Integration of Culture in Reading Studies for Youth in...

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 29, No. 4, 2006

Integration of Culture in Reading Studies forYouth in Corrections: A Literature Review

Pamela J. Harris, Heather M. Baltodano,Alfredo J. Artiles, & Robert B. Rutherford

Arizona State University

Abstract

The majority of youth in corrections have had negative school experiencesand below average academic achievement. Longitudinal research indicatesthat both academic failure and a negative life-long trajectory are a probabilityfor many youth confined to correctional facilities. Given the high number ofyouth from ethnic and cultural minority backgrounds who are incarcerated inthe United States and the low rates of achievement, the purpose of the currentreview is to assess the empirical literature on reading interventions for youthin corrections. In particular, the literature was analyzed to determine the extentthat cultural factors were considered in the development and implementationof reading interventions for youth in corrections. It is disconcerting that inreviewing more than 170 articles only four were empirical interventionstudies with incarcerated youth. This finding speaks clearly to the need formore research behind the fence. The small body of literature dealing withincarcerated youth is primarily comprised of studies that identify academicdeficiencies rather than programming that may strengthen reading skills inthis population.

The literature is consistent that the majority of youth in correctionshave had negative school experiences, have below average

academic achievement, and longitudinal research projects that bothacademic failure and a negative life-long trajectory are a statisticalprobability for many youth confined to correctional facilities(Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Foley, 2001; KoUhoff, 2002; Leone,Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002). Reviewing the available data, juvenilesconfined to long-term facilities also appear to have high rates ofilliteracy (Baltodano, Harris, & Rutherford, 2005; Coulter, 2004;Drakeford, 2002; Malmgren & Leone, 2000).

There are also a disproportionate number of students with dis-abilities in the juvenile justice system. Although the general school

Correspondence to Pamela J. Harris, Arizona State University, Curriculum & Instruction,P.O. Box 871011, Tempe, AZ 85287-1011; e-mail: [email protected].

Pages 749-778

750 HARRIS et al.

population outside of secure care has a disability rate of approximate-ly 12.7%, a national survey of juvenile correctional facilities indicatesthat an average of 34% of youth in juvenile facilities have diagnoseddisabilities (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). Thesurvey also reported great variability in prevalence data with somestates reporting disability rates approaching 70% and other states re-porting very low rates. This suggests that the overall disability ratemay be higher than 34% as child-find activities in some states are lessthan desirable. Of those identified with disabilities, 47.7% were learn-ing disabled and 38.6% were emotionally disabled. Both of these dis-ability categories rely heavily on human judgment and tend to havehigher rates of minority students (Donovan & Cross, 2002).

Incarcerated youth are at-risk for poor academic outcomes for anumber of reasons. The school experiences of many of these youth pri-or to incarceration place them at high-risk for academic delays. Incar-cerated youth have more truancies, grade retentions, and suspensionsthan the general population (Quinn et al., 2005). Many were expelledor dropped out of school. In addition, many youth were essentiallypushed out of school because their behaviors were incompatible withschool goals. Given these factors, it is not surprising that most youthare significantly below grade level upon entry to a secure care facility(Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture, 1997; Foley, 2001).

Once incarcerated, a number of additional factors put these stu-dents at risk for prolonged illiteracy. There are numerous challengesto educating incarcerated youth. Varying periods of confinement andhigh mobility rates make continuous education problematic. Differ-ing views among secure-care staff on the roles of punishment andcontrol versus rehabilitation and treatment inhibits the delivery ofquality systematic education (Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002; Nel-son, Leone, & Rutherford, 2004). Many facilities lack adequate class-room space for educational purposes. Instruction can be interruptedby institutional activities such as; transfers to other units for mentalhealth, discipline, and protective custody. Finally, in many states thereis inadequate funding to hire qualified teachers in secure-care settingsand salaries and working conditions are often not comparable withthe local education agencies. Mirroring a national shortage in publicschools, the lack of appropriately certified staff is particularly acute inthe area of special education.

Cultural Considerations in Developing Reading Interventions for Youth inCorrections

In addition to poor educational outcomes, a disproportionatenumber of youth in juvenile correctional facilities comes from ethnic

READING, CULTURE, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE 751

minority groups regardless of special education status. In 1997, Afri-can-American's comprised 40% of youth aged 10 to 17 in correctionalfacilities and Hispanic youth accounted for 18.5% of the incarceratedyouth in the same age range (Galigher, 1999). In addition, African-Americans are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated than Caucasianyouth, while Latinos and Native Americans are 2.5 times more likelyto be incarcerated (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000; Sigmund, 2004). Inother words, in the general population culturally and linguisticallydiverse youth are minorities, but in the correctional population theyrepresent the majority.

Given the high number of youth from minority backgroundsthat are incarcerated in the United States and the low rates of achieve-ment, the purpose of the current review is to examine the empiricalliterature on reading interventions for minority youth in corrections.These youth come with their own set of experiences and cultures thatinfluence their understanding of reading, its importance, and its util-ity in their everyday lives. These factors are essential when consider-ing achievement levels among incarcerated youth and when plarmingeffective interventions. Incarcerated youth also must learn within theunique culture of a secure care facility where educational goals andsecurity needs do not always go hand in hand.

While culture is critical to consider in designing interventionsfor at-risk youth regardless of whether or not they are incarcerated,it is largely ignored. In fact, Artiles (2002) asserts that this oversightis a reflection of a more problematic issue in special education whichis the "invisibility of ethnic minorities and culture in research prac-tices" (p.695). Given the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic mi-nority youth incarcerated in the United States, it is timely to examinethe literature regarding reading studies in corrections to determineif cultural factors have been considered. In many educational stud-ies outside of corrections, cultural considerations are addressed solelyby the inclusion of an isolated categorical variable. "Because partici-pants' perspectives and their contexts are important in the study ofreading competencies and performance, it is germane to ask who isincluded in reading research, what do we know about these individu-als' cultural histories, and what role does culture play in their learningprocess?" (Artiles, 2002, p.695). Unfortunately, this question has notbeen addressed for incarcerated youth and Keith and McCray (2002)emphasize that not only is it critical to address the disproportionaterepresentation of culturally and ethnically diverse males incarceratedin the U.S., but we must also consider the disproportionality of thoseyouth with special needs and the impact that ineffective interventionswill have on their continued development. It is time to go beyond

752 HARRIS et al.

simply accoimting for the CLD students included in research studiesand ensuring that the sample included in the study is representativeof the population. It is not simply a variable to control for throughstatistical analysis. Often culture is considered only in terms of one'sbelonging to a particular racial or ethnic group. However, reducingthe notion of culture to a categorical variable implies that one's cultureis comprised of static membership to a variety of categories such asrace, religion, SES, and ethnicity (Rogoff & Angelillo, 2002).

