Effective Instructional Practices in Juvenile Justice Facilities

Effective Instructional Practices in Juvenile Justice Facilities Sarup R. Mathur Arizona State University Naomi Schoenfeld Rivier College ABSTRACT: The majority of youths involved with the juvenile justice system struggle to make academic progress. This article reviews the characteristics of youths in these settings and highlights evidence-based instructional practices that are effective with struggling students, as well as practices that have been documented as successful in secure facilities. Implications regarding how these practices may be taught to facility teachers and security officers are presented, and suggestions for measuring the effects of such practices are offered. Effective Instructional Practices in Juvenile Justice Facilities Within the broad spectrum of services provided by juvenile justice systems, the education of adjudicated youth has perhaps the greatest long-term influence. Academic performance is an important predictor of delinquency and recidivism (Maguin & Loeber, 1996), for without academic skills, youth in juvenile justice systems face a host of social and economic difficulties upon release, and are at an elevated risk for lifelong failure (Scott et al., 2002). For researchers and educators who focus on students with emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD), the education of youth in juvenile facilities is of particular importance— the overlap between juvenile delinquency and the current federal definition of E/BD (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004) is significant (Merrell & Walker, 2004). Prior to entering the judicial system, many adjudicated youth accumulate negative school experiences that include truancy, dropping out, suspension, expulsion, and other forms of academic failure. Wang, Blomberg, and Li (2005) compared the educational deficiencies of a statewide sample of delinquent students and a matched sample of nondelinquent students. Their findings indicated that compared with nondelinquent peers, delinquent students (a) attained lower grade point averages, (b) had poorer school attendance records, (c) were retained more often in the same 20 / November 2010 grade, and (d) received more school disciplinary actions. Similarly, in an extensive study of the academic characteristics of delinquent youth, Foley (2001) found that students in juvenile justice systems were characterized by a low to average range of intellectual functioning, fifth- to ninth-grade academic performance, significant delays in reading, math, and language, and school failure. According to a national survey (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005), approximately onethird of incarcerated youth have identified disabilities. Other estimates of disability prevalence range from 40% to 70% (Bullis, Yovanoff, Mueller, & Havel, 2002). Indeed, the extensive nature of the academic difficulties in this population has led juvenile justice settings to be described as default systems for housing youth who cannot read, write, or relate with others (Nelson, 2000). (For a full review of the characteristics of adjudicated youth, see Gagnon & Barber, 2010) Practitioners and researchers alike have repeatedly noted the need for effective instructional practices that address academic deficits and improve educational outcomes for students in juvenile correctional schools. In a survey of teachers in juvenile facilities in Louisiana, Houchins, Puckett-Patterson, Crosby, Shippen, and Jolivette (2009) found that academic-related concerns (e.g., unrealistic curriculum that fails to meet the needs of the students, a lack of student ability or desire to engage in required tasks) were seen as a major barrier to providing incarcerated youth Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 with quality education. Teachers in these settings also reported that the heterogeneity of their classrooms had a negative effect on reaching instructional goals. The lack of emphasis on effective instructional practices in juvenile correctional schools stands in contrast to wider education and special education reforms of recent years, which stress that all children and youth are entitled to an education that is appropriately adapted to meet any disability-related needs they may have (IDEA, 2004; Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002; No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act, 2002). A by-product of this deficit is the rising number of court cases alleging that correctional schools may not be providing satisfactory special education support: class-action litigation seeking improved educational services for incarcerated youth has been filed in more than 25 states under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) and continues to appear regularly. As of 2005, over forty class action lawsuits related to inadequate special education services in juvenile and adult corrections had been documented by the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice (EDJJ, 2010). Successful implementation of quality academic programs in juvenile correctional facilities is complicated not only by the characteristics of struggling youth, but also by the nature of secure juvenile facilities (EDJJ, 2010; Houchins, Jolivette, Shippen, & Lambert, 2010; Nelson, Jolivette, Leone, & Mathur, 2010). Certainly, adjudicated youth bring skill deficits, severe behavioral issues, and mental health challenges that present difficulties in educational programming (Gagnon & Barber, 2010); however, at the same time, many secure juvenile facilities are held accountable to security and safety considerations that can supersede educational efforts (EDJJ, 2010). This emphasis limits the capacity of facilities to support appropriate educational interventions for the youth in their care. Facilities also struggle with curricular and policy issues (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009) and high rates of teacher turnover (Houchins, Shippen, & Jolivette, 2006) which place additional limitations on their ability to respond effectively to youths’ educational needs. More than ten years ago, Elrod and Ryder (1999) described teachers in correctional settings as lacking the training needed to perform their jobs; today, correctional educaBehavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 tors continue to call for additional professional development that would allow them to better meet the needs of their students (Mathur, Griller Clark, & Schoenfeld, 2009; Rutherford, Mathur, & Griller Clark, 2003). A lack of ongoing professional development opportunities that are embedded in the juvenile correctional school culture (Mathur et al., 2009) only adds to these challenges. Difficulties at the institutional level can be daunting; however, it is precisely the institutional nature of these educational failures that provides room for optimism. It suggests that specific, attainable, program-based changes have the potential to make a genuine difference in the educational outcomes of youth in juvenile justice settings. In other words, education programs in juvenile correctional settings offer clear and untapped potential to provide new educational opportunities that will enhance instruction and classroom environments in ways that will better meet the learning needs of their students. The Need for Effective Instruction Effective instruction in juvenile correctional settings must take into account a host of factors, including students’ perceptions of their academic competencies, their levels of motivation, background knowledge, and interests. From a cognitive perspective, effective instruction should stimulate students’ prior learning and employ strategies that unite prior knowledge with new learning objectives (Mestre & Cocking, 2000). From a social-emotional perspective, effective instruction must create a climate that promotes (a) positive teacherstudent relationships, (b) positive peer relationships, (c) a personal sense of self, and (d) an ability to manage emotions. These social and emotional factors influence youths’ abilities to process the information they encounter in the educational setting, to make meaningful connections with the information, and to further direct the learning process (Becker & Luthar, 2002). Effective instruction takes contextual factors into account through a curriculum that relates to the youth and their characteristics. Incarcerated youth may have lived in neighborhoods or with families where few adults have worked consistently or pursued advanced education (Frey, Greenblatt, & Brown, 2007). They may need instruction in functional social, independent living, and vocational skills in November 2010 / 21 order to interact appropriately with others, find and hold a job, and live independently in communities. Most importantly, however, they need the opportunity to find their own reasons for becoming literate—reasons that go beyond reading for factual knowledge or to conform to immediate academic requirements and that have functional value and meaning. They need to find the reasons that education and work will be important in their lives. The populations of juvenile correctional schools are not static, but rather, change constantly as adjudicated youth move through facilities. The average length of attendance in juvenile correctional schools is 9 months to a year (Gagnon et al., 2009). As a result, educational staff must work creatively, providing quality instruction in unconventional ways that may be impossible in traditional school settings. Alternative forms of educational programming, such as structured opportunities to prepare for general equivalency diplomas (GED), recover high school credit, or work toward college requirements, are all viable paths to high school completion for youth who attend school under such changing conditions. However, obtaining a GED should not be the only focus of instruction, as this is contrary to NCLB (2002) and IDEA (2004) provisions that emphasize access to the general education curriculum. Faced with the challenge of such philosophical disconnects, juvenile correctional education programs should work toward the long-term success of their students through a three-pronged approach to improvement: (a) the use of evidence-based instructional practices; (b) providing professional development that supports such practice; and (c) systems of accountability that can determine whether a given practice is indeed effective. Evidenced-Based Instructional Practices Given the paucity of studies that examine instructional practices in juvenile facilities (Harris, Baltodano, Artiles, & Rutherford, 2006), the lack of a clear conception of best practice in correctional schools is not surprising. Youth in correctional facilities share many traits with their nonincarcerated peers with E/BD and other special needs; the literature on effective strategies for these students therefore provides a starting point for the selection of effective instructional practices. In a meta-analysis of intervention 22 / November 2010 research, Swanson (2001) called attention to eight features of instruction that are relevant to adolescents with learning disabilities: (a) sequencing of the lesson unit; (b) step-by-step prompts; (c) drill/repetition/feedback on critical aspects; (d) questioning; (e) individualization; (f) breaking down the lesson into smaller segments and connecting them with prior knowledge; (g) integration of technology; and (h) small group instruction. Jolivette et al. (2008) have pointed out that instruction for students in juvenile corrections should be matched to each student’s current functional skill levels. Other current practices that maximize instructional effectiveness include providing consistent reinforcement for successful performance of academic tasks, and helping teachers minimize misuse of time and maximize youth engagement in learning. Increasing student engagement through active responding or increasing opportunities to respond are also key factors in academic achievement for all students (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984). In addition to these wider strategies, specific instructional methods ranging from the way teachers interact with students during teaching to peer tutoring (Falk & Wehby, 2001) can be helpful in educating youth with E/BD, whether they receive their instruction in a correctional setting or a public school. Appropriate use of whole group and small group instruction, collaborative and structured peer activities, and individual work embedded in a brisk pace of instruction along with multiple opportunities for feedback are ways to increase instructional effectiveness (Jolivette et al., 2008). A recent study by Mastropieri, Scruggs, and others (2009) provides an example of using a combination of instructional strategies. Twelve adolescents with E/BD were taught persuasive writing using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model. This model uses six phases of instruction: (a) develop background knowledge, (b) discuss, (c) model, (d) memorize, (e) support, and (f) provide independent practice. Students were taught the ‘POW + TREE strategy,’ that employs self-regulation skills of goal setting, self-instruction, and self-monitoring. POW represents the planning and organizational component, where P stands for planning or picking an idea, O for organization, and W for writing or saying more. TREE focuses on the Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 persuasive aspects of writing, in which T is the topic sentence (tell what you believe in), R is reasons (write three or more reasons), E for explanations (provide reasons for why you believe in this topic), and E for ending (wrap up your writing). The researchers found substantial improvements in the quality of students’ persuasive essays with respect to overall quality, number of words, sentences, and essay parts. Despite some promising results, the most ignored area in this literature continues to be writing skills for struggling adolescents with E/BD (Lane, 2004). While certain methods, such as teachermediated direct instruction, consistently have produced academic gains in students with E/ BD (Pierce, Reid, & Epstein, 2004), it is important to note that effective instruction is not simply a matter of choosing one ‘‘best’’ instructional method. Billingsley, Scheurmann, and Webber (2009) compared three instructional methods for teaching math to secondary students with E/BD: (a) teacher directed instruction, (b) computer assisted instruction, and (c) a combination of these approaches. Their findings supported the use of all these interventions for students with E/BD, with no single treatment receiving best results for all students. Each method worked well for some pupils; however, the combined method seemed to result in generally better test performance compared to the other two methods. The combined use of direct instruction and strategy instruction, already well established as an evidence-based practice in diverse educational settings with struggling learners, also is supported by research in secure care settings (Jolivette et al., 2008). These are complementary practices; direct instruction focuses on skill acquisition and enhancement and strategy instruction focuses on teaching higher-order thinking skills. In a six-week summer reading intervention targeting delinquent youth’s literacy skills, a direct instruction approach to reading that included vocabulary and comprehension activities, mentors reading books aloud, and independent reading resulted in achievement gains in reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension for forty-five youth with and without disabilities (Leone & Malmgren, 1999). This instructional combination also has been effective in teaching mathematics. Mulcahy and Gagnon (2008) found that incorporating direct instruction and strategy instruction into problem-solving, coupled with the use of realBehavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 world situations, fostered the understanding of mathematics of students with E/BD that generalized beyond the classroom. Professional Development in Instructional Practices Pre-service teacher education that includes a wide variety of best practice strategies and approaches is one way to promote the use of evidence-based practices in the classrooms of educators. In a study of mathematics instruction in secondary education, Maccini and Gagnon (2006) found that the number of methods courses taken by teachers and instructors’ knowledge of course topics added to the instructional flexibility of teachers and contributed to the number of instructional practices and accommodations they used. If students in juvenile correctional settings are to receive instruction that engages them in learning and facilitates their future success, the personnel who teach them must be fully prepared to provide high-quality educational and related services. While pre-service teacher training can provide an invaluable foundation to new educators entering correctional settings, research-based teaching materials and meaningful professional development opportunities must be made available to teachers and other instructional personnel who are already working with students in juvenile correctional schools. Educators in the juvenile justice system must engage in a continual process of professional enhancement. Desimone (2009) articulated core features of effective professional development, including: (a) content focus, (b) active professional learning opportunities, (c) sufficient duration of learning opportunities, (d) coherence (the degree to which learning opportunities are consistent with teacher beliefs), (e) knowledge about the practice and relationship with student outcome, and (f) collective participation. Similarly, Mathur et al. (2009, p. 168) drew a distinction between true professional development in correctional settings and the more commonplace in-service workshops or conferences, observing that the latter ‘‘all too often … are applied as ad hoc or onetime events … Educators who attend these events are exposed to new strategies or techniques, but without systemic follow up and support, they may experience great difficulty in incorporating these strategies in the long run.’’ Teachers in juvenile correctional settings need November 2010 / 23 relevant professional experiences that are most likely to enhance their instructional capacity and contribute to student learning—and once introduced, advances made through professional development must receive continuous support within the system. Although the specific features of effective professional development in correctional education remain unidentified, the professional development provided for traditional general and special education teachers appear applicable. For example, mentoring and coaching have been established as key structures to effective professional development (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). When mentoring and coaching are embedded in a professional learning context, mentors and mentees come together and engage in an active exchange of knowledge and experience about instructional strategies. They observe, comment, question, and reflect on their own practices. Because this is an intentional and learning-focused process, it has benefit for both mentors and mentees (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), as well as for the students they serve. Mentoring can also stretch beyond the borders of a single physical location. New technologies, such as videoconferencing, e-coaching and mentoring, and online social networking have tremendous potential for reaching broader audiences and should be explored where adequate numbers of highly competent mentors and coaches are difficult to find (Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). To create cohesive and collective professional learning opportunities in juvenile justice settings, correctional facilities also must consider the roles that correctional educators play in professional development leadership and recognize and reward expert teachers who become involved in the professional development process. It also is important that correctional educators connect with their peers in the public school system. Educational practice in correctional institutions often exists in isolation from surrounding schools and communities of practice. To enhance collaboration with the public school system, professional opportunities could be shared, with correctional educators bringing to area schools their wealth of experience in engaging reluctant learners. One measure of the benefits of collective participation would be the identification of factors within each system that support the implementation of knowledge and positive student outcomes. 24 / November 2010 Accountability Missing from much of juvenile correctional education is a component of ongoing systematic evaluation that can help determine which current practices are working and which are not. Accountability is more than a political discussion. Implemented in a thoughtful manner, it allows educational systems to clearly examine their progress toward desired goals in a useful and unbiased manner, and to sort through the complex situational and instructional variables that guide decision making. Juvenile correctional educators work with student populations that are academically, behaviorally, and culturally diverse. To succeed, they must use every means possible to select instructional experiences that are most likely lead to successful student outcomes. Response to intervention (RtI), a student centered, multitiered model that is garnering interest among educational practitioners, is one model that can be used to evaluate the usefulness of a given intervention. This model is designed to meet the needs of each student through a cyclical sequence of assessment and intervention that begins before the student has reached the levels of academic failure often required before more traditional special education evaluations are initiated. The specific approaches used to implement RtI vary from setting to setting, but the core components include: (a) providing high quality instruction to all students, (b) conducting universal screening to identify students who may need specific interventions, (c) providing increasingly intensive interventions to students who continue to exhibit areas of need, and (d) the use of ongoing monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions used. The improved conditions for learning that result from these practices make RtI a promising model for correctional educational settings. Despite more than ten years of research on the nature and benefits of basing practice on outcomes, programming based on a structure of educational accountability continues to be the exception rather than the rule in correctional settings. To benefit from accountability efforts, correctional educators must foster an evidence-based mindset that includes databased decision making, and a commitment to the instructional practices that data identify as effective. In assessing instruction, it is important to know how much effect/change specific instructional practices produce in students’ Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 performance, as well as the quality of effect/ change these practices achieve (Mathur et al., 2009). Doing so requires careful and systematic planning, support from leadership, determination to help educators apply evidencebased instructional practices, and continuous evaluation of instructional impact on youth success. Once accountability takes its place at the forefront of decision-making, instructional focus naturally shifts to improving student academic learning and positive social and behavioral outcomes. The push toward accountability in educational outcomes is not unique to correctional settings. Public schools have also experienced a dramatic shift in accountability requirements placed upon them in recent years. Indeed, this is one area ripe for collaboration between public schools that have successfully implemented accountability in their own systems, and correctional education systems approaching the complexities of productive accountability for the first time. In addition to simple information sharing on accountability experiences, effective school reentry for youth returning to their communities requires thoughtful collaboration that includes shared accountability for reentry success between the two systems. Correctional and community systems of education must partner together to understand the importance of school reentry, as well as issues that affect the educational progress of youth in transition—such as the transfer of educational records, the importance of family involvement, the need for individualized services—and provide assistance and supports as needed. If both systems work together in tracking youth progress on reentry, the increased collaboration will not only enhance the flow of information between the two systems, but will also provide vital support for youth in both settings. Conclusion To succeed in providing a high-quality education to adjudicated youth with special needs, correctional facilities must change their focus from an emphasis on custodial care to the academic success of students in their schools. Emerging research continues to provide new information on evidence-based instructional practices that can be implemented with students in juvenile corrections, making professional development a key factor Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 in maintaining correctional educators’ familiarity with current best practice and their capacity to put these practices into place. By combining exceptional practice with accountability systems that monitor what works and what needs to be changed in their settings, correctional educators can improve the outcomes for youth entrusted to their care. REFERENCES Becker, B., & Luthar, S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist, 37, 197– 214. Billingsley, G., Scheuermann, B., & Webber, J. (2009). A comparison of three instructional methods for teaching math skills to secondary students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 4–18. Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., Mueller, G., & Havel, E. (2002). Life on the ‘‘outs’’: Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated youth. Exceptional Children, 69, 7–22. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199. Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (1999). Juvenile justice: A social, historical, and legal perspective. Aspen, CO: Aspen. Falk, K. B., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effects of peer assisted learning strategies on the beginning reading skills of young children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 344–359. Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248–259. Frey, L., Greenblatt, S., & Brown, J. (2007). A call to action: An integrated approach to youth permanency and preparation for adulthood. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Gagnon, J. C., & Barber, R. R. (2010). Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 7–19. Gagnon, J. C., Barber, B. R., Van Loan, C., & Leone, P. E. (2009). Juvenile correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 673–696. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trapp-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill. Harris, P., Baltodano, H. M., Artiles, A., & Rutherford, R. B. (2006). Integration of culture in November 2010 / 25 reading studies for youth in corrections: A literature review. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 749–779. Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Shippen, M. E., & Lambert, R. (2010). Advancing high-quality literacy research in juvenile justice: Methodological and practical considerations. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 61–69. Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2009). Barriers and facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing School Failure, 53(3), 159–166. Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2006). System reform and job satisfaction of juvenile justice teachers. Teacher Education in Special Education, 29, 127–136. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 11400 et seq. (2004). Jolivette, K., Houchins, D. E., Josephs, N., Waller, K., Hall, T., & Nomvete, P. (2008). Providing educational services in secure settings. In L. M. Bullock, & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Seventh CCBD Mini-Library Series on emotional/behavioral disorders: Ensuring a brighter future for troubled children/youth: Challenges and solutions (pp. 1–62). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Lane, K. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: 1990 to the present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–486). New York: Guilford. Leone, P. E., & Malmgren, K. (1999, November). Improving reading performance of incarcerated youth: Effects of an intensive summer literacy program. Presentation for the 1999 Conference of Teacher Educators for Children with Behavior Disorders, Scottsdale, AZ. Leone, P. E., Meisel, S. M., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 46–50. Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234. Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 145–264). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mills, S., Cerar, N. I., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., & Allen-Bronaugh, D., et al. (2009). Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write fluently. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 19–40. Mathur, S. R., Griller Clark, H., & Schoenfeld, N. (2009). Professional development: A capacity building model for juvenile correctional educa- 26 / November 2010 tion. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60, 164–185. Merrell, K. W., & Walker, H. M. (2004). Deconstructing a definition: Social maladjustment versus emotional disturbance and moving the E/BD field forward. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 899–910. Mestre, J. P., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). The science of learning. Special Issue of Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 1–135. Mulcahy, C., & Gagnon, J. (2008). Teaching mathematics to secondary students with emotional/behavioral disorders. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Seventh CCBD Mini-Library Series on emotional/behavioral disorders: Ensuring a brighter future for troubled children/youth: Challenges and solutions (pp. 1–47). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice. (2010). Juvenile correctional education programs. Retrieved from the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice website http://www.edjj.org/focus/education Nelson, C. M. (2000). Educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders in the 21st century: Looking through windows, opening doors. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 204–222. Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., Leone, P. E., & Mathur, S. R. (2010). Meeting the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth with behavioral challenges: The promise of juvenile justice. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 70–80. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 701 6301 et seq. (2002). Pierce, C. D., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Teacher-mediated interventions for children with E/BD and their academic outcomes: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 176–188. Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339–345. Rutherford, R. B., Mathur, S. R., & Griller Clark, H. (2003). Promising practices in transition for short term jails and detention centers and long term correctional facilities. Retrieved from the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice website http://www.edjj.org/ focus/TransitionAfterCare/ Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., Liaupsin, C. J., Jolivette, K., Christle, C. A., & Riney, M. (2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive behavior support: Effective prevention practices. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 532–551. Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8–24. Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–684. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A metaanalysis of outcomes related to higher order processing. Elementary School Journal, 101, 331–348. Wang, X., Blomberg, T. J., & Li, S. D. (2005). Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation Review, 29, 291–312. Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 20–27 AUTHORS’ NOTE Address correspondence to Sarup R. Mathur, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1811; E-mail: [email protected] MANUSCRIPT Initial Acceptance: 2/24/10 Final Acceptance: 7/23/10 November 2010 / 27