What Can We Do About The Persistent and Severe Gap in Educational Outcomes for ‘Looked-After Children’
Anyone reading the latest data on the educational outcomes for children in care in England would have not have failed to notice that children and young people in care face one of the most severe and persistent educational disadvantages in the school system. The recent Department for Education (DfE) data (2026, reporting year 2025), shows that only 13.7% of children looked after achieve a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and Mathematics, compared to 45.4% of all pupils, a gap of nearly 32 percentage points. Their average Attainment 8 score (25.4) is barely more than half that of all pupils (46.0). More than two in five are persistently absent, more than half have a special educational need and nearly three quarters are eligible for free school meals.
For those of us who have been concerned with the educational outcomes for children in care for some time, knowledge of this gap is not new. It has been documented consistently since the 1970’s, when the lack of interest in children in care’s education was first highlighted in research and has shown up in the data collection that we’re currently more familiar with, since 1999. Yet the gap has not meaningfully closed.
So what is going on, what makes a difference and where can efforts be best targeted to see if a dent can be put in these statistics?
Research demonstrates that under the right conditions, such as stable placements, schools considered ‘high quality’ and well-resourced targeted support, that more than half of children in care can catch up educationally with their peers. The challenge is having everyone working together in order that those conditions are created consistently.
The Gap (or the rather the huge gaping hole)
According to the data, the attainment gap is visible at the Early Years Foundation Stage, before children enter formal schooling. This is a sentence that I want to leave here for as long as possible, while people soak it in in slow motion. Yes. We know about the gap before a child even reaches school!
It persists and widens through the stages and beyond. Children who leave care through adoption or special guardianship (previously looked after) achieve at 27.8% at GCSE better than children currently in care (13.7%) but still 17.6 percentage points below the national average demonstrating (as we know) that the effects of early adversity persist.
Research evidence confirms this trajectory. National linked-data studies find that children in care had an odds ratio of just 0.14 for achieving five good GCSEs compared to peers, approximately seven times less likely to reach this benchmark (Zhang, 2025). Population-level analyses estimate the attainment gap at roughly 25–30 percentage points at Key Stages 2 and 4 (ADR UK, 2025).
Root Causes
This gap in attainment can’t be allocated to any single factor which really speaks to the complexity of this issue and might go some way to explaining why little movement has occurred in reducing the gap. There is considerable evidence that identifies a cluster of interacting barriers (Fletcher, Strand, & Thomas, 2015; Luke & O'Higgins, 2018; O'Sullivan & Westerman, 2007). There aren’t any surprises:
Pre-care adversity and trauma. Abuse, neglect and family ‘dysfunction’ cause neurological, developmental and emotional difficulties that directly impair learning capacity
Placement instability and school moves. Multiple placement changes disrupted schooling, severed relationships and continuity of learning
High SEN rates with late or inadequate identification. 57% of children who are looked after have SEN, often identified late and inadequately supported
Persistent absence and exclusion. 40.9% persistent absence and disproportionate exclusion rates mean children in care spend significantly less time in school
Socioeconomic deprivation. 72.9% (compared to 25.7% of all pupils) free school meal eligibility reflects compounding material disadvantage
Lack of stable adult advocacy. Without a consistent parent or carer to navigate the school system, children in care are structurally disadvantaged
That’s quite a heady mix! Understanding these root causes supports the knowledge that there has to be a multi-layered, sustained response to tackle this gap.
Evidence-Based Interventions
The research highlights a number of interventions which should be helpful when thinking about where efforts, money and multi-agency and cross sector approaches can focus.
Placement Stability
Placement stability is the single most consistently supported predictor of better educational outcomes for children in care. Large-scale linked administrative data analyses show that children in stable placements are significantly more likely to narrow the attainment gap with their peers (Sinclair, Fletcher, O'Higgins, & Sebba, 2021).
The University of Oxford study by Sinclair et al. (2021) found that in the worst conditions (unstable placement, ineffective school), only 4% of children in care caught up educationally. In the best conditions (stable placement, effective school), 52% caught up. This is the most powerful finding in the literature. The right structural conditions can transform outcomes for the majority of children in care.
