Education in Juvenile Detention Facilities in the State of Connecticut: A Glance at the System

Abstract

The state of Connecticut detained 7,444 children and youth and committed approximately 270 to the Department of Children and Families for out of home placement in the 2007-2008 calendar year. A significant number of children and youth have special education needs that are often unidentified by home school districts. State and federal law mandate the provision of special education and related services to this population. In addition, education of these individuals is imperative as research indicates educational success is a key component for decreasing recidivism (relapse into unlawful activity) rates and providing opportunities toward productive adulthood. The cost of recidivism to detention is not only monetary; criminal misconduct also threatens the safety of society members as well. The Yale University Child Study Center under the auspices of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division (CSSD) conducted a situational analysis of the juvenile detention centers and community residential centers. The focus of this analysis was to: (1) describe the educational characteristics of detained children and youth; (2) describe the educational programs currently used in detention and assess whether the educational programming provided is consistent with the framework of the State of Connecticut Department of Education; (3) typify the community of teachers working with students in detention, identify systemic obstacles and/or challenges to educating this population, ascertain the pathways of educational records of detained children and youth; and (4) identify system barriers or challenges to delivering education to this population and teaching in detention or alternative to detention settings. This report is a summary of findings.

According to U.S. national statistics, approximately 2.2 million juveniles are arrested and more than 110,000 are incarcerated in juvenile correctional facilities annually (Snyder, 2006), with rates of detention and incarceration particularly high for ethnic minorities (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008). Two major future negative outcomes strongly associated with juvenile arrests and incarceration are an unproductive and unhealthy adulthood (Vacca, 2004; Winters, 1997) and recidivism (Bullis, Yovanoff, Mueller, & Havel, 2002; Doren, Bullis, & Benz, 1996; Dryfoos, 1990). Decreasing recidivism has both immediate and long-term benefits. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each (Cohen, 1998). These societal costs are particularly distressing as the average recidivism rates are reported to be nearly 55 percent at 12 months post-release for juvenile offenders (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Successful schooling leading to employment has been identified as one of the major determining factors in desistance from criminality and antisocial behavior (Black, et al., 1996; Bullis & Fredericks, 2002; Bullis, Moran, Benz, Todis, & Johnson, 2002; Bullis, Yovanoff, et al., 2002; Carr & Vandiver, 2001; Coffey & Cemignani, 1994; Farrington & Loeber, 1998; Kollhoff, 2002; Unruh, Bullis, Booth, & Pendergrass, 2005; Unruh, Povenmire-Kirk, & Yamamoto, 2009) among risk and protective factors of this population (Altschuler, 1998; Dryfoos, 1990; Sickmund, 2004; Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz, & D'Ambrosio, 2001) influencing the ecology of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence (Dishion & Patterson, 2006). Thus, quality education linked to employment is viewed, unequivocally, as the most powerful tool in recidivism reduction, rehabilitation of juvenile delinquent individuals, and realization of a delinquent juvenile into a socially productive, healthy, and happy adult (Coffey & Gemignani, 1994).

Yet, it is widely recognized at the national level that the educational services delivered to detained and incarcerated children and youth are far from being as effective as they might be (OJJDP, 1994). The characteristics of a juvenile educational system are formed by the children and youth to whom it is targeted, by the effectiveness of delivered programs, and by the professional characteristics of the educators who work in the system.

It has also been demonstrated that incarcerated children and youth often experience academic underachievement and failure (Brunner, 1977; Burrell & Warboys, 2000; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2001; Foley, 2001; Jerse & Fokouri, 1978; Johnson, 1999; Keith & McCray, 2002; NCEDJJ, 2005). The literature provides a glance into the depth and breadth of academic deficits in court involved children and youth. For example, it has been reported that literacy skills of incarcerated juveniles are at least one standard deviation (Snowling Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin, 2000) or two years (Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002) behind their peers in public school. Other reports suggest that the deficit might be more pronounced with a majority of ninth grade students in correctional settings reading at the fourth grade level (Keith & McCray, 2002). Moreover, it appears that the degree of academic deficit is more pronounced in children and youth from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Baltodano, Harris, & Rutherford, 2005; Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, & Malcahy, 2009), in those who commit their first offense at an early age (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000), in recidivists (Coulter, 2004; Foley, 2001), and in juveniles who commit more severe offenses (Beebe & Mueller, 1993). Among detained and incarcerated children and youth, school drop-out rates are extremely high (Nelson, Leone, & Rutherford, 2004), reaching as high as 75% (Risler & O'Rourke, 2009), and a substantial portion of this group is thought to be eligible for special educational services (Foley, 2001; Katsiyannis & Murry, 2000; Podboy & Mallory, 1978; Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005).

It has also been long recognized that schooling of detained and incarcerated children and youth should be mapped onto their special educational profile (Larson & Turner, 2002; Morris & Thompson, 2008). First and foremost, it has been demonstrated that these children's negative experience with standard types of classroom education and environments plays a role in their becoming frustrated with education by establishing and reinforcing a sense of failure in the classroom, dropping out of school, and a culmination of other delinquent behavior (Brunner, 1993; O'Brien, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Shelley-Trembiay, 2007). Second, the literature contains examples and illustrations of what works with these children and youth. The following objectives have been mentioned among overarching characteristics of effective practices: explicit and implicit vocational orientation (Black, et al., 1996; Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Manzella, 1991; Sherman, et al., 1998; R. H. Zabel & Nigra, 2001); socio-cultural-linguistic and real-life relevance (Cuerin & Denti, 1999; Harvey & Coleman, 1997); and engagement of practical tasks (Maccini, Cagnon, Mulcahy, & Leon, 2006; Manzella, 1991). With regard to teaching strategies, the research supports direct instruction (Taylor & McAfee, 2003); usage of technology (Mathur, Clark, & Schoenfeld, 2009); utilization of lesson plans with guided notes (Hamilton, Seibert, Gardner, & Talbert-Johnson, 2000); engagement of peer tutoring (Coulter, 2004; Feinstein, 2002; Freasier, 1986; Lazerson, 2005; Manzella, 1991); and creative learning practices (Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005; R. Zabel & Nigra, 2007). With regard to teaching and learning environments, the literature stresses the importance of low teacher student ratios (Houchins, Jolivette, Krezmien, & Baltodano, 2008), open and honest communication between teachers and students (Sherman, et al., 1998), and links between detention/incarceration, home-school, and home and community educational settings (Coffey & Cemignani, 1994; Payne, 2008; Payne, Cottfredson, & Cottfredson, 2003; Wong, 2005). Third, the literature emphasizes that the major focus of education of detained and incarcerated juveniles should be on the acquisition of functional literacy and numeracy for the sake of successful attainment of gainful and lasting employment (Brunner, 1993; Carbone, 1991; Coffey & Cemignani, 1994; Dembo, et al., 1998; Piatt & Beech, 1994).

Finally, specifics of the population in detention and correctional facilities formulate unique demands on the educators teaching these children and youth. In addition, these educators also face challenges inherent to any detention or correction setting: complicated systems of oversight, high staff turnover, a shortage of resources, difficulties obtaining educational records of detained or incarcerated students, and the competing priorities of education and security (Griller, 1998; Robinson & Rapport, 1999; Rutherford, Griller, & Anderson, 2000). Although the literature does not provide a comprehensive account of professional characteristics of educators working in juvenile detention and correction centers, it contains numerous relevant observations. Specifically, it has been noted that many educators working in the juvenile justice system have not had sufficient training, either pre- or in-service, that is required to perform their job well (Elrod & Ryder, 1999). Furthermore, even if they have been exposed to the proper training, many educators entering the system experience “culture shock” (Wright, 2005). This culture shock is not only associated with specific challenges of working in secure facilities, but also with a high concentration and variability of special educational needs in the juvenile justice system's classrooms (Kvarfordt, Purcell, & Shannon, 2005). Moreover, both educational and behavioral profiles of juveniles have been associated with high level of professional stress reported by educators in the juvenile justice system (Houchins, Shippen, & Catrett, 2004). For some educators this shock results in avoidance behavior with a sole purpose of forming a narrow-minded view of their responsibilities, in which special education provisions and accommodations are simply not included (Moody, 2003). Such a narrow-minded perception of educators' responsibilities has been documented to be the cause for numerous litigations (NCEDJJ, 2005). Adequate and continuous professional development of educators working in juvenile justice systems has been realized as imperative (Ashcroft, 1999; Bullock, 1994; C/SET, 1985; Wright, 2005) and shown to be effective (Wenglinsky, 2000). In addition, it has been also demonstrated that a lack of professional development opportunities is directly related to the attrition of educators from the system (Houchins, Shippen, & Jolivette, 2006; Morvant, Gersten, Cillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995).

Thus, there is a substantial amount of literature characterizing the educational profile of detained and incarcerated children and youth and delineating corresponding recommendations and challenges for effective pedagogical programs and successful educators. Moreover, there are explicit authoritative recommendations. Specifically, in 1994, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published a report that identified effective practices in juvenile correctional education (OJJDP, 1994). Special attention was given to the following: (1) the conception of the disadvantaged learner; (2) the challenge of the curriculum; (3) the role of the teacher; (4) the relationship between educational tasks and classroom management; and (5) the degree of accommodation of students of different levels (OJJDP, 1994). The report included a number of recommendations. Specifically and centrally, it stressed the need for comprehensive educational programs for court-involved children and youth that include academic skills, special education, vocational training, and life skills courses that lead to a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma (CED). In conjunction with this conclusion, the report commented on: (1) the characteristics of effective schooling (i.e., education is not comparable to or in competition with other programs-it is the priority; student-teacher ratios should correspond to the needs of the learners; academic achievement should be reinforced by incentives such as diplomas and certificates; the basic need of highly educated, committed, and active teaching corps; the involvement of community volunteers and parents); (2) the necessity of commitment by administration to education (i.e., education is the centerpiece of all activities around children and youth in detention or in correctional facilities; quality and quantity of education should be monitored regularly both internally (i.e., by the Local Education Authority (LEA) and private providers delivering services) and externally (i.e., by CSSD or independent professionals); staff should be highly specialized, qualified, and exposed to current relevant research; flexibility should be exercised in delivering educational programs to meet specific needs of the population served); (3) the modernization and innovation of academic programs (i.e., application of creative and effective models of teaching; orientation toward real-life situations; the modular nature of educational curricula; utilization of multiple modes and modalities of learning; usage of assessment and measurement; application of diverse teaching strategies; integration of various academic skills); (4) the diversification of educational approaches to meet a substantial presence of special educational needs among court-involved children and youth (i.e., meeting the requirements of federal laws for educating individuals with disabilities; delivering essential components of special educational programs; practicing inclusion; developing functional and adaptive skills; and ensuring transition between the facilities and communities); (5) the need to use psychoeducational programming (i.e., the development of higher-level skills such as communication, moral and spiritual values, problem solving, and conflict resolution; integration of social skills into life at the facility; opportunities for applying what is learned in the community; participating in governance and decision-making; utilization of such learning approaches as modeling, small group discussions, and cooperative learning); (6) an orientation on transition back to home communities (i.e., record transfer, prompt and appropriate educational placement in the community; information sharing between facilities and communities); (7) the usage of research (i.e., evaluation of the effectiveness of the utilized educational programs; rigorous data collection and student progress evaluation; support of research and evaluation at the level of administration; publication and dissemination of research results). And finally, and perhaps most importantly, (8) the document unequivocally stated that education is the most important component in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders (Cottfredson, et al., 2004; Johnson, 1999; Roush, 1996).

An overarching objective of the analysis presented here is to depict, in broad strokes, the current situation of education of children and youth in pretrial detention as it is delivered by the state of Connecticut. Annually for the last five years, the State has detained approximately 1,400-1,500 young people and committed approximately 270 to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for out of home placement. A majority of these young people are in the 14- to 15-year-old range (i.e., 8th or 9th grade). An average educational profile of these juveniles is comparable to that of the detained juveniles nationally-the demonstrated average level of achievement is substantially behind that of their peers for both reading/language arts and mathematics and approximates that of the 5th or 6th grade (Hart, et al., 2009). The specific aims of this situational analysis were four-fold:

(1) the analyses attempted to comment on the educational characteristics of detained children and youth, (2) describe educational programs used in detention centers (DCs) and alternative to detention centers (ADPs), (3) provide a description of the variety of the teaching methods used by the community of teachers working with students in DCs and ADPs, and capture the professional profile of this community, and (4) comment on the exchange of educational records on the detained children and youth between various service providers.

Method

The investigation was carried out under the auspices of the Court Support Services Division (CSSD) of the Connecticut Judicial Branch-the primary agency that serves court-involved children and youth in the state. The analysis was descriptive in nature and involved both providers (i.e., educators and administrators) and clients (i.e., detained children and youth) of the juvenile detention educational system in Connecticut. Given the support of CSSD, this effort did not face typical barriers characteristic of conducting research in juvenile detention and corrections facilities (Mulcahy, Krezmien, Leone, Houchins, & Baltodano, 2008). At the level of CSSD, full access to educators and student records was granted, and cooperation was also sought and received from the providers.

Participants

Educators

CSSD oversees 3 state detention centers (DCs) and contracts with 7 smaller alternative-to-detention centers (ADPs) run by community organizations. Each of these 10 centers administers an educational program; they collectively employ approximately 20 teachers at a time. A complete sampling frame was utilized in this research: all teachers working at all DCs and ADPs participated. In addition, at least one administrator in each of the facilities was interviewed. Because the study lasted more than a single academic year, a total of 48 teachers and 13 administrators participated.

Students

Students were not individually interviewed-only student records were used in this project. The data collection focused on the three 3 DCs. Two different sampling strategies were utilized. First, approximately 20% of all educational records available on the premises (n=713) at the detention centers were randomly sampled and analyzed. Second, families of 30 unique children and youth admitted by one detention center were approached for permission to examine these students' educational records post-detention.

Procedures

Mixed methods were employed for this project. Specifically, all educators and relevant administrators were interviewed and for the most part, their classrooms were visited at least twice. This component utilized qualitative research approaches (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005) and employed a combination of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Cuba, 1989), grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and critical realist approach (Bhaskar, 1989; Clegg, 2005). In other words, the project included observations conducted in a natural setting (e.g., classrooms), involved collecting qualitative data, as well as classifying and categorizing the data into codes and categories to formulate a theory-based explanation of the obtained observations. All interviews and visits were structured and reflected specific expectations about educational practices in detention as based on the literature. Yet, unsolicited information was also recorded to reflect the atmosphere and dynamics of schooling in detention. In designing and carrying out situational analyses, other examples of the utilization of qualitative research methodologies among incarcerated individuals (Gee, 2006; Unruh, et al, 2009) were used for guidance. All this information was analyzed via qualitative data techniques to gain a holistic view of the dynamics of education in detention. In addition, all quantifiable information was also utilized. This information was obtained through interviews and observations as well as from student records.

Structured classroom observations

Researchers visited classrooms of all 22 teachers working at each of the CSSD facilities during a single academic year. A total of 45 classroom observations were conducted ranging in length from 30 to 45 minutes per visit. A structured observation schedule (see Appendix D) was used to collect information in the following areas: classroom demographics, physical environment, classroom instruction, time on task, classroom environment, lesson design and implementation, and classroom culture. In the majority of cases, a minimum of 2 independent observers visited each classroom to diminish subjectivity and to ensure reliability of observations. Seven classrooms were visited three times by three independent observers, nine classrooms were visited twice, and six classrooms observed once (primarily due to scheduling conflicts).

Structured interviews

Personal interviews with teachers and administrators and program managers/directors were conducted to gain insight into individual perceptions of each educational program. To ensure reliability of the material, two waves of interviews were carried out. Altogether, 48 teachers were interviewed-22 who are currently teaching, 6 others who were interviewed in the Spring of 2008 but who did not return to their respective facilities for the 2008-2009 academic year, and 20 from the 2006-2007 academic school year. In addition, 13 interviews with administrators/program managers/directors were conducted, interview topics included background/experience, classroom demographics, communication in and out of the facility, assessment information, perception of student needs, and details regarding the educational program offered. Administrators were also asked for the mission or vision of the program administered, whether the current program is being monitored for effectiveness on student outcomes, as well as his/her personal vision as a provider of education to the population.

Detention record analyses

Student records were analyzed for the: (1) availability of data on any educational assessments administered upon admission for educational placement purposes; (2) designation of special education status; and (3) availability of information on or copy of an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

Re-entry record analyses

Educational institutions providing schooling for detainees post-detention were contacted to investigate the pathways of educational records of 30 detained children and youth. Relevant administrators were contacted in these institutions for the purposes of conducting a structured interview.

Analyses

To process, systematize, organize, and code transcriptions of qualitative data obtained from focus groups and interviews, QSR International's NVivo 8 qualitative analysis software program (http://www.qsrinternational.com/) was utilized. NVivo software is designed to assist investigators in the task of coding transcripts and organizing the coded information into themes, while maintaining detailed chronological records and memos and allowing for convenient and flexible record keeping and organizing (Sorensen, 2008). Two main analytic approaches, bottom-up and top-down, were utilized for this project. The first approach is used to highlight information in the transcripts and organize quotations in separate fields as coded titles, which the program refers to as “nodes” (Straus, 1998). These nodes provide quick retrieval of the quotation as well as attached memos or notes provided by the observer/interviewer. The nodes are then sorted and merged into common themes and structured hierarchically by the investigator to develop the prevalent themes within the phenomenon being studied. NVivo allows the investigator to quickly see where the coded quotation was located in the original text, and as a result, maintains a reflexive relationship between the developing themes and the original text. NVivo also provides the option of a more structured analysis in which individual question headings or cases can be analyzed in order to stay within the specific framework of the exploratory questions or focus on particular variables. This is especially relevant in the case of large data sets of open-ended questionnaires. In these cases, NVivo is used for a top-down thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), in which the investigator focuses on a specific theme or question and limits the coding process. This method provides less rich data overall, but allows the investigator to conduct a very detailed analysis of a specific question. NVivo is also recommended for mixed method research (incorporating quantitative and qualitative data) because it automatically records the frequency of quotations coded under each theme (Sorensen, 2008).

The qualitative data obtained through interviews and observations were transcribed and coded (Richards, 2005); over a hundred topics emerged. These topics were then organized into higher order themes. These themes represent the prevalent issues that impacted the classroom from the point of view of the teacher, administrator, or classroom observer (e.g., classroom instruction, behavioral management). In several cases, topics influence more than one theme. For example, the topic of organization of desks in the classroom related to both classroom instruction and behavioral management themes. In such cases, topics were put under multiple themes. Once the themes were developed for the individual collection types, those themes were then merged, triangulating the three perspectives into higher-order themes that defined the most prevalent issues in the system in general and each center in particular as presented by the interviews and observations. Then the themes were discussed with regard to their correspondence to the literature and mapped back to the transcripts. Additional topics that did not correspond to the higher-order themes, but were prevalent in the data were identified. Finally, provisions were made to ensure the validity of the utilization of qualitative methodology in this project by verifying credibility, transferability, dependability, and authenticity of the procedures of data collection, analyses, and interpretation (Lincoln & Cuba, 1989).

For quantitative data analyses, a variety of software available commercially (e.g., SPSS) and in the public domain (e.g., R) was used.

Results

The results are presented around the four specific aims of the analyses: to describe the students, programs, teaching community and most often used teaching styles and approaches, and records characterizing schooling in detention. The information was elicited through teacher and administrator interviews, statements of mission and vision obtained from educational programs in facilities, if available, classroom observations, and record analyses. Teachers were interviewed at each facility for their expertise in educating children and youth while in detention. Responses are reported here in aggregate form (e.g., percentages or raw numbers), and individual identities are not provided. Classroom observations were organized so that the dynamics of classrooms in detention and the challenges and obstacles in providing education to the detention center population could be witnessed firsthand. The presentation summarizes information obtained through different methods and from different sources of information.

Students

Student demographics

Teachers reported information on class demographics to the best of their impression and recollection. A majority, or 36 percent, of teachers reported a grade spread of two to three years; 26 percent noted that juveniles in any given classroom tend to be zero to two or three to four grades apart, while 13 percent estimated juveniles to be four or more grades apart. The majority of teachers interviewed estimated an average of 6-8 students in any given class at any one time. However, a few responded that the average can be as many as 16 and as few as 1. The minimum reported class size is 3 (range 1 to 6) and the maximum is 10 (range 6 to 25). With regard to student length of time in the school program, teachers reported wide variation, with estimates ranging from as little as 3 days to as long as 8 months. However, a majority of teachers (35 percent) estimated the length of stay in the detention classrooms to be 2 weeks, while 31 percent estimated 4 weeks, and 15 percent said 3 weeks. Demographically, 77 percent of teachers observed detainees with English as a second language (ESL) demonstrate proficiency in Spanish. Other languages represented, though to a much lesser degree (4-8 percent), include Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Albanian, Russian, Korean, and Cambodian. Of the 48 teachers interviewed, 81 percent reported experience teaching bilingual/ESL students.

