Transcript Slide 1

DCSF RESEARCH CONFERENCE
Evaluation of Virtual School Heads
for Looked After Children
Michael Allured
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Children in Care Division
Education, health and wellbeing team
David Berridge
University of Bristol
School for Policy Studies
1 Where does the concept of the
Virtual School Head come from?
 Grew out of:
– an increasing focus by Government from 1998 onwards on
the importance of improving education outcomes for looked
after children.
– A bottom up approach model from one or two local authorities
who wanted to track their looked after children’s attainment
as if they were in a single school
– A senior educationalist championing the education of looked
after children was one way of demonstrating compliance with
the LA duty to promote educational achievement of looked
after children
– A Care Matters Green Paper commitment to pilot the model
and identify its strongest features with a view to national rollout
Berridge, D., Henry, L., Jackson, S. and Turney, D. (2009)
Looked After and Learning: Evaluation of the Virtual
School Head Pilot. Research Report DCSF-RR144.
London: DCSF.
3 Research and the policy process
 Jowell (2003)
- value of pilots undertaken in a spirit of
experimentation
- independence of pilots is important
- multiple methods should be considered.
 Burton (2006): Theorising the policy process
- The Stages model
- Advocacy coalition framework
- The Argumentative turn
4 Pawson and Tilley (1996)
Realistic Evaluation
 Limitations of traditional scientific approach
 Random allocation not always possible
 Not just ‘what works’ but what works for whom in
what circumstances
 Causal mechanisms difficult to untangle
 Awareness of the context in which an
intervention is delivered. Importance of local
conditions.
5 Research/evaluation of pilots
with government departments







Timescales
Baseline information
Anonymity? Research ethics
Nature of role/independence
Whether or not a Pilot continues or fine-tuning? Types
of data to inform these decisions
‘Analysts’ or ‘researchers’?
Positive experience with Virtual School Heads (VSH)
study
6 Evaluation - objectives
11 pilot authorities chosen by DCSF. Pilots ran for two
years 2007-09. Research occupied nine months at final
stage of the pilots. To address low educational attainment
of looked after children.




map the range of activities undertaken by the VSHs
examine professionals’ and children’s awareness and
experiences of the VSH
investigate the educational outcomes for looked after
children and the influences on them; and
identify examples of ‘good practice’.
7 Methods









Some data from all 11; also more intensive sub-group of 5
official educational outcome indicator statistics published by DCSF
progress reports for the first year of the pilots which had been
submitted by the VSHs (11)
background questionnaires for VSHs (11)
semi-structured interviews with VSHs (11) and directors of children’s
services or their senior representative (5)
group- or individual interviews with social workers (39)
web surveys of young people (7-16 yrs) (31), foster and residential
carers (25), designated teachers (21) and social workers (10)
involvement in developing methodology
eclectic approach. Cautious with conclusions. Causality.
8 Findings 1






Over period of the pilot, the 11 authorities performed well
compared to national average and most improved GCSE
results.
VSHs appointed were senior educationists but often with
some social work/special ed experience
Several appointed part-time: unusual for school heads
VSHs appointed at different levels of seniority
Key role (with their teams) forging successful relationships
with local school heads – advocate for children re
exclusions/extra support etc
VSHs backgrounds and structural position influenced this.
9 Findings 2





VSHs worked in different ways. Mainly strategic
Numerous local initiatives eg innovative governors models;
dedicated phone lines for help with homework; emphasis on
the arts etc
Social workers often lacked confidence in school issues.
Welcomed role of VSH
Children bemused by the title ‘VSH’. Mainly made
educational progress over the duration of the pilots but this
is a wider finding too.
Social workers and children who responded very positive
about individual tutoring. Some communication issues.
10 Conclusions








