<%BANNER%>

UFIR



Reading instruction in juvenile correctional facilities for students with high incidence disabilities
CITATION PDF VIEWER
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00001373/00001
 Material Information
Title: Reading instruction in juvenile correctional facilities for students with high incidence disabilities
Series Title: Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56, 219-231.
Physical Description: Journal Article
Creator: Gagnon, Joseph Calvin
Wolkerson, Kimber L.
Mason-Williams, Loretta
Lane, Holly B.
Publisher: Routledge
Place of Publication: London
Publication Date: 2012
 Notes
Abstract: This study was designed to obtain (a) a national picture of the characteristics of special educators who provide reading or English instruction in juvenile corrections facilities and (b) characteristics of the schools inwhich theywork and the studentswho they serve. In addition, the study was designed to gather information on teacher use of specific reading instructional strategies. A national random sample of 108 (28.6%) reading or English teachers responded to a mail and online survey. No statistically significant differences existed between responsive and nonresponsive schools. Results indicated that teachers commonly hold bachelor’s degrees and have an average of 10.9 years teaching experience. Teachers reported using some research-based instructional approaches to comprehension instruction, but they rarely integrate technology or peer-mediated instructional strategies into their instruction.Amajority of teachers reported that at least 50% of their students with high-incidence disabilities could not read well enough to gain basic information from text. Additional results and implications are provided.
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Joseph Gagnon.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00001373:00001

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Wilkerson_Gagnon_Mason-Williams_Lane_2012 ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

This article was downloaded by: [University of Florida]On: 11 January 2013, At: 08:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education forChildren and YouthPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20 Reading Instruction for Students With High-IncidenceDisabilities in Juvenile CorrectionsKimber L. Wilkerson a Joseph Calvin Gagnon b Loretta Mason-Williams c & Holly B. Lane ba University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USAb University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAc University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI, USAVersion of record first published: 06 Aug 2012. To cite this article: Kimber L. Wilkerson Joseph Calvin Gagnon Loretta Mason-Williams & Holly B. Lane (2012): ReadingInstruction for Students With High-Incidence Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections, Preventing School Failure: AlternativeEducation for Children and Youth, 56:4, 219-231To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.652698 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

PAGE 2

PreventingSchoolFailure ,56(4),219–231,2012 CopyrightCTaylor&FrancisGroup,LLC ISSN:1045-988Xprint/1940-4387online DOI:10.1080/1045988X.2011.652698 ReadingInstructionforStudentsWithHigh-Incidence DisabilitiesinJuvenileCorrectionsKIMBERL.WILKERSON1,JOSEPHCALVINGAGNON2,LORETTAMASON-WILLIAMS3, andHOLLYB.LANE21UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,Madison,WI,USA2UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL,USA3UniversityofWisconsin-Oshkosh,Oshkosh,WI,USA Thisstudywasdesignedtoobtain(a)anationalpictureofthecharacteristicsofspecialeducatorswhoprovidereadingorEnglish instructioninjuvenilecorrectionsfacilitiesand(b)characteristicsoftheschoolsinwhichtheyworkandthestudentswhotheyserve.In addition,thestudywasdesignedtogatherinformationonteacheruseofspecicreadinginstructionalstrategies.Anationalrandom sampleof108(28.6%)readingorEnglishteachersrespondedtoamailandonlinesurvey.Nostatisticallysignicantdifferences existedbetweenresponsiveandnonresponsiveschools.Resultsindicatedthatteacherscommonlyholdbachelor’sdegreesandhavean averageof10.9yearsteachingexperience.Teachersreportedusingsomeresearch-basedinstructionalapproachestocomprehension instruction,buttheyrarelyintegratetechnologyorpeer-mediatedinstructionalstrategiesintotheirinstruction.Amajorityofteachers reportedthatatleast50%oftheirstudentswithhigh-incidencedisabilitiescouldnotreadwellenoughtogainbasicinformationfrom text.Additionalresultsandimplicationsareprovided. Keywords: juvenilecorrections,reading,specialeducation,teachercharacteristicsYouthinvolvedwiththejuvenilecorrectionssystemcommonlyhavesignicantacademicdifculties,particularlyin theareaofreading(Allen-DeBoer,Malmgren,&Glass, 2006).Ingeneral,incarceratedyouthfunctionbelowpeers whoarenotincarceratedonreadingmeasures,laggingapproximately4yearsbehindpublicschoolpeers(Harris,Baltodano,Bal,Jolivette,&Mulcahy,2009;Krezmien,Mulcahy,&Leone,2008).Otherresearchershavereportedthat incarceratedhighschoolstudentsfunctionacademicallyat upperelementaryormiddleschoollevels(Brunnner,1993; Coulter,2004;Zamora,2005).Inanotherstudy,theseyouth wereonestandarddeviationbelowexpectedgradelevelson standardizedreadingachievementassessments(Snowling, Adams,Bowyer-Crane,&Tobin,2000).Commondifcultiesincludeconceptualizingandprocessinginformation, aswellasreadingcomprehension(Beebe&Mueller,1993; Coulter,2004). Problemswithreading,whethertheresultofexistence ofadisabilityorofotherissuessuchaspoorattendance inschool,haveseriousandlongstandingeffectsonyouths’ abilitytosuccessfullycompleteschoolandintegrateinto AddresscorrespondencetoKimberL.Wilkerson,Departmentof RehabilitationPsychology&SpecialEducation,444Education Building,1000BascomMall,Madison,WI53706,USA.E-mail: klwilkerson@wisc.eduthecommunityandworkforce.Severalresearchershave identiedlinksbetweenilliteracyandproblembehavior, droppingout,incarceration,andrecidivism(Archwamety &Katsiyannis,2000;Katsiyannis&Archwamety,1999; Jolivette,Stichter,Nelson,Scott,&Liaupsin,2000;Kutneretal.,2007;Lembke,2004;Snyder&Sickmund,1999). Aftercompletinghighschool,youthwithpoorreading skillsarealsolesslikelytoholdfull-timejobs(Kutneretal., 2007).Incontrast,higherlevelsofliteracyskillareassociatedwith,amongotherpositivelifeoutcomes,morestable employment,higherwages,andhigherlevelsofsocialengagement(McCracken&Murray,2009). Thehighpercentageofyouthwithreadingdifculties injuvenilecorrectionsislikelyrelatedtotheoverrepresentationofyouthwithemotional/behavioraldisorders (EBD)andlearningdisabilities(LD)insecurecare.As subgroups,youthwithEBDandLDareattremendous riskforacademicfailureandhaveseriousdecitsinreading,whetherinjuvenilecorrectionsorinpublicschools (Carr-George,Vannest,Wilson,&Davis,2009;Greenbaum etal.,1996;Lane,Barton-Arwood,Nelson,&Wehby,2008; Lane,Carter,Pierson,&Glaeser,2006;Lyon,1995;Mastropieri,Scruggs,&Graetz,2003;Nelson,Benner,Lane,& Smith,2004;Reid,Gonzales,Nordness,Trout,&Epstein, 2004;Trout,Nordness,Pierce,&Epstein,2003).Thisproblemisampliedbythefactthatabout40%ofyouthinjuvenilecorrectionsareclassiedwithadisability(Gagnon,

