Looked after and learning : evaluation of the virtual school head pilot

Abstract

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);• and surveys of young people (31), foster and residential carers (25), designated teachers (21) and social workers (10).Researchers were cautious with the conclusions drawn from these small sample sizes but the survey information was used to complement other data.The research team used qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of the materials separately, and then looked for substantiation or discrepancies within themes to evaluate this new role of VSH within the pilot authorities.Careful attention was paid to ethical considerations throughout the research, including informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality. FindingsAnalysis of official educational outcome statistics showed that, over the period of the pilots, the 11 authorities performed well compared to the national average and most showed improvement in GCSE results.The VSHs appointed were senior educationists and many had social work-related experiences and / or involvement in special education.Several were appointed as part-time VSHs.This is unusual for headteachers and heads of virtual schools were unlikely to have less to do than traditional school heads.Their positions varied in seniority in the organisational structure from Tiers 2 to 5. Posts were mostly at head of service or assistant head of service level.VSHs were mainly located in the education section of children's services.The 'virtual school teams' with which they worked varied considerably in size, location and function.A key element of their work was forging successful relationships with local school heads.This played an important part in enabling them to advocate for children in difficulties and avoid exclusions but was problematic for some VSHs depending on their background and structural position within the local authority.Those who had previously held school headships or were otherwise senior educationists and were placed at a senior level in the organisation were able to exert particular influence and operate more effectively.The VSHs worked in different ways and gave priority to various aspects of their role.All recognised that raising the measurable attainment of looked after children was perhaps their most important task.However, they were also able to take a broader view of education, aiming to further the Every Child Matters outcome for children to enjoy as well as achieve.Many examples of good practice were cited, including: innovative governors models for the virtual school; a dedicated phone line for help with homework; and taking children from the virtual school to concerts and workshops, museums and art galleries and ensuring that looked after children had the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.Data management was a problem identified by several VSHs.Some but not all had the quality of pupil information available, such as educational progress, that most traditional headteachers would assume.Good administrative and clerical support were seen as essential and those who lacked it expressed frustration at the obstacles this presented to communicating with all the different people they needed to work with and in achieving their aims.Although direct involvement with individual pupils and their schools was appreciated, the main thrust of their work was strategic.They had helped to raise the profile of looked after children in schools and the importance given to education by social workers and by the authority generally.They had also focused on particular issues identified by previous ReferencesComfort, R. (2007) 'For the love of learning: promoting educational achievement for looked after and adopted children', Adoption & Fostering 31,1, pp.28-34.Department for Education and Skills (2007) Care Matters: Time for Change.London: DfES.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.