Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Foster

Care

and

School

Mobility

Dylan Conger and Marni J. Finkelstein

Fosterchildrenface numerousobstaclesto academicachievement
compared
to theirnon-foster
peers.In additionto havinglow educationalattainment,theymayalso sufferfromhigh ratesof
schools.Sourcesof thesetransfers
schoolmobilityand experiencelong delayswhen transferring
and delaysincludenumerousresidentialmovementsand a lackof coordinationbetweenchild
welfareand schoolprofessionals.Potentialsolutionscurrentlybeingexploredincludereduced
betweenchildwelfareand schoolprofessionals
residentialmobility,bettercommunication
on the
frontline,and integratedchildwelfareand educationaldatabases.
There are over one-half million children in foster care homes in the United States. Most
childrenenter foster carebecause of abuse or neglect, many live in poverty, and a disproportionatepercentageare Black (48%)or Hispanic (15%;U.S.Departmentof Health and
Human Services [DHHS],2002a).The majorityof these childrenalso reside in large urban
areas, where school systems are often overcrowded and poorly funded (DHHS, 2002b).
These disadvantaged backgrounds and troubled schools, combined with the trauma of
being removed from home and the stigma of being in foster care,pose significantbarriers
to educational success for many foster children (Finkelstein,Wamsley, & Miranda,2002;
Jackson,1994).Researchindicatesthat, comparedto the generalstudent population,foster
children have lower high school graduationrates, fewer years of schooling, lower levels
of participationin college, and higher rates of participationin special educationprograms
(for a review of this literature,see McDonald, Allen, Westerfelt,& Piliavin, 1996).1
FOSTER CARE AND SCHOOL MOBILITY

Foster children may also be more likely to transfer schools and experience longer
delays during these transfersthan their non-fosterpeers, though there is limited research
in this area, in part because many child welfare systems do not systematicallymonitor
the school outcomes of children in care. Departing from this trend, New York City has
begun to trackthe school mobility, attendancerates, and test scores of children involved
in the child welfare and school systems. Througha unique datasharingagreementbetween
the commissioners of New York City's child welfare agency, the Administration for
Children'sServices (ACS),and the Departmentof Education,ACS has developed a database that contains school informationon cohorts of foster care entrants.The latest figures
indicate that approximately57%of children entering foster care between 1995 and 1999
transferredschools for noneducational reasons (other than graduating from the school,
'In some studies, foster children also have lower school performance than non-foster children, including test
scores, grade point averages, and behavioral problems (see Blome, 1997). Other studies reveal no such differences
(Dubowitz & Sawyer, 1994; Fox & Arcuri, 1980). Very few studies of foster children compare them to maltreated
children who have not been removed from their homes, therefore it is difficult to determine whether low school
performance and educational attainment is due to maltreatment or foster care.

Journalof Negro Education, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Winter 2003)

