The Use of Unschooling As a Potential Solution to the Complex and Chronic Problem Of

Home , Holistic education, Orphan, Student, Unschooling

The Use of Unschooling as a Potential Solution to the Complex and Chronic Problem of

Educating Foster Children

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

The Patton College of Education of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Education

Gregory A. Jacomet

May 2018

This dissertation titled

The Use of Unschooling as a Potential Solution to the Complex and Chronic Problem of

Educating Foster Children

GREGORY A. JACOMET

has been approved for

the Department of Educational Studies

and The Patton College of Education by

Charles Lowery

Assistant Professor of Educational Studies

Renée A. Middleton

Dean, The Patton College of Education 3

Abstract

JACOMET, GREGORY A., Ed.D., May 2018, Educational Administration

The Use of Unschooling as a Potential Solution to the Complex and Chronic Problem of

Educating Foster Children

Director of Dissertation: Charles Lowery

Pedagogical and existential problems of the foster child population were examined including the history of orphan management and current methods for care.

Also examined was the increasingly popular practice of homeschooling as well as its most autonomous variant, unschooling. Utilizing the methodology of bricolage, I leveraged the literature spanning both foster care and homeschooling juxtaposed against my own unschooling practice (with my own children) and interviews with other unschoolers to suggest a potential avenue for improvement to the education and subsequent life outcomes of the fostered population.

Keywords: foster care, foster children, aging out, emancipation, homeschooling, unschooling

Dedication

This work is dedicated to rational and constructive thoughts and deeds.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the faculty of the Educational Studies Department at

Ohio University, particularly Drs. Lowery and Machtmes for their above board support and encouragement, as well as COLs Hartley and Pinkerton for supporting my pursuit of academic endeavor during deployment. I would also like to acknowledge my parents’ contribution, specifically my Mother’s grammatical aid and my Father’s persistent harassment on the topic of higher education. I would like to acknowledge my best friend and co-conspirator in trying to make the world a better place, Andrea, who patiently listens to my hare-brained ideas, then builds them. Finally, I need to acknowledge my children, who, in a perfect example of the mutually supportive nature of unschooling, went above and beyond in a year when their mother was deployed and their father desperately needed to finish his dissertation. They met this challenging time with forbearance, growth, and, as always, exuberant silliness, and I am indebted to them for that. 6

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Dedication ...... 4 Acknowledgments ...... 5 List of Tables ...... 10 List of Figures ...... 11 Chapter 1: The Use of Unschooling as a Potential Solution to the Complex and Chronic Problem of Educating Foster Children ...... 12 Introduction ...... 12 Theoretical Framework ...... 24 Significance of the Study ...... 25 Research Questions ...... 26 Definition of Terms ...... 26 Research Design and Methodology ...... 27 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 27 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...... 29 Hierarchy of Needs ...... 29 Self-Determination Theory ...... 31 Stereotype Threat ...... 32 History and Practice of Orphanages ...... 33 History, Practice, and Legislation of Foster Care ...... 43 Other Relevant Legislation ...... 50 Foster Children Bills of Rights ...... 55 Congregate Care ...... 60 Treatment Foster Care ...... 69 Foster Parents ...... 74 Adoption from Foster Care ...... 76 Costs, Funding, and Financial Considerations of Foster Care ...... 85 Foster Children and Education ...... 90 Pre-entry issues and disadvantages...... 94 7

Post-entry issues and problems...... 96 Aggregate issue and problem effect on educational outcomes...... 108 Benefits of education and foster children...... 110 Solutions to the Educational Deficiencies of Foster Children ...... 112 Educational liaisons...... 113 Practical advice...... 113 Social capital theory...... 114 Reform...... 115 Aging Out and Emancipation ...... 118 Housing/shelter...... 120 Higher education/college...... 123 Employment/career...... 126 Health and health care...... 128 Criminality, early pregnancy, and poverty...... 130 Aging Out – Solutions ...... 131 Homeschooling as a Pedagogical Alternative ...... 134 History of homeschooling...... 134 Homeschooling data...... 137 Homeschooling approaches...... 138 Homeschooling outcomes...... 141 Unschooling ...... 152 Unschooling in the literature...... 154 Benefits, challenges, and outcomes of unschooling...... 156 Parental Involvement in Education ...... 160 School as a Potentially Traumatic Experience ...... 162 Chapter 3: Methods ...... 167 Research Design ...... 171 Autoethnography ...... 174 The participant I...... 174 Place of practice...... 177 Interviews ...... 183 8

Participants...... 183 Chapter 4: Findings ...... 186 Narrative Review of Literature ...... 186 An Autoethnography on Unschooling ...... 197 Preamble...... 197 Existential strategy...... 198 Overarching philosophies...... 201 Decision to homeschool...... 202 Decision to unschool...... 203 Type of unschool...... 203 Portraits of unschooling...... 204 Portrait #2: Invasive species...... 205 Portrait #3: Equestrian trip...... 206 Our unschooling viewed critically...... 207 Observed benefits of unschooling...... 209 Purest selves...... 209 Conversant...... 212 Unique considerations for the 21st century...... 215 Flexibility...... 216 Humanizing both parent and child...... 218 Hierarchy of Needs and SDT...... 219 Observed challenges of unschooling...... 221 Ignorance of knowledge important to conventional schooling...... 221 Lack of awareness of social pitfalls...... 222 Outcomes from unschooling...... 223 The net effects...... 223 Individual plans...... 224 Interviews ...... 227 Participants...... 227 Themes...... 227 Status quo...... 228 9

Benefits of unschooling foster children...... 231 Challenges of unschooling foster children ...... 236 Barriers to unschooling foster children. Categorized under this theme were two subthemes. These were institutional mindsets and foster parental knowledge. .. 237 Conclusionary remarks...... 239 Chapter 5: Conclusions ...... 241 Conclusions ...... 241 An equation for bond formation and relatedness...... 243 Autonomy and choice as specifically precious commodities for foster children. .. 248 Foster child as unwilling wrench & unschooling as a potter’s wheel...... 251 Treatment foster care and unschooling as complementary practice...... 255 Limitations of the Study ...... 258 Recommendations ...... 259 Recommendations for future research...... 259 Recommendations for foster parents...... 260 Recommendations for institutions...... 262 Recommendations for policy...... 263 Final Remarks ...... 267 References ...... 269

List of Tables

Page

Table 2.1: Comparison of U.S. Populations to Number of Foster Children ...... 55

Table 2.2: Introduction of Foster Child Bill of Rights per State and Territory ...... 58

Table 2.3: Cogan’s (2010) Selected Factors by High School Type ...... 150

Table 2.4: Parental and Family Involvement in School ...... 161

Table 5.1: Comparison of Hours of Interaction between [Foster] Child and [Foster] Parent ...... 247 11

List of Figures

Page

Figure 2.1: The 12 Principles of Re-Education ...... 71

Figure 2.2: Chapter Titles for Educational Advocacy Manual ...... 101

Figure 2.3: Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment ...... 125

Figure 3.1: Electric Usage ...... 179

Figure 5.1: Foster Child as Unwilling Wrench ...... 253

Chapter 1: The Use of Unschooling as a Potential Solution to the Complex and

Chronic Problem of Educating Foster Children

Introduction

At some point in their minority, 5.91% of children in the United States, or 1 in 17, will experience the “tragic” event of foster care (Wildemann & Emanuel, 2014, p. 1). As the literature suggests, the dysfunction that this event entails is likely to negatively impact their preparation for adulthood, including their cognitive development, education, and preparedness for employment. The literature further depicts the net effects of this failure for the fostered children as being increased likelihoods of poor life outcomes, including homelessness, unemployment, and incarceration. Furthermore, it is shown that the net effects of this failure for the country and general public are increased, longitudinal expenditure of funds, a decrease in productivity, and, presumptively, a general worsening of society (Altshuler, 2003; Barrat & Berliner, 2013; Barth, 2005; Barth, Wildfire, &

Shenyang, 2006; Burley & Halpern, 2001; Chmura Economics & Analytics, 2011;

Collins, 2001; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Courtney, Dworsky, Cusick, Havlicek, &

Perez, 2007; etc.).

In recent years there have been approximately 400,000 children in foster care at any given time, although it must be remembered that this number is not reflective of the total number of children who have come into the system (Children’s Bureau, 2011).

Throughout the middle of the 20th century, the United States came to rely on the foster care system after a general vilification of the orphanage system which preceded it

(Herman, 2005; Hasci, 1995). The orphanage system in the United States had initially 13 developed in response to the flocks of orphans created by the American Civil War (Reed,

2010), but a reevaluation occurring just after the turn of the century found them to be severely wanting (Herman, 2005). The practice of placing orphaned or maltreated children temporarily with volunteer, surrogate parents, known as foster parents, would eventually be heavily legislated and embedded in the American social welfare system

(Shin, 2012; Schelbe, 2011). The conditions of sickness and death found in the orphanages which drove American philanthropists, activists, and social workers to look for and find a better solution in foster care, would be forgotten. In its place and in modern times, a new standard for acceptability would be established which essentially allows for foster children the same results as their non-fostered peers and no less. The current foster care system is grievously failing this standard (McDonald, Allen,

Westerfelt, & Piliavin, 1996; McMurray, Connolly, Preston-Shoot, & Wigley, 2011;

Shin, 2012; Watson & Kabler, 2012).

The “Modern Era of Child Protection” began in 1962 and was initiated with a work of scholarship (Myers, 2008). Kempe and colleagues (1962) detailed and defined child abuse in their article, The battered-child syndrome. This article would spark a long line of legislation, both in the criminal and child welfare areas, the first of which being amendments to the Social Security Act provisioning for children within the then nascent foster care system and establishing a precedence of federal support for foster children

(Ball & Cohen, 1962; Phillips & Mann, 2013). The 1970s decade would realize the cumulative effects of this focus and legislation as the foster care system would be overwhelmed by a “twelve-hundred percent increase” in foster children from 1970 to 14

1980 (Raymond, 1999, p. 1235). This dramatic rise would lead to the Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA) which sought to reduce the burden placed on the foster care system by “preventing unnecessary foster care placements,” reunification with biological parents when possible, and expedite adoption where appropriate (Edwards, 1994, p. 4). While AACWA would attempt to stem the tide of foster care placements, the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 would facilitate a new wave of foster youth entering the system, as an unprecedented number of adult females were incarcerated (Phillips & Mann, 2013). From 1986 to 1995, in a ten year span, the foster care population would nearly double increasing from 280,000 to almost

500,000 before realizing a downward trend in numbers (O’Neill, 2002, as cited in Phillips

& Mann, 2013, Children’s Bureau, 2015). This expansion would once again highlight the need for new legislation to address some of the glaring problems exacerbated by the system’s sheer size (Shin, 2012).

In 1997, the legislature passed Public Law 105-89, the Adoption and Safe

Families Act (ASFA) in an attempt to reduce the number of children in foster care by having them adopted into permanent families. The success of this law is suggested by the

20% decrease in the foster population since the introduction of ASFA to the present

(Children’s Bureau, 2011; Shin, 2012). The remaining 400,000 continued to struggle their way through the system, many eventually aging out (approximately 20,000 per year) of the system, usually into circumstances equal to or worse than those they experienced while still a minor (Schelbe, 2011). The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) 15 attempted to provide for this emancipated population by requiring the provision of services (Guinn, 2000; Collins, 2001; Hill, 2009).

Finally, in an impressive refinement of the entire legislative package, the

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act was passed in 2008.

Most importantly, this law assists adoptive parents and extends the maximum age for support to foster youth from age 18 to 21, allowing for a greater opportunity to transition into adulthood (Children’s Bureau, 2013; Shin, 2009). These federal laws have been backed up by numerous state laws, including a trend towards the establishment of Foster

Child Bills of Rights (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015).

While the legislation has been impressive in its ability to successfully identify and correct the foster system’s major deficiencies and shortcomings, the unfortunate status quo is that foster care is still considered a poor option for youth (Zill, 2011b; Argys &

Duncan, 2013; Wildemann & Emanuel, 2014). In the literature, foster care is generally considered to be superior only to congregate care or the housing of fostered youth in group settings (Children’s Bureau, 2015; Annie. E. Casey Foundation, 2010; Children’s

Rights, 2011; Lee, Bright, Svoboda, Fakunmoju, & Barth, 2011). Otherwise, foster care has been repeatedly shown to produce undesirable outcomes (Shin, 2012; Watson &

Kabler, 2012).

Along any foster child’s life trajectory, there are a multitude of facets which can be labeled as the proverbial first domino, so to speak, which cause the rest to fall. For the realization of potential and future opportunity, that domino is clearly education as foster children are repeatedly labelled as the most educationally at-risk, vulnerable, and 16 disadvantaged (Zetlin 2006; Advocates for Children of New York, 2000; Lips, 2007;

Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea, 2010). Unfortunately, the mere association with the foster care system has been shown to be a determinant in the lack of educational attainment, and not the length of stay within the system (Burley & Halpern, 2001). The barriers to educational success faced by a foster child are as many as they are varied. They range from individual issues within the child and their situation to systemic issues across the educational and welfare systems to problems between teachers, foster parents, and case workers as they attempt to stabilize the child within the context of their existing workloads (Burley & Halpern, 2001; Zetlin 2006; Advocates for Children of New York,

2000; Lips, 2007; Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea, 2010).

Institutionally, the problem may arise from the fact that the child’s education is most frequently an afterthought had in the midst of attempting to secure the child’s safety and welfare. Zetlin, Weinberg, and Luderer (2004) and Zetlin, Weinberg, and Shea

(2006) both identify this as the beginning of a series of dysfunctions. Even if the consideration is identified early in the fosterage process, the interagency communication, coordination, and collaboration to find and enact the best educational solution for the individual child rarely happens between the child welfare agency, the school system, and the courts (Smucker, 1996; TeamChild 2015; Altshuler, 1997; Center for the Future of

Teaching and Learning, 2010; Texas Education Agency, 2013). Given the specificity and individual requirements of any given case, the successful coordination for best school outcomes is beyond the capacity of the current bureaucratic structure (Zetlin et al., 2004). 17

Instead what happens is that the child is generally placed into an educational setting which is the most convenient and expedient for the placement situation, thus establishing a problematic scenario for the fostered child in that they begin attending a new school which may or may not be aware of their particular status quo (Zetlin, 2006).

This can prove especially destabilizing for a child already possessing a litany of disadvantages. The disadvantages that a fostered child brings with them into a school system may include internal scars and resultant dysfunction associated with trauma,

(Zetlin, 2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015; Pears, Fisher, Bruce, Kim, and Yoerger, 2010), unmet emotional needs (Zetlin et al., 2006; TeamChild & Casey

Family Programs, 2015; Fisher & Antoine, 2006), and a general and distracting uncertainty brought on by their situation (England, 1998; National Center for Homeless

Education & Legal Center for Foster Care and Education, 2009), in addition to other cognitive and general health hurdles produced from their home of origin (Watson &

Kabler, 2012; Stock & Fisher, 2006; Evans, Scott, & Schulz, 2004; Pears et al., 2010).

Such initial disadvantages may manifest themselves in any number of ways, with most being behaviorally counterproductive to the educational objective (Zetlin, 2006; Kupinsel

& Dubsky, 1999). All of the aforementioned barriers to learning are brought with the child at entry into the foster care system and their subsequent school placement.

During entry and thereafter the child will face a further barrage of hurdles. The first of these is the potential lack of accompanying school records, further compounded by the likely absence of an educational assessment (Evans, Scott, & Schulz, 2004).

Essentially, the child’s educational capability is, and remains, an unknown therefore 18 allowing for the possibility that the child will be placed above or below their grade level

(Lips, 2007; Zetlin, Weinberg, & Luderer, 2004). The lack of records can also delay enrollment and negate pre-existing Individual Education Plans (IEP) (Legal Center for

Foster Care & Education, 2014; The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning,

2010). Foster children then face issues of labelling (Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006) and a high rate of special education placement (Zetlin, Weingberg, & Shea, 2006;

Antoine & Fisher, 2006; Lips, 2007; Advocates for Children of New York, 2000;

Smucker et al., 1996), with both issues being possibly exacerbated by cautious foster parents (Burley & Halpern, 2001).

Advocacy is needed in order to negotiate the public school system, including assistance in course planning and interaction with teachers and school staff. Foster children frequently are without such advocacy (Zetlin, 2006; Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea,

2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Program, 2015). This advocacy can be especially important for foster children as they face an exceptionally high rate of discipline and disciplinary referrals (Zetlin et al., 2006; Watson & Kabler, 2012; Pears et al., 2011;

McMillen, Auslander, Elze, White, & Thompson, 2003). All of these issues may be further exacerbated and compounded by the frequency with which foster children change schools (Zetlin et al., 2004; Zetlin, 2006; Legal Center for Foster Care & Education,

2014; TeamChild, 2008; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012, Lips, 2007) which, in turn, contributes to rates of absenteeism that far outpace the non-foster population (Zetlin,

2006; Lips, 2007; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Fram & Altshuler, 2009). Given all of the above, it comes as no surprise that around a half to a third of foster children will 19 face grade retention (Zetlin et al., 2010; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Advocates for

Children of New York, 2000; Evans, Scott, & Schulz, 2004).

Foster children enter educational spaces already exceptionally disadvantaged and face an ongoing and varied litany of disadvantages throughout their time in school. The educational outcomes for foster children are poor as evidenced by the following findings.

Foster children are found to be performing below grade level (Smithgall et al., 2004, as cited in Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea, 2010), are at least a year behind in reading and math

(Watson & Kabler, 2012), and produce consistently low achievement scores on standardized tests (Zetlin, 2006; Evans et al., 2004; Fram & Altshuler, 2009; Gustavsson

& MacEachron, 2012; Pears et al., 2011). The inability to perform well in school ultimately has its effect on graduation and retention rates. Foster children have a poor record of finishing high school and are far more likely to drop out (Zetlin, 2006; Fram &

Altshuler, 2009; Antoine & Fisher, 2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015;

Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Shin, 2012; Barrat & Berliner, 2013). The failure to successfully complete high school will have lifelong effects on foster children well beyond their participation in the foster care system (Fram & Alshuler, 2009; Shin, 2012).

For most foster children, the end of high school (and the possible failure to complete the same) also marks the end of their participation within the foster care system, although this transitional period was extended via the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. This transitional period is synonymously referred to as either aging out or emancipation and is when approximately 20,000 foster alumni 20 annually are expected to begin independent living (Freundlich, Avery, & Padgett, 2006;

Munson & Scott, 2007; Shin, 2012).

Munson and Scott (2007) summarize the general findings of life outcomes for foster care alumni: “The past decade has produced a compelling body of research which convincingly reveals that the early adult outcomes of youth previously served in foster care, are extremely poor” (p. 79). Foster alumni have been found to be ill prepared for life outside of the system (Shin, 2012; Schelbe, 2011; Unrau, 2011). Emancipated youth frequently end up incarcerated, homeless, unemployed/underemployed, and/or continue onto the welfare rolls (Toth, 1997; Collins, 2001; Freundlich & Avery, 2006; Shin, 2012;

Courtney & Dworsky, 2005; Schelbe, 2011). Unfortunately, these same foster alumni have exceptionally low rates of participation within higher education and even lower rates of college graduation (Schelbe, 2011; Unrau, 2011; Salazar, 2013; Shin, 2012).

Ultimately, this will result in statistically lower weekly earnings and higher rates of unemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). There are initiatives which attempt to increase the opportunities for foster alumni within higher education, but on the whole their poor educational experience in primary and secondary school makes post-secondary success improbable (Unrau, 2011; New York State Foster Care Youth Leadership

Advisory Team, 2009). As the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) also details, this failure to acquire advanced education will cause foster alumni difficulty both in employment acquisition and in earnings potential (see Figure 2.3).

Without educational credentials, job training and preparation becomes critical.

Unfortunately, the majority of foster children are not provided with job training during 21 their time within the foster care system, further making their job prospects slim

(Advocates for Children of New York, 2000; Casey Family Services, 2000). This lack of preparation is made evident by the low rates of employment (Salazar, 2013; Geenen &

Powers, 2006) and exceptionally low incomes (Courtney & Dworksy, 2006; Chmura

Economics & Analytics, 2011; Gennen & Powers, 2006). As the previously referenced research shows, foster alumni may frequently find themselves without material for a resume and subsequently be jobless.

Also problematic for the foster care alumni is the issue of health care as alumni previously were previously within an entire system of supervisors, case workers, judges, and foster parents, among others, who would ensure both their access to and their participation within the health care system, but upon emancipation the management of their health suddenly becomes their own responsibility (Unrau, 2011; Geenen & Powers,

2007; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Munson & Scott, 2007). Furthermore, foster children may possess numerous health issues, including mental and dental health that require management, and have been found to more frequently have poor health interfere with daily life (Unrau, 2011; Munson & Scott, 2007; Salazar, 2013). Foster children struggle with access to health care and have been found to be as unprepared to manage their health care as they were with finding employment (Geenen & Powers, 2007; Freundlich, Avery,

& Padgett, 2006). Finally, foster alumni have been found to have high rates of criminality, early pregnancy, and poverty (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Collins, 2001;

Advocates for Children of New York, 2000; Geenen & Powers, 2006). As these studies indicate, the dominoes begin to fall with a foster child’s association with the foster care 22 system and continue on through poor educational outcomes which lead to poor employment prospect and generally poor life outcomes.

Not only are the ultimate outcomes both educationally and existentially poor, but the cost is paradoxically high. The national average cost to maintain one child in foster care for a year is $25,782 (Zill, 2011, as cited in Fixsen, 2011), or as much as eleven times the cost to provide basic welfare (Curtis, Dale, & Kendall, 1999). This extensive cost is frequently cited as a primary reason for the emphasis on adoption (Zill, 2011b,

Fixsen, 2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). A study by Barth,

Chung, Wildfire, and Shenyang (2006) considered the fiscal effects of a cohort of 50,000 foster children being adopted at age three and found a cost-savings of between three to six billion dollars for the duration of the group’s minority. All of the aforementioned costs are costs realized while the foster youth is yet within the foster care framework; however, Chmura Economics & Analytics (2011) calculated a $41,460 per year cost per emancipated youth. These costs include continued welfare, criminal justice, health care, and unemployment/underemployment costs. Foster care has been shown to be both expensive throughout its use and continues to be expensive for society during the transition to adulthood (Barth et al., 2006; Chmura Economics & Analytics, 2011).

The only solution of note offered by the literature as a panacea for the ills faced by foster care youth, both within the educational system and beyond, is, ironically, a route out of the foster care system through adoption. Adoption from foster care has long been an objective of the federal government with the passage of both the Adoption and

Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 23

Adoptions Act of 2008. The literature has repeatedly confirmed its utility, both fiscally and as a way to improve individual outcomes (Zill, 2011a, 2011b; Fixsen, 2006; Barth,

Shields, & Behrman, 2006; Triseliotis & Hill, 1990; Waterman et al., 2013). In spite of the fact that adoption can be viewed by the foster child as another challenge among many

(Hanna et al., 2011), and the child may continue to long for their biological parents or struggle with feelings of loss and abandonment (Hanna et al., 2011; Waterman et al.,

2013), adoption for foster children has even been shown to increase IQ scores, which are generally considered to be immobile (Waterman et al., 2013). While adoption is clearly a desirable outcome and has been increasingly cultivated as a solution by the federal and state governments, the aforementioned studies show that there still remains a majority of foster children who continue to struggle within the existing system despite recent refinements and systemic adjustments.

The problem considered herein is the cumulative issue of the foster child, their education, and ultimate life outcomes. As the literature reveals, foster children realize poor outcomes in education and for a myriad of compounding reasons (Zetlin et al., 2010;

Watson & Kabler, 2012; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012). The failure in educational outcomes contributes to generally poor life outcomes (Munson & Scott, 2007). Given the substantial funding and efforts put into the care of foster children, these outcomes are especially unfortunate for all parties involved.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to examine the potential compatibility of unschooling—a free and flexible form of homeschooling which may be viewed as 24 extreme when contrasted against conventional schooling methods—for use in the holistic development of youth in foster care. The following literature review depicts a chronic inability of conventional methods to pedagogically support foster children, while the burgeoning popularity of homeschooling, particularly unschooling, offers a potentially constructive approach to the problem.

The study combined meta-syntheses, to examine the history, depth, and causes of the problem, as well as the same for the suggested solution, with autoethnography from my own practice of unschooling. The study sought to consider whether or not the fostered population might benefit from an unschooling pedagogical framework, or unframework.

This study will add to the ample literature on the problem of educating foster children by suggesting a previously unconsidered solution to what has clearly been identified as a chronic problem. While there have been a number of studies examining the various aspects of both the education and upbringing of foster children, none have considered the potential held within the method of unschooling.

Theoretical Framework

While this study seeks to add to the literature and its ongoing attempts to serve the fostered population, the findings of this particular study will be immediately utilized by myself for implementation in a related effort. As such, the theoretical framework selected is one which is inherently pragmatic focusing on needs and motivations necessary for a successful life as an adult human. Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs provides a utilitarian delineation of human requirements into several lineally tiered 25 categories offering practitioners an opportunity for evaluation and responsive action.

Whereas Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy essentially presents motivation from a whole organism deficiency standpoint, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory

(SDT) focuses on the same organism’s psychological growth-orientation and its corresponding foci of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. As foster children move through the fosterage system, access to growth opportunities – especially autonomy and relatedness – may be severed and the need to reconnect becomes an essential activity

(Deci & Ryan, 2000a). For an individual engaged in such a significant state of flux, considerations of need and motivation are critical and both Maslow (1943) and Deci and

Ryan (1985) offer practical theories which have been used herein in the mergence of foster care and unschooling.

Significance of the Study

This study has the potential to affect the approximately half-a-million foster children who pass through the United States’ foster care system each year. Given that education can be metaphorically viewed as among the first of the dominoes, this study has the potential to affect all manner of outcomes for foster children. As unschooling in particular is flexible, individualized, and adjustable, the scope of the study generally includes any foster child and/or foster parent working within the American foster care system. More realistically, the study has the opportunity to introduce a previously unutilized pedagogical opportunity for small populations in potentially unique situations as a juncture between unschooling and foster children requires both foster parents willing to participate in a fringe, but simple, educational practice as well as governmental 26 agencies which are willing to attempt a new approach. This study seeks to gather all relevant information related to this juncture for implementation shortly after publication.

Research Questions

The research questions examined herein include:

1. What is the current status quo of foster children in the United States as relates

to the acquisition of education?

2. What are the current innovations and initiatives being utilized on behalf of the

education of foster children?

3. Looking beyond conventionality and considering the American trend towards

homeschooling, are there opportunities that lay within the framework, or lack

of framework, of the practice known as unschooling?

Definition of Terms

Foster Care: Foster care refers to the “temporary service provided for children who cannot live with their families” and may find children living “with relatives or with unrelated foster parents” as well as other “settings such as group homes, residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and supervised independent living.” (Child Welfare

Information Gateway, 2017, p.1)

Conventional (i.e. schooling, setting, education): For the purposes of this study, conventional refers to any pedagogical system which utilizes standard practices of place and time central to the American educational model, be they public, private, parochial, or charter. 27

Aging out: Upon reaching their majority, foster care youth are said to have aged out, essentially becoming too old for continued participation in the foster care system and ceasing to receive benefits from the same (Collins, 2001; Schelbe, 2011).

Homeschooling: Homeschooling, as its most simplistic, refers to the attempted education of a child in their home in lieu of a conventional pedagogical setting.

Unschooling: Unschooling may be viewed as a method within homeschooling, which de-emphasizes the intentional packaging and delivery of curriculum and instead relies on participation in uncontrived existence for pedagogical gains.

Research Design and Methodology

Founded in Lewin’s (1946) concept of action research, this study used Levi-

Strauss’ bricolage to combine a narrative review of information regarding the pedagogical problems and processes used for foster children as well as the burgeoning use of both homeschooling and unschooling with autoethnography from my experiences in unschooling my own children. The target population of this study is essentially any school-aged foster child, though there is certainly an emphasis on teenaged foster children and those closest to aging out. The study juxtaposed the findings of the narrative review with those of my autoethnography to help identify any potential or promise.

Assumptions and Limitations

A major limitation is the scarcity of research, whether qualitative or quantitative, regarding the concept of unschooling. Much of the secondary information regarding unschooling may be anecdotal in nature and not within a controlled study. Furthermore, the union of unschooling with the fostered population, if already occurring, is not yet 28 present within the literature, so there is a loose assumption that this study is pioneering new ground.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

The following literature review will introduce the two theoretical frameworks used to contextualize both the problem and ways forward, then establish an understanding of the historical context of orphan management, including a review of the practices of both the orphanage and fostering. Following cursory examinations of

Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs and Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination

Theory, it will begin with a succinct history of orphanages and their various uses, then examine foster care especially in the context of the United States. Applicable laws, their mandates, and their implementations will be reviewed to provide an overview of the status quo of fostering. The status quo of the education of foster children will be presented. The literature reveals that the status quo has been essentially static for at least the past three decades with the majority of the literature being committed to merely identifying a lack of institutional efficacy. The homeschooling education method will then be introduced and explored, with a focus on unschooling. Literature regarding the use of unschooling with foster children has been found to be nonexistent and will therefore be absent in this review.

Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s (1943) examination and organization of human needs provides a framework from which to consider each person’s fundamental needs and the order in which they may be satisfied, or the “relative prepotency” (p. 375). Maslow (1943) began by proposing a simple question: “what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?” (p. 375). The author answered that “at 30 once other (and ‘higher’) needs emerge…and when these in turn are satisfied, again new

(and still ‘higher’) needs emerge and so on” (Maslow, 1943, p. 375). This hierarchy begins with “the basic needs”, beginning with simple “physiological needs” which

Maslow describes via the process of “homeostasis” or “the body’s automatic efforts to maintain a constant, normal state”, which may be most simply described as the need for food, water, and air (p. 372). This is followed by the “safety needs” which, prima facie, appear to be at odds with the world of the foster child as Maslow (1943) described it as a

“preference for some kind of undisrupted routine or rhythm…a predictable, orderly world” (p. 377). Next are the “love needs”, including “love and affection and belongingness needs” where a person will seek satisfaction from interaction with

“friends, or a sweetheart, or a wife, or children” (p. 381). Following these needs are the

“esteem needs”, made dichotomous by Maslow (1943):

…first, the desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy, for confidence in

the face of the world, and for independence and freedom. Secondly, we have

what we may call the desire for reputation or prestige (defining it as respect or

esteem from other people), recognition, attention, importance or appreciation. (pp.

381-382)

Beyond self-esteem needs is the pinnacle of the hierarchy with “the need for self- actualization”, which is essentially a person “doing what he (sic) is fitted for” (p. 382). If a person is not being what they “can be”, then “discontent and restlessness will soon develop” (Maslow, 1943, p. 382). Maslow’s (1943) presentation of this hierarchy of needs is important for understanding the soon to be discussed chronic failure of foster 31 children within conventional schooling systems and crafting possible unorthodox solutions via unschooling.

Self-Determination Theory

Within the vein of pure utility, a second theoretical framework has been utilized which, in many ways, nests within or complements Maslow’s (1943) work. Whereas

Maslow approaches need from a whole organism standpoint beginning with physiological needs (which may be reflective of originating in a pre-Thrifty Acres/Wal-Mart era and during a time of world war), Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) focuses on psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Deci and Ryan (2000a) describe the genesis of their theory:

The starting point for SDT is the postulate that humans are active, growth-

oriented organisms who are naturally inclined toward integration of their psychic

elements into a unified sense of self and integration of themselves into larger

social structures. In other words, SDT suggests that it is part of the adaptive

design of the human organism to engage interesting activities, to exercise

capacities, to pursue connectedness in social groups, and to integrate intrapsychic

and interpersonal experiences into a relative unity. (p. 229)

From this origin, research into SDT has progressed to examine “the social-contextual conditions that facilitate versus forestall the natural process of self-motivation and healthy psychological development.” (2000b, p. 68) Their research has shown that intrinsic motivation is led by three primary drivers, competence, autonomy, and relatedness (2000a; 2000b). 32

Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, and Rosen (2016) define competence within the

SDT framework as “the need to feel a sense of mastery over the environment and to develop new skills.” (p. 1198) Autonomy is defined “as individuals’ need to act with a sense of ownership of their behavior and feel psychologically free,” (p. 1198) while relatedness “represents the need to feel connected to at least some others, that is, to love and care for others and to be loved and cared for by others.” (p. 1199) Deci and Ryan

(2000b) suggest that these “three innate psychological needs . . .when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished motivation and well-being.” (p. 68) Deci & Ryan (2000b) paint an extremely relatable portrait of SDT’s applicatory scope including that of primary and secondary school students:

Such non-optimal human functioning can be observed not only in our

psychological clinics but also among the millions who, for hours a day, sit

passively before their televisions, stare blankly from the back of their classrooms,

or wait listlessly for the weekend as they go about their jobs. (p. 68)

SDT, in conjunction with the Hierarchy of Needs, will be used to contemplate optimal pedagogical environments specifically for foster children’s unique context.

Stereotype Threat

Finally, Steele and Aronson’s (1995) concept of Stereotype Threat was utilized in a cursory fashion to complement the above theories and further examine possible reasons why foster children fare so poorly in conventional school situations. The researchers define Stereotype Threat as: 33

. . .a social-psychological predicament that can arise from widely-known negative

stereotypes about one’s group. It is this: the existence of such a stereotype means

that anything one does or any of one’s features that conform to it make the

stereotype more plausible as a self-characterization in the eyes of others, and

perhaps even in one’s own eyes. (p. 797)

Stroessner and Good (n.d.) describe the potential consequences as “decreased performance in academic and non-academic domains, increased use of self- defeating behaviors, disengagement, and altered professional aspirations are just a few potential outcomes.” (p. 2) Discussing the same concept, Dodge et al. (2006) stated, “Labeling effects have been found to exert important influence on both the child and external judges, through self-fulfilling prophecies.” (p. 4) This well-documented threat affects disadvantaged groups, one of which may be presumed to be the foster population.

History and Practice of Orphanages

The problem of orphans is obviously not emergent; rather, it ebbs and flows in magnitude alongside corresponding human conflicts, natural disasters, epidemics, and, more recently, gross domestic products of each time and place. It is also not unique to our species, as orphanhood within the natural world happens in any species in which parental nurturance is practiced. What is new and unique, especially when considered on a geological timeline and across species, is the emergence of spaces created specifically for the management of human orphans. These spaces have since become known as orphanages and have made their appearance on the world stage at varying times in varying places. In the modern era, the literature shows the emergence of orphanages 34 primarily in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Jacobi (2009), in her paper Orphans and orphanages in early modern times, listed examples of several European orphans and their respective orphanages, dating the existence of such to as early as 1668 in France, 1699 in

Germany, and 1755 in Italy, although another source has Italy’s history of orphanage stretching back to both the 13th and 14th Centuries (Harris, 2005) and France’s back to

“the Middle Ages” (Robin, 2001). Spain’s Royal School of San Telmo, an orphanage which provided maritime training to orphaned boys, began in 1681 (Tikoff, 2010).

McClure (1981) had the first significant English effort to be the London Foundling

Hospital, founded in 1741.

Outside of Europe, orphanages began appearing around the same time. In an article on the same, Rahmani (2014) had an orphanage operated by the British East India

Company in the year 1789 in India, although the founding year of the orphanage isn’t specified. Rio de Janeiro’s Recolhimento was founded a half-century earlier in 1739 and would eventually evolve into an orphanage specifically for girls (Windler, 2011). Shortly thereafter, Chile’s Casa de Huerfanos (literally translated from Spanish to English as

“House of Orphans”) was founded in 1758 (Milanich, 2004). In his piece on the investment in children in Medieval Muslim societies, Maksudyan (2011) cited the introduction of formal orphanages into the Ottoman Empire in the early 1860s, although

Giladi (2011) cites a 12th Century orphanage operating in Irbil (in modern- day Iraq).

Within the United States, Reed (2010) cited the first official orphanage opening in New

Orleans in 1739 and noted that “the growth of orphan asylums exploded in the period after the Civil War…” due to war deaths (p. 312). Murray (2013) cites the first 35 orphanage supported by public funds in the country as the Charleston Orphan House, founded in 1790. Regardless of the place, humanity as a collective whole began systematizing care of orphans within roughly the same century and has had approximately a quarter-of-a-millennia to experiment with the practice as a solution.

The decision to begin the practice of intentionally and systematically housing orphans is rooted in a number of ideologies and incentive packages. Some orphanages have been founded due to the intervention of a religious institution, which, in the case of

Europe and South America, has been heavily influenced by the Catholic Church (Jacobi,

2009; Harris, 2005; Robin, 2001, Windler, 2011; & Milanich, 2004). Among its earliest interventions is the “papal bull of 1560” sanctioning Bologna’s Opera Mendicanti, an early welfare institution offering orphanage service (Jacobi, 2009, p. 53). The teachings of the Church influenced motivations, as an 1837 letter from the Brazilian Minister of

State to a regional charity urging the establishment of an orphanage for girls and their virtue attests (Windler, 2011). Along the same line, some orphanages are created for the preservation of a cultural/ethnic/religious identity, of which several Jewish orphanages have been founded (Meir, 2009; Merwin, 2013), as well as the Cherokee Orphan Aslyum in 1875 in the Cherokee Nation (Reed, 2010). Others have been initiated by the main system of governance, usually in large cities and in response to a perceived problem of packs of parentless children – the Ottoman creation of islahhanes as “the central government ordered…provincial governments to open ıslahhanes in order to collect, protect, and educate vagrant orphans and destitute children” in the mid-nineteenth century (Maksudyan, 2011, p. 494). Another example would be Chile’s system of “state- 36 financed and religiously-administered orphan asylums” dating back to the mid-eighteenth century (Milanich, 2004, p. 319). Other motivations include the production of a steady stream of competent labor, such as evidenced in the Royal School of San Telmo and its mission of producing labor for the maritime industry (Tikoff, 2010) or as a social reaction to a major and elongated event such as the American Civil War (Reed, 2010). As this diverse and international display of foundational motivations exhibits, the appearance and operation of orphanages was orchestrated in response to a variety of incentives from piety to practicality to profit to identity preservation. Altruism may be the prima facie and supposed reason for the existence of orphanages, but it is clearly not the only one.

Just as the reasons for establishing orphanages was varied, so, too, were their operational practices. The sample of orphanages covered thus far presents an interesting mix in terms of the manner in which orphans existed. A cursory consideration of orphanages may bring to mind a vision of children eating three meals, receiving some traditional schooling, and thereafter put to bed, but the historical record depicts a rich and varied experience in education, vocational training, and sustainability. The Madras

Orphan Asylum, previously referenced in association with the British East India

Company and under the direction of a Scotsman named Andrew Bell, was the scene of a pedagogical innovation eventually known as the “Madras System” (Rahmani, 2014).

This system, nearly identical to the Lancastrian Monitorial System which was developed nearly simultaneously by an Englishmen in England (Ediger, 1987), was a double-edged pedagogical method which depended, on more advanced students to teach less advanced students, gaining knowledge through both direct learning and conveyance (Rahmani, 37

2014). This use of the orphanage depicts a common practice for the operation of orphanages: a place of social experimentation.

Practical preparation for the workforce is a far more common focus for an orphanage as the institution attempts to break the cycle of poverty. The most direct route was exampled by the Brazilian government who sent boys “to the Army and Navy arsenals where they could learn a trade and become useful to themselves and their society” (Windler, 2011, p. 1195). This practice thereby turned the military arsenals into pseudo-orphanages as opposed to providing boys with distinct institutions. Possibly kinder practices allowed the child, whether male or female, to learn a skill or trade. An example of this can be found in the Trinite and Saint-Esprit institutions of the 17th century where, upon reaching adolescence, the orphan would be contracted as an apprentice to a tradesman (Robin, 2001). The contract was such that if the tradesman

“fail[ed] to uphold this obligation [it] resulted in being expelled from the trade” (Robin,

2001, p. 441). Maksudyan argued that the Ottoman bureaucracy used their islahhanes for the “longer-term aim of urban economic progress – by turning idle and wandering children into skilled and productive laborers.” (Maksudyan, 2011, p. 495) Ideally, these vocationally focused orphanages established a process of wage-earning that was saved for the orphan, to “serve as financial assistance so that graduates could start their own businesses.” (Maksuyan, 2011, p. 500) The author then notes that, unfortunately, this ideal was rarely realized (2011). Whereas the two aforementioned institutions explicitly attempted to provide its orphans with a distinct and useful skill, another orphanage, the

Cherokee Orphan Asylum viewed itself as a “manual labor school” (Reed, 2010, p. 320). 38

According to Reed (2010), this was a popular approach in the mid-nineteenth century.

She quotes an early and active advocate of this approach, “All cannot live here without manual labor. Each cannot be a professor, lawyer, doctor, preacher, school-master. The means, opportunities, and occasions are wanting” (Reed, 2010, p. 328). The Asylum sat on 340 acres of farmland and was generally self-sufficient, utilizing the orphans alongside hired staff to operate the farm (Reed, 2010). The Cherokee Orphan Asylum provides an example of a facility that seeks to provide simple life skills to its charges as opposed to a specific skill set, as done at the Parisian and Ottoman orphanages previously discussed.

Given the general disdain with which child labor is held in the United States and the laws explicitly prohibiting child labor excepting certain circumstances, these institutional practices can be held in some contempt by a contemporary. From a purely practical standpoint, instruction in manual labor capabilities, tradesmen skills, and epistemological schooling, all would increase the likelihood of an orphan breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Considering the on-going issue of “aging out” experienced by youth in the American system of foster care with its resultant negative outcomes including homelessness and incarceration among others (Palladino, 2006; Collins, 2001), a reexamination of past practices may be beneficial.

While in the past orphanages were identified as a primary solution for the management of guardian-less children, beginning in the early twentieth century, they began to fall into disrepute at the same time that fosterage began to gain favor as the predominant form of orphan care (Herman, 2005; Hasci, 1995). In 1910, there were 39

“well over 1000 orphanages in the United States,” which, while well-intentioned, began to lose credibility “when people realized that children at orphanages showed a disturbing rate of sickness and death” (Herman, 2005, p. 11). California’s State Board of Charities and Corrections noted in their 1906 Biennial Report that “the asylums, however good work they may do, are unnatural and can not be a parent” (Hasci, 1995, p. 172). It should be remembered that Henry Dwight Chapin, an early child advocate, once said, “A poor home is often better than a good institution” (Herman, 2005, p. 11). In-home foster care would eventually eclipse orphanages by 1950 as the preferred method of handling orphans (Herman, 2005).

The shift in popularity away from orphanages would eventually transform into a vilification, as orphanages in various parts of the world were found to be existing in a state of inhumanity. The stunning conditions of orphans revealed in the orphanages developed by the Romanian leader Ceausescu’s brutal and near insane agenda created an impression of shock and horror among the world’s population in the late 1980s and early

1990s (Sullivan, 2014; Bahrampour, 2014). This trend would continue with revelations of conditions of Chinese orphanages (Johnson, 1993), including the presence of dying rooms where children were passively allowed to starve to death (Thurston, 1996).

During the Iraq War, news of a nightmarish orphanage in Baghdad again captured the headlines (Anderson & Farooq, 2007), and the vilification of orphanages as a solution became further ingrained in the international consciousness.

The view of orphanages as a deplorable state of affairs has most recently been summed up in a paper by Kang’ethe and Makuyana (2014). This paper, as described in 40 the abstract, is a “desk review of literature, debates, critics, reviews, reflects and discusses the various types of damages to children in OVC’s care institutions with the hope of coming with different perspectives to strengthen the already known solutions, or shed new or newer light to tackle the state of children in institutionalized care…”

(Kang’ethe & Makuyana, 2014, p. 117). The foundational assumption here is clearly stated: that orphanages are detrimental to the well-being of children. This viewpoint confirms the aforementioned collective belief cultivated by the various and public nightmarish scandals involving orphanages and Kang’ethe and Makuyana (2014) confirm their belief in this view: “As such, these researchers have advocated for a paradigm shift from institutionalization to family and community oriented solutions” (p. 122). Using original research and subsequent findings that clearly refute this stance, Whetten et al.

(2014) has come to a more situationally dependent conclusion.

This study was reported by Time to be the “largest and most geographically and culturally diverse study of its kind” (Luscombe, 2014, p. 1) and directly refutes the universality of the findings of such researchers as Kang’ethe and Makuyana (2014).

“Taken as a whole, the study findings do not support the hypothesis that institution-based living universally and significantly adversely affects child wellbeing” (Whetten, et. al,

2014, p. 9). Whetten and colleagues (2014) argue that while individual orphanages may be wanting, the orphanage system isn’t necessarily and fundamentally flawed (Luscombe,

2014). “Given that the greatest variation in wellbeing exists within the care settings, whether institutions or families, the way to improve wellbeing…would be to implement improvements within each care setting type…” (Whetten et al., 2014, p. 9). Per Whetten 41

(2014), orphanages can be improved upon just as much as individual foster family placements, and, accordingly, the stereotyping of orphanages as being universally detrimental is both unfair and unproductive.

In spite of international coverage depicting orphanages as being horrific, shocking, and inhumane institutions, the United States actually still have operating orphanages that are functioning, by all indications, well. The literature is surprisingly barren regarding this topic. Several scholarly attempts have been made to examine the fading trend, such as Jones’ (1993) Decline of the American orphanage, 1941-1980 or

Birgitte’s (2015) “Never a better home”: Growing up in American orphanages, 1920-

1970; but the literature is remarkably silent on domestic orphanages in the modern era.

An examination of the recent non-scholarly articles reveals two voices which are clearly in favor of orphanages, both having grown up in American orphanages in the modern era.

A blog from the Huffington Post dated 14 March 2014 discusses the positive experience of the author at the Thornwell Home for Children, which is located in Clinton, South

Carolina (de Holczer). A second, slightly more academic perspective, as the author is a retired economics professor (de Holczer, 2014), is Richard McKenzie who is the author of Rethinking orphanages for the 21st century (1998) and who grew up in the Crossnore

School, an orphanage in North Carolina. His work “argues convincingly that the private sector is better able to care for these children” (McKenzie, 2000, p. 1). He also argued,

“America’s government-run foster care system has miserably failed the most vulnerable children in our society.” (McKenzie, 2000, p. 1) While Whetten et al. (2014) took the 42 approach that there is room for growth within both systems, McKenzie (2000) has taken the polemic stance in favor of orphanages.

An international orphanage system that exhibits the potential of the orphanage as a positive and constructive social institution is SOS Children’s Villages. SOS Children’s

Villages (2015) as an organization describes themselves as “an adaptable, internationally practicable and all-embracing child-care concept” (p. 1). SOS Children’s Villages was founded in Austria following the Second World War and has four basic tenets: children, a mother, a house, and all within a village (SOS Children’s Villages, 2015). The literature views SOS Children’s Villages favorably. Lassi, Mahmud, Syed, and Janjua (2009) stated that “our study provided some evidence that the SOS Village can be used as a model facility for orphaned children” (p. 794). Goparaj and Sharma (2008) offered up an idyllic situation in their management case study entitled From social development to human development: A case of SOS Village. Sting (2013) describes the SOS model as being ideal for orphaned siblings: “because of their basic principles and their organisational structure, they have particular opportunities for common placement of siblings” (p. 120). Manso (2012) found that “a majority of care-leavers (61%) had just one mother during their entire stay in the children’s village” (p. 352) which considering the general instability that is the lot of an orphan, this figure exhibits remarkable stability.

Even an article from a different era reports on a contemporary study producing results that “were almost equally favorable for the SOS Kinderdorf children and children from natural families, and negative from those from the child care institutions” (Dodge, 1972, 43 p. 353). SOS Children’s Villages present an idyllic, almost utopian, model for both general existence as well as the management of orphaned children.

In spite of the historical trend away from orphanages (Herman, 2007; Hasci,

2005; Jones, 1993), that includes a general vilification of the practice in modern times

(Anderson & Farooq, 2007; Bahrampour, 2014), there is an established precedent of successful orphanagenic practice (Milanich, 2004; Rahmani, 2014; Tikoff, 2010).

Modern examples are in existence (de Holczer, 2014; McKenzie, 2000), although they are scarce in number, especially within the United States (de Holczer, 2014). While the past has the opportunity to assist in informing the present, the model presented by SOS

Children’s Villages is both functional and idyllic (Lassi, Mahmud, Syed, & Janjua, 2009;

Goparaj & Sharma, 2008; Sting, 2013; Manso, 2012; Dodge, 1972). Whetten et al.

(2014) have found through their research that a dismissal of orphanages at large is poor practice and that each individual childcare setting needs to be evaluated on its own individual merits. When considering the future of orphan care both domestic and abroad, this counsel seems to be prudent and well advised.

