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
/
Innovative strategies for students with special needs
(USC Thesis Other)
Innovative strategies for students with special needs
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 1
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
by
Michael Manuel Massa
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCTAION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
May 2015
Copyright 2015 Michael Manuel Massa
Running Head: INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 2
Dedication
To my little brother Freddy, you will never know the influence you had on me. It was
through your adversity that my vision was shaped. You have inspired me to become relentless in
the work to truly make education the great equalizer for those that have no other chance. Your
strength to overcome all of the adversity that you have been presented with is the inspiration I
draw from to keep moving forward.
I would also like to dedicate this work to my family that is so unconditionally supportive.
Ma, you provided me the model of how strong women can be, raising us on your own with
nothing. You never made it feel like we were ever struggling and I will forever be grateful for
that. Luc, you always help me understand that the world is not as linear as I have a tendency to
make it; you help me see how much more there is that I am missing. To my Favorite Aunt,
knowing that you are there whenever I need support is something I will always be grateful for.
Gramp, your spirit will never be forgotten and I will always “roll with the punches.”
Finally, to my amazing wife. Being married to you makes everyday a dream come true.
You have allowed me to understand what love is and to grow in my ability to become more. You
are supportive in a way that I have never experienced and it gives me the confidence to keep
pushing forward. None of this is possible without you and I cannot begin to describe the
excitement I have for all that we will accomplishment. This is just another step, our little family
is just getting started.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 3
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of everyone that took
time out of their schedule to allow me to interview them. You are the individuals that are on the
frontlines and have made it your mission to meet the needs of all of our students.
I had the honor to be a part of the most amazing and supportive dissertation group, Anet,
Mary and David. We were there for each other through the challenges and triumphs. A piece of
each and every one of you is in this. Thank you so much…
I knew from the day that I went to the presentation about Innovative Practices for Student
with Special Needs that I needed to be a part of the group. It was not because it focused on a
topic that I am so passionate about, but also because of how impressed I was with the presenter.
Professor Ahmadi, you have been so amazing in getting to know us individually and to recognize
our group dynamic. I am still amazed at how you were able to create a tempo for us that pushed
us to grow academically, professionally and individually. The example you have set, with all of
your remarkable accomplishments has only motivated me to strive further for the kids I am so
passionate about. I will be forever indebted.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview Of The Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations and Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
Special Education History 23
Special Education Identification 25
Social Emotional Supports for Students with Special Needs 27
Juvenile Delinquency and Special Needs 29
School to Prison Pipeline 32
Detention 34
Recidivism 35
Discussion School to Prison Pipeline 36
Theoretical Framework 36
Conclusion 38
Chapter Three: Methodolgy 40
Research Questions 40
Research Design 40
Sample and Population 41
Location 42
Participants 43
Instrumentation 43
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 46
Ethical Consideration 47
Confidentiality 48
Chapter Four: Results 49
Participants 50
Information About the Schools 50
Participants Characteristics 51
Results for Research Question One 56
Student Enrollment 57
Individualized Education Programs 61
Academic Accommodations and Emotional Support 68
Discussion Research Question One 76
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 5
Results Research Question Two 78
Socio-Emotional Supports 78
Discussion Research Question Two 78
Summary 79
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications of the Findings And Discussion 80
Discussion of Findings 81
Implications for Practice 86
Enrollment 86
Social/Emotional Support 87
Inter-agency Cooperation 89
Future Research 89
Conclusions 91
References 93
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 104
Appendix B: Letter of Introduction 105
Appendix C: Consent Form 106
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 6
List of Tables
Table 1: School Data (2013-14) 42
Table 2: Thematic Structures and Systems 57
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Educational Environments 37
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2013 45
Figure 3: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis (Creswell, 2003) 47
Figure 4: Findings 82
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 8
Abstract
This study sought to understand school personnel’s practices that serve to facilitate enrollment of
youth with IEPs returning from juvenile detention. Using case study and qualitative analysis, ten
interviews were conducted at seven different secondary schools in one California school district.
The study identified school-wide structures for reentry; however, the reenrollment process is
difficult to navigate. In addition, it is difficult for schools to maintain compliance and fidelity
with IEPs because of a lack of interagency collaboration and extenuating circumstances that
affect this particular subgroup more than they do the mainstream student population. It was not
possible to identify how school-wide systems and structures are sustained to support these
students because a successful system could not be identified.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The superintendent of South West Unified School District (SWUSD), a pseudonym used
to protect the identity of the district where this study was conducted, referenced the Civil Rights
Movement to describe the district’s commitment towards achievement for all students. He stated
the district promised to educate every student to the highest quality regardless of extenuating
circumstances. In accordance with his statement, all students currently in juvenile detention will
enroll in their home school upon release. The superintendent outlined the district goals focusing
on “100% graduation; proficiency for all; 100% attendance; parent and community engagement;
school safety” (SWUSD, 2014, p. 1). He described a shift in district policy to focus on
performance instead of compliance. Therefore, SWUSD will use a performance meter to
measure success towards the five goals by tracking data from the 2008-09 school year in order to
set yearly benchmarks with the goal of full achievement by the 2014-15 school year.
An overlooked segment of the public school population, but one prominently included in
the superintendent’s plan, consists of young people transitioning out of juvenile detention. In
SWUSD, there are approximately 425 youth, students between the ages of 12 and 18,
transitioning out of the juvenile detention system who have Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs) and are entitled to re-enroll into their home school. These students have a right to attend
their home school, as they are protected by district policy (BUL-5553.0) from being denied
enrollment. However, only about 170 successfully re-enroll; approximately 255 enroll into
alternate academic settings, non-public schools, or fail to pursue their education (R. Caranza,
personal communication, February 13, 2015). To address this lack of enrollment and assist in
meeting the 100% proficiency and graduation goal, this study sought to understand how home
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 10
schools can facilitate reentry for students with special needs once they are released from juvenile
detention..
Background of the Problem
Embedded in the mission statement of SWUSD, Division of Special Education, is that
schools will provide an inclusive environment designed to maximize learning for all students
(SWUSD, 2005). All students have the right to a free appropriate public education at their home
school (King & Aquino, 2011), and the right to receive educational services and supports in the
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) further protects students with IEPs (US Department of
Education, 2004). Furthermore, SWUSD receives 500 million federal dollars through the
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and operates at a total budget of 1.5 billion
dollars to support and educate students with IEPs (Education Data Partnership, 2011).
Nonetheless, when these students attempt to re-enroll in their home school, after being
dropped as a result of detention in the juvenile justice system, they are often denied entry and
directed towards option schools. Despite the district’s mission and federal and state financial
support specifically designated to meet their needs, those who are involved in the juvenile justice
system have been systematically denied access to the schools they have the right to attend
(Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986).
Once the home school of a student returning from a juvenile detention officially enrolls
the student, it is very difficult to transfer the student to another school. In order to circumvent
district mandate, secondary schools created blockades that prevent returning students from
officially enrolling and, instead, provide them with a “pass through” to alternative academic
settings, citing a deficiency in credits that can be recovered more quickly in a setting that awards
credits based on packet completion (Balfanz & Legters, 2004). Without officially enrolling the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 11
returning students, schools bypass the IEP process and keep certain students from attending the
school they have the right to attend (Haberman & Quinn, 1986).
According to Skiba et al. (2008), students with IEPs have always been marginalized, and
special education programs provide a solution for schools to isolate students exhibiting
behavioral challenges and to segregate them into self-contained environments. Given stigma
associated with their situation, students with IEPs who attempt to return from juvenile
placements are further ostracized and deemed a threat to school safety. School staff already
considers students with IEPs as academically incorrigible and with a secondary label as a
juvenile offender, such students are perceived further as inveterate. These perceptions can have
damaging consequences. As Rueda (2011) explains regarding attribution and control beliefs, the
belief one has about reasons for success or failure at a task or activity and about the degree of
control one has in affecting that outcome play a role in determining those outcomes. Therefore,
preventing these students from accessing the education they are entitled to may have longer-term
consequences.
Across the SWUSD, it has become institutional practice to deny entry to students with
IEPs returning from juvenile detention into the home school. Ambrose et al. (2010) suggest that
many school administrators and teachers believe that students with IEPs returning from juvenile
placements present disruptive challenges to a school’s environment and feel justified in
preventing these students from attending their home school. Additionally, school staff is
motivated to engage more with students whose behaviors attain goals with a high relative value
and, since students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention hold low subject value, there is
little motivation to work with them (Ambrose et al. 2010). Because there is little attainment
value (Eccles, 2011) placed on students with IEPs returning from a juvenile placement, school
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 12
staff members find little satisfaction from the gains and accomplishments of working with this
subgroup.
There is very limited data to support that school site staff is aware of the California
education code that mandates students returning from juvenile detention have to re-enroll in their
home school within 72 hours of release (SWUSD, 2011). Due to limited research, it is not
possible to know how many schools developed strong School Wide Positive Behavior Support
Plans (SWPBSP), Discipline Review Teams, or have an established Coordination of Services
Team. Because of the parameters of the IEP program used by SWUSD to generate the IEP
documents, many Behavior Support Plans (BSP) do not focus on behaviors identified as
justification for preventing returning students from enrolling. Additionally, many students who
were identified as presenting behavior challenges never had a Functional Behavior Analysis
(FBA) (Sugai et al., 2000) or Functional Analysis Assessment completed by Behavior
Intervention Case Managers to identify antecedents, identify target behaviors, and establish
replacement behaviors (Scott et al., 2005).
An SWUSD bulletin to clearly delineates the re-enrollment procedures to be followed
when students with special needs are released from juvenile detention. District policy Bul.
5553.0 mandates that students with IEPs have the right to attend their home school when
returning from a juvenile placement. At SWUSD local district meetings, however, school staff
expressed, in an effort to maintain campus safety, the justification of preventing students with
IEPs returning from juvenile detention from re-enrolling. Nonetheless, at least one high school,
on the east side of the city, developed a comprehensive SWPBSP and established re-entry
procedures and methods to support these students (Labre & Stern-Carusone, 2013).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 13
Such models are not shared, however, and the perception that campus safety supersedes
the individual needs of a student prevails is used to justify preventing certain students from
attending their home school. As a district, SWUSD has not committed to confronting the mental
effort of school staff members who deny students the opportunity to attend their home school.
The tradition of tracking students with IEPs returning from juvenile placements into alternative
settings or blatantly barring students from enrolling has become part of the district’s culture and
accepted as the standard. To alleviate this issue, awareness of different motivational beliefs,
efficacy, beliefs about goals, and value and interest, may enable school staff to monitor and
regulate their behavior in a more adaptive manner (Ambrose et al., 2010).
No established intake procedures have been developed to coordinate court-mandated
services designed to support returning students. Therefore, an opportunity exists for schools to
coordinate court-mandated and school-level supports to bolster positive reintegration, as school-
site staff is unfamiliar with the proper procedures for enrolling a student returning from juvenile
detention. Since the returning students have updated Los Angeles County of Education
(LACOE) IEPs, transferring IEP data into a data base tracking system becomes difficult for staff
who are unfamiliar with out-of-district IEPs (LAUSD, 2008). Teachers are rarely given any
specific training when working with returning students and are not given any specific positive
behavior support strategies that can be used as part of a multi-tiered level of intervention to help
promote student success (Baltodano, Mathur, & Rutherford, 2005).
In SWUSD, suspending students was the ubiquitous solution in dealing with disruptive
behavior. Because of this practice, School-wide Positive Behavior Support Teams were charged
with revisiting discipline procedures and creating a progressive discipline framework based in
positive behavior support and designed to eliminate suspensions (LAUSD, 2014). Nonetheless,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 14
implementation of the shift in discipline practices has been slow. Because motivational beliefs
and processes are context specific, a teacher can have very different self-efficacy beliefs with
one group of students and not another (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) finds that the motivational
dimensions of performance problems are systematically considered without much thought to the
possibility that individuals know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to do it.
School-site staff needs to be trained about the inherent biases they may have about
students returning from juvenile detention. Current cognitive and social constructivist models of
learning emphasize the importance of consciousness, awareness, self-reflection, self-regulation
and thinking about and controlling one’s own thinking and learning (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). As Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) state, certain attitudes and behaviors may be
expressed with a particular population that are not expressed with others, and self-knowledge
includes knowledge of one’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to cognition and learning.
Therefore, if staff members know they are more successful in working with certain types of
students, they will be reluctant to push themselves to work with students who have historically
presented challenges (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
To ensure all schools begin the year with a plan to meet the needs of students with special
needs, each school in SWUSD has to complete REF-2624.7 School Self Review Checklist,
Students with Disabilities. School leaders have to acknowledge the services and supports in place
for students with IEPs and, if not in place, a projected date for their establishment as defined by
the School Self Review Checklist. The Superintendent of SWUSD stated that he wanted every
school to have a SWPBSP by the end of the 2012 academic school year, which was a goal that
was not met. The SWPBSP should address the procedures of a Discipline Review Team and the
process for recommending students to Coordination of Services Team. Every school in SWUSD
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 15
is required to have at least one Behavior Intervention Case Manager who would have received
training on Functional Analysis Assessments and anyone who holds a special education
credential is expected to know how to complete a Functional Behavior Analysis; SWUSD’s
Division of Special Education provides extensive online support and resources to help teachers
and staff who conduct FBAs.
Statement of the Problem
While the national average rate of youth who qualify for special education services under
the criteria established by IDEA is just under 10%, in the juvenile justice system, about 37% of
detained youth qualify with identified eligibilities (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher & Poirer,
2005). Other reports suggest there is a significant number of incarcerated youth who have not
been diagnosed with a learning disability and the actual percentage of the youth who meet the
diagnostic criteria for IEP eligibility is actually between 65% and 90% (Unruh, Waintrup,
Canter, & Smith, 2010).
The overall juvenile recidivism rate within 12 months of release is approximately 55%;
however, the figures for youth under the age of 18 with IEPs are significantly worse (Bulllis,
Yovanoff, & Havel, 2004). When there is a strategic plan for reentry, specifically to enroll
students with an IEP into school, they are 3.2 times less likely to re-offend and 2.5 times more
likely to remain in school after release (Bullis et al., 2002). In addition, a critical element in
supporting youth transition out of juvenile placement is the transfer of educational records from
the detention facility to the home school so that the appropriate services and supports will be in
place. It is essential that collaboration exists between schools and support agencies to support
released youth and their families in an effort to prevent recidivism (National Council on
Disability, 2003).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 16
When students with IEPs receive support and access to programs to help them transition
into their home school after release from juvenile detention, they are much more successful than
are their counterparts who do not receive these (Muller, 2011). Toward this end, a federal effort
among the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the U.S. Departments
of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Labor was
designed to support the successful reentry of juvenile offenders. The collaboration efforts
consists of a three phase model: facility based programs supporting identified needs in education,
mental health, job training, substance abuse and mentoring; community based transition
programs, which work with youth prior to and immediately following release; and long-term
support by coordinating community-based, social service agencies to provide continuing services
(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2007).
In addition, SWUSD has several offices that work with students involved in the juvenile
justice system. Staff from the Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth Program, Health and
Human Services, Psychological Services, Compliance Support and Monitoring, the Behavior
Unit and Behavior Specialists from the Special Education Support Service Centers work with
students with IEPs who return from juvenile detention placements. There is a plethora of support
staff who can develop a formal intake process, which can be used district wide. In the same
manner, the Division of Special Education developed a template outlining the guidelines for an
FBA. Nonetheless, while large-scale efforts like these lend valuable assistance, smaller-scale
local efforts are also necessary. Therefore, this study sought to highlight practices that ensure
these students receive the education they are entitled to.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 17
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research on practices that serve to
facilitate enrollment of youth with IEPs returning from juvenile detention in order to better
understand what school site staff feel they need in order to meet the educational needs of
students with IEPs returning to their home school after juvenile detention. Many practitioners in
public education are motivated to work towards solutions to many of the institutionalized
problems but are unable to because of obstacles within their organizations that impede their
performance (Rueda, 2011). It is easy to theorize solutions to the myriad of problems that plague
inner-city public education, but, without properly dissecting the problems to completely
understand the causes, working towards solutions becomes difficult. There have been many
models and theoretical approaches focused on organizational factors, while others focus on
individual factors such as teacher, student, or administrator characteristics, but few focus on both
(Rueda, 2011). An ecological systems theory provides a way to investigate and validate assumed
causes so that solutions can be targeted to the most paramount causes of the performance failure.