Copyright ? 2003, Howard University

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

97

for example) in the year following foster care placement (Conger & Rebeck,2001). This
study also revealed differencesin the school transferrates of children according to their
experiencesin care.Schooltransferswere more likely to occurfor childrenwho transferred
to new foster care homes, ran away from their foster homes, and remainedin care longer
than other children. Given the link between residence and school placement2and foster
children'sresidentialinstability-leaving home for foster care,moving to new placements
while in care, and perhaps returninghome upon leaving care-it is not surprising that
some foster children experience frequent school transfers.
School transfersare problematicfor most children, often requiringlarge adjustments
to new classmates, teachers, and curricula,as well as repeated or missed lessons. Yet,
there is little agreement on whether these adjustmentsharm school performance.Most
studies indicate that switching schools is associatedwith lower performanceon standardized exams, measures of classroom adjustment, grades, and parent reports of student
achievement (e.g., Felner, Primavera,& Cauce, 1981; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001;
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994). A few studies, however, have found positive or
no effects of school transferson performance(e.g., Alexander,Entwisle, & Dauber, 1996;
Greene & Daugherty, 1961;Heinlein & Shinn, 2000).
The literatureis relatively silent on the effect of school transferson foster children, a
group that may be particularlyvulnerable given their experiences with maltreatment,
residentialinstability,and family separation.It is possible that school transferscompound
the disruption of residential transfers,leading to greaterturmoil and instabilityin foster
children's lives. One study, for example, found that 15-33% of the negative effects of
maltreatmenton children'sacademicachievementwas due to high ratesof school transfers
and residential changes (Eckenrode,Rowe, Laird, & Brathwaite,1995).While this study
was not restricted to children in foster care, nor did it separate residential from school
transfers,it suggests that for the maltreatedpopulation (many of whom enter foster care)
mobility can be harmful. Social workers have also reported that movements between
schools in the middle of the year cause many disruptions for foster children and their
schools, leading to declines in performance(Altshuler, 1997). An alternativepossibility
is that for some children, particularlythose from difficult family environments,moving
to a new school allows for a fresh start and can actually improve their engagement in
school. One study, for example, found a small positive relationshipbetween school transfers and attendance rates for children entering New York City foster care (Conger &
Rebeck,2001).
Perhapsof greaterconcernare the delays associatedwith school movements for foster
children,in part due to the heavy paperworkinvolved and lack of coordinationbetween
school and child welfare personnel. In one survey of personnel in Pennsylvania schools
and child welfare systems, for instance, many reported delays or refusals to enroll foster
childrenin school, particularlythose who requiredspecial education or English language
support (Powers & Stotland,2002).Concernsabout extended delays and miscommunications in processing school transfersfor foster children have also been expressed by child
welfare administratorsand caseworkersin New YorkCity. In one New YorkCity example,
a caseworkerreportedthat a student who was placed in a foster carefacilityfor diagnostic
purposes was never officially discharged from her school and consequently accrued a

2Most school districts, including New York City, are subdivided into neighborhood zones that determine
the schools that children in those zones attend, thereby linking residential placement with school placement.

98

The Journal of Negro Education

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

poor attendance record during her absence (Penski, 2001). In another, a student in foster
care informed researchers that she was absent from school for an entire month because
the Department of Education failed to complete her registration paperwork, despite
repeated visits to the Department by her grandmother (Finkelstein et al., 2002). Examples
such as these occur in most jurisdictions across the country and stem from a variety
of sources.
SOURCES OF THE PROBLEM AND POTENTIAL SOLUrIONS

Both child welfare agencies and school systems can work to prevent a school transfer,
and in the event a transfer is absolutely necessary, work to ensure a timely and positive
adjustment for the child. There are broad changes school systems can make to reduce
transfers for all students, such as relaxing policies that tie residence to school placement.
One study in Chicago found that the majority of school transfers occurred between schools
that were within three miles of one another (Kerbow, 1996). In such cases, school districts
could take steps, such as providing transportation, to ensure that students remain in their
previous school if parents so desire.
There are also ways to reduce school mobility among foster children in particular,
starting with reducing their residential mobility. As noted above, the primary reasons
foster children switch schools so often is the frequent moves into and out of care or
between foster care placements. Foster care placements include an array of family, group,
and diagnostic living arrangements. Nationally, nearly half of foster children reside in
non-relative foster family homes, 25% in kinship homes, 18% in group facilities, and the
remainder in alternative placements, such as supervised independent living (DHHS,
2002a). Children transfer placements for many reasons, such as incompatibility with their
foster parents or fights with other children in the family or group homes. Yet, some child
welfare experts contend that placement transfers can be avoided if group home staff or
foster families are properly trained and supported to manage children with behavioral
problems or other issues that lead to placement difficulties. Most child welfare agencies
are aware of the disruption associated with placement transfers and seek to prevent them
where possible. To the extent these efforts are enhanced, school mobility will likely become
less of a problem.
Another approach to preventing school transfers is to ensure that children are placed
in their home neighborhoods or in the neighborhood of the previous placement. One
study found higher school mobility rates for children placed in non-relative family settings
in New York City (Conger & Rebeck, 2001). One reason is that these children tend to be
placed in homes outside of their communities, while children who are placed with relatives
typically remain in the same neighborhood as their biological parents. In New York City,
for example, approximately 26% of children placed with relatives, versus 14% of children
placed with non-relative families, remain in their community of origin (New York City
Administration for Children's Services, 2001). To minimize mobility and strengthen
ties with the biological family, ACS prioritizes kinship homes, and where possible, homes
in the biological families' community when making placement decisions. Kinship placements have been a long-standing priority for ACS and other child welfare agencies, and
neighborhood-based placements are a more recent initiative beginning to take hold across
the country (Nelson, 1996).
Lack of coordination between child welfare and school professionals is another likely
large source of school transfers, particularly with regard to delays in school transfers.