History, Practice, and Legislation of Foster Care

As previously discussed, both attitudes and practice began to transition away from orphanages and towards foster care as the primary solution to the problem in the first half of the 20th century, taking the burden off of state institutions and distributing it across the populace at large (Herman, 2005; Hasci, 1995). The history of modern foster care in

America is one of a pronounced transition away from orphanages or asylums and to foster families (Herman, 2005; Hasci, 1995). McDonald, Allen, Westerfelt, and Piliavin 44

(1996) stated that “the origins of the current system can be traced to Charles Loring

Brace, who established The Placing Out System at the New York Children’s Aid Society in 1853,” a system designed to protect the community far more than care for the child (p.

7). This system would eventually become known as the Orphan Train movement and transfer “between 1854 and 1930, some 200,000 orphans, homeless, and abandoned children” from Eastern cities via train to Western lands (Chiodo & Meliza, 2014, p. 145).

This would eventually lead to Charles Birtwell and the Boston Children’s Aid Society

“pioneer[ing] a new approach…that…was much more oriented to the needs of the child…” started in 1886 (McDonald et al., 1996, p. 10). This was the direct precursor to the modern foster system. Legally, Geiser (1973) provided an interesting footnote proposing that governmental protection of children started in 1874 in New York City when the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals decided that “since the human child is a member of the animal kingdom” it could intervene on the behalf of an abused child (p. 162). It did, won, and established a new legal precedent, sardonically described by a contemporary: “If a child has no rights as a human being under the law, he is at least entitled to the justice of a cur on the streets” (American Humane Society, 1966, as cited in Geiser, 1973, p. 162). By modern standards the historical origins of our current system are pathetic, but at the time they were clearly revolutionary.

While the fostering practice established by Birtwell would become adopted by various charitable agencies and the judicial system had an established precedence, it was not until nearly a century later that the government would become more directly involved in the foster care system. According to Myers (2008), the “Modern Era of Child 45

Protection” began in 1962 with three significant events (p. 454). During this era, “the government has taken great steps to advance and improve its role as a ‘parent’” (Mochel,

2012, p. 6). The first significant event that catalyzed this progress was the publication of the article, The battered-child syndrome by pediatrician C. Henry Kempe and colleagues

(1962) which created both a national outcry as well as directing scholarly attention on to the topic of child abuse (Myers, 2008; Hasci, 1995). This national focus compelled

Congress to add amendments to the Social Security Act in the same year, which included a “provision for aid to certain children receiving foster-home care”, significant increases in funding for child welfare services, and a mandate to all States to have “child welfare services available by July 1, 1975, to all children in the State who need them” (Ball &

Cohen, 1962, p. 3). This amendment and an earlier amendment from 1961 allowed federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) funds to go towards foster care services and “the amount of securable funding became meaningful”, hence setting the first significant precedence of federal support for foster care (Phillips & Mann, 2013;

Hasci, 1995, p. 175). Also in 1962, the federal Children’s Bureau convened several meetings with experts from the field of child development, whose recommendations resulted in all states having mandatory child abuse reporting laws by doctors by 1967

(Myers, 2008). This mandatory law quickly made evident the extent of the problem as well as the vast need for foster care services (Myers, 2008).

This need was made especially evident in the period from 1970 to 1980, at the end of which the “federal program supporting the state-administered foster care system stood on the brink of implosion,” due to the “twelve-hundred percent increase” of foster 46 children from “approximately 8,000 to more than 100,000” (Raymond, 1999, p. 1235).

Geiser (1973) offered a contemporary description of the system at this time: “for many of these children, being rescued from parental neglect and abuse is only the beginning of their troubles”, and “that the care provided for them by the State is a form of public neglect, a cruel illusion of caring” (p. i). This radical increase in supported children demanded corresponding legislation to fund, administrate, and adequately serve the children, families of orientation, and foster families, as well as a corresponding bureaucracy to manage the influx. This legislation would become the Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA) which, most importantly, sought to check the number of children being placed in foster care, especially through what would become the contentious “reasonable efforts” clause (Committee on Finance United States

Senate, 1990; PL 96-272, 1980; Edwards, 1994; Raymond, 1999; Phillips & Mann,

2013). The law was written following a three-pronged intent of “preventing unnecessary foster care placements,” reunification with biological parents if possible, and expedited adoption if necessary (Edwards, 1994, p. 4). AAWCA would govern foster care programs for nearly the following two decades.

Prior to the next significant legislation regarding foster care, there were two lesser pieces of legislation and the introduction of one federal program, which, in their own way, shaped foster care in America. The first was the Individual Living Program, which was included in the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, actually passed in

April of 1986 (Ross & Hayes, 1986; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

1999). The program that would eventually transform into the John H. Chafee Foster Care 47

Independence Program began as an underfunded attempt to fix the sudden, jarring, and often unsuccessful transition experienced by foster children aging out of the foster care system (Collins, 2001; Schelbe, 2011). While initially unsuccessful, the program was

“monumental in that it was the first piece that specifically addressed the issues of youth aging out” (Schelbe, 2011, p. 564). Next were the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and

1988, which combined to dramatically increase the number of incarcerated females and caused second-order effects for the foster care system when single mothers could no longer care for their children (Phillips & Mann, 2013). The second was Senator Howard

Metzenbaum’s Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA), which was “one of several recent congressional initiatives to address concerns that children remain in foster care too long” (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998, p. 4). The intent of the act was to eradicate existing racial and ethnic barriers to adoption, thereby reducing the number of children in foster care (Brooks, Barth, Bussiere, & Patterson, 1999; Curtis and Alexander,

1996; Phillips & Mann, 2013). McRoy and Griffin (2012) reported that MEPA’s impact is limited, as it increased “transracial adoptions…up to 20.1 per cent in 2003”, but has not successfully addressed that “there still remains an unequal representation of black children waiting for adoption” (p. 42). This interim period saw an uptick in demand for foster care services created by anti-drug abuse legislation, as well as an attempt to expedite adoptions by making the process colorblind.

By 1997 the United States had identified child abuse and neglect as a pandemic national problem, had created an underfunded and inefficient foster care system to address the problem, had then attempted to overhaul the system, and was maintaining a 48 rate of around half-a-million children receiving foster care services (Myers, 2008;

Phillips & Mann, 2013). Public Law 105-89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of

1997 (ASFA), is “an act to promote the adoption of children in foster care” (PL 105-89).

Phillips and Mann (2013) described the conditions which led to the law:

Several social and bureaucratic factors contributed to the substantial increase in

the number of children entering the foster care system such as reduced

government spending on social services and child welfare, poor economic

conditions, the influx of crack-cocaine usage in impoverished communities,

mandatory drug charge sentencing, heightened maternal involvement in the

criminal justice system, and increased rates of HIV/AIDS infection. To illustrate

this point, between 1986 and 1995, the number of children in foster care increased

from 280,000 to nearly 500,000 (O’Neill, 2002). (p. 864)

Whereas AAWCA sought to check the number of children entering foster care, ASFA was aimed at increasing adoptions and thereby reducing the overall number of children in foster care (Weinberg, 2004; Golden & Macomber, 2009). The main proponents of the law also wanted to revisit the aforementioned “reasonable efforts” clause from AAWCA, expressing concerns that it returned children into unsafe conditions (Golden &

Macomber, 2009; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998). A major provision of ASFA was that “the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern” in regards to placement and reunification with birth parents (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998, p.

2). On evaluating ASFA’s effectiveness, Golden and Macomber (2009) state: “Evidence from every angle—state enactment and implementation of laws, changes in child welfare 49 agency culture and practice, and findings on outcomes—supports the idea that children’s prospects for adoption and guardianship improved to some degree following ASFA” (p.

32). This success can be hinted upon by the fact that there are now around 400,000 foster children in the United States, which is an approximate 20% decrease from where it had been at the introduction of AFSA (Children’s Bureau, 2011; Shin, 2012).

While this decrease was laudable, there remained the more than 400,000 children still in foster care, including approximately 20,000 who age out of the system every year often into unfortunate circumstances (Schelbe, 2011). The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) made the Independent Living Program (1986) into a viable program by doubling the funding, expanding the scope of service, and requiring states to provide the service (Guinn, 2000; Collins, 2001; Hill, 2009). Among the scope expansion was the option for States to extend the Medicaid benefits to the aging-out population (English &

Grasso, 2000), as well as “services targeting secondary and post-secondary education and training, career exploration, job placement and retention, financial management and budgeting, daily living skills, substance abuse prevention, skills related to obtaining and keeping affordable housing, health-related services and education, and development of interpersonal relationship skills and linkages to mentors” (Okpych, 2015, p. 74). FCIA was the first piece of legislation to adequately address the transition gap that for most young adults is managed and supported via biological parents.

The most current piece of legislation dealing directly with the issue of foster care is the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. It has allowed States the option to “provide kinship guardianship assistance payments; create an 50 option to extend eligibility for title IV-E [of the Social Security Act] foster care, adoption assistance and kinship guardianship payments to age 21; de-link adoption assistance from

Aid to Families with Dependent Children…and provide Federally-recognized Indian

Tribes…the option to operate a title IV-E program” (Children’s Bureau, 2013). An interesting and constructive provision of the law has state agencies “developing a personalized transition plan” 90 days prior to aging out, a plan that Shin (2009) described through a reference to the Fostering Connections website, “the plan should include

‘specific options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors, and workforce support and employment services’” (p. 145). All of the aforementioned inclusions are themselves “connections” and at the very heart of the law. The name of the law, in some ways, masks its purpose by utilizing the double meaning of the word,

“foster” – in addition to providing for those in foster care, it also seeks to cultivate or

“foster” connections and the interdependence that Schelbe (2011) insisted is the key to a successful start to adulthood.

Other Relevant Legislation

Other important legislation for the purposes of this paper includes laws related to individuals with disabilities and laws related to education. Children with disabilities are significantly represented in foster care populations, with estimates of the prevalence running from 50-80% (Hill, 2009, p. 5) to 30-45% (Stanley, 2012, p. 190). The United

States first codified explicit educational obligations to individuals with disabilities in

1975 with the Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA), with subsequent and significant revisions occurring in 1983, 1990 (which would reframe the legislation as the 51

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA), 1997, and 2004, which would rename the act to “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act” (U.S.

Department of Education, 2010). This law and associated amendments “mandate special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21,” as well as “provide specific direction” for the administration of these services (Hill, 2009, p. 10). This

“specific direction” comes in the form of IDEA’s six primary principles of zero reject, protection in evaluation, free appropriate public education, least restrictive environment, procedural safeguards, and parental participation (Yell, 2006). IDEA also mandates that all individuals involved in the education of a student with disabilities convene annually to produce or revise an Individual Education Plan (IEP) (Lo, 2012). Individuals included in the IEP can include, “but is not limited to, parents/guardians, special education teachers, general education teachers…paraprofessionals, service providers, and, as appropriate, the student with disabilities” (Lo, 2012, p. 15). Geenen and Powers (2006) discussed that for foster children with disabilities the creation of the IEP can be especially problematic and/or ineffective, issues which will be discussed later. As a significant number of foster children are diagnosed with having disabilities, their education is shaped by IDEA’s stipulations and the Individualized Education Plan process.

Finally, recent education law changes have likewise changed the landscape that needs negotiated by the population of students in the foster care system. Of particular import is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which empowers parents and guardians with the right to be informed about school options, as well as the ability to then make a decision as to where to send their student (Aske, Connolly, & Corman, 2013). 52

Aske, Connolly, and Corman (2013) argued that the “most far-reaching impacts of

NCLB…are the Federal mandates to state governments regarding: the assessment of student achievement through standardized testing (assessment); the provision of information regarding student/school performance (accountability)” and the aforementioned issue of school choice (p. 110). This law was then followed by the Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which “ensures opportunity for every child, expands support for schools, teachers, and principals, and preserves accountability for the progress of all students” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The specifics of such an overhaul are not a concern of this inquiry, but the effects of a volatile national education policy would impact the foster care system including the foster children themselves.

There are no known federal laws that have been written to solely address the education of foster children, although a few recent laws contain provisions or amendments that do specifically address some of the challenges faced by foster children.

In recognition of this, the Department of Education (2014) now lists “Students in Foster

Care” as an “Initiative” and hosts an information page on the topic, citing that “a positive

PK-12 education experience has the potential to be a powerful counterweight to the abuse, neglect, separation, impermanence and other barriers these vulnerable students experience.” Some of the major issues discussed on this page include information sharing and educational stability. As discussed in a May 27, 2014 letter from the

Department of Education Chief Privacy Officer to Chief State School Officers, the

Uninterrupted Scholars Act (USA) amends the Family Educational Rights and Privacy

Act (FERPA) by permitting “educational agencies and institutions to disclose a student’s 53 education records, without parental consent” to a foster child’s State foster care representative, as well as allowing for a similar disclosure to a judicial order “in specified types of judicial proceedings in which a parent is involved” (Styles & Yudin, p. 1). A similar letter, dated May 30, 2014, from the Assistant Secretary of Education to Chief

State School Officers and Child Welfare Directors, discusses that provisions in the

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act direct that a plan is to be produced to address the “educational stability” of each child including assurances that the

“appropriateness of the current educational setting and the proximity to the school” are considered as well as allowing the child to “remain in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of each placement” or “enroll the child immediately in a new school, with all of his or her educational records provided to the school” (p. 1). Both of these legal stipulations have been emplaced to improve the educational services provided to a foster child.

It should be noted, though it will not be thoroughly covered, that some individual states do have laws that specifically address the issue of educating foster children.

California, for instance, initiated Assembly Bill 490 in 2003, addressing some of the unique challenges faced by foster children, including school stability, timely transfer of records, grade and credit protections, and participation in sports and activities (California

Foster Youth Task Force, 2010). This inclusive and progressive bill was followed up in

2009 by Assembly Bill 167 which “exempts pupils in foster care from local graduation requirements under certain conditions” (California Foster Youth Task Force, 2010, p. 7).

A less progressive and more reactive example of a state law is New Jersey’s 2010 54

Education Stability Law which was passed in response to the requirements laid out in the

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (State of New Jersey

Department of Education, 2010; Bernard-Rance & Parello, 2014). States have the opportunity to either be legislatively proactive or reactive in their support of the education of foster children as evidenced by these two examples.

That there are so many State and Federal laws addressing, directly or indirectly through provision or amendment, the issues of foster children and the education of the same is an indication of the scope of the problem. Throughout the past four decades, specifically from 1975-2015, the scope of the problem has usually and most easily been represented by stating the number of foster children as a number in the hundreds of thousands (U.S. House of Representatives, 1976; Thomas, 1977; Bass, Shields, &

Behrman, 2004; Lips, 2007; Antoine & Fisher, 2006; Zetlin, 2006; Zetlin, Weinberg, &

Shea, 2010; Shin, 2012; Swick, 2007). In 1975, the Children’s Bureau established their first National Action for Foster Children survey that would eventually evolve into an annual report of foster care statistics to provide these figures (Children’s Bureau, 1975).

The Bureau, like a significant portion of researchers, agencies, and governmental offices, began this report with a statement regarding the scope, which is that there are “more than

350,000 children in foster family care” (Children’s Bureau, 1975, p. 5). This numerical introduction would come to set a trend in the literature of foster care, but more importantly advances in data collection systems would presumably make the aggregation of data regarding this topic possible. As previously mentioned, the 1975 survey would eventually result in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 55

(AFCARS) that would provide the data as presented in Table 3.1. The AFCARS data exhibits dynamic ebb and flow of youth in foster care that does not follow the consistent increase in population.

Table 2.1.

Comparisons of U.S. Populations to Number of Foster Children

Year U.S. Pop.a,b Foster Year U.S. Pop.a,b Foster

Childrenc Childrenc

1980 227,224,681 303,443 1998 270,248,003 559,000 1981 229,465,714 N/A 1999 272,690,813 567,000 1982 231,664,458 272,042 2000 282,162,411 552,000 1983 233,791,994 259,357 2001 284,968,955 545,000 1984 235,824,902 266,531 2002 287,625,193 533,000 1985 237,923,795 276,266 2003 290,107,933 520,000 1986 240,132,887 281,049 2004 292,805,298 517,000 1987 242,288,918 300,428 2005 295,516,599 513,000 1988 244,498,982 344,117 2006 298,379,912 510,000 1989 246,819,230 382,552 2007 301,231,207 491,000 1990 249,464,396 405,743 2008 304,093,966 463,000 1991 252,153,092 423,283 2009 306,771,529 418,672 1992 255,029,699 433,438 2010 309,330,219 404,878 1993 257,782,608 444,168 2011 311,591,917 397,827 1994 260,327,021 465,820 2012 313,873,685 396,892 1995 262,803,276 N/A 2013 316,128,839 402,378 1996 265,228,572 N/A 1997 267,783,607 N/A Note. a Census Bureau, 2015. b Children’s Bureau, 2015. c Administration for Children & Families Archives, 2015.

Foster Children Bills of Rights

The Children’s Bureau survey of 1975 also included a Bill of Rights for Foster

Children that was ratified in Congress Hall, Philadelphia on April 28, 1973, by the

Chairman of the National Action for Children Committee, another member of the same, 56 and the Associate Chief of the Children’s Bureau. This seemingly important document, its intent, and its influence all appear to have gone unnoticed by both academia and society at large, as it goes generally unmentioned in the literature and can be found only as an obscure reference within the larger public information framework. The spirit of the document would catch on, but not for another quarter century, if not longer, within the individual states. Table 3.2 depicts the States which have passed such a bill of rights as of this writing. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures “Foster

Children’s Bill of Rights have been enacted in 15 states and Puerto Rico…” and

“…during the 2014 legislative session, ten states introduced fifteen bills either seeking to enact a bill of rights or otherwise extending or defining the rights…” (2015). These documents vary in focus with some exceptional variations, such as the focus on education of Missouri (“Foster Care Education Bill of Rights”) and the focus on Siblings Rights

(Massachusetts and Connecticut), but all the bills have unifying themes.

The themes are fairly consistent, guaranteeing rights to basic necessities, access to the bureaucratic parties involved in their case, access to advocacy, access to information regarding their case, access to involved family, including parents and siblings, and general awareness of these selfsame rights. There are a number of considerations that are not thematic, but are clearly representative of the special status of a foster child and can likely be linked to a general or specific systemic malaise that has historical precedence.

Arizona grants the child the right “to be free of unnecessary or excessive medication”

(Arizona Rev. Stat. §8-529-18, 2009). Rhode Island places emphasis on the posting (“in a conspicuous place”) and written agreement of the bill by parties and institutions 57 involved in the care of the child (Rhode Island Gen. L § 42-72-15, 2012, k-l). Colorado provides the right to “[be] free from being abandoned or locked in a room” and gives specific “protection against identity theft” (Colorado Revised Statute § 19-7-101-k &

§19-7-102, 2015). Florida gives foster children the right “to be placed away from other children known to possess a threat of harm to them, either because of their own risk factors or those of the other child” (Florida Statutes, Title V, §39.4085.9, 2015).

Pennsylvania attempts to provide for cultural relevancy with “an environment that maintains and reflects the child’s culture as may be reasonably accommodated.”

(Pennsylvania, P.L. 1264.19.67.3.12, 2010)

These bills of rights frequently make reference to the phenomena of aging out or what is essentially the post-foster-care era of a person’s life. Massachusetts stipulates that the child “shall receive assistance in acquiring life skills, education, training and career guidance…” (Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services,

2015). Delaware stipulates that foster children will “receive independent living services and supports beginning at age 16…” but with the caveats of “…if eligible and if resources are available” (Delaware Code §2522, 2015). Hawaii specifies that these services be provided starting “…at age twelve…” (§587A-3.10, 2010). California and

Colorado provide for an “emancipation bank account” in preparation for this time

(California Welfare and Institutions Code, §16001.9.11, 2003; Colorado Revised Statute,

§19-7-101, 2015). The lack of both legislative support and funding for these initiatives is both a systemic failing and major problem for foster children and will be explored later.

Table 2.2.

Introduction of Foster Child Bill of Rights per State and Territory

State Yeara State Yeara

Arizona 2009 Nevada 2011

Arkansas 2005 New Jersey 2013

California 2003 North Carolina 2013

Colorado 2011 Oregon 2013

Connecticut 2014 Pennsylvania 2010

Delaware 2015 Puerto Rico 2011

Florida 2015 Rhode Island 2012

Hawaii 2010 South Carolina 2014

Massachusetts 2012 Texas 2011

Missouri 2009

Note. a National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015.

When contrasted, the original national Bill of Rights for Foster Children presents a more idealized vision of the foster experience, as opposed to its more modern and experienced counterparts. The version from 1973, published in 1975, provides “every foster child” with the . . .

. . . inherent right…to be cherished by a family of his own…to be nurtured by

foster parents who have been selected to meet his individual needs…to receive

sensitive, continuing help…to receive continuing loving care and respect as a 59

unique human being…to grow up in freedom and dignity… (Children’s Bureau,

p.1)

The language expressed in this document is reminiscent of the idealistic language that will eventually formulate within the United Nation’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. This document directs “State Parties” on the manner in which they will educate children, focusing on “the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential…respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…” as well as having respect “…for civilizations different from his or her own…” and “prepar[ing]…the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin…” and finally, “the development of respect for the natural environment” (Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989, Article 29.1). The language written into current foster children’s bills of rights exhibits language and concepts that are far more mundane and utilitarian, exhibiting a maturity that may now be replete within institutions charged with the welfare of orphans. Arizona mandates “…clothing that fits comfortably…”

(Arizona Revised Statue, §8-529, 2009), Pennsylvania requires “proper nourishment”

(Pennsylvania Public Law 1264.19.67, 2010), North Carolina provides “participation in school extracurricular activities…” (North Carolina General Statute §131D-10.1, 2013),

California commands the provision of “…storage space for private use” (California

Statute §16001.9.18, 2003), while Delaware mandates “…water, food, shelter, and clothing…[and]…to be free from abuse or neglect” (Delaware Code §2522, 2015). The 60 language may be indicative of a civilization which is experienced, mature, knowledgeable, and disillusioned as to what is possible and what is unacceptable when it comes to the management of orphans.

Congregate Care

These bills of rights are intended to serve children who are involved in the child welfare system, formerly referred to as orphans and now frequently referred to as foster children. There are essentially three paradigms of care that are in use today to serve this population. The first two, orphanages and foster care, have already been introduced. The third, congregate care, is different from the other two in its desirability and the general transience of an already transient population. Congregate care can be defined as:

a non-family placement where a large number of children receive specialized care

and/or treatment. Congregate care facilities include diagnostic and assessment

centers, group homes, and residential treatment centers. Emergency shelters are

also considered a form of congregate care, by they do not provide any therapeutic

services and are normally used when no other placement can be found.

(Children’s Rights, 2011, p. X)

Metaphorically, and speaking from a consensus within the literature, congregate care can be likened to a high school study hall where anyone without a place to go is sent.

The collective aversion towards congregate care is found throughout the literature. Lee et al. (2011) provided a summary of the literature, stating that “the preponderance of findings certainly do not favor group care…” (p. 187). The Children’s

Rights publication cited above is entitled, What works in child welfare reform: Reducing 61 reliance on congregate care in Tennessee, and notes that “…social science research has documented that in many circumstances, children placed in foster homes have better outcomes than children placed in group settings…” (2011). This assessment is shared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, “No research proves that children fare better in congregate facilities than family care and some studies have shown the outcomes are worse,” in their publication Rightsizing congregate care (2010, p. 1). The Children’s

Bureau takes a more diplomatic approach, stating, “Although there is an appropriate role for congregate care placements in the continuum of foster care settings, there is consensus across multiple stakeholders that most children and youth, but especially young children, are best served in a family setting” (2015, p. i). This finding is echoed by Harden (2002), who noted, “The study documented that children reared in foster family homes fared better than their group reared counterparts…” (p. 476). The Youth

Law Center (2012), on their webpage on Alternative to/Reducing Congregate Care, is more direct, stating that the “YLC has long worked to eliminate inappropriate uses of congregate care for children in out-of-home care.” As of this writing, the role of congregate care is being actively reduced by the California legislature which recently passed a bill that “…move[s] the care away from congregate care, group homes, and into more individualized care” (Orr, 2015, p. ?). The aversion to congregate care is such that there are multiple organizations actively working to reduce its footprint within the foster care framework.

The disadvantages responsible for this aversion for congregate care are readily found. One of the major contentions listed within the literature is a repeated reference to 62 what the Youth Law Center (2012) called “inappropriate uses,” as well as stay duration.

The Children Bureau’s publication (2015), A national look at the use of congregate care in child welfare, reports that almost a quarter of children entering congregate care will stay longer than a year (24.1% Age 12 and Younger; 23.5% Age 13 and Older), while around 40% will stay 6 months or longer (38.3% and 46.6%, respectively) and that

“…children spend an average of 8 months in congregate care” (p. 6). This contradicts the assessment of Berrick, Barth, Needell, and Jonson-Reid (1997) who report “…that group care is best used sparingly…” (p. 258). In Bass, Shields, and Behrman’s publication,

Children, families, and foster care, they presented the perspective of older foster children who may be especially under-served by congregate care:

Older children are less likely to live in a foster family and more likely to live in

congregate care such as a group home. However, the group home experience can

be difficult for older youth. Like their younger counterparts, older youth crave

the stability and nurturance a family environment can provide. They may

perceive placement in a group home as a form of punishment. (Bass, Shields, &

Behrman, 2004, p. 12)

The ability to provide independent learning services, including training, job placement, and credential preparation for these older youth, is questioned by interviewed “judges, law guardians, social workers, and advocates” in Freundlich and Avery’s (2006) study of transitioning youth. This group of interested parties were “…significantly more negative in their assessments of current efforts to prepare youth in congregate care for independent living, and they were more likely to attribute the weaknesses in these programs to 63 programmatic issues…” (Freundlich & Avery, 2006, p. 510). These disadvantages are concerned with both the duration of the stay versus the intent for this duration and the efficacy of the offered programs.

A more detrimental disadvantage is the proposal that group care causes iatrogenic effects, or deleterious effects, which are caused by the actual care or treatment – in this case, congregant care itself. McCrae, Lee, Barth, and Rauktis (2010) discussed,

“Government Accountability Office (2007, 2008) reports on abuses…” which are cause for concern from a mere safety and security standpoint. McCrae et al. (2010) went on to discuss negative peer effects resulting from group care settings, a topic on which Lee,

Bright, Svoboda, Fakunmoju, and Barth (2011) elaborated upon:

One especially salient component of the debate over group care is the role of peer

interactions and whether youth who are placed with other troubled youth are

likely to improve. …the idea of negative peer contagion – that the negative

influence of peers counteracts any positive effects of a group-based intervention –

has been raised as an objection to group care placements and as a rationale for

suggesting that they may be iatrogenic (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999; Gatti,

Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009). (p. 178)

Lee et al. (2011) noted, however, that such research is currently limited to the general population and not specifically to the congregant-care population. Dodge, Dishion, and

Lansford (2006) identified the “placement into deviant groups is the most common and most costly of all public policy responses to deviant behavior by a child” (p. 3). The 64 aggregation of deviant or troubled youth is analogous to attempting reformation of criminals through collective housing in prisons.

A far simpler disadvantage that must be carefully considered by governments is the issue of cost. Quotes regarding the size of the disparity between the costs associated with congregate care versus that of foster-family placement are varied, but there is a consensus that the disparity is considerable (Fisher & Gilliam, 2012; Children’s Rights,

2011; McCrae et al., 2010; Casey Foundation, 2009; Barth, 2005). The Casey

Foundation (2009), an organization heavily involved in the placement of foster youth, quoted that “…institutional placements are three to five times the cost of family-based placements” (p. 1). Children’s Rights (2011), another organization heavily involved in the same, expands the scope of the exponential-cost disparity, citing a study by Barth

(2002) which “…estimate[ed] that congregate care can cost public child welfare systems between two and 10 times as much as family placements” (p. 4). McCrae et al. (2010) stated simply that “…it is the most expensive form of care for children and adolescents…” citing a 2005 study by Helgerson, Martinovich, Durkin, and Lyons (p.

245). In an examination of a contemporarily innovative government program called, Safe

Homes, Barth (2005) declared that “the costs of such shelter programs are…prohibitive,” citing studies that report that “…the care is typically far more expensive and less beneficial (Hoagwood, Burns, Kiser, Ringeisen, & Schoenwald, 2001)” and that “the money could be more effectively spent in providing training and support for foster caregivers (Chamberlain, 2003)” (p. 624). While the basic theory of economies of scale 65 suggests that congregate care would be cost-effective, the literature resoundingly refutes this.

While the lack of cost-effectiveness of congregate care may be a categorical fact, individual congregate-care facilities still refute this, such as Youth Villages (2015) which claims that its Evidentiary Family Restoration® approach “…produces lasting success for children with success rates twice that of traditional services at one-third the cost of traditional care.” (p. 1) Unfortunately, the lack of a definition of traditional care keeps the reader uninformed as to whether this is in reference to foster-family care or more traditional congregate care. If the former is the case, than this clearly is an instance that refutes conventional wisdom; however, if the latter is the case, then the Youth Villages cost could still fall within the 2-10 times range quoted above and yet still cost a third of comparative organizations.

In spite of the generally pessimistic consensus held regarding the use of congregate care, its necessity as an option seems to be widely accepted, with no single author calling for its complete eradication. Children’s Rights (2011) allowed,

“Sometimes, however, a child needs more intensive treatment or supervision than even a treatment foster home can provide. Under such circumstances, it may be necessary to place him or her in a congregate care setting…” (p. 4). In Rightsizing congregate care, the Casey Foundation (2010) argues that “reducing a system’s reliance on congregate care had significant benefits for children and families” (p. 1), which is a sentiment in line with the Youth Law Center’s (2012) page on the “Alternatives to/Reducing congregate care”, which professes to “work to eliminate inappropriate uses of congregate care…” 66

(emphasis added). Such a reduction appears to be occurring nationally, as the Children’s

Bureau (2015) reports that “congregate care use is decreasing at a greater rate than the overall foster care population…” (p. 5). In reviewing the case studies presented by Shirk and Stangler’s (2004) in their book, On their own: What happens to kids when they age out of the foster care system?, all eight cases heavily relied on the use of this congregate care in order to avoid homelessness. The use was primarily intended as a stop gap, but frequently the youth involved intentionally maximized the length of stay – without a better option, the youth unintentionally created the situation which the literature finds undesirable: longer stays (Shirk & Stangler, 2004). Baker and Calderon (2004) portrayed congregate care, especially group homes, as an important, integral, and enabling step to getting children to the lowest level of care possible as dictated by child welfare. They portray group homes as serving “a unique role in the continuum of care” by providing an

“intermediate level of care” between residential treatment centers and foster homes (p.

52). Whereas the majority of scholars believe congregate care should be minimized, there are also strong suggestions as to its necessary role.

While the ideal situation professed by most entities presented in this section are family-based placements (Children’s Bureau, 2015; Youth Law Center, 2012; Children’s

Rights, 2011; Casey Foundation, 2010), a considerable number of youth still reside within congregate-care settings, including 14% percent of the foster-care population in

2013 (Children’s Bureau, 2015). Given the literature’s general institutional hostility towards this care option, it might be expected that group homes, emergency shelters, and residential treatment centers are less than transparent about their mission. But two 67 congregate-care organizations provided a very public defense of their work and their results, in contrast to the bulk of the literature. Youth Homes is based out of Western

Montana and provides shelter care, long-term group homes, therapeutic group homes, and transitional housing (YouthHomesMT.org, 2015). The program was founded in the

1970s and grew in response to need. Youth Villages is based mostly out of the East

Coast, and the South providing similar services (YouthVillages.com, 2015). Both websites present pictures of smiling, presumably happy, young adults, discuss a wide array of social services related to the same, and describe their mission in similar language: “Youth Villages’ residential treatment programs serve boys and girls with serious to severe emotional and behavioral problems combined with other needs,” (Youth

Villages, 2015) and “Youth Homes cares for children who are facing abuse, neglect, emotional trauma and substance abuse problems.” (Youth Homes, 2015) The stated objectives are equally similar: “Our goal is to return children to a less restrictive environment to continue their progress through intensive in-home services, with their family when possible, or therapeutic foster care when it is not” (Youth Villages, 2015), and “The mission of Youth Homes is ‘to help every youth feel safe, have a sense of belonging and find a place to call home’” (Youth Homes, 2015). In neither instance does the organization purport to be a permanent solution for youth, both organizations claiming a transitional role for youth who face significant problem or disadvantage.

Youth Villages is especially self-promotional, citing positive reviews from the

Harvard Business School, U.S. News & World Report, and the White House, going so far as to provide an unattributed quote of it being named as, “One of the nation’s most 68 promising results-oriented nonprofits” (YouthVillages, 2015). In a recent study funded by the Edna McConnell Clark, Annie E. Casey, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations and accomplished by the MDRC (“Building knowledge to improve social policy”) organization, the Youth Villages’ program YVLifeSet provided a rare instance of efficacy in programs of its kind (MDRC, 2015; Valentine, Skemer, & Courtney, 2015).

This program “is intended to help youth make the transition to adulthood by providing intensive, individualized, and clinically focused case management, support, and counseling,” (Valentine, et al., 2015, ES-1) and is essentially accomplished by pairing youth with “specialists on call 24/7” (Youth Villages, 2015). The study found that

YVListSet: “improved outcomes in three of the six domains that it was designed to affect…boosted earnings, increased housing stability and economic well-being, and improved some outcomes related to health and safety” (Valentine et al., 2015, p. iii).

Gordon Berlin, the President of MRDC, articulates the significance of these findings:

These findings stand out because few other programs for this population have

been shown to be effective. The research evidence on programs designed to

improve outcomes for these youth shows that it is extremely difficult to make a

positive impact on their lives. While some programs have been shown to affect

one area, it is rare when a program improves young people’s well-being across a

wide range of outcomes. (Valentine et al., 2015, p. ix)

While congregant care may not be ideal from an academic standpoint, it is accepted as necessary and has the appearance of being an integral part in creating optimal solutions for this population as evidenced above. 69

Treatment Foster Care

A more specialized form of foster care is treatment foster care (TFC), interchangeably known as therapeutic foster care, therapy foster care, or multidimensional foster care (Children’s Bureau, 2015; Foster Family-based Treatment

Association, 2008). According to the Children’s Bureau (2015), TFC is “out-of-home care by foster parents with specialized training to care for a wide variety of children and adolescents, usually those with significant emotional, behavioral, or social issues or medical needs.” The Foster Family-based Treatment Association (2008) offers a different definition, defining TFC as “…a distinct, powerful, and unique model of care that provides children with a combination of the best elements of traditional foster care and residential treatment centers” (p. 6). In 2005, Hussey and Guo further noted that,

“Despite the lack of definitional clarity, treatment foster care has become one of the fastest growing treatment programs for children (Hudson, Nutter, and Galway, 1992)” (p.

486). In addition to working with the involved foster children, TFC distinguishes itself by providing specialized training to the “carefully selected” (Dore & Mullin, 2006, p.

477) foster parents, elevating them to the level of “paraprofessional” and further providing them with “additional supports and services” (Chamberlain, 2003, p. 311;

Children’s Bureau, 2015). Hawkins, Meadowcroft, Trout, and Luster (1985) named this

“emphasis on the ‘professional’ parent as the main ‘agent of treatment’” as “the most unique feature” of this care paradigm (p. 221), referring to them as “treatment parents”

(p. 220). Hawkins and Breiling (1989) listed those most frequently served in TFCs, although in possibly antiquated terminology: “the [mentally handicapped], the 70 moderately disturbed or disturbing, the severely disturbed or disturbing, the delinquent, and even the medically fragile” (p. 5). Treatment Foster Care now exists as a distinct feature of the foster childcare continuum.

Treatment Foster Care made its introduction into the child welfare continuum in the early to mid-1980s as a response to the trend of deinstitutionalization, and started to attract academic inquiry shortly thereafter (Hawkins, Meadowcroft, Trout, & Luster,

1985; Trunzo, Bishop-Fitzpatrick, Strickler, & Doncaster, 2012; FFTA, 2015). It has since been maintained as an umbrella paradigm covering a wide spectrum of various programs, but has also led to the development of specific models, including the Pressley

Ridge Treatment Foster Care model and the Oregon Multidimensional Treatment Foster

Care model (Trunzo et al., 2012; Chamberlain, 2003). While both models are centered around children with intensive needs and paraprofessional foster parents, the Pressley

Ridge model is “deeply grounded in Nicholas Hobb’s philosophy of Re-Education (1964,

1966, 1969, 1982)” and “…provide[s] intensive, effective, and shorter term treatment to children with emotional and behavior problems (Hawkins et al., 1985; Meadowcroft &

Trout, 1990).” (Trunzo et al., 2012, p. 23) The philosophy of re-education as reduced by

Cantrell and Cantrell (2007) and presented by Trunzo et al. (2012) is founded in 12, pragmatic principles (See Figure 2.1). It is further explained in a series of contrasts, including emphasizing health over illness, “teaching rather than treatment, learning rather than fundamental personality re-organization, and the operation of the total social system…rather than intra-psychic-processes exclusively” (Trunzo et al., 2012, p. 23).

Hawkins et al. (1985) labeled the Pressley Ridge model as a “viable treatment alternative 71 to institutionalization for extremely difficult to treat youths” (p. 220). The Pressley

Ridge model of Treatment Foster Care has existed for over 30 years to date, although the empirical evidence of its efficacy is nearly as old (Hawkins et al., 1985), a gap in the literature identified by Trunzo et al. (2012).

Figure 2.1. The 12 Principles of Re-Education based in the philosophy of Hobbs’ (1964, 1966, 1969, 1982) as presented by Cantrell & Cantrell (2007) intended to be a guide for the practice of treatment foster care.

The second specific model found within the overarching TFC paradigm is that of the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). MTFC was originally developed in Oregon (and is sometimes referred to as “The Oregon Multidimensional Treatment

Foster Care model”) during the same period that produced both TFC and the Pressley 72

Ridge model (Chamberlain, 2003; Fisher & Gilliam, 2012). Originally developed to handle the adolescents with “severe and chronic problems with delinquency” from the

Oregon State Training Schools, MTFC has since “been successfully implemented at over

50 sites in the United States as well as at over 15 sites in England, and 20 sites in

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and elsewhere in Europe” (Chamberlain,

2003, p. 303; Fisher & Gilliam, 2012, p. 197). That MTFC is a dichotomous model is agreed upon by scholars, although there are differing presentations of these two parts.

Westermark, Hansson, and Olsson (2011), researchers from Sweden and Denmark, note that the model is “based on social learning and family system theories” before mentioning its “two main goals: to decrease deviant behavior and to increase pro-social behavior” (p. 27). Chamberlain (2003) listed as the founder of Multidimensional

Treatment Foster Care on the Oregon Social Learning Center website (2015), describes the dichotomy thusly:

…to create supports and opportunities for children and adolescents so they can

have a successful community living experience and to prepare their parents,

relatives, or other aftercare placement resources to use skills and methods that

will allow youngsters to maintain the gains they made while in MTFC once they

return home. (p. 304)

Fisher and Gilliam (2012) referenced work from the 1980s to further expound on the latter aim of focusing on the prevention of certain parenting practices “found to be highly predictive of child and adolescent problem behavior (Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Patterson,

Dishion, & Bank, 1984),” including, “…the use of harsh and inconsistent discipline, lack 73 of positive reinforcement for prosocial behaviors, and failure to adequately monitor and supervise a child, both in the home and in the larger community… (Patterson & Forgatch,

1987; Forgatch & Patterson, 1989)” (p. 195). Put most simply, MTFC takes TFC and further addresses and engages the original caregiver or guardian, in addition to the foster parent(s), thereby making it multidimensional.

The efficacy of MTFC has been found to be positive. Westermark et al. (2011) affirmed this, though in a Swedish context. Fisher and Gilliam (2012) declare that it is a

“positive alternative” to “residential care for children and adolescents with severe behavior problems and/or juvenile delinquency…” (p. 201). Chamberlain (2003) noted that “the MTFC model is fairly complex, and a number of key functions and staff roles must be well coordinated to run well” (p. 311). This remark may be something of a disclaimer, suggesting that a poorly operated MTFC program will produce poor results, whereas the well-functioning program will produce the opposite. The idea that a model should not necessarily be judged by its application is obviously a wise sentiment for researchers to retain, for a poor application produces a poor representation.

The efficacy of treatment foster care overall is uncertain, which, considering the multitude of variables contained within this approach to care, is not surprising. Robst,

Armstrong, and Dollard (2011) summarized these “contradictory findings”, noting that whereas studies by Chamberlain and Chamberlain and Reid (1990, 1998) reported better outcomes when compared with treatment group care, Lee and Thompson (2008) found the opposite. Robst et al. (2011) closes with a note that the study by McCrae et al. (2010) 74 found no significant difference between the two. This divergence of findings is further exacerbated by the aforementioned drought of research on the topic (Trunzo et al., 2012).

Foster Parents

The current population of foster parents was a peripheral concern for this study and therefore received only a cursory examination. This peripheral concern is fortunate because the literature and data regarding foster parents is scant. King, Kraemer, Bernard, and Vidourek (2007) discuss the difficulties had in examining this population:

…our study resulted in a 38% response rate of foster parents. While a larger

response rate would have been ideal, it should be acknowledged that foster

parents represent a challenging population from which to acquire survey data.

Our study is one of the few studies to achieve greater than a one-third response

rate among this population. (p. 613)

Mennen and Trickett (2011) concurred with this assessment, stating that “…much of the previous research suffers from small samples, non-standardized measures, failure to account for kin versus non-kin foster parents, lack of comparison groups, and almost no longitudinal research” (p. 261). While the literature has been found to be deficient, there are nevertheless findings which deserve a brief review.

Included in these findings are the generally negative reviews of kin caregivers.

Mennen and Trickett (2011) summarized these findings, noting that “kinship foster mothers are more likely to endorse harsh discipline methods…,” “…reported more parent/child anger, less warmth/respect, and more strictness/overprotectiveness,” had 75

“lower levels of empathy,” and therefore view the “children in their care as less distressed and less affected by their maltreatment experience…” (p. 261).

Critelli (2008) provided a number of insights, including the “little-acknowledged fact…that significant numbers of foster parents…receive TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families],” as well as the following perspective on foster mothers:

Foster mothers are essentially considered volunteers and board rates for foster

care are calculated to cover only the costs of the children’s upkeep without

remuneration for the foster parents. In addition, in New York foster parents are

required to document that they have financial means of their own. Fostering

children is seen as naturally extending women’s roles as nurturers and caretakers

(Meyer, 1985; Miller, 1991) and is based on the notion that caregiving should

come from the heart, embracing self-sacrifice and eschewing monetary reward

(Wozniak, 2002; Zelitzer, 1995). (p. 8)

Critelli (2008) suggested that foster mothers especially suffer from both gender stereotyping and a societal assumption that women will foster parent for intrinsic merit and reward. While the literature regarding foster parents is lacking, especially in terms of basic demographics, it provides a small few considerations, including the efficacy of kin caregivers, possible social welfare dependence, and the effect of gender stereotypes. Of all the areas covered in this paper, the literature regarding foster parents appears to be the least available. 76

Adoption from Foster Care

Given the problematic nature of foster care – Zill (2011b) states bluntly that “we know that foster care is not good for children” (p. 2), Argys and Duncan (2013) noted a

“consensus that long-term foster care should be avoided” (p. 936), and Wildemann and

Emanuel (2014) stated that “foster care is among the most tragic events that a child can experience” (p. 1)– adoption is frequently posited as the natural solution to serve as the panacea for all facets of this societal problem. Considering the literature as a whole, adoption certainly is a step forward, but is not without its own set of problems and limitations. Adoption out of foster care is currently a topic given a great deal of consideration, both in academia and in the legislature, and the wealth of literature reflects that. Several researchers and/or policy analysts point to adoption as a fiscally prudent measure worthy of enhanced cultivation (Zill, 2011a, 2011b; Fixsen, 2006; Barth et al.,

2006). As the foster-care problem only has two solutions for permanency, adoption and reunification, adoption is clearly a matter of the utmost importance. Zill (2011b) summed up the status quo:

Congress has passed a series of laws with provisions aimed at facilitating and

encouraging the adoption of foster children, such as by providing financial

incentives including an income tax credit, subsidized medical care, and regular

support payments for less affluent adoptive parents. There was an initial upward

jump in the annual number of children adopted from foster care following the

passage of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 (ASFA), from a

base-period level of around 28,000 children per year to a level of around 51,000 77

children per year in 2000. Since then, however, the number of children adopted

from foster care has increased only fitfully, and the proportion of foster children

waiting to be adopted who actually are adopted has hovered around 50 percent (p.

2).

While federal legislation produced significant success, the cultivation of this practice has settled into relative stagnation.

The link between foster care and adoption is likely as old as both practices, but the modern link between the two begins with the passage of the Adoption Assistance and

Child Welfare Act (AACWA) of 1980. This law “provided federal funds for monthly adoption subsidies designed to promote adoptions of special needs children and children in foster care” (Buckles, 2012, p. 596). Hansen and Hansen (2006), both professors of economics, expressed their expectation that these subsidies will “encourage more families to choose adoption from foster care”, based upon “the theory of consumer behavior” (p. 562). As suggested, the provision of these subsidies may play an important role in foster/adoptive parents’ decisions to adopt or not to adopt. Buckles (2012) states that the average foster-care payment for a child is $670 per month, while the average subsidy for adoption is $572 per month, or almost a full $100 less. Buckle’s (2012) study found that some foster parents considering adoption may not do so in the absence of adoption subsidy, but the difference between the two payments did not change their willingness. Argys and Duncan (2013) have found that increasing these subsidies, both foster and adoptive, will make taking either step more attractive to prospective parents.

While the 1980 law provided incentives, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 78 provided the legal impetus to “expedit[e] the termination of parental rights and mandated that states move children toward adoption after a relatively brief period of time…” and therefore increase the frequency and likelihood of adoption (Argys & Duncan, 2013, p.

936). Scott, Lee, Harrell, and Smith-West (2013) specified this period of time as holding

“permanency hearings…within 12 months of a child’s entry into foster care and that movement towards termination of parental rights must occur in the second year of foster care” (p. 291). This is one area where federal legislation has successfully moved toward its intended aim.

Adoption from foster care has produced a number of trends. Hanna, Tokarski,

Matera, and Fong (2011) noted that “the majority (72%) of the children…are older than three years at the time of adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2009b),” and that “the average time a child waiting for adoption in the foster care system has spent in continuous foster care is 3.2 years” (pp. 107-108). Maza (2002) estimated that the mean age of foster children waiting to be adopted in 1999 was 7.9 years old (as cited in Hansen & Hansen, 2006). Zill (2011b) presented figures from 2009 citing that

“less than 15 percent of all children in foster care [were] adopted,” although of the

115,000 children for whom the goal of adoption had been established by their respective agency, 57,000 were adopted, a 49.5% adoption rate and certainly an achievement within itself. Somewhat contradicting himself, Zill (2011a) also quoted a 10% adoption from the same data set. Almost half of these adoptions can be at least partly attributable to the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, which saw a near doubling of adoptions out of foster care from its passage to 2000, although the trend has since leveled 79 out with “no clear sustained upward trend” (Zill, 2011b, p. 3). As to the adoptive parents,

Tyebjee (2003) found that the general public was more inclined to view adoption favorably (over 90%) as compared to foster care (60%), while 55% of respondents expressed a willingness to adopt a child, whereas only 36% were willing to provide foster care. In the public mind, adoption is believed to be far more positive and desirable.

Motivations given for admitting a child into one’s life are primarily child-centric, including the desire to “make a difference in a child’s life, to provide a child with a positive family experience, or because there are so many children in need” (Tyebjee,

2003, p. 701). Lesser motivations include the effect on the adoptive parent, including

“adding meaning to life, fulfilling religious or spiritual beliefs about providing for children, or becoming a parent or continuing to be a parent” (p. 701). Least of motivations were environmental factors such as possessing “adequate financial resources or not being able to bear children” (p. 701).

Whenever adopting, whether directly from a birth mother, internationally, or out of foster care, adoptive parents are faced with a litany of challenges. Disillusionment may be foremost among them; and from 1970 to 1985 adoptive parents were especially susceptible as they tended to be more idealistic, only transitioning to a more realistic view of this action in ensuing decades (Tyebjee, 2003). What they came to realize is that

“adopting children from foster care is a risky proposition for prospective parents because of possible long-term effects on the child of both the traumatic early experiences they have endured and the detrimental genes they may carry in their DNA” (Zill, 2011a, p. 3).

Waterman et. al, (2013) referenced Lyons & Rittner’s (1998) work on the “crack babies 80 phenomenon” (p. 313) to highlight prospective parental “concerns about the effects of prenatal substance exposure on children’s development” (p. 10). These concerns and realizations are well-founded, as “many of the factors contributing to the difficulties exhibited by adoptees tend to cluster together in children adopted from foster care”

(Waterman et al., 2013, p. 10). Moreover, this may be compounded by a lingering desire of the child: “Regardless of any physical or emotional pain the children experienced in their homes, they most often state that they would prefer to remain with their birth family and that the reattachment and bonding process may be difficult with the new family”

(Hanna et al., 2011, p. 113). This is further compounded by the feelings of loss and abandonment as well as fear of future abandonment and even a sense of rejection (Hanna et al., 2011). On the more practical side, when foster parents adopt their foster children, they may face “significant economic consequences: forfeiting foster care payments while assuming responsibility for medical and educational expenses…,” but this is dependent upon the individual situation and the State in which this is occurring (Argys & Duncan,

2013, p. 934). The adoptive parents of a foster child face a multitude of unique challenges.

