20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships

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.

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

Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships: The Benefits of Expanding Education Options to Students, Public Schools, and States n 5
i n d epe n d e n t
w o m e n ’ s fo r u m
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 pro-
spective 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 al-
leviate 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 par-
ticipating 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 achieve-
ment, 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 Flori-
da’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 adop-
tions 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.
Executive Summary

6 n Position Paper No. 31
i n d epe n d e n t
Talking Points:
l More than 300,000 foster-care children are of elementary and secondary school age
(ages five to 18).
l Education is the key to a better future, but foster-care children are disproportion-
ately 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 Fully 77 percent of potential foster and adoptive parents worry about providing a
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 lon-
ger 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 eas-
ing 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 pub-
lic-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.

i n d epe n d e n t
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. Chil-
dren and youth in foster care deserve the happiness and joy every child should
experience through family life and a safe, loving home. Families provide chil-
dren 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
each year, and at any given time approximately 500,000 children are
in the system.3
Approximately 70 percent (or more than 300,000)
of the country’s 463,000 foster-care children are of elementary and
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 so-
cietal problems to perpetuate.” (Emphasis original.)9
A National Overview of Foster Care
...about 29,516 foster-care youth,
or one in 10, are emancipated from the
system when they turn 18 or older...

i n d epe n d e n t
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 chil-
dren being adopted annually since 2002.10

i n d epe n d e n t
The foster-care youth population is widely considered among the most at-risk. Adults for-
merly 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 ex-
perts from Casey Family Programs.13
Available foster-care youth statistics are sobering:
l Between 30 percent and 96 percent perform below grade level in reading and
math;14
l Foster-care students score 15 to 20 percentile points below the general student popu-
lation on statewide achievement tests;15
l Between 26 percent and 40 percent repeat one or more grades;16
l One-fifth is considered “engaged” in school, compared to 39 percent of the general
student population–including participation in academic tasks, school-related acti-
vates, having good relationships with teachers and peers, and a willingness to try and
master difficult skills;17
l More than one-quarter (27 percent) have behavioral and emotional problems, com-
pared to 7 percent of the general student population;18
l Between 30 and 52 percent are placed in special education, compared to about 10 to
12 percent of the general student population;19
l Nearly one-third suffers from an active substance disorder;20
l Almost one-quarter is on medication for a psychological condition;21
l Students in foster care are twice as likely to be suspended and four times as likely to
be expelled;22
l Half of foster-care students drop out of high school compared to 16 percent of the
general student population.23
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 foster-
Poor Educational and Life Outcomes

i n d epe n d e n t
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 af-
ter leaving the foster-care system, only about half of former foster
youth are employed, almost half have been arrested, and nearly one-fourth experience home-
lessness.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
The effects of poor academic preparation
of students in the foster-care system have
long-term consequences.

i n d epe n d e n t
There is broad consensus that finding permanent, loving homes for foster-care children im-
proves their chances for success in school and life but states’ and families’ budgetary pres-
sures 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, includ-
ing those in the foster-care system, are disproportionately represent-
ed in failing schools.33
Not surprisingly, more than three-quarters
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 fami-
lies 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 par-
ents 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’ cur-
rent 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 inade-
quate 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.
Barriers to Better Educational Outcomes
Financial support for foster-care parents
is often inadequate, and given states’
current budget shortfalls this situation
is unlikely to improve any time soon.

i n d epe n d e n t
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 Caro-
lina 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-of-
home 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 educa-
tion. 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 op-
erate independently of one another.48
Accessing special education
services is challenging enough for students whose parents advocate
on their behalf.49
Students in foster-care rarely have such an advo-
cate.50
According to the Disability Rights Education and Defense
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 knowl-
edgeable 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 Fam-
ily 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
Research suggests that perverse financial
incentives and bureaucratic breakdowns often
prevent foster children who need special
education services from receiving them.

i n d epe n d e n t
these factors contribute to the misidentification of foster-care students as having learning dis-
abilities 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 Na-
tional 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 disabili-
ties actually have not received proper reading instruction in the early grades. Proper reading in-
struction, 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 percent-
age of youth with disabilities in foster care end up in more restrictive settings than are justi-
fied,” according to the National Council on Disability. 56
Depending on states’ reimburse-
ment 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 expen-
sive 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, resi-
dential facilities can cost up to $250,000 annually per person.60
The Government Account-
ability Office reported that in fiscal year 2001 alone,
State child welfare and county juvenile justice officials [in 19 states] estimated that par-
ents 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

i n d epe n d e n t
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
into fewer costly institutional placements, which would help con-
serve limited resources for children who truly need such intensive
services. It would also conserve limited resources in the future be-
cause a better education now means less public dependency later. A
recent analysis, for example, found that every adoption out of foster
care saves state and federal governments $143,000 in child welfare
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 foster-
care 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 av-
eraging $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 spe-
cial 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 as-
signed to attend failing public schools the option to choose higher performing public schools
Expanding Educational Options for Students
in Foster Care
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.