This suggests that placement stability should be treated as an educational intervention in its own right! Is your Local Authority (LA) tracking the number of school moves and home moves per child and setting explicit targets to reduce them? Movement showed itself as an unavoidable consequence of the care experience in my own research so it is a challenge to tackle this. However, active reduction in home and school moves contributes to better educational outcomes.
School Quality and Effectiveness for Disadvantaged Pupils
Sinclair et al. (2021) found that the school a child in care attends is a critical determinant of whether they catch up educationally. Children in care placed in schools that are demonstrably effective for other disadvantaged groups (e.g., free school meal pupils) achieve substantially better outcomes.
This finding has direct implications for placement decisions and for the role of Virtual School Heads (VSHs) in influencing which schools children are placed in. I would also suggest that Ofsted inspections explicitly assess how well schools support children in care.
Virtual School Heads (VSHs) and Designated Teachers
The Virtual School model in which a team led by a VSH acts as strategic champion for the education of ‘looked-after children.’ This has become a cornerstone of the English system since its statutory introduction in 2014. In my view, their work is a game changer! Research shows that the strategic oversight, casework support, training and transition planning has meaningfully improved co-ordination between education and social care (Drew & Banerjee, 2019; Rivers, 2018; Sebba & Berridge, 2019).
However, evidence also shows significant variation in VSH capacity and effectiveness across local authorities. Under-resourcing, high caseloads and inconsistent local authority support limit impact (Rivers, 2018; Sebba & Berridge, 2019). I would also add that different LA’s locate the VS in different places; sometimes within Education and sometimes within Children’s Services. I have seen how this can make a huge difference to how the VS is viewed.
Designated Teachers in schools are the day-to-day counterpart to VSHs. Research confirms their role in co-ordinating PEPs, liaising with carers and advocating for children in care within school but again, effectiveness varies with training, seniority and workload (Drew & Banerjee, 2019; Rivers, 2018). I would also argue that the particular leadership priorities and approaches of the school the DT’s are in will also impact their effectiveness.
Personal Education Plans (PEPs)
All children looked after are entitled to a Personal Education Plan (PEP), setting out their educational needs, targets and support. PEPs are a statutory requirement and in principle, a powerful tool for co-ordinating multi-agency support around individual children.
In practice, evidence shows significant variability in PEP quality. Robust causal evidence that PEPs alone close attainment gaps is lacking; evaluations emphasise variability in quality, the administrative burden of the process and inconsistency in how impact is recorded and reviewed (Read, Parfitt, & Macer, 2022; Rivers, 2018).
Pupil Premium Plus
Children looked after attract Pupil Premium Plus funding. Pupil Premium Plus is widely valued by practitioners and is used to fund a range of supports including tutoring, mentoring, enrichment activities, therapeutic interventions and transition costs (Read, Macer, & Parfitt, 2020; Taylor, 2024; University of East London, 2022).
However, the evidence base on Pupil Premium Plus effectiveness is limited. Studies identify several systemic weaknesses (Read et al., 2020; Read et al., 2022; Taylor, 2024):
Funding often reaches schools late, limiting planning
Schools vary widely in how they deploy Pupil Premium Plus for children in care
Impact measurement is inconsistent and often focused on short-term attainment metrics that fail to capture complex needs
The bureaucratic process of allocating and accounting for Pupil Premium Plus can undermine the relational, needs-led work it is intended to fund
It’s probably time for a national evaluation of the impact of Pupil Premium Plus.
Tutoring and Academic Support
Small-scale tutoring funded via Pupil Premium Plus and virtual school initiatives is frequently reported and sometimes linked to short-term gains in attainment measures in local evaluations (Taylor, 2024; University of East London, 2022). The national tutoring programme evidence base (from the Education Endowment Foundation) shows tutoring can be highly effective for disadvantaged pupils generally, with effect sizes of +3 to +5 months of additional progress.
However, large-scale evaluations of tutoring specifically for looked-after children are limited. Tutoring programmes for children in care must be adapted so they are all trauma-informed and flexible around attendance and the movement that children in care experience.
