reading and written language competency of incarcerated youth

This article was downloaded by: [Kristine Melloy]On: 23 January 2014, At: 16:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming LearningDifficultiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

Reading and Written LanguageCompetency of IncarceratedYouthDiana Rogers-Adkinson a , Kristine Melloy b , ShannonStuart a , Lynn Fletcher c & Claudia Rinaldi da University of Wisconsin-Whitewater , Whitewater,Wisconsin, USAb Cristo Rey Jesuit High School , Minneapolis,Minnesota, USAc Ethan Allen Boys School , Wales, Wisconsin, USAd Boston College , Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USAPublished online: 27 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Diana Rogers-Adkinson , Kristine Melloy , Shannon Stuart , LynnFletcher & Claudia Rinaldi (2008) Reading and Written Language Competency ofIncarcerated Youth, Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,24:2, 197-218, DOI: 10.1080/10573560701808502

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560701808502

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10573560701808502

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560701808502

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

READING AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE COMPETENCYOF INCARCERATED YOUTH

Diana Rogers-Adkinson

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA

Kristine Melloy

Cristo Rey Jesuit High School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Shannon Stuart

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA

Lynn Fletcher

Ethan Allen Boys School, Wales, Wisconsin, USA

Claudia Rinaldi

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA

This article explores the reading and written language competency ofincarcerated youth and examines the role that literacy plays in recidi-vism. Suggestions for practice include reading and written languagecurricular strategies that have empirical validation with this population.

Address correspondence to Diana Rogers-Adkinson, Department of Special Education,University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 800 Main Street, Whitewater, WI 53190, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24: 197–218, 2008Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1057-3569 print=1521-0693 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10573560701808502

197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Numerous federal initiatives (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001[NCLB]; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of2004 [IDEA]) require students in the United States to demonstratebasic competencies in reading and writing. For public schools, failureto meet the performance indicators such as basic literacy mandatedthrough NCLB can result in sanctions such as loss of federal funds.Overall, some school assessment data suggest that school improve-ment may be occurring related to reading and writing competenceas a result of these initiatives (Smith, 2005). Yet, for one segmentof society, youths in the juvenile justice system, basic literacy is anever-increasing problem. Research suggests that a failure to developbasic reading and written language skills may be primary predictorsof later incarceration (Drakeford, 2002; Pell, 1994). The purposesof this article are to explore the links among literacy, incarceration,and recidivism; as well as provide suggestions to improve basicskills for incarcerated youths, with an emphasis on reading andwritten language curriculum that have been empirically validatedwith this population.

The functional literacy of incarcerated youth has consistently beenidentified as below that of their same age peers (Foley, 2001).Specifically, in a meta-analysis of studies from 1975 to 1999, Foleyexplored the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents andfound the average reading level to be between the fourth and seventhgrade. In addition, Katsiyannis and Archwamety (1999) found thatrecidivists had lower levels of academic achievement with an averageof seventh grade reading levels, while non-recidivists (i.e., formerlyincarcerated youth who have been released and not re-offended)were reading at eighth and ninth grade levels. Baltodano, Harris,and Rutherford (2005) also reported literacy rates of incarceratedyouth in reading and math to be between seventh and ninth gradelevels and overall standard scores to be below typical age peers.In addition, ethnic minorities who were incarcerated, including chil-dren from African-American and Hispanic backgrounds, scored onaverage 10 points lower in standard scores of achievement thannon-minority Caucasian incarcerated youth (Baltodano, Harris, &Rutherford, 2005).

Finally, the problem of low literacy levels among juveniledelinquent youth is further compounded by the fact that between28 and 43 percent of incarcerated youth are students with disabilities(Winters, 1997). This represents a much higher rate of disabilitieswhen compared to a typical school population, where five to tenpercent of the student population has been identified as havingdisabilities (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2006).

198 D. Rogers-Adkinson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

LITERACY OF INCARCERATED YOUTH

Although poor reading and writing skills paired with overall pooracademic performance are not necessarily direct causes of criminalactivity, adolescents who have deficits in these areas are disproportio-nately represented in correctional facilities (Drakeford, 2002). In fact,it is suggested that the lack of functional literacy is perhaps thestrongest common denominator among individuals in corrections.Evidence shows a correlation among low education attainment,low literacy levels, and high levels of adjudication and recidivism(Drakeford, 2002). Further, research suggests that often these youngadults are reading below the fourth grade level and are deemedfunctionally illiterate (Hodges, Giulotti, & Porpotage, 1994). Thedocumentation of illiteracy in juvenile offenders dates back over 30years, as documented in Mulligan’s work (1969). He noted that asignificant number of children with reading disabilities were beingreferred for delinquent tendencies such as truancy, running away,and acting out. Specifically, only 28% of the referred delinquentswere reading within two grade levels of their grade placement, while72% were reading significantly below their grade level. Mulliganviewed these delinquents as facing successive failures throughouttheir school years and in turn becoming increasingly frustrated. Asa recourse, the students gained more recognition from acting outnot only in the classroom but also in society, resulting in a higher riskof incarceration (Mulligan, 1969).