i n d epe n d e n t
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 Janu-
ary 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 aca-
demic 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 aver-
aged $6,519 in 2009.70
Unlike the Opportunity Scholarship Program for low-income students, the Florida Su-
preme 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 bi-
partisan 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 dra-
matically 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
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 edu-
cational 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-Fund-
ing 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 expan-
sions 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 African-
American 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 contri-
butions 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 of-

i n d epe n d e n t
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 mil-
lion to $7.2 million.84

i n d epe n d e n t
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 stu-
dents 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 pro-
grams—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 per-
forming ones—compete for students and their education dollars as
they must in states with parental choice programs, their productiv-
ity improves in terms of higher student achievement and better use
of education resources.88
In fact, more than 200 scientific analyses
spanning nearly three decades show beneficial effects of competition
on public schools “across all outcomes,” according to researchers
from Teachers College, Columbia University. These outcomes in-
clude 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 pro-
grams help raise public schools’ per-pupil funding, reduce class sizes, and ease overcrowding,
The Benefits of a Florida-Style Foster-Care
Opportunity Scholarship Program
Students using scholarships to attend private
schools experience an increase in reading and
math scores of an average of four percentile
points annually.

i n d epe n d e n t
minimizing costly construction and debt expenses. One analysis found that existing educa-
tional 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 stu-
dents 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. Re-
searchers 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 Colo-
rado and Delaware for fourth place nationally in NAEP reading
performance. It appears the performance of vulnerable student sub-
groups, all of whom now rank within the top five for best fourth-
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
Some might assume that Florida
simply outspent the competition,
but the reality is Florida appears to
be spending better, not simply more.

i n d epe n d e n t
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 con-
ventional 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 be-
low 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 anoth-
er 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 fourth-
graders 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, rang-
ing 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 pro-
ductivity of Florida’s public schools in terms of superior achievement for every dollar spent,

i n d epe n d e n t
academic performance could improve dramatically within current spending levels; while any
additional resources could be directed where the educational need is greatest to fund pro-
grams 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-
vided by the U.S. Department of Education, it is possible to cal-
culate how much a single NAEP scale-score point costs on aver-
age nationally and in the states.97
With those figures, it is possible
to compare the estimated spending increases needed to achieve
Florida’s fourth-grade NAEP reading performance across student
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 edu-
cate, including extra tutoring, after-school programs, and counseling services, their spending
per fourth-grade NAEP reading scale-score point figures are calculated at average spend-
ing 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 stu-
dents 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 infla-
tion-adjusted average per-pupil expenditure amounts for special education students na-
tionally 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 Louisi-
ana, which spends $47.
...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.

i n d epe n d e n t
Among vulnerable student populations, including low-income,
English learner, and minority students, Florida spends $44 on aver-
age per NAEP scale-score point, compared to the national average
of $53. In spite of lower spending, these Florida fourth graders rank
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 consis-
tently high performance across disadvantaged fourth graders.
Likewise in special education, Florida achieves its fourth-grade NAEP reading perfor-
mance 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 second-
place 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-pu-
pil 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-pu-
pil 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 stu-
dents in middle and high school, since the effects of poor academic achievement are cumula-
tive 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.
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.

i n d epe n d e n t
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 in-
crease 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 foster-
care students full access to schools that could better meet their
unique individual needs. The previous section illustrates the com-
parative productivity of states’ public schooling systems measured in
terms of dollars spent and fourth-grade NAEP reading achievement.
The estimates presented here are highly conservative because they
project only the annual cost to states of not expanding education
options to school-age children in foster care, not the entire student
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-stu-
dents not in special education is derived using the average estimated per-pupil increases re-
quired 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
Cost to States of Not Implementing Reform
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.

i n d epe n d e n t
educational opportunity for all students improves academic outcomes of students who par-
ticipate in scholarship programs as well as the public schooling system overall—and at a
fraction of the expense.

