Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships - Independent Women's Forum

Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships: The Benefits of Expanding Education Options to Students, Public Schools, and States By Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D. Position Paper No. 31 n July 2010

Independent Women’s Forum 4400 Jenifer Street, NW Suite 240 Washington, DC 20015 (202) 419-1820 www.iwf.org

Independent Women’s Forum 4400 Jenifer Street, NW, Suite 240 Washington, DC 20015 202-419-1820 www.iwf.org © 2010 Independent Women’s Forum. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1 Background............................................................................................................................................. 2 Options for Title IX Compliance................................................................................................................ 3 Effects of Title IX...................................................................................................................................... 5 Possible Solutions................................................................................................................................... 7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 9 Notes..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships: The Benefits of Expanding Education Options to Students, Public Schools, and States

n

5

Executive Summary May was National Foster Care month, intended to raise awareness about the hundreds of thousands of children and youth in the foster-care system. The foster-care youth population is widely considered among the most at-risk. Children and youth in the foster-care system face general instability, which is compounded by the negative effects of frequent school changes, as well special educational needs that often go unmet. There is also broad consensus that finding permanent, loving homes for foster-care children improves their chances for success in school and life, but that states’ and families’ budgetary pressures may be dampening prospective adoptions. A leading concern among prospective adoptive parents is being unable to provide a quality education for their children and having no say in their children’s future. Adopting a Florida-style scholarship program for students in foster-care could help alleviate these concerns of parents and address some of the challenges that children face while in foster-care. In Florida, parents of at-risk students, including students in foster care, are allowed to use scholarships to send their children to private schools. Research has found that participating Florida students have improved academically, and that the public-school system’s overall performance has also improved. Official government analyses find that state and public school districts have saved money as a result of school-choice programs for at-risk students. And, in just over a decade, Florida has turned a fourth-grade reading deficit on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) of five points or more among the most disadvantaged student populations compared to the national average into gains equivalent to three full grade levels. There is a significant body of research showing that under the current public-schooling system, which is heavily bureaucratic and virtually devoid of incentives to be cost-effective, increased spending would have a marginal impact at best on student achievement. Even if there were a direct relationship between additional spending and improved student achievement, the cost would be prohibitive. Under the current system, it would require an estimated $394 million in additional spending on traditional interventions for states to achieve Florida’s current fourth-grade NAEP reading performance just among their school-age foster-care student population. A Florida-style scholarship program for students in foster care, however, could achieve comparable results without the additional cost. Such a program could also encourage adoptions by empowering foster and adoptive parents when it comes to their children’s education, as well as improve school stability and the provision of specialized education services for foster-care students within current appropriation levels. Adopting a Florida-style foster-care scholarship program is an academically and fiscally responsible education reform.

i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

6

n

Position Paper No. 31

Talking Points: ore than 300,000 foster-care children are of elementary and secondary school age M (ages five to 18). l Education is the key to a better future, but foster-care children are disproportionately represented in failing public schools. Not surprisingly, foster-care children have lower achievement, repeat more grades, are less likely to graduate, and more likely to have special needs. Their challenges are compounded by the negative effects of frequent school switches. l Adoption improves foster-care children’s chances of success in school and in life, but as many as 130,000 foster-care children nationwide are waiting to be adopted. Only about 40 percent of waiting children are adopted annually. l

ully 77 percent of potential foster and adoptive parents worry about providing a F quality education.; and l Adults formerly in the system are more likely to have few job skills, be homeless, rely on social health and welfare services, be incarcerated, and have drug or alcohol dependencies. l Each child who leaves the foster-care system at age 18 (the age when they are no longer eligible for foster-care services) without being adopted costs society more than $1 million in social support-system costs, including welfare, health-care, incarceration, and housing.. l A foster-care scholarship program modeled after Florida’s school choice program for at-risk and special needs students, including those in foster-care, would have several advantages over the current system: 1) it could encourage more adoptions by easing prospective parents’ fears about accessing high-quality schools; 2) provide better school stability and minimize adverse academic impacts to foster-care students; 3) improve achievement of scholarship recipients; 4) promote improved systemic public-school performance through competition; and 5) improve student achievement within current spending levels. l A foster-care scholarship program is educationally and fiscally responsible reform. l



n

7

A National Overview of Foster Care May is National Foster Care month, intended to raise awareness about the hundreds of thousands of children and youth in foster-care.1 As President Obama explained in a recent proclamation: Nearly a half-million children and youth are in foster care in America, all entering the system through no fault of their own. During National Foster Care Month, we recognize the promise of children and youth in foster care, as well as former foster youth. We also celebrate the professionals and foster parents who demonstrate the depth and kindness of the human heart. Children and youth in foster care deserve the happiness and joy every child should experience through family life and a safe, loving home. Families provide children with unconditional love, stability, trust, and the support to grow into healthy, productive adults. Unfortunately, too many foster youth reach the age at which they must leave foster care and enter adulthood without the support of a permanent family.2 Nationwide almost 800,000 youth receive foster-care services ...about 29,516 foster-care youth, each year, and at any given time approximately 500,000 children are 3 in the system. Approximately 70 percent (or more than 300,000) or one in 10, are emancipated from the of the country’s 463,000 foster-care children are of elementary and system when they turn 18 or older... secondary school age (ages five to 18).4 Table 1 provides states’ total and estimated school-age foster-care population. Foster care is intended as a temporary safety net, but as many as 130,000 children in the foster-care system nationwide are waiting to be adopted.5 On average, children stay in the foster-care system for more than 27 months, but averages do not tell the full story. Fully 23 percent of foster youth remain in the system 12 to 24 months. Another 12 percent stay in foster care for three to four years. Still another 12 percent remain for five years or more.6 Meanwhile, about 29,516 foster-care youth, or one in 10, are emancipated from the system when they turn 18 or older (referred to as “aging out”) without a permanent, loving home.7 The ranks of these “aged out” youth have also swelled nearly 65 percent from 1999 to 2008.8 “These aging-out children are walking tragedies, waiting to happen,” concludes the Adopt America Network. “It is estimated that for each ‘aged-out’ child, it costs society over $1 million per child [in social welfare costs] over their lifetime. So, we can pay for finding permanent homes for these kids now, or we can pay many times more later, as we allow societal problems to perpetuate.” (Emphasis original.)9 i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

8

n


In spite of improvements in federal legislation over the past 15 years, evidence indicates the likelihood of adoption of foster-care children and youth has not increased, with only 38 percent to 40 percent (approximately 51,000 to 53,000 children) of waiting foster-care children being adopted annually since 2002.10



n

9

Poor Educational and Life Outcomes The foster-care youth population is widely considered among the most at-risk. Adults formerly in the system are more likely to have few job skills, be homeless, rely on social health and welfare services, be incarcerated, and have drug or alcohol dependencies.11 There is broad consensus that a good education is critical for a successful life once youth leave the foster-care system.12 Yet “the educational needs of youth in foster care are too often ignored or undervalued by educators, child welfare professionals, and the courts,” according to experts from Casey Family Programs.13 Available foster-care youth statistics are sobering: lB etween

30 percent and 96 percent perform below grade level in reading and

math; lF oster-care students score 15 to 20 percentile points below the general student population on statewide achievement tests;15 lB etween 26 percent and 40 percent repeat one or more grades;16 lO ne-fifth is considered “engaged” in school, compared to 39 percent of the general student population–including participation in academic tasks, school-related activates, having good relationships with teachers and peers, and a willingness to try and master difficult skills;17 lM ore than one-quarter (27 percent) have behavioral and emotional problems, compared to 7 percent of the general student population;18 lB etween 30 and 52 percent are placed in special education, compared to about 10 to 12 percent of the general student population;19 lN early one-third suffers from an active substance disorder;20 lA lmost one-quarter is on medication for a psychological condition;21 lS tudents in foster care are twice as likely to be suspended and four times as likely to be expelled;22 lH alf of foster-care students drop out of high school compared to 16 percent of the general student population.23 14

The effects of poor academic preparation of students in the foster-care system have long-term consequences.24 Even after exiting the system, between 37 percent and 80 percent of former foster-care youth do not complete high school.25 Up to four years after leaving foster care, half of these young people do not earn a high-school diploma or GED; while less than 10 percent enter college, even though about 70 percent of former foster-care youth want a college education.26 Nationwide, 60 percent of the general student population attends some college, and 25 percent earn a bachelor’s degree. In contrast, only 10 to 30 percent of former fosteri n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

10

n


The effects of poor academic preparation of students in the foster-care system have long-term consequences.

care youth attend some college, and just one to five percent earns a bachelor’s degree.27 The limited education foster-care youth receive translates into 90 percent of them earning $10,000 less annually than the general population.28 In fact, within two to four years after leaving the foster-care system, only about half of former foster youth are employed, almost half have been arrested, and nearly one-fourth experience homelessness.29 “Time and again, experts in many fields note that success in education is one of the most important indicators of success later in life,” notes the National Council on Disability. “Therefore, meeting the educational needs of this vulnerable population should be deemed a top priority by the teachers, caseworkers, foster parents, dependency court judges, and mental health professionals who interact with these youth.”30 Yet a recent analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures concluded, “In the absence of significant policy and practice improvements, children in foster care will continue to have poor educational experiences, lack the opportunities they need to succeed academically, and be deprived of the resources that they deserve to reach their full potential.”31



n

11

Barriers to Better Educational Outcomes There is broad consensus that finding permanent, loving homes for foster-care children improves their chances for success in school and life but states’ and families’ budgetary pressures may be dampening prospective adoptions.32 Children and youth in the system also face instability compounded by the negative effects of frequent school changes, as well special educational needs that often go unmet. This section explores some of the leading barriers to better educational outcomes for students in foster care. Limited Access to Quality Schools Research indicates that the most vulnerable students, including those in the foster-care system, are disproportionately represented in failing schools.33 Not surprisingly, more than three-quarters

Financial support for foster-care parents is often inadequate, and given states’ current budget shortfalls this situation is unlikely to improve any time soon.

of prospective adoptive parents (77 percent) express concern about being unable to provide for a child’s education.34 Many experts also note that young people adopted before the age of 16 may risk losing their education and training benefits.35 This is an especially pressing policy concern because families who adopt foster-care children typically have lower household incomes than families who adopt children through private adoption agencies domestically or abroad. In fact, almost half (46 percent) of children in foster care are adopted into households with incomes around two times the poverty threshold.36 The financial constraints foster and adoptive parents face likely contribute to feelings that they have “no say in the child’s future,” a concern expressed by 46 percent of foster parents who planned to retire, according to a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services survey.37 Financial support for foster-care parents is often inadequate, and given states’ current budget shortfalls this situation is unlikely to improve any time soon. For example, in California where the majority of the country’s foster-care population resides, the supply of foster-family homes declined an average of 30 percent and placements have declined from about 17 percent to 9 percent in Alameda County alone over the past decade. A lack of financial support was a leading factor according to a recent survey of current and former foster parents conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare.38 Research finds most states’ foster-care monthly maintenance payments are inadequate and they would have to increase an average of $191 per child per month39 just to reach the average minimum recommended foster-care monthly maintenance payments for school-age children in foster care. Median state spending would have to increase $12.4 million annually, totaling nearly $1 billion annually combined.40 Table 2 provides estimates for each state.


