Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Recent Reports 
 Support HRW 
About HRW
Site Map

Human Rights Watch - Home Page


In many cases, the education offered in Maryland's jails is seriously deficient. Although we found considerable variation in the education offered in the jails, several of the county jails we visited offer no classes whatsoever for some or all of their juvenile detainees, meaning that many children are forced to interrupt their schooling for six months or more. Most problematic was the absence of educational opportunities in the Prince George's County Correctional Center. Similarly, we learned that children placed in administrative segregation in the Baltimore and Montgomery County detention centers could not attend school. But even the existence of an educational program was no guarantee that children were receiving the state-mandated minimum number of hours of education. Baltimore instructors and jail staff readily admitted that the jail school shortchanged children almost two hours of classroom time per day, a lamentable practice that they said was necessary in the absence of adequate physical facilities. In Frederick and Washington Counties, as well, our examination of the graduate-equivalency-degree (GED) programs offered to youth raised questions about the extent to which those jails complied with state and federal law.

The failure of Maryland's jails to provide adequate education to juvenile inmates is not only illegal but also remarkably shortsighted. The Center on Crimes, Communities and Culture reports: "In most cases, once juveniles are incarcerated, even for a short time, their line to education is forever broken. Most juvenile offenders aged sixteen and older do not return to school upon release or graduate from high school."30 For these children, the interruption to their schooling comes at a time when they are statistically most likely to drop out. The practice of offering detained children substandard education-or in some cases no education at all-encourages those juveniles most at risk of delinquency to abandon a critical resource that can assist them to assume socially constructive and productive roles in society.

Education Programs in the Jails Visited

Prince George's County Correctional Center

Asked about the educational facilities for juveniles at Prince George's County Correctional Center, Barry Stanton, the facility's director, replied, "There's no education." He stated that education was his chief priority for the juvenile detainees, noting that he had approached the local school board and the countyexecutive with his concerns. "The Board is supposed to be providing services for these kids," said Stanton.31 Teachers at the facility echoed Stanton's concerns. "What kind of education are we giving the male juveniles here? Zero. There's a real frustration on this issue," said one teacher.32

The children held in the Prince George's County Correctional Center shared the teacher's feelings of frustration. Brian W., sixteen, said, "I'd rather get schooling in my head than just be sitting here." Jermaine C., who explained that he spent most of his free time playing chess, told us, "I want to go to school. All we do here is sit around and play games." Michael T. remarked, "We don't have no school here. I just read every day, and we play Scrabble. We look up the words in the dictionary and read the definitions. We don't have no one who comes up here and sits down and teaches us."33

"In the old jail, juveniles were in the education unit," the teacher told us. "But the ACA requires sight-and-sound separation from adults. That means that I can't put them into my education program until they're sentenced." She pointed out that the strict enforcement of this standard is at odds with the detention center's attitude toward overcrowding. "I'm telling them, `You'll warehouse the inmates and get a waiver. Why can't I educate?'" Another teacher at the facility agreed: "We were always able to include juveniles until we became ACA accredited about five years ago. Even then, it was just in the last two years that they've told me, `No juveniles in the unit.' They tell us it's because of liability."34

Despite the jail's strict policy precluding boys from attending school with adults, girls at the Prince George's County Correctional Center were in adult classes at the time of our July 1998 visit. The teachers explained to us that strict enforcement of the sight-and-sound rules would inflict special hardship on the girls. "The girls are integrated with the women because I don't care what the rules say. I can't stand to see them locked in protective custody all by themselves," said one teacher.35

The absence of any educational program for boys detained in Prince George's County is a flagrant violation of state and federal law and international standards. The county must take immediate steps to ensure that all juveniles in the jail have access to an education and that those who qualify for special education are able to receive the services to which they are entitled.

Baltimore City Detention Center

The Baltimore detention center's school, a branch of the Baltimore City public school system, offers virtually the only regularly scheduled activities for youths in the detention center. A critical resource for juveniles held in the city jail, the education program is nevertheless deficient in two basic ways: Boys placed in administrative segregation, one out of every six children held in the jail at any given time, do not go to school; the rest do not spend enough time in the classroom.

The educational program has improved dramatically since early 1998, when there was a minimal education program that was not accredited by the Baltimore Public Schools. At the time of our May 1999 visit to the jail, the school was operating under the same curriculum as the Baltimore City schools and had been accredited by the same authority that accredits the regular public schools. The school offers regular, well-planned programming for youth in general population and protective custody. Notably absent, however, were any educational offerings to children in administrative segregation.