Use of a systematic problem-solving approach that provides a way to elucidate short-term and
long-term goals, as well as individual goals, that can be assessed, can move an institution in the
direction of improving performance and achieving organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The importance of this project is that it examines the institutional practice at SWUSD
wherein students with IEPs are denied entry into their home school when they return from
juvenile detention. This study focused on responses attained through interviews with school site
staff responsible for enrolling students. The analysis begins by examining district policy that
seeks to protect students with IEPs once enrolled and how this classification serves as the
paramount reason used to deny students enrollment. While a complete study would focus on all
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 18
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis were school site administrators,
including principals and district support staff.
To gain insight into the innovative strategies of schools that have been successful in re-
enrolling students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention, this study sought to obtain
responses to the following research questions:
1) What are the perceived systems and structures for the successful reentry of students with
IEPs returning from juvenile detention to their school of residence?
2) How are these systems and structures implemented and sustained to support students with
IEPs returning from juvenile detention to their school of residence?
Significance of the Study
In SWUSD, students with IEPs account for more than twice the number of suspensions
and recommendations for expulsion (Losen, Martinez & Gillespie, 2012). Many school staff
members often express frustration with discipline issues that students with IEPs are said to
present. It has become a mandate in the district that schools are not allowed to use opportunity
transfers to send students with IEPs to other schools and alternative academic settings (SWUSD,
2012). Instead, schools are supposed to work collaboratively, inclusive of students’ families and
community resources, to meet the individual needs of students and support behavior with
positive interventions (SWUSD, 2007). Unless an IEP meeting is held to discuss a move in
placement, and there is consensus amongst the team, a student with an IEP cannot be transferred
from his/her school of attendance (SWUSD, 2008).
The significance of this study is that it adds to the limited literature identifying a
framework for schools to support students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention. This
research contributes to what school site staff feel is missing in an effort to provide a free
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 19
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment that should be made available to
all students who have the right to attend their identified home school.
Limitations and Delimitations
A delimitation of this study was that there were 10 interviews with school site
administrators and district support staff at 7 secondary schools in SWUSD. Given a limited time
frame, more interviews and follow-up with respondents was not possible. It was important to be
conscious of the fact that each respondent focused on students at his/her particular school and
that these students were not necessarily equal to the total population of students with IEPs
returning from juvenile detention across the district. It must also be considered that the
awareness of participating in an interview may precipitate behavior, which would not occur in a
setting not perceived as under examination, contributing to a Hawthorne Effect (Bracht & Glass,
1968). Respondents may have expressed inexplicit description of current practices, generalizing
procedures that are not actually accurate in practice. One of the inherent weaknesses of a
qualitative study is that information gathered may be incomplete and inaccurate, highlighting
some aspects over others. Without collecting data from multiple sources and methods, it is
difficult to establish a high degree of credibility without strong triangulation. Contributing to
limitations is inclusion in a thematic dissertation group and the limited timeframe in which to
complete this study.
Definition of Terms
Many terms are relevant to and referenced in this study. For the purpose of the study,
these terms are defined as follows:
FAPE – Free Appropriate Public Education (IDEA, 2004).
LRE – Least Restrictive Environment (IDEA, 2004).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 20
Welligent – District-wide web-based software system used for online IEPs and tracking
of related services (such as speech and language, physical therapy, vision and hearing screenings,
nursing services) provided to students during the course of their education. Welligent allows
administrators to monitor IEP timelines and service delivery and generate reports to ensure
compliance with special education laws and regulations (SWUSD, 2014).
Adjudication – Adjudication is the court process that determines (judges) if the juvenile
committed the act for which he or she is charged. The term “adjudicated” is analogous to
“convicted” and indicates the court concluded the juvenile committed the act (U.S. Department
of Justice, 2014).
Recidivism – is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have
either experienced negative consequences of that behavior or have been treated or trained to
extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are
rearrested for a similar offense (Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2009).
Eligibility – Eligibility of students with disabilities for special education shall be
determined by the IEP team according to specific criteria for each of the eligibility categories as
defined by the Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004)
Juvenile Justice System – Juvenile justice is the area of criminal law applicable to
persons not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts. In most states, the age for
criminal culpability is set at 18 years. Juvenile law is mainly governed by state law and most
states have enacted a juvenile code. The main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation
rather than punishment (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2014).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 21
PBIS – Positive behavior Intervention and Support is an implementation framework
designed to enhance academic and social behavior outcomes for all students by (a) emphasizing
the use of data for informing decisions about the selection, implementation, and progress
monitoring of evidence-based behavioral practices; and (b) organizing resources and systems to
improve durable implementation fidelity. (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, Technical
Assistance Center, 2014).
Reentry – as it relates to juvenile justice, the experience of transitioning from some form of
incarceration into one’s community (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 2014).
School of Residence – The majority of SWUSD schools accept potential students based on
the student’s resident neighborhood school. (SWUSD, 2011)
Organization of the Study
Chapter One provides an overview of the study including the background of the problem,
challenges, purpose of the study and its significance. Chapter Two reviews literature paramount
to understanding the needs of students with IEPs returning to their home school from juvenile
detention and the supports school site staff feel are necessary to support these students. Chapter
Three provides the methodology used in this study, the sample and population, the
instrumentation, and discusses the methods of data collection and data analysis. Chapter Four
reports the results, and Chapter Five discusses the findings, implications for practice and needed
future research.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
According to The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project, across the
state of California, students with disabilities are twice as likely to be suspended when compared
to their peers who do not have IEPs. The high rates of suspensions for students with disabilities
holds true across all racial groups, reflecting an average of 1 in 7 students with a disability
receiving at least 1 out-of-school suspension (Losen, Martinez & Gillespie, 2012).
Increasingly, youth advocates, educators, prison activists, and others call attention to the
rising rates of suspension and disengagement from school as a critical element that effectively
moves students from school to prison (Raible & Irizarry, 2010). This chapter presents a review
of the literature focusing on the failure to provide a free appropriate public education in the Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE) to students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who
are involved with the juvenile justice system.
The purpose of this study was to add to the limited literature identifying a framework for
schools to support students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention. This research
contributes to what school site staff feel is missing in an effort to provide a FAPE in the LRE
that should be made available to all students who have the right to attend their identified home
school.
This chapter is organized into four sections. The first section reviews research on special
education history, laws and current practices. The second section reviews research on special
education services and the relationship between learning challenges and juvenile delinquency.
The third section examines the school to prison pipeline and the emergence of discipline
practices at the school level that disproportionally target students with IEPs. The fourth section
investigates attempts at reentry by students with IEPs and the process of transitioning out of
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 23
juvenile detention and back to school. The last section describes Bronfenbrenner’s theory of
ecological systems (1979) as the theoretical framework guiding this study.
Special Education History
Special Education refers to the services and supports that students receive when found
eligible as set forth by the criteria of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and as
determined by an IEP team based on assessment data (U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, [OSERS], 2010). IDEA protects the rights of
students with IEPs to be educated through a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment. Although there is no clear definition for LRE (Yell, 1995), students are
entitled to explore the full spectrum of available placement options from self-contained special
day classes to general education placements with resource support.
Students with disabilities have been historically marginalized from general education
learning environments (Yell et al., 1998). This section reviews the history of laws culminating
with the establishment of the Individual with Disabilities Act, which protects the rights of
students with IEP so they can have access to a general education learning environment to the
greatest extent possible.
The roots of special education lie in the Civil Rights Movement (Smith & Kozleski,
2005), which allowed advocates a platform from which to seek to protect the rights of students
with special needs. Compulsory attendance laws, which were not fully adopted by all states until
1918, did not open the door for students with disabilities (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998). In
Beattie v. Board of Education (1919), school officials argued that students who drooled or had
facial contortions caused teachers and other students to become nauseous, required too much
teacher time and negatively affected school discipline and progress. Even as recently as 1958, in
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 24
Department of Welfare vs. Haas, the Supreme Court held that the State of Illinois was not
required to provide a free education for the “feeble minded” or children who were “mentally
deficient” and who, because of their limited intelligence, were unable to reap the benefits of a
public education.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) set the precedent that the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection under the 14
th
amendment stipulated that states may not deny equal protection
under the law. Therefore, if a state provided an education to any of its citizens, it must do so for
all of its citizens. Although the intent of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was to integrate
schools, Yell et al., (1998) make the point that the Supreme Court maintained that state
sanctioned segregation based on a person’s unalterable characteristics was unconstitutional. The
legislative action to provide equal access to education that was born out of Brown v. Board of
Education (1954), and stated that students with disabilities were a “class” of people facing
unacceptable levels of differential treatment and, more importantly, were systematically denied
the opportunity to attend schools (Yell et al., 1998).
The next significant advancement for the educational rights for students with special
needs was that made by Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] v.
Pennsylvania, 1972, which established that states had a constitutional obligation to provide a
public supported education. The significance of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens
[PARC] v. Pennsylvania, 1972 as explained by Weintraub (2005), was even more important
because it set precedent that students with intellectual disability could benefit from an
educational program, that an alternate curriculum focusing on living skills should be offered by
schools, and that the earlier a student began to receive instruction, the greater the benefit.
Bolstered by Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] v. Pennsylvania, 1972,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 25
Mills v. Board of Education, 1972, resulted in a judgment mandating all students with special
needs a publically supported education, due process rights and procedures for labeling,
placement and disciplinary exclusion (Yell et al., 1998).
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA: PL 94-142) pushed
forward the rights of students with special needs by supporting states with federal funding to
provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment,
nondiscriminatory assessments, and parental involvement in matters of due process (Yell, 1997).
Yell (1997) explains EAHCA evolved into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) in 1990, which was significant in establishing person-first language whereby students
are not defined by their special education eligibility, expanding the eligibility categories to
include autism and traumatic brain injury, and establishing transitions plans for students 16 and
older. IDEA continues regulate the delivery of special education services and will continue to
protect the rights of all students to receive the education they are entitled to.
Special Education Identification
Special education laws evolved out of efforts to protect the educational rights of students
with special needs; however, there are still areas of subjectivity, which begin with identification.
Albrect, Skiba, Losen, Chung and Middleberg (2011) acknowledge the disproportionate
representation of minority students in special education and their overrepresentation in more
restrictive environments, such as self-contained classes, and in discipline. IDEA mandates states
establish policies and systems in order prevent inappropriate over-identification or
disproportionate representation of any singular group or race of students with special needs
(Zhang, Katsiyannis, Ju, & Roberts, 2012). However, Skiba et al. (2008), found the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 26
disproportionate representation of certain minority groups in special education to be a legacy of
the oppressive and discriminatory history of race relations throughout American history.
The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, which monitors
the enforcement of IDEA across all Local Education Areas created criteria to address the
overrepresentation of certain minority groups found eligible for special education (Albrecht et
al., 2011). However, special education disproportionality is not solely a matter of identification
procedures, as Skiba et al., (2008) explain. It is also determined by a plethora of factors,
including the quality of general education resources and instruction, classroom behavior
management, and cultural responsiveness, or mismatch. Futhermore, Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger,
Simmons, Feggins-Azziz and Chung (2005) found that race and ethnicity continued to be
significant predictors of special education placement wherein African American students are 2.6
times more likely to be identified as intellectually disabled and 1.3 times as likely to be identified
as emotionally disturbed.
Since there is evidence to support that restrictiveness of a student’s placement varies by
race/ethnicity, Hibel et al. (2010) suggest a connection between a minority student’s placement
into special education and the type of setting in which services are delivered. Harris-Murri, King
and Rostenberg (2006) argue that schools need to adopt culturally responsive systematic
frameworks, such as Response to Intervention, as an approach to reduce disproportionality in
special education. There is need for culturally sensitive instructional interventions, as identified
by Zhang et al. (2012), so that eligibility procedures employed by school districts can ensure that
cultural, linguistic and racial bias is minimized in the identification process.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 27
Social Emotional Supports for Students with Special Needs
Students who qualify for special education services are entitled to socio-emotional
supports to meet their unique needs towards educational benefit. Designated Instructional
Services, such as counseling with a school psychologist, Functional Behavior Assessments
(FBA) or the establishment of a Behavior Support Plan (BSP) are all tools that IEP teams have
available when considering how to support the emotional needs of students with special needs.
This section explores the research as it relates to strategies used to meet the social and emotional
needs of students with special needs.
Given that a critical element of social skills is the ability to accurately perceive the
environment and interpersonal relationships (Svetaz, Ireland, & Blum, 2000), a deficit in this
area contributes to social isolation. Jackson, Enright, Murdock and Disabil (1987) found that,
when compared with typical peers, students with special needs saw themselves as significantly
less socially competent and were rated lower in social competency by their teachers and school’s
staff. Emotional distress, suicide and violence among adolescents with learning disabilities was
reported to be two to three times higher than among the average adolescent population (Svetaz et
al., 2000). Larson (1998) explains the school failure hypothesis, which proposes that students
with special needs are at risk for academic failure, which leads to negative self-esteem and,
therefore, increases the odds of dropping out of school, involvement with violence and
delinquent activities.
Historically, problem behaviors have been viewed as residing within a child and, as
suggested by Lewis et al. (2000), the diagnostic emphasis has been on the type of problem
behavior or the link with the identified special needs eligibility category of the individual. The
FBA is the cornerstone of systems to address the educational programming of students who
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 28
exhibit the most significant and challenging behaviors. The FBA provides a systematic and
informed approach to identify antecedents and formulate replacements for target behaviors so
that effective behavior support plans can be developed (Scott et al., 2005). Scott et al. (2005)
explain that providing functional, immediate, and contingent positive reinforcement for desired
behaviors results in continued student success and provides students the necessary confidence
and incentive to progress positively.
Severe problem behaviors are only exhibited by 1% to 5% of a school’s enrollment, yet
they can account for more than 50% of the behavioral incidents handled by office personnel and
consume significant amounts of educator and administrative time (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, &
Walker, 2000). Sugai et al. (2000) suggest that school personnel often rely on external behavior
expertise because local staff lack the specialized skills to support students with significant
problem behaviors. A major obstacle in addressing problem behaviors is the inability to create
and sustain appropriate connections between procedures and practices and the features of the
environment (classroom, lunch room, playground) in which the student displays the concerning
behaviors (Sugai et al., 2000). Scott et al (2005) reveal that school-based personnel are more
likely to respond to behavior challenges with punitive and exclusionary strategies instead of
implementing practices to understand the function of behaviors.
Born out of amendments made to IDEA in 1997, Positive Behavior Support (PBS) was
designed to optimize the capacity of a school to address school-wide, classroom and individual
problem behavior by establishing working policies, structures and routines, emphasizing the
identification, adoption, and sustained use of research validated practices (Carr et al., 2002). PBS
was intended as an alternative to implacable interventions used for students with special needs
who engaged in extreme forms of self-injurious and aggressive behaviors (Sugai et al., 2000).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 29
PBS emphasizes culturally appropriate interventions as described by Sugai et al. (2000), as
interventions that consider the unique and individualized learning histories (social, community,
historical, family, race, and/or gender) of the student. Carr et al. explain that the central element
of PBS is the focus on assisting individuals achieve comprehensive lifestyle changes with an
emphasis on improving quality of life for persons with disabilities, and, as important, also for
those who support them.
Juvenile Delinquency and Special Needs
This section explores the four prevailing theories that explain the connectedness between
special needs and delinquency: (1) the school failure hypothesis, which asserts that youth who
fail to thrive academically will seek social relationships that make them feel successful among
their peers, which often means engaging in negative behavior (White & Loeber, 2008); (2) The
susceptibility hypothesis, as explained by Brier (1989) extends the school failure model,
suggesting that some youth who are temperamentally more likely to engage in problem behavior
are liberated by school failure, which allows them to act out; (3) the differential treatment
hypothesis, which suggests that youth are more likely to be detained by law enforcement due to
behavior or cognitive limitations that are associated with their special needs (White & Loeber,
2008); and (4) the social cognitive competence model, which proposes that students with special
needs lack the intellectual assets to help them resolve conflict or understand the consequences of
their actions (Larson, 1988).
Brier (1989) proposes that the school failure hypothesis explains how students with
special needs experience school failure as the first step in a sequence that culminates in
delinquency. The hypothesis identifies key events, sequences the events, and relates them to
identified attributes of individuals with special needs and delinquency, such as experiences of
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 30
criticism and rejection, development of a negative self-image, increased frustration, and dropping
out of school. Contrary to Brier and Larson (1988) there is evidence from academic remediation
studies that do not support a direct causal relationship between academic achievement and
delinquency. The researchers explain that students who dropped out of school did indeed have
higher delinquency rates than those who graduated, but the relationship between dropout and
delinquency was reversed where delinquency rates for students who dropped out peaked prior to
exiting school and declined afterward. Poor social adjustment, including delinquency, may
account for dropping out of school for students with special needs. Therefore, school failure
would be an effect and not a cause of social misbehavior and delinquency (Larson, 1988).