For some, the transition from a foster family to an adopted family may be considered the completion of a social service. Unfortunately, for the child it may simply be the beginning of a new and equally arduous challenge. Hanna et al. (2011) stated that

“the journey continues as [the foster child] and their newly formed adoptive families take on the challenges of family formation in the midst of dealing with consequences of the child’s history of trauma, abuse, and neglect” (p. 109). For the adoptive parents, they 81 may be extremely disappointed to learn through experience that their adopted children

“[see] their adoption experience as indistinguishable [emphasis added] from their journey through foster care system” (Hanna et al., 2011, p. 109). This perception dovetails with a finding that “ ‘youth did not have pride in their foster care status, but rather in their survival of it and of their childhoods’ (p. 1209),” essentially depicting their entire childhood, including fosterage and adoption, as an all-inclusive journey of survival

(Samuels & Pryce, 2008, as cited in Hanna et al., 2011, p. 112). What may exacerbate the feeling of survival is that the actual adoption process can be a long road in and of itself. Zill (2011a) noted, “an American family can often complete an international adoption in far less time and with fewer complications than an adoption from foster care”

(p. 3). The adoption may present a multitude of systemic barriers which, fortunately, are not insurmountable.

The above paragraph does not intend to suggest that adoption is undesirable. For the adoption to be considered a success, foster youth measure it “in terms of belonging, having a family, and a better quality of life…”, which varies with each situation (Hanna et al., 2011, p. 112). A study by Triseliotis and Hill (1990) found “that foster children who were adopted by their long-term foster parents experienced increased security, permanence, and a greater sense of belonging after the adoption was finalized (see also

Hansen 2007b)” (as cited in Buckles, 2012, p. 622). Fixsen (2006) cited Hansen (2006) who provides a long list of benefits of a foster child who has been adopted as opposed to being left within the system. These benefits include:

 Educational progress improves by 50% 82

 Referred [to Special Education] half as often

 21% less likely to be suspended or expelled;

 23% more likely to complete GED or high school education

 4% more likely to report being healthy

 20% less likely to be a teen parent

 15% less likely to use and/or abuse alcohol and substances

 200% more likely to receive mental health services

 50% less likely to be arrested

 32% less likely to be incarcerated

 22% more likely to be working

 24% less likely to be unemployed (p. 5)

This list is continued by Zill (2011a) who added that compared to children still in foster care, adopted children are:

 More likely to be living with a mother and father who are legally married to one

another.

 Twice as likely to have at least one parent who is a college graduate.

 Three times as likely to be in a financially-secure household.

 More likely to be living in a safe and supportive neighborhood. (p. 4)

This is an impressive list of benefits with an embedded suggestion that an adult increases their parenting performance when they have a long-term vested interest in a child, for the only change that has occurred is in the legal nature of the relationship. 83

Possibly the most impressive benefit is one which appears to defy the laws of biology. Waterman et al. (2013) examined Pre-placement risk and longitudinal cognitive development for children adopted from foster care and their findings were remarkable.

Normally, “Histories of abuse, neglect, and adverse environmental and economic conditions experienced by many children adopted from foster care have also been found to be associated with lower performance on standardized intelligence tests (Bucker et al.,

2012; Fishbein et al., 2009; Sameroff, 1998); and given “the fact that IQ scores are thought to be quite stable,” it can be presumed that these children will exist perpetually with lower intelligence (Waterman et al., 2013, pp. 11, 24). Yet Waterman et al.’s (2013) study found that:

Across five years for children adopted from foster care, our findings showed

significant growth in cognitive and achievement scores. The results extend

previous finds (e.g. van Ijzendoorn et al., 2005; Vinnerljung & Hjern, 2011) that

children grow in cognitive development when they are placed in stimulating and

nurturing adoptive homes…growth in the first year after the adoptive placements

was striking, with a change of 10 or more points for 37% of the sample, and 15 or

more points for 25% of the sample. While the rate of growth slowed after the first

year, there continued to be positive change in cognitive and achievement scores

over the five years of the study. (p. 24)

These findings mirror studies done on foster-unrelated samples, which found that children adopted from low socio-economic status families and into higher socioeconomic status families between 4 and 6 years of age “showed significant increases in 84

IQ when tested in late adolescence” (Waterman et al., 2013, p. 12). Unfortunately, these improvements did not manifest themselves for children adopted in adolescence (Ornoy et al., 2010, as cited in Waterman et al., 2013). Summarizing the study and its findings,

Waterman et al. (2013) stated that “adoption is a positive intervention for children’s cognitive development, even for children with prenatal substance exposure adopted at older ages from foster care,” and that “not only did children’s score increase significantly, but over the first year in placement, the percentage of children scoring one standard deviation below the mean – usually indicative of significant learning problems – dropped from 41% to 18%” (p. 26). The effect that adoption can have on the brain and cognitive development is both remarkable and encouraging.

Adoption is an ideal end to a foster child’s time within the foster-care system.

“Adoption has a lifelong impact on all members of the adoption triad: the birth family, the adopted family, and the adopted child,” and for the adopted child, this impact has generally proven to be both beneficial and positive (Hanna et al., 2011, p. 128). Zill

(2011a) summarized what adoption is for the foster child and for the public: “…the evidence clearly indicates that adoption can substantially improve the life chances of maltreated children, and that, as a secondary interest to the public, it can do so at considerably less cost than long-term foster care” (p. 6). The federal government has successfully passed and enacted legislation that encourages adoption from foster care as well as expedites it, allowing adoption to be a fiscally attainable and maintainable endeavor. 85

Costs, Funding, and Financial Considerations of Foster Care

As with all things in the public sector, cost is a massive determinant of service, as well as a variable that may or may not periodically change. The previously reviewed legal history of foster care exhibited periodic bursts of funding based upon prevailing social attitudes and the import placed on the fostering of orphans. Such a historical surge can be seen clearly in that “federal expenditures for foster care maintenance payments and administration leapt from $309 million to $3.05 billion” from 1981 to 1995, an 887% increase” (Curtis et al., 1999, p. 130). Zill (2011) reported for 2010 that “Annual state and federal expenditures for foster care total more than nine billion dollars under Title

IV-E of the Social Security Act alone,” or 0.26% of total expenditure for the federal government for that year (p. 2). Curtis et al. (1999) noted that it costs the government

“11 times as much per child to provide foster care” as to provide basic welfare (p. 131).

Again considering the historical fluctuations, the nearly 30% reduction in the foster care population which occurred from the late 1990s to the 2010s not only is a significant social change, but also economic.

The expenditure per child varies by state and time, but can provide some telling evidence as to which practices are fiscally sustainable. Fixsen (2011) reported that the minimum “financial cost for one child to remain in foster care in Oregon for just one year is…$26,600,” then cited Zill (2011) as to the national average of $25,782 (p. 3). Zill

(2011b) directly quoted the maintenance payments cost alone at $19,107 per child per year. In a slightly antiquated, yet relevant study, McKelvey and Stevens (1994) cited data from the State of Washington from 1991, producing annual costs by type of care: 86

“Family preservation, $2,800; Foster family placement, $4,500; Group placement,

$22,400; An episode of acute psychiatric hospitalization, $45,000; Long-term psychiatric treatment, $103,000” (p. 43). In comparison, each successive level of care can either be considered remarkably cost-effective or incredibly exorbitant. Traditional foster care may seem expensive when compared to family preservation, costing nearly double, but appears to be a fiscally prudent measure in the face of congregate care (group placement), costing five times less. In a study examining the fiscal effects of the passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Peters,

Dworsky, Courtney, and Pollack (2009) found that it would cost the State of Illinois an average of $20,800 per year to keep a foster child in the system after age 18 – a cost, they note, which is marginally offset by the $1,826 of public assistance not being drawn by the same individual, though as a foster alumni. Nevertheless, the implied question of the study remained – are the anticipated benefits worth the fiscal cost to government? This quality versus quantity calculus is as present in fosterage as it is in almost anything else.

In the same vein is a recent surge of literature and policy papers examining and comparing the cost savings to be had if adoptions from foster care were to increase.

Consider Zill’s (2011a) paper for the Center on Children and Families, Adoption from foster care: Aiding children while saving public money, which attempts to offer a way to

“lower expenditures and still maintain essential services” (p. 2). Likewise, consider his paper for the National Council for Adoption, more concisely titled, Better prospects, lower cost: The case for increasing foster care adoption (Zill, 2011b). Fixsen’s (2011)

Children in foster care: Societal and financial costs covers the same ground. A 2005 87

Issue Brief out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services entitled How and why the current funding structure fails to meet the needs of the child welfare field, laments the “inflexibility” of the system and further that it “emphasiz[es] foster care”, ultimately noting that the system fails to “speed permanency” (i.e. adoption or reunification), instead remaining within the expensive limbo of foster care (p. 2). Zill

(2011b) contrasted the aforementioned cost per year per child of foster care with that of the “average adoption subsidy cost per child per year [being] $8,435, for children whose adoptive parents received subsidies under Title IV-E” (p. 3). Barth et al. (2006) compared the differing costs between fosterage and adoption, repeatedly showing the cost-savings incurred by actively encouraging adoption. Their study finds that if a cohort of 50,000 children (about an eighth of the foster care population) were adopted at age three, then the cost-savings realized by government would be between “$3,271,100,000 to $6,341,250,000” for the duration of the group’s minority (p. 150). More simply put,

Zill (2011b) estimated that by doubling the current rate of foster-child adoption, the public would realize an annual cost savings of $890 million. Zill (2011b) then enumerated the ways in which adoption would create long-term savings by lowering the poverty rates of formerly fostered children. It takes little imagination to understand and acknowledge the benefits for both child and taxpayer in comparing adoption to fosterage.

Adoption is clearly the ideal scenario.

Unfortunately for government the issue of costs related to the fostered child does not stop upon emancipation, while it may for adoption. The overall failure of the foster- care system to successfully assist foster youth in producing positive life outcomes 88 ultimately incurs additional and, oftentimes, perpetual cost. In an insightful study of the costs of Virginia’s emancipated foster youth which ties in with systemic issues presented later in this paper, Chmura Economics & Analytics (2011) calculated that the State lost

$29.7 million in 2010 or “$41,460 per aging-out foster youth” (p. 4). These costs included $25.6 million for “problems arising from foster youth’s lower skill levels” (not further defined by the authors), $1.1 million for welfare costs, $2.4 million in crime and incarceration costs, and $0.6 million in healthcare costs (p. 4-5). Not covered in the literature are the rates with which foster alumni have children who eventually enter the foster care system, thereby producing a generational expense further exacerbating this problem.

Stepping away from the macro-level, each case of foster care has its own mini- economy. In order for a foster parent to care for a foster child, the governmental agency pays the foster parent a variable monthly amount which is often dependent upon the age of the child, status of the child, and geographic location. In the calculation of these rates, the following should be, but may not be, considered: food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, personal incidentals, liability and property insurance, and transportation (Children’s Rights, National Foster Parent Association, and University of

Maryland School of Social Work, 2007). As a joint report on establishing reasonable minimum adequate rates for children by Children’s Rights, National Foster Parent

Association, and University of Maryland School of Social Work (2007) remarks that this rate can vary widely as “States and localities have complete discretion in setting their foster care rates. In fact, monthly rates range from $226 to $869 in the District of 89

Columbia [as of 2007]” (p. 1). This funding is “routinely” reported to fall short of actual costs by advocates and foster parents, a deficiency which “negatively affect[s] foster parent recruitment and retention, which can set off a chain reaction of negative consequences for children” (Children’s Rights et al., 2007, p. 1). The report found that the monthly minimum adequate rates for two, nine, and sixteen year-olds were $629,

$721, and $790, respectively, and that only two states/districts successfully achieved this level of funding: Arizona and the District of Columbia. The national average was deficient of the minimum adequate rate by 29%, 41%, and 39% respectively with

Nebraska (181%) most deficient for two year olds and Ohio most deficient for nine year olds (164%) and sixteen year olds (190%) (Children’s Rights et al., 2007). These deficiencies are echoed by DeVooght, Child Trends, and Blazey’s (2013) report, Family foster care reimbursement rates in the U.S., which lists among its primary findings the fact that “The basic foster care rates in the majority of states fall below our estimate of the costs of caring for a child” (p. 2). Given the size and complexity of the entire foster care system, the correction of this perceived deficiency would be a task for the legislature and is not a deficiency that can be counted on being corrected any time soon.

The consideration of cost within the foster-care system is clearly complex and multi-faceted. Not covered, or even discussed, in the literature is the frequent perception of financial motives of foster parents or issues of fraud and waste perpetuated either by the foster parents or the system itself. The literature presents the foster-care system as an increasingly expensive system that may yet fall short of sufficiently funding its participants. Beyond participation in the foster-care system, foster alumni continue to 90 require resources and tax dollars on into their majority. An alternative route, one of increased adoptions, promises to lower costs with hopeful status quo improvement of the foster youth themselves.

Foster Children and Education

The experience of foster children in the education system is, to put it mildly, not good. Sweeping statements declaring this status quo are frequently found throughout the literature. Zetlin (2006) stated, “…children in foster care are one of the most educationally vulnerable in our schools” (p. 268). The advocacy institute, Advocates for

Children of New York (2000), has labelled foster children as “...the most educationally at risk population” (p. 1), while Lips (2007) expanded the scope of this disadvantage, stating that they are “…among the most at-risk children in American society” (p. 1).

Elsewhere Zetlin et al. (2010) stated: “Children in foster care comprise a population of students at great risk for school failure” (p. 245). The Child Welfare League of America as quoted in Lips, 2007: “Almost all of the reviewed studies of those who were in out-of- home care revealed that the subject’s level of educational attainment is below that of other citizens of comparable age” (p. 1). Beisse and Tyre (2013) provided the most alarming synopsis, quoting a report from the National Working Group on Foster Care and

Education (2008) as “characteriz[ing] educational outcomes for children in foster care as

‘dismal’ and conclud[ing] that a large proportion of youth in foster care are in educational crisis” (p. 2). Fram and Altshuler (2009) echoed the general sentiment, but also a concise explanation as to the root cause: “In fact, children in foster care are often the most vulnerable students in the school system, because they are struggling with personal, 91 familial, and educational challenges that other students may not confront (Eamon &

Altshuler, 2004)” (p. 2). Driscoll (2013), a professor from the U.K., named this as an international problem, not exclusive to the United States. Counterintuitively, it is the association with the foster-care system that is the statistical determinant of educational attainment and not the length of stay within the system, as the Burley and Halpern (2001) study revealed that “a student’s foster care status alone is associated with a 7 to 8 percentile point decrease in test scores” (p. 15). On the whole, children forced to participate in the foster-care system have been shown to produce exceptionally poor outcomes.

As such the literature provides a lengthy enumeration of the legion of issues between the foster population and the acquisition of education, causing the introduction of many journal articles to read like a laundry list. These issues range the entire gamut, from individual issues developed from being within the foster-care population, to systemic issues caused by the child-welfare system, to systemic issues caused by the educational system, to individual issues with the teachers, foster parents, and case workers. Zetlin, Weinberg, and Shea (2006) described this situation as “real and dire” (p.

272). They further presented the education of the child as an institutional afterthought as

“the courts and dependency care system focus on the crisis that brings the family to the court,” thereby overlooking educational considerations (p. 268). Zetlin, Weinberg, and

Luderer (2004) further expounded upon this problem: “Historically, child welfare services and juvenile courts have not considered a child’s education when making 92 placement decisions” (p. 31). The natural complexity of the foster child’s world spills into the already complex attempt to educate, and the end result is poor.

A repeatedly cited systemic problem that occurs throughout the foster and educational processes is that of a deficiency in interagency communication, coordination, and collaboration. For a foster child, there are three major institutions which all must coordinate on their behalf – the child welfare agency, the school system, and the courts.

Smucker et al. (1996) cited Quinn et al. (1995) as having confirmed “the importance of collaboration among teachers, caseworkers, and other service providers…” (p. 38).

Smucker et al. (1996) revealed that while this importance is identified and understood, there is a gap between word and deed, “Unfortunately, for all the talk of comprehensive interagency collaboration and prevention, in typical practice…appear to be too late, too piecemeal, and too tentative…” (p. 38). TeamChild (2015) noted the possibilities of this collaboration in that “Caseworkers may know about outside agencies…” and that therefore caregivers and caseworkers should “…help the school create interagency linkages…” to facilitate improved services. The idea of increased linkages is not new and may be paced by technology. In 1992, Goerge et al. discussed “break[ing] new ground by linking the administrative databases of two state agencies at the level of the individual child…” (p. 420). Unfortunately, over a decade later Altshuler (2003) offered this assessment in her work, From barriers to successful collaboration: Public schools and child welfare working together:

Few mechanisms exist to support successful collaboration between public child

welfare systems and public education systems, despite the fact that most children 93

living in foster care attend public schools. Child welfare and public education

have different foci and have had difficulty working collaboratively with each

other (Altshuler, 1997; Goren, 1996). Consequently, the children ostensibly being

served by either system often receive inadequate services from both systems. (p.

52)

Out of this line of inquiry Altshuler (2003) provided little more than two general suggestions, the first being that “the core difficulty can also become the core solution: changing an adversarial relationship [between caseworkers and educators] to a collaborative one,” while the second is a reliance on the school social worker to bridge the gap between the two entities (p. 61). Altshuler, along with Fram, more fully explored the school social worker role in their 2009 paper tying in social capital theory.

Alternatively, Watson and Kabler (2012) proposed that it is the school psychologist who can utilize “interagency collaboration [to] effectively and efficiently consult with team members to better determine the appropriate supports for individuals in foster care” (p.

28).

A half-decade or more after Altshuler’s 2003 assessment, the Stuart Foundation commissioned The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2008, 2010, 2010) to continue the push for interagency collaboration. The Center published the findings of the

California Education Collaborative for Children in Foster Care in an effort to “build upon the work of others who have called for smoother collaboration between education and child welfare arenas…” (p. i). The end results are three publications detailing the problem, status quo, available data, and existing research, mostly concerned with 94 producing a better end product from a collaborative approach. The guide from the Texas

Education Agency (2013) provides another window into this interagency collaboration, its requirements and problems: “Courts, education, and child welfare must all be represented,…blame and finger-pointing will not be permitted [and] lack of current funding options will not deter creative ideas” (p. 26). All told, these various guides and studies depict a situation that is having difficulty managing itself, much less the children in its care.

Pre-entry issues and disadvantages. The individual child entering a school for the first time frequently brings with them a myriad of disadvantages. There is a chance that the child will bring with them the scars and resultant dysfunction associated with trauma (Zetlin, 2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015) and the

“neurobiological consequences” that accompany “early adversity” (Pears et al., 2010, p.

1560). The child may arrive with a wide variety of unmet emotional needs (Zetlin et al.,

2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015; Fisher & Antoine, 2006). The child may further be preoccupied by the uncertainty of their situation – England (1998) noted,

“Children faced with an uncertainty in their placement, whether long-term foster care or questionable placements with a biological parent(s) that are subject to change, have an increased probability of social maladjustment…” (p. 8). This uncertainty may be rooted in homelessness, as children “awaiting foster care placement” are considered homeless under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 2001 (National Center for

Homeless Education & Legal Center for Foster Care and Education, 2009). The child may bring with them significant internal burdens, not carried by the general population. 95

These burdens may manifest themselves in a variety of fashions, all of which detract from the educational objective. Zetlin (2006) listed these various fashions as

“rang[ing] from aggressive, demanding, immature, and attention-seeking behaviors to withdrawn, anxious, and over-compliant behaviors (Kupinsel & Dubsky, 1999)” (p. 162).

Kupinsel & Dubsky (1999) provided a profile of a child most likely to be “behaviorally impaired”: they are a child who “enter out-of-home care at an older age, stay longer in care, and experience more family violence” (p. 308), earlier mentioning that the child is also likely to be male and be “in a county away from his home” (p. 307). Zima, Bussing,

Freeman, Yang, Belin, and Forness (2000) put the reported range of foster children with behavior problems between 29-80%, while their own study produced a result of 27%. In addition to potentially facing behavioral impediments, Watson and Kabler (2012) listed the hurdles that foster children may be facing, stating that “they are at an increased risk for memory problems, attention difficulties, sleep and mood disorders, emotional problems, and chronic health problems such as asthma and malnutrition (Jacobson, 1998;

Lewis, Beckwith, Fortin, & Goldberg, 2011)” (p. 27). Dominick, Friedman, Saunders,

Hussey, and Watkins (2013) noted a higher rate of obesity within this population. Stock and Fisher (2006) focused on the prevalence of language delays within this population, citing statistics from Leslie, Gordon, Peoples, and Gist (2002) of 66%, Kendall, Dale, and

Plakitsis (1995) of 51%, and Halfon, Mendonca, and Berkowitz (1995) of 80% of foster children exhibit or are suspected of possessing a developmental delay, whether language, behavioral, or emotional. Evans et al. (2004) referenced a study from Breitner and

Farrell (1997) which found that 50-70% of foster children possess a language disorder. 96

Focusing specifically on language delays, Stock and Fisher (2006) discussed the centrality of language in the “cognitive and socioemotional development of young children”:

Research has shown that language delays have negative long-term effects on

social competence and mental health (Cohen, Davine, Horodezsky, Lipsett, &

Isaacson, 1993; Piel, 1990), as well as IQ and academic achievement (Walker,

Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994). Specifically, numerous researchers have found

reciprocal relationships between language development and other developmental

competences (e.g., social skills) relevant to positive adjustment in young children

(Black & Logan, 1995; Gallagher, 1999) and literacy (Catts, Fey, Zhang, &

Tomblin, 1999; Davidson & Snow, 1995). (p. 447)

Pears et al. (2010) echoed this sentiment, noting, “maltreated foster children often display difficulties in a number of cognitive and psychosocial domains (Leslie et al., 2000; Pears

& Fisher, 2005), which might impinge upon success in school” (p. 1550). The importance of language specifically within a school setting need not be stated; and as such, the majority of foster children enter the school system with significant disadvantages well prior to the first block of instruction.

Post-entry issues and problems. When initially engaging the school system, the foster child may face another set of issues specific to this population. A significant problem that may be outside the child’s purview is a lack of school records accompanying them to their school (Lips, 2007). Zetlin et al. (2004) extensively referenced the work of Parrish et al. (2001) noting a study which found a 40- to 82-day 97 window for the obtainment of foster children education records, a frequent inability to obtain such records, and that receiving schools faced a similar dearth of information. All of these factors combine to delay enrollment, thereby reducing the number of school days to which a foster child has access (Legal Center for Foster Care & Education, 2014). In addition to school transcripts, these records often contain the Individual Education Plan for children in special education, as well as “key information about their educational achievements, gaps talents…” (The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning,

2010, p. 1), thereby forcing a redundancy of effort. In their paper arguing the need for an educational assessment of foster children, Evans, Scott, and Schulz (2004) noted this failure and add that this can cause a resultant failure in the assessment of school progress and problems, which can snowball into larger problems throughout their lives. Yet another issue that a child must deal with upon initial entrance into the school system is the issue of labeling. Dodge et al. (2006) mentioned both the results and the extent:

“Labeling effects have been found to exert important influence on both the child and external judges, through self-fulfilling prophecies. The processes are legion in education” (p. 4). Such labeling may produce dramatic results in the foster child’s academic future, especially if it results in an unnecessary placement into special education and a subsequent shift of expectations and expected outcomes.

The literature repeatedly references the high rates of special education placement within the foster child population. Zetlin (2006) cited Weingberg, Zetlin, and Shea

(2001) as finding a placement rate of between “28% and 58%” (p. 162). Zetlin et al.

(2006) labeled these rates as “disproportionate” (p. 268). Antoine and Fisher (2006) 98 stated that “an estimated 30 to 37% of them receive special education services – three to four times the rate for the general population”, (p. 62), while Lips (2007) puts the figure at “30 percent to 40 percent” (p. 4). Advocates for Children of New York (2000) stated that “30% of foster care youth reported receiving special education services, with 56% beginning service after entering foster care. This is nearly three times the average for

New York City” (p. 3, emphasis added). Smucker et al. (1996) also found a 30% rate of special education placement across two studies, while Pears et al. (2010) merely referenced the rate of placement as being high. Evans, Scott, and Schulz (2004) quote a more conservative figure at 17-19%, though still note that the rate is high. Additionally,

Goerge, Voorhis, Grant, Casey, and Robinson (1992) observed that “foster children in special education are older, on average, than the general special-education population…,” suggesting neglect, delayed identification, or even misidentification of needs (p. 420).

While the literature repeatedly identifies the anomalies within this situation, there is little discussion or assessment as to the accuracy of these placements, only the suggestion that they are abnormal by their comparison to the normal population.

Placement into programs to receive special educational services can appear to be a positive step, although there is evidence of a dysfunctional disconnect between the foster child population and the institutions intended to serve them that may hinder the efficacy of such attempts. In an empirical study, Goerge, Voorhis, Grant, Casey, and Robinson

(1992) found that more than six times as many foster children received special education services as were being tracked by the child-welfare system. Zetlin’s (2006) report on a study in Oregon suggested that modern information systems have not yet fixed this 99 disconnect, finding that while “39% of children…had an Individual Education Program

(IEP), only 16% actually received services (White, Carrington, & Freeman, 1990),” and another study found that 90% of foster parents “had no involvement in the special education process (Advocates for Children of New York, 2000)” (p. 162). There may further be a relationship between the aforementioned foster parents and the initial placement into special education as Burley and Halpern (2001) cite a survey from

Washington State in which . . .

. . . caregivers…report that 44 percent of the children in family foster care had

learning problems, 35% percent had attention deficit disorder, 37 percent were

slow learners, 16 percent had a mental retardation or developmental delay, and 18

percent had speech or language problems. One-third of the children in family

foster care had received special education services within the past three months.

(p. 8)

It may be inferred here that unqualified individuals (foster parents) are performing ad hoc assessments of their charges and that these assessments are being informally communicated to (and accepted by) educators. A statistic provided by Advocates for

Children of New York (2000) that “less than 6%” of biological parents “indicated that they participated in the special education identification and referral process” for these children, further implying the validity of the inference above. Further research on this practice may be merited.

If this inference is correct, it provides additional weight to the contentions of

Evans et al. (2004) as laid out in their paper, The need for educational assessment of 100 children entering foster care. Evans et al. (2004) argued that the failure to perform an educational assessment of foster children eventually leads to many issues experienced in later years, including the near-term issue of special education placement. They maintained that the educational assessment should be an integral part of the comprehensive evaluation that occurs gauging medical and mental health status and needs. Cormier (1994) provided a succinct description of how this problem generally manifests itself:

To work effectively with the child in foster placement, the educator must have an

understanding of the problems which impede the child’s academic success.

Because these educators did not have the skills or background, they were

becoming anxious and frustrated when attempting to educate the child in foster

placement. These educators were concerned because the teaching strategies and

techniques that they had previously been using were no longer successful. (p. 6)

Pears et al. (2010) reminded us that “successful adjustment in the early school years is linked to educational attainment and avoidance of psychosocial problems in adulthood

(Fothergill, et al. 2008)” (p. 1550). To set the stage for success in, as well as for appropriate adjustment into school, Evans et al. (2004) presented the educational assessment as the primary means to begin this process, which may then result in more correct special education placements.

Once the child has established themselves into a school, another set of problems presents themselves. A primary issue that relates to the problem of assessment is the lack of educational advocacy. A non-foster child frequently has natural advocates in their 101 parents. Nevertheless, the non-foster child has someone who will, competently or incompetently, consider their progress, advise on their work, counsel on their course placements, and intervene whenever deemed appropriate. Without a historical context and/or an educational assessment, the foster parents and educators are left to prima facie observations. Zetlin (2006) summed up the problem: “The majority of foster children do not have informed and persistent educational advocates to make sure that specified educational and related services are in place for them” (p. 163, emphasis added). Such advocates would “address the numerous, and often complex, educational problems…” of foster children (Zetlin et al., 2006, p. 268). The level of complexity at issue can be extrapolated from the mere existence of TeamChild and Casey Family Program’s (2015)

404-page guide, Make a difference in a child’s life: A manual for helping children and youth get what they need in school. Its chapter titles (See Figure 3.3) serve as a road map for foster child educational advocacy.

Figure 2.2. Chapter titles of TeamChild and Casey Family Program’s (2015) guide Make a difference in a child’s life: A manual for helping children and youth get what they need in school. 102

For a foster parent, attempting to provide a stable and loving home for a foster child is already a massive task, without adding educational advocacy as an integral task.

The 404-page manual presented above, while thorough and exceptionally informative, may prove disorienting and overwhelming to a foster parent. The Legal Center for Foster

Care & Education (2014) cited a 2006 study that found that “youth in foster care were less likely to have an advocate at their [IEP] planning meeting (42% v. 69%),” indicative of low participation by foster parents (p. 10). In lieu of the foster parent as the primary educational advocate, Zetlin at al. (2006) examined the other side of the aisle for educational advocacy. In their paper, Improving educational prospects for youth in foster care: The education liaison model, Zetlin et al. (2006) experimented with advocacy by leveraging the in-place resources of a “…large county child welfare agency (CWA), a large local education agency (LEA), and a small nonprofit law office…” (p. 268). In order to facilitate advocacy, Zetlin et al. (2006) arranged for “…the LEA to provide education liaisons to the CWA…” (p. 268), while the law firm provided “in-depth training on education law and policy” (p. 272). The partnership was deemed effective and the liaison model is presented as a solution to the lack of educational advocacy for foster children. Regardless, this gap in advocacy combined with any number of other problems listed herein can, as previously mentioned, exacerbate an already difficult and complex situation.

Yet another problem frequently faced by the foster child population to the detriment of educational outcomes is discipline and disciplinary referrals. Zetlin et al.

(2006), Watson and Kabler (2012), and Pears et al. (2011) all noted this high rate of 103 referral. In a 2004-05 study cited by the Legal Center for Foster Care & Education

(2014), “67% of children in out-of-home care studied had been suspended at least once, compared to 28% in a national sample of youth” (p. 8). Zetlin (2006) cited a finding in a study by Parish et al. showing a rate of disciplinary referral which is twice the rate of peers outside of the child welfare system. McMillen et al. (2003) found a higher rate of incidence, “…73% had been suspended at least once…and 16% had been expelled” (p.

475). They also noted that 29% had had a physical altercation with other students

(McMillen et al., 2003). The Legal Center for Foster Care and Education (2014) offered a concise explanation for this indiscipline, stating that “when youth are frustrated by frequent moves and rough transitions, they are more likely to act out . . .” (p. 8). The anxiety and uncertainty brought about by being in transition can serve as fuel for inappropriate and destructive behavior.

As a population faced with uncommon amounts of transition, foster children are provided with plenty of fuel for anxiety and uncertainty. The frequent interscholastic movement of the foster child may be the most-mentioned problem of the multitude of issues faced by this population. The problem and its scope is explained concisely by

Zetlin et al. (2004):

It is not uncommon for children in foster care to move several times during the

school year, and each time they move, they more often than not, change schools.

For example, Blome (1997) examined a subset of youth in foster care from the

national ‘High School and Beyond’ longitudinal study and found more than twice

as many foster youths as other students changed schools three times or more since 104

fifth grade. One result of frequent school transfers is that foster care youth tend to

fall farther and farther behind in academics and experience more learning

difficulties compared to youth living with at least one parent. Furthermore, highly

mobile foster children often miss large portions of the school year, lose academic

credits due to moves made midsemester, and have incomplete education records

due to missing transcripts, assessments, and attendance data (Eckenrode, Laird, &

Brathwaite, 1995). (p. 31-32)

In the Legal Center for Foster Care & Education’s (2014) guide, Blueprint for change:

Education success for children in foster care, the stabilization of a foster child’s school experience is its first-listed goal. The Center (2014) cites two different studies, one of which found that of “…foster care alumni…68% attended 3 or more elementary schools;

33% attended 5 or more,” while they found that 2/3rds of the sample “…switched schools shortly after placement” (p. 4). These scholastic shifts can occur both frequently and suddenly.

Particularly debilitating is the move that occurs in the middle of the school year.

It has been found that foster children “have a school transfer rate that is twice as high as those not in out-of-home care,” and that “often, school transfers occur midyear…”

(Watson & Kabler, 2012, p. 28). In their study on the educational experiences of older foster children, McMillen et al. (2003) found that 63% of study participants had experienced a midyear school change, clearly not considering school changes outside of the school year. Students receiving special education services can find these services disrupted or lost, as “the high levels of residential mobility and school transfers that are 105 typical for children in foster care mean that some schools fail to identify and make eligible for special education services foster children…” (Zetlin, 2006, p. 163).

TeamChild’s (2008) education advocacy manual advises on the severity of school change, stating that students “lose an average of 4-6 months of educational progress” with each transfer. Another attempt to quantify the disruption that school change causes is quoted by Gustavsson and MacEachron (2012), producing an estimate that “changing schools more than four times resulted in a loss of one year of academic achievement” (p.

85). They further stated that “the uncertainty of home and family situations can profoundly affect students’ ability to focus in school,” a statement that certainly takes for granted the uncertainty of school placement. In an information paper on improving education for this population, Lips (2007) referenced…

...the Vera Institute of Justice that in New York City between 1995 and 1999, 42

percent of children changed schools within 30 days of entering foster care.

Research evidence suggests that frequent school transfers and disruptions

in the learning process can take a toll on a student’s development. For example, a

study by the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that third-grade students

who had experienced frequent school changes were more likely to perform below

grade level in reading and math or to repeat a grade than were students who had

never changed schools. (p. 2)

The research even suggests that this one variable alone may be the deciding factor for school success. Discussing the frequency of home placements and the resultant school changes, Gustavsson and MacEachron (2012) stated frankly that “Multiple placements 106 may contribute to school failure (Sullivan, Jones, & Mathiesen, 2010), if only because of its association with school mobility” (p. 83). They later stated, “…when there was less than one placement change a year, the foster care alumni’s rate of high school graduation was almost twice as high as that for other alumni” (p. 83, emphasis added). The overwhelming importance of stability, even comparative stability, in both schools and in homes, is summed up by the import of this last statistic. Contrarily, this stability is experienced by an overwhelming majority of the non-foster-care population. A study of

California’s school population found that “over 90 percent of the… statewide student population attended the same school all year,” further contrasting this by noting that

“…about 1 in 10 students in foster care attended three or more schools during the school year, a level of mobility experienced by only about 1 percent of the…general student population” (Barrat & Berliner, 2013, p. iii). Foster children are unique as a population in experiencing this debilitating degree of scholastic mobility.

Another unfortunate variable in which foster children lead their non-foster care peers is in absenteeism. Zetlin (2006) noted a rate of absenteeism for the foster care population that is double that of the non-foster care population. Lips (2007) echoes this sentiment and adds on the issue of tardiness. Gustavsson and MacEachron (2012) concurred, citing both Scherr (2007) and Stone (2006), as do Fram and Altshuler (2009) by citing Benedict el al. (1996) and Runyan and Gould (1985). The literature does little more than mention these high rates of absenteeism, neither expounding nor offering or suggesting cause. The one exception to this is the information paper by Lips (2007), which offers explanations as to the how and the why: 107

It is clear how instability causes problems. School transfers create gaps in the

learning cycle. They force children to adjust to new classroom settings, teachers,

and classmates and cause children to lose social networks, peer groups, and

relationships with adults – relationships that can be particularly important to

foster care children with tumultuous family lives. These changes can exacerbate

the emotional instability and unrest caused by the home transfers themselves.

Reducing instability for foster children is identified by researchers and advocates

as a way to improve the foster care system. (p. 2)

This absenteeism, when combined with the unfortunate phenomena of repeated school change, may explain in part why foster children have lower levels of participation in extracurricular activities when compared to the non-foster care population (Kortenkamp

& Ehrle, 2002, as cited in Fram & Altshuler, 2009). The Texas Education Agency (2013) makes this correlation in their guide, Foster care & student success, lamenting the inability of foster children to experience the benefits of extracurricular activities.

Whatever the cause, absenteeism plagues the foster child population and, as an unfortunate side effect, can be prohibitive for the participation in many of the most cherished and remembered activities of the school experience.

Yet another issue frequently experienced by foster children is grade retention.

One study has shown that more than half of all foster children have been retained at least once during their school tenure (Berrick, Courtney, & Barth, 1993, as cited in Zetlin,

Weinberg, and Shea, 2010), while another found that a third of foster children would repeat a grade (Scherr, 2007, as cited in Gustavsson & MacEachron, (2012). A study in 108

New York reported almost 45% had been “held over at least once…” (Advocates for

Children of New York, 2000), while Evans et al. (2004) cites a Chamberlain et al. (1992) finding of 61%. Zetlin (2006) quotes a study from Parrish, Graczewski, Stewart-

Teitelbaum, & Van Dyke (2002) who found that foster children had “twice the rates of…remaining in the same grade for an additional year compared to their peers not in foster care” (p. 161). This is further confirmed by Fram and Altshuler (2009) discussing a “greater likelihood of grade retention and/or placement below age-appropriate grade level (Benedict, Zuravin, & Stallings, 1996; Sawyer & Dubowitz, 1994; Smucker,

Kauffman, & Ball, 1996)” (p. 3). Given the situation of the foster child and their litany of disadvantages, grade repetition becomes yet another hurdle that eventually leads to undesirable educational outcomes.

Aggregate issue and problem effect on educational outcomes. These outcomes most often manifest themselves in poor performance, below-grade performance, and, all too often, academic failure. Foster children are usually dramatically behind their peers in most measures of educational achievement, and this deficiency is noted nearly universally in the literature. It has been found that three-quarters of all foster children perform below grade level (Smithgall et al., 2004, as cited in Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea,

2010). Specifically, it has been found that “on average, these students are at least a year behind in reading and math skill acquisition as compared to peers of the same socioeconomic status (Zetlin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2003)” (Watson & Kabler, 2012, p.

28). Zetlin (2006) cited an Emerson and Lovitt (2003) report which found that a

“significant proportion of students in foster care score 15-20% below their peers on 109 statewide achievement tests in reading and mathematics, and that they earn lower grades in these subjects as well” (p. 161). Evans et al. (2004), citing Chamberlain et al. (1994), put this proportion at 41%, while Fram and Altshuler (2009) cited another study (Burley

& Halpern, 2001) with the same findings of a 15-20% lag. This discrepancy has been found consistently at grades three, six, and nine (Legal Center for Foster Care &

Education, 2014). Pears et al. (2011) cited findings which place foster children

“…significantly behind their peers in reading, writing, numeracy, and language (Mitic &

Rimer, 2002)” and found that they “…perform significantly worse on measures of academic…adjustment compared to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds

(Pears, Fisher, Bruce, Kim, & Yoerger, 2010)” (p. 140). Scholars have also shown that

“almost half of foster youths scored in the bottom quartile of the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills…” (Smithgall et. al., 2004, as cited in Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012, p. 84).

The lack of academic success of the foster-care population is a chronic issue that ultimately results in poor graduation rates, scant achievement of higher education, and lessened opportunities for future success.

The ultimate objective of school attendance is clearly graduation and the attainment of a high school diploma and the resultant opportunities that it provides.

Unfortunately, foster children have a poor record of finishing high school. Zetlin (2006) simply reported that foster children are more likely to drop out of high school

(presumably when compared to their non-foster care counterparts), while Fram and

Altshuler (2009) refers to these rates as being “significantly higher” (p. 3). Antoine and

Fisher (2006) made this distinction clear, noting that foster children “far[e] worse than 110 their peers…” at high school completion (p. 61). TeamChild and Casey Family Programs

(2015) put some numbers to these unfortunate trends and put them into perspective, stating, “More than 60% of children in foster care drop out of school before graduation, which is more than twice the dropout rate for all students” (p. 1). Gustavsson and

MacEachron (2012) indicated a slightly better status quo, showing a 50% graduation rate, which is compared to a 70% rate within the general population, further noting “that GED completion is more likely for foster care youths (National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, 2008; Wertheimer, 2002; Wolanin, 2005)” (p. 83). Shin (2012) puts the graduation rate at “less than half” (p. 139). Authors of a study of California’s public schools found that, “High school students in foster care had the highest dropout rate and lowest graduation rate” (Barrat & Berliner, 2013, p. iv). Given the mountain of literature identifying the myriad of problems faced by foster children interacting with the school system, such outcomes seem, in many ways, inevitable.

Benefits of education and foster children. For the foster children population, the inaccessibility of academic success is more than unfortunate, it is catastrophic. In their paper on resilience within adolescent girls in foster care who have experienced sexual abuse, Edmond, Auslander, Elze, and Bowland (2006) discussed the unique potential and supports that formal education can provide:

Several researchers have emphasized the importance of educational experiences

as protective factors against stressful family experiences. In a national study of

adolescent health, school connectedness was identified as a protective factor

against every health risk except teenage pregnancy (Resnick et al., 1997). For 111

sexually abused adolescents, school success was found to significantly reduce the

likelihood of experiencing mental health or behavioral problems (Luster & Small,

1997). Hyman and Williams (2001) found education to be critical for developing

options for youths whose lives have been shaped by poverty and distress. They

found that if adolescents feel they are accomplished in an area, such as athletics or

academics, they fare better, even in the face of oncoming stress. (p. 4)

Some research shows that foster children may be unconsciously aware of this or simply have a natural yearning for these benefits. Lips (2007) referenced a survey where older foster children “have high aspirations,…resent others’ low expectations,…[and believe] that they would have benefited from stronger adult encouragement” (p. 2). A study from the United Kingdom repeated this finding, challenging the low expectations and

“stress[ing] the importance of ‘normalisation’ in their lives, their dislike of being singled out by teachers and the desire to be treated the same as other people” (Honey, Rees, &

Griffey, 2011, p. 37). These researchers found that in spite of frequent school challenges, foster children had “higher ratings than the [non-foster care students] of their enjoyment of school…” and “held positive self-perceptions of their school experiences in keeping with the findings of Harker et al. (2003), regarding [foster children’s] self-reported positive experiences of school” (p. 47). While foster children’s familial lives are disrupted, damaged, or dysfunctional, education can serve as a stabilizing and even surrogational aspect to an unstable life. The aforementioned foster children surveyed conveyed both a positive perspective as to school as well as a desire to be challenged.

Unfortunately – a word utilized frequently when discussing the intersection of foster 112 children and education – the status quo is deeply flawed and the solutions for positive change are few and unpromising.

Solutions to the Educational Deficiencies of Foster Children

The literature does provide a variety of proposals for how to improve the status quo, though few of these studies and reports claim to provide a fix to the problem. Lips

(2007) concisely summed up where concerned parties are in relation to fixing the massive failure to educate foster children as well as the ideal:

There is no single solution to all of the challenges and problems that foster

children face in school and at home. Ideally, every child in the foster care system

would become part of a stable, loving, permanent home with adults committed to

nurturing their talents and skills. (p. 2)

Possibly the most simplistic process improvement is the proposal advocated for by

Evans, Scott, and Schulz (2004) in their paper aptly titled, The need for educational assessment of children entering foster care. Evans et al. (2004) argued in favor of an educational assessment being added, in addition to medical and mental health evaluations, in order to “identify the constellation of foster child needs and enable prompt interventions, enhance immediate and long-term placement, and reduce long-term costs”

(p. 578). Pears, Heywood, Kim, & Fisher (2011) performed a study in which the results prompted a similar suggestion: “Our results suggest that all preschool-aged children in foster care should receive phonological awareness screening…” (p. 146). A prima facie hurdle to these proposals is the aforementioned propensity of the foster child to change schools, which in turn would transform this assessment into another repetitive, 113 bureaucratic process among many. In theory, the proposals appear sensible and necessary, however, in practice they may simply clutter the process.

Educational liaisons. Another practical improvement that is suggested within the literature is the formal addition or establishment of an educational liaison program.

Zetlin, Weinberg, & Shea (2006) elaborated on this process enhancement in their paper,

Improving educational prospects for youth in foster care: The education liaison model.

This previously discussed experiment seeks to directly address the educational advocacy deficiency by explicitly fulfilling the role. Zetlin et al. (2006) coordinated for the response to be made from within three separate, existing agencies, and while their results were promising, they essentially expanded the bureaucracy. They did so by adding education liaisons from a local education office to an existing child welfare agency in addition to an “oversight committee comprised of representatives from each agency committed to the goals of the project…” (p. 272). A gap in the discussion of this initiative was an explanation of the budgetary considerations or an explicit assessment of the numbers of liaisons per students served. While the addition of an educational advocate may seem to be a possible solution to fix the issue of advocacy, further research is needed to evaluate the impact of adding an additional professional to the process as well as the viability of such programs within existing budgetary structures.

Practical advice. While academia may have difficulty addressing an issue which is both extremely personal and hemmed in by two massive state bureaucracies

(child welfare and education), there is nevertheless an opportunity for the individual operators within the school system to combat this problem with each individual foster 114 child in each individual classroom. Such non-systemic, grass-roots, pragmatic solutions are offered by Harrison (2006) in her article, What every teacher needs to know about foster kids. While not a scholarly work, it offers “ten ways a teacher can support a child in those critical months” of school transition which have been crafted through lengthy ground-level experience (Harrison, 2006, p. 44). Included in that advice is, “Involve foster parents”, and “Be the link between past schools and future placements” (Harrison,

2006, p. 44-45). While the inflexible systems continue to slowly evolve and adjust, these operator-level practices may be the soundest solution to managing this systemic deficiency on the individual level.

Social capital theory. On the other end of the spectrum from practical guidance to the operator-level is the overhaul of the conceptual paradigm in which the foster-care system exists. While Fram and Altshuler (2009) only intended for their work to apply to school social workers, to “clarif[y] how and why children in foster care struggle in school and suggest ways that school social workers may help improve academic and other opportunities,” the lack of other suggestions makes this an idea worthy of examination (p.

2), especially as it is also suggested by Beisse & Tyre (2013). Social capital theory, in the proverbial shell of a tree seed, can be explained as follows: “Social capital may be defined as those resources inherent in social relations which facilitate collective action.

Social capital resources include trust, norms, and networks of association representing any group which gathers consistently for a common purpose” (Garson, 2006, p. 1).

Social capital theory, as it relates to foster children and their education, encompasses “a child’s network of relationships to parents, teachers, peers, and others [who] provide 115 resources, information, supports, and expectations that, in turn, affect school success

(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995)” (p. 7). Fram and Altshuler (2009) mentioned what may appear to be seemingly obvious: “…there are consistent findings that children benefit from positive relationships with parents, teachers, mentors, and peers who are oriented toward educational achievement, and who have and share valuable resources, information, and supports for success in school” (p. 7). Fram and Altshuler (2009) explicitly suggested that professionals . . .

. . . support academic success by engaging resources in the social environment,

enhancing relationships with adults, and supporting a positive orientation toward

educational achievement. [Professionals] can use social capital theory to inform

their interactions with foster parents, teachers, caseworkers, and students about

the particular educational needs of children in care, and by filling in gaps that are

left if and when other systems fall short of meeting children’s educational needs.

(p. 18)

While this solution is not an overhaul of the systems, it is an overhaul of the conceptual framework within which professionals work, reframing the individuals involved within a foster child’s life as quasi-commodities (i.e. capital) to be leverage on the behalf of their education.

Reform. Other solutions include a litany of smaller institutional reforms, reorganizations, or restructuring, most usually involving interagency communication, coordination, or collaboration. The best example of this is the exhaustive work done by

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2008, 2010a, 2010b) examining the 116 educational status of California’s foster children. Reading from the conclusion of the

Ready to Succeed initiative depicts a status quo that is, essentially, going nowhere, even after decades of tweaks, adjustments, and scholarly recommendations. The conclusion of that work was suggestive of a stagnant situation engaged in cyclic reevaluation and periodic initiative:

The recommendations developed and endorsed by the California Education

Collaborative for Children in Foster Care are not entirely new nor particularly

surprising. In fact…many echo and reinforce [emphasis added]

recommendations made by other groups that have examined the plight of foster

children. (The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2008, p. 21)

The conclusion continues, “What is new about these recommendations is their focus on educational outcomes and on the systems and policies that collectively could shift these outcomes for foster youth.” (p. 21, emphasis added) Moreover, they have added, “The educational neglect this dismal record represents is particularly tragic because educational success could, for many foster children, improve…their overall well-being during and after their school years.” (p. 21) The CFTL has also stated, “By sharing data more effectively, collaborating to make school stability a reality…the full implementation of many of these recommendations would alter the education [of foster children]” (p. 21). The impression given by the hopeful, yet realistic sentiments expressed above are of an institution that is floundering either within the breadth of its mission or within its own bulk. 117

While less of a solution and more of an attempt to better direct academic inquiry into this overarching problem, The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning

(2010) has also produced an agenda for utilization in support of the aforementioned

Ready to Succeed program. Titled, Grappling with the gaps: Toward a research agenda to meet the educational needs of children and youth in foster care, the agenda “suggest[s] new research priorities for improving policies and practices related to the educational outcomes of children and youth in foster care,” based upon identified “research lags . . . holes . . . gaps in knowledge . . . a paucity of research on educational outcomes . . . [and] .

