Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A review of successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers: invigorating the disposable generation
(USC Thesis Other)
A review of successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers: invigorating the disposable generation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CAMPS 1
A REVIEW OF SUCCESSFUL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION
CENTERS: INVIGORATING THE DISPOSABLE GENERATION
by
Michelle Woody
____________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Michelle Woody
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 2
Acknowledgements
First, giving honor to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Thank You, Lord, for carrying
me and for being “I AM” every step of the way. I want to express my appreciation to my
Dissertation Chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr.
Alan Green, each of whom provided invaluable feedback that challenged my thinking and
improved my dissertation. Their expertise in the field of education and chapter deadlines kept me
on task.
I also want to thank my cousin, Pamela Robinson, who has the same passion that I have
for helping at-risk students. Thanks for helping to make my research at the juvenile detention
camps possible. A special thank you to another cousin, Leonard Hickman, whose prayers and
assistance helped me tremendously when I was overwhelmed with my family responsibilities. I
could not have made it without you.
Thanks to my prayer warriors, Dr. Mattie Grace, Althea Myrie, and Louise Lewis. You
were my Aarons and Hurs. There were many days when just your smiles and hugs were enough
to keep me going. To my Wednesday Cohort, love you much we had the best group. Special
thanks to Dr. Greg Francois and Dr. Charles Smith, you brothers helped me to maintain a good
perspective. I learned to not sweat the small stuff. You both will do great things in education.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the many contributions of my children, Jason, Lindsey,
and Kelsey, who put up with my whining, crying, and complaining through two graduate degrees
over the last six years. I’m proud to share my degree with you. Blessings and thanks for hanging
in there with me. To other supporters, my friends, my Concord church family, Drs. Don and
Gayle Blair, The Winston School Family, Ms. Alicia Brown-Young, BSF members, Delta Sorors,
Jack and Jill Moms, Dr. Linda Marten, and the Dallas Theological Seminary Biblical Counseling
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 3
Department—you all were part of ‘the village’ that stood beside me in a special way, going well
above and beyond to assist me as I completed this degree program. As I juggled school, work,
personal life, kids, pets – Jay and Jordan, there were many sleepless nights and lots of tears.
Kids: your tech support paid off; thanks for being patient with your Mom.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Significance of the Study 16
Summary of Methodology 16
Assumptions 17
Limitations 17
Delimitations 17
Definition of Terms 18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Introduction 20
Profile of At-Risk Students 21
Social Risk Factors 22
Behavioral Risk Factors 24
Educational Risk Factors 25
Sociocultural Learning of Strategies 32
Teacher-Student Relationships 35
Brainstorming 37
Coaching 37
Contracts 38
Student Focus and Goal Orientation 38
Conclusion 40
Chapter Three: Methodology 41
Introduction 41
Purpose of the Study 41
Research Questions 42
Qualitative Design 43
Research Design 43
Sample Population 44
Instrument Validity 44
Instrumentation 45
Data Collection 45
Qualitative Data Analysis 46
Summary 47
Chapter Four: Results 48
Introduction 48
Purpose 48
Juvenile Justice System Background 49
Sports Camp 51
Vocational Camp 52
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 5
Findings 54
Document Review 54
Interviews 54
Observations 58
Findings 58
Research Question One 60
Discussion 63
Research Question Two 65
Physical Environment and Artifacts 65
Classroom Management and Interaction 66
Instructional Practices 67
Discussion 73
Research Question Three 73
Discussion 75
Research Question Four 76
Discussion 78
Summary 79
Chapter Five: Conclusions 81
Introduction 81
State of the Problem 81
Purpose of the Study 82
Research Questions 83
Review of the Literature 83
Methodology 85
Findings 86
Implications 89
Recommendations for Future Study 90
Conclusions 91
References 93
Appendix A: Research Questions/Instrument Connection 106
Appendix B: Request for Interview 108
Appendix C: Consent Form 109
Appendix D: Profile Sheet 110
Appendix E: Interview Protocol 111
Appendix F: Observation Protocol 112
Appendix G: Freedom Schools Pilot – The Vocational Camp 115
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 6
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Student Assessment Scores 2011–2012 Academic School Year 53
Table 4.2: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Administrators, Teachers, and Staff 56
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 7
List of Figures
Figure A: Sports Camp Demographics, 2011–2012 Academic School Year 51
Figure B: Vocational Camp Demographics, 2011–2012 Academic School Year 52
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 8
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to examine successful instructional practices that promote
high academic achievement for at-risk students in juvenile detention centers, and possibly lead to
a reduction in recidivism in the juvenile justice system. A case study was conducted at 2 Los
Angeles juvenile detention centers, known as “The Sports Camp” and “The Vocational Camp.”
Qualitative research methods provided data triangulated from a document and artifact
examination, interviews, and observations. Analysis of the data suggests that, contrary to popular
belief, there are successful instructional practices that positively impact student academic
achievement. However, the findings also indicate that extenuating circumstances prevent some
students from taking advantage of their educational opportunities. Although the Los Angeles
County Office of Education (LACOE) is committed to improving educational outcomes for
incarcerated youth, there are no magic formulas or solutions. Therefore, multiple strategies will
be needed to significantly improve educational outcomes for students in this nontraditional
school setting.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Many civil rights leaders and politicians, such as Congressman John Lewis, Dr. Cecil
Murray, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, have
expressed concern about the state of public school education in this country and have argued that
education will be the biggest civil rights issue of the twenty-first century (Capalbo, 2011; Lewis,
n.d.; Murray, 2006; Villaraigosa, 2013). According to Villaraigosa (2013), there is a growing
belief across the country that the American Dream is closely linked to the nation’s education
system. Now, more than ever, those born into poverty do not have the social capital or
opportunities to change their destiny because they do not have access to strong public schools
(Giroux, 2003; Villaraigosa, 2013). Although a large number of students have successfully
graduated from public high schools and colleges, others have been unable to learn and excel in
these environments (Fisher, 2005; Noguera, 2001).
According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE) (2010), an education advocacy
organization, nationwide, approximately 69% of students graduated from high school on time
with a regular diploma in 2007. Yet barely half of Black and Latino students, 54% and 56%,
respectively, earned diplomas along with their peers. Consequently, the potential monetary loss
of income for high school dropouts is staggering. According to AEE (2010), dropouts for the
class of 2010 alone will cost the nation more than $337 billion dollars in lost wages over the
course of their lifetimes. On the other hand, AEE (2010) projects that if high schools and
colleges raise the graduation rates of Blacks and Latinos to the levels of White students by 2020,
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 10
the potential increase in personal income would add more than $310 billion dollars to the US
economy.
These statistics raise several questions: What is going on in American public schools, and
why is it difficult for students to achieve academic success, specifically Black and Latino
students? Secondly, what reforms are needed to improve student achievement? Some have
argued that race is a significant factor in American education because of the achievement gap
between these historically underserved groups and their more advantaged peers (Hawkins, 2010;
Samad, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As a result, this gap alone has adversely affected minority
students by limiting their opportunities to succeed in life. At the same time, others have argued
that the racial imbalance in large urban school districts makes them more unequal than ever
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ogbu & Simons, 2008; Stearns, Moller, Blau, & Potochnick, 2007).
Several benchmarks shed light on the performance of all students, especially subgroups
across racial lines. One is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) led by President
George W. Bush (Isaacson, 2009). NCLB was designed to improve poor student performance
with a mandate that every student achieve minimum proficiency in English language arts and
mathematics by 2014 (Linn, 2005). However, the results have been lackluster and disappointing
because each state has the freedom to define proficiency and adjust (lower) the standard if
needed. In other words, states have the prerogative to “dumb down” their students’ academic
achievement and performance standards to suit their purpose (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Thus, NCLB is a prime example of bureaucratic accountability that has not been accountable to
its primary stakeholders—the students (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Locally, California schools use the Academic Performance Index (API) to assess growth
in academic achievement over time. The API formula includes standardized tests in English
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 11
language arts, science, math, social studies, and the California High School Exit Exam (CHSEE).
All schools are expected to meet the API target of 800 by 2014 (EdSource, 2005).
The main concern for educators are student populations that cannot keep pace with their
peers and, as a result, are labeled by the educational system as “at-risk” students. Once the
students (primarily Blacks and Latinos) are stigmatized with this label, many of them get caught
in a complex downward spiral of mediocre education (Hawkins, 2010). There are many reasons
for this phenomenon, including multiple oppression (Hawkins, 2010; Reynolds & Pope, 1991),
lack of social capital (Dika & Singh, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 2011), limited access to quality
educational opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Tierney, 2006; Wokusch, 2002), lack of
student engagement (AEE, 2010), deficits in social and emotional skills (Hoffman, 2009;
Greenberg, Weissberg, O’Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resinik, & Elias, 2003), and low retention due
to high dropout rates (AEE, 2010, Bensimon, 2005; Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Stearns et
al., 2007). Approximately 7,000 students dropped out of school nationwide in 2007 (AEE, 2010).
Together, these factors create a high level of tension among legislators, school districts, parents
and students as they scratch their heads and search for answers to the frustrating and
overwhelmingly daunting perception that public schools are not educating all students effectively.
Constant scrutiny is due in part to the concern that a subpar education could detract from future
economic security (Giroux, 2003; Hawkins, 2010; Karoly & Panis, 2004; McKinsey & Company,
2009; Mincey, Maldonado, Lacey, & Thompson, 2008; Wokusch, 2002).
In fact, statistics revealed, in 2010, that 1in 7 adolescents and young adults, ages 16–24,
were neither in school nor had steady employment (Burd-Sharps & Lewis, 2012). The loss to the
US economy translates into 5.8 million fewer qualified workers, or 14.7% of our national
population disconnected from the two main foundations society. Given the size of these
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 12
challenges, the majority of school districts in urban cities choose the path of least resistance by
shipping or exiling low performing students off to alternative schools (Giroux, 2003; Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2011); or, for those with criminal records, juvenile detention
camps because of their inability to perform up to acceptable standards in their home school (The
Los Angeles Juvenile Justice System, n.d.). Besides being a moral embarrassment for the
wealthiest country in the world, public schools are under increasing public scrutiny to improve
academic achievement—instead of playing a major role in perpetuating a permanent lower class.
Giroux (2003) has labeled these students as disposable youth. Therefore, public education for at-
risk students needs a paradigm shift in order to produce better student achievement outcomes in
the twenty-first century (Beckett, 2002).
The alarming statistics for youth who are disconnected from education or employment,
coupled with the proliferation of crimes committed by this group, is a major social concern.
According to Abrams (2006), in 2005, over 2.4 million juveniles were arrested nationwide, and
approximately 125,000 convicted youth offenders on any given day were in juvenile residential
correctional facilities (Sickmund & Wan, 2002). Because students in the Juvenile Justice System
are not included in a school district’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), students in the
alternative school and juvenile justice system are not a high priority. In fact, a reductionist model
known as the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) (EdSource, n.d.) serves as a
discrete way of assessing student performance in schools for the at-risk population. Students with
criminal backgrounds are in the unenviable position of having their criminal record take
precedent over their academic record, and thus find themselves in a juvenile residential
corrections facility, often as repeat offenders, (Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 13
The Los Angeles Juvenile Justice System (LAJJS) was created to promote delinquent
prevention programs, support core and social institutions, and instill moral and ethical values
(LAJJS, n.d.). The system in Los Angeles includes 19 probation camps; 23 programs for those in
the camps; and 29 early prevention programs that target at-risk students and first time offenders.
All services are funded through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act 2001 (JJCPA).
The state originally allocated $120 million annually to be divided among all 58 counties. In 2012,
the funding is approximately $97 million annually (LAJJS, n.d.).
Many studies and reports discuss the Juvenile Justice System; however, there is a dearth
of literature relating to factors that impact academic achievement that could, in turn, lead to a
reduction in recidivism. One study of 116 state prisoners who themselves had been in the
juvenile system provided insights on their juvenile experiences (Veneziano, Veneziano, & Gill,
2001). According to their study, the inmates’ overall perceptions of the Juvenile Justice System
were negative in that they neither found the system helpful nor a deterrent for other illegal
activities following discharge. Research shows that exercise and sports participation along with
other extra-curricular activities is beneficial for enhancing the psychological or emotional well-
being of adolescents (Donaldson & Ronan, 2006; Fisher, 2005; Hilgenbrinck, French, Pyfer, &
Irons, 2003). However, the bigger challenge is how society can avoid potentially losing a
generation of young adolescents, especially low-income minorities (Giroux, 2003; Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). According to research, the disadvantage that at-risk students face is well beyond
academic deficits (Butler, 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003).
Statement of the Problem
The challenges that youth face in today’s society places a great deal of pressure on
schools and teachers to provide students with more than just adequate classroom instruction
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 14
(Greenberg et al., 2003; Wokusch; 2002). The nation’s weak economy, coupled with a decline in
private-sector investment and entrepreneurship, has led to a decline in business and,
consequently, fewer jobs. As a result, many Americans with postsecondary degrees are
unemployed or underemployed in jobs that do not require their level of education. Americans
with low levels of education, specifically low-income minority adolescents and young adults,
experience an even higher unemployment rate that, some believe, increases the crime rate in
urban communities. In a report on incarceration and incapacitation trends, California led the
nation in juvenile arrest and incarceration rates (Males, M., Macallair, D., & Corcoran, M. D.,
2006.). The state’s offenders include a disproportionate number of minorities. By June 2011, the
state of California had 1,062 youth in juvenile detention centers (Juvenile Research Branch
[JRB], 2011). Black and Latino youth combined represented 86%, or 915 inmates. Whites and
Asians, on the other hand, made up 9.8% (104) and 2.3% (24) of the total, respectively.
California currently has 18 probation camps and two under construction for housing incarcerated
youth.
Although there is on-going debate about minority youth and crime in California and other
states, the country as a whole is in a quagmire of extremes: moral conscience and bureaucratic
convenience that has stymied progress for the Juvenile Justice System (Butler, 2011; Sheridan &
Steele-Dadzie, 2005). While incarcerated, offenders participate in academic instruction along
with programs such as sports, art, and other activities to help normalize, socialize, and transition
them back into society (Hilgenbrinck et al., 2003). However, the growing number of juvenile
offenders is problematic for the justice system, policymakers, school districts, and local
communities. Butler (2011) has concluded that the juvenile justice system can be iatrogenic, that
is, induced by the means of treating a problem but ascribed to the continuing natural
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 15
development of the problem being treated. Thus, the juvenile justice system could be doing more
damage than good.
The literature offers a plethora of reform strategies focused on how to improve academic
achievement in schools; however, the research base on the factors that impact student
achievement for juvenile offenders is lacking. Importantly, however, understanding these factors
can help program administrators provide hope for meaningful futures to neutralize the negative
affects of the impersonal, often degrading and punitive, processes of the juvenile justice system
(Butler, 2011). Therefore, juvenile detention centers should provide offenders with academic
instruction that goes beyond teaching and learning if they want to impact their academic
achievement and transition youth back into their community as independent and productive
citizens (Giroux, 2003). According to Jane Goodall (2000), every person is important, every
individual has a role to play, and each person makes a difference. Factors that serve to support
offenders in a juvenile detention center should be explored as a means of improving their overall
academic achievement and reducing the probability of recidivism (Butler, 2011; Portes &
Smagorinsky, 2010; Rowan, Fang-Shen, & Miller, 1997; Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005; Wang,
2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that impact student academic
achievement in juvenile detention centers to formulate a strategy that could lead to a reduction in
juvenile or adult recidivism. Two theories, Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) and
Cultural-Ecological Theory (Ogbu & Simons, 1998), provide a contextual foundation.
Furthermore, this study examines the requirements that juvenile detention centers maintain in
order to sustain the state’s academic standards.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 16
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. How do teachers in juvenile detention camps create and utilize instructional practices
that influence student achievement?
2. What strategies do teachers use to improve student achievement in the juvenile
detention camps?
3. How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention camps?
4. Which combination of instructional practices utilized by teachers provides the most
beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention camps?
Significance of the Study
This study will add to the body of scholarly literature by identifying the factors used by
the juvenile detention centers to impact student academic achievement. The literature offers a
wealth of knowledge about the Juvenile Justice System and the risks associated with recidivism.
The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, (CDCR), (2012) reported that the
current recidivism rate in California is 80% within 3 years. However, little is known about the
impact of available academic instruction on male offenders in residential correctional facilities.
In addition, the literature is lacking on the deterrence aspects of institutional confinement
(Abrams, 2006). Finally, this study explores the possibility that academic achievement for at-risk
male offenders can be improved. Educators must strive to enhance current strategies and
implement new practices that could counter the harmful effects of current and past cultural and
environmental forces in order to make a positive impact on student achievement (Noguera, 2001).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 17
Summary of Methodology
This is a qualitative case study. To adequately address the research questions, the
researcher used a qualitative study design (Merriam, 2009). The study began with document
reviews, followed by open-ended interviews of 10 selected participants, including the principal,
the school psychologist, six teachers, and two administrators. This study involved conducting
observations to complete the triangulation of the data for greater strength in methodological
practice (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative data provided rich information for understanding the
Juvenile Justice System and the instructional practices that impact student academic achievement
in juvenile detention centers.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. There will be a difference in findings between the student offenders and the staff,
including teachers and administrators at the juvenile detention centers.