Miller and Windhauser (1971) researched comparable characteri-stics between students with reading disabilities and students thatwere considered delinquent. They concluded that juvenile offenderswith reading disabilities were likely to have poor academic skilladjustment. As part of their poor adjustment, these students hadthe tendency to be insecure and anxious about school as a resultof their previous school failures. Failing to fulfill their basic needs(e.g., belonging), students would seek satisfaction through delin-quent behaviors. Delinquents with poor reading skills were alsomore likely to have low self-esteem. Even if students entered schoolwith positive self-esteem, over time students with insufficient read-ing skills, as measured by a standardized rating scale, eventuallydeveloped lower levels of self-esteem. Finally, students with delin-quent tendencies who displayed reading disabilities experiencedlow frustration tolerance. When these students did not achieveacademically because of poorly developed listening skills, theyturned to nonacademic challenges including delinquent acts (Miller& Windhauser, 1971).

Reading and Writing Competency 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Current work confirms these seminal studies. Archwamety andKatsiyannis (2000) examined the records of 505 delinquent malescommitted to a state correctional facility during a seven-year periodto determine the relationship between remedial services and recurringcriminal activity. For each of the seven years, three groups wereidentified: one group receiving remediation in math, one receivingremediation in reading, and one receiving no remediation. Predictorsof remedial group membership included verbal IQ, race, and age offirst commitment. Members of the remedial groups were twiceas likely to be recidivists or parole violators as members of thenon-remedial group.

Brunner (1993) surveyed the reading programs of 260 correctionalfacilities across the nation. Results indicated that 89% of correctionalfacilities housed students who required remediation in reading andwriting skills. Results of the survey also indicated that teachers incorrectional systems lacked knowledge of effective strategies usedto remediate or prevent reading disabilities. In addition, the majorityof teachers did not use systematic phonics instruction, even thoughthis has been found to be the most effective strategy for teachingstudents who cannot decode accurately and fluently. Instead of aphonics approach, teachers used sight word and other visualapproaches with students who were having difficulty recognizingspeech sounds (Brunner, 1993; Florida Department of Educationand Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2001).

Corrections personnel assert that the lack of time available tocomplete a comprehensive assessment or receive educational recordsis the cause of poor educational results in juvenile corrections.Malmgren and Leone (2000) have attempted to rebut this assertionby utilizing the Corrective Reading model created by ScienceResearch Associates (Engelmann, 1988) to implement a quality,intensive intervention program. Results indicated a significant gainin reading ability within a limited amount of time for the populationstudied with only a six-week intervention protocol.

Keith and McCray (2002) researched major issues and challengesfor juvenile offenders who had histories of dropping out of school,difficulty with employment, and returned to detention facilities fornew offenses. Their research was based on the presumption thatwhile achieving literacy skills is seen as crucial in the early years ofinstruction, there is evidence that a substantial number of adolescentyouths still lack functional literacy skills. They report that poor read-ing skills directly contribute to the disadvantages affecting com-petence and growth of academic skills in adolescents. Further, highschool-aged youths with deficient reading skills experienced restricted


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

opportunities, both within the school environment and within thecommunity. They concluded that treatment programs in the juvenilejustice system do not fully remediate deficient reading skills in youthwith reading disabilities, possibly leading to a higher incidence ofjuvenile offenses and recidivism among this population.

COST OF CORRECTIONS

Illiteracy is rapidly growing in the United States, with 44 millionpeople currently experiencing serious reading difficulties (NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, 2003). Of this national sample,25% of the total prison population had reading deficits of some kind.The average cost for incarcerating an adolescent today is $28,600.Because of illiteracy and other academic and social achievement def-icits, specialized education and related services for these youths costapproximately between $29,600 and $62,966 per youth per the aver-age 15-month stay (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003).In addition, due to adolescent crime, millions of dollars are spentannually by insurance companies to pay for personal and corporatelosses related to theft (National Center for Educational Statistics,2003). Also, it is important to note that due to illiteracy, many adultsand adolescents returning to society from prison and juvenile justicesystems have difficulty finding employment (Keith & McCray, 2002).

GENERAL FOCUS ON DEVELOPMENTALREADING SKILLS IN PROGRAMMING

A number of studies have documented that incarcerated youth havevery poor reading skills (Bullis, Yovanoff, Mueller, & Havel, 2002;Collier & Thomas, 2001; Taymans & Corley, 2001). One nationalstudy of youths in correctional facilities reported an average readinglevel of fourth grade (Brunner, 1993). Another study of juveniles in amidwest detention facility found the youths to be about four yearsbehind grade level in reading comprehension (Rincker, Reilly, &Braaten, 1990). Additionally, incarcerated youths may also presentadditional risk factors of limited English proficiency, limitedunderstanding of dominant cultural knowledge, and interrupted orinadequate education. Youths who come from these challengingbackgrounds are often farther behind their peers in their education.As with all instruction for youths and adults, especially thosewith low literacy levels, educational programs that tailor instructionto reflect learners’ goals are more likely to be effective (Leone,Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel, 2005).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

The relation between inmates’ educational achievement in prisonand post-release recidivism was examined in Texas’ Windham SchoolDistrict. More than 25,000 inmates were tracked in the communityafter their release from prison to determine the number re-incarceratedafter two years and how educational achievement during their mostrecent incarceration may have impacted their recidivism (Karpowitz& Kenner, 2000). In general, inmates with higher levels of educationtended to have lower recidivism rates. Inmates with a ninth gradeeducation or higher had an 18% lower recidivism rate than thosewith a fourth grade education or lower. The largest decrease in recidi-vism rates occurred when high-risk inmates (i.e., young propertyoffenders) who were nonreaders became readers. Youths who werereleased and had earned GEDs in prison displayed lower recidivismrates than those who were released who did not obtain GEDs (Crimi-nal Justice Policy Council, 2000).

