NATFHE submission to the Education and
Skills Select Committee inquiry into prison education
Introduction
NATFHE - The University & College Lecturers'
Union represents prison education lecturers working in adult prisons
and Youth Offender Institutions. Our members in England and Wales
are the principal staff delivering education to prisoners.
Over the last decade NATFHE nationally has monitored
both negative and positive developments in prison education.
This period has seen prison education put out to
competitive tendering, dramatic cuts in provision and staffing
in the early to mid 1990s and since 1997 the gradual increase
in provision, resources and government attention.
In this time NATFHE has published surveys on
- n the
effects of competitive tendering on the provision of education
services in prisons[1];
- n the
decreasing opportunities for staff development for prison education
staff[2];
- n the
perceptions of prison education amongst principal stakeholders
- research commissioned with the Association of Colleges[3].
This response will focus on those issues primarily
of concern to our members working in prisons, rather than the
issues that link prison education to the outside world such as
employer links and education and training and support for those
on probation.
- NATFHE evidence is drawn from "Shared Responsibilities"
and from continuing feedback and dialogue with NATFHE members
in prison education.
Background
Organisation and funding
1991 Until 1991 prison education was funded
by the Home Office and delivered under contract by LEA adult education
services and FE colleges. Contracts for prison education services
were then put out to tender. Contracts were issued for five years
and went to a variety of providers, largely FE colleges. Some
colleges had multiple contracts geographically spread across the
country. Mostly there was a reasonable proximity to the prison
and the education contractor, but some contractors were anything
up to 150 miles away from the actual prison.
Prison education budgets were placed in the hands
of prison governors who could "vire" money to other
areas of the prisons.
1991 - 1996 Prison education was subject to
decisions by governors often made for non-educational reasons
and suffered large cuts in provision with losses of many full-time
prison education lecturers.
1996 Prison education contracts were re-tendered.
Contracts went to FE colleges, two LEAs and one private provider.
Some colleges had developed a considerable expertise in prison
education.
2001 Responsibility for prison education was
shared between Prison Services and the DfES. A separate unit was
established - the Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit (PLSU), now
the Offenders Prison Learning and Skills Unit. The PLSU had a
network of Area Managers who had a geographic and lead responsibility
for an area of work. Recently the Prison Service appointed a Head
of Learning and Skills with a responsibility for all learning
in prisons. They are directly employed by Prison service and are
part of management of prisons.
With the establishment of the PLSU, the funding for
prison education was transferred from the Home Office and Prison
Service to the DfES and ring fenced for education work
2002/3 The PLSU commissioned Price Waterhouse
Cooper (PWC) to review the funding of prison education. This review
found little connection between the vocational training that went
on in prisons (in workshops with directly employed instructors)
and other aspects of prison life such as offending behaviour and
management programmes, sentence management and resettlement. The
Review took the broad line that funding should be more closely
aligned to individual prisoners' learning needs and the characteristics
of their sentence and the actual prison.
Numerous options were put forward for the future
of funding and contracting of prison education. The outcome of
the review was that a new re-tendering process would be undertaken
and a new specification for such contracts would be drawn for
prison education providers. The proposals made it clear that new
providers would be encouraged to participate in the tendering
process. The project was titled Project Rex. It recommended that
prison education should again be re-tendered as a combined contract
of prison education and vocational training.
2003 Notice to contractors of the re-tendering
process was given in April and the date for the new contracts
to come into force was April 2004 - later changed to September
2004. Existing providers had their existing contracts extended
twice to meet these timescales).
2004 In January 2004 Project Rex collapsed and
the OLSU announced that current contracts would be automatically
extended for between 1 and 3 years from September 2004.
NATFHE welcomed the creation
of the Prisoners, now Offenders Learning and Skills Unit and the
active participation of the DfES in the delivery of prison education.
We felt that linking prison education to reform taking place in
post-compulsory education and training were especially positive.
The union has enjoyed a close and supportive relationship
with the unit. We believe that it has led to a higher profile
for prison education, and its position at the heart of the government's
policies to combat social exclusion
NATFHE opposed the contracting
out of the prison education services. The first round of contracting
was inappropriate, as the determining factor in granting contracts
seemed to be price. This resulted in a drastic cut in provision;
the loss of many committed and experienced prison education staff
and the subordination of prison education to other aspects of
prison regimes.