The Journalof Negro Education

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

99

Researchon interagency collaborationsuggests that many child-serving agencies fail to

ensure consistent and coordinatedservices to shared populations (Fredericks,1994).The
communicationfailuresin the case of foster childrenoften begin with notificationof their
status. Some caseworkersand foster care providers do not inform school staff of a child's
custodial status, due to concernsabout childrenbeing stigmatizedby the foster care label
or treateddifferentlyby their teachersand other school personnel (Finkelsteinet al., 2002).
While child welfare providersmay be reluctantto share informationabout a child's status
or history, school personnel who learn of these backgroundsmay be equally concerned
about documenting such informationfor fear of breaching confidentiality.In one study,
maltreatmenthistory was documented in only 16%of foster children's school records
(Runyan & Gould, 1985).Concerns about stigma and confidentialitymay be warranted;
however, they may also harm children by preventing teachers from gaining access to
important details about a child's background and living situations that may be helpful
in identifying potential causes of certain behavioral and academic difficulties. Greater
understandingof these difficulties could prevent school transfersthat stem from behavioral issues or placement into special education programs.
Even when they are aware of a child's foster care status, guidance counselors and
teachersoften have little knowledge of the foster care system and the differentlegal and
custodial responsibilitiesof biological parents, foster parents, and caseworkers.The lines
of parental authority are certainly confusing, especially around school transfers.While
foster careprovidershouse and feed children,caseworkersmay be responsiblefor signing
paperwork and enrolling children into school, and both may be involved in a child's
academicprogress. Obtainingparentalconsent can be so complicatedthat foster children
miss out on opportunities such as school-sponsored trips and after-school programs
(Altshuler, 1997;Ayasse, 1995). Teachersand other school staff could benefit from basic
training on the structureand various functions of the child welfare system, including the
differences between investigating maltreatmentand caring for children who have been
removed from theirhomes. Furthertrainingcould emphasize the differentresponsibilities
of various custodians and the appropriatecontactperson for differenteducationalissues.
Caseworkersalso share the burden of miscommunication.Many may be so focused
on delivering the most basic services to foster parents and biological parents, such as
arrangingparentalvisitationmeetings and investigatingfosterhomes, that they are unable
to monitor children's school transfersand other educationalneeds (Jackson,1994).Caseworkers also tend to have heavy caseloads that force them to prioritizehealth and safety
over education. Efforts to reduce the responsibilities of caseworkers or to help them
prioritize educational needs may help with the school transferproblem.
In New YorkCity, a three-yearpilot programlaunched by ACS and the Vera Institute
of Justice sought to improve communicationbetween frontline school and child welfare
personneland assist child welfare caseworkersin monitoringthe educationalperformance
of the childrenunder theircare.Theprogramcreateda new role for child welfarecaseworkers by placing them in middle schools in orderto offer intensive support to foster children
in those schools as well as to the foster careproviders,caseworkers,and teachersresponsible for the children. These school caseworkersworked directly with children and were
able to help them with emotional as well as academic issues, including adjustmentsto
new foster families and new schools. They also served as a useful resource to other
relevant adults because they had direct access to school and child welfare personnel, as
well as records, due to their location in the school and their previous experienceas child
welfare caseworkers (Finkelstein et al., 2002). There is at least one other program in
California,the FosterYouth Servicesprogram,that facilitatesthe transferof school records