The school is located in four interlocked trailers placed in what was formerly an open area adjoining the jail building. The classrooms are bright and cheerful, with visually stimulating materials on the walls, including displays prepared by the students. The school is a dramatic and welcome respite from the dark and depressing atmosphere in the cells.

Youth admitted to the jail receive educational testing for one or two days and are placed in the school no later than the third day after admission. Juveniles in the general population attend classes between 8:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m.; those in protective custody go to class from noon to 3:15 p.m. Each class averages between twelve to fourteen students in size, although the school principal told us that there have been as many as twenty in a class. Full with twelve students, the small classrooms would be quite crowded with twenty.

Children we interviewed prior to our September 1998 visit told us that lockdowns sometimes prevented them from attending class. When we asked Commissioner Flanagan in September 1998 whether children missed school during lockdowns, he replied:

Yes, lockdown disrupts school sometimes. It depends on the purpose of the lockdown. If it's a weapons search, the juveniles go to school. If it's a possible escape, no one moves. If it's some other serious incident, it depends. A serious incident may impede movement. For the most part, the juveniles are the only ones who move during lockdowns.36

With the notable exception of boys placed in segregation, who received no education, virtually all children whom we interviewed after September 1998 told us that they attended school even during extended lockdown periods.

The school principal explained to us that because the juveniles' reading levels range from elementary to high school, the teachers explain the substantive materials in terms the students understand. Teachers also employ adult basic education materials that are low in skill level but high in interest. The daily basic classes are English, social studies, math, science, and computers. The school also offers a GED preparation class. The school's computers have learning games and other educational programs that are suitable for individually paced learning, particularly for math and reading. The curriculum is supplemented by enrichment events, including presentations on HIV and AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, and substance abuse prevention.

About 30 percent of the youth in the school are identified as educationally disabled. The school has three certified special education teachers on staff, two of whom work in classrooms and the third as a GED instructor. The school operates on the principle of "full inclusion," meaning that special education students are fully integrated into classes with non-disabled youth.37

Educationally disabled youth benefit from the fact that the jail school is part of the Baltimore City Public Schools. The city's computerized record system makes it possible quickly to identify youth who have previously attended special education classes; once such youth are identified, the public school system's administrative office faxes the students' individualized education programs to the school. The school sets up meetings with parents to modify each youth's program; according to the principal, the parents appear at approximately 85 percent of themeetings. When youth leave the school, the school reviews their programs and sends them back to the students' public schools or to the Department of Corrections.38

Teachers may give disruptive youth a disciplinary charge, although the principal told us that teachers do this only as a last resort. In our review of special incident reports involving juveniles, we did not find any incidents in which teachers issued disciplinary charges, confirming the principal's statement that teachers did so only on rare occasions.

The school is a critical resource for juveniles in the detention center, providing the only reliable programming that is available to children. It is rich in resources, with committed teachers and other staff. As a part of the Baltimore school system, the jail school has access to the same books and other materials as the public schools.

Nevertheless, we found two basic problems with the educational program. First, juveniles in administrative segregation receive no education whatsoever, meaning that one out of every six children in the jail do not attend classes. "I think I should be given some type of school program," Joey N. told a Human Rights Watch representative.39

Second, those who do attend are not receiving enough time in the classroom. Although the Baltimore City curriculum requires five sixty-minute classes each day, the jail school offers five forty-minute classes per day. The school is accredited on the basis that the school gives youth in the jail twenty minutes of additional instruction per class through homework.

The frank statements of Baltimore City Detention Center officials to Human Rights Watch that they were not meeting the mandated standards, together with the fact that federal law requires that they must certify their compliance in order to remain eligible to receive federal funds, leave little question that as currently operated the school violates state and federal law by not providing the required amount of instruction for general and special education students.40

The underlying reason for both problems, according to jail staff, is the lack of physical space. "Our biggest problem is space limitations," said Commissioner Flanagan. "The best thing would be to have a permanent building." In order to accommodate the large number of children in the limited space available, the school runs a staggered schedule, and students get only two-thirds of the class time that is required. Commissioner Flanagan emphasized that the lack of physical space also explained the jail's failure to educate the juveniles on administrative segregation. Security concerns, he stated, were not the issue: "We've mixed P.C. [protective custody] with the general population and had no problems. We've mixed the males and the females in school and had no problems."41

Whatever solution it ultimately adopts, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services should take immediate steps to remedy this serious deficiency in the quantity of education received by all juveniles in detention at the jail.

Montgomery County Detention Center

Montgomery County's detention center offers GED classes taught by teachers from the Montgomery County public schools. At the time of our visit in July 1998, three classes had a total of thirty-three students, with five to six on a wait list. Detainees with high school degrees or GEDs may enroll in community college classes in the detention center, although those who are not residents of Montgomery County must pay for these classes.

Detention center staff and the children we interviewed reported that they attended GED classes approximately three hours each day, for a total of no more than fifteen hours per week. For example, Thomas C. told us that he had attended GED classes every day from 7:45 to 11:30 a.m. William M. reported that he had even fewer hours of classroom instruction, stating that he was in school for no more than two hours each day. As in Baltimore, the low number of classroomhours offered to children in Montgomery County do not appear to comply with state law.42

Furthermore, the fact that GED classes are restricted to thirty-three students almost certainly means that there are juveniles and some adults who are not receiving the education to which they are entitled-according to detention center staff, there were about forty juveniles in Montgomery County on the day of our visit. We spoke with one juvenile, James S., a seventeen-year-old held in one of the high security pods, who reported that he was not permitted to attend classes. "They say it's because my codefendant is in school, because I can't see or talk to him at all," he said. "I feel I should have the right to go to school."43

Despite these concerns, several students stated that they had been able to earn their GEDs while they were in detention. Thomas C. was able to complete his GED in six months and then enrolled in college classes. He was able to complete seventeen credits toward an associate's degree, but he reported that he became ineligible to continue to take classes after he was sentenced.44

Other Jails Visited

Both the Washington and Frederick County detention centers offer inmates some GED instruction. In both facilities, the number of classroom hours appeared to fall far short of the state minimum.

Washington County offers one three-and-a-half hour GED class per week. Staff told us that juveniles who request GED instruction are immediately placed in the class. Some children appeared not to be aware that classroom instruction was available. Oliver R., sixteen, reported that he was receiving no education. "Well, I went to an AIDS class," he clarified. "That's the only thing I've had here." Comparing the Washington County Detention Center to Noyse, a juvenile facility he had been in, he said, "You go to school there. You take history and math. I'd go here if they offered it." But Ron P., a seventeen-year-old Washington County inmate, said that he had heard that GED classes were offered at the institution. "I already have my GED," he explained, "so I don't go."45

We were unable to interview children held in the Frederick County Detention Center. The warden, Rob Green, told us that Frederick County offered GED classes for a total of five hours each week. "Under Maryland law we're required to offer classes. I don't fight with the kids who don't want to go, but we encourage them to attend," he said. Asked about children with learning disabilities, Green replied that the jail is able to get tutors through the Board of Education. He told us that most often the teaching staff are able to identify a learning disability by obtaining the inmate's education history, but "sometimes you just have to stumble upon it."46

The Right to Education

The right to education is recognized in both international and domestic U.S. law. Internationally, the right is set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.47 These instruments place an obligation on states to endeavor to make public education available and accessible to all children.48

Although the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to education, all U.S. states recognize a fundamental right to primary and secondary education in state constitutions or confer the right by statute.49 As the U.S. Supreme Court has observed,

education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust formally to his environment . . . .50

In Maryland, the right to education is guaranteed by the state constitution, which directs that "the General Assembly . . . shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide, by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance."51 Admission to the public schools is guaranteed, free of charge, to "[a]ll individuals" five years of age or older and under the age of twenty-one.52

In fact, Maryland law provides for mandatory school attendance for most children. All children five or older and under the age of sixteen are required to attend school "regularly during the entire school year."53 Those who are "habitually truant" from school may be brought before a juvenile court and foundto be a child "in need of supervision."54 In addition, Maryland law imposes a duty on parents and guardians to see that children attend school; those who do not comply with this obligation may be fined and imprisoned.55

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has taken action against local jails that fail to comply with state education laws. After investigating the Daviess County Detention Center in Owensboro, Kentucky, the division advised the county fiscal court that "it is clear that the hours juveniles spend receiving instruction falls below that which is required by state law" and that the failure to provide adequate education was among "the conditions and practices at these four facilities [which] violate the constitutional rights of juveniles."56 The division reached a similar conclusion after completing its investigation in Greenville, South Carolina, finding that children in detention "receive no education and no efforts are made to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."57