READING PERFORMANCE OF INCARCERATEDAND LESS SKILLED YOUTHS

One potential mechanism to reduce crime and recidivism then is toprovide quality education services with a strong emphasis on literacyto incarcerated youths. Evidence suggests a correlation between loweducation attainment, low literacy levels, and high levels of crimeand recidivism (Newman, Lewis, & Beverstock, 1993; Tewksbury &Vito, 1994). Brunner (1993) developed a profile of reading programsfor incarcerated juvenile offenders between the ages of 13 and 18years of age. Questionnaires were sent to 260 participating correc-tional facilities and 145 teachers responded. Results indicated that89% of the teachers had students who required remediation in read-ing and writing skills. Results of the survey also indicated thatmany teachers in the correctional system lacked knowledge ofeffective strategies to prevent reading disabilities.

Systematic Phonics Instruction

Brunner (1993) reports that although experimental research identifiedthe use of systematic phonics instruction as the most effective strategyfor teaching students who cannot decode accurately and fluently, themajority of teachers in the juvenile facilities were not teaching simpledecoding strategies to the students. Rather, they were using sightword and other visual approaches with students who were havingdifficulty recognizing speech sounds. Brunner recommended that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

teachers focus on literacy deficits using intensive, systematic phonicsinstruction when remediating the reading of juvenile offenders.

Drakeford (2002) investigated the impact of a systematic, intensiveprogram to increase literacy skills of juveniles in corrections. A mul-tiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate theeffectiveness of an intensive literacy program aimed at increasingthe literacy skills of incarcerated youth. Six participants receivedone-hour of direct instruction with corrective reading materials threetimes a week, for eight weeks. The study demonstrated that readingskills of youths in corrections could improve given the opportunityto learn in a structured environment with direct instruction in specificareas of need. In addition to positive results for reading fluency, find-ings demonstrated that the corrective reading technique improvedstudent placement levels and attitude toward reading. By the end ofthe study, most participants expressed interest in returning to school,finding employment, reading independently, and obtaining generaleducation development certificates (GEDs).

Phonetic instruction currently is seen as the base of interventionfor children requiring tertiary level reading interventions as identifiedby No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004. These children experience phonologicalprocessing difficulties and typically require the most extensive inter-vention (Kamps & Greenwood, 2005). Most often, interventionoccurs through the use of structured direct instruction curriculasuch as Reading Mastery (Bruner & Engelmann, nd), ProgrammedReading (Buchanan, nd), or Corrective Reading (Engelmann,Carnine, & Johnson, 1999). Direct instruction models are the mostlabor- and cost-intensive, but also the most necessary for studentswho are experiencing serious reading difficulties. The structure ofthese models requires implementation of the curriculum at each stu-dent’s instructional level; therefore, students are typically groupedbased upon ability.

Direct instruction models for teaching emphasize well-developedand carefully planned lessons designed around small learning incre-ments and clearly defined and prescribed teaching tasks. Directinstruction models are based on the theory that clear instructioneliminating misinterpretations can greatly improve and acceleratelearning (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). The essential componentsof direct instruction are as follows: setting clear goals for studentsand making sure they understand these goals; presenting a sequenceof well-organized assignments; giving students clear, concise expla-nations and illustrations of the subject matter; asking frequent ques-tions to see if students understand the work; and giving students


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

frequent opportunities to practice what they have learned (Lovett,Steinback, & Frijters, 2000). Direct instruction incorporates soundblending and word division skills in systematic, structured sequenceswith multiple repetitions to ensure mastery. In addition, wordidentification strategies are taught, and include seeking the part ofthe word that is known, attempting variable vowel pronunciations,and removing prefixes and suffixes in multi-syllabic words (Lovettet al., 2000).

Sight Word Recognition

Sight words are words that are known so well that they can be readinstantaneously. Words that should be recognized by sight are thosethat are most useful when they cannot be sounded out or do notfollow word analysis rules (National Institute for Literacy, 2006).Building word recognition skills involves increasing the number ofwords that a reader can recognize automatically. If wordrecognition for a large number of words can be made automatic, thenreading will be easier, and readers will be more likely to keep up withpeers as reading levels increase. A reader with a large sight wordvocabulary will be able to instantly identify words without havingto sound out the words. Instant word recognition by sight greatlyincreases reading fluency and reading comprehension.

Ehri (1997) proposed that automatic (fluent) sight word readingis dependent on a complete analysis of a word accomplished byforming ‘‘connections between graphemes seen in the spellings ofspecific words and phonemes detected in their pronunciations’’(pp. 169–170). Ehri and Wilce (1983) found that less skilled readersdo not form these complete connections. The research in sight wordrecognition of less skilled readers most often focuses upon childrenwith moderate or more severe mental retardation. The emphasis isoften on key survival words and functional reading ability (Mosley,Flynt, & Morton, 1997). The format of instruction is similar to pho-nics curriculum in that a direct instruction model is employed topromote retention and mastery (Schloss, Alper, Young, Arnold-Reid, Aylward, & Dudenhoeffer, 1995). In addition, the generaliza-tion of acquired skills is addressed through practice in multipleenvironments.