Mentoring Programmes
Mentoring, pairing children in care with a consistent, supportive adult, is widely used and valued by practitioners and young people. Evidence from local evaluations and qualitative studies suggests mentoring can improve attendance, engagement and wellbeing and provide the stable adult relationship that many children in care lack (Fletcher et al., 2015; O'Sullivan & Westerman, 2007).
Rigorous large-scale evaluations of mentoring programmes specifically for looked-after children in England are limited. The evidence base is stronger for wellbeing and engagement outcomes than for academic attainment.
Trauma-Informed and Attachment-Aware Practice in Schools
Virtual schools and practitioners widely incorporate attachment theory, trauma-informed practice and therapeutic supports into education plans for children in care (Drew & Banerjee, 2019; Jackson, 2015). There is strong theoretical rationale for embedding trauma-informed approaches in schools.Get it right for children in care and you get it right for all children.
However, evidence on direct academic attainment impact is limited; evaluations emphasise improved wellbeing and school relationships. However, given that emotional regulation and secure attachment are prerequisites for learning, these approaches should be considered foundational rather than supplementary. Personally I think it’s essential.
I also advocate that trauma-informed practice should be included in initial teacher training and continuing professional development, with specific content on children in care.
Reducing School Exclusions and Off-Rolling
Children in care experience exclusion rates approximately three times higher than all pupils (40% vs. 13% across secondary school; Jay et al., 2023). Exclusion is a cause of further educational disruption.and more movement! Research flags concerns about off-rolling informal removal from school rolls disproportionately affecting children in care (Hood, Goldacre, & Jones, 2024; Jay et al., 2023).
Restorative approaches, in-school emotional and behavioural support and proactive VSH involvement in exclusion decisions are associated with lower exclusion rates, but rigorous causal evidence is limited (Hood et al., 2024).
Early Years Interventions
As I stated earlier, the attainment gap is visible before children start school. Early adversity and early contact with social care are strongly associated with poorer outcomes at age 16 (Driscoll, 2013). This provides a compelling rationale for early preventative intervention but few rigorous UK trials assess specific early years programmes targeted at children who later enter care. WHY!? (Someone needs to do a PhD on this)!
Post-16 and Care Leavers Support
Young people leaving care face what’s been termed a ‘cliff-edge’ and this arises firstly in educational support at 16. Research identifies insufficient post-16 provision and calls for expanded, longer-term funding and tailored vocational and educational pathways for care leavers (Rivers, 2018; Sebba & Berridge, 2019). Post-16 support remains patchy and under-resourced.
Policy Recommendations
Based on the what the research tells us, recommendations would be as follows:
Recommendation 1: Make placement stability a national educational priority. Publish national data on school moves per child looked after, with local authority accountability. Set a national target to reduce the average number of school moves per child in care
Recommendation 2: Strengthen and resource Virtual School Heads. Establish national minimum staffing ratios for VSHs based on the number of children in care in each local authority. Commission a national evaluation of VSH effectiveness. Extend the VSH statutory remit to include post-16 support for all care leavers up to age 25.
Recommendation 3: Reform Pupil Premium Plus. Issue clearer national guidance on evidence-based uses of Pupil Premium Plus, with a menu of approved interventions. Require schools to publish their Pupil Premium Plus strategy for children in care in their annual Pupil Premium report. Commission a national evaluation of Pupil Premium Plus impact on CLA outcomes.
Recommendation 4: Commission a national tutoring programme for children in care. Build on the National Tutoring Programme to create a dedicated, trauma-informed tutoring offer for children in care, funded through Pupil Premium Plus with VSH oversight. Evaluate the impact.
Recommendation 5: Extend post-16 support and publish destination data. Extend Pupil Premium Plus to further education settings for care leavers. Require local authorities to publish post-16 destination data for care leavers as a statutory requirement. Fund specialist post-16 support workers within virtual schools.
Recommendation 6: I’m sorry to say this but Local Authorities should develop a "preferred schools" list for children in care, based on evidence of effectiveness for children who have experienced/are experiencing adversity and/or trauma.
Recommendation 7: Implement mandatory PEP quality standards. Require schools to demonstrate how PEP targets are embedded in classroom practice.