12

n


Placement Instability Undermines Academic Achievement “[E]veryone must realize that today’s foster-care system is abusing hordes of children by offering them childhoods devoid of stability and permanence,” explains University of California, Irvine, economics professor Richard McKenzie, who grew up in a North Carolina orphanage. “It does this by routinely shuffling children from one placement to the next. Children in foster care are commonly routed through a dozen or more placements before they ‘graduate’ from the system at age 18 with few life skills.”41 Placement instability creates school instability. On average about 26 percent of students in grades one through 12 changed schools three or more times.42 The mobility rates for foster children are even higher. More than one-third of foster students switch schools up to five or more times throughout their K-12 years.43 Other studies have found that while in out-ofhome care, foster children average one to two home placements annually.44 Research suggests it can take four to six months for students to recover academically after changing schools.45 One study of Chicago students who changed schools four or more times found they lost about one year of educational growth by sixth grade. Another study of California high-school students discovered that changing schools only once meant students were less than half as likely to graduate as students who did not change schools, even after controlling for other variables.46 The number of placements has also been associated with foster children having at least one serious delay in academic skill.47 Perverse Financial Incentives Hurt Students with Special Needs As noted previously, up to 52 percent of foster-care students are placed in special education. Yet researchers have identified chronic problems with the delivery of special education services to students in the foster-care system. Programs, including the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, intended to help these students opResearch suggests that perverse financial erate independently of one another.48 Accessing special education incentives and bureaucratic breakdowns often services is challenging enough for students whose parents advocate on their behalf.49 Students in foster-care rarely have such an advoprevent foster children who need special cate.50 According to the Disability Rights Education and Defense education services from receiving them. Fund, “Nearly half of all foster children require—and have a right to receive—special education and related services to succeed in school. However, most of these young people lack advocates or caregivers who are knowledgeable about their rights or can help them receive an appropriate education and plan for their transition to adult life, post-secondary education, and employment.”51 Consequently, foster-care students in special education are poorly served. Casey Family Program experts concluded that “the literature and anecdotal data from the field suggest that the stories of foster children in special education are, all too often, stories of unserved or underserved children, lost records, minimal interagency communication, and confusion over the roles of birth parents, foster parents, and social workers.”52 Research suggests that perverse financial incentives and bureaucratic breakdowns often prevent foster children who need special education services from receiving them. Meanwhile there is also evidence that i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

13

these factors contribute to the misidentification of foster-care students as having learning disabilities who may not require such special education services at all.53 On this front foster-care students are especially vulnerable. A team of researchers led by G. Reid Lyon, the former Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), found that up to 70 percent of children identified as having learning disabilities actually have not received proper reading instruction in the early grades. Proper reading instruction, not placement in special education, is what they require.54 Other research has found that approximately 62 percent of the recent enrollment growth in special education nationwide can be attributed to perverse financial incentives to place children in special education, costing more than $2.3 billion annually.55 Foster-care students are no exception. In spite of federal law stipulating that children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environments appropriate, “it is a sad fact that an overwhelmingly large percentage of youth with disabilities in foster care end up in more restrictive settings than are justified,” according to the National Council on Disability. 56 Depending on states’ reimbursement policies, public school districts may have financial incentives to place children in more expensive state-run non-public schools (NPS).57 Yet other perverse financial incentives exist even if states have removed such perverse financial incentives. Unable to afford the services their foster-children need, even when their children have mild to moderate disabilities, parents often have no other choice but to place them in expensive state-run non-public schools, residential facilities, or group homes even though research has shown children suffer academically in such settings.58 In California, for example, the state pays a group home serving moderate to high needs children from $5,613 to $8,835 per month, compared to just $700 a month for therapeutic foster parents. 59 Nationwide, residential facilities can cost up to $250,000 annually per person.60 The Government Accountability Office reported that in fiscal year 2001 alone, State child welfare and county juvenile justice officials [in 19 states] estimated that parents in their jurisdictions placed over 12,700 children...to child welfare and juvenile justice agencies so that the children could receive mental health services. Nationwide, the number is likely higher because officials in 32 states, including the 5 states with the largest populations of children, did not provide us with estimates.61


14

n


Expanding Educational Options for Students in Foster Care Adopting a Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarship Program could help mitigate such perverse financial incentives by leveling the playing field between parents and educational institutions. Such a program has the added benefit of introducing powerful incentives to provide children with the services they need or risk losing them and their education dollars. Another benefit is that a scholarship program for foster students would help alleviate the fears potential foster and adoptive parents may have about providing a quality education. This is an especially important consideration for foster children with special needs, many of whom are never adopted and remain in institutions. Armed with foster-care educational scholarships, parents could seek out the educational and tutoring services their children need, increasing the likelihood that more of these children would find loving, permanent homes. For states in fiscal crisis, such a program could also translate Armed with foster-care educational into fewer costly institutional placements, which would help conscholarships, parents could seek out serve limited resources for children who truly need such intensive services. It would also conserve limited resources in the future bethe educational and tutoring services cause a better education now means less public dependency later. A their children need, increasing the recent analysis, for example, found that every adoption out of foster likelihood that more of these children care saves state and federal governments $143,000 in child welfare would find loving, permanent homes. and social service costs.62 Of course, the savings in terms of a better future for deserving children is incalculable. Both the federal and state governments have initiated a number of important fostercare related initiatives in recent years.63 Yet the consensus of a recent statewide California Education Summit sums up what is often missing in existing policy: “Education goals and outcomes need to be integrated into the care of foster youth at every stage of the youths’ development.”64 Arizona became the first state in 2006 to offer a scholarship program for K-12 students in foster care, which is currently serving 140 students who use scholarships averaging $4,140 to attend the private school of their parents’ choice.65 Since then, Florida has adopted such a program and similar legislation has been considered in a number of states, including Maryland, Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia.66 Florida offers the most expansive model for ensuring the needs of at-risk students are met through educational choice programs for children who attend failing schools, have special needs, live in poverty, and are or have been in the foster-care system. Currently more than 50,000 students benefit from these programs, summarized in Table 3. Florida: Opportunity Scholarship Program As originally implemented, the program offered students who attended or who were assigned to attend failing public schools the option to choose higher performing public schools i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

15

or use vouchers to attend participating private schools. A failing public school has received two “F” grades within a four-year period under the state’s accountability system. On January 5, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring the private school option of the Opportunity Scholarship Program unconstitutional. Students assigned to failing public schools are no longer offered the opportunity to transfer and enroll in private schools.67 The option to attend a higher performing public school remains in effect. Currently, 1,280 students are attending better public schools through the program, 89 percent of whom are African-American and Hispanic.68 Students attending private schools using Opportunity vouchers were made eligible to receive Florida Tax Credit Scholarships so they would not have to return to their previous failing public schools. Research has shown that not only do participating students improve in terms of academic performance, but low-performing Florida public schools improved as well. In fact, the greater risk those schools faced of losing students to other public and private schools, the more dramatic their turnarounds, making annual gains in state test scores of more than nine and ten points in reading and math, respectively. Competition for students, not the fear of being stigmatized as a failing school, was shown to be responsible for those gains.69 Florida: McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities Florida enacted the McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities as a one-county pilot program in 1999 and expanded it statewide the following year. Under the program, McKay vouchers are worth the same amount public schools would have spent on each participating child, and they may not exceed the cost of private school tuition and fees. The value of students’ vouchers varies depending on the severity of their disabilities but averaged $6,519 in 2009.70 Unlike the Opportunity Scholarship Program for low-income students, the Florida Supreme Court did not rule the state’s special needs student voucher program unconstitutional.71 Today, nearly 21,000 special-needs students are using McKay vouchers to attend more than 900 participating private schools.72 On April 30, 2010, the Florida Legislature advanced bipartisan legislation expanding eligibility for students in the McKay Scholarship Program to disabled preschoolers entering kindergarten and students who have been enrolled in a public school in any of the past five years instead of the just the prior year under current law.73 Research has found that parents of participating McKay Scholarship students were more satisfied with their children’s chosen schools compared to their previous assigned schools, 93 percent compared to 33 percent. Fully 86 percent of McKay parents report their special-needs children receive all the services required under federal law from their children’s chosen school compared to just 30 percent of special-needs parents with children in assigned public schools. McKay parents also report their special-needs children are victimized dramatically less, have smaller classes, and demonstrate far fewer behavioral problems.74 These are especially encouraging findings since more than a quarter of parents who adopt children from the foster-care system nationwide (26 percent) report they do not receive necessary services for their children.75 In a recent report to Congress, 42 percent of adoptive i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

16

n


parents surveyed reported needing tutoring services for their children, but nearly two-thirds of them (65 percent) never received them. Another 53 percent of adoptive parents reported needing educational assessments for their children, while 18 percent of them never received those services.76 Florida: Tax Credit Scholarship Program The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program offers another model for expanding educational opportunities for foster-care students. The program was enacted in 2001 to provide an income-tax credit for corporations that contribute money to nonprofit Scholarship-Funding Organizations (SFOs) that award scholarships to students whose annual family income qualifies them for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act.77 The number of students participating in the program increased more than 11,000 students in recent years, from nearly 16,000 students in the 2002-03 school year to nearly 28,000 students in the 2009-10 school year. Scholarships average $3,950, and the number of participating private schools rose from 942 to 1,017 over this period.78 Successive expansions of the program in recent years have fostered this growth. In 2008, total allowable annual credits were increased by $30 million to $118 million, which translates into an estimated 6,000 additional scholarships. As part of that expansion, program eligibility was expanded to students currently placed, or during the previous fiscal year was placed, in foster care.79 This expansion was achieved with overwhelming bipartisan support during difficult economic times, which flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the politics of school reform. Only one Democrat voted for Florida’s tax-credit scholarship program in 2001. Things changed dramatically in 2008 when Florida’s projected deficit represented 8.2 percent of the state general fund budget—nearly identical to California’s projected 8.3 percent general fund deficit at the time.80 The program expansion received support from one-third of the Democratic caucus. Unanimous support for the expansion came from the Hispanic caucus, and more than half of Florida’s black caucus also supported enlarging the program. Such support is not surprising since close to two-thirds of all scholarships are awarded to AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students.81 In 2009, the program was expanded again to provide credits against the insurance premium tax for contributions to eligible non-profit scholarship funding organizations.82 On April 22, 2010, legislation was adopted that increased the tax-credit cap to $140 million in fiscal year 2010-11 and 25 percent annually thereafter as long as prior-year contributions reached at least 90 percent of the previous year’s tax-credit cap. It also would expand revenue sources eligible for tax-credit contributions, including severance taxes on oil and gas production; self-accrued sales tax liabilities of direct pay permit holders; and alcoholic beverage taxes. The maximum scholarship amount of $3,950 would also be replaced with a variable amount worth 60 percent of the unweighted full-time equivalent student funding amount in fiscal year 2010-11, increasing four percentage points annually until reaching the maximum of 80 percent of the unweighted full-time equivalent student funding.83 The ofi n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

17

ficial bill analysis concluded, “Net anticipated savings are expected to increase in each of the first four years under the legislation.” Because the scholarship amounts are less than Florida public school per-pupil funding, the net annual savings are projected to range from $2.7 million to $7.2 million.84


18

n


The Benefits of a Florida-Style Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarship Program Allowing foster and adoptive parents to use private-school scholarships worth just a fraction of what would be spent to educate their children in public schools expands options for students and minimizes the instability of having to transfer to schools based on where families can afford to live, along with the negative academic impacts associated with frequent school switches. It is well documented that students participating in private-school scholarship programs—especially those who used to attend low-performing schools—improve academically. Students using scholarships to attend private schools experience an increase in reading and math scores of an average of four percentile points annually.85 Inner-city high-school students using scholarships at neighborhood private schools have graduation rates up to 78 percent higher than even selective public schools.86 Low-income students who attend private schools are up to four times as likely to earn a college degree by their mid-20s as their public-school peers.87 Yet the benefits of opportunity scholarship programs extend well beyond the immediate students who participate in them. They benefits public-school students as well. A wide body of economic literature finds that when traditional district public schools—even poorly performing ones—compete for students and their education dollars as Students using scholarships to attend private they must in states with parental choice programs, their productivschools experience an increase in reading and ity improves in terms of higher student achievement and better use of education resources.88 In fact, more than 200 scientific analyses math scores of an average of four percentile spanning nearly three decades show beneficial effects of competition points annually. on public schools “across all outcomes,” according to researchers from Teachers College, Columbia University. These outcomes include higher academic test scores, graduation rates, improved public-school efficiency, higher teacher salaries, and smaller class sizes.89 Educational opportunity scholarship programs such as Florida’s all generate a fiscal savings for states. This has been so regardless of whether scholarships come in the form of a direct government appropriation as with vouchers or through private, tax-deductible donations to non-profit, scholarship-granting organizations. Because the tuition and fees at most private schools participating in educational opportunity scholarship programs are less expensive than the expenditures to educate those same children in traditional public schools, scholarship programs save resources at the state level. Additionally, when public-school students use scholarships to transfer to private schools, their previous public schools keep a portion of funds that would have been allocated for those students to distribute across a smaller student population. Thus scholarship programs help raise public schools’ per-pupil funding, reduce class sizes, and ease overcrowding, i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

