User:Se315/sandbox

Education for Incarcerated Youths (United States)
Education for the incarcerated youths in the United States varies from state to state. Providing education for those in the juvenile detention system was made a legal obligation under the 1980s Civil Rights of Institutionalised Persons Act (CRIPA) by the U.S Department of Justice. This provided the Justice Department with the legal grounds to sue states that did not provide students their civil rights under the 14th amendment. Education within the carceral system is different with each state. Some states provide the same standard of education both inside juvenile detention and outside in normal schools. Class sizes are much larger than those in an average high school. Some classes are organised by age rather than ability. Additionally, those who have learning disabilities are not the focus of most laws that target education within juvenile detention centres. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) incarcerated youths with disabilities should be provided with a special education plan, however this is not always implemented. Most children within the carceral system come from disadvantage backgrounds, and therefore at a much higher risk of failing at school. Different administrations have been seen to prioritise carceral education differently. The Obama administration took some action and affirmed the governments need to provide incarcerated youth with the ability to fully re-join society. A superintendent was hired for the Bureau of Prisons’ school district. Which focuses on including more opportunities to those within the juvenile detention system, including those with special needs and learning disabilities. The Trump administration has since minimised its focus on education for the incarcerated youth in the United States. Finally, the transition for young people from the carceral system back to regular schooling or joining the working community has its difficulties. A large majority of those that leave the juvenile system do not re-enrol into the outside education system and simply dropout of formal education systems. This can often result in those reoffending. Annotated Bibliography:

Twomey, K., 2008. The Right to Education in Juvenile Detention under State Constitutions. Virginia Law Review, 94(3), pp. 765-811.

1.     The aim of this article is to explain that youths within the juvenile detention system have a legal right to education under government law, while also demonstrating that these needs are not being met across the board and providing examples of the strain that is being placed on the education system for incarcerated youths.

2.     The author uses the example of the Mount View Youth Service Centre in Denver, Colorado to support their claims of educational disparities. In 1996, over 200 children were housed there with no special educational services being provided, as well as not following a written curriculum. (pg. 766) Additionally, they support their aims by explain that teachers are not required to poses general qualifications and most often do not possess advanced degrees. (pg. 771)

3.     This author explores the concept of discrimination against those with special educational needs, as well as exploring educational disparities across the country.

4.     The main weakness of this author is their lack of quantitative data to support the aims. For example, no statistics are provided for the amount of youths within detention centres that require special education.

5.     This article explains the origins of the juvenile system, and their original focus of rehabilitation. Furthermore, they explain the institutions that legally require proper education within the detention centres. (pg. 769-770)

White, C., 2000. Reclaiming Incarcerated Youth through Education, Children's Legal Rights Journal, 20(4), pp.17-23

1.     The aim of this author is to demonstrate that children within the juvenile detention system are at a higher risk of school failure, while also attempting to explain what basic needs should be included in the education curriculum.

2.     The author provides statistical evidence of those more at risk of school failure, for example, 20% of students with emotional disturbances are likely to be arrested at least once before they leave school, in comparison to the 6% of all students. (pg. 18) As well as explaining the gender disparities between male and female youth offenders, such as violent offending for boys begins around 7, whereas for girls it peaks around age 13. (pg.17)

3.     The author explores the concepts of gender disparities within the juvenile detention system, as well as expanding on the concept of legal obligations similar to the previous article.

4.     This author has a distinct lack of case studies to provide individual examples of different failures within the education system across the United States, thus limiting the specificity of the research.

5.     This article clearly explains the legal requirements for the provision of special education by explain what legislation is in place, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with emphasis on Section 504 which focuses on the provision within juvenile rehabilitation. (pg. 19)

Houchins, D. et al., 2009. Barriers and Facilitators to Providing Incarcerated Youths With a Quality Education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3), pp. 159-166.

1.     The main aim of this author is to interview those with first-hand experience within the education system for incarcerated youths and to have them explain the barriers and facilitators that are in place. While also aiming to give a historical account of the legal requirement for education.

2.     The author interviewed teachers from three facilities involved in system reform, to collect a collection of barriers they believed that were in place and inhibiting the correct educational needs. Such as the lack of staff support for teachers and creating a consistent curriculum for all juvenile justice systems. (pg. 161-162)

3.      This author focuses on the concept of reformation, by interviewing teachers they are collecting information that can be used to reform the system and provide a more rounded and fully formed education.

