a) The Directory for Exceptional Children: A Listing of Educational and Training Facilities, 13th Edition, 1994-95, Porter Sargent Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA 02108, p.7. The Directory lists 3,189 facilities including Catholic schools, tuition-based schools, and a small number of state schools. Because listings in the Directory are voluntary, some providers may have been omitted.

b) Directory of Catholic Special Educational Programs and Facilities 1989, National Catholic Educational Association, Washington, D.C. 1989, p. 7-67. Note: Some of these schools are included in the 3,000 count from The Directory for Exceptional Children.

c) Interview with Tom Bushnell, president and director, National Challenged Homeschoolers Associated Network (NATHHAN), March 6, 1996. According to Bushnell, 4,100 families belong to NATHHAN, a network of families who are homeschooling children with disabilities the public-school population (approximately ten percent of students) among the estimated 300,000 homeschooled students, Bushnell estimates that a total of 30,000 children with disabilities attend homeschools in the U. S.

d) Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1994, p. A-57 and A-59. Due to state reporting errors and omissions, this figure underreports the number of students attending nonpublic or private schools.

e) Directory of Catholic Special Educational Programs and Facilities 1989, p. 7-67. Count is total of school-reported enrollments and includes students in some schools serving juvenile offenders or at-risk populations.

f) Excludes juveniles held in police lockups, adult jails and prisons, and psychiatric and drug treatment programs. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, August 1994, p. ES1-2.

g) Conditions of Confinement, p. 1.

h) Estimate derived from number of juveniles housed in private ranches divided by the median population size of ranches (40 juveniles). [3,551/40 =89]. Conditions of Confinement, p. 24-25.

i) Estimate derived from number of juveniles housed in private training schools divided by the median population size of training schools (86 juveniles). [6,275/86=73]. Conditions of Confinement, p. 24-25.

j) Estimate derived from number of juveniles housed in private reception centers divided by the median population size of reception centers (23 juveniles). [340/23=15]. Conditions of Confinement, p. 24-25.

k) Estimate derived from number of juveniles housed in private detention centers divided by the median population size of detention centers (22 juveniles). [590/22=27]. Conditions of Confinement, p. 24-25.

l) Estimate derived by applying percentage of privately operated shelters, halfway houses, and group homes to the relevant juvenile population. [84% x 29,214 juveniles = 24,539].

m) Conditions of Confinement, p. 25.

n) Ibid.

o) Ibid.

p) Ibid.

  1. This classification system is not intended to be comprehensive. Future studies might explore how the private sector serves Limited-English-Proficient students (LEP), Gifted and Talented (GATE) students, or those requiring remedial education.

  2. Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D. C., 1995. Excludes the cost of general education for students with disabilities.

  3. Thomas B. Parrish, Special Education Finance: Past, Present and Future, draft report, February 1996, Center for Special Education Finance, Menlo Park, CA, p.1. Note: $32 billion represents the marginal cost of providing special education services, not the full educational expenditure for students with disabilities.

  4. Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U. S. Department of Education, 1992, p. xxiii.

  5. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-4.

  6. Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, p. 12.

  7. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-54. These figures refer to the number of children aged 6 to 17 receiving special education at public expense. They do not include those special-needs children in private, parochial, or home schools who decline government support.

  8. By primary handicapping condition.

  9. Janet R. Beales, Special Education: Expenditures and Obligations, Policy Study No. 161, Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, CA, July 1993, p. 17.

  10. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-57 and A-59. Due to state reporting errors and omissions, this figure underreports the number of students attending nonpublic or private schools.

  11. This figure likely underestimates the number of students with disabilities attending private schools at private expense because seventeen states do not collect or report this information. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-58.

  12. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-57.

  13. The Directory For Exceptional Children: A Listing of Educational and Training Facilities, 13th Edition, 1994-95, Porter Sargent Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA, p. 7.

  14. The Directory for Exceptional Children, p. 387.

  15. The Directory For Exceptional Children, p.122

  16. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-60 A-85.

  17. Excluding homebound and hospital environment. Also excludes many students placed at private expense due to state reporting inconsistencies.

  18. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-57.

  19. Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress, p. 115.

  20. In 1993, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Florence County School District v. Carter, that the public school district must pay the private-school tuition for a learning disabled student placed unilaterally by her parents. In another case, the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 1995 ruling in Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg, ordered the school district to pay $20,000 in annual private-school tuition costs and $360,000 in legal fees after parents enrolled their son in a private school for children with learning disabilities.

