[Spain] Montserrat, C., & Casas, F. (2014). The education of adolescents in residential, foster...

The education of adolescents in residential, foster family and kinship

care in Catalonia.Data collection over 5 school years

2008-2013

Carme Montserrat & Ferran Casas

Universitat de Girona (Spain)

EUSARF (Copenhagen)

5 September 2014

Contents

• Evolution of education of adolescents in care aged 11 to 16 over 3 consecutive school years (2010-2013)

• Evolution of education of adolescents in care aged 15-16 over 5 consecutive school years (2008-2013)

• Reflections and proposals based on data obtained

Carme Montserrat 2014

Data collection procedure

• Starting point 2008: complete lack of data relating to the education of the in-care population by the relevant government departments:

– The Department of Education did not identify children in care in its database

– The Department of Welfare did not systematically enter school data in its database, not even the name of the school attended.

• Agreement signed with the Departments of Education and Social Welfare to begin data collection, extended to 5 years.

• Procedure involved many obstacles

• The Department of Social Welfare provided the names of children and the department of education identified the school they attended; and then our research team sent the questionnaire for the teachers to schools to fill out (academic achievements, attendance and behaviour at school and guidance for further education)


Age by grades

Age 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16

Grades Last course of Primary school

1st of Secondary school

2nd Secondary school

3rd Secondary school

4th Secondary school

Population and sample (11-16 age group)

School year Universe Cases with school name provided by government Depts

Cases reported by schools

2010-11 1664 1400 84.1% 901 64.4%

2011-12 2140 1331 62.2% 933 70.1%

2012-13 1993 1693 84.9% 1128 66.6%


Type of placement: population (0-17) and sample (11-16)

Population in care

0-17 years old 11-16 years old

Type of

placement

2011 2010-11N=1664

2011-12N=2140

2012-13N=1993

Residential 41.1% 47.4% 50.8% 52.9%

Kinship 44.8% 40.0% 39.6% 39.6%

Foster family 14.1% 12.6% 9.6% 7.5%


Characteristics of the samples(11-16 years old)

2010-11N=1400

2011-12N=1331

2012-13N=1693

Years in care

< 1 years in care 11.6% 21.3% 20.8%

1-3 years in care 32.4% 19.2% 29.2%

4 and + years 56.0% 59.5% 50.0%

Gender Girl 43.5% 46.0% 44.2%

Boy 56.5% 54.0% 55.8%

Age 11-12 years old 24.2% 24.1% 24.9%

12-13 years old 21.4% 21.0% 22.3%

13-14 years old 19.9% 20.4% 17.1%

14-15 years old 19.4% 15.8% 19.4%

15-16 years old 15.1% 18.7% 16.3%

Born in Spain -- 81.0% 85.2%Carme Montserrat 2014

Type of placement / age (11-16 years old)

2010-11N=1400

2011-12N=1331

2012-13N=1693

Yearsold

11-12 15-16 11-12 15-16 11-12 15-16

Residential 9.4% 31.3% 15.6% 29.2% 12.8% 30.8%

Foster family 22.0% 19.6% 20.5% 19.0% 24.8% 18.1%

Kinship20.4% 16.1% 22.2% 18.7% 19.4% 18.4%


Type of placement / gender (11-16 years old)

2010-11N=1400

2011-12N=1331

2012-13N=1693

Type of placement

Boys Boys Boys

Residential care 58.4% 55.0% 57.0%

Foster family 59.5% 55.2% 56.5%

Kinship care53.0% 53.1% 51.0%


Type of placement / years in care (11-16 years old)

Yearsin care

2010-11N=1400

2011-12N=1331

2012-13N=1693

% % %

Resid Fost Kins Resid Fost Kins Resid Fost Kins

<116.9 4.7 6.3 30.3 3.7 10.7 28.2 0.8 9.9

1<338.8 21.6 27.7 24.1 4.9 16.0 30.9 7.6 32.4

4 +44.3 73.7 66.1 45.6 91.4 73.3 40.9 91.6 57.7


Academic achievement (11-16 years old)

Academic achievement2010-11

N=901

2011-12N=933

2012-13N=1128

Expected level according to age43.7% 47.6% 53.2%

Grade repetition51.7% 44.0% 40.0%

Special Education4.6% 8.2% 6.8%


Academic achievement by age and gender (11-16 years old)

Academic achievement

2010-11N=901

2011-12N=933

2012-13N=1128

Years old 11-12 15-16 11-12 15-16 11-12 15-16

Expected level according to age

66.5% 26.4% 63.4% 38.6% 57.1% 33.7%


2010-11N=901

2011-12N=933

2012-13N=1128

Gender boys girls boys girls boys girls

Expected level according to age 43.1% 51.5% 46.4% 49.3% 47.9% 59.6%


Academic achievement / Type of placement (11-16 years old)


2010-11N=901

2011-12N=933

2012-13

N=1128

% % %

Res Fost Kins Res Fost Kins Res Fost Kins

Expected level according to age

35.5 49.4 50.3 42.3 56.0 56.0 44.3 60.0 61.7

Grade repetition 55.7 46.5 46.2 45.8 41.4 40.6 44.7 37.8 35.8

Special Education

8.8 4.1 3.5 11.7 2.4 3.2 11.1 2.2 2.9


At the end of the course / age

Years old 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16

Pass 2010-11N=901

42.2 55.7 35.6 36.0 38.0

2011-12N= 933

45.9 36.8 37.5 32.7 38.6

2012-13N= 1128

55.9 49.5 44.8 48.3 42.0


Attendance and behaviour at school (11-16 years old)