When evaluating culture and its impact on academic interven-tions such as reading a more complex view of culture is necessary.Rogoff and Angelillo (2002) contend:

If social science were to equate culture with a social category,or the intersection of such categories, we would lose the op-portunity to understand cultural processes as the interrelatedaspects of people's overlapping and historical participation inchanging and conflicting cultural communities. Cultural pro-cesses do not function in isolation or in mechanical interac-tion among independently definable entities. Research effortsthat try to control for all but a few aspects of community func-tioning - to be able to separately examine the effects of stand-alone variables - overlook the meaning that is given to eachaspect by their integration (Rogoff & Angelillo, 2002, 216).

How then do we integrate culture into instruction for incarcer-ated youth? Educators continue to ask how we account for and sup-port the differences that exist between and within individuals (Cole& Engestrom, 2005). Kauffman's (1989) suggests that in our multicul-tural society teachers must ensure that they have considered culturalexplanations to inappropriate student behavior. Beyond the implica-tions for addressing deviant behavior, the key is to connect to theirindividual life story (Collier & Thomas, 2001).

It is the role of the correctional educator to provide at least thebasic skills that the student did not receive in public school and thatare essential for being a productive, law-abiding citizen. "Students inprison are cognitively mature. Although they may not have had theopportunities for continuous formal schooling, they have grown andmatured through their many—sometimes difficult—life experiences"(Collier & Thomas, 2001, 68). Similarly, students that do not possessthose qualities and skills that are valued and taught in an academicsetting are not necessarily intellectually deficient. It is likely that theyhave honed skills that are not particularly valued in formal schoolcontexts, but that are needed in their community, culture, family, gang,set, or clique (Faltis, in press). For example, detained and incarcerated


youth might see themselves as alienated from mainstream institutionsas the result of multiple factors (e.g., poverty, discrimination, struc-tural racism, community violence), and thus, they may not perceiveschool literacy to be a valuable skill. Additionally, they are not eagerto focus their efforts on school'literacy achievement while incarcer-ated or when returning to their home school (Keith & McCray, 2002).

From a sociocultural perspective, human development is a cul-tural process and people's participation in cultural communities me-diate developmental pathways. Rogoff (2003) explains that

people's performance depends in large part on thecircumstances that are routine in their community and on thecultural practices they are used to. What they do depends inimportant ways on the cultural meaning given to the eventsand the social and institutional supports provided in theircommunities for learning and carryihg out specific roles inthe activities (p.6).

From this perspective, communities have varying developmentalgoals that are supported by particular strategies and rely on alternativemeans to assess progress toward, developmental endpoints. Theseaspects vary substantially across cultural communities. In orderto address the needs of the marginally literate ethnically diverseincarcerated youth, we must account for youth's sociocultural contextsof literacy, understand the meaning and perceived benefits of reading,and incorporate that knowledge in direct and explicit instruction(Keith & McCray, 2002).

Our definition of culture includes three components: (1) the cul-tural group practices of the group to which the student belongs (i.e.,Mexican-American, African-American, etc.) which we call the cultureof the student; (2) the culture of the institutional settings which youthinhabit, which in this case is the correctional facility; and (3) that theplace where education for these youngsters takes place is the spacewhere these cultural components (student and institution) meet. Thepurpose of this review was to assess the current literature on readingfor youth in corrections. We sought to answer the following ques-tions: (1) What are the topics covered in reading interventions withincarcerated youth?; (2) Are issues of disproportionality addressed?;and (3) Are cultural issues addressed including the culture the youthbring with them, the culture of the institution, and the interaction ofthe two?

754 HARRIS et al.

Method

We used a two-step approach to identify articles for this re-view. First, we ideritified studies through computerized bibliographicsearches from abstract and citation archives published from 1975 to2005. In addition to the electronic search, we conducted a hand searchof two prominent journals in the field - one from special educationand one from correctional education - from 1995 to 2005. BehavioralDisorders is a peer-reviewed journal that in the field of special educa-tion and the Journal of Correctional Education is a peer-reviewed journalfocusing on educating incarcerated adult and juvenile populations.

We excluded non-data articles such as reviews and commentar-ies. We included only those articles that reported results of readingassessments or interventions. Furthermore, the participants had to becourt-involved youth under the age of 19. Articles were coded by top-ics covered including: data on achievement levels and reading inter-ventions. Demographic data collected included: gender, age, ethnicity,geographical location, and disability. The ways in which investigatorscollected their data were coded as: observational, archival, self-report-ed, and permanent products (i.e., checklists and tests administered bythe researchers) Finally, we coded each study based on whether theissue of culture was addressed; and if so, how it was addressed.