100

TheJournalof NegroEducation

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

when children move schools and provides individual tutoring to foster children in their
new schools (Ayasse, 1995).
In addition to improving one-on-one communicationthroughprogramssuch as these,
documents could be better managed to provide the most updated and pertinentinformation to those responsiblefor a foster child's education.Some states have adopted a "passport" program, which requires that caseworkersmaintain a standardized and regularly
updated record of a foster child's medical, behavioral, psychological, and educational
status. While the program was originally created to serve foster parents, caseworkers,
and health care providers, it can also be used to document the student's educational
progress for teachersand other school personnel. For example, as foster childrentransfer
schools, the new school could receive a timely, up-to-date, and complete educational
history on the child from the passport (Kerbow,1996).This could prevent delays in school
enrollmentand provide the school with detailed informationon the academic,social, and
emotional needs of the student (Burley& Halpern,2001).Currentpassport programsare
hamperedby failure to gain accurateand timely educationalinformation;however, with
some modifications,they could be brought up to their full potential.
Such potential is being realized in the state of Washington,which is piloting a way
to automate the transfer of educational information through statewide administrative
databases.The new database,the Core Student Record System, includes informationon
students, such as grade level, expected year of graduation,disability status, grade point
average,and specialprogramparticipation.Thisinformationwill be electronicallyupdated
to expedite the transfer of educational records as students change schools. If the pilot
programis successful,widespread use of this method may also include an annualtransfer
of educational data from the database directly to the state child welfare agency in order
to help maintaincurrentand dependableeducationalrecordsfor the youth in their charge
(Burley & Halpern, 2001). New York City is also working on establishing a timely data
sharingprocess, where educationalrecordsare merged with child welfare records,allowing caseworkersreal-timeaccess to the school files.
CONCLUSION

Transferringschools is only one of a multitude of educationalobstaclesfaced by youth

in foster care. At this time, there has been little researchconducted on school transfers
among this population, and many more questions could be answered by furtherresearch.
In the meantime,several initiatives are under way to minimize the disruptionsassociated
with school transfers.These include initiatives that focus on reducing foster children's
residentialinstability,improvingcoordinationand cooperationbetween child welfare and
educational professionals, and automating and standardizing both child welfare and
educational records. In addition to addressing school mobility, these efforts can ease the
unique educational problems faced by youth in foster care.
REFERENCES

Alexander,K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber,S. S. (1996).Childrenin motion:School transfersand

elementary school performance. Journal of EducationalResearch,90(1), 3-12.

Altshuler, S. J. (1997).A reveille for school social workers:Childrenin foster care need our help!
SocialWorkin Education,19(2), 121-127.
Ayasse, R. H. (1995).Addressing the needs of foster children:The foster youth services program.
SocialWorkin Education,17(4), 207-216.

The Journalof Negro Education

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

101

Blome, W. W. (1997).Whathappens to foster kids: Educationalexperiencesof a random sample of

