Educating Incarcerated Youth with LD: What Works?

1. Educating Incarcerated Youth with LD: What Works? Jana Logie, Jessica Rosenblatt, and Carmen Wiseman EPSE 526 July 23, 2010

2. Agenda: Barriers to Implementing Evidence-Based Programming for Incarcerated Youth - Jessica Rosenblatt Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving the Reading Skills of Incarcerated Youth with LD - Jana Logie Evidence-Based Programs and Promising Interventions for Social-Emotional Learning in Detention - Carmen Wiseman

3. Barriers – Setting(Houchins et al., 2009) ACADEMIC • Too much curriculum • Not enough resources, especially culturally relevant and designed for students with LD • Lack of extracurricular activities (e.g., drama, speech, reading club) • Too much paperwork • Too many levels in one classroom (one-room school house mentality)

4. Barriers – Setting(Leone & Meisel, 1997; Rosalzki & Engel, 2005) PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT/LOGISTICS • Lack of physical space/overcrowding • Time and transiency (short term, 30 days; long term, 90+ days) • Scheduling (social workers, recreation time, etc.) • Funding issues (no/little autonomy on how to spend special education $) • Contraband • Lack of inter-agency collaboration • No/few school records sent • Limited parental involvement due to distance

5. Barriers – Personnel(Houchins et al., 2009) Teachers • Underpaid, lack special education training (in U.S.) • No professional educational standards for detention centers • Lack of support staff Administrators of Schools in Detention Facilities • Not supportive of teachers, no clear goals, lack visibility Security Personnel • Disrespect to students (loud music) • Racism

6. Barriers – Students(Shethar, 1993) • Lack of motivation • Behaviour – disruptive, lack of consistent consequences/rules among staff • Clothing a distraction • Students embarrassed in front of peers • Lack of personal privacy (strip searches!) • Lack of communication that is meaningful with students, no student voice

7. Evidence-Based Reading Practices in the Juvenile Justice System What I found… • not a lot of evidence-based research in 30 years • 4 to 6 evidence-based research articles on reading interventions • 2 were cited repeatedly (Malmgren & Leone, 2000; Drakeford, 2002)

8. Programs Direct instruction methods were used in all the research: • Corrective Reading Program by S. Engelmann and colleagues (SRA reading program) • Used in 4 articles (Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren & Glass, 2006; Coulter, 2004; Drakeford, 2002; Malmgren & Leone, 2000) • Specialized phonics instruction (Hodges, Giuliotti & Portage, 1994) • Direct Instruction Reading by L. Carnine (Coulter, 2004)

9. Instructional Strategies Used with The Corrective Reading Program • “Peer Tutoring” – Students did summaries and predictions with novels; strategy seems to be a modification of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (Malmgren & Leone, 2000) • Teacher read-alouds (Malmgren & Leone, 2000) • Authentic literature used in only 2 studies (Coulter, 2004; Malmgren & Leone, 2000)

10. Concluding Thoughts... • All interventions were expensive (resource and labour intensive). • Evidence-based research predominately used direct phonics/word analysis instruction. • Few interventions used authentic literature. • Only one balanced literacy program was implemented (Malmgren & Leone, 2000). • Should a balanced literacy program be the focus in the juvenile justice system?

11. And finally… Using The Corrective Reading Program - or any phonics instruction program exclusively - is not considered a balanced approach to language and literacy instruction. However, due to transiency of students, training of educators, and other barriers involving implementation of evidence-based literacy programs for youth in the juvenile justice system, perhaps The Corrective Reading Program is an approach that would be helpful.

12. Social-Emotional Learning(Zins & Elias, 2006) • Social-emotional learning (SEL) – capacity to recognize and manage emotions, solve problems effectively, and establish relationships with others. • Five key competencies: • Self-awareness • Social awareness • Responsible decision making • Self-management • Relationship skills

13. Why Provide Social-Emotional Learning to Youth in Detention? • Social competence is inextricably linked with academic achievement and success in life. • Incarcerated youth with LD tend to lack competency in one or more of the five key social-emotional domains. • Research indicates that evidence-based SEL programs are associated with improvements in health, academic achievement, and prosocial behaviour. • SEL may serve as the springboard for making other learning possible for incarcerated youth with LD.