Educational assessments

Thirty-one percent of the teachers interviewed said that juveniles receive no educational screening assessment upon admission to detention. Twenty-nine percent reported that other assessments were available to them through the juvenile's files, when files arrived to DCs or ADPs [i.e., IQ (verbal and spatial), behavioral (i.e., social-emotional, adaptive), and personality]. The remaining teachers (40 percent) reported that when academic achievement screening measures are available, the content areas assessed most frequently are reading, math, writing, and spelling (or a combination of these). Reportedly, these assessments are variably administered with an unknown level of typologyzation (i.e., various types of tests and screeners might be used) and standardization (i.e., various types of rigor might be exercised) of the assessment by staff ranging from teachers to social workers to classification and program officers (CPOs). If assessments are administered, teachers are the most frequent recipients of data from academic assessments performed in detention; parents and the child's home school or new location rarely receive this assessment data. On site in detention, most teachers (46 percent) reported that they used academic achievement screening data most often for curriculum planning/modification, and 25 percent said that the data were used for student placement in classrooms or groups. These reports are supported by the record analyses of 713 students whose records were surveyed, only 390 (or 55 percent) had been administered any kind of educational assessment upon admission to detention. Thus, the levels of achievement of most students tend not to be formally assessed. Respondents also commented on a variety of instruments that are used (when standardized assessments are used); these instruments included the Wide-Range Achievement Test (WRAT), the Brigance, the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery (WJ), the Standardized Test for Assessment in Reading (STARS)-an online assessment tool for reading and mathematics, the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA-2), and the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP). Comments on the quality and appropriateness of the assessments varied from claims that they were appropriate and helpful (re: The Brigance, STARS, and the Wide-Range Achievement Test) to that they were bulky and impractical (re: DRP and DRA-2). The main concern, however, had to do with the fact that, even if standardized assessment results are available, they cannot be mapped directly onto gaps in skills and knowledge of the students, and such information would be most helpful in identifying targets for educational intervention. Eighty-eight percent of teachers responded that no assessments were given upon release from detention. Only 3 teachers said children receive assessments (i.e., reading, writing, and math) just prior to their release from detention. One teacher stated that, prior to release, students were evaluated by a social worker, and another stated that children and youth received IQ (verbal) assessments.

General educational needs

As part of the structured interview, the situational analyses team asked teachers to describe the learning needs they most typically observe in juvenile detainees based on anecdotal experience in the classroom. Teachers were asked to rate the learning needs they observed on the following parameters: almost always, usually, sometimes, and almost never. A majority of teachers reported that reading decoding (46 percent), reading comprehension (44 percent), and written expression (41 percent) are “usually” a special or remedial learning need among their students. Twenty seven percent stated that reading decoding insufficiency was seen in equal numbers “almost always”, and “sometimes”. Spelling aptitude was “almost always” seen as a learning need for 52 percent of the respondents, while 42 percent “usually” observed this and 6 percent “sometimes”. Fifty-six percent of teachers responded that math calculation deficits were “usually” observed, while 21 percent saw this “almost always” and others saw it “sometimes”. Teachers responded that math problem solving was a challenge for their students “almost always” (49 percent) and “usually” (38 percent). It should be noted here that nine (9) teachers did not respond to questions regarding math skills as they were outside the scope of their specialty. There was no consensus on observed attentional difficulties: 40 percent of teachers reported that attentional difficulties are “almost always” present; 31 percent of teachers described the frequency as “usually” occurring in juvenile detainees; and 29 percent saw this “sometimes”. With regard to detainees' level of apparent motivation in the classroom, teachers did not reach consensus: 38 percent said student motivation is “almost always” deficient; 33 percent characterized motivation as “usually” in need of improvement; while 29 percent reported students' motivation is “sometimes” lacking.

Special educational needs

Nearly 70 percent of all teachers reported that juvenile detainees' special learning needs are “underidentified,” as opposed to “properly identified” or “overidentified.” These observations are supported by the information obtained from records screened. According to the records, only 70 students of the 713 screened (i.e., 9.9 percent) were identified as having special educational needs. Of these 70, only 8 (i.e., 11.4 percent) had an IEP or notes in their IEP in their files. Overwhelmingly, teachers are the ones who address different learning needs of juveniles in detention. Teachers reported most frequently that they balance different learning needs of students in a given class by providing detainees with individualized instructional programs or materials. They adapt or change the curriculum to meet individual student needs by adjusting the amount of work, adjusting the content, and developing a separate curriculum. When asked whether this information is reported back to the students' home schools, inconsistent answers were obtained, stating that in the majority of the cases only information on grades (i.e., formal report cards) is sent back to home schools.

Student progress

A majority of teachers, or 65 percent, reported that on average detainees make “more” academic progress in detention than in their home school. Whereas these reports are difficult to verify, they attest, perhaps, to the teachers' subjective perception of academic growth demonstrated by the students at DCs and ADPs. There are variable explanations for this perception, ranging from simply providing a juvenile with a stable educational environment (as compared to the home school where truancy and misbehavior might be of concern) to the experience of teachers in working with this population (as compared to teachers in regular schools who often do not have the experience of working with this group of children and youth). Clearly, objective indicators of academic performance collected both at the entry and discharge should be obtained to verify this assertion. In terms of progress in academic skill, the majority, 72 percent, of teachers agreed that academic progress “varies” among children and adolescents during their stay in detention, while 15 percent noted “some” progress, and 13 percent felt that “a lot” of progress was made.

Additional themes

The interviews generated a number of additional themes that spontaneously emerged. The participants noted that many juveniles demonstrated unmet needs for accommodations such as eyeglasses. Moreover, a number of underdeveloped age-appropriate skills were mentioned (e.g., lack of experience with scissors, paint, glue, clay, and other materials; impoverished general level of knowledge about the world; lack of experience with art or science education). Three additional themes arose through collecting “other” comments: students' lack of motivation for education, students' negative self-appraisal of their academic capacities, and their lowered expectations toward the system. A consistent theme developed of a lack of motivation to learn. These students are difficult to engage in classroom activities, and they demonstrate disinterest in standard academic material. Frequently mentioned was that students share low expectations about their educational accomplishments, and their capacity to obtain and maintain academic knowledge. The reporters commented that it was typical for the students to make remarks about their inability to learn things (e.g., calculating fractions), and their incapacity to follow academic material. Participants also stated that students do not expect credit from the detention center schools to be transferred to their home schools for good grades and accomplishments achieved while in detention.

Educational Programs

Classroom staffing

Teachers reported that detention center educational program materials consist of one or more of the following: standard textbooks provided by the school district (81 percent), specialized programs (23 percent), computerized educational software (46 percent), and materials that come from workbooks or other sources (19 percent). Teachers from the three large detention centers (Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven) also have the use of SmartBoard technology in the classroom. In terms of staffing support, only 11 out of 48 teachers said they have a classroom aide or youth counselor in the classroom. Typically, all teachers have juvenile detention officers (JDOs) in or outside of their classrooms. Although the presence of these individuals in classrooms or hallways is a security precaution, responders mentioned that JDOs are sometimes a source of distraction rather than support.

General characteristics of instruction

It was apparent that there was no unified program (or a number of core programs) in use across the system. The responders recognized that for instruction to be effective it has to be tailored for both specific groups of students and specific individual students. The degree of individualization of instruction was directly linked to the utilization of materials that bore some relevance to lives of the students; the inclusion of the material related to real life, in turn, influenced the level of satisfaction from the program as communicated by students themselves. Six percent of teachers reported that all students in their classrooms received the same curriculum. Sixteen percent of teachers acknowledged grouping: based on ability (4 percent); based on skills (6 percent); based on grade (6 percent). Twenty teachers (40 percent) stated that they used a combination of methods for their students (i.e., grouping according to skills and then individualizing the program). A majority (38 percent) also stated that they work with students based on individual programs. When teachers do adjust curricula, 4 percent of them adjust only the amount of work, 13 percent only the content of work; and 17 percent develop specialized instructions/curriculum units. Some teachers responded that they use a combination of adaptations: 2 percent adjust the content of the work and develop a separate curriculum, 11 percent adjust the amount and content of the work, and 42 percent adjust the amount and content of the work as well as develop a separate curriculum. Two percent responded that they do not change or adapt the curriculum.