NATFHE feels that the
second round of contracting saw some improvement including the
removal of contractors not drawn from the ranks of those already
providing post-16 education and training. In our response to the
PWC review (attached)[4],
NATFHE supported the broad thrust of the OLSU's proposals
but felt that if contracting continued, it should be reissued
to contractors who wished to continue with their prison education
work and any changes envisaged by the OLSU could be accommodated
through variations to these contracts.
With the collapse of Project Rex, it was decided
that LSCs would be the route for contracting. NATFHE considers
that the involvement of LSCs will draw prison education closer
to the rest of post-16 education and training provision. This
means many of the worst aspects of the previous rounds of contracting
may disappear, especially the physical distance that some contractors
have had from the prisons in which they are responsible for the
delivery of education.
Curriculum
In the mid 1990s the prison education curriculum
was reviewed. There has always been, an emphasis in prison education
on teaching basic skills alongside other curricula, especially
the arts. Many offenders have disrupted schooling and between
60-70% lack basic skills.
The review
- n established
a core curriculum, consisting largely of basic skills provision.
- n reduced
other areas of the curriculum.
- n introduced
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at level 2 basic skills qualifications.
- NATFHE believes that
these changes, especially the introduction of KPIs, distorted
the curriculum on offer in prisons. Prison governors concentrated
almost exclusively on programmes that met the KPI, with little
below level 2 and little above level 2.
- It has now been recognised that this diet of
purely basic skills learning programmes could be unpalatable to
the recipients. Embedding basic skills in other learning provision
including the delivery of vocational training has now reduced
some distortion. NATFHE feels that this lends weight to
the arguments for bringing prison education, vocational training
and instruction taking place in prison workshops, closer together.
Future delivery
NATFHE would wish to see
- n A
continuing strong role for the OLSU in ensuring quality in prison
education, initiating, supporting and disseminating innovation
and best practice.
- n Training
and staff development for LSC staff dealing with prison education
who are unfamiliar with prison education.
- n The
LSC consulting with all stakeholders before establishing structures
and new models of practice and contracting.
- n Prison
education at the centre of the organisation of prison regimes.
This is essential if rehabilitation is to be successful. For too
long prison education has been a neglected part of prison organisation
with low status and priority.
- n Prison
education as an integral and important part of sentence planning
dovetailing with other programmes of rehabilitation and resettlement
in prisons (also favoured in the Social Exclusion Unit Report).
NATFHE supports
n The
creation of the new National Offender Management System (NOMS)
n The
move towards the organisation of offender and prisoner education
on a regional basis.
- n The
involvement of OFSTED and the Adult Learning Inspectorate in prison
education. This will supplement the existing good work of the
Prison Inspectorate in identifying weak and excellent provision
whilst ensuring raising standards is at the forefront of prison
education delivery.
NATFHE recognises that one of the main barriers to
successful and high quality prison education is the continually
rising prison population. Shifting the focus to rehabilitation
and reducing re-offending with new custodial and sentencing policies,
along with stronger partnerships between the Probation and Prison
Services will mean a great deal of offender education will be
community and not prison education based. This should leave education
workers to concentrate on sustained education and training work
with those still in prisons. . Any changes in patterns of provision
will have resource implications and must not mean any diminution
of funding for prison education. Offender education outside prisons
will need additional resources, and staff development and guidelines
for its providers. There will be a need for funding to encompass
time for staff involved to meet and plan and liase with NOMS staff.
The creation of court orders directing offenders to learning programmes
has administrative implications and this will need to be resourced.
Funding of prison education
In its submission to the Review of prison funding,
NATFHE argued that the
funding for prison education must be
- n adequate
to provide proper education and training needed by each prisoner,
subject to proper and on-going assessment of their educational
and learning needs.
- n sufficient
to fulfil an individual learning plan for each prisoner.
- n based
on entitlement to a learning programme that is part of a whole
process of sentence planning and management that leads to rehabilitation
and resettlement.
- n linked
to vocational training and other prison regime programmes of education,
training and behaviour modification.