The susceptibility hypothesis proposes that the neurological and intellectual difficulties of
students with special needs directly contribute to antisocial behavior including problems with
impulse control, attention, conceptualization, comprehension, judgment, and social perception
(Brier, 1989). Furthermore, Brier (1998) explains language deficits in conceptualization,
comprehension, and judgment contribute to the probability that students with special needs will
become delinquent. Language deficits have been linked to immature private speech and deficit
verbal mediation, which, in turn, is believed to result in deficient self-regulation, social problem
solving, moral reasoning, and perspective testing and leads to relatively greater risk of
delinquency (Brier, 1998). The final assumption of the susceptibility hypothesis is that difficulty
with social perceptions, such as appropriately labeling facial expressions, vocal inflections and
body messages of others contributes to the misinterpretation of social gestures of others (Brier,
1988).
It has been theorized that students with special needs engage in the same types of
behaviors as typical peers. However interaction with school staff, police, and other officials
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 31
contribute to students with special needs being arrested at twice the rate when compared to their
typical peers (Larson, 1988). As described by Keilitz and Dunivant, the differential treatment
theory explains how students with special needs lack the abilities necessary to plan strategies, to
avoid being detected, to conceal their true intentions, feelings or activities when encountered by
police, and to comprehend the questions and warnings issued by law enforcement. The
differential theory continues with the tendency of students with special needs to be awkward and
abrasive when interacting with juvenile justice officials, which contributes to higher rates of
arrest and adjudication than typical peers (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986). The demeanor of an
arrestee is extremely important in determining whether an arrest will be made and if students
with special needs struggle with the cognitive and social skills necessary to navigate legal
proceedings or communicate effectively towards their defense, chances of arrest and adjudication
are significantly increased.
Larson (1988) contends that ineffective social cognitive problem solving skills lead to
emotional and behavior disorders because students with special needs struggle with social
problem-solving processes and are more likely to be viewed as maladjusted, socially
incompetent or abnormal. Students with special needs are consistently found to be less skillful in
a variety of social cognitive problem solving skills including poor perspective taking, poor
impulse control, and an inability to generate multiple effective solutions (Larson, 1988). Larson
postulates that students with special needs have difficulty orienting a plan, understanding needs,
feelings and motives of others, creating a plan prior to acting, and predicting accurately others’
responses to their own actions. A deficit in social cognitive problem solving skill, as described
by Larson, contends that these deficiencies impair the ability to control impulsive responses,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 32
assess social problem variables, generate effective social strategies, and regulate on going social
interactions by self-monitoring.
Although there are different theories that attempt to correlate special needs with
delinquency, there is no universally agreed-upon theory. Research suggests that the
psychological characteristics of students with special needs and delinquency are best explained
by a multifactorial explanation, considering neurological dysfunction, language deficits, social
perceptions and difficulties with social relationships (Brier, 1989). White and Loeber (2008)
question the use of data measuring indicators of delinquency and special education needs, citing
that the use of co-occurring data impedes understanding causal sequencing and raises questions
regarding the validity of claiming that poor school performance is responsible for behavioral
problems. Shelton (2006) suggests that the use of incarceration as a solution for students with
special needs is a result of missed opportunities for prevention, barriers to early childhood
services, and a lack of recognition by school personnel of the meaning of disruptive behavior.
Research may differ in identifying the direct link between special needs and delinquency
however there is agreement that students with special needs should receive educational, socio-
emotional, and behavior support to prevent involvement in the juvenile justice system.
School to Prison Pipeline
A particularly problematic educational trend centers on school discipline policies in that
many school districts replaced a graduated system of discipline with “zero tolerance” responses.
This section reviews the operations of school discipline and related systems that are increasingly
punitive, often place students in restrictive special education programs, rely on suspensions or
alternative placements and lead to an increase in student arrests due to school code violations.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 33
The School to Prison Pipeline involves a set of interactions between and among children,
youth, their families, school personnel, other service providers, and gatekeepers of educational
outcomes (Osher et al., 2012). Negative interactions with school staff contribute to a cycle of
encounters that, as Osher et al. (2012) explain, can lead to or exacerbate a student’s behavioral
and academic problems, disengagement from school, dropping out, delinquency, arrest, and
incarceration. Unfortunately many schools lack the conditions for learning and, instead, function
as “Dropout Factories,” as defined by Balfanz and Legters (2004): schools that are weak with
promoting power, populated by poor and minority youth, and contribute to the growing number
of dispossessed young adults who are neither employed nor pursuing postsecondary education.
Christle, Jolivette and Nelson (2005) identify academic failure, exclusionary discipline practices
and dropout rates as key elements contributing to the pipeline and suggest that school-level
supportive leadership, dedicated and collegial staff, school-wide behavior management, and
effective academic instruction can help minimize the risk of youth delinquency.
The number of students suspended from school has almost doubled since 1974, from 1.3
million to 3.1 million where Black students, while representing only 17% of the student
population, represent 34% of students suspended (Wald & Losen, 2003). Between 1972 and
2000, the percentage of White students suspended for more than one day increased from 3.1% to
6.14% compared to Black student suspensions which rose from 6% to 13.2%. Additionally,
among students with special needs, Black students were three times more likely than were White
students to be suspended and four times more likely to be educated in a juvenile detention
facility (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2012). Minority
students who are economically disadvantaged and have social and behavioral challenges are the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 34
least likely to have access to learning environments characterized by positive and supportive
adults, and, therefore, the most likely to enter the pipeline.
Detention
A significant number of students with emotional and behavioral disorders who are
eligible for an IEP and to receive support services are not identified as students with special
needs (Rutherford Jr., Bullis, Anderson & Griller-Clark, 2002). Reasons for this under-
identification are explained by Rutherford et al. (2002) as a lack of standardized criteria as to
what constitutes eligibility, the social stigma attached to this eligibility, a lack of funding or
appropriate services, and limited research of the processes involved in identification and related
placements. Without the necessary supports, students who are not found eligible for behavior and
emotional services become overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.
In an attempt to alter the life trajectory of students with special needs into the juvenile
justice system, it is critical that educational and social services received while in detention be
powerful and relevant in order to ingrain positive and social skills (Keith & McCray, 2002).
Keith and McCray explain that current treatment programs in the juvenile justice system do not
fully remediate deficient literacy skills, address social and adaptive needs, or appropriately
address rehabilitative needs. The preponderance of class action litigation involving special
education within juvenile correctional facilities is significant in reflecting violations of IDEA and
the right to free appropriate public education (Platt, Casey, & Faessel, 2010). According to Platt
et al. (2002), youth with special needs who are in juvenile correction facilities need a holistic
curriculum that addresses their adjustment, employability, vocational, resiliency, and literary
needs.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 35
Moody (2003) found that teachers in juvenile facilities lack knowledge regarding reading
or implementing IEPs, providing modifications and supports, and have little perception that an
accommodation might be the individualization of the curriculum to meet the student’s needs.
Furthermore, there is limited communication between schools and correctional facilities, and, in
many cases, school records arrive after a student exited the facility, reflecting a denial of special
education services while detained (Ochoa & Eckes, 2005). Correctional education is in need of a
paradigm change to address the needs of students with special needs to support effective and
comprehensive supports designed to increase the likelihood of successful employment and
community adjustment (Platt, Casey, & Faessel, 2010).
Recidivism
The strongest predictors of recidivism for juvenile offenders are a history of criminal and
antisocial behaviors, poor academic achievement, age, gender, race, and familial dynamics
(Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008). Zang, Hsu, Katsiyannis, Barrett, and Ju (2011)
found that the age of first referral, father’s absence and special education status are also strongly
associated with recidivism. Youth arrested prior to their 14
th
birthday are two to three times more
likely to become chronic adult offenders, reflecting that offence history is the strongest predictor
of recidivism (Zang, Hsu, Katsiyannis, Barrett, & Ju, 2011).
According to Snyder (2008), although representing only 17% of the juvenile population,
African American juveniles were involved in 51% of violent crimes and 31% of property crimes,
which indicates that ethnicity is a factor that can predict recidivism. The rate of substance abuse
for adolescents who have been involved in the juvenile justice system is three times higher than
the rate of those who have never been detained and engage in substance abuse at an earlier age,
which correlates to significantly higher recidivism rates.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 36
Discussion School to Prison Pipeline
Several theories explain the relationship between students with special needs and the
School to Prison Pipeline and, while no single theory has been agreed upon, research supports
that the phenomena is a result of many contributing factors. Unfortunately, while detained,
juvenile facilities fail to meet the unique needs of students with special needs and fail to offer
supports to prevent recidivism. Unfortunately, students with special needs are disproportionately
represented in the juvenile justice system, and many of the same factors contributing to their
special needs eligibility are the same factors that contribute to higher rates of recidivism.
Theoretical Framework
According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), in order to understand human development, one
must consider the entire ecological system in which growth occurs. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
framework views youth behavior as shaped by individual characteristics and a range of nested
contextual systems of schools, adults, neighborhoods and society. Social ecological theory
provides a framework to investigate the combined impact of the immediate environment, social
contexts and influences on behavioral development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Social ecological
theory describes how the systems that directly affect children and adolescents include families,
schools, peer groups, teacher-student relationships, parent-child relationships, parent-school
relationships, neighborhoods, and cultural expectations (Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
Social ecological theory is composed of five socially organized subsystems that help
support and guide human growth (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979),
the components that make up an individual’s ecology are the macrosystem, exosystem,
mesosytem, and the microsystem. The framework calls for children as the center of the ecology
where they are the developmental entity that interacts with their ecological surroundings.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 37
Bronfenbrenner explains behaviors are a combination of interactions and individual traits
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) Model as Applied to Educational Environments
Bronfenbrenner (1994) stipulates there are four microsystems around children: family,
teachers, peers, and school environment. The mesosystem consists of social interconnections,
connections and processes taking place among participants, such as students, teachers and peers.
As an example, the relationship between the community and the school are reflected in the
mesosystem. The next level in the framework is the exosystem, which involves experiences in a
social setting in which the individual does not have an active role but is influenced by this
experience (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). An example of the mesosystem is a parent’s job loss or
financial troubles, which certainly has an effect on the family’s life and directly affects the child.
Bronfenbrenner (1994) describes the macrosystem as the overarching system consisting of the
cultural values and beliefs that influence family and societal functioning. Within the
macrosystem, on the outer layer of the entire system’s organization, social, cultural, and political
contexts can be shaped within the other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 38
Conclusion
According to Skiba et al. (2008), disproportionate representation of students of color
identified for special education concluded that racial and ethnic disparities appear to multiply by
a number of intersecting factors, including classroom management, cultural mismatch, and
unequal opportunities in general education. Furthermore, amendments to IDEA emphasizing
education in the least restrictive environment reflect concerns that students with special needs
tend to be taught in unnecessarily restrictive, segregated classrooms where they are subjected to
lower expectations and have diminished exposure to the general education curriculum (Albrecht
et al., 2012). Svetaz et al. (2000) reported the high levels of emotional distress, suicide and
violence among adolescents with learning disabilities, which contributed to the students’ feeling
significantly less socially competent (Jackson et al., 1987).
It is a flaw of the educational system to ignore the specific needs of students with special
needs that are involved in the juvenile justice system (Larson & Turner, 1998). The reentry
process back to school becomes an obstacle for students’ complying with court mandates while
navigating, which often results in probation violations and academic failure (Leone, Quinn &
Osher, 2002). According to Newell and Salazar (2010), reentry is particularly challenging for
juvenile offenders given the range of developmental changes, high rates of mental illness and
substance abuse and the low rates of educational attainments.
Risk factors associated with juvenile delinquency arise at individual levels, including
personality and psychological functioning as well as academic failure and the response of
schools to behavior challenges (Koukos, 2009). Traditional high school curricula, whether in
public school or correctional facilities, do not meet the needs of students with special needs and
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 39
should, therefore, be structured in terms of competencies tailored to the individual student
(Haberman & Quinn, 1986).
When schools consider the full spectrum of unique needs for students entitled to special
education supports and services, the demands of the juvenile justice system must also be
considered. Seeking effective models to support students with IEPs returning to their home
school from juvenile detention needs to become a priority for educators across the country
(Osher et al., 2002). Although students with special needs have federal protection to ensure their
education (IDEA, 2007), once they become involved in the juvenile justice system, their
educational rights become less prioritized (Rowand & Papport, 1999). Multiple studies confirm
that the majority of students with special needs do not complete their education after coming into
contact with the juvenile justice system (Newell & Salazar, 2010). The reentry process becomes
too difficult to navigate and students’ motivation to complete their secondary education becomes
lowers (Christle, Jolivette & Nelson, 2005). However, there is research that reflects how well
students respond to a reentry system that is structured with supports and provides individualized
attention (Bullock & Gamble, 2008).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLGY
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research to better understand what
school site staff feel is necessary to meet the educational needs of students with special needs
returning to their home school from juvenile detention. Juvenile delinquency for students with
IEPS, and factors that have an impact on free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment are complex, which makes a qualitative case study the most appropriate
methodology in order to gain a rich understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
Additionally, understanding the interplay among different systems and structures in a
comprehensive and cohesive manner is necessary to fully understand the components of
developing a school plan that works.
Research Questions
In an effort to gain insight into the innovative strategies of schools that have been
successful in reenrolling students with IEPs returning to their homeschool, this study sought to
obtain responses to the following research questions:
1) What are the perceived systems and structures for the successful reentry of students
with IEPs returning from juvenile detention to their school of residence?
2) How are the school wide systems and structures implemented and sustained to support
students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention to their school of residence?
Research Design
The research questions guided the study and framed the choice of research method for
data collection. Qualitative methods were used in order to obtain a meaningful, insightful
understanding of the promising practices for schools to meet the needs of students with IEPs
returning from juvenile detention. According to Merriam (2009), in qualitative studies,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 41
researchers are interested in understanding how people understand their experiences, how they
construct their worlds and what meaning they are attributing to their experiences.
As described by Merriam (2009), the nature of qualitative research focuses on process,
understands and creates meaning with the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection
and analysis. The qualitative process is inductive and the final product is descriptive, illustrating
what the researcher learned about the area of study (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative data collection
relies on a variety of sources of information, including interviews and document analysis
(Merriam, 2009).
A qualitative case study approach is appropriate for this study because it captures
experiences, perspectives, and practices of leaders and stakeholders at schools with the highest
percentages of students with IEPs who return from juvenile detention. Understanding the
interplay among different systems and structures in a comprehensive and cohesive manner is
necessary to fully understand the components of school processes that work. In order to
understand the interaction between systems and structures at a school, it was necessary to
interview key school personnel and observe them in their daily operations. Furthermore, this
study has a particular focus on school procedures, and interviews and observations are crucial to
understanding this experience. Triangulation of data sources allowed for a stronger
understanding of the phenomena being investigated (Maxwell, 2013).
Sample and Population
The intent of this study was to explore the needs of the adults who work with the target
group. This study examines innovative strategies for students with special needs, specifically the
need for schools to support students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention. Specific criteria
were established to identify 7 schools with large concentration of students with IEPs who are
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 42
also involved in the juvenile justice system. This section summarizes the selection criteria,
sampling procedures, participants, and an overview of the district and school.
Location
Data collection took place at seven secondary public schools in one Southern California
public school system, with students with special needs involved in the juvenile justice system:
Senior High School #1, Senior High School #2, Senior High School #3, Senior High School #4,
Senior High School #5, Senior High School #6 and Senior High School #7. Each of the seven
schools is located in an urban, high poverty area of Southern California (Table 1).
Table 1
School Data (2013-14)
School Total
Students
Demographics Economically
Disadvantaged
Students w/
Disabilities
Graduation
Rate (4yr)
Graduating and
Passing ALL
A-G Courses
Fordham HS 1,520 AA 1%, AI
1%, Asian 3%,
Filipino 4%,
Latino 90%,
White 1%
89% 13% 78% 51%
Kingsbridge HS 2,329 AA 9%,
Latino 90%
90% 13% 57% 38%
Tremont HS 295 AA 1%, Asian
3%, Filipino
3%, Latino
93%
90% 15% 85% 66%
Bainbridge HS 359 AA 1%, AI
1%, Asian 1%,
Filipino 1%,
Latino 95%
93% 8% 79% 54%
Concourse HS
Jerome HS 1,695 AA 6%, Asian
1%, Latino
93%
93% 14% 67% 43%
Bedford HS 1,544 AA 12%, AI
1%, Asian 6%,
Filipino 1%,
Latino 79 %,
White 1%
83% 14% 56% 31%
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 43
Participants
The study included 10 interviews with school principals and administrators, counselors
and coordinators, and a district support behavior specialist. Participant selection occurred
through purposeful selection (Maxwell, 2013). Individuals were selected deliberately to provide
information particularly relevant to the academic needs of students with IEPs who return from
juvenile detention.
