Correctional Education:
Does it Offer an Effective Second Chance for Youth?

A Forum — December 5, 1994

Addressing the needs of our nation's most at risk youth population--adjudicated and incarcerated youth--is a challenge for communities and the state and local systems responsible for their care and development. The impetus for change in the manner we prepare youth for successful adult roles created by the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational Technical Education and the Adult Education Acts calls also for a rethinking of the service delivery system for at-risk and delinquent youth. For them, the challenge is developing productive skills while making the transition from school to an institution and back to school. Therefore it is important that schools work closely with the juvenile justice system in designing curriculums and approaches to ensure that these youth are not left out of efforts to prepare them for the work force.

Forum panelists, experts on correctional education and juvenile justice, provided views of how two states--Kentucky and Tennessee--address the needs of these youth, and discussed the applications of research for ensuring success for at-risk youth. Gail Schwartz, Chief of Program Management for Correctional Education, U.S. Department of Education, served as moderator.

According to Betty Adams, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Youth Development, the Department provides a wide spectrum of services for youth who have committed violent crimes or have an extensive record of offenses. These services are available in secure facilities, half-way houses and after-care services for youth in transition back to their communities and schools. Adams is the Superintendent of the Correctional Education system which employs 125 teachers, of whom 27 are certified in special education. Much of the educational focus is on remediation since most of these youth are behind in school. Many could have profited from special education services at an early age but have not been properly identified or served. It is not uncommon to have a 17-year-old functioning on a sixth-grade level.

"Many of these youth have the ability to succeed but are so far outside the educational mainstream and have been for so long that flexible approaches must be applied to their education and development." She challenged the common myths of correctional education: that youth are stupid, are not worthy of resources, and are best sent to the state for treatment. Since these youth will return to their communities, it is important to remediate their educational and social deficiencies and prepare them to successfully function in society with the necessary self-esteem and social skills. "The best hope for resolving youth violence is with a strong and meaningful education that is not afraid to confront the social and educational needs of youth."

Osa Coffey, former Superintendent of the Virginia Department of Correctional Education, cited the observations of sociologist Julius Wilson: Many African American males in the inner cities come to first grade excited about learning but by the fourth grade have lost that enthusiasm. Further, many of these young men have no faith in their ability to make an honest living. She also referenced the work of John Q. Wilson in Crime and Human Nature, which identifies verbal scores as the only significant difference between incarcerated youth and other youth. Typically, incarcerated youth are four years behind in their grade level, especially in reading.

According to Coffey, there is little research on correctional education and few documented successful model programs. She recommends a radical approach to correctional education that reflects the research on effective schools and Chapter 1, compensatory education. This line of research advocates shifting from a focus on pull-out programs, drill and practice, and a focus on basic skills, to greater attention to problem solving, cognitive thinking, and the development of higher order skills. This requires (1) a change in the role of the teacher from didactic to a supporting and modeling role, (2) a more interactive classroom approach using cooperative and applied learning, and (3) greater reliance on the knowledge base of young people as a way of increasing engagement and expanding that base. Since youth participate in correctional education for a limited time period, she recommends prioritizing their needs and keeping a focus on the development of thinking, social and communication skills even when their basic skills are limited.

Critical to enacting these changes is developing the staff capacity to carry out change. There is a need for extensive staff development for correctional education, more research and technical assistance to create better staff and better programs for youth.

Bruce Wolford, Director of the Correctional Training Resource Center at Eastern Kentucky University and the Kentucky Educational Collaborative for State Agency Children, cited the key principles of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). Chief among these is the notion that education is treatment to be used as well as other treatments such as mental and health services. The Act is inclusive of the needs of children in the K-12 system including those potentially at risk of failure and harm, and those currently in or experiencing risk factors. The act applies to children and youth in the juvenile justice system, those with special education needs, in foster care and the mental health system, and those that have been orphaned. The Act also supports family resource centers, which combine education and social services in a community.

KERA requires accountability and measures how well schools are succeeding with youth through indices such as the dropout rate. It supports a collaborative of multiple agencies and relies on local school districts for the education of youth in the juvenile justice system. The system uses a balance of out-of-home and day treatments that result in cost effective treatment centers in the community. Forty-five percent of day treatment youth eventually reenter the school system and continue. The system is committed to site-based decision making in the development of education and treatment plans.