Oral Reading

Currently one of the most validated practices to develop oralreading skills is through the use of guided oral reading techniques


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

(National Reading Panel, 2000). Guided oral reading relies on ateacher or peer reading a passage aloud while modeling fluent reading.Then the student rereads the text quietly and independently, some-times several times. The text should be at the student’s independentreading level, defined as words that the student can read at 95% accu-racy. Independent reading level can be determined by a standardizedassessment, such as The Gray Oral Reading Test (Wiederholt &Bryant, 2001), or via an informal reading inventory. For an informalreading inventory, the instructor would administer a word recognitionword list using a grade level word, starting at two years below studentage or approximate grade (Burns & Roe, 2002). The inventory wouldstop when the student misses more than 20% of the words on the list.The student would then read aloud from a graded series of passages,starting one level below the highest level the student has passed. Foreach passage, the instructor tallies the miscues and asks five to tenliteral and inferential comprehension questions. The student’sindependent reading level is the highest level at which he=she reads99–100% of the words accurately and answers at least 90% of thequestions correctly (Burns & Roe, 2002).

The next step using a guided oral reading technique involves hav-ing the student read and reread the same passage aloud, several times.Guided oral reading techniques require numerous repetitions of spe-cific text to promote fluency in the reading process (Reitsma, 1988).Fluency is critical in reading intervention, as students who are experi-encing low fluency rates have more difficulty recalling and integratingread text with previous knowledge. To date, this method has beenfound to be successful with students with a functional reading levelup to fifth grade and for students who are diagnosed with multipledisabilities, such as learning and emotional disabilities (Therrien &Kubina, 2006).

The implementation of guided oral reading may occur with ateacher or trained tutor. Students are provided text and performancecriterion that match the child’s instructional level (Hasbrouck &Tindal, 1992). For example, a third grade student reading at thatinstructional reading level would be expected to read 114 correctwords per minute. As students read, they are provided correctivefeedback when they mispronounce or omit words, or hesitate whilereading. This feedback process requires the instructor to state thecorrect word and then have the students repeat it to the instructorcorrectly. Students are provided feedback at the end of each session,including how much time they spent reading the passage and thenumber of errors they made. Comparison to past performance is alsoshared to recognize improvement (Therrien, 2004).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Comprehension Skills

Methods for teaching comprehension typically include multiplecomponents, such as using direct instruction paired with other skillsdevelopment strategies (e.g., peer tutoring or creating graphic repre-sentations of acquired knowledge). These methods integrate strategiesthat address most of the factors that lead to comprehension diffi-culties, including decoding, fluency, understanding words in context,and applying prior knowledge to the text (Vaughn & Edmonds,2006). Specifically to increase comprehension, Collaborative StrategicReading (CSR) has been used with children and adolescents withlearning disabilities, second language learners, and low-achieving stu-dents with positive effects for all groups (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996;Klingner, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001; Vaughn,Klingner, & Bryant, 2001). The method employs a collaborative peermodel that groups students of varying reading levels. These groupsthen read text and use prompting methods they have been taughtto develop application of strategic reading practices. The strategicreading component of CSR employs strategies such as previewing,monitoring of difficult words or text that does not make sense tothe reader, restatement of the content, summarization, and predictionof what might be testable material. Specific lesson activities thataddress these components include having students deliver an oralpresentation of the content to the class, followed by creating a mini-quiz on the presentation. This forces the students to prioritize infor-mation and focus on what they believe the group should master.Finally, CSR integrates graphic organizers such as Venn and conceptdiagrams or semantic maps to assist with key vocabulary andconcept development (Vaughn & Edmonds, 2006). Table 1 providesadditional feedback regarding effective reading curriculum forincarcerated youth.

WRITTEN LANGUAGE

The research reviewed to this point relates to reading interventionand assisting incarcerated youth in becoming competent readers. Inthis section, a brief review of the literature on written language com-petency of incarcerated youth is presented. The review includes ideasfor intervention designed to improve the written language abilities ofyouths who are incarcerated.

Although there is a significant body of research available relatedto the reading competency of incarcerated youths, there is a relati-vely limited amount of research regarding the written language


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

competencies of this population. The available research on writtenlanguage tends to be embedded in studies on academic achieve-ment of incarcerated youth (Baltodano et al., 2005; Foley, 2001;

Table 1. Components of reading intervention

Key componentsof intervention Indicators Possible curriculum

Culturallysensitive

Materials include contentrepresentative of students’cultural history

The Individualized Reading Program:combines direct instruction,alphabetic principles, andnarratives that address theemotional concerns and interestsof inner city children.

Meaningfulto youth

Content is relevant to studentslife and home environment

Plugged Into Reading (Allen, 2002)designed to motivate strugglingolder readers.

Includes a blend of teacher-directedinstruction, peer-supportedlearning, and independent reading,using high-interest texts, detailedlesson plans, and professionallynarrated audio books.

Remedialcomponents

Developmental gaps inknowledge are expected andaddressed throughsupplemental curriculummaterials

Lindamood-Bell is remedial programfor severe reading disabilities withan emphasis on auditory processingdifficulties (Adair et al., 2000).

Promotesmastery

Positive reinforcement systemsare incorporated ininstructional strategies

The Strategic Instruction Model isa comprehensive approach gearedtoward adolescents. Focus is onbeing able to read and understandlarge volumes of complex, difficultreading materials. (University ofKansas Center for Research onLearning, 2004).

Highly engaging Primary reading level materials(G.E. 1–5) adapted toage-appropriate content andinterests

The 100 Book Challenge is asupplemental program integrateindependent reading with coreprograms (American ReadingCompany, 2006).

