Transcript Strategies to Support School Stability and Continuity:

Supporting Successful School
Experiences for Students in
Foster Care Through
Collaboration
November 3, 2011
Michelle Lustig, Ed.D, MSW
Coordinator, Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services
San Diego County Office of Education
San Diego County Office of Education

Increased awareness of
◦ Policy in California relating to the education of
children in foster care including:
 Historical context
 Statewide efforts
 Legislative efforts
◦ Local efforts in San Diego County that put policy
into practice including:
 Interagency collaboration
 Interagency information/data sharing
 Direct service provision
Required Understandings:
 The need to be bi-lingual!
◦ The language of Education
◦ The language of Child Welfare
 Areas of mutual concern:
◦ Academic Achievement
◦ School Attendance
◦ Response to Discipline Concerns
◦ Continuity of Special Education Services
◦ Communication
◦ Emotional/Behavioral Needs
◦ Confidentiality




Pilots began in 1973-3 school districts
Education Code Sections 42920-42925 (2000)
Provide support services to foster children who
suffer the traumatic effects of displacement from
family and schools and multiple placements in
foster care.
Services are designed to improve the children's
educational performance and personal
achievement, directly benefiting them as well as
providing long-range cost savings to the state.
California Department of Education
San Diego County Office of Education
EC 42921 Requires that FYS Programs:
 Work with the child welfare agency to minimize changes in school placement
 Facilitating the prompt transfer of educational records
 Provide education-related information to the child welfare agency to assist
the child welfare agency to deliver services to foster children, including, but
not limited to, educational status and progress information required for
inclusion in court reports by Section 16010 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
 Respond to requests from the juvenile court for information and working
with the court to ensure the delivery or coordination of necessary educational
services
 Facilitate communication between the foster care provider, the teacher, and
any other school staff or education service providers for the child.
 Share information with the foster care provider regarding available training
programs that address education issues for children in foster care.
 Refer caregivers of foster youth who have special education needs to special
education programs and services.
San Diego County Office of Education




Direct Service Provision
 Tutoring
 Mentoring
 Educational Case Management
 Transition Services
 Emancipation Services
Facilitation of timely individualized education programs, in
accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.), and of all special education services.
Establishing collaborative relationships and local advisory groups.
Establishing a mechanism for the efficient and expeditious
transfer of health and education records and the health and
education passport.
San Diego County Office of Education
The California Foster Youth Education Task Force is dedicated
to improving educational outcomes for foster youth in
California by bringing together subject matter experts
representing more than 35 organizations and agencies to
engage in cross-systems collaboration. Membership is open
to anyone interested in promoting improved educational
opportunities and successes for California's foster youth.
http://www.cfyetf.org/
http://fosteredconnect.org/
This interactive meta-website is for all stakeholders
involved in improving the educational outcomes for
children and youth in foster care. It is monitored by
subject matter experts on the California Foster Youth
Education Task Force.
Provisions contained in California Education Code,
Welfare & Institutions Code and The Rules of Court:
 Equal Access to curricular and extracurricular
 Best Interest Considerations
 School stability/school of origin
 Immediate enrollment (includes definition of
enrollment)
 School Selection-Least restrictive/best interest
considerations
 Educational Rights Holder/Education Surrogate
 Timely transfer of records
School District AB 490 Foster Youth Liaison
Disputes
Excused absences
Credit Protection/Partial credits
Course work protection
Higher Education Provisions including year
round housing and priority class registration.
 Rules of Court
 Aligned with AB 490
 Monitoring who holds Educational Rights and
academic progress at every hearing







San Diego:
◦ History of:
 Leadership from Juvenile Court
 Collaboration
 Cross system information sharing
 Interagency Agreement/MOU
 Foster Youth Student Information
System (FY-SIS©)
◦ School Success Project
◦ The Tutor Connection Program




History of Presiding Judges who took the
lead
Standing Court Orders
Chair of Foster Youth Services Advisory
Committee
Creation of “I Can Go to College” Events

Collaboratives
◦ Regional Collaboratives brings together:
 School district and school site personnel
 Child Welfare staff and administration
◦ Foster Youth Services Advisory Committee
◦ School District Foster Care and Homeless Liaison Meetings

College Connection
◦ Brings together:





Local colleges and universities
County ILS staff
CBO ILS staff
Foundations
Community partners (EdFund, Cal Soap, Credit Unions, etc.)
◦ Events
 College Connection Days
 Career Fair
Agreement across all child serving systems that information
can and should be shared when legally allowable and in the
best interest if the child:
 Interagency Agreement (2006/2011)
 50 signatories
 Includes mandates as well as best practices and local policies

