10 Out of Home Care and Guidance Counselling

David Clerke


This literature review examines the published research available on the academic and school functioning behaviours of students in Out of Home Care (OOHC). Where possible, literature that focussed on the Australian education context was used. The studies identified were evaluated to assess the comparison of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour across OOHC and non-OOHC cohorts; impact of targeted educational intervention strategies on the outcomes of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour; and the impact of a well-being teacher aide on OOHC students’ educational outcomes of academic achievement, behaviour and attendance. Results suggest that within Australia, OOHC children perform more poorly in comparison to the general schooling population. It was also concluded that intervention strategies have the potential to provide educational benefits to OOHC children. Additionally, some supporting research was identified to suggest a trained teacher aid would provide benefits in this same context. Many gaps in the literature exist surrounding these three research questions. This is discussed in reference to the potential for further research to address these concerns.


Numerous studies report a growing number of children are living in out-of-home care (OOHC), both nationally and internationally (Creed et al., 2011; Kojan & Lonne, 2011; Riitano & Pearson, 2014). Within Australia alone there exists 16,100 OOHC children between the ages of 12-17, a rate of 8.8 per 1000 young people as of 30 June 2020 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021). This is a direct increase from 30 June 2017 in which the overall number was at 13900 and the rate at 8.1 per 1000 (AIHW, 2021). As defined by Child Protection Australia 2018-2019, “out of home care is overnight care for children aged under 18 who are unable to live with their families due to child safety concerns” (AIHW, 2020). Within Australia, OOHC is categorised within 4 main placement types, with the majority of children (83%) living in home-based care, with other proportions being made up of residential care (14%), independent living (1.1%), family group homes (>1%), and other (<1%) (AIHW, 2021). Despite varying in levels or support, these living arrangements are designed to provide child specific services for OOHC children who have been removed from their parent or carer due to inadequate care being provided. In most cases an investigation has concluded that these children have been the subject of substantial abuse or neglect and require a more protective environment (Sköld, 2013). Child safety concerns such as physical, sexual and emotional abuse are commonly reported within these investigations (Rosenthal, 1991). In less common circumstances children may be placed in OOHC due to times of conflict or parents/carers needing respite (AIHW, 2020).

Due to this high prevalence of neglectful circumstances, many services have focused on the mental, medical, social and emotional needs of this population (Trout et al., 2008). As a result, there exists a large amount of literature on the background of these children in regards to their behavioural functioning, family histories and mental health status (Bailey, 2019; Maclean, et al., 2016). It has been widely established within research that maltreatment impairs a child’s self-concept, cognition and self-regulation (Horwitz et al., 2013; Jee et al., 2010; Tarren-Sweeney., 2008). As a result, these impairments, coupled with the adverse childhood experiences result in poor long-term mental health outcomes (Conn, 2015; Schilling, 2007). A study conducted amongst OOHC children in Denmark found that 20% of OOHC children presented with at least one psychiatric diagnosis in comparison to 3% within non OOHC (Egelund & Lausten, 2009). Additionally, complex psychological difficulties were often observed within this population group, such as attachment difficulties, trauma-related anxiety, defiance, inattention/hyperactivity, self-harm, relationship sabotage and food maintenance behaviours (Egelund & Lausten, 2009). It has been shown that OOHC often have histories of dysfunctional and maladaptive family backgrounds and relationships (Delfabbro et al., 2009; Mendes et al., 2012). Unsurprisingly they also experience lower levels of social support when compared to other non OOHC children (Rosenfeld & Richman., 2003). These obvious disadvantages and stressors often lead to maladaptive behavioural functioning and overall poorer, more unfavourable outcomes (Tarren-Sweeney, 2008). For example, OOHC children experience higher rates of school dropout, homelessness, poverty, incarceration and welfare dependency (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Heerde et al., 2012; McFarlane, 2018., Zetlin et al., 2004)