Inclusive andrespectful

Avoids middle classrepresentations of families;includes awareness ofpoverty, limits of resourcesof students and familieswithin the curriculum,varying models of familysystems

Reading workshop providesmulti-level instruction, includinginstructional read-aloud; settingindividual reading goals;mini-lessons; student-to-studenttesting; and reading journals(Peterson & Hittie, 2003).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Keith & McCray, 2002; Lederman, Dakof, Larrea, & Li, 2004;Reiter, 1982; Unruh & Bullis, 2005). Lane (2004) was able to locateonly one study that met criteria on literacy skills of youth withemotional behavioral disorders (EBD) in her literature review. Leoneand others (2005) stated that their review of studies on literacy andyouth who were incarcerated revealed that these youth would benefitsignificantly from instruction in literacy skills. The authors went onto say that there is little evidence that literacy skill instruction isprovided in schools within correctional settings.

Even though there is a paucity of research on effective interventionsfor teaching written language to youth who are incarcerated, severalfindings stand out that aid educators in understanding the needs ofincarcerated youth in this area. First, both females and males whoare incarcerated demonstrate academic deficits in literacy (Baltodanoet al., 2005; Foley, 2001; Lederman et al., 2004). Typically, theseyouths come from socio-economic disadvantaged backgrounds, andthe majority of incarcerated youth are from ethnic minority back-grounds (Baltodano et al., 2005; Keith & McCray, 2002). Also, thispopulation is more likely to have disabilities (e.g., emotional beha-vioral disorders, learning disabilities) than youths who are not incar-cerated (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Baltodano et al., 2005;Keith & McCray, 2002). Poor academic achievement, including writ-ten language, is predictive of recidivism (Archwamety & Katsiyannis,2000). It is crucial then that in addition to addressing social andadaptive needs within educational programs in correctional settings,interventions designed to improve written language skills need to beculturally sensitive and able to address a diverse population of youth(Keith & McCray, 2002). To this end, Keith and McCray (2002) sug-gested that educators ‘‘teach literacy skills from an understandingof the cultural context from which adolescents have grown anddeveloped’’ (p. 700) if they want to assist these youth in academicachievement. According to Foley (2001), the interventions also needto be remedial in nature, as the majority of youths who are incarcer-ated demonstrate written language skill levels significantly belowtheir peers who are not incarcerated.

FUNCTIONAL WRITING SKILLS

Written language competency is comprised of acquisition, perform-ance, and fluency in writing skills (e.g., Minnesota GraduationStandards, [Minnesota Department of Education, 2003]). Foley(2001) noted that youths who are incarcerated were significantly lesscompetent in written language skills than their peers who were not


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

incarcerated. For example, youths who were incarcerated performedpoorly on standardized tests of written language, had more difficultywith writing compositions, and used poor sentence construction intheir writing. Effective academic interventions that promote academ-ic achievement, including written language competency, are needed toimprove outcomes for incarcerated youths, including goals such asreducing recidivism rates, acquiring and maintaining meaningfulemployment, and achievement of personal life goals (Lederman etal., 2004; Unruh & Bullis, 2005).

WRITTEN LANGUAGE COMPETENCY: EFFECTIVEINTERVENTIONS

To positively effect academic achievement of incarcerated youths, theinterventions must be culturally sensitive, meaningful to the youths,remedial if needed, and designed to teach to mastery level of writingskills; as well as actively engage youth in the learning process and beoffered in school climates that are inclusive and respectful (Delpit,1995; Foley, 2001; Keith & McCray, 2002; Reiter, 1982). Thefollowing curriculum models and interventions take these criteriainto account.

Written Language Curriculum

Academic programs for incarcerated youths need to include curricu-lum that includes written language instruction (Foley, 2001; Keith &McCray, 2002). Ehren (2005) provides a model for a ‘‘ContentLiteracy Continuum’’ that includes a school-wide approach toimproving adolescent literacy. This approach includes strategyinstruction and intensive basic skills development and may proveeffective in promoting overall academic achievement for youthswho are incarcerated. Ehren (2005) suggests that this continuumincludes interventions that engage youth in meaningful, relevant,results-oriented work—all components that have led to academicsuccess for incarcerated youth (Foley, 2001; Keith & McCray, 2002).

Instructional MethodsInstructional methods such as instruction and tutoring in written lan-guage skills have been found to be effective (Foley, 2001; Hinterer,2002) in improving the writing skills of youth who are incarcerated.The ‘‘Strategic Instruction Model’’ (i.e., learning strategies)developed by Deshler, Ellis, and Lenz (as cited in Foley, 2001) waseffective in improving writing skills of incarcerated youth. Table 2


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

provides examples of the writing learning strategies within this model,including explanations of each. Table 3 provides a summary of thekey terms related to their use.

Guided NotesGuided notes are ‘‘teacher-prepared handouts that ‘guide’ a studentthrough a presentation with standard cues and prepared space in whichto write the key facts, concepts, and=or relationships’’ (Heward, 1994,

Table 2. Strategic writing models

Model Components

The Sentence Writing Strategy(Fundamentals); The SentenceWriting Strategy (Proficiency)

Components include strategies for recognizing andwriting 14 sentence patterns with four types ofsentences: simple, compound, complex, andcompound-complex.

Paragraph Writing Strategy Components include strategies for organizing ideasrelated to a topic, planning the point of view andverb tense to be used in the paragraph, planningthe sequence in which ideas will be expressed,and writing a variety of topic, detail, and clinchersentences.