2. Only a few students will be interested and engaged in the current instructional
practices.
3. Teachers will lose valuable teaching time due to the lessons in discipline that will be
necessary due to varied and distracting behavioral problems.
Limitations
1. The ability or willingness of staff members to provide accurate responses.
2. A research period of 6 weeks.
3. The ability to gain access to relevant school records.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 18
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection will be limited to two of the 18 juvenile detention centers in Los
Angeles County.
2. Interviews will be limited to 10 participants, including the principal, the psychologist,
six teachers, and two staff members.
Definition of Terms
Academic Achievement: An assessment of the extent to which a student, institution, or
teacher meets their educational goals or outcomes.
At-Risk: Low socioeconomic students who lack basic academic skills and thus are more
likely to fail in school.
Disposable Generation: At-risk youth who are victims of recidivism in the juvenile
justice system and/or the adult penal system.
Instructional Practices: Systematic processes of teaching.
Juvenile Detention Center: Facility for incarcerated young persons who are under the
legal adult age in their state.
Juvenile Justice System: Government body that creates and regulates procedures for
youth who are incarcerated for breaking the law.
Juvenile Offender: Youth ages 13–18 who are incarcerated for their crimes.
Recidivism: Repeated or habitual relapse into the juvenile or adult penal system.
Social and Emotional Learning Interventions (SEL): Systematic instruction designed to
enhance students’ social-emotional development, and foster better academic achievement.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 19
Social Psychology: The influence that people have upon the beliefs, feelings, and
behavior of others.
Stereotype Threat: The experience of being at risk of confirming, as a self-characteristic,
a negative image of one’s group.
Urban Schools: Inner-city schools serving a disproportionately high number of minority
and at-risk students.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Research has shown that poor students have historically been low academic achievers
compared to their more advantaged peers (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Low academic achievement
affects Black and Latino students more than White students who share similar backgrounds
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Noguera, 2001). In fact, the graduation rate in
2007 for Blacks and Latino students was 54% and 56%, respectively, in comparison to White
students whose graduation rate was 86% (AEE, 2010). This gap is a major national concern.
Reform in large urban school districts has been inconsistent and difficult to implement over time
due to budget constraints, unclear policies, and in recent years, the proliferation of juvenile
detention camps and adult prison cells. As a result, low academic achievement among
minorities—coupled with a high percentage of incarcerated youth—makes this study relevant to
urban school districts across the United States.
The literature reveals a history of significant gaps in academic achievement across
economic and racial lines—a dismal trend could potentially threaten this country’s future
economic prosperity (Giroux, 2003; Wohusck, 2002). This literature review highlights key
themes that provide a historical context, background, and reasons related to low student
achievement for at-risk students in juvenile detention centers. The review of the literature begins
with an overview of the profile for at-risk students, including the hardships and challenges they
endure in society. Some believe that their experience adversely impacts student academic
achievement. Based on these challenges, three major themes emerged regarding effective
methods of educating at-risk students in the literature; they are: (a) sociocultural learning
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 21
strategies, (b) relationships between teachers and students, and (c) student focus and goal-
orientation (Drakeford, 2002; Lattuca, 2002; Rowan et al., 1997).
In support of providing rich details, Ogbu’s (1998) Cultural-Ecological Theory for
minority academic performance provides a theoretical perspective on juvenile delinquency and
recidivism. This theory offers a framework for why young minorities engage in delinquent
behaviors that lead to incarceration (Noguera, 2001). Extensive documentation validates that
what occurs in schools and the community contributes to delinquency; however, there are gaps in
the literature regarding teacher efficacy and their perceptions of at-risk students, including their
ability and willingness to learn. Research has shown that student academic achievement is a
challenge even when successful learning models and effective instructional practices inform the
process (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Stearns et al., 2007; Wang, 2007). If they want to improve
student academic achievement, teachers and administrators must employ strategies that seek to
maximize the effectiveness of the students, individually and collectively (Sheridan & Steele-
Dadzie, 2005). In conclusion, this study identifies instructional practices that impact academic
achievement for male offenders in juvenile detention centers and shed light on connections
among poverty, race, the classroom environment, and student experiences primarily through the
teacher and administrator perspective.
Profile of At-Risk Students
There is a general consensus that “at-risk,” “disadvantaged,” “alternative schools,”
“juvenile detention centers,” “disposable,” and “losing generations” are terms that belong
together in one context (Aron, 2006; Donnelly, 1987; Giroux, 2003; McDonald, 2002;
Ruttenberg, 1994; Watanabe, 2013). However, these terms have been used so broadly in
educational and political circles that the definitions at best are ambiguous and unclear. “At-risk”
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 22
students include those who are incapable or unwilling to learn in a traditional school
environment (Ogbu, 1991). The subcommittee of the House Education Committee defines at-risk
students as those who qualify for free lunch, as defined by the US Department of Agriculture’s
Child Nutrition Programs Income Eligibility Guidelines. In essence, the government’s main
criteria for classifying a student as “at-risk” is based on whether his or her family meets certain
low income guidelines.
Yet the literature reveals three other main risk factors, including social, behavioral, and
educational challenges that could impede these students’ progress in school. Donnelly (1987) has
spoken to these broader issues. At-risk students are those who typically come from low
socioeconomic families. A large percentage of them are Black or Latino males who do not
participate in school activities (Watanabe, 2013). These students are often products of parents
who have low educational levels and expectations. The underlying condition for being an at-risk
student is being classified as disadvantaged. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines
“disadvantaged” as: lacking the things (such as money and education) that are considered
necessary for an equal position in society. Disadvantaged students will never experience the
“halo effect,” defined as a subjective bias about a person’s one outstanding trait that in essence
influences the total perception of the person. In fact, the opposite is true. The literature identifies
three major risk factors, including social, behavioral, and educational that possibly lead to at-risk
behavior. These factors are discussed further below.
Social Risk Factors
At-risk students typically have high absenteeism, poor health, truancy, legal problems
that cause recidivism in and out of juvenile facilities, undiagnosed learning disabilities, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) challenges often connected with violence, and a host of other
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 23
issues in comparison to mainstream students who usually progress well in their public schools
(Forrest, Tambor, Riley, Ensminger, & Starfield, 2000; Fortuna, Perez, Canino, Sribney, &
Alegria, 2007). The study conducted by Forrest et al. (2000) concluded that male youths who had
been incarcerated in juvenile facilities had poorer health, more psychosocial disorders, difficulty
problem-solving and, in general, more risky behaviors than males in traditional public schools.
Fortuna et al. (2007) noted that US-born Latinos have higher mental health and substance abuse
challenges compared to recent immigrant Latinos. They also noted that increased exposure to the
dominant US culture—including the acculturation and length of time living in the US—may be
linked to poorer mental health outcomes for Latinos over time. Suicidal behaviors could be a
final outcome for immigrants and some US-born Latinos due to pressure from peers and
acculturation challenges into mainstream society. Based on the findings of Fortuna et al. (2007),
expecting even high-performing teachers to overcome these social challenges in the current
juvenile detention center environment seems unrealistic.
Research studies have shown a strong association between community violence exposure
and aggressive behavior (Ruttenberg, 1994; Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001). In fact,
most studies on adolescent violence as a victim or as a witness concluded that violence heightens
social-cognitive deficits that can affect these youths throughout their lives (Shahinfar et al.,
2001). The rate of violent crimes among urban adolescents continues to increase. Ruttenberg
(1994) discovered that most homicides among low-income minorities are intra-racial, committed
between acquaintances, and involves males and guns. The underlying causes are not clear;
however, poverty, repeated exposure to violence both in the community and through the media,
and drugs and easy access to firearms are just some of the factors that have a cumulative effect
on adolescents. A report by the Commission on Behavioral & Social Sciences & Education,
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 24
entitled Losing Generations (Blinn-Pike, 1995), concluded that evidence on youth crime and
violence is emerging now because of the deterioration in the US economy, which results in fewer
job opportunities. According to Ruttenberg (1994), White children represent 42% of children
who live in poverty, only 5% of them live in sustained poverty—that is, a period of over 6 years.
In contrast, over 40% of Black children experience sustained poverty that creates an environment
of hopelessness and uselessness.
Behavioral Risk Factors
These social factors often produce a negative outlook on life, which leads to troubling
psychiatric disorders, including depression, anger, and a disregard for human life—even their
own. Social risk factors continue into adult years and could explain why some low-income adults
as parents seem unresponsive, unfairly harsh, and offer poor role models for their children
(Ruttenberg, 1994). A study of adolescents conducted by Chicago-based psychiatrist, Carl Bell
(1993), found that three out of four teens had witnessed a robbery, stabbing, shooting, and/or
killing of a person known to them. Garbarino (1999) found that urban children who were
exposed to extreme violence exhibited symptoms similar to children who experienced post-
traumatic stress disorder in war-torn countries. The result is deviant behavior, including negative
peer groups , for example, gangs, drugs, delinquency, drugs, and so forth. In fact, the money that
children and adolescents can make in the drug business draws low-income youth like a “magnet”
to criminal activity (Blinn-Pike, 1995). Because these behaviors are the norm for the majority of
students, they are—not surprisingly—either uninterested in their school work, lack the energy to
do work in class or at home, or just place little value on the work, given their outlook on their life
expectancy (Ruttenberg, 1994).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 25
Educational Risk Factors
When children live in a state of constant fear, they develop defenses against their fears
that can, in turn, inhibit them from devoting time to less, nonthreatening tasks like academic
work (Giroux, 2010). Once again, academic challenges, school truancy, and lack of trust in
teachers and administrators all have strong correlations to delinquency and violent behavior
(Ruttenberg, 1994). Thus, education needs an alternative paradigm like the Social Learning
Theory (Bandura, 1977), which is known to encourage students to learn from teachers and peers.
Thus, violence or praise for educational success may impact learning, as students imitate the
actions of others. Moreover, students will continue to engage in the observed behavior if it is
rewarded or reinforced (Giroux, 2003; Prothrow-Stith & Weissman, 1991).
Ogbu and Simons (1998) have discussed minority school performance through Cultural-
Ecological Theory. John Ogbu (1991) is, arguably, one of the most renowned researchers on
Black student achievement. His theory’s central theme is that Black students consider education
a useful tool for Whites only. As such, they choose to not perform up to their potential for fear of
alienation by their peers. The theory takes into account three major factors, including school,
society, and the dynamics within the communities where the students live. Ogbu (1991) defined
“cultural” as the way students see their world or environment and respond to it. The term
“ecological” refers to the setting or world in which the students live on a daily basis. His theory
posits that lower academic performance is an adaptation to barriers that they perceive will
continue into their adulthood.
Ogbu (1991) has considered that low SES students perceive that their treatment in
education mirrors the way society in general views them. His argument asserts three central
ideas: (a) most urban school districts in general are perceived as inferior due to educational
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 26
policies and practices that result in unequal school funding and a lack of qualified teachers; (b)
the overall treatment of students by teachers and administrators is perceived as indifferent based
on teacher-student relationships and the teachers’ overall low expectations for their students; and
(c) minorities believe that society places a low value on their academic credentials, and, as a
result, that they receive lower wages and have fewer job opportunities.
This theory also views community forces as critical with regard to students’ perceptions
and responses to education. Low SES families in general take a dim view of schools for a variety
of reasons, among them: lacking trust in predominantly White teachers and administrators;
having questions about the community’s motivation and value of an education, given that jobs
are limited; and maintaining symbolic beliefs that minorities have about schooling and education
in general including the relevance of education to their lives in general (Ogbu, 1991). As a result
of these views, he has attributed the marginality of Black students to what he refers to as an
“oppositional behavior model.” That is, they are collectively detached and uninvolved in school
and extra-curricular activities that research shows help students maintain interest and
competency in school (Mincey et al., 2008).
Not all researchers agree with Ogbu’s theory. Indeed, Noguera (2001) has concurred that
Black students often engage in activities that are detrimental to their academic success; however,
he attributed their lackluster performance to the marginal roles in which educators place them
along with the discouragement they receive from teachers and educators to excel in challenging
academic subjects, for example math and sciences. On the other hand, Fisher (2005) concluded
that Ogbu’s (1991) theory focuses more on the historical context of Black families in the United
States overlooking other factors including supportive families, supportive teachers and peers, and
more job opportunities. Certainly, Ogbu’s (1991) theory is not applicable to all Black students;
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 27
however, it is relevant to low SES or at-risk students in juvenile detention centers primarily due
to limited resources and lack of support from their teachers in their own schools.
As a result of these factors, at-risk, disadvantaged, or disposable students often end up in
alternative schools. What are alternative schools? According to Aron (2006) alternative
education—in the macro sense—include any educational pedagogy that is outside of the
traditional K–12 public or private classroom. Examples include special education, programs for
gifted children, GED instruction, or schools for incarcerated juveniles. Historically, alternative
schools were designed to help students who could benefit from learning in a nontraditional
setting or from a different type curriculum (McDonald, 2002). According to Heller de Leon and
Teji (2012), there are four benefits of alternative schools for at-risk students: working with
students that typically have difficulty keeping up with the pace of their home school; providing
nontraditional methods of instruction to enhance learning; working as an adjunct with the regular
school to help students; and providing instruction for students who need instruction that is not
provided by special education or vocational programs.
Although alternative schools can refer to many different types of instruction, the most
common use is schools designated for at-risk students who have behavior or remedial challenges.
Because these students are already perceived as having low interest and very low expectations of
school (Aron, 2006; Giroux, 2003; Ruttenberg, 1994), the schools and other environments—like
juvenile detention centers and residential camps—are also perceived as low performing. As a
result, focusing on such a wide cross-section of students has allowed educators, school districts,
politicians, and others to turn their backs on these students’ needs because their instruction is
outside of traditional norms (Hawkins, 2010). For purposes of this study, these educational
settings are not seen as schools of choice but rather as a last chance option before prison as adults
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 28
because they often produce detached, downtrodden, and dissociated students. In addition, they
are viewed as the armpit of educational institutions because the students have a transient journey,
poor attitudes, and a dismal outlook long term. McDonald (2002) even found that these students
if not in juvenile institutions risk dropping out of school (Stearns et al., 2007).
The challenge for Latino students is, in many ways, similar to the ones for Black students.
Their heritage is Latin American countries, primarily Mexico, and many of them are ELL
(English language learners). The ethnic and economic background of this population presents a
larger problem for its members as students, and their parents are challenged not only by the
language barrier but also by myths and perceptions about their parents’ lack of interest and
participation in their children’s schools (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). Low-income Latino parents,
who face similar economic and social challenges as Black parents (Giroux, 2003; Ruttenberg,
1994), are frustrated because their children feel isolated by a curriculum that focuses on their
weakness—learning English instead of learning the content of each subject. On the other hand,
teachers are frustrated because of their perception that Latino parents are not involved in their
children’s education. This disconnect has been pointed out by Bennett (2001), who has posited
that multicultural education—by definition—means that all students, including Latino students,
should be able to maintain their language and culture. In other words, Bennett (2001) connected
student academic success to their ability to express their heritage. Restricting their cultural
expression negatively impacts this population’s motivation and individual capital that puts it in
the same unenviable position as Black students (Suarez-Orozco, Gaytan, Bang, Pakes, O’Connor,
& Rhodes, 2010; Tierney, 2006).
Another challenge facing alternative school environments is the teacher population. The
majority of the teachers are White and middle class, and have limited training with at-risk
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 29
students (Hubbard & Datnow, 2000). Their research shows that White teachers, especially
women, are fully supportive of educational reform efforts for minority students; however, they
expressed frustration about being overextended, receiving limited time to design curriculum and
very little cultural sensitivity training or feedback on how to improve in this area. In California,
Darling-Hammond (2000) noted that the likelihood of having an uncredentialed teacher with
little or no experience with minority students is ten times greater in low SES schools. These
teachers’ lack of experience creates tension and perpetuates underachievement among these
students. Darling-Hammond (2000) concluded that teachers in these schools—at the very least—
must be prepared, knowledgeable, competent, and caring in order to improve achievement for at-
risk students.
Grade retention has been another challenge for students in these schools. Nationally,
Black boys score lower on standardized tests and are retained “in grade” more than White males.
Retention is therefore viewed as a negative, ineffective reinforcement (Ogbu, 1991). Retained
students have low self-esteem and are not motivated to perform academically. Although why
retention influences the drop out rate is not clear, the study by Stearns et al. (2007) did conclude
that a high probability of dropout exists between retained versus continuously promoted students.
It is also true that the dropout process differs by student race, economic status, ethnicity, and
frequency of suspensions (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Students from this study who were
retained exhibited noticeable “exacerbated behavior problems” due mainly to the stigma and
negative feelings associated with this visible display of academic failure (Stearns et al., 2007).
