The phrase “looked after” has given me pause to reflect recently. What does “looked after” mean for you and for the children in your life?

It is a given that nearly all parents want the best for their children, and that starts with education - a child’s first rung on their ladder of opportunity.

But in my role as chair of the Commons Education Committee, the words have quite a different meaning - children and young people who are “looked after” by, or in the care of, their local authority.

In our new report, which highlights the shocking failings in the care system, it is apparent that the education of our so-called “looked after” children is, too often, looked over.

The recent revolving door changes in the Department of Education (DfE) must not negatively impact the laser focus needed to introduce policies that will improve lives and opportunities. Whatever the politics of the next few months may be, children and education will be at the forefront of our committee’s work, and we will be hounding the department to ensure that it does the same.

The statistics outlined in the new report are concerning. In 2019, 7.2 per cent of looked-after children achieved a grade 5 (around an old-school C) in their English and maths GCSEs. For their non-looked after classmates, this figure was 40.1 per cent.

The average attainment 8 score (a metric that looks at achievement across 8 GCSE qualifications) was 19.1 for children in care - less than half the score of 44.6 achieved by non-looked-after children.

The divide is particularly stark for children living in residential care who, at the age of 16, score on average six grades lower at GCSE than those living in foster or kinship care.

“Pushy” parents with sharp elbows are a familiar caricature of our education system. But we do see them at every school gate, every governors’ meeting and after-school club pick-up. Children who have adults advocating on their behalf - for a place at a “good” or “outstanding” school, or for them to stay within mainstream education - benefit from this powerful asset. Looked-after children, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society, deserve such advocates. But who is there to take that role for them?

Children in residential care are less likely than their peers to attend “good” or “outstanding” schools (76 per cent do so, compared with 84 per cent of all children nationally), despite local authorities having statutory responsibilities and powers that should grant them the sharpest elbows in the playground.

Schools have a responsibility to admit children in care, even when places are full, and statutory guidance is clear that “good” or “outstanding” schools must be prioritised when a local authority is seeking a new school place for a child in care.

In theory, owing to the Schools Admissions Code, there is no reason that near to 100 per cent of children in care should not be at the best schools in their local area.

But a study carried out by the Independent Children’s Homes Association found that 58 per cent of the 53 homes asked did not believe the code was being honoured. It is also evident that clunky systems delay the process of pushing for the best schools, funnelling children into schools that will grant them places quickly rather than those which are best for them.

This must end. Not only must the government set out and enforce a system that ensures that schools follow the code - with an impact on their Ofsted rating if they do not - but it must give these children an advocate.

These adults exist. All local authorities employ a virtual school head, who is responsible for ensuring that children in care have the maximum opportunity to reach their full education potential.

These professionals must be given stronger powers, to push looked-after children into the best and most appropriate schools in their local area.

Virtual school heads are responsible for allocating pupil premium plus - additional funding for children in care that supports them to catch up educationally with their non-looked-after peers - and the report highlights the need for strengthened accountability, with clear penalties for local authorities that are not effectively spending this grant on raising the educational attainment of looked-after children.

It would be remiss to overlook the fact that many children are traumatised by the events that led to their being in care in the first place.

Children in care have more complex needs and are also more likely to have special educational needs than their non-looked-after peers.

But these facts alone do not provide adequate explanation for the disparity in educational outcomes between children who are in care and those who are not.

Our inquiry identified a host of indefensible system failings that result in looked-after children receiving educational experiences that we certainly would not deem acceptable for our own children.

A total of 57 per cent of children in residential care attend special schools - a figure that is 20 times higher than all children nationally.

With the right support, many of these children would fare better in mainstream education. It is of particular concern that the child’s corporate parent - the local authority - does not routinely stand up for their child as you or I would.

There is a clear potential for conflict of interest when it comes to appeals for a child in residential care whose school place or education, health and care plan does not meet their needs.

In practice, a local authority would not appeal against itself. Were virtual school heads granted the authority that they should rightly have, they would be able to far more effectively advocate for these looked-after children, ensuring that suitable learning support plans are in place, identifying the child’s true educational needs and, where these needs are not met, standing with children in care against the local authority.

The work of virtual heads is continually impeded by the significant lack of data on our looked-after children. Time and again, throughout the course of our inquiry, we found gaps in data, outdated statistics or figures we were told should come “with a health warning”.

This is not only a barrier to accountability; it is dangerous. Where do the children who fall into this “black hole of data” go? What happens to their learning and to their safety?

All looked-after children should be receiving full-time education in a DfE-registered school. But there is no national system for monitoring whether a looked-after young person is being educated in a registered school.

One Ofsted data set found that 9 per cent of children in children’s homes are in unregulated “education”. This “education” provision is not monitored by Ofsted and could include online schools or tutors without accreditation. A further 6 per cent are not in education, employment or training at all.

Local authorities cannot confirm or deny such statistics themselves because they simply do not know. Children are slipping through the cracks in the system because the data infrastructure that should act as their safety net does not exist.

The government needs to address this without delay. Our committee has called on the DfE to ensure this data is collected and published as a matter of urgency.

The lack of a safety net becomes devastatingly apparent when children leave care. Anyone who knows a teenager can attest to the fact that 17- and 18-year-olds - although brilliant, inspiring and promising young people (as the care-leavers who gave evidence to our inquiry demonstrated) - are not adults.

Many young people rely on the support and guidance of adults in their lives well into their early twenties. For care-leavers with no such options, there is, instead, a cliff edge.

Pupil premium plus is abruptly stopped at Year 11. This does not seem right, particularly as, in 2021, 23 per cent of children entering care were 16 or older.

It is now the law for young people to be in education or training until the age of 18, yet almost one-quarter of the entire care population are being denied the support they need to do well at this crucial stage of their education.

The government has recently completed a pilot scheme which trialled extending pupil premium plus to the age of 18. The committee’s report calls for this to be rolled out nationally - and fast.

Just 22 per cent of care-leavers aged 27 are in employment compared with 57 per cent of others. Even when in employment, there is on average a £6,000 pay gap, leaving care-leavers worse off than their peers. In total, 41 per cent of 19- to 21-year-old care-leavers were not in education, employment or training. And, in a trend fast becoming familiar within the care system, the true picture may be even worse; data was not known for a further 7 per cent.

Just 2 per cent of care-leavers go on to do apprenticeships. Why, when the national average is 8.4 per cent?

With the wage set at £4.81 per hour, they cannot afford to live on this wage without parents to support them. This is wrong. Our report has called on the government to reform the apprenticeship levy to grant care-leavers the national living wage during the course of their apprenticeship.

By 2025, it is predicted that the number of children in care could reach 100,000. The state must be a better parent to them. It is high time that we pushed for better, to give looked-after children the education, and the future, that they so deserve.