i n d epe n d e n t
The result of two distinct fiscal analyses by Florida’s Collins Center for Public Policy con-
cluded 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 fail-
ing 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 presi-
dent 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 suc-
cessful 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, health-
care, 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 Scholar-
ship 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
A Foster-Care Scholarship Program is Edu-
cationally and Fiscally Responsible Reform

i n d epe n d e n t
The 500,000 children in foster care nationwide are among the most at-risk. Numerous pro-
grams have been enacted at both the federal and state levels in recent years to encourage adop-
tions 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 pros-
pects 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, includ-
ing 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 in-
comes. 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:
l Encourage adoption by ensuring access to a quality education;
l 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 stu-
dents; and
l Better direct limited education resources to schools and programs that get results.
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 participat-
ing 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 be-
cause of these programs. And, in just over a decade, Florida has turned a fourth-grade read-
ing 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.
Conclusion: Expanding Options and Overcoming
Barriers to Better Educational Outcomes

i n d epe n d e n t
Table 1. Total and Estimated School-Age Foster-Care Population by State
Alphabetical Ranked (High to Low)
State All School Age State All School Age
Alabama 7,031 4,922 California 67,323 47,126
Alaska 2,168 1,518 New York 29,493 20,645
Arizona 10,425 7,298 Texas 28,148 19,704
Arkansas 3,522 2,465 Florida 22,187 15,531
California 67,323 47,126 Michigan 20,228 14,160
Colorado 7,921 5,545 Pennsylvania 19,407 13,585
Connecticut 5,378 3,765 Illinois 17,859 12,501
Delaware 938 657 Ohio 16,859 11,801
District of Columbia 2,217 1,552 Indiana 12,386 8,670
Florida 22,187 15,531 Washington 11,133 7,793
Georgia 9,984 6,989 Oklahoma 10,595 7,417
Hawaii 1,591 1,114 Massachusetts 10,427 7,299
Idaho 1,723 1,206 Arizona 10,425 7,298
Illinois 17,859 12,501 Georgia 9,984 6,989
Indiana 12,386 8,670 North Carolina 9,841 6,889
Iowa 6,893 4,825 Missouri 9,606 6,724
Kansas 6,306 4,414 Oregon 8,988 6,292
Kentucky 7,288 5,102 New Jersey 8,831 6,182
Louisiana 5,065 3,546 Colorado 7,921 5,545
Maine 1,875 1,313 Maryland 7,749 5,424
Maryland 7,749 5,424 Wisconsin 7,403 5,182
Massachusetts 10,427 7,299 Kentucky 7,288 5,102
Michigan 20,228 14,160 Tennessee 7,219 5,053
Minnesota 6,020 4,214 Alabama 7,031 4,922
Mississippi 3,292 2,304 Iowa 6,893 4,825
Missouri 9,606 6,724 Virginia 6,743 4,720
Montana 1,600 1,120 Kansas 6,306 4,414
Nebraska 5,591 3,914 Minnesota 6,020 4,214
Nevada 5,018 3,513 Nebraska 5,591 3,914
New Hampshire 1,026 718 Connecticut 5,378 3,765
New Jersey 8,831 6,182 Louisiana 5,065 3,546
New Mexico 2,221 1,555 Nevada 5,018 3,513
New York 29,493 20,645 South Carolina 4,999 3,499
North Carolina 9,841 6,889 West Virginia 4,412 3,088
North Dakota 1,240 868 Arkansas 3,522 2,465
Ohio 16,859 11,801 Mississippi 3,292 2,304
Oklahoma 10,595 7,417 Utah 2,602 1,821
Oregon 8,988 6,292 Rhode Island 2,407 1,685
Pennsylvania 19,407 13,585 New Mexico 2,221 1,555
Rhode Island 2,407 1,685 District of Columbia 2,217 1,552
South Carolina 4,999 3,499 Alaska 2,168 1,518
South Dakota 1,482 1,037 Maine 1,875 1,313
Tennessee 7,219 5,053 Idaho 1,723 1,206
Texas 28,148 19,704 Montana 1,600 1,120
Utah 2,602 1,821 Hawaii 1,591 1,114
Vermont 1,200 840 South Dakota 1,482 1,037
Virginia 6,743 4,720 North Dakota 1,240 868
Washington 11,133 7,793 Vermont 1,200 840
West Virginia 4,412 3,088 Wyoming 1,154 808
Wisconsin 7,403 5,182 New Hampshire 1,026 718
Wyoming 1,154 808 Delaware 938 657
Total 463,333 324,333 Total 463,333 324,333