Through purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2009), this study used specific selection criteria
to identify participants directly related to the reentry and support of students with IEPs who
return from a juvenile placement. The participants were purposely selected to provide
information relevant to the research questions. Although convenience sampling may not always
be the preferred method, the focus group is difficult to gain access to, and there is relatively little
research regarding students with IEPs and the experience they face attempting to return to their
home school or once re-enrolled in a district program.
Each of the participants was assigned to the task of screening students prior to
enrollment, providing instruction, or supporting the needs of the students. It is difficult to
identify school staff willing to work with students with IEPs who are released to their home
school after juvenile detention in a district as large as SWUSD. Therefore, the principal
identified the participants.
Instrumentation
A qualitative case study approach was utilized for this study due to its in-depth and rich
descriptive nature (Merriam, 2009). This study design allows for direct interaction with teachers,
counselors, and principals to observe their behavior in what Creswell refers to as a “natural
setting” (Creswell, 2007). This type of direct interaction is the best way to fully probe the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 44
research questions and to learn directly from key stakeholders regarding the innovative strategies
to support the reentry of students with IEPs who return from a juvenile placement.
An interview protocol with thirteen questions was used to interview each participant
(Appendix A). Interview questions were developed after multiple pilot interviews conducted by
members of thematic group (Merriam, 2009). Questions used in the interview protocol are open-
ended in nature to obtain as much information as possible from participants (Merriam, 2009).
There is a specific and intentional structure for the interview protocol (Appendix A). The
first question is to establish the participant’s position at the school and is followed by a question
to gauge the level of awareness regarding the school’s different special education programs.
Questions 3 to 6 are designed to understand familiarity of the IEP process and how the school
facilitates the process to address students’ unique needs. Questions 7 and 8 seek to understand
how the school responds to and supports behavior challenges. The final questions, 9 to 13, focus
on the reentry of students with special needs from juvenile placement, supports, and coordination
with families, other involved agencies, and transition supports.
Research began with the identification of a conceptual framework. An ecological systems
theory (Morris, 2013) provides an approach to understanding the relationships of individuals
within the school environment and the wider academic institution. The protocol investigates the
school and juvenile justice institutions as microsystems, and the research questions and
observation protocol are designed to elicit the attitudes and feelings of school staff towards a
particular sub-group of students and their views on the best methods to offer supports for the
unique needs of these students. The interview approach followed a semi-structured format to
allow for flexibility while being guided by specific questions and issues to be explored.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 45
Maxwell (2013) describes a conceptual framework as “the systems of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 39).
The literature review highlighted key concepts, terms, models, and theories that shaped the
framework for this study. This framework informed the construction of the problem of the study,
the development of specific research questions, the selection of the appropriate methodology for
data collection and analysis, and offered insight on the interpretation of findings (Merriam,
2013).
The conceptual framework, designed by the thematic group, was based on emerging
themes and practices in the review of literature. Identified structures, such as stakeholders,
funding, policies, staffing, and professional development are key elements to have in place to
create a culture to meet the needs of students with special needs. Having these structures in place
can lead to effective school systems and positive interplay among the school structures and
systems to produce a school-wide culture that meets the needs of all students. The foundation of
this model is that effective school leadership and a commitment to students with special needs
will lead to the development of the critical structures and systems needed to develop innovative
strategies to meet the needs of students with special needs (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2013
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 46
Data Collection
Prior to any data collection, Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements were met
completed at both the University of Southern California and the district herein presented.
Through purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2009), this study used specific selection criteria to
identify participants directly related to the population under study. Participants were purposely
selected to provide information relevant to the research questions..
In this study, ten one-on-one semi-structured interviews with teachers, counselors, and
school administrators at seven secondary schools were conducted. The interviews took place
between September 2014 and December 2014. The objective was to learn of the strategies used
to re-enroll students with IEPs returning from a juvenile placement into their home school. With
the documented permission of the participants, interviews were audio-recorded for the purposes
of qualitative data analysis.
All interviews were transcribed. Data collected was analyzed using password-protected
personal computers stored in locked file cabinets. All data obtained from the study was destroyed
after the coding and analysis.
In addition to interviews, this study utilized document analysis to understand the systems
and structures in place to assist the target population. The documents reviewed were the
enrollment packet and the enrollment form. These documents were selected because they
provide insight into potential barriers to reentry.
Data Analysis
Interview transcripts were systematically coded according to the focus areas of the
research questions utilizing Microsoft Word. Reflective field notes were recorded immediately
following each interview. A process of open coding was utilized to formulate data labels,
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 47
categories and themes. Collecting different forms of data from various participants and
observations allows themes, trends, and patterns regarding the best practices for students with
special needs returning to their school of residence from a juvenile detention setting (Merriam,
2013).
Understanding the interplay among different systems and structures in a comprehensive
and cohesive manner is necessary to fully understand the components in developing a school
plan that works. Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data analysis provide a guiding framework for
this study and were utilized in the data analysis process (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis (Creswell, 2003)
Ethical Consideration
Data collection and interviews were conducted outside of the scheduled work days and
work hours: they were scheduled after 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, and on Saturdays. Volunteers for
this study were assured (Appendix B) that interviews would not conflict with their duties and
responsibilities at their worksite.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 48
Clear criteria were established for selecting the participants. This was done through
letters of introduction and letters of intent to all of the individuals involved. Included in those
documents was a confidentiality agreement, which all participants read and signed. Every effort
was made to ensure all participants knew that information disclosed during the study would be
treated with the utmost care and security. Forms acknowledging consent to participate in the
study and to be audio-recorded were signed by and obtained from each participant. There are
minimal risks associated with the interventions in this research, and all participants had a clear
understanding of the role and nature of the study.
Confidentiality
The study occurred in seven secondary public schools in an inner city, southern
California school district. The study took place behind closed doors of offices, classrooms and
conference rooms. Observations were conducted in open public areas without contact with
students, parents or any other staff.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 49
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter presents the data collected from document analysis and interviews with
principals, school administrators, and district support staff to explore innovative strategies for
students with special needs who are involved with the juvenile justice system. The research
questions examined the perceived systems and structures for the successful reentry of students
with IEP’s returning from juvenile detention to their home school and how systems and
structures may be implemented and sustained to support the unique needs of this group. This
study used case study methodology to collect data at seven secondary schools.
This chapter first describes the participants, followed by a discussion of findings that
emerged thematically from the research questions. Findings are highlighted in sub-categories
under each research question and relevant studies are cited for the purpose of referencing. Four
findings emerged relevant to the research questions: the enrollment process is extremely difficult
for students with special needs attempting to reenroll back into their home school from juvenile
detention; schools struggle to hold 30-day IEPs that reflect all of the supports and services the
student needs for a successful reentry; it becomes very difficult for schools to help students
transition back from juvenile detention because of the lack of interagency collaboration between
the juvenile justice system and the school district; school staff is overwhelmed by the number of
assessments that are a result of regulations regarding a free appropriate public education in the
least restrictive environment.
The data obtained from the selected participants was analyzed through Creswell’s (2003)
six steps for data analysis. Research Question One examined the perceived systems and
structures for the successful reentry of students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention to
their school of residence. The subcategories include school-wide systems to meet the individual
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 50
needs of students with IEPs. According to the lead researcher in the Larson (1998), the school
failure hypothesis proposes that students with special needs are at risk for academic failure,
which leads to negative self-esteem and, therefore, increases the odds of dropping out of school
and involvement with violence and delinquent activities. Research question Two explores how
school-wide systems and structures are implemented and sustained to support students with IEPs
returning from juvenile detention. The subcategories explored procedures for establishing IEP
teams to focus on the specific needs of individual students with an emphasis on curriculum
designed to target their academic and socio-emotional goals with the support of appropriate
accommodations.
Participants
In an effort to maintain the confidentiality of the principals, administrators, and support
staff, pseudonyms are used for the district, schools, and participants. This chapter describes the
demographic information of the schools and areas of responsibility for each participant.
Information About the Schools
Of the seven schools where interviews were conducted, four are comprehensive
secondary high schools, two are secondary pilot schools and one is a secondary district small
school. Comprehensive high schools are traditional schools under the supervision of one
principal. The comprehensive sites are governed by the state educational code, district policy,
and the collective bargaining agreement between the district and the teachers union. The pilot
schools are a network of public schools that belong to the district, but have autonomy over
budget, staffing, governance, curriculum and assessment and the school calendar. District small
schools are school models that operate under the same guideline as comprehensive sites but with
a significantly smaller student population and staff. All of the district guidelines are applicable to
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 51
small schools, and they may be located at a site with other small schools, pilot schools, or charter
schools.
All of the schools serve students who have been identified as economically
disadvantaged, with the percentage of these students ranging from 75% to 93%. All of the
schools are located in an inner city community. Each school’s total population of students with
special needs exceeds 10%, and as high as 15% at some schools, with the exception of the small
school where the population of students with special needs is 8% of the student body. Six of the
schools have comprehensive special education programs facilitating students in Resource
Specialist Programs (RSP) and Special Day Classes. The small school only has RSP. The school
is located at a site with one other small school and two pilot schools. The complex is part of a
zone of choice, so students can choose which school to attend. Students who require the support
of Special Day Classes receive priority to the school that can provide that level of support.
Participants Characteristics
Ten participants were interviewed. Four held the position of principal at their respective
school. Two of the participants serve in the capacity of Instructional Specialist, a school site
administrative position charged with assisting the principal maintain a comprehensive,
instructionally effective and compliant program that accelerates the academic achievement of
English learners, low income students and foster youth. One of the respondents supports schools
in the capacity of a behavior specialist, which is a position based out of the Division of Special
Education to support students with IEPs who demonstrate behavior challenges. The foster youth
counselor who participated specifically focuses on the needs of foster youth at schools with a
significant population of students in out-of-home settings. The counselor for neglected and
delinquent or at risk students supports schools with students who are involved in the juvenile
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 52
justice system in a one-on-one counseling capacity. The instructional coach respondent is based
at a comprehensive high school and works to monitor the special education program at that
school.
Patrick is principal of Fordham HS, which serves 1,520 students, 89% of whom are
economically disadvantaged and 13% of whom are identified as students with special needs.
Fordham HS has a 78% four-year graduation rate, but only 51% of the students who graduated in
the 2013-14 school year successfully passed all courses required for college admission. Patrick
describes the scope of his responsibilities as being very comprehensive and including the
supervision of the school’s instructional program, budget, facilities, safety, parents, students and
staff.
Larry serves as an instructional coach at Fordham HS under Patrick’s supervision. In his
position, he contributes to the instructional program. An additional area of responsibility is to
oversee the special education program, which includes the programming of students into the
proper classes, supervising para-educators, adults who work with students on an individual basis
or support teachers in the classroom as assistants. Larry also regularly meets with teachers to
maintain compliance with teacher responsibility as case carriers for students with IEPs.
Charles is the Principal of Kingsbridge HS, which serves 2,329, 90% of whom are
economically disadvantaged and 13% of whom are identified as students with special needs.
Kingsbridge HS has a 57% four-year graduation rate, but only 38% of the students who
graduated in the 2013-14 school year successfully passed all of the courses required for college
admission. Charles describes his role as the principal as encompassing several areas of
responsibility. He expressed that he is responsible for leading the academic success of the school
inclusive of overseeing the school’s finances, building community partnerships, implementing
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 53
positive culture at the school and most importantly, as Charles describes, “to place teachers and
students in the best possible situation for them to succeed” (personal communication, November
20, 2014).
Anthony is the principal at Tremont HS, a pilot school located at a campus with one other
pilot high school, a pilot middle school, and two independent charter schools. All of the five
principals work together and contribute to site-wide positions such as librarian and athletic
director. Tremont high school serves 295 students, 90% of whom are economically
disadvantaged and 13% of whom are identified as students with special needs. Tremont HS has a
85% four-year graduation rate, but only 66% of the students who graduated in the 2013-14
school year successfully passed all of the courses required for college admission. Anthony
describes his position as unique because of the design of a pilot school on a campus with other
schools. He explains that his position is to supervise academics and teachers’ instructional
practices but that there is also a large operations aspect specific to pilot schools because there are
no other administrators to whom he delegate responsibility.
Greg is the principal of a small district school, Bainbridge HS, which is located at a
complex with one other small school and two pilot schools. Greg explains that the four principals
decided to hire an operations administrator to alleviate the operational demands that, he
explained, interfered with the level of attention he wanted to focus on instruction. Bainbridge HS
serves 359 students, 93% of whom are economically disadvantaged and 8% of whom are
identified as students with special needs. Bainbridge HS has a 79% four-year graduation rate, but
only 54% of the students that graduated in the 2013-14 school year successfully passed all of the
courses required for college admission. Greg explained his role as principal is responsible for
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 54
developing professional development, observing and evaluating teachers’ instruction, and
making sure that the shared spaces of the campus are used appropriately.
John is an instructional specialist for targeted student population at Concourse HS. The
district defines targeted student population as students involved with the foster care system,
English language learners, or those considered socioeconomically disadvantaged. Concourse
High School is a pilot school that serves 485 students, 75% of whom are economically
disadvantaged and 12% of whom are identified as students with special needs. Concourse HS has
a 61% four-year graduation rate, but only 33% of the students who graduated in the 2013-14
school year successfully passed all of the courses required for college admission. John is an
administrator who works under the supervision of the principal and specifically supervises the
special education program, discipline, athletics and counseling inclusive of the master schedule
of classes.
Charlie is an assistant principal at Jerome High School, which is a comprehensive site,
composed of four small schools with different areas for art, business, science and technology and
the arts. Each of the four small schools is assigned an assistant principal, and Charlie is in charge
of a small school under the supervision of the site principal. Jerome HS serves 1,695 students,
93% of whom are economically disadvantaged and 14% of whom are identified as students with
special needs. Jerome HS has a 67% four-year graduation rate, but only 43% of the students who
graduated in the 2013-14 school year successfully passed all of courses required for college
admission. Charlie is in charge of the attendance office, counselors, the student master schedule,
athletics and the school facility. Charlie explained that his small school’s focus is on business,
which is infused into the curriculum across all content areas.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 55
Xavier is a behavior specialist who works with different schools in the district to
support behavior challenges of students with IEPs. He explained he helps school personnel
develop tiered levels of behavior support through the establishment of SWPBSPs. Xavier also
works with teachers individually on the construction of FBAs by helping to identify antecedents,
behaviors and consequences. Other areas of responsibilities for Xavier include participation in
suspension IEP team meetings and expulsion review boards.
Allen is a district employee who supports schools as a representative from the neglected,
delinquent or at-risk youth program. He describes the program as a federally funded program
designed to provide clinical case management for students residing in group homes, those who
are on probation, and those transitioning from juvenile detention centers. He is assigned to three
different schools and works out of Bedford HS two days a week. Bedford HS is a comprehensive
high school that serves 1,544 students, of 83% whom are economically disadvantaged and 14%
of whom are identified as students with special needs. Bedford HS has a 56% four-year
graduation rate, but only 31% of the students who graduated in the 2013-14 school year
successfully passed all of courses required for college admission. Allen explains there are fewer
than 50 counselors in this position for the district, and schools receive the assistance from the
neglected, delinquent or at-risk youth program based on need.
Derek is a counselor with the district’s foster youth achievement program and explains
that his role is to support educational outcomes and academic achievement for students living in
the foster care system. Derek is in his first year in his current position and is assigned to Bedford
HS for one day a week, but he supports four other schools. Derek explains that some of the
responsibilities that he oversees are the coordination of services for the students on his caseload,
such as after school tutoring or academic support though for profit agencies. He also describes
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 56
his participation in IEP and Student Success Team (SST) meetings and advocating for student
needs with teachers directly.
