Introduction

Global research demonstrates that children and young people in out-of-home care (OOHC) are a vulnerable and disadvantaged group who experience major barriers accessing key developmental and transitional opportunities related to housing, health, employment and general wellbeing (Harder et al., 2020; Mendes et al., 2011). Conversely, children who receive educational support and experience placement stability whilst in care are more likely as adults to access normative social and economic pathways (Pecora, 2012). Children in OOHC experience a myriad of school-related challenges, including, but not limited to, poorer academic outcomes, higher rates of school dropout, greater grade retention and higher rates of school exclusion (e.g. suspension and expulsion) compared to children not in care (Brownell et al., 2015; Trout et al., 2008). Although these challenges are well-documented, limited research has investigated the academic and social-emotional strengths and challenges of young people in OOHC from the perspective of people with lived experience of OOHC and the professionals and caregivers who work with and support these children (Townsend et al., 2020). The aim of this Delphi study was to elicit the perspectives of carers of children in care, professionals/educators and care experienced young people about the educational experiences and challenges of children in OOHC and required reforms to improve these students’ educational experiences.

Educational challenges of students in out-of-home care

The educational challenges of children and young people in OOHC compared with the general population are reflected across measures of reading, writing and numeracy, as well as higher rates of school dropout, grade retention and school suspension and expulsion (Brownell et al., 2015; Trout et al., 2008). A number of factors have been linked to the educational challenges of OOHC children and youth. Low socioeconomic status, household adversity and disadvantage, maltreatment experiences and social, emotional and mental health difficulties are some of the risk factors for low educational achievement among children in care (Boden et al., 2007; Day et al., 2012; Maclean et al., 2016; Rutman & Hubberstey, 2018). Maclean and colleagues (2016) found 8.4% of children in OOHC have a diagnosis of intellectual disability, compared to only 1.8% of children in the general population. Trout and colleagues (2008) also reported levels of special education involvement among children in OOHC were nearly three times as high as the general school population. Despite these pre-existing factors, international evidence indicates that children in foster care have lower school performance than their peers with similar cognitive capacity, suggesting they perform below their potential (Berlin et al., 2011; Tideman et al., 2011). These challenges are amplified by home and school attendance challenges, such as OOHC children’s lack of access to required homework assistance and support, and delays in new school enrolments or transfers (Rutman & Hubberstey, 2016).

Educational needs of students in out-of-home care

Despite the generally poorer educational outcomes for OOHC children and youth relative to their peers in the general population, studies examining the school experiences of children and young people in OOHC highlight the perceived importance of schooling among this group. For instance, the value of safe schools which provide a sense of normalcy and predictability in the lives of children in OOHC has been noted in several studies (Rutman & Hubberstey, 2018; Townsend et al., 2020). In Australia, Tilbury and colleagues (2014) found children in OOHC perceive education as an important pathway to achieving future employment and life goals, and that support from both carers and caseworkers was critical to influencing these students’ school engagement. Children and youth in/formerly in OOHC describe school as a positive environment, fostering their self-efficacy and empowerment and enabling them to ‘take control’ of their circumstances and future (Clemens et al., 2017; Rutman & Hubberstey, 2018). However, children within OOHC also describe instances of being bullied, threatened and exposed to violence in school settings (Day et al., 2012; Rutman & Hubberstey, 2018). Children in care report that their learning needs are often not understood and report experiences of stigma from peers and teachers (Townsend et al., 2020). Furthermore, these children report experiences of placement instability and frequent school transfers and lower expectations from teachers regarding their academic potential (Townsend et al., 2020).

Out-of-home care in Australia

As of 30 June 2020, there were approximately 46,000 Australian children in OOHC in Australia, 92% of whom were in home-based care settings (kinship and foster care) (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2021). In Australia, children are placed into OOHC when they are no longer able to live with their primary caregivers due to child abuse or neglect, or for reasons relating to the capacity of caregivers to care for their children (e.g. illness or incarceration) (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2020). The majority of Australian children in care are placed into relative/kinship care with a family member or family friend (51%), followed by foster care with an authorized caregiver who receives financial assistance (39%), and residential care (6%), involving care of children in residences where there are paid staff (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2019). For young people who remain in OOHC until adulthood, research has shown that young people transitioning from care face significant health, social, economic and employment barriers (Mendes et al., 2014; Smales et al., 2020). However, a review by O’Donnell et al. (2020) suggested a clear lack of programs in Australia addressing the mental, physical, social, health and independent living needs of young people transitioning from care. Another important consideration in research is hearing from care leavers about their educational experiences when in care. Such research is important due to the implications of negative schooling experiences on later in life education, employment and social and emotional wellbeing of these youth (Mendis et al., 2015).