The following index sources were searched so that articles couldbe located in both educational literature and social science journalsthat deal with criminology, psychology and at-risk populations. SocialSciences full text. Sociological Abstracts, Academic Search Premier(EBSCO Host), Education abstracts, ERIC, Criminal Justice Abstracts,LexisNexis Academic, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Hein-On-Line: The Modern Link to Legal History, JSTOR (Journal Storage Proj-ect), and Kluwer Online. In order to ensure that we did not inadver-tently exclude pertinent studies for this review, we used a number ofcombinations of keywords. The searches were based on the followingkeywords and various combinations of these words: juvenile correc-tions, juvenile delinquents, literacy, reading, EBD, emotional disturbance,behavior disturbance, behavioral disorders, aggression, externalizing, inter-nalizing, academic failure, culture, crime, education, anthropology, AfricanAmerican studies, Asian American studies, Chicano studies, criminal jus-tice, ethnic studies, and family studies. We used keyword combinationsthat included juvenile corrections and literacy or reading, juveniledelinquents and literacy or reading, juvenile corrections and EBD oremotional disturbance or behavioral disturbance or behavioral disor-ders, juvenile corrections and aggression, aggression and reading orliteracy, juvenile corrections and academic failure, juvenile correctionsand culture, juvenile crime and literacy or reading, academic achieve-


ment and jtivenile corrections. In our hand search, we examined ar-ticles in two prominent journals. The first journal reviewed was Be-havioral Disorders, a special education journal that reports on youthat-risk or identified with emotional and behavioral disorders. Thisjournal was deemed appropriate because it is assumed that incarcer-ated youth have some degree of behavioral difficulty that led to theirarrest and incarceration. In this journal, we looked for articles that hadincarcerated youth as the target population. Once articles were identi-fied as dealing with the target population, each article was reviewedfor inclusion of reading data and only evidence-based studies wereincluded in our analysis. The second journal targeted for the handsearch was the Journal of Correctional Education. This journal serves re-searchers and educators in the field of corrections, including youthand adults. This journal was scanned for articles with youth aged 19or younger. After identifying the articles, each was reviewed for inclu-sion of reading data.

Results

The electronic search yielded 156 articles on incarcerated youthwith ages 19 and under. However, only 16 were data-based articleson reading. Although the hand search produced 14 additional articleson adjudicated youth, only two met the data-based reading selectioncriteria. Consequently, of the 170 articles reviewed, 18 met the searchcriteria. We found additional articles that addressed reading achieve-ment with incarcerated youth, but they did not employ an empiricaldesign and were consequently excluded from this study. A majorityof these articles were reviews of the literature, statements of currentpractices or needs, or theoretical explorations of the link between de-linquency and academic achievement.

The findings of our review of reading research for youth in se-cure care will be reported in terms of research questions. The first sec-tion will address the topics covered in the literature, the next sectionwill cover the findings as they relate to disproportionate representa-tion of minority students in juvenile corrections, and the final sectionwill review how the studies addressed cultural issues.

Topics Covered in the Reading Literature on Incarcerated Youth

The 18 articles that met the search criteria fell into two broadcategorical topics: (a) academic achievement levels and (b) readinginterventions.

Academic achievement. Eleven of the articles focused on aca-demic achievement and the link between reading achievement anda number of other variables. A common theme in these articles wasthat incarcerated youth had lower than average reading achievement.

756 HARRIS et al.

Reading achievement was higher among non-offenders than amongoffenders, as was achievement higher among non-recidivists versusrecidivists. Achievement also tended to be higher for Caucasians thanfor Hispanics or African-Americans. There were no significant differ-ences in achievement when youth volunteered for literacy programsor when they were assigned to them. Additionally, violent offenderstended to have lower achievement than other offenders. Three of thearticles included discussion on assessment when dealing with theachievement levels of incarcerated youth. In one study authors report-ed 50% of the sample had some indicators of dyslexia,which was in-consistent with the finding of another author that the rate of dyslexiafor incarcerated youth was more parallel to non-incarcerated youth ifa more restrictive definition was used that focused on phonologicalprocessing instead of overall reading achievement.

The studies we reviewed were conducted in a number of indus-trialized countries including: the United States, Canada, Australia,Sweden, United Kingdom, and Scotland. However, a majority of thestudies were conducted in the U.S. Again, a finding replicated acrossthe studies is that incarcerated youth tend to be sub-average in aca-demic achievement (Beebe & Mueller, 1993; Wilgosh & Paitich, 1982;Jerse & Fakouri, 1997) and that recidivists tend to have lower achieve-ment scores than non-recidivists (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 1999;Katsiyannis & Archwamety, 1997). Wheldall and Watkins (2004) arguethat although reading scores are sub-average, 75% of the incarceratedyouth in their study in Australia had achieved at or above functionalliteracy levels. They defined functional literacy as reading at the 10-11year old range on a standardized measure.

Another finding reported in the achievement studies was thepresence of reading disabilities. Half of the incarcerated youth in aScotland study self-reported indicators of dyslexia (Kirk & Reid,2001). Similar findings were reported about prevalence and defini-tions of dyslexia in two studies in Western Europe. Snowling, Adams,Bowyer-Crane and Tobin (2000) found that the prevalence of dyslexiaamong juvenile inmates varied greatly depending on the definition ofdyslexia. When dyslexia was defined as a discrepancy between read-ing achievement and non-verbal reasoning, 56% of the inmates wereconsidered dyslexic, compared to only 5% of the non-incarceratedcontrol group. If dyslexia was defined as a discrepancy between ver-bal IQ and reading achievement, 43% of the juvenile offenders werecategorized as dyslexic compared to only 8% of the non-incarceratedgroup. When a stricter definition of dyslexia was established that in-cluded measures of phonological processing rather than a discrepan-cy model, only 25% of the offenders were dyslexic while 197o of the


non-offenders were dyslexic. The imposition of a definition of dys-lexia that included difficulties with phonological processing yieldedsimilar prevalence figures. Additionally, Svensson, Lundberg, and Ja-cobson (2003) examined 70 juvenile inmates and 61 controls from localschools in Sweden who were tested for dyslexia. When phonologicalprocessing was used to determine dyslexia, the inmate and generalpopulation were similar.

Seven of the reviewed achievement articles relied on archivaldata found in student files. Five studies (5) used permanent product(PP) data in which the researchers themselves collected data in theform of interviews, tests, and inventories, and one study used a com-bination of archival and PP data to report on academic achievementlevels.

Between the years 1978 and 2005, the total number of incarcerat-ed youth across the 14 studies was 2,854. Of those, approximately 90%were male and 10% were female (273 total females). One of the studiesdid not separate the number of males and females (Herse & Fakouri,1978), but both were included in the study The average sample sizefor the achievement studies was 204 youth. The majority of the studieshad youth between the ages of 12 and 18. One study included 11 yearolds and two studies included youth beyond 18 year olds.

Of the studies that reported racial data, 573 of the participantswere Caucasian (48%), 369 were African-Americans (31%), 192 wereHispanic (16%), 30 were Native Americans (3%) and 58 were classifiedas "other" (5%). Racial data was reported for 1192 out of 2,854 youthstudied. This is approximately 42% of the total sample.

Aspects of the students' educational background were reportedin some of the studies. Of those reporting special education status, 437students were receiving or had a history of receiving special educa-tion services (53%). This compares with 365 students who were notin special education. Poor educational histories were reported in twostudies (Katsiyannis & Archwamety, 1999; Ryan & McCabe, 1993). Thepercentage of students with GEDs in the Katsiyannis and Archwam-ety study was 51%, while those with educational levels below the 8*grade accounted for only 25% of the sample.

Nearly all of the achievement studies used standardized, normreferenced testing to report on literacy levels among incarceratedyouth. The most common reading achievement score reported wasword identification, with some studies reporting word attack (pho-nics) and comprehension measures as well. Only one study (Baltoda-no, Harris & Rutherford, 2005) included a curriculum-based measurein the analysis of achievement levels. This was also the only study thatreported on reading fluency

Reading interventions. While achievement studies spanned a 30-

758 HARRIS et al.

year period, only three were prior to 1990. Interventions studies werefound between the years of 1994 and 2004 only. Three of the interven-tion studies demonstrated reading gaiiis for incarcerated youth, whilethe other documented fewer reciclivists among those participating inacademic Interventions. The number of participants ranged betweena low of 6 and a high of 191, with three of the four containing fewerthan 50 youth.

In one study the investigation included psychosocial and voca-tional treatment in addition to educational treatment (Brier, 1994). Theinvestigation lasted 24 months and those who completed the programwere far less likely to recidivate than those who did not complete theprogram. The remaining 3 studies focused exclusively on reading out-comes. The students in the Coulter (2004) study made significant gainsin passage reading and comprehension. Average gains increased withthe number of sessions the students completed. The six youth in theDrakeford study (2002) made gains in oral reading fluency and read-ing attitudes. Finally, Malmgren and Leone (2000) reported significantgains in decoding, but not comprehension, in a 6-week, intensive pro-gram.

In terms of racial make up, 11(4%) of the participants were Cau-casian, 147 (58%) were African American, 91 (36%) were Hispanic, and4 (2%) were "other." One-hundred twenty-five (60%) students werenot in special education, while 85 were receiving special educationservices at the time of the intervention. Brier (1994) reported that 111(69%) out of 192 students in the study had dropped out of school.

Researchers in two of the four intervention studies relied on ascripted Direct Instruction program called Corrective Reading (Engle-mann et. al, 1999; Drakeford, 2002; Malmgren & Leone, 2000). Oneother study used direct instruction methodology using novels thatwere considered highly interesting to the youth. In the remainingintervention study the reading methodology or materials were notspecified (Brier, 1994). This study included literacy as one portion ofa broader treatment package to reduce recidivism. The other treat-ment elements included in this study were psychosocial and vocationinterventions.

Disproportionality. Issues of disproportionate representationof minority youth in the juvenile correctional population were onlyaddressed in 2 articles. Drakeford (2002) discussed disproportional-ity among incarcerated youth in his intervention study of 6 African-American youth in Maryland. Baltodano et al. (2005) also discussedissues of disproportionality in their assessment article as they ana-lyzed achievement by age, race, and disability. In all other articles,disproportionality was not mentioned or discussed even when racialdata were available.


An integrated view of culture: Cultures in the correctional facilitiesand facilities' cultures. In the 14 achievement articles, we found only onethat addressed the culture of the youth in a way that extended beyondrace categories. Svensson et al. (2003) employed a research design thatwas mindful of differing cultural backgrounds of incarcerated youth.Their model included a network of factors, such as: immigrant status,poverty, home languages, literary models in the home, and so forth.The studies looking at achievement and recidivism (Archwamety &Katsiyannis, 1999; Katsiyannis & Archwamety, 1997)contained back-ground data on variables such as race, gang membership, location ofresidence (urban or rural), and history of abuse; however, those fac-tors did not provide the strongest predictor of recidivism rates. Rath-er, verbal IQ was the single best predictor of recidivism, with racebeing second in terms of predictability. Researchers did not examinehow race and culture impacted the results of the study.

The remaining achievement articles did not address studentculture in the design or the analysis. These articles were either silenton the issue of student culture or they used race as a single variableto describe a group of students. Perhaps the sentiment was capturedby Beebe and Mueller (1993) when they stated in their discussion ofcategorical offenses and achievement levels that "This study acknowl-edges economic, cultural, sociological, environmental, personal, andinteractional factors as being associated with contributing to the cur-rent status of the youthful offender, but these factors were not evalu-ated for this study" (p. 196).

The culture of the institution was addressed twice in the achieve-ment articles. Katsiyannis and Archwamety (1997) cast the culture ofthe institution in a positive light. They explained that the especiallylow recidivism rate (10%) in their study was due to a treatment pro-gram called "Positive Peer Culture". This program helps delinquentyouth "to identify problems, accept responsibility, and utilize the pos-itive power that peer influence can have" (p. 52). The other referenceto the culture of the institution was in Kirk and Reid's (2001) study.The authors reported that the study sample was not necessarily repre-sentative because of prison management imposed restrictions on whothey could survey. These researchers did not address how the cultureof the institution impacted the learning or achievement of youth atthe facility.

The single article that specifically addressed culture was fromSweden (Svensson et al., 2003). Though not an intervention study, cul-ture was used in the analysis of the data collected on achievement. Intheir analysis, Svensson et al. took into account the fact that 22 out of70 inmates in their sample were immigrants. These authors promoted

760 HARRIS et al.

the idea that proximal and distal factors were essential to success-ful reading acquisition. The proximal factors included phonologicalprocessing, word recognition, and cognitive processes. Whereas thedistal factors in their model were more complex notions of culture.The distal factors included linguistic background including nativelanguage of the students and their immigrant status. Another factorin the model was the impact of cultural background on literate hab-its and the background knowledge the student brings to the learn-ing situation. The home environment serves as another distal factorand included attachments and literate models. The final distal factorwas instruction. Instructional factors included the number of differentteachers and schools attended, the methods of instruction, and the his-tory of school attendance. In the model, these distal factors impactedvocabulary, world knowledge, and motivational processes. Both prox-imal and distal factors impacted the hallmark of reading instruction,namely comprehension.

