1. Making Best Interest Decisions
“Child Welfare, Education and the Courts: A Collaboration to Strengthen Educational Successes of Children and Youth in Foster Care”
November 4, 2011

2. Outline for Presentation
Overview of Best Interest Decisionmaking
Fostering Connections
State Implementation Considerations
State Implementation Examples
Oregon
Virginia
Tools and Resources

3. Listserv, Conference Calls, Publications, Searchable Database
Collaboration between American Bar Association, Education Law Center, and Juvenile Law Center, in collaboration with Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and Stuart Foundation.
A national technical assistance resource and information clearinghouse on legal and policy matters affecting the education of children and youth in out-of-home care.
Website:
Listserv, Conference Calls, Publications, Searchable Database
Presenters should clarify that LCFCE works to support the educational success of all youth in out-of-home care, whether or not they are MV eligible. The goals on the following slides are critical for all youth. 3 3

4. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
Amends Title IV (Parts B and E) of the Social Security Act
Broad-reaching amendments to child welfare law; requires court oversight
Important provisions promoting education stability and enrollment for youth in care
Changes child welfare law, but cannot be fully realized without collaboration from education system
Kelly

5. Presumption: Same School
The child’s case plan must include
“(I) an assurance that the state [or local child welfare agency] has coordinated with appropriate local education agencies … to ensure that the child remains enrolled in the school in which the child was enrolled at the time of placement”
42 U.S.C.A. 675(1)(G)(ii).
Kelly 5

6. Presumption: Same School
If remaining in the same school is not in the best interest of the child, the child’s case plan must include
“(II) … assurances by the State agency and the local education agencies to provide immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school, with all of the education records of the child provided to the school.” 42 U.S.C.A. 675(1)(G)(ii).

7. ACYF-CB-PI-10-11 July 9, 2010 – Program Instruction
Education Stability Plan must be a written part of the case plan, reviewed every 6 months.
Agency could invite school personnel, agency attorneys, guardians ad litem, youth, etc. to discussions about the education stability plan.
Agency is encouraged to develop standard and deliberate process for determining best interest and properly documenting the steps taken to make the determination.
Kelly
DCF will soon begin amending Chapters 65C-28, 29 and 30 of the Florida Administrative Code, and will include these educational requirements in its rulemaking. 7 7

8. Elements of Best Interest Decisionmaking Process
Seeking input from stakeholders
Establishing the criteria for decision (not cost)
Sample Form:
Resolving disputes

9. Additional State Considerations
Overlap with McKinney-Vento best interest decisionmaking
Right to remain in the same school
Ensuring “immediate and appropriate enrollment”
With records

10. Oregon and Virginia
A Tale of Two States

11. Promoting Education Stability for Children in Foster Care: HB 3075 & the Oregon Experience
Brian V. Baker, Staff Attorney
Juvenile Rights Project, Inc.
Portland, Oregon

12. The Problem: lack of academic success
83% of children in foster care are held back in school by the third grade;
46% of youth in foster care do not complete high school;
75% of youth in foster care are working below grade level.
Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles.

13. The Problem: student/school mobility
Student mobility negatively impacts reading and math skills acquisition; and diminishes prospects for high school graduation;
School mobility between 1st and 8th grade increases the odds of dropping out of school during high school.
It takes a child 4 to 6 months to recover academically from the disruption of a school change.
Russell W. Rumberger, ERIC/EECE Publications EDO-PS-02-1, June, 2002.

14. The problem: foster care moves
32.3% of NW foster care alumni experienced 8 or more foster placements;
65% of NW foster care alumni experienced 7 or more school changes from elementary through high school;
30% had 10 or more school changes from elementary through high school.
Improving family foster care: Findings from the NorthWest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Available at

15. The Problem: Long-Term Impact of High Student Mobility
Lower Achievement Levels
Slower Academic Pacing
Reduced likelihood of H.S. completion
Decrease in social/educational attachments to fellow students
Teaching/teacher satisfaction suffer due to less stable school environment

16. Educational Profile:children & youth in foster care
Children of Color are overrepresented in foster care, special education and school disciplinary proceedings;
Special Education referral rates are three times greater for students in foster care than non-court involved students.
(30%-50%) of children in foster care are eligible for special education.
Source: Cynthia Godsoe, Caught between Two Systems: How ExceptionalChildren in Out-of-Home Care are Denied Equality in Education Yale Law and Policy Review (2000). Tree House: The Foster Care Project, Seattle, WA. (1999).

17. Educational Profile: children & youth in foster care
Foster children with disabilities in Portland have lower GPA’s; have higher rates of alternative education placement; are exempted at higher rates from state testing; and experience greater numbers of education placements than similarly situated peers with the same disabilities who are not in out-of-home care.
Sarah Geenen, Ph.D. Center for Self-Determination, Oregon Health Sciences University (2002).

18. The Solution: HB 3075 (ORS 339.133(4) )
Decreases school mobility;
Increases academic achievement, graduation rates and overall well-being;
Good public policy;
Individualized best-interest determinations;
Transportation to school of origin.

19. The Solution: HB 3075
Amends state residency statute, ORS (4), Oregon’s school residency statute, to permit a child or youth in foster care to remain in the school he/she attended prior to placement in foster care, or through change of placement, if the juvenile court deems it in the child or youth’s best interest.

20. HB 3075: Best Interest
The Best Interest determination embodied in HB 3075 if very flexible: juvenile court orders may be entered ex-parte or after hearing. The court may take testimony from the parties to the juvenile court case and from the community, including school district input.

21. HB 3075: Best Interest
HB 3075 does not delineate criteria for the best interest determination. However, courts may consider travel distance (between school and foster home), child’s current programming and benefits of placement in the new district school, connection to staff and peers in the old school, transportation, and child’s health and safety.

22. HB 3075: funding and federal law
HB 3075 maintains the child’s residency in the last school district attended. This permits continuation of state school funding to that district for services for the child/youth.
HB 3075 does not override district special education placement determinations. The IEP team makes these placements. HB 3075 directs which district has special education responsibility for the child/youth.

23. HB 3075: Transportation
The bill requires the state child welfare agency to provide transportation to school of origin through a reservation of system of care flex funds for the biennium. The agency allocated $350K for this purpose to serve a projected 375 children each year.

24. HB 3075 Transportation
In the biennium, the state legislature set aside 700K for HB 3075 transportation as a separate line-item in the state Department of Human Services budget. With this infusion of state general fund dollars, the Department will no longer draw from flexible funds to pay transportation costs under the bill.

25. HB 3075: records and placement preference
The bill requires sending and receiving school districts to expedite school records transfers for children in foster care, (five days to request and five to send.)
The adds a placement preference for children entering care to be placed near their school of origin to maintain school residency.

26. HB 3075 Recap
HB 3075 became law in July, The state Department of Human Services expended approximately $210,000 in transportation costs during the biennium, ending June, In a November, 2006 report to the state legislature, DHS acknowledged the importance of school stability for children in care.

27. HB 3075 Recap
The DHS legislative report noted further that in addition to transportation funding, the department must have local resources available to purchase transportation through public transportation systems, utilization of volunteer programs, foster parent availability and department staff, in order to meet the goals of the legislation.

28. Virginia’s Story A little history
FCA and creation of an implementation task force
Best Interest process
Dispute resolution

29. A little history… 2005 – SB 1006 2006 – reconvene & discuss
2009 – Joint VDSS and VDOE task force created
2010 – Joint guidance and forms
– joint training and refinement (on-going)

30. Implementation Task Force
VDSS
VDOE
Legal advocate (JustChildren)
Others invited: foster parents, LDSS & LEA staff, CSA, other state and regional staff

31. Important factor: Willingness
To build trust and relationships
To offer ideas
To get something on paper
To ask local folks for input

32. Outcomes Changes to Code of Virginia (July 2011)
Joint Guidance* & forms
Webinars
Regional Training
* Refining special education issues

33. Code of Virginia
Enrollment and school placement of children in foster care
Requires the LDSS prior to making a foster care placement to determine in writing, jointly with the LEA whether it is in the child’s best interest to remain enrolled at the school in which he was enrolled prior to the most recent foster care placement.
The Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Child with Disabilities in Virginia address the issue at 8 VAC B. 8 where the regulation specifically states that a student with a disability is deemed to reside in the school division where the student is placed in foster care or other custodial care.