i n d epe n d e n t
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 na-
tional aggregate percentages for each age group, which totals 70 percent.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table 2. Estimated Annual Cost of Meeting Recommended Foster-Care Minimum Adequate Rates
State Annual Cost Increase: 2010 $ State Annual Cost Increase: 2010 $
Alabama $13,204,126 California $161,254,680
Alaska $1,401,759 Louisiana $116,704,154
Arkansas $6,189,878 Ohio $66,096,565
California $161,254,680 New York $57,901,106
Colorado $25,118,536 Illinois $51,856,745
Connecticut $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
Nevada $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
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 $88,180
Total $960,195,204 Total $960,195,204

i n d epe n d e n t
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

i n d epe n d e n t
Table3.SummaryofFloridaEducationalOpportunityScholarshipPrograms
Program
Opportunity
ScholarshipProgram:
PrivateSchools
Opportunity
ScholarshipProgram:
PublicSchools
McKay
Scholarship
Program
FloridaTax-Credit
ScholarshipProgram
Eligibility
Studentsin/assignedto
failingpublicschools.
Studentsin/assignedto
failingpublicschools.
Studentswith
disabilities.
Low-incomestudents;students
currently/formerlyinfoster-care;
studentsin/assignedtofailing
publicschools.
BeganOperating1999-00to2005-061
999-002000-012002-03
AverageScholarshipAmount$4,206NA$7,240$3,950
#PrivateSchoolsParticipating56NA9411,017
#Students7341,28020,52427,700
%Low-Income72.00%55.00%44.20%100.00%
%AfricanAmerican64.30%74.00%29.00%36.40%
%Hispanic29.60%15.00%20.30%25.70%
%White4.00%9
.00%46.40%24.10%
Source:Author’stablebasedondatafromtheFloridaDepartmentofEducation.
Notes:
1.In2006,theFloridaSupremeCourtruledthatstudentsinfailingschoolscouldnotusepublicly-fundedvoucherstoattend
privateschoolsundertheOpportunityScholarshipProgrambutleftthepublic-schooltransferoptionintact.Private-school
studentsdidnothavetoreturntotheirfailingpublicschoolsbecausetheFloridaTaxCreditScholarshipProgram,whichfunds
scholarshipsthroughprivate,tax-deductiblecontributionsfromFloridabusinesses,wasexpandedtomakethosestudents
eligibletoreceivescholarships.Statisticsforthe“OpportunityScholarshipProgram:PrivateSchools”columnarefromthe
finalschoolyearofoperation,2005-06.
2.“NA”meansnotapplicable.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table4.FloridaFourth-GradeNAEPReadingGainsSummary,1998and2009
19982009NAEPScale-ScoreChange
StudentSub-Groups
USNAEPScale
Score
FLNAEPScale
Score
FLRank#States
USNAEP
ScaleScore
FLNAEP
ScaleScore
FL
Rank
#StatesUSFLFLRank#States
AllStudents2132063340220226951720251
SpecialEducation17617122[1]321892043[2]511333351
Low-Income19519033402062171511127151
EnglishLearners[3]1831841424188205340521142
Hispanic19219811242042231481225346
African-American19218629[4]352042114471225144
Low-IncomeHispanic186187111920021814214312[5]40
Low-IncomeAfrican-American18818126[6]322002092[7]411228140
Source:Author’stablebasedondatafromtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
Notes:
1.TiedwithMinnesotaandIowa.
2.TiedwithKentucky.
3.BaselineyearforEnglishlearnerstudentsis2002becausetoofewstatesreportedscoresin1998.
4.TiedwithCalifornia.
5.TiedwiththeDistrictofColumbia.
6.TiedwithDelaware.
7.TiedwithTexasandNewJersey.
8.Thenumberofstatesrankeddiffersacrossstudentsub-groupsdifferbecausetheirnumbersmaybetoosmallinsomestatestoreportaverageNAEPresultsforthecorrespondingyear.Forgains
rankings,onlystateswithtwoormoreyearsofdatafrom1998to20009areincluded.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table5.StateRankingsofExpendituresandFourth-GradeNAEPReadingGains,1998—2009
Per-PupilExpenditures(2006-07$)Fourth-GradeStudents:NAEPReadingScale-ScoreGainsRank
State1998-992006-07
$PPE
Change
%PPE
Change
$PPE%
Change
Rank
All
Special
Education
Low-
Income
English
Learners
Hispanic
African-
American
Low-
Income,
Hispanic
Low-Income,
African-American
UnitedStates$8,373$10,041$1,66819.92%*********
Alabama$6,674$8,709$2,03530.49%12202420NA31243324
Alaska$10,812$12,781$1,96918.21%314643383423421938
Arizona$6,012$7,610$1,59826.59%192627202211111412
Arkansas$6,376$8,702$2,32636.48%51410133239113515
California$7,464$9,283$1,81924.37%21103078914722
Colorado$7,620$8,593$97312.76%40171633273182215
Connecticut$11,989$14,165$2,17718.15%324651333815311230
Delaware$9,915$12,196$2,28123.01%25312251212
DistrictofColumbia$12,416$16,086$3,67129.56%16112352325
Florida$7,449$8,885$1,43519.27%3023113121
Georgia$7,839$9,439$1,60120.42%298206817161212
Hawaii$7,824$11,470$3,64646.60%2542815639NANA
Idaho$6,518$6,894$3765.77%504041432527NA33NA
Illinois$8,701$9,951$1,25114.37%352927292823351934
Indiana$8,713$9,416$7038.07%484023362845353630
Iowa$8,033$9,117$1,08413.50%374037361827192518
Kansas$7,739$9,585$1,84623.86%2329352481516197
Kentucky$7,253$8,235$98113.53%36102718NANA32NA32
Louisiana$7,138$9,269$2,13029.84%131489NA418NA7
Maine$9,205$12,075$2,87031.18%9464551NANANANANA
Maryland$9,426$12,418$2,99331.75%74244105105
Massachusetts$10,627$13,333$2,70625.46%2054912814715
Michigan$9,562$10,290$7277.61%493747331726302228
Minnesota$8,767$9,945$1,17713.43%38266293443203918
Mississippi$5,873$7,735$1,86231.71%8101218NANA26NA27
Missouri$7,533$9,175$1,64221.80%27103120NA3981018
Montana$7,686$9,532$1,84624.02%22442438641NANANA
Nebraska$8,049$10,441$2,39229.72%144016431627432540

