Around 80,000 young people are ‘in care’ in England at any one time, usually due to neglect or maltreatment within the birth family (Department for Education, 2023a).  This figure has been rising steadily in recent years, meaning that around 3 per cent of young people will spend some of their childhood within the care system, for example, with foster carers or in residential settings.  Advances in the data available to researchers has demonstrated that educational outcomes for children in care are substantially lower than the average for the general population (Berridge et al., 2020; Sebba et al., 2015).  The reasons for this are complex, but include frequent school moves, low expectations from professionals (e.g. teachers and social workers), societal stigma, trauma and associated mental ill health.  Attempting to address this inequality has been a government policy objective in England for over 15 years (Department for Education and Skills, 2007).  This study is focused on England, but has relevance for all European nations as the existence of care systems is universal, albeit that the configurations differ markedly between nations.

One important policy initiative has been the creation of ‘virtual schools’ for children in care – despite their name, these are not related to online learning.  Rather, virtual schools are teams based within local authorities that have responsibility for the educational provision and outcomes for children in care in their area, spanning three main roles: (a) advocating on behalf of children with physical schools, local authority departments and other agencies engaged in their education and welfare, (b) administering the Pupil Premium Plus funding totalling around £154 million nationally, and (c) delivering educational enhancement services directly or indirectly to children (e.g. additional tutoring or equipment).  Trialled in the late 2000s, the establishment of virtual schools effectively became a statutory responsibility from 2014 onwards (Berridge et al., 2009).  They are generally led by an experienced headteacher and include a team of qualified teachers, but the exact configuration varies substantially between the 152 local authority areas in England.

There is good correlational evidence that virtual schools are collectively having a positive effect.  Direct comparisons are difficult due to changing definitions and examination protocols, but there have been apparent improvements in outcomes for children in care at both age 11 and age 16 since their implementation (Department for Education, 2023a).  There has also been a marked drop in permanent exclusions over this period.  However, there are also marked disparities in outcomes for children in care between local authority areas that do not seem to correspond to wider deprivation or school attainment patterns (Department for Education, 2023b).  Put another way, there are unexplained inequalities in the life chances of children in care living in different areas.

This paper will report findings from a study commissioned by the KPMG Foundation to determine why ostensibly similar young people can have very different patterns of educational outcomes and what steps can be taken to improve the effectiveness of virtual schools (Harrison et al., 2023a).  The study was framed around the following research questions:

• RQ1: How do virtual schools understand effectiveness within their work, including markers of success at the organisational and individual child level?
• RQ2: How does the apparent effectiveness of virtual schools with respect to educational outcomes for children in care vary between local authorities?
• RQ3: What relationships exist between the environmental and organisational contexts of a virtual school and its apparent effectiveness?
• RQ4: What elements of effective practice in virtual schools can be identified?

The study was conceived and conducted as a mixed methods enquiry, combining statistical analysis of data about virtual schools and local authorities with group interviews with virtual school heads (VSHs) and other practitioners with expert knowledge of virtual schools. In this paper, we will concentrate solely on the findings from the VSHs. The study drew on the British Educational Research Association’s 2018 guidance for ethical practice and received ethical clearance from the relevant universities. The study was delivered in partnership with the National Association of Virtual School Heads (NAVSH) who assisted with recruiting participants through their membership. We sought participants to provide coverage across the English regions and spanning different types of local authority (e.g. urban vs. rural and large vs. small). We secured the participation of 25 VSHs, thereby comprising around one-sixth of the total population. While the participants were self-selecting, they were broadly representative of the profession as a whole. We arranged six online focus groups using Microsoft Teams. These were scheduled for one hour, although several lasted slightly longer in order to bring the discussions to conclusion. The questions used were developed from the first phase of expert interviews and the initial stage of statistical analysis. They primarily focused on concepts of effectiveness, the configuration of virtual schools and organisational relationships. The discussions were framed to have a strong focus on practice and barriers to improving outcomes for children in care. The automated transcription facility in Microsoft Teams was initially used, followed by manual checking. Framework analysis (Kiernan and Hill, 2018) was used to analyse the transcripts, reflecting the close questioning about policy and practice used in the focus groups. This is a primarily deductive approach to analysis where the main themes of interest are predetermined by the focus of the study, although there is an opportunity for novel themes to emerge inductively. The findings were constructed through a process of indexing key extracts of data within these themes and developing interpretations with reference to the known practice and policy context. These interpretations were then discussed with the NAVSH Board to ensure their accuracy and relevance to practice.

Our principal conclusion was that the effectiveness of virtual schools – and thus outcomes for children in care – were subject to challenges and pressures that interact to create a form of unequal ‘postcode lottery’. In other words, the localised educational ecosystem, largely outside of the direct control of the virtual school, had a strong influence on the ability of children in care to achieve to their potential. These challenges were typically felt by all virtual schools, but to widely varying degrees. One of the most profound challenges arose from relationships with local physical schools. The rapid growth in academisation, whereby schools are largely outside of state control, now provides high levels of autonomy over admissions and exclusions. VSHs described some schools as ‘no-go areas’ for children in care, despite national policy affording them priority. Many schools were felt to actively resist admitting children who were viewed as likely to have mental health difficulties or to be low achieving, often leaving them without a school place for protracted periods. Even once admitted, VSHs reported that some schools were overly quick to seek exclusions based on minor infractions. Another challenge related to the complexity of national regulations around funding support for special educational needs. With around 75 percent of children in care requiring such support to engage with education (Harrison et al., 2023b), this is a particularly pressing issue for virtual schools. In particular, VSHs discussed how some young people were left without the support they needed for protracted periods due to lengthy negotiations around funding. The paper will reflect on the tensions between national policy, which sees outcomes for children in care as a priority, and local practices, which often undermines or directly conflicts with the national aims. Recommendations for national policy development to mitigate these tensions will be summarised.

Berridge, D., L. Henry, S. Jackson and D. Turney (2009) Looked after and learning: evaluation of the virtual school head pilot. Bristol: University of Bristol. Berridge, D., Luke, N., Sebba, J., Strand, S., Cartwright, M., Staples, E., Mc Grath-Lone. L., Ward, J. and O’Higgins, A. (2020) Children in need and children in care: educational attainment and progress. Bristol/Oxford: University of Bristol and Rees Centre. Department for Education (2023a) Children looked after in England including adoption: 2022 to 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption-2022-to-2023. Department for Education (2023b) Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-interactive-tool-lait. Department for Education and Skills (2007) Care matters: time for change. London: Department for Education and Skills. Harrison, N., J. Sebba, M. Wigley, R. Pryor and F. Blyth (2023a) Improving the effectiveness of virtual schools, Exeter: University of Exeter. Harrison N., J. Dixon, D. Sanders-Ellis, J. Ward and P. Asker (2023b) Care leavers’ transition into the labour market in England. Oxford: Rees Centre. Kiernan, M. and M. Hill (2018) Framework analysis: a whole paradigm approach, Qualitative Research Journal 18(3): 248-261. Sebba, J., D. Berridge, N. Luke, J. Fletcher, K. Bell, S. Strand, S. Thomas, I. Sinclair and A. O’Higgins (2015) The educational progress of looked after children in England: linking care and educational data. Oxford/Bristol: Rees Centre and University of Bristol.