Theme Writing Focuses on the fundamental skills associated withwriting themes and provides learning sheets toaccompany instruction.

Error Monitoring Strategy Develop students’ ability to independently detect andcorrect errors in their written work and increasethe overall quality of their final product. Stressesthe importance of proofreading and mechanicalerrors.

SPECT Strategy Focuses on detection and correction of spellingerrors by using a computerized spellcheckeror a hand-held spelling device.

Source: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (2004).

Table 3. Key terms

Direct instruction A model that emphasizes carefully planned and prescribedteaching lessons presented in small skill increments

Functional literacy Minimal reading and written language skills that promotecompetence in society

Illiteracy Inability to read or write for functional daily useOral reading Text is read aloud by peer or teacher model, followed by the

student reading the same text aloudRecidivism Commission of a new offense following release from

a term of imprisonment resulting in a new convictionand return to prison


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

p. 304). Hamilton, Seibert, Gardner, and Talbert-Johnson (2000) con-ducted a study to determine if guided notes would assist incarceratedyouths in academic achievement. The results of the study indicated thatthe use of guided notes helped the participants improve their note-takingskills. In addition, six of the seven students in the study improved theirquiz scores when guided notes were used. The guided notes strategyengaged the learners, required use of written language, and resulted inbetter grades in content area subjects (e.g., social studies).

Graphic OrganizersGraphic organizers consist of ‘‘visual portrayals or illustrationsthat depict relationships among the key concepts taken fromthe learning task’’ (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002, p. 306). Figure 1presents a visual representation of the organization of this article.The use of graphic organizers to improve literacy levels within adiverse population of school aged students was also found to beeffective (Griffin, Malone, & Kame’enui, 1995; Griffin, Simmons,& Kame’enui, 1991; Griffin & Tulbert, 1995; Institute for theAdvancement of Research in Education, 2003). Although studies

Figure 1. Semantic map.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

pertaining to the use of graphic organizers to promote written lan-guage comprehension of incarcerated youths are not available, thisstrategy has been proven effective with youth with disabilities (e.g.,LD; see Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Lerner, 1997). Because manyyouths who are incarcerated have disabilities, the use of graphicorganizers could be effective in improving writing assignments.Some software products (e.g., Inspiration Software, 2003, whichwas used to produce Figure 1) provide a powerful tool for creatinggraphic organizers to assist in the writing process. This hands-onlearning tool is useful in developing graphic organizers that helpstudents generate quality written projects, including research papers,presentations, and reports.

Dialogue JournalsA strategy that improved the expressive writing skills of youth withEBD is the use of dialogue journals (Regan, Mastropieri, & Scruggs,2005). These journals are an interactive process in which a student isprovided an informal prompt (i.e. ‘‘My goals for when I am ‘on theouts’ are . . . .’’). The students then use their natural prose to explorethe topic. The teacher then responds to students about the contentasking for clarification or providing other thoughts regardingstudents’ responses. According to Regan, Mastropieri and Scruggs(2005), the length of writing and the quality of writing improvedwhen the dialogue journals were employed with youths with EBD.Because many youths who are incarcerated are also labeled EBD, thisstudy provides evidence that support the use of dialogue journalswith incarcerated youths to improve their expressive writing skills.

DISCUSSION

It is difficult to design and implement high quality reading andwritten language programs in correctional facilities. The average stayfor youths in detention facilities is between fifteen and thirty-sevendays (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Youths in more secure restrictivesettings have a typical of stay of 180 days (U.S. Department ofJustice, 2001). This alone creates a barrier for successful educationalremediation while incarcerated. Also, adjudicated youths are oftenresistant to remedial educational interventions, having faced previousschool failure. Attendance in school programming may be seen asan avenue for interaction with other inmates rather than a tool forself-improvement.

Finally, the materials required for students to make sufficient pro-gress are often expensive and beyond correctional facilities’ budgets


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

(Leone, Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel, 2005). Because correctionalfacilities are responsible for the inmates’ safety as well as for provid-ing work and educational programs, security issues tend to takeprecedence over educational programs (Taymans & Corley, 2001).Security also impacts classes, as they may be cancelled at the discre-tion of the correctional facility. Students typically may have access tobooks and notebooks only inside the classroom, and the use of tech-nology may be limited. Absenteeism is also a barrier, as movementwithin the facility and transfer to other facilities, court dates,probation, and attorney and family visits often interfere with partici-pation in educational programs (LoBuglio, 2000).

Despite these barriers, the importance of educational programs incorrectional facilities must be emphasized. Several studies support thecorrelation of earning a high school diploma or GED with lowerrates of return to the correctional system (Ambrose & Lester, 1988;Brier, 1994) and higher rates of employment in the community(Black, Brush, Grow, Hawes, Henry, & Hinkle, 1996). Further,Lipsey and Wilson (1998) report that intervention programs focusedon structured learning, school achievement, and job skills can reducerecidivism. Forming personal connections with instructors is difficultin correctional facilities; however, incarcerated youth perceive thatpersonal associations with individual academic or work-programstaff were critical for their successful adjustment in the community(Todis, Bullis, D’Ambrosio, Schultz, & Waintrup, 2001).