19

minimizing costly construction and debt expenses. One analysis found that existing educational opportunity scholarship programs have saved close to a half billion dollars combined, including a savings of $422 million for local public school districts and another $22 million for state budgets since the first scholarship program was enacted in 1990.90 Florida has some of the longest-standing and largest educational opportunity programs that apply to vulnerable student populations such as children and youth in the foster-care system. Across student sub-groups, Florida closing achievement gaps and out-performing students from the general population in many states.91 The U.S. Department of Education does not provide National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results for students in foster care; however, it is possible to examine achievement results of student sub-groups that likely include foster-care students or at least share similar characteristics with them. Researchers focus on fourth-grade reading achievement because if students have not learned to read properly by this time, it is likely they will fall farther and farther behind, putting them at greater risk of dropping out of school later one. The sections that follow examine Florida’s results over the past decade in greater detail. Improved Public-School Student Reading Performance Across student sub-groups, Florida fourth-graders made dramatic achievement gains from 1998 to 2009 on the NAEP reading assessment, as summarized in Table 4. In 1998, all Florida fourth-graders ranked with Arizona and Nevada at 32 out of 40 in NAEP reading achievement. In fact, Florida fourth-graders ranked among the bottom 10 in NAEP reading performance across every major student sub-group except Hispanic fourth-graders, who fell just outside the bottom 10. As of 2009, however, all Florida fourth-graders tie with ColoSome might assume that Florida rado and Delaware for fourth place nationally in NAEP reading simply outspent the competition, performance. It appears the performance of vulnerable student subbut the reality is Florida appears to groups, all of whom now rank within the top five for best fourthbe spending better, not simply more. grade NAEP reading performance, are driving Florida’s meteoric rise in reading achievement. In fact, low-income, Hispanic, and low-income Hispanic fourth-graders in Florida now rank first among their peers nationwide in NAEP reading performance. Those gains are all the more impressive considering Florida fourth-graders averaged a three-point NAEP scale-score deficit compared to the national averages for their respective sub-groups in 1998. Across student sub-groups, Florida’s fourth-graders made average NAEP reading gains of 27 scale-score points since 1998, ranging from a 20-point gain among all fourth graders to a 33 percent gain among special education students. To put those gains into perspective, 10 NAEP scale-score points is roughly equivalent to one grade level of learning.92 In contrast, American fourth-graders across all student sub-groups made average NAEP reading gains of 11 scale-score points. Thus while Florida’s fourth graders experienced average reading gains equivalent to nearly three grade levels of learning over the past decade, their peers nationwide i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

20

n


realized gains equivalent to one grade level. Some might assume that Florida simply outspent the competition, but the reality is Florida appear to be spending better, not simply more. It is commonly assumed that there is a linear correlation between spending more money on public schools and improved student achievement; however, Florida’s results turn conventional wisdom on its head. From the 1998-99 school year through the 2006-07 school year, the latest year data are available from the U.S. Department of Education, the national average per-pupil expenditure increased 20 percent in real terms, from $8,373 to $10,041.93 Meanwhile, Florida’s per-pupil expenditures increased 19 percent in real terms over that same period, from $7,449 to $8,885. 94 Table 5 summarizes state spending and achievement rankings across student sub-groups. From Table 5, it is clear that the biggest spenders are not the biggest achievers and that some states are getting more bang for their education bucks. Florida per-pupil spending is below the national average, although its spending increase over the past decade has nearly kept pace with the average national increase. Yet Florida fourth-graders now consistently rank among the top five across student sub-groups. Even more striking is how well disadvantaged sub-groups of Florida fourth graders perform relative to all students. As of 2009, Hispanic Florida fourth grade NAEP reading performance exceeded that of all fourth graders 27 states as well as the national average and tied five more states. In fact, Florida’s Hispanic fourth-graders are within one scale-score point of tying all New York fourth graders. Low-income Hispanic fourth-graders in Florida also outperform 15 states, including California, in overall fourth-grade NAEP reading performance, and they tie another three states. Not far behind, low-income fourth graders in Florida outperform all students in NAEP reading in 13 states, again including California, and they tie another two states. African-American fourth grade students in Florida likewise outperform all fourth graders in an impressive eight states, California included, and tie with an additional states. Meanwhile, low-income African-American fourth graders in Florida outperform all students in NAEP reading in three states, and just a single scale-score point separates them from matching the reading performance of all California fourth graders. It appears Florida fourthgraders who are also English learners will soon have their own list of states they outperform in NAEP reading. For now, they outperform all fourth graders in the District of Columbia. Improved Public-School Productivity within Current Spending Levels The states Florida outperforms spend an average of nearly $9,600 per student, ranging from nearly $6,000 to more than $16,000 per student. 95 The superior performance of Florida’s at-risk student populations that likely include foster-care students, or at least share characteristics with them, indicates that expanding options through scholarship programs benefits them and students in the public-schooling system at large. The fact that Florida’s superior fourth-grade NAEP reading performance was achieved within average expenditure amounts also suggests that competition for students improves overall public-school productivity. This means that if other states could emulate the productivity of Florida’s public schools in terms of superior achievement for every dollar spent, i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

21

academic performance could improve dramatically within current spending levels; while any additional resources could be directed where the educational need is greatest to fund programs with a demonstrable track record of success. There is a significant body of research showing that under the current public-schooling system, which is heavily bureaucratic and virtually devoid of incentives to be cost-effective, there is little evidence that increased spending improves student achievement.96 Yet to assess the current productivity levels of states’ public-schooling systems, this section considers what states would likely have to spend to reach higher student achievement levels; however, it is important to keep in mind that there is not a straightforward relationship between spending more and higher achievement. Using inflation-adjusted average per-pupil expenditures pro...under the current public-schooling system, vided by the U.S. Department of Education, it is possible to calculate how much a single NAEP scale-score point costs on averwhich is heavily bureaucratic and virtually age nationally and in the states.97 With those figures, it is possible devoid of incentives to be cost-effective, there

to compare the estimated spending increases needed to achieve is little evidence that increased spending Florida’s fourth-grade NAEP reading performance across student improves student achievement. subgroups today at public schools’ current productivity levels. This demonstration reveals how expensive the prevailing inputs-based, or “spend-more,” approach to education reform could be for states. Public-school spending figures per fourth-grade NAEP reading scale-score point are calculated using 2010 inflation-adjusted average per-pupil expenditure amounts for students who are low-income, English learners, and minority students. While these students have more educational challenges that understandably may make them more expensive to educate, including extra tutoring, after-school programs, and counseling services, their spending per fourth-grade NAEP reading scale-score point figures are calculated at average spending levels. Thus, those figures may understate the actual cost of matching achieve Florida’s fourth-grade NAEP reading performance since many states likely appropriate additional funding for these students. Special education students, however, are about twice as expensive to educate as students from the general population on average, varying by the severity of their disabilities.98 California public-school spending can be as much as two and a half times the spending for students not requiring specialized services.99 Therefore, spending per NAEP scale-score point for California students in special education programs is calculated at 2.5 times the 2010 inflation-adjusted average per-pupil expenditure amount and twice the 2010 inflation-adjusted average per-pupil expenditure amounts for special education students nationally and in other states. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Florida achieves its fourth-grade NAEP reading performance among all students for an estimated $41 per scale-score point compared to the national average of about $48 per scale-score point. The District of Columbia spends the most per scale-score point at $84, yet scores the lowest nationally, behind California, New Mexico, which spend $46, and Louisiana, which spends $47. i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

22

n


Florida achieves its fourth-grade NAEP reading

Among vulnerable student populations, including low-income, English learner, and minority students, Florida spends $44 on averperformance for an estimated $91 per age per NAEP scale-score point, compared to the national average scale-score point compared to the national of $53. In spite of lower spending, these Florida fourth graders rank average of about $112 per scale-score point. among the top five, including top place in some cases, in fourth grade reading performance. In contrast, other top performing states can spend up to $30, even $40 or more per scale-score point and not get Florida’s consistently high performance across disadvantaged fourth graders. Likewise in special education, Florida achieves its fourth-grade NAEP reading performance for an estimated $91 per scale-score point compared to the national average of about $112 per scale-score point. At an estimated $205 per NAEP scale-score point among fourth graders in special education, the District of Columbia spends the most, but ranks at the bottom in terms of performance, just behind top-10 spender California, at $143 per NAEP scale-score point, and just ahead of last-place performer Hawaii, which spends about $155 per NAEP scale-score point. Meanwhile, fourth grade special education students in secondplace spender New York, at $173 per NAEP scale-score point, perform among the top 10 in reading; but they still do not perform as well as their Florida peers. These fourth-grade NAEP reading scale-score point spending estimates translate into significant increases in per-pupil spending for many states. The estimated additional per-pupil spending increases required to match fourth-grade NAEP reading performance in Florida average nearly $300 for the general student population, more than $700 for at-risk students, including low-income, English learner, and minority students, and nearly $1,700 for fourth graders in special education. In many states the estimates are significantly higher. To reach the fourth grade NAEP reading performance of Florida fourth-graders, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, California, Alaska, and New Mexico all would require the highest estimated per-pupil spending increases across student sub-groups. Estimated per-pupil spending increases in the District of Columbia are far and away the highest, ranging from $1,400 in additional spending for at-risk fourth-graders, more than $2,000 for the general education fourth-graders, and nearly $8,000 more for fourth-graders in special education. Spending increases in Hawaii, California, Alaska, and New Mexico would range from more than $700 per pupil to more than $7,000 per pupil. The spending estimates presented here and in Table 7 would likely be higher for students in middle and high school, since the effects of poor academic achievement are cumulative and would likely require more intensive and expensive interventions in the later grades. Yet applying the NAEP fourth-grade cost estimates to states foster-care student populations adds some perspective to the cost of the state’s failure to embrace parental choice as part of a comprehensive reform strategy.



n

23

Cost to States of Not Implementing Reform Table 2 shows that simply meeting the recommended average minimum foster-care monthly maintenance payments just for school-age children in foster care would require a median increase in annual state spending of $12.4 million, almost $1 billion annually combined. Even if states could afford those increases, there is no guarantee that students in foster-care would have greater access to quality schools. Nor would those increases remove perverse financial incentives that place foster-care students with special needs in expensive institutional settings where students perform worse academically. This section estimates the cost to states of not implementing a Florida-style foster-care scholarship program and denying fosterPrevious research has shown that care students full access to schools that could better meet their simply giving parents more freedom to unique individual needs. The previous section illustrates the comchoose their children’s schools, including parative productivity of states’ public schooling systems measured in terms of dollars spent and fourth-grade NAEP reading achievement. using scholarships to attend private The estimates presented here are highly conservative because they schools, produces the same NAEP project only the annual cost to states of not expanding education math gains as raising states’ median options to school-age children in foster care, not the entire student household income approximately $8,095. population, which would provide a more comprehensive estimate of the true cost to states of sustaining inefficient public schooling systems that are insulated from competition for students. Assuming 41 percent of the country’s foster-care students require special education services, the average of the estimated 30 to 52 percent range nationwide, the cost estimates assumes nearly 180,000 foster-care students would be in regular education, while almost 125,000 would be in special education. The average estimated cost to states for foster-students not in special education is derived using the average estimated per-pupil increases required to match NAEP fourth-grade reading achievement across regular education student subgroups, namely, students who are low-income, racial minorities, and English learners. Table 8 presents those results. Based on the fourth-grade NAEP additional per-pupil spending estimates presented in Table 7 and described above, to bring foster-care students in regular and special education to Florida’s fourth-grade NAEP reading performance levels would require a median increase in annual state spending of $4.2 million, or $394 million combined. Previous research has shown that simply giving parents more freedom to choose their children’s schools, including using scholarships to attend private schools, produces the same NAEP math gains as raising states’ median household income approximately $8,095.100 Additional expenditures alone are unlikely to improve the achievement of vulnerable student populations including foster-care students. Florida’s example shows that increasing i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

24

n


educational opportunity for all students improves academic outcomes of students who participate in scholarship programs as well as the public schooling system overall—and at a fraction of the expense.



n

25

A Foster-Care Scholarship Program is Educationally and Fiscally Responsible Reform The result of two distinct fiscal analyses by Florida’s Collins Center for Public Policy concluded that Florida’s tax-credit scholarship program for students who are from low-income families, are or have been in the foster-care system, or who were previously assigned to failing public schools did not “drain” public school funding, as critics allege. On the contrary, state general fund revenue for K-12 public education increased by $2.1 billion from fiscal years 2002 to 2004. K-12 per-pupil state and local revenues increased from $6,751 in fiscal year 2002 to more than $7,782 per-student in fiscal 2004, an average annual increase of 7.6 percent. Overall, Florida accrued nearly $140 million in public-school revenue since 2002 by saving the difference between the value of the $3,500 tax-credit scholarship and the value of K-12 per pupil state and local revenue.101 “In reviewing education revenues during 2002, 2003 and 2004, we saw no evidence that the corporate tax credit scholarship program had a negative impact on public school funding,” concluded Collins Center executive vice president Mark Pritchett.102 Because foster children are more likely to have special needs, it is important that any K-12 foster-care scholarship value reflect special education costs. Students in Florida’s successful McKay Scholarship Program receive vouchers worth the amount public schools would have spent on them, though they may not exceed private schools’ tuition and fees. The cost of educating individual students with special needs ranged from $5,005 to $20,651 during the 2008-09 school year, and the average scholarship amount was $7,240.103 Recent analyses have documented that each additional dollar in funding for programs that support foster-youth transitioning out of the system as they become adults yields $2.40 in return because of savings from lower welfare, incarceration, dependency, housing, healthcare, and other social programs costs.104 Implementing a K-12 foster-care scholarship program would compliment efforts underway in the states without requiring additional resources. If such a program resulted in achievement gains comparable to Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program, foster-care students would require fewer academic interventions, repeat fewer grades, and would be less reliant on publicly-funded programs later in life. Such a program could also translate into fewer institutional placements, which can cost up to $250,000 annually per person.105 This would help conserve limited resources for children who need such intensive services. A recent analysis also found that every adoption out of foster care saves state and federal governments $143,000 in child welfare and social service costs.106