14. Evidence-Based SEL Programs • Botvin LifeSkills Training – Substance abuse , violence/bullying/aggression management http://www.lifeskillstraining.com/index.php • Lions Quest Skills for Action – Substance abuse, bullying/violence, character education, SEL (self-awareness, self-management, relationships) http://www.lions-quest.org/

15. What Might Work: Detention Home Teens as Tutors (Lazerson, 2005) • Pilot study of three adjudicated New York youth, two 15-year-old boys and one 16-year-old girl, with LD (grade 3 reading levels), no positive school experiences, and exceedingly low self-concepts • After training, tutors worked with grade 1 students 45-60 minutes/day on reading comprehension, decoding, and basic math • After project, self-concept improved compared with controls. All three tutors successfully left the juvenile justice system to pursue community-oriented jobs.

16. What Might Work: Mentoring via Technology Growing evidence for both practices: Video conferencing in youth detention Mentoring at-risk youth Computer-based mentoring program for incarcerated youth: education, training, “passions,” job skills, transition planning

17. References: Barriers Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2009). Barriers and facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing School Failure, (53), 159-166. Leone, P. E., Price, T., & Richard, K. V. (1986). Appropriate education for all incarcerated youth: meeting the spirit of P.L. 94-142 in youth detention facilities. Remedial And Special Education, 7 (4), 9-14. DOI: 10.1177/074193258600700404 Leone, P.E. & Meisel, S.M. (1997). Improving education services for students in detention and confinement facilities, Special Report. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, (12), 2-12.  Leone, P.E., Meisel, S.M., & Drakeford, W. (2003). Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Juvenile Court, Community, and Alternative School Administrators of California, 16, 31-37.

18. References: Barriers Robinson, R. R., & Rapport, M. J. (1999). Providing special education in the juvenile justice system. Remedial and Special Education, (20), 19-26, 35. Rozalski, M. E., & Engel, S. (2005). Literacy education in correctional facilities: the “hope” for technology. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 301-305. DOI: 10.1080/10573560590949395  Shethar, A. (1993). Literacy and “empowerment”? A case study of literacy behind bars. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, (24), 357-372.

19. References: Reading Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53(4), 139-144. Retrieved from ERIC. Engelmann, S., Becker, W., Carnine, L., Eisele, J., Haddox, P., Hanner, S., et al. (1999). Corrective reading. Columbus, Ohio: SRA/McGraw-Hill Gail, C. (2004). Using one-to-one tutoring and proven reading strategies to improve reading performance with adjudicated youth. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 321-333. Retrieved from ERIC. Harris, P. J., Baltodano, H. M., Artiles, A. J., & Rutherford, R. B. (2006). Integration of culture in reading studies for youth in corrections: A literature review. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 749-778. Retrieved from ERIC.

20. References: Reading Mulcahy, C. A., Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Houchins, D. E., & Baltodano, H. (2008). Lessons learned: Barriers and solutions for conducting reading investigations in juvenile corrections settings. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 239-252. Retrieved from ERIC Shelley-Tremblay, J., O’Brien, N., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2007). Reading disability in adjudicated youth: Prevalence rates, current models, traditional and innovative treatments. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 376-392. Retrieved online from www.sciencedirect.com.

21. References: SEL Gilham, C., & Moody, B. A. (2001). Face to face: Video conferencing creates opportunities for incarcerated youth. Journal of Corrections Education, 52(1), 29-31. Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18(2), 185-210. Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2009). Social skills interventions for individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 31-41. Lazerson, D. B. (2005). Detention home teens as tutors: A cooperative cross-age tutoring pilot project. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 10(1), 7-15. Randolph, K. A., & Johnson, J. L. (2008). School-based mentoring programs: A review of the research. Children & Schools, 30(1), 177-185.

22. References: SEL Wilson, A. M., Armstrong, C. D., Furrie, A., & Walcott, E. (2009). The mental health of Canadians with self-reported learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 24-40. Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Social and emotional learning: promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2&3), 233-255.