Placement disruption

As we have seen, the instability of placements is consistently referred to within the literature regarding the lived experiences of LACYP and the findings from this research provide no exception in this respect. To reiterate, placement instability (movement of placements) occurs for various reasons and is regarded as a major factor affecting the educational trajectories of LACYP (Stein, 2005; Hannon et al., 2010; APPG, 2012;). The statistics outlined in Chapter 2 showed that the majority (approximately three quarters) of LACYP are placed within foster families during their time in care. For this reason, the interviews with local authority and PE teacher respondents were mostly concerned with the experiences of young people looked-after by foster carers. In addition, nearly all the young people interviewed were or had been in foster care, with the exception of one who had experience of residential care.

It is argued that changes in a child or young person’s placement may consequently have a negative impact on academic achievement, since links have been made between placement stability, placement choice, educational achievement and resilience (e.g. Atwool, 2006; Daniel, 2008; Shaw and Frost, 2013). Stephenson (2007) notes that the instability and disruption to LACYP’s home or school lives have been associated with problematic behaviour and are often a common denominator for those young people with difficult circumstances. The notion that placements breakdown due to the behaviour of LACYP might suggest that placement disruption is an individual factor within McLeroy et al.’s (1988) social ecological model. However, positioning placement breakdown in this way implies an associated discourse of blame, failing to acknowledge wider influences such as the relational aspect with the carer at the interpersonal level. For example, Shaw and Frost (2013) explain that placements that are intended to last but eventually break down are mostly seen amongst older children and young people (those aged between 11-15). In this study, results from the local authority professionals survey also identified this age range as the age in which LACYP are likely to face the most barriers with PESS. Further placement breakdowns can also be seen in those who demonstrate challenging behaviours and/or those who do not want to be in care (Shaw and Frost, 2013). This scenario was aptly described by Shannon, whose placement experiences suggests a lack of agency from institutionally led decisions:

It’s a very hard deal … It’s hard to get your head around, to explain, because in that position you’re not scared, you just dunno where you’re going. You’re a number being pushed from person to person. Like, I could have ended up in Scotland or somewhere … So I’m quite lucky I was only moved to Crayport. But it’s still moving away from your school, your home, your friends, everything…. They [social workers] don’t understand what a massive change that is. For some people it’s a relief, but for people like me, ‘cos I was there into my late stages, it hits you harder because everything you know, it’s like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. It doesn’t work. D’you see my point? You have to try and adapt. And I was against it, I was against everything.

What Shannon, and two other LACYP participants revealed, is consistent with the existing literature that suggests that placement changes can lead to a young person to loathe and/or become detached from school (see Stephenson, 2007). This consequently impacts upon their experiences of PESS due to its context within the school environment. Paradoxically, it is argued that involvement in extra-curricular activities can facilitate attachment to school (Barber et al., 2005). Furthermore, when asked about possible barriers to LACYP’s participation in school sport, Lisa Phillips (Assistant VSH, Millfolk), implied that LACYP placements could be problematic:

I think it is down to perhaps the instability that they’ve had and the sense of loss that they’ve already had … And it’s, for young people who have maybe been moved from around placements, because of challenging behaviour, then there’s sometimes a feeling of I’m not worthy of joining a club or I’m not, y’know, I’m going to get kicked off. And so they don’t want to join because they’re frightened of another loss. Or if I get involved in this club and then I move placement again then I’m going to lose it. … And yeah, I think it’s about loss sometimes.

The loss that Lisa describes is closely linked to a sense of belonging that will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. It is argued that without a sense of belonging, which is formed through strong connections, children will become isolated and disconnected

(Ginsburg, 2011). This is evident within Lisa’s account when she spoke of a reluctance of LACYP to take part in school sport due to placement breakdown and thus a weakening of connections. Such sentiments also echo those of Quarmby (2014) who found that the disruption caused by placement changes has previously been found to cause difficulties for LACYP in residential homes in accessing sport and physical activity outside of school. Similar issues were identified by a number of respondents in this study in relation to sport within school, where placement disruption was noted as a barrier for LACYP. Heather Roberts (Whippinghamshire local authority) elaborated further:

CW: What are the biggest challenges looked-after children face in participating in PE and school sport?