PAGE 3

220K.L.Wilkersonetal.Barber,VanLoan,&Leone,2009)comparedwithonly 9.2%ofstudentsinthegeneralpopulation(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2009a).Inthegeneralpopulationof studentsbetween12and17yearsofage,only10.5%of youthwithdisabilitiesareclassiedwithEBD(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2009b).Incontrast,almosthalfof youthwithadisabilityinjuvenilecorrectionsareidentied withEBD(Quinn,Rutherford,Leone,Osher,&Poirier, 2005;Stizeketal.,2007).Relativelyequalpercentagesof thetotalyouthwithdisabilitiesinjuvenilecorrectionsand inpublicschoolareclassiedwithLD(38.6%and46.4%, respectively;Quinnetal.,2005;Stizeketal.,2007).However,thescopeoftheacademicneedsofyouthincorrections ismostapparentwhenconsideringthesignicantoverrepresentationofyouthwithdisabilitiesinjuvenilecorrections versusregularschools. Inlightofthebroadconcernswiththereadingskillsof youthinjuvenilecorrectionsandthehighpercentageof youthidentiedwithdisabilities,useofresearch-basedinstructioniscritical.Moreover,research-basedinstruction acrosseducationalsettingsissupportedbyfederalregulations(e.g.,NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,20U.S.C.§1114[2008]).Inresponsetoa1997congressionaldirective,theNationalReadingPanel(NRP)wasformedand chargedwithmakingrecommendationsregardingcontent, methodsandapproachestobeginningreadinginstructiononthebasisofacomprehensivereviewofextantresearch.Theresultingreport(NationalInstituteofChild HealthandHumanDevelopment,2000)suggestedveessentialcomponentsofbalanced,effectivereadinginstruction:phonemicawareness,phonics,uency,vocabulary, andtextcomprehension.WhiletheNRP’sndingspertain mostdirectlytotheteachingofreadinginKindergarten throughGrade3,theimportanceofapplyingandexpandingthosendingstoreadinginstructionatthesecondary levelisstartingtobesystematicallyexplored(seeBiancarosa&Snow,2006).Scammaccaetal.(2007)assertedthat adolescenceisnottoolatetointervene,andMalmgren andTrezek(2009)summarizedabodyofliteraturedemonstratingtheeffectivenessofinterventionstargetingtheve componentsofreadinginstructionidentiedbytheNRP usedspecicallywithadolescentreaders.Inadditiontothe veareasofreadinginstruction,recommendationsspecic tostrengtheningthereadingskillsofstrugglingadolescent readersfrequentlypointtotheimportanceofincorporatingoftechnologyintoreadinginstruction(e.g.,seeKamil, 2003).Itisunfortunatethatteachersinjuvenilecorrections whotypicallyteachatthemiddleandhighschoollevelsmay notviewtheteachingofreadingastheirresponsibilityor theymaylacktheskillstodoso—fuelingadisconnectbetweenrecommendationsandpractice(Deshler,2002;Parris &Block,2007). Identicationofapproachestoreadinginstructionand interventioninjuvenilecorrectionsacrosstheUnited Statescanprovideaninitialunderstandingofthestatus ofreadinginstructioninthosesettingsandcanshedlight ongapsbetweenrecommendationsandpractice,aswell asthepossibleprofessionaldevelopmentneedsofteachers inthesesettings.Inaddition,anunderstandingofreading instructionalpractices,studentandteachercharacteristics, andcontextualfactorsrelatedtoteachinginjuvenile correctionalfacilitieswillallowresearcherstoconsider issuesthateitherfacilitateorhinderuseofresearch-based instructioninsecurecare.Thus,thepresentresearch focusesonprovidingtherstnationalpictureofreading instructionforjuvenileinjuvenilecorrectionalfacilities. Weuseddescriptivestatisticstoanswerthreeresearch questions: 1.WhatarethedescriptivecharacteristicsofspecialeducationreadingorEnglishteacherswhoworkinjuvenile correctionalschools? 2.Whatarethecharacteristicsoftheschoolandstudent populationsthattheseteachersserve? 3.Whatinstructionalpracticesdospecialeducationteachersprovidetostudentsinreadingandwhatisthebasis oftheirpedagogicaldecisions?MethodInstrumentation/surveydevelopment Questionsforthisnationalsurveywerebasedonseveral sourcesofinformation.Therstauthorreviewedtheliteratureoneffectiveinstructionalpracticesforstudentswith EBDandLD,aswellastheNRP’s(NationalInstituteof ChildHealthandHumanDevelopment,2000)recommendationsforeffectivereadinginstructioninlightofcurrent educationalreformefforts.Next,theprincipalinvestigators discussedpotentialresearchquestionsandsurveyitems withnationallyrecognizedexpertsintheeldofspecialeducation.Last,theinvestigatorssharedadraftofthesurvey withprofessionalsfromjuvenilecorrectionalschoolsfor theirfeedbackonclarityofitemsanddirectionsforsurveycompletion.Surveyquestionsweremodiedasneeded basedonfeedback.Questionsinthesurveyfocusedon vecentraltopics:(a)teacherbackgroundinformation; (b)instructionalstrategiesthatteachersusetoaidstudents withEBDandLDinreadingandreasonsforpedagogicaldecisions;(c)characteristicsofstudentsandschool; (d)teachercondenceinabilitytoteachsecondaryreading/English;and(e)curriculum,assessment,andaccountabilitypoliciesandpractices.Thecurrentreportfocuses ondatafromtherstthreetopicareas.Theentiresurvey consistedof39itemsandtookapproximately30minto complete. Itemsinthesectiononinstructionalstrategiesusedby teacherswereculledfromtheinstructionalrecommendationsprovidedbytheNRPineachoftheveareasof readinginstruction:phonemicawareness,phonics,uency, vocabulary,andcomprehension.Thesurveycontained 21itemsthatrepresentedtypesofinstructionrecommended

PAGE 4

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections221aseffectivebytheNRP.Onestrategy(“Provideopportunityforindependentsilentreading”)wasalsoincludedon thesurveybecauseeventhoughtherewasnotresearchevidenceofacausalrelationbetweensilentreadingandimprovementinreadingoutcomes,theauthorsoftheNRP Reportindicatedthatthisstrategyisusedwidely.Foreach ofthe22instructionalstrategieslistedonthesurvey,respondingteacherswereaskedtoindicatehowoftenthey usedthestrategy(i.e.,daily,2–4timesperweek,1–4times permonth,ornever).Inthosecasesinwhichtheteacher indicatedthatheorsheneverusedastrategy,theteacher wasaskedtoindicatewhynot.Alistofpossiblereasons wasprovided;however,respondentscouldalsollintheir ownreason. Sample Theoriginaluniverseofjuvenilecorrectionalschoolscame fromthe2003DirectoryofAdultandJuvenileCorrectional Departments,Institutions,AgenciesandProbationandParoleAuthorities,publishedbytheAmericanCorrectional Association.Toidentifyfacilities,graduateassistantsreviewedprogramdescriptionslistedinthedirectoryforkey descriptorstoindicatethatthefacilitymetthefollowing criteria:(a)facilityservedcommittedyouth,(b)facility wasclosedor“secure,”and(c)educationserviceswere providedonsitetostudentsinGrades7–12.Initialexaminationofthedirectoryresultedinidenticationof721 facilitiesappropriateforinclusioninthesample.Facilities listedundercertainsubheadings,suchas juvenilecommunitycorrections juvenileprobationorparole ,and juvenile detention wereautomaticallyexcludedbecausetheywere designed,bydenition,foryouthbeingdetained(i.e.,commonlyshort-termfacilitiesforyouthwhohavenotbeenadjudicateddelinquent).Otherreasonsforexclusionfromthe sampleincludedprogramdescriptionsthat(a)indicatedthe facilitywasnotaclosedfacility(e.g.,workrelease,reportingcenter,aftercare);(b)statednoeducationwasprovided atthefacility;or(c)indicatedothertypesofprogramswere thefocusofthefacility(e.g.,assessmentunits,receiving centers,orientationfacilities).Inaddition,severalstates didnotprovideadequateinformationwithinthefacility descriptions.Insuchcases,graduateassistantscalledthe facilitiesindividuallyandaskedaseriesofquestionstodeterminetheirappropriatenessforinclusioninthesample. Asanalreliabilitycheckofthesamplefacilitiesadhering tothesamplingframe,statedepartmentofcorrectionswebsiteswerereviewedforfacilityinformation.Asaresult,63 discrepanciesbetweenthedirectoryandthestatewebsites wereidentied.Thesefacilitieswereindividuallycalledto determinesampleeligibility.Thenalpoolofschoolsfrom whichparticipantscouldbedrawnconsistedof483facilitiesthatmetinclusioncriteria.Fromtheidentiedlistof facilityschoolsmeetingthecriteria,arandomsampleof 400schoolswereselectedtocomprisetheresearchsample.Thetotalnumberofschoolswaschosenbasedonan anticipated50%ofteacherresponsestothesurvey,which wouldhaveprovidedanadequatesamplesizewitha95% condenceleveland5%condenceinterval(i.e., n = 196). Surveyadministration Theresearchersconductedveseparatemailingsofthe surveymaterialsatapproximately3-weekintervals.Addressedtotheschoolprincipalatthejuvenilecorrectional facility,eachmailingcontainedaletterofintroductionand threesurveys:onetobecompletedbytheprincipal,one tobecompletedbyaspecialeducationmathteacher,and onetobecompletedbyaspecialeducationreadingor Englishteacher,whichwasoperationallydenedasany teacherdirectlyresponsibleforprovidingreadinginstructiontostudentswithhigh-incidencedisabilities.Theletter ofintroductionprovideddirectionsfortheprincipalasto howtoidentifywhichspecialeducationteachersshould completethesurveysinsituationswherethereweremultipleeligibleteachers(i.e.,principalswereinstructedto alphabetizepotentialrespondentsandgivethesurveyto therstteacheronthealphabetizedlist).Eachmailing includedbusinessreplyenvelopesforeachsurvey.Asan incentiveforcompletingthesurvey,a$2billwasalsoattachedtoeachsurveyintherstmailing.Throughoutthis period,graduateassistantsattemptedtocontactthefacilitiesbyphonetoencouragenonrespondentstosubmittheir surveys. ThesurveyletteralsoincludeddirectionsforcompletinganidenticalsecureonlineversionofthesurveycreatedusingPerseusSurveySolutionssoftware.Respondents choosingtocompletethesurveyonlinereceivedaunique URL. Responserate Despiteeffortstoensureallfacilitiesmetthesamplecriteria,threesurveyswerereturnedbecauseoffacilityclosure.Aftersurveyswerereturned,weremoved12additional schoolsfromthesamplebecauseofmisidenticationasa juvenilecorrectionalschool.Weremovedeightadditional surveysfromthesamplebecauseindividualsfromthefacilityreportedthattheirschooldidnotmeettheresearch criteria.Atotalof108readingorEnglishspecialeducationteachersurveyswerereturnedfromthe377qualied schoolsforaresponserateof28.6%.Ofthesurveysreturned,1%( n = 1)wassubmittedelectronically. Respondentsandnonrespondents Inlightoftheunsatisfactoryresponserate,theresearchers comparedcharacteristicsofrespondentsandnonrespondentstoensuretherewerenosystematicdifferences andreducethepossibilityofnonresponsebias(Biemer &Lyberg,2003).Threeschool-levelvariableswereselectedforthepurposeofrespondentversusnonrespondent