Under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States is obligated to respect the entitlement of every person "without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law."58 Consistent with this nondiscrimination provision, when a state provides education for its children, it may not arbitrarily deny an education to particular groups of children. The statemay make distinctions among groups of individuals only to the extent that those distinctions are based on reasonable and objective criteria.59

International standards clarify that detention status is not a permissible basis for the denial of education to children. As reaffirmed in the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, youth do not lose their right to an education when they are confined. "Every juvenile of compulsory school age" who is deprived of his or her liberty "has the right to education suited to his or her needs and abilities," education which should be "designed to prepare him or her for return to society."60 The U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice call upon government officials to ensure that children deprived of their liberty "do not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage."61

The children in Maryland's jails are largely pretrial detainees; they have not yet been convicted of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty, they have a particularly compelling interest in continuing their education and ensuring that they do not leave pretrial detention six months to one year behind their peers.62

More generally, children in conflict with the law have the right to treatment in a manner consistent with "the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society."63 Implicit in international standards is the view that appropriate education is a critical component of rehabilitation. For this reason, the denial of educational opportunities to children in detention undermines one of the primary purposes of the treatment of juveniles in the justice system.64

Children with Learning Disabilities

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that as many as 40 percent of youth detained in correctional facilities may have some form of learning disability. Other estimates run as high as 60 percent.65 Nancy Cowardin, a researcher for the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project, notes that because learning disabilities affect "the learning of social information that is needed for decision making in nonacademic situations," it is "not surprising that learning disabled youth and adults in incarcerated populations represent 3½ to 10 times the percentage found among school children."66

The Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees disabled children effective access to education.67 The U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty clarify that children "who are illiterate or have cognative or learning difficulties should have the right to special education."68 In addition, the U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency direct education systems to devote particular attention to programs that provide positive emotional support to young persons and avoid psychological maltreatment.69

In the United States, a federal statute known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) requires each state to provide free and appropriate education to children with disabilities if the state receives federal support for educating students with disabilities. Currently all states and the District ofColumbia receive such funding. The act guarantees an education to all children between the ages of five and twenty-one with disabilities.70 There is no question that detained children with disabilities are covered by the act, which makes specific reference to "children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons."71

While the act holds significant promise for securing the rights of children who are learning disabled, its principal enforcement mechanism is underutilized. A study drafted under the direction of the American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Center found:

While each department of education guarantees that all schools and State-operated programs will provide special education and related services to eligible youth as a condition for the receipt of Federal funds, in reality, the U.S. Department of Education has never withheld any money from States that failed to provide appropriate special education services in juvenile corrections.72

The act may be enforced by individual lawsuits, and litigants in more than twenty class action suits have relied on the act to challenge special education services in juvenile institutions.73 In Maryland, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services recently entered into a settlement to resolve a lawsuit brought by sentenced prisoners under the age of twenty-one who qualified for special education services.74

Applicable Correctional Standards

Applicable correctional standards generally fail to protect the right of children in detention to receive an adequate education. Maryland correctional standards-the only standards with which all jails and detention facilities in the state are required to comply-make no provision for inmate education.75 ACA standards for adult detention centers contain only a generally worded call for "inmate access to educational programs" and fail to address the needs of juvenile detainees.76 Although a national corrections education group, the Correctional Education Association (CEA), has issued its own educational standards, none of the detention centers we visited employed these standards.77

30 The Center on Crimes, Communities and Culture, "Education as Crime Prevention: Providing Education to Prisoners," Research Brief, September 1997, p. 4.

31 Human Rights Watch interview with Barry L. Stanton, director, Prince George's County Department of Corrections, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, July 23, 1998.

32 Human Rights Watch interview with a teacher at the P.G. County Correctional Center, July 23, 1998.

33 Human Rights Watch interviews, P.G. County Correctional Center, July 23, 1998.

34 Human Rights Watch interviews with teachers at the P.G. County Correctional Center, July 23, 1998.

35 Human Rights Watch interview with a teacher at the P.G. County Correctional Center, July 23, 1998.

36 Human Rights Watch interview with LaMont Flanagan, commissioner, Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Baltimore, Maryland, September 23, 1998.

37 The school principal emphasized that full inclusion eliminates the stigmatization that special education students often experience. Human Rights Watch interview, Baltimore City Detention Center, May 11, 1999.