4.     There are very few weaknesses with this article

5.     This article explains reforms within specific states, such as Louisiana where the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state for providing inadequate education, resulting in a state director of education. (pg. 159)

Walke, L., 2018. Education Behind Bars: How Education is Failing Incarcerated Youths. [Online]

Available at: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2018/06/education-behind-bars-education-failing-incarcerated-youth/

[Accessed 8 March 2022].

1.     This author aims to explain how different administrations attempted to improve, or disimprove, the quality of education being provided within the juvenile detention system.

2.     The article uses the evidence of President Obama’s hiring of Amy Lopez as the first superintendent of the Bureau of Prison’s school district to explain how administrations were taking steps to improve the current education standard.

3.     This author applies the concepts of political responsibility to provide appropriate education for those in the system, by using the examples of Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

4.     This author is limited as this was a news article publishing and therefore has no academic support.

5.     This article is useful for understanding the administrative attempts to improve, or disimprove as seen with their explanation of Donald Trump, the standard of prison education across the country.

Flores, J., Barahona-Lopez, K., 2020. “I am in constant struggle.” The Challenges of Providing Instruction to Incarcerated Youth in Southern California, International Education for Educational Development, 76, pp.1-8

1.     This authors aim is to use the case study of Southern California to provide a specific example of education standards in the United States prison system.

2.     They used 15 teachers to interview and gain an understanding of their first-hand experience of how the education is provided to the inmates. While also explains limitations, the teachers feel are placed on the system.

3.     This author explores the concept of pressure on teachers to educate those within detention centres instead of simply the issues being placed on the juveniles themselves.

4.     This source has limitations as of those interviewed only a third of those interviewed were male, as well as half of those being white, thus not providing a clear opinion of different gendered experiences as well as racial minority experiences.

5.     This article provides a specific example of educational issues within juvenile detention centres in the United States, while also providing an alternative approach by giving teachers opinions on the issues at hand.

Final Article
= Education for the incarcerated youth in USA =

Providing education for those in the juvenile detention system was made a legal obligation under the 1980s Civil Rights of Institutionalised Persons Act (CRIPA) by the U.S Department of Justice. This provided the Justice Department with the legal grounds to sue states that did not provide students with their civil rights under the 14th amendment. Even before the creation of CRIPA, prison education has existed in some form, originating from Christian chaplains teaching inmates to read the bible, to education becoming part of legislation in as early as the 1930s. Educational programmes have existed in the U.S prison system since the 1800s, with mandatory education occuring in some prisons from 1870. The introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, placed even more of an emphasis on the importance of quality education for the juveniles who are incarcerated.

Education for the incarcerated youths in the United States varies from state to state. A different approach to education is maintained within different parts of the US, some states provide the same standard of education both inside juvenile detention centres and outside in normal schools. Some states offer face to face learning, while others use smart devices such as mobile tablets for learning. Class sizes are much larger than those in an average high school. Some classes are organised by age rather than ability. Additionally, those who have learning disabilities are not the focus of most laws that target education within juvenile detention centres. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) incarcerated youths with disabilities should be provided with a special education plan, however this is not always implemented. Different administrations have been seen to prioritize carceral education differently. The Obama administration took some action and affirmed the governments need to provide incarcerated youth with the ability to fully rejoin society. A superintendent was hired for the Bureau of Prisons’ school district, which focuses on including more opportunities to those within the juvenile detention system, including those with special needs and learning disabilities. The Trump administration has since minimised its focus on education for the incarcerated youth in the United States, not deeming it a priority for their campaign The standard of education for incarcerated youths in the USA, despite attempts at legislative changes, has yet to reach a quality standard, like the standard set in public schools.

Prison education up to the 1980s and after
Educational programmes have existed for many years within the prison system in the US in an attempt to combat recidivism. The first effort for education in the correctional system was by clergyman William Rogers, who offered instructions to inmates at Philadelphia's Walnut Street Jail. In the early 1800s, chaplains were in charge of giving instructions to prisoners for religious education. Reading and writing lessons began as a way to ensure inmates could read the bible, as an attempt to rehabilitate them by enabling them to become more spiritually enlightened. The early prison education programmes were a mirror of the educational framework used outside of prisons for the wider colonial population. One of the first examples of mandatory education within prisons was by Zebulon Brockway in the 1870s, who was the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory. Brockway created mandatory education programmes to train the mind to receive the ability to continue to be a good citizen. Between 1826 to 1840, a more secular educational programme was offered, with a focus on reading, writing and math, and some prisons offering history and geography. However, it wasn't until the 1930s that educational programmes became commonplace in the carceral system, with college-level education still being a recently new development. In 1930, Austin MacCormick and members of the American Prison Association (now the American Correctional Association) established a standing committee on education within prisons. This was followed up later by the establishment of the Correctional Education Association in 1946, with Price Chenault being elected the first president.

