raise the grade closing the achievement gap for children in the care or custody of the state
TRANSCRIPT
RAISE THE GRADE Closing the Achievement Gap for children in the care or custody of the state
Who are our youth?Maria entered DCF care in 2002
41 Placements
Oct 16 ‘02 – Jan 10 ’03 Therapeutic Foster Home (DCF licensed)
Jan 10 ‘03 – Mar 28 ’03 Village for Families and Children Safe Home
Mar 28 ‘03 – Aug 22 ’03 Therapeutic Foster Home (VFC licensed)
Aug 22 ‘03 – Jan 26 ’04 Therapeutic Foster Home, Maternal Cousin, (VFC licensed)
Jan 26 ‘04 – Feb 6 ’04 Therapeutic Foster Home (VFC licensed)
Feb 6 ‘04 – Nov 3 ’04 Therapeutic Foster Home (VFC licensed)
Nov 3 ‘04 – Jan 7 ‘’05 Therapeutic Foster Home (VFC respite care)
Jan 7 ‘05 – Jan 21 ’05 Relative Foster Home, Paternal Aunt
Jan 2 ‘05 – Feb 10 ’05 Foster Home (DCF licensed)
Feb 10 ‘05 – Feb 25 ’05 Wheeler Clinic Greenhouse, Crisis Stabilization
Feb 25 ‘05 – May 2 ’05 Sankofa House (VFC), Permanency Diagnostic Center
Maria
May 11 ’05 – Jun 9 ’05 Mt. Sinai ABC Unit
Jun 9 ‘05 – Aug 25 ’06 Residential Treatment, Kids Inn
Aug 25 ‘06 – Apr 9 ’07 Therapeutic Foster Care, Klingberg
Apr 9 ‘07 – Apr 30 ’07 STAR Home, The Bridge
Apr 30 ‘07 – May 5 ’07 Foster Care Placement, DCF
May 8 ‘07 – May 12 ’07 Short Term Assess/Respite, The Bridge
May 23 ‘07 – Jul 16 ’07 Short Term Assess/Respite, The Bridge
Jul 16 ‘07 – Aug 8 07 Juvenile Detention Center
Aug 8 ‘07 – Jun 2 ’08 Residential Treatment, CT Children’s Place
Jun 12 ’07 – Jun 13 ’08 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Jun 27 ‘08 – Jan 12 ’09 Foster Care Placement, DCF
Jan 14 ‘09 – Jan 16 ’09 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Jan 16 ‘09 – Jan 28 ’09 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Jan 28 ‘09 – Jan 30 ’09 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Jan 30 ‘09 – Feb 3 ’09 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Maria
Feb 26 ‘09 – Mar 3 ’09 Emergency Foster Care, DCF
Mar 3 ‘09 – May 6 ’09 Short Term Assess/Respite, The Bridge
May 9 ‘09 – Jul 7 ’09 Adult Correctional (York), State of CT
Jul 7 ‘09 – Sep 14 ’09 Residential Treatment, CT Children’s Place
Sep 14 ‘09 – Dec 19 ’09 Runaway Status
Dec 19 ‘09 – Jan 22 ‘09 Adult Correctional (York), State of CT
Jan 22 ‘10 – May 11 ’10 Stepping Stone
May 11 ‘10 – Jul 8 ’10 Runaway Status
Jul 8 ‘10 – Sep 30 ’10 Adult Correctional (York), State of CT
Sep 30 ‘10 – Sep 30 ’10 Therapeutic Foster Home
Sep 30 ‘10 – Jan 5 ’11 Runaway Status
Jan 5 ‘11 – Feb 1 ’11 CHAP apartment
Feb 1 ‘11 – Apr ’11 With friends
Apr ‘11 – May 7 ’11 Motel
May 7 ‘11 – Present CHAP apartment
Who are our youth?
Angela
Over several months, Angela, a 16 year old with a profound abusebackground and new juvenile justice involvement, interfaced withmultiple state systems:
• DCF opened neglect case• Juvenile Court held hearings• Juvenile Detention for weeks/months• Riverview Hospital for two months• Entered Residential Facility
Angela Six months after Angela’s case and state involvement
began, providers working with Angela struggled:
• No one knew what grade she was in• No one knew how many credits she had• No one knew why she had not been evaluated for special
education services• No one had a copy of her complete educational file• No one knew her current educational needs or skill level• No one knew who to speak to about getting answers
Who are our youth?1. DCF committed children and youth in foster care
living in the community
2. DCF committed youth in DCF- contracted residential treatment centers, group homes, STAR homes, SAFE homes
3. DCF youth in USD #2 facilities:a. Solnit North (Ct. Children’s Place)b. Solnit South (Riverview Hospital)c. Connecticut Juvenile Training School
Who are our youth?4. Youth in Court Support Services Division (CSSD)
facilitiesa. detention centersb. residential facilitiesc. FWSN and substance abuse facilities
5. Youth on parole under DCF supervision
6. Youth under CSSD jurisdiction (i.e. on probation) who are in public school district “alternative” schools or programs (e.g. “At Night” programs) over-age and undercredit programs)
Who are our youth?