Heather: I would suspect it’s the fact that they’ve moved placements a lot, so this is not Whippinghamshire looked-after children, this is generic. They tend to move placements and they tend to move schools and because of that you get a very disjointed friendship group, access to things like that.

These extracts in relation to placement disruption suggest various ways in which placement stability may affect LACYP’s participation in PESS. However, the data beyond this quote revealed substantial differences in the associated reasons why it may have an impact. One reason was related to the emotional wellbeing of the individual in terms of the feelings of loss and self-esteem, whilst another was allusive to the practical aspects associated with PESS such as PE kit, transport and foster carer availability. Unlike pre-care experiences, practical support and resources are more easily addressed (see 5.3). Barriers attributed to emotional wellbeing may be eliminated if LACYP were residing in a stable foster home, whereby they had a secure connection to at least one significant caregiver. For the youth respondents, it became evident that PESS, and school more generally, were not always considered a priority due to the emotional turmoil they experienced, rather than the practical implications of placement movements. Reflecting upon his own experiences of school and PESS, Nathan (aged 16) talked of the “rumble and a tumble” of the disruptive home life that he endured:

Like basically, it’s a funny story. So I was in Sharpton [another geographical location] up until Year 8, and then I came here for year 9, and then I went back to Sharpton for year 10 and 11 and then came back to here for year 10 and a bit of year 11, so yeah it’s quite confusing.

Nathan’s experience is reflective of previous research findings which note that the stability of placements is often closely linked to the stability of education and the chance of improved educational outcomes (e.g. Skuse et al., 2001; Stein, 2001; APPG, 2012), which may include participation in extra-curricular activities. Clay and Dowling (2004) contend that education is not given sufficient priority when planning for such placements and future options. The decision to move a LACYP can often be for administrative reasons and/or the availability of foster carers, thus indicating that placement stability is influenced at an institutional level within McLeroy et al.’s (1988) social ecological model through local authority policies and procedures, in addition to the overarching national statutory guidance at the policy level.

As Nathan’s extract reveals, multiple placement changes can cause discontinuity in education, which has been regarded as severely impacting on social networks, sense of identity and self-esteem (see NICE/SCIE, 2010; Shaw and Frost, 2013). During the interview with Nathan, there was further exploration of if and how these placement changes had an effect on his education:

CW: How about with school, all that moving?

Nathan: Umm I think it disrupt[ed] my learning a lot because, because of like my behaviour and stuff like that, I wasn’t learning.

Nathan’s account suggests that there was a lack of engagement toward education (including PESS), due to the frequent upheaval within his life that became the sole focus of his attention. It has been argued that avoiding disruption in education by keeping LACYP in the same school with the same friends has a strong association with their educational attainment (Hannon et al., 2010). This is because it can act as a source of

security and stability, providing opportunities for constructive contact with peers and supportive adults (Gilligan, 1998), as well as facilitating the development of self-esteem and confidence, through non-academic qualifications such as sport (Dixon et al., 2004). Likewise, Farineau and McWey (2011) argue that LACYP may endure subsequent changes to friendship groups, case workers and fosters carers and it could be argued that participating in an extracurricular activity can provide a sense of structure and stability within these young people's lives. That said, for the majority of respondents, despite staying at the same school with the same friends, moving to a new home can still have a negative impact on educational experiences, including their engagement in PESS. Such was the experience of Kalaya, who stated that she never moved schools and did not participate in any extra-curricular activities such as school sport. She explained that when she was first placed into care at the age of 13 or 14, her educational experience suffered:

My grades went down. I don’t know, I don’t think I was really into lessons and learning, ‘cos I’d fallen out with friends and I wasn’t living with my mum and then I’m not seeing my sister. I dunno, it was tough.

Kalaya’s comments are reflective of previous work that has sought to identify the impact of moving placements and which has noted that, despite staying at the same school, the stability of home placements is the most important thing to young people in care (APPG, 2012). The associated disruption caused by having to move placements has presented itself as a clear finding within this study as impacting upon LACYP’s experiences of school and subsequently PESS at the individual, institutional and policy level of the social ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988). The state of anxiety Kalaya and the other young people within this study expressed when moving homes, depicts a clear understanding as to why certain aspects of education such as PESS may suffer given the context and complexity of their lives. However, this study found that it is not only the instability caused by placements that can impact on LACYP’s experiences of PESS. The location of these placements can also be a contributing factor and this is where we turn to next.