PAGE 5

222K.L.Wilkersonetal.comparison:(a)region(i.e.,Midwest,Northeast,West,or South);(b)genderofyouthheldinthefacility(i.e.,male, female,cogender);and(c)whetherthefacilityisastateoperatedinstitutionoraprivatelycontractedfacility.Chisquareanalysisofproportionsofrespondentsversusnonrespondentsonallthreevariablesresultedinnosignicant differencesbetweenthegroups;therefore,theeffectofnonresponsebiasinthendingsislimited. Reliabilityofdataentry Alldatacollectionprocedureswerecloselymonitoredand recordedtoaddresspossiblethreatstoreliabilityandto enhancereplicabilityoftheresearchndings(Fink,1995; Yin,1994).GraduateassistantsinvolvedintheprojectenteredallsurveydataintoSPSS.Toensureaccuracyofdata entry,reliabilitychecksweredonefor20%ofthesubmitted surveys.Thisincludedchecksofcodingreliabilityinthose caseswheredecisionruleswereappliedtoopen-endedresponses.Wecalculatedagreementusingthefollowingformula:NumberofAgreements/NumberofAgreementsandDisagreements 100Reliabilityforthereading/Englishteachersurveywas 100%forthecodingofopen-endedresponsesand99.4% fortheentryofdatafromthesurveys.Allissuesofdata entryandreliabilitywereaddressed.Table1. SurveyQuestionTopics Teachercharacteristics Gender Educationcertications Highestdegreeearned Totalnumberofyearsasaspecialeducator TotalnumberofyearsasareadingorEnglishteacher Teachingcapacity(e.g.,full-timeself-contained,full-time resourceteacher) Studentcharacteristics Numberwithvariousdisabilities Numbercommitted Averagelengthofenrollmentforcommittedstudents Ethnicity Gender Overallstudentreadingperformance Schoolcharacteristics Typeoffacility(commitmentonly;bothdetentionand commitment) School’sorganizationalstructure Averagecaseload AveragenumberofstudentsenrolledinreadingorEnglish classes AveragenumberofminutesstudentswithEbdorLdspendin readinginstruction Dataanalysis Weuseddescriptivestatisticstoanswerthreeresearchquestions: 1.Whatarethedescriptivecharacteristicsofspecialeducationreading/Englishteacherswhoworkinjuvenile correctionalschools? 2.Whatarethecharacteristicsoftheschoolandstudent populationsthattheseteachersserve? 3.Whatinstructionalpracticesdospecialeducationteachersprovidetostudentsinreadingandwhatisthebasis oftheirpedagogicaldecisions? Table1providesasummaryofthesurveyquestions.Some respondentschosetonotanswereverysurveyquestion. Therefore,somevariationexistsinthenumberofresponses summarizedforindividualsurveyitems.Also,forquestions thataskedteacherstocheckallthatapply,cumulativepercentagesarenotprovided.ResultsTeachercharacteristics Teachersrespondedtoaseriesofquestionsconcerningtheir personalandjob-relatedcharacteristics(seeTable2).Of therespondents,nearlythreequarters(74.1%; n = 80)were female.MorethanhalfofallrespondentsreportedtheirTable2. RespondingTeacherCharacteristicsofSpecialEducationReading/EnglishTeachers n% Gender Male2825 9 Female8074 1 HighestLevelofEducation Bachelor’s5752 8 Master’s4743 5 Doctoral32 8 CerticationGeneraleducationreading/Englishteacher1312 0 SpecialeducationEBD/LD4138 0 Specialeducationcrosscategorical4642 6 Elementaryeducation3532 4 Secondaryeducation3431 5 Other37– CurrentTeachingPosition Full-timeself-containedteacher4037 7 Full-timeresourceteacher/consultant2119 8 Part-timespecialeducator;part-timegeneral educator 1513 9 Teamteachwithageneraleducator65 7 Other2422 6 Note.= Respondentscheckedallthatapplyandpercentagestherefore sumtogreaterthan100.

PAGE 6

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections223Table3. YearsofTeachingExperienceHeldbyRespondents %(n) New(0–3years) Experienced (4 + years) Teaching Specialeducation33 0(34)67 0(69) ReadingorEnglish21 3(23)78 7(85) Atthecurrentschool40 2(43)59 8(64) highestlevelofeducationwasabachelor’sdegree(52.8%; n = 57).Wealsoaskedteacherstoreporttheircertication status.Respondentswereallowedtochoose“checkallthat apply.”Mostrespondentsheldaspecialeducationteachingcertication,with72(66.7%)reportingthattheyhelda cross-categoricallicenseand/oraspecialeducationlicense inEBDorLD.Sixty-eightrespondents(63.0%)heldgeneraleducationteachingcertication.Themodalnumberof certicationsheldbyrespondentswasone.However,33respondentsheldtwocertications,16respondentsheldthree certications,2respondentsheldfourcertications,and1 respondentheldvecertications.Intermsofteachingpositions,37.7%( n = 40)taughtfull-timeinaself-contained specialeducationclassroomwithinthefacility,19.8%( n = 21)werefull-timeresourceteachersorconsultants,and 22.6%( n = 24)identiedotherresponsibilities. Table3summarizestheyearsofteachingexperiencereportedbytherespondents.Atotalof67%( n = 69)of respondentsreportedhaving4ormoreyearsofexperience asaspecialeducator.Themeannumberofyearsrespondentshadworkedasaspecialeducatorwas10.9( SD = 9.87),witharangeof0–36years.Nearly80%( n = 85)of therespondentshad4ormoreyearsofexperienceasa readingorEnglishteacher,withthemeannumberofyears asareadingorEnglishteacherbeing12.74( SD = 9.56)and rangeof0–36years.Also,59.8%( n = 64)ofrespondents reportedhaving4ormoreyearsexperienceteachingattheir currentjuvenilecorrectionalfacility.Themeannumberof yearsteachingatthecurrentschoolwasreportedas7.10 ( SD = 7.12),witharangeof0–33yearsexperience. Schoolandstudentcharacteristics Teacherswereaskedtoprovideinformationabouttheir facilityandschool’scharacteristics,includingschoolstructureandpopulationserved(seeTable4).Withregardto facilityfunction,55.3%( n = 58)ofrespondentsindicated thatthefacilityinwhichtheyworkservesyouthwhoare detained,inadditiontoyouthwhoarecommitted.Respondentsreportedwidevariationintermsofaveragelengthof stayforyouthatthefacility.Theaveragelengthofstaywas reportedas9.4months( SD = 5.77;range = 1–36).Withregardtothestructureoftheschoolwithinthefacility,80.2%Table4. CharacteristicsofFacilityandSchoolOperation n% Youthtypicallyplacedinthefacilityfrom WithinLEA21 9 Withinthestate9487 0 Multiplestates76 5 Other21 9 School’sorganizationalstructure Publicschool7380 2 Private1415 4 Other44 4 Numberofcommittedstudentswhoattendthis school 1-204040 4 21-403030 3 41-601111 1 61-8066 1 81-10000 101 + 33 0 NA1010 1 Averagelengthofstayforcommittedstudents (months) Lessthanafullmonth11 0 1–63836 1 7–123331 5 12–182826 6 19–2443 8 24 + 11 0 Note.LEA = localeducationagency;IEP = Individualizededucation program;= somefacilitieswerecombinedcommitmentanddetention, buttherewerenocommittedyouthatthetimeofthesurvey.( n = 73)ofrespondentsreportedthattheirschoolispart ofthepublicschoolsystem. Respondentsalsoprovideddemographicandinstructionalinformationaboutstudentsontheircaseloadsand intheirreading/languageartsclasses.Respondents’averagecaseloadwas10students( SD = 15.82;range = 7–65). Regardingdemographiccharacteristicsofstudentsserved, respondentsprovidedinstructionmainlytomalestudents (2,842maleyouthcomparedwith445femaleyouth).The respondentsprovidedinstructionto603Hispanicstudents, 1,342AfricanAmericanstudents,45AsianorPacicIslanderstudents,1,395Caucasianstudents,93NativeAmericanorAmericanIndianstudents,and151biracialstudents.Respondentsprovidedspecialeducationservicesto 996studentswithLD,1,051studentswithEBD,147studentswithintellectualdisabilities,and210studentswith someotherspecialeducationlabel.Classsizesrangedfrom 2to50students,withameanof12.4( SD = 8.7).Inresponsetoaqueryaskingapproximatelywhatpercentageof studentswithLDorEBDontheircaseloadcouldnotread wellenoughtoacquirebasicinformationfromtext,(i.e., belowabasiclevelasdenedbytheNationalAssessmentof