Of the 45 observed lessons, 16 percent were rated as demonstrating exemplary instruction (students were highly engaged most or all of the time in meaningful work; the lesson was well-designed, artfully implemented, and flexible to students' needs), 49 percent accomplished effective instruction (most students actively participated in a lesson that was well designed, purposeful, and engaging), 30 percent as converging toward effective instruction (lesson may have had weaknesses in design, implementation, and/or content); and 5 percent as marked by elements of effective instruction (lesson did not appear to address students' needs and students demonstrated limited understanding). None of the classroom observations were rated as ineffective (passive learning or activity for activity's sake). Two observed lessons were exempt from this rating scale as they were independent study situations and a physical education class.

Physical classroom environment

The majority of the classrooms visited (56 percent) had a traditional classroom arrangement of desks facing a blackboard or a SmartBoard. Superficially, classrooms did not appear to be any different than in a regular school, only much smaller in size, on average. Most classrooms had appropriate technological resources (e.g. SmartBoard computer screens and/or desktop computers for individual work, televisions, and DVD/VHS players) as well as relevant reading (i.e., most classrooms had books and other reading materials) and supplementary (e.g., manipulatives) materials.

Classroom atmosphere

The observers noted the following characteristics of classroom atmosphere in detention. The classrooms were generally active and students were engaged. Specifically, students in 60 percent of the classrooms were described as engaged and participated frequently. Interruptions were common in the classrooms and students were reported to be distracted at least once during 55 percent of the classrooms visits. During 18 percent of the classes one or more students were removed from class for misbehavior. The relationship between teachers and students was generally described as strong (64 percent) or moderate (32 percent). Only 4 percent of the visits reported a weak relationship between teachers and students. Observers reported that teachers were able to intuit student needs regarding their understanding of the material during 66 percent of the visits. For the other 34 percent, teachers responded to students' questions when asking for clarification. The majority of teachers observed (93 percent) were described as poised and confident when interacting with students. Yet, 7 percent of teachers were described as losing composure while teaching. Teachers displayed primarily general knowledge of the subjects being taught. Fifty-six percent of teachers were described as having general knowledge of the subject; 33 percent were reported to have a complex understanding of the subject; 4 percent were described as having minimal understanding or were unclear regarding the subject they are teaching.

General characteristics of instruction

A variety of classroom instruction types (i.e., whole group, small group, pairs, and individualized instruction) was observed. On average, among all observed classes, teacher presentation (lecture) was seen in 6 percent of total classroom time (DCs; 8; ADPs: 2); teacher-student one-on-one interaction in 9 percent (DCs; 2; ADPs: 25); whole class discussion in 16 percent (DCs: 18; ADPs: 13); problem-solving activities in 8 percent (DCs: 18; ADPs: 0); reading aloud by student 11 percent of the class time (DCs: 11; ADPs: 12); reading aloud by teacher in 3 percent (DCs: 0; ADPs: 7); reading silently in 8 percent (DCs and ADPs: 8); working on assignments individually in 19 percent (DCs: 16; ADPs: 26) or in groups in 12 percent (DCs: 6; ADPs: 17); using technology (e.g. computers, SmartBoards) in 7 percent (DCs: 9; ADPs: 1); discussing homework in 1 percent (DCs: 0; ADPs: 3). Interestingly, although teachers acknowledged in their interviews the importance of individualizing instruction, such individualization was seen only in 9 percent of observed classrooms. The predominant type of instruction was clustered, within centers. State-run detention centers (DCs), where classroom sizes are larger (∼ 5), primarily employed whole/small group instruction, whereas small alternative centers (ADPs), where classrooms typically include small groups (i.e., ∼3) of students, employed more individualized approaches.

Lesson design

All observed lessons were characterized by a number of specific indicators and an integration of ratings. Scores from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much) were used to assess the following and ratings are presented as average scores: (a) lesson design demonstrated careful planning and organization (2.3); (b) instructional strategies and activities used suggest attention to students' knowledge and learning styles (2.4); (c) instructional strategies and activities demonstrated attention to issues of equity and diversity of students (2.2); (d) the design of the lesson encouraged a reciprocal approach to learning (2.4); (e) adequate time and structure provided for student comprehension (2.5); (f) adequate time provided for lesson conclusion (1.9); (g) administration of classroom assessment (e.g., tests/quizzes) (1.4); and (h) differentiation and sensitivity to students with special needs (2.2). The synthesis rating summarized whether the design of the observed lessons was reflective of best practices in education (2.2).

Lesson implementation

Similarly, the same scale from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much) was used for lesson implementation evaluated along the following guidelines; (a) teacher confidence (2.7); (b) teacher classroom management style (2.3); (c) adequacy of lesson pace (2.4); (d) adequacy of teacher's perception of students' understanding of the material (2.3); (e) adequate probing of comprehension of the lesson (2.4); and (f) differentiation and sensitivity to students with special needs (2.2). The summative rating gauged whether the implementation of the lesson was reflective of best practices in education (2.3).

Learning culture

The observers, in addition to their comments on lesson design and implementation, were also asked to comment on the overall learning culture using the same scale as above. Assessments of whether: (a) active student participation was encouraged and welcomed (2.8); (b) the climate was considerate of students' input (2.4); (c) students learned collectively and engaged with each other (1.8); (d) the culture was that of collaboration between teachers and students (2.3); (e) students were actively engaged in the lesson (2.8); (f) teachers allowed challenging ideas from students (2.1); (g) the lesson climate acknowledged/was respectful of diversity (2.1); and (h) consideration of different learning needs was demonstrated (2.2). The overall judgment captured whether the classroom climate was reflective of best practices in education (2.2).

Management

The selection and implementation of educational programs is guided by one school district, two large private educational companies, and three small private providers from the community. Administrators' comments on the mission of their organizations matched their comments on their personal vision of the role of education in detention. The leadership structures varied, but, in general, administrators' demographic profile was similar to that of the teachers. Of the thirteen Project Directors/Program Managers/Administrators interviewed, 46 percent hold advanced degrees (i.e., M.S.W., 6th year certificates), and 54 percent have either special education training or are special education certified. Eight of the thirteen respondents (62 percent) report having experience teaching or working with children and youth in similar settings (i.e., programs for children with behavior issues, juvenile justice alternative programs, or alternative special education programs).

Additional themes

Our qualitative analyses identified additional themes that were not reflected in the semi-structured interviews and the observation schedule. Specifically, responders pointed out that the traditional class period length of 50 minutes appears to be too lengthy for students in detention. Particularly, the responders commented that the attention span of students seems to be diminished and inattention and problem behaviors worsen after approximately 30 minutes of instruction. Working relationships between educators and facility staff was another important theme. Respondents commented that education was perceived by facility staff as “just another program' (along with dance, yoga, bead making, or group therapy) whose only purpose is to keep the detainees engaged during the day. There was little appreciation of the importance and role of education for the detained children and youth, minimal respect for the dynamics of classroom processes resulting in constant interruptions (i.e., removing students for appointments, singing or talking loudly in the hallways, or having individual non-school related conversation with detainees during class periods). The relationships between “school” and “facility” varied in content and quality dramatically across the centers. The type and quality of interaction with detention center staff were directly linked to issues of behavior management in classrooms. The more respect the facility staff showed for education, the more compliant the students were, resulting in a more effective education process.