Aim of this study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational experiences of children in OOHC from the perspective of carers, professionals/educators and people with lived experience of OOHC. The current study employed a Delphi methodology which involved administration of two survey ‘rounds’ with people with professional or personal experience of OOHC. People with lived experience of OOHC were also invited to collaborate as consultants with the research team in the generation of themes from the thematic analysis of the round one open-ended questionnaire (For full details, see Mendes et al., 2022). The inclusion of people with lived experience in the research aimed to ensure the voices and experiences of care leavers were represented accurately and respectfully (Dixon et al., 2018). The themes generated from the round one survey were then used to inform the follow-up, round two questionnaire which was distributed to the same professionals and people with lived experience of OOHC. In addition, the research team included a member with lived experienced of OOHC. Thus, this project was able to embed lived experience of OOHC from the outset, which aimed to enable a more grounded approach to this Delphi study. The research was not commissioned by any national body or OOHC service; however, funding was provided by Anglicare Victoria, Victoria’s largest provider of OOHC services to children and youth. The study addressed the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the educational experiences of children in OOHC, including social, emotional, learning and behaviour aspects?

  2. 2.

    What are the limitations of current educational responses for children in OOHC?

  3. 3.

    What policy and program reforms are needed to enhance educational experiences of children in OOHC?

Method

Study design

The Delphi methodology employed involved interactive and multistage ‘rounds’ designed to capture expert opinions across key stakeholders and develop consensus concerning the educational challenges and school reforms needed for children and young people in OOHC (Hsu & Standford, 2007). The Delphi technique is the most popular methodology used in consensus research (Arakawa & Bader, 2022). The aim of the Delphi process is to build consensus about a topic, using data collected with people with lived experience and expertise regarding that topic (Niedberberger & Spranger, 2020). The Delphi technique involves experts providing their opinions anonymously over repeated survey rounds (Taylor, 2020). The Delphi methodology had a few important advantages when exploring the educational experiences of children in OOHC. First, it allows for anonymous responses and ensures that different participant groups do not influence the perceptions of other groups, for example professionals influencing the ideas of care leavers. Second, the Delphi approach encourages the use of surveys with different groups who would be considered experts on a topic, rather than collecting the views of one group alone. Finally, the Delphi technique encourages researchers to establish consensus data as a way to rate the importance of issues raised by participants. This was considered essential to add to the existing literature on the educational challenges of children in OOHC.

This Delphi study included two surveys administered approximately 3 weeks apart. The first (round one) survey included open-ended questions to scope the issues viewed as most critical to the educational wellbeing of children and young people in OOHC. The second (round two) survey comprised closed Likert scale questions developed by the researchers based on the responses of participants in the round one survey. Delphi studies typically include two to three survey rounds, which aim to generate consensus among people with experience or expertise regarding the topic of interest (Gargon et al., 2019). After the round two survey, participant responses were evaluated to determine those which showed a high level of consensus. A common consensus threshold of 70% agreement (strongly agree or agree) or disagreement (strongly disagree or disagree) among participants was applied in the current study (Baker et al., 2021).

Round one participants

In round one, 45 participants completed a self-report online questionnaire consisting of open-ended questions about the educational experiences and needs of children in OOHC. Participants in round one consisted of 24 (53.3%) professionals/educators, 10 (22.2%) people with lived experience of OOHC and 11 (24.4%) carers of young people placed into OOHC. Professionals and educators were included in the same group, defined as professionals working directly with children and young people in OOHC, managing professionals who work with young people in OOHC, or professionals working on educational policy regarding OOHC (e.g. Teachers, Principals, Team Leaders, Psychologists, Social Workers, Project Officers, Policy Professionals, Researchers). A carer was defined as someone providing caregiving to a child or young person in OOHC (e.g. Foster Carers, Residential Care Workers, Kinship Carers and Informal Carers). A person with lived experience of OOHC was someone who had a former experience as a child within OOHC and was aged 18 years or older. The sample in round one included 32 (71.1%) females and 10 (22.2%) males, two (4.4%) participants who did not want to disclose their gender and one (2.2%) non-binary/gender diverse participant. The age range of round one participants consisted of four (8.9%) participants aged 18–21 years, three (6.7%) aged 22–25, 11 (24.4%) aged 26–35, 14 (31.1%) aged 36–45, eight (17.8%) aged 46–55, four (8.9%) aged 56–65 and one (2.2%) aged 66–75 years. The majority identified as Australian (n = 29; 64.4%), Australian and another nationality (n = 11; 24.4%), New Zealander (n = 3; 6.7%) and one each for European (2.2%) and Samoan (2.2%). Two participants identified as Aboriginal (4.4%). See Table 1 for a summary of participant demographics in round one.

Table 1 Participant demographics from the round one survey
Full size table

Round one materials

The round one survey consisted of a series of open-ended questions that related to the main research questions. The questions were developed during meetings with all authors. The authors’ experience spans the areas of social work, education and psychology, and all authors engage in research concerning the mental health, wellbeing and educational challenges of young people in care and care leavers. After a period of consultation, the authors uploaded the questions to Qualtrics XM, an online platform to present and distribute surveys. Examples of open-ended questions used to elicit the expert opinion and perspectives of the key stakeholder groups included:

  1. 1.

    What do you think are the challenges that children and young people living in OOHC face when it comes to learning? What do you think are the strengths?

  2. 2.

    What do you think are the emotional challenges that children and young people living in OOHC face relating to their schooling or education? What do you think are their strengths?

  3. 3.

    Which types of supports available do you think are most effective in enhancing the educational experiences of children and young people in OOHC?

  4. 4.

    What do you think could enhance the educational experiences of children and young people in OOHC?

Round two participants

In round two, 19 participants completed a self-report questionnaire consisting of Likert scale questions which were developed based on the responses of participants to the round one survey. The Likert questions in round two were developed by three of the authors in consultation. Three authors analysed the round one open-ended survey responses using thematic analysis and collaborated to develop the Likert scale round two questionnaire (see section on “Data analyses” for more details). Participants in round two consisted of nine professionals/educators, seven people with lived experience of OOHC and two carers, and one participant who was both a professional/educator and care leaver. Participants in round two consisted of three (15.8%) males, 14 (73.7%) females, one (5.3%) non-binary/gender diverse person and one (5.3%) person who did not disclose their gender. The age bands for participants at round two included five (26.3%) aged 18–21 years, one (5.3%) aged 22–25, three (15.8%) aged 26–35, six (31.6%) aged 36–45, two (10.5%) aged 46–55 and one each aged 56–65 (5.3%) or 66–75 years (5.3%). The majority of round two participants identified as Australian (n = 8; 42.1%), Australian and another nationality (n = 7; 36.9%), New Zealander (n = 2; 10.5%), Asian (n = 1; 5.3%) and European (n = 1; 5.3%). Two care leavers during this round identified as Aboriginal (10.5%). See Table 2 for a summary of participant demographics at round two.

Table 2 Participant demographics from the round two survey
Full size table

Round two materials

The round two survey consisted of a series of five-point Likert scale questions (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) informed by the data analysis from the round one survey responses and was developed from the thematic analysis of the round one survey responses. Examples of the ranked questions utilised to gather group consensus were:

  1. 1.

    Please rate the following from strongly disagree to strongly agree regarding what you believe are the educational and learning strengths of students in OOHC when attending school.

  2. 2.

    Please rate the following from strongly disagree to strongly agree regarding what you believe are the educational and learning challenges of students in OOHC when attending school.

  3. 3.

    Please rate the following from strongly disagree to strongly agree regarding what you believe the education system should focus on in relation to students in OOHC.

  4. 4.

    Please rate the following from strongly disagree to strongly agree regarding the limitations of programs in relation to the school or educational experiences of students in OOHC.

