The government has published its response to last year鈥檚 landmark MacAlister , but has only committed to consult on the main schools proposals. The report has already been criticised for allocating just 拢200 million over two years for reforms, whereas the review called for 拢2.6 billion over five years. And a lack of concrete pledges in response to the education recommendations is likely to prompt accusations that it has been watered-down. Here鈥檚 what you need to know… 1. Make schools 鈥榗orporate parents鈥 Proposal: In his review, Josh MacAlister said making schools corporate parents in England would 鈥渕ore accurately reflect the role that schools鈥lay in the lives of children in care and those with a care experience鈥. Response: The government said it would consult this month on 鈥渆xtending corporate parenting responsibilities to a wider set of public bodies鈥, and then again in the autumn 鈥渁s necessary鈥 on proposals for legislative reform. This will come when 鈥減arliamentary time allows鈥. 2. Make schools statutory safeguarding partners Proposal: Last year鈥檚 review said schools should become 鈥渟tatutory safeguarding partners鈥, alongside councils, health services and police, warning leaving schools out at the moment meant the voice of education was 鈥渕issing鈥. Response: The government said it agreed education 鈥渘eeds to play a greater role in local safeguarding arrangements鈥. It will consult in the spring on how to 鈥渟trengthen the role of education settings鈥. Proposals 鈥渨ill include whether to clarify their roles and responsibilities within multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and how they operate within the strategic and operational levels of partnerships鈥. The DfE will then 鈥渦se learning from this to help form proposals on whether and how to make education a fourth safeguarding partner through consultation in autumn 2023鈥. If agreed, the government will 鈥渂ring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows鈥. 3. Base 鈥榝amily help teams鈥 in schools Proposal: The review wanted a new category of 鈥渇amily help鈥, based in community settings like schools, to replace 鈥渢argeted early help鈥 and 鈥渃hild in need鈥 work. Response: Ministers have pledged a 拢45 million pilot in 12 areas to implement new 鈥渇amily help鈥 services, but made no firm commitment to putting them in schools 4. Let school staff foster children they teach Proposal: The review warned the culture of care meant it was 鈥渙ften considered inappropriate鈥 to ask a teacher or friend鈥檚 parent to consider becoming a specific child鈥檚 foster carer, adding that this 鈥渘eeds to change鈥. Response: The DfE simply pointed to its existing fostering recruitment and retention programme, making no mention of teachers. 5. Hold virtual school heads to account for progress Proposal: Virtual school heads have a duty to promote the educational achievement of children in care and manage their pupil premium funding, but the review found a 鈥渞eal lack of accountability鈥. It said virtual school heads should be held to account for the progress 8 scores of children in care. Response: The government made no mention of this, but did commit to consult 鈥渁s necessary鈥 in the autumn on 鈥渆xpanding the Virtual School Head role to include children in care and care leavers up to the age of 25鈥. 6. Use pupil premium on 鈥榳ell-evidenced鈥 programmes Proposal: Schools receive extra funding for looked-after children through the pupil premium plus. The review said virtual school heads should direct this funding 鈥渢owards interventions that are well evidenced鈥. Response: The DfE said it would 鈥渆nsure pupil premium plus funding for children in care is spent on well evidenced interventions鈥. But they did not say how this would be achieved. However, they will extend the 鈥減ost-16 pupil premium plus style of funding鈥 with a further 拢24 million between 2023 and 2025 to 鈥渁ddress the cliff edge in educational support that children in care and care leavers face in 16- to 19-year-old education鈥. 7. Divert free schools cash to create state boarding places Proposal: MacAlister鈥檚 review recommended that the free schools capital budget should be used to create capacity for looked-after children in boarding schools. Response: The DfE said it had already extended its 鈥渂roadening educational pathways鈥 programme to 鈥渋ncrease the number of children in care in independent and state boarding schools鈥. But the response makes no mention of where the funding came from. 8. Replace young offender institutions with secure schools Proposal: The review said young offender institutions and secure training centres should be 鈥減hased out鈥 entirely within the next ten years and replaced with secure children鈥檚 homes and secure schools. Response: There is no mention of secure schools in the government鈥檚 response. 9. Train all staff on mental health response Proposal: Last year鈥檚 review said the identification and response to poor mental health issues should be a 鈥渃ore part of training programmes for any professionals working with children and young people that have involvement with children鈥檚 services鈥. Response: The DfE said it would 鈥渞eview current levels of knowledge and skills鈥 among those working in virtual schools.