MOU





Juvenile Court
HHSA, CWS
Probation
SDCOE
Foster Youth Student Information System (FY-SIS©)
 Web based secure database which houses the health and
education information of children under the jurisdiction of
Juvenile Court




Collaborative effort focused on increasing cross system knowledge
and awareness while increasing the education and stability and
outcomes for students in foster care.
Partners include:
◦ Child Welfare and The San Diego County Office of Education, Foster
Youth and Homeless Education Services.
◦ Original funding from The Stuart Foundation, QUALCOMM, Inc.,
Promises2Kids Foundation, and Casey Family Programs.
Foster Youth Liaison team provides services to youth, serves as an
interpreter or broker between child-serving systems, and provides
assistance with all aspects of referrals for services.
Effort has sustainability plan
Outcome
2009
(1/09
start)
2010
2011
2012-thru
9/11
Total referred
and served
675
1849
1895
348
Total # remained
in same school
for entire school
year
273
343
343
N/A
% stayed in SOO –
Best Interest
during placement
change
43%
34%
41%
59%
% changed to less
restrictive setting
16%
28.5%
26.5%
54%
Special Education
Assistance
67
260
282
56
57%
72%
73%
N/A
Social Worker
Knowledge
The Program:
◦ Low cost/no cost program that leverages the expertise of partners to achieve
shared outcomes.
◦ Partners include:
 San Diego County Office of Education, Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services,
 California State University, San Marcos, College of Education and Office of Community
Service Learning
 San Diego County, Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Services.
◦ Students in foster care receive tutoring that varies among subject specific,
subject remediation and study skills/organizational methods.
◦ The tutors are future teachers, enrolled in CSUSM’s College Of Education.
◦ Tutors receive curriculum that covers the child welfare and foster care systems
as well as the impact of child abuse, neglect and trauma on academic
development.
◦ SDCOE oversees program administration and curriculum instruction,
facilitates tutor/student match, and respond to issues about the child
welfare and foster care system’s.
◦ Child Welfare provides the majority of student referrals to and
performs background checks on all tutors.
◦ Achievement of the program’s dual goals is expected to produce a
systemic change that will positively impact future generations of
students in foster care. The dual goals are:
1. Insure that all students in foster care have the educational support
they need to succeed in school
2. Educate future teachers on the unique needs of these vulnerable
students so they are more empathetic prepared teachers.


Impact:
◦ Over 1850 future teachers have participated in the program
◦ Over 2300 students in foster care have received tutoring services.
◦ Academic outcomes include:
 Students K-8: 98% improved in at least one subject area on Wide
Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT 4)
 Students Grades 9-12: 79.5% improved their overall GPA. This % does
not include students whose GPA’s remained unchanged.
The program has been recognized by the Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter
Foundation Partnership Foundation as a certified community/university
partnership and has received additional recognitions and awards locally, in
California and Nationally, including a Golden Bell Award from the California
School Boards Association.
Upper Darby School District
No Child Left Behind
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
– All students must be Proficient or higher
in mathematics and reading/language
arts by 2014.
– To ensure that districts/schools are on
track to achieve this goal, states
determine if districts/schools are making
sufficient progress each year; i.e.
Adequate Yearly Progress





Participation in the state math assessment
Participation in the state reading assessment
Performance on the state math assessment
Performance on the state reading assessment
Other academic indicators