26

n


Conclusion: Expanding Options and Overcoming Barriers to Better Educational Outcomes The 500,000 children in foster care nationwide are among the most at-risk. Numerous programs have been enacted at both the federal and state levels in recent years to encourage adoptions and improve educational outcomes for these children. Yet budgetary pressures may be dampening prospective adoptions. Just to reach the average minimum recommended foster-care monthly maintenance payments for school-age children in foster care, median state spending would have to increase $12.4 million annually, totaling nearly $1 billion annually combined. Even if states could afford those increases, there is no guarantee their academic prospects would improve. Children and youth in the system face instability compounded by the negative effects of frequent school changes. The country’s most vulnerable students, including those in the foster-care system, are disproportionately represented in failing schools. Students in foster-care also have special educational needs that often go unmet. Not surprisingly, a leading concern among prospective adoptive parents is being unable to provide a quality education for their children. This is an especially pressing policy concern because families who adopt foster-care children typically have lower median household incomes. The financial constraints foster and adoptive parents face likely contribute to feelings that they have “no say in the child’s future.” Adopting a Florida-style scholarship program for students in foster care could help: ncourage adoption by ensuring access to a quality education; E Minimize school instability; l Raise student achievement; l Improve the delivery of special education services; l Promote systemic public-school improvement through increased competition for students; and l Better direct limited education resources to schools and programs that get results. l l

Simply by allowing parents of at-risk students, including students in foster care, to use scholarships to send their children to private schools, the educational outcomes of participating Florida students have improved, as well as public-school performance overall. Official government analyses find that state and public school districts have also saved money because of these programs. And, in just over a decade, Florida has turned a fourth-grade reading deficit on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) of five points or more among the most disadvantaged student populations compared to the national average into gains equivalent to three full grade levels. A Florida-style foster-care scholarship program is an academically and fiscally responsible reform that could help more deserving children find loving, permanent homes. i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

27

Table 1. Total and Estimated School-Age Foster-Care Population by State State

Alphabetical All

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total

7,031 2,168 10,425 3,522 67,323 7,921 5,378 938 2,217 22,187 9,984 1,591 1,723 17,859 12,386 6,893 6,306 7,288 5,065 1,875 7,749 10,427 20,228 6,020 3,292 9,606 1,600 5,591 5,018 1,026 8,831 2,221 29,493 9,841 1,240 16,859 10,595 8,988 19,407 2,407 4,999 1,482 7,219 28,148 2,602 1,200 6,743 11,133 4,412 7,403 1,154 463,333

Ranked (High to Low) All School Age

School Age

State

4,922 1,518 7,298 2,465 47,126 5,545 3,765 657 1,552 15,531 6,989 1,114 1,206 12,501 8,670 4,825 4,414 5,102 3,546 1,313 5,424 7,299 14,160 4,214 2,304 6,724 1,120 3,914 3,513 718 6,182 1,555 20,645 6,889 868 11,801 7,417 6,292 13,585 1,685 3,499 1,037 5,053 19,704 1,821 840 4,720 7,793 3,088 5,182 808 324,333

California New York Texas Florida Michigan Pennsylvania Illinois Ohio Indiana Washington Oklahoma Massachusetts Arizona Georgia North Carolina Missouri Oregon New Jersey Colorado Maryland Wisconsin Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Iowa Virginia Kansas Minnesota Nebraska Connecticut Louisiana Nevada South Carolina West Virginia Arkansas Mississippi Utah Rhode Island New Mexico District of Columbia Alaska Maine Idaho Montana Hawaii South Dakota North Dakota Vermont Wyoming New Hampshire Delaware Total

67,323 29,493 28,148 22,187 20,228 19,407 17,859 16,859 12,386 11,133 10,595 10,427 10,425 9,984 9,841 9,606 8,988 8,831 7,921 7,749 7,403 7,288 7,219 7,031 6,893 6,743 6,306 6,020 5,591 5,378 5,065 5,018 4,999 4,412 3,522 3,292 2,602 2,407 2,221 2,217 2,168 1,875 1,723 1,600 1,591 1,482 1,240 1,200 1,154 1,026 938 463,333

47,126 20,645 19,704 15,531 14,160 13,585 12,501 11,801 8,670 7,793 7,417 7,299 7,298 6,989 6,889 6,724 6,292 6,182 5,545 5,424 5,182 5,102 5,053 4,922 4,825 4,720 4,414 4,214 3,914 3,765 3,546 3,513 3,499 3,088 2,465 2,304 1,821 1,685 1,555 1,552 1,518 1,313 1,206 1,120 1,114 1,037 868 840 808 718 657 324,333


28

n


Source: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Notes: 1. The number of children in foster care as of September 30, fiscal year 2008. 2. School-age children are ages five to 18. Figures for individual states are author’s estimates based on the tally of national aggregate percentages for each age group, which totals 70 percent.



n

29

Table 2. Estimated Annual Cost of Meeting Recommended Foster-Care Minimum Adequate Rates Alphabetical State Alabama Alaska

Ranked (High to Low)

Annual Cost Increase: 2010 $ $13,204,126 $1,401,759

Arkansas

$6,189,878

California

$161,254,680

Colorado Connecticut

State

Annual Cost Increase: 2010 $

California Louisiana

$161,254,680 $116,704,154

Ohio

$66,096,565

New York

$57,901,106

$25,118,536

Illinois

$51,856,745

$3,398,214

Michigan

$47,380,837

Delaware

$1,585,120

Florida

$38,276,194

Florida

$38,276,194

Missouri

$33,397,860

Georgia

$16,813,181

Massachusetts

$29,694,369

Hawaii

$2,585,751

Washington

$28,989,337

Idaho

$5,276,483

Colorado

$25,118,536

Illinois

$51,856,745

Wisconsin

$24,607,159

Iowa

$13,694,541

North Carolina

$23,831,908

Kansas

$6,078,820

Oregon

$23,694,512

Kentucky

$1,670,684

Pennsylvania

$20,818,229

Louisiana

$116,704,154

Nebraska

$20,046,651

Maine

$3,278,761

New Jersey

$19,179,872

Massachusetts

$29,694,369

Oklahoma

$18,776,292

Michigan

$47,380,837

Georgia

$16,813,181

Minnesota

$6,723,131

Virginia

$14,149,027

Mississippi

$7,817,407

Iowa

$13,694,541

Missouri

$33,397,860

Alabama

$13,204,126

Montana

$2,219,492

South Carolina

$12,385,135

Nebraska

$20,046,651

Rhode Island

$7,958,297

$457,176

Mississippi

$7,817,407

New Hampshire

$3,328,955

Minnesota

$6,723,131

New Jersey

$19,179,872

Utah

$6,247,710

New Mexico

$3,270,226

Arkansas

$6,189,878

New York

$57,901,106

Kansas

$6,078,820

North Carolina

$23,831,908

Idaho

$5,276,483

North Dakota

$2,383,367

West Virginia

$4,408,653

Ohio

$66,096,565

Connecticut

$3,398,214

Oklahoma

$18,776,292

New Hampshire

$3,328,955

Oregon

$23,694,512

Maine

$3,278,761

Pennsylvania

$20,818,229

New Mexico

$3,270,226

Rhode Island

$7,958,297

South Dakota

$3,092,417

South Carolina

$12,385,135

Vermont

$2,863,708

South Dakota

$3,092,417

Hawaii

$2,585,751

Nevada

Utah

$6,247,710

North Dakota

$2,383,367

Vermont

$2,863,708

Montana

$2,219,492

Virginia

$14,149,027

Kentucky

$1,670,684

Washington

$28,989,337

Delaware

$1,585,120

West Virginia

$4,408,653

Alaska

$1,401,759

Wisconsin

$24,607,159

Nevada

$457,176

Wyoming

$88,180

Wyoming

Total

$960,195,204

Total

$88,180 $960,195,204


30

n


Source: Author’s table based on data from Table 1 of “Hitting the MARC: Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children: Technical Report,” a collaborative project by Children’s Rights, Ruth H. Young Center for Families and Children at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, and the National Foster Parent Association, October 2007. Notes: 1. Amounts exclude travel expenses. 2. Figures represent author’s averages based on inflation-adjusted 2007 dollar amounts. 3. Average foster-care monthly maintenance payments in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas exceeded recommended payment amounts in 2007 and are therefore excluded from the table


1999-00 to 2005-06 $4,206 56 734 72.00% 64.30% 29.60% 4.00%

Eligibility Began Operating Average Scholarship Amount # Private Schools Participating # Students % Low-Income % African American % Hispanic % White 2000-01 $7,240 941 20,524 44.20% 29.00% 20.30% 46.40%

Students with disabilities.

McKay Scholarship Program

2002-03 $3,950 1,017 27,700 100.00% 36.40% 25.70% 24.10%

Low-income students; students currently/formerly in foster-care; students in/assigned to failing public schools.

Florida Tax-Credit Scholarship Program

Source: Author’s table based on data from the Florida Department of Education. Notes: 1. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that students in failing schools could not use publicly-funded vouchers to attend private schools under the Opportunity Scholarship Program but left the public-school transfer option intact. Private-school students did not have to return to their failing public schools because the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which funds scholarships through private, tax-deductible contributions from Florida businesses, was expanded to make those students eligible to receive scholarships. Statistics for the “Opportunity Scholarship Program: Private Schools” column are from the final school year of operation, 2005-06. 2. “NA” means not applicable.

999-00 NA NA 1,280 55.00% 74.00% 15.00% 9 .00%

Students in/assigned to failing public schools.

Students in/assigned to failing public schools. 1

Opportunity Scholarship Program: Public Schools

Opportunity Scholarship Program: Private Schools

Program

Table 3. Summary of Florida Educational Opportunity Scholarship Programs

Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships: The Benefits of Expanding Education Options to Students, Public Schools, and States n

31


i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m 1998 FL NAEP Scale Score 206 171 190 184 198 186 187 181 33 22 [1] 33 14 11 29 [4] 11 26 [6]

FL Rank 40 32 40 24 24 35 19 32

# States

US NAEP Scale Score 220 189 206 188 204 204 200 200

2009 FL NAEP Scale Score 226 204 217 205 223 211 218 209 FL Rank 9 3 [2] 1 3 1 4 1 2 [7] 51 51 51 40 48 47 42 41

# States 7 13 11 5 12 12 14 12

US

20 33 27 21 25 25 31 28

FL

2 3 1 1 3 1 2 [5] 1

FL Rank

NAEP Scale-Score Change 51 51 51 42 46 44 40 40

# States

Source: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Education. Notes: 1. Tied with Minnesota and Iowa. 2. Tied with Kentucky. 3. Baseline year for English learner students is 2002 because too few states reported scores in 1998. 4. Tied with California. 5. Tied with the District of Columbia. 6. Tied with Delaware. 7. Tied with Texas and New Jersey. 8. The number of states ranked differs across student sub-groups differ because their numbers may be too small in some states to report average NAEP results for the corresponding year. For gains rankings, only states with two or more years of data from 1998 to 20009 are included.