Attendance2010-11

N=901

2011-12N=933

2012-13N=1128

Absenteeism 4.0% 3.5% 4.6%

Some absences 12.4% 10.0% 11.0%

Regular attendance 83.6% 86.43% 84.5%

Behaviour at school

Serious behavioural problems with disciplinary measures

19.9% 18.4% 16.9%

Some problems 26.7% 24.3% 26.3%

Without problems 53.4% 57.3% 56.9%Carme Montserrat 2014

Comparison by age of 15-16 year-olds for the 5 school years 2008-09, 09-10,

10-11, 11-12 and 12-13

Population and samples at age 15/16

2008-09 * 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Universe N=118 N=305 N=399 N= 515 N= 497

Cases with school name provided by Depts

N= 111N=265

(86.8%)

N=338

(84.7%)

N= 319(61.9%)

N= 420 (84.5%)

Cases

reported

by schools

N= 72

(61%)

N=160

(60.4%)

N=207

(61.2%)

N= 215 (67.4%)

N= 261 (62.1%)

* kinship care not includedCarme Montserrat 2014

Type of placement at age 15/16

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Residential 87.5% 55.6% 64.3% 70.2% 62.8%

Foster family 12.5% 9.3% 11.1% 9.3% 6.9%

Kinship -- 35.1% 24.6% 20.5% 30.3%

N=72 N=160 N=207 N=215 N=261


Academic achievements and guidance received at age 15/16

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Pass 35.9% 41.3% 38.0% 38.6% 42.0%

Guided towards 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

Upper secondary ed. 15.2% 21.4% 13.5% 14.4% 19.3%

Vocational education 48.5% 22.9% 31.1% 33.0% 30.7%

Non qualified training 36.4% 55.7% 55.4% 52.6% 50.0%


School attendance and behaviour at school at age 15/16

Attendance 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

Absenteeism 14.3% 12.9% 4.9% 7.7% 12.2%

Some absences 18.6% 22.6% 19.1% 13.1% 22.4%

Regular attendance 67.1% 64.5% 76.0% 79.1% 65.4%Behaviour at school

Serious behavioural problems with disciplinary measures

13.0% 29.4% 18.7% 14.7% 16.9%

Some problems 30.4% 26.1% 28.8% 19.7% 27.7%

Without problems 56.5% 44.4% 52.5% 65.5% 55.4%


Overall population / in care at age 15/16Overall

populationAdolescents in care

2009-10 2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

2012-

13

Expected level at age

15/16

72%(2012)

31.7% 26.0% 38.6% 33.7%

Graduated at age 15/1682.3% (2011) 59.6% 63.0% 48.2% 55.9%

Special Education school 1.1% 10.6% 9.3% 8.8% 11.5%

Guided

towards

No qualified training

4.4% 55.7% 55.4% 52.6% 50.0%

Vocationaleducation

33.4% 22.9% 31.1% 33.0% 30.7%

Uppersecondary educ.

62.2% 21.4% 13.5% 15.4% 19.3%Carme Montserrat 2014

Some conclusions

• Most of the evaluations don’t vary much over the years, suggesting that there is good temporary reliability for the items included in the questionnaire and there is stability and congruence among the reports about the topics we have explored. The data collected produced evidence that teachers’ responses tended to be stable over time.

• Notable differences by type of placement. However there are differences in population characteristics by type of placement: those whoa are in residential care are older and less stable both in the care system and in the same school The importance of stability and early interventions

• Behaviour at school: evidence and labelling• Enormous differences comparing general population and

those in care regarding: Academic achievements, special education and guidance for further education.


Proposals

• Prioritize schooling work towards achieving social inclusion• Guidelines for centres and schools regarding:

– Stability; that is, not changing school, not repeating a year, not expelling pupils in care, not changing protection placements, …

– Reference/key professionals who take into account these children’s overall process given their changing situation

– Specific types of support in ordinary schools to avoid as far as possible schooling in special education schools (dual labelling)

– Guidelines for schools on how to work with children in care– Guidance towards formal post compulsory education

• Urgent implementation of tried and tested programmes• Importance of data collection to observe the evolution of this

population in compliance with the aforementioned programmes and guidelines


Further reading• Montserrat, C. & Casas, F. (2014). Stability and extended support. In S.

Jackson and C. Cameron (Ed), Improving access to further and higher education for young people in public care. European policy and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 178-214.

• Montserrat, C., Casas, F. & Malo, S (2013). Delayed educational pathways and risk of social exclusion: The case of young people from public care in Spain. European Journal of Social Work, 16,1, 6-21.

• Montserrat, C., Casas, F. y Bertran, I. (2013). Desigualdad de oportunidades educativas entre los adolescentes en acogimiento residencial y familiar. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36, 4, 443-453

Contact details• [email protected]• [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

[Spain] Montserrat, C., & Casas, F. (2014). The education of adolescents in residential, foster...

Education

Transcript of [Spain] Montserrat, C., & Casas, F. (2014). The education of adolescents in residential, foster...