Mathematics
2002-2004
35%
2005-2007
45%
2008-2010
56%
2011
67%
2012
2013
2014

78%
89%
100%
Reading
2002-2004
45%
2005-2007
54%
2008-2010
63%
2011
72%
2012
2013
2014
81%
91%
100%
Subgroups (N≥40)
• American Indian or Alaskan
Native
• Asian or Pacific Islander
• Black/African American nonHispanic
• Latino/Hispanic
• White non-Hispanic
• Multi-Racial/Ethnic
• IEP (Special Education)
• ELL (English Language
Learner)
• Economically Disadvantaged
AYP Summary
Building
Attempted Subgroups
Subgroups Made
Made AYP
Aronimink
9
9
Yes
Bywood
25
24
No
Garrettford
21
21
Yes
Highland Park
26
25
No
Hillcrest
13
13
Yes
Kelly
17
15
No
Primos
15
15
Yes
Senkow
17
17
Yes
Stonehurst
21
20
No
Westbrook Park
13
13
Yes
Beverly Hills
33
32
No
Drexel Hill
25
25
Yes
High School
28
24
No
6
6
Yes
269
259
96%
District
Total
PSSA Math Proficiency – All Students
2010 Target = 56 %
2011 Target = 67 %
100
90
80
70
% Proficient
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3-5
6-8
9-12
AR
BY
GA
HP
Hill
Year 2005
KY
PR
57.6
48.6
39.5
72.1
42.9
68.7
67.8
59.6
71.8
Year 2006
64.9
48.2
38.9
75.7
52.4
71.1
66.1
75.0
66.5
Year 2007
68.0
57.6
44.0
84.7
55.3
70.9
68.2
79.4
64.2
Year 2008
72.0
67.5
50.6
84.5
58.5
71.8
78.7
85.4
52.0
Year 2009
71.1
74.3
51.1
80.4
61.7
75.7
70.9
92.6
Year 2010
74.1
73.2
54.0
86.3
56.4
78.3
79.6
2010 Growth 87.6
87.6
54.0
96.7
79.6
89.1
91.3
SK
SH
WB
BH
DH
HS
46.3
65.3
45.8
55.1
40.1
70.5
58.3
69.7
41.6
60.5
39.3
81.2
66.8
73.2
54.5
63.6
44.5
75.7
85.8
69.2
70.9
65.2
70.5
50.9
50.6
74.7
81.7
65.1
68.5
73.9
76.2
51.5
91.4
46.7
77.2
91.9
74.4
71.2
71.9
76.7
55.3
97.0
71.9
89.3
96.3
88.8
87.4
86.5
90.8
55.3
PSSA Reading Proficiency – All Students
2010 Target = 63 %
2011 Target = 72 %
100
90
80
% Proficient
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3-5
6-8
9-12
AR
BY
GA
HP
Hill
KY
PR
Year 2005
57.3
53.3
47.8
79.1
51.8
61.3
61.5
68.2
67.6
Year 2006
56.2
55.9
51.4
76.6
42.6
65.8
55.8
71.9
61.3
Year 2007
58.5
58.8
56.6
81.1
41.0
67.8
56.5
77.0
Year 2008
62.0
62.4
51.6
80.4
45.2
67.8
64.4
81.1
Year 2009
64.1
67.1
53.8
74.3
44.0
72.7
63.3
Year 2010
64.7
68.2
53.7
78.6
46.9
76.9
65.8
2010 Growth 83.0
91.3
53.7
93.4
73.0
87.4
84.4
SK
SH
WB
BH
DH
HS
44.4
57.9
50.3
58.3
48.3
51.9
49.0
55.5
47.9
66.4
51.9
56.3
67.9
53.8
55.7
55.8
64.8
57.2
36.3
61.8
71.7
60.8
58.8
55.8
70.1
51.7
89.8
40.9
69.0
73.6
61.4
64.8
62.9
73.3
53.9
85.4
39.8
70.1
75.4
56.5
61.7
65.9
73.0
54.8
96.3
66.3
86.3
86.6
82.4
82.9
90.7
93.4
54.8






Strong research-based core
curriculum/interventions
Strong dynamic leadership
Data driven decision making using multiple
data points
Creative use of schedule and people
Fidelity to not only the interventions provided
but the mission
http://www.ncldtalks.org/content/interview/
detail/3351/









Arabio
Urdu
Hindi
Fulah
Spanish
Tamil
Bengali
Vietnamese
French









Creole and pidgins
Lao
Punjabi
Chinese
Tigrinya
Khmer
Tagalog
Hmong
Mandingo
http://paayp.emetric.net/school/overview/c2
3/125239452/1960






All students: 79.6%
Black students: 75.7%
Asian students: 91.9%
IEP students: 47.6%
ELL students: 78%
Economically Disadvantage students: 80.3%






All students: 73%
Black students: 70.2%
Asian students: 82.3%
IEP students: 28.6%
ELL students: 70.8%
Economically Disadvantaged students: 74.9%


Team collaboration within school and out of
school
Members of the team include:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
School Psychologists
Social Workers
Principals
Teachers
Counselors
Parents
Case Workers




Academic and behavioral needs of students in
foster care
Intervention programs
Services necessary to support students in and
out of school
Assessments needed to determine eligibility
for special education




Favorable outcomes for students in foster
care require constant communication
Updates on progress monitoring are essential
Changes in the environment at home should
be communicated to the school
Extra curricular activities require the
encouragement of both school and home

There are many students in foster care who
have been successful and have achieved
academically in the Upper Darby School
District
Michelle, Lustig, Ed.D, MSW
Coordinator, Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services, San
Diego County Office of Education [email protected]
Dan McGarry
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Upper Darby
School District, [email protected]
Brenda Kabler
Coordinator of Psychological Services, Upper Darby School District,
[email protected]
Debbie Staub
Early Learning & K-12 Education Advisor, Casey Family Programs
[email protected]