All Students Special Education Low-Income English Learners [3] Hispanic African-American Low-Income Hispanic Low-Income African-American

US NAEP Scale Score 213 176 195 183 192 192 186 188

n

Student Sub-Groups

Table 4. Florida Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Gains Summary, 1998 and 2009

32 Position Paper No. 31

1998-99

$8,373 $6,674 $10,812 $6,012 $6,376 $7,464 $7,620 $11,989 $9,915 $12,416 $7,449 $7,839 $7,824 $6,518 $8,701 $8,713 $8,033 $7,739 $7,253 $7,138 $9,205 $9,426 $10,627 $9,562 $8,767 $5,873 $7,533 $7,686 $8,049

State

United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

$10,041 $8,709 $12,781 $7,610 $8,702 $9,283 $8,593 $14,165 $12,196 $16,086 $8,885 $9,439 $11,470 $6,894 $9,951 $9,416 $9,117 $9,585 $8,235 $9,269 $12,075 $12,418 $13,333 $10,290 $9,945 $7,735 $9,175 $9,532 $10,441

2006-07 $1,668 $2,035 $1,969 $1,598 $2,326 $1,819 $973 $2,177 $2,281 $3,671 $1,435 $1,601 $3,646 $376 $1,251 $703 $1,084 $1,846 $981 $2,130 $2,870 $2,993 $2,706 $727 $1,177 $1,862 $1,642 $1,846 $2,392

$ PPE Change 19.92% 30.49% 18.21% 26.59% 36.48% 24.37% 12.76% 18.15% 23.01% 29.56% 19.27% 20.42% 46.60% 5.77% 14.37% 8.07% 13.50% 23.86% 13.53% 29.84% 31.18% 31.75% 25.46% 7.61% 13.43% 31.71% 21.80% 24.02% 29.72%

% PPE Change

Per-Pupil Expenditures (2006-07 $) $ PPE % Change Rank * 12 31 19 5 21 40 32 25 16 30 29 2 50 35 48 37 23 36 13 9 7 20 49 38 8 27 22 14 * 20 46 26 14 10 17 46 3 1 2 8 5 40 29 40 40 29 10 14 46 4 5 37 26 10 10 44 40

All * 24 43 27 10 30 16 51 1 12 3 20 42 41 27 23 37 35 27 8 45 2 4 47 6 12 31 24 16

Special Education

Fourth -Grade Students: NAEP Reading Scale-Score Gains Rank LowLowEnglish AfricanHispanic Income, Income Learners American Hispanic * * * * * 20 NA 31 24 33 38 34 23 42 19 20 22 11 11 14 13 32 39 11 35 7 8 9 14 7 33 27 31 8 22 33 38 15 31 12 2 25 1 2 1 3 5 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 6 8 17 16 12 8 15 6 39 NA 43 25 27 NA 33 29 28 23 35 19 36 28 45 35 36 36 18 27 19 25 24 8 15 16 19 18 NA NA 32 NA 9 NA 41 8 NA 51 NA NA NA NA 4 4 10 5 10 9 12 8 14 7 33 17 26 30 22 29 34 43 20 39 18 NA NA 26 NA 20 NA 39 8 10 38 6 41 NA NA 43 16 27 43 25

Table 5. State Rankings of Expenditures and Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Gains, 1998—2009

* 24 38 12 15 22 15 30 2 5 1 12 NA NA 34 30 18 7 32 7 NA 5 15 28 18 27 18 NA 40

Low-Income, African-American

Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships: The Benefits of Expanding Education Options to Students, Public Schools, and States n

33



$8,277 $13,053 $6,999 $12,023 $7,278 $7,002 $8,478 $6,823 $8,784 $9,585 $10,672 $7,277 $6,766 $6,592 $7,315 $5,417 $9,702 $8,170 $7,861 $8,591 $9,685 $8,803

New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

$11,446 $16,762 $9,177 $16,122 $8,170 $8,992 $10,309 $7,705 $9,290 $11,309 $13,951 $8,884 $8,363 $7,393 $8,141 $5,918 $14,134 $10,593 $8,840 $10,087 $10,751 $13,758

2006-07 $3,170 $3,709 $2,178 $4,100 $892 $1,991 $1,830 $883 $506 $1,724 $3,280 $1,606 $1,596 $802 $826 $501 $4,432 $2,423 $979 $1,497 $1,066 $4,955

38.29% 28.41% 31.12% 34.10% 12.25% 28.43% 21.59% 12.94% 5.76% 17.99% 30.73% 22.07% 23.59% 12.16% 11.29% 9.26% 45.68% 29.66% 12.45% 17.42% 11.01% 56.29%

% PPE Change

$ PPE % Change Rank 4 18 10 6 43 17 28 39 51 33 11 26 24 44 45 47 3 15 42 34 46 1 29 26 29 8 17 37 29 50 17 29 20 14 44 20 20 29 37 7 29 46 50 20

All 35 12 31 37 6 8 47 37 5 31 50 31 20 10 24 12 44 20 40 47 45 16

Special Education

Fourth -Grade Students: NAEP Reading Scale-Score Gains Rank LowLowEnglish AfricanHispanic Income, Income Learners American Hispanic 38 20 17 39 NA 20 NA 35 16 28 27 28 23 26 17 4 8 5 6 5 24 34 44 20 36 38 NA NA NA NA 43 2 17 39 25 48 22 31 39 30 9 34 6 20 6 27 40 34 26 30 15 12 4 11 4 15 12 38 29 30 48 3 20 NA NA 24 41 11 35 22 15 7 11 4 14 47 38 27 NA 29 38 NA NA NA NA 9 32 20 20 40 29 22 35 32 17 43 NA NA 24 NA 48 28 35 32 38 29 20 20 NA 14

NA 7 NA 4 24 NA 36 36 35 18 10 24 NA 32 3 NA NA 10 28 22 39 NA


Source: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Education. Notes: 1. Dollar figures represent constant 2006-07 amounts, the latest year data are available from the U.S. Department of Education. 2. States’ fourth-grade NAEP reading scale-score gains measured from 1998 through 2009. Only states reporting NAEP scores for two years or more are ranked. 3. “NA” stands for not available, meaning states did not have two or more years of NAEP scores to measure gains over the specified period. In some cases a state’s population of certain student subgroups was too small to report average NAEP results. 4. Baseline year for English learner students is 2002 because too few states reported scores in 1998. 5. Some states have the same NAEP gains ranking due to ties.

1998-99

$ PPE Change

Per-Pupil Expenditures (2006-07 $)

n

State

34 Position Paper No. 31


n

35

Table 6. Per-Pupil Expenditure per Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Scale-Score Point, 2010 Estimate United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Additional Per-Pupil Expenditure per Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Scale-Score Point Special Education

All

LowIncome

English Learner

Hispanic

AfricanAmerican

LowIncome, Hispanic

Low-Income, African American

$112 $106 $155 $90 $105 $143 $94 $152 $127

$48 $42 $64 $38 $42 $46 $40 $65 $57

$51 $45 $69 $41 $44 $50 $44 $72 $60

$56 NA $81 $48 $48 $53 $49 $81 $64

$52 $46 $62 $40 $45 $50 $44 $73 $59

$52 $45 $66 $39 $46 $49 $42 $71 $60

$53 $47 $65 $41 $46 $51 $46 $74 $60

$53 $46 $67 $39 $47 $51 $45 $73 $62

$205

$84

$87

$87

$82

$86

$84

$88

$91 $106 $155 $82 $111 $99 $111 $106 $85 $106 $130 $124 $133 $114 $110 $89 $101 $104 $113 $96 $120 $169 $113 $173 $92 $91 $113 $91 $105 $123 $157 $99 $88 $83 $92 $67 $153 $114 $100 $114 $123 $150

$41 $45 $57 $33 $48 $44 $43 $45 $38 $47 $57 $58 $60 $50 $47 $38 $43 $44 $49 $40 $52 $77 $46 $76 $39 $42 $48 $37 $45 $53 $66 $43 $40 $36 $39 $28 $65 $49 $42 $49 $51 $65

$43 $48 $61 $34 $52 $47 $46 $47 $40 $48 $60 $62 $65 $53 $51 $40 $46 $47 $52 $42 $56 $83 $48 $79 $42 $44 $52 $39 $48 $58 $71 $46 $42 $38 $41 $30 $69 $53 $45 $51 $56 $68

$45 $53 $68 $41 $56 $52 $49 $50 NA $49 NA $63 $71 $56 $56 NA NA $53 $59 $46 $59 NA $55 $90 $45 NA $56 $43 $54 $66 $82 $45 NA $43 $43 $34 NA $55 $51 NA $59 NA

$42 $48 $56 $36 $51 $49 $46 $48 $40 $47 NA $59 $66 $52 $54 $38 $45 $46 $53 $43 $55 $83 $48 $81 $42 NA $50 $39 $50 $60 $73 $45 $41 $38 $41 $32 NA $52 $46 NA $56 $68

$44 $49 $59 NA $53 $48 $47 $48 $42 $50 $64 $62 $65 $56 $54 $41 $47 NA $54 $42 $56 $83 $47 $81 $42 NA $53 $41 $48 $59 $71 $47 NA $39 $40 $31 $69 $53 $44 $52 $59 NA

$43 $48 NA $37 $52 $50 $46 $49 $41 $48 NA $61 $68 $53 $56 NA $45 NA $54 $43 NA $84 $49 $82 $42 NA $53 $40 $51 $61 $74 $46 NA $39 $41 $32 NA $54 $47 NA $58 $69

$45 $49 NA NA $54 $49 $48 $49 $43 $50 $65 $64 $66 $57 $55 $41 $48 NA $56 $44 NA $84 NA $82 $43 NA $54 $42 $49 $60 $72 $47 NA $40 $41 NA NA $54 $45 $52 $61 NA i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

36

n


Source: Authors’ table based on per-pupil spending data from the U.S. Department of Education. Notes: 1. U.S. Department of Education 2006-07 per-pupil spending figures are inflation-adjusted by author to reflect 2010 dollar amounts. 2. U.S. Department of Education per-pupil spending figures used exclude capital construction and interest on school debt expenditures. 3. “NA” stands for not available, meaning states did not report NAEP scores. In some cases a state’s population of certain student sub-groups was too small to report average NAEP results.



n

37

Table 7. Per-Pupil Expenditures to Match Florida Public-School Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Productivity, 2010 Estimate United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Additional Per-Pupil Spending to Match Florida Public-School NAEP Reading Productivity Special Education

All

LowIncome

English Learner

Hispanic

AfricanAmerican

Low-Income, Hispanic


$1,673 $3,401 $4,808 $2,437 $3,150 $4,862 $1,127 $1,372 $382 $7,982 $1,801 $7,612 $2,302 $1,778 $497 $3,561 $1,597 -$6 $2,233 $1,170 $33 $42 $1,714 $1,657 $1,863 $1,311 $1,251 $1,130 $2,592 $359 $78 $3,718 $1,381 $1,559 $0 $1,473 $2,363 $2,003 $1,353 $2,662 $1,587 $351 $1,321 $1,755 $1,202 $1,529 $1,026 $1,796 $2,175 $2,590 $1,646

$287 $423 $954 $609 $423 $742 -$1 $24 $16 $2,006 $364 $856 $164 $334 $133 $217 $90 -$3 $893 $113 $17 $19 $396 $140 $577 $86 $44 $147 $604 $11 $36 $834 $151 $274 $1 $48 $335 $358 $106 $197 $432 $158 $322 $273 $199 $24 $8 $210 $542 $308 $194

$563 $583 $1,590 $811 $441 $1,044 $482 $718 $179 $2,100 $479 $1,155 $206 $776 $329 $414 $189 $80 $774 $299 $434 $130 $688 $720 $560 $321 $140 $365 $722 $226 $500 $871 $237 $502 $44 $468 $391 $621 $634 $857 $594 $336 $454 $327 $364 $138 $371 $401 $565 $838 $341

$953 NA $3,252 $1,759 $669 $1,112 $1,029 $1,697 $255 $957 $1,012 $1,826 $1,145 $1,067 $780 $491 $99 NA $344 NA $18 $495 $612 $944 NA NA $905 $1,119 $1,021 $178 NA $1,716 $1,433 $726 NA $614 $638 $1,293 $1,724 $2,127 $0 NA $1,029 $347 $785 NA $221 $1,230 NA $827 NA

$982 $1,051 $499 $1,009 $950 $1,342 $840 $1,305 $415 $1,305 $714 $448 $792 $1,029 $974 $740 $623 $322 $803 NA $118 $796 $891 $1,560 $421 $312 $183 $847 $1,025 $332 $826 $1,054 $1,048 $799 NA $403 $625 $1,343 $1,432 $1,684 $819 $284 $807 $529 $929 NA $468 $1,016 NA $1,173 $749

$362 $455 $460 $194 $551 $536 -$2 $142 $16 $1,292 $340 $413 NA $686 $240 $377 $48 $297 $745 $832 $62 $21 $946 $856 $533 $330 NA $432 $423 $12 $39 $282 $162 $294 NA $426 $575 $434 $591 $283 $513 NA $551 -$4 $277 $25 $53 $89 $363 $1,117 NA

$949 $1,078 $781 $1,035 $872 $1,319 $911 $1,338 $239 $1,337 $628 NA $771 $940 $998 $557 $586 $203 $668 NA $369 $744 $798 $1,862 NA $134 NA $810 $954 NA $670 $973 $899 $679 NA $743 $555 $1,320 $1,400 $1,479 $640 NA $784 $454 $841 NA $591 $886 NA $1,331 $694

$474 $557 $604 $236 $606 $863 $313 $439 $62 $1,495 $394 NA NA $808 $342 $481 $247 $434 $752 $980 $319 $21 $1,018 $1,105 $538 $433 NA $668 $657 NA $39 NA $163 $431 NA $544 $670 $542 $723 $359 $518 NA $643 -$4 NA NA $162 $90 $313 $1,464 NA

Source: Authors’ table based on per-pupil spending data from the U.S. Department of Education.


38

n


Notes: 1. U.S. Department of Education 2006-07 per-pupil spending figures are inflation-adjusted by author to reflect 2010 dollar amounts. 2. U.S. Department of Education per-pupil spending figures exclude capital construction and interest on school debt expenditures. 3. “NA” stands for not available, meaning states did not report NAEP scores. In some cases a state’s population of certain student sub-groups was too small to report average NAEP results.



n

39

Table 8. Total Expenditures to Match Florida Public-School Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Productivity, 2010 Estimate Alphabetical State


Total Additional Spending

State


Alabama

$9,026,100

California

$122,748,948

Alaska

$4,064,039

New York

$19,695,428

Arizona

$10,910,148

Texas

$17,374,470

Arkansas

$4,174,946

Michigan

$16,851,025

California

$122,748,948

Pennsylvania

$16,223,780

Colorado

$4,511,112

Illinois

$15,633,751

Connecticut

$4,206,327

Arizona

$10,910,148

Ohio

$10,837,089

Delaware

$178,153

District of Columbia

$6,373,619

Oklahoma

$9,703,417

Georgia

$7,613,419

Alabama

$9,026,100

Hawaii

$4,106,922

Wisconsin

$8,942,175

Idaho

$1,656,907

Oregon

$8,602,858

Illinois

$15,633,751

Washington

$8,582,488

Indiana

$4,889,367

Iowa

$8,495,956

Iowa

$8,495,956

Georgia

$7,613,419

Kansas

$3,667,735

North Carolina

$6,727,815

District of Columbia

$6,373,619

Kentucky

$791,096

Louisiana

$4,670,290

Minnesota

$5,782,936

Maine

$1,174,476

Nevada

$5,391,788

$776,736

Maryland

Indiana

$4,889,367

Massachusetts

$1,708,175

Tennessee

$4,857,605

Michigan

$16,851,025

Missouri

$4,829,143

Minnesota

$5,782,936

Louisiana

$4,670,290

Mississippi

$2,458,212

Colorado

$4,511,112

Missouri

$4,829,143

Connecticut

$4,206,327

Montana

$844,710

Arkansas

$4,174,946

Nebraska

$3,445,082

Hawaii

$4,106,922

Nevada

$5,391,788

Alaska

$4,064,039

$184,824

Kansas

$3,667,735

New Hampshire New Jersey

$1,711,216

West Virginia

$3,507,872

New Mexico

$3,268,102

Nebraska

$3,445,082

New York

$19,695,428

South Carolina

$3,338,336

North Carolina

$6,727,815

New Mexico

$3,268,102

$22,377

Rhode Island

$2,964,052

Virginia

$2,851,936

North Dakota Ohio

$10,837,089

Oklahoma

$9,703,417

Mississippi

$2,458,212

Oregon

$8,602,858

New Jersey

$1,711,216

Pennsylvania

$16,223,780

Massachusetts

$1,708,175

Rhode Island

$2,964,052

Idaho

$1,656,907

South Carolina

$3,338,336

Utah

$1,584,517

Maine

$1,174,476

South Dakota

$339,228

Tennessee

$4,857,605

Montana

$844,710

Texas

$17,374,470

Wyoming

$828,623

Utah

$1,584,517

Kentucky

$791,096

Vermont

$567,205

Maryland

$776,736

Virginia

$2,851,936

Vermont

$567,205 i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

40

n

Position Paper No. 31 Alphabetical

State



State


Washington

$8,582,488

South Dakota

$339,228

West Virginia

$3,507,872

New Hampshire

$184,824

Wisconsin

$8,942,175

Delaware

$178,153

Wyoming

$828,623

Total

$393,696,531

North Dakota Total

$22,377 $393,696,531

Sources: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and per-pupil spending data from the U.S. Department of Education. Notes: 1. U.S. Department of Education 2006-07 per-pupil spending figures are inflation-adjusted by author to reflect 2010 dollar amounts. 2. U.S. Department of Education per-pupil spending figures exclude capital construction and interest on school debt expenditures.



n

41

Endnotes: 1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8 9 10

oster Care Month, http://www.fostercaremonth.org/Pages/default.aspx. See also NaF tional Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions, February 26, 2008, p. 54, http://www.dredf. org/programs/clearinghouse/NCD-Foster-Youth_Feb08.pdf. White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Proclamation-National Foster Care Month,” April 28, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentialproclamation-national-foster-care-month. ational Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, p. 8; N and National Foster Care Coalition, Foster Care Facts web site, http://www.nationalfostercare.org/facts/index.php. All figures are as of September 30, 2008, unless otherwise noted. See the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Adoption and Foster Care Statistics, “AFCARS Report #16, Preliminary Estimates for FY 2008,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/. See also AFC’s Child Welfare Questions and Answers Support web site for statistics and additional foster care information, http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_sid=Z47LHhi&p_lva=&p_li=&p_accessibility=0&p_page=1&p_cv=2.15&p_pv=&p_ prods=&p_cats=10%2C15&p_hidden_prods=&cat_lvl1=10&cat_lvl2=15&p_search_ text=&p_new_search=1&p_search_type=answers.search_nl&p_sort_by=dflt. For more information about adoption, see AdoptUSKids, a project of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, www.AdoptUSKids.org. Adopt America Network, www.adoptamericanetwork.org. HHS, ACF, Adoption and Foster Care Statistics, “AFCARS Report #16, Preliminary Estimates for FY 2008.” See also AFC’s Child Welfare Questions and Answers Support web site for statistics and additional foster care information. Marci McCoy-Roth, Madelyn Freundlich, and Timothy Ross, “Number of Youth Aging out of Foster Care Continues to Rise; Increasing 64 percent since 1999,” Fostering Connections Resource Center, Analysis No. 1, January 2010, p. 1, http://www.fosteringconnections.org/resources?id=0003. Ibid. Adopt America Network, www.adoptamericanetwork.org. Sharon Vandivere, Karin Malm, and Laura Radel, Adoption USA: A Chartbook Based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2009, p. 53, n.11, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/index.cfm; cf. The National Survey of i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

42

n


Adoptive Parents Project Page, updated November 11, 2009, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/ NSAP/. 11 Thomas P. McDonald, Reva I. Allen, Alex Westerfelt, and Irving Piliavin, Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Foster Care: A Research Synthesis (Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America Press, 1996), pp. 41-69, 71-80, 199, and 129; John Emerson and Thomas Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2003, pp. 199-203; Casey Family Programs, It’s my life: A framework for youth transitioning from foster care to successful adulthood, 2001, p. 7, http://www.casey.org/Resources/ Publications/ItsMyLife/Framework.htm; and Ronna Cook, Esther Fleishman, and Virginia Grimes, A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youth. Phase 2 Final Report. Volume 1, prepared by Westat, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, 1991, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/12/b5/25.pdf. 12 S ee quotation by Phyllis Levine, Educational attainment and outcomes for children and youth served by the foster care system, an unpublished report by Casey Family Programs, 1999. Cited in Casey Family Programs, It’s my life, p. 44. 13 Casey Family Programs, It’s my life, p. 44; and Thomas Parish, John DuBois, Carolyn Delano, Donald Dixon, Daniel Webster, Jill Duerr Berrick, and Sally Bolus, Education of Foster Group Home Children, Whose Responsibility Is It? Study of the Educational Placement of Children Residing in Group Homes, Final Report, submitted to the California Department of Education by the American Institutes for Research, January 25, 2001, pp. 1-7, http://csef.air.org/publications/related/LCI_final.pdf; cf. Sherri Seyfried, Peter J. Pecora, A. Chris Downs, Phyllis Levine, and John Emerson, “Assessing the Educational Outcomes of Children in Long-Term Foster Care: First Findings,” School Social Work Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2000, pp. 68-88; American Humane Association, California Department of Social Services, SB 2030 Child Welfare Services Workload Study: Final Report, Englewood, CO, 2000; Colleen Montoya, Educational Needs of Assessment of Foster Youth: Summary Findings, Pleasant Hill, CA: Contra Costa County Office of Education, 2000; Felicity Fletcher-Campbell and Christopher Hall, Changing Schools? Changing People? The Education of Children in Care, National Foundation for Educational Research (Slough: 1990); and Martin Knapp, David Bryson, John Lewis, Alex Lewis, The objectives of child care and their attainment over a twelve month period for a cohort of new admissions: the Suffolk cohort study, Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent, England, February 1985. 14 Emerson and Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203; Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6; Casey Family Programs, It’s my life, p. 7; cf. Ronna J. Cook, “Are We Helping Foster Care Youth Prepare for Their Future?” Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 16, i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

43

No. 3/4, 1994, pp. 213-229; Cook et al., A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youth; Richard P. Barth, “On Their Own: the Experience of Youth after Foster Care,” Child and Adolescent Social Work, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1990, pp. 419-446; David Fanshel, Stephen S. Finch, and John F. Grundy, Foster Children in a Life Course Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); Jay North, Mary Mallabar, and Richard Desrochers, “Vocational Preparation and Employability Development,” Child Welfare, 1988, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 573-586; Trudy Festinger, No One Ever Asked Us: A Postscript to Foster Care (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983); Rosalie B. Zimmerman, “Foster Care in Retrospect,” Tulane Studies in Social Welfare, 1982, Vol. 14, pp. 1-119; Mary Fox, and Kathleen Arcuri, “Cognitive and Academic Functioning in Foster Children,” Child Welfare, Vol. 59, No. 8, 1980, pp. 491-496; and David Fanshel and Eugene B. Shinn, Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978). 15 E merson and Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203; and Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6. 16 Ibid. 17 Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6; and Laura Lippman and Andrew Rivers, “Assessing School engagement: A guide for out-of-School Practitioners,” Child Trens Research-to-Results Brief, October 2008, p. 1, http://www.ctjja.org/resources/ pdf/education-childtrends.pdf 18 Ibid. See also Casey Family Programs, It’s my life, p. 7; and Katherine Kortenkamp and Jennifer Ehrle, “The Well-Being of Children Involved with the Child Welfare System: A National Overview,” Urban Institute, January 2002, pp. 2-3, http://www.urban.org/ Uploadedpdf/310413_anf_b43.pdf. 19 Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6, http://www.f2f.ca.gov/res/EffortsToAddress.pdf; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth Involved in the Foster Care System, 2007, http://www.ncwd-youth.info/negotiating-the-curves-toward-employment; and Mark E. Courtney, Sherri Terao, and Noel Bost, Executive Summary: Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 2004, http://www.nrcyd.ou.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/chapinillinois.pdf. 20 Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6; and Courtney et al., Executive Summary: Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Emerson and Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203; Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6; and Marni Finkelstein, Mark Wamsley, and Doreen Miranda, What Keeps Children in Foster Care From Succeeding in School? Views of Early Adolescents and the Adults in i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

44

n


Their Lives, Vera Institute of Justice, July 2002, http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/what%20keeps%20children.pdf. 24 Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6; Sandra J. Altshuler, “A Reveille for School Social Workers: Children in Foster Care Need Our Help!” Social Work in Education, April 1997, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.121-27; and Robert H. Ayasse, “Addressing the Needs of Foster Children: The Foster Youth Services Program,” Social Work in Education, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 1995, pp. 207-16. For a summary of the outcomes literature, see Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6. 25 Emerson and Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203. 26 “2007 California Foster Youth Education Summit: Recommendations to Improve Foster

27

28 29 30 31

32 33

34

35


Youth Educational Success in California,” The California Foster Youth Education Task Force et al., p. 3; cf. “2007 California Foster youth Education Summit Backgrounder.” Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6. See also Annie E. Casey Foundation; Foster Care Work Group; Youth Transition Funders Group; Finance Project, Connected by 25: A plan for Investing in Successful Futures for Foster Youth, 2003, http://www. aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid={061111FD-7991-4BFE-A79448E1A4354BCF}. Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, pp. 6-7. Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6. See also and Cook et al., A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youth. National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, p. 12. NCSL “Educating Children in Foster Care: 2004-2007,”p. 2. See also Christian, “Educating Children in Foster Care;” Casey Family Programs National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, “Fact Sheet: Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care,” December 2008, http://www.casey. org/Resources/Publications/pdf/EducationalOutcomesFactSheet.pdf; and Kim Taitano, “Court-based Education Efforts for Children in Foster Care: The Experience of the Pima County Juvenile Court (Arizona),” Casey Family Programs, July 2007, http:// www.casey.org/resources/publications/CourtBasedEducationEfforts.htm. See, for example, National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 34-35 and 41-44. Lisa Walker and Cheryl Smithgall, “Underperforming Schools and the Education of Vulnerable Children,” Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/brief/underperforming-schools-and-education-vulnerable-children. Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, National Foster Care Adoptions Attitudes Survey 2007, November 2007, pp. 9 and 69, http://www.davethomasfoundation.org/ Our-Programs/Research. Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Center on the States, “Time for Reform: Aging Out and on Their Own,” December 3, 2007, pp. 12-13, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ report_detail.aspx?id=32336.