PAGE 7

224K.L.Wilkersonetal.Table5. FrequencyofTeacherUseofReadingInstructionalStrategies ReadingInstructionalStrategy M (SD)Always(daily) Often (2–4perweek) Sometimes (1–4permonth)Never Posecomprehensionquestionstostudentsasthey readandprovideimmediatefeedback 1 55(0 62)51 9(56)41 7(45)6 5(7)0 Providevocabularyinstruction1 80(0 73)38 0(41)42 6(46)18 5(20)0 Arrangeforstudentstoworkindividuallyduring readinginstruction 1 84( 78)35 2(38)47 2(51)12 0(13)3 7(4) Directstudentstoaskclarifyingquestionsasthey read 1 88(0 68)28 7(31)51 9(56)16 7(18)0 Usewritinginstructiontosupportreadinginstruction1 90(0 78)32 4(35)43 5(47)19 4(21)1 9(2) Provideindependentsilentreading1 92(0 84)36 1(39)38 0(41)22 2(24)2 8(3) Teachtosummarizereadings1 95(0 69)25 9(28)51 9(56)21 3(23)0 Providerepeated,guidedoralreading1 96(0 84)33 3(36)38 0(41)24 1(26)2 .8(3) Directlyteachstudyskills2 00(0 68)22 2(24)56 5(61)20 4(22)0 9(1) Teachstudentsreadinginsmallgroups2 06(1 05)39 8(43)25 9(28)21 3(23)12 0(13) Utilizesightwordinstruction2 19(0 94)25 9(28)37 0(40)25 9(28)9 3(10) Usecooperativelearningstrategiesinreading2 27(0 95)24 1(26)34 3(37)30 6(33)10 2(11) Directlyteachtextstructure2 30(0 85)18 5(20)36 1(39)36 1(39)5 6(6) Directlyteachspellingskillstosupportreading instruction 2 31(0 93)22 2(24)31 5(34)34 3(37)9 3(10) Directlyteachphonemicawarenessskills2 45(0 97)17 6(19)33 3(36)29 6(32)15 7(17) Directstudentstoutilizebackgroundknowledge whenreading 2 47(0 82)12. 0(13)37 0(40)41 7(45)8 3(9) Teachcomparisonskills2 64(0 84)9 3(10)31 5(34)44 4(48)13 9(15) Usegraphicandsemanticorganizers2 67(0 84)8 3(9)32 4(35)43 5(47)15 7(17) Utilizesystematicphonicsinstruction2 67(0 96)11 1(12)31 5(34)30 6(33)22 2(24) Arrangeforstudentstoworkintutoringpairsduring readinginstruction 2 77(0 90)10 2(11)22 2(24)45 4(49)20 4(22) Usecomputersoftwareinvocabularyinstruction2 90(1 15)18 5(20)14 8(16)24 1(26)41 7(45) Utilizehypertexttechnologyforreadinginstruction3 42(0 84)2 8(3)13 0(14)20 4(22)57 4(62) Note .Responseswerecoded1 = always,2 = often,3 = sometimes,4 = never.Smallermeansindicatemorefrequentuseoftheactivity.EducationalProgress),50%ofrespondentsrepliedthatthis describedatleasthalfoftheirstudentswithLDorEBD. Instructionaltimeandteacheruseofinstructionalpractices TeacherswereaskedtoreporttheaveragenumberofminutesofreadinginstructionprovidedtostudentswithLD and/orEBDeachday.Onaverage,respondentsreported providing67minutesofreadinginstructioneachday( M = 66.7, SD = 40.13,range = 0–300). Teachersalsoreportedonthereadinginstructional strategiesthattheywereusingintheirclassroomsandhow frequentlythesestrategieswereused(seeTable5).Themost frequentlyusedstrategywasaskingcomprehensionquestionsduringreading,with93.6%( n = 101)ofrespondents indicatingfrequentuseofthistechnique,(i.e.,2ormore daysperweek).Arrangingforstudentstoworkindividuallywasthesecondmostfrequentlyusedstrategywith 82.4%( n = 89)ofrespondingteachersreportingfrequent usage.Providingvocabularyinstructionwasthethirdmost frequentlyusedstrategywith80.6%( n = 87)ofresponding teachersreportingfrequentusage. Teachersalsoindicatedthereadinginstructionalstrategiesneverusedintheirclassroomandthereasonsthey werenotused(seeTable6).Thereadinginstructionalstrategyusedmostseldombyrespondingteachersistheuse ofhypertexttechnology.Morethanhalf(57.4%, n = 62) ofrespondingteachersindicatedneverusingthisstrategy, mainlybecauseofalackoftraining( n = 24)andlackof resources( n = 30).Similarly,41.7%ofrespondingteachers ( n = 45)indicatedneverusingcomputersoftwareinvocabularyinstruction,mainlybecauseoflackofresources ( n = 34).Althoughthemajorityofteacherssurveyedfelt theyprovidedreadinginstructiontostudentswhocould notreadwellenoughtoacquirebasicinformation,22.2% ( n = 24)didnotprovideinstructioninphonicsand15.7% ( n = 17)didnotprovidephonemicawarenessskillenhancement.Forbothofthesestrategies,themostoftencited reasonfornotusingthesetechniqueswasthebeliefthat thistypeofinstructiondoesnotmeetthestudents’identiedneeds.Manyteachersreportedneverusingalternative groupingstrategies,suchascooperativelearningstrategies (10.2%; n = 11),arrangingtutoringpairs(20.4%; n = 22), andteachinginsmallgroups(12.0%; n = 13).Foreachof

PAGE 8

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections225Table6. Teacher-suppliedReasonsforNeverUsingReadingStrategies(10%ormorerespondentsreportedneverusing) n ReadingInstructionalStrategy PercentageNever UsingtheStrategy (%) Lackof Training Lackof Resources DoesnotMeet Student’s Needs Doesnotagree withViewson TeachingOther Hypertexttechnology57 42430418 Computersoftwareforvocabulary instruction 41 7434524 Cooperativelearningstrategies10 2001010 Phoneticinstruction22 2631322 Arrangingtutoringpairs20 4007012 Comparisonskills13 900609 Phonemicawareness skillenhancement 15 7321032 Graphicandsemanticorganizers15 717124 Teachingreadinginsmallgroups12 000409 these,thereasonmostoftencitedbyrespondingteachers was“other.”DiscussionThepurposeofthisstudywastoobtaininformationabout juvenilecorrectionalschoolsforcommittedyouth,thespecialeducatorswhoprovidereadinginstructiontostudents withdisabilitiesinthoseschools,aswellasinformation aboutthestudentstheyserve.Anadditionalpurposewasto obtaindetailedinformationfromteachersregardingtheir provisionofreadinginstruction.Theresultsofourstudy illuminatedseveralpointsabouttheteachersandstudents injuvenilecorrectionalschoolsaswellasthereadinginstructionprovidedtostudentswithEBDandLD. Teachercharacteristics First,withregardtoteachercharacteristics,manyofthe teacherswhoprovidereadinginstructiontostudentswith EBDandLDinjuvenilecorrectionshavesubstantialteachingexperienceandholdadvanceddegrees.Teacherrespondentswerefairlyexperienced,(e.g.,themeannumberof yearsworkingasaspecialeducationteacherwas9.6),and welleducated,with43.5%havingagraduatedegreeinadditiontocertication.Thepresentstudyechoesndings fromaparallelstudyofreadinginstructioninpsychiatric schoolsinwhichteachersweresimilarlyexperiencedand educated(Wilkerson,Gagnon,Melekoglu,&Cakiroglu, 2010). Schoolandstudentcharacteristics Theproleofjuvenilecorrectionalschoolsprovidesasnapshotoftherelationbetweenthefacilityandthelocal schools,aswellasuniqueattributesinthestudentpopulation.Primarily,thesearepublicschools(i.e.,81.8%). Also,manyoftheschoolsarerelativelysmall,withastudentpopulationof60orfewerstudents.Asinthendings ofWilkersonetal.(2010),teachersinthepresentstudy reportedsmallclasssizes(i.e., M = 12.4).Thehighlevels ofteacherexperienceandtrainingpreviouslynoted,combinedwithrelativelysmallclasssizes,portendswellfor thepotentialofteachersinjuvenilecorrectionalsettings tomeetthereadinginstructionalneedsofstudentswith high-incidencedisabilitiesontheircaseloadsandintheir classrooms.Moreover,thestudentpopulationwassomewhatstable,with63%ofstudentsenrolledformorethan 7monthsandonethirdofyouthenrolledformorethan 1year;potentiallyallowingteacherssufcienttimewith studentstoprovidemeaningfulinstruction. Itisalsonoteworthythatarelativelylargenumberof respondentswerenewtotheircurrentschool.Specically,40.2%ofteacherrespondentsindicatedthatthey hadworkedintheircurrentjuvenilecorrectionalschool for3yearsorless.Thismayindicatesignicantattrition fromteachinginthesesettings,aphenomenoncommon tospecialeducationteachingingeneral(Billingsley,2004; Boe,Bobbitt,&Cook,1997;Boe&Cook,2006).Thisis aconcernbecauseteacherturnoverisdetrimentalforstudentachievement—particularlyforhigh-riskpopulations (Watlington,Shockley,Guglielmino,&Felsher,2010). Instructionaltimeandteacheruseofinstructionalpractices Regardinginstructionalpractices,wefoundthatamajority ofteachersinjuvenilecorrectionsuseseveralstrategiesand approachesthatarerecommendedgenerallybytheNRPas wellashighlightedbyotherexpertsaseffectiveforaddressingtheneedsofstrugglingadolescentreaders.Incontrast, somerecommendedstrategiesandapproacheswereseldom orneverusedbyteacherrespondents.Implicationsofthese ndingsastheyrelatetotheareasofreadinginstruction

