Research Paper

Taylor McCourt

Dr. Tracy Penny Light

HIST 3510 – The History of Childhood and Education

April 19^th 2019

Education in the Prison Systems During the 1970’s to 1990’s

Education can mean many things to different people around the world. For many it is a privilege, that they take for granted, to be able to go to school every day. Yet, for many individuals incarcerated they lack an education all together. In the past education systems were put in place for these individuals, so that behind bars they could complete either an elementary school, high school, or even a post-secondary education. More recent research shows that there are different types of educational programs that are available to inmates in Canada including: mental, physical and emotional programs that help inmates cope with certain situations. Some people may think putting in place these education systems is a step in the right direction for inmates, but others are skeptical of its consequences. This research plans on studying how education in the prison systems during the 1970’s to the 1990’s was used as a social control mechanism in Canada. Many people think about the topic of recidivism when they think of the education systems put in place in prisons, and how recidivism can be viewed as social control from the government as well. Therefore, “increasing access to higher education in prison often hinges upon a series of seemingly compelling and related rationales: the reduction of recidivism, saving taxpayer dollars, and increasing safety and security (inside and outside of prisons)” (Gould, 387). So were these special programs put in place to stop crime after a criminal was let go, or was is for a social control aspect in the governments eyes? Through the definition of what prison systems are, the types of prison education programs available, and the effects of prison educational programs based on rates of recidivism, we can see how prison education systems during the 1970’s to the 1990’s were used as social control.

During 1970 and all the way to 1990, the world was a changing place. With new innovations and technology immerging it was no surprise that there was an increase in deviant acts that were beginning to take place in society. In recent years there has been a 500% increase in the amount of individuals that are currently inside prison compared to the ear 1997 (Gould, 388). “The evolution of correctional education in the Western world during the nineteenth century was dependent on new ideas that were spawned and developed in a number of countries” (Angle, 40). Additionally, to all the deviance that was occurring, there was a spike in individuals that were being placed in prison. “There are approximately 10,000 inmates held in the 59 federal penitentiaries across Canada”. (Boulianne & Meunier, 218). For these individuals put in person they spent their days countlessly waiting for their release date. One option there was for prisoners during this time was educational programs that were being conducted at their prisons. During this time approximately 20% of inmates regularly participated in educational programs on a full time basis (Boulianne & Meunier, 218). “The history of programs in prisons and juvenile institutions is as vast and deep as the history of correctional education itself” (Gehring, 46). Prison educational programs have been around for years, the earliest of these programs dating all the way back to the 1800’s (Goldsmith, 109). These programs were first put in place to give offenders something to do during their day, yet during the 1970’s to the 1990’s they were implemented more in hopes recidivism rates would decrease. Many of the correctional education innovations were implemented in association with colleges and universities (Gehring, 46). And they were set up in minimum, medium and even maximum security prisons to allow of inmates of certain prisons the chance to improve their education levels. These programs were implemented so that researchers could better understand how recidivism and prison educational programs were connected. The purpose of these programs were simple; to improve a prisoner’s “cognitive development, moral development, and socio-political development” (Mortin, 1981). These programs were not just able control, but they also served to try and eliminate isolation in the prisons between inmates. It is known that someone that tends to have little to no friends, and doesn’t associate with many people will more likely continue to act out in deviant and criminal ways (Duguid, 1989, 44). Programs like this were implemented to make sure that inmates upon released from prison would not return. This is a major component of how prison educational programs during this time were used as social control. Making sure that individuals were able to follow to rules of society after they were released from prison made it easier on not only law enforcement, but also the government. Controlling the education these inmates were getting putting them in the right direction after they were out to start working and give back to the society they once terrorized. Another way that these programs could be considered social control from the government was throughout the different types of programs that were offered in the different prisons all across Canada.

The types of educational programs available to inmates varied dependent on a few things. One of the things was the funding that went into these programs. Although it was federal funding that was the bulk of the funding that these programs ran on, it wasn’t enough just for the government to help pay. Like stated above many university and college institutions help run these programs. Not only did the researchers talk to the inmates that were in these programs but they also involved themselves in the subjects that the prisoners were being taught. It must first be noted that the educators of these inmates were always being held accountable for the specific goals, employment and critical thinking skills of the individuals that were taking these courses (Duguid et al, 74). The individuals that run these course always had the best interest of the prisoners in their mind when preparing the inmates for life outside of the bars. “The Correctional Service offers a full range of educational services, from basic literacy to university education” (Boulianne & Meunier, 218). “Several reviewers have noted that the education experience of inmates is extremely limited. Some inmates are virtually illiterate, while many others are best described as functionally illiterate. While most have spent eight or nine years in school, it is estimated that approximately 35 percent have not attained secondary school levels of education ability” (Volpe et al, 66). This means that a variety of different programs must be offered in a particular prison to make sure that no one person is being discriminated against due to them having a lower level of education than another inmate. “A 1973 survey found that of 218 institutions offering higher education programs, 166 (76.1%) of the programs involved in-person teaching by colleges and universities. The remaining 52 programs were comprised of correspondence courses, TV offerings, or involved prison teaching staff” (Emmert, 5). The first type of education that was offered in prisons during this time period was a KET/GED series. This was a computer-based program that allowed inmates to complete their high school education during their time in prison (Duguid, 1997, 68). Another type of educational program that was available to inmates during this time was vocational programs. Vocational programs were types of programs that taught the basic skills of a trade for an inmate. Over 800 inmates participate in the vocational programs that are offered all throughout Canada (Boulianne & Meunier, 218). Whether an inmate was taking a basic course that involved reading, writing, and math, or they were taking a more advanced course that involved the use of heavy duty tools, these programs were put in place for one reason; social control of the inmates. The types of programs that were available to the prison population varied which made it more accessible to a larger population of those individuals incarcerated. The government regulated these programs to be able to mold the prisoners into something they wanted to see in society once they were released.

There has always been the assumption that prison educational programs would help decrease recidivism rates. This is the main reason that the government started to use programs like KET/GED series and the vocational training programs in the federal prison systems. Using prison education programs as a mechanism as social control, the government can keep an eye on these deviant individuals and try to make it so they do not commit a crime again. “Staff and students had long suspected that the program were having a positive effect on the post-release lives of its alumni and were sure that it was a factor I enabling some men to avoid returning to prison” (Duiguid & Hoekema, 1986). Many studies followed these men that took educational programs during their time in prison and say how they were effected by them after returning to their normal life. In 1980 a follow-up study was conducted to see how prisoners were after being involved in these programs during their correctional years and later being released. “The follow-up study showed that the program was having an impact on attitude, employment, on life-style, and recidivism. Only 16 percent of the men followed up had any further contact with the law after release, compared with 50 percent of the matched group” (Duguid & Hoekema, 1986). Throughout time the effectiveness of education programs in prisons have prevailed. They continue to show that when inmates take the programs that are offered in prisons their chances of becoming a reoffender are vastly decreased. Again, proving how social control can take part in the prison educational programs that took place during the 1970’s all the way through the 1990’s. Although there can still be some limitations of the program. The first critique of these programs is that the, “educational programs will be more effective if a school atmosphere can be developed that truly forces the prisoner to make a choice between being a con and being a student, at least during the day” (Ayers, 3). This means that an offender must want to get an education because merely putting them in the programs without them pushing themselves doesn’t decrease the recidivism rates as much. “The process of selection for a course of higher education in prison is largely one of self-selection. In some cases, inmates have been encouraged to progress from one sort of course to a “higher” one, but in general students have found themselves pursuing their course through their own initiative” (Duguid, 1990, 38) If an offender chooses not to participate or involve themselves in these types of programs than social control cannot be obtained. If an offender isn’t obeying the rules and chooses not to try and make a positive change in their life the government will not be able to control them once they have left the prison once again. Another limitation of prison education systems could be the partial ignorance of gender when it comes to these programs. Throughout research, only one study showed the educational programs that were offered in a women’s only prison. While male prisons tending to have lots of vocational education and higher level education programs, in women’s prison they chose to educate women through education about their personal health (Elwood et al, 96). Although there may be many different reasons for the differences in the education male and female inmates receive, it is hard to justify them. Men tend to receive an education that will aid in their future careers, while women take programs that help them understand their physical and mental health more. One reason for these courses available to women could be that the majority of women incarcerated are in prison due to being caught up in prostitution. So, along with the increase in prostitutes that are in prison, those “women in prison typically have poorer health, with a higher prevalence of HIV, hepatitis C, cervical dysplasia, and psychiatric illness than the general population” (Elwood et al, 96). This is another reason social control can be derived from prison educational programs in Canada. When someone is more aware and has the knowledge about their body that they lack before, it could change the way they act outside of prison. It was stated above that the average education level of an individual in prison was very low. This means that the women in these prisons most likely were unaware of the dangers that actually exist within prostitution Yet, even if they are aware of the sexual and physical danger that come along with that particular occupation, giving them the knowledge about their health may make them want to pursue a career in another type of field. Regulating the knowledge that these female inmates are receiving means that you will be able to hopefully spread the knowledge once they have been released. Controlling what women learn about their bodies may cause them to try and avoiding having to do those acts again in the future.

