And even at Ampleforth

Children in care who are given boarding school places are three times more likely to go to university, the first major study has shown.

Sending vulnerable youngsters to boarding schools also makes them six times more likely to achieve at least two A-levels, according to a new report by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation.

The charity works with local authorities to place disadvantaged children in some of the country’s most prestigious institutions including Eton College, Harrow School, Radley College and Wellington College.

And even at Ampleforth they’d be less likely to be fiddled with too.

15 thoughts on “And even at Ampleforth”

  1. From Royal Springboard:
    “Our pioneering Impact Report is based on analysis of the results of the 716 disadvantaged and vulnerable young people who Royal SpringBoard have supported at some of the UK’s leading state and independent boarding schools since 2013. More to follow next week!”
    So the children weren’t necessarily in care before being placed, and the report hasn’t been published yet so we can go and check it.
    I do wish NGOs wouldn’t send out press releases for reports that cannot be read. What next , Public Health England declaring that the rate of private bariatric surgery declined between 2010-2018, read our report due in 2020 to find out why and see the data.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    I do wish NGOs wouldn’t send out press releases for reports that cannot be read.

    Incentives matter as Tim would say..

    They wouldn’t if so called journalists did their job and threw them in the bin until they could read and check the reports themselves.

  3. “Children in care who are given boarding school places …”

    Selected at random, were they, so we can know what to make of the figures?

    Or just more bullshitty data from the world of Social Science where some variables are always confounded with others?

    Still, no doubt it’s good that some children spend less time in the hands of the Council Buggery Service. Any details on what it costs?

  4. Look at any state school entry policy, and children-in-care are at the top. All the stuff about siblings and proximity to the school gates comes after that. That means the local authority can put their wards in any (state) school they like. The question that i don’t know is do they? (it would be a good test of whether they make the same kind of decisions actual parents do)

  5. It’s nine years ago now, but when I was a member of a Schools Admissions Board, yes in-care children where top priority before catchment-sibling, catchment, sibling, other. We could prioritise any application, but only within each category, and within each category the priority was by distance. (So, the board prioritisation was by effectively giving an applicant a distance of zero)

    However, my local authority had a school for “problem” children, and most of the in-care applications I dealt with were on the transport side, applying for free transport from scattered homes to the one school. Most children in care were in small-ish institutions and the Children’s Service tried to normalise their education by placing their charges into local schools along with other locals.

  6. JGH:
    “tried to normalise their education by placing their charges into local schools along with other locals”

    yes, and parents make those choices too. It might be enlightening to see if there’s a difference between institutional decisions and parental decisions. Maybe by looking at whether in care kids who (at least locally) get their 1st preference actually are placed in schools which have the highest 1st preferrenced school among parents.

  7. Junk science.

    The Telegraph likes the result . . . ‘the first major study has shown.’

    The Tele is conferring editorial endorsement by calling it ‘major.’

    What did minor studies show?

  8. ‘ Children in care who are given boarding school places are three times more likely to go to university, the first major study has shown.’

    Than what?

  9. The article fails to mention that Norfolk has the largest state boarding school that my kids went to. If you board fees are about 10k per year (there used to be an 80% discount for the armed forces not sure if it still applies) a damn site cheaper than children in care costs

    Given the report is about Norfolk County Council I would have thought it relevant.

    As a kid I used to visit a large childrens home as my mate’s parents were in charge and I am surprised the difference is so little. One kid I knew at about 15 was struggling with books aimed at 5 year olds.

    Keeping kids in care is horrific in costs and shit outcomes.

  10. “Children privately educated are three times more likely to be better and more successful adults than state educated”


    @wack November 10, 2019 at 5:05 pm

    Good point & info

  11. Children at boarding school get equal treatment (or, at least, much more equal treatment than at state day schools) – no-one gets Mum to help her/him with homework, no-one gets a private tutor. So the “kids in care” get, as near as damnit, the same educations as the kids whose parents pay umpteen £,000 for the education.
    Even without wack’s perceptive comment it makes sense that the outcomes will be better.
    But wack hits the nail on the head – public schools did not outperform grammar schools by a factor of 3x when I was young [they certainly did outperform but once you adjust for the effect of scholarships for bright poor or relatively poor kids it was less than 2x]

  12. A further press release out today ( the report itself isn’t out until 14th November ) includes a ‘case study’:
    “Tia Jeremiah-Green was awarded a bursary to study at Royal Hospital School Ipswich for
    Years 12 and 13. She is now an apprentice at Jones Langs Lascelles, studying part time to
    become a Chartered Surveyor. She said: ‘I wouldn’t be on the career path that I am on now if it hadn’t of been for the skills and
    confidence I gained at boarding school. I only realise now how invaluable it is to learn how
    to adapt to different social situations.”
    The company is called Jones Lang LaSalle, and it’s “hadn’t have”, not “hadn’t of”. I suspect the pupils being supported didn’t make these errors but a PR staffer at Royal Springboard who needs help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *