[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Literacy and Incarcerated Juveniles

Introduction

No academic skill is more vital than the ability to read. Although a substantial amount of literacy research has been conducted with elementary students, little has been focused on struggling readers at the secondary level. The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB, 2002) promoted the importance of providing all students needing literacy instruction regardless of their grade level. Nowhere has the importance of literacy instruction for adolescent struggling readers been more imperative than with incarcerated youth.

Delinquency repeatedly has been associated with poor literacy skills. Incarcerated students in particular have much lower literacy skills compared to their no incarcerated peers. Students who exit juvenile justice (JJ) facilities with low literacy abilities have a greater chance of recidivating. Most discouraging is the impact of low literacy on adult outcomes. Of adults with the lowest literacy skills, 42% live in poverty, 17% receive food stamps, and 70% have no full- or part-time employment. Since a majority of incarcerated youth do not return to school, it is essential that JJ facilities provide research based literacy instruction. To provide such literacy instruction, it is vital that researchers work collaboratively with JJ frontline personnel in an effort to conduct quality research in JJ facilities.

Such issues regarding Incarcerated Juveniles must be accounted for as much as possible since they will delay instruction, alter fidelity, and change assessment schedules. Personnel time consumed by down time waiting to assess students, monies used to pay for employee time, and student engagement with the curriculum can be compromised. Consistent procedures must be established for when a student is removed from the study temporarily or permanently for disruptive behavior or other reasons (Bloom, 2008).

Literacy Research with Incarcerated Juveniles

A limited number of JJ literacy studies have been conducted. Malmgren and Leone (2000) examined the effects of providing 45 incarcerated male students with 2 hours and 50 minutes of reading instruction 5 days a week over a 6-week period during a summer school program (Malmgren,2000). Forty-four percent of students had an identified disability. The intervention included the Corrective Reading decoding and comprehension programs, reciprocal peer tutoring, and teacher read aloud. Pre- and posttest Gray Oral Reading Tests scores indicated significant gains in accuracy, passage, and rate subtest scores, but not in comprehension. Malmgren and Leone suggested a need for longer studies involving intensive reading

Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren, and Glass (2006) conducted a single-subject multiple baseline across participant study with four incarcerated males with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BDs). The intervention was a modified version of the CR Decoding program using 30- minute one-on-one tutoring over a 9-week period. Gains on GORT posttest accuracy, comprehension, rate, and passage scores ranged from 0.3 to 4.1 (Allen-DeBoer, R., Malmgren, 2006). Oral fluency rates increased 36 words per minute, and error rates decreased by two words per minute. Allen-DeBoer et al. (2006) suggested future research be conducted on how to provide incarcerated with effective reading instruction based on unique JJ setting characteristics. Houchins, Jolivette, Krezmien, and Baltodano (2008) completed the first ...