VSHs had successfully raised the profile of LAC’s education
locally. Therefore a valuable role. ‘Champion’
Causality complex. Many national initiatives on this issue
Appropriateness of methods?
The 11 had made better progress nationally as a group.
Secondary statistics/cohorts.
Working at the heart of complex interprofessional issues
Title ‘Virtual School Head’. (Not a school)
Is the school analogy helpful? External and internal implications
Some confusion with role of pre-existing Looked After Children
Education Support Teams (‘LACES’). Suggested integration
11 References
Burton, P (2006) ‘Modernising the policy process’, Policy Studies,
27, 3, 173-196.
Jowell, R. (2003) Trying it Out: The Role of Pilots in Policy
Making. London: Cabinet Office.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1996) Realistic Evaluation. London:
Sage.
12 Implications for DCSF policy
 Maximising the impact of the role by reinforcing to local
authorities the key messages which have come from the
evaluation. These are:
– The VSH had an impact on raising awareness about the
educational needs of looked after children
– The VSH model can provide a structured focus and strategic
direction for how a local authority promotes the education of
looked after children
– Evidence suggests that that there is a relationship between the
VSH model and educational outcomes for looked after children
13 Some on-going challenges
 Data management, particularly in relation to out-of-authority
placements
 Broadening the understanding among social workers about the
importance of education
 The local authority interface with schools
 The relationship of the virtual school with the dedicated education
of looked after children team
 Challenge of deciding what is strategic and what is operational
14 Our vision for the future
•
“Every local authority has a senior manager, whether or not called a
‘virtual school head’ who takes lead responsibility for:
 Monitoring the attainment of pupils as if they were in a single school
 Rigorously tracking and monitoring data
 Ensuring that every school has the information it needs
 Making sure there is a personal education plan for the child and oneto-one support
 Promoting a focus on educational attainment of looked after children
across the authority
 Working with others to improve behaviour and attendance
 Maximising placement and school stability”
15 The on-going challenge of implementation What we need to do together
“It’s
all about changing the behaviour of well
intentioned people including practitioners,
providers, community stakeholders, policy
makers and funders”
National Implementation Research Network
(NIRN)
16 The implementation gap
It is one thing to say with the prophet Amos,
“Let justice roll down like mighty waters,” and
quite another to work out the irrigation system.
William Sloane Coffin
Social activist and clergyman
18 The implementation gap – solved?
 The VSH with the right level of seniority can make a
difference and make things happen by:
– Having access to and influencing the DCS and
lead members
– Being the grit in the oyster who doesn’t let
anyone forget about the educational needs of
looked after children
– Building a virtual team (a virtual governing
body) made up of colleagues across the
authority on whose budgets s/he can draw
19 Supported by:
 Personalisation – Personal Education
Allowances, Designated Teacher, fewer school
moves.
 Mainstreaming within broader programmes,
e.g. Making Good Progress roll-out
 New statutory guidance on the role and
responsibilities of the designated teacher to sit
alongside regulations
20 Supported by:
• School Standards Advisers guidance for
primary and secondary schools
• Revised National Minimum Standards, care
planning regulations and guidance, Children
Act 1989 Guidance, revised education of
looked after children statutory guidance
• National Strategies
• New OfSTED inspection framework
21 OfSTED inspections of local authority
looked after children services


Will focus on, among other things:
– outcomes achieved
– access to and attendance at suitable schools
– the quality of care planning and review and support, including in
relation to PEPs
– effectiveness of corporate parenting approaches
Inspections on LAC subject to limiting judgements
– Overall effectiveness likely to be inadequate if any outcome
judgement inadequate
– Overall effectiveness unlikely to be good if enjoying and achieving
are not judged good
– Enjoying & achieving not likely to be good if LAC are not making at
least good educational progress
22 The VSH role is an integral part of the whole
wider implementation of Care Matters
 Renewed focus on corporate parenting led by DCS and Lead
Member
 Children and Young People’s plans set out how children’s trust
arrangements address needs of looked after children and care
leavers
 Local authorities have a Children in Care Council where every
looked after child has the opportunity to air their views
 Strengthened role of IROs
 Stability of placements
 Supporting education and training of care leavers and the
transition to adulthood
 Revised statutory guidance on the duty local authorities have to
promote the educational achievement of looked after children
23 Embedding the learning
 Sharing effective practice through:
– the nine regional Government Offices who support Virtual
School Head networks
– A Virtual School Head newsletter
– Virtual School Head toolkit
– Continuing to build on the VSH pilots and evaluation
findings to identify and embed the most powerful aspects
of the VSH model that work
 VSH isn’t the total answer to narrowing the gap in attainment
between looked after children and their peers but it’s a big part of
the answer.