i n d epe n d e n t
Per-PupilExpenditures(2006-07$)Fourth-GradeStudents:NAEPReadingScale-ScoreGainsRank
State1998-992006-07
$PPE
Change
%PPE
Change
$PPE%
Change
Rank
All
Special
Education
Low-
Income
English
Learners
Hispanic
African-
American
Low-
Income,
Hispanic
Low-Income,
African-American
NewHampshire$8,277$11,446$3,17038.29%4293538201739NANA
NewJersey$13,053$16,762$3,70928.41%18261220NA3516287
NewMexico$6,999$9,177$2,17831.12%1029312728232617NA
NewYork$12,023$16,122$4,10034.10%6837485654
NorthCarolina$7,278$8,170$89212.25%43176243444203624
NorthDakota$7,002$8,992$1,99128.43%1737838NANANANANA
Ohio$8,478$10,309$1,83021.59%28294743217392536
Oklahoma$6,823$7,705$88312.94%395037482231393036
Oregon$8,784$9,290$5065.76%51175934620635
Pennsylvania$9,585$11,309$1,72417.99%332931274034263018
RhodeIsland$10,672$13,951$3,28030.73%1120501512411410
SouthCarolina$7,277$8,884$1,60622.07%261431151238293024
SouthDakota$6,766$8,363$1,59623.59%24442048320NANANA
Tennessee$6,592$7,393$80212.16%442010244111352232
Texas$7,315$8,141$82611.29%452024157114143
Utah$5,417$5,918$5019.26%472912473827NA29NA
Vermont$9,702$14,134$4,43245.68%3374438NANANANANA
Virginia$8,170$10,593$2,42329.66%1572093220204010
Washington$7,861$8,840$97912.45%422940292235321728
WestVirginia$8,591$10,087$1,49717.42%34464743NANA24NA22
Wisconsin$9,685$10,751$1,06611.01%465045482835323839
Wyoming$8,803$13,758$4,95556.29%12016292020NA14NA
Source:Author’stablebasedondatafromtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
Notes:
1.Dollarfiguresrepresentconstant2006-07amounts,thelatestyeardataareavailablefromtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
2.States’fourth-gradeNAEPreadingscale-scoregainsmeasuredfrom1998through2009.OnlystatesreportingNAEPscoresfortwoyearsormoreareranked.
3.“NA”standsfornotavailable,meaningstatesdidnothavetwoormoreyearsofNAEPscorestomeasuregainsoverthespecifiedperiod.Insomecasesastate’spopulationofcertainstudentsub-
groupswastoosmalltoreportaverageNAEPresults.
4.BaselineyearforEnglishlearnerstudentsis2002becausetoofewstatesreportedscoresin1998.
5.SomestateshavethesameNAEPgainsrankingduetoties.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table 6. Per-Pupil Expenditure per Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Scale-Score Point, 2010 Estimate
Additional Per-Pupil Expenditure per Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Scale-Score Point