Procedure

Approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained to undertake this research (approval number: 25900). Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with knowledge and expertise in the area of OOHC students’ educational experiences and needs. Purposive sampling is often used in Delphi studies to create the pool of participants — often referred to as experts. Experts in Delphi research are defined as participants who have knowledge about a specific subject (Keeney et al., 2001). Participants were invited to complete the round one survey via direct emails from the research team, LinkedIn messages and snowball sampling. The snowballing approach involved participants potentially sharing the invitation to participate with their networks of other professionals and people with lived experience of OOHC. The research team consisted of academics and mental health experts in the area of OOHC, as well as a member of the team who is both a mental health practitioner and someone with lived experience of OOHC. The team was able to use their expertise and experience to identify potential participants to complete the round one survey. The same participants from round one were then invited to compete the round two survey 3 weeks later (34 participants completed just the round one survey, eight completed just the round two survey, and 11 participants completed both the round one and two surveys). For both the round one and round two surveys, participants indicated their consent to participate by clicking on the survey link and completing the online surveys at a time and place convenient for them. All survey responses were anonymous, and participants were asked to create a code so that the researchers could track participants who completed both the first and second round survey. At the end of both surveys, participants were invited to provide their contact details to receive a $20 voucher as acknowledgment of their time. A total of 40 of 45 participants requested a voucher for completing the round one survey, and 17 of the 19 participants requested a voucher at round two.

Data analyses

Qualtrics software was used to distribute the round one and round two surveys. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps for thematic analysis were used to analyse the round one open-ended questions. Initially, three of the authors independently reviewed participants’ responses from the round one survey. These three researchers then independently identified themes and patterns within the data. The three researchers then met to compare and converged their themes with a fourth member of the research team. The four authors then came to a consensus during this meeting on the final set of themes. The themes were then written up by members of the research team and presented to three people with lived experience of OOHC, known as Lived Experience Consultants, who were paid to review and provide feedback on the themes. The three lived experience consultants noted that the experiences articulated by participants in this study were representative of the educational experiences of children and youth in OOHC (for more information see Mendes et al., 2022). The themes generated from the thematic analysis of the first round of data informed the five-point Likert-style questions for round two of the Delphi. This is a common approach when conducting a Delphi study — first to collect the view of participants using open-ended questions, and then in the second survey, to develop Likert items for participants to rate the importance of themes generated from round one. The round two survey utilised a Likert scale method to draw out areas of consensus among participants based on their responses in the round one survey. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the Likert scale data from the round two survey using SPSS Statistics Software version 25.

Results

Round one qualitative results

The first round of survey responses from participants within this Delphi study yielded the following five themes: (1) children and young people in OOHC face a number of educational challenges, (2) children and young people in OOHC bring resilience to their education, (3) current educational responses for students in OOHC are not effective, (4) limitations of programs and policies for students in OOHC and (5) individualised and supportive response and safe learning environment. Each of these theme areas is described briefly, followed by the analysis of the second round Delphi data. One quote has been provided at the end of each theme to illustrate the responses of participants related to each theme.

Theme 1: Children and young people in OOHC face a number of educational challenges

Participants identified several challenges that they believed children and young people within OOHC face when engaging in an educational setting. These included poverty and social status, trauma and mental health issues, unstable living arrangements, emotional and learning challenges, navigating relationships with teachers and peers and stigma from living within OOHC. A care leaver and professional expressed:

I think feeling anxious, lonely and/or overthinking. Going through in and out of home care is emotionally challenging as there is a lot of overthinking and comparisons as to others and how they live. These emotional challenges affect schooling/education where you feel you are not good enough and where having low self-esteem affects the quality of work and general output in school/education. — Care Leaver

There isn’t much brain power left for learning when you’re in a heightened state and trying to stay safe. — Professional

Theme 2: Children and young people in OOHC bring resilience to their education

Self-determination, adaptability, independence and innovation were common terms used by participants to describe the strengths held by children and young people within OOHC which they bring to their educational pursuits. Other qualities of young people in OOHC included empathy for others and acceptance of difference, determination to overcome barriers and self-advocacy and a strong sense of fairness and justice. Participants described that young people in OOHC demonstrate these qualities because of their experiences of trauma, adversities and continued placement and school transitions. According to a care leaver and professional:

OOHC children and young people bring incredible resilience and adaptability to their learning. When they are supported enough to properly sustain educational engagement, they often thrive and achieve more than their peers from non-OOHC backgrounds. — Professional

Out of Home Care can create situations that expose people to a wider variety of diversity, cultures and experiences, that can make them more compassionate and socially accepting of people. — Care Leaver

Theme 3: Current educational responses for students in OOHC are not effective

Participants noted that current school responses for students in OOHC are ineffective in improving children’s and young people’s school and educational experiences. Participants commented on how teachers lack knowledge and skills to support these students, that there is a lack of emotional and educational support provided in schools to care for these students, and that schools are too focused on learning and attendance, over student wellbeing and trauma-informed approaches.

