Educational Advocacy Program
Print this page (prints on 4 pages)

Access to Quality Services to Meet Academic Needs
The Foster Youth Services (FYS) 2006 Report to the Governor and the Legislature notes that “[a] majority of foster youth students are academically deficient . . . [and that] seventy-five percent of foster youths are working below grade level.” This report also estimates that “approximately 78,800 of foster youth are currently not receiving counseling, tutoring, mentoring, or other vital services provided through the FYS Programs.” In addition, issues arise regarding the quality of such services that are being provided to foster youth.

Special Education
Many foster youth are entitled to special education and related services under federal and California law. Studies have estimated that anywhere from 30 to 41% of children in foster care receive some sort of special education services. Elizabeth Yu et al., Improving Educational Outcomes for Youth in Care, A National Collaboration, CWLA Press, 2000. Twenty-six percent FYS Countywide Programs report that “untimely receipt of Imp’s” is a challenge in their county.

Many challenges exist in ensuring that foster youth are appropriately identified for and provided with special education services. Key problems include: significant lags in timing prior to assessments, implementation of IEP’s, and receipt of related services; delays caused by requirement that student be assessed for AB 3632 services prior to certain educational placements; holders of educational rights are often not informed of available services; and educational surrogates may lack minimal levels of competency.

English Learner (EL) or Limited English Proficient (LEP) students
A school district must provide specialized program¬ming through which LEP students can acquire the English language skills necessary so that they will be able to eventually participate equally with the students who entered school with an English language background. 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f); Educ. Code §§ 300 et seq.. Parents or guardians of LEP students must be provided a ”full written description of. . .any alternative courses of study and all educational opportunities offered by the school district and available to the pupil.” 5 C.C.R. § 11309.

For foster youth who are identified as LEP, it is extremely important to consider their language needs when determining what educational placement is in the best interests of the child pursuant to AB 490. Whenever possible, there should be continuity in the type of language program made available to such a youth when changing a placement.

Migrant Students
Foster youth who are migrant students are also eligible for migrant education supplemental services designed to address the special needs of migrant students enrolled in California schools.
As with our LEP student population, we do not know the number of foster youth who are eligible for migrant education supplemental services.

No Child Left Behind
Under “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), the State of California receives millions of dollars from the federal government to address the needs of the State’s academically “at risk” student groups and those students who attend the State’s highest poverty schools. Pursuant to NCLB, a complicated “accountability” system has been developed under which school districts are evaluated on a yearly basis concerning the academic progress of their students. Individual schools and districts that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” for a certain period of time are identified for “Program Improvement” (PI) and are subject to various corrective actions and interventions. Youth in out-of-home care attending PI schools are also eligible for certain services and options.

Supplemental Services
Eligible low income students who attend Title 1 schools that have been in PI status for two years or more, are entitled to supplemental educational services, which are generally tutoring services provided by State-approved contracted entities outside of the regular school day.

“Neglected and delinquent” children are specifically identified as one of the intended beneficiaries of programs and services provided under NCLB. 20 U.S.C. § 6301(2). Unfortunately, access to supplemental services and school choice is dependent upon the extent to which a school district provides meaningful and adequate notice concerning the availability of such options and a parent’s ability to understand such notice and to act upon it. Too often the parents of foster youth and those designated to make educational decision for them in lieu of their parents, do not regularly receive such notice and, thus, may have no knowledge concerning the availability of such options. Thus, academically “at risk” foster youth too often do not have access to supplemental educational services or other interventions made available to other students to address academic deficits.

School Choice
Students who attend a Title 1 funded school that has been identified for Program Improvement, corrective action, or restructuring must be given the option of school choice. Under school choice, students must be given the option of transferring to another non-PI public school within the district and they must be provided transportation. If transportation funding is limited, then students from low-income families who are the lowest achieving students may be given priority.

The Equal Justice Fellowship grant was for a period of two years and expired in September of 2007. SCA is committed to sustaining the educational advocacy position.