“…These references and reasons for exclusion are given in Additional file 2. For the 13 potential full texts, we screened publications included in their reference lists ( n = 461) and that cited them as references ( n = 535); from this snowball search, we identified one further eligible publication [12]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1, with full details in Additional file 3. In total, therefore, we screened 5482 records which resulted in seven studies being included in the narrative synthesis [12–18]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One consists of the series of eight statistical releases by the DfE [14], one is a research report of longitudinal data by the DfE [13], two were reports self-published by a research centre [12] and a children’s charity [16] and three were peer-reviewed journal articles [15, 17, 18]. The DfE statistical releases are annual cross-sectional population-level snapshots of Key Stage results and exclusion and absence rates.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All had clearly stated research questions and ‘recruited’ participants from clearly specified and defined populations with high response rates. In the cases of the DfE statistical releases [14], DfE research report [13], Sebba et al [12], O’Higgins [18] and Luke and O’Higgins [17], data were available on all or almost all children in the target population. In Henderson et al [15], which used the Next Steps study, the response rate at wave 1 was 74% [19].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None provided an explicit sample size justification as they used all data available. However, this does not detract from study quality, except perhaps in the case of Ellison and Hutchinson [16] where this is a higher risk of non-response bias, as the sample sizes were sufficiently large to support the analyses undertaken, and in the case of Sebba et al [12], Luke and O’Higgins [17] and Henderson et al [15], point estimates with standard errors are presented.…”
Background
In England, the state intervenes in the lives of children through Children’s Social Care (CSC) services with the aim of supporting and maintaining their welfare. It is known from government cross-sectional data that children who experience these CSC interventions (such as state care) have consistently poorer educational outcomes than the general population. However, these data are limited in providing crude estimates of association and in ignoring longitudinal histories. This systematic review aimed to appraise the extant research evidence from longitudinal studies and answer the question: how do educational outcomes differ between children in contact with CSC and the general population in the UK?
Methods
According to a pre-defined protocol, we searched 16 health, social care, education and legal databases for population-level quantitative studies conducted on UK children with exposure to CSC, a general population comparison group and an educational outcome. We also conducted snowball searches and searches of Google Scholar and grey literature. Data on whether each study met inclusion criteria were extracted, and findings of included studies were synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
Results
In total, 5482 sources were screened which resulted in seven studies being included in the narrative synthesis. Only three were published in peer-reviewed journals. All but one used administrative education data and five used administrative data from CSC services. In all studies, exposure to CSC interventions was measured crudely, ignoring heterogeneity in the experiences of children. All agreed that children in contact with CSC services perform worse than their peers on all outcomes (variously: exam results, absences, exclusions, school moves, being missing from school, higher education aspirations and quality of school).
Conclusions
Despite employing a search across 16 databases supplemented with additional searches of other online sources, we found only seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. This review throws into sharp relief the urgent need to conduct more population-level research into the educational prospects of children in contact with CSC services.
Systematic review registration
PROSPERO
CRD42018089755
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1071-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
“…These references and reasons for exclusion are given in Additional file 2. For the 13 potential full texts, we screened publications included in their reference lists ( n = 461) and that cited them as references ( n = 535); from this snowball search, we identified one further eligible publication [12]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1, with full details in Additional file 3. In total, therefore, we screened 5482 records which resulted in seven studies being included in the narrative synthesis [12–18]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One consists of the series of eight statistical releases by the DfE [14], one is a research report of longitudinal data by the DfE [13], two were reports self-published by a research centre [12] and a children’s charity [16] and three were peer-reviewed journal articles [15, 17, 18]. The DfE statistical releases are annual cross-sectional population-level snapshots of Key Stage results and exclusion and absence rates.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All had clearly stated research questions and ‘recruited’ participants from clearly specified and defined populations with high response rates. In the cases of the DfE statistical releases [14], DfE research report [13], Sebba et al [12], O’Higgins [18] and Luke and O’Higgins [17], data were available on all or almost all children in the target population. In Henderson et al [15], which used the Next Steps study, the response rate at wave 1 was 74% [19].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None provided an explicit sample size justification as they used all data available. However, this does not detract from study quality, except perhaps in the case of Ellison and Hutchinson [16] where this is a higher risk of non-response bias, as the sample sizes were sufficiently large to support the analyses undertaken, and in the case of Sebba et al [12], Luke and O’Higgins [17] and Henderson et al [15], point estimates with standard errors are presented.…”
Background
In England, the state intervenes in the lives of children through Children’s Social Care (CSC) services with the aim of supporting and maintaining their welfare. It is known from government cross-sectional data that children who experience these CSC interventions (such as state care) have consistently poorer educational outcomes than the general population. However, these data are limited in providing crude estimates of association and in ignoring longitudinal histories. This systematic review aimed to appraise the extant research evidence from longitudinal studies and answer the question: how do educational outcomes differ between children in contact with CSC and the general population in the UK?