. . lack of evidence-based practices” as determined by a panel of “12 foster care experts”

(p. 1). Such a paucity is exampled, “As a group, the experts agreed that ‘we know virtually nothing about what happens in classrooms’ for children and youth in foster care.

They knew of no research that specifically identified effective instructional practices for this student population” (p. 4). The initiative created lists of research questions founded around seven central bases: early intervention services, preschool, special education, trauma, assessments, placements, school factors, strategies and outcomes, and system issues. The final objective, put simply, is to move “from illuminating the problem to solving it” (p. 14). Given the list of research questions, a veritable army of researchers is required to tackle the identified research deficiencies.

The literature depicts a multi-faceted and deeply entrenched problem that is rooted in a number of institutions and severely affected by the natural state of the foster child. The foster child’s situation creates a foundation of challenge and dysfunction which in-place systems have yet to manage efficiently, causing educational disruption 118 and failure. Solutions to fix or mediate the problem have been offered for decades and generally fall within similar lines of reforming the established practices. School stability seems to stand out as a primary objective for the improvement of the problem in addition to increased and constructive interagency collaboration. A single-solution fix has been repeatedly dismissed and, if the literature is to be believed, improvement depends upon more nuanced, experienced, and intelligent professionals, whether they be educators, caseworkers, service providers, or court officials. Summations of the status quo depict a system that will not see significant improvement during any time in the near future.

Aging Out and Emancipation

As with all things, an individual child’s participation in the child-welfare system must eventually come to an end, especially if it has not resulted in an adoption.

Traditionally, the government has stopped supporting a foster child upon their eighteenth birthday (Shin, 2012), and the ward, technically no longer a child, is expected to begin independent living. This occurs to roughly 20,000 foster children each and every year

(Freundlich et al., 2006; Munson & Scott, 2007; Shin, 2012), although Unrau (2011) put this figure at “more than 32,000” (p. 17). This phenomenon is known as aging out or emancipation and the results are frequently disastrous as the foster-care alumni’s experiences in the world are hampered by the same problems experienced within the school system and all too often further hampered by a failure within that system. Munson and Scott (2007) provide a summary of research on the topic: “The past decade has produced a compelling body of research which convincingly reveals that the early adult outcomes of youth previously served in foster care, are extremely poor” (p. 79). Toth 119

(1997) highlighted this by noting that the “system…feeds 40 percent of its children onto welfare rolls or into prison” (p. 17). Schelbe (2011) provided an overview of why:

“Youth age out of the child welfare system ill-prepared and often unable to make it on their own” (p. 556). Shin (2012) echoes this assessment: “The majority of children who stay in the foster care system long-term have at least one fact in common: they are usually ill-prepared to live self-sufficient and independent lives…The majority of older youths who age out of the foster care system have an extremely difficult time adjusting to a life of independence” (p. 134). Unrau (2011) described it slightly differently, noting that “most youth leaving foster care…do so in unplanned [emphasis added] ways…” (p.

17). Munson and Scott (2007) cited Arnett (2000) as identifying this period as “a time of heightened stress and uncertainty for individuals” (p. 78). Shin (2012) categorized the reasons for this stress and uncertainty for a foster care alumnus: “…housing, education, employment, physical health, mental health, substance abuse, and criminal involvement

(Courtney & Heuring, 2005)” (p. 556). The problems that foster youth often face abruptly upon reaching their majority are problems that the general population is often allowed to ease into through their late teenage years and on into their mid-20s, if not beyond.

While aging out continues to be a struggle for the foster-care alumni, the federal government passed the aforementioned Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing

Adoptions Act in 2008 which, among other things, extended “a grace period to those foster youth who are eighteen to twenty-one-years-old” (Shin, 2012, p. 134), but only if the individual states permit it (Salazar, 2013). These additional years can be crucial and 120 have been identified as the “one potential bright spot in US child welfare practice” by

Courtney and Dworsky (2006), as their study showed that youth who stayed within the system past age eighteen received “significant advantages [in their] transition to adulthood” (p. 217). For the general population, Munson and Scott (2006) cited a study by Pace (2007) who found that these youths generally complete the transition into adulthood by age 26 and with familial support. Schelbe (2011) pointed out that for foster youths, the system is their familial support, or safety net, and without it, they will inevitably struggle. Although the aging out situation remains dire, the recent responsiveness by the federal government provides an opportunity for improvement for foster-care alumni that is more reflective of the situation experienced by the general population.

Housing/shelter. The aging out process may be considered, in many ways, through the lens of Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs. When a foster child ages out, the physiological needs are encountered immediately. Of these, housing is an initial priority, for the question, “Where will I sleep tonight?” traditionally demands an answer prior to nightfall or shortly thereafter. For foster children alumni, this is often a difficult question to answer. Freundlich and Avery (2006) posited that “study results indicate that the first 12 months post-discharge are critical ones for youth…,” but the first day or first week can very quickly present exceptionally detrimental issues such as homelessness (p.

517). According to Shin (2012), “research shows that there is a strong correlation between homelessness and residing in foster care” (p. 141); while Geene and Powers

(2006) referenced a finding from the National Alliance to End Homelessness which 121 found that foster care alumni were over-represented in the homeless population (p. 5).

Advocates for Children of New York (2000) stated that “former foster children are three times more likely to become homeless than the general population,” (p. 15); while

Collins (2001) cited a study which found that “14 percent of males and 10 percent of females had been homeless at least once…” (p. 274). If not checked, homelessness can become a lifelong, repeated, or chronic problem.

Shin (2012) named poverty as the reason many foster alumni are forced into homelessness, noting that their non-foster counterparts usually have familial supports to prevent homelessness. The issue of housing comes upon the majority immediately:

“Approximately 65% of youths leaving foster care need immediate housing upon release”

(Shin, 2012, p. 140).

Even more sobering is the statistic that “within eighteen months of aging out of the foster care system, 40-50% of foster youths become homeless” (Shin, 2012, p. 140-

141). The literature offered several figures depicting the degree of homelessness experienced by the foster care alumni population: Shelbe (2011) quoted Pecora et al.

(2006) who found that 20% of alumni spent “at least one day of homelessness within the first year of leaving foster care” (p. 556). Shelbe (2011) then cited Courtney and

Dworsky (2005) who found that “almost 14% of youth experienced homelessness at some point after leaving foster care” (p. 556). Likewise, Shin (2012) cited a U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means which referenced research suggesting that “one in seven youth suffer from homelessness after they are discharged from foster care” (p. 141). For those who successfully avoid staying on the streets or under bridges, 122 the alternative is far from ideal, as they “may be temporarily staying in overcrowded housing with friends and family, homeless shelters, or hotel rooms or sleeping in cars”

(Schelbe, 2011, p. 556). To put this high rate of homelessness in perspective, it was found in California in April 2011 that “former foster children [had] overtaken war veterans as the single largest population in California’s homeless shelters” (Shin, 2012, p.

141). Whether the foster care alumnus is homeless or staying in undesirable accommodations, the unifying theme in all of these situations is instability.

As such, the effects of an unstable housing situation, especially homelessness, are not difficult to imagine. It is common for individuals who turn eighteen to either enter into an educational program or an employment situation. For either option, stable housing is nearly a must (Schelbe, 2011). Stable and secure housing enables the user a multitude of benefits that are normally taken for granted. Conventional housing allows an individual to stay clean and maintain a kept appearance, thereby enhancing their employability. Conventional security systems such as locks and doors allow an individual to safely store their accumulated belongings and to accrue wealth. This can be used to store textbooks, computers, or basic school supplies for an individual involved in education. It allows a person to store and clean clothes, maximizing the effectiveness of a garment, whether for school or for work. Housing provides an address, which is often required for credit and background checks as well as the mailing of school documents.

Housing provides a number of intangibles that can be found on Maslow’s (1943)

Hierarchy of Needs, including basic security. The importance of housing appears to be so fundamentally understood and appreciated that its utility is not discussed in the 123 literature. However, that its acquisition is difficult for foster children and homelessness results is firmly established.

Higher education/college. As previously mentioned, a common option for individuals reaching their majority is to enroll in an education program. Unfortunately, foster care alumni are underrepresented in the colleges and universities, a representative deficiency which can significantly hamper positive life outcomes. Schelbe (2011) quoted a 2005 study by Courtney & Dworsky which found that “63% of youth who left care were not enrolled in an educational program,” (p. 556); while Unrau (2011) cited figures of 20% college attendance and 5% degree completion (which is contrasted against the general population figures of 60% and 24% respectively). Salazar (2013) put the

Bachelor’s degree completion rate of foster care alumni at somewhere between 3 and

11%. Also mentioned previously was the prevalence of homelessness which would make college attendance difficult. Salazar (2013) cited a variety of studies which “…have demonstrated the harmful effects of mental health challenges, maltreatment histories, and trauma on college success,” all issues faced by foster alumni (p. 140). One other possible reason why foster care alumni do not participate in higher education is that they simply may not be aware that it exists as a ready option (Advocates for Children of New York,

2000). Advocates for Children of New York (2000) cited a study that found that “32% of the youth surveyed indicated that they had not discussed college…with an adult while in foster care” (p. 52). In addition to being informed about college by parents, Collins

(2001) noted that parents usually continue to provide financial supports to adult children while they are engaged in higher education, an enabler not realized by foster care alumni. 124

Whatever the reason or reasons, Shin reports that “less than 10% enroll in college…” (p.

139). Still worse, Shin (2012) reports a 1% graduation rate, both statistics paint a bleaker picture than those previously cited by Unrau (2011). The various hurdles experienced by a foster child are exacerbated by a lack of success in primary education and then made worse by an inability to participate in higher education.

Statistically, this inability to attain educational benchmarks will cost each foster child significantly across a lifetime in lost wages and potential unemployment. The

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) published data (See Figure 3.5) for earnings and unemployment rates which depict the very real consequences or benefits of either successfully or failing to achieve levels of education. The chart depicts a 36.8% increase in weekly earnings from less than a high school diploma and having a high school diploma, and a dramatic 64.8% increase from a high school diploma to having a

Bachelor’s degree; even more dramatic, is the 125.6% increase of weekly earnings of having a Bachelor’s degree over less than a high school diploma. For unemployment, there is a 50% increase of being unemployed from having a high school diploma to having less than a high school diploma, and a 41.6% increase from having a Bachelor’s degree to having only a high school diploma. All told, there is a dramatic drop in the chances of being unemployed if an individual possesses a Bachelor’s degree. In addition to earnings and employment, Salazar (2013) detailed the other advantages realized through the acquisition of higher education. In Salazar’s (2013) paper, The value of a college degree for foster care alumni: Comparisons with general population samples, she identifies these advantages as being higher job satisfaction, higher personal and 125 professional mobility, better health for both the employed and their children, increased empowerment, lower rates of public welfare use, lower smoking rates, lower incarceration rates, increased volunteerism, increased voting, and increased leisure activity participation. The lack of education will be debilitating for foster alumni both in terms of weekly earnings and in potential unemployment for the likely duration of their lives.

Figure 2.3. The effects of diploma and degree completion on personal income and employment. From “Employment Projections” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).

There are programs and initiatives which are attempting to address, mitigate, and even fix the lack of foster alumni participation and success in higher education. One notable example of this is New York State Foster Care Youth Leadership Advisory

Team’s (2009) program, Youth in Progress. Their publication, Need to know series: 126

College and vocational planning, provides foster care youth and alumni a rudimentary guide to the college process. While a guide may be helpful to a pro-active and focused child, the Seita Scholars Program at Western Michigan University offers far more in the way of tangible support and may be a model for emulation (Unrau, 2011). In addition to providing general admissions and financial aid assistance, the program also utilizes a coaching model to provide informed and intelligent counsel both on life and on success in higher education (Unrau, 2011). Unrau (2011), the founder of the program, described the program’s fundamental aim: “the program offers individual and system change strategies to help former foster youth transition into adulthood through the experience of higher education” (p. 18). While degree completion has been shown to be statistically improbable for a foster-care alumni, there are programs and initiatives which are emerging and which attempt to reverse the status quo.

Employment/career. Unfortunately, until the status quo is reversed, foster-care youth who have aged out of the foster-care system must also cope with the challenges brought on by low education levels. Obviously, a significant challenge quickly becomes the issue of employment, both in quantity and quality. McMillen and Tucker (1999) found that almost half of foster youth aging out exited without a job lined up. In addition to education, job preparedness and, as just suggested, job acquisition may both be issues.

A survey completed by the Advocates for Children of New York (2000) found that,

“Only 36%...had participated in any type of job training program” (p. 5). This same source later quotes another survey where “over 46% said they had no opportunities for participating in job training programs” (p. 52). This situational status quo was confirmed 127 by Casey Family Services (2000) which found after completing a survey of programs that

“relatively few…have formal employment training programs,” while “most of the employment training is focused on immediate employment…” and not career-quality training (p. 5). Foster children have been repeatedly shown to have lower rates of employment; Salazar (2013) cited “the Midwest Study found 48 percent of alumni ages

23 to 24 to be employed, compared with 76 percent of general population young adults…the Casey Northwest Alumni Study (Pecora et al., 2006) found 80 percent…[vs.]…95 percent”, while yet another Casey study “…found 88 percent compared with 96 percent” (p. 140). Geenen and Powers (2006) cited these employment rates as being less than 55%. Even more problematic are indications of the quality of employment as Courtney and Dworsky (2006) found that three-quarters of the Midwest

Study respondents “earned less than $5000, and 90% earned less than $10,000” annually, being “significantly more likely to report earnings of $10,000 or less than their same-age peers…” (p. 213). It has been found that only 0.9% of foster alumni will earn more than

$50,000 per year (Chmura Economics & Analytics, 2011). Geenen and Powers (2006) echo this finding of low wages, noting that emancipated youth “typically received wages that fell well below the poverty level (Goerge, et al., 2002)” (p. 4). Foster care alumni, generally unprepared for the workforce, face compounding problems which eventually result in underemployment and low wages.

There are instances of programs that successfully prepare foster youth for employment. A program discussed by Casey Family Services in 2000, the School-to-

Career Partnership with UPS, has since expanded and continues to provide foster-care 128 alumni with job-training and a career path to the present day (Annie E. Casey

Foundation, 2015). Foster youth have indicated that they are interested in such programming, as Freundlich et al. (2006) conducted interviews with foster youth and found that they “highlighted programmes that taught them how to conduct themselves on an interview and in a business environment and how to complete a job application,” as well as “computer and other office and vocational skills…” (p. 69). Unfortunately, such programs are not readily available as they are programs dependent upon private initiatives and partnerships.

Health and health care. As foster children frequently utilize health services during their childhood, their need for these services does not end upon reaching the arbitrary ages of 18 or 21. Whereas they previously had a series of adult supervisors, case workers, judges, foster parents, among others, to manage this health care, the foster care alumni is often left to manage a sizable issue on their own (Unrau, 2011; Geenen &

Powers, 2007; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Munson & Scott, 2007). In a study on transition planning, Geenen & Powers (2007) found that “the health and medical area appeared to be the most problematic…,” with almost half of the participants having no plan for health care, while created plans were found to have a lack of “feasibility and relevance” (p. 10). Foster care alumni may face a myriad of health issues. Unrau (2011) listed them as “coping with mental health diagnoses and childhood trauma, unaddressed dental problems, and chronic health problems and coordinating health insurance coverage” (p. 19). The dental issue is an interesting one, given its scarce reference in the literature. It may be imagined that dental, especially orthodontic care, may be viewed as 129 cosmetic and therefore among the least necessary of care. Munson & Scott (2007) noted that “they have high rates of psychiatric problems…,” a problem which may quickly overshadow dental concerns (p. 80). Salazar (2013) cites Zlotnick, Tam, and Soman

(2012) who found that foster alumni were “significantly more likely…to have their health interfere with daily functioning, and substantially more likely…to have received disability payments or been unable to work in the past year because of a physical or mental health challenge.” (p. 140) Salazar (2013) then cites Courtney, et al.’s (2010)

Midwest Study which found that “significantly fewer foster care alumni…report having excellent or very good health…”, and McMillen et al. (2005) who found a “27 percent lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder and 14 percent of posttraumatic stress disorder…compared with 15 percent and 7 percent…in the general population…” (p.

140). All told, the foster alumni population is challenged by both possessing conditions which require health care, as well as the challenge faced by all newly minted adults, which is the issue of health care access.

As youth age out of foster care, they often struggle with this issue of access.

Geenen and Powers (2007) cite a study which found that “44% of youth discharged from care were not able to access the medical care they needed, the major reason being a lack of insurance coverage” (p. 5). Once more the explanation for this deficiency returns to a repeatedly cited issue, that of a lack of preparation. Freundlich, et al., (2006) cited

Courtney et al. (2001) who found that youth “felt unprepared to…handle health issues”

(p. 65). A simple solution to the problem of health care management is an elongation of care, an effort that has already been established as an option through the 2008 Fostering 130

Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Courtney and Dworsky (2006) found that youth who remained in the system past 18 “were more likely to have access to health and mental-health services” (pp. 217-218). This has been made even more feasible by the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, which allowed states “to extend health insurance coverage under Medicaid to former foster children up to age 21” (Collins, 2001, p. 273). This age range was further extended by the

Affordable Care Act of 2010, which extended Medicaid access to age 26 for emancipated youth (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2015). For foster youth, the health care supports are in place although the education on options and use may remain deficient.

Criminality, early pregnancy, and poverty. Finally, of the easily categorized issues faced by foster-care alumni there remains the issues of criminality, early pregnancy, and poverty. These final three issues can be seen as having interwoven relationships or possessing not-so-complex cause and effect patterns. Courtney and

Dworsky (2006) found recurring themes in their Midwest Study, including youth who

“have children that they are not able to parent…become homeless, or end up involved with the criminal justice system.” (p.210) Throughout this study, close to a third of male respondents reported being incarcerated while 10.7% of females reporting the same, a rate that makes them far more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system than their peers (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006). Barth (1990 as cited in Collins, 2001) had similar findings, reporting that a third of study participants had been involved in crime.

For female youth, teenage pregnancy can both end weak educational prospects, as well as exacerbate future life problems. Forty percent of pregnant respondents in the Advocates 131 for Children of New York (2000) survey reported dropping out of school because of the pregnancy, a reaction which dims opportunity for life post-emancipation. As previously mentioned, if emancipated youth are able to find employment in spite of, and especially because of a lack of education, their wages usually fall well below the poverty line

(Goerge, et al., 2002 as cited in Geenen & Powers, 2006). This problem will likely be exacerbated if the foster alumnus is disabled, as disabled persons have been found to be

“three times more likely to live in poverty” (Geenen & Powers, 2006). These problems are additional issues that may be faced by youth leaving the foster-care system, statistically unprepared for their lives as independent adults.

Aging Out – Solutions

An overarching solution to successfully improve the lives of foster-care alumni would be difficult to produce, given the variety of life pursuits available to an adult.

However, within the literature there are suggestions for potential solutions to help improve the odds of these lives going well. Freudlich & Avery (2006) presented a strong opinion of where the responsibility should lie for ensuring positive life outcomes:

Finally, states should hold agencies accountable for outcomes for youth exiting

care. Agencies should be required to document the circumstances of youth aging

out of care in a pre-discharge report that verifies the youth’s health insurance,

living address post-discharge, job or source of income, and an adult committed to

the youth on a long-term basis. Agencies should maintain contact with youth

discharged to ‘independent living’ for one year after discharge to document 132

outcomes for youth in relation to housing, employment, legal issues, and the

youth’s physical and mental health status. (p. 517)

The suggestion above presents a situation that is not similar to a soldier demobilizing after being sent to serve in a war zone as per my knowledge and experience. All of the actions listed above do occur for the Soldier, ensuring that the Soldier is provided the best opportunity for a successful transition. Given that a foster experience has much in common with service in a war zone (i.e. high mobility, impoverished conditions, stress, trauma, complete dependence on the system, etc.), such a proposal resonates as a reasonable and productive solution.

In addition to a formalized exit processing that includes follow-up, a simpler solution that has had legislative success at the federal level, is elongating the foster-care window. The findings of Courtney and Dworsky’s (2006) Midwest Study repeatedly pointed to this elongation of foster care and support as a solution which significantly improves outcomes. They state that their findings, “…call into question the wisdom of federal fiscal policies that encourage states to discharge foster youth from care at or shortly after their 18th birthday” (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006, p. 218). Peters et al.

(2009) focused on the anticipated increase in educational attainment that this elongation would bring and estimated “that extending care would increase per–person lifetime earnings by an average of $72,000,” an estimation which predicts a doubling in the bachelor’s completion rate (p. 7). This deficiency was successfully corrected with the passage of the aforementioned Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing

Adoptions Act of 2010, which extended “Title IV-E reimbursable foster care, adoption, 133 or guardianship assistance payments to young people up to the age of 19, 20, or 21…”

(Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, 2015, p. 1). The only caveat is that the foster youth must be:

 completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent

credential;

 enrolled in an institution which provides post-secondary or vocational

education;

 participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove barriers

to, employment;

 employed for at least 80 hours per month; or

 incapable of doing any [of the above] due to a medical condition. (Jim Casey

Youth Opportunities Initiative, 2015)

Given the multitude of barriers that a foster youth faces in enrolling in college and/or finding employment, the above criteria may either be viewed as a ready objective or a possibly insurmountable requirement to retain badly needed services. Regardless, it provides both foster-care youth and programs an objective for which to aim.

Finally, Unrau (2011) has established an easily emulated, University-level model at Western Michigan University. Unrau (2011) stated that “the majority of foster youth desire to go to college,” and considering the extension of benefits brought out by the

Foster Connections law combined with the increased life enhancements presented by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is plenty of incentive to do so (p. 20). Such programs seem to be increasingly appearing, as indicated by an article entitled, Colleges reach out 134 to foster youth, published by the American Association of Community Colleges

(Ashford, 2014). The article lists a number of these programs, such as Passport for Foster

Youth Promise Program, Fostering Success Michigan, Guardian Scholars, Foster Care

Alumni Program, Scholars Transitioning and Realizing Success (STARS), and Fostering

Achievement Academic Fellowship Program (Ashford, 2014). As a whole, programs focusing exclusively on foster alumni are multiplying.

The transition from foster care to adulthood can be exceptionally rough for youth already well-versed in nonstandard and possibly traumatic experiences. Traditionally, these youth have aged out ill-prepared, without plans and credentials, and into lives marked by destitution. Recent federal laws have improved opportunities for foster alumni expanding their societal safety net and programs devoted to their future success are sprouting up across the nation, but the population still faces, and, will likely always face, significant disadvantage exacerbated by a system that is ill-prepared to provide for their particular needs.

Homeschooling as a Pedagogical Alternative

History of homeschooling. As a pedagogical practice, homeschooling is straightforward. However, the history of this practice has become a politicized morass. I homeschool my children and came to the practice through an isolated series of practical considerations, unrelated to larger societal ebbs and flows. Delving into the literature has shown a surprising societal tug-of-war pitting the left and the right against each other in debates over the history of the movement, starting points, intents, and definitions

(Murphy, 2013). Prima facie, the practice would appear to be relatively simple – children 135 are educated in the home by parents or other guardians. Unfortunately, this seemingly unadorned concept is mired in a litany of other agendas, none of which would be of particular concern to a foster child. For the purposes of this paper, homeschooling refers to the attempted education of a child in their home of record, nothing more.

This extraordinarily simple practice is apparently anything but. Murphy (2013) stated that “there is widespread agreement that homeschooling is the most radical form of privatization in education, and the most aggressive form of choice (Cooper and Sureau,

2007)” (p. 336). Kreager (2011) called homeschooling “‘the fastest growing sector of K-

12 schooling’” in the United States (p. 227). Gaither (2008) placed the sudden increase in popularity of this radical and aggressive activity in the late 1970s and 1980s. Gaither

(2008) stated that homeschooling “was very largely a reaction against the mass culture of the modern liberal state, a culture realized perhaps most perfectly in the consolidated public school located on metropolitan outskirts amidst the rapidly expanding suburbs” (p.

227). Homeschooling in the United States grew rapidly, from an estimated 10,000-

15,000 students in the 1970s to approximately two million students by 2010 (Murphy,

2013). Gaither (2008) went on to present four specific reasons as to why homeschooling became so popular, so quickly:

First, homeschooling happened because the countercultural sensibility became the

mainstream American sensibility… Having rejected the mainstream, denizens of

both left and right looked for personal fulfillment within small, alternative

communities. The social and political changes of the second half of the twentieth

century made bedfellows of both radical leftists who wanted nothing to do with 136

conventional America and conventional Americans who wanted nothing to do

with a country that in their view had sold out to the radical left…

Second, homeschooling happened because of suburbanization. The

suburbs’ deracinated and media-saturated environs incubated the alienation that

led so many young people to challenge the system by leaving it, founding

communes, and pioneering homeschooling. Suburbanization facilitated

segregation by race, income level, age, number of children, and cultural style,

thus feeding the American hunger for privacy…

Third, homeschooling happened because of the American cult of the

child…During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the “decade of nightmares” about

prowling sexual predators, child-molesting teachers, debauched youth culture, and

occult brain-washing, many parents sought shelter in the safety of the home to

nourish the promise of their children.

Finally…homeschooling happened because of changes both in public

schooling and in families during the second half of the twentieth century. As

public schools grew larger, more bureaucratic and impersonal, less responsive to

parents and less adaptable to individual or local cultural variations, many families

felt increasingly alienated. (pp. 233-234)

Murphy (2013) specifically named two individuals as the “founding figures” of the homeschooling explosion, with John Holt (later to be discussed in association with unschooling) laying the conceptual framework for the homeschooling approach of the left, while Raymond Moore led the way for the “Christian right” (p. 338). Offering a 137 window into the politicization of this simple activity, Murphy (2013) also detailed the extensive scholarly work and general debate as to the start date of modern homeschooling:

Lines (2000a, b) provides the oldest start date, around the mid-twentieth century.

Advocates from the conservative Christian wing of the homeschooling family,

who are likely to slight the early liberal roots of the movement (Gaither 2008),

provide the newest start date, around 1980 (Farris and Woodruff 2000). Most

analysts, however, place the start of the modern homeschooling movement either

in the 1960s (Knowles 1991; McKeon 2007; Wilhelm and Firman 2009) or 1970s

(Guterson 1992; Isenberg 2007) or some blend of the two decades (Collom and

Mitchell 2005; Green and Hoover-Dempsey 2007). (p. 338)

Possibly the wisest course of action is to completely ignore the history of homeschooling and its accompanying noise and merely considers its practice and utility.

Homeschooling data. While the two-million-student participation in homeschooling cited above is high, the actual data is not far off. The National Center for

Education Statistics (2015) reported homeschool participation at 1,773,000 in 2012, up from 1,520,000 in 2007, and 1,096,000 in 2003. The 2012 figure represents 3.4% of the school-aged population and, contrary to the proposal that suburbanization is the epicenter of homeschooling, the National Center for Education Statistics (2015) indicated that homeschooling was most prevalent in rural areas (3.6%), then town (2.3%), and then suburb (1.6%), followed closely by city (1.5%). The National Center for Education

Statistics 2007 report explored parental reasons for homeschooling and found that 88% 138 expressed “a concern about the school environment”, 83% “a desire to provide religious and moral instruction”, 73% “a dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools”, 65% “nontraditional approach to child’s education”, 32% “other reasons”, 21%

“child had special needs”, and 11% “child has a physical or mental health problem” (p.

2). When asked what their most important reason, 36% “to provide religious or moral instruction”, 21% “concern about the school environment”, and 17% “dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools” (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2007). It is interesting to note that the most important reasons are all reactions against a perceived deficiency. Homeschooling is an option increasingly taken by more and more parents and as such no longer exists as an activity on the fringe.

Homeschooling approaches. The actual practice of homeschool defies its simplistic naming convention as the term homeschooling encompasses a wide array of approaches, all essentially meaning that the student is not participating in existing and conventional school systems. Even a basic linear spectrum would have difficulty capturing the existing options and their various blends. Regardless, this linear spectrum would have definitive ends with John Holt’s unschooling being on the far left and independent home education being on the far right. Founder and editor of the Journal of

Unschooling and Alternative Learning, Ricci (2011) defined unschooling as “a learner- centered democratic approach to education, putting the learner’s passions and interests first” (p. 141). In essence, unschooling removes the fundamental hierarchy of education

(teacher/student) and a definitive curriculum. On the other end of the spectrum is independent home-based education, alternatively known as enrolled-home study and off 139 campus-home study, where “students are enrolled full time in the public school but educated by parents at home – under the control of the public school (Lines 2004)”

(Murphy, 2013, p. 348). In this version of homeschooling, the living room, kitchen, or bedroom has replaced the classroom, with the school hierarchy and curriculum remaining intact. The spectral ends of homeschooling are generally straightforward and easily understood.

However, the middle of this spectrum defies linearality and in effect offers parents and students a remarkable amount of choice and flexibility. Murphy (2013) detailed many of these options, beginning with the gender specific concept of Mom schools, which “occurs when an individual mom [or dad] invites children to join her family for some lessons (Gaither 2008)” (p. 347). Next are the homeschool cooperatives, which are historically important to the evolution of homeschooling as much can be reasonably traced back to John Holt “connect[ing]…independent and relatively isolated families with one another…” in the mid 1970s, to essentially form what would come to be known as homeschooling cooperatives (Taylor-Hough, 2010, p. 3). Out of this organization would come Holt’s revolutionary publication, Growing without school

(Davis, 2011). Murphy (2013) described these cooperatives as a “…clumping together of homeschool families to provide some of the homeschool activity (Dahlquist, York-Barr, and Hendel 2006; Hill 2000), often selected subjects (e.g., foreign language), programs

(e.g., soccer), and extended learning opportunities (e.g., a science camp)” (p. 347).

Anthony (2015) quoted Safran (2009), stating that the cooperative “‘gives shape and purpose to the home education practice,’ sets goals and timelines for students, and 140

‘requires a big commitment’ (p. 26)” (p. 38). Just like any individual homeschooling family, these cooperatives may or may not have association with the local school systems. Association with the local school system can be loose and limited, restricted to the “partak[ing] of services and resources such as testing, access to school facilities, resource centers, websites for parents and/or children, and books and other institutional materials (Bielick, Chandler, and Broughman 2001; Dahlquist, York-Barr, and Hendel

2006; Fager and Brewster 2000; Mayberry et al. 1995, Muntes 2006; Reich 2002)”

(Murphy, 2013, p. 347). Or it can be more formalized via dual enrollment, “also known as shared services, shared schooling, and part-time enrollment”, where the student spends part of the official school day in the school and the other portion of the day at the home

(Murphy, 2013). Murphy (2013) further stated that “Data from the NHES reveal that about one in five homeschooled students is also enrolled in public or private school on a part-time basis…” (p. 348). Another area of homeschooling which is expanding in conjunction with the explosion in Internet usage and reliance is that of eLearning and

Distance Education via the Internet (Davis, 2011). While surprisingly ignored by both

Gaither (2008) and Murphy (2013) in their histories on homeschooling, Davis (2011) stated that “the Internet has become an invaluable opportunity for homeschooling parents to broaden their child’s education and expand opportunities for their child to learn through auditory, visual, and kinesthetic methods” (p. 33). Davis (2011) stated that “41% of homeschooling parents utilize online education”, but she is quoting an almost ridiculously antiquated statistic from 2001 – in the intervening decade and a half that number can reasonably be expected to have risen dramatically, especially with the rise of 141 smart phones, tablets, and the popularity of applications or apps (p. 33). Essentially, the middle of homeschooling spectrum contains a long list of approaches, participations, and resources. Davis (2011) expounded on the myriad ways in which homeschooling parents can design a la carte their pedagogical approach utilizing various resources:

Many parents opt for a blended approach and use a number of sources to develop

their curriculum. Seventy-eight percent utilize a public library, 77% utilize a

homeschooling publisher or individual specialist, 68% utilize retail book stores,

60% utilize a nonhomeschooling education publisher, 50% utilized

homeschooling organization, 37% utilized curriculum from religious institution,

23% from the local public school district, 41% utilized distance learning, 20%

utilized media in television, video, or radio, 19% utilized eLearning, and 15%

utilized distance education through homeschooling correspondence course by

mail (Bauman, 2001). (p. 32)

The opportunities and flexibility of homeschooling is made apparent by the sheer variety and number of pedagogical approaches and resources leveraged in the effort to educate an individual student.

Homeschooling outcomes. In spite of its hodgepodge history and application, on the whole homeschooling has been found to be an effective method of instruction. Two decades ago, Meighan (1995) reported findings that “Home-based education effectiveness research demonstrates that children are usually superior to their school- attending peers in social skills, social maturity, emotional stability, academic achievement, personal confidence, communication skills, and other aspects” (p. 1). In 142

2015, Jamaludin, Alias, and Dewitt reviewed recent research and trends in modern homeschooling practices and found “positive outcomes to support homeschooling were witnessed in the majority of the selected studies” (p. 116). Davis (2011) cited a 1997 study which found “that homeschoolers, on average, achieved higher scores by 30 to 37% in all subject areas than their public school counterparts,” with the length of homeschooling significantly impacting performance positively – “Students who were homeschooled for 1 year or less scored, on average, in the 59th percentile and students who were homeschooled for 2 or more years scored on average, between the 86th and

92nd percentile” (p. 32). Moreover, “Students who were homeschooled through their whole K-12 education had the highest academic achievement (Farris & Smith, 2004)”

(Davis, 2011, p. 32). More importantly, “this study found that academic achievement was experienced by all, regardless of race or background,” suggesting that homeschooling is a colorblind and classless solution to educational inequities (Davis,

2011, p. 32). In his extensive review of studies entitled, The social and educational outcomes of homeschooling, Murphy (2014) repeatedly found research which reveals significant benefits for educational outcomes. Among the reported findings:

…analysts find that homeschool students who take standardized tests usually do

quite well when compared to traditionally-schooled peers as a group (Calvery et

al. 1992; Ray 2001a; 2001b)…Ray (2001a, 2001b) reached similar conclusions in

his landmark 1990 national study reporting that homeschooled children achieved

at or above the 80th percentile in all subjects on standardized tests. Ray’s

subsequent investigations (1997b, 2010) reinforced his earlier conclusions…In 143

another hallmark national study, Rudner (1999) documented achievement test

scores for homeschoolers between the 76th and 91st percentile across all 12 grades.

He noted that homeschoolers in grades 1 through 4 were a full year above their

private and public school peers on standardized tests and about four years

[emphasis added] above them in the 8th grade. (p. 255)

In an older exploratory study, Duvall, Delquadri, and Ward (2004) found that students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) “were academically engaged about two times as often as public school students and experienced more reading and math gains” (p. 14). While the sample size in this study was remarkably small, the findings suggest potential benefits from homeschooling for students with learning disabilities.

Extraordinarily important for the purposes of this paper is Murphy’s (2014) discussion on the effects of familial situation, including family income and parental education, on the outcomes of homeschooled students. Research has shown that “low- income children in homeschools often achieve at or above national norms while low- income children in public schools on average score considerably below national norms

(Ray 2004b; Ray 2009a)” (Murphy, 2014, p. 256). Murphy (2014) noted homeschooling does not eradicate household income as a determinant, as Rudner (1999) was cited as having found that “higher income is associated with higher test scores…” (p. 256). As to parental education, Murphy (2014) cited findings by Basham, Merrifield, and Hepburn

(2007) that indicated a placation of negative effects of low educational attainment by parents, then also citing Ray (2000) to contrast higher achievement scores by these same 144 children. Murphy (2014) insisted that public school students realize effects resulting from their parents, citing earlier findings by Ray (1997):

In eighth grade math, public school students whose parents are college graduates

score at the 63rd percentile, whereas students whose parents have less than a high

school diploma score at the 28th percentile. Remarkably, students taught at home

by mothers who never finished high school score a full 55 percentile points higher

than public school students from families of comparable educational backgrounds.

(p. 24)

Rudner (1999), also cited by Murphy (2014), supported this assertion stating that:

It is worthy to note that, at every grade level, the mean performance of home

school students whose parents do not have a college degree is much higher than

the mean performance of students in public schools. Their percentiles are mostly

in the 65th to 69th percentile range. (p. 25)

In summarizing his review of the literature regarding student achievement outcomes,

Murphy (2014) declared it “non-definitive”, noting that while “we know more than some analysts suggest we do…we know a lot less than the advocates of homeschooling would have us believe” (p. 258). He did, however, re-highlight that “homeschooling can damp down the effects found in public schools of family socioeconomic variables,” quoting

Collom (2003), “the two great divides that public school children face – race and class – are inconsequential for student achievement among home-educated children” (p. 259).

Murphy (2014) cited a general lack of scientific study related to the topic. A further issue 145 may be the aforementioned variety of approaches, all of which can be categorized under the umbrella label of homeschooling.

The academic outcomes of a child are clearly only one facet in the greater objective of preparing a student for adulthood. Another oft-raised issue, often presented as an objection, is the issue of socialization and a fear that homeschooled children will be abnormally socialized. The research, especially as summarized by Medlin (2000) and

Murphy (2014), presented a generally standard socialization, which is absent abnormality. Murphy (2014) discussed socialization, noting, “the topic of the social development of children is consistently reported to be a critical outcome measure of homeschooling, often ranked first in importance…” (p. 258). After reviewing the vast variety of concerns, proponents and defendants, Murphy (2014) purported this conclusive determination: “Homeschooling does impact the calculus of interpersonal relationships for homeschoolers, a hardly surprising finding given their absence from groups of peers in formal school settings (Chatham-Carpenter 1994)” (pp. 260-261). The research presented some mixed findings, but generally showed homeschoolers to be faring well

(Medlin, 2000; Murphy, 2014). Of the research which found poor socialization outcomes, Medlin (2000) cited Shirkey (1987) who “concluded that home-schooled children ‘feel they have few friends and are socially isolated’ (p. 120)” (p.112), while

Murphy (2014) explained the “social isolation hypothesis” presented by critics of homeschooling. Green-Hennessy (2014) cited two studies (Jolly, Matthews, & Nester,

2013; Kunzman, 2009), which suggest a feeling of isolation. Green-Hennessey (2014) in her own study found that the “results indicate that less religious homeschoolers are 146 experiencing…social difficulties, as well as some suggestion of increased risk for later substance misuse” (p. 447). The general suggestion is that homeschoolers will be socially deprived in comparison to their conventionally schooled peers.

In both summaries of the topic, these suggestions are refuted and the findings are overwhelmingly positive in favor of the socialization effects of homeschooling, although

Murphy (2014) repeatedly noted the general lack of substantive data on the topic. Medlin

(2000) cited Mullins (1992) as having interviewed middle school aged, home-schooled children and found that the majority viewed their socialization positively. Also found was an “overwhelming” preference “to be homeschooled rather than to attend conventional school…” (Montgomery, 1989, as cited by Medlin, 2000, p. 112). Murphy

(2014) broke down the issue of socialization into three categories: social engagement, self-concept, and social skills, all three of which produce positive findings. Murphy

(2014) noted that homeschooling “promot[es] more mixed-age than same-age engagements (Chatham-Carpenter 1994; Ensign 1997; Ray 2009a)” (p. 261). Also noted are “robust-peer linkages”, a lack of isolation from cultural diversity, and an engagement

“with persons from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, ages, religions, and ethnicities

(Medlin 1998, 2000)” (Murphy, 2014, p. 261). As to self-concept, Murphy (2014) cited

Ray (2009b) as finding that homeschooled students have self-concepts which are “as strong or stronger than those of their peers in public and private schools,” later citing a study by Taylor (1986a) which found that these concepts “were significantly higher than those of their peers in public schools,” and that the overall conclusion was that “a positive self-concept is a benefit of homeschooling” (p. 262). As to social skills and perceived 147 deficiency within homeschooled children, Murphy (2014) stated that “the empirical evidence available to date suggests that at a minimum this concern is likely overblown and more like is without foundation (Dahlquist et al. 2006; Medlin 2000)” (p. 263). He included research finding that homeschoolers are “as mature or more mature than children in public schools (Saunders 2010; Smedley 1992),” “demonstrate good leadership skills (Montgomery 1989),” rate high “on measures of ability to interact with others, both peers and adults…communication skills and daily living skills (Wartes,

1987; Ray and Wartes 1991; Smedley 1992; Webb 1989)”, are not socially anxious, possess confidence, assuredness, and are well adjusted, have fewer behavior problems,

“tend to be trustful and non-cynical in nature (McCulloch et al. 2006),” and “are generally a happy group (Taylor 1986a)” (p. 263). The studies on this topic were numerous and varied in scope and paint a generally positive picture of homeschooling.

In their surveys of surveys, Medlin (2000) and Murphy (2014) both arrived to general conclusions. Medlin (2000) concluded by stating, “Despite the widespread belief that home schooling is socially isolating (Gray, 1993), the research documents quite clearly that home-schooled children are very much engaged in the social routines of their communities” (p. 112). Murphy (2014) concluded on his three categories that

“homeschoolers are [socially] engaged at least to the same extent as their conventionally schooled peers, and often more so (Duvall et al. 2004; Delahooke 1986; Medlin 2000),” for self-concept “it is distinctly possible that homeschoolers perform even better in this area than their peers in traditional schools,” and as to social skills, “they demonstrate appropriate pro-social behavior and social responsibility (Shyers 1992; Wartes 1987)” (p. 148

261-263). Both extensive reviews of the literature essentially conclude that homeschooling socializes equally well, if not better.

There is also a concern as to the participation within activities, both in number and in variety. Medlin (2000) cited a number of sources showing homeschoolers actively participating in activities, with one study (Delahooke, 1986) showing homeschoolers participating in more activities than their conventionally schooled counterparts. Medlin

(2000) proposed an explanation for this:

Perhaps one of the reasons home-schooled children take part in so many different

extracurricular activities is that they spend little time watching television. Rudner

(1999), in a huge survey of home schooling families, found that fewer than 3% of

home-schooled fourth graders watch more than 3 hr of television a day. The

comparable figure for fourth graders nationwide is 38%. (p. 111)

In spite of this explanation, Green-Hennessey presents a study by Hill and den Dulk

(2013) who found homeschoolers to be “less likely to engage in volunteer and community service…,” somewhat contradicting Medlin’s (2000) conclusion mentioned above (p. 442). Regardless, there appeared to be no deficiency in the number or variety of homeschooled children’s participation in activities.

Beyond secondary-level homeschooling and its issues of academic achievement and socialization, the effectiveness of the general homeschooled population is maintained. While Cogan (2010) cited a “paucity of current research related to the outcomes of homeschooled students in higher education,” there is a small body of data which suggests at its effectiveness (p. 19). Murphy (2014) cited several studies showing 149 superior college entrance examination scores, including a study by Rudner (1999) which found a composite ACT score of 22.8 for homeschoolers while the national norm was

21.0; while Belfield (2004b; 2005) and Ray (2004b) found homeschoolers performed better on the SAT. Murphy (2014) noted that Oliviera (1994) and Gray (1998) found no significant differences. In terms of acceptance into college, Murphy (2014) offered two findings, including that homeschooled children “apply to and are admitted to postsecondary education in proportions similar to their conventionally educated peers

(Lips and Feinberg 2008; Ray1997b)” and that “they are enrolling in some of the nation’s most distinguished institutions…” (p. 264). A more recent study is Cogan’s (2010),

Exploring academic outcomes of homeschooled students. The population studied were

7,776 incoming freshmen at a “medium-sized private university…located in a metropolitan area in the upper Midwest,” including 76 homeschooled students (p. 21). In spite of the acknowledged low percentage of homeschooled students within the study

(compared to the previously quoted NCES figure of homeschooled children accounting for 3.4% of the total school aged population), it nevertheless showed findings favorable to homeschooling (See Figure 3.6). These findings included a higher ACT composite score by an average of 1.5 points above the mean, a higher cumulative GPA after four years by .3 above the mean, and a graduation rate which was almost ten percentage points higher than the mean. Murphy (2014) concluded his discussion on this area of outcomes with a more conservative statement than Cogan’s (2010) findings suggested, by stating

150

Table 2.3.

Cogan’s (2010) Selected Factors by High School Type

Public Catholic Private Home p x Demographics Male 48.3% 55.8% 56.4% 71.1% *** 50.3% Received Pell 14.8% 9.8% 8.8% 34.2% *** 13.8% Underrepresented Minority 12.2% 10.4% 10.8% 6.8% * 11.8% Engagement Catholic 47.0% 86.9% 48.9% 68.4% *** 54.9% Live on Campus 92.9% 94.2% 86.6% 72.4% *** 92.7% Percent PT Faculty 47.8% 46.7% 47.5% 46.7% 47.5% Enrolled in J-term 17.3% 18.4% 20.6% 14.3% 17.6% Pre-College Academics ACT Composite 25.0 25.1 25.6 26.5 *** 25.0 Transfer Credits 6.6 3.6 2.9 14.7 *** 6.0 HS GPA 3.56 3.49 3.43 3.74 *** 3.54 Transfer GPA 3.43 3.46 3.42 3.65 *** 3.44 First Fall Academics Completed Schedule 87.7% 88.9% 85.6% 91.4% 87.9% Part-Time Status (<13) 7.8% 6.9% 10.7% 9.2% 7.8% Fall GPA 3.07 3.09 3.11 3.37 *** 3.08 Persistence Fall-to-Spring Retention 96.3% 95.8% 96.5% 94.3% 96.2% Fall-to-Fall Retention 87.5% 87.6% 89.5% 88.6% 87.6% One-Year Cumulative GPA 3.12 3.12 3.13 3.41 *** 3.12 Four-Year Cumulative GPA 3.16 3.13 3.18 3.46 * 3.16 Four-Year Graduation 58.6% 54.2% 51.5% 66.7% 57.5% * p-values: .01 (***), .05 (**), and .10 (*)

that “the operational hypothesis at this point in time is as follows: there are ‘few if any’ meaningful differences in retention and academic performance in college between homeschooled students and peers from public schools (Sanders 2010)” (p. 264). While the evidence is not amply found, what evidence is available shows equivalent or superior outcomes in higher education.

Echoing Murphy’s (2014) repeated cautions regarding the limited amount of data and inquiry regarding both the larger topic (outcomes for homeschoolers) and this next 151 area, the following topic deserves a brief look. When considering homeschooled participation in the workforce and in the military, there are a few studies that provide

interesting, if not fully developed, insight. Knowles and Muchmore (1995 as cited in

Murphy, 2014) found that homeschooled alumni tend towards the “entrepreneurial and professional positions,” (p. 264) while Ray (2004a) “documented remarkably high levels of satisfaction with their jobs…with 61.4 percent being very satisfied and 34.5 percent expressing moderate satisfaction.” (as cited in Murphy, 2014, p. 264) The findings for military service were, contrarily, grim. While Murphy (2014) only identified one

“robust” study, the findings included that homeschooled alumni . . .

. . . (1) have higher attrition rates; (2) are less likely to enter the military at an

advanced pay grade (a measure of quality); (3) are more likely to be admitted on a

waiver (another measure of quality); (4) are more likely to exit the military for

negative reasons; and (5) are not viewed as high quality at the time they leave the

armed forces. (Wenger & Hodari, 2004, as cited in Murphy, 2014, p. 265)

Several inaccuracies in the quote above bear correcting. I recently retired from the Army and can state that reasons (2) and (3) above are inaccurate. Both are listed as measures of quality, but neither in actuality is – (2) is dependent upon postsecondary credits accumulated, peer recruiting activity, and/or JROTC or Boy/Eagle Scout participation, while (3) is due to homeschoolers not possessing conventional credentials or medical records, such as a high school diploma or a certain medical vaccination. For (2), there simply is no provision that awards rank based on military entrance test (ASVAB) scores.

Nevertheless, the inference that may be drawn here is that the possible lack of 152 regimentation offered by the homeschool poorly prepares them for the intensely regimented life of military service.