  21. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-58.

  22. Directory of Special Educational Programs and Facilities 1989, National Catholic Educational Association, Washington, D.C.

  23. Interview with Sherry Quist, Mercy Special Learning Center, Allentown, PA, September 30, 1995.

  24. Interview with Dr. Roger Fazzone, headmaster, Maplebrook School, Amenia, NY, March 4, 1996.

  25. Interview with Dr. Roger Fazzone, headmaster, Maplebrook School, Amenia, NY, April 8, 1996.

  26. Interview with Tom Bushnell, president and director, National Challenged Homeschoolers Associated Network, Olalla, WA, March, 6, 1996. See footnote 16 for explanation of estimated figure.

  27. Interview with Devorah Weinmann, Freeport, NY, March 5, 1996.

  28. Interview with Dana Cody, Home School Legal Defense Association, Paeonian Springs, VA, April, 9, 1996. Arkansas Statutes Annotated, Regulations and Procedures for Homeschools, section 6-15-506. Oregon Administrative Rules, Homeschools for the Handicapped, section 58-21-029.

  29. Interview with Ellyn Lerner, Ph.D., president, Kids 1, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ, April 3, 1996.

  30. Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress, p. xxv. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. xxx-xxxi.

  31. Interview with Thomas McCool, Ed.D., executive director, Devereux Santa Barbara, Goleta, CA, April 25, 1995.

  32. Ibid.

  33. Ibid.

  34. In California, tuition at nonpublic schools is shared between the student’s resident district, which pays 30 percent of the cost, and the state, which reimburses the district for the remaining 70 percent of the cost. The reimbursement formula can create an incentive for local districts to place students in nonpublic schools if the district’s 30 percent share is lower than the costs it would incur if it educated the student in public special-education programs. Because Devereux is also a Licensed Children’s Institution, providing residential care, referrals are often made by non-education agencies such as the state departments of mental health or social services. In that case, costs of residential care and education are covered 100 percent by the State of California. According to McCool: "Obviously what has happened with school districts, because nobody is dumb, is that they have learned to make sure that if they have a student who has an education problem (usually there is a problem in both home and school settings), they make sure that the regional center, the department of mental health, or the department of social services makes the referral. Assembly Bill 3632 allows social services money to flow to support services including residential costs and counseling. There are different funding streams, and every school district is aware of this."

  35. The Directory for Exceptional Children, p. 256.

  36. Interview with Thomas McCool, April 25, 1995.

  37. The Directory for Exceptional Children, p. 283.

  38. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. xxx-xxxi.

  39. Note: Wide variation exists among different disability categories. On average, visually-impaired students fare best followed by students with hearing, speech, or orthopedic impairments. Students with mental retardation, multiple disabilities, learning disabilities, and emotional disabilities achieved the least academically. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. xxvii, 75-76.

  40. Interview with Gerald M. Thiers, executive director, ASAH, Hamilton Square, NJ, January 26, 1996.

  41. Private School Contracting Under the High School Graduation Incentives, Minnesota Department of Education, September 1, 1992, p. 1.

  42. Author’s count of states with existing contract arrangements between private providers of education for at-risk students and public schools. The states include: California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia.

  43. "Contracting: Milwaukee’s Partnership Schools," Wisconsin School News, October 1993, p. 10.

  44. Interview with Robert Porter, school finance specialist, Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, March 1, 1996.

  45. Ibid.

  46. Interview with Lon Woodbury, consultant, Bonners Ferry, ID, March 1, 1996.

  47. Ibid.

  48. Correspondence with James P. Boyle, President, Ombudsman Educational Services, Libertyville, IL, January 25, 1996.

  49. Interview with Jim Boyle, president, Ombudsman Educational Services, Libertyville, IL, January 24, 1996.

  50. Interview with Andrea, student at the Ombudsman school in Eden Prairie, MN, May 11, 1994.

  51. Interview with Brian at the Ombudsman school in Eden Prairie, MN, May 11, 1994.

  52. Interview with Don Gossett, superintendent, Libertyville High School, Libertyville, IL, April 5, 1996.

  53. Interview with Judi Hansen, director, Sobriety High, Edina, MN, July 12, 1995.

  54. Ibid.

  55. Jessica Portner, "Clean and Sober", Education Week, April 26, 1995, p. 24.

  56. Questions and Answers, brochure, Boys Town, Boys Town, NE, April 1995.

  57. Interview with Daniel L. Daly, Ph.D, director of program planning and research, Father Flanagan’s Boys Home, Boys Town, NE, March 8, 1996.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Ibid.