38 An individualized education program is developed for each learning-disabled student once the student has been identified as eligible for special education services. The program must specifically identify the student's educational needs and provide a plan for meeting those needs. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(20); 34 C.F.R. part 300, Appendix C, paras. 36-39.

39 Human Rights Watch interview, Baltimore City Detention Center, May 11, 1999.

40 The jail may also be in violation of a consent decree that obligates the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to provide an adequate special education program to all qualified youth in adult correctional facilities. See Maryland Correctional Special Education Action Plan, Melvin C. v. Shilling, C.A. No. HAR-91-497(D. Md.); Stipulated Dismissal on Conditions, Melvin C. v. Shilling, C.A. No. HAR-91-497 (D. Md.). Even if the school is not in direct violation of the consent decree, which technically applies only to "all correctional facilities and institutions for sentenced individuals operated by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services," Action Plan, para. 4 (emphasis added), the jail's deficient education program invites litigation premised on the same legal theories raised in the Melvin C. lawsuit.

41 Human Rights Watch interview with LaMont Flanagan, September 23, 1998.

42 In addition, some children expressed concern that receiving a GED rather than a diploma would be stigmatizing for them. For example, Matt P., a sixteen-year-old, told us that he decided not to join the GED program because he hoped to receive his diploma instead. Human Rights Watch interviews, Montgomery County Detention Center, July 30, 1998.

43 Human Rights Watch interview, Montgomery County Detention Center, July 30, 1998.

44 Human Rights Watch interview, Montgomery County Detention Center, July 30, 1998.

45 Human Rights Watch interviews, Washington County Detention Center, July 22, 1998.

46 Human Rights Watch interview, Rob Green, warden, Frederick County Detention Center, Frederick, Maryland, July 21, 1998.

47 The United States has signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), opened for signature December 19, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force January 3, 1976), but has not ratified it and is only one of two countries that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the other is Somalia, which has no functioning government). As a signatory to the conventions, however, the United States is obligated to refrain from action which would defeat its object and purpose. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18(a). See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26.

48 Article 13 of the ICESCR provides that primary education "shall be available to all" and that secondary education "shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means." Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes "the right of the child to education," and states party undertake to make secondary education "available and accessible to every child." In addition, the ICCPR, which the United States has ratified, guarantees each child the right to "such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor," a provision that has been interpreted to include education sufficient to enable each child to develop his or her capacities and enjoy civil and political rights. U.N. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 17, para. 3. On the right to education in international law, see generally Manfred Nowak, "The Right to Education," in Asbjørn Eide and others, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1995), pp. 189-211; Roger J.R. Levesque, "Educating America's Youth: Lessons from Children's Human Rights Law," Journal of Law and Education, vol. 27 (1998), p. 173.

49 See generally Molly McUsic, "The Use of Education Clauses in School Finance Reform Litigation," Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 28 (1991), p. 311.

50 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). The U.S. Supreme Court has also observed that education "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives" and "has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221-22 (1982)

51 Maryland Constitution, Article VIII, § 1. See also Md. Code Ann., Education Article, § 1-201 (1998) ("There shall be throughout this State a general system of free public schools according to the provisions of this article."). By law, public schools must be open for 180 days or 1080 hours. Ibid. § 7-103 (1998).

52 Ibid. § 7-101 (1998).

53 See ibid. §§ 7-301(a)(1), (d)(2) (1998). The mandatory attendance requirement does not apply to a child whose "mental, emotional, or physical condition makes his instruction detrimental to his progress" or whose "presence in school presents a danger of serious physical harm to others." Ibid. § 7-301(d)(2) (1998).

54 Md. Code. Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 3-801(f) (1998). See also In re Ann M., 525 A.2d 1054 (Md. 1987).

55 Md. Code Ann., Education Article, §§ 7-301(c), (e) (1998). See also In re Jeannette L. and Shirley P., 523 A.2d 1048 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987). The criminal penalties are not limited to parents: the statute provides that "[a]ny person who has legal custody or care and control of a child who is 5 years old or older and under 16 who fails to see that the child

attends school or receives instruction under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor . . . ." Md. Code Ann., Education Article, § 7-301(e)(2) (1998) (emphasis added).

56 Letter from Bill Lan Lee, acting assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Buzz Norris, judge-executive, Daviess County Fiscal Court, Owensboro, Kentucky, April 10, 1998, pp. 15, 2.