The importance of prison education for those in juvenile detention centres only began to be highlighted in the 1980s by the introduction of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) in 1980. CRIPA provided the U.S Department of Justice with the legal rights to sue both local and state government if students in detention centres were being denied their civil rights, such as the right to education, under the 14th Amendment.. This emphasised the states role in providing quality education for youths behind bars, by providing legal ramifications if those standards were not met. This came to be used in 1998 when the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Louisiana for not providing adequate educational services for incarcerated youths, such as providing special education which they previously had not been doing. Eventually, in 2000 the Department of Justice filed an agreement on how the state of Louisiana could take steps to improve. This set a responsibility for all states to maintain a good standard of education for those housed in correction centres. The importance of prison education was further emphasised with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) passed in 2001. This specifically applied to juveniles within detention centres, implementing requirements for states that were receiving federal funding for education. The NCLBA required schools in juvenile centres to evaluate student achievement, through the introduction of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as well as requiring all teachers to be highly qualified. However, many studies have shown that states are only making small progress to implement NCLBA requirements. One study has shown that at least 19 states did not include juvenile detention centres in their AYP assessments. There have been little consequences for failure to meet these standards, with no court action being taken, and the strictest consequence being removal of grants.

Administrative Changes
Different presidential administrations have taken different approaches on how to organise education reform policies. Early on in his second term, the Obama administration published “Guiding Principles for Providing High Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Care Settings”, in joint effort with the Departments of Justice and Education. This was done to affirm the government’s responsibility to provide incarcerated youths with the necessitates to re-enter into society after they leave the carceral system, and be prepared to enter the community as a productive citizen. This initiative was done to address the gap boys and specifically boys of colour face in gaining opportunities. Correctional Education Guidance Packages were provided to states through the Department of Justice and Education, describing how youths within juvenile facilities can now apply for Pell grants, and prohibiting discriminatory educational practises especially for those students with learning difficulties. Five principles were set out by the guidance packages on how to provide good quality education within the carceral system; a safe healthy climate that prioritizes education, necessary funding to boost educational opportunities, recruitment of qualified education staff, relevant curricula and formal procedures to ensure successful reentry. However, in 2015, The Council of State Governments Justice Centre found that 15 states did not have the same standard of education for those within the juvenile detention centres as those in public schools in the same state. Towards the end of Obama’s administration Amy Lopez was hired as the first superintendent of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ school district. Studies have shown that inmates who participate in the educational programmes while incarcerated have significantly lower odds of reoffending on the outside. In addition, for ever dollar spent on prison education, four to five dollars are saved on the cost of recidivism. Alongside the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), new education reforms, such as building a school district within the federal prison system, blending face-to-face learning through technology such as mobile tablets, were put in place in an attempt to reduce the reoffending rate. The Trump administration have since reduced the focus of juvenile detention educational policies. In 2017, Trump fired Amy Lopez, the superintendent previously hired by Obama to oversee the standard of education provided to incarcerated youths. Additionally, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who worked under the Trump administration, pushed for a focus on punitive measures and treating repeat youth offenders as adults, focusing on stronger punishment rather than rehabilitation through schemes such as educational programmes. Trump has funded some expansion of prison education, such as Ashland University in Ohio. Ashland was selected by Trump's Department of Education to receive federal financial aid to provide correctional education programmes. Since the funding, Ashland University has spread to more than 100 prisons and jails in 13 states providing educational services via tablets. Despite this positive step towards progress, the Trump administration has done little else to further any improvements to educational programmes available in juvenile detention.

Juvenile Educational Facts and Disparities
There are around 2.2 million people in prisons in the United States, with over 60,000 of those being juveniles in detention centres. This makes the USA the leader for the number of incarcerated youths, with over a half a million youths going through the prison system annually. The United States rate of juvenile incarceration is three times that of any other developed country. Youth confinement peaked in 1995, however,it has since been indecline due to lower arrest rates and change in approaches to nonviolent crimes committed by youths. International recommendations for the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 years old, whereas in the USA some states are as low as 6. Among those held in juvenile detention centres in 2011, about 86% were boys. Racial disparities also occur within the system, 40% of those within detention centres were Black, and 23% Hispanic. African American youths are five times more likely to be incarcerated in comparison to white youths of the same age. In addition to this, about 30% of those in juvenile detention centres in 2011 were under the age of 16, 55% aged 16 to 17, and 14% were aged 18 to 20. Juvenile offenders are much more likely to come from challenging circumstances, with a much higher chance of emotional problems and substance abuse, which typically come with low academic skills. Averages reading age for youth offenders is estimated to be at fourth-grade level. The importance of prison education can be emphasised by the fact that inmates of any age that participate in any form of higher education are half as likely to reoffend as their counterparts who do not participate.

