Education in Juvenile Detention Facilities in the State of Connecticut:

A Glance at the System

Elena L. GrigorenkoYale University

The problem in a nutshell• National statistics (annually)– ~1.6 million juveniles are referred to juvenile court (Snyder

& Sickmund, 2006)– ~95,000 juveniles are in residential custody (Livsey,

Sickund, & Sladky, 2009)• Education & employment are two of the most

influential/effective factors predisposing desistance– Well-being must include education (Weinberg, 2007)

• Vulnerable juveniles particularly need high-quality education services and support– Successful transition to adulthood– Rehabilitation & treatment (public opinion & tax $$$)

Academic achievement & delinquency: nationwide

• Krezmien, Mulcahy, & Leone (2008)– 555 males at intake to a

juvenile correctional facility in a mid-Atlantic state

– On average, ~4 years behind (academically) their age-equivalent peers

– Suspended: >80%– Retained/repeated grade:

>60%– Expelled: >50%

• Wilson, Zablocki, & Bartolotta (2007)– 273 incarcerated girls– Reading and math scores

substantially below expected age-level performance

– Suspended: >80%– Retained/repeated grade:

>55%– Expelled: >46%

Academic achievement & delinquency: Connecticut (1)

The relationships between Grade Attended (Y axis) and Grade Assigned (X axis) for Word- (a) and Text-level Reading (b) and

Mathematics (c)

Hart et al., in press

Academic achievement & delinquency: Connecticut (2)

• Academic capacity of juvenile detainees– 1058 juveniles in the three (3) DCs assessed with

JAKAT– Average reported grade for this group of detainees

was grade 9• Word Decoding—7th grade performance• Reading Comprehension—4th grade performance• Mathematics—5th grade performance

Hart et al., in press

Situational analysis (1)

• Method– Participants (complete sampling scheme)• Centers (3DC’s and 7 ACD’s)• Teachers (48)• Administrators (13)• Students

– Records (n=713)– Clients (n=30)

Macomber et al., 2010

Situational analysis (2)

• Method– Procedures• Interviews (structured)

– All participants

• Classroom observations (structured)– Each classroom at least twice

– Data analyses• Qualitative• Quantitative

Macomber et al., 2010

Situational analysis (3)

• Students• Programs• Teachers• Records

Macomber et al., 2010

Situational analysis: highlights (1)• Students

– Highly diverse• Grade dispersion: 2-3

– ESL– Poorly characterized

• No formalized placement procedure• Even when assessed with standardized tests—difficulty translating assessment into

pedagogical guidelines• No formalized discharge/transfer procedure

– Underidentified/underserved• Records from 713 juveniles

– 70 (9.9%) identified as SN students– 8 (11.4%) had IEPs or notes on IEPs

– Unmet needs• Eyeglasses• Lack of basic skills

– Handling supplies (scissors, glue, clay…)– Impoverished general level of knowledge about the world

Macomber et al., 2010

Situational analysis: highlights (2)• Programs– Range of approaches

• No unified program– District-based textbooks/programs (81%)– Specialized/individualized approaches (23%)

• Range of instruction– From one-size-fits-all (6%) to individualized (7%)

• Atmosphere– At least one distraction during class time: 55% of visits– Student removal: 18%– Teacher control: 93%

• Quality– Highly variable (on a scale of 1 to 3, around 2+)

Macomber et al., 2010

• Teachers– Qualifications

• 65% SpEd certified; 77% advanced degrees– Lack of access to the information that is crucial for

educating juveniles in detention– Monitoring

• Lack of QA– Perception

• Low level of effectiveness• Low level of appreciation of educational programs within facilities• Limited access to in-service professional development• Low level of support

Situational analysis: highlights (3)

Macomber et al., 2010

Situational analysis: highlights (4)• Records

– There• Student information

– 46%--no information from LEA on entry– 31%--no information form LEA ever

• If the information arrives– 1-2 days (13%)– 2-7 days (33%)– > week (33%)– > month (2%)

• Practices vary within detention centers and within LEA(s)– And back

• Post-release communication with LEA(s)– Some (56%)– None (29%)

– Small study• 30 selected & contacted• 9 releases received• 1 school (2 students) refused to participate• 1 student never returned• 6 schools acknowledged the return of the student• 3 schools (10%!!!) shared the information

Macomber et al., 2010

To conclude,

Quality educational services and support are expected for all children and adolescents being educated in the U.S.A.; pre-adjudicated detained children and adolescents should be no exception, but, on the contrary, there should be a strong reminder that detained juveniles have legal rights, and that the system has an obligation to recognize and uphold those rights.