{"id":2538,"date":"2012-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-07-06T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/portability-and-access\/"},"modified":"2020-02-27T16:36:52","modified_gmt":"2020-02-27T21:36:52","slug":"portability-and-access","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/portability-and-access\/","title":{"rendered":"Portability and Access"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>David Domenici<\/a> at the Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings<\/a> has been visiting state juvenile justice leaders this spring exploring how they are providing educational services in youth detention facilities.\u00a0 He has been identifying barriers to ensuring young people who are in the juvenile justice system have access to education, an absolutely critical component for reducing recidivism.\u00a0 In last month’s newsletter<\/a> he describes the time-based Carnegie unit’s “especially pernicious impact of this framework on young people in the juvenile justice system, who are older and significantly credit deficient.”<\/p>\n

In this month’s newsletter David goes on to highlight two challenges young people face when they are transitioning back from secure settings:a) policy requiring students go to an alternative school before returning to their regular school (increasing the number of transitions and each transition creating more likelihood of disengaging or falling through the cracks; and,<\/p>\n

b) districts simply refusing to enroll students, thus forcing them into alternative schools.<\/p>\n

It is important to understand these dynamics as we think about state and district policy for competency education as we need to make sure that portability and access to official competency “transcripts” are in our design considerations. These dynamics raise a number of questions for me:<\/p>\n