Currently, 85% of those in juvenile detention facilities are youth living with disabilities that qualify them for special education (Leone et.al., 587-590;Sharnda;Vincent).However, only 36% will ever receive special education service (Leone et.al., 587-590; Vincent).They are deprived of an adequate education as a result of the School-to-Prison Pipeline trajectory. The School to Prison Pipeline is an state and federal education and public safety policies that push students out of school and into the criminal justice system (Martin 24-30) This system disproportionately targets youth of color and youth with disabilities
(Vincent 586). According to the National Association of School Psychologists, these punitive measures that restricts access to suit education aggravate setbacks for students with disabilities, increasing the probability that these students will not complete high school. These inequalities warrant modification reform to the relevant legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Prescriptive :
Efforts to address inequalities among disabled youth vary by state and national policies, limiting effectiveness due to competing interests (Ramanathan 280).Two major national statues in need of reform to enhance correctional instruction is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975 and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The provisions of IDEA attempt to establish and regulate the right of handicapped children to a quality and appropriate education.Title 1 Part D of NCLB, nicknamed the “N&D clause” (the Neglected & Delinquent clause), should be enforced to remedy disparities: clause states that all children in government custody should be granted education using the provided federal grant money to supplement existing education programs and meet the standards expressed in the Act(Ramanathan). In recent years, several advocates have initiated an investigation and litigation to improve education quality in juvenile corrections (Ramanathan 258).. Policy is in place but amendments should be made to effectively reform School to prison pipeline zero tolerance policy as it pertains to the disabled: lawmakers need to hold education providers and correctional facilities accountable for education quality , student achievement and test scores. Failure to make this a primary concern to lawmakers will further adverse outcomes impacting this vulnerable population.
Works Cited
Education or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies and the School to Prison Pipeline. Forum on Public Policy Online. 2009. ERIC. Print.
Leone, Peter E, Michael Wilson, and Michael P Krezmien. "Understanding and Responding to the Education Needs of Special Populations in Adult Corrections." Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, April 1 (2008). Print.
Leone, Peter E, and Pamela Cichon Wruble. "Education Services in Juvenile Corrections: 40 Years of Litigation and Reform." Education and Treatment of Children 38.4 (2015): 587-604. Print.
Martin, Jennifer L, and Jane A Beese. "Talking Back at School Using the Literacy Classroom as a Site for Resistance to the School-to-Prison Pipeline and Recognition of Students Labeled “at-Risk”." Urban Education (2015): 24-41. Print.
Ramanathan, Arun. "Paved with Good Intentions: The Federal Role in the Oversight and Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Idea) and the No Child Left Behind Act (Nclb)." The Teachers College Record 110.2 (2008): 278-321. Print.
Shandra, C. L., and D. P. Hogan. "Delinquency among Adolescents with Disabilities." Child Indic Res 5.4 (2012). Print.
Vincent, Claudia G, Jeffrey R Sprague, and Tary J Tobin. "Exclusionary Discipline Practices across Students' Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds and Disability Status: Findings from the Pacific Northwest." Education and Treatment of Children 35.4 (2012): 585-601. Print.