PAGE 9

226K.L.Wilkersonetal.outlinedbytheNRParesubsequentlydiscussed.Inaddition,ndingsrelatedtoteacheruseoftechnologyare discussed. Phonemicawarenessandphonics. Althoughcomprehensionandvocabularyarecommonlyregardedasthetwo mostcriticalskillareasforadolescentswhostruggleto read,recentstudiesshowthatmanysecondaryagestudentsalsostillneedsupportonworddecoding(Boardmanetal.,2008).Inthepresentstudy,eventhoughmany teachersreportedthatatleasthalfoftheirstudentscould notreadwellenoughtogainbasicinformationfromtext, systematicphonicsinstructionwasreportedasoneofthe leastusedstrategieswith22.4%ofteachers( n = 24)reportingthattheyneverusethistypeofinstructionand30.6% ( n = 33)reportingthattheyuseitonly1–4timespermonth. Fluency. Readinguencyprovidesabridgebetweenword readingandcomprehension.Fluentreaderscanreadwords withease,freeingcognitiveenergytofocusonmeaning.In contrast,lessuentreaderswhohavenotacquiredautomaticdecodingskillsmustfocuscognitiveenergyonreadingindividualwords;therefore,littleenergyorattentionis availabletoconcentrateoncomprehendingthetext(Armbruster,Lehr,&Osborne,2001).TheNRPexploredtwo approachestypicallyusedtoencourageuentreading:independentsilentreadingandguidedrepeatedoralreading. Althoughindependent(orsustained)silentreadingisfrequentlyusedinschools,andwasreportedasfrequently usedbyourrespondents,theNRPdiscoverednoevidence tosupporttheeffectivenessofsilentreadingfordevelopinguency(Armbrusteretal.,2001).Guidedrepeatedoral reading,however,wasfoundtobeeffectiveindevelopinguency.Avarietyofrepeatedreadingstrategies(e.g., student–adult,choral,tape-assisted,andpartnerreading) aswellasreaders’theatreactivitieswereidentiedbythe NRPashavingapositiveeffectsondevelopingreadinguency.Inthepresentstudy,71.3%ofteachersreportedusing repeatedguidedoralreadingonadailyorfrequentbasis. Vocabulary. Teachersalsoreportedfrequentuseofvocabularyinstructiontobolsterreading,with38.0%ofteachers reportingdailyuseofvocabularyinstructiontosupport readingandanadditional42.6%reportinguse2–4times perweek.Althoughourdatadonotilluminatethespecicstrategiesusedbyrespondents(e.g.,whethertheyused specicwordinstructionorwordlearningstrategies),their reportedfrequentuseofvocabularyinstructiongenerally ispositive.Literacyexpertsconsistentlyafrmtheimportanceofvocabularyinstructionasameanstoenhancethe comprehensionskillsofadolescentreaders(Kamiletal., 2008;Meltzer,Smith,&Clark,2002;NationalInstituteof ChildHealthandHumanDevelopment,2000;Scammacca etal.,2007;Torgesen,Houston,&Rissman,2007). Comprehension. Researchersandexpertsconsistentlynote theimportanceofprovidingdirectandexplicitcomprehensioninstruction(Biancarosa&Snow,2006;National InstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment,2000; Scammaccaetal.,2007;Torgesenetal.,2007).Inourstudy, themostfrequentlyusedinstructionalstrategyreported was“posingcomprehensionquestionstostudentsasthey readandprovidingthemwithimmediatefeedback,”with 93.6%reportingeitherfrequentordailyuse.Theuseof questioningasastrategyforstrengtheningstudentcomprehensionskillshasprosandcons.Someformsofquestioning mightmoreaccuratelybedescribedasinformalassessment andthereforehaveanindirectrelationshiptoincreasing studentskill.Otherformsofquestioningcanserveasadult modelingofcomprehensionstrategiesorscaffoldingfor studentprocessing.Theformandintendedfunctionofthe questioningthatteachersincorrectionalschoolsreportusingtofostercomprehensionisnotevidentfromthepresent ndings.Wesuggestfutureresearchtoexaminespecic teacherpracticesanddispositionsrelatedtotheroleand functionofquestioningstudentsastheyread. Teachersinourstudyreportedfrequentlyteachingstudentstounderstandandrecognizetextstructures,oneapproachforincreasingcomprehensionskillsthatiswidely acceptedaseffectiveforadolescentreaders.Textstructures arethesemanticandsyntacticwaysauthorsorganizewritteninformation.Familiaritywithtextstructurespromotes comprehensionbyprovidingreaderswithaschematodraw onwhenprocessingnewtext.Inthepresentstudy,54.6%of teachersreporteddirectlyteachingtextstructures“often” or“always.” Anotherimportantndingisthatteachersinjuvenile correctionsreportedinfrequentuseofmanyformsofpeermediatedinstruction.Peer-mediatedinstructionhasbeen identiedasaresearch-basedapproachthatiseffectivefor youthwithhigh-incidencedisabilities(Ryan,Reid,&Epstein,2004).TheNRPReportspecicallyidentieduseof cooperativelearningasoneofeightmostpromisinginstructionalstrategiesforpromotingcomprehension.However, usingcooperativelearninggroups,arrangingstudentsto workinpairs,andsmallgroupinstructionwereamongthe strategiesmostcommonlyidentiedbyteachersasones thatthey“never”use.Themostcommonreasonprovided forlackofusewas“other,”providinglittleinsightintowhy manyoftheseteachersfailedtousesuchvaluablestrategies. However,thelackofpeer-mediatedinstructioncontrasts sharplywithteachers’reportedfrequentuseofhavingstudentsworkindependentlyandtheirrelativelyheavyuseof independentsilentreadingasareadinginstructionalstrategy.Suchinstructionalchoicesthatlimitpeerinteraction areoftenlinkedtoteachers’beliefsabouttheimportance ofauthorityandcontrol(Solomon,Battistich,&Hom, 1996),despiteevidencethatcooperativeactivitiescanincreasestudentachievement,engagement,andmotivation (Roseth,Johnson,&Johnson,2008). Technology. Twootherinstructionalstrategiesthatasizablenumberofteachersreportedneverusing(utilizing

PAGE 10

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections227hypertexttechnologyandcomputersoftwareforvocabularyinstruction)reectedincorporationoftechnologyin instruction.Underuseoftechnologyisparticularaproblem becausemanyresearchersrecommenditsusetoincrease motivationofstrugglingadolescentreaders(e.g.,Biancarosa&Snow,2006;Kamil,2003;NationalInstituteofChild HealthandHumanDevelopment,2000).Inadditiontothe presumedpositiveinuenceonmotivation,effectiveuseof technologyininstructioncanalsoprovideadolescentswith increasedopportunitiestopracticenewandtargetedskills, whilesimultaneouslyprovidingteacherswithstructuresto individualizeinstruction(Biancarosa,2005;Rozalski,& Engle,2005). Useofhypertextisapotentiallyadvantageousapplicationoftechnologyinreadinginstruction.Hypertext technologygivesstudentsaccesstoindividualizedsupport throughpopupsthatcanincludedenitionsandpronunciationsofwords,backgroundinformationonnewconcepts,and,ifthesoftwareallows,teachercommentsand questions.Useofhypertexthasbeenlinkedtopositiveeffectsonsecondarystudents’comprehensionofexpository text(MacArthur&Haynes,1995).However,teachersin ourstudyreportedlittleuseoftechnology,andhypertext technologyspecically,intheirreadinginstructionbecause ofinadequatetechnologyaccessoralackoftraining.As technologybecomesmoreaccessibletoteachersinallsettings,andasourunderstandingoftheevolvingformsand rolesthattechnologycanplayinthepromotionofreading skillsandliteracymorebroadly(e.g.,seeLeu,2002),we anticipateuseoftechnology—eveninsecuresettings—ill grow. Limitations Fourlimitationswiththecurrentresearchmeritacknowledgement.First,the28.6%responseratewasbelowthe commonlyacceptedlevelof50%formailsurveys(Weisberg,Krosnick,&Bowen,1989).However,arandomsampleofteacherswasusedtopromotevalidityandrespondent/nonrespondentschoolsdidnotdiffersignicantlyon anyofthecomparisonvariables.Asecondlimitationrelates toouruseoftheNRPReport(NationalInstituteofChild HealthandHumanDevelopment,2000)asthebasisof ourchoiceofeffectivereadinginstructionalpracticesabout whichtoqueryteachers.Thereport’srecommendationsare basedonacomprehensivereviewofinterventionliterature. However,themajorityofresearchreviewedfortheReport wasconductedwithtraditionalage,beginningreaders(i.e., KindergartenthroughGrade3),ratherthanadolescents. Sincethesurveywasinitiallyconstructed,otherreportsspecictoadolescentreadershavebeenpublished.Biancarosa andSnow(2006),forexample,providerecommendations foradolescentreadinginstruction.Someoftherecommendations(e.g.,buildingmotivationtoread,utilizingtechnology)expandbeyondthoseincludedintheNRPReport. However,othersoverlap(e.g.,directlyteachingcomprehensionstrategies,incorporatingwritinginstructionasan elementofinstructioninreading). ArelatedlimitationisourchoiceofNRPrecommended strategiestoincludeonoursurvey.Tolimitthelengthof thesurvey,onlystrategiesdeemed“mostpromising”were included.Insomecases,specicelementsandaspectsofinstructionwereomittedinanefforttocreateaconciseinstrument.However,suchchoiceslimitedthespecicityofour instrumentandultimatelynarrowedtheconclusionsthat wecandrawfromoursurveydata.Withregardtocomprehensioninstruction,forexample,themostcommonlyused strategynotedbyourrespondentswas“posingcomprehensionquestionstostudentsastheyreadandproviding themwithimmediatefeedback.”Whilefrequentattention toposingcomprehensionquestionsandprovidingimmediatefeedbacktostudentsispositive,surveyquestionsdonot addressthewaysinwhichteachersemploythisquestioningstrategy,determinethenatureorqualityofthefeedbackprovidedtostudents,oridentifyteacheruseofeach componentofexplicitinstruction.Anallimitationisour relianceonteacherreportsofinstructionalpractice,rather thandirectobservation.Ourstudyprovidesamuch-needed descriptionofthegeneraltypesofgeneralreadinginstructionalstrategiesutilizedbyteachersinjuvenilecorrections schools.However,moredetailaboutuseofspecicstrategiesisneeded,aswellasfactorsthatpromoteorinhibituse ofresearch-basedstrategies. Implicationsandfutureresearch Thepresentstudyfocusedoncharacteristicsofreading teacherswhoworkinjuvenilecorrectionalschools,school andstudentcharacteristics,andreadinginstructionalpracticesandthebasisofpedagogicaldecisions.Keyimplicationsanddirectionsforfutureresearcharediscussedin termsoftheseprimaryemphases. Teachercharacteristics Twoteacher-relatedcharacteristicshavesignicantimplications.First,concernsexistwiththehighrateofteacher turnoverinjuvenilecorrectionalschools.Futureresearch shouldinvestigatefactorsthatinhibitandpromotestaff stabilityinjuvenilecorrectionalschools,asthatstability relatestotheacademicsuccessofyouthinthesesettings (Watlington,Shockley,Guglielmino,&Felsher,2010).Second,despiteextensiveteacherexperienceandeducation, severalteachermisconceptionswerenotedinthepresents study.Asdiscussedinthesectiononreadinginstructional practicesandbasisofpedagogicaldecisionsthatfollows, teachers:(a)underuseseveralresearch-basedapproaches; (b)identifycertaineffectivepracticesasnotrelevantto theirstudents,despiteacknowledgementofstudentdifculty(e.g.,phonicsinstructionnotuseddespiteteacher assertionthatstudentscannotreadwellenoughtogarnerbasicinformation);and(c)teachersmakeerroneous