Through past literature and the history of prison education systems, the relationship between education and the government can be seen as a type of social control. These individuals have been deviant in some way, which placed them in prison. The educational programs that are put into action in prisons have given inmates the chance to change their future once they are released from the prison. Although some may see this as a positive thing, the real reason for these programs may be something deeper. If the government can control these individuals inside the prison with putting them into certain educational programs, it means they can control them once they leave the prison as well. Saying this is social control can be a scary thing for the individuals inside prison; for the people in society that will have to live with the criminals after they are released social control can be a positive element. No one wants to live their life in fear that a past criminal is going to reoffend once they have been released. Using prison educational programs to give inmates the opportunity to grow their basic knowledge to get them ready for the work force once they have been released is an affirmative movement to being able to decrease recidivism rates in Canada. Research has proven time and time again that the prison educational programs that were available to inmates during this time was helping decrease recidivism rates immensely. This was happening in Canada intensively during the 1970’s to the 1990’s. Yet, this issue is still prevalent in Canada today. Learning from the past there can be a clear connection not only between recidivism rates decreasing and prison educational programs, but also this programs being used as a way of social control of the inmates that were part of these programs.

Bibliography

Angle, Terry. “How Americans and Europeans Influenced the Early Development of           Correctional Education in Ontario.” Journal of Correctional Education 46, no. 2 (1995):       40-43.

Ayers, Douglas J. “A Model for Prison Education Programs and Guidelines for Their         Operation.” Journal of Correctional Education 30, no. 1 (1979): 3-8.

Boulianne, Réal, and Meuneir, Claire. “Prison Education: Effects of Vocational Education on          Rehabilitation.” McGill Journal of Education 21, no. 3 (1986): 217-228.

Duguid, Stephen. “Cognitive Dissidents Bite the Dust – The Demise of University Education in     Canada’s Prisons.” Journal of Correctional Education 28, no. 2 (June 1997): 58-68.

Duguid, S., Hawkey, C., and Pawson, R. “Using Recidivism to Evaluate Effectiveness in Prison Education Programs.      Journal of Correctional Education 47, no. 2 (June 1996): 74-85.

Duguid, Stephen. Yearbook of Correctional Education: 1989. Burnaby, Canada. Simon Fraser       Education Program through the Institute for the Humanities, 1989.

Duguid, Stephen. Yearbook of Correctional Education: 1990. Burnaby, Canada. Simon Fraser       Education Program through the Institute for the Humanities, 1990.

Elwood, R., Martin, K., Murphy, D., Hanson, C., Hemingway, V., Ramsden, J. Buxton, A.           Granger-Brown, L-L., Condello, M., Buchanan N., Espinoza-Magana, G., Edworthy, T.,        and Hislop, G. “The Development of Participatory Health Research Among Incarcerated     Women in a Canadian Prison.” International Journal of Prisoner Health 5, no. 2 (2009):            95-107. doi: 10.1080/17449200902884021.

Emmert, Ellen. “Offender Assistance Programs Operated by Postsecondary Institutions of Education, 1975-76.” AACJC Publications 1, no. 1 (1976): 1-26.

Gering, Thom. “Post-Secondary Education for Inmates: A Historical Inquiry.” Journal of   Correctional Education 48, no. 1 (1997): 46-55.

Goldsmith, Larry. “History from the Inside Out: Prison Life in Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts.” Journal of Social History 1, no. 1 (1997): 109-125.

Gould, Mary. “Rethinking Our Metrics: Research in the Field
of Higher Education in Prison.”       The Prison Journal 98, no. 4 (2018): 387-404. doi: 10.1177/0032885518776375.

Irvin Waller, Men Released from Prisons. University of Toronto: University of Toronto Press,       1979.

Morin, Lucien. On Prison Education. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Government Publishing Centre,   1981.

Skinner, Shirley., Driedger Otto., Grainger, Brian. Corrections: An Historical Perspective of the    Saskatchewan Experience.  University of Regina: Canadian Plains Reports Research      Center, 1981.

Volpe, Richard., Waksman, Mary., and Kearney, Colleen. “Cognitive Education in Four     Canadian Prisons.” Journal of Correctional Education 34, no. 2, (June 1985): 66-74.       https://www.jstor.org/stable/41971711.