Unschooling

Unschooling, as its morphological intra-negation suggests, is a relatively nebulous concept. It describes a practice which may be construed as being closer to methods of child-rearing which occurred prior to the advent of curricula and buildings devoted to the intentional and directed acquisition of knowledge by children. Unschooling as both a modern concept and practice often blends and melds with others concepts which proximately describe the same activity. Ricci (2011) presented other such concepts that have been used synonymously with unschooling: “learning, life learning, organic learning, holistic education, and…natural learning” (p. 142) while the Alliance for Self-

Directed Education (2017) utilizes self-directed education. In the 1970s, John Holt introduced unschooling as a pedagogical method that allows the child to take the lead in their education (Farenga, 2016). Farenga (2016) offers this brief etymology:

“…unschooling is a term first coined by the (sic) John Holt to mean learning and teaching that does not resemble school learning and teaching.” (p. 1) Farenga (2016) then offers his own “broad”, pragmatic definition that

unschooling…allow(s) your children as much freedom to explore the world

around them in their own ways as you can comfortably bear; I see unschooling in

the light of partnership, not in the light of the dominance of a child’s wishes over

a parents’ or vice versa. (p. 1) 153

To further refine the portrayal of this method, Ricci (2011) utilized contrast in citing a paper by Epstein (2007) discussing the treatment of teenagers:

One would think that military personnel – obligated to follow orders without

question – and prisoners – stripped of most of their rights by the criminal justice

system – would be far more encumbered than noninstitutionalized teens. But

that’s not what I found… Teens appear to be subjected to about twice as many

restrictions as are prisoners and soldiers and to more than ten times as many

restrictions as everyday adults. (p. 45)

Ricci (2011) painted an environment which is dramatically restricted and in contrast to the unfettered method of unschooling. He then cited the founder of the concept, Holt

(1999), in portraying unschooling another way:

Almost a century later John Dewey was to talk about ‘learning by doing.’ The

way for students to learn (for example) how pottery is made is not to read about it

in a book but to make pots. Well, OK, no doubt about its being better. But

making pots just to learn how it is done still doesn’t seem to me anywhere near as

good as making pots (and learning from it) because someone needs pots. The

incentive to learn how to do good work, and to do it, is surely much greater when

you know that the work has to be done, that it is going to be of real use to

someone. (p. 48)

The pedagogical model presented within those lines suggests ideas of utility, functionality, necessity, and relevancy, implicitly suggesting that the conventional model often fails in all of these. Unschooling, as a concept, and despite its inherent negation, is 154 problematic to define as it is encompasses ideas and practices of inclusiveness, stochasticism, freedom, holisticism, and heuristics, all of which are nebulous in and of themselves.

Unschooling in the literature. Within the literature, the topic is almost exclusively covered by the Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, with few exceptions, a trend the cause of which Wheatley (2015) hints at when he references the profusion of practioners of “truly innovative alternative approaches to education…in the

1960s-1970s” who have “retired or even passed away.” (p. 6) In one such exception,

Unschooling: An oasis for development and democracy, Wheatley (2009) used the extended metaphor of an oasis to present the various benefits of the unschooling approach. This work is particularly interesting because Wheatley is a Professor of

Education who teaches curriculum and lesson planning at university, but does not utilize this or content standards in the unschooling of his own children. Wheatley (2009) presented unschooling as oases of learning for life and play; for individualization; for time; for loving learning; for initiative, creativity, and better boredom; for the whole child; from nonsense, acceleration, and other harms; and for democracy. Wheatley

(2009) not only presented unschooling as a panacea for the child, but also for the entire

American school system, stating that, “Unschooling may help American educators make the paradigm change that America’s schools so desperately need,” trying to part ways with “a paradigm that is largely consistent with behaviorist psychology and an assembly line view of education” (p. 32). 155

The methods and actual practice of unschooling may be most easily understood through its reliance on variety and flexibility in addition to its eschewance of nearly all contrived educational settings. Morrison (2007), also a Professor of Education, helped articulate the methods with which unschooling is practiced. Regarding schedules, she noted, “Not only is there not a set, prearranged schedule that is duplicated from day-today, as in most conventional schools, there is also no clear delineation between weekdays and weekends, or between school year and vacation” (p. 44). As to the curriculum,

Morrison went on to state, “Thus, unschooling embraces no set curriculum, nor does it compel students to study particular subjects at a fixed time or age” (p. 45). As to teaching methods: “…one can see that the teaching methods are many and varied, and that the teachers are not just [the parents]…they experience teaching methods that focus predominantly on active participation and hands-on manipulation of resources” (p. 46-

47). On evaluation she stated, “…unschoolers reject the idea that children should all be the same and held to the same standards or criteria. Thus there is no ranking or grading”

(p. 47). As to resources, unschoolers “use a wide variety of resources, ranging from traditional school resources such as workbooks, texts, fiction, computers, art supplies, and science equipment, to resources that are rarely available in conventional schools – especially the resources of the community” (p. 47). Levin-Gutierrez (2015) argued that all of this available opportunity produces intrinsic motivation, presented as a superior form of motivation in contrast to external motivation which is key to conventional schooling. For conventional educators, Rolstad and Kesson (2013) described the 156 difficulty they must face when trying to understand “the apparent paradox of children learning without instruction” (p. 65).

Benefits, challenges, and outcomes of unschooling. Within the Journal of

Unschooling and Alternative Learning the myriad and varied benefits of the practice are enumerated and expounded upon. Leidums (2016) discusses one of the more explicit and holistic benefits that unschooling allows which is “the integration of children into the daily lives of their communities, and engagement with adults in productive activities and shared endeavours…” (p. 1). Leidums (2016) then presents the Maori concept of whakawhanaungatanga which “describ[es] how people are connected to each other, to previous and future generations, and to their environments,” arguing that unschooling allows for far greater interconnectedness, especially in contrast with what could be termed as the conventional generational reset model practiced within the United States where each generation essentially starts over in rebuilding an existential platform (p. 1).

Gray and Riley (2013) interviewed 232 families who unschool and presented the perceived benefits of the collective. As related to learning knowledge, these families

“perceived their children as learning more efficiently and eagerly, and learning more life- relevant material…”, often while maintaining “a higher level of curiosity and greater intrinsic interest in learning.” (p. 16) Socially and emotionally, unschooling was believed to be advantageous with a small majority reporting “their children were happier, less stressed, more self-confident, more agreeable, and/or more socially outgoing than they would be if they were in school or being schooled at home.” (p. 16) Another benefit not often considered within the literature at large regarding education, was reported familial 157 closeness, with a corresponding benefit dubbed as “Family Freedom of Schedule” which allowed families to plan time as advantageously and strategically as possible (p. 16-17).

For individuals with disabilities, Csoli (2013) presents the environment created within

“natural learning” as being conducive to the needs of persons with exceptionalities (p.

92). O’Rourke (2012) and Morrison (2016) both present unschooling as an ideal venue for allowing children the freedom to play, which O’Rourke refers to as “child work” (p.

30). O’Rourke (2012) quotes Gray (2008), “‘In play, from their own desires, children practice the art of being human’ (p. 4),” depicting play as a pedagogically undervalued behavior (p. 49).

Gray and Riley (2013) also examined the challenges presented when unschooling.

They identified five major areas of concern:

(a) feelings of social pressure or criticism concerning the decision to unschool; (b)

difficulty on the part of one or both parents in ridding themselves of their own

culturally-ingrained beliefs about the value of school or curriculum; (c) practical

issues concerning time, career, and income; (d) difficulty arranging opportunities

for their children to socialize with others; and (e) legal issues associated with

unschooling. (p. 13-14)

While homeschooling continues to gain popularity, personal experience suggests that unschooling remains obscure, yet Gray and Riley (2013) note that this obscurity and the resultant societal xenophobia is, in my ways, being overcome by the canvasing capability and reach of online communities. Gray and Riley (2013) further describe the second area of concern mentioned above as an internal struggle between the childhood conditioning 158 received by the parent often combined with the aforementioned societal pressure and the educational gains being made by the child. While not explicitly mentioned, it may be conjectured that the previously mentioned online communities may potentially assist with this reconciliation. The remaining three challenges “appeared in smaller numbers” with the small prevalence of legal problems experienced by “only 5% of families in North

America” potentially the result of robust legal protections afforded by such organizations as the Home School Legal Defense Association (p. 15).

In a follow-up to their 2013 study, Gray and Riley (2015) examined “Grown unschoolers’ evaluations of their unschooling experiences” by surveying 75 adults who had been unschooled (p. 8). Their findings suggest that unschooling provides a strong opportunity for success both in life and in future participation with conventional education systems (Gray & Riley, 2015). From an individual perception standpoint, individuals who had been unschooled reported that unschooling was beneficial: “For 72 of the 75 respondents, the advantages of unschooling clearly, in their own minds, outweighed the disadvantages.” (Gray & Riley, 2014, p. 1) (p. 26) Specific advantages which were cited include “Time to Pursue Own Interests” (77%),

“Freedom/Independence” (75%), and “Improved Learning” (60%); cited advantages which transcended into adulthood were “Self-Direction and/or Self-Motivation” (75%),

“high sense of Responsibility” (48%), “Continued Learning” (44%), and “Self-

Confidence” (43%) (p. 21). Important for the purposes of this paper, a third of respondents cited “that unschooling allowed for a smooth transition to adulthood” (p. 21).

In response to the “common stereotype” that homeschooled and unschooled children “are 159 socially isolated and socially awkward”, 69% of respondents reported having a “good” social life growing up unschooled with 68% further identified the advantage of “ma[king] friends with people of all ages.” (p. 20) Of the disadvantages, Gray and Riley (2015) identified the two most commonly cited as being “Others (sic) Opinions” (28%) and

“Social Isolation” (21%) (p.25). Ultimate assessments of the method are possibly made most apparent when considering the subsequent generation: 67% “responded in a way that we coded as Yes, indicating that they would definitely unschool their own child, or would unless the child expressed a clear preference for something else or circumstances prevented it.” (p. 21)

Criticism of unschooling as method seems to be mostly relegated to forums and blogs, however, there have been a small number of published news articles and editorials actively criticizing the practice. In an article in the Huffington Post which focuses on an unschooling family which has “abdicate[d] any parental controls or discipline in lieu of fun and freedom,” Wilke (2012) questions whether the method is an instance of “good parenting or unparenting?” (p. 1) Goldstein (2012), in an article from Slate, argues that for “liberals . . . [opting out of public schools] violates progressive values,”, instead suggesting that participation in the reform of public schools is a better option than nonparticipation. Finally, McLaren (2014) offers a simple critique that unschooling “is a luxury for the wealthy.” (p. 1) The author argues that “like privately educated children, home-schooled and unschooled kids tend to be economically and culturally privileged.”

(p. 1) The basis for this assertion is not provided. 160

Unfortunately, while academic examinations of traditional homeschooling have regularly occurred, if not in great numbers, research on the practice and outcomes of unschooling has yet to occur. Professors of education, Rolstad and Kesson (2013) both referred to a “tremendous gap in the research literature and a dearth of empirical or philosophical support from academic experts…” (p. 32). Gray and Riley (2015) found that Kirschner’s (2008) dissertation could be the “earliest formal research into unschooling” (p. 10) while Matthay’s (2001) polemic, Unschooling as political activity, may be the earliest treatment of the topic within the literature at large. Should academia eventually turn its microscope towards unschooling, Wheatley (2009) predicted “that research on unschooling will ultimately show that kids are wired to learn; and if their basic needs are met, they are very good at learning without rewards, punishments, competition, and without teacher-planned lessons aimed at low-level objectives or at passing standardized tests” (p. 32). While the percentage of homeschoolers utilizing the unschooling model is unknown, the massive rise in the practice of homeschooling may produce unschoolers in numbers that eventually warrant more robust examination.

Parental Involvement in Education

In conventional educational settings, increased parental involvement in education has been repeatedly shown to positively affect educational outcomes. Chen and Gregory

(2010) noted that “decades of research have established a positive association between parental involvement and students’ educational outcomes (e.g., Seiginer, 1983; Sheldon

& Epstein, 2022)” (p. 53), while Lau (2013) provided this summary, “Over a number of years, researchers have found substantial evidence showing positive relations between 161 parent involvement, child development, and positive academic outcomes (Coll et al.,

2002; Jeynes, 2005; Voyandoff & Donnelly, 1999)” (p. 11). The benefits of this involvement included earning higher grades (Sewell & Hauser, 1980; Stevenson &

Baker, 1987, as cited in Chen & Gregory, 2010; Lau, 2013), increased engagement in school (Lau, 2013), better school attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002, as cited in Chen

& Gregory, 2010), increased on-time graduation rates (Lau, 2013), and less discipline issues (Deslandes & Royer, 1997; Lee, 1994; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002, as cited in Chen

& Gregory, 2010). Lau (2013) noted that these positive effects have found to be influential as early as preschool. Chen & Gregory (2010) categorized this involvement into three categories: “(a) parental participation in school-related activities. . . (b) parental encouragement of positive school behaviors. . . (c) parental expectations for achievement and attainment…” (p. 54). Table 2.4 provides a snapshot into the reported participation

Table 2.4.

Parental and Family Involvement in School

Note. Adapted from “Percentage of students in kindergarten through grade 12 whose parents reported participation in school-related activities, by selected school, student, and family characteristics: 2011-12,” by National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, Parent and family involvement in education from the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2012. Copyright 2015 by the National Center for Education Statistics. 162 rates of parents in their children’s education, although it only exhibits single-event participation. A gap in the literature was a quantification of the time spent by parents of students attending conventional schools, and, therefore, the average amount of time spent by parents involved in their children’s education is unknown. In spite of this deficiency, the literature provides good reason for the encouragement of direct and increased parental involvement in education.

Beyond educational involvement lay simple parental involvement or interaction with a child within the scope of daily life. Recent studies suggest that parents are spending more time with their children compared to years past, as Sayer, Bianchi, and

Robinson (2004) found that parents are spending “greater amounts of time in child care activites.” (p.1) More recently, this line of inquiry has been updated with the finding that

“the average mother spent 54 minutes a day caring for children in 1965 but 104 minutes in 2012,” while for men, “their child-caring time has jumped from 16 minutes to 59.”

(The Data Team, 2017, p. 1) All told, this amounts to an average of just above two and a half hours of parent/child per day. Both reports appear to assume conventional school education. Findings on the average time spent with child in an unschooling setting have not been found; however, from Gray and Riley’s (2013) finding regarding family closeness it may be extrapolated or conjectured that unschooling dramatically affects quantity of time invested in children by parents.

School as a Potentially Traumatic Experience

While polemical treatments against conventional schooling abound, there is a small niche within the literature which argues that the practice is actually, taken as a 163 whole, a harmful experience for a child. Possibly the most thorough examination of school as a damaging experience is from Olson’s (2009) work, Wounded by school. The work is of particular interest in that it is an outcome produced by an academic inquiry into the “delights and enlightenment experienced in the course of schooling” which transformed in response to the data (Gray, 2011, p. 1). Olson’s doctoral advisor,

Lawrence-Lightfoot articulates the shift in the book’s foreword:

Olson certainly expected to hear stories of joyful and productive learning, stories

that mixed seriousness, adventure, and pleasure, work and play, desire and

commitment. Instead, she discovered the shadows of pain, disappointment, even

cynicism in their vivid recollections of schooling. Instead of the light that she

expected, she found darkness. (Olson, 2009, p. xii)

Within the pages, Olson (2009) details the “‘everyday’ learning losses and lacerations experienced in school that have lifelong consequences for pupils.” (p. 25, emphasis added). The author goes so far as to create a taxonomy of the wounds, including wounds of creativity, compliance, rebellion, numbness, underestimation, perfection, and the average, each with their particular collection of hurt, pain, and cost.

Gatto (2003) offers an argument against schooling which is grounded in social, historical, and economic contexts. As an accomplished and experienced teacher who received both New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year awards, Gatto

(2003) critiques the early shapers of American public education, citing this quote from a previous dean of Stanford’s School of Education, “‘Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of 164 the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.’” (p. 38) Gatto

(2003), who frames schooling’s effects as crippling, describes boredom as being ubiquitous within school systems for both student and teacher, “I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world.” (p. 33) In closing, Gatto (2003) advises:

School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be

leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your

own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low

threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never

be bored.” (p. 38)

Matthay (2001) offers a complementary conclusion regarding the overall utility of school for children:

I saw that schools could not be responsive to the remarkable styles of learning that

children develop, nor truly sensitive to the developmental differences that exist

between children of a given age. I saw how schools harm children by stratifying

them in narrow classes, by encouraging them to compete against each other, by

coercing them to do (often dull) work, by comparing their achievements against

external standards, by rewarding the “best and brightest,” and denigrating the rest.

In short, processes that had once seemed normal and inevitable, now seemed

inhumane and absurd. (p. 62)

Both Gatto (2003) and Matthay (2001) view school as intentionally controlling and damaging institution. 165

Gray (2009), a psychology professor at Boston College, lists the “seven sins of our system of education” in an article by the same name where the author, expressing reluctance and discomfort, declares that “school is prison,” (p. 1) a weighty assertion partly supported by the aforementioned study by Epstein (2007 as cited by Ricci, 2011).

The “seven sins” which support this conclusion include, “denial of liberty on the basis of age,” “fostering of shame, on the one hand, and hubris, on the other,” “interference with the development of cooperation and nuturance,” “interference with the development of personal responsibility and self-direction”, “linking of learning with fear, loathing, and drudgery,” “inhibition of critical thinking,” and “reduction in diversity of skills, knowledge, and ways of thinking.” (p. 1) Gray then articulates a struggle to overcome these burdens:

Many students find ways to overcome the negative feelings that forced schooling

engenders and to focus on the positive. They fight the sins. They find ways to

cooperate, to play, to help one another overcome feelings of shame, to put undue

pride in its place, to combat bullies, to think critically, and to spend some time on

their true interests despite the forces working against them in school. But to do all

this while also satisfying the demands of the forced education takes great effort,

and many do not succeed. (p. 1)

Gray (2009) portrays school as an institution fraught with potentially harmful influences, both environmental and interpersonal.

Finally, a recent study by Goodman (2017) found that the intentional shaming of students to be an actively practiced and policy supported method, particularly used to 166 recoup student debt for meals. Goodman cites a finding by “the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, [that] nearly half of all school districts have used some form of shaming to compel payment.” (p. 26) The researcher describes the ineffectiveness of the method:

“Shame fails to inhibit future acts of wrongdoing and may even make matters worse. It is associated with defensively motivated anger, future substance use, risk taking, and externalization of blame.” (p. 29) Goodman then denounces the practice at large:

The vast majority of the time, shaming is ineffective, and such deliberately

induced humiliation violates a child’s dignity. It is, therefore, not just inadvisable

but a moral wrong. Children at school struggle to maintain self-esteem amidst the

battle for popularity, grades, and social rankings. When an adult induces the belief

that one is unworthy — a lesser person — then self respect and self-assurance are

undermined. (p. 30)

Goodman portrays a strategy of control which is not only ineffective, but demeaning to children. The literature offers enough dissenting voices as to a negative net value of schooling to merit consideration in its use with the vulnerable population of foster children.

167

Chapter 3: Methods

Researching the use of alternative schooling, particularly unschooling, as a means of educating foster children was especially problematic in that it requires a population that does not currently exist openly. Additionally, literature on this specific use of homeschooling cannot be located within the extant literature. The populations is, in and of itself, relatively small. While the homeschooling population has grown significantly in past decades (Institute of Education Sciences, 2008), the proportion of unschoolers was construed as only a tiny subset of this group. Furthermore, families providing foster care who utilize unschooling also represent a miniscule demographic. In addition to identifying this population, the research questions consider a line of inquiry that is at the intersection of multiple disciplines, namely education (especially alternative education), social work, and, given the particular context of the author (a context in which unschooling is particularly suited), environmental and sustainability sciences as a means of providing a space for unschooling to occur. As such, bricolage, what Rogers (2012) called the “eclectic approach to social inquiry” (p. 2), has been used to explore this topic, cobbling together qualitative meta-syntheses and autoethnography to approach this research problem.

Bricolage was first casually introduced as a way to construct knowledge by Levi-

Strauss (1962) in his anthropological work, The Savage Mind. The concept is introduced in the work’s first chapter in a section discussing the natural scientism of “Neolithic, or early historical man,” whose various technological advancements were not the “fortuitous accumulation of a series of chance discoveries” but rather the result of “centuries of 168 active and methodical observation, of bold hypotheses tested by means of endlessly repeated experiments” (p. 14). In contrasting the modern scientific and strict positivist approach (as of 1962) against that of the neolithic man’s, Levi-Strauss (1962) described the applicability of the approach in these terms:

…not a function of different stages of development of the human mind but rather

two strategic levels at which nature is accessible to scientific inquiry: one roughly

adapted to that of perception and the imagination: the other at a remove from it. It

is as if the necessary connections which are the object of all science, neolithic or

modern, could be arrived at by two different routes, one very close to, and the

other more remote from, sensible intuition. (p. 15, emphasis added)

Through this paper, I seek to make these “necessary connections” with the initial aid of

“sensible intuition,” but also with the added assistance of decades of literature to explore an unexplored and hypothetically beneficial juncture.

Continuing to discuss the sensible, intuitive approach to science, Levi-Strauss

(1962) offered the myth as the academic journal of the past, “preserv[ing] until the present time the remains of methods of observation and reflection which were (and no doubt still are) precisely adapted to discoveries of a certain type...” (p. 16). Terming this approach “the science of the concrete,” Levi-Strauss (1962) argued that it “was necessarily restricted by its essence to results other than those destined to be achieved by the exact natural sciences but it was no less scientific and its results no less genuine” (p.

16). Immediately following this definition Levi-Strauss introduced the French concepts 169 of bricolage and of the bricoleur, both of which, the translator notes, have “no precise equivalent in English.” (p. 16-17)

Levi-Strauss (1962) presented the bricoleur in contrast with the craftsman and the engineer. The author stated that:

…the bricoleur is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but unlike

the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw

materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His

universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do

with ‘whatever is at hand’, that is to say finite and is also heterogeneous…”

(Levi-Strauss, 1962, p. 17, emphasis added).

Continuing to describe how the bricoleur operates, Levi-Strauss (1962) stated that “he interrogates all the heterogeneous objects which his treasury is composed to discover what each of them could ‘signify’ and so contribute to the definition of a set which has yet to materialize…” (p. 18). As this inquiry is concerned with both a heterogeneity of concepts as well as researching practices “which ha[ve] yet to materialize,” bricolage is a natural fit as elucidated by Levi-Strauss.

Patton (2002) extensively draws from Cedillos’ (1998) approach and articulation of bricolage, both complementing and further refining that of Levi-Strauss (1962).

Cedillos (1998) beautifully, and pragmatically, portrays the method:

Bricolage, by taking broken things as its primary resource, is a trash methodology

for deploying unbridled optimism in a perceptual world; a search technology for

the aesthetic potential, the creativity edge everywhere. Bricolage operates in the 170

pixeling surface of the dumps glistening like diamond fields streaked through

with veins of gold and silver, and this brings one to see for oneself that the world

is indeed layered like this. (Cedillos, 1998: pp. 18-19; Patton, 2002, p. 402,

emphasis added)

As this particular study has pragmatic roots, pulling together a well-documented societal deficiency with voices of those who have utilized the fringe pedagogical method of unschooling, Cedillos’ (1998) description depicts a methodology, which is well suited for the purpose.

Kincheloe (2001) as well as others such as Denzin and Lincoln (2000) have worked to legitimize bricolage as a research method. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) have done so in their Handbook of Qualitative Research, thereby giving it a place as an acknowledged and accepted research method. Passionately defending the method against critics, Kincheloe (2001) named their major complaint:

Implicit in the critique of interdisciplinarity and thus of bricolage as its

manifestation in research is the assumption that interdisciplinarity is by nature

superficial. Superficiality results when scholars, researchers, and students fail to

devote sufficient time to understanding the disciplinary fields and knowledge

bases from which particular modes of research emanate. Many maintain that such

an effort leads not only to superficiality but madness. Attempting to know so

much, the bricoleur not only knows nothing well but also goes crazy in the

misguided process (Friendman, 1998; McLeod, 2000; Palmer, 1996). (p. 681) 171

In response to this argument, Kincheloe (2001) asserted that “given the social, cultural, epistemological, and paradigmatic upheavals and alterations of the past few decades, rigorous researchers may no longer enjoy the luxury of choosing whether to embrace the bricolage (Friedman, 1998; McLeod, 2000).” (p. 681) Specifically for the purposes of this inquiry, the research questions lay at the disciplinary intersection of education, alternative education, social work, and environmental science, therefore requiring interdisciplinarity and, finally, resulting in bricolage as a logical approach for an inquiry of this nature.

Research Design

Within the bricolage framework, this study juxtaposed a narrative review, an autoethnography from my ongoing existential experiment in unschooling and sustainable homesteading, and interviews of foster parents and a social worker who were familiar with unschooling. The narrative review “cover(s) a wide range of issues within a given topic” (Collins & Fauser, 2005, p. 104) “from which conclusions may be drawn into a holistic interpretation contributed by the reviewers’ own experience, existing theories and models (Campbell Collaboration, 2001; Kirkevold, 1997).” (Educational Research

Review, 2017, p. 3) While narrative review is “less formal” and lacks what is often perceived as “the more rigorous aspects characteristic of a systematic review,” its utility to broadly examine and compare the resultant examinations made it ideal for the purposes of this study (Jahan, Naveed, Zeshan, & Tahir, 2016, p. 2). Narrative review was used to consider the institution of foster care, including the care of foster children, the education of foster children, and the eventual life outcomes of foster children after having aged out, 172 as well as alternative education options, specifically the expanding trend of homeschooling and, most particularly, the approach of unschooling.

Autoethnography was used to detail an environment and practices, which were dissimilar pedagogically to most contemporary American places and conventional schooling methods. Autoethnography, being originally developed and deployed within the field of anthropology (Heider, 1975), was utilized herein in a manner best described by Denshire (2013) as a way to “speak back (and perhaps differently) about professional life under prevailing conditions of audit culture so as to make and remake ethical relations in contexts of professional practice”, with the professionality in this case being pedagogical practice (p. 9). Within the methodological bricolage, autoethnography fits nicely as it “continues to occupy ‘an intermediate space we can’t quite define yet, a borderland between passion and intellect, analysis and subjectivity, enthography and autobiography, art and life’ (Behar, 1996: 174).” (Denshire, 2013, p. 9)

Moreover, the dependence upon what Patton (2002) referred to as “direct personal contact with and observations of” methods of unschooling allowed for “understanding context [which was] essential to a holistic perspective” (p. 262). As this study considered both pedagogical and existential outcomes of foster children it rendered such a “holistic perspective” indispensable (p. 262). A naturally emic autoethnographic approach produced observations and contacts which were captured in a fashion described by

Clifford and Marcus (1986) who stated that “the making of ethnography is artisanal, tied to the wordly work of writing” (p. 6). While the ethnographic act of writing is replete with complexity and problematic terrain, being reduced by Tyler (1986) to the “most 173 powerful means of representation”, offering “capacity to create totalistic illusions with which to have power over things or over others as if they were things”, and an activity which may be most simply described as “a magical act,” writing herein was used merely to identify and expound upon areas of pedagogical potential (p. 131).

The scarcity of practitioners of unschooling combined with the corresponding

über scarcity of foster parents who practice unschooling (either with their biological/adoptive children or their foster children) greatly limited the available participants in conducting interviews on the topic. An international search for foster parents who utilized unschooling with their foster children eventually yielded three (3) participants, including two practitioners and a formerly unschooled social worker who actively advocated for the use of unschooling with foster children. As Patton (2002) has noted, the interview guide approach was utilized to ensure that certain aspects of the practice were covered, but allowed the researcher freedom “to build a conversation within a particular subject area, to word questions spontaneously” (p. 342-343).

The use of narrative review, autoethnography, and interviews provided this study with a degree of methodological triangulation. Patton (2002) noted that the object of triangulation is to “test for . . .consistency” and that finding both consistencies and inconsistencies allows the researcher to engage “real-world nuances” (p. 248). Given the aforementioned nebulousness with which this study was fraught, such nuances were integral to the research with the intended outcome of identifying a potentially beneficial new way of addressing common, chronic, and systemic issues found within existing practices of educating foster children. 174

Autoethnography

The participant I. I used autoethnography to elucidate the practice and functionality of our own use of unschooling as a way to inform the potential use of the same with the fostered population. Conventionally, I graduated from a suburban school outside of Columbus, Ohio, and subsequently graduated from Bowling Green State

University and Ohio University with degrees from within the interdisciplinary supra-field

(displaying a penchant for the freedom of exploration inherent to unschooling). I recently retired from the U.S. Army as a reservist, where I was mobilized five times and served in both Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. All told, and like many people, I have had extensive experience with institutional education through time at public school, public university, and the U.S. Army.

My family and I established a homestead in southeast Ohio on which we have unschooled for approximately a decade. Within my family, there were four secondary participants. My three biological children and one adopted child were present (my spouse was deployed overseas for the period covered by the autoethnography). To be clear, none of the children are or have been foster children.

To briefly preview the unschooled within the autoethnography, Levin Alexei was a male aged eight, Elizaveta Fyodora was a female aged nine, Josef Alyosha was a male aged eleven, and Caleb Kolya was a male aged fourteen. Like most broods, the children exhibited a fair degree of difference as well as similarity in personality, preference, and potential. Caleb, the eldest, has always shown a strong inclination towards outdoors activity, especially hunting, fishing, and raising poultry, particularly chickens. Caleb is a 175 doer and appears to be the heir apparent for running the homestead should he make the decision to remain on the ancestral lands. Examined from the Big Five personality trait taxonomy, Caleb is low on extraversion, low on agreeableness internally to the family but higher externally, high on conscientiousness, extremely low on neuroticism, and in the middle of the spectrum on openness/intellect (John & Srivastava, 1999). Caleb has dyslexia and exhibits a majority of the strengths and weaknesses traditionally associated with it.

Josef could be described as bookish, in that he generally prefers the indoors where he will often read or write books. Josef has a combination of qualities which I suspect would make for a likely target for bullying in conventional schools: Josef is sensitive, overly concerned with fairness, voluble, a wordsmith, acutely self-aware, and expressive both verbally and affectionately. Josef eschews rudeness and possesses a minor phobia about being perceived as having been rude. Considered within the Big Five taxonomy,

Josef is high on extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness/intellect (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Elizaveta was recently diagnosed with epilepsy and exists with an intellectual disability resultant from a stroke at birth with the major effects being lapses in logic and reason as well as mild hemiplegia. Her predominant characteristics are an inclination towards care-giving and concern for others’ well-being as well as a tendency towards expressed wonderment, both through the natural world as well as media. Of all the children, Elizaveta clearly feels things viscerally, as elements which move her are made apparent through frissons expressed via whole body quivers, sudden tensing of the face 176 and body, or, most likely, the rapid shaking of her right arm and hand. This most often occurs while watching movies. When considered through the aforementioned taxonomy,

Elizaveta is moderate on extraversion, extremely high on agreeableness, moderately high on conscientiousness, low on neuroticism, and possesses an openness/intellect which seems to exist outside the taxonomy with its unique blend of simplicity and sophistication

(John & Srivastava, 1999).

Finally, the youngest, Levin, has been long known for his impish behavior, frequently being at the center of small mischief. Similar to Caleb, he prefers to be outdoors ranging and foraging, showing a strong inclination towards botany. In other ways, Levin is like Josef in that he is also extremely concerned with issues of fairness and justice, as well as possessing a fear of having been perceived to have been impolite.

Also like Josef, Levin shares a high degree of sensitivity to comments from others, but

Levin possesses a remarkable amount of charisma as indicative by a high volume of people who remark upon the same. Levin is fairly high on extraversion, agreeableness, and openness/intellect, but lower on conscientiousness and neuroticism than Josef (John

& Srivastava, 1999).

While the eldest, Caleb, is more often serious and far more interested in participating in discussion and activity with adults, he nevertheless will occasionally participate in the play and games of his younger siblings. Josef, Elizaveta, and Levin are most often together, playing original games, each taking turns inventing the direction of the game as well as being alternately good or evil. Josef usually and actively ensures equality in this regard. Josef and Levin are especially close, engaging in loud, playful, 177 and, often, clever dialogue. For instance, Levin recently stated that a meal was not “salty enough”, to which Josef immediately rejoined, “This is in-salt-ing!” Josef, Levin, and

Elizaveta all have elaborate internal worlds to which they will often go during a day, the external indication is usually of them skipping or running (inside or outside) often while talking to themselves. At a younger age, Josef describes this activity as “me thinking about me saving the day,” but once older this transformed into merely “The Thinking.”

Josef and Levin hold The Thinking jointly, having developed a litany of species, humanoid races, cyborgs, and robots, with leading characters and major historical events.

Elizaveta, in particular, spends the most time in the state described above and often loudly plays out her internal world externally.

Place of practice. The autoethnography contained herein was conducted at a construct dubbed Jacoslavia by myself and my family. Jacoslavia is comprised of 46.5 acres of land in the unglaciated part of the State of Ohio, within the western fringe of

Appalachia and in Morgan County (pop. 15,504, Census Bureau, 2010). It is composed of one house, two barns, five paddocks, one hay field, and a woodlot. The name,

Jacoslavia, is intended to be partly humorous and partly inspiring, harkening back to the now defunct state of Yugoslavia, which was arguably, and inadvertently, responsible for

Allied success in World War II as their rejection of Hitler’s demands both caused their occupation and resulted in the fateful delay of the German invasion of the Soviet Union

(Shirer, 1960).

Jacoslavia, most aptly described as a homestead, is the result of a multi-decade effort first envisioned around 2004. Originally designed in the spirit of fiscal prudence as 178

– to avoid mortgage and employment through radical cost reduction – the potential and possibility presented by additional freedoms gained from debt-avoidance evolved the effort into the larger objectives of building a foster homeunschool and ecovillage. The financial situation on Jacoslavia is important to note for it allows what may otherwise be impossible. There are no liens on Jacoslavia, all property – land, house, cars, belongings

– have been paid in full and are owned outright. Moreover, ample savings have been accrued which combined with extraordinarily low upkeep costs make Jacoslavia an exceptionally sustainable enterprise. This financial sustainability is crucial in the maintenance of single-minded focus on the effort presented herein.

The homestead was intentionally designed emplacing sustainable systems which were appropriate to the geographic location. Foremost among those is passive solar design, which allows the house to maximize solar gain in the winter, while minimizing it in the summer, through a majority of the glazing facing due south and limited windows on the western exposure. The house building materials contribute to this process with the pounded tire foundation, brick masonry heater, and adobe floor adding to overall thermal mass, thereby improving heat gain in the winter. The straw bale walls contribute to insulating the house from external extremes, while the first floor, being below grade, adds a cave-like constancy of temperature which cools during hot summers and limits heating needs in winter. Finally, the open floor plan of the house maximizes air flow for easy heating and venting. Thus, the house needs minimal inputs to maintain housal homeostasis resulting in negligible amounts of firewood burned in the winter (i.e. approximately a single cord in the winter of 2017) and similarly negligible amounts of 179 electricity to run fans in summer (See Figure 3.1). Taken as a whole, the house design is crucial for an unschooled pedagogy that has sustainability at its core.

Figure 3.1. Photograph of AEPOhio home energy report dated February 8, 2017, depicting exceptionally low energy usage for my home of record.

For water, the house utilizes systems reliant on gravity and simple weather systems. Using neither well nor spring, the house captures clean rain water and stores it in a 3500 gallon cistern from which a single hand-pump pulls water at the kitchen sink.

Radical drainage dumps grey water from this sink and bathtub into a French drain out the back of the house and down the hill. A complete absence of indoor plumbing, combined with the hand-pump and a gravity-fed shower ensures conservative use of water. While the USGS (2016) estimates that “each person uses about 80-100 gallons of water per day” thereby resulting in a situation where a family of six would empty a 3500 gallon cistern in a week, the responsible systems emplaced have resulted in a situation where additional water has never yet been necessary, even in drought (p. 1). Water hauling in the area is a common practice, but to date, the single 3500-gallon cistern has proven sufficient. 180

A major contributor to water sufficiency is the lack of flush toilets. Initially utilizing all-in-one composting toilets, the household switched shortly thereafter to manual composting toilets and humanure collection due to fungus gnats and problems with urine salts. The toilet systems are clean, do not waste water, and provide, after a year of composting, a large amount of usable compost. Such a system initially seems repugnant, but living on a homestead finds one surrounded by fecal matter – i.e. horse, cow, goat, sheep, cat, dog, duck, chicken, turkey, and guinea – so contemporary abhorrence of human fecal matter quickly disappears. While it is still treated as a potential vector for disease, it is no longer viewed as a toxic biohazard, rather managed along with all the other kinds of feces.

An additional consideration in the construction of the homestead was to force movement, both as a response to the “US obesity epidemic” as well as the hemiplegia of

Lizzy (Young & Nestle, 2002). The house was constructed approximately 250 meters off the road, but no driveway was made. Rather, an old cow path was laid with bricks as a footpath therefore requiring residents and visitors to walk a distance possibly carrying groceries, animal feed, or anything else. Moreover, the house itself was built to encourage indoor movement, especially two-handed climbing. Movement from the first floor to the second floor requires climbing a steep stair and then ascending a cloverleaf, playground climber. Descending requires traversing the same climber, but then a child may choose to reach ground via a 30” tube slide. The ground floor was designed to allow for circular movement around the masonry heater or up the stair and down the slide, continuously. The house’s design appears to have significantly assisted Lizzy’s 181 hemiplegia for whom, as a baby, there was concern that she would not be able to walk.

Her movement is currently close to being on par with her siblings, including the ability to climb, swim, and most recently, ride a bicycle.

Philosophically, we adhere to a simple and flexible concept encapsulated in the maxim everything in moderation, which is prominently painted within the house. As implied, this is applied to nearly everything and has resulted in the accumulation and use of technologies which may be described as being mid-range. In lieu of a tractor or utility vehicle, a wheel-barrow is used, whereas trees are sometimes felled by an ax and sometimes by a chainsaw depending upon their hardness and safety considerations. From a Maslowian standpoint, manual labor has not been eradicated, but is rather intentionally used as a contributor to the satisfaction of needs from physiological to self-actualization, while its antithesis leisure, is also produced in moderation, allowing for ample time but denying couch-potatohood. Therefore, internet access and antiquated video gaming systems are available and used. iPads and smart phones are also available, but their use is actively moderated. Conversely, simple machines are available and their use is naturally moderated through interest and need. Dietetically, the family adheres to the same, ingesting and imbibing items in proportion to their perceived nutritional and Maslowian value. On the whole, these practices appear to have successfully resulted in fit and content children.

Pedagogically, a moderate version of unschooling is practiced. The weather is the foremost consideration for a day’s pedagogical activities, with extremes in temperature and precipitation increasing the likelihood of indoor activity or labor, while comfortable 182 weather will far more likely produce outdoor activity or labor. As required, reading, writing, and arithmetic are intentionally taught in bursts of one or two hours daily as these competencies are viewed as necessary to providing access to higher-level knowledge. There is additionally a heavy intentional focus on the education of personal money management finances with a healthy and active internal economy existing on

Jacoslavia. Bartering, trading, buying, and selling, both internally and externally, with parents, siblings, or vendors, is commonplace and encouraged as the children come to understand the constantly shifting value of goods. In summary, intentional education is limited to a small set of skills and ways of knowing deemed to be crucial to future exploration and learning. All other knowledge acquisition is left to stochasticism, which is encouraged through varied experience and exposure to varied people. As such, and in the tradition of unschooling, the education received by a child growing up on Jacoslavia was and is dependent upon that child’s interests and natural trajectory.

Again from a Maslowian perspective, Jacoslavia is intended to provide long term potential for the fulfillment of all needs, especially those of self-actualization, while from a SDT perspective, the place offers great opportunity for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The vision of the construct as a foster home(un)school requires future growth as well as constant upkeep thereby allowing for a wide variety of opportunities for self-actualization, the exercise of autonomy, and a need for competence. For instance, Caleb, the eldest, is currently focused on the construction of a purely off-the- grid house thereby providing a situation where both Maslowian and SDT needs may be met and an individual may flourish. The sheer size of the location and use of natural 183 materials allows for attempts and failures as the four hide-outs built by the children dotted around the property attest to—on the adult level, builds may be attempted and failures allowed to merely return to the earth. Jacoslavia, being a homestead on which unschooling is practiced, provided a unique place from which to consider the employment of unschooling for the fostered population.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with a small number of persons who were found to be familiar and experienced with both unschooling and foster children. Considerations of sampling were not necessary due to the sheer scarcity of such persons. Locating such individuals proved to be exceptionally challenging and therefore interviews were conducted in the least inconvenient method for the interviewee, which ultimately included one epistlatory interview via email, one verbal interview via phone, and one verbal interview via Skype. The interviews were conducted using a set of questions which served as an interview guide allowing for exploration given that the nebulousness of the subject allows for any manner of digression (Patton, 2002).

Participants. Three interviews were conducted during the course of this study.

The first interview was with Indra (a pseudonym) who was a licensed clinical social worker who had been working with foster children for approximately a decade in both the south and northeastern United States. She had been unschooled throughout her childhood and had siblings who had also been unschooled. Prior to making contact with her, she had been engaged in attempting to convince her organization to actively pursue the use of 184 unschooling with foster children by either recruiting foster parents who were familiar with the practice or by training existing foster parents in the method.

The second interview was conducted with a former foster parent, Alexander (a pseudonym), who had been trained to provide therapeutic foster care and fostered 18 children in the northeastern United States. While not a self-identifying practitioner of unschooling, this interviewee was the brother of a prominent advocate of unschooling and therefore extremely familiar with the method. Furthermore, his experiences in providing education for his foster children could be described as being de facto unschooling, situational unschooling, or circumstantial unschooling, in that the ultimate methods most closely reflected the named practice.

The third interview was conducted with Toni, who was an active foster parent who also intentionally utilized “whole life, radical unschool[ing]” as well as an advocate for foster children at the state level. After using unschooling with biological children including one to adulthood, Toni and spouse became treatment foster care providers.

They would eventually adopt three of their foster children, all of whom they have unschooled and plan to continue unschooling. Toni’s experiences are the sole example of a foster parent deliberately practicing unschooling, although bureaucratic constraints have so far precluded the use of unschooling with a foster child who is still under the care of the state. Therefore, unschooling was used with both biological children and adopted children who were previously foster children.

The combination of narrative review, autoethnography, and interviews was intended to consider the use of unschooling with foster children from various angles 185 within the bricolage methodology. The narrative review was utilized to consider the status quo of the problem as well as the status quo of both homeschooling and unschooling. The autoethnography was utilized to illuminate the pedagogy of unschooling and potentially inform future practice. Finally, the interviews presented practitioner perspectives of the utility of using unschooling with foster children.

Combined, the three research instruments offered an assessment of the potential of using unschooling with the fostered population.

186

Chapter 4: Findings

This chapter presents the findings of the narrative review of the collected literature, autoethnography of my unschooling practice, and interviews with individuals familiar and experienced with both unschooling and foster children. Two research questions, what is the current status quo of foster children in the United States as relates to the acquisition of education? and, what are the current innovations and initiatives being utilized on behalf of the education of foster children? are addressed by the narrative review and are presented first. Next, the autoethnographic findings begin to address the final research question regarding unschooling by presenting my specific unschooling environment and the context in which it is practiced. This illuminates the manner in which this pedagogy may address an individual foster child, specifically tailoring practice to the individual. Finally, the findings from the interviews are presented which afford unique insights from pioneering foster parents who are using unschooling with foster child as well as a social worker who was unschooled as a child. Their input offers expertise into the practicality and utility of using unschooling for this population, directly addressing the final research question.

Narrative Review of Literature

When the disparate bodies of literature surrounding foster children and the practice of unschooling were juxtaposed they provided a glimpse into the potential found at this intersection. Unschooling, as a practice, is repeatedly characterized by its affordance of simple freedom and, in light of Farenga’s (2016) view of unschooling as partnership between child and parent, the same can be extended to imagine foster child 187 and foster parent partnered to best reform the chaos of that young person’s life into whatever it may functionally become (Holt, 1999; Wheatley, 2009; Gray & Riley, 2013,

2015).

The literature depicts a historical march to provide orphaned and neglected children with better circumstances (Jacobi, 2009; Herman, 2005; Hasci, 1995; Whetten et al., 2014). Within the United States, the implementation of the foster system (in lieu of orphanages) with its accompanying bureaucracy included gradual, legislative improvements which made funding available for foster care, increased the likelihood of adoption, and elongated a foster child’s access to support through early adulthood

(Myers, 2008; Schelbe, 2011; Phillips & Mann, 2013). The further creation of Foster

Children Bills of Rights stretching back to the federal creation of such a document in

1975 and followed by the gradual introduction of the similar documents within individual states, suggests that the systems of government have given due diligence to the problem, although system specifics may still be found to be inadequate and faulty (Children’s

Bureau, 1975; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). As Whetten et al.

(2014) suggest, the problem is no longer the existence of a social safety net, but rather the quality of the net regardless of it being an instance of congregate care or single-family foster care.

Within this created foster care framework, a foster child may face a multitude of scenarios within a variety of placements, including congregate care where the foster child is collectively housed with other foster children, treatment foster care where a child is housed with foster parents who have received specialized training, and standard foster 188 care between foster parents and foster child (Lee et al., 2011; Hussey & Guo, 2005). It is from these platforms that an attempt is made to continue or recommence the child’s education.

The literature shows that such an education is fraught with difficulty, challenge, and poor outcomes (Zetlin, 2006; Lips, 2007; Zetlin et al., 2010; Beisse & Tyre, 2013).

Problems and disadvantages begin to accrue from the onset with accompanying dysfunction, unmet needs, and uncertainty frequently manifesting themselves into behaviors not conducive to learning within the conventional school setting (Zima et al.,

2000; Pears et al., 2010; Watson & Kabler, 2012). While recent legislation has sought to mitigate it, the disruption resulting from the transition to fosterage – often including one or more school transfers – is frequently the first of many issues had when entering into a school system that is linear and prescriptive, with many subsequent trends of special education placement, ineffectual IEPs, disciplinary referrals, mid-term school change, and absenteeism, all occurring amongst a dearth of educational advocacy thereby creating a situation amounting to pedagogical disaster (Zetlin et al., 2004; Zetlin, 2006;

Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Fram & Altshuler, 2009; Lips, 2007; Pears et al.,

2011; Watson & Kabler, 2012). Such issues and trends cumulate into poor academic performance and, ultimately, a high incidence of dropping out and a low rate of graduation (Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Shin, 2012; TeamChild & Casey Family

Programs, 2015). Holistically, foster children may be said to be – through no fault of their own – poor system participants as the disorderliness of their lives ill fits the ordered systems of conventional schools. The inherent disruption of their lives clashes with the 189 mechanisms required to process millions of children through 12 years of curricula and the end result is poor academic outcomes.

Collectively, failure at the secondary level seems to then translate into a college attendance rate which is a third of the national average and a degree completion rate which is almost a fifth of the same (Unrau, 2011; Salazar, 2013; Schelbe, 2011). The loss of this transitional, rite of passage time is especially problematic for the fostered population as the experience of aging out or emancipation often proves to be an existential jounce wherein “early adult outcomes of youth previously served in foster care, are extremely poor” (Munson & Scott, 2007, p. 79). Whereas young adults in conventional settings may be afforded guidance, assistance, financial support, and security with which to take risks, research has found that fostered youths, likely receiving none of the benefits of a familial safety net, immediately are faced with potential homelessness, joblessness or underemployment, little access to or knowledge of health care, incarceration, pregnancy, and poverty (McMillen & Tucker, 1999; Collins, 2001;

Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Freundlich et al., 2006; Geenen & Powers, 2006; Munson &

Scott, 2007; Unrau, 2011; Schelbe, 2011; Shin, 2012; Salazar, 2013).

The literature has provided a series of recommendations to fix, remedy, or mitigate this lack of efficacy. Evans et al. (2004) and Pears et al. (2011) have advocated for the addition of educational assessment being added to medical and mental health evaluations. Zetlin et al. (2006) promoted an education liaison model which provided an educational advocate to coordinate between all involved parties. Harrison (2006) has taken the pragmatic step of accumulating and publishing counsel advising teachers on 190 best practices when educating a foster child. A problem for many of the proposed solutions is the introduction of increased coordination and documentation, which, as an enlargement of bureaucratic process, presents a resultant problem of scarce resources, both human and budgetary. To date there has been no indication within the literature that systemic fixes have either been widely implemented or have been effective.

While nuclear familial failure may be posited as the first domino leading to these outcomes, pedagogy may be posited as the primary, available panacea to recover and restore the individual into functional existence. But the literature depicts a situation wherein conventional pedagogy is unable or incapable of providing for a majority of foster children. Moreover, Olson (2009), Gatto (2003), Gray (2009; 2011), Matthay

(2001), and Goodman (2017) all portray conventional schooling as being harmful, crippling, and deleterious to all children, a condition which may compound misfortune for foster children. Recommendations to remedy the problem are both scarce and have little historical record of efficacy. As such, it may be suggested that solutions to this problem of chronic pedagogical failure for foster children may be found, or at least explored, outside the bounds of conventional schooling.

Homeschooling, once, in centuries and millennia past, less an official pedagogy and more a simple fact of existence, has gone from being a nearly nonexistent practice replaced by school systems to a fringe method practiced by polemical groups to, in the present, a common, multi-faceted, and ever-transforming educational alternative (Gaither,

2008; Murphy, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The increasing prevalence of homeschooling has arguably normalized it and removed it from being a 191 fringe practice, a status which is made evident by the burgeoning industry providing homeschooled products as well as the establishment of support organizations and entities, such as the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. Within the literature, the expanding practice of homeschooling can be extrapolated by tracing published works on the topic.