PAGE 11

228K.L.Wilkersonetal.assertionsconcerningthereasonsthattheydonotusecertainstrategies(e.g.,inadequatematerialstousegraphic organizers,despitethelimitedresourcesneededforsuch anapproach). Consistentwiththepresentstudy,otherresearchershave voicedthatjuvenilecorrectionalteachersmaynothavethe requisitecontentknowledgeandinformationonresearchbasedinstructionalstrategiestoeffectivelyassistthehigh needsyouthinjuvenilecorrectionalschools(Houchins, Puckett-Patterson,Crosby,Shippen,&Jolivette,2009; Maccini,Gagnon,Mulcahy,&Leone,2006).Assuch,providingteacherswithsufcientprofessionaldevelopment experiencesisanimportantrecommendation.Itisunclear fromthepresentstudytheextenttowhichjuvenilecorrectionalschoolslinktopublicschoolprofessionaldevelopment.However,because80%ofthesefacilitiesareconsideredpublic,thereexistsapotentialresourceandconnection forprovidingjuvenilecorrectionalschoolreadingteacherswithprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesthatmay bebeyondwhattheserelativelysmallschoolscouldoffer. Anotherapproachrecommendedbyresearchersistoprovideteacherswithprofessionaldevelopmentusingonline certicationprograms(Gagnon,Houchins,&Murphy,in press).O’Rourke,Catrett,andHouchins(2008)alsorecommendedthatstateadministratorsprovidestatewidetraining thatspecicallysupportsjuvenilecorrectionalteachers. Schoolandstudentcharacteristics Thesmallclasssizethatiscommoninjuvenilecorrectional schoolsisapositiveattributethatshouldbeanongoing goal;particularlyinlightofthesignicantreadingdifcultiesofmanyyouthinjuvenilecorrectionalschools.The issueofstudentlengthofenrollmentislesscontrollable. However,giventhatmanystudentsareenrolledforatleast sevenmonths,itisclearthattheirattendanceissufcient tohaveaccesstonecessaryremedialinstructioninreading.Researchers(Allen-DeBoer,Malmgren,&Glass,2006; Drakeford,2002;Houchins,Jolivette,Krezmien,&Baltodano,2008;Malmgren&Leone,2000;Simpson,Swanson, &Kunkel,1992)havereportedpositiveeffectsofreading interventionsonstudentreadingskillsinrelativelyshort periodsoftime.Readingremediationshouldincludekey instructionalpracticesnotedinthefollowingsection. Readinginstructionalpracticesandbasisofpedagogical decisions Futureresearchonreadinginstructioninjuvenilecorrectionsschoolsshouldbuildfromsuggestionsmadeby BiancarosaandSnow(2006),aswellasotherresearchon effectiveinstructionforstrugglingadolescentreaders specically.Moreover,futureresearchisneededincludingdirectobservationofinstruction,studentandteacher interviews,anddocument(e.g.,lessonplan)reviewsthat wouldservetoverifytrendsnotedfromthecurrentteacher reportsandprovideadditionaldetailstoaddresscuriositiesraisedbyourndings.Inaddition,weneedvalidationofeffectiveapproachestoteachingreadingtoyouth withdisabilitieswithintheuniqueconstraintsandcontext ofjuvenilecorrections.Thealarminglyhighpercentageof youthwithdisabilities—particularlyEBD—injuvenilecorrectionalschoolsprovidessignicantchallengesandunderscorestheneedforresearchspecictotheneedsofstudents withdisabilitiesservedinthesesettings.However,datafrom thepresentstudyallowustomakesomerecommendations onthebasisofteacherreportsofinstruction. Phonemicawarenessandphonics. Asdescribedearlier,recentresearchhascalledforincreasedattentiontothe needforhighqualityinstructioninbasicreadingskills foradolescents,particularlyadolescentswithdisabilities andthoseservedinjuvenilecorrectionalschools.Specically,researchershaverecommendedinterventionsatboth thewordandtextlevel(Deshler,2010;Scammaccaetal., 2007).Inourstudy,eventhoughteachersreportedahigh degreeofconcernwiththeirstudents’basicreadingskills, fewteachersreportedfrequentuseofsystematicinstructionatthewordlevel.Additionalresearchshouldbeconductedtoexplorethisseemingmismatchandfutureprofessionaldevelopmentshouldfocusonincreasingteacher understandingofthevalueofinstructionfocusedonword levelreadingskillsaswellastheirknowledgeofspecic phonicsinstructionalstrategiesthathavedemonstratedefcacywithstrugglingadolescentreaders. Fluency. Aswithphonemicawarenessandphonics,researchalsosuggestsutilityofuencyinterventionsforadolescentreaders,withevidencesuggestingthatsuchinterventionshavepositiveoutcomesonoverallreadingability.For example,inastudyofmiddleschoolstudentswithdisabilities,researchersfoundacorrelationof.91betweenoral readinguencyandcomprehension(Fuchs,Fuchs,Hosp, &Jenkins,2001).Giventhislink,teachersinjuvenilecorrectionsshouldcontinuefrequentuseofguidedrepeated oralreadingandotheruencybuildingstrategiesintheir classrooms.Sinceteachersarealreadyfocusingonincreasingoralreadinguency,abenecialnextstepwouldbe toregularlycollectandchartoralreadinguencydataas ameansofmonitoringtheprogressoftheirstudentsin reading. Vocabulary. Althoughrecentcomprehensivereports,(e.g., Biancarosa&Snow,2006;Kamiletal.,2008),provide multipleandvariedrecommendationsforimprovingthe readingskillsofadolescents,providingexplicitvocabulary instructionisoneoftherecommendationsthatismadeconsistentlyacrossreports.Thefactthatteachersinourstudy reportedfrequentuseofinstructionaimedatincreasingstudentvocabularyispositive.Futureresearchshouldexamine thespecicstrategiesinplaceinordertoprovideguidance

PAGE 12

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections229andincreasethelikelihoodthatteachershaveknowledge andskillsinthosestrategiesthataremosteffective. Comprehension. Teachersreportedfrequentuseofuseeffectivestrategiestopromotestudentcomprehension,such asuseofexplicitinstruction,posingcomprehensionquestionsandprovidingfeedback,andteachingstudentstounderstandandrecognizetextstructures.Animportantnext stepwillbetolearnmoreaboutthespecicwaysinwhich teachersusethesegeneralstrategies.Forexample,asnoted earlier,teachersreportedfrequentuseofquestioningwhile theirstudentswerereading.Additionalresearchisneeded toincreaseunderstandingofhowthesestrategiesarebeing usedand,becauseweknowthattheteacherswhowork injuvenilecorrectionalschoolsarealreadyfairlywelleducatedandexperienced,professionaldevelopmentshould focusonmorenuancedapplicationofstrategiesandtechniquestobuildcomprehensionskillsofyouth. Instructionalgroupings. Teacherrespondentsindicatedan overrelianceonindependentwork,includingsilentreading,andinfrequentuseofpeer-mediatedinstructional tasks.Thispedagogicalpreferencemaybeanartifactof thecultureinjuvenilecorrections.Itmaybethatimprovinginstructioninthesesettingswillrequireeffortsthat alsoaddresstheoverallteachingmilieu,includingthecurrentemphasisoncontrolofyouthbehaviorwhereinstudentconversationandcollaborationarelimited(Coffey& Gemignani,1994;Gagnon&Richards,2008;Rozalski& Engle,2005). Technology. Teachersreportedlittleuseoftechnologyto teachreading.Primarily,teachersdidnotusetechnology becauseoftheneedfortrainingandalackofresources.The needforprofessionaldevelopmentishighlightedthroughoutthisreport.Specictotechnology,inadequateand out-datedhardwareandsoftwareareparticularconcerns (CoalitionforJuvenileJustice,2000).Werecommendsupportofteachersinjuvenilecorrectionsviaaccesstohigh qualityhardwareandsoftwarethatwouldpromotetheintegrationofeffectivetechnology-basedliteracyinterventions intotheirdailyrepertoireofinstructionaltechniques.We alsorecommendthatprofessionaldevelopmentemphasize theapplicationofspecictechnology-richreadinginstructionalstrategiesandprograms. However,itisimportanttonotethatuseoftechnology isapromisingsupplementorcomponentofreadinginstructionandshouldneversupplantteacherinstruction. Forexample,thePeabodyLiteracyLab(Hasselbring& Goin,2004)isatechnology-basedinterventionthathas beenlinkedtopositiveresultsforadolescents.Theprogramcombinescomprehensioninstruction,word-leveldecodinginstructionandopportunitiestopracticespelling. Theprogramfacilitatesprogressmonitoringandmakesadjustmentstoeachstudent’sinstructionalcontentonthe basisofprogressmonitoringdata.Theseelementsare integratedandmadefeasibleastechnology-basedinstruction.READ180isanothermulticomponentintervention withanintegraltechnology-basedcomponentthatprovides forindividualization.TheWhatWorksClearinghousedescribesREAD180ashaving“potentiallypositiveeffects oncomprehensionandgeneralliteracyachievementfor adolescentlearners”(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences,2009).Ofparticularimport withRead180,isthattheuseoftechnologyisbutone approachtopromotingstudentreading.Large-andsmallgroupactivities,aswellasindependentreadingarealsokey componentsoftheprogram. Conclusions EightmillionyouthinGrades4–12strugglewithreadingintheU.S.(Grigg,Daane,Jin,&Campbell,2003). Thepresentstudyindicatesanevenmoreserioussituation withinjuvenilecorrections,withadisproportionatenumberofyouthincorrectionsidentiedashavingdisabilities and50%ofteachersassertingthatthemajorityoftheir studentswithLDorEBDcouldnotreadwellenoughto acquirebasicinformationfromtext.Havingaccesstowelleducatedandexperiencedteachersisapromisingfeatureof thejuvenilecorrectionalschoolsreectedinthisstudy.In addition,thefactthatteachersreportedhighuseofsome effectivepractices(e.g.,teachingstudentstounderstand andrecognizetextstructures,useofvocabularyinstruction,providingdirectandexplicitcomprehensioninstruction)isheartening.However,teachersreportedrarelyusing severalresearch-basedandpromisingpractices,including word-levelinstructionalstrategies,graphicorganizers,and technology.Wehopethatthisrstnationalstudyprovides thegroundworknecessarytoaddressconcernswithlowlevelsofstudentreadingandtheneedforresearch-basedand promisinginstructionalapproachesinjuvenilecorrections.AuthornotesKimberL.Wilkerson isaprofessorandchairoftheDepartmentof RehabilitationPsychologyandSpecialEducationattheUniversity ofWisconsin-Madison.Hercurrentresearchisfocusedonalternative schools,adolescentreadinginstruction,andaccountabilitypoliciesas appliedtospecialeducation. JosephCalvinGagnon isanassociateprofessorattheUniversityof Florida.Hisresearchinterestsincludereadingandmathematicsinstructioninexclusionaryschools,aswellasschool-levelcurriculum,assessment,andaccountabilitypoliciesandpractices. LorettaMason-Williams isanassistantprofessorofspecialeducation atBinghamtonUniversitywhereshespecializesinthedistributionof specialeducationteachers,equityissuesandtheeconomicsofeducation. HollyB.Lane isanassociateprofessorattheUniversityofFlorida. Hercurrentresearchinterestsarepreventionandremediationofreading difcultiesthrougheffectiveinstructionandintervention.

PAGE 13

230K.L.Wilkersonetal.ReferencesAllen-DeBoer,R.A.,Malmgren,K.W.,&Glass,M.(2006).Reading instructionforyouthwithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders:Providingservicesinajuvenilecorrectionalfacility. BehavioralDisorders 32 ,18–28. AmericanCorrectionalAssociation.(2003). 2003directoryofadultand juvenilecorrectionaldepartments,institutions,agenciesandprobation andparoleauthorities .Alexandria,VA:Author. Archwamety,T.,&Katsiyannis,A.(2000).Academicremediation,parole violations,andRecidivismratesamongdelinquentyouths. Remedial andSpecialEducation 21 ,161–170. Armbruster,B.B.,Lehr,F.,&Osborn,J.(2001). Putreadingrst:The researchbuildingblocksforteachingchildrentoreadKindergarten throughgradethree .Jessup,MD:NationalInstituteforLiteracy. Beebe,M.C.,&Mueller,F.(1993).Categoricaloffensesofjuveniledelinquentsandtherelationshiptoachievement. JournalofCorrectional Education 44 ,193–198. Biancarosa,G.(2005).Afterthirdgrade. EducationalLeadership 62 (2), 16–22. Biancarosa,G.,&Snow,C.E.(2006). ReadingnextAvisionforaction andresearchinmiddleandhighschoolliteracy:AreporttoCarnegie CorporationofNewYork (2nded.).Washington,DC:Alliancefor ExcellentEducation. Biemer,P.P.,&Lyberg,L.E.(2003). Introductiontosurveyquality Hoboken,NJ:Wiley-Interscience. Billingsley,B.S.(2004).Specialeducationteacherretentionandattrition: Acriticalanalysisoftheresearchliterature. TheJournalofSpecial Education 38 ,39–55. Boardman,A.G.,Roberts,G.,Vaughn,S.,Wexler.J.,Murray,C.S., &Kosanovich,M.(2008). Effectiveinstructionforadolescentstrugglingreaders:Apracticebrief .Portsmouth,NH:RMCResearch Corporation,CenteronInstruction. Boe,E.E.,Bobbitt,S.A.,&Cook,L.H.(1997).Whitherdidstthou go?Retention,reassignment,migration,andattritionofspecialand generaleducationteachersfromanationalperspective. TheJournal ofSpecialEducation 30 ,371–389. Boe,E.E.,&Cook,L.H.(2006).Thechronicandincreasingshortageof fullycertiedteachersinspecialandgeneraleducation. Exceptional Children 72 ,443–460. Brunner,M.S.(1993). Reducedrecidivismandincreasedemploymentopportunitythroughresearch-basedreadinginstruction .(NCJPublicationNo.141324)Washington,DC:OfceofJuvenileJusticeand DelinquencyPrevention.(ERICDocumentReproductionService E/BD361646) Carr-George,C.,Vannest,K.J.,Wilson,V.,&Davis,J.L.(2009).The participationandperformanceofstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisordersinastateaccountabilityassessmentinreading. BehavioralDisorders 35 ,66–78. CoalitionforJuvenileJustice.(2000). Handlewithcare:Servingthementalhealthneedsofyoungoffenders.TheSixteenthAnnualReport tothePresident,theCongress,andtheAdministratoroftheOfce ofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention .Washington,DC: Author. Coffey,O.D.,&Gemignani,M.G.(1994). Effectivepracticesinjuvenilecorrectionaleducation:Astudyoftheliteratureandresearch, 19801992 .Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,TheNationalOfceforSocialResponsibility. Coulter,G.(2004).Usingone-to-onetutoringandprovenreadingstrategiestoimprovereadingperformancewithadjudicatedyouth. JournalofCorrectionalEducation 55 ,321–333. Deshler,D.D.(2002).Responseto“Is‘learningdisabilities’justafancy termforlowachievement?Ameta-analysisofreadingdifferencesbetweenlowachieverswithandwithoutthelabel.”InR.Bradley, L.Danielson,&D.P.Hallahan(Eds.), Identicationoflearning disabilities:Researchtopractice .Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Drakeford,W.(2002).Theimpactofanintensiveprogramtoincrease theliteracyskillsofyouthconnedtojuvenilecorrections. Journal ofCorrectionalEducation 53 ,139–144. Fink,A.(1995). Howtodesignsurveys .ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Gagnon,J.C.,Barber,B.R.,VanLoan,C.L.,&Leone,P.E.(2009). Juvenilecorrectionalschools:Characteristicsandapproaches tocurriculum. EducationandTreatmentofChildren 32 ,673– 696. Gagnon,J.C.,&Richards,C.(2008). Makingtherightturn:Aguideabout youthinvolvedinthejuvenilecorrectionssystem (pp.1–61).Washington,DC:NationalCollaborativeonWorkforceandDisabilityfor Youth,InstituteforEducationalLeadership. Greenbaum,P.E.,Dedrick,R.F.,Friedman,R.M.,Kutash,K.,Brown, E.C.,Lardieri,S.P.,&Pugh,A.(1996).NationalAdolescentand ChildtreatmentStudy(NACTS):Outcomesforchildrenwithseriousemotionalandbehavioraldisturbance. JournalofEmotional andBehavioralDisorders 4 ,130–146. Grigg,W.S.,Daane,M.C.,Jin,T.,&Campbell,J.R.(2003).TheNation’s ReportCard:Reading2002(NCES2003–521).WashingtonDC: U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences, NationalCenterforEducationStatistics. Harris,P.J.,Baltodano,H.M.,Bal,A.,Jolivette,K.,&Mulcahy,C. (2009).Readingachievementofincarceratedyouthinthreeregions. JournalofCorrectionalEducation 60 ,120–145. Hasselbring,T.S.,&Goin,L.I.(2004).Literacyinstructionforolder strugglingreaders:Whatistheroleoftechnology? Reading&WritingQuarterly 20 ,123–144. Houchins,D.E.,Jolivette,K.,Krezmien,M.P.,&Baltodano,H.M. (2008).Amulti-statestudyexaminingtheimpactofexplicitreadinginstructionwithincarceratedstudents. JournalofCorrectional Education 59 ,65–85. IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementActof2004.(2004) U.S.C.§612etseq. Jolivette,K.,Stichter,J.P.,Nelson,C.M.,Scott,T.M.,&Liaupsin,C.J. (2000,August). Improvingpost-schooloutcomesforstudentswith emotionalandbehavioraldisorders .Arlington,VA:ERICClearinghouseonDisabilitiesandGiftedEducation.Retrievedfrom http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/post.htm Kamil,M.L.(2003). Adolescentsandliteracy:Readingforthe21stcentury .Washington,DC:AllianceforExcellentEducation. Kamil,M.L.,Borman,G.D.,Dole,J.,Kral,C.C.,Salinger,T.,&Torgesen,J.(2008). Improvingadolescentliteracy:Effectiveclassroomand interventionpractices:Apracticeguide (NCEE#2008-4027).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.Department ofEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc Katsiyannis,A.,&Archwamety,T.(1999).Academicremediation/achievementandotherfactorsrelatedtorecidivismrates amongdelinquentyouths. BehavioralDisorders 24 ,93–101. Krezmien,M.P.,Mulcahy,C.A.,&Leone,P.E.(2008).Detainedand committedyouth:Examiningdifferencesinachievement,mental healthneeds,andspecialeducationstatus. EducationandTreatment ofChildren 31 ,445–464. Kutner,M.,Greenberg,E.,Jin,Y.,Boyle,B.,Hsu,Y.,&Dunleavy,E. (2007). Literacyineverydaylife:Resultsfromthe2003NationalAssessmentofAdultLiteracy (NCES2007-480).U.S.Departmentof Education.Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics. Lane,K.L.,Barton-Arwood,S.M.,Nelson,J.R.,&Wehby,J.(2008). Academicperformanceofstudentswithemotionalandbehavioral disordersservedinaself-containedsetting. JournalofBehavioral Education 17 ,43–62. Lane,K.L.,Carter,E.W.,Pierson,M.R.,&Glaeser,B.C.(2006). Academic,social,andbehavioralcharacteristicsofhighschoolstudentswithemotionaldisturbancesorlearningdisabilities. Journal ofEmotionalandBehavioralDisorders 14 ,108–117.