Methods
According to a pre-defined protocol, we searched 16 health, social care, education and legal databases for population-level quantitative studies conducted on UK children with exposure to CSC, a general population comparison group and an educational outcome. We also conducted snowball searches and searches of Google Scholar and grey literature. Data on whether each study met inclusion criteria were extracted, and findings of included studies were synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
Results
In total, 5482 sources were screened which resulted in seven studies being included in the narrative synthesis. Only three were published in peer-reviewed journals. All but one used administrative education data and five used administrative data from CSC services. In all studies, exposure to CSC interventions was measured crudely, ignoring heterogeneity in the experiences of children. All agreed that children in contact with CSC services perform worse than their peers on all outcomes (variously: exam results, absences, exclusions, school moves, being missing from school, higher education aspirations and quality of school).
Conclusions
Despite employing a search across 16 databases supplemented with additional searches of other online sources, we found only seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. This review throws into sharp relief the urgent need to conduct more population-level research into the educational prospects of children in contact with CSC services.
Systematic review registration
PROSPERO
CRD42018089755
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1071-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
There is persistent evidence showing that care leavers tend to have lower educational outcomes compared to their peers. There is, however, less knowledge of whether this educational disadvantage transfers to the second generation. This study adopts a developmental contextual life‐course approach to examine: (a) the extent of educational inequality of children of care leavers from school entry to public examinations at age 16; (b) the relative role of different psychosocial family resources as predictors of educational attainment; and (c) the role of early school readiness assessments as predictors of later educational attainment. Drawing on data collected from families living in England at the first sweep of the nationally representative UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) (n = 11,514), the findings suggest intergenerational transmission of educational disadvantage among children of care leavers (n = 287), which is manifest in a direct assessment of school readiness (age 3), at the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (age 5) and in General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) attainment (age 16). However, once inequalities in family socio‐economic background or area deprivation and housing are controlled for, children of care leavers perform comparably in their educational progression to those whose mothers had no experience of being in care (n = 11,227). Moreover, the findings highlight the significance of early school readiness assessments in predicting later educational attainment for the whole sample. Findings are discussed regarding their implications for policy, in particular the need to address educational inequality for children in care, area allocation and housing that is offered to care leavers, and the general importance of early interventions.
Children in care from backgrounds of maltreatment often struggle to perform to their full potential in school. Although the English government has put education at the top of its agenda for children in care, there remains a high risk of children in care being excluded from school, undermining their chances of closing the attainment gap. This study examined how young persons in care and their foster carers perceive and experience out‐of‐school suspension and the factors surrounding it. While analysing interviewees’ accounts attachment theory emerged as a useful analytic lens through which to explore the school experiences of young persons. The study draws on 18 interviews with young persons in care aged 14–18 (nine interviews) who had been suspended from secondary school in the previous 2 years and their foster carers (nine interviews). Findings showed that despite the great importance of school for these young persons, it was generally experienced as a hostile environment where they felt they were not listened to, cared for or respected. These feelings marked a breakdown of communication between children and school and were a central factor in the process that led to their exclusion. Drawing on attachment theory, these dynamics are discussed as reflecting the failure of educational staff to respond to young persons’ attachment needs and provide them with a secure base. Specifically, the Secure Base model for foster carers’ caregivingis offered as a useful perspective to frame teachers’ relationships with young persons in care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