It is clear that the needs for a strong literacy program are impera-tive to success for incarcerated youths. Numerous barriers to theimplementation of effective curriculum have been identified, with costand length of stay being most salient to most juvenile facilities. Yet,what is also clear is that the long-term societal costs of incarcerationfar outweigh those of the use of the suggested interventions, such asdirect and strategy instruction, use of graphic organizers, guidednotes, and dialogue journals (Foley, 2001; Griffin, Malone, &Kame’enui, 1995; Regan, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2005).

REFERENCES

Adair, J. C., Nadeau, S. E., Conway, T. W., Gonzalez-Rothi, L. J., Heilman, P. C.,Green, I. A., et al. (2000). Alterations in functional anatomy of reading inducedby rehabilitation of an alexic patient. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Beha-

vioral Neurology, 13, 303–311.Adams, G. L. & Engelmann, S. (1996). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning

about print. Urbana-Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois, Center for the Studyof Reading.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Allen, J. (2002). On the same page: Shared reading beyond the primary grades.Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Ambrose, D. & Lester, D. (1988). Recidivism in juvenile offenders: Effects ofeducation and length of stay. Psychological Reports, 63, 778.

American Reading Company. (2006). No child left behind and the 100 book challenge.Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.americanreading.com

Archwamety, T. & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole violations,and recidivism rates among delinquent youth. Remedial and Special Education,21, 161–170.

Baltodano, H. M., Harris, P. J., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Academic achievementin juvenile corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity and disability.Education & Treatment of Children, 28(4), 361–379.

Black, T., Brush, M., Grow, T., Hawes, J., Henry, D., & Hinkle, R. (1996). Naturalbridge transition program follow-up study. Journal of Correctional Education, 47,4–12.

Brier, N. (1994). Targeted treatment for adjudicated youth with learning disabilities:Effects on recidivism. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 215–222.

Bruner, E. & Engelmann, S. (n.d.). Reading mastery classic. Desoto, Tex.: SRA.Brunner, M. (1993). Retarding America: The imprisonment of potential. Portland,

Ore.: Halcyon.Buchanan, C. D. (n.d.). Sullivan’s programmed reading. Stamford, Conn.: Phoenix

Learning Resources.Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., Mueller, G., & Havel, E. (2002). Life on the ‘‘outs’’—exami-

nation of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated youth. ExceptionalChildren, 69(1), 7–22.

Burns, P. & Roe, B. D. (2002). Informal reading inventory: Preprimer to twelfth grade(6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Collier, V. P. & Thomas, W. P. (2001). Educating linguistically and culturally diversestudents in correctional settings. Journal of Correctional Education, 52(2), 68–73.

Criminal Justice Policy Council. (2000). Bi-annual report. Austin, Tex.: Author.Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:

The New Press.DiCecco, V. M. & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to retain

relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities,35(4), 306–320.

Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase literacy skillsof youth confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of Corrections Education, 53(4),139–144.

Ehren, B. J. (2005, April). Students who need more: Levels 4 & 5 of the content literacycurriculum. Paper presented at The Council for Exceptional Children Inter-national Convention, Baltimore, Md.

Ehri, L. (1997). Phases of development in learning to read words. In J. Oakhill &R. Beard (Eds.), Reading development and the teaching of reading: A psychologicalperspective (pp. 79–108). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Ehri, L. & Wilce, L. (1983). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printedword learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 163–179.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Engelmann, S. (1988). The direct instruction follow through model: Design andoutcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303–317.

Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., & Johnson, G. (1999). Corrective reading. Columbus,Ohio: SRA McGraw-Hill.

Florida Department of Education and Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.(2001). State plan: Vocational education for youth in juvenile justice commitmentfacilities. Gainesville: State of Florida, Department of State.

Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth andcorrectional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional

and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248–259.Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer

instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 98–107.Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the effec-

tiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall ofscience content by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Reading, Writing,

and Learning Disabilities International, 7, 355–376.Griffin, C. C. & Tulbert, B. L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students’

comprehension and recall of expository text: A review of the research andimplications for practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 73–89.

Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. (2006). Exceptional children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner, R., III, & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000).

Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adoles-cents with learning and behavior problems.Remedial and Special Education,21(3), 133–140.

Hasbrouck, J. E. & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluencynorms for students in grades two through five. Teaching Exceptional Children,24(3), 41–44.

Heward, W. L. (1994). Three low-tech strategies for increasing the frequency ofactive participant response during instruction. In R. Gardner, III, D. M. Sainato,J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, et al. (Eds.), Behavioranalysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–320).Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks=Cole.

Hinterer, S. A. (2002). A study to determine the effect of skill-focused curriculum &instruction on student achievement as evidenced by GED & ACT pre=postscores. (Doctoral dissertation, Salem International University, 2002). EDRS:MF01=PC04.

Hodges, J., Giuliotti, N., & Porpotage, F. (1994). Improving literacy skills of juveniledetainees. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118Stat. 2647 (2004).

Inspiration Software, Inc. (2003). Inspiration software (ver. 8). Beaverton, Ore.:Inspiration Software, Inc.

Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education (IARE) at AEL. (2003).Graphic organizers: A review of scientifically based research. Charleston, WV: AEL.

Kamps, D. M. & Greenwood, C. R. (2005). Formulating secondary-level readinginterventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 500–509.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Karpowitz, D. & Kenner, M. (2000). Education as crime prevention: The case forreinstating Pell grant eligibility for the incarcerated. Barb Prison Initiative.Retrieved March 14, 2007, from www.bop.gov/orepg/oreprrecid87.pdf.