Particularly instructive is Meighan’s work which offered findings in 1995 of homeschooling outcomes, suggesting that the practice had been going on for some time at that point. Also along these lines, Davis (2011) cites a 1997 study, but the depth of the reference section of Murphy’s 2014 “comprehensive review and analysis of outcomes of homeschooling in America” is illustrative of the sheer quantity of academic examination currently afforded the method (p. 244).

In terms of outcomes, Murphy’s (2014) review identified a litany of positive findings. While the final sentence of his conclusion suggests a pedagogical method still in need of defense, “…the evidence currently at hand leads us to be cautious about too readily accepting the claims of homeschool critics that the academic and social well- being of youngsters is harmed by homeschooling” (p. 266). The work is peppered with findings suggesting a method with a great deal of potential. Murphy (2014) cites studies which have found that homeschooling may be advantageous for taking standardized tests, for mitigating negative effects of having parents with comparatively low educational attainment, for mitigating statistical barriers for students based on race and class, for diverse social engagement, for cultivating maturity and interpersonal communication skills, and for producing healthy self-esteem and self-image. Duvall et al. (2004) found homeschooling to be exceptionally beneficial for students with learning disabilities, while 192

Medlin (2000) found that homeschoolers are far less engaged in television watching than their conventionally schooled peers (a research inquiry that may need to be revisited given the subsequent advent of the internet, i-devices, and social media culture). In regards to post-secondary achievement, Murphy (2014) provides findings exhibiting equal or better performance on college entrance exams, college acceptance, and degree completion. For the purposes of this study, a significant gap in the literature is the lack of an examination regarding the use of homeschooling on behalf of foster children.

Nevertheless, and taken as a whole, the literature provides ample reason for homeschooling to be viewed as a viable option alongside conventional methods for both the general population as well as foster children.

Just as the 1990s saw the dawn of academic inquiry into homeschooling, the mid

2000s and 2010s saw the start of a consideration of unschooling. As early as 1983 the term unschooling was in the public domain, but it would not be until 2002 that this researcher could first find a record of a mention of unschooling within an academic setting when a doctoral candidate prepared a report for American Educational Research

Association (Mullen; Martin). While Holt and Farenga’s newsletter and magazine

Growth Without Schooling was founded in 1977, it was not until 2007 that unschooling was truly brought out as a concept for academic consideration with the publication of

Ricci’s Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning. Within the journal, the methods’ popularity may be construed historically via the initial reliance on qualitative research, specifically memoir, case study, and autoethnography, but presumably as networking increased and a body of literature developed, quantitative methods became 193 possible as the sheer number of practitioners increased. This is evidenced by Gray and

Riley’s 2013 study which surveyed 232 unschooling families.

This study combined with their follow up study in 2015, which surveyed adults who had been unschooled – individuals who could be said to be from the first generation of unschoolers – provided unique insight into both present and future effects of unschooling. Unschooling appeared to have an overall positive effect on families as well as the child in their future adult capacity (Gray & Riley, 2013, 2015). The study of unschooling families depicted healthy children and, interestingly, healthy family units

(2013). The follow-on study would confirm these findings in hindsight as unschooled adults would report positive net effects from their educational experience (2015).

When juxtaposed, the bodies of literature surrounding the education of foster children – which depicts conventional schooling as being chronically insufficient or inadequate in meeting the needs of foster children – and alternative education

(specifically homeschooling and unschooling) – which depicts practices out of their infancy and producing encouraging and promising results for students and families alike

– provide grounds for a compelling argument that there is great potential at the intersection that lies therein.

Within the conceptual framework, the literature supports the hypothesis that unschooling may be a superior method of pedagogy for foster children from both

Maslowian and SDT perspectives. Maslow’s (1943) findings essentially suggest that the acquisition of higher level needs is near impossible if lower level needs are unmet, and the literature repeatedly portrays a situation where Basic Needs – Safety and 194

Physiological – are unmet or threatened, particularly in the realm of safety and security as uncertainty permeates their existence (England, 1998; Zetlin et al., 2006). Also threatened would be lower tier Psychological Needs (presuming that these needs had been previously met) such as belongingness and love, as a child is removed from their family of orientation and placed in a foreign setting (Zetlin et al., 2006; Fisher &

Antoine, 2006; TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015). Given these significant deficiencies, it appears almost ludicrous to assume that a child may be immediately placed into an ordered system and asked to engage epistemological material that is aligned to Psychological and Self-Fulfillment Needs. Once more, within a Maslowian framework, foster children would be poor system participants as they seem to be set up for failure, a status quo assessment supported overwhelmingly by the literature.

Self-Determination Theory, while providing a proverbial second opinion, offers an equally dismal assessment. As foster children are removed from their family of orientation and placed into a setting per the whim of the foster care system, possibly forced to change schools, their autonomy would hypothetically be threatened, reduced, or challenged (Smucker et al., 1996; TeamChild, 2015). Any autonomical outlets – places, spaces, devices, gadgets, rituals – depended upon in their previous environment would be completely dependent upon the rules of their new foster parents, group home, and/or school. Also, the poor academic outcomes of foster children suggest that the SDT principle of competence would be grievously compromised as foster children are longitudinally faced with their relative incompetence within a conventional school setting

(Burley & Halpern, 2001; Antoine & Fisher, 2006; Zetlin, 2006; Lips, 2007; Fram & 195

Altshuler, 2009; Pears et al., 2011; Watson & Kabler, 2012; Shin, 2012). Lastly, relatedness may be presumed to have been virtually decimated as a foster child is removed from the familiar and placed in a setting which may be entirely foreign where home(s), parent(s), sibling(s), school(s), teacher(s), peers, and classroom(s) are all new.

A foster child may face this disruption to relatedness multiple times – “it is not uncommon for children in foster care to move several times during the school year”

(Zetlin et al., 2004. p. 31, emphasis added) – a problem decried throughout the literature

(McMillen et al., 2003; Zetlin, 2006; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Watson &

Kabler, 2012; Legal Center for Foster Care & Education, 2014). The Legal Center for

Foster Care & Education (2014) describes the ultimate effects of relatedness disruption, stating that “when youth are frustrated by frequent moves and rough transition, they are more likely to act out.” (p. 8) Through a Self-Determination Theory lens, the experience of a foster child within a conventional school setting is a merciless exercise in autonomy inhibition, relatedness disruption, and incompetence emphasis even before considering the critical input of Olson (2009), Gatto (2003), Gray (2011), and Goldman (2017) of school as a traumatic, hurtful, and crippling experience.

Finally, Burley and Halpern’s (2001) finding that “a student’s foster care status alone is associated with a 7 to 8 percentile point decrease in test scores” (p. 15, emphasis added) suggests that Stereotype Threat may be an ever present issue for a foster child participating in conventional schooling. The foster child stereotype is profoundly negative, especially in an educational context, described within the literature as “the most educationally vulnerable,” (Zetlin, 2006, p. 268) “the most educationally at risk 196 population,” (Advocates for Children of New York, 2000, p. 1) “a population of students at great risk for school failure,” (Zetlin et. al., 2010, p. 245) and “the most vulnerable students in the school system.” (Fram & Altshuler, 2009, p. 2) Steele and Aronson’s

(1995) findings suggest that such an entrenched stereotype may wreak havoc on a foster child’s prospects, especially in a conventional school setting surrounded by other students and teachers.

Contrarily, the literature suggests that unschooling, through a Maslowian and

SDT perspective, is well-suited to juggle the chaos of a foster child’s situation and provide for them holistically per the individual’s needs, be they epistemological or otherwise (Ricci, 2011). At the heart of unschooling – also known as Self-Directed

Education (SDE) – exists the principle of autonomy, a provision which, given the right circumstances, would also allow for potential attainment of Self-Fulfillment Needs and competence (Morrison, 2007; Ricci, 2011; Wheatley, 2009). Leidums (2016) presented a pedagogical arena in which children and adults were “integrat[ed]. . . in productive activities and shared endeavors,” both an opportunity for the meeting of Maslowian needs of Safety, Belongingness, Love, and Esteem as well as the SDT principles of relatedness and competence. Gray and Riley’s (2013) finding that unschooling allows for increased family closeness – permitting potentially unlimited time together compared to the 2.71 hour average of interaction within conventional settings – and family freedom of schedule further provides opportunity for relatedness at a time when a foster child’s relatedness has been fundamentally disrupted (The Data Team, 2017). Also regarding relatedness, unschooling offers the unique opportunity per the Maori concept of 197 whakawhanaungatanga or the ability to have multi-generational connection with both people and environment (Leidums, 2016). Within a foster child’s context, unschooling would offer time and space for needs acquisition at their own pace and in an environment hypothetically untainted by Stereotype Threat, as the absence of a competitive peer group may relieve this hazard. For a foster child, and from a Maslowian and SDT perspective, there exists the potential for a disrupted soul to find and enjoy the oasis articulated by

Wheatley (2009).

An Autoethnography on Unschooling

Preamble. Stylistically, this autoethnography may contrast against other autoethnographic accounts in that it is cognitively thick and rich. Three of my children spend significant portions of their lives fully immersed within their own minds, displaying little outward activity except pacing or skipping, and later discussing “The

Thinking” amongst their siblings, treating the activity as a proper noun. For me, a transmitter of their genetic material, the exploration of potential, te kore (a Māori concept), takes precedence in thought; for my children, this is the phantasmagoric.

Language is the essential building block on which we must ultimately construct, if we are to convey to another what we experience internally. Therefore, I find myself reliant on lingua obscura and liberal use of prefixes and suffixes, while my children enjoy the luxury of simply inventing any terms or words they require. With no one around to insist upon linguistic conformity, they take full advantage of their freedom. This autoethnography is reflective of a cerebral existence had within a lifestyle, which through 198 design, permits a great deal of freedom, and by extension, affords an immense amount of opportunity.

Existential strategy. For better or worse, the majority of my life has been spent analyzing fundamental systems – from employment to mortgage, from platoon to school

– and evaluating their ultimate and actual utility. This tendency, while often producing friction, has also produced meaningful results in various areas. As occupation frequently comes up in introductory conversations, my age combined with the paradoxical autobiographical facts that I have not pursued a career of any sort had a with the fact that

I am quasi-retired, produces a hesitant and cautious mumbling about how I could be best described as someone interested in existential strategy. While this may come across as pompous or highfalutin, this is an accurate description of how I have approached my initial college degree (individual planned program), buying a house (eradicate mortgage), yards (reforest them), modernity (in moderation), family (build an ecovillage), or commanding in combat (listen to everyone), to name a few. This personal quality was acknowledged within a recommendation to become a Functional Area 59 (Strategic Plans and Policy) officer while serving as an attachment to Special Forces in Kabul,

Afghanistan. This is important to note only insofar as it relates to the production of unorthodox approaches to common problems, such as that with which this paper concerns.

Historically, the first major system to be analyzed and addressed was the stereotypical American life plan. Growing up in the suburbs of a Midwestern city, the existential model I was presented with consisted of essentially these steps: graduate high 199 school, graduate college, acquire a career-related job, buy a house and take on a mortgage, have children, maintain status quo for another 20-30 years, retire, and, finally, travel and enjoy life in one’s dotage. Given the wide-spread misery of the adults around me and their likewise miserable and largely medicated adolescent children who were my peers, the model did not seem to produce positive outcomes. While material wealth was abundant, the acquisition of what I would later learn to comprise the upper echelons of

Maslow’s hierarchy, specifically self-actualization and esteem needs, seemed to be largely deficient.

After decades of thought on the topic (and to present these conclusions in reverse order of epiphany), I eventually concluded that there are two major commodities – and they are commodities, for they may be bought and sold – which are the currency of existence (once survival needs are satisfied): freedom and meaning. Meaning, which may be more aptly described as meaningful labor, effort, or work, coincides with Maslow’s upper three echelons and appears to encompass both competence and relatedness within

SDT. But the pursuit of meaningful labor cannot often be realized without the freedom to do so. I came to the conclusion that the job, or career, while possibly a vehicle for meaningful labor, may often serve as an existential fetter as the repetitive nature of our compartmentalized work force weighs on an animal, the human, who may be used to a more dynamic environment. Furthermore, a boss accompanied most jobs, and the military had shown me the unique effects of a substandard boss on the individual condition. 200

Following the proverbial bread crumbs back a step further, the line of inquiry becomes “why does it seem that large numbers of people get locked into jobs not of their liking?” The simple answer would be expenses, and the largest of these expenses would be the mortgage, which may be dualistically viewed as an enabling economic tool which permits individual humans to acquire living space well outside their present purchasing power or, conversely, as the ultimate modern day fetter. I took the latter view and came to the conclusion that the model in which I had been raised ultimately led to the mortgage. Financially, the model I had been taught was founded upon revenue generation, that income was to be maximized, but in order to maximize income there were corresponding costs: presentable car, presentable clothing, proximity to job site (in a presentable neighborhood), and presentable credentials (which often translates into school debt). These all required constant streams of income to maintain.

So, I took to the other end of the financial spectrum and closely analyzed cost reduction as opposed to revenue generation. How could costs be minimized so as to reduce, or even negate, the needs of mortgage, job, and boss? The solution which we have found and enacted is simple self-sufficiency combined with equally simple fiscal discipline. We built and live in a house made out of straw bales, old tires, and literal tons of dirt, a combination of straw bale and earthship building styles. We utilized strategies of passive solar gain, thermal mass, radical drainage, and rainwater catchment, to create a house requiring minimal inputs, but providing dependable and efficient life support systems. We also embarked upon a lifestyle which required minimal inputs, which, through this minimization of requirements, allowed for copious amounts of freedom and 201 the opportunity to pursue individually meaningful objectives. As a strategy, this approach freed us from what is commonly called the rat race and presented paradigms of existence beyond.

Overarching philosophies. The overarching philosophies of the place do not lie within any of the major divisions of the day. Absurdity and freedom of thought play an important role in the overarching philosophies of our home and learning. There is no adherence to religion beyond a loose flirtation with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti

Monster (Pastafarian). As well, there is no allegiance to any political party. Instead, as the name “Jacoslavia” hints, there is an affection for absurdity and a dogged insistence on liberty, merging surname with the name of a now defunct nation which stood bravely in the face of Nazi Germany. Subsequently annihilated, Yugoslavia did delay the common enemy’s entrance into Soviet Russia enough to allow for winter to do work that nations could not. Yugoslavia’s temporary exit from the world stage (it would later exit completely) exhibited in both action and outcome the two aforementioned commodities which are held most dear on Jacoslavia: freedom and meaning.

That freedom and meaning are cherished is made indirectly apparent by the small collection of homemade and plagiarized maxims which have been prominently painted upon structural beams within the straw bale and pounded tire construction of Oddly End

Manor, the main, and only, residence currently on Jacoslavia. Everything in Moderation, was the first maxim painted and the most referenced providing pragmatic counsel on all matters, beckoning us away from the precipice of extremism. Reality is Malleable speaks to any individual’s agency and the ever present struggle for reality. Modernity is 202

Distraction comes out as the final judgement on the cognitively disorienting whirlwind of the 21st century. It reminds us, in a fashion in which the Amish and Mennonite have been standard bearers, that the smartphone and email account may be more fetter than emancipator, and that their use should be carefully moderated, though perhaps not completely eschewed as per our aforementioned dominant philosophy regarding moderation. Scarcity Makes Things Valuable spells out the over-arching economic strategy, which is central to the education received within this space. It lays out the existential strategy at the heart of the future foster homeuschool as it intends to provide society with humans possessing a unique outlook and approach to existence. Finally, Te

Kore is a nebulous “Māori concept of void, nothingness, and potentiality,” the last of which is a major driver in the quest for utopia (Nepia, 2012, p. 1). For me, it, unlike any other concept encountered thus far, makes potential a wondrous and almost palpable substance, whose value is immense. These maxims encapsulate the fundamental life strategy we, as educators, attempt to convey to our children.

Decision to homeschool. Given the emphasis on existential strategy combined with the peculiar and particular set of philosophies adhered to, the decision to homeschool was arrived at easily. The definitive decision was made after performing this simple analysis: the endstate objective of childrearing is to produce a functioning adult, therefore it is illogical to place a child within a social sphere which is comprised of same age peers and allow them to remain therein for the vast majority of their formative years.

Rather, it was decided that it was more sensible that our children should spend their 203 formative years surrounded by people of varied ages with an emphasis on interaction with adults, each one a prototype for a child’s eventual formation.

Decision to unschool. The decision to unschool was arrived at using a similarly simple analysis. The questions posed were: what knowledge do I use to function as an adult and from where did I acquire that knowledge? While the answers to these questions are complex, for they must account for the stochastic and interconnectedness of knowledge, there did seem to be a pervasive theme amongst the conclusions. This was that most of the knowledge both Andrea and I actively use in our adult lives was acquired from personal explorations or from conversations and experiences had with our parents.

Essentially, stochasticism (a.k.a. life), far more than intentionality (i.e. curriculum), appears to have left the indelible epistemological impression.

Type of unschool. Given unschooling’s nebulousness, our approach to the practice was simple. Just as the decisions to homeschool and unschool were formed in the relative absence of complexity, but through a clarity of reason, so too, have we arrived at our particular approach. The amusing, generic concept of the traditional “three

Rs” – reading, writing, and arithmetic – consists of the majority of intentional schooling provided to our children with the rationale that these three skills are most necessary to make the majority of knowledge accessible and the basic routines of life manageable.

These three skills were intentionally taught throughout the children’s childhood and adhere to the practice espoused in everything in moderation. Beyond this curriculum, stochasticity and individual direction takes lead with two major exceptions. 204

Personal finances, believed to be among the foremost skills necessary for navigating through modern existence (and oddly not emphasized by conventional schooling), is heavily instructed upon, usually using credit card applications received without solicitation through the mail. The idea of the annual percentage rate and its role within the individual life (via credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans) is thoroughly examined, as are prudent fiscal practices. As money is personally viewed as the physical manifestation of the abstraction of choice, its management may be the most important of any intentional instruction.

Of far less importance, but still intentionally taught, is the college-level essay. As the ability to write an essay is arguably the most important skill set used to graduate from college as well as the primary tool used to articulate and convey complex thought, it is covered in depth. Currently, Josef and Caleb have been focusing on writing essays. The method we have been using has been by them playing a computer game, Civilization

(which spans the entirety of human history), and then writing essays on either a technology or an individual civilization found within the game. But beyond this the educational process is left to the natural stochasticism of life, as there is a trust that should the knowledge be necessary for existence, it will likely be gained within the natural course.

Portraits of unschooling.

Portrait #1: A typical day. The general, familial theme of any given day is largely dependent upon the season and the particular weather of the day. On sunny days in the summer, time is spent outside in the early morning and late evening. The middle 205 of the day is usually spent indoors doing inactive activities. Conversely, as winter falls and the days get shorter, bedtime is backed up to take advantage of the sunshine in the early morning hours. Bedtimes and mealtimes all shift with the changing of the season and the predominance of daylight. When the weather is nice, we are outside. When the weather is lousy, we are generally inside. A typical day is at the mercy of the thermometer and barometer and its resultant effects.

Portrait #2: Invasive species. We have a hill, perhaps what could be termed the

“back hill”, which is rarely visited and which we are reforesting. It is outside the pastures and the farthest from the road. Andrea and Caleb hunt on it, but otherwise it is largely neglected. There is, however, an annual clearing of invasive species to allow the native trees to grow. This is done by hand, using brush hooks, shears, and machetes. The primary invasive species on the hill is a tree called ailanthus (ailanthus altissima) and it sends up a profusion of fragile, perfectly straight saplings, many of which will reach ten feet in a single season (provided a mature root complex). Each year, in the late fall, we come in and clear them out, well aware that next year we shall do the same, though with a slight decrease in volume.

Last year, the children all built a handful of teepees out of the manifold, exceptionally light (ailanthus is more fibrous than woody) felled trunks, usually on the outspread branches of a black walnut sapling. Caleb built several to be used as blinds for hunting, while Josef, Elizaveta, and Levin created hideouts for their organization, the

Guarders. This year, Levin decided to carry back a 10 foot trunk, which he then 206 meticulously shaved the bark off of with a machete. Levin and Josef next sawed off the ends, sawed it in half, and have since been roaming the land with their staffs.

In the process of this entire exercise, from clearing to playing, a wide array of developmental activity took place which was meaningful and constructive. The children roamed through the woods (saying hello to the goats en route) to get to the hill and once there we again covered how to differentiate between ailanthus and black walnut as well as how to use the various tools we had brought. After an hour of work, we started to return to the house, stopping briefly at the creek between the hill and house. Caleb noticed that one of the waterfalls had backed up downstream and began to quiz Levin and

Josef about erosion, which provided an interesting segue into a discussion regarding two invasive species we frequently battle – ailanthus and multi-flora rose – which were intentionally planted to prevent erosion in local areas after mining. Once home, Levin then began to carve his staff, the beginnings of handicraft.

Portrait #3: Equestrian trip. Elizaveta had a stroke at birth, an activity which caused hemiplegia (paralysis) to much of her left side, including the leg, arm, and hand, as well as an eventual dying off of part of the brain leaving behind a mere, fluid-filled void. While there were concerns that Lizzy may be unable to walk and talk, extensive therapy eventually overcame both and now, prima facie, Lizzy has all of the appearance of being unafflicted by her original infant malady. However, Lizzy’s capacity for logic and reason have been hampered and the most apt way to describe her is as simple- minded. While this may seem insensitive, I have come to both appreciate and value 207

Elizaveta’s perspective in that it produces definitive, non-parsed, and roundabout conclusions which consistently enrich life and most usually are joyous.

But the 21st century is not a welcome place for the simple-minded as it seems to be an era of infinite complexity where critical thinking is a chart topper in the outcomes that most schools seek. As unschooling parents we have the immense luxury of being able to take a child whose natural abilities do not lend themselves to conventional school success and consider the child holistically – how may we best prepare them for adult life?

Maslow’s work alongside SDT suggests that mastery of a skill set is crucial to a best lived life and therefore for Lizzy we have focused on her love of horses and her ability to ride.

Her grandfather, a steel trucker from the Rust Belt, is an avid equestrian and has found in Elizaveta a matching enthusiasm. Therefore, whenever he is able to break away from work, we are able to enable Lizzy to join him for a riding adventure. This past weekend, she joined him for a 14.2 mile race in Elkins, West Virginia. The process of riding not only gains her valuable knowledge in a field which is of great interest to her, but it also forces her to use, reluctantly, her left leg and left hand.

Our unschooling viewed critically. The portraits above may inadvertently provide the impression of idyllicness. And our lives are admittedly ideal in many ways.

We have intentionally sought to implement existential best practices and often gladly reap the benefits. A cursory online examination of the term unschooling will unveil a similar, advertised theme of quintessential, happy childhood. While I cannot in good conscience dismiss this as untrue (for it is certainly part and parcel of our experience), an 208 intentionally critical examination of our experience will be assistive in rounding out the description.

Parents whom I have known throughout my life will often express the sentiments that they wish they had more time to spend with their children or that they grow up so fast. While it was actually these recurring expressions that contributed to the decisions to homeschool and unschool, we now exist at the opposite end of the spectrum. As one of my professors put it, a homeschooling parent is “always on” and there is little respite.

My experience is that my children are growing up slowly. I am quite surprised that Levin is only eight. It feels as if I have known him forever and a day.

Such constant proximity often erupts in either child-to-child or parent-to-child confrontations and, especially in this year where my wife is deployed, the children are often sent into the woods to hunt for mushrooms or check on the decomposition rate of a recently deceased goat (who was dragged to a remote stump and left for the coyotes). To be fair to unschooling, while familiarity does breed contempt, I may suggest that uber- familiarity breeds acceptance, tolerance, and even appreciation. Josef’s in-your-face intensity (begotten from my gene pool) can initially be off-putting, but a thorough familiarity with Josef acknowledges him as a genuinely caring and fair fellow, so an allowance and appreciation of him develops. Of course the world at large will not be so accepting.

The naiveté of my unschooled children may prove problematic in years to come and outside the insular bounds of our land. The oft-shocking familiarity that high schoolers now possess with many profane and carnal areas of existence through their 209 ready access to the internet is a familiarity all of our children lack in proportion to their unfamiliarity with the scope of the internet. While their innocence may be lauded by the conservatively minded, their naiveté may make them gullible and objects of prey by their more street smart peers.

Furthermore, our geographic isolation combined with my wife and I’s introversion may be creating a detrimental deficiency of social interaction. Our children exist in a social sphere comprised of a comparably small set of close family members and extended family members combined with a handful of family friends. Their interaction with other children likely tends to the minimal end of the spectrum. Whether through nature or nurture, when presented with opportunities for increased social interaction, they follow their parents’ preference and more often than naught decline. The long term effects of this limited social exposure are unknown.

It would be a misrepresentation to understand our practice of unschooling as being carefree and idyllic. It is often taxing for the adults and the children may find themselves to be problematically naïve and poorly socialized for life in the larger world.

Nevertheless, we have found that unschooling is particularly well-suited to the homesteading lifestyle in an Appalachian setting and we are, quite frankly, enjoying it immensely.

Observed benefits of unschooling.

Purest selves. Caleb loves the outdoors, relishing the freedom and violence of the natural world, and thus is strongly attracted to the reality television show Alaskan

Bush People. While on mobilization to the National Capital Region with the Army, 210

Caleb was able to fly out and visit with me for a week. We were in the middle of our

RIP/TOA (Relief in Place/Transfer of Authority), so we were staying in a hotel complete with satellite television, access which Caleb has rarely had throughout his childhood.

Therefore, throughout the visit, Caleb and I regularly watched the show. While watching, I was gradually struck by what could be termed a purity of personality of the main characters, who, even though likely existing within a contrived environment, still displayed unhomogenized personalities. There is an obvious danger is extrapolating life lessons from reality television, but suffice it to say that this show provided a rare mirror of the experience which we were having: unschooling provided a venue for the cultivation, and even preservation, of each individual’s purest self. It could be argued that while the conventional schooling sphere socializes each individual into a common form whose major shapers are popular culture and a ubiquitous pecking order, unschooling permits each individual the opportunity to form as per their natural inclinations.

When considering my children specifically, I can make predictions for their relative success within a conventional schooling atmosphere, given my own personal experiences combined with my current work with high school and junior high students.

Eldest child, Caleb, would likely fare well socially (his dyslexia would cause him great discouragement academically), given his introverted tendencies and his relative size, neither making him a particular target. His personality is easy-going and his humor is sophisticated to the point that it would be appreciated, but not mocked. As eldest, he has received a larger dose of responsibility in his life than his siblings and thus bears the 211 maturity and cautiousness, which has come with that position, thereby making him less likely to draw social fire. Second eldest, Josef, would likely face significant grief. Any number of his traits or propensities would draw scorn, mockery, and derision from his peers when in-group settings. Josef is loud, articulate, imaginative, caring, sensitive, and possesses a sense of humor, which is both cheesy and sophisticated (i.e. a love of puns) beyond acceptability for his peer group. Josef has always possessed a demonstrativeness and love of affection, particularly hugs, which far transcend that which is acceptable within the social spheres of most conventional schools. The expected end state could be viewed either as a crucible within which Josef’s personality extremes would be tempered or a more nefarious deconstruction of Josef as a person. As it currently stands, Josef will be unleashed unto society with only minimal wearing upon the sharpest edges of his personality and propensities, a condition which the tenets of diversity purports to be a social strength, although it often draws blowback due to simple xenophobia.

To complete the assessment, Elizaveta would also likely face excessive grief.

Both her mental and physical aberrations would cast her as an outlier within her same-age peer group and she would likely suffer from the dearth of both the protectionist tendencies of elder children towards younger as well as the accepting nature of the very young. Rather, she would likely receive a full measure of the cruelty from same-aged peers encountering the unknown. Lizzy’s particular, and rare, brand of peculiarity might be expected to cause exceptional virulence because, prima facie, she is often believed to be without exceptionality. She has none of the superficial manifestations of, for instance, Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, and therefore cannot be easily categorized. 212

Her outward and ordinary physical appearance is defied by her simple-mindedness and propensity towards what may be viewed as bizarre behavior (i.e. frissons and shrieks).

Whereas at home, her traits are often a source of joy and reflection, in a conventional school setting, these same traits would likely make her a target for passing cruelties.

Finally, Levin, with his quick wit and affable personality, would likely fare best of the bunch as the school milieu rewards both character traits.

While two of my children may fare well within the social sphere of conventional school, it is believed that the other two would realize a popular (and elongated) assault on their personalities. Regardless of their ability to assimilate, it would be expected that the purity of personality would be sacrificed within the abnormal social setting of conventional school. Conversely, the unschool setting provides for the opportunity to maintain one’s natural personality without dramatic weathering, providing society with the diversity which we have come to appreciate as a strength of a civilization.

Conversant. One of the stereotypical attributes of an adolescent is a general reticence when among adults, which perhaps is not observed when among peers.

Furthermore, children in general appear to be thoroughly conditioned when talking to an adult and usually adhere to the aforementioned tendency towards reticence. When attempting to engage them in conversation, I often read a degree of befuddlement from these children that an adult desires to converse with them in depth. Conversely, a long series of unsolicited, positive remarks from community members across the years and along the same topic unveiled a distinction of our children which set them apart from their conventionally schooled peers: the ability to unflinchingly converse with an adult. 213

Given all variables, this outcome seems to be inevitable as the basic structure of conventional schooling, with its rigid hierarchy of child and adult and its insistence upon strict dialogue management (i.e. raising the hand), would train measured discussion, especially between child and adult. Our children have had no such conditioning and although they still exist within a fundamental familial hierarchy with periodic demands for quietude and even silence, they have spent the overwhelming majority of their lives existing in spaces where adults – parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, and family friends

– were relative peers who could be engaged in dialogue. One of the most recent remarks came from a family friend who texted me, “I enjoyed Levin’s conversation with your mom and dad tonight. He had me giggling talking about retirement funds, etc.” (October,

10, 2017) This trend of remarks set me to considering the value of the ability to converse, especially in contrast to the potential loss of general knowledge (i.e. the parts of a volcano, the capitals of the South American countries, etc.) realized when participating in unschooling in lieu of conventional schools.

Examining my own personal experiences and as a former combat military commander, I could easily argue that the greatest leadership skill is the ability to effectively converse. An efficacious leader seeks to draw out information from subordinates, then connect that information to relevant topics, identify and frame exigent problems accurately, then build solutions which all can agree with their logic and feasibility, and hence will fully support. Effective management of tone and nonverbals can reduce or eliminate issues of ego and prevent the development of contempt or scorn.

While despotic language (potentially first learned in the school system) may establish 214 and maintain dominance, it rarely, if ever, leads to optimization of operations, a lesson learned repeatedly by myself on deployment and remarked upon daily by my wife who is, as of this writing, serving in Iraq.

A further potential reason for this benefit may be that the stochastic nature of unschooling allows for an intentional examination of language. This form of instruction is not codified, it merely is used within a cause and effect framework. A situation will arise, language will be used, and an outcome with result. Unschooling allows for a discussion with all parties involved to examine either why a situation had a positive and constructive outcome or why language led to the devolution of a situation into anger, frustration, and sadness. As our children already spend the majority of their childhood interacting with adults, they are fully inundated with models of constructive speech and examples of effective language patterns, while their conventionally schooled peers are mostly provided with the examples of inter-child speech or hierarchical speech resulting from teacher to pupil dialogue. Evidence suggests that our children are therefore more conversant in mature and sophisticated speech patterns, topics, and trends.

The net effects of the cultivation or stunting of interpersonal communications skills are outside the scope of this research, but personal experience suggests that it may be among the most important skills used in adult life, both in the personal and professional spheres of life. Our personal experience suggests that an unschooling situation is well structured to stochastically develop this stochastic skillset, or, put another way, is structured to train a child how to use language effectively. 215

Unique considerations for the 21st century. The 21st century has presented our species with an unprecedented situation in which there is little time for individual technologies to be comfortably assimilated and their resultant effects thoroughly considered. Innovation’s rapid pace coincides with a general degradation of our planet’s natural systems, thus potentially obsoleting educational curricula and frameworks without our even noticing, having the ability to comprehend their obsoletion, or, through the entrenchment of bureaucracy, being able to fluidly adapt them. Peoples and educators may react to this situation in many ways, either fully investing in tech-centric existence, following the trend towards urbanization and a completely human-contrived environment, fully or partially eschewing the change as do the Mennonites and Amish, or perhaps through the stockpiling and isolationary phenomena of prepping. Regardless, the

21st century through a Maslowian lens paradoxically both easily provides for our basic needs (physiologically and safety) while at the same time catastrophically threatening them through the specter of global warming. The situation is the same within the psychological needs (belongingness and esteem) as prestige, self-esteem, and friends may all be allocated or striped within moments in the domain of social media.

Everything in moderation again offers wisdom for managing the modern predicament of runaway technological advancement coupled with potential environmental collapse. A pedagogy combining explorations of both the natural environment and the modern landscape appear necessary to be a constructive global citizen who both contributes to civilization and responsibly treads on the planet. Within the Jacoslavian unschooling framework, we are able to both provide access to iPads, 216 iPods, archaic desktop computers, and old video gaming systems while also demanding that the children become familiar with the local flora and fauna as well as their uses, benefits, and detriments, both to humans and other local species. While modernity does distract and is constantly demanding our attention, our children have sanctuary where they may become familiar, knowledgeable, and aware of what is happening immediately around them. Moreover, this quickly vanishing knowledge of the local landscape may prove both useful and necessary in coming years and decades.

Also, responsible use of materials looks to be an increasingly crucial aspect of human existence if the planet is to remain stable, and as such humanity may need to be weaned off of certain unsustainable practices. Jacoslavia endeavors to be at the vanguard of normalizing sustainable human practices. Utilizing the maxim of everything in moderation as a guide, our children are familiar with many enabling and labor saving technologies, but are also aware of the incentives to use them sparingly and wisely. The unschooling framework allows for an education had within an environment which could be considered anachronistic, while also being extremely relevant and timely.

Flexibility. Among my favorite benefits of this simple method of education is the absolute flexibility it brings with it for the child to engage learning based on their own unique abilities and disabilities. Two of our children have specific and significant disabilities which would make participation in conventional schooling problematic.

Elizaveta faces both cognitive and physical handicaps, while Caleb’s learning of conventional knowledge is hampered by dyslexia. Conversely, Josef’s capacity for 217 conventional knowledge is above average and he is therefore free to rapidly engage and move beyond a static and measured knowledge base.

Unschooling provides us with the opportunity to pace the intentional education of the three R’s with Lizzy, providing her with ample time to absorb the concepts. She is currently approximately two years behind her conventionally schooled peers, but she is neither aware of such arbitrary distinction nor haunted by it. She is reading, writing, and halfway through her multiplication tables. When she gets stuck, she is often assisted by her brothers, who thereby gain experience in the art of teaching.

Caleb’s dyslexia was identified by Andrea early on, while I was overseas and is something that we have adjusted to accommodate. While his spelling is atrocious, he has mastered phonics, most frequently struggling when English words betray phonemic principles, as demonstrated in a text from him to a friend, “You have a rilly bad sens of time estimashone” (You have a really bad sense of time estimation). Instead of struggling through conventional schooling, an unfortunately common experience recently examined in the article, Hard to read: How American schools fail kids with dyslexia, Caleb has been thoroughly educated regarding dyslexia and the strengths and weaknesses which accompany a brain wired in that manner (Hanford, 2017). Caleb is an avid reader, an excellent writer, and an exceptionally poor speller. While conventional schooling would prove to be a daily struggle fraught with potential embarrassment, he is able to thrive and grow within the unschooling framework because his uniqueness is considered and accommodated, as are each and every child. 218

Josef would potentially face problems at the other end of the spectrum in that he mastered the basic skill sets championed by conventional schooling prematurely. Were he in conventional school setting, he more than likely would get antsy and anxious awaiting for his classmates to finish. Given his natural intensity and sheer loudness, I have little doubt that Josef would receive a label of either ADHD or ADD and medication would be presented as an option. Instead, while at home, Josef is free to pace as he thinks and his exuberance goes mostly unrestrained. Furthermore, he is, and has been since age ten, working on writing college-level essays, not because his parents intend for him to attend a specific college, but simply because he is ready to do so.

I have found that unschooling permits both parent and child the opportunity to meet each individual as an individual, while not necessarily eradicating familial hierarchy, certainly lessening or softening it. Unlike the milieu of conventional school, it also allows for the accommodation of weakness without internal devastation of the self- esteem while also cultivating strengths without reining them in. Unschooling has offered maximum flexibility to all of us in the pedagogical process of our children growing up.

Humanizing both parent and child. A rudimentary calculation may suggest that the conventionally-schooled child has a significantly restricted opportunity to come to know their parents as actual people. Between the time demands of conventional school and those of a conventional job, the amount of time a parent and child spend juxtaposed would be exceptionally little. Factoring in the idea that modernity is distraction and therefore parents have their smartphones while children likely have their smartphone as well as gaming device(s), iPod, and iPad, and actual interaction may, through the normal 219 ebbs and flows of modern life, be negligible. In an unschooling situation, both parent and child have ample opportunity to interact as individual humans and not merely via their familial roles. While I have heard “they grow up so fast” expressed countless times, that is a sentiment I cannot concur with, for, even in spite of repeated military deployments, I have been thoroughly present for the majority of their lives and have, likewise, thoroughly interacted with them. I know them as well as one can know another just as they know me equally well.

Hierarchy of Needs and SDT. Providing a thorough analysis of my children through a Maslowian and SDT lens would be laborious. Rather, I wish to merely highlight significant distinctions we enjoy, such as the provision to more fully understand and appreciate many of the various needs themselves. For instance, a recent cold snap brought to the forefront the physiological need for warmth as we needed to don extra clothes and keep our wood stove fully stocked with fuel. Whereas a modern, contrived environment often only allows for interaction with the environment when transitioning from one contrived space to another (home to car/bus, bus/car to work or school, school or work to car/bus, etc.), unschooling within a homesteading environment permits a more thorough appreciation of needs and the ways in which they are satisfied (i.e. chopping wood, hauling back to the house, and placing it in the stove). This could also be argued from a self-actualization standpoint, as proclivities and interests are able to be identified, practiced, cultivated, and supported, and not limited by externally imposed curricula.

Finally, there is a great balancing in the esteem needs, as our children’s interactions with each other are moderated by Andrea and my presence. Therefore, when 220 my eldest child is giving my youngest a wedgie, I am able to intervene by putting Caleb into a headlock and providing him with noogies. The jovial bully is quickly reduced to a state of shrieking and chuckling penitence and a balance is achieved. I contrast this against my experiences within the school system (both as a student and currently as a coach), where esteem is essentially a zero sum game, as one child’s gain in esteem is often had at another child’s loss.

From a SDT standpoint, unschooling provides our children with all three requisites: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Just today (January 10, 2018), Caleb went out and, unassisted, trimmed a draft horse’s feet. This increasingly rare competence is a point of pride for the young man. While each child is slowly developing their own areas of competence – Josef with writing and board/card game design, Lizzy with equestrian science, and Levin with his interest in plants – they are also progressively mastering a large number of basic tasks required for adult existence such as meal planning, meal preparation, personal finance management, gardening, and animal husbandry, to name a few.

In unschooling, autonomy is virtually guaranteed. The children have the majority of most days to pursue their interests, but this autonomy may be curbed either through parental fiat or necessity. For instance, a problem with a recent delivery of stone resulted in all of us having to move 14 tons of flagstones while there was snow on the ground using cheap, plastic sleds as the method of transportation. We had a fantastic time, especially learning about friction, gravity, and momentum (the stone was in the hay field and needed to be moved downhill into a pasture), and relatedness was increased. 221

Of the three, I would argue that relatedness may be the most advantageous aspect of unschooling. My experience with conventional schooling is paradoxical in that in spite of being voted my class’s class clown, homecoming king, and prom king – essentially accruing a lion’s share of traditional social capital to be had in a high school –

I, as a relatively cerebral introvert, found the experience to be exceptionally lonely and socially impoverished. Furthermore, all the time spent within the school system meant that I had only evenings and weekends to get to know other family members. While I currently enjoy a loving and supportive relationship with my parents – two of the most intelligent and caring individuals I have come across – there is not the degree of familiarity I have with them as I have with my children and they have with us.

Unschooling has provided me and my children the opportunity to maximize our relatedness and as such we all know each other exceptionally well. Moreover, unschooling has permitted my children to spend ample and extended time with all of their grandparents with the corresponding increase in relatedness. As of now, my children are intimately related to both their familial group as well as our homestead. They have purpose and future with all and their contribution and existence is valued and needed.

Observed challenges of unschooling.

Ignorance of knowledge important to conventional schooling. I am sometimes reminded of the lack of conventionality and the relative importance of knowledge when great gaps are discovered within our children’s knowledge base and it is at such times that doubt may appear. With my wife’s departure to Iraq and my assuming the role of primary care-giver, it quickly dawned on me that my children were oblivious to common 222 ideas of time, including the named days of the week, the names of months, and the 12 hour clock. Within their world, time was not chunked, arbitrarily, into seven-day blocks and certainly not into a calendar determined by the ebbs and flows of the school schedule.

Instead, their concept of time has been driven mostly by seasons and their resultant temperatures, the unique chores which come with each, and the special foods. Within a single day, their concept of time is structured around meals. Their ignorance of the days of the week and the idea of months is something which we remedied this year. They are still relatively abstract concepts for them as there is little value to knowing that it is

November and it is Tuesday. Rather, it is important to know that water may freeze and the livestock may need supplemental hay. Moreover, it is an easy time to remove invasive species and important to arise earlier to maximize the daylight and go to sleep earlier to minimize the electricity bill. These ignorances are usually superficial and quickly remedied, but when they are identified it is a reminder that unschooling may fail to address knowledge considered important by the world at large.

Lack of awareness of social pitfalls. I coach varsity boys’ soccer at the local high school and therefore have the opportunity to maintain a connection with conventionally schooled youth. Something I am familiar with from my own schooling experiences which are confirmed in my association with these young men is the ever churning social sphere in which they exist. These spheres seem to be mostly unchanged from my own school days and, I would suggest, are marked by a need to speak succinctly, a premium placed on the mockery of others, a corresponding fear of sincerity

(which is easily mocked), a general trend towards superficial topics, and a trend away 223 from topics of meaning. Because our children have not been trained in these patterns of speech and exhibit a tendency towards the diametric opposite of many of the latter, they may face significant social problems when dealing with peers, particularly in their late teens and early twenties. As previously discussed, none of them have problems communicating with adults and do so with ease, but for their conventionally schooled peers, interaction may prove difficult.

While a strong argument for conventional schooling is that of shared, common experience and the two detriments listed above both result from not participating in this shared experience, I maintain that the unschooling approach more accurately prepares the human for life, while the contrived environment of the school combined with being surrounded by same aged peers for more than 12 years produces a socialization that is immature, stunted, and not optimal.

Outcomes from unschooling.

The net effects. As of this writing, our children have been unschooled for the extent of their lives, with the small exception of Caleb who was enrolled in a Montessori

Kindergarten and was enrolled in 1st grade for three months while the house was being built. In many ways our children are playing out the quintessential childhood. Their remarks, their games, and their interactions are all comparatively innocent, unabashed, unrefined, unsophisticated, and lack the biting, acerbic, and gotcha quality which I remember from school and which I frequently see in the conventionally schooled. I often wonder at the net effects of this condition, if they will suffer later in life for their sincerity and lack of guile, or, should our economic maxim that Scarcity Makes Things Valuable 224 hold true and their gentler, more accepting personalities find themselves valued. On the whole, and from a biased observer, our children are polite, kind, conversant, mature, and well on their way to being fully-functioning adults, which is the main objective of upbringing.

Individual plans. The Maori concept of te kore, transliterated across massive bodies of space and culture and possibly in an inexcusable act of cultural misappropriation as it is reduced to its simplest, provides a favored approach to future times and spaces and the potential contained within each. This extant concept arguably allows for the commodification of potential, that its value should be actively, intelligently, and intentionally managed, and not merely placed in the hands of a well- intentioned, but inflexible and misaligned bureaucracy. Unschooling provides both students, educators, children, and parents with the ability to holistically wield the te kore found within each individual. Below is a discussion on the te kore found within each of our children, findings which are ever shifting and resulting from conversations of desires and ambitions, as well as with the contribution of parental observation.

Caleb. Caleb has shown an inclination towards manual labor, especially outdoors. As such, he has spent large amounts of time with both of his grandfathers and his grandmother fishing, kayaking, horseback riding, and working with the tractor, in addition to working with his mother to hunt and perform basic farrier tasks. As we look forward to him acquiring his drivers’ license, we are considering various apprenticeships which will help him acquire technical mastery. Looking further out, Caleb is currently planning a brief stint in the military followed by a variety of technical explorations at 225

Hocking College, including forest management, fish management and aquaculture, agroecology, farrier science, ecotourism, and welding. He intends to build his own house using sustainable materials and systems.

Josef. Josef is a reader and a writer and frequently engages in both activities. He is currently intent upon being a mechanic, which is contrary to his inclinations and something which provides us with collective mirth. He does not actively seek out manual labor and expresses discontent when expected to work outdoors. He has collected an array of tools and will take apart something whenever given the opportunity. His greatest strength likely lay in the field of linguistics, as he has always been fond of wordplay, including the invention of jokes and puns. His siblings frequently utilize him as a reference for spellings and definitions. We believe Josef will follow a scholarly path and are encouraging him to read widely.

Elizaveta. Elizaveta, as previously mentioned, is limited by her physical and mental handicaps, but nevertheless is an accomplished equestrian. To support this path, we have acquired two horses and are currently in the process of acquiring a third. Lizzy also spends as much time as possible with her grandfather at his horse boarding facility and riding with him in various races. Looking further out, Hocking College offers several programs in the field of equine studies, including equine therapies and wilderness horsemanship, both specialties of interest and accessible to Elizaveta. We have therefore placed a strong emphasis on her access to horses and time spent in the saddle.

Levin. Levin, being only eight, has a far more ill-defined path, but he has exhibited a wide array of interests, essentially spanning of all of those his siblings 226 possess. His natural gregariousness make him a bit of an oddity in a family of introverts and thus his path may be markedly different than his kin. He has expressed far and away the greatest interest in foraging. A few days ago we gathered our first ever hickory nuts and it was he who meticulously shelled, sorted through the rotten ones, found the first good one, and declared it delicious – then demanded that we go on the hunt again the next day, which we did, finding a bag full. I can see Thayer’s (2006, 2010, 2017) ever expanding Forager’s Harvest series being Levin’s primary textbooks and the woods his classroom through his late childhood and on into adulthood.

Unlike conventional schooling, the freedom contained within unschooling allows for the pursuit of individual interest as early as it appears. From a familial standpoint, it also permits the family as an organization to shift resources to meet these interests, including material resources, time resources, and extra-familial resources. As exhibited above, each child is accommodated and future plans are crafted from an early age and in response to individual desires and interests.

Ultimately, unschooling permits students to pursue knowledge in a stochastic manner, both as their own lives require them and as their interests lead them. Within the

Jacoslavian setting, this allows for the normalization of sustainable practices, practices which may become increasingly necessary in the years to come. Society, in turn, receives the value of a diversification of citizens in that these young people have not been conditioned in the conventional manner and may be more reflective of their purest selves.

While the challenges from unschooling may present future hurdles, these hurdles are far 227 from being greater than the sum of the opportunity presented by the benefits in using this pedagogical method.

Interviews

Participants. The exceptionally few participants presented herein resulted from a significant dearth of individuals found to have experience with both unschooling and foster children. After a global search for participants, five persons were located with the

Alliance for Self-Directed Education (ASDE) and the Journal of Unschooling and

Alternative Learning (JUAL) being especially helpful in their identification. Of the five persons, three were ultimately able to be interviewed.

In spite of the sample size, the three participants provided a diverse representation of approaches to the use of unschooling with foster children. Indra provided a viewpoint of a person who had been unschooled and was now a social worker advocating for the use of the method with foster children. Alexander was familiar with the tenets of unschooling and, as a foster parent, found himself in a position where he was de facto, or situationally, practicing unschooling through the situational necessities of his charges and in partnership with the local high school. Toni provided the viewpoint of a foster parent who was also a deliberate and conscious practitioner of unschooling. These three participants were able to provide ample material for an initial consideration of the potential of using unschooling with the fostered population.

Themes. Between the three interviews a number of themes emerged. The first was the simple confirmation of the findings articulated by the literature as well as the current situation for foster children as the participants found it. This was coded as 228

“Status Quo.” Within discussions on the benefits of using unschooling with foster children, two unique themes were identified with the first being coded as “Bond

Formation” and describing the capacity for foster child to develop a meaningful relationship with their foster parent and “Choice” which was described as a commodity which foster children were frequently denied and which unschooling particularly provides. Unschooling was not only found to have positive effects for the foster child, but also on the institutions on which they depend. This was coded as “Institutional

Provision” as unschooling provides schools and agencies with a useful option to meet a challenging pedagogical problem. On the other end of the spectrum, “Normalcy” was coded as the major challenge for foster children in using unschooling. Among the barriers to its accepted use, “Institutional Mindsets” was the code for negatively held perception among institutional actors towards unschooling, while “Foster Parental

Knowledge” was used to describe an existing dearth of understanding among the foster parent population on the practice of unschooling.