Teachers

Teacher training and background

Of the 48 teachers interviewed, 31 (65%) are special education certified, and 37 (77%) have advanced degrees (i.e., M.A., M.S., six-year certificate, Ed.D.). Their special education training or other training in working with children with special learning needs is derived from university credits and workshop participation. The teaching staff also has the added benefit of on-the-job experience: 54 percent had more than 10 years of overall classroom teaching experience. With regard to detention center classroom experience in particular, 25 percent of teachers had been on the job for four to six years; 25 percent had taught in detention for two to three years, 27 percent for one year or less, 10 percent for seven to ten years, and 13 percent for more than 10 years. The teaching staff also had breadth of experience: 54 percent previously taught in a variety of alternative educational settings, including juvenile justice alternative programs, residential treatment centers, Job Corps, alternative education programs in public schools, shelters for women and children, adult education CED programs, and special education programs for older adolescents and young adults ages 16 to 21. Teachers self-report qualifications to teach subspecialties. Nineteen percent report that they can teach English/Language Arts, and four (4) percent name Math as a subspecialty. Science was reported by six (6) percent of teachers, History and Social Studies by 10 percent, two (2) percent reported Art/Music/Enrichment, and four (4) percent reported Life Skills. Multiple specializations were common-19 percent of the teachers reported that they could teach two different subjects, 13 percent reported three different subjects, and four (4) percent are qualified to teach four or more different subjects. Similarly, teachers reported that they could teach at multiple grade levels. The majority of teachers (85 percent) reported qualification to teach in middle and high school grades, but some educators had additional primary school teaching experience (15 percent). Thus, in terms of their official credentials, the teaching community represents a qualified force, whose professional accomplishments are comparable to the profile of an average teacher in the state of Connecticut.

In-service training

Eighty-three percent reported attending workshops in professional development, while 15 percent reported enrollment in formal course work. Among types of in-service training, the administrators listed literacy and RTI (Response to Intervention), behavior modification systems, special education, IEP (Individualized Education Plan) writing, SmartBoard training, team building, gender specific programming, and multiple professional development workshops. Administrators reported that training was carried out once or twice per year (50 percent), and an equal number (50 percent) three or four times a year. However, there is a consistent theme of scarcity of access to information and techniques relative to working with this student population. Responders also indicated lack of professional development experiences targeted at supporting their knowledge and mastery of national and international best practices in educating juvenile delinquents. The lack of in service support was also linked to the resources provided and used by teachers in the classroom. Specifically, 5 percent of teachers mentioned that they are provided with no pre-designed materials, 34 percent are provided with standard textbooks, 7 percent with specialized programs (e.g., United Streaming SmartBoard, Hands On Science Kits, reading/writing programs, Bluford Series), 5 percent with specialized programs, 2 percent with educational software, and 5 percent have access to specialists as well as textbooks, specialized programs, and educational software. Twelve percent of teachers responded that they receive textbooks and educational software; textbooks and specialized programs are provided to 9 percent; and 7 percent receive standard textbooks, specialized programs, and educational software. The availability of the resources determined what materials were used in classrooms: 26 percent of teachers reported that they used standard textbooks only, 21 percent utilized standard textbooks and educational software, (e.g., SmartBoard, Interactive Reader), 14 percent used standard textbooks and specialized programs (e.g., Bluford Series), and 9 percent used standard textbooks, specialized programs, and educational software. Nineteen percent reported that they use personal materials while teaching. Twenty percent of the teachers report that they have the support of teacher aides in the classroom, and 48 percent state that they participate in staff planning meetings. Other reported support include; speech/language pathologists (17 percent), reading specialists (4 percent), psychologists (13 percent), and other specialists (8 percent) (i.e., youth counselors, social workers, case managers).

Performance monitoring

Only one administrator reported that they (and the organization that contracts with CSSD) monitor the performance of their teachers, and monitoring was reported to be carried out by the provider's supervisory staff. Eighty percent of the administrators reported that they monitor the effectiveness of their services, but no data were available at the time of the analysis.

Continuity of services

An oft-repeated theme was the theme of interaction between school and facility (i.e., educators and detention staff). In general, these interactions appear to be in need of improvement, but the degree of dissatisfaction varied from facility to facility. In particular, the services appear to be more continuous and coherent in alternative centers compared to larger state-run centers (e.g., Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven). All responders mentioned the necessity to improve the interaction between detention staff and school staff (e.g., by means of conducting joint staff meetings, by discussing both behavior and academic performance of particular detainees, by engaging both detention and probation officers in educational discussion). Also, all responders mentioned the lack of continuity in the implementation of behavior management plans (e.g., assurance of continuity and consistency between facility staff and teachers, effectiveness of behavior management plans). In fact, this analysis did not identify traditions of combining efforts and services in creating a new or implementing an existing behavior management plan.

Comments on the system

In general, teachers reported a low level of satisfaction with (1) the effectiveness of educational programs with which they are engaged; (2) the position and value of schooling among other concerns within the facilities; and (3) their access to and amount of support and in-service professional development. Thirty-three teachers said they would change multiple aspects of the educational program in detention if they could. The aspects cited with greater frequency are as follows: Twenty-four responded that they would change communication with home schools, 21 would improve availability of special services, 19 would improve staff support, and 18 would improve assessments. To a lesser degree, teachers mentioned they would recommend improvement in student-teacher ratio (13 responses), and curriculum materials (11 responses). Other aspects mentioned by teachers included class preparation time, free time for case management issues and communication with home schools, more information regarding students before they enter the classroom, technical training, additional materials for higher level students, and fewer classroom interruptions. The most frequent responses provided by administrators included improved communications with home schools (6 responses), assessments (4 responses), and curriculum materials (3 responses). Also mentioned in combination with the above were student teacher ratio, special services, and teaching staff support. The strengths most often cited were student-teacher ratio (22 teachers and 8 administrators), and the high level of dedication and support among their teaching staff mentioned by 21 teachers and 6 administrators.

Additional themes

The open structure of the interviews also resulted in the responders mentioning additional issues that appeared important to them. Specifically, teachers mentioned lack (or, virtually, the absence) of interactions between educational programs at different facilities, lack of the engagement of the community, and lack of collaboration within the infrastructure (federal, state, and/or community) that can result in structuring the education for the purposes of students obtaining functional literacy and numeracy and other skills that will enhance the student's chances for or ensure employability.

Records

Communication between detention centers and school districts

In Connecticut, communication between educators working in pre-trial juvenile detention centers and local school districts is not policy driven, mandated, or in any way systematic; instead, such communication apparently occurs on a case by-case basis as warranted by individual student needs. Teachers reported that such variable communication occurs at the discretion of individual districts and/or on the anecdotal judgment of individual detention center teachers. Of the 48 teachers interviewed (both from DCs and ADPs), 46 percent said that they receive no information about students before children enter the classroom. Thirty-one percent of teachers reported that they typically receive no documents from the detainee's school district. If teachers receive information about a detainee from within the detention center itself, it is typically demographic information, court information (i.e., committed offense, next court date), or behavioral information.