There is no consistent standard of education across all states. the current standard in some juvenile detention centres does not meet the general state standard for public schools. Many detention centres face the struggles of overcrowding, abuse, and inadequate services. Most detention centres only provide short and infrequent classes, while some centres don’t have separate classrooms and are provided with sparse materials. that are more often not suited to the level or need of the users. Data collected by the US Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights shows that pupils within juvenile detention centres only receive 25 hours of instructional time per week, receiving 8 fewer hours than the 33 hours given in public schools. The classes available for incarcerated youths are less broad than those available at public schools. For example, between 2013 and 2014, only 8% of juvenile facilities offered physics, 28% offered algebra and 48% offered geometry., compared to the 60% availability of physics, 78% offering algebra and 84% offering geometry in public high schools This limits the students within correctional facilities ability to achieve high school diplomas as subjects such as geometry and algebra are often required to pass in many states. Additionally, teachers are not required to meet the general qualification standards and are not required to have advanced degrees or trained in special education, with some not being trained on how to teach in a correctional facility. Most incarcerated youths are typically two or more years behind those of the same age outside of the system. Those that are placed in solitary confinement are often left to go without little to no schoolwork at all. It is nearly impossible to accurately give a number to how many children are in solitary at any given time, with even less ability to tell if they are being provided education while in solitary. The Correctional Education Association released suggested standards in 2014 for educational programmes within prisons, however these were only suggestions and therefore not widely adopted. The disparities in education for youths inside the carceral system and out have yet to be fixed.

Disabled Education
The proportion of incarcerated youths with special educational needs is much higher than in public schools. Approximately 10% of youths in public schools are identified as disabled, compared to the 30 to 50% of incarcerated youths identified with disabilities. Varied sources indicate that the amount of juveniles with disabilities in prison far exceeds the amount within the general population. Studies have shown that while the median age for juveniles within a detention centre is 15.5 years old, the average reading age for the juveniles was of a fourth-grade level. Youths with disabilities are much more likely to be faced by issues that will increase their chances of being placed in a correctional facility, such as poorly developed social skills or the appropriate ability to respond to questions, thus increasing the concentration of juveniles in detention centres with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), passed under the different name Education for All Handicapped Children in 1975 and later renamed in 1990, made it a legal obligation for states that were receiving funding for disabled students to make sure all eligible students are receiving a free appropriate public education. Any child with a disability between the ages of 3 and 22, including those held within the carceral system, are entitled to the correct and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment available. Any state accepting a federal grant must identify inmates who qualify as disabled and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and implement the necessary services, such as speech therapy and counselling. In 1983, the Division of Personnel Preparation as part of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services funded the Correctional Special Education Training Project to identify good special educational programmes, and personnel who could be leaders for correctional education to gain knowledge on how to provide a good standard of special education to those that need it. Despite this, special education in juvenile detention centres often meet very little of the standards set by IDEA and no model method of special education is provided. One example of this was seen in a study of southern correctional facilities where 70% of children qualified for special education, however, only 30% were receiving the required services. Additionally, only 46% of those diagnosed with a learning disability reported receiving special education while in prison nationwide. Teachers are not trained in special education, and often the required evaluations to determine if they qualify for special education are not being completed. The lack of communication and coordination between an inmates school and their correctional facility mean that often there is a big delay in receiving their IEP, and often they do not receive the same standard of services. Many lawsuits have been filed against states for not meeting the required IDEA standards, with over thirty being filed since 1975. The standard for disabled education is held to the same level as the general education provided within juvenile detention centres, with no Individualised Education Programmes being designed to help fit students’  needs. Juvenile detention centres struggle to provide the right foundations to support disabled inmates, as they cannot always access the systems needed, such as the lack of processes to evaluate inmates for disabilities, no support structures like parents or guardians, as well as the lack of services organised for disabled youths being released into the community. Shortages of trained staff, lack of money and a lack of effective transition strategies from community to prison or back to community, also put barriers up for the improvement of disabled carceral education.