Impact of the Problem

Despite there being a wide array of research surrounding the behavioural functioning, mental health and family backgrounds of OOHC children, much less exists when focusing on the educational outcomes of this group (Trout et al., 2008). This is concerning when we consider the research which suggests education as one of the best indicators for OOHC children’s current and future wellbeing, and success with transition to adulthood. (Coleman, 2004; Harker et al., 2003; Pecora et al., 2006). Specifically, educational outcomes have significant impact on the lifelong outcomes of income, health, social mobility and flexibility and innovation (Jakubowicz, 2009). More specifically, basic key educational foundations such as reading, writing and numeracy have long been predictors for positive long-term adult outcomes (Lochner, 2011). Additionally, research has shown positive associations between academic success and positive mental health (O’Connor et al., 2019). With demands in the workforce becoming more technical, these basic academic skills which are developed through both secondary and post-secondary education have never been more essential (Rojewski & Hill, 2017). School outcomes such as academic achievement, attendance and behaviour have also been shown to be predictors of both school success and school completion (Reschly & Christenson, 2006). This is of direct importance as it has been shown that students who do not complete secondary schooling fare significantly worse than those who graduate, experiencing higher rates of incarceration, lower income and increased health issues in later life (McNeal, 1997). Overall, as argued by Stipek (2006), education can provide children with a second chance by addressing and rectifying disadvantages experienced within early learning environments.

With these conclusions being well known by both educators and academics worldwide it is interesting to examine what research exists on these educational outcomes and corresponding support interventions for OOHC children within Australia. Specifically, the literature was examined to evaluate: (a) how do OOHC students rate amongst their non-OOHC peers within the measurable outcomes of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour? (b) how do targeted educational intervention strategies impact the three educational outcomes of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour? Lastly, by drawing parallels from similar research we examine the hypothesis that; (c) the intervention strategy of providing OOHC students with a well-being teacher aide for support during schooling, would result in an improvement to these educational outcomes.

Comparison of Academic Achievement, Attendance and Behaviour across OOHC and non-OOHC Cohorts

Within the context of Australian education, there is little data collected by Australian state and territory governments for children in care (Tilbury, 2004). Consequently, there exists only a small number of studies which examine the educational outcomes of children in OOHC within this context (Mendis et al., 2015).

The most comprehensive of this research was conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare as part of a two-stage pilot study (AIHW, 2007; AIHW, 2011). This study assessed outcomes from the education departments reading/numeracy testing for national reporting for the years 2003 to 2006. This study captured 4,673 OOHC children from government-based schools in the national testing grades of 3, 5, and 7 within the participating states of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Overall, it was found that a lower proportion of children from OOHC achieved the national reading and numeracy benchmarks in comparison to all children who underwent this test. This failure to reach national reading and numeracy benchmarks are of particular concern as they represent a minimum standard of performance, below which students experience difficulty progressing at school (MCEETYA, 2008). Interestingly, it was found that OOHC displayed similar results to other ‘disadvantaged subgroups within the general population …it was found that OOHC displayed similar results to other ‘disadvantaged subgroups within the general population…, such as Indigenous children, children attending schools within remote areas, and those with a language background other than English (AIHW, 2011). This research matches data found previously within a South Australian study which showed children in care were at extremely high risk of not achieving the literacy and numeracy benchmarks across all stages of their schooling (White & Lindstrom, 2007).

Poor literacy and numeracy outcomes are also reflected in a study by Cavanagh (1996). This research focused on 497 children in residential care within Victoria. It was highlighted that more than half of the students were rated as below average in the areas of literacy and numeracy skills. Additionally, this study added some circumstantial evidence for possible attendance and behavioural issues, with nearly 50% of students within the study having frequent episodes of truancy, school expulsion or suspension. Furthermore, about 7% had completely stopped attending school (Cavanagh, 1996).