- n able
to support its full costs, given the facts known about the mental,
physical health and previous educational experiences and achievements
of prisoners - with the kind of social and educational disadvantage
that most prisoners have experienced, such support is crucial
for successful learning.
funding methodology/allocation for prison education
must be
- n fit
for purpose - flexible enough to fund the various forms of education/learning
programmes that are suited to the type of establishment, prisoner
population within that establishment, and patterns of movement
to and from that establishment. Local prisons with high prisoner
movement and short prisoner stay should be funded to provide proper
and full initial assessment and short "taster" access
courses. Offenders whose sentences are no longer carried out in
prisons should be able to learn in the community. If prisoners
are able to settle into training it will lead to greater take
up of longer learning programmes.
new partnership with the LSC in delivering offender
education should
- n enable
the use, in offender education, of the long standing and largely
successful system of funding additional learning needs used for
a decade in further education colleges, and now being expanded
to adult and community and work-based learning.
NATFHE believes
that the ring fencing of prison education funding since 2001 has
been wholly beneficial. It has resulted in more stability and
it must continue in any future organisation delivering of prison
education. Similarly if vocational training is to be included
in any new contracting arrangement, the funding of this should
be ring fenced too.
NATFHE would argue for
stability in prisoner and offender education. If there are to
be new contracting arrangements through the LSCs and increased
power of governors over prison education, then there will need
to be a continuation of ring fencing of both education and vocational
training resources. Governors should not be given the power to
alter at short notice education provision made by contractors.
There will also need to be discussions between NOMS, the LSCs
and educational contractors about the correct amount of notice
to be given for alterations in programmes.
Funding Infra structure
NATFHE believes
prison education funding should cover maintaining and improving
its infra structure. Many prisons are old, some Victorian. Prison
education facilities should not be housed in unsuitable accommodation,
with difficult physical access or poorly equipped, especially
in the area of new technology.
Two other elements of the "infra-structure"
are crucial in the successful delivery of prison education:
1. Improved pay for prisoners attending education
programmes. The SEU Report, the NATFHE/AoC "Shared responsibilities"
and the recent Prison Reform Trust report on the perceptions of
prisoners of prison education[5]
all reported that the disparity in the payments prisoners received
when attending education programmes, as compared to the payment
received for other prison activity, was a serious disincentive
to participation in learning in prisons. Total funding for prison
education must encompass an increase in the pay of prisoners for
attending learning programmes. It would also be a public recognition
of how the prison regime values learning and educational achievement
2. Resources to pay prison regimes for prison
staff undertaking escort and security duties in relation to prisoners'
attendance in prison education. The NATFHE/AoC research and
the Prison Reform trust research on prisoners' perceptions demonstrate
clearly the crucial role that prison staff, especially prison
officers, have in relation to prison education. One of the key
tasks is escorting prisoners from the wing to prison education,
and then being on duty in prison education centres for security
purposes. The NATFHE/AoC survey found that 51% of prison education
managers reported regular difficulties getting students to classes.
The lack of prison officers to supervise security in education
centres can pose a serious safety risk in some prisons. If as
a result of new sentencing policies, those prisoners remaining
inside prisons in the future are more "difficult" and/or
serving sentences for more serious offences, then this security
risk may increase. NATFHE acknowledges that these problems stem
from circumstances that are not always in the control of Prison
Services or prison governors. However we do suggest that some
of the problems might be overcome and there might be a greater
willingness for prison officers to undertake these duties if prison
education had an allocation of resources for the undertaking of
escort and security duties. Ultimately if prisoners do not arrive
in education, they are not going to learn. At the very least escort
duties, the percentage of prisoners attending learning programmes
and the reasons why they do not, should be part of any new specification
for prison education and be part of key performance indicators
for prisons.
Basic Skills in prison education
The facts concerning previous educational experiences
and achievements of prisoners and offenders are well known. The
Social Exclusion Unit Report showed that compared with the general
population;
- n Prisoners
are ten times more likely to have been a regular truant.
- n 60%
of prisoners have the writing skills, 65% the numeracy skills
and 50% the reading skills at or at or below the level of an 11
year old child.
