When a child living in a children’s home is unable to attend school, registered managers can find themselves working hard to resolve difficulties over which they have limited control. The child may be waiting for a suitable place or finding attendance overwhelming despite considerable support. In some recent examples I could cite, no formal education offer has been forthcoming at all.
The consequences extend beyond missed lessons. Children can lose friendships and confidence in their ability to learn. As time passes, returning to education may become increasingly difficult.
Giving evidence to the Education Committee in July 2021, Josh MacAlister, then leading the independent review of children’s social care, called for “much more ambition for these children, who are after all in the care of the state”. He was speaking specifically about education in children’s homes. That ambition should be evident in what children experience every day: access to suitable education, with adults who help them discover possibilities beyond their present circumstances (Education Committee, 2021, Q15).
At Skylark Foundation, we want to help children’s homes strengthen their support for children’s education, particularly where suitable provision has not been secured or a child is finding attendance difficult. Our approach includes the learning available within the home and the opportunities children have to participate in the wider community.
A longstanding concern
The difficulties we are trying to address have been recognised for decades. In The Education of Children Who are Looked-after, published in 1997, Felicity Fletcher-Campbell identified difficulties in coordinating support across education and care services. Low expectations were also a concern, including where adults allowed other difficulties in children’s lives to take precedence over their education. One professional interviewed for the research put the organisational problem plainly: “the organisation has the problems, not the kids”. This asks us to consider whether services themselves are contributing to a child’s difficulties (Fletcher-Campbell, 1997, p. 20).
Sonia Jackson’s 2010 publication, Education for Social Inclusion: Can We Change the Future for Children in Care? poses a question that remains relevant. For a registered manager, it invites consideration of what the child’s present educational experience makes possible for their future. Securing attendance matters, but so does whether education offers belonging and access to opportunities beyond care (Jackson, 2010).
Nearly three decades after Fletcher-Campbell’s report, the attainment gap remains substantial. DfE statistics for 2024/25 show that, at the end of Key Stage 2, 35% of children looked after continuously for at least 12 months at 31 March 2025 achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and mathematics combined, compared with 62% of all pupils.
These England-wide figures cover different care settings, rather than children’s homes alone. They describe outcomes across groups and cannot tell us what an individual child is capable of achieving. The greater prevalence of special educational needs accounts for some of the difference in attainment (Department for Education, 2026a).
Ofsted’s March 2026 research identified inconsistent access to virtual school support and delays in securing help. It also found effective practice where education staff understood children’s circumstances and adapted their approach. The study involved visits to 15 mainstream schools and colleges, so its findings should not be treated as representative of every setting (Ofsted, 2026).
The Northern context
The North East had England’s highest persistent absence rate in 2024/25, while Yorkshire and the Humber had the highest severe absence rate. These figures concern the wider school population, rather than children in care specifically, but provide context for the work of homes and education services (Department for Education, 2026b).
Research undertaken with virtual school heads across the North East also offers evidence about successful educational experiences. Children in UCL’s study welcomed academic challenge and valued learning with peers. The report warned against focusing on behaviour and emotional needs while overlooking other barriers, including literacy difficulties. The study deliberately included children experiencing educational success, rather than providing a representative account of those unable to attend (Carroll, Black and Bettencourt, 2019).
For homes in the North, this work takes place against longstanding inequalities. Where disadvantage has persisted across generations, children may have had few opportunities to see how a different future could become achievable.
I recall the determined advocacy needed to support two care-experienced young people who wished to attend university. Their discretionary leave to remain meant they could not access central government funding for student loans. Their local authority refused to fund them, and the dispute reached the Court of Appeal. In 2013, the court dismissed the council’s appeal and required it to reconsider its decision lawfully, confirming that tuition fees could fall within its duties towards former relevant children (R (Kebede and another) v Newcastle City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 960).
Why connection matters
Access to education also matters because of the relationships and sense of belonging it can offer. The August 2026 review, ‘You really are on your own’: A study of the early deaths of young people who were in care, gives this discussion particular urgency. Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain examined 112 notifications of deaths among care leavers aged 18 to 24 received during 2025, alongside a smaller group of notifications concerning 16- and 17-year-olds.
The authors describe their central finding starkly: “The overwhelming picture we found was of young people who are very much alone.” Their analysis identifies the loss of social connections and the sharp reduction in support on reaching adulthood (John-Baptiste and Chamberlain, 2026, p. 27).
Good educational experiences can bring young people into sustained contact with others and help them see a future they want to pursue. Opportunities beyond school can develop familiarity with their community and a sense that they belong there. These could be credible ways of addressing isolation.
