Analysis of Education Policies in Juvenile Corrections

1. Analysis of Education Policies in Juvenile Corrections TECBD Annual Conference Tempe, AZ November 18-20, 2004 Candace Cutting, Rob Bartolotta, Lucky Mason, Mike Wilson, & Peter Leone

2. Education Policy Analysis Purpose: • Examine education statutes and policies for juvenile corrections across states Rationale: • Awareness of inadequacy of education in many juvenile correctional facilities and systems • Education as rehabilitation • Era of accountability and standards in education

3. Background • No Child Left Behind (Leone & Cutting, 2004) • Teacher quality, AYP, curriculum • Title I- N&D provides funding for juvenile corrections • Class Action Litigation (www.edjj.org; Meisel & Leone, in press) • More than 20 states during the past 25 years • Constitutional & statutory challenges (IDEA) CRIPA by US DOJ • US DOJ Investigations (CRIPA)(http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/index.html) • Investigations of inadequate and inappropriate conditions, including education services

4. Research Questions • What statutes or policies govern education services for incarcerated youth? • What administrative arrangements exist for education services in juvenile corrections? • Who provides education services for youth in juvenile corrections?

5. Research Questions • To what extent do the policies governing juvenile justice education require the provision of educational services to be on par with those of public high schools? • Do policies regarding provision of services appear to differ according to state involvement in civil action suits and/or federal investigations?

6. Sample • Proposed sample includes all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. • Currently, we have collected data on 33 states. • Extent of the data collected thus far vary by state and topic.

7. Procedures • Six graduate students reviewed statutes by state, via web. • Keyword searches within juvenile justice, education, and family services statutes. • Conducted searches of state Departments of Education and Juvenile Services websites. • Civil litigation data were retained from the EDJJ Database.

8. Procedures (cont.) • Reviewed the Department of Justice Division of Civil Rights & Special Litigations website. • Other data sources include: NCES, NCJJ, Dept. of Education, phone calls and emails to state Departments of Juvenile Services. • Relevant data are collected in electronic and hard copy format including data source information. • At the conclusion of data collection, 33% of states are randomly selected for reliability checks.

9. Compulsory Attendanceand Education Provision in Juvenile Corrections Statutes

10. Our Observations: Compulsory School Attendance • Comparison of state statutes & national data • Variability depending on data source • Where there are differences, the state tends to have more conservative information • Begin earlier or end later (or both) • Most states set school ages 7-16 • Some begin as early as age 5 and some end as late as age 18 • Compulsory school attendance does NOT require graduation • Many states provide provisions for early leavers • In Montana, a student can leave at age 16, or at the completion of the 8th grade

11. Alabama Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Delaware Florida Idaho Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Montana Nebraska New York Ohio Pennsylvania Virginia States with a Juvenile Corrections Education Provision:

12. States with no Education Provisions in Juvenile Statutes: Kansas Maine Missouri North Carolina Nevada New Hampshire Interesting Points: Florida “strongly encourages juveniles placed in a high risk residential, a maximum risk residential, or a serious/habitual offender program to participate in an educational or career-related program” Kansas does not require school (Commissioner may enter into contract with school district or other service) Compulsory Attendance in Juvenile Corrections

13. A typical school day… • In many states, the length of the school day and school year in juvenile corrections matches the public schools • Virginia requires that juvenile corrections schools match the public school requirement • Exceptions • Arizona administers school year-round • Delaware requires 35 more days in the juvenile corrections school year • Missouri statute only requires public schools to be open for 3 hours, while juvenile corrections schools must be open for 6 hours • California requires juvenile court school every weekday of the calendar year, except holidays and inservices approved by the school board

14. Curriculum and Teacher Certification What are the goals of the educational programs for youth in juvenile corrections? “...contribute to the overall desired result, namely reduced recidivism, preferably coupled with further education and enhanced employability after release of these offenders.” Coffey & Gemignani (1994)

15. Curriculum and Standards There is evidence to suggest that education in juvenile corrections should be provided on a continuum, with a variety of educational options(Coffey & Gemignani, 1994; Gagnon & Mayer, 2004) • High School Diploma • Return to Public School • Complete Diploma Requirements Within Facility • GED Preparation/Completion • Vocational Preparation/Training

16. Curricular Options • Of 14 states examined, 9 states align with state standards or community curriculum • 9 states offer GED as well as Diploma • Connecticut uses a statewide curriculum in their Training School. Diplomas are issued by the child’s local school district. • “Classes taken by Arizona DJC youth apply toward a regular high school or eighth-grade diploma, but the Department also encourages youth who are eligible to obtain a GED.” (ADJC website http://www.juvenile.state.az.us/FAQ.htm)

17. Vocational Training • Only four states out of fourteen mandate that vocational opportunities be provided • Three of these states (Kentucky, Virginia, and Illinois) provide their educational services within a Dept. of Corrections or Dept. of Juvenile Justice • Florida Statute 1003-52 (6) states “The educational program shall consist of appropriate basic academic, career, or exceptional curricula and related services which support the treatment goals and reentry and which may lead to completion of the requirements for receipt of a high school diploma or its equivalent”

18. Teacher Certification No Child Left Behind (2001) mandates “Highly Qualified Teachers” • 7 states clearly require certified teachers • Connecticut’s policy (while not included in State Code) is to employ teachers certified in special education for juvenile corrections positions • 3 states do not specify their requirements for teachers What if services are being provided by a private provider?

19. What we’ve learned so far • There appears to be legislative and regulative variability across states concerning education in juvenile corrections • Inconsistency within states

20. Regulations contain both mandatory and permissive language concerning requirements for schools in secure settings • Vague language lends to ambiguity

21. Little evidence that NCLB is reflected in statutes or regulations • In some states, there is a lack of educational options for youth in juvenile corrections. • Teacher certification requirements are largely unclear, and may not reflect the unique needs of the youth served

22. Next steps • Complete data collection • Examine policies in states with and without a history of class action litigation involving education issues • Examine state policies in jurisdictions that report high levels of service delivery to students with disabilities

23. Use policy analysis to promote comprehensive education services in detention centers, and private and public operated residential facilities

24. Educating the public - creating self-interest arguments • Using policy analysis to identify gaps in entitlements and services. • Link comprehensive public-school linked standards for juvenile corrections to economic and safety interests of the community and state