Katsiyannis, A. & Archwamety, T. (1999). Academic remediation=achievement andother factors related to recidivism rates among delinquent youths. Behavioral

Disorders, 24, 93–101.Keith, J. M. & McCray, A. D. (2002). Juvenile offenders with special needs: Critical

issues and bleak outcomes. International Journal of Qualitative Studies inEducation, 15(6), 691–710.

Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehensionstrategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a secondlanguage. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., Schumm, J. S., & Bryant, D. (2001). Fromclunk to click: Collaborative strategic reading. Longmont, Colo.: Sopris West.

Lane, K. L. (Ed.). (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students

with emotional and behavioral disorders: 1990 to the present. New York: GuilfordPress.

Lederman, C. S., Dakof, G. A., Larrea, M. A., & Li, H. (2004). Characteristicsof adolescent females in juvenile detention. International Journal of Law andPsychiatry, 27(4), 321–337.

Leone, P. E., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., & Meisel, S. M. (2005). Organizing and deli-vering empirically based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth. Exceptionality,13(2), 89–102.

Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teacher strategies(7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for seriousjuvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage.

LoBuglio, S. (2000). Time to reframe politics and practices in correctionaleducation. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 2, 1–34.

Lovett, M. W., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2000). Remediating the coredeficits of developmental reading disability: A double-deficit perspective. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 334–358.

Malmgren, K. W. & Leone P. E. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary readingprogram on the reading skills of incarcerated youths. Education and Treatmentof Children, 23(3), 239–247.

Miller, W. H. & Windhauser, E. (1971). Reading disability: Tendency towarddelinquency? Clearinghouse, 46, 183–186.

Minnesota Department of Education. (2003). Minnesota Graduation Standards. St.Paul: Author. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.thecenter.spps.org/mss.html

Mosley, V. P., Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (1997). Teaching sight words tostudents with moderate mental retardation. Reading Improvement, 34, 2–7.

Mulligan, W. (1969). A study of dyslexia and delinquency. Academic Therapy, 4,177–187.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). National Assessment of AdultLiteracy: A First Look at America’s Adults in the 21st Century. Washington,DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. RetrievedMarch 31, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.pdf.

National Institute for Literacy. (2006). Assessment Strategies and Reading Profiles.Retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles/MC_Sight_Words.htm.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess-ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading

instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment.

Newman, A., Lewis, W., & Beverstock, C. (1993). Prison literacy: Implications for

program and assessment. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University TechnicalReport. TR 93–01. Co-published with ERIC Clearinghouse and CommunicationSkills.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat 1425 (2002).Retrieved January 12, 2006, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb.

Pell, C. S. (1994, March 17). Should inmates get student aid? YES: Pell grantsdramatically reduce recidivism. USA Today, p. 13.

Peterson, M. & Hittie, M. (2003). Inclusive teaching: Developing effective schools for alllearners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Regan, K. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Promoting expressivewriting among students with emotional and behavioral disturbance via dialoguejournals. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 33–50.

Reiter, M. (1982). School achievement and juvenile delinquency: A review of the

literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221009.) Retrievedfrom ERIC database.

Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading,reading-while-listening, and independent reading with computer-based speechfeedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 219–235.

Rincker, J. L., Reilly, T. F., & Braaten, S. (1990). Academic and intellec-tual characteristics of adolescent juvenile offenders. Corrections Today, 55(1),70–74.

Schloss, P. J., Alper, S., Young, H., Arnold-Reid, G., Aylward, M., & Dudenhoeffer,S. (1995). Acquisition of functional sight words in community-based recreationsettings. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 84–96.

Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: The case of No Child LeftBehind. Journal of Educational Policy, 20(4), 507–524.

Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 nationalreport (NCJ 178257). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Taymans, J. M. & Corley, M. A. (2001). Enhancing services to inmates with learningdisabilities: Systematic reform of prison literacy programs. Journal of CorrectionalEducation, 52(2), 74–78.

Tewksbury, A. R., & Vito, F. G. (1994). Improving the educational skills of jailinmates: Preliminary program findings. Federal Probation, 58(8), 55–59.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeatedreading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261.

Therrien, W. J. & Kubina, R. M., Jr. (2006). Developing reading fluency withrepeated reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 156–160.

Todis, B., Bullis, M., D’Ambrosio, R., Schultz, R., & Waintrup, M. (2001).Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among adolescentswith antisocial behaviors. Exceptional Children, 68, 119–139.

University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (2004). Strategic instructionmodel. Retrieved August 5, 2006, from the University of Kansas Center forResearch on Learning Web site: http://www.ku-crl.org/.

Unruh, D. & Bullis, M. (2005). Female and male juvenile offenders with disabilities:Differences in the barriers to their transition to the community. Behavioral

Disorders, 30(2), 105–117.U. S. Department of Justice (2001, March). Anticipating space needs in

juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington,D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Vaughn, S. & Edmonds, M. (2006). Reading comprehension for older readers.Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 131–137.

Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). Collaborative strategic readingas a means to enhance peer-mediated instruction for reading comprehension andcontent area learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 66–74.

Wiederholt, J. L. & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests (4th ed.). Austin,Tex.: Pro-Ed.

Winters, C. (1997). Learning disabilities, crime, delinquency and special educationplacement. Adolescence, 32, 451–462.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [K

ristin

e M

ello

y] a

t 16:

20 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

reading and written language competency of incarcerated youth

Documents