In addition to developing a model for reading outcomes that in-cluded distal factors, Svensson et al. (2003) also analyzed their datato include differences in achievement between native and immigrantchildren. Here, a combination of research methodologies improvedunderstanding of how the distal factors impacted reading achieve-ment. The researchers looked at native/immigrant pairs on achieve-ment measures. They also conducted interviews and file reviews toextrapolate data on cultural conditions, schooling, and home envi-ronments. They found that Swedish delinquents outperformed im-migrants on comprehending connected texts even though their wordrecognition and spelling skills were similar. The authors concludedthat "obviously, some process over and above technical reading skillis required for connected texts. Prior knowledge and relevant inter-pretation schemas are probably good candidates as explanations ofthe observed difference" (Svensson et al., 2003, p.681).

Both native and immigrant students, regardless of phonologyskills, had experienced neglect and many separations during earlychildhood, single-parent households, drug abuse in the home, limitedaccess to adult literacy models, irregular schooling, and high absen-teeism. All of these factors are outside of the child and must be con-sidered cultural in nature.

Those in the study with lower phonological skills had subtle dif-ferences from those with stronger phonological skills. These differ-ences included lower levels of parental education, immigrants whohad lived in Sweden for a shorter period of time, special education be-cause of poor achievement, poorer grades in school, and documentedhistories of early reading and writing difficulties.

The use of a complex model of reading acquisition acknowl-


edged that reading difficulties may have numerous causes and in-volve a complex interrelation of individual and contextual factors(Svensson et al., 2003). Using this model, the authors demonstratedthat by focusing on decoding instead of comprehension, the preva-lence of dyslexia is not greater among inmates than the populationin general. When comprehension is used as the gauge for dyslexia orreading difficulties, the inmate population is overrepresented becauseof a combination of proximal and distal factors

Of the four intervention studies, two of them had only African-American participants, one did not report ethnicity, and one had anequal number of African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian partici-pants with 4 of each. The Brier (1994) study had the most participantswith 192, but issues of race and culture were not addressed. The other3 intervention studies had smaller numbers of participants with 45,12, and 6. With small sample sizes, it is hard to generalize findingsto larger populations of incarcerated youth and especially difficult todraw any conclusions about efficacy with minority populations.

The culture of the institution was cited by Drakeford (2002) as anobstacle to providing reading instruction in a youth correctional facil-ity. The Youth Correctional Officers (YCOs) were generally not part ofthe educational staff and functioned as security policing potential ruleviolators. Because of their orientation towards punishment and con-trol, Drakeford (2002) contends that they did not place a high valueon the literacy needs of the youth. Lockdowns, meeting with lawyers,and cell searches made instruction in the correctional facility challeng-ing and disjointed. In spite of these challenges, the youth in his studydid want to leam to read better. Some students were actually so eagerto participate in the reading program that they broke facility rules(out after curfew) to try to join the reading groups.

Discussion

First, it should be noted that given the 30-year time period fromwhich the articles were retrieved, there was a shallow pool of articlesaddressing reading in juvenile corrections facilities. The most signifi-cant findings of this literature review were: 1) the lack of interven-tion studies with incarcerated youth, and 2) the absence of culturalconsiderations when teaching and evaluating incarcerated youth. Wewill discuss both of these findings and offer areas of considerationwhen planning reading interventions for incarcerated youth. Theseconsiderations will include the cultural background of the students,the cultural aspects of the institutional setting, and the interfacing ofthe two.

We anticipated that much of the literature would include race/ethnicity as a categorical variable only, and we also expected to find

762 HARRIS et al.

few articles on reading instruction with incarcerated youth (Leone,Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel, 2005). The review of the literature infact confirmed that expectation. Additionally, we expected to find ar-ticles that addressed the culture of the correctional institution in thesocial sciences literature considering the pervasiveness of the discus-sion within that literature. However, this did not turn out to be thecase. It is disconcerting that in reviewing more than 170 articles; onlyfour were empirical intervention studies with incarcerated youth.This finding speaks clearly to the need for more research behind thefence. The small body of literature dealing with incarcerated youthis primarily comprised of studies that identify academic deficienciesrather than analyzing programming that may strengthen skills in thispopulation.

Equally troubling was the lack of discourse on cultural issues inthe published studies. Of the 18 studies included in this review, ninewere silent on both cultural and racial issues Of the nine remainingarticles, five used race as a variable of analysis rather than consider-ing a more complex notion of culture. Consequently, only four articlesaddressed either the cultural background of the students themselvesor the culture of the correctional institution. However, none of the ar-ticles specifically addressed how the culture of the student and theculture of the institution interface.

The materials used in two of the four reading interventions didnot leave room for cultural considerations because they utilized Cor-rective Reading, which is a scripted, direct instruction program. In thismastery learning program, students progress through lessons in auniform way that does not take into account the unique cultural back-grounds of the students. Furthermore, when teaching this program,the instructor aims to elicit specific correct responses. These responsesreflect the cultural norms of the authors and do not promote linkingtext to personal experiences. In our experience, the stories in thesetexts are not particularly interesting to youth in secure-care settings. Itis questionable if the stories are an appropriate match for this popula-tion.

The materials used in the Coulter (2002) study were more prom-ising in being sensitive to cultural issues. In this study, direct instruc-tion methodology was employed using high-interest novels. Studentswere also able to choose their materials within a certain range thatwas appropriate to their reading levels. Unfortunately, the remainingintervention study did not specify materials or methodology so noinferences about the inclusion of culture could be made. In addition,the literature review revealed a heavy reliance on archival data foranalysis. While archival data provides important information, this


type of analysis is devoid of cultural analysis because the research-ers are not dealing directly with the subjects of the analysis. A furtherconcern with using archival data is that the researchers cannot controlfor accuracy of the numbers/categories they are analyzing. Since theresearchers did not collect the initial data themselves, they risk errorsin test administration, scoring, and coding of categorical variablessuch as race. In terms of test scores, we do not know if the examinerswere qualified or if the tests were scored accurately. Moreover, dataand procedures across counties or districts are used differently anddiagnostic labels might be operationalized differently, thus creatinggreater conceptual confusion. Unfortunately, reliance on archival datareduces the ability to account for and ensure the validity of the dataand fidelity of procedures. •

An interesting finding is that the educational attainment issueswith incarcerated youth are consistent across various Western coun-tries. In Scotland, Sweden and the UK, achievement scores were lowerfor inmates than for the general population. The study from Austra-lia stated that most inmates had a ftinctional reading level; however,the 5*-grade reading level cited would not be considered adequatefor employment in the United States. Einally, in Canada only a fewyouth in their study had achieved grade-level status on instrumentsthat measured intelligence and academic achievement. So, it is clearthat in Western, industrialized countries achievement for incarceratedyoutb is substandard.

The Svensson et al. (2003) study addressed both culture in termsof proximal and distal factors. This study did not, however, addressthe culture of tbe juvenile correctional institution; instead it providedan explanation of how factors within tbe cbild and the environmentmay contribute to risk for delinquency. Tbe study did call into ques-tion tbe notion tbat a majority of inmates are learning disabled. By us-ing a definition of dyslexia that narrowly defines reading problems interms of pbonological processes, tbe disparity between incarceratedyoutb and tbeir non-delinquent peers disappears.

Limitations

In order to promote future research it is essential to identifysome of tbe limitations of tbe current review. First and foremost, wemust acknowledge tbat we limited tbe review to researcb publisbedin peer-reviewed journals. As sucb, we excluded dissertation studiesas well as articles in journals tbat do not bave a peer-review process.Additionally, altbougb we conducted a rigorous search for articles,we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge tbe possibility tbatarticles eluded us in tbe process. Anotber weakness of tbe current re-

764 HARRIS et al.

view stemmed from the difficulty we encountered in comparing stud-ies that used very different categories and potentially different defi-nitions for the terms. Considering that the review included articlespublished since 1970 the terminology regarding race and disabilitycategories has changed over the years.

Another problem in coding demographic data was the fact thatsome authors did not distinguish between short-term and long-termjuvenile facilities. This is problematic in that the types of program-ming offered at short-term detention centers often differs from thatof longer-term correctional facilities. Furthermore, it is assumed thatyouth sentenced to long-term facilities have more serious issues andmay have been detrained in short-term facilities several times beforebeing sentenced to a long-term facility. Five of the studies were fromcountries other than the United States so any application of the find-ings must be viewed with caution as the criteria for incarceration andconditions of the facilities may or may not reflect practices in the Unit-ed States.

Directions for Future Research

In reviewing 18 articles dealing with adjudicated youth, onlyfour documented experimental reading studies. Unfortunately, noneof them considered the culture of the students in their analysis. Theauthors advocate for more research in this area that is mindful of cul-ture in addressing the literacy needs of incarcerated youth. Little isdocumented on how these youth's interests and experiences shapetheir attitudes toward reading and how those attitudes might shapeacademic discourse within a correctional facility.

Additionally, a number of the studies cited difficulties in insti-tutional communication as barriers to the effective implementationof academic reading interventions. As such, we urge researchers tofully explore the barriers between the educational and security com-ponents, identify ways to overcome these institutional barriers, andmore importantly perhaps, find ways to incorporate the security per-sonnel into education. By doing so, it is likely to create a more cohe-sive and consistent environment for the youth in corrections and toincrease the effectiveness of the interventions implemented for them.

Innovative research. First, researchers should acknowledge thatteaching and learning in a correctional facility is unique. It is not par-allel to a public school. The institutional characteristics of prison lifemake it very different. "Explicit references to prison teaching culturesin the literature are meager, so that in most cases, readers must ex-trapolate the effects of prison culture on prison teaching cultures"(Wright, 2005). Wright also points out that, "Teachers bring to prison


professional identities and practices fashioned in a different culturallandscape." (p.2O). He goes on to describe a sort of acculturation thatoccurs when teachers begin working in correctional facilities. "I ar-gue that prison cultures infuse teaching cultures in prisons, not total-ly absorbing them, but transforming them sufficiently so as to createculture shock for the novice teacher. In other words, prison teachingcultures should be thought of as hybrid, syncretic cultures - a blend ofhome and host world behaviors, experiences and identities." (p. 23).

Considering the dearth of studies on educational practices in ju-venile correctional facilities and the lack of cultural factors in the liter-ature on incarcerated youth, we would like to promote considerationof cultural factors in future research, using the framework describedby Wright (2005) on reading interventions with inmates. Also lackingin the literature reviewed was the inclusion of qualitative studies thatconsider what the students themselves have to say about literacy. Nosuch studies were found in our search. Consequently, we would liketo present works by researchers who studied culture and literacy prac-tices outside of corrections as a possible place to start when consider-ing instruction for incarcerated youth. Their studies were conductedwith members from the two largest minority groups in juvenile cor-rectional facilities: African Americans and Hispanics.

Morrell (2002) drew upon pop culture to work with urban youthin California to promote literacy practices. He used rap music, filmand television as vehicles to incorporate youth culture into the class-room. Students read, analyzed and wrote their own rap musical lyr-ics. By doing so, they were able to critically evaluate their own cul-tural practices and those of the artists. In using film, Morrell broughtin popular films that mirrored classic texts. "This analysis focuses ontwo classroom tmits that incorporated popular film with the tradition-al curriculum to make meaningful connections with canonical textsand to promote the development of academic and critical literacies.The first unit began with The Godfather trilogy (Coppola, 1972,1974,1993) and incorporated Homer's The Odyssey. Another unit joinedRichard Wright's (1989) Native Son with the film A Time to Kill (Schu-maker, 1996)." (pg.76). Finally, Morrell described how he used televi-sion as a medium to look critically at issues raised in popular culture.Students researched topics and wrote critical essays on such topics.Teachers in juvenile correctional facilities would have to make someadaptations to Morrell's ideas to work within institutional constraintsas some media are not allowed in the facilities. For instance, booksand music associated with gangster activities are often banned fromjuvenile correctional facilities. Consequently, teachers would need towork within the regulations of their facility.

766 HARRIS et al.

Meecham (2001) advocated translating the ideas of jazz improvi-sation as a means to connect with students in culturally diverse class-rooms. "A basic cultural concept underlying all jazz improvisation isthat of the crossroads. Described as a definitive moment of challengeor crisis, a crossroad is reached when one is forced by circumstanceto move beyond the familiar range of understanding and integratenew domains of information." (pg.l83). Using this theoretical frame-work, the student's prior knowledge and experiences are called uponto make sense of literacy texts. The teacher "asks questions that pro-voke students to weave their own connections between the themesdiscussed and their own prior cultural knowledge." (pg. 184)

Lee (2000) explored the culture and its implications in her workwith African-American youth. She used the cultural-historical perspec-tive of slavery to assess how power is brought into language practicesof these youth. She asserted that cognitive abilities are based on therituals of problem-solving skills and that the historical oral languagepractices could be used to enhance classroom instruction. Researchersand educators in correctional facilities could use this model to createliteracy activities that are meaningful to the youth they serve.

While Lee's work dealt directly with student cultures, Moll'swork focused on teacher practices and culture. Moll (1997) used studygroups comprised of teachers who Were trying to make sense of theirown practices. These teachers visited their students' homes and dis-covered the social networks that existed among predominately His-panic families. This format built a community of teachers who becameinformed about the lives of their students and how their classroompractices could be mindful of culture. Teachers in correctional facili-ties visiting the homes of their student is very impractical given thatincarcerated youth come from a variety of geographical locations.However, this format could be used to permeate some of the institu-tional barriers that inhibit literacy instruction in correctional facilities.A greater understanding of priorities and perspectives between edu-cation staff and security staff (rather than families as in Moll's work),could transform current practices.

Finally, Hill (1998) used a qualitative method to report on a liter-acy program designed specifically for incarcerated teen fathers. Due tothe fact that the study did not provide outcome data for the program,it was not included in our literature review. However, the structure ofthe program holds hope for incorporating culture into the educationalpractices within juvenile correctional facilities. In a class of 25 malestudents within a correctional facility, 50% were fathers and 60% werebilingual students. The reading levels in the class ranged from primerto high-school level. The goal of the program was to both increase the


literacy skills of the inmates and provide them with tools for carryingtheir literacy skills home to their children upon release.

Literacy instruction was based on narrative stories around thethemes of bullying and embarrassing moments. The teacher readbooks to the students that centered on these two themes. Both liter-ature and poetry were used. Students were expected to make linksbetween the characters and their own experiences as they wrote theirown narratives around one of the themes. From these narratives, theteacher started working on expanded stories and improvisations.Peers were taught to ask specific questions to each other to developclarity in their writing. As the teachers introduced new authors andcharacters the students could identify with because of their own expe-riences, the youth began and began asking for more books with simi-lar themes and by the same authors. The use of personal narratives asan instructional strategy holds promise because it takes into accountthe cultural experiences and artifacts of the participants.

We resonate with Collier and Thomas (2001) who advocate forinstructional practices in youth correctional facilities that help cultur-ally and linguistically diverse learners, for these practices could bebeneficial for all learners behind the fence. "For correctional educa-tors, the best strategy is to adapt the materials that are available, dohands-on instruction when possible, making use of vocational train-ing materials, and use students' life experiences to develop meaning-ful narratives for literacy acquisition." (p. 72).

It would serve the research community well to implement someof these ideas and take data as to their effectiveness. The potential isso great and yet so little has been done.

References

Archwamety, T, & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation,parole violations, and recidivism rates among delinquentyouths. Remedial and Special Education, 21,161-170.

Artiles, A. J. (2002). Culture in learning: The next frontier in readingdifficulties research. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Halla-han (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to prac-tice (pp. 693-701). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Baltodano, H. M., Harris, P. J., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Academicachievement in juvenile corrections: Examining the impact ofage, ethnicity and disability. Education and Treatment of Chil-dren, 28, 361-379.

Beebe, M. C, & Mueller, F. (1993). Categorical offenses of juvenile de-linquents and the relationship to achievement. Journal of Cor-rectional Education, 44,193-198.

768 HARRIS et al.

Center on Crime, Communities and Culture. (1997). Education ascrime prevention: Providing education to prisoners. ResearchBrfe/(Occasional Paper Series, No. 2). New York: Author.

Cemkovich, S., & Giorando, P. (1992). School bonding, race, and delin-quency. Criminology, 30, 261-291.

Chavez, E., Oetting, E., & Swain, R. (1994). Dropout and delinquency:Mexican-American and Caucasian non-Hispanic youth. Jour-nal of Clinical Child Psychology 23, 47-55.

Collier, V. R, & Thomas, W. R (2001). Educating linguistically and cul-turally diverse students in correctional settings. Journal of Cor-rectional Education, 52, 68-73.

Coulter, G. (2004). Using one-to-one tutoring and proven readingstrategies to improve reading performance with adjudicatedyouth. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 321-331.

Davis, A. D., Sanger, D. D., & Morris-Friehe, M. (1991). Languageskills of delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent males.Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 251-266.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special andgifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increasethe literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections.Journal of Correctional Education, 53,139-144.

Faltis, C. (in press). Acquiring academic language in prison in Aztlan:Fake it until you make it. In K. Rolstad, (Ed.), Rethinking lan-guage in school, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youthand correctional educational programs: A literature review.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248-259.

Galigher, C. A. (1999, March). Juvenile offenders in residential placements,1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet. (Available from the U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, Washington, DC 20531).

Hill, M. H. (1998). Teen fathers leam the power of literacy for theirchildren. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42,196-202.

Jerse, R, & Fakouri, M. (1978). Juvenile delinquency and academic de-ficiency. Contemporary Education, 49,106-109.

Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (1997). Factors related to recidi-vism among delinquent youths in a state facility. Journal ofChild and Family Studies, 6, 43-57.


Keith, J. M. & McCray, A. D. (2002). Juvenile offenders with specialneeds" Critical issues and bleak outcomes. Qualitative Studiesin Special Education, 15, 691-710.

Kirk, J., & Reid, G. (2001). An examination of the relationship betweendyslexia and offending in young people and implications forthe training system. Dyslexia 7, 77-M.

Kollhoff, M. (2002). Juvenile correctional education in the 21 " Century:Leave no child out. Reflections of a Kansas juvenile educator.Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 44-45.

Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. InC. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives onliteracy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative in-quiry (pp. 191-225). New York: Cambridge LJniversity Press.

Leone, R E., Meisel, S. M., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special educationprograms for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections.Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 46-50.

Malmgren, K. W., & Leone, R E. (2000). Effects of a short-term aux-iliary reading program on the reading skills of incarceratedyouth. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 239-247.

McCarthy, J., & Hoge, D. (1987). The social construction of school pun-ishment: Racial disadvantage out of a universalistic process.Social Forces, 64,1101-1120.

Meacham, S. J. (2001). Vygotsky and the blues: Re-reading culturalconnections and conceptual development. Theory into Practice,40,190-198.

Moll, L. C. (1997). The creation of mediating settings. Mind, Culture,and Activity, 4,191-199.

Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Lit-eracy development among urban youth. Journal of Adolescentand Adult Literacy, 46, 72-78.

Nelson, C. M., Leone, R E., & Rutherford, R. B. (2004). Youth delin-quency: Prevention and intervention. In R. B. Rutherford, M.M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emo-tional and behavioral disorders (pp.282-301). New York: Guil-ford Press.

Ouston, J. (1984). Delinquency, family background and educationalattainment. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 2-26.

Pabon, E. (1998). Hispanic adolescent delinquency and the family:A discussion of sociocultural influences Adolescence, 33, 941-955.

770 HARRIS et al.

Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, K. L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variablesthat initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juve-nile offending. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 531-547.

Podboy, J., & Mallory, W. (1978). The diagnosis of specific learningdisabilities in a delinquent population. Federal Probation, 42,26-33.

Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M.A. (2000). And justice for some. Washing-ton, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Quinn, M. M, Rutherford, R. B., Leone, RE., Osher, D. M., Poirier, J.M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: Anational survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York:Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2002). Investigating the coordinated func-tioning of multifaceted cultural practices in human develop-ment. Human Development, 45,211-225.

Ryan, T. A., & McCabe, K. A. (1993). The relationship between manda-tory vs. voluntary participation in a prison literacy programand academic achievement. Journal of Correctional Education,44,134-138.

Sigmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in corrections. OJJDP Bulletin. Washing-ton DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion.

Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., & Bowyer-Crane, C. (2000). Levels ofliteracy among juvenile offenders: The incidence of specificreading difficulties. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10,229-241.

Svenson, I., Lundberg, I. & Jacobson, C. (2003). The nature of readingdifficulties among inmates in juvenile institutions. Readingand Writing, 16, 667-691.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (Eds.). (1999). Successful failure: Theschool America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wheldall, K., &Watkins, R. (2004). Literacy levels of male juvenile jus-tice detainees. Educational Review, 56, 3-11.

Wilgosh, L., & Paitich, D. (1982). Delinquency and learning disabilities:More evidence. Journal of Learning f)isabilities, 15, 278-279.

Wright, R. (2005). Going to teach in prison: Culture shock. Journal ofCorrectional Education, 56,19-38.


Zimmerman, J., Rich, W., Keilitz, I., & Broder, R (1981). Some obser-vations on the link between learning disabilities and juveniledelinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9,1-17.

772 HARRIS et al.

CL i-i r-i r i cn c

o

ou

I60

'•B(S01

o

(30101

Di

•g"S.g

•a01

DH

<

sS 5 OK I a:'

nilml

II

ia 8 "iS S .2

il8 " sS .2 S

iE - o 5

111B § 1 I

. 1 i " l - • e •: : E |

S B a ^ Si E^ -3 "o i

S 2

.1- I M

i l h 1

II


Q

^ o

11• w

o 3z e

I i.a S is

3 e SIII|l I

S I E I IS I a I ^^ s a i og s 1.2 I

I -I s -s

I I ills o

m'

a S g% i s

| l; £ ro QJ S

III!

I o

S

I-Si I

^ s s -Sifc- Q; nj t j

C- TD JS ra

III

Q3 C "aJ O C

< U 5 U . Q J Z Z T J C vZ Z

fI-5 I

s s

z z

774 HARRIS et al.

II

i SI

5 8 S S

^ 1 ESi S

I ?: Iu

Xi S

o £ c" I

" S •

I


tj2 o

ill

c -2

s :>

•^ ™ ra a;

l l l fi r 'C « o £C c a a j X f T

= -a S

-2 .S5

o E

£ u M l

'era

ge

BO<

des

an

'B c

c

1 2iui Q su

lale

s

aII

2

• * .

V2

776 HARRIS et al.

a> £i

•a § 2-c S oa := ra

f l ^tN. <5 "ra

n,-3

3 1 £-^ 1 ^III

jf o- £ I .§ ° S .£-g- .2 c' -- g o J § .E

•|l^iflil|.E .S f iE8£. f l sJ

l l:§>!§ •S c< g

-5 X

i I

(- * - O O)

111 ill-2 01 ra ni C g

•S i -a ac s 5! 2- 15 .H g

111. 1 :3

Z

J2 ^ O) .fc^ cr. . 1 ^ : : ^ T

ffi ra"ra E

g E ^

'i^ Z Z ,

IIIkin 5 ^

c £P

I § 8i J J2,

READING, CULTURE, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

o s•f s

I It II

o

11•5 E

.2 -a

c OS 3:"

1 ! -S .S aI S c SI c/) o ra

B .5

l lIA "a

Si'sS s

u 3 •

;3 •g s p •

I I -I •£

ra XI

5i'CS..S s

ra m OP'S

1*1Jp

3:§ 5PK.Jpit Iit Iff

o n

I0 = 2c -s a

— E! I 2

•s

I

G- 0 I < c?i £ D 2 Z

•s&

II

778 HARRIS et al.

I

11(2 fi .

ii

Ii •§

CJ OS

Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children (West Virginia University Press) is the property of West

Virginia University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.

Integration of Culture in Reading Studies for Youth in...

Documents

Transcript of Integration of Culture in Reading Studies for Youth in...