Results for Research Question One
When a student is mandated to the custody of the court for detention, s/he is dropped
from enrollment at his/her home school and falls under the jurisdiction of the County Office of
Education, which must provide the state-required education program and deliver all services
indicated in the IEP. When the student is released from detention, s/he needs to re-enroll into
his/her home school. The first research question asked, “What are the perceived systems and
structures for the successful reentry of students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention to
their school of residence?” Understanding the interplay among different systems and structures
in a comprehensive and cohesive manner is necessary to fully understand the components of
school processes that work. With structures in place, effective school systems can be developed
and the interplay between the school structures and systems can produce a school-wide culture to
meet the needs of all students.
In this chapter, structures are initially discussed and are followed by a presentation of the
systems that operate within them. Table 2 depicts the thematic structures and systems discussed
in this chapter.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 57
Table 2
Thematic Structures and Systems
Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
1. Student Enrollment • Student Enrollment Packet
• Student Enrollment Form
• Zone of Choice
2. Individualized Education Programs • 30 Day IEP
• Parent/Legal Guardian consultation
• Assessment
3. Academic Accommodations and
Social/Emotional Support
• Academic Interventions
• Social Emotional Support
• Culture of Discipline
Student Enrollment
Results revealed that, while SWUSD has a policy to ensure that students with IEPs have
the right to return to their home school, bureaucratic barriers prevent many students from
enrolling into school in a timely fashion, and this often puts students involved with the juvenile
justice system at risk for violating the conditions of their probation, which involve regular
attendance in school. Complicated forms are required when enrolling and often slow down the
enrollment process because of failure to provide documentation proving residence or incomplete
immunization records. While IEPs are supposed to safeguard the rights of students with even
greater accountability to federal laws and guidelines, when students transfer from the county
system of education, there is often lag time in the arrival of the students’ files. Unfortunately for
students with IEPs, because of the delay in securing educational records, IEP timelines fall out of
compliance and students are often left without their support services and accommodations,
adding to the distress of the reentry process.
The first document reviewed was the Enrollment Packet. The organizational structures
implemented to support students with IEPs returning from juvenile detention include the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 58
completion of an enrollment packet. A Student Information Form is part of the enrollment packet
so that schools can have the required information for students, including home/business
telephone numbers and addresses, emergency telephone numbers of relatives or friends who are
authorized to care for the student in emergency situations and authorization for emergency
medical treatment. It is required that the Student Enrollment Form be completed at the beginning
of each academic school year or when there is a change in the information. It is essential for this
form to remain current, as it is used for the protection of student health and welfare, and to
provide immediate communication with the parent/legal guardian/caregiver.
In addition to the Student Information Form, the enrollment packet also contains the
Parent/Student Handbook forms, which include the Information Release Form, explaining the
release of student directory information to authorized agencies; the Release of Annual Notice
form required by California Education Code 48980(a) that mandates school boards notify parents
of their rights to service programs offered by their district school/schools; and the Ethnicity/Race
Identification of Students Form on which districts are required to collect race and ethnicity data
for all new-enrolling students. All forms are made available in six different languages at all
times: English, Spanish, Armenian, Chinese, Tagalog and Korean.
The second document reviewed was the Student Enrollment Form. The enrollment packet
consists of a Student Enrollment Form that gathers information for the following sections: (A)
student information, (B) Parent Legal Guardian with whom the student lives, (C) home language
and ethnicity information, (D) student educational information, (E) additional household
information, (F) additional family information. Every section of the form needs to be completed
prior to the student’s receiving authorization to officially enroll. As Patrick, principal at Fordham
HS explains, “
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 59
So, I’m heavily involved in the enrollment process with kids as well. Because I think it
really sets a tone when you start off to make sure that you’re doing it correctly, especially
if the kid has a learning disability. We want to make sure we put him in the right place.
(personal communication, December 3, 2014)
Considering how critical the enrollment form is in admitting students into a school, there is great
scrutiny to make sure that the proper procedures are adhered to.
The Student Enrollment Form can also become a barrier when students attempting to
enroll do not have sufficient information for document completion. Students are routinely turned
away from enrollment until they can gather the necessary information, such as proof of address
and current immunization records. Furthermore, enrollment also includes the navigation of
unfamiliar school campuses to visit required offices as explained by Charlie, an instructional
specialist at Jerome HS:
There is a document that they need to go from office to office to ensure that the
paperwork is completed. So, first, they go to admissions to get the paperwork. Then, they
go to the attendance office. Then, they will go to the textbook office, and, then, they will
go see the principal or the assistant principal in charge of the complex. Then, they will go
to Title 1. Then, they will go to the EL. So, there’s different offices in order for them to
make sure they meet certain criteria or they bring the certain paperwork. (personal
communication, November 12, 2014)
Until students attempting to enroll can have the Student Enrollment Form finalized, with all of
the necessary paperwork completed and approval from various offices throughout a campus,
enrollment is not completed and attendance is prohibited.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 60
Many barriers were reported by the respondents, contributing to a complicated enrollment
process, such as the procedures with zone of choice. All of the school sites and complexes in this
study are located in densely populated, low socio-economic status areas. In an effort to create
equitable opportunities for personalized education options, SWUSD created zones of choice,
which are geographic areas consisting of multiple high school options. According to Greg, the
students from the middle schools in the vicinity of his small school are given sixteen high school
options to choose from and central district placement personnel try to match students to their first
choice.
As described by Anthony, his school is co-located at a complex with five other schools.
Two of the schools are charter schools, which operate completely autonomously from SWUSD
schools. As Anthony describes,
We’re comingled, meaning, financially, we pay into common positions: librarian, athletic
director. The place where it becomes tricky is that charters have some flexibility around
who they let into their school and who they don’t. And, even though it’s a co-location and
the idea is kids can go wherever they want, special eds are a good example of a place
where the message parents might get is we’re not really sure we can serve your child. Or
we don’t have that program here. (personal communication, December 1, 2014)
Charles, principal of Kingsbridge HS, gives further explanation for the zone of choice
process for the students in the Kingsbridge zone who have IEPs or are returning from juvenile
placement. He explains, “If he’s a returnee, they go to the enrollment packet if it’s already one of
our students. If it’s not one of our students, they go through the zone choice selection process”
(personal communication, November 20, 2014). If the student is a returnee who previously
attended the school, s/he completes the enrollment pack with the updated information. Students
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 61
who have never attended Kingsbridge HS go through the zone of choice process and, once
assigned to the school, they go through the enrollment process.
Enrollment for new students include identifying ESL levels if necessary, checking in with
the dean’s office, and determining if the student receives any services or special education
support. Charles explained,
It is important to be aware of students’ individual needs, just so that we know who’s
coming in and what services they need so that they can be going on a list of…I don’t
want to say target students because that sounds bad, but a list of students that we need to
be cautious of as far as services that need to be provided to the student. (personal
communication, November 20, 2014)
When an enrolling student is perceived to present challenges to a school, s/he is identified upon
enrollment and closely monitored in an effort to thwart any potential violations.
Individualized Education Programs
IEPs serve to protect the rights of students with special needs eligible to receive a free
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. As discussed in Chapter Two, a long
legacy of laws ensure that students with special needs receive the instructional accommodations
and socio-emotional supports to have the greatest opportunity to attain educational benefit from
an appropriate academic program. IDEA sets guidelines regarding timelines to ensure that
students with IEPs are regularly monitored for progress towards their legally protected
accommodation and service goals. Critical to maintaining the integrity of the IEP process is
consultation with students’ families or legal guardians, especially when students are transferring
to new environments where there is little or no historical information available. Especially when
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 62
students are new to a school, the proper assessments are essential to determining needs so that
students can be appropriately placed with the appropriate accommodations and services.
Additional structures exist to further support students with IEPs when returning to a
school of residence after they have been dropped from enrollment beginning with reviewing the
IEP within 30 days of enrollment (a process known as a 30-day IEP). When students transfer to
SWUSD with an IEP from another school district within the state, SWUSD is required to provide
comparable services, in consultation with parents, pending a SWUSD review IEP meeting.
Therefore, once a student is remanded to the custody of the juvenile justice system, they are
dropped form enrollment from their school of attendance and it becomes the county’s
responsibility to provide educational services. Once the student is released from juvenile
detention, it becomes the responsibility of the home school to provide the educational services.
When students with IEP’s enroll in SWUSD, it becomes the responsibility of the school to hold
the review IEP within 30 days of the student’s enrollment to determine recommendations for
special education services. When a student transfers to SWUSD from another state, the district is
required to provide comparable services, in consultation with the parents, until a new evaluation
is conducted, if necessary, and a new IEP developed.
Larry explains the process of how the procedures unfold for the organizations of a 30-day
IEP:
Okay, so after I’ve determined that this child is coming back from a different district to
our school… Or is enrolling from a different district to our school, I go ahead and make
the determination of the scheduling of the 30 day IEP immediately. A copy of the IEP
that is being brought in is given to the case career that the child is assigned to. So, that
child is assigned right away. I, then, speak to the counselor so that, when the classes are
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 63
being given to this child, if it’s an RSP student, for instance, I make sure that they are in a
cluster. We go over the classes that the child has met. If I see any attendance issue at that
point or anything that is a red flag for me, I, at that point, make sure to have those
conversations with the PSA, “Red flag this kid immediately,” so that there’s already
those connections. (personal communication, December 3, 2014)
John describes that the 30-day IEP process can be difficult to manage because of the nature
maintaining compliance within a very strict timeline. A 30-day IEP is based on self-reporting, so
if a school does not receive knowledge that an enrolling student has an IEP, compliance with a
30-day IEP becomes difficult. John further explains that Concourse HS has a large population of
students in foster homes and group homes, coupled with a large population of students who are
“newcomers” from other countries. There are many students at Concourse HS who often come
with no paperwork, let alone a copy of an IEP, so it is a constant struggle to maintain timeline
compliance when the school does not have the necessary documentation.
Charles and Patrick report there are outside-of-classroom staff responsible for overseeing
the special education program at their respective schools. Charles explains that, at Kingsbridge
HS,
we have… a Special Ed support provider person that maintains calendars and maintains
list of all the students coming in so that we can be compliant within that. That includes
request for assessments, that includes whatever it might be, three-year assessment or
whatever. (personal communication, November 20, 2014)
At Fordham HS, every new enrollee with an IEP would have met with an Assistant Principal and
the instructional coach who oversees the special education program:
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 64
The instructional coach is in charge of the calendars and the IEPs, so right there and then
we assign the provider and we assign the IEP and we make sure that we're within that
time frame. We've improved dramatically since having the instructional coach as far as
IEPs meeting. (personal communication, December 3, 2014)
Patrick has established clear systems and procedures to ensure that 30-day IEP timeline
compliance is met.
Part of the challenge in supporting students with special needs returning to their home
school after juvenile detention is difficulty in the availability of parents or guardians for purposes
of consultation. Each participant described different enrollment processes and a different way of
monitoring special education. The design of a school, whether comprehensive, small school
model or pilot school, adds to the unique manner in which schools operate. Per federal guidelines
as stipulated in IDEA, however, an IEP must include of a parent or legal guardian which gives
them authority in making decisions regarding the educational program the student will receive.
However, as described by some of the respondents, it can become very difficult to get parents or
legal guardians to participate in the IEP process.
At Kingsbridge HS, Charles disclosed that, in the community where his school is located,
it is especially difficult to get parents to participate in matters related to school, including
participation at IEP meetings, “there’s a lot of barriers that parents are facing. That might be an
issue with getting off from work, having two jobs, that with some of them, there might be a lack
of trust between school and the parent.” He further reveals frustration with the plight of
facilitating for students who have the right to attend his school until they are 22 because of their
eligibility of special needs and how, after 18, it is virtually impossible to get parents to
participate in the IEP process: “it’s sometimes difficult to bring them in for the IEP when it’s in
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 65
the high school level. It’s rare to see a parent who comes in after the students are eighteen or
older, but having them involved is always been an issue” (personal communication, November
20, 2014)
Charles rationalizes the barriers that prevent parent and guardian involvement,
highlighting the difficulty of missing time from work, especially for those who have multiple
jobs. Charles explained that he is not naïve regarding in the community in which his school is
located. There are many parents who do not trust the school:
There might be a lack of trust between the school and the district itself to see how much
of the services can be provided to the student. There might be not only trust but lack of
training between the district and the school personnel to realize, to understand, what kind
of services can the school offer to the student? Or there might be a misunderstanding
between the school and the district as far as how far can we advocate for students.
(personal communication, November 20, 2014)
At Bainbridge HS, Greg clarifies that he is not always eager for parental or guardian
involvement, “because if the parents come in and assume it’s something negative, even if it is
about trying to create a positive environment for them, they are already attacking.” He further
reflects on his frustration with parents that he finds enabling abhorrent behavior, “I’ve had some
parents that have been great and some parents that are just enabling their kids to continue with
their excuses and their problems” (personal communication, December 10, 2014). Anthony also
described frustration when dealing with some parents and guardians, illustrating that it is often
the students that need the most intervention or behavior support where it is very difficult to rely
on involvement. Anthony tries to remedy the involvement of parents or guardians for students
who need the most support by having them closely involved in the enrollment process where
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 66
expectations are clearly defined; however, after the student is enrolled, the commitment by some
parents and guardians fades.
Assessments play a critical role in the identification of services to support students with
special needs. When a student is suspected of having a disability, IDEA includes the Child Find
mandate that requires schools to identify, locate, and complete a comprehensive evaluation. Greg
describes the assessment procedures at Bainbridge HS and states that concerns for student lack of
success in the instructional program begins with a Student Success Team meeting where teachers
will get together with him to discuss the issues about individual students:
If a student happens to not have an IEP, those teachers become like their student success
team and evaluate their progress over four-week, five-week period to see what strategies
they’re doing to help get this kid to pass their classes. If none of the strategies that they
are using are working, that’s when it goes into the referral to get them checked to see if
there is a learning disability that is attached. When it goes to that check, the RSP teacher
works with the school psychologist who evaluates the student and if it qualifies for an IP
then their process gets started with the parents. (personal communication, December 10,
2014)
The SST process includes the identification of intervention strategies and a timeframe to evaluate
how the student responds to the strategies. If the student demonstrates a lack of response to the
interventions, the SST then considers a special education evaluation and the school psychologist
and RSP teacher are involved with the conversation to determine if a special education
assessment is appropriate.
Larry explained how the master schedule at Fordham HS was constructed to allow RSP
teachers to be free from supporting classes one day a week:
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 67
Every Tuesday, when the RSP teacher spends the entire day going to the conference, the
GenEd teacher, they are servicing. And they sit down and plan during that Tuesday. So,
for example, if I’m a math teacher, and I have a period of conference, then I can expect
that, on Tuesdays, while I’m on conference, my RSP teacher will come and sit down and
plan for that week or the following week, what are going be the instructional goals for
that time frame. That gives them a chance to identify how they are going roll out the
content and how the RSP teacher can support the GenEd teacher. Remember, there’s six
courses these kids are taking, so RSP teacher has to be very flexible, they have to adapt,
they have to know that with this teacher they want this, with this other teacher they want
this, and the only way to get that done is communication on Tuesdays. (personal
communication, December 3, 2014)
During the free day, the RSPs consult with each other, the general education teachers, and the
instructional coach to identify students who may demonstrate a lack of educational benefit and
might need an assessment to help identify needs not reflected in the current IEP. Larry explains
that it is important to be aware of students who may need an initial IEP or, if a student already
has an IEP, they may need additional services.
Charlie details the ongoing assessment cycle that is constant motion at Jerome HS, “The
way we assess is, the assessing never stops. You know, we try to conduct as many possible
assessments as possible. So we can understand where the student’s areas of needs are” (personal
communication, November 12, 2014). Patrick specified special education teachers conduct the
academic assessment to identify the academic needs where present levels of performance are
identified and then corresponding goals are established to meet the area of need:
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 68
So, what strategy can I use to assess the kid, or give the kids tools, whether it’s
differentiating and scaffolding, it’s front loading. And the other issue is when should I
pull them out, for to review, recap and make sure they are understanding and get them
back to the GenEd population. So several strategies, I think our special and RSP teachers
are the most well versed in pedagogical strategies to meet the needs of kids that are
having a difficulty or a learning disability. (personal communication, December 3, 2014)
It is the job of the school psychologist to conduct the psychological assessment to identify the
suspected area of disability. Once the assessments are concluded, an IEP meeting is held so the
student can receive the appropriate supports and services.
Academic Accommodations and Emotional Support
The purpose of an IEP is to support students who have been found eligible to receive
special educations services. Supports include accommodations in the academic areas of reading,
mathematics, written language and English language development if necessary. Furthermore,
students with IEPs are assessed to gauge whether there is a need for socio-emotional support as
well. The susceptibility hypothesis proposes that the neurological and intellectual difficulties of
students with special needs directly contribute to antisocial behavior including problems with
impulse control, attention, conceptualization, comprehension, judgment, and social perception
(Brier, 1989). The IEP assessment process is designed to look at the holistic needs of students
because of the interrelated nature between socio-emotional struggles and academic struggles.