n

45

36 V andivere et al., Adoption USA, pp. 6 and 9; cf. National Survey of Adoptive Parents Project Page. See also A Report to Congress on Barriers and Success Factors in Adoptions from Foster Care, HHS, pp. 83, 86-87. 37 Dan Lips, “School Choice for Maryland’s Foster Care Children: Fostering Stability, Satisfaction, and Achievement,” Maryland Public Policy Institute, 2005, http://www. mdpolicy.org/docLib/20051112_MPPIFosterCare.pdf; and Lips, “Foster Care Children Need Better Educational Opportunities.” 38 Laila Kearney, “Foster Care gets help from the faithful,” Oakland Tribune, March 28, 2008, http://www.pathwaytohome.org/news/foster_care_gets_help.cfm; and Diane F. Reed and Kate Karpilow, Understanding the Child Welfare System in California: A Primer for Service Providers and Policymakers, California Center for Research on Women & Families (CCRWF), June 2009, p. 43, http://www.ccrwf.org/category/working-families-forum/foster-care/. 39 A uthor’s averages have been inflation-adjusted to reflect 2010 dollar amounts based on 2007 amounts presented in Table 1 of “Hitting the MARC: Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children: Technical Report,” a collaborative project by Children’s Rights, Ruth H. Young Center for Families and Children at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, and the National Foster Parent Association, October 2007, pp. 4 and 10, http://www.nfpainc.org/uploads/MARCTechReport.pdf; cf. National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, Hunter College School of Social Work, Foster Care Maintenance Payments, June 19, 2008, http://www. hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/foster-care-maintenance-payments.pdf. 40 Average foster-care monthly maintenance payments in the following states exceeded recommended payment amounts in 2007: Arizona, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas. They are therefore excluded from the annual cost estimate. Author’s averages have been inflation-adjusted to reflect 2010 dollar amounts based on 2007 amounts presented in Table 1 of “Hitting the MARC: Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children: Technical Report,” a collaborative project by Children’s Rights, Ruth H. Young Center for Families and Children at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, and the National Foster Parent Association, October 2007, pp. 4 and 10, http://www.nfpainc.org/uploads/MARCTechReport. pdf; cf. National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, Hunter College School of Social Work, Foster Care Maintenance Payments, June 19, 2008, http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/foster-care-maintenance-payments.pdf. 41 Richard McKenzie and Lawrence J. McQuillan, A Brighter Future: Solutions to Policy Issues Affecting America’s Children, Pacific Research Institute, 2002, p. 6, http://www. pacificresearch.org/publications/a-brighter-future-new-study-from-pacific-research-institute-outlines-policy-reforms-for-childrens-issues. 42 Russell W. Rumberger, Katherine A. Larson, Robert K. Ream, Gregory J. Palardy, Educational Consequences of Mobility for Students and Schools, (Pre-production copy), i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

46

n


Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), February 1999, p. 23, http://education.ucsb.edu/rumberger/internet%20pages/Papers/Stuart%20Report--final.pdf. 43 Scott Joftus, “Education Children in Foster Care: The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts,” Casey Family Programs, April 2007, pp. 3, and 8, http://www.nrcyd. ou.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/casey_NCLB.pdf; See also “Executive Summary,” http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/McKinneyVento.htm. 44 C asey Family Programs National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, “Fact Sheet: Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care,” p. 2; and Casey Family Programs, Improving Educational Continuity and School Stability for Children in Out-of-Home Care, December 2009, pp. 21-22, http://www.casey. org/Resources/Publications/BreakthroughSeries_ImprovingEducationalContinuity.htm. 45 C asey Family Programs, Improving Educational Continuity and School Stability, p. 22. 46 Both the Chicago and California studies are cited in Casey Family Programs National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, “Fact Sheet: Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care,” p. 2. 47 California Department of Education, Counseling, Student Support, and Service-Learning Office, 2010 Report to the Legislature and the Governor�� for the Foster Youth Services Program, p. 3, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/documents/legreport2010.doc. 48 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 12-15. 49 On the procedural difficulties with special education, see Kevin J. Lanigan, Rose Marie L. Audette, Alexander E. Dreier & Maya R. Kobersy, “Nasty, Brutish.... and Often Not Very Short: The Attorney Perspective on Due Process,”chap. 10, and Siobhan Gorman, “Navigating the Special Education Maze: Experiences of Four Families,” chap. 11 in Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew J. Rotherham, and Charles R. Hokanson, Jr., eds., Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute, 2001), http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cf m?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900030&contentID=3344. 50 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 12-15; Emerson and Lovitt, “The Educational Plight of Foster Children in Schools and What Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203; and Choice et al., Education for Foster Children, pp. 18-21. See also Wendy Byrnes, “DREDF Launches Foster Children with Disabilities Resource Center,” August 1, 2006, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund Press Release, http://www.proboNo.net/ca/news/article.110637-DREDF_Launches_Foster_Children_with_Disabilities_Resource_Center; and The National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections at the Hunter College School of Social Work, Children with Disabilities in Foster Care web site, http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/children-with-disabilities.html. 51 For additional resources and fact sheets, see Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Clearinghouse on Foster Youth and Transition web site, http://www.dredf.org/ programs/clearinghouse/. i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

47

52 C laire van Wingerden, John Emerson, and Dennis Ichikawa, “Improving Special Education for Children with Disabilities in Foster Care,” Casey Family Programs Education Issue Brief, 2002, quoted in Lips, “Foster Care Children Need Better Educational Opportunities.” See also Choice et al., Education for Foster Children, pp. 51-52, cf. pp. 46-48. 53 Choice et al., Education for Foster Children, pp. 11-14, pp. 46-52, and pp. 55-57; Parish et al., Education of Foster Group Home Children, Whose Responsibility Is It? pp. 1-4; and National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 34-36, 44, 48, 61-68. 54 G. Reid Lyon, Jack M. Fletcher, Sally E. Shaywitz, Bennett A. Shaywitz, Joseph K. Torgesen, Frank B. Wood, Anne Schulte & Richard Olson, “Rethinking Learning Disabilities,” chap.12 in Finn et al., Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, p. 260. On over-identification in special education generally, see Matthew Ladner and Christopher Hammons, “Special But Unequal: Race and Special Education,” chap. 5 in Finn et al., Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. 55 J ay P. Greene and Greg Forster, “Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment,” Manhattan Institute Civic Report 32, December 2002, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_32.htm. 56 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 66ff. 57 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 61-68, cf. p. 36. 58 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 34-38 and 41-44. 59 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, pp. 61-68, cf. p. 36. As of April 22, 2010, group homes classified as RCL 13 and 14 generally receive $8,835 per month. California Department of Social Services, Foster Care Rate Lists, http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/PG1343.htm#Lists. See “Group Home Provider Rate List RCL 13 and 14 Only,” http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/GH1314. pdf; cf. Sonja Lenz-Rashid, Emancipating from Foster Care in the bay Area: What Types of Programs and Services are Available for Youth Aging Out of the Foster Care System? San Francisco State University School of Social Work, January 2006, p. 44, http://www. calyouthconn.org/files/cyc/PDF/TransitionBASCCFinalReport.pdf. 60 Government Accountability Office, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services (GAO-03-397), April 2003, pp. 2 and 11, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf. 61 Government Accountability Office, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services (GAO-03-397), April 2003, “Highlights” and p. 14, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf. i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

48

n


62 M ary Eschelbach Hansen, The Value of Adoption, American University Department of Economics Working Paper Series, December 2006, p. 2, http://www.fosteringconnections.org/tools/assets/files/Value-of-Adoption.pdf 63 NCSL “Educating Children in Foster Care: 2004-2007,”p. 2. See also Christian, “Educating Children in Foster Care;” Casey Family Programs National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, “Fact Sheet: Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care,” December 2008, http://www.casey.org/ Resources/Publications/pdf/EducationalOutcomesFactSheet.pdf. 64 Miryam J. Choca and Miriam Aroni Krinsky, “Help foster kids make the grade,” Sacramento Bee, January 27, 2007, http://www.somethingspecialinc.org/Miryam_J_Choca_ Help_foster_kids_make_the_grade_Sacbee.pdf. See also Vicki E. Murray, “Eyes on Arizona: Successful and Popular Foster-Care Program in the Hands of the State Supreme Court”, FlashReport, December 9, 2008: http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columnslibrary0b.php?faID=2008120912220558 65 I n 2006 Arizona became the first state to enact a K-12 voucher program for students currently or formerly in the foster-care system and students with special needs when thenGovernor Janet Napolitano signed the Displaced Pupils Choice Grant Program into law. Under the program, the value of special needs students’ vouchers equaled the state base support level their public schools would have received, approximately $8,238 in 2008, which varied depending on the severity of a student’s disability, and could not exceed the actual tuition and fees paid of participating private schools. The maximum scholarship amount for foster-care students was $5,000 that year, and scholarships averaged $4,140. In 2008, 140 students participated in the program. See The Foundation for Educational Choice, “’Lexie’s Law’ Corporate Tax Credits,” from the ABCs of School Choice, 200910 Edition, http://www.edchoice.org/newsroom/ShowProgramItem.do?id=45. In response to a legal challenge, in May 2009 the Arizona program was converted into a $5 million expansion of the state’s existing corporate tax-credit scholarship program and renamed Lexie’s Law after a seven-year-old scholarship recipient with special needs. See The case, Cain v. Horne, was decided March 25, 2009, in the Arizona Supreme Court. See Institute for Justice, Arizona Special Needs & Foster Care web site, http://www.ij.org/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1066&Itemid=165. For the Supreme Court opinion, see Arizona Department of Education, Displaced Pupils Choice Grant Program web site, http://www.ade.az.gov/displacedpupilgrants/. On Lexie’s Law, see Institute for Justice, “Arizona Governor to Sign Lexie’s Law To Save Scholarships for Special Needs and Foster Children,” May 29, 2009, press release, http://www.ij.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2735&Itemid=165; Arizona Department of Revenue, Corporate Tuition Tax Credits web site, http://www.azdor.gov/TaxCredits/CorporateTuitionTaxCredits.aspx; and “Corporate School Tax Credit Reports,” http://www. azdor.gov/ReportsResearch/SchoolTaxCredit.aspx#corp. See also the Arizona State Legislature, HB 2001, http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2001; and “Senate Fact Sheet for H.B. 2001/S.B. 2001,” June 1, 2009, http://www.azleg.gov/Fori n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

49

matDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2s/summary/s.2001-1001_%20as%20enacted. doc.htm. Under a corporate tax-credit scholarship program, businesses may claim credits against their state income-tax liability for charitable donations to non-profit scholarshipgranting organizations. Unlike vouchers, such contributions are not public funds because they never become part of a state’s general fund. Therefore, they do not run afoul of state constitutional provisions banning public funding for private elementary and high schools. See Richard D. Komer and Clark Neily, School Choice and State Constitutions, Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council, April 2007, http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1622&Itemid=249. “I am incredibly grateful that the legislature and governor moved so quickly to save the scholarships my daughter and hundreds of other children rely on,” said Lexie’s mother. “Attending a school that meets her needs has changed Lexie’s life, and I am honored that the legislature named this program after my beautiful little girl.” See Institute for Justice, “Arizona Governor to Sign Lexie’s Law to Save Scholarships for Special Needs and Foster Children,” May 29, 2009, press release, http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&t ask=view&id=2735&Itemid=165. See also Matthew Ladner, “Arizona Legislature passes ‘Lexie’s Law’ to replace vouchers,” Goldwater Institute Daily Email, June 1, 2009, http:// www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2826. On April 28, 2010, new legislation was adopted to extend the contributions deadline from December 31 to three and a half months after the end of the tax year, typically April 15. See Arizona State Legislature, “SB 1274 STOs; contribution date,” http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1274; and Steve Schimpp, “Fiscal Analysis of SB 1274,” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, February 11, 2010, http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/fiscal/sb1274.doc.pdf. See also related legislation, “HB 2496 school tuition credit; contribution date,” http://www.azleg.gov/ DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=2496; and “Senate Finance Committee Fact Sheet,” March 29, 2010, http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/ summary/s.2496fin.doc.htm; Steve Schimmp, “Fiscal Impact of HB 2496 school tuition credit; contribution date,” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, February 11, 2010, http:// www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/fiscal/hb2496.doc.pdf. 66 D an Lips, “Foster Care Children Need Better Educational Opportunities,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, June 5, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/Foster-Care-Children-Need-Better-Educational-Opportunities; Sarah McIntosh, “Expansion of Georgia Voucher Program Under Consideration,” School Reform News, March 11, 2010, http://www.heartland.org/schoolreform-news.org/Article/27234/Expansion_of_Georgia_Voucher_Program_Under_Consideration.html; and Susan Laccetti Meyers, “Georgia Voucher Expansion Bill Fails to Reach Vote,” School Reform News, April 19, 2010, http://www.heartland.org/schoolreform-news.org/Article/27502/Georgia_Voucher_Expansion_Bill_Fails_to_Reach_Vote.html. 67 On January 5, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring the privateschool option of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which awarded vouchers to public-school students in failing schools, unconstitutional in Holmes v. Bush. See Flori n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