Further corroboration is seen by research done through a collaboration between The Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) and Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria (de Lemos, 1997). This comparative study analyses the educational needs and achievement of 1,132 Victoria OOHC children in comparison to the general school population. Within this comparison, it was found that within Victoria, OOHC children on average achieved lower mean scores in both reading comprehension and numeracy, in comparison to whole school population data. Further findings showed lower ratings of adaptive behaviour and over a third of the student sample were identified as having a disability compared to 2% for the student population as a whole (de Lemos, 1997). Within this group identified with a disability, 61% were identified as having an emotional or behavioural disorder (de Lemos, 1997). Although this does not provide any concrete behavioural outcomes, anecdotally this would suggest OOHC students would perform unfavourably in comparison to their non-OOHC peers as is consistent within overseas literature (McDonald et al., 1996). Further anecdotal evidence within this study exists to support poor academic outcomes with just under 50% of participants identifying they have difficulties within school; and 15% were rated as achieving above or well above average level in comparison to 44% of the whole school population (de Lemos, 1997). It was also found that a number of OOHC children had persistent days off from school. This number increased as students aged suggesting issues with attendance as students progressed through their schooling. This mirrors the findings found across behaviour and academic outcomes which also declined as students aged.

The CREATE foundation adds some further information to the educational outcomes of OOHC students with its publication of the CREATE report card (Harvey & Testro, 2006). This report card derives information from two main sources: a structured survey featuring 297 OOHC children aged 10-17 years and information requested from State and Territory Governments. In line with the aforementioned studies, the State and Territory data outcomes showed that OOHC children did not achieve as well as the general school population when compared to the whole school population. Unlike AIHW (2011), a full comparison across the data sets and specific achievement standards was unable to be made, owing to the nature of the differing state and territory-based education systems. The survey featured some indication of student attendance results with students in care having more time away from school than the general population (Harvey & Testro, 2006). More specifically it was seen that almost one third of participants missed more than twenty days of school. This problem was exacerbated within the post compulsory schooling age, with this group having much lower attendance, with increases seen in vocational education and labour force participation. Another disappointing outcome that has some links to school attendance was the larger than average proportion of OOHC children who were not involved within a school education system when compared to the age matched peers. Another disappointing outcome that has some links to school attendance was the larger than average proportion of OOHC children who were not involved within a school education system when compared to the age matched peers. Anecdotally, poor behavioural outcomes could be inferred from this student group with 49.2% of participants indicating that they have previously been excluded from a school (Harvey & Testro, 2006).

Educational statistics have been provided by the Care-system Impacts on Academic Outcomes (CIAO) project conducted by Anglicare Victoria and Wesley Mission Victoria (Wise et al., 2010). This project examines educational outcomes of Victorian OOHC students aged 7-17 years. A mixed methods approach of data collection was adopted with quantitative research being conducted through a survey of carers and teachers of which 199 and 21 had been completed respectively. Additionally, six case studies were undertaken to complement the survey research. The key findings which relate to this review are that a high proportion of children had repeated a grade of school (23.7%); were not attending school on any days (18.1%); had traunted school in the past year (30.8%); or had been suspended in the past 12 months (14.7%) (Wise et al., 2010). Despite these findings not providing direct data for attendance and behaviour, this research suggests poor outcomes for these educational measures.

Impact of Targeted Educational Intervention Strategies on the Outcomes of Academic Achievement, Attendance and Behaviour

In spite of numerous studies identifying alarming results for OOHC students within Australia, there exists little to no research on intervention strategies and their effect on educational outcomes for this same context (Townsend, 2011). In order to bridge this gap in the literature, international studies have been examined to highlight potential avenues for future research within the Australian education context. Despite examining the impact of these educational interventions, many international studies do not specifically focus on how these interventions directly affect the educational outcomes of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour. As a result of this second gap in the literature, a number of studies were chosen in which results reflected circumstantial evidence upon impacting these aforementioned outcomes. For example, many of the studies highlighted their impact on literacy and numeracy results. These key educational measurements have been comprehensively linked to academic achievement within the schooling setting (Adams et al., 2020; Rothman & McMillan, 2003).

A Canadian study conducted by Harper and Schmidt (2012) focused on a group-based direct-instruction tutoring program based on Michael Maloney’s (1998) Teach Your Children Well model. Tutors comprised of university student volunteers were given two days training on the model and provided ongoing consultation support. These sessions took place within small groups of 3-4 children, 2 hours a week for 30 weeks. No statistically significant improvements were recorded for students’ maths and reading comprehension. In contrast, word reading and spelling results showed improved data with effect sizes measuring between small to moderate for these areas.