Once an IEP team has identified areas of suspected disability, it is then the responsibility of the
team to identify appropriate supports and services in the areas of academics as well as any socio-
emotional needs that may be necessary.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 69
All of the schools involved in this study have special education programs. However, the
process for providing academic accommodations varied from site to site. The comprehensive
high schools have RSP, where students are placed in general education classes for all of their
core content areas and may receive support in class from a resource support teacher who
collaborates with the general education teacher. Also at the comprehensive sites, there is a
Special Day Program where students are still working to meet the standards of the general
education curriculum however they are pulled out of the general education environment for more
personalized support in Special Day Classes. Tremont and Bainbridge only have RSP programs.
Greg explained,
We have about 29 students who have different learning disabilities and so we have one
RSP teacher who is in charge of monitoring their progress, working with teachers to
support them in the classroom and he also offers a resource class at the end of the day for
the students who are most struggling. (personal communication, December 10, 2014)
Similarly, Anthony described the RSP program at Bainbridge HS,
So, that means that my RSP teachers, I have one and a half, along with my special Ed
assistants, are pushed into classrooms to provide support. There’s also a learning center
that takes place one period a day where individual students might be pulled out if they
need some extra support or guidance, but for the most part it's a push-in and co- teaching
model for RSP. (personal communication, December 1, 2014)
The RSP teacher is “pushed in” to the general education classes to support the general education
teacher with strategies and to increase the teacher to student ratio.
Comprehensive sites cater to larger populations of students with special needs and
accommodate a wider spectrum of eligibilities. At Fordham HS, Larry described the entire
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 70
special education program: there is an ID class for student eligible with Intellectual Disability, a
Community Based Instruction class for students on the alternate curriculum working towards a
certificate of completion and focusing on life skills, a program for students found eligible due to
emotional disturbance where students mainstream into general education classes with a special
education teacher or special education assistant at all times, RSP and Special Day Program.
Larry explains what the academic support looks like in the classroom:
The RSP teachers now go in and support, along with the Para-professionals, go in and
support the English and math classes. They have also a document that they utilize to
communicate with all the teachers. So, every time there’s going to be an IEP, they utilize
this document in which the teacher gets to speak about the strengths, the students’ needs
of improvement, and it speaks about behavior as well. So, each teacher generates this
form, fills it out and provides it to the RSP teacher. The RSP teacher takes that
information, inputs it into the IEP where needed, and also reports out to the parent. At the
time of the IEP meeting, one of the Gen. Ed. Teachers, which is either the English or
math teacher for an RSP student, for example, would sit in that IEP because they are the
ones that also have the support of the RSP teacher. (personal communication, December
3, 2014)
Charles outlined a strategy he implements where, “we’re trying to coordinate so that we
provide professional development to our Special Ed assistants so that they can coordinate and
plan together lessons so that we maximize the assistance that the TA might be able to provide”
(personal communication, November 20, 2014). Charlie detailed the way Jerome HS clusters
groups of kids so they can be programmed into classes that have extra supports available to
support learning, “our teachers are programed within the master schedule, so they have a specific
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 71
set of classes and that's how we cluster our students based on that.” (personal communication,
November 12, 2014)
In addition to the purposeful grouping, Charlie also explained how “there are some
students that need extra support within IEP goals, or just with a specific A though G
requirements, so those are students that are specifically programed into the learning center”
(personal communication, November 12, 2014). Students struggling with particular required
courses can be programmed into the learning center where a credentialed teacher assists them
with particular assignments or collaborates with teachers to pre-teach material so that students
have familiarity with particular subject matter prior to its presentation in the general education
class.
As was discussed in Chapter Two, students with special needs disproportionally
experience exclusionary discipline practices at school. As described by Keilitz and Dunivant
(1986), the differential treatment theory explains students with special needs lack the abilities
necessary to plan strategies, to avoid being detected, to conceal their true intentions, feelings or
activities when encountered by school officials, and to comprehend the questions and warnings
issued to them. Charles explains that students with special needs do represent the majority of
suspensions and theorizes that due to the learning disability, a frustration builds, causing the
students to erupt and act out behaviorally:
Some of them are having real difficulties learning that sometimes – and this is just my
personal opinion with the persons that I had to deal with – sometimes they just latch out
out of frustration regardless of how much counseling they receive, regardless of how
much they know that people are trying to support them. They just out of frustration take it
to the next level. That’s something we can’t look the other way with or try to help after so
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 72
many referrals to counseling, things like that. (personal communication, November 20,
2014)
Despite some of the interventions that in place at Kingsbridge HS, such as a progressive
discipline policy or a restorative justice program, there are some incidents of acting out behavior
that make Charles feel he has to resort to suspending.
With the understanding that students with special needs respond more positively to a
holistic approach, Charlie details how he uses the IEP process to deal with disruptive behavior.
In response to challenging behaviors, Charlie will call for an IEP meeting to review a student’s
BSP or create one if it does not exist. The team also makes a determination if the behaviors are a
manifestation of the student’s disability and updates the BSP accordingly. Charlie explains that
Kingsbridge HS has a tiered level of behavior intervention and a Discipline Review Team to
discuss individual students for example a student that had to be suspended because he brought a
knife to school with the intent to stab someone. Charlie attributes the majority of the behavior
issues he deals with to external problems at home or outside of school:
We do have a Tier system of approach here at West Adams. If it's a minor situation,
hopefully the teacher can address within his or her classroom. But if the situations are
escalating, the first line of defense is the counselor, where the counselor can have a
parent conference, or have a conference with a student. If it starts escalating, and that's
when they see the small school principal or the assistant principal, which is myself, and if
it starts slowly going to the point where it's just getting out of control, that's when we do
go and we send them to the wellness center. At that point, if it's not working out, then we
have a whole meeting or an SST or COST where we can try to see what we can do for the
student. (personal communication, November 12, 2014)
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 73
John provides information around the use of restorative justice at Concourse HS.
Whether it is prevention, intervention or responding to an issue, the lens through which a
situation is dealt with is the intentionality of being restorative. He adds, “How do we do this in a
way that the student learns what the issue is, learns how to correct the issue and why they need to
resolve the issue.” However, despite efforts to implement restorative justice practices school-
wide, there is a conflict with staff that are set in traditional disciplinary practices that are based in
consequence and punishment instead of working with the child to resolve their issues: “You talk
back to me in class, you get detention. You skip class, you get detention. You graffiti on the
walls, you get campus clean up. You get into a fight, you get suspended” (personal
communication, December 18, 2014)
The interviews revealed it is critical to provide socio-emotional support for students to
assist during the reentry process. For students who struggle with the pressures of living in low-
socio economic status areas, trying to navigate the juvenile justice system compounded with their
special needs becomes a socio-emotional struggle that is not always supported. John describes
the neighborhood where his school is located as having a large population of students living in
foster homes, returning from juvenile camp or detention centers and new immigrants to the
country. John continues, “And then we find out months later after they’ve been here and
engaging our campus that they have some significant need in one way are or another. I mean true
need, true disability” (personal communication, December 18, 2014). John expresses frustration
with the mandates that constantly come from the central district without the support to meet the
myriad of needs for his students.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 74
Anthony comments on the struggle for his students struggling with the adjustment from
strictly structured environments during detention and then transitioning to large high school
campuses.
My experience has been with a lot of the kids that come back, you know. They are about
5 or 6 years older psychologically than the kids who are here. They’ve just seen a lot, you
know, it’s a whole different world. And so I think there’s sometimes a misunderstanding
between schools and the probation side of... What is that reentry gonna really be like?
And being in a big school setting with lots of kids, it doesn’t necessarily help them. It’s
chaotic for them. So, I think having a really good continuation program, that specifically
serves kids coming out, like that transition out would be great. (personal communication,
December 1, 2014)
Derek echoes Anthony’s sentiment seek for the best way to find socio-emotional supports that
transfer to academic success. He continues that, when teachers have so many students in a
classroom, they cannot possibly appeal to their socio-emotional needs while trying to cover
instructional material. It becomes so difficult for teachers to achieve learning goals with students
who have been through adversity and have many barriers.
Having been a part of many IEP teams, Allen reflected on some of the strategies he used
to address some areas of socio-emotional concern. The formulation of a Behavior Support Plan
in addition to an IEP was a strategy Allen explained help to address some of the concerns with a
particular student
you do different observations like ABC data and behavior consequences, compile a lot of
data and at the end you find out the function of the behavior Essentially you find out why
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 75
this child is acting this way through scientific ways instead of interviews and things like
that. (personal communication, December 8, 2014)
The IEP team was able to identify a target behavior, define antecedents and operationalize a plan
to address the target behavior. Part of the BSP was a reward system so that all of the student’s
teachers were able to play a role in supporting the desired results. Allen also continued, “teachers
need to be trained to embed social skills training into their classroom lesson presentations
because there are so many students who need pragmatic supports” (personal communication,
December 8, 2014).
Xavier reported being astounded by the lack of evidence in many of the schools he
supports regarding school wide positive behavior support plans. He explained that schools may
have a plan on paper, but, when he is at a site, it is often the case that there is no evidence of
systems designed to support students during unstructured times such as lunch and passing
periods. He explained that, for students who are used to the institutionalized structure of
detention, coming to a school environment can become overwhelming if there are no systems or
clear expectations, “they need guidance and direction.” Xavier continues that, “at big high
schools it becomes even more overwhelming because a student may have 6 different teachers
that never communicate with one another, so it becomes the student’s responsibility to adjust to
six different personalities and expectations” (personal communication, November 14, 2014). For
a student dealing with their own internal emotional duress, Xavier explains that it becomes an
unfair expectation to place on a child and often results in the students getting into trouble.
IEPs are supposed to protect the socio-emotional needs of students with special needs
who are involved with the juvenile justice system. There are district-based personnel who have
given the responsibility to work with this particular subgroup of students, but they are spread
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 76
very thin, working with many different schools. Some of the programs designed to address the
needs of students in the foster system, which includes a significant percentage of students with
special needs who are involved in the juvenile justice system, are brand new and have not
developed set systems and structures. It is clear that systems exist to support students with
special needs who are involved in the juvenile justice system, but it is difficult to determine how
these efforts are designed and developed for sustainability.
Discussion Research Question One
Student Enrollment. Unfortunately, the reentry process is very complicated by forms
that require information that is not always readily available and contributes to delaying students
from attending their school of residence. Because students are dropped from enrollment when
they are remanded to the custody of the court and attend a different school district when they
receive their education through the county, it takes long periods of time for school district to
receive the necessary paperwork to properly enroll students. Even though the zone of choice
initiative was designed to give students options to attend schools that may be higher performing
than their local school of residence, an unintended consequence has been created where
enrollment can become overwhelmingly complicated by so many choices. The zone of choice
conundrum also exposed how different schools have different criteria for who they allow to
attend and have unofficial practices in place that limit all students from which schools they can
attend.
Individualized Education Programs. Although IDEA set strict guidelines regarding
timelines for the completion of the different types of IEPs, it becomes impossible for schools to
maintain compliance when county schools do not transfer student records in a timely fashion.
Schools of residence are at the mercy of the juvenile detention county schools to transfer
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 77
students’ cumulative files so that they will have the necessary information to complete a 30-day
IEP. It becomes impossible for resident school to deliver the supports and services in a student’s
IEP if they do not get the document stipulating what the student is entitled to receive.
Many of the students enrolled in SWUSD who are involved with the juvenile justice
system and have special needs live in poor socio-economic status communities. Many of the
children are in the foster care system or live in group homes. With unconventional family
structures, it becomes very difficult to get parental or guardian involvement in the IEP process.
In addition, the students that do live in households where a parent or guardian is present, it is still
difficult to get IEP participation because of demanding work restraints. It is often the case that
there is a lack of advocacy of the part of the student because of low parental or guardian
participation. With a complicated enrollment process combined with lack of availability of
complete student records in a timely manner, it becomes very difficult to properly assess students
to determine their needs for supports and services. Many of the students with special needs and
navigating juvenile justice system may have been identified and have an IEP, however many of
their needs go unattended.
Academic Accommodations. Each of the respondents identified academic interventions
at their school. However, no one was able to speak to the success of these interventions. No one
was able to correlate any intervention to an increase in academic performance or graduation
rates. The systems are in place to provide the academic supports, but the effectiveness of these
systems could not be determined. In many of the schools, an effort was made to allow for teacher
collaboration to help identify the needs of the students, but it was unclear what instructional
practices were developed to meet individual academic needs.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 78
Results Research Question Two
Socio-Emotional Supports
Schools seem to be transitioning towards a culture of positive behavior support and many
of the respondents spoke of tiered levels of behavior intervention. Every respondent reflected
that out of classroom referrals are extremely low and suspensions are in the single digits at every
school. Three of the respondents are district-based personnel with a specific focus of working
with foster youth, students with an open court case, and students with IEPs exhibiting behavior
difficulties. Each of the three respondents was not dedicated to one school and had very limited
information about the schools they supported. Again, systems are in place, but it becomes
difficult to measure the success of new approaches to behavior and the effectiveness of the
district support staff. As a subgroup, students with special needs involved in the juvenile justice
system were acknowledged by every respondent as having socio-emotional needs, however the
efforts to meet those needs continues as a problem that has not been resolved despite the supports
that exist.
Discussion Research Question Two
While it was possible to identify perceived school-wide systems and structures for the
successful reentry of students with special needs returning from juvenile detention to their school
of residence, it was not possible to determine how the systems and structures are sustained.
Schools were able to clearly demonstrate the enrollment process, awareness of the timeline
compliance around 30-day IEPs, and the necessity for assessments in an effort to provide
supports and services. However, all of the respondents identified different areas that prevent
successful, sustainable practices to meet the unique needs of this particular subgroup. An
extremely complicated enrollment process, unstable family dynamics, and the lack of
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 79
interagency communication between the juvenile justice system and the schools are barriers for
this group of students and the resident schools ability to successfully support them.
Summary
This chapter reviewed findings based on the data collected followed by a detailed
analysis and discussion of the answers to the two research questions based on how they were
established in the literature. It was not possible to gather information on how the systems and
structures to support the reentry of students with special needs to their school of residence could
be implemented and sustained. It is clear that the systems and structure exist, but many are new
and the reentry process relies heavily on the cooperation of the outside agencies.
The findings offered in this study were based on interviews and documents, which
reinforce their validity. The summary, conclusions, and implications of this study are presented
in the next chapter.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 80
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The American public education system has a historic legacy of exclusionary practices and
policies that created hardships for many different subgroups of students. Students with special
needs who are involved with the juvenile justice system continue to be excluded from the
educational mainstream despite federal laws to ensure a free and appropriate education in the
least restrictive environment (Skiba et al., 2008). School districts created support structures and
systems to comply with IEP mandates and the individual needs of students with special needs,
but facilitating the reentry process and maintaining support proved to be a very difficult
expectation for home schools. Muller explains (2011), “evidence strongly supports that the
notion that juvenile offenders, both with and without disabilities, are significantly more likely to
experience successful reentry into their home schools and communities if appropriate programs
and supports are in place” (p. 1). SWUSD created positions to support school sites with students
with special needs who are reentering from juvenile detention and school site administrators are
very aware of the IEP requirements during this process. However, practices have not been
operationalized and individualized supports are not always delivered within the mandated
timelines.
The reentry process is critical for youth with special needs transitioning back to their
home school (Baltodano, Mathur & Rutherford, 2005; Feierman, Levick & Mody, 2009;
Haberman & Quinn, 1986). When a very structured support system is not in place to meet the
socio-emotional needs for a group of students who have been identified with deficits in their
ability to access the general education curriculum, it becomes even more difficult to reengage
them into an academic setting that has already marginalized them with an identification that they
cannot learn with the same ability as there general education peers. Furthermore, the added
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 81
identification as a juvenile offender establishes another categorization that further removes the
student from typical peers in a school setting.
Unfortunately, the field of study focusing on the struggles school sites face in trying to
address the unique needs of students with disabilities reentering their school of residence is not
profound. Some researchers studied the difficulty of the reentry process (Baltodano, Mathur &
Rutherford, 2005; Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005; Feierman, Levick & Mody, 2009;
Haberman & Quinn, 1986; Hartwell et al., 2010; Leone, Quinn, & Osher, 2002; Losen, Martinez
& Gillespie, 2012; Newell & Salazar, 2010; Pollard et al., 1997; Shippen et al., 2012) yet
consistent and sustainable practices have not been developed. Systems and structures exist for
student enrollment, complying with IEP mandates, accommodations and supports, but there is
nothing sustainable that has been proven successful for school sites in meeting the needs of
students with special needs and there attempt to transition back from juvenile detention.