Recommendation 8: Embed trauma-informed practice across the school. Ensure all staff receive training in attachment-aware and trauma-informed practice, with specific content on children in care. Designated Teachers should be senior members of staff with sufficient authority to influence resource allocation and exclusion decisions.
Conclusion
This gap is not inevitable. Under the right conditions, the majority of children in care can catch up with their peers but no single intervention is sufficient. The gap is rooted in multiple, interacting disadvantages that require a multi-layered, sustained, and properly resourced response.
I have set out some recommendations based on what the research tells us. The care system exists to protect the most vulnerable children in our society and education is a powerful tool for altering trajectories. When properly available, it is good for self esteem, good for identity formation and a space of belonging. When I say a space of belonging, I am referring to education as a whole. We can belong to the ‘space’ of education in the same way that we can belong to a ‘place’ within education. It’s powerful. Protecting the futures of children in care, means protecting their education.
References
ADR UK. (2025). Data insight: Understanding the impact of time in care on educational attainment in England. Administrative Data Research UK. Retrieved from https://www.adruk.org/fileadmin/uploads/adruk/Documents/Data_Insights/Data_Insight_GUiE_Xiaohui_Zhang.pdf
Department for Education. (2026). Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England: Reporting year 2025. Department for Education. Retrieved from https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/outcomes-for-children-in-need-including-children-looked-after-by-local-authorities-in-england/2025
Drew, H., & Banerjee, R. (2019). Supporting the education and well-being of children who are looked-after: What is the role of the virtual school? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(4), 745–764.
Driscoll, J. J. (2013). Supporting the educational transitions of looked after children at Key Stage 4: The role of virtual schools and designated teachers. Journal of Children's Services, 8(4), 254–262.
Fletcher, J. M., Strand, S., & Thomas, S. M. (2015). The educational progress of looked after children in England: Technical report 1: Secondary school progress and attainment. University of Oxford.
Hood, R., Goldacre, A., & Jones, E. (2024). Factors associated with the school exclusion gap for children with social work involvement: A retrospective cohort study using national administrative data. British Journal of Social Work. Advance online publication.
Jackson, S. (2015). The virtual school for children in out-of-home care: A strategic approach to improving their educational attainment. Children Australia, 40(4), 321–331.
Jay, M. A., Mc Grath-Lone, L., De Stavola, B., & Gilbert, R. (2023). Risk of school exclusion among adolescents receiving social care or special educational needs services: A whole-population administrative data cohort study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 141, 106325.
Luke, N., & O'Higgins, A. (2018). Is the care system to blame for the poor educational outcomes of children looked after? Evidence from a systematic review and national database analysis. Children Australia, 43(3), 161–172.
O'Sullivan, A., & Westerman, R. (2007). Closing the gap: Investigating the barriers to educational achievement for looked after children. Adoption & Fostering, 31(1), 101–109.
Read, S., Macer, M., & Parfitt, A. (2020). Effective use of Pupil Premium Plus to improve educational outcomes for looked after children. Bath Spa University.
Read, S. M., Parfitt, A., & Macer, M. (2022). Breaks in the chain: Using theories of social practice to interrogate professionals' experiences of administering Pupil Premium Plus to support looked after children. Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 289–305.
Rivers, S. (2018). Supporting the education of looked after children: The role of the virtual school head. Adoption & Fostering, 42(3), 280–293.
Sebba, J., & Berridge, D. (2019). The role of the virtual school in supporting improved educational outcomes for children in care. Oxford Review of Education, 45(4), 441–455.
Sinclair, I., Fletcher, J. M., O'Higgins, A., & Sebba, J. (2021). 'Closing the gap': The conditions under which children in care are most likely to catch up in mainstream schools. Oxford Review of Education, 48(2), 145–161.
Taylor, B. (2024). Pupil Premium Plus for children in care. Bloomsbury Publishing.
University of East London. (2022). Pupil Premium for looked after children: Its allocation, use and impact on educational outcomes for children aged 5–12. University of East London.
Zhang, X. (2025). Understanding the impacts of time in care on educational attainment in England. International Journal for Population Data Science, 10(4).