- n 52%
of male and 71% of female adult prisoners have no qualifications.
- n Literacy
and numeracy skills, and some form of qualifications are required
for 96% of all jobs.
Clearly if re-offending is to be reduced, the focus
of prison education on basic skills is necessary.
In the past progress around basic skills was hampered
by crude use of targets. When the key performance indicator was
literacy skills at level 2, establishments concentrated on these
to the exclusion of qualifications at lower and higher levels.
The consequence was a severe limitation on progression. NATFHE
acknowledges that the worst of these past policies have been remedied
in recent years, both in terms of new and more realistic targets
and embedding basic skills in other provision and throughout prison
life. Targets must be built from the bottom up and be appropriate
for all types of prisoners and establishment.
In the mid 1990s the core curriculum was introduced
into prison education. This was the first initiative that focused
on the delivery of basic skills programmes in prisons. One of
the principal conclusions of the NATFHE/AoC research was that
this had been problematic and there had been high levels of dissatisfaction
among all the respondents to the NATFHE/AoC research over the
narrowing of the curriculum. An education manager spoke about
the impoverishment of the prison education programme as a result
of the imposition of the core curriculum.
"We have no other educational provision than
that required by the
core curriculum. This is a major deterioration in the programme.
Our curriculum is narrower now than at any time in the last 30
years."
Others spoke of how often those with poor previous
learning experiences would only choose practical education options.
With the imposition of the core curriculum, these opportunities
had been lost and thus opportunities for some prisoners to rebuild
their confidence on their ability to learn.
We acknowledge that most of the negative aspects
of the focus on basic skills have been or are being rectified
by the OLSU. Nonetheless NATFHE would argue that basic skills
provision needs to be placed within the context of a wide curriculum
offer. We realise that not every establishment can or will be
able to offer a wide range of subjects, but there must be a balanced
educational programme offering a range of creative, practical
and life skills and personal development programmes which can
be studied in their own right as well as being platforms for delivering
basic skills. The embedding of basic skills delivery across the
educational offer in prisons will mean that there needs to be
support for this and for English for speakers of other languages
(ESOL) in these programmes. Staff delivering these programmes
will need time and opportunities for staff development and training
in this.
The Social Exclusion Unit Report also pointed out
that black prisoners tend to be more highly qualified than white
prisoners and so benefit relatively less from the emphasis on
basic skills. The provision of a wider curriculum with basic skills
and ESOL support at its heart will allow black prisoners to develop
appropriate skills at the relevant level. The wider curriculum
with provision for creative programmes will assist black prisoners
in realising their cultural identity and thus assist in improving
their self-confidence and self-esteem.
Vocational training and education
NATFHE supports moves to bring closer prison education
and vocational training taking place in workshops. We are not
convinced, however, that vocational training needs to be part
of same contract as education provision. We doubt whether the
long tradition of in-house delivery of vocational provision is
worth disturbing. The union considers that the closer integration
between vocational training and education provision can be achieved
without the disturbance that merging the services into one contract
will bring
As we have stated above, if vocational training and
educational provision are brought under one contract then we would
advocate ring fencing the funding of each to allay fears that
provision in one area would be reduced.
Assessment of educational needs of prisoners
Initial and on-going assessment and diagnosis of
educational needs of prisoners and offenders lies at the heart
of successful learning provision tailored to actual needs of the
recipients. This has, for a long time, been problematic.
- n Assessments
are undertaken but often only initial screening takes place and
not diagnosis or on-going assessment.
- n Initial
assessment often takes place shortly after the arrival of prisoners
in prison. This is at a time when the prisoner may be extremely
disorientated and may be suffering from drug withdrawal.
- n It
is essential that assessment is supplemented at various points
during a prisoner sentence and that the results of assessments
are fed into sentence planning and management.
- n Educational
assessments should not be separated from assessment of other needs.
These assessments should then become the basis for an entitlement
to a learning programme that is part of whole sentence and integrated
into other programmes of education, training and behaviour management.
Assessment is vital at pre-release stage.
- n For
assessments to be useful in terms of sentence planning and management,
and ensuring prisoners follow programmes of learning that lead
to qualifications, it is essential that initial and on-going assessments,
diagnosis and individual learning plans follow the prisoner around
as they move around the prison establishments.
