This paper investigates the extent to which current policy in the field of child protection and education engages with the support needs of mobile students in care. Mobility, and family disruption and their educational effects, especially in combination, are of increasing concern in most first world countries (DfEE/DOH, 2000; OFSTED, 2001; Selwyn & Sturgess, 2001; Social Exclusion Unit, 2003; Jacklin, Robinson et al. 2006). The response of one government can be instructive, highlighting a range of ways in which policy responses ostensibly aimed at raising the attainment of children in care appear to achieve limited success. Queensland, Australia offers a useful case study of this more general issue. Protecting Children: An Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Foster Care (CMC, 2004) highlighted systemic failures and proposed 110 recommendations for reform of Queensland’s child protection system. One such recommendation was the establishment of a Department of Child Safety (DChS) to protect and improve circumstances for children and young people who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing harm. As the goal of DChS is to improve circumstances for children, then policy relating to children in care and their education might be expected to have clear goals, be transparently communicated, and be assessable in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and achievements. I separate off the research bit of the sentence so as to more effectively highlight the importance and the lack of research. Given that, as Slavin notes, evidence-based policies possess the potential to transform education (2002), one might also expect such policy to be informed by research. Currently, however, there is a lack of research within Australia regarding the educational needs of children in care (Cashmore, Higgins, Bromfield & Scott, 2006). While this might simply indicate that policy is not adequately evidence based, in fact it reflects the absence of any policy to call forth the research it needs. As a first step in supplying such research, this paper aims to explore a number of policy related issues specifically relating to children in care and school mobility.

The paper analyses three documents published by the Department of Child Safety, the Child Safety Practice Manual, the Strategic Plan 2007-11 and the Child Safety Research Strategy 2006-09. It does so in light of Rist and Ball’s theoretical frameworks which highlight the importance of considering the various ‘voices’ that inhabit policy, the resultant interactions between ‘voices’, and the effects of policy. In particular, it identifies an array of terms used to construct the binary of ‘permanence/mobility’, to problematise mobility, and to attach normative values to these terms. It also documents the terms in which policy responses are formulated., and silences and absences in the text regarding the schooling of children in care.

The paper demonstrates that permanency is normalised while mobility is problematised; and that the problematic character of mobility is conceptualised in terms of risk. Further it notes that this represents a significant shift from more established policy formulations in terms of target groups within a social justice framework, similar to that documented by Singh and Taylor (2007) in relation to education policy in Queensland. Critically, it argues that the approach to the wellbeing of mobile children in care formulated in this document is minimally grounded in research and has major weaknesses as a basis for providing appropriate service responses to support such children’s needs.