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research to better understand
what school site staff feels they need to meet the educational needs of students with IEPs
returning to their school of residence from juvenile detention. Many practitioners in public
education are motivated to work towards solutions to many of the institutionalized problems but
are unable to because there are obstacles within the organization itself that impede their
performance (Rueda, 2011). It is easy to theorize solutions to the myriad of problems that plague
inner-city public education, but without properly dissecting the problems to completely
understand the causes, working towards solutions becomes difficult.
Discussion of Findings
There were four findings relevant to the research questions. The enrollment process is
extremely difficult for students with special needs attempting to reenroll into their home school
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 82
from juvenile detention. Schools struggle to hold 30-day IEPs that reflect all of the supports and
services the student needs for a successful reentry. It becomes very difficult for schools to help
students transition back from juvenile detention because of the lack of interagency collaboration
between the juvenile justice system and the school district. Lastly, schools staff are overwhelmed
by the number of assessments that are a result of regulations around a free and appropriate
education in the least restrictive environment.
Figure 4. Findings
The first finding that emerged was how difficult the enrollment process is to navigate for
students with special needs returning to school from juvenile detention. Although there are many
organizational structures within a school to support students with IEPs, this research focused
specifically on students with IEPs returning from a juvenile placement. The structures perceived
to exist in facilitating the reentry process began with the procedures for enrollment, the
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 83
requirements set forth in IDEA to maintain compliance with IEPs and academic accommodations
and social/emotional support once in attendance. Additionally, as important as it was to identify
the perceived systems and structures to facilitate reentry, it is critical to understand how they are
sustained. Baltodano, Mathur and Rutherford (2005) explain that transition from incarceration to
school is difficult because the youth feel unwanted and unsupported creating a negative impact
of the student’s transition success.
A burden was placed on students attempting to enroll to prove their residence with
documentation such as a utility bill, which is not always possible for students in SWUSD
considering the plight of many families in unconventional living situations in low income, urban
communities.
The Student Enrollment Form complicates the enrollment process with a requirement to
demonstrate that the enrolling student is not under an expulsion order or soliciting information
about court orders that they “wish” to notify the school about. The climate set by the enrollment
packet is one that puts families on the defensive, as explained by Shippen (2014), “However, in
spite of findings that demonstrate positive student outcomes related to family involvement and
mandate that require it, the degree to which parents are participants remains low. This occurrence
is of particular concern for parents who are culturally and linguistically diverse” (p. 301)
A zone of choice may provide the option of a comprehensive school, pilot school, small
school, small learning community, magnet program or charter school. However, families and
guardians are then left with the responsibility for researching all of the available schools, the
performance of the school, and the instructional focus of the school. Students are asked to select
five top choices and are notified of their placement. However, students transitioning out of
juvenile detention are mandated to enroll into school immediately upon release. If a returning
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 84
student cannot engage in the zone of choice process, s/he is limited to his/her home school,
eliminating the option of a potentially higher performing, more supportive school environment.
The second finding reflects how difficult it is for resident schools to meet the federal
requirements of IEPs. The purpose of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is to protect
the rights of students with special needs in an effort to maximize educational benefit. Very strict
federal guidelines and timelines ensure that all students with IEPs have regularly scheduled
meetings to measure the academic progress towards agreed upon goals and to review present
levels of performance. Psychologists regularly assess students to determine areas of suspected
need including social/emotional and behavior.
Structures are in place in SWUSD so that when a student with IEP reenrolls from
juvenile detention, an IEP meeting is held within 30 days of return. However, the fidelity of the
IEP process is often compromised by a lack of communication between the county office of
education and SWUSD. Records are not delivered in a timely fashion therefore it becomes
problematic to properly program a student when it is not known what classes the students was
attending while incarcerated. Furthermore, the 30 day IEP is usually limited in the proper
information to accurately reflect the present levels of performance and thus it becomes arbitrary
when identifying goals for the student.
The third finding demonstrates the lack of interagency communication between the
juvenile justice system and schools of residence. As Osher, et al., (2002) explain, “unfortunately,
many service providers within the juvenile justice system are not sufficiently aware, not trained,
or lack the resources to respond appropriately to children and youth with cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral disabilities. These disabilities place them at greater risk than their peers for
school suspension, school dropout, substance abuse, arrest, restrictive placement, and
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 85
recidivism.” Schools are then faced with the predicament of trying to update an IEP that has
fallen out of compliance while the student was detained. For instance, a student may have been
placed in a Special Day Program (SDP) where the majority of their day is spent a special
education setting. The student is arrested and detained and an IEP will be held by the County that
places the student in a Resource Specialist Progam (RSP), where the majority of the educational
setting is in the general education environment. Schools are constantly frustrated by the
predicament that they are placed in by County IEPs, that often place student in less restrictive
environments due to a lack of programming to support youth in SDP.
The fourth finding explains the difficulty schools of residence encounter with the
constant demands around assessments. Students then return to their school of residence with an
IEP that reflects a program that is not appropriate and the IEP team, at the 30 day IEP has to
grant a full comprehensive assessment in order to justify a more restrictive environment for the
student. School psychologist have to complete a full battery of psychological assessments, a
special education teacher has to complete an academic assessment and any other service
providers that may be involved such a speech and language pathologist or a behavior specialist,
would also have to complete their respective assessment. It becomes overwhelming for schools
to maintain timeline compliance when County educational providers create more work because
of their inability to meet the educational needs of students with special needs and therefore make
them reluctant to take on the additional responsibility.
Schools are very aware of the timelines around 30 day IEPs however the fidelity of the
IEP process is not honored when it is reduced to a practice to maintain compliance. The sole
function of an IEP is to ensure that students’ needs are being met. When a child has an encounter
that results in detention, they have gone through an experience where Feiere, Levick and Mody
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 86
(2010) describes how the obstacles faced during the reentry process often heighten the likelihood
that the youth will end up back in the delinquency system they just exited from. Now a school
goes through the reentry mechanics of a 30-day IEP yet there are no procedures to address the
compensatory services that the student may need to make up for the loss of service while
incarcerated. This research was not able to reflect practices that attempt to identify and
implement new services that a student may need to support the reentry process.
Implications for Practice
This study focused on the needs of schools to support the reentry of students with special
needs that are transitioning out of juvenile detention. While much of what was observed and
discussed with school site administrators and support staff at SWUSD was research based, the
results of this study may be useful for future practices and policies in supporting students with
special needs through the reentry process back to school.
Enrollment
The first finding revealed that procedurally, SWUSD has clear protocols in place for
students to reenroll. It is clear though that students with IEPs transitioning back from juvenile
detention have a set of unique needs. These students have certain time parameters that need to be
met to stay in compliance with court requirements to enroll in school. Some of the documents
that are required for enrollment may not be available however the enrollment process should not
be compromised by a lack of documentation. It is usually the case that the school district already
has files on the returning student so the entire enrollment process should not have to be
replicated.
The zone of choice has great intentions in providing students options to receive their
education in higher performing schools. The decision process can be overwhelming though when
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 87
students have choices that can range in the double digits. The zone of choice process can become
even more complicated when all schools are not held accountable to the same enrollment
procedures. It becomes difficult for students to stay motivated to return to school when they are
stigmatized for having an IEP, or by their status as a juvenile offender, when a school is
discriminatory in their enrollment process.
Feierman, Levick, and Mody continue, “As a result of these and other problems, dropout
rates are extraordinarily high for youth returning from care. A national study reports that more
than 66% of youth in custody drop out after they are released” (p. 1117). SWUSD has additional
supports at school sites and available at the district level to help students with IEPs returning
from juvenile detention. Unfortunately though, this particular group of students continues to be
considered undesirable and they are not welcome to return to school settings.
Social/Emotional Support
The difficulty with the complicated re-enrollment process, a gap in IEP services, no
communication between the juvenile justice system and the resident school, and a lack of proper
placement revealed the necessity to address the socio-emotional needs of students with special
needs returning to their home school from juvenile detention. Feierman, Levick, and Mody
(2009) describe the disturbing reluctance of schools to allow adjudicated youth to continue their
education because of perceived safety threats or the presumption of poor performance on
standardized tests. The intent of an IEP is to provide supports and services in the areas of
academics and socio-emotional supports. IEPs are agreed upon, legal documents, with the
intention of identifying specific areas of academic weaknesses and creating a program to address
those needs so that the student can work towards grade level academic goals.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 88
One of the most integral variables to promote a successful reentry is personal
connectedness to someone at the school site. Raible and Irizarry (2009) reveal how important the
hope is “about genuine intercultural connectedness to emerge when teachers demonstrate care
and respect for students and their lives and concerns beyond the walls of the classroom” (p.
1202). A staff member at the school site must be identified so that the student has a contact
person whom they can connect to in the event that they are confronted with anything that can
lead to a probation violation. This staff member would be responsible to regularly monitor
attendance, class performance, and attitude and work habits. The identified staff member would
disseminate a work sheet to be filled out by the student’s teachers on a weekly basis for progress
reports. The close supervision would allow the student to participate like other students but
provide enough support so that if there were any challenges identified, they would be able to be
addressed before becoming insurmountable.
Secondary schools in SWUSD have an abundance of extra-curricular activities for
students to participate in. It would be important to connect transitioning students to an activity
they can participate in, whether sports, arts, or any of the other clubs and organizations that exist
in the different high schools. If returning students can participate in an activity that allows them
to engage positively, it reduces the risk factors to returning to anti-social behaviors that
contribute to the likelihood of recidivism. Returning students need to be conditioned into
believing that they can find a positive identity despite the identification of special needs and the
categorization as a juvenile offender. By connecting students to activities that they can be
recognized in a positive light, it provides an opportunity for the student to develop an identity
where they are recognized for positive contributions.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 89
Inter-agency Cooperation
It was revealed that there is little, if any, interagency cooperation. Larson and Turner
(1998) describe the necessity for the juvenile courts and school districts to communicate so that
students participate in transitional programming and all of the enrollment procedures are
addressed prior to a student’s release. The responsibility of transitioning students should be
seamless and supervised through the IEP process. A team, consisting of the student’s probation
officer and a school representative from the school of attendance, should meet prior to the
students release to establish a transition plan. The IEP should reflect all of the academic needs of
the student and should record all of the court ordered mandates, such as anger management or
drug counseling. It is essential that schools support students to comply with court ordered
responsibilities in an effort to prevent violating the terms of their probation.
All enrollment procedures and class scheduling should also be addressed at the transition
IEP meeting so that the student will be able to immediately begin attending school upon release.
Students should be programmed into special transition classes with a student teacher ratio not to
exceed ten-to-one so they can get the proper individualized support until they are ready to
actively participate in the mainstream. The sheltered classes should not exceed more than two
weeks unless the IEP team agrees that the student requires the support of such a restrictive
environment.
Future Research
From the aforementioned discussions, it is clear that more studies with more refined
methodologies are needed in order to establish significant findings to promote the successful
reentry of students with IEPs to school from juvenile detention. Schools need to adopt
enrollment procedures that match the unique needs of students with IEPS when they are
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 90
reenrolling after being remanded as a result of adjudication. Since it became clear that there is no
established system of communication between the juvenile justice systems and the schools that
students are returning to, future research possibilities include focusing on how to memorialize
procedures between the juvenile court system, the county office of education, and SWUSD to
formalize a system of transition from one institution into another.
Future studies should consider the following: expanding the subject pool to include the
perspective of students with special needs engaged in the reentry process from juvenile detention
in to their school of residence; using both qualitative and quantitative methodology; carefully
selecting specific questions to reflect precise concepts and variables being studied. Schools in
SWUSD should consider establishing interagency coordination with the county office of
education and the juvenile court system in an effort to create an inter-collaborative transition
program to support students reenter their school of residence.
There needs to be more research that focuses on the student perspective of the reentry
process. Students are members of the IEP teams that meet to update to program. However, more
needs to be known about how actively the students are allowed to participate, especially in a
detention setting. Future research should use qualitative and case study tools in conjunction with
quantitative methods. Instead of using a questionnaire that covers a wide range of variables and
concepts, researchers should construct or prepare questions in written or verbal surveys that
reflect more precisely the perceptions and/or attitudes that the research is designed to measure.
As an example, future researchers might identify the subcategories of motivation and use
questions that measure school staff attitudes towards students with IEPs trying to return to their
school. Current research provides a strong platform for future research that will help to identify
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 91
practices to promote the successful reentry of students with IEPs back into their school of
residence from juvenile detention.
While it was possible to identify the perceived structures and systems to support students
with IEPs returning from juvenile detention to their school of residence, it was not possible to
identify how systems and structures are sustained. It is very clear that school site personnel are
aware of the reenrollment process and the forms that need to be filled out, yet there is nothing
structured for the unique needs of students with special needs navigating reentry; returning
students fill out the same enrollment paper work as anyone else. If anything, the research
revealed that the reentry process might be scrutinized even more because of the perceived threat
the returning student may appear to be. Kasiyannis’s (2001) research reflects that a more
promising approach to delinquent youth may be through the use of instructional approaches
rather than punitive consequences. As described by Koukos (2009), social support from teachers
has been shown to increase adolescent’s academic aspirations, academic values, intrinsic values
and self-concept.
Conclusions
Although students with special needs have been granted federal protection to ensure a
free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, once they become involved in
the juvenile justice system, their educational rights become less prioritized. Multiple studies
confirmed that the majority of students with special needs do not complete their education after
coming into contact with the juvenile justice system (Losen, Martinez & Gillespie, 2012; Losen
& Skiba, 2010; Müller, 2011; Osher et al., 2012; & Sanger et al., 2008). The reentry process
becomes too difficult to navigate and students’ motivation to complete their secondary education
drastically lowers. However, there some research that reflects how well students respond to a
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 92
reentry system that is structured with supports and provides individualized attention (Losen,
Martinez & Gillespie, 2012; Losen & Skiba, 2010; Müller, 2011; Osher et al., 2012; & Sanger et
al., 2008).
Using case study and qualitative analysis, ten interviews were conducted at seven
different secondary schools in SWUSD, an inner city urban school district, primarily serving
students who fall into the low socio-economic status bracket. The findings of the current study
identified school-wide structures that exist for the reentry of students with IEPs returning from
juvenile detention; however, the reenrollment process is difficult to navigate. In addition, it is
difficult for schools to maintain compliance and fidelity with IEPs because of a lack of
interagency collaboration and extenuating circumstances that affect this particular subgroup
more so than the mainstream student population. It was not possible to identify how school-wide
systems and structures are sustained to successfully support students with special needs returning
from juvenile detention because a successful system could not be identified.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 93
References
Albrecht, S. F., Skiba, R. J., Losen, D. J., Chung, C., & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal policy on
disproportionality in special education is it moving us forward? Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 23(1), 14-25.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl D.R. (2001). (Eds.) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the drop- out crisis: Which high schools produce the
nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them (Report 70). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk (CRESPAR).
Baltodano, H. M., Mathur, S. R., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Transition of incarcerated youth
with disabilities across systems and into adulthood. Exceptionality, 13(2), 103-124.
Beattie v. Board of Education, 172 N.W. 153 (Wis. 1919).
Beebe, M. C., & Mueller, F. (1993). Categorical offenses of juvenile delinquents and the
relationship to achievement. Journal of Correctional Education, 44(4),193-198.
Benner, G. J., Mooney, P., & Epstein, M. H. (2003). The impact of time on parent perspectives
on the barriers to services and the service needs of youths in the juvenile justice system.
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(2), 41-49.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to
Theories and Methods. Boston: Pearson
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American
Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 4 37-474.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 94
Brier, N. (1989). The relationship between learning disability and delinquency: A review and
reappraisal. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(9), 546-553.
Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2008). Ensuring a brighter future for troubled Children/Youth:
Challenges and solutions. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Burrell, S., & Warboys, L. M. (2000). Special education and the juvenile justice system.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Carranza, R. (2013) Compliance Support and Monitoring Staff Meeting [PowerPoint Slides].
Retrieved from district website.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., et al. (2002).
Positive behavior support evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4(1), 4-16.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline:
Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality,
13(2), 69-88.
Conroy, M. A., Clark, D., Gable, R. A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). Building competence in the use of
functional behavioral assessment. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 43(4), 140-144.