Special
Education
All
Low-
Income
English
Learner
Hispanic
African-
American
Low-
Income,
Hispanic
Low-Income,
African
American
United States $112 $48 $51 $56 $52 $52 $53 $53
Alabama $106 $42 $45 NA $46 $45 $47 $46
Alaska $155 $64 $69 $81 $62 $66 $65 $67
Arizona $90 $38 $41 $48 $40 $39 $41 $39
Arkansas $105 $42 $44 $48 $45 $46 $46 $47
California $143 $46 $50 $53 $50 $49 $51 $51
Colorado $94 $40 $44 $49 $44 $42 $46 $45
Connecticut $152 $65 $72 $81 $73 $71 $74 $73
Delaware $127 $57 $60 $64 $59 $60 $60 $62
District of
Columbia
$205 $84 $87 $87 $82 $86 $84 $88
Florida $91 $41 $43 $45 $42 $44 $43 $45
Georgia $106 $45 $48 $53 $48 $49 $48 $49
Hawaii $155 $57 $61 $68 $56 $59 NA NA
Idaho $82 $33 $34 $41 $36 NA $37 NA
Illinois $111 $48 $52 $56 $51 $53 $52 $54
Indiana $99 $44 $47 $52 $49 $48 $50 $49
Iowa $111 $43 $46 $49 $46 $47 $46 $48
Kansas $106 $45 $47 $50 $48 $48 $49 $49
Kentucky $85 $38 $40 NA $40 $42 $41 $43
Louisiana $106 $47 $48 $49 $47 $50 $48 $50
Maine $130 $57 $60 NA NA $64 NA $65
Maryland $124 $58 $62 $63 $59 $62 $61 $64
Massachusetts $133 $60 $65 $71 $66 $65 $68 $66
Michigan $114 $50 $53 $56 $52 $56 $53 $57
Minnesota $110 $47 $51 $56 $54 $54 $56 $55
Mississippi $89 $38 $40 NA $38 $41 NA $41
Missouri $101 $43 $46 NA $45 $47 $45 $48
Montana $104 $44 $47 $53 $46 NA NA NA
Nebraska $113 $49 $52 $59 $53 $54 $54 $56
Nevada $96 $40 $42 $46 $43 $42 $43 $44
New Hampshire $120 $52 $56 $59 $55 $56 NA NA
New Jersey $169 $77 $83 NA $83 $83 $84 $84
New Mexico $113 $46 $48 $55 $48 $47 $49 NA
New York $173 $76 $79 $90 $81 $81 $82 $82
North Carolina $92 $39 $42 $45 $42 $42 $42 $43
North Dakota $91 $42 $44 NA NA NA NA NA
Ohio $113 $48 $52 $56 $50 $53 $53 $54
Oklahoma $91 $37 $39 $43 $39 $41 $40 $42
Oregon $105 $45 $48 $54 $50 $48 $51 $49
Pennsylvania $123 $53 $58 $66 $60 $59 $61 $60
Rhode Island $157 $66 $71 $82 $73 $71 $74 $72
South Carolina $99 $43 $46 $45 $45 $47 $46 $47
South Dakota $88 $40 $42 NA $41 NA NA NA
Tennessee $83 $36 $38 $43 $38 $39 $39 $40
Texas $92 $39 $41 $43 $41 $40 $41 $41
Utah $67 $28 $30 $34 $32 $31 $32 NA
Vermont $153 $65 $69 NA NA $69 NA NA
Virginia $114 $49 $53 $55 $52 $53 $54 $54
Washington $100 $42 $45 $51 $46 $44 $47 $45
West Virginia $114 $49 $51 NA NA $52 NA $52
Wisconsin $123 $51 $56 $59 $56 $59 $58 $61
Wyoming $150 $65 $68 NA $68 NA $69 NA

i n d epe n d e n t
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.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table 7. Per-Pupil Expenditures to Match Florida Public-School
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Productivity, 2010 Estimate
Additional Per-Pupil Spending to Match Florida Public-School NAEP Reading Productivity