  60. Ibid.

  61. Interview with Mark Claypool, director, Day Treatment Programs, Helicon, Inc., April 4, 1996.

  62. Ibid.

  63. Ibid.

  64. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1995, p. 15-16.

  65. Snyder, Howard, and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C., p. 47.

  66. "What’s News," The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 1995, p. A-1.

  67. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, August 1994, p. 129.

  68. Ibid., p. 24.

  69. Ibid., p. 30.

  70. Ibid., p. 21.

  71. Ibid., p. 1, 14.

  72. Ibid., p. 37.

  73. Overview of the Privately-Managed Corrections Industry, Equitable Secirities Corporation, Nashville, TN, February 1996.

  74. Conditions of Confinement, p. 142

  75. Ibid.

  76. Ibid., p. 143

  77. Excludes juveniles confined in police lockups, adult jails and prisons, and psychiatric and drug treatment programs. Conditions of Confinement, p. ES1, ES2, 1, 14, 25.

  78. Howard Synder, and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C., p. 165.

  79. Conditions of Confinement, p. 1

  80. Ibid., p. 12

  81. Interview with Professor Peter Leone, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, October 3, 1995.

  82. Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress, p. A-58. Note, juvenile offenders with disabilities are sometime served in separate educational/residential facilities. For example, the private Helicon Youth Center in Riverside, California provides residential care for 120 emotionally disturbed children referred by the Department of Probation and other government agencies.

  83. Conditions of Confinement, p. 137

  84. Corrections Yearbook, Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., South Salem, NY, 1994, p. 38.

  85. Charter Schools: What Are They Up To? A 1995 Survey, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado, August 1995, p. v.

  86. Interview with Kathryn Delzell, school director, Advocate School at Mid-Valley Youth Center, Van Nuys, California, April 15, 1996.

  87. Ibid.

  88. Interview with W. James Hindman, Chairman and CEO, Youth Services International, Inc., February 14, 1996.

  89. 1995 Annual Report, Youth Services International, Inc., p.1.

  90. Interview with Camille Baumgardner, manager of public relations, Youth Services International, Inc., Owings Mills, MD, February 29, 1996.

  91. Outcomes Study Results, Youth Services International, Inc., Ownings Mills, MD, December 1995.

  92. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, p. 156.

  93. Chairman’s Message, YSI Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 7, September 15, 1995.

  94. Outcomes Study Results, December 1995, Advanced Technologies Support Group, Inc., commissioned by Youth Services International, Inc., Owings Mills, MD.

  95. Interview with W. James Hindman, Chairman and CEO, Youth Services International, Inc., February 14, 1996.

  96. Interview with John C. Hall, president, Options for Youth Charter School, La Crescenta, CA, April 16, 1996.

  97. Correspondence with John C. Hall, president, Options for Youth, April 17, 1996.

  98. Interview with John C. Hall, president, Options for Youth Charter School, La Crescenta, CA, February 7, 1996. Although OFY is open 240 days a year, the district provides funding for 180 days only in conformance with the traditional academic calendar.

  99. Report to the Governing Board, Victor Valley Union High School District, Options for Youth Charter School, La Crescenta, CA, October 1995.

  100. Interview with John C. Hall, president, Options for Youth Charter School, La Crescenta, CA, April 16, 1996.

  101. Interview with Dan Daly, Boys Town, March 18, 1996.

  102. Contact Kids 1, Inc., and Father Flanagan’s Boys Home to obtain more information about staff-compensation systems tied to student performance.