Another challenge for low SES minority students is the lack of diversity in their schools,
or resegregation (Samad, 2009; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). These researchers found that wealthy
White families wanted their children only in schools that were predominantly White. Although,
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 30
in principle, all groups supported integrated schools, the actions of White families are
inconsistent with this view. As White families moved out of inner cities, they left behind school
districts with limited resources. As a result, low SES families in relatively poor urban schools
face an imbalance and subpar learning due to a lack of social capital needed for high educational
achievement (Dika & Singh, 2002; Ogbu, 1991). Therefore, urban schools and the students who
attend them are experiencing a crisis in part due to unequal access to institutional resources,
limited diversity, and low quality academic instruction.
The challenge for students who are assigned to schools outside of their traditional home
school is to continuously readjust to different academic standards and expectations. According to
McDonald (2002), there are two primary reasons for entering an alternative school: poor
academic performance or negative or illegal behavioral issues. Students in juvenile detention
centers experience both according to Ogbu (1998) because they are unmotivated underachievers
who chose not to participate in mainstream school activities. But social isolation and low self-
esteem often account for disruptive behaviors. Students who have limited language proficiencies
have more challenges as they straddle the two worlds of home and school. It has been well
documented that juvenile students have poor attendance in traditional schools that make it
difficult for their appropriate grade level to be properly assessed once they enter the juvenile
justice system (McDonald, 2002). Thus, these school environments do not foster creativity in
learning nor have they had strong success in promoting academic achievement due to the
transient nature of the students, fear of safety, and a lack of positive adult role models for
encouragement.
CNN correspondent and educator, Dr. Steve Perry said the following in an interview:
“[O]nly poor kids and prisoners are forced to attend bad schools, so it is no surprise that many
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 31
poor kids end up in prison” (Qtd. in Mancini, 2011). Dr. Perry is the principal and founder of
Capitol Preparatory Magnet School in a poor area of Hartford, Connecticut. Approximately 80%
of his students are Black and Latino (Mancini, 2011). His school was founded in 2007. At the
time of this interview in 2011, he boasted a zero percent drop out rate and 100% of his students
graduated and matriculated at a four-year institution. Dr. Perry expressed belief that his success
is due in part to setting high academic standards, treating students with dignity and respect, and
supporting them both “emotionally and intellectually” throughout their stay in his school
(Mancini, 2011). Unfortunately, there are not enough Steve Perrys to ward off the elephant in the
room for low SES students. The alarm has sounded, and we now have overwhelming evidence of
the higher probability that more low SES Black and Latino students will end up in prison than in
college (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Giroux, 2003; Hawkins, 2010; Watanabe, 2013; Wokusch,
2002).
So, what are the facts about juvenile justice and adult prison spending in the United
States and specifically in the state of California? Nearly 75% of imprisonment spending occurs at
the state level, where legislators make decisions to fund a wide range of public needs, including
health care, housing, public assistance, and education (Deliso, n.d.; Hawkins, 2010). During the
1980s, government expenditures for prisons grew 900% while education grew approximately
26% (Hawkins, 2010). In addition, since 1980, the US prison population has grown and
expanded 360% from approximately 500,000 to 2.3 million people in just three decades
(Hawkins, 2010). Hawkins’s research found that the United States leads the world in housing
prisoners. Although the U.S. represents 5% of the world’s population, America has 25% of the
world’s prison population. In 1993, there were more Black citizens on probation than attending
college (Giroux, 2003).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 32
The message is clear: When states fail to effectively educate students early on, students
may turn to crime at some point in their lives, putting an even larger financial burden on state
budgets down the road (Deliso, n.d.). Closer to home, California is often cited as the worst state
because it spends far more on corrections than on education (Wokusch, 2002). For example, in
2011, the state spent $9.6 billion on prisons, but just $5.7 billion on higher education. In general,
the state spent nearly $9,000 per college student but nearly $50,000 per inmate annually. In
addition, California built one new college campus, but 20 new prisons and a plethora of juvenile
detention facilities, all at a time when the state is facing financial stress and the possibility of
bankruptcy for at least 10 of its cities (Welch, 2013). Watanabe’s (2013) article concurs with
these findings. The consistent themes include: Black students take less rigorous college
preparatory classes than their White counterparts, and only one of every 20 Black kindergartners
will graduate from a four-year university, based on current trends. These gaps in education for
Blacks in California explain why some view the current state of education as the “school-to-
prison pipeline, where prison is a more likely option than college.” These facts coupled with the
reality that Los Angeles has the largest prison population in the country, requires that major
changes take place to help students avoid a life of poverty, illiteracy, and crime.
Sociocultural Learning Strategies
It is well documented in the literature that at-risk students do not receive a quality
education (AEE, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Tierney, 2006; Wokusch, 2002). However, two
questions come to mind when considering the factors that impact student academic achievement:
(a) What is learning? and (b) What is the best way to educate the “disposable generation” in the
twenty-first century? According to Alexander, Schallert, and Reynolds (2009), learning is
multidimensional and should be viewed in the context of nine principles, which are: (a) learning
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 33
involves change, (b) learning is inevitable and essential, (c) learning can be resisted, (d) learning
can be disadvantageous, (e) learning can be intentional or unintentional, (f) learning is framed by
humaneness, (g) learning is both a process and a product, (g) learning differs at different points
in time, and (h) learning is interactional. From these nine principles, Alexander et al. (2009) have
defined learning as a multidimensional process that results in a relatively enduring change in a
person which in turn leads to how a person will perceive the world and reciprocally respond to
its affordances physically, psychologically, and socially.
This comprehensive perspective of learning would give educators greater freedom to help
students adapt more productively to a new environment, set realistic goals, use prior knowledge
to understand and apply new knowledge, and engage in activities to reinforce what has been
learned (Alexander et al., 2009). Instructional practices that incorporate these nine principles
could potentially help at-risk students in juvenile detention centers improve their academic and
social skills. Because it is a residential facility, the juvenile detention center will be considered a
new community for the students during their incarceration period. The second question, “What is
the best way to educate the ‘disposable generation’ in the twenty-first century?” will be
discussed below.
The literature is extensive on the possible factors that lead to a student becoming at-risk
(Forrest et al., 2000; Fortuna et al., 2007; Ruttenberg, 1994; Shahinfar et al., 2001); however, it
is lacking on the factors that impact student academic achievement. What is known is that
traditional one-dimensional learning models in which the teacher is the sole authority in the
classroom have not been consistently successful even for high-achieving students (Alexander et
al., 2009). Therefore, innovation is needed to meet the goal of improving academic achievement
for students who show very little interest in education. One such innovation for this population is
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 34
incorporating sociocultural learning theories and collaborative learning strategies into the
curriculum (Greenberg et al., 2003; Lattuca, 2002; Wang, 2007).
Vygotsky (1978) is credited with developing sociocultural learning theory with his
colleagues. According to his sociocultural learning theory, individuals are best understood in the
social context in which they exist. In other words, individuals (or students) learn best when they
participate in social practices for learning. Instead of being one dimensional, sociocultural
theories posit that learning is a social and cultural activity, not cognitive or behavioral (Lattuca,
2002). The sociocultural approach emphasizes the importance of social customs, beliefs, and a
person’s identity, reality, and language. What a person thinks is based on his or her sociocultural
background. Sociocultural learning theories take a learner-centered approach. Thus, the
individual along with social relations, community, and cultural factors all have a role in a
student’s cognition and learning.
Collaborative learning is defined as instructional methods that allow students at various
academic levels to work together in small groups toward a common learning goal (Wang, 2007).
According to Vygotsky (1978), this form of learning facilitates student interactions with the
teacher and classmates. Furthermore, this approach allows students to develop verbal, conceptual,
and listening skills as they participate in classroom activities. In other words, learning is
enhanced because knowledge is shaped by the views of the group or community. Collaborative
learning allows students to learn within Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD), which is defined as the distance between the actual developmental level of a student and
the level of potential development as determined by the teacher. In other words, a student’s ZPD
is the difference between what a student can learn on his/her own versus what can be learned
with guidance from more advanced peers. Although Vygotsky’s (1978) research was conducted
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 35
with children, the theory could potentially be very beneficial for the at-risk population as they
strive to make adjustments in the juvenile detention center.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977) complements sociocultural theories. This
learning theory allows students to have continual interaction among behavioral, cognitive, and
environmental elements. In other words, Bandura (1977) has posited that people learn from one
another through observation, imitation, and modeling, which raises compelling questions about
juvenile detention centers that utilize sociocultural learning strategies to impact student academic
achievement. The next section will discuss the literature regarding teachers and their students.
Teacher-Student Relationships
As previously noted, the literature documents that at-risk students have a difficult time
adjusting to their school environment and the teachers and administrators—often nonminorities,
for whom they are responsible (Hubbard & Datnow, 2000; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2010; Tierney,
2006). A study conducted by Rowan et al. (1997) on the effects of teachers on students’
achievement found that teacher’ expectations for students had a larger impact on students than
teacher motivation. They concluded that teachers’ expectations were more reactive to students
based on their interest and motivation instead of the other way around. Therefore, teachers who
are in alternative schools where students often show little interest or competency in academics
have a greater challenge than traditional schoolteachers who engage students in learning on a
regular basis.
Research reveals that student social interaction with teachers and peers is a dominant
factor in classroom learning (Gehlbach, 2010). Before learning can take place, the behavior of at-
risk students has to be modified (Jones & Philp, 2011). This effort is challenging because at-risk
students often display self-characteristics caused by “stereotype threat” (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, &
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 36
Master, 2006). As a result, these students are known to display oppositional characteristics such
as rudeness, violence, disruptive verbal outbursts, and general negativity. One of the worst
mistakes committed by teachers is letting students have control of the class. According to Orange
(2000), at-risk students need to be engaged in their educational experiences. When teachers
assign work without holding students responsible, students lose interest in the work and become
disruptive. Thus, their negative behaviors put added pressure on the teachers, and as a result,
make it difficult to retain teachers who are committed to teaching this population. The
relationship between teachers and students is unique and must be consistently cultivated within
an environment of trust and honesty (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Balfanz, 2009). In addition, teachers
must organize their instructional practices to meet the diverse needs of their students instead of
forcing them to learn material using punitive measures to maintain control of the classroom.
Teachers must find alternative methods of motivating these students and help them find
strategies that will foster positive learning outcomes. According to Pintrich (2003), individuals
who are intrinsically motivated work on activities for their inherent satisfaction rather than for
outward rewards. When individuals are intrinsically motivated, they work for the challenge and
pleasure of the experience. Thus, teachers who teach in juvenile detention centers should strive
to help students find enjoyment in classroom activities in order to keep them engaged in the
activities. Research shows students are more motivated by teachers who are active participants in
their learning (Thoone, Sieegers, Peetsma, & Oort, 2011). In addition, teachers who are excited
about learning inspire in students an inward desire to learn about themselves and others
(McKinney, 2004). This study concluded that students seem more inspired by teachers’
enthusiasm. Strategies that assist teachers in building relationships with at-risk students are
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 37
discussed below. According to the literature, three strategies used in the classroom setting have
been shown to be effective: brainstorming, coaching, and contracts.
Brainstorming
Classroom instruction can be improved through inquiry and collaboration (Davidson,
2002). The goal is to strengthen students to use their minds and remain engaged in the classroom.
At-risk students are more engaged in their learning when given the freedom to question a subject
or theory, share their prior experiences, and discover the outcome in a collaborative setting
(Wang, 2007). Several benefits of brainstorming can help at-risk students. Because generating
ideas may be difficult for each student individually, the collective effort of generating ideas
about a subject with the teacher and other students presents an appealing alternative (Van Patter,
n.d.). In addition, brainstorming helps students push beyond the obvious answers and discover
that there is more to a subject.
Coaching
One of the biggest challenges for teachers with this population is handling conflicts
between students in a constructive manner. When conflicts develop, students are often looking to
the teacher for fairness and a willingness to support them with integrity (Bridgeland, Dilulio, &
Balfanz, 2009). One approach is to diffuse conflict by turning them into teachable moments
(Crowe, 2009). In addition, students earn respect for each other when they learn student-to-
student protocols that teach basic teaching skills, including cooling off when upset; speaking
directly to each other; speaking assertively, honestly and kindly; listening carefully to others and
accurately paraphrasing what was said; and proposing and agreeing on solutions (Crowe, 2009).
Again, students can learn from others in a sociocultural environment (Bandura, 1977). Students
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 38
become better academic and social learners when they develop habits that can help them become
better problem solvers.
Contracts
A contract is a written agreement between the teacher and the student and is designed as a
behavior intervention to monitor each student’s progress through positive reinforcement.
According to Melander (2010), behavioral contracts strengthen teacher-student relationships by
visually demonstrating care and concern for each student individually. The steps for
implementing the contract are as follows: define the specific behavior being implemented in the
contract; define the contract criteria (behavior required) including a specific time limit; negotiate
the terms (expectations) of the contract with the student; set a specific review date to monitor
progress; and sign, date, and distribute copies of the contract to the student and office staff.
In conclusion, at-risks students expect their teachers to act as leaders who have a
consistent plan to guide them through the learning process (Pattison, Hale, & Gowens, 2011).
The goal is to establish a safe space that will allow the teachers and students to work together
instead of being adversarial with each other and fellow students. The final section will discuss
student focus and goal orientation.
Student Focus and Goal Orientation
The literature documents that at-risk students have failed academically and within their
communities (Mincey et al., 2008; Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005). The social challenges that
these students face are overwhelming. The juvenile justice system is not responsible for what has
happened in the past; however, once in the system, teachers and educators have a responsibility
to educate all students to the best of their ability. Gardner (2006) has posited that every student
has a different modality of learning. In addition, not all students learn equally at the same time.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 39
As a result, the juvenile justice system in general must re-evaluate what the educational goals are
for each student and change its perspective from being system-focused to being student-focused.
The time spent by students in juvenile detention centers should be used to help them get on
track—perhaps for the first time—with their academics so that they can avoid the trap of
recidivism now and in the future. In a study of former juvenile detention center inmates by
Mincey et al. (2008), the majority of participants advocated for changes in the system that could
help them develop a new and more positive perspective on life. In another study with former
juvenile inmates, Veneziano, Veneziano, and Gill (2001) learned that the inmates themselves
knew that something is wrong; however, they did not know how to change their lives to make
things better. The late rapper Tupac (2003) described this hunch another way, “The message is
young black males could do anything if you just give us a shot, stop trying to beat us down . . .
And to my homeboys, we need to be in control of ourselves” (n. p.). One of the
recommendations from the Veneziano et al. (2001) study was to help students to develop goals
for their future.
According to Drakeford (2002), the main goal for incarcerated youth should be to
improve their literacy by teaching them the fundamentals of reading and writing. These findings
are based on the strong correlation between academic failure and delinquent behavior. Because
the majority of incarcerated youth have educational deficiencies, the emphasis of their
incarceration must shift from being simply punitive to helping them develop their academic
skills. Other goals can help the disposable generation achieve success. Indeed, research on
effective schools makes the following five goals recommendations for students: (a) students must
be taught how to establish a clear purpose statement for their lives; (b) students must be taught
how to become problem solvers; (c) students must be challenged to set high goals and
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 40
expectations for themselves; (d) students must learn how to establish positive peer groups; and
(e) students must give consent to receive counseling for past traumas (Noguera, 2001).
Conclusion
Identifying factors that will impact student academic achievement in juvenile detention
centers will potentially improve educational outcomes for incarcerated youth who are often
referred to as the disposable generation. This review of the literature has helped establish the
framework for this qualitative case study. The review presented a profile of the juvenile
delinquents’ experience, including the hardships and challenges they endure both in the
community and in their personal lives. Based on the challenges, three major themes were
discussed that could help improve student academic achievement including, social learning
strategies, teacher-student relationships, and student focus and goal orientation. Chapter Three
will discuss the methodology for this qualitative case study.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Studies have documented the reality that treatment efforts for reform have not been
effective in the Juvenile Justice System (Shahinfar et al., 2001; Sheridan et al., 2005). As a result,
most programs have had very little effect on the recidivism rates of incarcerated adolescents and
young adults. This revolving pattern of incarceration has led to an expansion of the criminal
justice system overall. Angela Davis (2013) has called this phenomenon the emergence of a
prison-industrial complex, that is, people who are considered a disposable population (Davis,
2013). In a country where over 2.5 million people are in prison today, Davis (2013) has
concluded that these numbers indicate that America is over incarcerated and under educated,
making this an unfavorable balance for our country.
Although the public is frustrated and impatient with the growing juvenile population, the
“punishment approach” has failed to significantly help students improve their academic and
social skills (Sheridan et al., 2005; Giroux, 2003; Wokusch, 2002). A study conducted by
Drakeford (2002) concluded that the incarcerated youth in the Juvenile Justice System enter with
a personal history of failure potentially established by a combination of experiences in the
schools, family, or community. A perception of failure often follows incarcerated youth until
they transition into the adult correctional system (Drakeford, 2002, Meltzer, Levine, & Karniski,
1984).