Status quo. In spite of being a practicing licensed clinical social worker actively attempting to initiate unschooling placements for foster children, Indra was unfamiliar with any unschooling foster parents in her area. Alternately, Alexander’s experience was especially informative in suggesting that the practice is already underway, though unlabeled and resulting from an unspoken institutional acknowledgment of both the necessity and utility of the practice. Alexander had been foster parent to 18 children, including four for “multiple years.” Alexander portrayed situations where conventional schooling would be problematic, if not near impossible: 229

Most of "our" kids have been teenage boys who have never really been

"schooled" in the traditional sense. (Nothing against girls, but the boys are harder

to place so more have come our way.) Some were kept out of school by birth

parents before being taken from their homes by the state. Almost all of them, after

being in state custody, moved around from one family to another to temporary

group homes, etc., every few months or even more often. Most had never

completed a full year in a single school.

Alexander goes on to depict one of his foster children who is “now almost 18, and has never been at a school for more than a month or so.” Alexander describes situations where the foster child’s connection with the local school is tenuous and intermittent, but provides a portrait of unschooling being practiced in an official capacity via the individualized education plan (IEP) as a result of necessity:

At [local high school], an IEP is a little like unschooling, or perhaps something

akin to Sudbury Valley [the most prominent American institution practicing Self-

Directed Education]. They get one adult teacher/coordinator they meet with and

try to figure out what they can do productively to get credits. And the resources of

all of the area high schools are made available. With an IEP, you can get a credit

for anything your supervisor says is a credit. And the school wants these kids to

graduate--hey, they are expensive, so move 'em along. You might have to be at

the school for a half hour a week, but that's about it unless there is something you

want to participate in. 230

Alexander then describes one of his foster children who “kept busy doing things he liked and let the school decide what he would get credit for.” This particular anecdote is interesting in that it depicts an individual engaged in meaningful, educational activity – activity highlighted by both Dewey and Holt as cited earlier by Ricci (2011) – with the bureaucracy flowing around them documenting that the activity took place. Alexander provides a number of anecdotes of talented and capable young persons whose formative needs were met through the practice of unschooling, often times in partnership with the local school system.

Toni presented an anecdote where compulsory school attendance may compound the trauma of sudden change brought about by entry into the foster care system. Upon receiving a new foster child, it was suggested that she switch schools to one serving the area around the placement in spite of it being May:

Their logic was ‘just have her switch to a school by you.’ I was like, ‘Wow, that

would be really hard. She’s already having all these self-esteem issues. You’re

going to have her go to a completely new school the last month of school.’ We

didn’t do that. We drove her every day [to her previous school].

This is illustrative of both a common problem – the stress associated with the additional strangeness of a new building, new teachers, and new peers – and an opportunity for the strategic employment of unschooling.

While it may be suggested that the concept of unschooling is at cross-purposes with that of conventional schools, both Alexander’s and Indra’s experience depict school systems which are willing to try innovative approaches to educating foster children. 231

Toni’s anecdote provides an instance where a strategic use of unschooling may have been optimal. Indra stated the opinion that for “these kids in particular, school was really holding them back” and she projected that “probably all of those kids would have done a hell of a lot better if they would have had that option [unschooling]”, a proposition supported by Alexander’s experiences. Fortunately, like Alexander, Indra described school systems which were favorably disposed to the practice for use with this population:

…last year when I was working with a few kids, I had a couple of cases at the

same time which really could have benefited from unschooling. I was trying to

work with the local school systems to see if that was possible and, to be honest,

the schools in [state] were more open to it than I’d thought they’d be, a couple of

them even offered in home tutoring services and stuff like that to support the

child.

She went on to say that “school committees around here are like super open to it” and, tellingly of the difficulty involved in managing these young lives, she paraphrases their agreement as saying, “‘yeah, cool, do what you gotta do!’” From both the perspective of a foster parent and a social worker, there is the suggestion of immense potential for the use of unschooling with the fostered population in partnership with conventional school systems.

Benefits of unschooling foster children. Beyond the oft cited benefits of unschooling, which each and every child may enjoy, unschooling has the potential to offer a specific set of benefits to the foster child. 232

Bond formation. One of the common benefits explicitly identified by Indra and

Toni was the opportunity for bond formation between foster child and foster parent.

While most children will have established a bond with their parent(s) prior to school attendance, bonds which may be cultivated or neglected throughout the school years, a foster child is in the unfortunate situation of arriving at a foster home essentially bondless. Indra articulates how a foster parent practicing unschooling with their foster child may achieve a bond: “I think that spending that much time with your foster child and really getting to know how they learn, what they want to learn, what their interests are, there’s no better way to build a bond than that.” Toni noted that “you try to help kids find their passion, and if you don’t know them it’s kind of hard to do that,” later offering that unschooling offers an environment where a foster child may “overcome a lot of . . . trust issues” and “build . . . connections” with their foster parent. Alexander offers insight into where these bonds and connections can literally take a foster child:

We also made a point of including him in quite a lot of interesting traveling,

museums, shows, relatively exotic vacations, which were important mainly

because he had never been out of [state] before. We also had to take along his

girlfriend, of course, so this wasn't cheap, but these were actually the most

enjoyable vacations of our lives!

Unschooling offers foster parent and foster child unmatched time and opportunity to form a bond whose present and future importance may be presumed to be invaluable. 233

Choice. Another benefit explicitly stated by both Alexander and Indra is the value of choice for a foster child and the opportunity for the same found within unschooling. Indra portrays lives notable for their lack of choice:

…foster kids have no choice, right, they don’t have a choice of who they live

with, they don’t have a choice what they wear, what religion their foster parents

practice. These are forced upon them. They don’t even get to choose their food

even sometimes, it’s like, “well, we eat this diet so now you’re going to eat this

diet.”

She then presents the value of choice for this population, “And being able to choose what you learn and how you learn it, that would just be amazing. That would be just so, so empowering for them.” Alexander echoes this sentiment: “These kids generally need opportunities and resources that they can choose.” (emphasis added) Continuing the aforementioned anecdote by Toni, she discussed the transformative value of choice as her foster child was released from school and into the unschooling situation that summer vacation may bring to the entire school-age population:

When we really connected with her was the fact that we had all summer to not

think about classes and micromanaging her grades and she was just able to

explore what she’s really interested in. She ended up doing so wonderful, they

couldn’t even believe she was the same kid. Her grandparents . . . said that we

must have been brain washing her because suddenly she was behaving and not

having all the issues that she had been having before. (emphasis added) 234

Toni would frequently reference this transformative aspect of choice and the power of exploration.

Indra believes that the benefits of such access to choice would extend to the problematic time of emancipation: “…if they had had the opportunity to make some choices earlier, even just around education, and how you learn and when you learn, I think that would better prepare them for making those choices about emancipation.”

Anecdotally, Alexander’s experience appears to support this conclusion as he concludes an examination of three foster children he came to know quite well:

Anyway, I think all three of these kids got fine educations after a horrible start,

and all are really terrific young adults today, supporting themselves, keeping out

of trouble, with respectful relationships with their romantic partners and in one

case, the first male in a large extended family to ever take responsibility for

supporting and raising his own kids. The same is true of other kids we've worked

with, though i (sic) know them less well.

In discussing another foster child, Alexander paints a picture of the extremes a child may go to when their choices – in this case, choice in terms of freedom of movement – are severely restricted:

His history is mostly being sent to private residential schools or group homes that

lock the doors at night. He hates being locked in, so he breaks out. Sometimes

dramatically (throwing a TV through a second-story window and jumping out, or,

as a very strong young man, breaking down multiple locked doors with his fists.) 235

This is one of the smartest people I know--no schooling but can solve any

practical problem that interests him.

While the value of choice may be extended to encompass all children, especially in regards to education, the importance of choice for a foster child may be exponential.

Institutional provision. A benefit not directly affecting the foster child, but potentially improving the situation for the fostered population indirectly, is what the option of unschooling provides both the institutions of conventional schools and social work agencies. Repeatedly expressed through these interviews were deficiencies of approach that both schools and agencies experienced in how to provide for some foster children: “…you can be sure that your state had a whole lot kids it doesn't know what to do with” (Alexander). Indra references the special situation which confounds both child and system, “Their trauma, their emotional issues not being dealt with, probably triggered in a conventional school environment”, a state depicted by Alexander in describing one of his foster children:

He always refused to take tests—he'd just sit at the desk and stare at the

ceiling…His supervisor at school said he could graduate if he would just spend 15

minutes tacking a cover onto a report he had made. He refused and didn’t

graduate…

Alexander repeatedly references a perplexed system, specifically receiving children

“because they couldn’t find another placement” and referring to my future initiative, “I'm sure there are kids the state and the school system would love to send your way. A whole lot less expensive for them than the prison-like private schools or other institutions.” 236

Briefly referenced here is the issue of cost, a consideration also espoused by Alexander who evaluated that “in every state, every foster care agency is overworked and underfunded.”

Returning to the idea of choice, Indra, Alexander, and Toni all stressed the importance of choice to a foster child and Alexander emphasized that “social services have a hard time figuring out how to do this [provide choices]”. For institutions attempting to provide for children who have needs, which are exceptional for their manifestations in behavior and learning styles, unschooling may provide all parties – teachers, social workers, school administrators, the foster child, and the foster parent – the flexibility and opportunity to identify and emplace the requisite methods and practices in a cost-effective manner.

Challenges of unschooling foster children. Within the interviews, a single unique challenge was presented which would be problematic for foster children. This was the issue of normalcy. Indra explains this issue:

…foster children really, they seek normalcy, they want to be normal. I remember

experiencing as a homeschooler, it’s probably a little different now because it’s

more common, feeling very much like an outsider, as an unschooler. So, for some

children that might be difficult thing to overcome. Like, ‘Oh, you want me to be

even more different?’ [original emphasis]

Alexander provided anecdotal evidence of the same:

One of the kids had an academically gifted girlfriend and therefore struggled

through pretty much as a "normal" student. He was obsessed with being "normal," 237

refusing help for a handicap, refusing to consider an IEP, refusing to participate in

any extra or remedial programs, making sure I never introduced myself as his

"foster" parent. I sympathized and helped as I could.

As Indra personally attests to, homeschoolers and unschoolers may face the social drawbacks afforded any minority population violating commonly held values of homogeneity, but her ultimate assessment is that this detriment is small cost: “I think that the benefits that they’d gain once they overcame that idea would just be exponential.”

Nevertheless, foster children may not welcome a further increase in the distance away from perceived normalcy.

Barriers to unschooling foster children. Categorized under this theme were two subthemes. These were institutional mindsets and foster parental knowledge.

Institutional mindsets. While both Alexander and Indra depicted a willingness of institutions to try alternative educational methods, especially for the most challenging of cases, Alexander summed up what he found to be the root cause: “Everybody at [state- level children’s service agency] believes that what these kids need is ’structure.’”

Indeed, increased structure is at the core of the definition of treatment foster care (TFC) as provided by the Children’s Bureau (2018) – “treatment foster care, also called therapeutic foster care, is designed to provide safe and nurturing care to a child or youth in a more structured home environment than typical foster care,” – yet, the provision of autonomy is central to the success of both Toni and Alexander, who are TFC providers

(p. 1, emphasis added). As unschooling could be described as an antithesis of 238 institutional structure, there would be a clear conflict between the two pedagogical approaches, even though they may be complementary in practice.

Immediately following the above quote, Alexander provides a pragmatic opinion of why structure is emphasized: “I am always amazed at how few social workers are parents--most quit when and if they decide to have kids of their own--so they have all sorts of abstract ideas of what is needed to raise kids responsibly.” Alexander believes that establishing “an unschooling experience for foster kids” would be “difficult…in any official way” and that a potential work around may be relabeling of the practice, a strategy recently adopted by the Alliance for Self-Directed Education which uses Self-

Directed Education in place of unschooling to roughly describe the same pedagogy.

Alexander feels that unschooling, with its aforementioned morphological intra-negation,

“would be a hard sell” to the involved institutions.

Moreover, Toni presented a paradigm in which social systems view foster child solely from their negative attributes, potentially their trauma or diagnoses. Put differently, foster children may be considered solely by the ways in which they disrupt the system(s), be they educational, judicial, or social. Toni was part of an effort to include constructive material – interests, hobbies, passions – in the ultimate description of a foster child, specifically for reasons of placement. Toni, by extension, offered contrasting approaches to the foster child, as conventional schooling might view a foster child through their deficiencies in fitting into their system, unschooling allows for the consideration of potential and interest. This crucial distinction of approach may be difficult to overcome. 239

Foster parental knowledge. Indra found that the simple lack of awareness among foster parents regarding unschooling as an option was a significant barrier to its use.

After having actively sought out such parents and having advocated for the method’s use, she found that foster parents “fe[lt] like they didn’t have enough training, enough knowledge on how to do it or the resources.” Moreover, she notes that “foster parents are under a ton of scrutiny – a ton of scrutiny – and so they really need to be educated on how to do this in the appropriate way and not just be like, ‘Alright kids, do whatever you want!’” Toni also believes that it would be superior to find practicing unschoolers to become foster parents rather than vice versa: “if you have somebody who knows what they’re doing as far as unschooling and has done it for a while . . . and can just be kind and trust the kids.”

Conclusionary remarks. In closing, Alexander presents an overall assessment of educational programs in which foster children participate:

…in practice, one way or another, the most successful programs have been those

which allow kids to choose what they want to learn, and that provide resources

and mentors to help them with their goals. This is not really as radical as it may

sound. (emphasis added)

Indra’s overall assessment of the value of unschooling is more expansive, but identifies especial value for use with foster children: “I think personally that unschooling is the best thing for everybody and [if] everyone could learn that way they’d enjoy learning a hell of lot more, but these kids in particular.” Both practitioners, representing social worker and 240 foster parent perspectives, believe that unschooling has potential for use with foster children.

Within the conceptual framework, Alexander, Toni, and Indra’s input suggest that unschooling would be a superior option within both Maslowian and SDT perspectives.

While it could be said that the foster care system’s primary goal is the satisfaction of the

Basic Needs, Alexander’s de facto practice of unschooling clearly provided access to the

Psychological Needs, possibly approaching the Self-Fulfillment Needs. Through an SDT lens, Alexander provided his foster children what the system was loath to: access to autonomy – “these kids generally need opportunities and resources they can choose” – a sentiment echoed by Indra and Toni and the antithesis of which is portrayed by the young man who “thr[ew] a TV through a second-story window and jump[ed] out.” Both Toni and Alexander also provided competence and concurrently access to the Psychological

Needs en route to the Self-Fulfillment Needs by making way for acquiring a pilot’s license, EMT certification, access to the dynamic film industry, working with the local fire department, as well as enabling another young man to produce a project questioning the illegalization of drugs. While Indra depicts foster children who are stifled by the school system, Alexander and Toni present anecdotal evidence of how unschooling works within the Maslowian and SDT frameworks, by providing what school and social work systems simply cannot.

241

Chapter 5: Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of unschooling for use in preparing the fostered population for adult existence. In order to achieve this evaluation, bricolage was employed to “interrogate all the heterogeneous objects which

[were available]. . . to discover what each of them could ‘signify’ and so contribute to the definition of a set which has yet to materialize.” (Levi-Strauss, 1962, p. 18; emphasis added) As such, the literature surrounding this hypothetical intersection was gathered and a narrative analysis performed of the wide array of topics related to the central goal of preparing foster children for adult life. Then an autoethnography was presented of my experience with unschooling my own children to articulate how unschooling works for children possessing varied capabilities and interests. Finally, interviews were conducted with a foster parent and a social worker who were both experienced with unschooling and working with foster children to provide a preemptive assessment regarding the potential of the practice.

Conclusions

All three research instruments strongly suggested that unschooling may produce superior existential outcomes for foster children than conventional schooling, including greater and more relevant educational gains. The narrative review of research spanning multiple decades and repeated attempts at reform of the foster system exhibited that the conventional school system was ill-prepared to provide for the unique needs of foster children. Poor high school graduation rates, low levels of college attendance, and a paltry rate of college graduation are examples of the deficient, pedagogical outcomes, 242 with correspondingly high rates of intra-school problems and subsequent issues in early adulthood completing the portrait of this ill-served and much challenged population

(Zetlin, 2006; Fram & Altshuler, 2009; Antoine & Fisher, 2006; TeamChild & Casey

Family Programs, 2015; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Shin, 2012; Barrat &

Berliner, 2013). Moreover, the narrative review suggests that, given the substantial amount of research surrounding the topic, and while the conventional school system is aware of the deficiency, it is unable to find a viable solution to the overarching problem.

My autoethnography suggests that unschooling may provide both a venue and a method from which to meet individual foster children as individuals with unique needs in unique situations. Unschooling has been shown to allow the caregiver to shape the environment, both in terms of time and space, and to holistically meet the needs of the individual child, regardless of disability, giftedness, or any combination thereof. Looking past conventional systems and their intensely structured methods and objectives, unschooling has been shown to be well-suited, as a stochastic pedagogy, to interact with the chaotic anti-structure that research has shown is the life of a foster child.

The interviews, while small in number, provided ample material for consideration. Contrary to expectations, they suggested that institutions are willing to try unschooling in conjunction with foster children and in Alexander’s case, were practicing unschooling in a de facto status often in partnership. Unschooling seemed to provide unique benefits – beyond those advantages which are believed to be inherent benefits of the pedagogy – which were tailored to foster children, specifically the ability and opportunity to bond with foster parents and the provision of choice to a population who is 243 notable for their lack of the same. Finally, as repeatedly modelled in Alexander’s sketches, unschooling provides institutions with a flexible alternative for children who have proven exceptionally difficult to provide for, thus mitigating both cost and lost resources. The sole identified detriment found in the interviews was the consideration of normalcy which was reported to be a frequent concern of foster children and which unschooling may decrease. The identified barriers to unschooling include institutional mindsets which may find the practice contrary and a simple lack of foster parents who are familiar with the practice in order to use it with their foster children.

Taken as a whole, the three instruments combined to provide four major findings, which have been summed up as an equation for bond formation and relatedness, autonomy and choice as specifically precious commodities for foster children, foster child as wrench and unschooling as a potter’s wheel, and treatment foster care and unschooling as potentially synonymous practice. Just as this problem is multi-faceted, involving numerous institutions, actors, and manifold dysfunctions, the findings below teeter between being straightforward and complex, but ultimately the potential solution, unschooling, at its very essence, is quite simple.

An equation for bond formation and relatedness. A former foster child and current advocate for foster children, Lee (2015) briefly describes the unceremonious act of leaving behind one’s family of orientation at age 12: “I had to pack all of my belongings into trash bags and leave the home I knew behind.” (p. 1) Her testimony describes a sudden, extempore separation from her family and home – and everything 244 that is familiar. Lee continues her description of what entering the foster care system is like for a child:

The system is a scary place for children. Even if your family is chaotic, neglectful

or abusive, being taken away from everything you’ve known is terrifying. Imagine

having to go live with strangers, often a series of strangers, and there’s nothing

you can do. Foster children have no control over their lives, and that lack of

control causes continual insecurity. They don’t know how long they’ll be in a

particular foster home or where they’ll be going to school next month or next

year. (p. 1, emphasis added)

Toni made a similar point, counseling a contemplation of the sheer number of changes experienced by a foster child at the time of placement and further suggesting a simple reduction of the same through the practice of unschooling. From an SDT perspective,

Toni and Lee describe a situation where “the need to feel connected to at least some others” – relatedness – would be dramatically denied as would the needs for belongingness and love when uprooted and surrounded by strangers in a strange place

(Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p. 1199). Lee (2015) portrays this experience as being scary and terrifying.

Lee’s introduction of the idea of strangers, presents a simple question of what makes things (people, places, etc.) familiar? Van Hoogdalem, Singer, Wijngaards, and

Heesbeen (2012) argue that it is an issue of quantity of time spent together, discussed here in their work on friendship relationships with young children: 245

The opportunity to repeatedly meet over a longer period of time is an important

condition for becoming familiar, and making friends with, others (e.g., Gallagher

et al. 2007; Hinde 1979). Recurrent interactions are especially important for very

young children. Infants and toddlers are highly dependent on nonverbal

communication, and are less skilled in coordinated interactions. Therefore, they

need recurrent interactions to construct mutual expectations, shared meanings and

patterns of behaviour like routines or ritualized jokes (e.g., Corsaro 2004; Verba

1994). Young children who spend more time with each other have the opportunity

to build a shared history, which facilitates their interactions because they will

better understand each other’s behaviour (Dunn 1993). (p. 191, emphasis added)

While this explication focuses wholly on younger children and their development of peer relationships, the emphasis on quantity of interaction is extrapolated to the importance of making the strangers in a foster child’s experience familiar as soon as possible, thereby reducing the amount of terror and scariness experienced while concurrently increasing relatedness, belongingness, and, potentially, love.

The degree and pace at which this happens in both a conventional school setting versus an unschooling setting may be contrasted via a simple formula. A previously mentioned study found that parents spend approximately 2.7 hours taking care of children per day, with the average mother contributing 104 minutes and the average father 59 (The

Data Team, 2017). This represents 11.25% of a 24 hour day. It may be conjectured that this comparatively low figure is mostly due to conventional school attendance as well as that 61.1% of families have both parents employed in the work force (Bureau of Labor 246

Statistics, 2017). By contrast, and without supporting data, I would estimate a rate of child-to-parent interaction at least four times the above figure within our unschooling framework, or about eleven hours of proximity and interaction. All meals are had together, farm chores are done together, academic endeavors are done together, board games are frequently played, trips to the grocer or feed store, and more are all mostly done together or in close proximity. Subtracting eight hours for sleep, and taken to an extreme, unschooling has the potential to provide nearly 16 hours of interaction, or a full

66% of any given day. My estimation accounts for nearly a half day worth of interaction and care, whereas there exists potential for a full two-thirds of a day in which to make that which is strange, familiar.

While the single day analysis above may cause pause, the exponential effects across weeks and months may prove inordinate for the potential and possibility afforded by unschooling in making the strange familiar, generating relatedness, and eventually forming bonds (See Table 5.1). Given that foster children realize foster care placements of varying and dynamic amounts of time, unschooling would provide the best opportunity to optimize the time provided in a temporary care situation. This could, perhaps, be expressed as T x P = BF + R where T is time, P is proximity, BF is bond formation, and

R is relatedness. The sheer simplicity of the equation – additional time spent in proximity of a caring adult as a way to increase the fulfillment of fundamental needs – should make it an attractive solution.

247

Table 5.1.

Comparison of Hours of Interaction between [Foster] Child and [Foster] Parent

1 Day 1 Week 1 Month 3 Mos. 6 Mos. 1 Year Conventional Schooling 2.7 18.9 81 243 486 985.5 Author's Unschooling 10.8 75.6 324 972 1944 3942 Maximum Unschooling 16 112 480 1440 2880 5760

Note. The table takes the average finding of 2.7 hours of interaction between child and parent (The Data Team, 2017) in a conventional setting and compared it across various time points to both my estimated time of interaction and a maximum of interaction permitted by the practice of unschooling.

Indra repeatedly mentioned the unique capability unschooling offers for a foster child to “build a bond between their foster parent and foster family,” while Alexander modeled the potential of such bond formation stating that “we also made it a point of including him in quite a lot of interesting traveling, museums, shows, relatively exotic vacations.” Gray and Riley (2013) coded the liberating effects of unschooling for a family as Family Freedom of Schedule and Alexander has shown that it can be used to great effect for bond formation and the cultivation of relatedness. Moreover, as Van

Hoogdalem et al. (2012) articulated previously, quantity of interaction permits the creation of shared history, the establishment of patterns of behavior, the formulation of mutual expectations, and the evolution of shared meanings, all contributing to an increase in relatedness. Lastly, there appears to be a vicious cycle between foster parent connection and juvenile delinquency. A study by Ryan, Testa, and Zhai (2008) focused

“on the effects of foster parent – foster child attachment, commitment, and permanence” on juvenile delinquency. The researchers found that “the results indicate strong levels of attachment decrease the risk of delinquency for youth in foster care” (pp. 115-116). The 248 problem, of course, is that participation in conventional schooling significantly limits the sheer quantity of time in which to form attachment as depicted in the table above, potentially contributing to problems such as the astoundingly high suspension rates cited by McMillen et al. (73%, 2003) and the Legal Center for Foster Care & Education (67%,

2014). Unschooling offers unmatched quantities of time for foster parent and child to forge relatedness, belongingness, and possibly, love; these are all needs required to be met for the “facilitat[ion] . . .of self-motivation and healthy psychological development”

(Deci & Ryan, 2000b, p. 68).

Autonomy and choice as specifically precious commodities for foster children. Deci and Ryan (2000a) founded their Self-Determination Theory on the premise that “humans are active, growth-oriented organisms” (p 229). Gatto’s (2003) assertion that “boredom was everywhere” (p. 33) in conventional school settings juxtaposed next to Epstein’s (2007) finding that “‘teens appear to be subjected to about twice as many restrictions as are prisoners and soldiers,’” portrays an environment where both autonomy and choice are severely restricted and where an active, growth-oriented organism may not fare well (Ricci, 2011, p. 45). Alexander provided an extreme example of resistance to such fettering when he referenced a young man who “br[oke] down multiple locked doors with his fists” because “he hates being locked in,” a sentiment not at all difficult with which to empathize.

While a child in conventional home and school settings may not acutely feel deficiencies of autonomy and choice (as they exist within a milieu of normalcy), a foster child torn from their original setting may find the loss of previously enjoyed autonomies 249 and options to be insufferable. For it may be posited that children discover, according to their specific environment, how to strategically exert their autonomy or gain access to choice through learned behavior and trial and error. My own children have developed, over time, their individual strategies for shaping parental fiat to exert their own autonomy: Caleb uses a quiet, patient, and superficially unconcerned approach that is successful through respect for the approach’s maturity; Josef uses a lengthy, articulative approach which often wears down parental resistance through wordiness; Lizzy uses a bi- polar approach which flits from soothing empathy to shrieking indignation, an approach where she frequently tests the waters prior to deploying one strategy over the other; finally, Levin uses a simpering envelopment tactic which starts by addressing something unrelated and later ends in a blatant, innocent, and seemingly unconnected request for his main objective. A foster child moved to a new environment would struggle to identify and employ such strategies to acquire autonomy and choice, for as Indra simply put it,

“Foster kids have no choice.” Lacking choice and autonomy on the foster home front may exacerbate the effects of its unavailability in a school setting, possibly resulting in astounding findings such as McMillen et al.’s (2003) finding of a 73% suspension rate among the foster children in their study or the Legal Center for Foster Care &

Education’s (2014) finding of a 67% suspension rate as well as the anti-structure anecdotes presented by Alexander.

When viewed holistically, the data suggests that autonomy and choice should be viewed as precious commodities. While this may be true for all children – for all people

– the data strongly hints that autonomy and choice are specifically invaluable for foster 250 children in their uniquely deprived situation. This assertion was supported by both Indra and Alexander. Indra described the ability to “choose what you learn and how you learn it” as being both “amazing . . . [and] empowering for them.” Alexander confirmed this need: “These kids generally need opportunities and resources that they can choose,” then spoke from the perspective of efficacy: “In practice, one way or another, the most successful programs have been those which allow kids to choose what they want to learn, and that provide resources and mentors to help them with their goals.” Alexander’s description of a most successful program is essentially an exposition of the practice of unschooling.

Whereas conventional schooling severely limits autonomy and choice – and for a foster child grievously so – unschooling offers these precious commodities in quantities up to that which a foster parent “can comfortably bear.” (Farenga, 2016, p. 1) Contrary to the criticism that “parental controls or discipline” is “abdicate[d]. . . in lieu of fun and freedom,” (Wilke, 2012, p. 1) unschooling offers the foster parent and child a partnership in the management of autonomy and choice and neither “dominance of a child’s wishes over a parents’ or vice versa.” (Farenga, 2016, p. 1) Alexander’s experiences perfectly outline unschooling’s ability to allow a foster child access to autonomy and choice as his charges pursued a plethora of interests in a variety of settings. My autoethnography likewise depicts the freedom and variety of approach as exercised by my various children and this autonomy and choice, experienced by both individuals and family units, was cited in each of the studies by Gray and Riley (2013; 2015). For foster children, who, as the aforementioned data suggests, were exceptionally sensitive to the loss of choice and 251 autonomy, unschooling offers potentially empowering, cathartic, and transformative access to these uniquely precious commodities.

Foster child as unwilling wrench & unschooling as a potter’s wheel. Critics of schooling, such as Olson (2009), Gatto (2003), and Gray (2011) have each used Deci and Ryan’s (2000a; 2000b) words to describe the conventional school system as

“forestall[ing] the natural process of self-motivation and healthy psychological development” (p. 68). Though their critiques regard the population at large, they may hold especial significance for the fostered population who have been repeatedly cited as being the most at-risk and vulnerable school population (Zetlin, 2006; Lips, 2007; Fram

& Altshuler, 2009). Indra describes foster children who are stifled by conventional school, while Alexander offers illustrations of rebelliousness and defiance – “he always refused to take tests – he’d just sit at the desk and stare at the ceiling” – actions whose underpinnings are articulated within the literature: “when youth are frustrated by frequent moves and rough transition, they are more likely to act out” (The Legal Center for Foster

Care & Education, 2014, p. 8). Behavioral issues are merely the tip of the iceberg for a whole slew of issues including pre-entry issues such as trauma and resultant neurobiological issues: “memory problems, attention difficulties, sleep and mood disorders, emotional problems, and chronic health problems” (Watson & Kabler, 2012, p.

27). These and other burgeoning problems may manifest themselves into post-entry issues such as absenteeism, special education placement, and disciplinary referrals including suspension and expulsion, which in turn may be exacerbated by a lack of school records, a lack of an IEP or a functioning IEP, a lack of educational advocacy, and 252 repeated school change (Smucker et al., 1996; McMillen et al., 2003; Lips, 2007; Zetlin,

2006; Pears et al., 2011; Watson & Kabler, 2012). All of these issues cumulatively merge to produce consistent, poor performance as foster children are “at least a year behind,” (Watson & Kabler, 2012, p. 28) “score 15-20% below their peers,” (Zetlin,

2006, p. 161), are “significantly behind their peers,” “perform significantly worse,”

(Pears et al., 2011, p. 140), are “in the bottom quartile,” (Gustavsson & MacEachron,

2012, p. 84) “far[e] worse than their peers,” (Antoine & Fisher, 2006, p. 61) have “twice the dropout rate,” (TeamChild & Casey Family Programs, 2015, p. 1) or “less than half,”

(Shin, 2012, p. 139) and have “the highest dropout rate and lowest graduation rate”

(Barrat & Berliner, 2013, p. iv). The data overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that foster children are poor system participants. The data suggests that should any population be successful within the conventional school system, it will not be this one; moreover, with such weighty data and accumulated trends, Stereotype Threat could be expected to be prevalent as a menacing impediment.

Metaphorically, this situation may be described in terms of a wrench thrown in the cogs (See Figure 5.1). Conventional schooling is presented as an ordered system, or machine, into which the foster child is thrust as a misplaced and thus ill-functioning entity (a wrench), albeit completely without fault or agency. Taking the metaphor further, the foster child’s trauma, disordered life, and periodic disruptions may be viewed as sand thrown into the workings thereby increasing friction, stress, and strain for both child and school system. The end state product is dysfunction or, more specifically, 253 longitudinal and contrived incompetence as the child finds themselves unable to work within the constraints of the system.

Figure 5.1. Metaphorical depiction of a foster child as an unwilling wrench being thrown into cogs (representing conventional school) by life circumstances. Base graphic: Gears- wrench [Graphic]. (2013). Retrieved from https://bestcadtips.com/cleaning-a-corrupted- autocad-drawing/gears-wrench/ Hand graphic: Hand throwing dice stock [Graphic]. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ illustration/hand-throwing- dice-royalty-free-illustration/152404923

Within SDT, this is a crisis. As incompetence trumps competence for hypothetically 12 years and “the need to feel a sense of mastery over the environment”

(Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p. 1198) is decisively refuted, there would result

“diminished motivation and well-being” (Deci & Ryan, 2000b, p. 68). Within Maslow’s

Hierarchy, Belongingness and Esteem Needs would be grievously threatened. For my family, Elizaveta’s disability and Caleb’s dyslexia would preclude success within the 254 conventional school system and, like so many foster children, incompetence would likely be their reality for a long and painful 12 years.

The antithetical metaphor to contrast against the wrench-in-cogs metaphor, would be a potter’s wheel, where senior potter assists junior potter to create competence. While this metaphor may be cliché, the agency of the foster child exerted upon malleable clay allows for repeated mistake and remedy, while the slip (a mixture of water and clay) provides friction, strain, and stress reducing lubrication and may represent time, freedom, and choice afforded by unschooling. The assistance and counsel of the senior potter is available, but not required, reflecting the near egalitarian roles within an unschooling environment. The near limitless reusability of the clay allows for a journey to competence before a final product is decisively fired and made permanent.

Alexander (senior potter) provided stories of success which were replete with young men (junior potter) finding and practicing their competencies outside of conventional schooling. My children received no denigration for their respective exceptionalities and, instead, have learned about them and how to manage them in a loving environment and constructive manner. They have been provided space and targeted intervention via “the light of partnership” between parent, senior potter, and the burgeoning potter which is the child (Farenga, 2016, p. 1). Unschooling’s holistic and exploratory approach allows for parent and child to unhurriedly tour the proximal environment and seek out opportunities where competency may be found and exercised.

Gray and Riley (2013) found evidence of what may be termed competence- formation (as depicted by a potter’s wheel) among unschooling families who perceived 255 that their children maintained “a higher level of curiosity and greater intrinsic interest in learning” in addition to “learning more efficiently and eagerly. . . and more life-relevant material” (p. 16). These findings were supported by Gray and Riley’s (2015) survey of the unschooled themselves as adults who reported competence-related benefits of unschooling such as “Time to Pursue Own Interests,” “Improved Learning,” and “Self-

Confidence.” Unschooling would likely remove the well-documented and, one must imagine, relatively public (and probably humiliating as suggested by Goodman’s 2017 findings) stultification of competence or potential competence for foster children whose successful system participation in the schools is widely impeded by disruption, disorder, and trauma. In its place the literature and experiences presented herein suggest that it offers the chance for competence and the satisfaction of Psychological and, possibly,

Self-Fulfillment Needs. The contrasting metaphors of wrench in cogs (conventional school) and potter’s wheel (unschooling) assist in a depiction of this multi-faceted consideration of unschooling as a potential solution.

Treatment foster care and unschooling as complementary practice. There is ample evidence found throughout this inquiry to suggest that unschooling is especially complementary to the intensive practice known as treatment foster care (TFC). Both

Toni and Alexander were trained and licensed treatment foster care providers and while their practice was near identical – “to try to help kids find their passion” in Toni’s words

– only Toni was an intentional practitioner of unschooling while Alexander could be best described as a de facto practitioner of the same. Both offered their foster children a 256 dynamic, self-directed, and autonomous pedagogical experience in line with the fundamental principles of unschooling while simultaneously providing TFC.

Prima facie, unschooling seems to fly in the face of TFC. The Children’s Bureau

(2018) defines TFC as being “designed to provide safe and nurturing care . . . in a more structured home environment than typical foster care,” which definitionally contradicts unschooling’s emphasis on the autonomy of the student (p. 1, emphasis added). Findings from the research herein suggest that the overt emphasis on structure may in fact be a counter-intuitive misplacement and that foster children considered for TFC do not necessarily need more structure, but rather an environment supportive of constructive autonomy. The experiences of Toni and Alexander directly support this supposition as much of their success as foster parents seems to be based on their ability to intelligently provide and support the autonomy of their foster children. The musings of Alexander regarding the basis for the potentially misplaced emphasis on structure, which, while it may come across as stereotype, is an empirical observation based on lengthy experience:

Everybody at [agency] believes that what these kids need is "structure." (I am

always amazed at how few social workers are parents--most quit when and if they

decide to have kids of their own--so they have all sorts of abstract ideas of what is

needed to raise kids responsibly.).

These “abstract ideas” may hinder a potentially powerful approach such as actively using unschooling for TFC.

Furthermore, the theories and models supporting TFC have all the appearance of being in near perfect alignment with those of unschooling. An examination of the 12 257

Principles of Re-Education (See Figure 2.1) often used to guide TFC practice finds ten of the principles well aligned with unschooling practice, including “trust is essential”

(reference earlier discussion regarding bond formation and relatedness), “communities’ benefits must be experienced,” “competence makes a difference” (another SDT need), and especially “physical experiences help us define ourselves,” “now is when life is to be lived,” and “joy should be built into each day.” (Trunzo et. al, 2012, p. 23). The two which seem more aligned with conventional schooling are “groups are major sources of instruction” and “ceremony and ritual give order,” although both may certainly be part and parcel of unschooling, especially given large families, co-operatives, or other unschooling groups for the former (p. 23).

Another previously mentioned TFC model, Multidimensional Treatment Foster

Care (MTFC), “is a community-based multi-modal treatment programme that addresses antisocial behavior” which “includes formalized cooperation” between a litany of concerned parties where “the youth is placed individually in a specialized foster home.

The foster parents provide the youth with a structured and therapeutic living environment.” (Westermark et al., 2011, p. 22) Chamberlain (2013) presents the objective of MTFC for the foster child: “to create supports and opportunities . . . so they can have a successful community living experience.” (p. 304) While the word multidimensional in MTFC seems to stem from the inclusion of multiple parties providing mutually directed support, it is also representative of the holistic and dynamic approach within the unschooling pedagogy which could be described by the same or similar terms as MTFC. Deeming it unnecessary, unschooling officially removes the 258 additional complication (or burden) of formal schooling from the equation and its stringent requirements of testing and curriculum satisfaction. In this manner, unschooling could be viewed as an empowering component of an MTFC placement.

This finding is especially significant as a leap from conventional schooling to unschooling may be construed as an especially large one, even a dramatic departure. But the space between TFC/MTFC and unschooling appears to be nearly negligible, if not in definition than in practice, and therefore provides a strategic space in which practitioners may meet to leverage the pedagogy on behalf of the fostered population.

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited by three factors. The nebulousness of unschooling with its reliance on personal interest and individual action combined with its stochastic nature make its definition difficult. As research is reliant on the ability to define both concepts and parameters of a research topic, unschooling’s inclusiveness and definition vis-à-vis negation is not conducive to formal research. This study was dependent upon nebulousness both in methodology and in ideas such as potential and te kore, and thus its applicability might be problematic to other inquiries and practice.

Also, as I am a practitioner of unschooling and have had plans to begin practice along the lines of this inquiry, there is cause for concern for the effects of confirmation bias throughout this study. While the general absence of extant literature on this particular topic precludes effects within the literature review and narrative review, care was taken throughout the interviews (of persons already in favor of unschooling) and autoethnography of the pull towards confirmation bias. An awareness of the potential for 259 this bias was therefore maintained throughout and attempts to mitigate were consistently made. The success of these attempts may certainly be questioned.

Finally, the juxtaposition of my autoethnography to the narrative review and interviews presumes much in the extrapolation from practicing unschooling with my own children to the practice of unschooling with foster children. My lack of experience with the fostered population and the foster care system may have resulted in missed considerations or erroneous conclusions. The interviews with practitioners mitigates this limitation to some degree, but may not completely compensate for it.

Recommendations

Recommendations for future research. The complete absence within the literature of the use of unschooling with the fostered population allows for a myriad of possibilities. The most obvious is to put into practice what this study has suggested could be a beneficial and targeted practice. The longitudinal and holistic nature of such an inquiry makes research difficult, but not impossible. A half decade, for instance, of examination should provide a nascent understanding of whether or not the practice is practical, both for the foster child and foster parents. Such an inquiry may suggest possible effects of unschooling upon the transition from childhood to adulthood, specifically within collegiate attendance and early employment. A longer inquiry of around a decade would provide a nascent understanding of whether unschooling prepares foster children for the general duties and responsibilities of adulthood, findings already hinted at by Gray and Riley (2015) and Alexander’s experience. 260

Furthermore, as this topic spans across many disciplines (this study included research from the a multitude of academic fields including education, social work, psychology, sociology, anthropology, law, and economics) future research approaches may need be interdisciplinary to fully encompass the subject matter. Moreover, while the original research questions mostly concerned education, the inquiry evolved into a more eudemonic query: how to help foster children flourish both as children and in the future as young adults? From this perspective, contributions from the field of positive psychology may be particularly instructive and, as unschooling may be posited as being adiscipline (or belonging to no specific academic discipline), inquiry grounded in a bricolagesque adiscipline – from within “the definition of a set which has yet to materialize” – may be most apt (Levi-Strauss, 1962, p. 18). Lastly, the value of unschooling foster children may vary with age, so separate inquiries into primary school- aged and secondary school-aged children may be necessary.

Recommendations for foster parents. Although a significant hurdle to overcome may be the acceptance of unschooling by various education and welfare departments as a legitimate method of bringing a child to adulthood, a small number of pedagogical pioneers have already established the method as being viable and have documented the same (Ricci et al., 2011; Holt, 1981; Neill, 1962). To this end, the decade-long publication of the Journal of Unschooling and Alternate Learning may be evidence of unschooling’s legitimacy, while the Alliance for Self-Directed Education provides both practical assistance for practitioners as well as an alternate terminology which may prove to be more palatable to various institutions. 261

As the issue may not be so much that foster parents are actively trying to use unschooling and being rebutted, as the above paragraph implies, but rather that a main hurdle to unschooling’s employment is the current foster parent population’s unfamiliarity with the method, a situation articulated by Indra. Therefore, the best course of action may be the recruitment of active practitioners of homeschooling/unschooling

(expounded upon below) rather than training existing foster parents to unschool. For instance, as the autoethnography illustrates, I came to unschooling through a series of decisions grounded in personal philosophies and am therefore comfortable with the practice. Alexander’s practice was seemingly born out of necessity by both agencies and school systems and his interview portrays a practitioner who is likewise comfortable with mentoring young men sans traditional structure. Individuals in similar situations may be the optimal candidates to be the vanguard of this potential nascent practice. As

Alexander’s practice further suggests, ideal foster parents to utilize unschooling need not be professional pedagogists with a mastery of related jargon, but rather, competent adults who are stable and comfortable managing variables in the absence of conventional structure. As Alexander’s experience further suggests these potential foster parents may be involved in the trades or in labor which may be more outside of the knowledge economy and more aligned with the method of doing advocated by Dewey and Holt as previously cited by Ricci (2011).

Finally, the potential overlap or congruity of unschooling and treatment foster care may provide a dualistic opportunity. Unschooling practitioners may find that becoming treatment foster care foster parents is a meaningful and fruitful use of their 262 unschooling experience. Existing TFC practitioners may likewise find that a quasi- official adoption of the unschooling/SDE method or label may open up an immense amount of support, both practical and conceptual. Both unschooling and TFC practitioners are essentially leveraging the same methods on behalf of children and an embrace of the mirror practice or label could ultimately prove powerful for the individuals involved and society at large.

Recommendations for institutions. While, prima facie, the practice of unschooling may seem antithetical, and therefore incompatible, with entrenched institutional values of child education and child welfare, the narrative review strongly suggests that the conventional approach is producing outcomes which are antithetical to those which are optimal (Zetlin, 2006; Lips, 2007; Zetlin et al., 2010; Beisse & Tyre,

2013). As such, the consideration of alternate approaches may be of great value, both to the foster child as well as to institutions. Both Indra and Alexander described institutions which were either willing to try a new approach or were actively practicing unschooling in a de facto manner. This approach helped Alexander, referenced in the interview section above, successfully provide for both a foster child who “loved lumberjacking, milking cows, winter camping, and flying gliders and eventually airplanes” and one who, disparately, enjoyed “fashion, style, art, the latest expensive sneakers, rap music, and…basketball.” The flexibility and opportunity inherent in an unschooling situation could serve as an exceptionally pragmatic pedagogical option to be leveraged on behalf of a foster child by a school system or children’s service agency, thereby benefiting all involved parties. The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning and the Alliance 263 for Self-Directed Education may assist a neophytical school or agency with both the assurance of being backed by academic rigor and well-considered and tested practical guidance and assistance. This practice which once existed as a fringe educational method is now an established pedagogy and should be considered as a viable option for foster children, especially as its positive outcomes – for homeschooling and unschooling – have been sufficiently documented (Cogan, 2010; Murphy, 2014; Gray & Riley, 2013; 2015).

The previously discussed similarities between unschooling and the TFC approach of Alexander and Toni also present a ready-made opportunity for a possible union of the two groups, hypothetically to the great advantage of both. Unschooling families may prove to be an excellent pool of candidates from which agencies may recruit TFC providers, while the unschooling community offers the foster care system meaningful relief from the complications and stressors brought about by participation in conventional schooling. The close links between unschooling and TFC suggest an existing and immediate route to the legitimization of a practice which, by its very terminology, appears contrary to many societal norms surrounding conventional schooling. Regardless of these norms, both Alexander and Toni, TFC practitioners, are already utilizing unschooling on behalf of both the state and their foster children. Officially marrying these two caring pedagogical practices may prove to be a powerful step forward for the fostered population.

Recommendations for policy. Policymakers should seek to not paint themselves into a corner with policies of good intent which ultimately exclude a foster child from an opportunity well-suited and empowering to them. Metaphorically, I am reminded of 264 soldiering in Afghanistan where the good intentions of lawmakers and Pentagon officials had clad us in such a weight of equipment (mostly protective) and wrapped in no end of useful straps that we became lumbering turtles who got caught on everything. A foster child’s participation within the foster care system may be viewed similarly, as they work their way through the court system, social work agencies, and into the schools, wrapped in well-intentioned laws, policies, and rules and the vast amount of coordination required to follow and implement them (Smucker et al., 1996; Altshuler, 2003; Center for the

Future of Teaching and Learning, 2010; TeamChild, 2015). While the practice of unschooling may, prima facie, seem to be an institutional anathema with its lack of both structure and named objectives, the method may be the requisite fit for the fostered population, edifying and empowering them through childhood and beyond emancipation.

Indra and Alexander’s experiences illustrate that there currently exists a willingness to try unschooling and that there is opportunity for schools, agencies, and foster parents to partner in the practice, especially as Alexander and Toni, as TFC practitioners, are already using it. The outcomes described by them combined with Gray and Riley’s

(2015) research suggests there is ample reason to do so.

Moreover, the significant progress in the systemic allowance of homeschooling within the United States may be a boon to the fostered population as they have been shown to be – through no fault of their own – poor system participants (Zetlin, 2006;

Lips, 2007; Fram & Altshuler, 2009; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2012; Watson &

Kabler, 2012). The chaos of their lives and the myriad of institutions and officials who weigh in on the attempted fix of their plight creates a perfect storm of disorder and 265 disruption which fits poorly into an ordered system. Unschooling offers an option which the empirical data suggests to be a viable and successful pedagogical (and existential) approach for all and, which Alexander and Toni illustrate, may be spectacularly effective in preparing foster children for adulthood (Gray & Riley, 2013; 2015).

The inclusion of unschooling as an accepted pedagogical method for use with foster children potentially opens up a vast array of possibilities. Though beyond the purview of this paper, three major expansions of this potential immediately come to mind. The first is the active and intentional recruitment of unschooling families for foster care. This symbiotic relationship may be mutually-supporting as the unschooling family provides the foster child with a personalized education and a small peer group, while the unschooling family would receive the material benefits of the stipend as well as the benefits of diversity brought by an extra-familial member joining the family. As previously cited, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017) found that 61.1% of “married- couple families with children . . .had both parents employed,” (p.1) while the National

Household Education Surveys Program (2012) puts the percentage for homeschooling families having both parents employed at 35%. As there is a 26% separation between the national average and homeschooling families who have both parents working, there may be a presumed loss of potential earnings realized when engaging in homeschool and this loss may be mitigated, in part, by a family participating in foster care. This is not to suggest or encourage that foster children be taken on for profitable purposes, but rather that there could be a symbiotic and mutually-beneficial relationship between foster children and unschooling families for both are provided with increased choice: the foster 266 child via unschooling and the unschooling family via remuneration, for what is money ultimately, but choice in tangible form?

Secondly, the use of unschooling could provide an exceptional platform from which to launch uniquely immersive apprenticeships. Suggested by K. Machtmes

(personal communication, February 28, 2018), an unschooled placement with a foster parent involved in the trades or any technical sphere may provide a life-altering experience for a foster child. Apprenticeships, which are still actively practiced across

Switzerland, Germany, and Australia (Schalk, Wallis, Crowston, & Lemercier, 2017), are currently enjoying a resurgence in this country as “the Obama administration invested millions to launch a federal apprenticeship office, while President Trump has made it one of his signature ideas.” (Newman & Winston, 2017, p. 1) Considering this renewed interest in apprenticeships, policy encouraging foster care placements which marry unschooling and apprenticeship may be uniquely beneficial.