A second Canadian study, the Kids in Care Project also bases itself upon Michael Maloney’s (1998) Teach Your Children Well (Flynn et al., 2010). Key differences within this study are the use of foster parents, who were trained to provide the 3 hour tutoring session for 30 weeks and once again provided with ongoing consultation support. Unlike the Harper & Schimdt (2012) study, spelling and word reading were shown to have no notable improvements. However, significant improvements measuring between small and moderate effect sizes were shown for reading comprehension, a reading composite measure, and maths (Flynn et al., 2011).

Olisa et al., (2001) provide an evaluation of a tutoring program within the UK, in which a key difference is the use of teacher volunteers as tutors. Key stakeholders within the project such as the tutors, foster carers and case workers were provided information surrounding the program and how to provide educational support to the child. Two intervention groups were formed for reading and maths respectively and children were provided tutoring two times a week for a 20-week period. This intervention displayed significant improvements in literacy among both intervention groups. However, improvements in maths were only significant for the maths intervention group. Explanations for these poor numeracy results were uncertain however questionnaire results listed lesson quality as unsatisfactory and satisfactory in a number of circumstances.

Within the United States, Courtney et al., (2008) present a study through the Early Start to Emancipation Preparation (ESTEP) tutoring program which is based upon an individual learning model. The tutors, which consist of college student volunteers, acted as mentors and were provided training in order to assess and provide curriculum appropriate skill specific numeracy and literacy content. Within the program each student was eligible for 65 hours of tutoring, 15 of which tutors can utilise for prep work, mentoring and additional activities. The sample size consisted of 445 children between the ages of 14-15 years. After evaluation, the program was found to have no statistically significant differences between the students who underwent tutoring and those who did not within the control group. As such the ESTEP program was shown to have no impact on educational outcomes. A small rationale was provided for this lack of improvement. This included a divide between the tutoring activities and the educational mater being covered within schools. Additionally, the relationships between tutors and students often failed to develop into longer-term mentor roles.

A US study by Zetlin et al, (2004) looked at strengthening the link between social workers and education. The aims of this study were to ensure child welfare agency workers focused on the educational needs and schooling of OOHC children. To achieve this an Education Specialist (ES) from the local education agency was provided as a liaison for the corresponding child welfare support person. Social workers could make referrals to this ES if they felt any educational issues had arisen, leading to direct interventions or problem resolutions with the welfare support worker. Results demonstrated signs of improvement in maths and reading for the students assigned an ES. Results demonstrated signs of improvement in maths and reading for the students assigned an ES. This was in comparison to the control group whose test performance for these measures followed the typical decline for children spending extended time within OOHC settings (Zetlin et al, 2004). Despite these positive results, no improvements were seen in Grade Point Average, a measure of academic achievement. Additionally, the data showed no improvements for student attendance.

A Swedish pilot study focused on the Helsingborg project which aimed to improve OOHC children’s school achievements (Tideman et al., 2011). 25 students were included within the project and were initially assessed on their cognitive ability, literacy and numeracy skills in order to establish baseline data. A two-year intervention was then implemented which focused on completing standardised psychological and pedagogical testing. This helped to identify the individual potential of each child and their educational service needs. Specialists such as psychologists, teachers and special education teachers collaboratively worked with this information to provide tailored individualised education and psychological support. Improvements were noted within the measure of IQ (measured by WISC III) and within the literacy outcomes of reading and spelling. Weaker, non-significant improvements were observed for student maths skills. This project was repeated within the Swedish town of Norrköping. This sample group of 21 children underwent the same process as with the previous study, with additional working memory training added to the program. The significant improvements seen in IQ were again replicated within this study. Results in both reading and spelling again demonstrated improvement, however, these were weaker than observed within the Helsingborg project (Tideman et al., 2011). Interestingly unlike the first study, large improvements were seen within student maths results which may suggest a link between working memory training and maths outcomes.