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the positive factors that impact student academic achievement
as a strategy that could reduce juvenile or adult recidivism. Furthermore, this study examined
instructional practices at two Los Angeles County juvenile detention camps to explore how
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 42
sociocultural theories and collaborative learning approaches were utilized to motivate students in
the classroom. A review of the literature on incarcerated youth showed that these students often
learn under difficult social and economic conditions (Sheridan et al., 2005). Because Social
Learning Theory is rooted in sociocultural theories, in which instruction is learner-centered, the
researcher’s intent was to explore how teachers included culture and student interaction in the
classroom to improve academic achievement (Bandura, 1997).
My study had a three-fold focus:
1. Exploring the Juvenile Justice System’s plan for educating incarcerated students;
2. Interviewing and observing what teachers actually did to educate students; and
3. Exploring how teachers and administrators monitored and assessed the success of
their instruction.
Research Questions
The following research questions were explored:
1. How do teachers in juvenile detention centers create and utilize instructional practices
that influence student achievement?
2. What strategies do teachers use to improve student achievement in the juvenile
detention centers?
3. How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention centers?
4. Which combination of instructional practices utilized by teachers provides the most
beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention centers?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 43
Qualitative Design
A qualitative design was used to serve an understanding of what instructional practices
utilized by teachers impacted student academic achievement in the juvenile detention camps. The
qualitative design is emergent, meaning it is fluid, dynamic, and evolving (Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009). This design allowed the literature to be informed through both rich descriptions
of the juvenile detention camps and the categories or themes identified through the data analysis
(Merriam, 2009). Given the enormous pressure that teachers face to improve student academic
achievement a qualitative design was the best approach for observing the teaching methods
through the eyes of the teachers and administrators. In addition, the teachers were given the
opportunity to express their insights and strategies for improving academic student achievement.
Research Design
Identifying the instructional strategies that teachers used to impact students’ academic
achievement was a challenging task in this nontraditional setting. A qualitative case study design
was necessary to adequately address the research questions. Case studies provide an immense
amount of detail and allow for in-depth descriptions of individuals, groups, and interventions
(Patton, 2002). In this case, specific classrooms were identified to explore instructional practices.
The study began with a review of documents related to the educational goals of the students.
This step was followed by 12 one-on-one interviews (Interview Protocol, Appendix E) that were
conducted with the principal, the assistant principal at each camp, the school counselor, six
teachers, and two staff members. The interviews were followed by 12 classroom observations
(Observation Protocol, Appendix F).
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 44
Sample and Population
Purposeful criteria-based sampling was used to identify teachers for the qualitative inquiry
Merriam (2009). This type sampling reflected the purpose of studying instructional practices that
impacted student academic achievement in the juvenile detention camps. The criterion for
teachers was three-fold: (a) must teach one of the core subjects, including math, English, science,
reading, or history; (b) must have at least two years of teaching experience; and (c) must be
available for follow-up questions during the summer months. The rationale for the criteria
involves conducting research with staff members who are familiar with the Juvenile Justice
System and the camps where the research was conducted.
The data used for sampling was limited to document review, interviews, and observations
at the two juvenile detention camps located in Southern California. These camps were chosen
due to their proximity to the university and the unique sports program that one of the camps
offered. Out of the 19 camps in Los Angeles County, this camp is the only one that offers a
sports option to youth. Although conducting an analysis on extracurricular activities was outside
the scope of this study, the insight obtained about instructional accommodations for athletes who
leave camp to compete against other schools was invaluable.
Instrument Validity
According to Merriam (2009) the most effective strategy to increase the credibility of such
a case study’s findings is through triangulation. By definition, triangulation is the comparison of
multiple sources of data means for the purpose of “cross-checking” the accuracy of the collected
data. In this case study, triangulation included a document review of both public and internal
records that provided a rich source of information about the camps. Examples of documents were
test scores, mandated educational requirements, and demographic information. The interviews
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 45
were divided into three groups with different perspectives including teachers, administrators, and
staff members who have key responsibilities with the students. Follow-up interviews were
conducted with the principal and two of the teachers. Observations were conducted during
different times and class periods. This study was not a mixed-methods approach because the
document review served as a secondary source or supporting role to the other sources (Creswell,
2009).
Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of eight open-ended questions that reflected
the research questions and the relevant body of scholarly literature addressing student academic
achievement in juvenile detention camps. This predesigned interview protocol, devised by the
researcher, allowed follow-up questions to obtain more descriptive information and clarification
of previous questions. The interview protocol questions were designed to prompt responses
about instructional practices that best impact student academic achievement in juvenile detention
camp settings.
Data Collection
A qualitative case study allowed for rigor during the data collection phase through
appropriate sampling, context, and the analysis process (Tracy, 2010). Each interview participant
was given a short profile sheet to complete prior to the interview (Appendix D). During the study,
12 one-on-one interviews were conducted for a period that lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.
The 12 participants included: six teachers, the principal, the assistant principals at each camp, the
school counselor, and two staff members. Each interview met the sampling criteria. They all took
place in several locations in the juvenile detention camps, including classrooms, administrative
offices, the gym, and outside on the grounds (Appendix E). The conceptual framework for
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 46
observations (Appendix F) was initially drawn from interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As
noted, each participant completed a profile sheet (Appendix D) and an informed consent
(Appendix C) and was informed that the interviews were audio recorded (Appendix B). In
addition, all interview participants were given an opportunity to request receipt of a copy of the
final dissertation. All interviews were tape-recorded simultaneous with appropriate note-taking
by the researcher. Each interview was later downloaded for transcription. A professional
transcription service transcribed the audio recordings from the interviews and the audio recorded
field notes.
Qualitative Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, the researcher systematically analyzed qualitative data
in an effort to identify successful instructional practices that could potentially impact student
achievement. The qualitative data were thoughtfully analyzed in order to identify strategies used
by teachers that seemed to lead to stronger student academic achievement. In addition, the
research findings were compared to the body of literature as further validation of relevance and
significance. The interviews and notes were analyzed using methods outlined by Merriam
(2009):
Data Reduction – relevant data was reconfigured and coded, that is, systematically
organized into categories that focused on the specific aim of the research.
Data Display – Graphs were created to provide a visual display of the coding process and
the conclusions that could be drawn from the analysis.
Conclusions Drawn and Verification – Conclusions that verify the meaning of the data in
this qualitative case study completed the data analysis process.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 47
Analysis started with the data and then built up to the research instead of starting with a
hypothesis that was applied to the research.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the methodology used in this case study and
articulated why the selected methods were appropriate for this study. The chapter included a
discussion of the following: the purpose of the study, the rationale for using a qualitative design,
the research design, the sample and population, instrument validity, instrumentation, data
collection, data analysis, and a summary. The research questions served as a guide to discover
the positive factors that impacted student academic achievement in the juvenile detention camps.
The goal was to be ethical and transparent and to operate with integrity throughout the data
collection period (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). The remaining two chapters will present the
results of the data that was collected and analyzed. Based on the results of the case study, the
implications for practice will also be discussed in detail.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Schools and alternative educational settings such as juvenile detention camps have been
publically criticized for low student achievement. As a result, all educational settings must
improve student academic achievement or face increasingly restrictive sanctions at the state,
federal, and local levels (Darling-Hammond, 2007). This chapter presents the findings from a
qualitative case study comprised of a document review; 12 interviews conducted with four
administrators, six teachers, and two staff members; and 12 observations in the classroom and
public areas at two juvenile detention camps in Southern California. The data were collected in
order to formulate significant research findings asserted by the researcher from answers to the
following research questions:
1. How do teachers in juvenile detention centers create and utilize instructional practices
that influence student achievement?
2. What strategies do teachers use to improve student achievement in the juvenile
detention centers?
3. How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention centers?
4. Which combination of instructional practices utilized by teachers provides the most
beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention centers?
Purpose
The purpose of this case study was to identify successful instructional practices in
juvenile detention centers that could possibly impact student academic achievement, and perhaps
lead to a reduction in recidivism within the juvenile or adult penal system. Specifically, this
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 49
study focused on gaining insight and understanding about the practices of educating highly at-
risk students—that is, those who are primarily socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority,
incarcerated, enrolled in special education, or underserved due to poor school attendance or
undiagnosed learning deficiencies. The causes of incarceration and the treatment or mistreatment
of minors in the juvenile justice system is beyond the scope of this case study. The research
focus was specifically on the successful instructional practices that impact student achievement
and could possibly lead to a reduction in recidivism in juvenile or the adult penal system. The
researcher designed the interview (Appendix E) and observation protocols (Appendix F).
Juvenile Justice System Background
To answer the research questions, one must consider the data collected and the qualitative
story that accompanies the data. A brief background of the Juvenile Justice System and the
relationship between the Probation Department and the Los Angeles County Office of Education
(LACOE) is important and relevant in the context of student achievement for the juvenile
population. One of the many responsibilities of the Los Angeles County Probation Department is
to provide safe and secure detention facilities and effective rehabilitation programs for
delinquent minors in juvenile halls and camps. These settings provide confinement to minors up
to 18 years old who are serving time or waiting for the disposition of legal matters. With this
purpose in mind, the camps provide custody, education, training, and treatment interventions to
minors and wards of the juvenile court for an average period of approximately 24 weeks
(Juvenile Justice and Courts, n.d.). Young defendants are placed in these facilities to serve time
for their crimes separate from adult offenders, and to be given a chance for rehabilitation that
could lead to a lower recidivism rate.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 50
According to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (California Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) (2010), recidivism is defined as a youth released or
discharged from DJJ during the fiscal year 2004/05 and subsequently arrested and/or returned to
DJJ or the Department of Adult Institutions (DAI) within a three-year follow-up period. This
protocol is significant because of its alarming affect on minors and their families. The CDCR
Report (2010) stated that 74% of incarcerated youth returned to state-operated facilities within
18 months of their discharge. Furthermore, nearly 57% of the remaining youth returned to state-
operated facilities within 3 years. Black and Latino youth had the highest return rate at 64% and
55%, respectively. As a result, this case study sheds light on educational strategies that could
lead to academic achievement for the juvenile justice system youth who spend so many of their
young years incarcerated.
At the time of this study the process was as follows: The majority of students in the Los
Angeles County camps spend time initially at one of the three juvenile halls until court action is
taken. Once the courts make a camp assignment, custody of the minor transfers to the Probation
Department, which transports the defendants to their camp destination. Although LACOE is
responsible for educating the defendants, the Probation Department is responsible for them for
the duration of their incarceration period. This system of checks and balances has strengths and
weaknesses to be noted later in this chapter. Regarding the capacity and ethnic percentages for
defendants in the Los Angeles County facilities, approximately 2,200 minors are in custody, of
which approximately 85% are minority including Latinos (56%) and Blacks (29%), respectively.
The case study research was conducted at two of the 19 juvenile detention camps in Los Angeles
County. They will be referred to in the remaining two chapters as the Sports Camp and the
Vocational Camp.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS
Research was conducted in two camps located in Southern California.
the Sports Camp were last recorded for the 2011
Report Card (SARC) (2013). In the report, t
as shown in Figure A.
Figure A.. Sports camp demographics
Source: Los Angeles County Office of Education, 2013.
The Sports Camp had seven classrooms for educational instruction.
Sports Camp within the LACOE system
camp and compete against other schools. T
years. It was noted by the researcher
safety. All students were permitted to use textbooks, laptops
the classroom; however, textbooks
Latinos
41%
Whites
9%
Native Am.
Demographics 2011
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS
Sports Camp
esearch was conducted in two camps located in Southern California. Demographics for
Camp were last recorded for the 2011–2012 year during 2013 (School Accountability
In the report, the camp had 101 students with the ethnic
emographics, 2011–2012 academic school year.
Source: Los Angeles County Office of Education, 2013.
seven classrooms for educational instruction. There
Sports Camp within the LACOE system and, there, students had the opportunity to leave the
and compete against other schools. This program had gained significant attention
by the researcher that a monthly inspection was conducted for cleanliness and
permitted to use textbooks, laptops, and other instructional materials in
owever, textbooks were not allowed in the living quarters due to safety and
Blacks
45%
Native Am.
4%
Asians
1%
Demographics 2011-2012 School Year
51
Demographics for
2012 year during 2013 (School Accountability
ethnic distribution
There was only one
the opportunity to leave the
significant attention over the
conducted for cleanliness and
ther instructional materials in
due to safety and
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS
security concerns. All textbooks
approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Education (LACOE).
Performance Index) testing and rankings were not reported for the camp because the number of
students tested was not statistically significant. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a
requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) for all schools and districts. The Sports
Camp was able to meet its overall AYP in English
combination of low participation
made the results of AYP for both camps misleading.
graduation rates for students who started the 2011
Although efforts by the students and their teachers to achieve this goal
needed to be done to improve this statistic.
According to the SARC (2013)
ethnic distribution (see Figure B):
Figure B. Vocational camp demographics
Source: Los Angeles Office of Education,
Demographics 2011
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS
security concerns. All textbooks were in compliance with the California Education Code and
approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Education (LACOE). API (Academic
testing and rankings were not reported for the camp because the number of
ally significant. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a
requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) for all schools and districts. The Sports
overall AYP in English language arts and mathematics; however, a
ion in testing and the transient nature of the school population
the results of AYP for both camps misleading. Finally, completion of high school
graduation rates for students who started the 2011–2012 year in the 12th grade was 6%.
the students and their teachers to achieve this goal were commendable
to be done to improve this statistic.
Vocational Camp
(2013), the Vocational Camp’s 100 students had the
):
emographics, 2011–2012 academic school year.
os Angeles Office of Education, 2013.
Latinos
74%
Blacks
23%
Whites
2%
Asians
1%
Demographics 2011 - 2012 School
Year
52
in compliance with the California Education Code and
API (Academic
testing and rankings were not reported for the camp because the number of
ally significant. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a
requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) for all schools and districts. The Sports
ics; however, a
e of the school population
high school
grade was 6%.
commendable, more
had the following
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 53
There were six classrooms in the Vocational Camp for educational instruction, as well as
a class that offered vocational training for possible OSHA certification. In short, The Vocational
Camp had ratings similar to the Sports Camp in the areas of cleanliness and safety, textbooks,
API, and AYP. The graduation rate for students who started the 2011–2012 year in the 12th
grade was slightly higher than the Sports Camp, at 10.3%. The biggest concern in the SARC
(2013) was the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) statistics. In the report, the students’
at both the Sports Camp and the Vocational Camp were at identical levels. (See Table 4.1)
Table 4.1
Student Assessment Scores 2011–2012 Academic School Year
English/Lang. Arts 2 33
Mathematics --- 23
Science --- 27
History/Social Science 1 24
Source: Los Angeles Office of Education, 2013.
Although the goal of LACOE’s Division of Student Programs (DSP) is to equip all students with
the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in their educational pursuits in school, their
community, and beyond, the STAR for these camps suggests that different strategies should be
developed in order to help more students. The section below will discuss the research findings.
Students’ Scoring at Proficient or Advanced Levels, 2011–2012
Subject Sports & Vocational LACOE %
Camps %
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 54
Findings
Document Review
The principal provided relevant documents after the initial meeting with the principal of
the detention camps. Documents and records, also known as artifacts, are a rich source of
information about how organizations operate (Patton, 2002). For this study, documents included
public records such as the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), published API and AYP
data for Los Angeles County, and the Freedom School Program, which was piloted at the
Vocational Camp. Other analyzed documents included samples of individual learning plans, IEP
compliance information, Think Through Math journals, Achieve 3000 writing samples,
classroom artifacts—books, posters, laptops, writing materials—prevention and intervention
protocols, and outside clinical and service provider forms and procedures. All documents were
reviewed over a one-week period.
Interviews
The researcher constructed the interview protocol for the 12 semi-structured interviews at
the detention camps. This design was used to help focus the interview and allow for easier
response comparison among participants. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. They all
took place in various locations within the juvenile detention camps, including classrooms,
administrative offices, the gym, and outside on the grounds. All interviews were tape-recorded
along with appropriate note-taking by the researcher. Participants were asked to state their names
and titles at the inception of each interview so that the recorded data for their specific interview
could be identified. Each interview was later downloaded for transcription. The principal
selected the six teachers that participated in the interviews. Special consideration in selection was
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 55
given to teachers who taught one of the core subjects and had at least two years of teaching
experience. All interviews were conducted over a one-and-a-half-week period.
Table 4.2 shows the demographic profile of the 12 participants in the qualitative
interviews. This information provides insight into the personnel responsible for educating the
students and lends context to the rich descriptive responses that each one of them provides.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 56
Table 4.2:
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Administrators, Teachers, and Staff
Participant Profile
A Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 30–40
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Principal
Years in Education: 14
Years in Current Position: 4 mos.
B Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 40–50
Education: Doctoral degree
Title: Assistant Principal, Vocational Camp
Years in Education: 21
Years in Current Position: 3 Days
C Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 40–50
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Assistant Principal, Vocational Camp
Years in Education: 20+
Years in Current Position: 1
D Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 30–40
Education: Masters in Counseling
Title: Academic Counselor
Years in Education: 6
Years in Current Position: 9 mos.
E Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Jewish
Age: 50–60
Education: Bachelor degree
Title: Resource Spec. & Teacher-Vocational Camp
Years in Education: 34
Years in Current Position: 5
F Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 40–50
Education: Bachelor degree
Title: Teacher-Vocational Camp
Years in Education: 5
Years in Current Position: 2
G Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 40–50
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Teacher-Vocational Camp
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 57
Table 4.2 continued
Participant Profile
G Years in Education: 15
Years in Current Position 2
H Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 50–60
Education: Masters in Counseling
Title: Teacher- Sports Camp
Years in Education: 25
Years in Current Position: 3
I Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 50–60
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Teacher- Sports Camp
Years in Education: 10
Years in Current Position: 3
J Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 40–50
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Teacher- Sports Camp
Years in Education: 15
Years in Current Position: 3
K Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 30–40
Education: Masters in Social Work
Title: Probation Officer
Years in Education: 13
Years in Current Position: 8
L Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Black
Age: 20–30
Education: Masters in Education
Title: Training Spec./Health Ed., Freedom School
Years in Education: 4
Years in Current Position: 4
Table 4.2 shows that the participants who were interviewed collectively had an average
tenure of over 15 years of experience; however, the majority of them were relatively new to their
position. The gender and ethnic distribution were seven males and five females, and 10 Blacks,
one White, and one Latino. Regarding the age distribution, eight of the 12 were over 40 years of
age. Out of the remaining participants, three were over 30, and one of the participants was 20–30
years-old.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 58
Observations
Observations were useful in this case study because they provided eyewitness exposure to
phenomena not filtered through the lens of the interviewees (Merriam, 2009). The researcher
constructed the observation protocol for classroom and assembly settings (Appendix F). The
protocol itself was unstructured—given that juvenile detention centers are alternative,
nontraditional educational settings; however, the researcher observed common themes and
details for the purpose of this study. For example, three repeated themes emerged: instructional
practices, physical environment and artifacts, and classroom management and interactions. This
narrative will include other factors that prompted keen observation notes from the researcher.
All observations were conducted over a two-and-a-half-week period. The principal
arranged each classroom observation. Each observation was between 45 and 60 minutes. The
researcher observed standards-based classroom instruction, piloted Freedom School instruction,
a staff meeting, a Freedom School Graduation Assembly, physical training and nutritional
instruction, a drug search, lunch, a job fair, outdoor team-building exercises, and passing periods.
The field notes were photocopied and logged in a field-notebook after each observation. In
addition, the researcher dictated observation notes that were later transcribed, logged, and added
to the field-notebook.
Findings
The two juvenile camps had buildings that were outdated but nonetheless beautiful
facilities. Upon arrival, the barbed wire on top of fences—along with double locked gates and
doors—were the most visible parts of the camps. Inside, the camps had well-manicured lawns,
cleanliness, and offices that were modestly furnished but very functional. The backdrop for the
camps was a rustic, natural, and hilly setting. Students were observed being led purposefully to
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 59
their destination in single-file lines—wearing gray t-shirts and trousers without pockets—by
Probation Department staff. Both camp offices displayed important information about students’
rights, encouraging slogans, and the camp calendar. One of the most impressively decorated and
prominent walls was a mural with people and signs of hope on the gym at the Vocational Camp.
It was designed and painted mainly by students. The mural’s focus was on a young man who was
in a classroom holding a book. A clock was prominent along with signs of nature over the
reader’s head. When asked to describe the camp climate, the principal said, “We want the camps
to become a place of second chances. We want the kids to develop a ‘can-do’ spirit.”
This case study began with two leading questions: Why is it so difficult for students to
achieve academic success, specifically Black and Latino students? Secondly, what reforms are
needed to improve student achievement? The literature showed multiple reasons why many
Black and Latino students are increasingly unable to meet minimum academic requirements and
is labeled “at-risk.” As a result, many at-risk students stop attending school regularly, develop a
criminal record, and are transferred to alternative, nontraditional settings such as juvenile
detention camps.
As the study progressed, preliminary analyses suggested that teachers and administrators
were perhaps not doing enough to help low-performing students improve their academic
achievement in this setting. For this reason, the specific research focus shifted to a review of
successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers. A discovery of such practices
could become a catalyst to invigorate what some call the disposable generation (Giroux, 2003).
Specifically, how do teachers, administrators, and staff view students in juvenile justice settings,
and what instructional practices are successful in the juvenile detention camp setting?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 60
Research Question One
How do teachers in juvenile detention camps create and utilize instructional practices
that influence student achievement?
The following section will investigate answers to research question one by looking
closely at the mandated state requirements for incarcerated minors. In essence, the requirements
for the two camps mirror the educational goals and objectives of traditional state-operated
schools. However, the requirements are not the problem; rather, the challenge is meeting the
requirements. Because the overarching goal at LACOE is to educate the students and prepare
them for their future, the current trends and patterns of student achievement paint a dismal and
disappointing picture. Although state-approved textbooks, school materials, classroom structure,
and curriculum are all in place, the student population changes constantly based on a student’s
legal sentencing not on his or her educational development. Indeed, the principal acknowledged,
“Instructional practices should be designed according to data-based decisions that reflect a
student’s technical skills, subject knowledge, academic assessments, and other academic
competencies.” However, juvenile camps are not typical schools. The enrollment records
indicate that the average stay at a county facility is 24 weeks, that is, less than 6 months. In
addition, the enrollment numbers at both camps stays constant throughout the year, roughly 95–
115. Yet, the population is fluid and transient.
Many variables affect student achievement. According to the school counselor, a
student’s abrupt moves from place to place can be problematic when seeking the student’s
academic records. For example, many new students arrive with only court documents. According
to the counselor, in these cases students are placed in classes based on “chronological age and a
self-report of academic skills.” As a result, the curriculum for the camps is designed to meet
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 61
grade norms rather than individual student ability, per se. In the interview, Participant J
described his approach to creating and utilizing instructional practices differently. The Common
Core system is the benchmark. In essence, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were
adopted in 2010 by 45 states, including California, to apply the consistent yardsticks for English
and math (California Department of Education, 2013). The purpose is to help students receive a
good education even if they change schools or move to a different state. During math classes, the
students use laptops that can only be used inside the classroom. At the Sports Camp, the teachers
agree that “students do not typically go on to the next level until they get it.” LACOE provides
math students with a tool known as the “Think Through Math” math journal (TTM) to assist
students in monitoring their progress while learning. According to the Think Through Math
Journal Course, the benefits of the TTM are that students must:
- Show their work – Helps students demonstrate their understanding of the problems
- Draw or diagram the problem – Allows students to record their work, giving insight
to how they are solving problems
- Demonstrate their thinking progress – Students record the challenges they face while
solving problems
- Set goals –Students stay focused and track their progress
Participant I summed up the benefits of the TTM Math Journal: “Since it is difficult to
keep the students engaged in the classroom, the TTM helps teachers to monitor individual
progress without the other students hearing the conversation.” Students seemed engaged in their
assignments when they used their TTM Journals.
The CCSS for English Language Arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and
technical studies uses an integrated approach across multiple disciplines. The purpose is to
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 62
strengthen a student’s skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language. LACOE
administrators believe that literacy is the gateway to success; and therefore require that English
teachers use this approach to provide differentiated literacy instruction. For example, the English
classes at the Sports Camp were reading the Hunger Games. Students were allowed to express
their understanding of the book in a variety of ways, including drawings, a group skit, or by
writing a book report. This range allowed students flexibility in how they expressed mastery of
the book. In English classes, the students used an online tool called Achieve 3000. Achieve 3000
pedagogy strives to enable students at all levels to make significant improvements to their
reading literacy. The recently appointed assistant principal at the Vocational Camp supported
this program: “Reading is not only at the forefront of the Common Core Initiative, but that
administrators at LACOE also view literacy in the curriculum as a top priority.” Because the
students in these camps had varying levels of ability, this online system helped teachers reach
and teach every student at his level even though the standards were designed to meet the needs of
the students more broadly. According to Achieve 3000 (n,d), this program is the only
differentiated online literacy program that:
- Encompasses the entire classroom – Students receive one-on-one instruction from
teachers;
- Uses a five-step literacy routine – A student’s prior knowledge is used to make
connections to the topic of the day; repeated exposure to vocabulary through grade-
appropriate text; complete assigned activities that have text-dependent questions to
improve higher order critical thinking skills; students are polled and asked questions
about the reading; and thought questions are a catalyst to promote stronger writing
skills
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 63
- Continual assessment of individual student reading levels – Provides immediate
results so that weaknesses and gaps can be addressed
- Engages students with interactive reading assignments – This area can be used
beyond the classroom, perhaps in the after-school program
- A Resource Library – Allows students to select reading materials based on their own
interests
The question is: How is Achieve 3000 utilized, and how does it benefit the students?
Participant H described the benefits as “scaffolding and inquiry that facilitates learning.” She
intentionally scaffold (Larson & Handsen, 2005), that is, assisted the students in learning the
Hunger Games to help them successfully complete their creative assignments. For example,
during the classroom observation, her assistance clearly included guidance to reframe their
assignments. Participant H acknowledged that scaffolding activities take “extra” time, especially
with this population, and require reflection time for the students—a concept that is not part of the
formal curriculum. One of her stories was about helping students describe the characters in the
book, followed by writing descriptive paragraphs about them. Participant H connected inquiry-
based processing with her scaffolding. A rich dialogue on the characters resulted from her
questions, and she encouraged their questions as well. The cycle of inquiry was beneficial to the
teacher and the class, as students reinforced one another and gained confidence to share in the
discussion (Larsen & Hansen, 2005).
Discussion
State and local officials continue to demand better education and vocational training for
incarcerated youth in the juvenile justice system. LACOE was forced to make major changes in
its education pedagogy following a lawsuit settlement at its largest juvenile detention center in
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 64
November 2010 (Frost, 2010). Pressure from civil rights organizations created a sense of
urgency to drastically improve overall student achievement in all of LACOE’s juvenile centers.
Under the settlement, more books and libraries were provided. In addition, higher standards for
teachers were imposed, such as lowering the number of substitute teachers, as well as boosting
the use of technology. As stated, politicians, educators, community activists, and other concerned
citizens are scratching their heads to identify solutions that can reduce recidivism that, for adults,
cost taxpayers between $80,000-$100,000 a year per inmate (Frost, 2010).
While the external pressures continue to abound, the academic counselor weighed in by
summarizing the challenges that teachers face when creating and utilizing instructional practices:
The curriculum and the current learning materials are much better than the ones
we provided in the past; yet, since so many of our students have not attended
school regularly, they have lots of educational deficits. Therefore, even though we
can offer a lot of creative assignments in the classroom, the problem is the
students can’t always take advantage of these opportunities.
The assistant principals at the Vocational Camp concurred with this assessment. According to
Participant C, “We must convince them that there’s a vested interest in them taking an active role
in their education. In other words, the change and innovation in the curriculum is happening; but
they must make academics apart of their self-concept.” During the interview, the principal stated
that he did not have a problem with the online computer programs, but that he wished that
teachers had more time to teach students according to their individual needs instead of rushing
through the mandated curriculum. In short, instructional practices that include pacing guides
such as Achieve 3000 and the Think Through Math Journal can help students make self-
adjustments according to their individual academic levels.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 65
Research Question Two
What strategies do teachers use to improve student achievement in the juvenile detention
camps?
Research question two aimed to investigate the strategies that teachers used to improve
student academic achievement. In the context of this case study, three major themes emerged to
categorize the strategies including: physical environment and artifacts, classroom management
and interaction, and instructional practices. The following section discusses the strategies that the
two juvenile detention camps used, as revealed by artifact analysis, interviews, and observations,
as well as analysis of how these strategies relate to the academic achievement of the students.
Physical Environment and Artifacts
As already noted, LACOE administrators are assertively increasing the rigor of available
course work as well as the academic expectations for students in the juvenile detention camps.
For this reason, both camps focused on the Expected School-wide Learning Results (ESLRs) to
train students to be effective communicators, collaborative or group workers, critical thinkers,
and most importantly, self-directed learners. In addition to posting the ESLRs in visible
locations, one English class at the Vocational Camp had a poster outlining the requirements for
written assignments including name, date, subject, topic, genre, and the reminder to use standard
academic language. This same class had a series of colorful literature on how to identify the
genre, plot, dialogue, resolution, setting, style, foreshadowing, and climax. Another class had a
poster that pointed to their life beyond juvenile camps: “You are the future, prepare yourself;
dreams without actions remain as dreams;” “Everyday counts;” “ Classroom rules: stay seated,
no loud talk, no tagging, no gang talk, no sex talk;” “ Consequences: verbal warnings, loss of
points, behavior referral, suspension from class.”
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 66
The observations made by this researcher confirmed statements that were recorded in the
interviews; for example, most classes had Smart Boards on and in use. Although teachers for the
most part used a direct teaching approach with very little one-on-one instruction, teachers in the
Sports Camp did spend time with students during their independent lesson time on their laptops.
Another teacher used the Socratic method in her classroom, that is, teaching by asking multiple
questions. Classroom seating in the Sports Camp was the same as in traditional settings, with a
teacher desk in the front followed by three to five rows of individual desks. In a math class, the
students were divided into two groups for a group assignment that involved solving problems
(that the teacher put on the board) faster than the opposing team. It was observed that the
students were more engaged when they participated in assignments for groups than they were
when working independently. All textbooks were prominently displayed when not in use. All
materials for educational purposes were distributed in the classroom. Students were always
escorted to the classroom with a Probation Officer.
Classroom Management and Interaction
The following section will focus on student achievement at the two detention centers in
the context of classroom management and interactions. By definition, the term classroom
management describes methods of preventing negative behavior in order to maximize learning
(Schmoker, 2009). This effort is a challenge in the juvenile setting because so many students are
either perpetrators or victims of anger that includes physical or verbal aggression (Noguera,
2001). Although the Probation Department is the first line of defense for major infractions,
teachers strive to maintain order in their classrooms at all times. Several observations made
evident that the teachers were committed to creating solid teacher-student relationships. This
bond was accomplished through several steps, including teachers projecting positive attitudes
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 67
when the students arrived in class; prepared lessons and materials that were distributed when
classes started; a review of the rewards and incentives from the previous day; and, posted
reminders of proper classroom behavior in several visible locations. The principal discussed the
importance of classroom management in this way:
LACOE is really trying to make major changes to redirect the students’ lives. Teachers
are the keys to helping students build their confidence. It starts by stating the
expectation that students should do their best every day. Something as simple as
walking the students to class, (for some, this is their first time,) makes a difference.
Teachers have to reinforce that the classroom is a safe environment in spite of gang and
racial differences.
Students at each camp are clear that they participate in the best juvenile detention camp
programs for either sports or vocational training in Los Angeles. Thus, they tried to get
through the six 50-minute classes plus a 1-hour-and-40-minute lunch period without
disciplinary actions. For example, a student on the way to P.E. was pulled aside by Participant
I, who said, “I’m not talking to you as a teacher, I’m speaking to you as a mother. You can’t
make enemies here, you only have a few weeks to go.” Her maternal approach neutralized his
anger, and he got in line before the Probation Officer came over to talk with him. Other
teachers agreed. The sentiment was that the kids are generally smart but have not had the
opportunities to socialize with peers in healthy and appropriate ways. In addition, they are so
segregated by race that there is always tension between them even if gang-related activity is
not occurring. Thus, Participant I strove to have collaborative group projects as often as
possible, mixing the races and the students according to abilities. This helped balance the room
and enabled students to get to know more about their classmates and learn how to interact
more appropriately.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 68
Instructional Practices
The interview protocol included this probing question: “Under what circumstances do
you observe students implementing what they are learning?” As noted, the literature has
extensive discussions of the need for innovation in meeting the educational needs of at-risk
students (Alexander et al., 2009). One possible innovation is including social-cultural learning
theories and collaborative learning strategies in the curriculum (Lattuca, 2002). The
sociocultural approach—credited to Vygotsky (1978) and his colleagues—emphasizes the
importance of social customs, beliefs, personal identity, reality, and language. Within this
framework, educators are learning that culture and environment are significant factors in a
student’s development (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2005).
Responses to the question above were mixed. All of the teachers acknowledged that
observing how well the students were learning and applying what they had learned was
important; however, Participant E summarized the sentiments of most of the teachers when he
explained:
We’re lucky just to get them to complete the assignment let alone see how they are
applying what they learned. What you’re asking is a great long-term goal, but right
now we just want to et kids who have not been students at all to get used to sitting in
the classroom and completing their work.