Lastly, the active and intentional recruitment of retired teachers as foster parents who will homeschool or unschool their foster children. This, again, provides for a mutually-supportive, symbiotic relationship between foster parent and foster child. The foster child would be educated by a professional and experienced pedagogist, while the retiree could realize both higher tier Maslowian benefits as well as a stay on potential ill effects resulting from retirement. Salami (2010) cites a number of studies which have found “significant negative relationship between retirement and life satisfaction or morale…and positive association with psychological distress” (p. 48). This finding is emphasized by Sharma and Hill (2010) who cited two studies which found that loneliness 267 is “often . . .described as the chief enemy of elderly people.” (p. 37) A union between the retired teacher and foster child populations may curb this as Martinez, Frick, Kim, and

Fried (2010) cite a number of studies which have found that older adults “derive a sense of self-worth and improved overall well-being” from participation in community interactions, especially volunteering (p. 264), while Sharma and Hill (2010) note the importance of purpose in life for elderly persons. Mahler (2012) presents a significant uptick in the retired population as “over the next decade, more than half of all public school teachers will become eligible for retirement (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2009).” (p. 2) This is a sizable group of potential foster parents with approximately 1,204,000 who are either of age for retirement (322,000) or are between the ages of 50-59 (882,000) and approaching retirement (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2013). This group may be leveraged to meet the recent uptick in the fostered population caused by the ongoing opioid epidemic (Administration for Children

& Families, 2017). As with all things, practicing unschooling may not be practical or suitable for everyone, and the maintenance of an assiduous selection process for foster parents is assumed within this recommendation.

Final Remarks

This study sought to perform a synthesis of the context of a large, societal deficiency (the education of foster children) with a burgeoning practice (unschooling) which may provide a viable and effective solution. The combined data from the narrative review, autoethnography, and interviews suggest that there is an immense amount of potential for society in the use of unschooling with the fostered population. The practice 268 of unschooling, once the predominant method of bringing an immature human to adulthood, and then made a fringe educational method with the advent of schooling, has now been grounded in modernity as an established pedagogy and should be afforded consideration as a realistic solution to this challenging problem. The findings presented herein suggested a superiority of unschooling over conventional schooling in providing for human needs from both perspectives of Self-Determination Theory and the Hierarchy of Needs. It was also shown that precedence has been established in the effective use of unschooling through a partnership between school system, foster parent, and foster child, and that, moreover, treatment foster care may be a near synonymous practice. Therefore, school systems, social work agencies, and foster parents should all leverage unschooling on behalf of the fostered population to strategically prepare them for emancipation and the responsibilities of adulthood which lay beyond. Unschooling is as flexible as need be to address the specific needs of each and every foster child and the particulars of their unique predicament. Failing to leverage this pedagogy for this population implies a substantial opportunity cost to be borne by society and its fostered population. The resources to realize this potential are readily available and amidst the extraordinarily intertwined life of a foster child, unschooling offers the foster parent an uncluttered, intuitive, and natural process of preparing them for their life which lay beyond the morass.

269

References

96th Congress, (1980). Public law 96-272: Adoption assistance and child welfare act of

1980.

Administration for Children & Families Archives. (2015). Population flow

exhibit 8: Substitute care trends 1980-1994. U.S. Department of Health & Human

Services. Retrived from

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/vcis/ii08.htm

Administration for Children & Families. (2017). Number of children in foster care

continues to increase. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/

press/2017/number-of-children-in-foster-care-continues-to-increase

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Pub. L. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500-535.

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Pub. L. 105-89, 11 Stat. 2115-2136.

Advocates for Children of New York. (2000). Educational neglect: The delivery of

educational services to children in New York City’s foster care system. New

York, NY: Advocates for Children of New York, Inc.

AEPOhio. (2017). Home Energy Report for 460 S. Best Rd, Stockport, Ohio. 43787-956

dated February 8, 2017.

Alliance for Self-Directed Education. (2017). The Alliance for Self-Directed Education.

Retrieved from https://www.self-directed.org/

Altshuler, S. J. (2003). From barriers to successful collaboration: Public schools and child

welfare working together. Social Work, 48(1), 52-63. 270

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2015). Health insurance for young adults who used to

be in foster care. Retrieved from https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-

policy/aap-health-initiatives/healthy-foster-care-america/Pages/Health-Insurance-

Foster-Care.aspx

Anderson, J. W. & Farooq, D. (2007, June 21). 24 Emaciated boys found at Baghdad

orphanage. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost

.com/ wp-dyn /content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002230.html

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). School-to-career partnership. Retrieved from

http://www.aecf.org/work/past-work/school-to-career-partnership/

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Rightsizing congregate care: A powerful first step in

transforming child welfare systems.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2000). Promising practices: School to career and

postsecondary education for foster care youth. A guide for policymakers and

practitioners. Brooklyn, NY: Workforce Strategy Center.

Anthony, K. V. (2015). Educational cooperatives and the changing nature of home

education: Finding balance between autonomy, support, and accountability.

Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 9(18), 36-63.

Antoine, K. & Fisher, P. A. (2006). Preparing foster children for school. Principal, 85,

36-40.

Argys, L., & Duncan, B. (2013). Economic incentives and foster child adoption.

Published online with Population Association of America, 933-954.

Arizona Revised Statute, Title 8, Child Safety, §8-529 (2009). 271

Aske, D. R., Connolly, L. S., & Corman, R. R. (2013). Accessibility or accountability?

The rhetoric and reality of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Economics and

Economic Education Research, 14(3), 107-118.

Bahrampour, T. (2014, January 30). Romanian orphans subjected to deprivation must

now deal with dysfunction. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/romanian-orphans-subjected-to-deprivation

-must-now-deal-with-disfunction/ 2014/01/30/a9dbea6c-5d13-11e3-be07-

006c776266ed_story.html

Baker, A. L. & Calderon, P. (2004). The role of group homes in the child welfare

continuum of care. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 21(4), 39-58.

Barrat, V. X. & Berliner, B. A. (2013). The invisible achievement gap, Part I: Education

outcomes of students in foster care in California’s public schools. San Francisco,

CA: WestEd.

Barth, R. P. (2002). Institutions vs. foster homes: The empirical base for the second

century of debate. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina School of Social

Work, Jordan Institute for Families.

Barth, R. P. (2005). Foster home care is more cost-effective than shelter care: Serious

questions continue to be raised about the utility of group care in child welfare

services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 623-625.

Barth, R. P., Chung, K. L., Wildfire, J., & Shenyang, G. (2006). A comparison of the

governmental costs of long-term foster care and adoption. Social Services

Review, March, 128-157. 272

Basham, P., Merrifield, J., & Hepburn, C. (2007). Home schooling: From the extreme

to the mainstream. Studies in Education Policy Series. Vancouver, BC, Canada:

Fraser Institute.

Bass, S., Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2004). Children, families, and foster care:

Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(1) 5-29.

Beisse, K. & Tyre, A. (2013). Caregiver involvement in the education of youth in foster

care: An exploratory study. School Social Work Journal, 37(2), p. 1-20.

Bernard-Rance, K. & Parello, N. (2014). School stability: Improving academic achieve

for NJ foster children. Policy Brief; Advocates for Children of New Jersey.

Bernstein, N. (2002). The lost children of Wilder. New York, NY: Vintage.

Berrick, J. D., Barth, R. P., Needell, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1997). Group care and

young children. The Social Service Review, 257-273.

Birgitte, S. (2015). “Never a better home”: Growing up in American orphanages, 1920-

1970. Journal of the History of Childhood & Youth, 8(1), pp. 34-54.

Blaine, B. E. (2013). Understanding the Psychology of Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Broady, T. R., Stoyles, G. J., McMullan, K., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2010). The

experiment of foster care. Journal of Children and Family Studies, 19, 559-571.

Brooks, D., Barth, R., Bussiere, A., & Patterson, G. (1999). Adoption and race:

Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption

Provisions. Social Work, 44(2), 166-178. 273

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational

attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Employment characteristics of families summary.

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm

Burley, M. & Halpern, M. (2001). Educational attainment of foster youth: Achievement

and graduation outcomes for children in state care. Washington State Institute for

Public Policy, Document Number: 01-11-3901, 1-37.

Buckles, K. (2012) Adoption subsidies and placement outcomes for children in foster

care. The Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 596-627.

California Foster Youth Education Task Force. (2010). California foster care education

law factsheets (4th ed.). 1-21.

California Welfare and Institutions Code, §16000-16014 (2003). Retrieved from

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=00001-

01000&file=360-370

Cantrell, R. P. & Cantrell, M. L. (2007). Twelve Re-ED principles. In R. P. Cantrell &

M. L. Cantrell (Eds.), Helping troubled children and youth (pp. 5-7). Memphis,

TN: American Re-Education Association.

Census Bureau. (2015). Population estimates. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/

popest/

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2008). Ready to succeed in the

classroom: Changing systems to give California’s foster children the

opportunities they deserve to be ready for and succeed in school. Prepared by The 274

Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning for the Stuart Foundation and the

Ready to Succeed Leadership Team. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future

of Teaching and Learning.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2010). Grappling with the gaps:

Toward a research agenda to meet the educational needs of children and youth in

foster care. Prepared by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning for

the Stuart Foundation and the Ready to Succeed Leadership Team. Santa Cruz,

CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2010). Policy brief: Sharing data

between child welfare and education to improve outcomes for children and youth

in the foster care system. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching

and Learning.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2010, April). Ready to succeed in

the classroom: Findings from teacher discussion groups on their experiences and

aspirations teaching students in the foster care system. Prepared by The Center

for the Future of Teaching and Learning for the Stuart Foundation and the Ready

to Succeed Leadership Team. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of

Teaching and Learning.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2010, May). Ready to succeed in

the classroom: Summary report, teachers’ advice, strategies and tips to help

students in the foster care system succeed in the classroom. Prepared by The

Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning for the Stuart Foundation and the 275

Ready to Succeed Leadership Team. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future

of Teaching and Learning.

Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluations of specialized foster care for seriously

delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of

Family Care, 2, 21-36.

Chamberlain, P. (2003). The Oregon multidimensional treatment foster care model:

Features, outcomes, and progress in dissemination. Cognitive and Behavioral

Practice, 10, 303-312.

Chen, W. & Gregory, A. (2010). Parental involvement as a protective factor during the

transition to high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 53-62.

Children’s Bureau. (1975). National action for foster children: A survey of activities

based on reports submitted by states and committees. U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

Children's Bureau. (2011, September 30). How many children are in foster care in the

U.S.?. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/faq/foster-care4.

Children’s Bureau. (2013, September 10). Implementation of the Fostering Connections

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 working document. Retrieved

from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/implementation-of-the-

fostering-connections.

Children’s Bureau. (2015). Adoption & foster care statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-

research/afcars 276

Children’s Bureau. (2015). A national look at the use of congregate care in child welfare.

Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cbcongregatecare_

brief.pdf

Children’s Rights. (2011). What works in child welfare reform: Reducing reliance on

congregate care in Tennessee. Retrieved from http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/07/2011-07-25_what_works_reducing_reliance_on_

congregate_care_in_tn_final-report.pdf

Children’s Rights, National Foster Parent Association, and University of Maryland

School of Social Work. (2007). Hitting the M.A.R.C.: Establishing the foster care

minimum adequate rates for children. Children’s Rights, National Foster Parent

Association, and University of Maryland School of Social Work

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Foster care. Children’s Bureau. Retrieved

from https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/outofhome/foster-care/

Chin, K. (1996). Chinatown gangs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chiodo, J. J., & Meliza, E. (2014). Orphans trains: Teaching about an early twentieth-

century social experiment. The Social Studies, 105, 145-157.

Chmura Economics & Analytics. (2011). Measuring the costs of foster care the return on

investment for the “Great Expectations” initiative. Cleveland, OH: Chmura

Economics & Analytics.

Claridge, T. (2004). Evolution of social capital. Social Capital Research. Retrieved from

http://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/literature/evolution.html 277

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of

ethnography. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Cogan, M. F. (2010). Exploring academic outcomes of homeschooled students. Journal

of College Admission, Summer, 18-25.

Collins, M. E. (2001). Transition to adulthood for vulnerable youths: A review of

research and implications for policy. Social Service Review, 75(2), 271-291.

Colorado Revised Statute, §19-7-101. (2015) Protections for youth in foster care.

Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/

hottopics/colorado/

Colorado Revised Statute, §19-7-102. (2015) Protection against identity theft. Retrieved

from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/hottopics/colorado/

Committee on Finance, United States Senate (1990). Foster care, adoption assistance,

and child welfare services. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Cormier, G. M. (1994). Increasing knowledge and assessment of foster care children

through in-service training for elementary school educators. Dissertation, Nova

University.

Courtney, M. E. & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning

from out-of-home care in the USA. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 209-219.

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A. L., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., & Perez, A. (2007).

Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at

age 21. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children. 278

Critelli, F. M. (2008). Labor of love: Foster mothers, caregiving, and welfare reform.

Child Welfare, 87(4), 5-34.

Csoli, K. (2013). Natural learning and learning disabilities: What I’ve learned as the

parent of a 2 year old. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 7(14),

92-104.

Curtis, C. & Alexander, R. (1996). The Multiethnic Placement Act: Implications for

social work practice. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13(5), 401-410.

Curtis, P., Dale, G. Jr., & Kendall, J. C. (1999). The foster care crisis: Translating

research into policy and practice. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Davis, A. (2011). Evolution of homeschooling. Distance Learning, 8(2), 29-35.

De Holczer, P. (2014). Are there any traditional orphanages in the US? The Huffington

Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/are-there-any-

traditional_b_4960439.html

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000a). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,

55, 68-78. 279

Delaware Code, §2522. (2015). Rights of children in DSCYF custody. Retrieved from

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+46/$file/legis.html?op

Delisle, D. & Greenberg, M. (2014, May 30). [Letter to Chief State School Officers and

Child Welfare Directors]. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Denshire, S. (2013). Autoethnography. Sociopedia.isa. doi: 10.1177/205684601351

Devooght, K, Child Trends, & Blazey, D. (2013). Family foster care reimbursement rates

in the U.S.: A report from a 2012 National Survey on Family Foster Care

Provider Classifications and Rates. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

Dickens, C. (1838). Oliver Twist. London, United Kingdom: Richard Bentley.

Dodge, J. (1972). SOS Children’s Villages throughout the world: Substitute or superior

service? Child Welfare, 51(6), pp. 344-354.

Dodge, K., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant peer influences in

intervention and public policy for youth. Social Policy Report, 20(1), 1-20.

Dominick, G. M., Friedman, D. B., Saunders, R. P., Hussey, J. R., & Watkins, K. W.

(2013). Factors associated with physical activity literacy among foster parents.

American Journal of Health and Behavior, 36(2), 179-192.

Doppelt, G. (2013). Explaining the success of science: Kuhn and scientific realists.

Topoi, 32, 43-51.

Dore, M. M., & Mullin, D. (2006). Treat family foster care: Its history and current role in

the foster care continuum. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary

Social Services, 87(4), 475-482. 280

Driscoll, J. (2013). Supporting care leavers to fulfil their educational aspirations:

Resilience, relationships and resistance to help. Children & Society, 27, 139-149.

Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J.C., & Ward, D. L. (2004). A preliminary investigation of the

effectiveness of homeschool instructional environments for students with

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 140-

158.

Eidger, M. (1987). The Lancastrian monitorial system of instruction. Independent

report, 1-9.

Edmond, T., Auslander, W., Elze, D., & Bowland, S. (2006). Effects of child sexual

abuse on youth: Signs of resilience in sexually abused adolescent girls in the

foster care system. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 15)(1), 1-28.

Educational Research Review. (2017). An author’s guide to writing articles and reviews

for Educational Research Review. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/edurev

ReviewPaperWriting.pdf

Edwards, L. (1994). Improving implementation of the federal Adoption Assistance and

Child Welfare Act of 1980. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 45(3), 3-28.

England, R. (1998). Theoretical considerations for special educators in the psychological

adjustment of fostered, adopted, or other placements of children. Paper for

Tennessee Joint Conference on Children and Youth with Disabilities (1998).

English, A. & Grasso, K. (2000). The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999: Enhancing

youth access to health care. Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 7(2), 217-232. 281

Evans, L. D., Scott, S. S., & Schulz, E. G. (2004). The need for educational assessment of

children entering foster care. Child Welfare, 83(6), 565-580.

Farenga, P. (2016). The foundations of unschooling. Retrieved from

https://www.johnholtgws.com/the-foundations-of-unschooling/

Fisher, P. A. & Gilliam, K. S. (2012) Multidimensional treatment foster care: An

alternative to residential treatment for high risk children and adolescents.

Psychosocial Intervention, 21(2), 195-203.

Fixsen, A. (2011). Children in foster care: Societal and financial costs. Eugene, OR: A

Family for Every Child.

Florida Statutes, Title V, §39.4085. (2015). Legislative findings and declaration of intent

for goals for dependent children. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/

Statutes/index. cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=

00000099/0039/Sections/0039.4085.html

Forgatch, M.S. & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Parents and adolescents living together, Part

2: Family problem solving. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Foster Family-based Treatment Association. (2015). About FFTA. Retrieved from

http://www.imis100us2.com/ffta/FFTA/About_Us/FFTA/About.aspx?hkey=5b6c

7444-cac9-42a7-b512-883bcd3527ca

Foster Family-based Treatment Association. (2008). Implementing evidence-based

practice in treatment foster: A resource guide. Hackensack, NJ: Foster Family-

based Treatment Association. 282

Fram, M. S. & Altshuler, S. J. (2009). Social capital theory: Another lens for school

social workers to use to support students living in foster care. School Social Work

Journal, 33(2), 1-26.

Freeland, C. (2012, May 3). America, land of equals. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/us/04iht-letter04.html?_r=0

Freundlich, M. & Avery, R. J. (2006). Transitioning from congregate care: Preparation

and outcomes. Journal of Family Studies, 15, 507-518.

Freundlich, M., Avery, R. J., & Padgett, D. (2006). Preparation of youth in congregate

care for independent living. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 64-72.

Gaither, M. (2008). Why homeschooling happened. Educational Horizons, 86(4), 226-

237.

Garson, G. D. (2006). Social capital theory. Course notes for PA 765, Quantitative

Research in Public Administration. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/

saguaro/ web%20docs/GarsonSK06syllabus.htm

Gatto, J. T. (2003). Against school: How public education cripples our kids, and why.

Harper’s Magazine, 307(1840), 33-38.

Geenen, S. & Powers, L. (2006). Transition planning for foster youth. The Journal of

Vocational Special Needs Education, 28(2), 4-15.

Geiser, R. L. (1973). The illusion of caring: Children in foster care. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press. 283

Goerge, R. M., Voorhis, J. V., Grant, S., Casey, K., & Robinson, M. (1992). Special-

education experiences of foster children: An empirical study. Child Welfare,

71(5), 419-437.

Golden, O. & Macomber, J. (2009). The Adoption and Safe Families Act. Intentions and

Results: A Look Back at the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Washington, D.C.:

Center for the Study of Social Policy.

Goldstein, D. (2012, February 16). Liberals, don’t homeschool your kids: Why teaching

children at home violates progressive values. Slate. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/homeschooling_and_un

schooling_among_liberals_and_progressives_.html

Goodman, J. F. (2017). The shame of shaming. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 26-31.

Goparaj, H. & Sharma, R. (2008). From social development to human development: A

case of SOS Village. The Journal of Business Perspective, 12(1), pp. 67-75.

Gray, P. (2009, September 9). Seven sins of our system of forced education. Psychology

Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-

learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education

Gray, P. (2011, June 28). How does school wound? Kirsten Olson has counted some

ways. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/

blog/freedom-learn/201106/how-does-school-wound-kirsten-olson-has-counted-

some-ways 284

Gray, P. & Riley, G. (2013). The challenges and benefits of unschooling, according to

232 families who have chosen that route. The Journal of Unschooling and

Alternative Learning, 7(14), 1-27.

Gray, P. & Riley, G. (2014). A survey of grown up unschoolers I: Overview of findings.

Psychology Today. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/

freedom-learn/201406/survey-grown-unschoolers-i-overview-findings

Gray, P. & Riley, G. (2015). Grown unschoolers’ evaluations of their unschooling

experiences: Report I on a survey of 75 unschooled adults. Other Education: The

Journal of Educational Alternatives, 4(2), 8-32.

Green-Hennessey, S. (2014). Homeschooled adolescents in the United States:

Developmental outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 441-449.

Gustavsson, N. & MacEachron, A. E. (2012). Educational policy and foster youths: The

risks of change. Children & Schools, 34(2), 83-91.

Guinn, R. P. (2000). Passage of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999: A pivotal step

on behalf of youth aging out of foster care and into a life of poverty. Georgetown

Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 7(2), 403-411.

Hanford, E. (2017). Hard to read: How American schools fail kids with dyslexia.

American Public Media. Retrieved from

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/09/11/hard-to-read

Hanna, M., Tokarski, K., Matera, D., & Fong, R. (2011). Happily ever after? The journey

from foster care to adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 14, 107-131. 285

Hansen, M. E., & Hansen, B. A. (2006). The economics of adoption of children from

foster care. Child Welfare, 85(3), 559-583.

Harden, B. J. (2002). Congregate care for infants and toddlers: Shedding new light on an

old question. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(5), 476-495.

Harris, R. (2005). The Foundling Hospital. BBC: retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/

history/british/victorians/foundling_01.shtml

Harrison, K. (2006). What every teacher needs to know about foster kids. Instructor,

116(1), 43-45.

Hasci, T. (1995). From indenture to family foster care: A brief history of child placing.

Child Welfare, LXXIV(1), 162-180.

Hawaii Revised Statute §587A-3. (2010). Guiding principles for children in foster care.

Retrieved from http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/

HRS0587A/HRS_0587A-0003.htm

Hawkins, R. P., & Breiling, J. (1989). Therapeutic foster care: Critical issues.

Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America.

Hawkins, R., Meadcrowft, P. A., Trout, B. A., & Luster, C. W. (1985). Foster family-

based treatment. Child Psychology, 14(3), 220-228.

Heider, K. (1975). What do people do? Dani autoethnography. Journal of

Anthropological Research, 31(1): 3-17.

Herman, E. (2007). The history of foster care in the United States. In J. Hamilton (Ed.),

Foster Care (pp. 11-18). Farmington Hills: Gale Cengage Learning.

Hill, K. (2009). Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster 286

Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with

disabilities transitioning from foster care? Child Welfare, 88(2), 5-23.

Hobbs, N. (1964). Mental health’s third revolution. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 34(5), 822-833.

Hobbs, N. (1966). Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies.

American Psychologist, 21(12), 1105-1114.

Hobb, N. (1969). The philosophy of re-education. Mind Over Matter, 14(I), 5-8.

Hobbs, N. (1982). The troubled and troubling child. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Holt, J. (1981). Teach your own. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

Honey, K. L., Rees, P., & Griffey, S. (2011). Investigating self-perceptions and resilience

in Looked After Children. Educational Pscyhology in Practice, 27(1), 37-52.

Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano

community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hudson, J., Nutter, R. W., & Galaway, B. (1992). A survey of North American specialists

foster family care programs. Social Services Review, 66, 50-63.

Hussey, D. L. & Guo, S. (2005). Characteristics and trajectories of treatment foster care

youth. Child Welfare League of America, 84(4), 485-506.

Jacobi, J. (2009). Between charity and education: Orphans and orphanages in early

modern times. Paedagogica Historica: 45(1-2), pp. 51-66.

Jahan, N., Naveed, S., Zeshan, M., & Tahir, M. A. (2016). How to conduct a systematic

review: A narrative literature review. Cureus, 8(11), 1-8.

Jamaludin, K. A., Alias, N., & DeWitt, D. (2015). Research and trends in the studies of 287

homeschooling practices: A review of selected journals. The Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 111-119.

Jenson, S. (2013). Beyond mobile, beyond web: The internet of things needs our help.

Presented at the IA Summit, 5 April 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/scottjenson/ 2013-ia-summit

Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. (2015). Foster care extended to age 21.

Retrieved from http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/foster-care-to-21

John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In O. P. John (Ed.), Handbook of

Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.

Johnson, K. (1993). Saving China’s abandoned girls. The Australian Journal of Chinese

Affairs, 30, 61-87.

Jones, M. (1993). Decline of the American orphanage, 1941-1980. Social Service

Review, 67(3), 459-480.

Kemp, C.H., Silverman, F.N., Steele, B.F., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H.K. (1962).

The battered-child syndrome. The Journal of the American Medical Association,

181(1), 17-24.

King, K. A., Kraemer, L. K., Bernard, A. L., & Vidourek, R. A. (2007). Foster parents’

involvement in authoritative parenting and interest in future parenting training.

Journal of Children and Family Studies, 16, 606-614.

Kreager, R., Jr. (2011). Homeschooling: The future of education’s most basic institution. 288

University of Toledo Law Review, 42, 227-253.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press.

Kupsinel, M. M. & Dubsky, D. D. (1999). Behaviorally impaired children in out-of-home

care. Child Welfare League of America, 78(2), 297-310.

Lassi, Z., Mahmud, S., Syed, E., & Janjua, N. (2010). Behavioral problems among

children living in orphanage facilities of Karachi, Pakistan: Comparison of

children in an SOS Village with those in conventional orphanages. Soc

Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 46, pp. 787-796.

Lau, W. K. (2013). Examining a brief measure of parent involvement in children’s

education. Contemporary School Psychology, 17(1), 11-21.

Lee, B. R., Bright, C. L., Svoboda, D. V., Fakunmoju, S., & Barth, R. P. (2011).

Outcomes of group care for youth: A review of comparative studies. Research on

Social Work Practice, 21(2), 177-189.

Lee, M. (2015, June 17). Six things you should know about growing up in foster care.

Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-lee/six-

things-you-should-kno_b_7605666.html

Legal Center for Foster Care & Education. (2014). Blueprint for change: Education

success for children in foster care. American Bar Association.

Leidums, K. (2016). Children’s integration into community life: Opportunities for

meaningful participation and for developing multi-age relationships. Journal of

Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 10(9), 1-27. 289

Levin-Gutierrez, M. (2015). Motivation: Kept alive through unschooling. Journal of

Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 9(17), 31-41.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues,

2(4), 34-46.

Lips, D. (2007a). Foster care children need better educational opportunities.

Backgrounder, 2039, 1-10.

Lips, D. (2007b). Improving educational opportunities for foster children. Backgrounder,

1050, 1-5.

Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP process for diverse parents of children with

disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 14-20.

Luscombe, B. (2014, August 28). Maybe orphanages aren’t so bad after all, study says.

Time. Retrived from http://time.com/3194832/orphanage-study/

Lyons, P. & Rittner, B. (1998). The construction of the crack babies phenomenon as a

social problem. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(2), 313-320.

Mahler, P. P. (2012). Retaining a high quality teaching workforce: The effects of pension

design. Report for the Center for Retirement Research.

Maksudyan, N. (2011). Orphans, cities, and the state: Vocational orphanages

(islahhanes). International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 43, 493-511.

Manso, K.A. (2012). Preparation for young people leaving care: The case of SOS

Children’s Village, Ghana. Child Care in Practice, 18(4), pp. 341-356.

Martin, R. A. (2002). Alternatives in education: An exploration of learner-centered,

progressive, and holistic education. Paper and presentation for American 290

Educational Research Association.

Martinez, I. L., Frick, K. D., Kim, K. S., & Fried, L. P. (2010). Older adults and retired

teachers address teacher retention in urban schools. Educational Gerontology, 36,

263-280.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services. (2015). Foster Child Bill

of Rights. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dcf/foster

-care/our-children-and-youth/foster-child-bill-of-rights.html

Matthay, C. (2001). Unschooling as political activity. Social Anarchism, 31, 61-70.

McClure, R. (1981). Coram’s children: The London Foundling Hospital in the Eighteenth

Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McCrae, J. S., Lee, B. R., Barth, R. P., & Rauktis, M. E. (2010). Comparison of three

years of well-being outcomes for youth in group care and nonkinship foster care.

Child Welfare, 89(2), 229-249.

McDonald, T. P., Allen, R. I., Westerfelt, A., & Piliavin, I. (1996). Assessing the long-

term effects of foster care: A research synthesis. Washington, D.C.: CWLA Press.

McKelvey, C. A., & Stevens, J. (1994). Adoption crisis: The truth behind adoption and

foster care. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

McKenzie, R. (2000). Rethinking orphanages for the 21st century. The Foundation for

Economic Education. Retrieved from http://fee.org/freeman/detail/rethinking-

orphanages-for-the-21st-century

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. (2001). Title X, Part C of the No Child Left 291

Behind Act, Sec 725.

McLaren, L. (2014, August 28). ‘Unschooling’ is a luxury for the wealthy. The Globe

and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/

unschooling-is-a-luxury-for-the-wealthy/article20249065/

McMillen, C., Auslander, W., Elze, D., White, T., & Thompson, R. (2003). Educational

experiences and aspirations of older youth in foster care. Child Welfare, 82(4),

475-495.

McMurray, I., Connolly, H., Preston-Shoot, M., & Wigley, V. (2011). Shards of the old

looking glass: Restoring the significance of identity in promoting positive

outcomes for looked-after children. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 210-218.

McRoy, R. & Griffin, A. (2012). Transracial adoption policies and practices: The US

experience. Adoption & Fostering, 36(3&4), 38-49.

Meadowcroft, P. A., & Trout, B. A. (1990). Troubled youth in treatment homes: A

handbook of therapeutic foster care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of

America.

Medlin, R. G. (2000). Home schooling and the question of socialization. Peabody

Journal of Education, 75(1/2), 107-123.

Meighan, R. (1995). Home-based education effectiveness research and some of its

implications. Educational Review, 47(3), HTML file retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy. library.ohiou.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=8

&sid=254b98a7-6025-47cd-9dd9-a9ca5402c 249%40sessionmgr114&hid=

121&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN 292

=9512101870&db=a9h

Mennen, F. E. & Trickett, P. K. (2011). Parenting attitudes, family environments,

depression, and anxiety in caregivers of maltreated children. Family Relations,

60, 259-271.

Milanich, N. (2004). The Casa de Huerfanos and child circulation in late-Nineteenth

Century Chile. Journal of Social History: Winter, pp. 311-324.

Mochel, C. (2012). Redefining “child” and redefining lives: The possible beneficial

impact the Fostering Connections to Success Act and court involvement could

have on older foster care youth. Capital University Law Review, 40(517), 1-49.

Morrison, K. A. (2007). Unschooling: Homeschools can provide the freedom to learn.

Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 20(2), 42-49.

Morrison, K. (2016). “The courage to let them play”: Factors influencing and limiting

feelings of self-efficacy in unschooling mothers. Journal of Unschooling and

Alternative Learning, 10(19), 48-81.

Mullen, N. (1983, June 6). Unschooling – a learn-as-you-go experiment for some.

Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from

https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0606/060604.html

Munson, M. R. & Scott, L. D. (2007). Older youth nearing their exit from congregate

care: Current innovative programs. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth,

24(1), 77-91.

Murphy, J. (2013). Riding history: The organizational development of homeschooling in

the U.S. American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 335-354. 293

Murphy, J. (2014). The social and educational outcomes of homeschooling. Sociological

Spectrum, 34, 244-272.

Murray, J. (2013). The Charleston Orphan House: Children’s lives in the first public

orphanage in America. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Myers, J. (2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly,

42(3), 449-463.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Table 209.10. Number and percentage

distribution of teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools,

by selected teacher characteristics: Selected years, 1987-1988 through 2011-12.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Parent and family involvement in

education, from the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2012,

NCES 2013-028. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Parent and family involvement in

education, from the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2012,

NCES 2013-028.REV. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Table 206.10. Number and percentage

of homeschooled students ages 5 through 17 with a grade equivalent of

kindergarten through 12th grade, selected by child, parent, and household

characteristics: 2003, 2007, and 2012. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved

from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_206.10.asp?current=yes

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). 1.5 million homeschooled students in the 294

United States in 2007. U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2009-030, 1-4.

National Center for Homeless Education & Legal Center for Foster Care and Education.

(2009). Best practice in homeless education: Clearing the path to school success

for students in out-of-home care. National Center for Homeless Education &

Legal Center for Foster Care and Education.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). Foster care bill of rights. Retrieved

from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/foster-care-bill-of-rights.aspx

National Household Education Surveys Program. (2012). Parent participation in the

labor force. Retrieved from https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/

homeschooling-101/homeschool-demographics/

Naughton, J. (2012) Thomas Kuhn: The man who changed the way the world looked at

science. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/

2012/aug/19/ thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Neill, A. S. (1962). Summerhill: A radical approach to education. London, UK;

Gollancz.

Nepia, P. M. (2012). Te kore – Exploring the Māori concept of the void (Doctoral thesis,

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, Australia). Retrieved from

http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/5480

Newman, K. S. & Winston, H. (2017, July 24). The answer to America’s skilled labor

problem. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/07/24/donald-trump-

apprenticeships-manufacturing-labor-problems/ 295

New York State Foster Care Youth Leadership Advisory Team (2009). Need to know

series: College and vocational planning. NY: New York State Office of Children

and Family Services (Bureau of Training).

Ng, R., Allore, H. G., Trentalange, M., Monin, J. K., & Levy, B. R. (2015). Increasing

negativity of age stereotypes across 200 years: Evidence from a database of 400

million words. PLOS One, 1-6.

North Carolina General Statute §131D-10.1. (2013). Foster care children’s bill of rights.

Retrieved from http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/

BySection/Chapter_131D/GS_131D-10.1.html

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989, November 20). Convention

on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN /Professional

Interest/Pages /CRC.aspx

Okpych, N. (2015). A receipt of independent living services among older youth in foster

care: An analysis of national data from the U.S. Children and Youth Services

Review, 51, 74-86.

Olson, K. (2003). Wounded by school: Recapturing the joy in learning and standing up

to old school culture. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Oregon Social Learning Center. (2015, 4 October). Patricia Chamberlain, Ph.d.

Retrieved from http://www.oslc.org/scientists/patricia-chamberlain/

O’Rourke, D. (2012). Letting the child work: Real learning, real play in school. Journal

of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 6(12), 30-52.

Orr, K. (2015, September 14). Legislature approves foster care overhaul. Capital Public 296

Radio. Retrieved from http://www.capradio.org/articles/ 2015/09/14/legislature-

approves-foster-care-overhaul/

Ortman, J. M., Velkoff, V. A., & Hogan, H. (2014). An aging nation: The older

population in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Paleksic, V., Ubovic, R., & Popovic, M. (2015). Personal characteristics and burnout

syndrome among teachers of primary and secondary schools. Scripta Medica,

46(2), 118-124.

Palladino, J. (2006). “Don’t show them dreams without the foundations”: Collaboration

for the transitional needs of foster care adolescents with disabilities. The High

School Journal, Oct/Nov, pp. 22-32.

Palujanskiene, A., & Miciuliene, R. (2013). Possibilities of elderly intelligent women

from rural areas to influence social capital. Rural Development, 271-276.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model

of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253-267.

Patterson, G. R. & Forgatch, M. S. (1987). Parents and adolescents, Part 1: Living

together. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Papachristos, A.V. & Kirk, D.S. (Eds.). (2006). Neighbourhood effects on street gang

behavior. Oxford, UK: Altamira Press.

Pears, K. C., Fisher, P. A., Bruce, J., Kim, H. K., & Yoerger, K. (2010). Early

elementary school adjustment of maltreated children in foster care: The roles of 297

inhibitory control and caregiver involvement. Child Development, 81(5), 1550-

1564.

Pears, K. C., Heywood, C. V., Kim, H. K., & Fisher, P. A. (2011). Prereading deficits in

children in foster care. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 140-148.

Pennsylvania Public Law 1264.19.67. (2010). Children in foster care act. Retrieved

from http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr

=2010&sessInd=0&act=119

Pearson Education, Inc. (2015). Preschool & K-12 homeschool curriculums. Retrieved

from http://www.pearsonhomeschool.com/

Pensacola Christian College. (2015). A Beka book: Excellence in education from a

Christian perspective. Retrieved from http://www.abeka.com/homeschool/

Peters, C. M., Dworsky, A., Courtney, M. E., & Pollack, H. (2009). Extending foster

care to age 21: Weighing the costs to government against the benefits to youth.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Phillips, C. & Mann, A. (2013). Historical analysis of the Adoption and Safe Families

Act of 1997. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23, 862-868.

Pyrooz, D. & Sweeten, G. (2015). Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the

United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(4), 414-419.

Rahmani, S. (2014). Dirty humanities: Lessons from the “experiment in education” at the

Madras Orphan Asylum. English Studies in Canada, 40(2-3), pp. 25-30.

Ray, B. (1997). Home education across the United States: Family characteristics, student

achievement, and longitudinal traits. Salem, OR: Home School National Defense 298

Fund.

Ray, B. (2000). ‘‘Home Schooling: The Ameliorator of Negative Influences on

Learning?’’ Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1/2):71–106.

Raymond, S. L. (1999). Where are the reasonable efforts to enforce the reasonable efforts

requirement?: Monitoring state compliance under the Adoption and Child Welfare

Act of 1980. Texas Law Review, 77, 1235-1269.

Rehg, W. (2013). The social authority of paradigms as group commitments:

Rehabilitating Kuhn with recent social philosophy. Topoi, 32, 21-31.

Rhode Island General Law § 42-72-15. (2012). Children’s bill of rights. Retrieved from

http://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/2012/title-42/chapter-42-72/chapter-42-

72-15

Ricci, C. (2011). Unschooling and the willed curriculum. Encounter: Education for

Meaning and Social Justice, 24(3), 45-48.

Ricci, C., Laricchia, P., & Desmarais, I. (2011). What unschooling is and what it means

to us. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 20(2), 141-151.

Reilly, T. (2003). Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of

foster care. Child Welfare League of America, 82(6), 727-746.

Rizzo, M. (2003). Why do children join gangs? Journal of Gang Research, 11, 65-74.

Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The

Qualitative Report, 17(7), 1-17.

Rolstad, K. & Kesson, K. (2013). Unschooling, then and now. Journal of Unschooling

and Alternative Learning, 7(14), 28-71. 299

Ross, M. & Hayes, C. (1986). Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1985. Social Security Bulletin, 49(8), 22-31.

Rudner, L. 1999. Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home

school students in 1998. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(8), 1-33.

Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs personality

profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23, 432-441.

Ryan, J. P., Testa, M. F., & Zhai, F. (2008). African American males in foster care and

the risk of delinquency: The value of social bonds and permanence. Child

Welfare, 87(1), 115-140.

Salami, S. O. (2010). Retirement context and psychological factors as predictors of well-

being among retired teachers. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2, 47-64.

Salazar, A. M. (2013). The value of a college degree for foster care alumni: Comparisons

with general population samples. Social Work, 58(2), 139-150.

Sayer, L. C., Bianchi, S. M., & Robinson, J. P. (2004). Are parents investing less in

children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal

of Sociology, 110(1): 1-43.

Schalk, R., Wallis, P., Crowston, C., & Lemercier, C. (2017). Failure or flexibility?

Apprenticeship Training in Premodern Europe. Journal of Interdisciplinary

History, 48(2), 131-158.

Schelbe, L. (2011). Policy analysis of Fostering Connections to Increasing Adoptions Act

of 2008. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 555-576. 300

Scott, D. L., Lee, C., Harrell, S. W., & Smith-West, M. B. (2013). Permanency for

children in foster care: Issues and barriers for adoption. Child & Youth Services,

34, 290-307.

Sharma, A., & Hill, S. (2010). Subjective well-being of retired teachers: The role of

psycho-social factors. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 3(1), 36-

42.

Shin, M. (2012). A saving grace? The impact of the Fostering Connections to Success

and Increasing Adoptions Act on America’s older foster youth. Hastings Race

and Poverty Law Journal, 9(1), 133-166.

Shirk, M. & Stangler, G. (2004). On their own: What happens to kids when they age out

of the foster care system? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Smucker, K. S., Kaufman, J. M., & Ball, D. W. (1996). School-related problems of

special education foster-care students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A

comparison to other groups. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,

4(1), 30-39.

SOS Children’s Villages. (2015). Our organization. Retrieved from http://www.sos.or.id/

trash/kdi-content/faqs/our-organisation

Stanley, S. (2012). Children with disabilities in foster care: The roles of the school social

worker in the context of special education. Children & Schools, 34(3), 190-192.

State of New Jersey Department of Education. (2010). Keeping our kids safe,

healthy & in school: Educational stability for youth in foster care. Retrieved from

http://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/edservices/stability/ 301

Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype Threat and the intellectual test

performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.

Sting, S. (2013). Sibling relations in alternative child care results of a study on sibling

relations in SOS Children’s Villages in Austria. Kriminologija i socijalna

integracija, 21(1), pp. 119-128.

Stock, C. D. & Fisher, P. A. (2006). Language delays among foster children: Implications

for policy and practice. Child Welfare, 85(3), 445-461.

Stroessner, S. & Good, C. (n.d.). Stereotype Threat: An overview. Retrieved from

http://diversity.arizona.edu/sites/diversity/files/stereotype_threat_

overview.pdf

Styles, K. & Yudin, M. (2014, May 27). [Letter to Chief State School Officers]. U.S.

Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Sullivan, M. (2014). Orphaned by history. World Affairs, March/April, pp. 78-84.

Swick, K. J. (2007). Empower foster parents toward caring relations with children. Early

Childhood Educaiton Journal, 34(6), 393-398.

Taylor-Hough, D. (2010). Are all homeschooling methods created equal? Online

submission, Retrieved from ERIC, 1-13.

TeamChild & Casey Family Programs. (2015). Make a difference in a child’s life: A

manual for helping children and youth get what they need in school. TeamChild

and Casey Family Programs.

Texas Education Agency, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, & 302

Supreme Court of Texas Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and

Families (Children’s Commission). (2013). Foster care & student success: Texas

systems working together to transform education outcomes of students in foster

care. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Thayer, S. (2006). The Forager’s Harvest: A guide to identifying, harvesting, and

preparing edible wild plants. Birchwood, WI: Forager’s Harvest.

Thayer, S. (2010). Nature’s Garden: A guide to identifying, harvesting, and preparing

edible wild plants. Birchwood, WI: Forager’s Harvest.

Thayer, S. (2017). Incredible wild edibles: 36 plants that can change your life. Bruce,

WI: Forager’s Harvest.

The Data Team. (2017, November 27). Parents now spend twice as much time with their

children as 50 years ago. The Economist. Retrieved from

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-20

Thomas, G. (1977). Supply and demand for child foster family care in the Southeast.

Athens, GA: Regional Institute of Social Welfare Research.

Thomas Jefferson Foundation. (2015). Knowledge is power (quotation). The Jefferson

Monticello. Retrieved from https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/knowledge-

power-quotation

Thomas, L. J. (2014). “Once a foster child…”: Identity construction in former foster

children’s narratives. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 15(1), 84-

91.

Thurston, A. (1996). In a Chinese orphanage. The Atlantic, 277(4), 28-41. 303

Tikoff, V. (2010). Adolescence in the Atlantic: Charity boys as seamen in the Spanish

maritime world. Journal of Early Modern History: 14, 45-73.

Toth, J. (1997). Orphans of the living: Stories of America’s children in foster care. New

York, NY: Touchstone.

Trunzo, A. C., Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Strickler, A., & Doncaster, J. (2012). Pressley

Ridge treatment foster care: The model of care thirty years later. Reclaiming

Children and Youth, 21(2), 22-26.

Tyebjee, T. (2003). Attitude, interest, and motivation for adoption from foster care. Child

Welfare, 82(6), 685-706.

Tyler, S. A. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult

document. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus, (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and

politics of ethnography (pp. 122-140). Berkley, CA: University of California

Press.

Unrau, Y. A. (2011). From foster care to college: The Seita Scholars Program at Western

Michigan University. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 20(2), 17-20.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Historical national populations estimates: July 1, 1990 to

July 1, 1999. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/

population/estimates/ nation/popclockest.txt

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Population estimates: Historical data. Washington, D.C.

Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, November 18). The IDEA 35th anniversary.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/index.html 304

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, May 30). Students in foster care.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/foster-care/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2015, June 14). Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Title IV-E Independent Living

Programs: A decade in review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). How and why the current

funding structure fails to meet the needs of the child welfare field. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing

stable homes for children of substance abusers. General Accounting Office,

Washington.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Implementation of the Multiethnic

Placement Act poses difficult challenges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General

Accounting Office.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2016). Water questions & answers. The USGS Water Science

School. Retrieved from https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html

U.S. House of Represenatives Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee of

Education and Labor. (1976). Foster care: Problems and issues. Ninety-Fourth

Congress, Second Session.

Valentine, E. J., Skemer, M., & Courtney, M.E. (2015). Becoming adults: One year 305

impact findings from the Youth Villages transitional living evaluation. New York,

NY: MDRC.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of Self-

Determination Theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of

Management, 42(5), 1195-1229.

Van Hoogdalem, A., Singer, E., Wijngaards, & Heesbeen, J. (2012). The role of

familiarity and similarity in friendship relationships in toddlers in Dutch daycare

centers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(2), 189-204.

Waterman, J. M., Nadeem, E., Paczkowski, E., Foster, J. C., Lavner, J. A., Belin, T., &

Miranda, J. (2013). Pre-placement risk and longitudinal cognitive development

for children adopted from foster care. Child Welfare, 92(4), 9-30.

Watson, C. & Kabler, B. (2012). Improving educational outcomes for children in foster

care. National Association of School Psychologists, 40(5), 27-29.

Weinberg, A. (2004). An introduction to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 24(1), 22-24.

Wessells, M.G. (2006). Child soldiers: From violence to protection. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Westermark, P. K., Hansson, K., & Olsson, M. (2011). Multidimensional treatment foster

care (MTFC): Results from an independent replication. Journal of Family

Therapy, 33, 20-41.

Wheatley, K. F. (2009). Unschooling: An oasis for development and democracy.

Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 22(2), 27-32. 306

Wheatley, K. F. (2015). Factors that perpetuate test-driven, factory-style schooling:

Implications for policy and practice. International Journal of Learning,

Teaching, and Educational Research, 10(2), 1-17.

Whetten, K., Ostermann, J., Pence, B. W., Whetten, R. A., Messer, L. C., Ariely, S., &

Thielman, N. M. (2014). Three-year change in the wellbeing of orphaned and

separated children in institutional and family-based care settings in five low- and

middle-income countries. PLOS ONE, 9(8), 1-10.

Wildeman, C. & Emanuel, N. (2014). Cumulative risks of foster care placement by age

18 for U.S. children, 2000-2011. PLOS ONE, 9(3), 1-7.

Wilke, L. D. (2012). The ‘unschooling’ movement: Good parenting or UNparenting?

The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-

devon-wilke/unschooling_b_2225836.html

Windler, E. (2011). Honor among orphans: Girlhood, virtue, and nation at Rio de

Janeiro’s Recholhimento. Journal of Social History: Summer, pp. 1195-1215.

Yell, M. (2006). The law and special education. University of South Carolina: Pearson.

Young, L. R. & Nestle, M. (2002). The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US

obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 246-249.

Youth Homes. (2015). Homepage. Retrieved from http://youthhomesmt.org/

Youth Law Center. (2012). Alternatives to/Reducing Congregate Care. Retrieved from

http://www.ylc.org/our-work/action-litigation/quality-foster-care/alternatives-to-

congregate-carereducing-group-care/

Youth Villages. (2015). Study shows boost to positive outcomes for young adults aging 307

out of foster care and juvenile justice. Retrieved from https://youthvillages

.wordpress.com/ 2015/05/12/study-shows-boost-to-positive-outcomes-for-young-

adults-aging-out-of-foster-care-and-juvenile-justice/

Youth Villages. (2015). Youth Villages group homes. Retrieved from

http://www.youthvillages .org/what-we-do/residential-programs/group-

homes.aspx#sthash.2pupLRqA.qPxXIxHQ.dpbs

Youth Villages (Producer). (2015) YVLifeSet: A program of Youth Villages [Web

video]. Available from https://youthvillages.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/study-

shows-boost-to-positive-outcomes-for-young-adults-aging-out-of-foster-care-and-

juvenile-justice/

Zetlin, A. (2006). The experiences of foster children and youth in special education.

Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 161-165.

Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Luderer, J. W. (2004). Problems and solutions to improving

education services for children in foster care. Preventing School Failure, 48(2),

31-36.

Zetlin, A. G., Weinberg, L. A., & Shea, N. (2006). Improving educational prospects for

youth in foster care: The educational liaison model. Intervention in School and

Clinic, 41(5), 267-272.

Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Shea, N. M. (2010). Caregivers, school liaisons, and agency

advocates speak out. Social Work, 55(3), 245-254.

Zill, N. (2011a). Adoption from foster care: Aiding children while saving public money.

Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families. 308

Zill, N. (2011b). Better prospects, lower cost: The case for increasing foster care

adoption. Alexandria, VA: National Council for Adoption.

Zima, B. T., Bussing, R., Freeman, S., Yang, X., Belin, T. R., & Forness, S. R. (2000).

Behavior problems, academic skill delays, and school failure among school-aged

children in foster care: Their relationship to placement characteristics. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 9(1), 87-103. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !