Today, children whose parents are deemed incapable of caring for them are put into foster care. These children are moved into strangers’ homes, where they are cared for until their own parents can regain custody, which may not happen for years, if it happens at all. Although it means well, the current foster care program is so poorly funded, staffed, and managed that it cannot ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children in the system. The laudable idea behind foster care is that children will fare best if placed in a family setting until they can be reunited with their parents, even if it is a family of strangers. However, while in foster care, children typically get shuffled between many different foster homes, preventing them from developing long-term, supportive relationships with their foster families. Foster care placements can also force siblings to be separated, further isolating these vulnerable children. When a child is moved to a new foster home, he or she may also have to enroll in a new school, a disruptive process that has a negative impact on the child’s education. The bureaucracy that oversees this system is overwhelmed to the point that social workers are unable to adequately screen potential foster parents and keep accurate track of the children placed in foster care. There must be a better means of caring for these children. Perhaps it is time to consider creating special group homes as a means of providing these children with stable and safe environments.
A child could live in one group home for the duration of his or her time in foster care and be supervised by a team of social workers and other lay people. Children would receive proper meals and healthcare, attend the same school, and develop relationships with others experiencing the trauma of being separated from their parents. In addition, social workers and staff would have daily access to these children, enabling them to better determine if a child has a special physical or psychological need and arrange for the necessary services. Would this approach be perfect? No, but it would solve many of the problems that plague the current system. For some, the idea of a government agency housing, clothing, and feeding needy children may sound extreme, but it only suggests that we provide these children with the same basic necessities that we give to prison inmates.
Which of the following best expresses the main idea of this passage?
- The current foster care system is a failure.
- Government-run group homes would be a better option than foster care.
- Group homes for children are similar to prisons.
- Children in foster care need more stability.
- No childcare system is perfect.
Answer(s): B
Explanation:
The main idea is expressed at the beginning of the third paragraph: “Perhaps it’s time to consider creating special group homes as a means of providing these children with stable and safe environments.” The first two paragraphs describe the problems with foster care, whereas the last two show how group homes would address those problems. The passage does argue that the current foster care system is at least to some extent a failure (choice a), but that is part of the larger argument that something else must be done. The passage refers to prisons in the last paragraph, but this is to compare the treatment of children in foster care with the treatment of inmates in prison, not to compare group homes to prisons (choice c). The passage argues that children in foster care need more stability (choice d), but this is one of the supporting ideas, not the main idea. The author may feel that no system is perfect (choice e) and acknowledges that group homes are not a perfect solution, but again, this is a detail within the passage, not the overall main idea.
Reveal Solution
Next Question