foster care youth and a matched group of non-fostercare youth. Childand AdolescentSocial
WorkJournal,14(1),41-53.
Burley,M., & Halpern, M. (2001).Educational
attainmentoffosteryouth:Achievement
andgraduation
outcomesfor childrenin state care (Document No. 01-11-3901). Olympia, WA: Washington
State Institutefor Public Policy.
careexperiences
Conger,D., & Rebeck,A. (2001).Howchildren'sfoster
affecttheireducation.New York:
Vera Instituteof Justice,Inc.
Dubowitz, H., & Sawyer, R. J. (1994).School behavior of children in kinship care. ChildAbuseand
Neglect,18(11),899-911.
Eckenrode,J., Rowe, E., Laird,M., & Brathwaite,J. (1995).Mobility as a mediator of the effects of
child maltreatmenton academicperformance.ChildDevelopment,
66, 1130-1142.
Felner, R. D., Primavera,J., & Cauce, A. M. (1981).The impact of school transitions:A focus for
preventive efforts.AmericanJournalof CommunityPsychology,9(4), 449-459.
Finkelstein,M., Wamsley, M., & Miranda,D. (2002).Whatkeepschildreninfostercarefromsucceeding
in school?Viewsof earlyadolescentsand the adults in theirlives. New York:Vera Institute of
Justice,Inc.
Fox, M., & Arcuri,K. (1980).Cognitive and academicfunctioningin foster children.ChildWelfare,
59(8), 491-496.
Fredericks,H. D. (1994).Integratedservice systems for troubled youth. Educationand Treatmentof
Children,17(3), 387-413.
Greene, J. E., & Daugherty, S. L. (1961). Factors associated with school mobility. TheJournalof
EducationalSociology,35, 36-40.
Thecosts
Hanushek, E. A., Kain,J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001).DisruptionversusTieboutimprovement:
and benefitsof switchingschools(WorkingPaper No. 8479).Cambridge,MA: National Bureau
of EconomicResearch.
Heinlin, L. M., & Shinn, M. (2000).School mobility and student achievementin an urban setting.
Psychologyin the Schools,37(4), 349-357.
Jackson,S. (1994). Educating children in residential and foster care. OxfordReviewof Education,
20(3), 267-279.
Kerbow,D. (1996).Patternsof urban student mobility and local school reform.Journalof Education
for StudentsPlacedat Risk,1(2), 147-169.
McDonald, T. P., Allen, R. I., Westerfelt,A., & Piliavin, I. (1996).Assessingthe long-termeffectsof
fostercare:A researchsynthesis.Washington,DC: Child WelfareLeague of America Press.
Nelson, D. W. (1996).Nationalleaders'meetingon rebuilding
familyfoster careand the reformof child
welfare.RetrievedApril 20, 2000, from http://www. aecf. org/speeches/f2sep. htm.
New York City Administrationfor Children'sServices,Office of Management,Development, and
Research.(2001, March).RealizingReform:ACS StrategicPlanningConference-Usingdata to
Data presented at the ACS StrategicPlanning Conference,
achievecontinuousimprovements.
New York City.
children'sstabilityin school.Unpublishedreport.
Penski,R. (2001).Schooltransfers:
Understandingfoster
New York:Vera Instituteof Justice,Safe and SmartProgram.
Powers, P., & Stotland,J. F. (2002).Lostin the ShuffleRevisited.Philadelphia:The EducationLaw
Center.
Runyan, D. K., & Gould, C. L. (1985). Foster care for child maltreatment.II. Impact on school
performance.Pediatrics,76(5), 841-847.
U. S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Elementaryschoolchildren:Many changeschoolsfrequently,
harmingtheireducation.Washington,DC: Health, Education,and Human ServicesDivision.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002a). The AFCARSReport:InterimFY 2000
estimatesas of August2002. RetrievedNovember 14, 2002, from http://www. acf. hhs. gov/
programs/cb.

102

The Journal of Negro Education

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services(2002b).Fostercaredynamicsin urbanandnon-urban

counties.RetrievedNovember 22, 2002,fromhttp://aspe. hhs. gov/hsp/fostercare-issuesO2/
dynamics/index. htm.

AUTHORS
DYLAN CONGER is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at New York University's Robert F. Wagner
School of Public Service; dc5l@nyu.edu. Her research interests include foster care, juvenile justice, education
policy, and understanding economic, racial, and ethnic disparities in student performance.
MARNI J. FINKELSTEIN is a senior research associate at the Vera Institute of Justice and an assistant professor
of anthropology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice; mfinkelstein~vera.org. Her research interests include
nomadic, homeless youth, urban anthropology, and drug use and abuse.

The Journal of Negro Education

This content downloaded from 169.233.132.132 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:34:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

103