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. (2009) Defining and Measuring Recidivism.
Retrieved from http://ojj.la.gov/ojj/files/CJCA_Recidivism_WhitePaper.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas, 154 N.E. 2nd 265 (111. 1958).
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 95
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35(1), 5-22.
Feierman, J., Levick, M., & Mody, A. (2009). School-to-prison pipeline... and back: Obstacles
and remedies for the re-enrollment of adjudicated youth, the. NYL Sch.L.Rev., 54, 1115.
Fougere, A., & Daffern, M. (2011). Resilience in young offenders. International Journal of
Forensic Mental Health, 10(3), 244-253.
Frye, H. N. (2005). How elementary school counselors can meet the needs of students with
disabilities. Professional School Counseling, 8(5), 442-450.
Gagnon, I. C., & Barber, B. R. Preventing incarceration through special education.
Gagnon, J. C., Rockwell, S. B., & Scott, T. M. (2008). Positive behavior supports in
exclusionary schools: A practical approach based on what we know. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 41(1), 1-20.
Geib, C. F., Chapman, J. F., D'Amaddio, A. H., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). The education of
juveniles in detention: Policy considerations and infrastructure development. Learning
and Individual Differences, 21(1), 3-11.
Haberman, M., & Quinn, L. M. (1986). The high school re-entry myth: A follow-up study of
juveniles released from two correctional high schools in Wisconsin. Journal of
Correctional Education, 37(3), 114-117.
Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority
representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances:
Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education & Treatment
of Children (West Virginia University Press), 29(4), 779-799.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 96
Hartwell, S., McMackin, R., Tansi, R., & Bartlett, N. (2010). “I grew up too fast for my age:”
post discharge issues and experiences of male juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 49(7), 495-515.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of
Education, 83(4), 312-332.
Holland, P., & Mlyniec, W. J. (1995). Whatever happened to the right to treatment: The modern
quest for historical promise. Temple L.Rev., 68, 1791.
Jackson, S. C., Enright, R. D., & Murdock, J. Y. (1987). Social perception problems in learning
disabled youth: Development lag versus perceptual deficit. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 20(6), 361-364.
Johnston, J. P. (2003). Depriving Washington state's incarcerated youth of an education: The
debilitating effects of Tunstall v. Bergeson. Seattle University Law Review, 26(4), 1017.
Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and
recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(2),
177-196.
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the
individuals with disabilities education act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324-
334.
Keilitz, I., & Dunivant, N. (1986). The relationship between learning disability and juvenile
delinquency current state of knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 18-26.
Keith, J. M., & Mccray, A. D. (2002). Juvenile offenders with special needs: Critical issues and
bleak outcomes. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 691-
710.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 97
Koukos, K., Miamis, K., Serpa, A., Small, R., & Straub, M. Juvenile delinquents in context: Risk
factors, considerations, and interventions. Juvenile Delinquents in Context: Risk Factors,
Considerations, and Interventions, 33.
Kvarfordt, C. L., Purcell, P., & Shannon, P. (2005). Youth with learning disabilities in the
juvenile justice system: A training needs assessment of detention and court services
personnel. Paper presented at the Child and Youth Care Forum, 34(1), 27-42.
Larson, K. A., & Turner, K. D. (2002). Best practices for serving court involved youth with
learning, attention and behavioral disabilities. Center for Effective Collaboration and
Practice, American Institutes for Research, 19.
Larson, K. A. (1988). A research review and alternative hypothesis explaining the link between
learning disability and delinquency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(6), 357-63, 369.
Leone, P., Quinn, M. M., & Osher, D. M. (2002). Collaboration in the juvenile justice system
and youth serving agencies: Improving prevention, providing more efficient services, and
reducing recidivism for youth with disabilities. Monograph series on education, disability
and juvenile justice. American Institute for Research.
Losen, D. J., Martinez, T., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Suspended education in California. The Center
for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project.
Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.
McBrien, J. (2003). The intellectually disabled offender: Methodological problems in identification.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(2), 95-105. doi:10.1046/j.1468-
3148.2003.00153.x
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 98
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and Students With
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
Mitcham, M., Portman, T. A. A., & Dean, A. A. (2009). Role of school counselors in creating
Equitable—Educational opportunities for students with disabilities in urban settings.
Urban Education, 44(4), 465-482.
Moody, B. A. (2003). Juvenile corrections educators: Their knowledge and understanding of
special education. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 105-107.
Morrison, G. M., & Cosden, M. A. (1997). Risk, resilience, and adjustment of individuals with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(1), 43-60.
Müller, E. (2011). Reentry Programs for Students with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice
System: Four State Approaches.
Newell, M., & Salazar, A. (2010). Juvenile reentry in Los Angeles County: An exploration of
strengths, barriers and policy options. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of
Government.
Ochoa, T. A., & Eckes, S. E. (2005). Urban youth in correctional facilities segregation based on
disability and race. Education and Urban Society, 38(1), 21-34.
Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, T. (2012). Building
school and teacher capacity to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education
and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 35(4), 284-295.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 99
Osher, D., Quinn, M. M., Kendziora, K., Woodruff, D., Rouse, G., & Furman, J. (2002).
Addressing invisible barriers: Improving outcomes for youth with disabilities in the
juvenile justice system. Washington, D.C.: Center for Effective Collaboration and
Practice at The American Institutes for Research.
Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. (1994). Getting caught in misconduct: Conceptions of adolescents with
and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(3), 193-197.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343
F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
Platt, J. S., Casey, R. E., & Faessel, R. T. (2006). The need for a paradigmatic change in juvenile
correctional education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 51(1), 31-38.
Pollard, R., Pollard, C., Rojewski, J., & Meers, G. (1997). Adjudicated youth with disabilities:
Transition strategies in correctional environments. Journal of Correctional Education,
48(3), 127-134.
Raible, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the teacher's gaze: Teacher education, youth
surveillance and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5),
1196-1203.
Ritzman, M. J., & Sanger, D. (2007). Principals' opinions on the role of speech-language
pathologists serving students with communication disorders involved in violence.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(4), 365-377.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 100
Rutherford, R., Bullis, M., Anderson, C. W., & Griller-Clark, H. M. (2002). Youth with
disabilities in the correctional system: Prevalence rates and identification issues.
Retrieved October, 10, 2008.
Ryan, D. P. (2001). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Retrieved January, 9, 2012.
Sanger, D., Spilker, A., Scheffler, M., Zobell, A., & Belau, D. (2008). A comparison between
juvenile delinquents' and teachers' opinions on metalinguistic and metacognitive skills.
Journal of Correctional Education, 59(2), 145-171.
Sanger, D., Spilker, A., Williams, N., & Belau, D. (2007). Opinions of female juvenile
delinquents on communication, learning and violence. Journal of Correctional
Education, 55(2), 69-92.
Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. D. (2005). An
examination of the relation between functional behavior assessment and selected
intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7(4), 205-215.
Shelton, D. (2006). A study of young offenders with learning disabilities. Journal of
Correctional Health Care, 12(1), 36-44.
Shippen, M. E., Patterson, D., Green, K. L., & Smitherman, T. (2012). Community and school
practices to reduce delinquent behavior intervening on the school-to-prison pipeline.
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 296-308.
Simonsen, B., Shaw, S. F., Faggella-Luby, M., Sugai, G., Coyne, M. D., Rhein, B., et al. (2010).
A schoolwide model for service delivery redefining special educators as interventionists.
Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 17-23.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 101
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins-Azziz, L. R., & Chung, C. (2005).
Unproven links can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The
Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130-144.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., et al. (2008).
Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.
Smith, A., & Kozleski, E. B. (2005). Witnessing brown pursuit of an equity agenda in american
education. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 270-280.
South West Unified School District. (2014). Discipline Foundation Policy Resource Manual.
Retrieved May 3, 2014, from district website.
South West Unified School District (2014). School Self Review Checklist, Students with
Disabilities. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from district website
South West Unified School District (2014). Welligent Systems. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from
district website.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000).
Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence the
use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline
interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 94-101.
Svetaz, M. V., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. (2000). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Risk and
protective factors associated with emotional well-being: Findings from the national
longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(5), 340-348.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 102
Rowand T.R., & Rapport, M. J. K. (1999). Providing special education in the juvenile justice
system. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 19-35.
Tulman, J. B., & Weck, D. M. (2009) Shutting off the school-to-prison pipeline for status
offenders with education-related disabilities. NYL Sch. L. Rev., 54, 875.
Turnbull, H. R. (2005). Individuals with disabilities education act reauthorization accountability
and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 320-326.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014, May).
Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/glossary.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2012) IDEA Data
Center. Retrieved from https://explore.data.gov/dataset/2011-2012-IDEA-Part-B-
Discipline/xxsy-7tda
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, Technical Assistance Center. (2014) Positive
Behavioral Interventions & Supports). Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/school
Verrecchia, P., Fetzer, M. D., Lemmon, J. H., & Austin, T. L. (2011). Policy implications of the
effects of maltreatment type, age, recurrence, severity, and other ecological risks on
persistent offending among disadvantaged boys. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(2),
187-218.
Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-‐to-‐prison pipeline. New
Directions for Youth Development, 2003(99), 9-15.
Weintraub, F. (2005). The evolution of LD policy and future challenges. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 28(2), 97-99.
Weithorn, L. A. Envisioning second-order change in America’s responses to troubled and
troublesome youth. Hofstra Law Review, 33, 1305.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 103
White, N. A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Bullying and special education as predictors of serious
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 380-397.
Yell, M. L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and students with disabilities: A
legal analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28(4), 389-404.
Yell, M. L. (1997). Education and the law. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 41(4), 185-187.
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education what a
long, strange trip it's been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219-228.
Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., & Yoon, M. (2011). Juvenile offenders with and
without disabilities: Risks and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(1), 12-18.
Zhang, D., Hsu, H., Katsiyannis, A., Barrett, D. E., & Ju, S. (2011). Adolescents with disabilities
in the juvenile justice system: Patterns of recidivism. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 283-298.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 104
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
1. What is your position at this school?
2. Are there different special education programs at this school?
a. Special Day Program (SDP)
i. Mild/Moderate
ii. Moderate/Severe
b. Resource Specialist Program (RSP)
i. Inclusion
3. Do teachers and staff have supports around issues related to special education?
4. How do Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams develop IEPs to meet the
students’ needs?
5. How is the curriculum designed to meet the academic needs of the students?
6. How do you assess for appropriate accommodations to be included in a student’s IEP?
7. If a student is struggling academically, what interventions are available to meet the
individual academic needs of the students?
8. How would you describe the culture of discipline at this school?
a. How often do students get referrals?
b. How often are students getting suspended? And for what types of behaviors?
c. What about students with IEPs, by percentage, do they represent more or less as a
sub-category?
9. What are the current procedures when students attempt to enroll at your school?
a. With IEP’s?
b. Returning from juvenile placement?
10. What is the procedure to ensure that the student’s IEP is received and the school is
compliant with the 30 -day IEP requirements?
11. What are the procedures for developing an Individual Transition Plan (ITP)?
12. Is there any support for the students to meet their court ordered mandates?
13. Are the Students’ families/guardians involved?
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 105
Appendix B
Letter of Introduction
Date:
Name:
Address:
Dear [Name],
My name is Michael M Massa and I am a Co-Investigator of the thematic group titled,
“Innovative Strategies for Students with Special Needs” at the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California. We are conducting a study as part of our thematic group,
specifically, I will examine systems and structures that support students with IEPs at their home
school when returning from juvenile placement. You are cordially invited to participate in the
study. If you agree, we would like to conduct interviews, observations, and document reviews.
The interview is anticipated to take up to 45-60 minutes to complete. In addition to
interviewing yourself, I would like to interview 1 additional staff at your school. Participation in
this study is completely voluntary and confidential. Interviews may be audio- taped. Interviews
will not interfere with instructional time and will be scheduled based on your preference before
or after the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., or on a Saturday.
Each participant will receive a $25 dollar gift card to Target, Starbucks, or Staples as a
token of our appreciation. In addition, participants will receive a toolkit for educators and school
teams containing information on innovative strategies on supporting students with IEPs returning
to their home school after juvenile placemen and a report of findings of the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at massam@usc.edu,
or at (213) 215-2363.
Thank you for your participation.
Michael M Massa
Co-Investigator
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 106
Appendix C
Consent Form
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Innovative strategies for the Reentry of Students with IEPs Returning from Juvenile Placement
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by our thematic group studying
innovative strategies for students with disabilities in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California (USC). The data from this study may contribute to research
projects related to the outcomes of this study. You were selected as a possible participant in this
study because your institution has been identified as demonstrating a need to support students
with IEPs returning from juvenile placement. Upon completion, outcomes will be shared with
participant in the form of a report. As a result of the study, a toolkit will be created and shared
electronically with participants, the institution and the district.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this study because we are trying to learn more about innovative
strategies for the support of students with IEPs when re-enrolling into their home school from
juvenile placement.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to:
• Complete an intake information sheet concerning general demographic
information
• Participate in a 45 minute audio-recorded individual interview before or after school
hours
• Provide relevant documents to be reviewed
Interviews
Interviews will consist of a 45 minute individual interview in a private setting, such as a closed
door office or classroom. Interviews will be audio-recorded for the purposes of qualitative data
analysis.
Document Review
Relevant documents will be collected as provided by administration that demonstrate innovative
strategies in supporting students with IEPs that re-enroll when returning from juvenile
placement. Documents collected will not include any student identifiable information. Examples
of documents to be collected include; school calendar, daily schedules, enrollment documents,
curriculum content, professional development agendas, flyers, and any documents made
available for public viewing/display.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort in
completing the interview or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to
participate in the interview process. Interviews will take place before or after school operating
hours, or on a Saturday if preferred.
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES 107
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials
and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. However, the information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of our data. The members of the research team
and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may
access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences,
no identifiable information will be used.
RESEARCH STUDY TIME LINE
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Shafiqa Ahmadi, JD, Assistant Professor
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, 1003 B, 213-821-2259
sahmadi@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
I agree to participate in the above referenced study and understand that interviews will
be audio-recorded.
____________________________ ___________________________ ____________
Print Name Signature Date
Septem
ber
2014
• Obtain potential school candidates
• Email principals requesting their school’s
participation
January –
February
2015
• Analysis of
data
Octobe
r 2014
• Select schools
• Identify administrator, and school staff participants
• Provide all participants study information Secure
consent forms for all participants
March
2015
• Share
Preliminary
findings with
participants
Novem
ber
2014
• Begin interviews April
2015
• Provide report
of findings
Decem
ber
2014
• Complete interviews
May 2015 • Research study
completion
• Toolkit
resource
provided and
made available
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study sought to understand school personnel’s practices that serve to facilitate enrollment of youth with IEPs returning from juvenile detention. Using case study and qualitative analysis, ten interviews were conducted at seven different secondary schools in one California school district. The study identified school‐wide structures for reentry
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Innovative strategies to accommodate postsecondary students with learning disabilities
PDF
Early identification of a learning disability and its impact on success in postsecondary education
PDF
Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities
PDF
Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
PDF
Transfer students from California community colleges: a narrative approach to understanding the social capital and institutional factors that lead to a timely transfer to a public, four-year univ...
PDF
Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs
PDF
Gay student leaders: a narrative analysis on how lesbian and gay college students develop self-efficacy towards a leadership identity
PDF
The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students
PDF
Ninth grade freshman focus: shifting the trajectory for multiple need students
PDF
Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students
PDF
Factors influencing general education teachers to implement effective strategies for students with emotional and behavioral problems
PDF
Promising practices in preventing bullying in K-12 schools: student engagement
PDF
Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD
PDF
Four year college access for undocumented Latino students
PDF
A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty
PDF
Priorities and practices: a mixed methods study of journalism accreditation
PDF
Why culture matters: a case study to determine the promising practices in the prevention of bullying in K‐12 schools
PDF
Assessment, accountability & accreditation: a study of MOOC provider perceptions
PDF
The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills
PDF
Barriers to accessing support services in employment and health care for adults with autism spectrum disorders: a qualitative study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Massa, Michael Manuel
(author)
Core Title
Innovative strategies for students with special needs
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/16/2015
Defense Date
03/07/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
juvenile justice,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Ahmadi, Shafiqa (
committee chair
), Fischer, Linda A. (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
massam@usc.edu,teeechar@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-549334
Unique identifier
UC11298428
Identifier
etd-MassaMicha-3308.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-549334 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MassaMicha-3308-0.pdf
Dmrecord
549334
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Massa, Michael Manuel
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
juvenile justice