The Impact of a Wellbeing Teacher Aide on OOHC Students’ Educational Outcomes of Academic Achievement, Behaviour and Attendance

In a similar vein to the aforementioned targeted educational interventions, there exists little empirical research which demonstrates the impact or effectiveness teacher aides have on students when supporting them within a school context (Stevens, 2010). In particular, there is a gap in the literature regarding the impact of teacher aides on educational outcomes within Australian schooling. Again, international studies were chosen in order to bridge this knowledge gap. n line with the previous targeted educational intervention studies, circumstantial evidence was often selected as it provided the only available option to examine the impact teacher aides have on education outcomes. In line with the previous targeted educational intervention studies, circumstantial evidence was often selected as it provided the only available option to examine the impact teacher aides have on education outcomes. The phrase wellbeing, which prefixes teacher aide was initially added to denote an educational support worker who had undergone a notable amount of training specific to supporting the complex wellbeing needs of OOHC students. This was also not able to be examined directly within the selected studies, however, some parallels which were drawn are discussed within the results section of this review.

Previous research into the effectiveness of teacher aides within the classroom paints a bleak picture. A large-scale British study by Blatchford et al. (2012) reports negative associations between the use of trained teaching assistants and student performance. Leuven et al (2007) conduct a quasi-experimental study within schools in Denmark which feature a high proportion of disadvantaged minority students. It is found that additional teacher resources such as teacher aides have no positive impact on student outcomes. Lastly, a large-scale resource intervention called the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) field experiment was evaluated by Word et al., (1990). The assessment of this intervention revealed no significant effects of teacher aides in the classroom setting.

However, some recent research has shown the effectiveness of teacher aides in a more positive light. A study by Andersen et al., 2020 is one of the strongest pieces of literature available which investigates the effect of teacher aides on student outcomes. The study utilised a randomized trial in which teacher aides both with and without teaching degrees, were randomly allocated across 105 schools within grade 6 classes in Denmark. Improvements were significantly positive for student reading outcomes; however, no improvements were seen within maths results. Effect sizes were shown to be larger within students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Additionally, teacher aides were particularly effective within classes with behavioural problems.

Albroz et al. (2009) review of the literature provides some clarity to these varied findings among teacher aide effectiveness. Within their review, studies from the United States, England and Wales were examined to create a more mixed and nuanced picture of the impact of teacher aides. Within the eight studies examined, seven suggested that within primary schools, trained and supported teacher aides working one to one or within small groups can provide significant improvements within literacy outcomes and language learning. However, the effects upon maths achievements were less positive with some studies reporting small improvements and others citing no significant change.

How These Findings Benefit Future Research Addressing the Problem of OOHC Educational Outcomes

Comparison of Academic Achievement, Attendance and Behaviour across OOHC and non-OOHC Cohorts

It has been established internationally that the school performance of OOHC children is poor across a wide range of measurable outcomes (Trout et al., 2008; Vinnerljung et al., 2005; Stone, 2007). For this reason, it was unsurprising to find that the results of Australian children within OOHC reflected this trend. As with international literature barriers such as traumatic pre-care experiences; rejection and abandonment issues; poor continuity of care due to multiple placement changes; multiple school changes; were some of the reasons cited as to why school outcomes for Australian OOHC children were poorer than their non-OOHC peers. This conclusion also appears to hold true when examining the specific measurable outcomes of academic achievement, attendance and behaviour, however to what extent is difficult to determine. Due to a lack of data sharing by state governments, differing definitions regarding the listed outcomes, and a lack of empirically driven research, anecdotal links often needed to be made to justify these conclusions. These shortcomings leave a gap in the literature, providing opportunities for future research to clarify the effect size OOHC has within Australian education upon academic achievement, attendance and behaviour in comparison to their non OOHC peers.

Impact of Targeted Educational Intervention Strategies on the Outcomes of Academic Achievement, Attendance and Behaviour