That work needs to begin during childhood, with thought given to what will continue after a move. Developing community connections cannot compensate for the withdrawal of professional support. Both need attention, particularly where a young person finds relationships difficult to establish or maintain.
A child may learn to manage a tenancy and still feel profoundly alone. We need to consider who will remain in their life, as well as what they can manage independently.
What do we mean by cultural capital?
Part of this work involves helping children become familiar with the world beyond the home. Cultural capital concerns the knowledge and cultural familiarity that help a child understand the world and participate in it with confidence.
Ofsted describes it as “essential knowledge that children need to be educated citizens”. Its early years research review also recognises that children bring their own cultural knowledge, which should be valued. Although that review concerns younger children, it provides a useful explanation of the concept (Ofsted, 2024).
The DfE’s national curriculum framework provides a related educational aim. It describes introducing children to essential knowledge and “the best that has been thought and said”, alongside an appreciation of human creativity and achievement. It also recognises that the national curriculum is only one part of a child’s education (Department for Education, 2014, section 3).
For children’s homes, I think this carries an important responsibility. Children should feel that public places and institutions are available to them, rather than belonging to other people. A future occupation should not remain unimaginable simply because the child has never met anyone who does it.
This includes understanding the place where they live. Local history can help explain how a community developed and whose experiences shaped it. Becoming familiar with an area can give a child confidence to explore beyond the home, supported by adults who know what makes that manageable for them.
There is also the child’s cultural geography: connections between their heritage and the places that matter to them. For a child living away from their community, maintaining access to their language or faith may be especially important. Exploring a new area should sit alongside respect for where they come from and how they understand themselves. We also need honest conversations when the place a child has moved to becomes home and they do not wish to return to their county or borough of origin. Their sense of belonging should inform those discussions.
Children already have knowledge and cultural identities; they are experts in their own experience. The task is to value these while ensuring that their access to a wider world is not restricted by circumstances they did not choose.
Making opportunities accessible
Purposeful support for cultural capital requires more than an activities calendar. A place may be free to enter and still feel inaccessible to a child who does not know what to expect or fears getting something wrong. Visiting at a quieter time may help a child become familiar with a setting. Returning with a trusted adult can allow that familiarity to develop into participation. The support needed will vary and should be informed by the child’s communication needs and their experience of previous visits.
Some opportunities will grow from existing interests; others need adults to make an introduction, because children cannot choose experiences they do not yet know exist. Where a child is reluctant, adults need to understand why and consider what support might help. There should be room to decline or try again.
Children’s homes must be ambitious about this. Children should have access to opportunities beyond those that are familiar or readily available. Cost and staffing need to be addressed as practical responsibilities, so that a child’s opportunities do not depend on which adult happens to be working with them on a particular day.
Over time, regular participation can help children develop knowledge and feel recognised within a community beyond the home. The ambition should be that they leave our care with opportunities they can pursue, supported by relationships and community connections that continue beyond their time in the care of the home.
The responsibilities of children’s homes
Regulation 8 requires children to be helped to make measurable progress towards their educational potential. It includes understanding barriers to learning and supporting informal learning. Where a child is excluded or is of compulsory school age and not attending school, staff must help them access educational and training support throughout that period and return to school as soon as possible (Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, reg. 8).
Regulation 9 provides an equally relevant foundation for this wider work. It requires children to benefit from activities that reflect and develop their interests, including cultural interests. Staff must help children expand those interests and contribute to the wider community. Meaningful opportunities beyond school therefore belong within the home’s everyday responsibilities (Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, reg. 9).
Regulation 13 requires the registered person to lead a culture that helps children aspire to fulfil their potential. This calls for adults to maintain ambition when a child’s previous experiences have given them little reason to expect success (Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, reg. 13).
The home also needs effective action from the agencies responsible for securing education. Wider learning opportunities must never become an acceptable substitute for suitable provision. DfE guidance sets out the local authority and virtual school head’s responsibilities for promoting looked-after children’s educational achievement (Department for Education, 2018).
What inspection reports reveal about education
The inspection reports reviewed for our Northern Children’s Homes Network conferences show how these responsibilities translate into children’s daily experiences. The following anonymised examples connect inspectors’ findings with statutory requirements under Regulation 8.
In one home, the inspector recognised that staff transported children to education but found that they did not consistently encourage or motivate them to attend. When children remained at home, there was no alternative daily plan:
“…some children spend most of the day in their bedrooms without purposeful activity.”
The resulting requirement directed leaders and managers to ensure that, when children were not attending an education setting, staff actively encouraged them to engage in a structured routine that was regularly reviewed for its effectiveness.
Another report described a different difficulty. An alternative daily planner existed, but staff were inconsistent in implementing it. The inspector recorded that:
“…the child is awake for most of the night and wakes up most days around midafternoon or later.”
Here too, the Regulation 8 requirement concerned active encouragement and a structured routine, regularly reviewed for effectiveness. The plan had not translated into consistent support or a daily pattern that helped the child engage in learning.
Another inspection offered a further distinction. Children attending education were making good progress, but one child had been without education for a significant period:
“Staff provide the child with alternative activities in the home but have been unable to help them to re-engage with formal learning.”
The requirement addressed regular contact with education providers and the placing authority, alongside support during non-attendance and help to return to school as soon as possible.
These findings don’t suggest that a home can resolve every obstacle to education, nor explain every reason for a child’s non-attendance, but they do show why managers need to look closely at what happens while suitable provision is being pursued.
For management oversight, think about: what support did the child receive, how did they respond, and what changed when the approach was not helping?
How Skylark Foundation can help
Skylark Foundation can work with children’s homes across Northern England to review the education of individual children and identify practical action where learning or access to provision has stalled. The work will also help managers develop accessible learning opportunities within the home and wider community, informed by children’s interests and views.
Christine Rowe will lead delivery, and she brings 24 years’ experience in education, including ten years as a SENCo. Her work has included classroom teaching and senior leadership, with responsibilities for safeguarding and pastoral care. She holds a psychology degree and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education with Qualified Teacher Status.
Using accessible audit and assessment tools developed with registered managers and responsible individuals, Christine can help managers distinguish what the home can address from matters requiring further specialist assessment or action by education services. This includes recognising gaps caused by interrupted schooling. She will also work directly with children and young people, taking time to build trust and understand their experiences of education, what they find difficult and what they would like to change. An ongoing understanding of individual needs, with additional support informed by assessment, is consistent with Education Endowment Foundation guidance (Education Endowment Foundation, 2020).
Managers may already have attended repeated meetings and pursued support without securing an adequate response. Christine’s involvement can provide a clearer basis for those discussions and help managers decide what the home can do next.
For responsible individuals, the review can also help identify where a home needs additional resources or support from the provider. Agreed actions should make responsibility clear and provide a point at which progress is reviewed.
The aim is to help homes act on what they can change and pursue a clearer response where children need support from elsewhere. Reach out if you think we can help: [email protected]
References
Carroll, C., Black, E. and Bettencourt, M. (2019) The education of children in care in North East England. London: UCL Institute of Education. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10094348/1/Carroll_education-of-children-in-care-in-north-east-england-march-2019.pdf
Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, regulations 8, 9 and 13. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/541/contents
Department for Education (2014) National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4, section 3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4
Department for Education (2018) Promoting the education of looked-after children and previously looked-after children. London: Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/promoting-the-education-of-looked-after-children
Department for Education (2026a) Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England: reporting year 2025. Explore Education Statistics. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/outcomes-for-children-in-need-including-children-looked-after-by-local-authorities-in-england/2025
Department for Education (2026b) Pupil absence in schools in England: academic year 2024/25. Explore Education Statistics. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/pupil-absence-in-schools-in-england/2024-25
Education Committee (2021) Oral evidence: Children’s Homes, HC 83, 20 July, question 15. London: House of Commons. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2614/html/
Education Endowment Foundation (2020) Special educational needs in mainstream schools. London: Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/send
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1997) The education of children who are looked-after. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/mrgfowig/91011.pdf
Jackson, S. (2010) Education for social inclusion: can we change the future for children in care? London: Institute of Education, University of London. https://www.foyles.co.uk/book/education-for-social-inclusion/sonia-jackson/9780854739066
John-Baptiste, A. and Chamberlain, C. (2026) ‘You really are on your own’: a study of the early deaths of young people who were in care. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a919f99df4246cf45e466d5/_You_really_are_on_your_own__report.pdf
Ofsted (2024) Best start in life part 1: setting the scene https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/best-start-in-life-a-research-review-for-early-years/best-start-in-life-part-1-setting-the-scene
Ofsted (2026) How schools and colleges support the academic and personal progress of children in care. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-schools-and-colleges-support-the-academic-and-personal-progress-of-children-in-care/how-schools-and-colleges-support-the-academic-and-personal-progress-of-children-in-care
R (Kebede and another) v Newcastle City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 960. Court of Appeal, 31 July. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/960.html