Virtual schools’ expanded remit needs more cash

These services have been a success story: improving educational progress and outcomes for looked-after children and overseeing a reduction in exclusions and absences.

Crucially, virtual schools help councils to better fulfil their role as “corporate parent” through championing the education of the most vulnerable children just as birth parents do. They also help schools and other local stakeholders to understand the broader challenges that often affect this cohort of young people – such as experience of trauma or disordered attachment – so they are better able to support them in their educational journeys.

However, virtual schools are at an important juncture since their remit was expanded in 2021 to take on more responsibility for all young people with a social worker.

While this offers potential benefits for a wider group of vulnerable children and young people, there are also distinct differences in what can and should be offered for this new cohort – not least that the council is not the corporate parent to this group, nor are they funded with the enhanced Pupil Premium Plus attached to looked-after children, which provides much of the resource for virtual schools.

The County Councils Network feel it is a good time to assess how these services are working, and how they are likely to work in the future. Our recent report, based on interviews with those working in and around virtual schools, aims to start this conversation.

One impact of the expanded remit is the sharp rise in numbers of children in the virtual schools’ scope. Prior to the changes, one virtual school had up to 900 pupils with a staff of 12 to look after them. This worked well: the service could provide more intensive support to certain individual cases, while effectively carrying out its core strategic role working with schools and identifying the progress of the cohort.

Since the changes, the virtual school’s caseload has risen fivefold. The government did provide more funding for this extra workload but, by all accounts, it is not enough. In this case, it only paid for one extra staff member.

Supporting children in need may not only improve their educational outcomes, but stop them from entering care in the first place. With recent efforts to try to focus more on prevention within children’s services, this could be a significant boon. However, virtual schools’ success has partly been down to their clear focus – they risk losing their effectiveness if their expertise is spread too thinly. That is why the report calls for a review of the service, arguing the government must provide more resources.

The report also finds that virtual schools operate differently from council to council. This was deliberate: when established, councils were encouraged to create a service that best met local needs. This approach has worked.

At the same time, it has led to an inconsistent offer across England. As the remit of virtual schools is expanding, it might be worth assessing how they can become more uniform.

Also, virtual schools’ expertise with a cohort disproportionately impacted by special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) means they can be a useful partner in supporting specialist SEND teams, supporting the objectives of the government’s improvement agenda.

Any review must adequately answer how they can do this effectively. Ultimately, it may come down to a question of resourcing.

• Virtual Schools: Education’s Hidden Asset from www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk