Arguing for Offenders being Supported towards Higher Education - Literature review Example

?Arguing for offenders being supported towards Higher Education. Introduction: the value of higher education in prisons. There is plenty of research from various countries which demonstrates the value of Higher Education in prisons, in terms of the rehabilitation opportunity it provides, and the positive effects that it can have in reducing reoffending rates. One longitudinal American study among female prisoners, for example, found that the recidivism rates amongst women who had attended college programmes was about four times lower than the rate among women who had not participated in college training. (Torre and Fine, 2005). Quite apart from the life enhancing benefits to prisoners themselves, who were able to gain insight into their own situation and formulate new and positive strategies for their future lives, there are obvious and positive impacts for society at large in opening up access to Higher Educations to prisoners. In general it is clear that the benefits of providing such access far outweighed the financial costs. What is less clear, is how best to deliver more access to higher education for the most excluded portion of citizens, namely those who are in the care of prisons and probation officers. Major shifts in criminal justice policies and in UK Higher Education. In the UK in recent years there have been some big ideological debates surrounding prisons, sentencing and the punishment and rehabilitation of offenders. At the same time there have been major changes in the UK Higher Education sector, with increasing privatisation of delivery and substantial fee increases. Vignoles and Crawford (2009, p. 49) point out that it has been difficult in the UK, even in the general population outside prisons, to widen access to access to Higher Education. Despite well-publicised efforts in the mid to late 1990s, to introduce policies to widen access, the gap in HE participation rates between higher and lower social classes actually widened. Adult learners, who are just one of several target groups in the widening access agenda, experience significant barriers to Higher Education entry which are only partially addressed by access courses and other outreach measures initiated by further and higher education institutions. The extent of the difference caused by socio- economic factors is still very large, and apparently growing: “Recent evidence from HEFCE (2005) indicates that the 20 per cent most disadvantaged students are around six times less likely to participate in higher education compared to the 20 per cent most advantaged pupils” (Vignoles and Crawford, 2009, p. 49). The introduction of very high fees in the mainstream higher education sector in the UK has caused a marked commercialisation of the whole student experience. There is a system in place which requires universities to make “Access Agreements” which in theory guarantee that special provision is made for students who have difficulty in meeting the high cost of fees. It has been noted already that the democratisation of higher education through these new measures has been only a partial success, with new universities in particular exceeding their targets in widening participation, while at the same time there appears to be a worrying entrenchment of top fifth, redbrick and elite institutions which perform below their expected benchmark (David, 2009, p. 46). There is a danger that these measures will increase access to the lower portion of Higher Education, such as foundation degrees and some BA and BSc programmes in some institutions, while actually increasing the exclusivity of popular courses in well-regarded universities. There is, of course, a tension between these financially driven reforms, and the objective of widening participation. Hartley sums up the main direction of the reforms of the early 1990s in Ritzer’s (1993) somewhat provocative term “McDonaldization” which postulates four key dimensions “efficiency, calculability, predictability and control” in post-modern organisations (Hartley, 1995, p. 409). This commodification of education favours delivery modes which appeal to the masses: in practical terms this means the mainstream market of 18-22 year olds. Adult learners, and offenders in particular, represent a cohort with particular needs, and this means that they fall outside the scope of most current delivery. Funding pressures make it increasingly more difficult for institutions to provide tailor made courses, or to delivery outside their core times and locations. There is a parallel trend in the prison sector which is subject to similar pressures involving moves towards privatisation and a shift from rehabilitation back to reparation. The majority of existing prison education is very vocationally focussed, with an emphasis on basic skills and practical preparation for employment in trades rather than university or college level subjects which lead to careers in the various professions. Bayliss (2003) argues that insufficient attention has been paid to integration of prison education with the outside world, particularly through higher level courses. The language and focus of the recent Ministry of Justice report ominously maintains, however: “We will base our plans on the same insights that are driving reform across Government: increasing competition, decentralising control; enhancing transparency; strengthening accountability: and paying by results… Our plans represent a fundamental break with the failed and expensive policies of the past” (Ministry of Justice, 2010, p. 2). The prison population has almost doubled since 1993, and it is reported that almost half of prisoners (47%) said that they had no qualifications. A major objective of this report is to shift the focus from rehabilitation to “payback” and to subject more prisoners to a requirement that they work a full working week (Ministry of Justice, 2010, p. 16). The report envisages more collaboration with private sector companies, for vocational education input, and less involvement with public sector organisations, which surely means universities and colleges. It appears, then, that initiatives in different parts of government are producing contradictory effects, so that efforts to widen participation are being cancelled out by efficiency drives, privatisation and a more punitive than rehabilitative objective behind prison regimes. Privatisation, commercialisation and fragmentation of education for offenders. The latest reports from the prison service and education providers welcome a broadening of the learning opportunities for prisoners to include private providers and employer-related schemes, but one issue that emerges from the growing complexity of provision is that prisoners may well sign up for an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) with one provider and then find that they are unable to complete their programme because they have been moved, or because they finish their sentence, or due to funding issues (House of Commons, 2008, p.34). Ideally, there should be a system which starts during the period of the prison sentence and extends through the release phase and into the prisoner’s life outside the prison. Current systems which use private provision for in-prison service, or work-based experiential learning through partnerships with collaborating firms are only effective during the time of the actual sentence and in that specific geographical area. Prisoners, who are by nature a transient population, thus miss out especially on the longer term benefits of their education. The situation of prisoners who carry out their sentences in the community is somewhat anomalous in terms of access to education, since no one authority is expected to take care of their requirements. One organisation which continues to offer the benefits of flexibility and the possibility of a seamless provision inside and outside the prison environment is the Open University. The starting level for its introductory “Openings” programme is NQF level 2, and funding is often available to prisoners for this, and for the first 60 credits of OU modules, subject to the approval of the prison governor (OU 2011/2012, pp. 103). Beyond this amount, there is some funding available from the Prisoners’ Education Trust (PET) via a fairly lengthy application process, and applications are is by no means guaranteed a successful outcome. The Open University’s longstanding experience in offering open and distance learning modes makes it well placed to provide input to prison populations, and indeed it has been doing so almost since its inception. In the early days its distance learning approach was radical, and supported by medium tech equipment such as radio and television. In the age of the internet there is huge potential to expand the opportunity for capitalising on the social as well as intellectual aspects of learning through use of internet-based support networks which truly can include prisoners in a non-discriminatory way. Pike reports that there currently some 1500 OU students in the UK and Ireland who are located in some 150 prisons and studying approximately 220 courses across all levels and faculties of the Open University (Pike, 2008, p. 1). In the past students in prison have demonstrated above average retention rates on courses, but there is a recent downward trend which Pike attributes to restrictions on the availability of the internet to prisoners. Other factors which make learning in a prison context difficult include lack of quiet space for study, lengthy security clearance procedures and inadequate training for tutors, and some indication of resentment on the part of prison staff, many of whom themselves would appreciate more training at higher education level (Pike, 2008, pp. 1-2). The OU has proposed local intranets, and has itself constructed secure online meeting spaces for tutors and students, and suggests that this is a way to bring some of the benefits of social learning to prisoners, without opening up the security risk of full internet access for prisoners. This kind of expertise is exactly what is required if higher education access is to be a reality for prisoners in the age of the internet. The UK criminal justice system has made a seemingly permanent move towards shorter sentences and much more use of sentencing which requires the offender to spend some of all of the time in a community setting rather than in a secure unit. In theory, this should ease some of the practical limitations on higher education delivery in a secure setting because students can access various public and private resources including libraries, learning centres, educational establishments and the internet. The real value of a coherent system like the Open University access routes and modular structure is that it can adapt to these different settings, and the student can gradually acquire the social skills that are required for successful completion in a modern technology driven programme. The open ended nature of the degree structure means that learners can build a programme piece by piece, collecting credits and constructing their own path to certification at foundation, degree or even postgraduate level. Unfortunately, however, the funding and support systems available for prisoners who serve sentences in the community has not caught up with this type of sentencing regime. The need for skills, not just qualifications. It is important to understand that education of offenders is not just a matter of creating courses and issuing accreditation for attending them, especially since many learners in this situation have a negative experience of learning in their past, and require much more focus on skills. It has been noted that voluntary organisations may well be better partners for collaboration than local businesses, because there is a wealth of experience there, and often a social setting that values non-traditional learning (Schuller, 2009, p. 35). Learners who have experienced prison face significant personal factors which can hinder their learning and a significant area that is currently in danger of disappearing is the provision of creative arts courses and “enrichment” programmes which address these particular skills areas (Parks, 2011, p. 125). Parks notes an increasing instrumentalism in education planning, which reflects notions of work learning that are not person-centred, and argues for arts-based programmes which foster empathy, self-awareness and self-control. Unfortunately many regimes are not geared up for this kind of learning, so that students in secure locations find their courses cancelled at short notice for operational reasons, and students in the community find themselves adrift without the respectful learning community that provides a space to practice respect, trust, and all the intangible socially acquired abilities that are so fundamental to success in life. In conclusion, therefore, the literature on this topic shows that there is considerable fluidity in policy and practice. The “stepping stone” that prison courses provide can only be effective if they lead into a context where further progress can be made, and this suggests that the Open University is the best provider for learners who come from a prison background and have already achieved at least NQF level 2 qualifications. References Bayliss, P. (2003) Learning behind bars: time to liberate prison education. Studies in the Education of Adults 35 (2), pp. 157-172. David, M. et al. (2009) Improving Learning by Widening Participation in Higher Education. Hartley, D. (1995) The McDonaldization of higher education: Food for Thought. Oxford Review of Education 21 (4), pp. 409-423. House of Commons (2008) Meeting needs? Offenders’Learning and Skills Service: Forty-seventh Report of Session 2007-2008. London: HMSO. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/584/584.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012] Ministry of Justice. (2010) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders. London: HMSO. Available at: http://shop.niace.org.uk/media/catalog/product/f/i/file_2_2.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012]. Open University (2010/2011) Studying with the Open University: A Guide for learners in Prison. Available at: http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/3427/Studying_with_the_OU_-_a_guide_for_learners_in_prison.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012]. Parks, R. (2011) Is the ‘rehabilitation Revolution’ Bad News for Enrichment Activities with Prisoners? British Journal of Community Justice 9 (1/2), pp. 125ff. Pike, A. (2008) Developing Online Communities to Support Distance Learning. Open University. Available at: www.iiis.org/CDs2008/CD2009SCI/EISTA2009/.../E615SE.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012]. Pike, A. and Irwin, T. (2008) Improving Access to Higher Education and Distance Learning. Paper delivered at the EDEN Conference, Paris. Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society. London: Pine Forge Press. Robbins Report (1963) Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins, 1961-1963, Higher Education. London: HMSO. Schuller, T. (2009) Crime and Lifelong Learning. IFLL Thematic Paper 5. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Available at: http://shop.niace.org.uk/media/catalog/product/f/i/file_2_2.pdf [Accessed 18 June 2012]. Torre, M. and Fine, M. (2005) Bar None: Extending Affirmative Action to Higher Education in Prison. Journal of Social Issues 61 (3), pp. 569-594. Vignoles, A. and Crawford, C. (2009) The importance of prior educational experience. In M. David et al. (Eds.) Improving Learning by Widening Participation in Higher Education pp. 47-61. Read More