Children in Care

Part of Oral Answers to Questions — Children, Schools and Families – in the House of Commons at 10:30 am on 26th July 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Kevin Brennan Kevin Brennan Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Children, Young People and Families) 10:30 am, 26th July 2007

I thank the hon. Lady—although I was hoping that we might be able to develop a relationship based on consensus around trying to help children in care. Perhaps it is unfortunate that she started off talking about a record of failure, when in fact there has been significant improvement in the educational performance of children in care. For example, between 2000 and 2006 the percentage of children in care obtaining a GCSE has increased from 49 per cent. to 63 per cent., the percentage of those children obtaining five A to Gs has increased from 35 per cent. to 41 per cent. and the percentage obtaining five A to Cs from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent. [Hon. Members: "Twelve per cent.!"] That is not good enough, but it is a significant improvement on the previous position. With the Every Child Matters agenda, with the White Paper and with the legislation that is being introduced, which will include additional financial help for children who are in danger of falling behind in school and who are in care, we are determined to make that better.

Embed this video

Copy and paste this code on your website

Annotations

stephen reid
Posted on 27 Jul 2007 4:06 pm (Report this annotation)

41% getting five A-Gs is, in fact, very bad. Some Counties have around 95% of their children achieving this. And 12% getting 5 A to Cs is also not acceptable - nowhere near.

I do not believe that going from dire to very bad represents a significant improvement. Maria Miller made a valid point here and the Minister answered with bluster.

andrew miles
Posted on 5 Aug 2007 11:25 pm (Report this annotation)

If the figure was only 7% in 2000 then what could it have been in 1997 and before that when the policy of exclusion was prevalant?