At first glance, targeted educational intervention strategies seem to provide mixed reports on their impact on educational outcomes. As seen within studies comparing educational outcomes of OHHC and non-OOHC students, conclusions were challenging to reach due to the lack of direct data focusing on changes in academic achievement, attendance and behaviour. Once again anecdotal evidence was often used to justify conclusions. For example, many of the studies evaluated showed improvements in reading and literacy when a targeting intervention was made for OOHC children. This would suggest that targeted interventions would have the ability to improve academic results as literacy and reading are core components across all academic domains within Australian education and have long been predictors of academic success (Adams et al., 2020; Gilbert, 2019; Rothman & McMillan, 2003). Unfortunately, the majority of these studies did not reflect this result for numeracy with most showing interventions having no improvements in this area. In terms of impact on attendance and behaviour, the studies which investigated these factors showed mixed results, with either no improvements seen or anecdotal evidence suggesting some positive outcomes. Despite these conclusions, there still exists a gap in the literature when examining the impact of interventions on educational outcomes of OOHC children within the Australian education context. there still exists a gap in the literature when examining the impact of interventions on educational outcomes of OOHC children within the Australian education context. To address this shortfall, stronger baseline data regarding outcomes for OOHC children could first be established. This follows a similar suggestion made when previously discussing the comparison of the educational outcomes between OOHC and non-OOHC students. This would then provide a strong foundation of baseline data for more targeted future studies involving interventions and their impact on these outcomes.

The Impact of a Wellbeing Teacher Aide on OOHC Students’ Educational Outcomes of Academic Achievement, Behaviour and Attendance

As seen within research involving targeted intervention strategies, involving the use of a teacher aide also provided mixed results upon educational outcomes. One positive however was that within the majority of studies which involved specialised training of the TA, positive educational impacts were observed. This provides some strong credence to the hypothesis involving a wellbeing teacher aide as they would be required to undergo similar training such as trauma-informed practice and mental health first aid; as seen within the evaluated research. Once again, a literature gap exists in terms of the direct impact of teacher aides on the OOHC student group. Despite this, many of the studies highlighted that disadvantaged students and behaviourally challenging classes benefitted more greatly from the inclusion of a TA. This once again provides support for future studies in this area and adds strength to the previously stated hypothesis.


Unless further research is put forward, it will be difficult to develop interventions and frameworks for teachers, schools and education departments to address the wide and complex issues and barriers which exists within OOHC education in Australia. Until this time, it seems that this disadvantaged group is destined to continue on the pathway of poor educational outcomes, consequently failing to reach their educational potential.


Adams, E. K., Hancock, K. J., & Taylor, C. L. (2020). Student achievement against national minimum standards for reading and numeracy in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9: A regression discontinuity analysis. Australian Journal of Social Issues55(3), 275-301.

Alborz, A., Pearson, D., Farrell, P., & Howes, A. (2009). The impact of adult support staff on pupils and mainstream schools: A systematic review of evidence. London, UK: Department for Children, Schools, and Families.

Andersen, S. C., Beuchert, L., Nielsen, H. S., & Thomsen, M. K. (2020). The effect of teacher’s aides in the classroom: Evidence from a randomized trial. Journal of the European Economic Association18(1), 469-505.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Educational outcomes of children on guardianship or custody orders: A pilot study. AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Educational outcomes of children on guardianship or custody orders: a pilot study, Stage 2. AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2020). Child protection Australia 2018–19. AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Young people in out-of-home care. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/young-people

Bailey, C., Klas, A., Cox, R., Bergmeier, H., Avery, J., & Skouteris, H. (2019). Systematic review of organisation‐wide, trauma‐informed care models in out‐of‐home care (Oo HC) settings. Health & Social Care in the community27(3), e10-e22.

Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the impact of teaching assistants: How research challenges practice and policy. Routledge.

Coleman, M. S. (2004). Children left behind: The educational status and needs of youth living in foster care in Ohio. National Center for Research and Data. The Child Welfare League of America.

Conn, A. M., Szilagyi, M. A., Jee, S. H., Blumkin, A. K., & Szilagyi, P. G. (2015). Mental health outcomes among child welfare investigated children: In-home versus out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review57, 106-111.

Courtney, M. E., & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from out‐of‐home care in the USA. Child & family social work11(3), 209-219.

Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Zielewski, E. H., Bess, R. J., Malm, K. E., Stagner, M., & Pergamit, M. (2008). Evaluation of the early start to emancipation preparation tutoring program, Los Angeles County, California. Administration for Children & Families.