Schools being ill equipped to respond empathetically to young people with trauma is another huge barrier - often these young people get tagged as troublemakers without the time being taken to understand their complex needs — Professional

Support lacks for children who have been placed, they need extra support to keep them on track. Personally, I found being in large groups whilst learning whilst experiencing my circumstance was the reason I became unmotivated/fell behind during one of my schooling years. — Care Leaver

Theme 4: Limitations of programs and policies for students in OOHC

Participants mentioned a number of concerns regarding the current programs and policies for students in the OOHC system including lack of focus on learning, too much focus on school attendance, lack of funding for programs to meet the demand, lack of experienced teachers, no trauma-informed frameworks, lack of individualised services and care, unrealistic wait lists and rigid criteria for students to participate in programs. Two care leavers reported:

Youth Refuges have been really good at support on an individual level. Their biggest issue is not having the funding to really support the number of young people who need them. — Care Leaver

I did not have any support and none was available. — Care Leaver

Theme 5: Individualised and supportive response and safe learning environment

Participants reported that students in OOHC require an individualised, supportive and empathetic response to their educational needs. The need to focus on integration into the school community was also identified as is integral to the formation of a safe learning environment where children and young people in OOHC can be understood and supported. A professional and participant formally in care reported:

Education providers need to have an understanding of the individual’s unique circumstance, in order to provide holistic support to enhance the development of the student’s wellbeing, not just academic success — Professional/Care Leaver

Round two quantitative results

From the themes generated from the round one survey, a total of 16 topic areas were identified under the first theme of children, and young people in OOHC face a number of educational challenges. Participants were asked to rate the topics on a five-point Likert scale from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Based on the 70% threshold applied, the topics that reached consensus for the topic area of children and young people in OOHC that face a number of educational challenges have been shaded in Table 3. Consensus was not reached for the topic areas not shaded. Thirteen of the 16 topic areas reached consensus regarding the educational challenges of students, such as students in OOHC have experiences of trauma, unstable living arrangements, experience stigma and relationship problems with peers and have mental health problems and challenges completing school.

Table 3                                                                                        Frequency of topics related to the theme of ‘children and young people in OOHC face a number of educational challenges’
Full size table

From the themes generated from the round one survey, a total of 12 topic areas were identified under the second theme of children, and young people in OOHC bring resilience to their education (Table 4). Only one topic area under this theme reached consensus (i.e. students acceptance of differences in others), while a few approached but did not reach 70% consensus for people who either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (i.e. students’ ability come up with solutions to problems [63.2%], and the empathy and compassion they show for others [63.2%]).                                 

Table 4 Frequency for topic areas for the theme of ‘children and young people in OOHC bring resilience to their education’
Full size table

A total of 16 topic areas were included under the third theme of current educational responses for students in OOHC are not effective (Table 5). A total of 10 out of 16 topic areas reached consensus related to this theme. Examples include teachers are unsure how to support and educate these students, teachers are unsure about the unique learning experiences of these students, students are disengaged and experience frequent changes in schools, and there is a lack of funding, trauma-informed approaches and learning supports for students in OOHC.

Table 5 Frequency for topics related to the theme of ‘current educational responses for students in OOHC are not effective’
Full size table

A total of 11 topic areas were included under the fourth theme of limitations of programs and policies for students in OOHC (Table 6). Examples of the eight topics that reached 70% consensus of participants either agreeing or strongly agreeing included problems with programs focusing on student attendance, lack of funding for programs, teachers inexperienced to apply programs and policies and lack of case management, individualised solutions and consideration of students’ care arrangements.