Special
Education
All
Low-
Income
English
Learner
Hispanic
African-
American
Low-Income,
Hispanic
Low-Income,
African-American
United States $1,673 $287 $563 $953 $982 $362 $949 $474
Alabama $3,401 $423 $583 NA $1,051 $455 $1,078 $557
Alaska $4,808 $954 $1,590 $3,252 $499 $460 $781 $604
Arizona $2,437 $609 $811 $1,759 $1,009 $194 $1,035 $236
Arkansas $3,150 $423 $441 $669 $950 $551 $872 $606
California $4,862 $742 $1,044 $1,112 $1,342 $536 $1,319 $863
Colorado $1,127 -$1 $482 $1,029 $840 -$2 $911 $313
Connecticut $1,372 $24 $718 $1,697 $1,305 $142 $1,338 $439
Delaware $382 $16 $179 $255 $415 $16 $239 $62
District of Columbia $7,982 $2,006 $2,100 $957 $1,305 $1,292 $1,337 $1,495
Georgia $1,801 $364 $479 $1,012 $714 $340 $628 $394
Hawaii $7,612 $856 $1,155 $1,826 $448 $413 NA NA
Idaho $2,302 $164 $206 $1,145 $792 NA $771 NA
Illinois $1,778 $334 $776 $1,067 $1,029 $686 $940 $808
Indiana $497 $133 $329 $780 $974 $240 $998 $342
Iowa $3,561 $217 $414 $491 $740 $377 $557 $481
Kansas $1,597 $90 $189 $99 $623 $48 $586 $247
Kentucky -$6 -$3 $80 NA $322 $297 $203 $434
Louisiana $2,233 $893 $774 $344 $803 $745 $668 $752
Maine $1,170 $113 $299 NA NA $832 NA $980
Maryland $33 $17 $434 $18 $118 $62 $369 $319
Massachusetts $42 $19 $130 $495 $796 $21 $744 $21
Michigan $1,714 $396 $688 $612 $891 $946 $798 $1,018
Minnesota $1,657 $140 $720 $944 $1,560 $856 $1,862 $1,105
Mississippi $1,863 $577 $560 NA $421 $533 NA $538
Missouri $1,311 $86 $321 NA $312 $330 $134 $433
Montana $1,251 $44 $140 $905 $183 NA NA NA
Nebraska $1,130 $147 $365 $1,119 $847 $432 $810 $668
Nevada $2,592 $604 $722 $1,021 $1,025 $423 $954 $657
New Hampshire $359 $11 $226 $178 $332 $12 NA NA
New Jersey $78 $36 $500 NA $826 $39 $670 $39
New Mexico $3,718 $834 $871 $1,716 $1,054 $282 $973 NA
New York $1,381 $151 $237 $1,433 $1,048 $162 $899 $163
North Carolina $1,559 $274 $502 $726 $799 $294 $679 $431
North Dakota $0 $1 $44 NA NA NA NA NA
Ohio $1,473 $48 $468 $614 $403 $426 $743 $544
Oklahoma $2,363 $335 $391 $638 $625 $575 $555 $670
Oregon $2,003 $358 $621 $1,293 $1,343 $434 $1,320 $542
Pennsylvania $1,353 $106 $634 $1,724 $1,432 $591 $1,400 $723
Rhode Island $2,662 $197 $857 $2,127 $1,684 $283 $1,479 $359
South Carolina $1,587 $432 $594 $0 $819 $513 $640 $518
South Dakota $351 $158 $336 NA $284 NA NA NA
Tennessee $1,321 $322 $454 $1,029 $807 $551 $784 $643
Texas $1,755 $273 $327 $347 $529 -$4 $454 -$4
Utah $1,202 $199 $364 $785 $929 $277 $841 NA
Vermont $1,529 $24 $138 NA NA $25 NA NA
Virginia $1,026 $8 $371 $221 $468 $53 $591 $162
Washington $1,796 $210 $401 $1,230 $1,016 $89 $886 $90
West Virginia $2,175 $542 $565 NA NA $363 NA $313
Wisconsin $2,590 $308 $838 $827 $1,173 $1,117 $1,331 $1,464
Wyoming $1,646 $194 $341 NA $749 NA $694 NA
Source: Authors’ table based on per-pupil spending data from the U.S. Department of Education.

i n d epe n d e n t
Notes:
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.