  103. Thomas B. Parrish, Special Education Finance: Past, Present, Future, Draft, February 1996, Center for Special Education Finance, Palo Alto, CA, p.14

  104. Interview with Gerald M. Thiers, Executive Director, ASAH, Hamilton Square, NJ, January 26, 1996.

  105. Report of the New Jersey Legislative Task Force on Special Education, December 22, 1995, p. 19.

  106. Interview with Thomas McCool, Ed.D., executive director, Devereux Santa Barbara, April 25, 1995.

  107. Interview with Ed Gaffney, director of special services, Spokane Public Schools, Spokane, WA, January 31, 1996.

  108. Interview with John Hall, president, Options for Youth, La Crescenta, CA January 25, 1995.

  109. Interview with Fred Koch, Rochester School for the Deaf, Rochester, NY, May 17, 1995.

  110. "Contracting: Milwaukee’s Partnership Schools," Wisconsin School News, October 1993, p.10.

  111. Interview with Sue Freeze, consultant, State School Aid Consultation and Audit Section, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, August 30, 1994.

  112. Interview with Judi Hansen, director, Sobriety High School, Edina, MN, July 12, 1995.

  113. Interview with Robert Porter, school finance specialist, Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, Minneapolis, MN, March 12, 1996.

  114. Interview with Sister M. Margaret Fleming, principal, St. Lucy Day School for Children with Visual Impairments, Upper Darby, PA, April 1, 1995.

  115. Interview with Chris Blackwell, Overbrook School for the Blind, Philadelphia, PA, April 2, 1996.

  116. Interview with John Thomas, business services, Overbrook School for the Blind, Philadelphia, PA, November 1, 1996.

  117. Interview with Dr. Roger Fazzone, headmaster, Maplebrook School, Amenia, NY, March 4, 1996.

  118. Correspondence with Nancy Lavelle, Ph.D., president, Institute for the Redesign of Learning, South Pasadena, CA, April 30, 1996.

  119. Interview with Sister M. Margaret Fleming, principal, St. Lucy Day School for Children with Visual Impairments, Upper Darby, PA, April 1, 1996.

  120. Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private Schools, 1993-94, National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., July 1995, p. 7-8.

  121. Interview with Thomas McCool, executive director, Devereux Santa Barbara, April 25, 1995.

  122. William and Barbara Christopher, Mixed Blessings, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, 1989, p. 200-204.

  123. Interview with Ellyn Lerner, Ph.D., president, Kids 1, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ, April 3, 1996.

  124. Interview with Barbara Zohn, Minnesota Department of Education, St. Paul, MN, April 24, 1996.

  125. Correspondence with Robert H. Crosby, president, Richard M. Milburn High School, Woodbridge, VA, December 18, 1996.

  126. Interview with Robert H. Crosby, president, Richard M. Milburn High School, Woodbridge, VA, February 29, 1996.

  127. Interview with Ellyn Lerner, Ph.D., president, Kids 1, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ, April 3, 1996.

  128. Interview with Thomas McCool, executive director, Devereux Santa Barbara, April 25, 1995.

  129. Code of Federal Regulations, sections 300.403 and 300.452.

  130. Education Department General Administrative Regulations, (EDGAR), sections 76.651 and 76.654, January 1, 1995, p. 137-138.

  131. William T. Hartman, "State Funding Models for Special Education," Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 13, No. 6, November/December 1992, p.53

  132. Ibid.

  133. Hartman, "State Funding Models for Special Education," p. 57.

  134. William T. Hartman, "State Funding Models for Special Education", p. 47-58. William T. Hartman, "Policy Effects of Special Education Funding Formulas," Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 6, Fall 1980, p.135-159.

  135. Correspondence with Russell W. Wheatley, Associate Superintendent, Bureau of Special Programs, Dade County Public Schools, January 31, 1996.

  136. Private School Contracting Under High School Graduation Incentives, Minnesota Department of Education, September 1992, p. 1.

  137. Interview with Barbara Zohn, Minnesota Department of Education, St. Paul, MN, April 24, 1996.

  138. Interview with Sharon Peck, Minnesota Department of Education, St. Paul, MN, February 29, 1995.

  139. Senate Bill 710, The Legislature of the State of New Mexico, 1993.

  140. Private Alternative Education Programs, 1994-95, government document, CDS/Alternative Programs, Oregon Department of Education, Salem, OR.

  141. Senate Bill 1, Texas Education Code, Sec. 37.008(g).

  142. Senate Bill 1, Texas Education Code, Sec. 37.002, p. 140.

  143. Interview with Larry Garcia, Texas Education Agency, September 29, 1995.

  144. Interview with Fermin Burgos, Director, Department of Alternative Programs, Milwaukee Public Schools, February 6, 1995.