34. Code of Virginia
Enrollment of certain children placed in foster care (Revised)-
B. The sending and receiving school divisions shall cooperate in facilitating the enrollment of any child placed in foster care across jurisdictional lines for the purpose of enhancing continuity of instruction. The child shall be allowed to continue to attend the school in which he was enrolled prior to the most recent foster care placement, upon the joint determination of the placing social services agency and the local school division that such attendance is in the best interest of the child.

35. Joint Guidance Documents & Forms
VDOE/VDSS Joint Guidance On School Placement For Children In Foster Care
Best Interest Determination for Foster Care School Placement Form
Immediate Enrollment of Child in Foster Care Form
Publicized through Supt. Memos, VDSS alerts, FC Manual, & training
Further guidance with regard to students with disabilities is in development.

36. Involve schools early

37. Including School Information in LDSS Decision on Residence
LDSS shall notify current school that child is moving to a new residence.
School shall provide LDSS information on appropriateness of child’s current school placement via:
Phone, , sharing school documents
LDSS Family Partnership Meeting on placement decision

38. Including School Information in LDSS Decision on Residence
LDSS determines most appropriate residence for child:
Child’s safety and permanency plan is paramount
Appropriateness of child’s current educational setting
Proximity (distance from potential residences) to child’s current school
Other critical factors
LDSS notifies school division representative for child’s current school of residence placement decision

39. Joint Determination of Child’s Best interest for School Placement

40. Joint Determination Child’s Best Interest
As quickly as possible (e.g., within 3 business days), LDSS and LEA shall jointly determine child’s best interest for school placement
Presumption: Child will remain in same school, unless contrary to child’s best interests
Two options:
Remain in school where child was enrolled when placed in new residence
Enroll in school of child’s new residence

41. Engaging Key Partners Essential members in team determination process:
 Child
Child’s birth parent(s) or prior custodian
Individual the child would like to attend
Service worker
School division representative
Others deemed essential to the child
IEP team members (if appropriate)

42. Joint Determination Form
LDSS and LEA use form to jointly determine child’s best interest for school placement
Addresses essential child, family, and educational factors:
Child’s safety and permanency plan shall be paramount
FAPE is essential consideration for students with disabilities

43. Additional factors include, but not limited to:
Preferences of child, birth parents, or prior custodians as appropriate, and resource parents or current placement provider.
School stability and educational continuity for child, time in school year, and distance from child’s current school to new placement.
For students with disabilities additional processes and factors are to be included and considered in the decision making.

44. Additional factors (continued)
School safety, attendance, academic strengths and weaknesses, instructional needs, and social involvement of the child in current school
Impact transferring child to new school may have on child’s needs and progress academically, emotionally, socially and physically
Solutions addressing any practical issues identified, such as travel to child’s current school from new residence

45. Special Considerations for Children with Disabilities Placed Across Jurisdictional Lines
Virginia Special Education Regulations provide that where a student is placed in foster care, the school division responsible for the child’s free appropriate public education is the division where the foster home is located

46. RESOLVING SCHOOL PLACEMENT DISPUTES

47. Resolving Disputes: LDSS and LEA disagree on best interest
Student remains in same school
LDSS and LEA reps work together to resolve dispute
Within 5 work days of best interest determination: LDSS supervisor and LEA administrator resolve
If not, submit written request to LDSS director & LEA Supt:
Best interest determination form
Reasons for agreement or disagreement
Additional pertinent information
Efforts made to resolve dispute

48. Resolving Disputes LDSS director and LEA superintendent (or their designees) resolve
Within ten work days of written request:
If not, LDSS and LEA obtain guidance and technical assistance from respective state agencies.
VDSS – Regional Permanency Consultants

49. Legal Center for Foster Care and Education Resources
Fostering Connections Toolkit
McKinney-Vento and Fostering Connections Overlap Series
Data and Information Sharing (Manual and Tools)
Searchable Database

50. Contact Information
Kristin Kelly, J.D., Staff Attorney, ABA Center on Children
and the Law, Legal Center for Foster Care and Education
Brian Baker, J.D., Lead Resource Attorney, Youth, Rights & Justice, Attorneys at Law (formerly Juvenile Rights Project, Inc.)
Patricia Popp, Ph.D., State Coordinator, Project HOPE-VA, Clinical Associate Professor, School of Education, The College
of William and Mary