In the question and answer period, the following issues were addressed:

• What is the average length of youth participation in correctional education? How are students' educational needs determined? What is the teacher/student ratio? What are the credentialing requirements for teachers in correctional education?

In Tennessee, the average length of youth involvement in the correctional system is 8 and one-half to 18 months (the latter is more typical in the case of violent crime infractions). Educational needs of students are determined through placement tests. Teacher/student ratios can range from 1:6 to as high as 1:16. Teachers must meet the same certification requirements as other public school teachers. The education program must comply with state mandates, including provision of college preparatory courses where necessary. The major difference noted between correctional and regular education is greater recognition and effort in correctional education to vary and adjust the instructional methods used to engage and support students (e.g., through a strong focus on applied learning and hands-on activities). Art, music and drama are not core curriculum offerings; however, volunteers are generally used to provide these offerings and to enrich the exposure of youth.

In Kentucky, the average length of residential stay is about six months. This can range from 10 days or less for juvenile detention to 12 to 24 months for neglected and orphaned children. Because Kentucky's system is community-based, there is great flexibility in the range of services provided, including GED study, programs in regular schools, preparation for college, etc.

• How effective are strategies that use distance learning and computer designed instruction (CDI) for this population of youth?

CDI can be effective, but should not be used just for drill and practice. It can be an important tool for providing opportunities for problem solving for these youth. Kentucky relies on distance communication between youth and their families.

• What is the status of young women in correctional education?

Access to quality experiences for young women in correctional education is limited. In many respects, this is an issue of scale. Due to the comparatively small numbers of females in secured facilities, it is difficult to offer the diversity of programs often available to young males. In cases where youth are in day treatment, services are provided coeducationally, hence there are improved opportunities for females. It was noted, however, that about 80 percent of females have been victimized in some way and unique problems that must be addressed by the correctional system.

• What is the status of youth consigned to the adult system?

The adult correctional system makes few accommodations to youth. However, some efforts are made to separate them from the adult population and address their social, developmental and educational needs. It was noted that states are under no obligation to provide educational programming for the incarcerated except if they are under 21 and in need of special education.

• How racially and ethnically diverse are staff in correctional institutions and how reflective are they of the youth being served?

Correctional institutions contain three times the number of minorities than in the general population. Therefore it is important to make better outreach to minority staff, such as by establishing better relations with historically black colleges and universities. Until a larger cadre of minority staff is created, it is important to focus on multi-cultural education and training of existing staff.

• Describe the status of prevention programs.

It is critical that we stop juvenile crime and keep juvenile offenders from evolving into adult offenders. There is need to focus on early prevention such as reading programs and keeping children involved in school. The three major predictors for ending up in the juvenile justice system are: (1) being victimized (sexually or through neglect) ; (2) being a substance abuser; and (3) experiencing school failure. To the extent that we can intervene to eliminate these conditions we can prevent much juvenile crime. One presenter commented that "We invest a lot in the juvenile justice system, but we don't support the transition of youth into regular life." This is another avenue of prevention into adult crime.

Among the strategies cited: Kentucky is using school-based family resource centers to provide education and support to families and to improve the non-education services that closely affect educational success. Kentucky's system for providing children's services is very deinstitutionalized and every child within the juvenile justice system is assigned to an adult mentor. The focus of these programs is on formal work experience both internal and external to a facility and on community service.

The Tennessee Children's Plan assesses the needs of children and families at an early stage. Healthy Start programs follow infants and families home from the hospital providing support and education. Effort is made to get employer buy-in and support for youth who have been involved in the juvenile justice system. "After screening, many youth are picked up by employers and unemployment is low."

• Is there a growth in GED completion or continuation in school among juvenile offenders?

In Tennessee there has been a growth in GED completion simply because that has not always been an option for youth. In Kentucky, the focus is on getting youth back into regular education and school completion. The panelists felt that if there is a glimmer of a chance that a youth can successfully return to school--preferably to an alternative school geared to the special needs of these youth, not a traditional high school--that option should be pursued. GEDs are good to the extent they create an opportunity for entry into a community college, if not the military.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org