Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Research Process Questionnaire sent to non-government agencies providing OOHC. To be completed by caseworker, carer or similar. No identifying information recorded. Sent at the end of Term 3. First conducted in 2008 and then in 2009.
Citation preview
Education snapshot of children and young people in out-of-home care in NSW
Lo-Shu WenAssociation of Childrens Welfare Agencies
ACWA Conference 2010
Background• Initiated through ACWA’s OOHC Forum
• Poor educational outcomes for children and young people in out of home care.
• Need for more data on how children and young people in out of home care are performing in school.
• Development of questionnaire to be used to capture a snapshot.
Research Process•Questionnaire sent to non-government
agencies providing OOHC.
•To be completed by caseworker, carer or similar.
•No identifying information recorded.
•Sent at the end of Term 3. First conducted in 2008 and then in 2009.
Out-of-Home Care in NSW• 34,069 children and young people in OOHC in
Australia (AIHW, 2010).
• 16,524 children and young people in care in NSW (Community Services, 2009).
• In NSW, residential care wholly provided by NGOs. Foster care divided between Community Services and NGOs.
• 78.2% Community Services, 21.8% NGOs – 1,921 children and young people (Wood Report, 2008).
Profile of the Sample2008 2009
300 Sample Size
353
44% Female, 54% Male Gender 46% Female, 52% Male46% are 12 and under 54% are 13 and over Age 40% are 12 and under
60% are 13 and over 68% foster care, 30% residential care, 1%
‘other’
Placement Type
52% foster care, 37% residential care, 2%
‘other’73% government school 26% non-government
school School Type
64% government school20% non-government
school79% full time
13% part timeSchool
Attendance73.5% full time 14% part time
4% not currently attending school
Non-Attendance
9% not currently attending school
Key Findings – Changes in School
Top reasons:• Placement change• Child’s decision• Expulsion• Needs of the child
2008 2009Primary School
86 out of 197 (43.6%)
92 out of 212 (43.3%)
Secondary School
62 out of 145 (42.7%)
87 out of 185 (47.0%)
Change school at least once whilst in placement
Key Findings – School Attendance
Example of NAPLAN reporting
NAPLAN Band
Child’s Mark
National Average
School Average
Key Findings – NAPLAN testing
Key Findings – NAPLAN testing• Efficacy of NAPLAN results as basis of
measurement for kids in OOHC.• Small sample that provided NAPLAN results.• Potential reasons for lack of reporting on
NAPLAN.• School practices in relation to NAPLAN testing.• Inconclusive.
Year 3, 5, 7, and 9 (n=38)
ReadingNo. (%)
WritingNo. (%)
SpellingNo. (%)
Grammar & Punctuatio
nNo. (%)
NumeracyNo. (%)
Achieved minimum or better
31(81.5%)
29(76.3%)
30(78.9%)
30(78.9%)
31(81.5%)
Achieved average or better
17(42.1%)
13(34.2%)
18(47.3%)
22(57.8%)
9(23.6%)
Combining Year Groups NAPLAN Results
Further Work•Completion of reports for 2009 survey
and cross analysis of 2008 and 2009.•Due to conduct the survey again in
September 2010.•Focus efforts at increasing reporting of
NAPLAN test results.•Potential impacts of new policies
▫Increase of compulsory school age to 17▫Keep Them Safe reforms
Education OOHC Coordinators Education Learning Plans
Acknowledgements• Education Research Working Party
▫Boys Town Engadine▫CREATE Foundation▫Foster Parents Support Network▫Life Without Barriers▫Marist Youth Care▫PhD Student, Southern Cross University ▫UnitingCare Burnside▫Wesley Dalmar
• Pamela Peters, social work student placement, UNSW
ContactLo-Shu Wen, Policy OfficerAssociation of Childrens Welfare Agencies
(02) 9281 [email protected]://www.acwa.asn.au