Creed, P., Tilbury, C., Buys, N., & Crawford, M. (2011). The career aspirations and action behaviours of Australian adolescents in out-of-home-care. Children and Youth Services Review33(9), 1720–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.033

De Lemos, M. M. (1997). Educational needs of children in care: Report on a research study of children in residential and home-based care. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Delfabbro, P., Borgas, M., Rogers, N., Jeffreys, H., & Wilson, R. (2009). The social and family backgrounds of infants in South Australian out-of-home care 2000–2005: Predictors of subsequent abuse notifications. Children and Youth Services Review31(2), 219-226.

Egelund, T., & Lausten, M. (2009). Prevalence of mental health problems among children placed in out‐of‐home care in Denmark. Child & Family Social Work14(2), 156-165.

Flynn, R. J., Marquis, R. A., Paquet, M., & Peeke, L. M. (2011). Effects of tutoring by foster parents on foster children’s academic skills in reading and math: A randomised effectiveness trial: Final report of the RESPs for Kids in Care project. Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services.

Flynn, R. J., Paquet, M., & Marquis, R. A. (2010). Can tutoring by foster parents improve foster children’s basic academic skills? A Canadian randomized field trial. In E. Fernandez & R. P. Barth (Eds), How does Foster Care Work? International Evidence on Outcomes (pp. 259-272). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Gilbert, R. (2019). General capabilities in the Australian curriculum: Promise, problems and prospects. Curriculum Perspectives39(2), 169-177.

Harker, R. M., Dobel‐Ober, D., Lawrence, J., Berridge, D., & Sinclair, R. (2003). Who takes care of education? Looked after children’s perceptions of support for educational progress. Child & Family Social Work8(2), 89-100.

Harper, J., & Schmidt, F. (2012). Preliminary effects of a group-based tutoring program for children in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review34(6), 1176-1182.

Harvey, J., & Testro, P. (2006). Report card on education 2006. CREATE Foundation.

Heerde, J. A., Hemphill, S. A., Broderick, D., & Florent, A. (2012). Associations between leaving out-of-home care and post-transition youth homelessness: A review. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, (32), 35-52.

Horwitz, S. M., Hurlburt, M. S., Heneghan, A., Zhang, J., Rolls-Reutz, J., Landsverk, J., & Stein, R. E. (2013). Persistence of mental health problems in very young children investigated by US child welfare agencies. Academic Pediatrics13(6), 524-530.

Jakubowicz, A. (2009). Cultural diversity, cosmopolitan citizenship and education: Issues, options and implications for Australia. Australian Education Union.

Jee, S. H., Conn, A. M., Szilagyi, P. G., Blumkin, A., Baldwin, C. D., & Szilagyi, M. A. (2010). Identification of social‐emotional problems among young children in foster care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry51(12), 1351-1358.

Kojan, B. H., & Lonne, B. (2011). A comparison of systems and outcomes for safeguarding children in Australia and Norway. Child & Family Social Work17(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00776.x

Leuven, E., Lindahl, M., Oosterbeek, H., & Webbink, D. (2007). The effect of extra funding for disadvantaged pupils on achievement. The Review of Economics and Statistics89(4), 721-736.

Maclean, M. J., Sims, S., O’Donnell, M., & Gilbert, R. (2016). Out‐of‐home care versus in‐home care for children who have been maltreated: A systematic review of health and wellbeing outcomes. Child abuse review25(4), 251-272.

Maloney, M. (1998). Teach your children well: A solution to some of North America’s educational problems. Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies

McDonald, T. P., Allen, R. I., Westerfelt, A., & Piliavin, I. (1996). Assessing the long-term effects of foster care: A research synthesis. CWLA Press.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). 2008 National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy. Achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy.

McFarlane, K. (2018). Care-criminalisation: The involvement of children in out-of-home care in the New South Wales criminal justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology51(3), 412-433.

McNeal Jr, R. B. (1997). Are students being pulled out of high school? The effect of adolescent employment on dropping out. Sociology of Education, 206-220.

Mendes, P., Johnson, G., & Moslehuddin, B. (2012). Young people transitioning from out-of-home care and relationships with family of origin: An examination of three recent Australian studies. Child Care in Practice18(4), 357-370.