- n In
the NATFHE/AoC research 72% of respondents declared that there
was an adequate system of transferring records on prisoners' learning
progress within their establishment. 61%reported that they always
sent on such records. Yet 67% of respondents reported they only
received such reports irregularly. Whatever such figures may mean,
something is wrong and a proper electronic mode of transferring
records could resolve many of these problems.
Effectiveness of local contractual arrangements
NATFHE has always opposed the contracting process
as it leads to a profit-led approach to prison education. The
first round of contracting indicated that price was the overriding
determinant of successful tendering rather than quality of provision.
We agree with the Forum for Prison Education that profit from
punishment is immoral. The Union can discern no advantage to prisoners
and can only assume that it is part of more general successive
Government policies to outsource provision.
The periodic contracting of education provision puts
an increasing strain on prison education staff in terms of their
security, with posts remaining unfilled longer and staff having
temporary positions and upgrades.
Successful prison education can only happen if staff
feel valued and respected and are contented in their work and
feel a sense of security.
NATFHE understands it is unlikely that the contracting
out of prison education will end in the near future. If contracting
out is to continue NATFHE would urge that
- n Contracting
processes must be open and transparent. Although the specification
for contracting is known, the details of contracts are subject
to commercial confidentiality. This makes it difficult for organisations
representing prison education staff, such as NATFHE, to know necessary
details of what is contained in the contract and make defence
of prison education staff difficult.
- n Quality
of provision and the welfare of prisoners and prison education
staff, not price must be the main determinants in the award of
contracts
- n Contracts
for prison education must be written in a form that allows some
flexibility so as to allow contractors to pay nationally agreed
pay rates and appropriate increases.
- n Contracts
must have the flexibility to encompass changes from legislation
such as those on working time and part-time staff directives,
on health and safety and discrimination.
- n Contracts
must also be priced to include the resources to ensure proper
representation of staff through their representative organisations.
This would include time off and facilities for trade union duties
remission for union officers and for health and safety representatives.
- n Contracts
should include time and resources for staff development and training.
This should include development and training in educational developments,
including that required to teach in prisons. It also should include
training and staff development in "prison craft".
- n As
the system of prison education moves to new structures that encompass
offender learning that takes place outside prisons, it will be
essential that the time needed for proper liaison with other agencies
is included.
The contract price must include
- n Resources
for infrastructure, for administrative support, for initial and
on-going assessment.
- n Resources
to enable contractors to pay salaries at least equivalent to those
for post-16 teachers, lecturers and trainers in mainstream education
in order to attract the highest quality staff to prison education.
Prison education lecturers are the only staff within prisons who
do not receive either an element of pay or a special environmental
allowance to compensate them for the particularly difficult circumstances
and situations in which they teach. NATFHE considers it scandalous
that some contractors pay their prison education lecturers less
than they pay lecturers on their mainstream sites. Prison and
offender education is extremely demanding. It requires committed
and properly qualified staff.
NATFHE was pleased
with much of the detail of the specifications for the contracting
of prison education published in December 2003. We hope that much
of this will survive and underpin future contracting. There is
an overwhelming need for contracts for prison education to maintain
national standards and this be part of contracting specification.
Thus the price that is paid for the delivery of prison education
must be more than merely that which is paid for the taught hour.
The intention of the last round of contracting was
to attract new providers into prison education. NATFHE does not
deny that some of the "private" providers have produced
innovative and successful programmes of learning in prisons. However
this is provision that is supported by the use of public funds.
We would wish to see contracts largely going to public sector
institutions.
We would remind the Committee that a number of "private"
providers received contracts for prison education in the first
round of contracting in the early 1990s. By the time of the second
round, only one such provider remained. NATFHE sees no need for
new providers.
We see a danger of fragmentation and loss of expertise
if too many new providers are brought into the delivery of prison
education. If new providers do receive contracts in any new round,
then it is imperative that they are subject to the same quality
assurance procedures and requirements that FE colleges and LEA
Adult Education Service contractors are subject.
