[USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report.

1 | R a e S i n c l a i r C h u r c h i l l F e l l o w s h i p R e p o r t 2 0 1 1
THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA
Report by Rae Sinclair
BEd (Prim & Mid) MEd PG Cert SpEd (LD)
PG Cert TESL Dip Rad (Diag) Cert IV TAA, MIR MACE
2011 Churchill Fellow
To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and
disadvantaged youth in juvenile detention centres – U.S.A. and Canada.
Contact Details:
Youth Education Centre,
1 Jonal Drive Cavan SA
Ph 82606433
Email: rae.sinclair@yec.sa.edu.au
STATEMENT ON LEGAL RISK AND COPYRIGHT
I understand that the Churchill trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the internet
or both, and consent to such publication.
I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any
claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any
Report submitted to the Trust which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet.
I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or
contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for
defamation, a breach of privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-
off or contravention of any other private right or of any law.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: _______________________

Evaluation of the Literacy and Numeracy Programs for Youth in Detention Contents
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................4
Executive Summary......................................................................................................5
Dissemination / Implementation..................................................................................6
Program ........................................................................................................................6
Biographic Information................................................................................................7
Background to Project.................................................................................................8
Recidivism...........................................................................................................8
Language and Literacy Acquisition.....................................................................8
Characteristics of Youth in Juvenile Justice Settings .......................................10
Other Factors Affecting Delivery of Educational Services.................................11
Educational Services in South Australia............................................................12
Educational Approaches Underpinning Literacy and Numeracy Remediations
Social Emotional Learning.................................................................................13
Five Pillars of SEL ............................................................................................13
Positive Behavioural Interventions & Supports ................................................15
PBIS Framework...............................................................................................15
Considerations for Implementing PBIS into a Juvenile Justice setting.............17
Behaviour Programs (other)..............................................................................17
Examples of Incentives.....................................................................................18
Encouraging Family Involvement with the School............................................19
A Family Guide to Getting Involved with Correctional Education .....................20
Identifying Best Practice ...........................................................................................21
Literacy..........................................................................................................................21
Assessment in Reading Programs ..............................................................................21
Reading Problems .......................................................................................................21
Group 1: Severe Reading Disabilities..........................................................................22
Group Two: Struggling Readers.............................................................. ...................22
Group Three: Non-Fluent readers................................................................................23
Comprehension............................................................................................................23
Monitoring Comprehension..........................................................................................23
Metacognition Strategies..............................................................................................23
Effective Questioning...................................................................................................23
Levels of Questioning- Webb’s Depth of Knowledge...................................................24

Additional Recommendations ......................................................................................25
Summary.....................................................................................................................................26
Numeracy.......................................................................................................................27
Assessment Recommendations NDTAC.............................................................27
Screening Assessment.......................................... … ..................................................28
Diagnostic Testing…......................................................................................................28
Curriculum Based Assessment ….................................................................................28
Curriculum Based Measure ….......................................................................................28
Early Numeracy Skills....................................................................................................28
Dyscalculia.....................................................................................................................28
Common Indicators- Dyscalculia....................................................................................29
Other Considerations: Cultural Awareness....................................................................30
Numeracy Instruction.....................................................................................................30
Instructional Recommendations for Numeracy Instruction: NDTAC..............................31
Subtraction: Considerations for Learning Disabled Students........................................32
Subtraction the Cavan way............................................................................................32
Staffing..........................................................................................................................34
Reading Specialists ...........................................................................................34
Paraprofessionals...............................................................................................35
Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................36
Literacy Best Practice..................................................................................................37
Numeracy Best Practice..............................................................................................38
References....................................................................................................................40
Appendices ..................................................................................................................45
1. Guiding Questions .................................................................................................45
2. San Francisco: Queen’s Bench.............................................................................46
3. PACE Center for Girls Jacksonville Fl..................................................................47
4. William E. Hay Centre Ottawa................................................................................48
5. Stadium View Comprehensive Detention School Minneapolis..........................49
6. Lancaster County Youth Services, Pathfinder Education Program, Lincoln...50
7. Maya Angelou See Forever Foundation Charter School Washington DC........53
8. Passages academy, New York City.......................................................................57
9. Judge J. Connelly Youth Center Boston .............................................................59
10. Frazer Park Secondary Detention School Vancouver........................................60
11. Victoria Youth Custody Centre Vancouver Island.............................................61
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my thanks to the many people who made this fellowship possible. Firstly, the
Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia for the opportunities these fellowships afford. Secondly, my
employer, the S.A. Department for Education and Child Development and more specifically, the staff
of the Youth Education Centre and the South Australian Youth Training Centres, my colleagues, who
remain committed to educating and caring for our state’s most disadvantaged students. I am
extremely grateful to those of you who encouraged and supported me during this fellowship.
I would also like to extend a special note of thanks to my referees, Dr Rosie Kerin and my principal
Ms Gerri Walker, who not only supported my efforts but shared my delight when I gained this
fellowship. Both have been there since I began teaching. As a lecturer Rosie challenged me, as a
mentor she reassured me and as a friend she inspires me. Gerri likewise has both challenged and
inspired me. She is a true advocate for the education of disadvantaged youth, and uses her passion,
dedication and boundless energy to continue to help improve the lives of these young people. She
continues to set the bar very high for those of us wanting to work with disadvantaged students. I
thank you both for your kind words and support.
Whilst it is appropriate to acknowledge a number of individuals, I would initially like to extend my
thanks to the students and staff members of the various schools and facilities, who graciously
allowed me to disrupt lessons and took time out of their busy schedules to answer my many
questions. Additionally, as many visits were to secure centres I would like to thank the host facilities
for allowing me such extensive access and therefore enabling this study.
Of special note are the following individuals whose hospitality, knowledge and professionalism
made significant contributions to my research: Ms Lynn Bertram, Executive Director Pace Center for
Girls, Jacksonville Florida; Mr Gordon Boyd, Superintendent, William E .Hay Centre Ottawa; Ms
Patricia Bovan and Ms Nancy Walter , The Queen’s Bench San Francisco; Mr Larry Lucio, Principal,
Stadium View Academy Minneapolis; Mr Randal Farmer, Principal, Pathfinder Education Program,
Lancaster County Youth Services Lincoln Nebraska; Dr Marion White-Head, Director of Academics,
Principal Carter, Principal Geddis, and Dr Kamal Wright-Cunningham, Lead Clinical Counsellor, The Dr
Maya Angelou Public Charter School & See Forever Foundation Washington D.C.; Mr Stephen Wilder,
Principal, Passages Academies New York City Department of Education; Ms Christine Kenney,
Director of Education Massachusetts Division of Youth Services; Mr Reno Ciolfi, Director of
Instruction Burnaby Board of Education; Mr Chris. Lekakis, Head Teacher, Fraser Park Secondary
Program Burnaby Youth Custody Centre Vancouver Canada and Mr Blade Tickner, Director of
Programs Victoria Youth Custody Services, Victoria BC Canada.
Finally, my family; my thanks to my husband Mark and sons Cameron and Haydn, who kept the
house in order and successfully kept alive the pets and livestock during my absence; my mother- in-
law Dorothy, for feeding and supervising them; and a big thank you to my daughter Bridie, who
accompanied me, carried the bags, kept me amused and shared the experience. I would also like to
take this opportunity to express my appreciation to them all for their unswerving support and
patience as I have pursued my studies over the last six years. This extraordinary experience would
never have happened without you...so thank you.
Rae Sinclair

Executive Summary
Rae Sinclair, Special Education Teacher,
Youth Education Centre
1 Jonal Dr Cavan 5094 SA
Ph: 82606433, Email: rae.sinclair@yec.sa.edu.au
Project Description:
Academic outcomes achieved during incarceration have an important impact on the achievements of youth
after their release and have been shown to reduce recidivism. Studies in the U.S.A. suggest that 37 percent of
young offenders were less likely to re-offend if they learnt to read during incarceration. Although evidence
indicates that those juveniles at greatest risk of reoffending have concomitantly the lowest literacy levels;
literacy instruction and improvement has not yet been fully recognised as a significant contributor to reducing
recidivism. This project aims at identifying “Best Practice” for teaching literacy and numeracy remediations to
students in detention.
Highlights:
Undoubtedly, the highlight was the professionalism and dedication to improving the educational outcomes for
disadvantaged and marginalised students displayed by both leadership and staff at all the centres visited. I was
treated to extraordinary levels of hospitality and given great access to the students, staff and facilities. Of
particular assistance were Mr Larry Lucio and his staff at the Stadium View Detention School in Minneapolis
where amongst other meetings, I was afforded the opportunity to meet with the parents of several
incarcerated students. They spoke of the importance of parental involvement in detention schools and
provided me with an unexpected insight into a neglected area of our work. Likewise, Mr Randolph Farmer in
Lincoln Nebraska’s detention school and Mr Stephen Wilder in New York’s Passages Academy Detention
schools shared their wisdom and determination to improve the learning experience for incarcerated students
along with curriculum material that has already enhanced the learning experience of my students. The Maya
Angelou Schools in Washington DC and the Pace Center for Girls in Jacksonville showed what disadvantaged
youth can achieve when provided with an appropriate support and the Canadian detention schools in Ottawa,
Vancouver and Vancouver Island provided me with both resources and an overview of the possibilities
available to incarcerated Indigenous youth. In Boston, Ms Christine Kenney provided insight into educational
reform for incarcerated students, while in San Francisco I was treated to an evening with the girls in Juvenile
Hall and an evening with the members of the Queen’s Bench; where artwork from a student at Cavan was
auctioned alongside the artwork of American senator Diane Feinstein to raise money for juvenile hall
programs. Finally, the opportunity to talk to and spend time with students struggling to find their place in the
world, and who despite their circumstances recognise the benefits of education, reaffirmed my determination
to work towards improving the service we provide to our students here.
Major Lessons and Conclusions:
Adolescents in juvenile detention facilities have the most complex educational, behavioural, and mental health
needs of any youth in our society. They are nearly 7 times more likely to have a disability, with 80 percent
having one or more psychological disorders and 75 percent having behavioural disorders. Few have age
appropriate literacy and numeracy skills with many reading below grade 4 standard. Education is more
effective if systems are in place to support student’s social and emotional needs and is delivered in an
environment that systematically teaches positive behaviours.
As language underpins every conscious thought and all communication, poor language skills limit an
individual’s ability to think, understand and to communicate. Given the scope of defining best practice for
students whose educational requirements range from K- 12, across two content areas; this summary provides
broad outlines for recommended practice. However, it is clear that these students need intensive, explicit
support delivered by skilled instructors over an extended period of time, with student achievement primarily
determined by the amount of instruction (time) and the content of that instruction. This is expensive.A
commitment to funding and resourcing is essential to the success of these interventions.

Dissemination/ Implementation:
This report will passed onto the CEO of the SA Department of Education and Child Development, the Centre
manager Cavan Training Centre and the principal of the Youth Education Centre Cavan/Magill. Teaching staff
will be able to access it and in- servicing will be offered regarding its findings. It will be offered for presentation
at the next Australian Juvenile Justice Conference. Hopefully, there will in due course be some consideration of
the possibilities of implementation and /or further investigation into some of these suggestions.
Programs and Centres Visited:
Date Program/Centre Type of Program Primary focus
16-18
Nov
San Francisco : Queens
Bench @ Juvenile Justice
Center
1. Mentoring/ female
specific
1. Female Judges and lawyers
provide mentoring programs for
incarcerated girls.
21 Nov Jacksonville: Pace Center for
Girls
Gender specific
Preventative
/diversionary for at
risk girls
Educational re-engagement, GED
(yr12).
Social –emotional support
Life skills
24 Nov Ottawa: William E. Hay
Centre
Juvenile Detention
general education/
Indigenous
General high school education/
life skills plus Literacy and
numeracy.
30 Nov Minneapolis: Stadium View
Detention School
Juvenile Detention Literacy/ numeracy, Social
Emotional support/ Family
inclusion program, high school
credits.
1 Dec Lincoln: Lancaster County
Youth Services Pathfinders
Academy
Juvenile Detention Literacy Numeracy High School
credits.
3 Dec Washington D.C. Maya
Angelou See Forever
Academy Evans Campus
Alternative
/preventative re-
engagement
Social Emotional support,
Positive Behaviour programs
High school credits /tertiary
preparation.
7-8 Dec New York City: Passages
Academy (3 sites)
Juvenile detention Literacy
High school credits.
14 Dec Boston: Massachusetts
Division of Youth Services
Juvenile Detention Literacy
High school credits.
16 Dec Vancouver: Frazer Park
Secure Secondary School
Juvenile Detention High school credits
Numeracy.
21 Dec Victoria Youth Custody
Service (Vancouver Island)
Juvenile Detention High school Credits vocational/
Indigenous.

Biographic information:
I am employed as the Special Education teacher at the Youth Education Centre (Cavan) with
responsibilities for literacy and numeracy remediation. Following a 30 year hiatus; during which time
I was a medical radiographer, radiography tutor, director of my own company and a school science
laboratory manager; I returned to teaching, retraining as a science teacher and graduated from the
University of South Australia’s graduate entry Bachelor of Education (Primary/Middle) program with
the University Award for the that program.
To better cater to the unique learning requirements of the student cohort at YEC, I undertook Post
Graduate studies in Special Education (Learning Difficulties) at Macquarie University which focussed
on Literacy and Numeracy remediations and Applied Behavioural Analysis. This was followed by a
Master of Education at Flinders University, and more recently a Post Graduate Certificate in TESL at
Flinders University.
My fellowship took 6 weeks during which I travelled 33,000 kilometres, visited 15 states, 2 provinces
and saw a range of facilities and programs including: preventative, gender specific, diversionary,
secure and non- secure care, high security, community and charter schools.
Note:
Whilst the aim of this paper is to evaluate literacy and numeracy programs it is difficult to divorce
these from broader school practices, given that academic progress occurs in tandem with
improvements in mental health and behaviour. I have therefore, tried to contextualise the successful
literacy and numeracy practices by providing insights into the successful frameworks used by many of
the centres.
Moreover, it is an inescapable truth that intensive literacy (and numeracy) remediation requires a
large investment of time and specialised staff- both of which are expensive. “Best practice” assumes
adequate funding.
Background

1. Recidivism:
South Australia has Australia’s second highest incarceration rates for Indigenous youth at 528 per
100,000 (Martin, 2007). Incarceration of juveniles is expensive and does not appear to provide a
significant disincentive from re-offending for Indigenous youth. In 2007, The Hon. Wayne Martin,
Chief Justice of Western Australia, reported that the cost of dealing with the group of 250 young
people that had had the most contact with the W.A. juvenile justice system between the ages of 10
and 17 was $100 million, or $400,000 per child. He concluded by saying “The rates of return to
custody show that even expenditure at these extraordinary levels is spectacularly unsuccessful in
discouraging young Aboriginal offenders from reoffending.”
During 2010, several research projects were undertaken by a number of Australian state
governments to identify and determine best practice for psychological and criminogenic intervention
programs aimed at reducing juvenile offending/ recidivism. It was noted that some states have made
significant reductions in recidivism by moving to a differentiated case management model and
offering the most intensive programs to those identified as having the highest needs (and greatest
risk of reoffending). Also, attempts were made to make programs more developmentally
appropriate as per Farrell (2001), who proposed that programs for juveniles aged 8-11 should focus
on social competence, while those aimed at 12-18 year olds should address the development of pro-
social peer groups, conflict resolution and work / job skills.
Whilst comprehensive investigations into improvements in service delivery are essential, to date the
focus primarily has been on criminogenic / psychological programs. The contribution of education
and vocational training to reducing recidivism has not been fully investigated with most reports
simply commenting that juveniles have access to school during incarceration. U.S. research has
however, looked more closely at the impact of education and states:
“Academic outcomes achieved during incarceration have an important impact on the
achievements of youth after their release and have been shown to reduce recidivism.”
Primarily this impact has been attributed to improvements in literacy and numeracy. Whilst it is
obvious that learning to read is not a therapeutic intervention, it does appear to have a significant
role to play in reducing recidivism. The U.S. Criminal Justice Policy Council Study, 2002, concluded:
“37 percent of young prisoners were less likely to re-offend if they learnt to read during
incarceration”.
37 percent is a significant reduction and compares very favourably to the results of the criminogenic
programs assessed by The 2010 Center for Juvenile Justice Reform in the U.S.A report, which
considered program types achieving mean reductions in recidivism of 6 -13 percent to be effective.
For example, recidivism was reduced by 6% in surveillance programs, 10% with restorative justice
programs, 12% with skills building programs, 13% with counselling and a 12% reduction was
achieved with a multiple service approach. Discipline and deterrence programs actually increased
recidivism with -8% and -2% respectively (Lipsey and Howell, 2010).
Whilst it is difficult to draw precise conclusions from the comparison of statistics taken from
different studies, it is clear that efforts made to improve literacy (at 37%) have an important, if not
yet fully recognised role to play, in the overall rehabilitation of young offenders.
2. Language and Literacy acquisition:

Juveniles at greatest risk of reoffending have concomitantly the lowest literacy levels. As “language”
enables problem solving, understanding and the ability to express feelings, the effectiveness of
targeted therapeutic and educational programs is likely to increase when consideration is given to
the age, developmental needs and cognitive limitations of the students.
Language is the foundation for all conscious thought and all forms of communication. Poor
language skills therefore limit an individual’s ability to think, to understand and to
communicate.
Many students with literacy acquisition problems also have language disorders. Literacy is
developed through listening, speaking, reading and writing, and can be compromised in students
with language impairments. Deficits in both expressive and receptive language skills are common in
students with delayed literacy skills (Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein & Sumi, 2005), and will
impact on a student’s ability to listen, speak and understand language form, content and use.
Typically, students with language disorders also find it difficult to retain information due to poor
working memories (Bloom & Lahey, 1978).
Listening: Students with receptive language difficulties, despite having normal hearing, have
difficulty understanding what is being said to them. They have problems with attending to and
processing spoken language, comprehending spoken language and usually have a poor
understanding of grammatical rules and semantic word knowledge. Receptive language disorders
often appear in conjunction with an expressive language disorders (Bloom & Lahey, 1978).
Speaking: Students with expressive language difficulties, have problems with all aspects of
producing spoken and written language. Typically they have poor semantic knowledge, difficulty
with syntax in spoken and written sentences and difficulty with grammatical rules in spoken and
written sentences. This is evidenced in their tendency to speak in short sentences that lack detail
and/or their difficulty in finding a word they need to use, or recounting a story or narrative (Bloom &
Lahey, 1978).
Language Forms, Content and Use: Students with language disorders struggle to identify and
manipulate the sounds of words and word parts, i.e. syllables, onset and rime due to their difficulty
with language forms. They have a poor understanding of morphology and word structure, syntax,
phonological awareness, rhyming and syllabication. They also struggle with knowledge of semantics,
word knowledge and vocabulary. Additionally, they experience difficulties with pragmatics, i.e. the
social aspects of language and the varied use of language in different social contexts. For example,
while they are able to understand literal language where words do not stray from their meaning,
they are challenged by figurative language, where words exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of
the component words. Likewise these students struggle with social milieu, i.e. understanding the
social context of writing (Bloom & Lahey, 1978).
Characteristics of youth in Juvenile Justice Setting

Whilst it is clear that academic outcomes achieved during detention have a positive impact on
student outcomes it is also clear that adolescents in juvenile detention facilities have the most
complex educational, behavioural, and mental health needs of any youth in our society (Gagnon &
Richards, 2008).
Juvenile offenders typically experience a number of interrelated difficulties including histories of
abuse, neglect, violence, substance abuse and educational disabilities. They frequently display
inappropriate behaviours at school and in the community and suffer from a range of mental health
problems. Consideration for, and an understanding of their very specific needs is necessary to
adequately formulate the provision of services to them (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009).
Researchers in the U.S. estimate that up to 70 percent of juveniles in detention facilities have
disabilities as compared to 12 percent of the general school populations (Comstock-Galagan and
Brownstein 2008). Of these, 47 percent have Emotional /Behavioural Disabilities (EBD), a rate 7
times higher than those found in public schools (U.S. Department of Education 2005), and Specific
Learning Disabilities (LD) account for 38.6 percent of students with disabilities in detention.
While Gagnon, Barber, & Van Loan (2008) report almost 5 percent of youth with disabilities in U.S.
facilities have an intellectual disability, Australian researchers undertaking the 2009 Young People in
Custody Health Survey, found that 20 percent of Aboriginal and 7 percent of non- Aboriginal juvenile
offenders in Australia had intelligence (IQ) scores below 70 and as such would be considered
intellectually disabled (mild retardation). A further 39 percent of Aboriginal and 26 percent of non-
Aboriginal juvenile offenders scored in the borderline range or intellectual ability (IQ 70-79). Whilst
the impact of cultural bias cannot be excluded completely, researchers were cognisant of this
possibility and attempted to minimise its influence on these results. These figures suggest that
juvenile offenders in Australia are up to 7 times more likely than the general population (at 3
percent), and more than 4 times more likely than their U.S. counterparts to have an intellectual
disability (Frize, Kenny & Lennings 2008).
Additionally, in 2009, 87 percent of young people in custody in NSW were found to have at least one
psychological disorder, and 73 percent were found to have two or more psychological disorders.
Young women were significantly more likely than young men to have an attentional or behavioural
disorder (82% v 68%), an anxiety disorder (54% v 28%), a mood disorder (56% v 19%) or two or more
psychological disorders (92% v 70%).
Aboriginal young people were more likely than non-Aboriginal young people to have an attention or
behavioural disorder (75% v 65%) or an alcohol or substance use disorder (69% v 58%), while 21
percent of incarcerated youth reported symptoms of schizophrenia (NSW Department of Juvenile
Justice, Disability Action Plan, 2004-2006). U.S. researchers further suggest that 11 percent of their
juvenile offenders have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Teplin, Abram, Charles, Longworth,
McClelland, & Dulcan 2004) stating that 90 percent had experienced a traumatic event such as
witnessing a death or serious injury (Teplin et al. 2002).
Of all the disabilities, youth with EBD are the most highly represented group in custody, frequently
presenting with multiple issues including behavioural and academic problems, mental health issues
and histories of drug and alcohol abuse. Within the U.S.A. they are four times more likely to have
been suspended or expelled from school (Wagner et al. 2005), with 58 percent performing below
grade level in reading and 93 percent below grade level in maths (Greenbaum, Dedrick, Friedman,

Kutash, Brown, Lardieri, & Pugh, 1996). Students with EBD are consequently, 13.3 times more likely
to be arrested, with about 70 percent being arrested within three years of leaving school (Doren,
Bullis, & Benz 1996, in U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Student Cohort in Context: In a 60 bed detention centre with an assumed ratio of 5:1 male to
female and a 50:50 ratio of Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal the cohort might look like this:
Type of Disability/ Disorder Number of students (60)
Psychiatric Disorder 52
2 or more Psychiatric Disorders 35 M 9 F
Attention / Behavioural Disorders 34 M 8 F
Anxiety Disorder 27 M 3 F
Mood Disorder 28 M 2 F
Schizophrenia 12
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 6
Drug or Alcohol Issues ABORIGINAL
20
NON-ABORIGINAL
17
Break down of Disabilities
Total Number with a disability 42 +
Specific Learning Disability 23
Intellectually Disabled ABORIGINAL
5
NON-ABORIGINAL
1
Borderline Intellectual Disability ABORIGINAL
10
NON-ABORIGINAL
6
Emotional/ Behavioural Disability 19
Question:
Do current funding, staffing and programming adequately reflect this student population’s needs?
Other factors affecting the Delivery of Educational Services:
Education delivery within a secure facility is challenging, and is complicated by a number of factors:
high student turn-over with students entering and leaving programs at irregular intervals
complicating beginning and ending points for units of instruction, security concerns limiting
equipment and academic activities, teachers instructing across multiple subject areas, teachers
needing to accommodate widely different ages and /or ability levels in the same class and the lack
of literature specific to effective or “best practice” in juvenile justice education.

Educational Services
South Australia:
All young people in secure care are required to attend school regardless of age. Students spend a
considerable portion of their week with education staff and are provided with year round
educational services with the exception of a 3 to 4 week break over the Christmas /New Year period.
Whilst education has a major role to play in the rehabilitation of young offenders, the provision of
educational services to them is complicated. Detention schools have less autonomy than
mainstream schools as they are located within a host facility that necessarily prioritises security.
Security concerns can therefore impact on behaviour management philosophies /strategies, access
to equipment and academic activities (e.g., laboratory, Internet), and even subject matter.
Although S.A. figures appear comparable to the U.S. and Canadian figures, and suggest as many as
90% of students have numeracy skills below their appropriate grade level, a significant difference
exists between the degree of literacy deficit reported overseas and the levels evident in S.A.
U.S. and Canadian figures suggest that while nearly all students present with below grade level
literacy skills, the majority are at least independent readers (grade 4/5 level). Significantly, this is not
the case in South Australia where the majority of students are not yet independent readers; with a
large proportion of these still learning to decode. Typically, there is about one third of the student
cohort with independent reading skills (although most of these operate well below their grade level
standard). Resources and staff are consequently directed towards instruction for the two thirds who
are acquiring early reading skills resulting in a greatly reduced capacity to provide intensive
interventions to independent, below grade level readers.
Whilst there are some funding options and state wide literacy strategies in South Australia, the
situation in the U.S.A. appears to have a greater focus on providing high levels of specialist support
to struggling readers. The “No Child Left Behind” reforms provide Title 1 federal funding to facilitate
the employment of reading specialists, Special Ed. teachers and librarians to support at-risk / below
grade level readers. These teachers work in a variety of capacities across the school, for example:
reading specialists work individually with struggling readers, Special Ed. teachers work alongside
students and teachers in content area classes and teacher-librarians foster literacy across the school
by supporting subject teachers to embed subject specific literacy skills into the curriculum. Funding
conditions /restrictions require schools to employ only qualified specialist staff (see page 34) thus
providing students with a range of support teachers across a variety of classes.

Educational Approaches Underpinning Literacy and Numeracy Remediations
1. Development & Implementation of a Social Emotional Learning Approach
Social and Emotional Learning is widely utilised in schools across the United States, and several
Australian states have trialled/adopted this framework. SEL programs were a strong focus at each of
the centres visited, not only as part of the curriculum but as a scaffold for all other learning. The
belief is that learning won’t/can’t be successful until the “issues” in students’ lives are addressed.
Centres supported this in a number of ways with most schools/centres augmenting the school based
program with full time psychologists, therapists and social workers who work with students
individually and in small groups to deliver programs that were evidence based and both
developmentally and age appropriate.
Principal Carter at the Maya Angelou School in Washington D.C. contends that it is difficult to hold
severely traumatised young people accountable to the same standards as non traumatised youth;
however, he believes that well implemented SEL programs provide a means through which these
students can become incrementally accountable for themselves and their actions. His school has a
team of specialists working with SEL and catering to the needs of 210 students. This team includes a
trained therapist (PhD), 4.5 counsellors, a mental health worker, and at each grade level, a social
worker.
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is defined as the ability to recognise and manage emotions,
solve problems effectively and establish positive relationships with others; skills most young
offenders lack. SEL targets a combination of behaviours, cognitions, and emotions through a process
of acquiring and effectively applying the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to recognise and
manage emotions; develop care and concern for others; make responsible decisions; establish
positive relationships; and handle challenging situations capably. (CASEL, 2007)
The Five Pillars of SEL
Five key competencies are taught, practiced, and reinforced through SEL programming (CASEL,
2003):
 Self-awareness: Identification and recognition of one’s own emotions, recognition of
strengths in self and others, sense of self-efficacy, and self-confidence.
 Social awareness: Empathy, respect for others, and perspective taking.
 Responsible decision making: Evaluation and reflection, and personal and ethical
responsibility.
 Self-management: Impulse control, stress management, persistence, goal setting, and
motivation.
 Relationship skills: Cooperation, help seeking and providing, and communication.
SEL programs and curriculum provide the skill development for these social and emotional
competencies.

Skills are developed through (SAFE) programming that is:
Sequenced
Active
Focused
Explicit interactive instruction.
 Includes opportunities for practise and feedback.
 Observation of modelling by adults and peers.
 Reflection on one’s experiences.
 Instruction that is developmentally/culturally competent.
 Provision of opportunities for community-building activities.
 Opportunities to contribute to their class, school, and community.
 Application and generalization within the school.
Research shows that SEL has positive effects on academic performance, physical health and
citizenship. It reduces the risk of maladjustment, failed relationships, interpersonal violence,
substance abuse, and unhappiness (Elias et al., 1997; Zins, Weissberg et al., 2004). Furthermore, it
has been shown to have positive effects on mental health with improvements in students’ abilities
to adapt to change and to cope with adversity. SEL skills taught in school are likely to enhance the
effectiveness of psycho-social programs offered to students.
This framework in various guises was an integral part of educational programs at all centres
visited. Given the degree of known dysfunction within the juvenile justice population, an SEL
model may warrant consideration.

PBIS
“Relying on punishment as a primary intervention may actually increase the level of unacceptable
behaviours” (Henning 2004).
Whilst practices vary greatly between institutions, observations in the U.S.A. suggest that in general,
there is minimal behavioural instruction provided to youth in secure facilities, and some of the
practices in use are not supported by science. Furthermore, it is common for youth with disabilities
to receive more frequent behavioural incident reports than their nondisabled peers, be restrained
during behavioural incidents more frequently and spend a disproportionate amount of time in
facility disciplinary settings such as confinement or segregation (Leone, 1994).
The National Council on Disability (2003) suggested that most facilities were more concerned with
punishing problem behaviours than promoting and reinforcing positive behaviours, concluding that
inconsistent punishment and the lack of reinforcement of positive behaviours fosters antisocial
patterns of behaviour.
Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Framework:
The PBIS framework is composed of three tiers and includes principles of behaviourism (Dunlap,
2006) and applied behaviour analysis; which investigates the motivation for specific undesirable
behaviours,(Carr et al., 2002). Routines and a predictable environment are created with
reinforcement contingent on appropriate expected behaviours.
Behavioural psychologists suggest that all problem behaviours serve a function:
 To get something (power, attention, approval).
 To avoid or escape something (teachers, class work, a situation).
 To have control.
Although all behaviours are governed by consequences, punitive consequence fails to teach
replacement behaviours. As it is the behaviour, not the function of behaviour that is the problem, it
is possible for new more appropriate behaviours to be taught to serve the same function. Therefore
if a student achieves the desired outcome through appropriate behaviours the need for the negative
behaviour no longer exists.
Current research indicates positive outcomes for social skills instruction, academic restructuring,
and behavioral interventions in addressing inappropriate behaviours, facilitating positive
behavioural changes, and encouraging academic achievement (Gottfredson, 1997; Elliot, Hamburg
& Williams, 1998; Tolan & Guerra, 1994; Lipsey, 1992). Four essential concepts therefore form the
basis of the PBIS model (OSEP, 2005):
1. Clearly defined academic and social behavioural outcomes that are linked to the
school’s/centre’s improvement objectives.
2. Problem behaviours are addressed by using behavioural and biomedical strategies.
3. Only practices, interventions, and strategies that have been validated by research are used
to achieve goals.
4. Existing systems are examined and changed to improve life and learning for all students,
simultaneously reducing problem behaviours on a large scale.

PBIS is implemented using a three-tiered, strategic approach:
1. Primary prevention:
Targets the entire school and focuses on teaching behavioural expectations for every school
setting (e.g., units, classrooms, cafeteria, gym). All students and staff members are explicitly
taught the expected behaviour, AND the positive and/or negative consequences for
appropriate or inappropriate behaviours. Research indicates this level of intervention can
prevent about 80 percent of behavioural problems (NDTAC, 2006).
2. Secondary prevention:
Provides more intensive instructional strategies and supports for students (about 15–20
percent) who fail to respond to the primary prevention strategies. Secondary strategies
include academic tutoring for struggling students and instruction for those with behavioral
challenges e.g., anger management, social problem solving, and social skills instruction
(NDTAC, 2006).
3. Tertiary prevention:
Provides highly individualized interventions for the 3-5 percent of students with serious
and persistent behavioral and academic challenges and usually requires the use of a
functional behavioral assessment (mandated in the 1997 for students with special needs
IDEA) and interagency collaboration (NDTAC, 2006).
While PBIS has had excellent results in mainstream school across America, researchers are now
finding similar results for students in juvenile detention and correctional facilities. Punishment and
“get –tough” policies have been shown to be ineffective especially for those students with
disabilities and/or mental health conditions. Nelson (2005) cites a youth development centre in
southern Illinois that reports an 89 percent reduction in major behavioural incidents and a 95
percent reduction in minor behavioural incidents after one month of PBIS implementation.
Follow-up observations revealed that there were no fights reported for the following two years.
Likewise, following the adoption of a PBIS model, the Iowa Juvenile Home’s residential facility
reported a 46 percent reduction in restraints over 12 months for girls and a 37 percent reduction in
the number of classroom removals over a 3-month period for boys. In addition, data indicates that
all students improved academically (Rosen, 2004).
PBIS standardizes expectations and consequences across the facility so students understand the
appropriate behaviours for each setting and receive the same interventions, regardless of the
supervising adult. This is achieved through carefully training and supporting educational and
security staff in the use of positive behavioral approaches to create environments that facilitate
appropriate behaviours.
A crucial component of PBIS is using data to inform decision making with respect to decisions about
the effectiveness of changes to rules, routines, and arrangements in the facility. It enables staff to
pinpoint problem areas and make targeted changes rather than continue using a process or
intervention that is ineffective.
In short, PBIS acknowledges that behavioural skills require instruction, reinforcement, and
practise, and encourages students to treat themselves and others with respect by adhering to
simple expectations for behaviour.

Considerations for Adapting PBIS to Secure Juvenile Justice Settings
Several detention centres in the U.S.A. have successfully adapted and implemented PBIS and suggest
there are some basic steps required for the implementation of the PBIS framework (Simonsen, 2010)
into a juvenile facility.
1. Establishment of a PBIS leadership team: that represents all key stakeholders, e.g.
administration, security, housing, treatment, etc., and commits to building capacity for
implementation across several years.
2. Has at least 80% staff support: in all areas, e.g., education, food services, housing units,
security, with each having equal representation and an active voice on the team.
3. Establishment of a data-based action plan: 3 to 5 positively stated simple behavioural
expectations that can be applied across the facility. For example: Be ready for learning,
Follow instructions, Do your best, Respect others and how each of these would “look” in
various locations/situations such as the classroom, the unit and the sporting field. These
expectations are then explicitly taught for each of these situations.
The Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports has developed the School-wide
Positive Behavior Support Implementers’ Blueprint and Self-Assessment, which provides a rationale
and advice for implementing PBIS the self-assessment checklist for accountability.
The blueprint can be accessed online at www.pbis.org.
Other Behaviour Programs:
Positive Behaviour interventions allow for incentive schemes that reinforce good behaviour, to be
implemented. Without exception, all facilities and schools visited during this research used an
incentivized behaviour scheme. It is important to note that these are quintessentially different from
the “levels system” most detention staff are familiar with, these having been comprehensively
discredited due to poor implementation. The NSW Ombudsman (1996) stated:
“Most behavioural management systems (in juvenile detention centres) rely on the use of a
points system which permits detainees increasing levels of privileges. Unfortunately most
schemes operating are more linked with control and punishment than with encouraging and
rewarding detainees to manage their own behaviour. The philosophy behind incentive
schemes is extremely misunderstood. Most schemes operating have had little or any input
from psychologists or others trained in this area for some years. The poorly designed schemes
are implemented by staff that have never been trained in the aim of the schemes. Many
operational staff now consider them to be used to deduct points and remove privileges in
response to inappropriate behaviour and they have become part of most centres’ disciplinary
systems.”
A central idea driving PBIS is that positive reinforcement is contingent on appropriate behaviour and
explicitly teaches these preferred behaviours. That is, a student is rewarded for displaying an

appropriate behaviour, not punished for failing to display the behaviour. It aims to replace negative
behaviours with positive behaviours and acknowledges and reinforces these replacement
behaviours. In conjunction with the SEL foci of: self-awareness, social awareness, responsible
decision making, self-management and relationship skills; students see the benefits of appropriate
behaviour and CHOOSE to use these (rather than be forced to use them).To minimise the subjectivity
of awarding behaviour points, schools were explicit about the behaviours they valued and this was
facilitated by the use of check lists. These were used by the supervisor to acknowledge appropriate
behaviour, and by the student as a reminder of behavioural expectations.
Using the earlier example of “treat others with respect” teachers and unit staff use the matrices
developed during the PBIS process describing what it “looks like” in their area as their reference to
allocate points. For example, in school “respect” might be described as: raising your hand to speak,
waiting for the teacher to finish speaking before talking, using appropriate language, being
considerate of other learners etc. etc. If a student displays these behaviours they are checked off the
list and points allocated accordingly. Likewise in the units, “respect” might be described as: following
instructions, completing chores, assisting others, keeping room tidy etc. etc. and again if these
behaviours are displayed, points are allocated against the check list. This has the advantage of
making it easy for staff to decide if appropriate behaviour has been used and explicit for the
students, i.e. the students actually know what it is they need to do. Points are earned not removed.
A student who fails to comply fails to earn points.
Examples of Incentives:
At the Victoria Youth Custody Centre BC, Canada, students were able to participate in work
programs such as grounds maintenance, horticulture and cleaning. Students received payment for
their labour, earning more per hour for the more responsible jobs which were reserved for those
with the highest points/levels.
At the PACE Centre for Girls in Jacksonville Florida, accrued points could be “cashed in” at various
end points. Girls could choose small stationery items, personal care items etc. or if they chose to
“bank” the points, they could be used at a clothing stall with those having the most points, given first
access to the stalls.
At the Maya Angelou Charter School in Washington DC, students AND staff were given the
opportunity to gain points. Students were able to purchase small stationery items or trade points to
wear denim jeans to school on a Friday. Additionally, students with the highest points were
recgonised at assembly or with certificates.
Teachers were handed “Teacher Tickets” if they were “caught doing something good”. Teachers
could trade their tickets for a lesson off (taken by the principal), lunch, morning teas etc. This was
morale boosting for staff not only because there were rewards but because they were also being
recognised for working well.

Encouraging Family Involvement with the School
In conjunction with the SEL program, and with the understanding that learning is a social process,
family involvement in detention schools is strongly encouraged. The National Center of Family &
Community Connections with Schools (2002) found “consistent, positive, and convincing evidence
that families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school and throughout life”.
Special efforts and programming aimed to increase family involvement should be considered.
Researchers found that:
 The level of family involvement in the treatment and/or education of youth in juvenile
justice systems, affected successful outcomes.
 Family involvement can be a crucial element for students who are returning to school
following an institutional placement.
 As some parents of youth in correctional education settings face many challenges,
additional supports to effectively navigate systems inside and outside residential facilities
maybe required.
 Some of these challenges can be mitigated through collaboration and cross-training with
students’ families.
 Family organizations are an under used resource that can support and educate families
about the operation of youth facilities, develop their communication skills, and nurture their
desire to become more involved.
 Detention schools/ facilities also have the potential to provide educational support to family
members e.g. literacy/ numeracy.
During my visit to the Stadium View Detention School in Minneapolis, I was afforded the unique
opportunity to meet with two parents, (from the Latino and the African American communities)
whose children were incarcerated for serious gang related offences. I would like to acknowledge the
courage and commitment of both these parents, who despite their acute apprehension about
meeting with a foreigner and stranger were gracious, honest and sincere. Their heartfelt
appreciation about being able to remain involved with their children’s education was both moving
and extraordinarily convincing. Their message was very clear: Parents need to be involved with our
school.
These parents articulated the importance of knowing their children’s teachers, being able to attend
parent teacher nights, knowing their children were spending their days actively engaged in
education and the normalizing effect this common interest had on their relationships.
Both parents brought with them folders containing art work, poetry, stories and certificates of
achievement from the detention school to share with me. It was very clear that these folders were
highly prized items and represented much more than samples of school work. One mother read me
a very personal poem her son had written apologizing to her for his crime, explaining that her
involvement with the school was the catalyst for him to write to her, because “it showed him she
still cared about him”.

Along with the parents, I also met with the school Transitions Specialist, Ms Johnson, who has been
instrumental in developing the family- school connections at Stadium View. She has accrued years of
experience in successfully dealing with the complexities and intricacies of managing high stress
relationships, such as working with parents of students from rival gangs, parents who were former
gang members, high poverty and drug and alcohol issues. She has offered her services as a mentor
should we invite parental involvement.
Ms Johnson shared some of the methods she uses to attract and develop parent involvement with
the school.
These included:
 Holding school meetings in the community rather than at the facility (which parents may
find confronting).
 Invitations are sent out, and followed up with frequent reminder phone calls.
 The school pays transport costs.
 Supper is provided by the school.
 A $50 stipend is paid to those who attend.
Author, parent advocate and trainer, Bonnie Jean Smith likewise graciously attended the meeting.
Bonnie Jean is an extraordinarily high energy advocate for youth in custody and participated in the
legal action taken against the school some ten years ago. She remains highly motivated to improve
services to at risk youth and has likewise offered herself as a mentor to facilitate parental
involvement.
A family Guide to Getting Involved with Correctional Education, can be accessed at
http://www.neglected-delinquent.org/nd/resources/spotlight/familyGuide2008.asp
This generic tool encourages families to become more involved with their child’s education and
acknowledges some families may be reluctant and /or fearful. The vocabulary and language has
been chosen to ensure it is easy for families to understand. The strategies in the Family Guide are
designed to make it easier for family members to develop constructive relationships with facility
staff.
Serious consideration to facilitating parent involvement is recommended

Identifying Best Practice
Literacy
“Literacy is foundational to learning in every subject.” (Schmoker, 2011, p34). It is the most
important single goal of schooling in any nation”. (Hirsch, 2010 p.31)
A combination of the information collected during my fellowship, and current research into
adolescent reading problems suggests that there are a number of common elements in successful
reading programs that potentially represent “Best Practice” for literacy remediation in the juvenile
justice setting.
Firstly, best practice is inextricably linked to the commitment of the school to prioritise funding,
resources and specialist staffing and secondly; it is more likely to succeed, and see greater gains
when schools proactively attempt to address the social and emotional barriers young offenders have
to learning through the establishment of an SEL program, which in turn is supported by a centre
wide engagement with Positive Behavioural Intervention Strategies (PBIS) and family support.
Observations made by U.S. researchers confirm that struggling adolescent readers need different
levels of intervention depending on their reading abilities and skills deficits (Applebee, 1996).
Effective remediation is dependent upon the use of effective assessment protocols which in turn
allows for appropriate interventions to support students to maximise improvements. Variance in
student achievement is primarily determined by the amount of instruction (time) and the content
of that instruction (Vaughn, 2007).
Assessment in Reading Programs
High-quality, effective reading programs include rigorous reliable assessments including:
 Screening assessments: Brief procedures designed to identify students at high risk and in
need of further diagnosis or additional reading instruction.
 Diagnostic assessment: In-depth information on skills and instructional needs to support
planning. These assessments identify specific areas of strengths and weaknesses to
determine appropriate interventions.
 Classroom-based instructional assessments of progress: Determines if adequate progress
is made or if additional support is required.
Along with:
 Access to reading material: Promotion of reading, library programs and engaging reading
material.
Reading Problems
Reading uses an extremely complex set of skills which make large demands on the reader. Problems
with learning to read can occur alone or in combination. Typical reading problems include: specific
reading disabilities, difficulties in comprehension, limited vocabulary, a lack of reading strategies,
difficulties with the thinking skills required to construct meaning, poor accuracy, low fluency and
poor comprehension. Poor readers can be loosely categorised into three 3 distinct groups: those
with severe reading disabilities (highly deficient readers), struggling readers and non- fluent readers.
Each group requires a specific (and different) interventional focus.

Group One: Severe Reading Disabilities
“For adolescents at the initial stages of reading, intensive interventions directed toward meeting
their needs in alphabetics (phonemic awareness, word analysis, sight word recognition, fluency,
vocabulary, and strategies to encourage persistence) must be developed and delivered by teachers
trained specifically in those methods (Curtis, 1999)”. Interventions that directly improve reading
accuracy have a significant impact on comprehension (Torgesen, 2005).
Students require instruction within levelled texts across these skills:
 Phonemic awareness: To identify and manipulate individual phonemes in spoken words.
 Phonics/Decoding: To understand the predictable relationship between phonemes and
graphemes.
 Vocabulary: Listening, speaking, reading and writing vocabularies.
 Fluency and oral reading skills: Learning to read accurately and quickly and be able to
recognise and comprehend words simultaneously.
 Comprehension strategies: Purposeful strategies and active reading to enhance
understanding, remembering, and communication.
 Require between 50 and 100 minutes per day of reading instruction (Vaughn, 2007).
Effective programs emphasise: direct, systematic, intensive, and sustained reading, with:
 Explicit instructional strategies to address students’ specific strengths and weaknesses.
 Coordinated instructional sequences.
 Ample practise opportunities, student materials, and targeted instructional strategies as
appropriate.
 Employment of a variety of reading assessments, including diagnostics and progress
monitoring, making effective use of instructional time and providing multiple reading
opportunities.
Group Two: Struggling readers
Students in this group have basic mastery of decoding skills but lack strategies for identifying
complex, or multisyllabic words. Progress is hindered by limited vocabularies and this group need
explicit instruction to increase their range of sight words (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002).The focus
of literacy instruction is directed towards improving phonemic awareness, word analysis, and sight
word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and strategies to encourage persistence. (Deshler, 2006)
Effective programs emphasise:
 Intensive, systematic, explicit instruction of content, strategies, and skills.
 Opportunities for intensive practise with controlled texts and constant corrective feedback.
 Reading interventions scheduled separately from the regular school coursework.
 Direct vocabulary instruction with multiple opportunities to learn new word meanings and
activities that encourage active processing of word meanings (Curtis, 1999).
 One hour of instruction per day.

Group Three:
Non- Fluent Readers decode accurately but have poor fluency which limits comprehension. A
principal cause being a lack of accurate reading practice (Torgesen &Hudson, 2006). Intervention for
these students focuses on reading fluency, vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, higher-level
reasoning and thinking skills, cognitive strategies specific to reading comprehension, motivation and
engagement and opportunities to engage in sustained supported reading. Although it is suggested
that fluency may be learned in 100 hours, it generally requires about 50 months of instruction to
gain sufficient knowledge to bring students to grade level in reading. (Guthrie, 2004)
Effective programs emphasise:
 Fluency and meaning vocabulary (Curtis, 1999).
 Comprehension strategies with continued emphasis on vocabulary building (Deshler, 2006).
 Intensive instruction in fluency, prosody and/or comprehension strategies.
 Use of a variety of texts at the appropriate level (Curtis, 1999).
 Levelled high interest reading materials (Deshler, 2006), including unpredictable texts to
increase decoding skills (Grossen, 2004).
 At least 60 minutes daily in addition to their schedule of content classes, with opportunities
for sustained engaged reading time of 40–60 minutes daily.
Comprehension
To become purposeful, active readers capable of monitoring their own understanding of a text as it
is being read, comprehension strategy instruction is necessary for readers at all levels. Research
shows that poor readers struggle to understand idiomatic and figurative language and neither
adequately monitor their comprehension, nor employ metacognitive strategies to think about and
add to their understanding of a text.
Monitoring Comprehension
Comprehension monitoring instruction teaches students to be aware of what they understand,
identify what they do not understand, and select the appropriate strategies to resolve problems in
comprehension. Students become more aware of when they can or can’t understand a text and are
able to employ strategies to assist when needed.
Metacognition Strategies
Assist students to think about and add to their understanding of a text. These strategies include:
clarifying the purpose of the text, previewing the text, monitoring understanding, adjusting reading
speed to fit the difficulty of the text, re-reading to clarify meaning and checking for understanding
after reading.
Effective Questioning
Through targeted questioning, reading specialists can help students become actively involved in
making meaning. Questioning increases cognisance of the strategies being used to generate
answers by understanding whether the information used to answer questions was textually explicit
information, textually implicit or from the student's own background knowledge.

Suggested questioning formats:
Levels of questioning - Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) was used by several centres to enhance reading instruction and
monitor growth in comprehension (various DOK matrices are available for other subject areas).
Although there are four “levels of knowledge” the first two are the most applicable to beginner
readers and those that are below grade level.
WEBB’S Depth of Knowledge Reading Matrix: Examples
DOK Level 1: Reading (Recall of information with literal understanding of text).
Students can read words in isolation and in connected texts, read multisyllabic words, locate or
recall facts or details explicitly and identify or describe characters, setting and /or sequence of
events. Students are also able to use language/word structure e.g. prefix/suffix to determine
meaning and can select appropriate words in context (Webb and Wixson, 2002).
DOK Level 2: Basic Reasoning (Requires initial comprehension with subsequent processing of the
text or portions of the text).
Students operating at this level can use contextual clues to make meaning, predict a logical
outcome, make inferences or draw basic conclusions about text, recognise appropriate
generalisations, identify and summarise major events, determine if a text is fiction or non- fiction
and distinguish between fact and opinion. Additionally students can describe characteristics of basic
text types, obtain information from tables, side bar and charts, organise and summarise information,
locate information related to implicit or explicit central ideas in information texts and identify
literary devices such as imagery, idiom, exaggeration etc (Webb and Wixson, 2002).
DOK Level 3: Complex Reasoning (Explain, generalise and connect ideas using supporting evidence).
Students operating in this level need to be able to draw inferences about author’s purpose, message
or theme, make and support inferences and go beyond the text to explain and generalise. They must
be able to describe how word choice and point of view affects interpretation, analyse elements of
plot sub plot setting characters, analyse literacy devices and connect ideas, as well as making
inferences across or between passages using prior knowledge to make meaning (Webb and Wixson,
2002).
Level 4: (Requires complex reasoning, planning developing and thinking over an extended period of
time and may involve comparing multiple works by e.g. same author).
Reminiscent of social theories of learning and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, teachers
locate where students are operating from a matrix then adjust their instruction to incorporate
opportunities for subject specific, higher level thinking skills to be incorporated into their instruction.
If for example, a student was operating at level one, instruction would support students to
incorporate some level 2 skills such as predicting, generalising and /or summarising. Students are
therefore provided with opportunities to achieve with help that which they are unable to achieve
alone.

Additional Recommendations from the Center for Reading Research Florida State University 2007:
1. Reading programs are enhanced by well supported general classroom programs with:
Standards and accountability, clear expectations, strategies for monitoring progress, reading
programs that connect meaningfully to supplemental materials, grouping strategies that are
flexible with placement, movement based on ongoing assessment, active student engagement
in a variety of reading-based activities and high levels of on task time.
2. Reading programs are monitored by reading practitioners who:
Know how contributory learning difficulties relate to literacy acquisition, understand and
demonstrate competency in all essential components of reading instruction (phonemic
awareness, phonics progressions, vocabulary, oral reading skills, reading fluency and
comprehension strategies), understand the relationships between the essential components
and the progression in which they should be taught and demonstrate competency in teaching
the underlying structure of the English language. They should also be able to administer and
interpret assessments of student progress, use data and observations to direct programming
and instruction, manage their classrooms and support staff to maximize time on task and have
access to ongoing professional development.
3. Literacy coaches to support teachers:
Schools need both general as well as domain-specific reading specialists to provide customized
support to help teachers meet the needs of a diverse array of learners and for developing and
managing systems of diagnosis, curriculum assessment, and professional development within a
school. (Lee, 2001).Having a site-based, well-trained literacy coach or reading specialist to
provide ongoing guidance and support to teachers is essential. (Vaughn, 2007)

Summary:
Literacy instruction within the juvenile detention setting has unique restrictions and requirements;
however, those elements considered paramount to delivering effective literacy programs to
disadvantaged students can be summarised as:
 Students are assessed using reliable screening tools.
 Instruction is based on diagnostic assessment.
 Instruction is regular and individualised.
 Instruction is delivered by skilled practitioners.
 Opportunities for students to consolidate skills are provided.
 Interventions are determined by ongoing formative assessment.
 Provision of a range of appropriate interventions for the different phases of literacy
acquisition e.g. decoding, fluency, vocabulary comprehension, writing and analytical
processes.
 Support remains available to students until they are reading at an age appropriate level.
 Additional instruction in subject specific literacy skills is incorporated in subject areas.
 Has school-wide support and commitment to uphold the integrity of the program's
instructional approach and materials once programs are implemented.
 Allows/provides opportunities for family involvement.

Numeracy
Providing appropriate instruction and remediation for young offenders is complicated by the high
level of disability within this population, histories of poor school attendance and an underlying fear
of mathematics. Curriculum offerings, just as with literacy, will differ between groups, with “best
practice” reflecting the needs of each of these different groups. The scope of the curriculum offered
must therefore reflect the capabilities of each student with sufficient flexibility to cater for students
wanting to complete year 12, or enter the work force, or simply manage their affairs.
Poor numeracy has been linked to low literacy by the National Adult Literacy and Learning
Disabilities Center in the U.S. (1995) which estimates that 50 to 80 percent of students in Adult Basic
Education and literacy programs also have difficulties with numeracy. These difficulties may appear
as difficulty with conceptual understandings, counting sequences, written number symbol systems,
the language of maths, basic number facts, procedural steps of computation, application of
arithmetic skills, and problem-solving skills (Garnett, 1992).
The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers defines numeracy as “the ability to use
mathematics effectively to meet the general demands of life at home, in paid work, and for
participation in community and civic life”. With nearly all young offenders working below grade level
and a significant proportion of these without mastery of the basic operations, appropriate
interventions / remediations to facilitate numeracy will differ between individuals and be based on a
number of considerations.
Mathematics learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with sensory impairment, intellectual
disability, social-emotional disturbances and be influenced by socio-environmental factors, cultural
differences, insufficient / inappropriate instruction, or attention deficit disorders (Garnett, 1992),
and may include language processing problems, visual spatial confusion, memory and sequence
difficulties, and or unusually high anxiety" (Bliss, 2000).
Just as with literacy remediation, there are several levels of “need” within the juvenile justice
population ranging from students needing instruction in basic counting skills to providing assistance
to students who are just below grade level. An effective screening tool is therefore the first
requirement to ensure students’ needs are rapidly identified, and should be used in conjunction with
skill specific assessments to inform individual programming and interventions.
NDTAC Assessment recommendations for Numeracy: (National Evaluation and Technical Assistance
Center for the Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk)
recommends a multiphase assessment protocol that includes: screening assessment, diagnostic
testing, curriculum based assessment and curriculum based measures.

Screening Assessment: NDTAC
recommends a general assessment of mathematics skills should be administered within 5 days
of entry into a facility. The assessment should be broad and brief. Test items should accurately
align to the content priorities of the curriculum standards. A widely used test is the
Woodcock–Johnson 111. Also recommended was the “WRAT 4” Wide Range Achievement Test
(Math Computation) which measures an individual's ability to perform basic mathematics
computations through counting, identifying numbers, solving simple oral problems, and
calculating written mathematics problems.
Diagnostic Testing:
Should be based on the needs and strengths identified in the initial screening test and provide
in- depth follow- up diagnostic testing of areas of particular strength or weakness to provide the
focus for foundational skills remediation. Test appropriateness is essential and should assess
across all relevant content and process standards. Reliability and validity of tests should be
considered and explained to consumers of reports.
Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA):
Formative Assessment which relates to curriculum can be used to measure the instructional
impact and allow for changes to instruction. It can also be used to determine if the student has
reached a level of mastery of the instructional objectives.
Curriculum Based Measure (CBM):
CBA measures are sensitive to changes over a short period and can be normed. They have
features such as timed, standardized administration and can be repeated to provide progress
monitoring (NDTAC, 2010) for both student and teacher.
Early Numeracy Skills
There are several factors to consider when providing early numeracy interventions to adolescents.
Firstly, unlike very young children, they arrive with an assortment of numeracy strategies that may
have been taught or may have been self generated. They may also have a number of misconceptions
and incorrect and/ or inefficient procedural skills that have been reinforced over many years by
repeating the same mistake or using a cumbersome method. “Un- learning” these can be time
consuming and challenging for both the teacher and the student. Additionally, there can be
resistance to concrete materials that are seen as babyish, a reluctance to try more challenging
activities due to fear of failure, a degree of embarrassment and fear of ridicule, and often an acute
dislike maths.
Dyscalculia
While it is not unusual for students to report having previously been diagnosed with dyslexia, it is
uncommon for students to report a previous diagnosis of dyscalculia. Dyscalculia, that is, a
significant discrepancy between chronological age and maths skills of usually two or more years; is
defined by the Department for Education and Skills (U.S.A. 2001) as:
“A condition that affects the ability to acquire arithmetical skills, and difficulty
understanding simple number concepts, lacking an intuitive grasp of numbers, and problems
learning number facts and procedures”.
With widespread low awareness of dyscalculia, it may be overlooked or misdiagnosed as dyslexia,
with consequently, poorly targeted interventions provided to students.

Whilst inadequate instruction, intellectual disability and/or cultural differences may account for
some of the poor numeracy skills in young offenders, dyscalculia may in fact be the underlying
diagnosis. Increased familiarity with the indicators of dyscalculia is therefore recommended.
Common Indicators for Learners with Dyscalculia
 Counting on fingers to answer simple questions. Unable to do maths in head.
 Confusing maths symbols or performing them in the wrong order.
 Misinterpreting graphs and charts.
 Chronically late or early.
 Difficulty keeping score in games.
 Limited strategic planning abilities.
 Difficulty distinguishing numbers on a clock and following a schedule.
 Omitting steps in calculations/difficulty in following sequential procedures and directions in
maths steps.
 Errors with writing, reading and recalling numbers e.g. substitutions, omissions, reversals.
 Inconsistent results when adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.
 Inconsistent results when recalling number facts.
 Difficulties with abstract concepts of time and direction.
 Inability to recall schedules and sequences of past or future events.
 Inability to visualise.
 Appear absent minded or lost in thought.
 Difficulty with left right orientation.
 Difficulty understanding mathematical concepts in word problems.
 Confusing part to whole relationships.
 Difficulty in calculating change and budgeting (Dyscalculia .org, 2011).
As with other learning disabilities, there are a number of strategies that can assist maths disabled
students. Garnett, Frank, & Fleischner (1983) suggest:
 Reduction of memory load by providing manageable amounts of practice work.
 Reduction of processing demands by pre-teaching component skills and by teaching easier
knowledge and skills before teaching difficult knowledge and skills.
 Reducing interference between concepts and strategies by separating practice opportunities
until the discriminations between them is learned.
 Using uncluttered worksheets and graph paper to avoid visual overload and keep numbers in
line.
 Supervising practice to prevent students from practicing misconceptions and “misrules.”
 Building retention by providing frequent review.
 Helping students to "visualize" maths problems by drawing a picture.
 Using visual and auditory examples and real-life situations.
 Connecting practice of sub-skills to the performance of the whole task and what the student
has learned about mathematical relationships to what the student will learn.
 Teaching thinking strategies from one fact to another.
 Using interactive and intensive practice with age-appropriate games as motivational
materials.

 Having students track their progress- which facts are mastered and which are still to be
learned.
 Ensuring that skills to be practiced can be completed independently with high levels of
success. (Bliss, 2000)
Other Considerations – Cultural Awareness:
Numeracy skills can be particularly challenging for students whose traditional number system differs
from the Base 10 system. Aboriginal students with a traditional Pitjantjatjara background for
example, may have a culturally different understanding of numbers. Pitjantjatjara small numbers are
formed as composite numbers, using combinations of one, two and three until they become too
unwieldy, e.g. four is kutjara-kutjara, two and two, while precision with large numbers is rarely
required and these are therefore simply referred to as “tjuta” (lots) (DETE, n.d.). With a very short
“mental number-line” the relational patterns between numbers becomes less obvious. While many
students can for example, “see” that 15 lies midway between 10 and 20, this may not be apparent to
a student who sees 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 as “lots” and thus the same.
Cognisance of these cultural differences is essential, as numeracy instruction for these students may
require significant pre teaching of skills such as counting/skip- counting, number lines and number
bonds to 20. Experience suggests that daily exposure to work that is minutely graduated and ensures
repeated success, is effective in promoting these basic skills. Of note is the observation that in
contrast with standard practice where students are encouraged to make abstractions from the
manipulation of concrete materials, a number of students proclaim these to be both distracting and
confusing preferring to focus on a single repetitive task until a level of mastery has been achieved
and then apply it to a variety of situations. Similar anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be
significant, was reported by Haslam (2007), and highlights the importance of responding to
individual learner preferences and employing an adaptable pedagogy. Best practice (and teacher
pedagogy) may well look different for different learners.
Numeracy Instruction:
Instruction for low level numeracy should aim to quickly:
 Improve foundational skills.
 Improve procedural fluency.
 Improve conceptual understanding.
 Students with significant foundational gaps need intensive specialised instruction that
focuses on essential areas of knowledge. N.B. These students are remarkably unsuccessful
learning mathematics in larger group settings (Leone et. al, 2010).
 Access to individual instruction that supplements regular class room instruction. “Even a
fairly small amount of time in an intensive intervention can make a difference for students”.
 Instruction should be intensive and scheduled regularly for an extended period of time and
be targeted to address the student’s identified needs.
Instruction for more competent students should:
 Promote competence in applying mathematical skills to authentic problems by creating
meaningful activities relevant to the student’s life.

Instruction for students approaching grade level should include:
 Access to grade level material, concepts and domains.
 With high expectations for achievement.
N.B. Whilst small group instruction can be an excellent model; it relies on responsibility and self-
control on the part of all students for it to be successful. Its value is therefore minimal to students
who are yet to display these attributes.
Instructional Recommendations for Numeracy Teaching NDTAC:
1. Mathematics proficiency and numeracy attainment is hierarchical: New skills must be
based on understanding previously learned foundational skills.
2. Review and reteach foundational skills.
3. Lessons should be focussed on just one skill or concept: each part of the lesson should
introduce and reinforce that skill or concept.
4. Present new information in small steps: provide just enough for students to “get a taste for
it” AND have success with it.
5. Use questioning and feedback loops to monitor learning: Students should have numerous
opportunities to explain their thinking both orally and by writing, though the use of open
ended “why” type questions.
6. Use explicit instruction by knowledgeable teachers to teach new numeracy skills and grade
appropriate maths concepts including teacher - directed instruction, modelling of target
skills, guided practice and independent practice.( “I, We, You” model)
7. Corrective feedback: students must receive corrective feedback.
8. Follow-up/ reinforce: revise and extend (if ready) the following lesson.
9. Provide instruction that is flexible, with teachers providing week long instructional units.
10. Use guided and independent practice to review acquired skills: Use “ticket- out” strategy at
end of lesson to review lesson content with 5 quick questions that must be answered before
leaving class.
11. Use and teach explicit problem solving strategies: Provide students with a “how to” plan to
solve problems e.g. Firstly read and understand the problem, then identify what information
has been provided, then identify what information is missing, draw a pictorial
representation, then solve the problem.
12. Create a language rich environment: Explicitly teach the vocabulary around numeracy, use
authentic resources such as newspapers etc. for data problems and analysis.
13. Provide professional development opportunities to strengthen teachers’ understanding of
mathematics and basic numeracy.
14. Establish a culture that celebrates the importance of mathematics and numeracy.
15. Devote sufficient resources to support changes in instructional practice.

Some considerations for the instruction of subtraction for students with Learning
Disabilities:
The most common operational skill requiring remediation for students in South Australia’s detention
centres is subtraction. For many students this has been a significant barrier to their progress in
numeracy. A majority of students are unable to subtract when numerals in the subtrahend are larger
than the corresponding numerals in the minuend, and nearly all students have difficulty once a zero
is placed in the minuend.
In South Australia the preferred method of instruction for subtraction is the decomposition method,
and whilst there is merit in demonstrating from where the extra values come; students with learning
disabilities tend to find this method difficult to understand and use independently, as it requires a
number of different decisions to be made depending on the numeral in the minuend i.e. a
subtraction problem may require a one, two or three step procedure. Additionally, as most learning
disabled students have difficulty keeping their working out neat; this method’s visual “messiness”
frequently results in place value columns being compromised.
Special Education researchers at Macquarie University recommend the equal addition method as an
excellent alternative i.e. one up one down / borrow and pay back. Anecdotally, my experience
confirms this, with most students who have been taught this method able to accurately subtract 4
digit numbers from four digit numbers within a single lesson. The equal addition method is
procedurally consistent and if a numeral in the subtrahend is larger than its corresponding numeral
in the minuend “one up one down” is used. The subtraction procedure remains consistent and the is
working out remains neater.
There has been however, one possibility for confusion with this method – i.e. the “one” added to the
minuend represents (depending on which column it is in) 10, 100 or 100 etc. so for example, 6 in the
units column becomes 16, while the additional “one” paid back to the subtrahend increases the
value of that numeral in the tens column by one e.g. 7 would become 8. This is indicated by using a
“1” in front of each number during the procedure and typically any confusion that arises will be
around whether this “7” becomes a “17” or an “8”.
Recently, a learning disabled student at Cavan generated a more elegant procedure which is brilliant
in its simplicity. It may assist other students struggling with subtraction.
The Cavan Solution:
When the student “pays back” to the next column in the subtrahend, rather than placing a “one” in
front of the number to be altered, simply cross it out and rewrite the adjusted number (n+1) below.
This immediate adjustment prevents confusion:
 When the student returns to work on that column, the value is clearly recorded and no
further decisions are required.
 By recording the new numeral below the subtrahend it remains visually neat.
This simple improvement removes the only element of confusion and makes this method perfect for
students with learning disabilities or those that find the decomposition method confusing.

The comment I hear repeatedly is “How come no one ever showed me how to do it like this before-
it’s simple...” Within a few sessions of reinforcement most students reach mastery. Removing this
enormous barrier improves their confidence and tends to inspire them to keep working on their
maths skills.
Decomposition
Students may find it difficult to keep this neatly organised and it requires a number of decisions to
be made.
Equal Addition Method
As can be seen in this example:
The one in front of the 9 could be interpreted as a 19.
While the one in front of the 3 might be seen as a 13?

The “Cavan Method”
Makes it very clear that the 9 becomes 10
And the 3 becomes 4.

So simple! I wish I had thought of it myself.

Staffing
All juvenile justice schools visited, acknowledged the imperative of intensive specialist support for
literacy. In order to maintain their federal funding they are required to employ Reading Specialists
who “must possess suitable qualifications for engaging in consulting, clinical, or remedial work”.
There are 4 levels of reading specialist: Special Teacher of Reading, Reading Clinician, Reading
Consultant, and Reading Director/Supervisor. Reading specialists are required to have a planned
Master’s degree, while clinicians, consultants and directors are required to have a total of 6 years
post graduate study.
Reading Specialists: Are responsible for remedial/ corrective reading instruction and:
 Identify students needing diagnosis and/or remediation.
 Plan programs of remediation from data gathered through diagnosis.
 Implement programs of remediation.
 Evaluate student progress in remediation.
 Interpret student needs and progress to the classroom teacher and the parents.
 Plan and implement developmental or advanced programs as necessary.
All specialists must have a Master's Degree that includes at least one course in each of the following:
The psychology of reading. Diagnostic instruments
Standard and informal tests.
Observation and interview
procedures.
Causes of reading disabilities. Psychology: personality,
cognition, and learning
behaviours.
2 + courses in the diagnosis and
correction of reading disabilities.
Measurement and/or evaluation. Child and/or adolescent
psychology.
Literature for children and/or
adolescents.
Reading- instructional techniques. Materials and methods of
instruction.
Diagnose and treat disability cases
under supervision.
Diagnosis and correction of
reading disabilities.
Report writing. Observation and interview
procedures.

Paraprofessionals
In the U.S. as in South Australia, the role of the paraprofessional was very highly valued by both staff
and students, with each centre employing a number of paraprofessionals to assist with curriculum
delivery. There were however, significant differences in the scope of work paraprofessionals were
able to undertake. Federal funding requirements defines the role of the paraprofessional and
outlines how, when and where they are able to work with students.
These restrictions were partly in response to some 43 (approx.) legal cases taken against schools in
the past twenty five years and to several studies indicating that schools could be considered
vulnerable to litigation on the grounds of discrimination if paraprofessionals were used to teach
and assist in teaching when their educational backgrounds did not qualify them for such
responsibilities. Additionally, it was suggested that claims based on discrimination might be possible
when students were passed over to paraprofessionals instead of remaining with the teacher. That is,
effectively allowing the most complex and educationally needy students to spend more of their
instructional time with paraprofessionals than with qualified teachers.
Limitations include (US Department of Education, 2004):
 With the exception of facilitating computer based screening assessments,
paraprofessionals are not permitted to assess student progress.
 Individual instruction limited to skills practice under the direct teacher supervision.
 All remedial instruction must be delivered by a teacher.
Paraprofessionals are not permitted to:
 Provide planned direct instruction.
 Introduce new skills.
 Introduce new concepts.
 Introduce new academic content.
Paraprofessionals may:
 Provide instructional support under the direct supervision of a qualified teacher.
 May provide one-on-one tutoring at a time when the student is not otherwise
receiving instruction from a teacher.
 May assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional materials.
 Provide instructional assistance in a computer laboratory.
 Conduct parental involvement activities.
 Provide instructional support in a library or media centre.
 Act as a translator.
Since 2002, paraprofessionals have been required to have formal qualifications to work in U.S.
schools and since 2006 have been required to meet these new standards and work within clearly
defined roles. Paraprofessionals must now have completed 2 years study at an institution of higher
education; or have an associate’s (or higher) degree; or demonstrate through a formal academic
assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics
(Paraprofessionals Guidance US Department of Education, 2004). Those students deemed to require
the most help must now only receive instruction from qualified staff.

[USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report.

[USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Similar to [USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report.

Similar to [USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report. (20)

More from Linkedin Education of Children in Care Network

More from Linkedin Education of Children in Care Network (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

[USA & Canada] Sinclair, R. (2011). “To evaluate literacy and numeracy programs offered to Indigenous and disadvantaged youths in juvenile detention centres – USA and Canada”. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia Churchill Fellow Report.