Prior to a student's entry into class, 40 percent of teachers recalled receiving school district data on a detainee's academic achievement (i.e., report cards). In general, from all available sources (i.e., home schools and detention centers), 6 teachers reported the availability of information on age and grade, 9 report receiving age, grade, and special educational needs, 4 report receiving age, grade, special education needs and prior assessment results, and 2 teachers report receiving information regarding behavioral challenges. Specifically, teachers report that detention centers typically provide them with information on student demographics (14 responses), behavior information (7 responses), and academic aptitude (7 responses). Forty-six percent of teachers interviewed report that they receive no information at all. In some cases, the detention center asks the child to fill out a self-report “profile sheet,” which asks the child to disclose information such as his or her age and grade. Here again, a large percentage of teachers (31 percent) report that they do not receive any information from the detention center about detainees who will be entering their classroom.

Forty-one percent of teachers recalled receiving documents from the detainee's home school (e.g., IEP and PPT summaries). Eighteen percent report receiving school report cards along with previous assessments, and IEP/PPT records. Behavior information is reported to have been received by 6 teachers along with other information as above. However, 25 percent of teachers report receiving no information from home schools while working in these settings. When information was sent from the home schools, forty-eight percent reported the documents did not arrive in a timely manner, prohibiting the efficient use of the information during a detainee's stay. Teachers said these documents are most often sent by fax (42 percent), but occasionally forwarded by regular mail and/or fax (25 percent) or infrequently via e-mail (6 percent) or discussed by phone (8 percent). Sixty-six percent of teachers stated that it took a week or more, on average, for documents to arrive at the detention center. Specifically, 13 percent of the teachers mentioned a 1-2 day period for the information to arrive, 33 percent said 2-7 days, 33 percent estimated that it took longer than one week, and 2 percent longer than a month. If and when school district records do arrive, they usually consist of cognitive data (i.e., IQ scores, with 14 percent of teachers responding that they receive information on verbal and 12 percent regarding nonverbal ability) and academic achievement scores in reading (14 percent), writing (11 percent), and mathematics (13 percent). Rarely did teachers obtain data on the students' social-emotional (11 percent), behavioral (9 percent), adaptive (5 percent), memory (2 percent) functioning or personality traits (3 percent). If information is available, 82 percent of the teachers reported using it primarily to assist in educational planning, while 2 percent reported that the information is rarely used. The teachers unanimously report that they would like to receive IEP/PPT records, previous assessments, and school report cards from the detainee's home school district.

A majority of teachers (67 percent) observed that public school districts vary significantly in their ability to provide up-to-date school records to detention center educators in a timely manner. When a child leaves detention, teachers recalled that educational information is sent to a student's home school district or new location most often by surface mail. Most of the teachers (99 percent) think that sending information on what students accomplished while in detention back to their home schools is important. Most frequently mentioned are the following: providing progress notes to home schools (24 responses), providing notes regarding the curriculum covered while in detention (14 responses), and 11 teachers would also like to include assessment information. Also mentioned were conveying reports of effort, motivation, improvements in behavior, skills mastered, and recommendations.

Multiple methods of transmitting information to school district offices were reported. Mailing this information was the most frequent method of transmission to public school district offices, cited 27 times by teachers, followed by fax, which was mentioned 19 times. Email, phone calls to the district, hard copy files given to students, and hard-copy files given to parents were methods used with less frequency. Some teachers mentioned that the records are personally delivered or given to the student's case worker or probation officer. The majority (56 percent) of teachers reported that they have only ‘some’ communication with the detainee's public school district after the child's release while 29 percent report that they have none. Such communication most frequently occurs in the form of phone conversations initiated by the teacher on a case-by-case basis. When this occurs, it includes progress records (4 percent) or phone conversations (48 percent). Fifty-two percent of teachers reported that they only “rarely” communicate with the student's public school district or new location after discharge; while 48 percent say they ‘never’ do.

Pathways of records: an illustration

To generate a glance at how record transfer occurs, a sample of 30 students was selected randomly from one of the state-run detention centers. Parents and custodians of these 30 children and adolescents were contacted and 9 consents were received to investigate the record transfers. All schools where these students were being educated at the time of the project were approached with two requests: (1) share the information that they currently have on the student in question, and (2) respond to a brief structured survey detailing the record exchange between the school and the detention facility. The administration of one school that had two students from the sample refused to participate in the survey, although they shared all available records on the students and verbally stated that they have no records on the students from detention. One student never arrived at the school where he was expected to continue his education; the school had no record of this individual, although CSSD records indicated that this student was enrolled at the school in question. Of the other 6 schools which acknowledged having the student and receiving the request for the records and the survey, only 3 shared the information. The records contained current attendance and performance records. The schools did not acknowledge receiving any information from detention center schools. In general, home school administrators appeared to be reluctant and unwilling to assist in this query.

Additional themes

All participants representing a continuum of CSSD educational services unanimously indicated that poor communication and coordination with outside school districts is a further impediment to the detention center's ability to provide meaningful assessment, class placement, and remediation to children while in detention. Additional obstacles include the quality and quantity of information received from the home schools and the timeliness of receipt for this information to be utilized.

Discussion

Here we present results of an all-inclusive situational analysis portraying, in broad strokes, the practice of schooling in the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division Residential Services continuum of educational services which includes pre-trial detention centers and unlocked, voluntary residential programs. This analysis sampled from all centers and from all educators employed by the system over a two-year period. The general conclusion of this project is that, although the system carries some features of the 1994 OJJDP (OJJDP, 1994) recommendations, they are rather few and rare, compared to what would have been expected of a mature and effective system 15 years after the release of the report.

Dr. Thomas Blomberg (Dean and Sheldon L. Messinger Professor of Criminology at Florida State University) contends that incarcerated children and youth have been characterized as “lost educational opportunities”. In his congressional testimony on March 12, 2009, Dr. Blomberg cited the benefits of reaching these young people as “tremendous cost savings to the public and rescue of troubled youth” (Linton, 2009a). For many of these children and youth, quality and systematic education in detention and corrections settings may be the last (and often the only) opportunity to benefit from formalized education (Nelson, et al., 2004).

This analysis revealed many positive and negative elements of the system; however, its major finding relates to the lack of inspiration and aspiration in the system. Although we have encountered highly experienced and engaged educators during this analysis, the system in general, came across as in need of much change, most importantly, in its spirit. Education should be treated as the most important factor of rehabilitation of court-involved children and youth. Throughout this analysis, it appeared to be treated as “just another program,” one of many on the list of those available while spending time in detention, and, in some facilities, one that is rather close to the bottom of the list.

The literature attests to the over-representation of individuals with learning problems, however defined, among the population in detention, estimating that between 30- and 70 percent of children and youth in correctional settings have special education needs (Rutherford, Nelson, & Wolford, 1985). Our review of the records in detention centers resulted in nowhere near these frequencies. Thus, our conclusion is that the special needs of juveniles in detention are underidentified and underreported-similar to what was reported by other researchers (Katsiyannis & Murry, 2000; Quinn, et al., 2005). This conclusion is in accord with what teachers report about their perception of the population of juvenile detainees. It is curious, however, that the interviewed administrators for the surveyed school programs do not believe that juveniles with such needs are underidentified. We find this discrepancy of interest and, although we do not fully understand its nature, at least two hypotheses might be put forward-if identified, these children need to receive appropriate accommodations, which are often not easy to provide (Hartford Courant, November 30, 2009. http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-hartford-schoolscomplaint11.artnov30,0,715479.story). Thus, it might be easier not to recognize these children. The second hypothesis has to do with educating children without special needs in detention. There are, clearly, juveniles who suffer from below age and grade appropriate lessons, who are not challenged enough by the programs offered at DCs and ADPs, and, correspondingly, they fall behind simply because schooling in detention is not up to the standards of regular Connecticut classrooms. For example, the Juvenile Academic Knowledge Assessment Tool or JAKAT data (Hart, et al., 2009) indicated the presence of a small number of juveniles (10 percent), who performed above the levels of their nominal grades by at least one grade as demonstrated by preliminary analysis of an ongoing research project conducted by Yale University Child Study Center Staff. No DCs or ADPs, however, have offered any courses at the level of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate programs that might be needed to meet (special) educational needs of these children and youth.

