation Skills Assessment, Continuing Custody Orders and All Other Students

• Grade 4 and 7 Foundation Skills Assessment, Continuing Custody Orders, Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

• Grade 10 and 12, English and Math, Per Cent Pass, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order and All Other Children

• Grade 10 and 12 English and Math, Per Cent Pass, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order, Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

• Six-Year Completion Rate, Children Under a Continuing Custody Order and All Other Children from their Grade 8 Year and for any of Their Grade 8 to 12 Years

Work is underway to include • Grade-to-Grade Transition• School Moves

Other goals include adding:• longitudinal analysis on particular student groups or cohorts

to track educational experiences over time• more detailed analysis of students with special needs• exploring student transitions across schools and • developing a method for estimating drop-out rates

Scotland (in development)

Scottish Qualifications Authority attainment information for S4, S5 and S6 (Usually age, 16, 17 and 18) • Attainment for all looked after young people by local authority• Attainment information and average tariff score by placement type• Average tariff score of pupils with and without a care plan/pathway plan• Average tariff score of pupils with and without a co-ordinated support

plan• Average tariff score of pupils by number of placements in the count year• Average tariff score of pupils by number of schools attended in the

current academic year• Average tariff score of all looked after children and young people

educated within and outwith their “corporate parent” authority.

Additional tables• Attendance rate, exclusion rate and school leaver average tariff scores of

looked after children and young people with and without a care plan by placement type

• Attendance rate, exclusion rate and school leaver average tariff scores of looked after children and young people with and without a co-ordinated support plan by placement type

• Attendance rate, exclusion rate and school leaver average tariff scores of looked after children and young people by number of placements in the count year

• Attendance rate, exclusion rate and school leaver average tariff scores of looked after

• children and young people by number of schools attended in the current academic year

• Attendance rate, exclusion rate and school leaver average tariff scores of looked after children and young people educated within and outwith their “corporate parent” authority

School leaver information• Highest qualifications gained by leavers by local authority• Highest qualifications gained by leavers by placement type• Total qualifications gained by leavers by local authority• Total qualifications gained by leavers and average tariff scores by

placement type• Percentage of school leavers by destination category and by placement

type

Challenges - OOHC

• Variations in definition of care (Thoburn, 2007)• Similarly, approaches to adoption, long term fostering and

permanency• Criteria for inclusion/exclusion• Some OOHC IT systems designed more for case management

than management information

Challenges - Education

• Limitations of what is measured• Some jurisdictions don’t use standard assessment tests• Testing regimes and/or reporting change over time and limits

ability to compare

Challenges – overall

• OOHC complexities - both care and education• Little of no data collected by some Governments• Public availability of Government information limited in some

other jurisdictions• Where it does exist, comparisons cannot be made across

jurisdictions• Attribution• Difficulties in knowing how children and young people in

OOHC would have performed if they were not in foster care or residential care

Some needed conditions?Have a strategy• Recognition• Understanding• Evidence-based responses• Comprehensive• Collaborative• Purposeful• Output and outcome

focused• Accountability and public

reporting• Continuous improvement

Have effective ways of measuring

• Joint data collection systems using common language

• Data matching (100%?)• Unique identifiers• Use of administrative

surveys (sample or census) • Clear interface with

research and evaluation• Continuous improvement

Thank you!For further information contact me at:

iain@mathesonassociates.co.nzReferencesAllard, A. & McNamara, G. (2003). School let me down: Overcoming barriers to educational achievement. London: NCH.Australian Institute for Health and Welfare. (2007). Educational outcomes of children on guardianship or custody orders: A pilot

study. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Barnardos (2006). Failed by the system: The views of young care leavers on their educational experiences . London: Barnardos.Berridge, D., Dance, C., Beecham, J. & Field, S. (2008). Educating difficult adolescents: Effective education for children in public

care or with emotional and behavioural difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley.Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. & Wade, J. (1992). Prepared for living? A survey of young people leaving the care of three local

authorities. London: National Children's Bureau.Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. & Wade, J. (1995). Moving on: Young people and leaving care schemes. London: HMSO.Blome, W. (1997). What happens to foster kids: Educational experiences of a random sample of foster care youth and a matched

group of non-foster care youth. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 14(1).British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry of Children and Family Development (2008 ). Joint educational planning and

support for children and youth in care. Victoria: Ministry of Education. Retrieved on 26 September 2009 from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/foster/pdf/education_report_full_mar_10_08.pdf

Burley, M. & Halpern, M. (2001). Educational attainment of foster youth: Achievements and graduation outcomes for children in state care. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Cheung, S. & Heath, A. (1994). After care: The education and occupation of adults who have been in care. Oxford Review of Education 20(3).

Collis, A. (2008). Education. London: The Fostering Network.Colton, M., & Heath, A. (1994). Attainment and behaviour of children in care and at home. Oxford Review of Education, 20(3).Department of Education and Training & Department of Human Services (2003). Partnership agreement: School attendance and

engagement of children and young people in out of home care. Melbourne: State of Victoria. Retrieved on 18 October from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/A4_partnering.pdf

Essen, J., Lambert, L. & Head, J. (1976). School attainment of children who have been in care. Child Care, Health and Development 2(6)

Flynn, R. and C. Biro (1998). Comparing developmental outcomes for children in care with those for other children in Canada. Children & Society 12(3).

Gilligan, R. & Daly, F. (2005). Some aspects of education and contact with birth family amongst young people aged 13-14 years in long term foster care in Ireland. In Grietens, H. et al. (Eds.) In the best interests of children and youth: International perspectives. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Gilligan, R. & Daly, F. (2009). Maturing out of long term foster care: A focus on young people’s education. International Foster Care Organisation conference. Dublin: 13-17 July 2009.

Harker, R. et al. (2003). Who takes care of education? Looked after children's perceptions of support for educational progress. Child and Family Social Work Vol. 8

Jackson, S. (1994). Educating children in residential and foster care. Oxford Review of Education Vol. 20, No. 3.Jackson, S. et al. (2005). Going to university from care. London: Institute of Education.Mitic, W. & Rimer, M. (2002). The educational attainment of children in care in British Columbia. Child & Youth Care Forum 31(6).

Packman, J. et al. (1986). Who needs care? Social work decisions about children. British Journal of Social Work Vol. 24.Pecora, P. et al. (2006). Assessing the educational achievements of adults who were formerly placed in family foster care. Child &

Family Social Work 11(3).Ritchie, A. et al. (2003). Care to learn? The educational experiences of children and young people who are looked after. Scottish

Journal of Residential Child Care 2(2).Scottish Government (2009). The educational outcomes of Scotland’s looked after children and young people: A new reporting

framework, Edinburgh: HMSO. Retrieved on 28 October 2009 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/284726/0086480.pdf

Stein, M. (1990). Living out of care. Ilford, Essex: Barnardos.Stein, M. (1994). Leaving care, education and career trajectories. Oxford Review of Education, 20(3).Stein, M. & Carey, K. (1986). Leaving care. Oxford: Blackwell.Thoburn, J. (2007). Globalisation and child welfare: Some lessons from a cross-national study of children in out-of-home-care .

Norwich: University of East Anglia.