The researcher noted that responses to this question were evenly divided between the teachers
at the Sports Camp and the Vocational Camp. The teachers at Sports Camp used the common
core initiatives as a method to observe how well their students were implementing what they
had been learning. For example, Participant J gave students different scenarios in which to
work out math problems. One student had to negotiate his new car deal, another had to go to
the market and buy food and supplies for his school. Many of the students were very
intelligent; however, they had not had either the opportunity or the experience to showcase
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 69
what they knew in the classroom. In addition, they acknowledged that although every student
at the Sports Camp did not compete off campus, there was an atmosphere in which they had do
their work well, above 2.0 G.P.A., to compete against other schools. In contrast, teachers at the
Vocational Camp felt that they did not have many opportunities to observe how well the
students were implementing what they had been teaching except for the Freedom Schools
experience. Thus, these teachers had neutral responses to the question on student
implementation of the lessons learned in the classroom. Participant G said: “Instruction is
emerging here at the Vocational Camp. Our job is to give kids hope, love, compassion,
structure, boundaries, and overall raise the bar so that have higher expectations about their
future.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the Freedom Schools experience was innovative
and exciting for the students. The next section will describe the Freedom Schools pilot
program.
The Freedom Schools program was created by Marian Wright Edelman’s Children’s
Defense Fund (CDF) to help improve reading literacy (Children’s Defense Fund, n.d.). This
program provides summer and afterschool enrichment led by on-site trained CDF
professionals who work alongside local school personnel. In addition to improving reading
literacy, the program is designed to increase self-esteem, and generate more positive attitudes
toward learning through a series of structured interventions and a culturally sensitive
curriculum. This was CDF’s first pilot program with a juvenile detention camp facility.
In general, the teachers at the Vocational Camp were able to share positive feedback
about the impact of the Freedom Schools on the students’ overall academic achievement.
Specifically, during the interviews, each teacher was able to share a successful teaching
method or instructional practice that they felt was effective. For example, Participant F said,
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 70
“When I first heard that we were to place the students in a circle so that they could face their
classmates as they shared their comments about the reading, I didn’t think it would work, but it
did.” Another teacher, Participant E, shared a similar comment “I had guys reading out loud
who never read just because they were facing each other and reading books that were
interesting, stuff they could relate to.” The researcher observed and confirmed these positive
interactions in the classrooms throughout the day. Rather than treat this program like an
afterschool program, this curriculum was used throughout the day for five weeks at the
Vocational Camp.
The Freedom Schools curriculum had very specific guidelines—starting with the
“positive” label they gave each student. Each one was called a “scholar.” By definition, a
scholar connotes a learned, knowledgeable person, or student of merit in an educational
establishment. These scholars began each day with clapping, chanting, singing, dancing,
laughing, and getting excited about books and reading. Of the program, the head trainer,
Participant L, said: “We weren’t sure how the students in a juvenile setting would respond to
our rigorous program. After they got used to the routine, they began to like what the program
had to offer and actually started to read.” The Probation Department also weighed in on the
program. Participant K said:
He was surprised to hear guys talking about the reading in the barracks in the evening.
One of his concerns has been that there were never enough homework in the evenings.
I even saw guys rehearsing the steps for the next day.
According to the head trainer for the Freedom Schools program, the design required
that teachers check for understanding of the material in a variety of creative ways, including
pair sharing, written summaries, group discussion, art projects, and skits. While observing
classes, this researcher noted several of these instructional practices being implemented.
Participant G said: “The emphasis was not on getting the right answer, it was on
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 71
encouraging each student to take the risk to engage in the conversation. Once we got the
scholars used to the routine, things started to fall into place.” Throughout the five weeks,
there were specific schedules and guidelines (See Appendix G). There was also a
motivational song that the scholars sang each morning during the “Harambee” assembly.
This Swahili word literally means: “all pull together.” The lyrics to this impactful theme
song—“Something Inside So Strong” (Poldor, 1988) are:
The higher you build your barriers
The taller I become
The farther you take my rights away
The faster I will run
You can deny me
You can decide to turn your face away
No matter ‘cause there’s…
Chorus
Something inside so strong
I know that I can make it
Through you’re doin me wrong, so wrong
You thought that my pride was gone, oh no
There’s something inside so strong
Something inside so strong
The more you refuse to hear my voice
The louder I will sing
You hide behind walls of Jericho
Your lies will come tumbling
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 72
Deny me my place in time
You squander wealth that’s mine
My light will shine so brightly
It will blind you
Because there’s…
Repeat Chorus
Brothers and sisters
When they insist we’re just not good enough
Will we know better
Just look them in the eye and say
“We’re gonna do it anyway”
“We’re gonna do it anyway”
Repeat Chorus
It was amazing to see 100 students, administrators, teachers, staff, volunteers, and
guests singing this song in unison. The students were excited; and, for a moment, this brief
five-week moment, this setting was more like a traditional school than a juvenile detention
camp where the students were incarcerated. Participant G said that the Freedom Schools
method was to remove punitive ideas. The contracts and rules did not use words like “no” and
“consequences.” The scholars felt comfortable sharing their personal stories as they related to
the books that were read. Racial barriers were breaking down, and the teachers as facilitators
started to become engaged, some for the first time. Other benefits were different than the
regular school year routine; for example, snacks were provided every afternoon. Participant F
recalled that “the scholars hoarded the snacks initially until they learned that they were freely
given and in abundance.” The teachers also said that Harambee set the tone for the entire day.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 73
Guest speakers like the principal and LACOE administrators would come and read a portion of
their favorite books to the students to encourage them to continue reading. Overall, there was
freedom of expression that included skits, presentations, music, art, dance, monologues, and
other creative collaborative learning activities. Positive messages were posted throughout the
camp; for example, one banner read: “I can make a difference.” Another quoted poet Maya
Angelou: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.” For this and other reasons, the general
consensus was that the Freedom Schools pilot was a success.
Discussion
The literature reveals that one of the most effective ways to teach at-risk students is to
use multidimensional strategies (Alexander et al., 2009). When they use multiple strategies,
teachers help students who have learning deficits adapt more productively to their new
environment. In addition, as students work at their own pace, they gain confidence to engage
in the classroom activities. The research also reveals that student social interaction with
teachers and peers is critical to classroom learning. Therefore, teachers must strive to create an
atmosphere in which their teaching strategies are more than one-dimensional. Teachers at the
Sports and Vocational Camps used multiple strategies to motivate the students. Several
practices were very successful, including the pilot Freedom Schools program at the Vocational
Camp. The excitement and pride that the students felt at the final celebration assembly, where
they received awards and gifts, is just one example of what can be done in this setting to
invigorate the so-called disposable generation.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 74
Research Question Three
How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention camps?
The main tool for assessment and accountability is the Individual Learning Plan (ILP).
Every student receives a four-page (ILP) at the beginning and end of their tenure at the
juvenile camps. The first page of the ILP has a transcript evaluation that records unit and
course requirements toward graduation, 220 credits. Other input on the first page summarizes
the specialized support, if any, the current courses, and the student’s academic pathway, that is,
traditional diploma or GED. The second page summarizes the student’s goals including
academic, behavioral, and post high school. For example, one student’s plan states the
following for the three areas. Academic: “Student would like to take and pass the CAHSEE.
Although student has passes the GED exam, student would still like to obtain his HS diploma
via GED Plus program.” Behavioral: “Student will not obtain any in-school write-ups or
suspensions.” Post High School: “Student would like to get a job as a Trapper with Animal
Control then he plans on moving to Nevada with his mentor.” Page three is for summary notes
of the overall plan and comments about college and career readiness. The final page includes
summary notes regarding the student’s academic record. The requirements for graduation and
the procedures for students with IEPs are clearly displayed in the academic counselor’s office.
In her interview, the academic counselor said:
My job is to talk to the students and ask them about their goals. Then, I figure out what
they need to know, look at their record to assess what they already know, place them in
classes where they can learn more that they know, and then analyze from there what
the next steps should be. Theoretically, this should be a systematic process, especially
for our 11
th
and 12
th
graders who we want to see graduate.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 75
She confirmed that students are aware of their progress at all times because they are wards of
the state and have to report their progress to the court. Moreover, because these students have
extenuating factors that involve more than their academic performance, they reserve the right
to request their grades and see the comments written about them at all times.
As already noted, the average stay for student inmates at the camps is 24 weeks. This
duration can be shortened if the student has behavioral or other legal mandates that result in
transfer to another facility. For this reason, the teachers must administer standardized test,
quizzes, oral exams, and grade group projects so that grades recorded for each student on a
weekly basis. According to Participant I, “This is problematic for students who arrive without
academic records because their skills have to be assessed and we must observe them before
placing them in groups.” Another challenge was noted by the counselor, “Transition after
graduation is a challenge since some students can graduate but still have time to serve at the
camps. Collaborative with Jr. Colleges is in the works but has not materialized.” Overall, the
goal is to achieve proper placement for each student, perhaps for the first time, while in the
respective camps.
Discussion
Despite a concerted intention to “equip all students” and prepare them for a future
beyond the juvenile detention camps, measuring whether the current system is making a
significant impact on student achievement is difficult. Although Achieve 3000 and Think
Through Math Journals provide “real time” diagnostic and achievement data for teachers and
administrators, the information seems useful only for the time period in which the students are
in the camps. Although there is consensus that the students must be assessed to measure their
academic progress, benchmark assessments at traditional schools—where the student
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 76
population is more homogenous—may not capture the essence of the students in a juvenile
setting. In this setting, that the population is fluid and transient coupled with often-severe skills
deficits and an overall lack of student interests are contributing factors for this conclusion.
LACOE educators must be more willing to access these students in “real time” and develop
future education plans based on their individual academic progress, not on the county’s
aspirational academic goals for the juvenile student population.
Alternative methods of assessment are challenging but possible in these camp settings.
For example, perhaps a common assessment that combines a portfolio component of the
students’ work with test scores and other assessments would be a better indicator of their skills.
The instructional practices in general must be based on the key essential state and county
standards; however, in this setting, teachers struggle to create pockets of time for remedial
teaching—a critical but missing piece of the curriculum that students need in preparation for
standardized exams, including the CAHSEE. Therefore, because the CAHSEE is not a
graduation requirement for “special education” students with IEPs, the Juvenile Justice System
should consider making a systemic change to remove this requirement for these students.
Therefore, the focus can shift to addressing each student’s specific educational needs instead
of forcing him/her to achieve a standard that is perhaps unobtainable based on their current
skill set. Using IEPs or a comparable approach that would include specific accommodations
and modifications for each student could yield better results for the students—and the teachers
who are responsible for teaching them—on a daily basis.
Research Question Four
Which combination of instructional practices utilized by teachers provides the most
beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention camps?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 77
The interview protocol included two questions: “What two class/non-classroom
activities together engage students the most?” and “What do you see as the benefit and purpose
of serving time in juvenile, how does it help a student with future goal setting?” There were
several similar responses to the benefits of juvenile. One participant thought that being in
juvenile was an opportunity for some to see wholesome male role models for the first time.
Another participant felt that the juvenile camp separated the students from their biggest
challenge: their home environment and the people who caused them to get involved in criminal
behavior. However, the probation officer had the most thought-provoking comments about the
benefits of juvenile:
So many of the young men have never learned how to respect teachers, officers of the
law or any authority figure. As a result, they depend on their peers who pressure them
into performing or under-performing. This is a huge factor in shaping their behavior
once they come into the camp. But the biggest benefit is that some students are forced,
some the first time, to sit in a classroom with enemies without any violent behavior. At
first it seems hard to focus on schoolwork rather than the enemies, but they eventually
get he hang of it.
The academic counselor also weighed in on this subject:
I believe that enough is in place to help while students are at the camp. However, more
needs to be done to help them during the transition between camps and the outside
world. Some students have told me that once they get out, people always judge them or
make them feel bad. Maybe this is why recidivism is so high. Although they are on
lockdown, it may feel safe to them. We try to get them to see that they have choices to
make and can take control of their future.
When asked to describe the educational climate and focus on combinations of class and
nonclassroom instructional practices that impact student academic achievement, administrators
and teachers repeatedly used descriptive words like “collaborative,” “team-oriented,” and
“helpful.” Interviewees expressed near unanimity that group projects or collaborative efforts
compelled students to cooperate with one another because of their awareness of their own
performances compared to those of their peers. This approach yielded strong results for student
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 78
engagement and academic achievement. These comments are consistent with the literature that
posits that the classroom environment is an important factor in helping students determine
their self-concept (Dijkstra, Kuyper, van der Werf, Buunk, & van der Zee, 2008). In fact, with
age, students’ interaction in the classroom became more strongly related to social comparisons
and less focused on mastery of their subjects. The teachers recognized that social comparison
can have a positive or negative impact on self-concept, depending on the selected student or
comparison target. Thus, the goal is to mix things up in the classroom by having the students
work with a number of different students to balance the impact of social comparisons.
According to Bandura (1977), students learn best through observation and imitation. In the the
juvenile detention setting it is imperative that these students work together in groups to help
students strive toward self-improvement and self-enhancement (Dijkstra et al., 2008).
As important is the need to recognize that incarcerated students are still teenagers. For
this reason, Participant J liked the sports camp concept as “a physical and mental tool”
intended to help the students exert energy and foster discipline while developing mental
toughness to compete and to develop a work ethic that will serve them beyond the walls of the
juvenile detention camp setting. Participant G saw a remarkable improvement in behavior in a
short period of time during the Freedom Schools pilot. Students who seldom spoke, or those
who were social yet marginal participants in class, began to settle down and do their work as
they began to imitate others in the class. In addition, Participant G found that it became easier
to check in with students for understanding of the material, as well as to ensure that the high-
quality curriculum could actually be taught in a timely manner.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 79
Discussion
The teachers and administrators at the two juvenile detention camps strove to ensure
that the academic achievement of future students continued to improve. LACOE was
committed to increasing the graduation rate, closing achievement gaps, and providing the
necessary support to help students be successful. Although still plagued by student failure that
is often beyond their control, the consensus among staff members is that the juvenile camp
environment is a stabilizer that—with the proper support—can lead to success. After all that
was observed and reported about the two juvenile detention camps, one question remained:
What have we learned that can help LACOE and other education practitioners as they strive to
help incarcerated youth? In some respects, it is disappointing to find that several solid
instructional practices, like group and collaborative learning are in place, while in reality, there
is no quick fix or magic solution to the enormous challenges that plague the system.
Summary
This chapter investigated the findings from the case study on successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention camps. The data suggest several findings related to the four
questions, as discussed in the next section.
Research question one asked, How do teachers in juvenile detention camps create and
utilize instructional practices that influence student achievement? Given the wide variation in
academic abilities among students, the online pacing guide programs provide the most
effective methods of creation and utilization of instructional practices in this setting.
Research question two asked, What strategies do teachers use to improve student
achievement in the juvenile detention camps? The general consensus was the use of
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 80
multidimensional learning strategies was the most effective way to teach at-risk students in a
juvenile setting.
Research question three asked, How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess
successful instructional practices in juvenile detention camps? The camps used the Individual
Learning Plans for accountability and to monitor each student’s academic performance.
Research question four asked, Which combination of instructional practices utilized by
teachers provides the most beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention camps?
The best combination of class and non-classroom instructional practices involved those
engaging the students both socially and academically. Instructional practices that helped
students develop a self-concept were also a critical factor.
Chapter Five presents an overview of the case study as well as a summary, conclusion,
and implications for practice and future research.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 81
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The U.S. must increase academic achievement for all students in order to compete
effectively in a twenty-first century economy. When compared to 34 countries in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) international student
assessment report, the United States ranks fourth in spending on education per student, yet
ranked
17th and 25th, respectively, in science and mathematics. Worse, only eight out of 34
countries had a lower high school graduation rate (Dougherty, 2012). Many low-performing
students in America have been labeled “at-risk” and have spent time in the juvenile justice
system. Identifying successful instructional practices that can lead to a reduction in recidivism
within the juvenile and adult penal system is a critical factor in improving student academic
achievement in the U.S..
This chapter provides a summary of this case study, including a statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and
methodology used, followed by findings related to the four research questions. In closing,
implications, recommendations for future study, and the conclusion will be discussed.
Statement of the Problem
Significant gaps in student academic achievement continue to plague the United States
in recent years, falling along economic and racial lines (Giroux, 2003; Samad, 2009). As a
result, the youth of today with low levels of education are experiencing high levels of
unemployment, which is possibly increasing the crime rate in urban communities. Public
education in the inner city has not kept pace with the educational outcomes in more suburban
areas. Given the significance of the problem, school districts are more likely to send at-risk
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 82
students with criminal records to juvenile detention camp facilities than to address the problem
of meeting their educational needs (Butler, 2011).
There is a huge question mark about the quality of education provided to the youth
incarcerated in Los Angeles County Juvenile Detention facilities. As in traditional schools,
more accountability is needed for student academic outcomes. The goal should be to provide
students with academic instruction that goes beyond teaching and learning. Students must
learn other intangible skills in order to be successful. Thus, factors that could enhance
academic achievement for students in juvenile detention centers should be explored as a means
of improving their well being, and perhaps reducing the probability of recidivism (Sheridan &
Steele-Dadzie, 2005; Wang, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to explore successful instructional practices in juvenile
detention centers in response to the overwhelming concern that something has to be done.