Table 6 Frequency for topics related to the theme of ‘limitations of programs and policies for students in OOHC’
Full size table

From the themes generated from the round one survey, a total of 10 topic areas were identified under the theme of individualised and supportive response and safe learning environment (Table 7). Five of the 10 areas reached the consensus threshold of 70% or more of participants either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, including that OOHC students should be provided with more mental health support and choice regarding their learning, and services should be better coordinated for students in OOHC.

Table 7 Frequency for topic responses under the theme of ‘individualised and supportive response and safe learning environment’
Full size table

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the educational challenges and school reforms needed to improve the educational experiences of children and young people in OOHC. This study used a Delphi method to address the following research questions: (1) What are the educational experiences of children in OOHC, including social, emotional, learning and behaviour aspects? (2) What are the limitations of current educational responses for children in OOHC? (3) What educational reforms are needed to enhance educational experiences of children in OOHC? Participants in round one reported on the strengths of children in OOHC, including their capacity to determine their own educational needs, their resilience and ability to adapt to different educational settings and their persistence despite experiences of adversity and trauma. However, consensus in the round two survey was achieved for the negative effects of OOHC, including experiences of trauma and disadvantage, unstable home placements and schooling, stigma and inadequate knowledge and skills of teachers concerning OOHC students’ educational needs.

Many of these challenges reached over 70% consensus, including experiences of trauma and adversity which achieved 100% agreement, and poverty and disadvantage, unable living circumstances, mental health issues and learning delays, which achieved over 94% agreement. Participants recommended programs to increase teachers’ awareness of the challenges and strengths of children in OOHC, knowledge of individualised learning plans for children in OOHC and understanding about how to support children in OOHC. Over 89% of participants reported in the round two survey that teachers lack knowledge and experience to respond to the needs of OOHC students, and over 94% endorsed the need for psychological support and trauma-informed programs for students in OOHC. The results of this study align with the results of several earlier studies on the experiences of OOHC students at school (see for example Lund & Stokes, 2020; Townsend et al., 2020).

However, the benefit of this study relative to earlier research is use of the Delphi methodology, which demonstrated agreement among participants concerning several important issues for students in OOHC. These areas of agreement can be used to evaluate current policies and programs and prioritise new programs and policies to improve educational outcomes of these students. When asked about the limitations of current programs and policies for students in OOHC, eight limitations reached 70% consensus, including programs lacking funding, teachers’ lack of experience and the lack of individualised solutions and consideration of students’ care arrangements. Limited trauma-informed programs again reached a high level of consensus (100%), followed by programs lacking adequate funding to meet the high level of need of these students (over 94%), and over 84% reported that teachers are not skilled enough to deliver initiatives to support students in OOHC.

Program implications

The results of this review provide a strong basis for program reforms to improve the educational experiences of students in OOHC. Specifically, programs which adopt a trauma-informed lens and school trauma–informed practices are required for students in OOHC. Research regarding trauma-informed practice has indicated the benefits of this approach for students and school staff (Berger, 2019; Berger et al., 2018). Trauma-informed practice is defined as “A program, organization, or system that is trauma-informed realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery; recognizes signs symptoms in clients, families, staff, others involved with system; responds by fully integrating knowledge about into policies, procedures, practices; seeks to actively resist re-traumatization” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014, p. 9). In the context of schools, programs promoting trauma-informed practice focus on provision of training for all school staff, and specialist training for school mental health staff, around the impacts and prevalence of childhood trauma and how to support and refer students who have experienced trauma to specialized services (Berger, 2019; Dorado et al., 2016).

Trauma-informed programs in schools detail the importance of three main pillars when responding to students who have experienced trauma, including promotion of relationships between students and school staff to promote students’ trust and sense of psychological safety, promotion of students’ emotional and behavioural regulatory abilities through activities and interventions in the school and finally, promotion of students’ sense of their competencies, goals and values through specific activities and teachers offering praise to students. Although it is not clear from the results which aspects of trauma-informed practice participants thought would be most (or least) helpful for students in OOHC, remarks of participants demonstrated that the trauma-informed principles of supportive responses in schools and provision of choice for students around their education were important for young people in OOHC. A recent systematic review also demonstrated that trauma-informed care models may have significantly positive outcomes for children in OOHC; however, the authors noted that there is limited evidence on the efficacy of trauma-informed programs for students in OOHC (Bailey et al., 2019).