Mendis, K., Gardner, F., & Lehmann, J. (2015). The education of children in out-of-home care. Australian Social Work68(4), 483-496.

O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive mental health and academic achievement in elementary school: new evidence from a matching analysis. Educational Researcher48(4), 205-216.

Olisa, J., Stuart, M., Hill, V., Male, D., & Radford, J. (2001). Intervention to promote good literacy in looked after children. London University Institute of Education.

Osborne, C., Alfano, J., & Winn, T. (2010). Paired reading as a literacy intervention for foster children. Adoption & Fostering34(4), 17-26.

Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., O’Brien, K., White, C. R., Williams, J., Hiripi, E., & Herrick, M. A. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Children and Youth Services review28(12), 1459-1481.

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). School completion. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 103–113). National Association of School Psychologists.

Riitano, D., & Pearson, A. (2014). The effectiveness of interventions designed to improve academic outcomes in children and adolescents in out-of-home care: A systematic review protocol. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports12(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-956

Rojewski, J. W., & Hill, R. B. (2017). A framework for 21st-century career-technical and workforce education curricula. Peabody Journal of Education92(2), 180-191.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Richman, J. M. (2003). Social support and educational outcomes for students in out-of-home care. Children & Schools25(2), 69-86.

Rosenthal, J. A., Motz, J. K., Edmonson, D. A., & Groze, V. (1991). A descriptive study of abuse and neglect in out-of-home-placement. Child Abuse & Neglect15(3), 249-260.

Rothman, S., & McMillan, J. (2003). Influences on achievement in literacy and numeracy. LSAY Research Reports, 36. http://research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/40/

Schilling, E. A., Aseltine, R. H., & Gore, S. (2007). Adverse childhood experiences and mental health in young adults: a longitudinal survey. BMC public health7(1), 1-10.

Sköld, J. (2013). Historical abuse—A contemporary issue: Compiling inquiries into abuse and neglect of children in out-of-home care worldwide. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention14(sup1), 5-23.

Stevens, H. (2010). Impact of proximity of teachers’ aides and support strategies: Advantages and disadvantages. Kairaranga11(1), 40-44.

Stipek, D. (2006). Children as unwitting agents in their developmental pathways. In C. R. Cooper, C. T. Garc¡a Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. M. Davis, C. Chatman (Eds), Developmental pathways through middle childhood (pp. 111-132). Psychology Press.

Stone, S. (2007). Child maltreatment, out-of-home placement and academic vulnerability: A fifteen-year review of evidence and future directions. Children and Youth Services Review29(2), 139-161.

Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2008). The mental health of children in out-of-home care. Current Opinion in Psychiatry21(4), 345-349.

Tideman, E., Vinnerljung, B., Hintze, K., & Isaksson, A. A. (2011). Improving foster children’s school achievements: Promising results from a Swedish intensive study. Adoption & Fostering35(1), 44-56.

Tilbury, C. (2004). The influence of performance measurement on child welfare policy and practice. British Journal of Social Work34(2), 225-241.

Townsend, M. L. (2011). Are we making the grade? The education of children and young people in out-of-home care (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Cross University).

Trout, A. L., Hagaman, J., Casey, K., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2008). The academic status of children and youth in out-of-home care: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review30(9), 979–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.019

Vinnerljung, B., Öman, M., & Gunnarson, T. (2005). Educational attainments of former child welfare clients–a Swedish national cohort study. International Journal of Social Welfare14(4), 265-276.

White, J., & Lindstrom, H. (2007). If they don’t give up on you-you don’t give up on you: improving educational outcomes for children and young people under guardianship in South Australia. Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People.

Wise, S., Pollock, S., Mitchell, G., Argus, C., & Farquhar, P. (2010). CIAO. Care-system impacts on academic outcomes. Anglicare Victoria/Wesley Mission Victoria.

Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H. P., Fulton, B. D., Zaharias, J. B., Achilles, C. M., & Breda, C. (1990). The State of Tennessee’s student/teacher achievement ratio (STAR) project. Tennessee Board of Education.

Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for children in foster care: Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education for Students placed at Risk9(4), 421-429.


Share This Book