Because many of the students in this population have educational deficits, the teachers play a
significant role in motivating and teaching them. In addition, the teachers are often role models
or mentors who not only teach but also model appropriate behavior in social settings.
Stakeholders outside of the juvenile justice system—including politicians, counselors,
community organizations, social workers, secondary schools, and institutions of higher
learning—can benefit from this study and consider the successful strategies to help change the
educational outcomes for this population.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 83
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this case study:
1. How do teachers in juvenile detention camps create and utilize instructional
practices that influence student achievement?
2. What strategies do teachers use to improve student achievement in the juvenile
detention camps?
3. How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess successful instructional
practices in juvenile detention camps?
4. Which combination of instructional practices utilized by teachers provides the most
beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention camps?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to capture relevant knowledge as it related to the
background, context, and successful instructional practices to help at-risk students in juvenile
detention centers reach high academic achievement. Three major themes emerged from the
literature on reaching at-risk students: (a) sociocultural learning strategies, (b) teacher/student
relationships, and (c) student focus and goal orientation. The literature repeatedly concluded
that low SES Black and Latino students have little or no interest and very low expectations for
their time spent in school (Aron, 2006; Giroux, 2003; Ruttenberg, 1994,). As a result, low-
performing students are often transferred to alternative schools—including juvenile detention
centers. Once in these environments, the students continue a downward spiral in education
that—for most—leads to dropping out before high school graduation, or for some, a life of
crime as an adult (Hawkins, 2010; Stearns et al., 2007). Students from Latin American cultures
have an even bigger challenge in that they are isolated in school by a curriculum that focuses
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 84
on their weakness—learning English instead of learning the content of each subject. Faced
with learning in an environment that restricts their cultural expression, parents and students
experience even more (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006).
Another major challenge for alternative school settings is the teacher population. The
majority of the teachers are White and middle class, and have limited training with at-risk
students (Hubbard & Datnow, 2000). In addition, most teach the state standardized curriculum,
which creates more challenges for students with limited language proficiencies as they straddle
the two worlds of home and school. Former CNN correspondent and educator, Dr. Steve Perry
said: “Only poor kids and prisoners are forced to attend bad schools, so it is no surprise that
many poor kids end up in prison (Mancini, 2011). His comments are echoed throughout the
literature. It is alarming that there is currently a higher probability that low SES Black and
Latino students will end up in prison than in college (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Giroux, 2003;
Hawkins, 2010; Watanabe, 2013; Wokusch, 2002).
Thus, educators must create reforms that support student academic achievement and
include subsequent actions that impact student outcomes. The main question is thus: What is
the best way to educate students who are considered by some to be the twenty-first century’s
“disposable generation”? According to Alexander et al. (2009), teaching for this population
must be innovative and multidimensional. In other words, traditional one-dimensional
pedagogies no longer yield positive results for the majority of students. One such innovation
for this population is incorporating sociocultural learning theories and collaborative learning
strategies into the curriculum (Greenberg et al., 2003; Lattuca, 2002; Wang, 2007). The
literature also revealed that student social interaction with teachers and peers is a dominant
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 85
factor in classroom learning (Gehlbach, 2010). Students are more motivated when teachers
take a more active role in their learning (Thoonen et al., 2011).
In alternative settings like juvenile detention centers, evaluating and sustaining student
enthusiasm is one of the most formidable challenges. According to Drakeford (2002), the main
goal for incarcerated youth should be to improve their literacy by teaching them the
fundamentals of reading and writing. Other goals that can help the so-called “disposable
generation” achieve academic success include:
1. Teaching the students how to establish a clear purpose statement for their lives;
2. Teaching the students how to become problem solvers;
3. Challenging the students to set high goals and expectations for themselves;
4. Teaching the students how the students to establish positive peer groups; and
5. Encouraging them to give consent to receive counseling for past traumas (Noguera,
2001)
Methodology
The case study employed a qualitative design consisting of a document review
followed by 12 interviews and 12 observations. This method was selected because it is
emergent, dynamic, and evolving (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful criteria-based
sampling was used to identify teachers and administrators for the qualitative inquiry. The
criteria for teacher, administrator, and staff interviews was three-fold; they had to (a) teach one
of the core subjects including math, English, or science; (b) have at least two years of teaching
experience; and (c) be available over the summer months.
The data used for sampling were limited to document review, interviews, and
observations at two juvenile detention camps located in Southern California. The qualitative
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 86
interviews were conducted using an interview protocol of eight questions. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed for accuracy. The observations were conducted during different times
and class periods.
Instrument design was informed by the body of scholarly research and was aligned to
the research questions and the triangulation of the data collected to enhance instrument validity.
This study was not a mixed-methods approach because the document review was a secondary
source of examination in support of the other two sources (Creswell, 2009).
Findings
Research question one asked: How do teachers in juvenile detention camps create and
utilize instructional practices that influence student achievement? Officials at the state and
local level continue to challenge the Juvenile Justice System to improve instructional practices
for incarcerated youth. The administrators in this case study were unanimous in their view of
the curriculum and current learning materials. During the qualitative interviews, they
concluded that LACOE had made high academic achievement a top priority. To that end,
pacing guides, including Think Through Math Journal and Achieve 3000, and more books and
libraries have been provided throughout the system. The goal is to use state and local
mandated standards to help each student succeed. However, the biggest challenges include
student educational deficits or sporadic attendance in traditional schools, which prevent the
students from reaping the full of the instructional practices and learning materials. According
to Lattuca (2002), collaborative and project-based learning initiatives have been successful;
however, the transient nature of the population has made it difficult to measure the
effectiveness of these learning tools.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 87
Research question two asked: What strategies do teachers use to improve student
achievement in the juvenile detention camps? Three major themes emerged to categorize the
strategies used in the camps, including: physical environment and artifacts, classroom
management and interaction, and instructional practices. Teachers and Probation Officers
adhered to a strict daily routine. As incarcerated youth, the students were always under the
watchful eye of the authorities. Each camp displayed posters that focused on student academic
success, classroom rules, and conflict resolution goals beyond juvenile, along with constant
reminders about making “everyday count.”
Teachers were responsible for maintaining order in their classrooms despite the
presence of gangs and racial differences. Four out of six teachers interviewed felt their role
was to be both a teacher and a mentor to the students. Regarding learning strategies, the
general consensus among teachers was that applying real life situations yielded the best results
for classroom engagement. Even when teachers used a direct teaching approach, students were
more motivated to pay attention when they could relate to the classroom topics.
The learning strategies that recorded the highest level of agreement among those
interviewed were those involving the inclusion of the students’ culture (Vygotsky, 1978).
Teachers were evenly divided between the camps on the question: Under what circumstances
do you observe students implementing what they are learning? Whereas teachers in the Sports
Camp used the Common Core as their benchmark, teachers in the Vocational Camp viewed
The Freedom Schools reading literacy program as their measure of success. This innovative
program promoted learning in a variety of creative ways including projects, skits, and pair
sharing. Although they have been criticized as low-leverage activities that are a perversion of
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 88
active learning in classrooms (Schmoker, 2009), these pedagogies are appropriate and
effective for students who suffer from low motivation and multiple educational deficits.
The Freedom Schools program was a 5-week pilot program at the Vocational Camp.
All of the administrators and teachers at the Vocational Camp agreed that multiple facets of
this program could be included in other academic courses to improve student achievement.
Research question three asked: How do teachers and administrators monitor and assess
successful instructional practices in juvenile detention camps? Although students had the
ability to monitor their academic progress weekly, their transient and often short-term tenure in
the camps made monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the instructional practices
problematic. The ILP was the primary tool for recording each student’s assessment results and
academic outcomes during the student’s tenure in one of the camps. The academic counselor
had an ambitious goal of helping each 12th grader qualify for graduation. However,
extenuating factors, such as appropriate placement, access to academic records from the
previous school, and successfully meeting state-mandated requirements, prevented this goal
from becoming a reality under the current system.
A systematic change to classify all juvenile students’ as “special education” would
eliminate the state–mandated CAHSEE as a graduation requirement. This proposal is worthy
of consideration because the 2011–2012 STAR for both camps reported proficiency scores in
English/language arts and history/social science of 2% and 1%, respectively. The scores for
mathematics and science were 0% proficiency. In comparison, LACOE reported scores in
these same subjects of 33%, 24%, 23%, and 27%, respectively over the same period.
Research question four asked: Which combination of instructional practices utilized by
teachers provides the most beneficial learning opportunities in the juvenile detention camps? It
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 89
was nearly unanimous that group projects had the strongest impact on student academic
achievement. This approach yielded a high degree of student engagement and self-esteem, as
observed in the Freedom Schools Program.
Participation in sports programs was mentioned by eight of the 12 people interviewed.
Each participant emphasized the importance of physical activity, especially for incarcerated
youth. Teachers at the Sports Camp credited physical activity as a positive factor for classroom
productivity.
Developing “soft skills,” for example, behavior management, managing inner emotions,
and learning from other adult male role models—many of them minorities—were cited by
administrators and staff as potential benefits of spending time in juvenile detention camps.
Implications
The significant findings associated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers. The
insights here are useful to current or aspiring teachers or administrators seeking to launch
education reform in juvenile detention camps because they provide a constructive framework
for understanding the complexities associated with this nontraditional school setting.
Although successful instructional practices in this setting may be difficult to duplicate,
this case study suggests that academic achievement for this population is possible but that the
current paradigm must continue to evolve in order to make a substantial impact in the system.
Other successful instructional practices must also be identified to provide guidance to LACOE
administrators in preparation for creating programs to train education leaders to meet the
increasing demands for change from internal and external sources.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 90
In addition, the findings can be used by school districts to help increase awareness
about the persistent challenges in education reform for at-risk students in alternative or
nontraditional school settings. State and local politicians, school boards, teachers, probation
officers, counselors, social workers, and community organizations can use this information to
develop long-term educational outcomes. Such implementation will create a strong pairing
between research-based practices and LACOE accountability in the future.
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of gaining more clarity about successful instructional practices that impact
student achievement in juvenile detention camps, future research must continue to build on the
discoveries presented in this case study. Therefore, the researcher recommends that the
following be considered for future study:
1. This case study suggested successful instructional practices that are making a
positive impact on student academic achievement; however, more needs to be
undertaken to identify additional strategies that can be useful for stabilization and
re-entry into a formal educational setting after students are discharged from the
juvenile setting.
2. More research is needed to study the academic outcomes of students who have
IEPs in comparison to general education students in this setting. Their criminal
behavior alone classifies these students as at-risk. Successful outcomes for students
with IEPs could lead to this classification for all incarcerated youth.
3. Identifying successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers
highlights the need for comparison between students who participate in a structured
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 91
afterschool academic enrichment program versus those who participate in an
unstructured after-school enrichment program.
4. There is a need to analyze the impact that an intensive, culturally relevant reading
literacy program could have on student academic achievement in juvenile detention
settings. This study indicated that programs like the Freedom School could boost
student engagement and motivation that can, in turn, promote higher academic
expectations and overall achievement.
5. It is unrealistic to assume that students who have experienced trauma or who suffer
from some type addiction withdrawal can perform academically without being
disruptive in the classroom. Therefore, analyzing the affect that individual and
group therapy would have on the students could impact student achievement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, despite LACOE’s commitment to improving the educational outcomes
for youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system, few research studies have examined how
the home environment specifically impacts their educational outcomes. As a result, further
studies in this area would help build more comprehensive theories on the political process,
specifically how administrators at LACOE interpret, choose, and shape the policies that will be
used in the twenty-first century to train educational leaders how to develop successful
instructional practices for these students. Ultimately, the instructional practices that LACOE
choses and develops will create the conditions for change. However, the question still remains
regarding how to enable teachers and school counselors to have a stronger voice in
implementing practices that can impact student academic achievement, and possibly reduce the
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 92
current rate of recidivism in the juvenile justice system. Together, these measures will make
significant strides toward invigorating the so-called “disposable generation.”
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 93
References
Abrams, L. S. (2006). Listening to juvenile offenders: Can residential treatment prevent
recidivism? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1). DOI: 10.1007/s10560-
005-0029-2.
Achieve 3000 (n.d.). Literacy solutions. Retrieved from www.achieve3000-com/literacy-
solution/pedagogy.pdf.
Alexander, P. A., Schalleret, D. l., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(30), 176–192.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (AEE). (2010). High school dropouts in America. Retrieved
from www.all4ed.org/files/graduationrates_factsheet.pdf.
Aron, L. Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. The urban institute. Retrieved from
www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411283_alternative_education.pdf.
Aronson, E. (2012). The social animal (11th ed.). New York: Worth.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beckett, A. B. (2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who
benefits and why? Sociology of Education, 75(1), 69–91. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216485289?accountid=14749.
Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community, violence and children on Chicago’s Southside.
Psychiatry, 56(1). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1301444415?
accountid=14749.
Bennett, C. (2001). Generes of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 94
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131.
Blinn-Pike, L. (1995). Book reviews – losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings from
the commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 57(1), 258. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/219746359?accountid=14749.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Balfanz, R. (2009). Bridging gaps among students, parents,
and teachers. New Directions for Youth Development, 127, 101–110.
Burd-Sharps, S., & Lewis, K. (2012). One in seven: Ranking youth disconnection in the 25
largest metro areas. Retrieved from www.measuresofamerica.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/MOA-one_in_seven09-14.pdf.
Butler, F. (2011). Rush to judgment: Prisoners; views of juvenile justice. Western Criminology
Review, 12(3), 106–119. Retrieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v12n3/Butler.pdf.
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. (2010). Juvenile justice outcome
evaluation report. Office of Research. Retrieved from www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_
research/docs/recidivism.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2013). What are the common core standards?
Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov./re/cc/tl/what areccss.asp.
Capalbo, D. (2011). Rev. Al Sharpton stumps for equal education during NAACP rally for Tanya
McDonnell. Retrieved from www.thehour.com/story/50647.
Children’s Defense Fund. (n.d.). CDF freedom schools program. Retrieved from
www.childrensdefense.org/programs-campaigns/freedom-schools/.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 95
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A
social-psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307–1310. Retrieved from
www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5791/1307.
Conversation with the Rev. Cecil Murray. (2006). Retrieved from usc.edu/uscnews/stories
/12602.html.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd. ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Press.
Crowe, C. (2009). Coaching children in handling everyday conflicts. Responsive Classroom.
Retrieved from https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/article/coaching-children-handling-
everyday-conflicts.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the
education of African American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263–
287. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/2696245.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Davidson, J. (2002). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
Oakland, CA: Coalition of Essential Schools.
Davis, A. Y. (2012). The meaning of freedom and other difficult dialogues. San Francisco, CA:
Open Media Series.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 96
Davis, A. Y. (2013, April 19). Constructing a 21
st
century populist movement: Re-thinking
wealth and imprisonment protest. Paper presented at the California African-American
Museum, The Urban-Issues Breakfast Forum, Los Angeles, CA.
Deliso, M. (n.d.). 10 States that spend more on prisons than education. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinedegrees.org/10-states-that-spend-more-on-prisons-than-education/.
Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., van der Werf, G., Buunk, & van der Zee, G. (2008). Social comparison
in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 828–879.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31–60.
Donaldson, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (2006). The effects of sports participation on young
adolescents' emotional well-being. Adolescence, 41(162), 369–89. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/195945964?accountid=14749.
Donnelly, M. (1987). At-risk students. ERIC Digest Series Num 21. Retrieved from
http://www2.indwes.edu/ocls/apa_eric_docs.html.
Dougherty, M. B. (2012). If America spends more than most countries per student, then why are
its schools so bad? Business Insider. Retrieved from www.business-insider.com/us-
education-spendingcompared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world-2012-1.
Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth
confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(4), 139–144.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/62206372?accountid=14749.
EdSource. (n.d.). Alternative schools accountability model. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/1067.html.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 97
EdSource. (2005). The state’s official measures of school performance. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.
Forrest, C. B., Tambor, E., Riley, A. W. Ensminger, M. E., & Starfield, B. (2000). The health
profile of incarcerated male youths. Pediatrics, 105(2), 286–291. Retrieved from
pediatrics.appublications.org/content/105/286.
Fortuna, L. R., Perez, D. J., Canino, G., Sribney, W., & Alegria, M. (2007). Prevalence and
correlates of lifetime suicidal ideation and attempts among Latino subgroups in the
United States. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(4), 572–581. Retrieved from
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774123/pdf/nihms154115.pdf.
Frost, E. (2010). Lawsuit settlement changes system at Los Angeles’ largest juvenile detention
center. Intersections South LA. Retrieved from intersectionssouthla.org/story/lawsuit_
settlementchanges_system_at_los_angeles_largest_juvenile_detention/.
Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn to violence and how to save them. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/62298976?accountid=14749.
Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds. The art and science of changing our own and other
people’s minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gardiner, H., & Kosmitzki, C. (2005). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psychology.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 349–362. Retrieved from dash.harvard
.edu/handle/1/4460862.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). Racial injustice and disposable youth in the age of zero tolerance.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(4), 553–565.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 98
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., &
Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through
coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6/7),
466–474. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.
Goodall, J. (2000). Reason for hope: A spiritual journey. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Retrieved from www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18163.jane_goodall
Hawkins, S. (2010). Education vs. incarceration. The American Prospect. Retrieved from
http://prospect.org/article.
Heller de Leon, B., & Teji, S. (2012). Juvenile justice realignment in 2012. Center on Juvenile &
Criminal Justice. Retrieved from www.cjcj.org/files/juvenile_justice
_realignment_2012.pdf.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, .17-19.
Hilgenbrinck, L., French, R., Pyfer, J., & Irons, J. (2003). Physical education programs: Part II:
Perceptions in male juvenile offender facilities. Clinical Kinesiology, 57(4).
Hoffman, D. M. (2009). Reflection on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends
in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 533–556. DOI:
10.3102/0034654308325184.
Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2000). A gendered look at educational reform. Gender and
Education, 12(1), 115–130. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/210965742?accountid=14749.
Isaacson, W. (2009). How to raise the standard in America’s schools. Time Magazine. Retrieved
from www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1891741,00.html.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 99
Jones, G., & Philp, C. (2011). Challenging student behavior. Perspectives: Policy and Practice
in Higher Education, 15(1), 19–23.
Juvenile Justice and Courts. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr39.htm.
Juvenile Research Branch (JRB). (2011, June). Characteristics of the division of juvenile justice
population. Sacramento, CA: CDCR. Retrieved from www.cdcr.ca.gov
/reports_research/docs/research/06-2011%20Characteristics.pdf.
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces shaping the future
workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Kanaiaupuni, S., & Ishibashi, K. (2003, February 3). Left behind? The status of Hawaiian
students in Hawai’i public schools. PASE report. Kamehameha Schools, 1–36.
Larsen, R., & Hansen, D. (2005). The development of strategic thinking: Learning to impact
human systems in a youth activism program. Human Development, 48(6), 327–349.
Lattuca, L. R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academic work.
The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 711–739.
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Males, M. Macallair, D., & Corcoran, M. D. (2006). Testing incapacitation theory: Youth crime
and incarceration in california. Retrieved from
www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/testing_incapacitation.pdf.
Mancini, F. (2011). Feature: Exclusive interview with CNN’s Dr. Steve Perry on education.
Retrieved from concreteloop.com/2011/06/feature-exclusive-interview-w-cnns-dr-steve-
perry-on-education.
McKinney, K. (2004). Center for the advancement of teaching. Illinois State University.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 100
McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools. Social Sector Office.
McDonald, A. (2002). Best practices for at risk children (pp. 1–7). Retrieved from
http://www.sanmarcos.net/ana/bestpractices.html.
Melander, K. (2010). Behavioral contracts: An alternative approach to discipline in the
classroom. Examiner. Retrieved from www.examiner.com/article/behavioral-contracts-
an-alternative-approach-to-discpline-the-classroom.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metlzer, L., Levine, M., & Karniski, W. (1984). An analysis of the learning styles of adolescent
delinquents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, (pp. 600–608). Retrieved from
www.eric.ed.gov/ericwebportal/recorddetail?accno-EJ311807.
Mincey, B., Maldonado, N., Lacey, & Thompson, S. D. (2008). Perceptions of successful
graduates of juvenile residential programs: Reflections and suggestions for success. The
Journal of Correctional Education, 59(1), 8–31.
Noguera, P. A. (2001). The trouble with black boys: The role and influence of environmental and
cultural factors on the academic performance of African-American males. Harvard
Journal of African American Public Policy, 7, 23–46. Retrieved from http://search
.proquest.com/docview/59846933?accountid=14749.
Ogbu, J. (1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. Journal of Psychohistory, 18,
433–456.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 101
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance and some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188.
Orange, C. (2000). 25 biggest mistakes teachers make and how to avoid them. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Pattison, P., Hale, J. R., & Gowens, P. (2011). Mind and soul, connection with students. Legal
Studies Education, 28(1), 39–66.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Prothrow-Stith, D., & Weissman, M. (1991). Deadly consequences: How violence is destroying
our teenage population and a plan to begin solving the problem. New York, NY: Harper
Collins.
Portes, P. R., & Smagorinsky, P. (2010). Static structures, changing demographics: Educating
teachers for shifting populations in stable schools. English Education, 42(3), 236–247.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214372647?accountid=14749.
Quiocho, A. M. L., & Daoud, A. M. (2006). Dispelling myths about Latino parents’ participation
in schools. The Education Forum, 70(3), 255–262.
Reynolds, A., & Pope, R. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppression.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(1), 174–180.
Rowan, B., Fang-Shen, C., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to
study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4),
256–284. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216482570?accountid=
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 102
14749.
Ruttenberg, H. (1994). The limited promise of public health methodologies to prevent youth
violence. The Yale Law Journal, 103(7), 1885–1912. Retrieved from http://www.jstor
.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/797016.
Samad, A. A. (2009). Post-raciality in education: Revisiting Myrdal’s American Dilemma.
American Bar Association Human Rights Magazine, 36(4).
Schmoker, M. (2009). What money can’t buy. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 524–527.
School Accountability Report Card. (2013). Report of the 2011–2012 year. Los Angeles County
Office of Education. Retrieved from www.lacoe.edu/portals/0/LACOE
/jcs/12%20sarc_lacoe_kilpatrick%20camp.pdf.
School Accountability Report Card. (2013). Report of the 2011–2012 year. Los Angeles County
Office of Education. Retrieved from www.lacoe.edu/portals/0/LACOE/jcs
/12%20sarc_lacoe_miller%20camp.pdf.
Shaw, S. R. (2010). Rescuing students from the slow learner trap. Principal Leadership, 10(6),
12–16.
Shahinfar, A., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Matza, L. S. (2001). The relation between exposure to
violence and social information processing among incarcerated adolescents. The Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 136–141. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.110.1.136
Sheridan, M. J., & Steele-Dadzie, T. E. (2005). Structure of intellect and learning style of
incarcerated youth assessment: A means to providing a continuum of educational service
in juvenile justice. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(4), 347–371. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/229792878?accountid=14749
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 103
Sickmund, M., & Wan, Y. (2002). Census of juveniles in residential placement: 2000. Databook.
Retrieved from www.ojjdp.ncjrs.orgojstatbb/crip97/openpage.asp.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth and Society,
43,1066–1109.
Stearns, E., Moller, S., Blau, J., & Potochnick, S. (2007). Staying back and dropping out: The
relationship between grade retention and school dropout. Sociology of Education, 80(3),
210–240. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216485932?
accountid=14749.
Suarez-Orozco, C., Gaytan, F. X., Bang, H. J., Pakes, J., O’Connor, E., & Rhodes, J. (2010).
Academic trajectories of newcomer immigrant youth. Developmental Psychology, 46(3),
602–618. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018201.
The California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. (2012). Juvenile justice reseach and
statistics. Retrieved from
www.cdcr.ca.gov/juvenile_justice/research_and_statistics/index/html.
The Los Angeles Juvenile Justice System. (n.d.). Part-one background summary of the Los
Angeles juvenile justice system. Retrieved from probation.lacounty.gov/jjcpa/
schiffcardenas.pdf.
The Online Office of Congressman John Lewis – Education (n.d.). Retrieved from
John.Lewis.house.gov/index/.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195.
Tierney, W. (2006). Mushutu and Juan: A tale of two students. In W. Tierney & J. Colyar (Eds.),
Urban high school students and the challenge of access: Many routes, difficult paths (pp.
13–36). New York: Peter Lang.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 104
Thoonen, E. E., Sieegers, P. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Oort, F. J. (2011). Can teachers motivate
students to learn? Educational Studies, 37(3), 345–360.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837. Retrieved from http://qix.sagepub.com
/content/16/10/837.
Tupac. (2003). Resurrection. Retrieved from www.subzin.com/quotes/tupac%3A+
Resurrection/.
Van Patter, B. (n. d.). Brainstorming: Helping your students generate ideas. Retrieved from
www.brucevanpatter.com/brainstorming.html.
Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & Gill, A. (2001). Perceptions of the juvenile justice system
among adult prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(3), 53–61. Retrieved
from http://searchproquest.com/docview/60383295?accountid=14749.
Villaraigosa, A. (2013, February 19). Los Angeles mayor: Education is our civil rights struggle.
Schools of Thought Blogs. CNN. Retrieved from http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com
/2013/02/19/los-angeles-mayor-education-is-our-civil-right.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, L. (2007). Sociocultural learning theories and information literacy teaching activities in
higher education. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2), 149–158. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/217879997?accountid=14749.
Watanabe, T. (2013, February 26). Black students’ learning gaps start early. The Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-black-students-
20130226,0,1192327.story.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 105
Welch, W. M. (2013, May 16). Cities in crisis: California’s cash crunch. The USA Today, Section
B. (p. 1).
Wokusch, H. (2002, July 8). Leaving our children behind. Retrieved from http://www.
commondreams.org/views02/0708-08.htm.
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 106
Appendix A
Research Questions/Instrument Connection
Research Question 1 How do teachers in juvenile detention camps
create and utilize instructional practices that
influence student achievement?
Interview 1. Can you share one of your favorite stories
about student engagement? And, how has this
story helped you with he student’s academic
achievement?
2. What would you do differently to improve
academic achievement for each student?
Research Question 2 What strategies do teachers use to improve
student achievement in the juvenile detention
camps?
Interview 3. How is the instructional plan developed for
each student? And, who is responsible for the
plan?
4. Under what circumstances do you observe
students implementing what they are
learning?
Research Question 3 How do teachers and administrators monitor and
assess successful instructional practices in juvenile
detention camps?
Interview 5. What assessment tools/measures are provided
for each student? And, what assessments are
prepared when a student is discharged?
6. What type feedback or progress reports do
you give each student? How often?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 107
Research Question 4 Which combination of instructional practices
utilized by teachers provides the most beneficial
learning opportunities in the juvenile detention
camps?
Interview 7. What two class/non-classroom activities
together engage students the most?
8. What do you see as the benefit and purpose of
serving time in juvenile? And, how does this
help a student with future goal setting?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 108
Appendix B
Request for Interview
TO: Juvenile Detention Camp - Interview Participants
RE: Request for Interview
My name is Michelle Woody and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation
under Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dissertation Committee Chair. My study focuses on factors that
impact student academic achievement in juvenile detention camps. You have been identified as a
participant who might be ideal for this study. Participation would require one interview of no
more than 1 hour. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant
will remain confidential at all times during and after the study and all interviews will take place
at the juvenile detention camp. If you are willing to participate, please indicate by placing a
circle around the appropriate response and sign your initials.
Thank you in advance, Michelle Woody
YES NO
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 109
Appendix C
Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Philips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
CONSENT TO AUDIO RECORDED INTERVIEW
TITLE OF THE STUDY
A REVIEW OF SUCCESSFUL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION
CAMPS: INVIGORATING THE DISPOSABLE GENERATION
RESEARCHER
MICHELLE OLIVER WOODY
mwoody@usc.edu
CONSENT
I, _________________________________, hereby consent to the audio recording of the
interview taken by the researcher for the purposes of collecting data for the above study. I have
been advised that all data collected shall be confidential and used solely for the purposes of this
study. I authorize the transcription of this interview from the audio recording for use by the
researcher for preparation of the study. Any quotes and or description of answers will be
anonymous.
Date: _____________________ ______________________________
Participant
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 110
Appendix D
Profile Sheet
Gender:
Ethnicity:
Age: (optional)
Current Position:
Highest Level of Education:
Years Working in Education:
Years in Current Position:
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 111
Appendix E
Interview Protocol
1. Can you share one of your favorite stories about student engagement? And, how has this
story helped you with the student’s academic achievement?
2. What would you do differently to improve academic achievement for each student?
3. How is the instructional plan developed for each student? And, who is responsible for the
plan?
4. Under what circumstances do you observe students implementing what they are learning?
5. What assessment tools/measures are provided for each student? And, what assessments
are prepared when a student is discharged?
6. What type feedback or progress reports do you give each student? How often?
7. What two class/non-classroom activities together engage students the most?
8. What do you see as the benefit and purpose of serving time in juvenile? And, how does
this help a student with future goal setting?
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 112
Appendix F
Observation Protocol
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Name Date Time
Location Class/Activity/Grade
Brief Summary of Observation & Assessments
TIME
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 113
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 114
Appendix G
Freedom Schools Pilot – The Vocational Camp
DAILY SCHEDULE
8-8:30am Harambee
8:30-11:25am Integrated Reading Curriculum
11:25-11:40pm D.E.A.R. – Drop Everything and Read
11:40-1:20pm Lunch/Prep time
1:20-2:40pm Snacks and Afternoon Activities
2:40-3:00pm Team Debrief
DAILY SCHOLAR ASSIGNMENTS
Runner – Messenger with other classes
Time Keeper – Responsible for keeping the group discussion on track
Scribe – Note taker
Presenter – Spokes person for the group or summarized the class reading
SCHOLARS COOPERATION CONTRACT
- Participation
- Have Fun
- One Mike
- Respect Others
- Confidentiality
- Attentiveness
EXAMPLES OF CHARACTER TRAITS FROM THE BOOKS - CREATED BY SCHOLARS
A pologetic, ambitious
N ice, noble
T rustworthy, thoughtful
H onest, handsome
O ptimistic, overwhelmed
N aive
Y earning, yankee
G ullible, gorgeous
A ddict
B eautiful
I ntriguing
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS 115
SAMPLE BOOKLIST
- Mexican Whiteboy, by Matt De La Pena
- Pinned, by Sharon Flake
- Sammy & Juliana in Hollywood, by Benjamin Alire Saenz
- The Beast, by Walter Dean Myers
- Forged by Fire, by Sharon Draper
CONTENT OF AWARDS CERTIFICATES
FREEDOM SCHOOL
Congratulations to
(Scholar’s Name)
For completing six weeks of summer programming at the
Vocational Camp
Welcome to the Freedom School Family where everyone has
“something inside so strong!”
July 26, 2013
FREEDOM SCHOOLS – SUMMER OF LEARNING CELEBRATION 2013
8-9:30AM Harambee
9:30-11:30am Morning Activities
• Higher Learning Booths (College Reps)
• Reentry Supportive Services booths (CBO’s)
• Career Info Booths
12-2:00pm Entertainment/Lunch
• Spoken Word/Poetry/Essay Presentation
• Special Guest Performance
• Testimonials
2-4:00pm Afternoon Activities
• Water Dunk Tank (Administrators/Staff)
• Relay Races
• Potato Sack Races
• Video Game Truck
4-4:30pm Wrap Up, Clean Up & Pizza
• Announce Tournament Winners
• Final Debrief on Event
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to examine successful instructional practices that promote high academic achievement for at‐risk students in juvenile detention centers, and possibly lead to a reduction in recidivism in the juvenile justice system. A case study was conducted at 2 Los Angeles juvenile detention centers, known as “The Sports Camp” and “The Vocational Camp.” Qualitative research methods provided data triangulated from a document and artifact examination, interviews, and observations. Analysis of the data suggests that, contrary to popular belief, there are successful instructional practices that positively impact student academic achievement. However, the findings also indicate that extenuating circumstances prevent some students from taking advantage of their educational opportunities. Although the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) is committed to improving educational outcomes for incarcerated youth, there are no magic formulas or solutions. Therefore, multiple strategies will be needed to significantly improve educational outcomes for students in this nontraditional school setting.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies employed by middle school principals successful in increasing and sustaining the mathematics achievement of African American students
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
An examiniation of staff perceptions of a data driven decision making process used in a high performing title one urban elementary school
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement
PDF
The path to math: leadership matters: effective practices of principals that improve student achievement in secondary mathematics
PDF
Microdevelopments in adaptive expertise in STEM-based, ill-structured problem solving
PDF
Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools
PDF
Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement
PDF
Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners
PDF
Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement
PDF
The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
PDF
Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Woody, Michelle
(author)
Core Title
A review of successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers: invigorating the disposable generation
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/20/2014
Defense Date
11/26/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic achievement,at‐risk,Black and Hispanic students,culturally relevant curriculum,juvenile detention centers,juvenile justice system,OAI-PMH Harvest,project based learning,recidivism,social learning
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Green, Alan Gilford (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mwoody@usc.edu,mwoody1031@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-364829
Unique identifier
UC11295959
Identifier
etd-WoodyMiche-2263.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-364829 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WoodyMiche-2263.pdf
Dmrecord
364829
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Woody, Michelle
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic achievement
at‐risk
Black and Hispanic students
culturally relevant curriculum
juvenile detention centers
juvenile justice system
project based learning
recidivism
social learning