Policy implications

In addition to trauma-informed programs, holistic, whole-school policies are required to address the social, emotional and academic needs of students in OOHC. Educational policy in Australia recommends that all children in OOHC are supported in schools through teacher and peer mentoring, trauma-informed practices, individualised learning plans, student agency and choice and referrals to mental health and wellbeing services (Victorian State Government, 2018). Funding is also provided in Australian schools where the OOHC circumstances of students are believed to be adversely impacting the student’s learning, wellbeing and access to the curriculum (NSW Government, 2020). However, the results of this study demonstrate over 90% agreement that children in care require more support, and over 80% agreement that teachers are not equipped to provide support to these young people, such as through individualised learning plans. Thus, while policy recommends measures, such as individualised learning plans, engaging students in shared decision-making and assessing the support needs of children in OOHC, this study demonstrates that many teachers may not be equipped to deliver support to young people in care.

In the UK and USA, there is also growing recognition that children in care experience a range of educational challenges, including the impact of early life trauma on their education, and that schools have a responsibility to improve educational support and services for these youth (see Uniting Care, 2015). Research addressing policy reform for children in OOHC in the USA state that to improve school outcomes and experiences of students in OOHC, young people require a higher degree of placement stability, strengths-based assessment and educational support, improved identification and treatment of mental health concerns and encouragement to pursue educational and life-skills goals (Pecora, 2012). The results of this study support many of these recommendations and add that the sector requires more funding of programs and initiatives for young people in care, greater professional development for teachers to understand OOHC policies and how to support students in OOHC and increased access to mental health practitioners in schools. These measures will likely improve later life success, employment and social participation for care leavers once they leave OOHC.

Limitations

There are some limitations which are important when interpreting the results of this Delphi. First, stakeholders were defined as (a) people aged 18 years or older with lived experience of OOHC, (b) professionals/educators who support children in OOHC or (c) carers of children in care. However, there are no agreed criteria or consensus in the literature to define participant groups who should be included in a Delphi. Thus, it is possible that other stakeholder perspectives could have been relevant for this area of study. For instance, the views of parents of children removed from their care are not represented in the results of the current study. Therefore, the views of this ‘expert’ group are absent from the current study. This study also experienced 57.8% attrition in participation between the first survey round and the second round. It is possible that the first online survey which included several open-ended questions reduced motivation of participants to complete the second survey. Attrition between survey rounds is a common problem for Delphi research designs, and the high attrition rate between survey rounds resulted in only two rounds of the Delphi being completed (Gargon et al., 2019). However, on closer inspection, the sample size of care leavers with experience of OOHC was more consistent across the two survey rounds compared to the professionals and carers groups. A strength of this study is the inclusion of care leavers, lived experience consultants and a researcher and co-author with lived experience of OOHC. Furthermore, despite the smaller sample of 19 participants who completed the round two survey, research has suggested that a minimum of 12 respondents is sufficient to generate consensus (Vogel et al., 2019). The decision to conduct a two-round Delphi study may also be a limitation. A third round of responses where panelists compared their ratings to the aggregated rating/ranking across panel members might have offered the opportunity for each expert to reflect and amend their initial ratings.

Conclusion

This Delphi study explored the perspectives of multiple stakeholders regarding the educational experiences and needs of young people in OOHC. The results indicate that considerable investment in schools and programs is required to address the educational disadvantages of students in OOHC. A multifaceted approach is required, including trauma-informed school policy, professional development for teachers, academic and mental health support for students and more inclusive OOHC programs for students. Outcomes of this study can be used to promote greater investment in program development and implementation to improve the educational outcomes for young people in care and improve outcomes for care leavers and adults formerly in care. Although policies and programs are growing to address the disparity in educational outcomes for youth in care compared to those not in care, systematic change is needed from professional learning for teachers, better communication and collaboration between schools and OOHC services, greater psychosocial and academic support and prioritizing youth voice and decision making concerning their own educational goals and needs. The success of these approaches should be researched using a variety of methods, including surveys to measure short-, medium- and long-term outcomes for youth, and qualitative research to measure young people’s perceptions of programs, and barriers and facilitators to program engagement.