50

n


ida Department of Education, Opportunity Scholarship Program web site, http://www. floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/OSP/; Institute for Justice, Florida School Choice web site; and “Florida” in Komer and Neily, School Choice and State Constitutions. 68 Florida Department of Education, “Fast Facts and Program Statistics,” October 2009, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/OSP/files/Fast_Facts_OSP.pdf; and Opportunity Scholarship Program web site, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/OSP/. 69 Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, “When Schools Compete: The Effects of Vouchers on Florida Public School Achievement Education,” Manhattan Institute Working Paper No. 2, August 2003, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm. 70 The Foundation for Educational Choice, “McKay Scholarships Program for Students with Disabilities,” from the ABCs of School Choice, 2009-10 Edition, http://www.edchoice.org/newsroom/ShowProgramItem.do?id=16. 71 On January 5, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring the private school option of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which awarded vouchers to public-school students in failing schools, unconstitutional in Holmes v. Bush. See Florida Department of Education, Opportunity Scholarship Program, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/OSP/; Institute for Justice, Florida School Choice web site, http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1096&Itemid= 165; and “Florida” in Komer and Neily, School Choice and State Constitutions. 72 Florida Department of Education, “McKay Scholarship Program: Fast Facts and Program Statistics,” October 2009, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/files/Fast_Facts_McKay.pdf; and McKay Scholarship Program web site, http://www. floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/. 73 Florida House of Representatives, “CS/HB 1505: Education Programs for Children with Disabilities,” http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail. aspx?BillId=44335&SessionId=64; cf. Foundation for Florida’s Future, “Foundation for Florida’s Future Applauds the Florida Legislature for Expansion of McKay Scholarships,” April 30, 2010, Press Release, http:// www.afloridapromise.org/PressReleases/2010/Foundation_for_Floridas_Future_Applauds_the_Florida_Legislature_for_Expansion_of_McKay_Scholarships.aspx. 74 Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster, Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program, Manhattan Institute, Civic Report 38, June 2003, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_38.htm. 75 Vandivere et al., Adoption USA, p. 49; cf. National Survey of Adoptive Parents Project Page. See also Choice et al., Education for Foster Children, pp. 51-52, cf. pp. 46-48. 76 A Report to Congress on Barriers and Success Factors in Adoptions from Foster Care: Perspectives of Families and Staff Supported by the Adoption Opportunities Program, Children’s Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and Families Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007, pp. 83, 86-87, http://www.fosteringconnections.org/tools/assets/files/Report-to-Congress.pdf i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

51

77 F lorida Department of Education, Florida Tax Credit Scholarships Program web site, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/ctc/; “Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program FAQs,” http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/faqs.asp; and “Fast Facts & Program Statistics,” October 2009, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/ Information/ctc/. 78 Florida Department of Education, “Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program February Quarterly Report 2010,” http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/quarterly_reports/ftc_report_feb2010.pdf; and “Fast Facts & Program Statistics.” 79 “House Bill 653, Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program,” June 30, 2008, Memorandum from Jean Miller, Acting Executive Director Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice, http://www.fldoe.org/GR/LI/iepc-memo-653.pdf. 80 S ee Table 1 of Judith Lohman, “Office of Legislative Research Report (2008-R-0694),” Connecticut General Assembly, December 17, 2008, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/ rpt/2008-R-0694.htm. 81 Vicki E. Murray and Matthew Ladner, with a foreword by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Demography is Not Destiny: Reform Lessons from Florida on Overcoming Achievement Gaps, Pacific Research Institute, August 7, 2008, p. 30, http://liberty. pacificresearch.org/publications/demography-is-not-destiny-reform-lessons-from-florida-on-overcoming-achievement-gaps; and Alliance for School Choice, School Choice Yearbook 2008-09, p. 14, http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/ResearchResources/. 82 Florida Department of Education, “Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program February Quarterly Report 2010,” http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/quarterly_reports/ftc_report_feb2010.pdf. 83 Florida House of Representatives, “Finance & Tax Council Committee Analysis of CS/HB 1009,” March 30, 2010, http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=43675&SessionId =64&BillText=corporate+income+tax+increase&HouseChamber=H. 84 Florida House of Representatives, “Policy and Steering Committee on Ways and Means Committee Analysis of CS/SB 2126,” March 17, 2010, p. 15, http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=43814&SessionId=64&SessionIndex=1&BillText=2126&BillNumber=2126&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0&BillTy peIndex=0&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=B&BillSearchIndex=0; cf. “CS/HB 1009,” March 30, 2010, http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=43675&SessionId =64&BillText=corporate+income+tax+increase&HouseChamber=H. Substitute bill CS/ SB 2126 replaced CS/HB 1009 on April 7, 2010. 85 See “Myth #3: Parental choice does not benefit students,” in Lance T. Izumi, Vicki E. Murray, Rachel Chaney, Not as Good as You Think: Why the Middle Class Needs School Choice (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 2007), pp. 149-56, and Table 3, p. 151, http://special.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/2007/Middle_Class/. i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

52

n


86 Jay P. Greene, “Graduation Rates for Choice and Public Schools Students in Milwaukee,” School Choice Wisconsin, September 28, 2004, http://schoolchoicewi.org/ currdev/detail.cfm?id=90. See also Greene, “A Long-Term Choice: Vouchers keep kids in school,” National Review Online, September 30, 2004, http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/greene200409300819.asp. 87 “Myth #3: Parental choice does not benefit students,” in Izumi et al., Not as Good as You Think, p. 150 ff. See also Martha Naomi Alt and Katharin Peter, Private Schools: A Brief Portrait (NCES 2002–013), National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2002, p. 9, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002013. Some researchers raise concerns about accessibility for disadvantaged families even among parental choice programs targeting the poor. Yet they acknowledge that student performance improves. See, for example, Bruce Fuller, Luis Huerta, and David Ruenzel, “A Costly Gamble or Serious Reform? California’s School Voucher Initiative—Proposition 38,” Policy Analysis for California Education, 2000, p. 8, http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/Voucher_Initiative.pdf; cf. George A. Clowes, “Initiative Campaigns Fight Misinformation,” School Reform News, The Heartland Institute, November 1, 2000, online at: http://www.heartland.org/Article. cfm?artId=10857. 88 S ee, for example, Caroline M. Hoxby, “Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?” The American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 5 (December 2000): 1209; Hoxby, School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?), National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8873, April 2002, p. 50. 89 Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin, “The Effects of Competition on Educational Outcomes: A Review of the US Evidence,” National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, March 2002, p. 2. This paper was subsequently published in Review of Educational Research, Vol. 72, No. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 279-341. See Table 1 for a summary of the effects of increased competition on outcomes measures. 90 Susan L. Aud, School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006, Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, April 2007, http://www.edchoice.org/downloadFile.do?id=243. 91 Murray and Ladner, Demography Is Not Destiny; and Murray, “California Lawmakers Should Read the Writing on the Wall,” Pacific Research Institute, Capital Ideas, April 7, 2010, http://www.pacificresearch.org/publications/california-lawmakers-should-readthe-writing-on-the-wall. 92 Matthew Ladner, “Remembering the Way We Were,” Jay P. Greene’s Blog, April 15, 2010, http://jaypgreene.com/2010/04/15/memories-of-the-way-we-were/. 93 Figures are in constant 2006-07 dollar amounts and exclude spending on capital and school debt interest. See Table 185 in Thomas D. Snyder and Sally A. Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013), National Center for Education Statistics, i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m


n

53

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, April 2010, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_185.asp. 94 Ibid. 95 Figures are in constant 2006-07 dollar amounts and exclude spending on capital and school debt interest. See Table 185 in Thomas D. Snyder and Sally A. Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013), National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, April 2010, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_185.asp. 96 See, for example, Lynn Olson, “Financial Evolution,” Education Week, January 6, 2005, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/01/06/17overview.h24.html. For research on the lack of evidence on the relationship between higher spending and improved student achievement, see Andrew J. Coulson, “President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending. Here’s a Look at How that’s Worked in the Past,” Cato@Liberty Blog, January 27, 2010, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/27/president-to-call-for-bignew-ed-spending-heres-a-look-at-how-thats-worked-in-the-past/; Michael Rebell, Alfred Lindseth, and Eric Hanushek, “Many Schools Are Still Inadequate, Now What?” Education Next, Fall 2009/vol. 9, no. 4, http://educationnext.org/many-schools-arestill-inadequate-now-what/; chapter 7 of Eric A. Hanushek and Alfred A. Lindseth, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in America’s Public Schools (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Caroline Minter Hoxby, “Rising Tide: New evidence on competition and the public schools” Education Next, Fall 2001/vol. 1, no. 4, http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/; Caroline M. Hoxby, “Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?” The American Economic Review, December 2000/vol. 90. no. 5, pp. 1209-1238, http://www.jourdan.ens.fr/piketty/fichiers/enseig/ecoineg/articl/Hoxby2000c.pdf; and Eric A. Hanushek, Making Schools Work: Improving Performance and Controlling Costs (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994). 97 Ibid. 98 “Special Education Finance,” Section 3 of The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report: A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, July 2002, http://www2.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html. 99 LAO “The Foster Child Opportunity Scholarship Act,” p. 2. 100 Jay P. Greene, “2001 Education Freedom Index,” Civic Report 24, January 2002, p. 8, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_24.htm. The 2000 household income figure cited in the study has been inflation-adjusted by the authors to reflect the 2010 dollar amount. 101 Collins Center for Public Policy, “The Florida Corporate Income Tax Scholarship Program: Updated Fiscal Analysis,” February 20, 2007, pp, 2 and 12, http://www.collinscenter.org/resource/resmgr/Education_Docs/Tax_Credit_Scholarship_Updat.pdf. See i n d epe n d e n t w o m e n ’ s fo r u m

54

n


also Collins Center, “The Florida Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program: A Preliminary Analysis,” April 1, 2002, pp. 5, 9-12, http://www.collinscenter.org/resource/resmgr/Education_Docs/Corporate_Income_Tax_Analysi.pdf. 102 Collins Center, “Corporate Income Tax Scholarship Program Analysis,” February 20, 2007, http://www.collinscenter.org/?page=EducationCorpTax. 103 Florida Department of Education, “McKay Scholarship Program Fast Facts and Program Statistics,” http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/files/Fast_Facts_ McKay.pdf. For the range of disabilities of participating McKay Scholarship students see the Florida Department of Education, “John M. McKay Scholarship Program February 2010 Quarterly Report,” p. 4, http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/ McKay/; cf. The Foundation for Educational Choice, “McKay Scholarships Program for Students with Disabilities,” http://www.edchoice.org/newsroom/ShowProgramItem. do?id=16. 104 “New Report Finds Benefits Outweigh Costs 2 - 1 in Providing Foster Care Support, Services To California,” Capitol Info, March 9, 2009, http://www.ny-leg.com/directory/ press/CA/new-report-finds-benefits-outweigh-costs-2-1-in-providing-foster-care-support-services-to-califor/12796/; and Mark E. Courtney, Amy Dworsky, and Clark M. Peters, “California’s Fostering Connections to Success Act and the Costs and Benefits of Extending Foster Care to 21,” Partners for Our Children, March 2, 2009, http:// www.cafosteringconnections.org/pdfs/Courtney,%20Dworsky,%20&%20Peters%20 (2009)%20FC%20to%2021.pdf. 105 Government Accountability Office, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services (GAO-03-397), April 2003, pp. 2 and 11, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf. 106 Mary Eschelbach Hansen, The Value of Adoption, American University Department of Economics Working Paper Series, December 2006, p. 2, http://www.fosteringconnections.org/tools/assets/files/Value-of-Adoption.pdf.



n

55

About the Author Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., is Director of the Women for School Choice Project and Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. She is also Education Studies Associate Director at the Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento, California.

About IWF Founded in 1992, the Independent Women’s Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit educational institution. IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Its mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF fosters greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation’s most influential scholars—women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

Board of Directors Heather R. Higgins, Chairman Mary E. Arnold Yvonne S. Boice The Honorable Carol T. Crawford Jennifer Ashworth Dinh Mary Beth Jarvis Randy Kendrick Lawrence Kudlow Joanne T. Medero

Directors Emeritae The Honorable Lynne V. Cheney Midge Decter Kimberly O. Dennis The Honorable Wendy Gramm Elizabeth Lurie Kate O’Beirne The Honorable Louise V. Oliver Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer Sally C. Pipes The Honorable R. Gaull Silberman (Chairman Emerita)


Independent Women’s Forum 4400 Jenifer Street, NW, Suite 240 Washington, DC 20015 202-419-1820 www.iwf.org