Nobody says that schooling juveniles in detention is an easy task. Yet, the literature contains illustrations of various solutions to the problem of “education in detention and correction” as implemented by other states (e.g., Georgia, Colorado, Arizona) (Linton, 2009b; O'Rourke, 2003; O'Rourke & Satterfield, 2005; Risler, 1998; Risler & O'Rourke, 2009). The often encountered feature of successful systems is an individualized approach to juvenile students in detention. The development of individualized students' educational portfolios (Risler, 1998), transformable into educational plans (Risler & O'Rourke, 2009) that are tracked by the educators not only in detention centers and correction facilities, but also upon a child's successful return to the community (O'Rourke & Satterfield, 2005), seems like a feasible and realistic idea in this age of technology advancements and electronic records transfer. Although proper legislative changes might need to be implemented, the general orientation toward quick and accurate exchange of electronic records is a must. Such models are based on the realization that the quality and quantity of education in the facility is not enough; supportive post exit/re-entry environments are essential for leveraging the educational accomplishment obtained while in detention or correctional facilities (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Duncan a Magnuson, 2007; Griller-Clark, Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004; Risler & O'Rourke, 2009; Winters, 1997).

The literature also contains examples of strengths-based approaches to education. These approaches are based on the following assumptions: (1) incarcerated children and youth have strengths that can be built upon; (2) incarcerated children and youth must be involved in decisions about how they spend their time in detention; (3) the present and the future are much more important than the past; and (4) behavioral and cognitive changes for incarcerated children and youth who are to be held responsible are brought about through action (Bendtro & Ness, 1995; Clark, 1997, 1999, 2001; Saleebey, 2002; Venable, 2005; Weick, Rapp, Sullivan, & Kisthardt, 1989). These assumptions are very different from what is known as an Imposed synthetic cognitive version of education” that is often administered in detention to make one learn by the engagement of cognitive resources rather than to encourage one to learn experientially through natural self-discipline and autonomy in learning (Oesterreich & Flores, 2009). Unfortunately, the former is the method that dominates juvenile detention classrooms in Connecticut and elsewhere (Oesterreich & Flores, 2009).

In addition to successful systemic solutions and general principles of how to deliver schooling to juveniles in detention, the literature also has examples of effective unconventional literacy programs (Coulter, 2004; Drakeford, 2002; Malmgren & Leone, 2000; Shaw & Berg, 2009; Taylor & McAfee, 2003). Having analyzed this literature, Vacca (Vacca, 2004) identified characteristics of successful literacy programs. First, programs should be learner-tailored and able to address the various learning styles of participants, attempt to address the wide range of literacy skills, and respect the cultural diversity of participants. Second, programs should be directly related to meaningful and familiar contexts. Third, programs have to have potential of sustaining attention and interest and developing motivation for learning. Fourth, the administration of the program should be treated with respect by the facility and by its participants (and in turn, participants should be treated with respect for participating in these programs). Although these characteristics might seem reasonable theoretically, they are relatively rarely encountered in practice.

Another notable observation from this situational analysis is the lack of collaboration between educators working at different facilities and lack of opportunities for their professional development. It was rather surprising to find both deficiencies in the system; particularly as the context of the literature states both are particularly important for educating juvenile delinquents (Griller Clark, 2004; Houchins, et al., 2004; Kvarfordt, et al., 2005; Rutherford, Mathur, & Griller-Clark, 2001), and that for both, there are evidence-based models (Mathur, et al., 2009; Plecki, 2000; Rutherford, et al., 2001). One example is the EDJJ Professional Development Series, designed in 2002, to improve achievement outcomes for students with disabilities in the justice system through innovative professional development strategies that are based on sound research and the principles of effective instruction (http://www.edjj.org/training/pdf/FM%201-%20lntroduction.pdf.

More recently, EDJJ collaborated with the Correctional Learning Network (CLN) to provide technical assistance, training resources, supports, and guidance to correctional educators across the United States (http://www.edjj.org). Other online resources created for correctional educators include courses offered by the Correctional Education Association (see http://www.ceanational.org/course.htm), numerous webinars, presentations, technical briefs, and other assistance provided by The National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk (NDTAC) (see http://www.neglecteddelinquent.org/nd/), and the Juvenile Justice/Special Education Shared Agenda and Tools for Success (see http://www.edjj.org/focus/prevention/JJ-SE.htm).

One of the real challenges faced by the juvenile justice system is how to assist court-involved children and youth to prepare for successful entry into the labor market (Winters, 1997). This challenge is especially prominent in the context of the rapidly changing requirements and demands for today and tomorrow's labor force (Council of Economic Advisers, 2009). It has been stated that systems that have been found to be more effective in preparing future workers include “…a solid early childhood, elementary, and secondary system that ensures students have strong basic skills; institutions and programs that have goals that are aligned and curricula that are cumulative; close collaboration between training providers and employers to ensure that curricula are aligned with workforce needs; flexible scheduling, appropriate curricula, and financial aid designed to meet the needs of students; incentives for institutions and programs to continually improve and innovate; and accountability for results” (Council of Economic Advisers, 2009, p. 9). Numerous children and youth in detention have missed many of these steps toward success in their childhood, but they are certainly eligible for another chance, especially in light of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, (http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/act.cfm) and other federal laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of the state of Connecticut to provide them with that second chance.

Conclusions

This analysis has provided a comprehensive review of the state of education delivered to children and youth in detention in the State of Connecticut. The information was collected and processed at multiple levels: the system itself, individual schools, teachers, and students (or rather their records). The analysis has revealed a wide range of findings depicting the presence of both effective and ineffective practices and everything in between. The most remarkable observation from this analyses is that, in the absence of proper legislative directives assigning specific responsibilities for educating children and youth while in detention to particular parties and delineating the mechanisms of financial support and quality assurance, the resulting system is extremely diverse in quantity and quality of education as was the case in the State of Connecticut. In addition, numerous observations at each of the levels of analyses suggest the need for a substantial and urgent enhancement of educational services in the detention centers.

The power of these general observations is associated with the fact that this analysis was system-wide, that is, it was conducted in all centers and with all relevant educators. Such systemwide coverage is rare and is capable of generating a relatively unbiased picture of the situation; this is a particular strength of this investigation. Yet, this analysis is also characterized by weaknesses. If well-kept records on the students in detention were available, it would have been valuable to correlate objective student data to those reported by teachers. Similarly, it is very important to attempt to compare students' reported performance at their home schools with their performance in classrooms in detention. Unfortunately, as previously stated, the authors encountered reluctance of home schools willing to cooperate. Finally, a missing component in this analysis is families. Familial attitude and support (or lack thereof) toward education is a factor that would impact these children and adolescents and their attitudes toward educational attainment, achievement, and aspiration-all important and understudied questions. These topics are noteworthy areas of study that should be pursued in future investigations.