PAGE 14

ReadingInstructioninJuvenileCorrections231Lembke,E.(2004).Studentswithreadingandbehavioralneeds: Identifyinginterventionsthatwork. MissouriInnovationsin Education 32 (2).Retrievedfromhttp://www.cise.missouri.edu/ publications/innovations/november-2004/lembke.html Leu,Jr.,D.J.(2002).Thenewliteracies:Researchonreadinginstruction withtheinternet.InA.E.Farstrup,&S.Samuels(Eds.), What researchhastosayaboutreadinginstruction (pp.310–336).Newark, DE:InternationalReadingAssociation. Lyon,G.R.(1995).Researchinitiativesinlearningdisabilities:ContributionsfromscientistssupportedbytheNationalInstituteofChild HealthandHumanDevelopment. JournalofChildNeurology 10 S120–S126. MacArthur,C.A.,&Haynes,J.B.(1995).StudentAssistantforLearning fromText(SALT):Ahypermediareadingaid. JournalofLearning Disabilities 28 ,150–159. Malmgren,K.W.,&Leone,P.E.(2000).Effectsofashort-termauxiliaryreadingprogramonthereadingskillsofincarceratedyouth. Education&TreatmentofChildren 23 ,239–247. Malmgren,K.W.,&Trezek,B.J.(2009).Literacyinstructionforsecondarystudentswithdisabilities. FocusonExceptionalChildren 41 (6),1–12. Mastropieri,M.A.,Scruggs,T.E.,&Graetz,J.E.(2003).Reading comprehensioninstructionforsecondarystudents:Challengesfor strugglingstudentsandteachers. LearningDisabilityQuarterly 26 103–116. McCracken,M.,&Murray,T.S.(2009). Theeconomicbenetsofliteracy:Evidenceandimplicationsforpublicpolicy .London,Ontario, Canada:CanadianLanguageandLiteracyResearchNetwork. Meltzer,J.,Smith,N.C.,&Clark,H.(2002). Adolescentliteracyresources:Linkingresearchtopractice .SouthHampton,NH:Center forResourceManagement. NationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment.(2000). ReportoftheNationalReadingPanel.Teachingchildrentoread: anevidence-basedassessmentofthescienticresearchliteratureon readinganditsimplicationsforreadinginstruction .(NIHPublication No.00-4769).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOfce. NationalReadingPanelReport.(2000). Teachingchildrentoread:An evidence-basedassessmentofthescienticresearchliteratureonreadinganditsimplicationsforreadinginstruction .Washington,DC: NationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment. Nelson,J.R.,Benner,G.J.,Lane,K.,&Smith,B.W.(2004).Academic achievementofK-12studentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders. ExceptionalChildren 71 ,59–73. NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,20U.S.C.§1114(2008). Parris,S.R.,&Block,C.C.(2007).Theexpertiseofadolescentliteracy teachers. JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy 50 ,582–596. Quinn,M.M.,Rutherford,R.B.,Leone,P.E.,Osher,D.M.,&Poirier,J. M.(2005).Youthwithdisabilitiesinjuvenilecorrections:Anational survey. ExceptionalChildren 71 ,339–345. Reid,R.,Gonzales,J.E.,Nordness,P.D.,Trout,A.,&Epstein,M. H.(2004).Ameta-analysisoftheacademicstatusofstudentswith emotional/behavioraldisturbance. JournalofSpecialEducation 38 130–143. Roseth,C.J.,Johnson,D.W.,&Johnson,R.T.(2008).Promotingearly adolescents’achievementandpeerrelationships:Theeffectsofcooperative,competitive,andindividualisticgoalstructures. PsychologicalBulletin 134 ,223–246. Rozalski,M.E.,&Engle,S.(2005).Literacyeducationincorrectional facilities:The“hope”fortechnology. Reading&WritingQuarterly 21 ,301–305. Ryan,J.B.,Reid,R.,&Epstein,M.H.(2004).Areviewofpeermediatedinterventionstudiesonacademicachievementforstudentswith emotionalandbehaviordisorders. RemedialandSpecialEducation 25 ,330–341. Scammacca,N.,Roberts,G.,Vaughn,S.,Edmonds,M.,Wexler,J., Reutebuch,C.R.,&Torgesen,J.K.(2007). Interventionforadolescentstrugglingreaders:Ameta-analysiswithimplicationsforpractice Portsmouth,NH:RMCResearchCorporation,CenteronInstruction. Simpson,S.B.,Swanson,J.M.,&Kunkel,K.(1992).Theimpactof anintensivemultisensorialreadingprogramonapopulationof learning-disableddelinquents. AnnalsofDyslexia 42 ,54–66. Snowling,M.J.,Adams,J.W.,Bowyer-Crane,C.,&Tobin,V.(2000). Levelsofliteracyamongjuvenileoffenders:Theincidenceofspecicreadingdifculties. CriminalBehaviorandMentalHealth 10 229–241. Snyder,H.N.,&Sickmund,M.(1999). Juvenileoffendersandvictims: 1999Nationalreport .Rockville,MD:U.S.DepartmentofJustice, OfceofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention. Solomon,D.,Battistich,V.,&Hom,A.(1996).Teacherbeliefsandpracticesinschoolservingcommunitiesthatdifferinsocioeconomic level. JournalofExperimentalEducation 64 ,327–347. Stizek,G.,Pittsonberger,J.,Riordan,K.,Lyter,D.,Orlofsky,G., &Gruber,K.(2007). AbriefproleofAmerica'spublicschools (NCES2007-379).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics.Retrievedfrom http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007379.pdf Torgesen,J.,Houston,D.,&Rissman,L.(2007). Improvingliteracyinstructioninmiddleandhighschools:Aguideforprincipals Portsmouth,NH:RMCResearchCorporation,CenteronInstruction. Trout,A.L.,Nordness,P.D.,Pierce,C.D.,&Epstein,M.H.(2003).Researchontheacademicstatusofchildrenandyouthwithemotional andbehavioraldisorders:Areviewoftheliteraturefrom1961–2000. JournalofEmotionalandBehavioralDisorders 11 ,198–210. U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences. (2009). Whatworksclearinghouse:Adolescentliteracy .WashingtonDC:Author.Retrievedfromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/pdf/wwc read180 102009.pdf U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfceofSpecialEducationandRehabilitativeServices,OfceofSpecialEducationPrograms.(2009a). 28thAnnualReporttoCongressontheImplementationoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct,2006,Vol.1 ,Washington, DC:Author. U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfceofSpecialEducationandRehabilitativeServices,OfceofSpecialEducationPrograms.(2009b). 28thannualreporttoCongressontheimplementationoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct,2006,Vol.2 ,Washington,DC: Author. Watlington,E.,Shockley,R.,Guglielmino,E.,&Felsher,R.(2010).The highcostofleaving:Ananalysisofthecostofteacherturnover. JournalofEducationFinance 36 ,22–37. Weisberg,H.F.,Krosnick,J.A.,&Bowen,B.D.(1989). Anintroduction tosurveyresearchanddataanalysis (2nded.).Glenview,IL:Scott, Foresman. Wilkerson,K.L.,Gagnon,J.C.,Melekoglu,M.A.,&Cakiroglu,O. (2012).Readinginstructioninsecondarydaytreatmentandresidentialschoolsforyouthwithemotionalorbehavioraldisorders. RemedialandSpecialEducation 33 ,78–88. Yin,R.K.(1994). Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods .Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage. Zamora,D.(2005).Levelsofacademicachievementandfurtherdelinquencyamongdetainedyouth. TheSouthwestJournalofCriminal Justice 2 ,42–53.