As many of you know, I work for Ofsted, who inspect schools and other settings for education. Part of my job is to give a final proofreading to certain reports on schools before publication.

One of the reports said that

quote:

There are a few looked after children ...

Surely, all the schildren are looked after, although maybe some are cared for better than others?

We use the phrase "looked after children" to mean those in the care of a local authority, and who live in a foster home or children's home. In essence it is jargon.

The reports are intended for all interested people, which includes parents and carers. I'm sure they wouldn't be pleased to know that only a few of the kids at the school are looked after. Presumably the rest are feral?

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I'm sure they wouldn't be pleased to know that only a few of the kids at the school are looked after. Presumably the rest are feral?

Based on many children's behaviour, that may be right on the mark!

Wouldn't a dash (looked-after) be valuable in this instance?

I thought the same thing, Proof. Our editors would have been on that in a moment!

No, the hyphen would have made them a group: looked-after children. They try to avoid putting people in groups, so we don't use a hyphens.

They are treating them as a group. but don't want it obvious. Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me.

This is one of those cases where the writer has not thought hard enough about his or her writing.

I would have written "...There are a few children who are looked after...". Or if it is the lack of quality of the care that is subject to discussion, then maybe, "...There are a few children who are properly looked after..."

The way you are reading it, Richard, is the way that most people would read it. However, as I said, the inspector was trying to convey that a few children are in the care of the local authority (as opposed to their natural parents).

quote:

They try to avoid putting people in groups, so we don't use a hyphens.

That is one of the most ridiculous concepts I've ever heard.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
The way you are reading it, Richard, is the way that most people would read it. However, as I said, the inspector was trying to convey that a few children are in the care of the local authority (as opposed to their natural parents).

As you says, it's jargon and, I suggest, better avoided in any publication that might be read by those outside the specialist group involved.

I would have written, "...children in [local authority] care..." rather than "...cared for children...". The parenthesis is maybe optional.

That's essentially what I suggested. I haven't seen the revised version back yet so don't know what the published version will look like.

quote:

No, the hyphen would have made them a group: looked-after children. They try to avoid putting people in groups, so we don't use a hyphens.

I don't get how the hyphen makes them a group. What am I missing? I see looked-after as an adjective, so child vs. children would differentiate individuals from groups.

Do you have a problem with children who are essentially feral? I see it here every day. I suppose there are under-supervised children in ever country.

quote:

Do you have a problem with children who are essentially feral?

Not sure who that was addressed to - if it was addressed to me, or England in general, or someone else. Guessing that it was England, I'd say, no, we don't, in general. In a few areas gangs tend to attract some kids to crime, but even then almost all of them have at least one parent or carer who would swear that they were being looked after, even if they turned out to be less good parents than they think.