57 Letter from Bill Lan Lee, acting assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Gerald Seals, county administrator, Greenville, South Carolina, May 28, 1998, p. 12.

58 Article 26 further requires that "the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" (emphasis added).

59 Interpreting Article 26, the Human Rights Committee has concluded:

It prohibits discrimination in law or in fact in any field regulated and protected by public authorities. . . . Thus, when legislation is adopted by a State party, it must comply with the requirement of article 26 that its content should not be discriminatory. In other words, the application of the principle of non-discrimination contained in article 26 is not limited to those rights which are provided for in the Covenant.

General Comment 18, ¶ 12. See also M.J. Bossuyt, "Travaux Preparatoires" of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, p. 489 (Martinus N­hoff, 1987).

60 U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, Article 38.

61 U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, Article 26.6.

62 See, for example, U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, Article 18(b).

63 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 40(1).

64 The U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency note that educational opportunities are critical in safeguarding the personal development of young persons, particularly those who are at risk of delinquency. Article 5(a), G.A. Res. 45/112, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A), p. 201, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).

65 See Alexander S. v. Boykin, 876 F. Supp. 773, 788 (D.S.C. 1995) (noting that between 17.5 percent and 32.5 percent of juveniles in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice were in special education programs and that the department's "own investigators admitted that perhaps as many as fifty percent of the juveniles at DJJ are in need of special education"); Robert J. Gemignani, "Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for Change," OJJDP Update on Research, October 1994, p. 2; R.B. Rutherford, C.M. Nelson, and B.I. Wolford, "Special Education in the Most Restrictive Environment: Correctional/Special Education," Journal of Special Education, vol. 19 (1985), p. 59; Casey and Keilitz, "Estimating the Prevalence of Learning Disabled and Mentally Retarded Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis," in Peter Leone, ed., Understanding Troubled and Troubling Youth (1990), p. 82.

66 Nancy Cowardin, "Disorganized Crime: Learning Disability and the Criminal Justice System," Criminal Justice, Summer 1998, p. 11.

67 See Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 23(3), 28(1)(b). Similarly, Article 26.6 of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice calls upon detention facilities to provide "adequate" academic training.

68 U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles, Article 38.

69 U.N. Guidelines for the Protection of Juvenile Delinquency, Article 21(g), G.A. Res. 45/112, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A), p. 201, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).

70 See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1419. Children with mental retardation, deafness, hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, visual impairment, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, blindness, specific learning disability, autism, traumatic brain injury, or multiple disabilities are protected by IDEA. See ibid. § 1401(a)(1). In addition, educationally disabled children are entitled under IDEA to "related services," such as speech, vision, hearing, and counseling services, that are necessary for them to implement their individual education programs. See ibid. § 1401(a)(17); 34 C.F.R. § 300.16.

71 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(C).

72 Patricia Puritz and Mary Ann Scali, Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Custody (Washington, D.C.: OJJDP, 1998), p. 21.

73 Ibid., pp. 17-19.

74 Maryland Correctional Special Education Action Plan, Melvin C. v. Shilling, C.A. No. HAR-91-497 (D. Md.).

75 See Maryland Commission on Correctional Standards, Standards, Compliance Criteria, and Compliance Explanations for Adult Detention Centers.(Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 1995).

76 American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 3d ed. (Latham, Maryland: ACA, 1991), p. 113. This failure to address the needs of juvenile detainees is startling in light of the ACA's express recognition that children may be held in adult local detention facilities. See ibid., p. vi. In contrast, ACA standards for juvenile detention facilities-standards that are not applicable to any of the jails or detention centers visited by Human Rights Watch-note:

The facility should provide juveniles with a broad educational program that is most suited to their needs and abilities and includes but is not limited to: developmental education; remedial education; special education; multi-cultural education; bilingual education, when the profile indicates; and tutorial services as needed. This program should operate under the auspices of the year-round school system.

American Correctional Association, Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities, 3d ed. (Latham, Maryland: ACA, 1991), p. 103.

77 Released in 1988, these thirty-one standards reflect the first attempt to address institutional and systemwide educational practices in correctional facilities. See Correction Education Association, Standards for Adult and Juvenile Correctional Education Programs (College Park, Maryland: CEA, 1988). See generally S. Adwell and B. Wolford, "Development and Growth of Standards for Correctional Education," Journal of Correctional Education, vol. 34 (1983), pp. 123-25.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page