Educational Characteristics
Who are our youth?
Educational Characteristics
Percentage of students in USD#2 (DCF facilities) meeting goal
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Math Science Reading Writing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
State
USD # 2
Source: Connecticut State Department of Education. Note: Data is not missing in years without a red bar. In those years, all USD # 2 students were below the state's goal.
Who are our youth?
Educational Characteristics of Juvenile Justice Youth• 67% suspended at least once in past school year• 30% expelled in past• 39% reporting special education needs• 10% identified as Special Ed• 81% released home and back to school• Less than 5% perform at stated grade level or above• Typically perform 2-3 levels below stated grade
• (CSSD Data- 2007, 2012)
Who are our youth?Educational Characteristics of Youth in
foster care
? ? ?
Alternative Schools: The Hard Data
• No definition of “alternative schools”• SDE does not keep record of how many alternative schools
or programs exist• Districts have discretion to label alternatives as “schools”
or “programs”• Programs aren’t required to submit Strategic School Profiles• No way to verify that alternative student data is being tracked
by referring school
A Better Way Foundation, CT Pushout Research and Organizing Project, www.ctprop.org
Alternative Schools: The Hard Data
In one district’s alternative school, the Class of 2010 . . .
• 0% graduation rate• 70% dropout rate
• 30% continuing for a fifth year
• A Better Way Foundation, CT Pushout Research and Organizing Project, www.ctprop.org
RAISE THE GRADE SolutionsPlanning, Collecting Data and Monitoring Progress• Require SDE, DCF, CSSD to track educational achievement of each youth in
state care or custody and create Educational Achievement Plans• Amend C.G.S. § 46b-129 and 17a-15 to require permanency plan court
reviews and case plans to look at educational achievement• Amend C.G.S. § 10-94g to allow for appointment of educational surrogates for
youth in juvenile justice system
Ensuring Accountability in Private Educational Institutions• Require schools in USD #2 and DCF / CSSD facilities to prepare strategic
school profiles; • SDE establish standards for such schools• Amend Child Find law to mandate identification of special ed students
Holding Public School District “Alternative” Schools and Programs Accountable• Require SDE to define “alternative schools or programs”• Require informed consent of legal guardian before placement• Require schools to provide similar class hours and access to courses
RAISE THE GRADE SolutionsForging Inter-agency Collaboration• Require school districts and SDE to
share information with DCF and CSSD• Require school districts to notify DCF if
substantial change in educational status of youth
• Require students to be educated in the least restrictive appropriate environment
Providing Educational Support Services for Youth in Custody and Care: Raise the Grade Pilot
RAISE THE GRADE:
PREVENTION• Provide all DCF-committed children in 1st through 3rd
grade who cannot read at grade level targeted academic and related support services and monitoring
• Require DCF to enroll all DCF committed 3-5 year olds DCF in a quality early childhood or preschool program unless documented why not in best interests of child
RAISE THE GRADE Pilot
• Identify all youth in state custody, care in school district• Identify youth performing below grade level• Structured, collaborative process between social worker,
educational surrogate, probation, district to create Educational Achievement Plan (EAP): GOAL: improve grade level performance
• Provide schedule of supplemental supports to meet EAP goals: tutoring, mentoring, transition services, small group instruction
• Revise EAP in the face of truancy, traumatic event, adverse educational performance
• Maximize enrollment of 3-5 year olds preschool• Monitoring/supports for grades 1-3 not on grade level• Conduct rigorous independent evaluation
RAISE THE GRADEModel
• Modeled after California Foster Youth Services Programs• 2012 FYS outcome data for FYS Core Programs shows
69% of foster youth served in school year 2010–11 gained more than one month of academic growth per month of tutoring received
• Target population objective of 60% surpassed by 9%
FYS Outcome Data• High school completion data collected indicates that
70% of eligible twelfth graders received a high school diploma, passed the General Education Development Test, or received a certificate of completion.
• Only 0.26% of foster youth served through FYS Core Programs were expelled, surpassing the target rate of less than 5%
• Foster youth student attendance rate reached 95%, exceeding the target attendance rate of 90%
Empirical and Policy RationalePractical Importance
• Cost to taxpayers for supporting juveniles in detention: ~$105,711 client/per year
• Literature is unequivocal: Educational success resulting in gainful employment is best pathway away from recidivism and toward desistance
It is imperative that a systemic intervention model be established.
CSSD/SDE data 2012