NATFHE supports the possibility
of moving towards regional contracting. This will eradicate some
of the problems associated with having contractors physically
distant from the prisons for which they are responsible. It will
also help ensure closer co-operation between learning that takes
place within prisons and that outside prisons.
Role of prison staff
Prison staff can make or break successful provision.
Attitudes to education and learning have improved over recent
years. The recent appointment of Heads of Learning and Skills
responsible for all learning in prison establishments and part
of the prison service staffing should help prison education be
recognised as a key part of regimes and resettlement. However
for too long prison education and its staff have been seen as
outsiders who are at the bottom of the hierarchy of prison staff.
The NATFHE/AoC research found that 45% of governors, 43% of education
managers reported that conflict with other regime areas hindered
education in their establishments. 34% of both groups reported
uniformed prison staff lack commitment to prison education.
Prison education staff are committed and hard working.
Many of them are on hourly part-time and fixed term contracts.
Staff are often paid only to teach, and not for many of the other
tasks and roles necessary for successful learning to take place,
for example for the time that it takes to get from the prison
gates to their teaching accommodation. In a maximum-security establishment,
this can take over an hour.
Prison education needs to recruit and retain the
highest quality staff. This response has already referred to the
need for prison education staff to be paid the same rates as mainstream
post-16 education and training staff and for prison education
staff to be paid an environmental allowance similar to other prison
staff. The gap between post-16 education and training pay and
schoolteachers' pay has been widening in recent years and is now
a significant barrier to the sector meeting the challenges set
for it by government. Colleges are increasingly losing qualified
staff to schools. Adult education, work-based learning and prison
education services are losing staff to mainstream work in colleges,
especially basic skills teachers.
Providers that have not been subject to LSC and legislative
requirements for new providers can obtain contracts for prison
education. To avoid any unfair advantage, it is imperative that
all potential providers are subject to the same requirements.
We recommend that increasing the payment for escort
and supervision duties in relation to prison education could ease
some of the current difficulties. We would go further and would
wish to see prison education departments becoming learning centres
that could be used by all in prisons, staff and inmates alike.
This could transform attitudes to prison education and learning
and also help in terms of retention and recruitment of prison
staff.
As new forms of sentencing are developed an emphasis
on community sentencing linked to learning programmes, prison
education staff will need to strengthen and expand their links
to NOMS staff, especially those responsible for such community
sentencing.
Finally, prison education, needs to be seen not as
an optional extra or add on to other activities in prison, but
as central and key part of rehabilitation and resettlement. It
should be integrated into the full range of regime activities
such as work and the delivery of offending behaviour programmes.
Continuing support and guidance on release
including co-ordination with local partners
At heart of new proposals bringing in and linking
with NOMS is education work that will take place outside prisons
and in the community. This brings a new focus on working with
education and training providers in the community. Such partnership
work must also encompass prisoners prior to and on release from
custodial sentences.
NATFHE fully supports the provision of proper, independent
and impartial education advice, information and guidance prior
to release and continuing whilst prisoners resettle in the community.
The current proposals to involve local LSCS in contracting
for prisoner and offender education and for a robust partnership
between LSCs, NOMS and education and learning providers should
make links between provision inside and outside prisons. This
should minimise some of the dislocation and disruption in learning
that can take place for many prisoners when released.
It needs to be recognised that these links may be
difficult to maintain for some prisoners on release. Not all prisoners
are in custody near their homes. This is particularly true for
women prisoners. Because of the relatively smaller numbers of
women prisoners and consequently establishments for prisoners,
many women prisoners are not housed near their homes. The same
is true for prisoners from London. This will need to link prison
learning activities with outside provision on release for these
categories of prisoners will need careful investigation.
NATFHE, 27 Britannia Street, London WC1X
9JP. June 2004
19th June 2004
1 "Prison Education after competitive tendering":
NATFHE, 1994 Back
2
"A 'soft target' for cuts"; NATFHE, 1996 Back
3
"Shared responsibilities: Education for prisoners at a time
for change" Julia Braggins: NATFHE & the Association
of Colleges, November 2001 Back
4
NATFHE Submission to the Review of Prison Education July 2003. Back
5
"Time to Learn" Julia Braggins and Jenny Talbot,
Prison Reform Trust 2004. Back
| 