i n d epe n d e n t
Table 8. Total Expenditures to Match Florida Public-School
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Productivity, 2010 Estimate
State Total Additional Spending State Total Additional Spending
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
Delaware $178,153 Ohio $10,837,089
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
Kentucky $791,096 District of Columbia $6,373,619
Louisiana $4,670,290 Minnesota $5,782,936
Maine $1,174,476 Nevada $5,391,788
Maryland $776,736 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
New Hampshire $184,824 Kansas $3,667,735
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
North Dakota $22,377 Rhode Island $2,964,052
Ohio $10,837,089 Virginia $2,851,936
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
South Dakota $339,228 Maine $1,174,476
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
State Total Additional Spending State Total Additional Spending
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 North Dakota $22,377
Total $393,696,531 Total $393,696,531
Sources: Author’s table based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Chil-
dren and Families and per-pupil spending data from the U.S. Department of Education.
Notes:
dollar amounts.
2. U.S. Department of Education per-pupil spending figures exclude capital construction and interest on school debt
expenditures.

i n d epe n d e n t
1 Foster Care Month, http://www.fostercaremonth.org/Pages/default.aspx. See also Na-
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.
2 White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Proclamation-National Foster
Care Month,” April 28, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-
proclamation-national-foster-care-month.
3 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, p. 8;
and National Foster Care Coalition, Foster Care Facts web site, http://www.nationalfos-
tercare.org/facts/index.php.
4 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 Ques-
tions 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=Z47-
LHhip_lva=p_li=p_accessibility=0p_page=1p_cv=2.15p_pv=p_
prods=p_cats=10%2C15p_hidden_prods=cat_lvl1=10cat_lvl2=15p_search_
text=p_new_search=1p_search_type=answers.search_nlp_sort_by=dflt. For more
information about adoption, see AdoptUSKids, a project of the U.S. Dept. of Health
Human Services, www.AdoptUSKids.org.
5 Adopt America Network, www.adoptamericanetwork.org.
6 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.
7 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 Con-
nections Resource Center, Analysis No. 1, January 2010, p. 1, http://www.fosteringcon-
nections.org/resources?id=0003.
8 Ibid.
9 Adopt America Network, www.adoptamericanetwork.org.
10 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 Hu-
man 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
Endnotes:

i n d epe n d e n t
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 Wel-
fare 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 Vir-
ginia Grimes, A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Pro-
grams 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/ERIC-
Docs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/12/b5/25.pdf.
12 See 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 Cali-
fornia 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 Suf-
folk 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
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 Em-
ployability 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).
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/EffortsToAd-
dress.pdf; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Negotiating
the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth Involved in the Foster Care Sys-
tem, 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 Pre-
paring to Leave State Care, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chi-
cago, 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 Sum-
mary: Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
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
Their Lives, Vera Institute of Justice, July 2002, http://www.aecf.org/upload/publica-
tionfiles/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 Edu-
cation, 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 Educa-
tion, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 1995, pp. 207-16. For a summary of the outcomes litera-
ture, see Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, p. 6.
Can Be Done about It,” pp. 199-203.
26 “2007 California Foster Youth Education Summit: Recommendations to Improve Foster
Youth Educational Success in California,” The California Foster Youth Education Task
Force et al., p. 3; cf. “2007 California Foster youth Education Summit Backgrounder.”
27 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-A794-
48E1A4354BCF}.
28 Sommer et al., California Connected by 25, pp. 6-7.
29 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.
30 National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System, p. 12.
31 NCSL “Educating Children in Foster Care: 2004-2007,”p. 2. See also Christian, “Ed-
ucating 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.
32 See, for example, National Council on Disability, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster
Care System, pp. 34-35 and 41-44.
33 Lisa Walker and Cheryl Smithgall, “Underperforming Schools and the Education of Vul-
nerable Children,” Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009, http://www.chapin-
hall.org/research/brief/underperforming-schools-and-education-vulnerable-children.
34 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.
35 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.

i n d epe n d e n t
36 Vandivere 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 Adop-
tions 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/work-
ing-families-forum/foster-care/.
39 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.
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 Fos-
ter 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 Associa-
tion, October 2007, pp. 4 and 10, http://www.nfpainc.org/uploads/MARCTechReport.
pdf; cf. National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Plan-
ning, Hunter College School of Social Work, Foster Care Maintenance Payments, June
19, 2008, http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/foster-care-mainte-
nance-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-in-
stitute-outlines-policy-reforms-for-childrens-issues.
42 Russell W. Rumberger, Katherine A. Larson, Robert K. Ream, Gregory J. Palardy, Edu-
cational Consequences of Mobility for Students and Schools, (Pre-production copy),

20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships

20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (15)

Similaire à 20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships

Similaire à 20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships (11)

20100811 Murray (Alger) Foster-Care Opportunity Scholarships