Memorandum submitted by the OCR
INTRODUCTION
If education within the prison service is to
achieve the goals for which it aims then it should have a coherent
structure and it must provide relevant qualifications which are
recognised and valued in the wider world. Without the measurement
of outcomes, it can never be entirely clear whether resources
are being directed in the most effective manner for both the prisoner
and the prison service. Courses such as Basic Skills enable students
to develop and demonstrate literacy and numeracy—key areas
in which many prisoners have poor levels of achievement. Courses
leading to GCSEs or vocational certification enable prisoners
to gain access to the same, mainstream, qualifications as those
awarded in schools or colleges.
OCR is the UK arm of the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate. Its roots go back to 1858 and it
was created from the Oxford, Cambridge, Oxford & Cambridge,
Midland Examining Group and the, vocationally-focused, Royal Society
of Arts examination boards. It deals with over 7 million exam
papers a year and employs 578 staff. It is the only University-owned
UK awarding body. Around 3,000 schools and colleges sit OCR qualifications
each year. It is one of three awarding bodies covering both general
and vocational qualifications in England.
OCR'S ROLE
IN PRISONS
1. OCR offers a comprehensive range of qualifications
which are taken up by prisons. One hundred and thirty one out
of the 138 public prisons use OCR qualifications. The most prevalent
are Basic Skills and the CLAIT (Computer Literacy and Information
Technology) suite of qualifications. The majority of the demand
is for Level 1 qualifications.
2. OCR also runs a wide programme of training
events and network meetings which prison education staff attend
alongside staff from other education and skills training providers.
These events enable those staff to improve their assessment of
prisoners' achievements and benchmark their practice against other
organisations. In addition, network meetings are provided specifically
for prison education staff to enable them to explore examples
of good practice and discuss possible solutions to issues faced
by other prisons.
3. OCR's team of centre advisors has visited
a high number of prisons in order to ascertain their demand for
qualifications and clarify the way in which operational constraints
affect offenders' achievements. This team has also established
contact with organisations such as NACRO and the resettlement
services, in order to improve continuity and progression for offenders
who can continue learning when they are rehabilitated, and with
prison education contractors in order to confirm OCR's awareness
of, and responsiveness to, the demands placed on them.
4. Since 2002 OCR has been running a project
to encourage takeup of OCR qualifications in prisons improving
the prisons' performance against their Key Performance Targets.
This has been reflected in better assessment practice and improved
offenders' attainments.
OCR'S EXPERIENCE
IN PRISONS
5. In OCR's experience what has been working
well is:
— the appointment of Heads of Learning
and Skills, who are drawing together the learning and training
activities and enabling offenders to achieve qualifications across
the whole range of these activities (classroom, gym, workshop
etc);
— the commitment of teaching staff
who often produce materials on home PCs in their own time because
of restrictions on PC use within their prison;
— contracting arrangements where the
contractor is experienced in delivering education within the prison
environment and is able to offer value and improve standards;
— the existence of specific performance
targets for achievements; and
— local decision-making on learning
programmes to ensure they meet the specific needs of the participants.
6. In OCR's experience the following have
had detrimental effects:
— by the uncertainty of their current
and future funding systems and criteria;
— the transition from one organisational
regime to another; and
— the abrupt curtailment of Project
Rex for contracting out prison education.
The consequence of the curtailment has been
short-term programming centring on Basic Skills and brief "quick
win" courses in areas such as food-handling and safety. The
corollary of this has been a reluctance to attempt more ambitious
or longer-term programmes in case they do not achieve immediate,
recordable performance target achievements.
7. A significant restriction on participation
is the prevalence of institutional demands and schedules, for
example lockdowns, medical appointments, court appearances and
solicitors' appointments. The often short-notice withdrawals from
learning are very damaging to participants' learning programmes.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN
RELATION TO
QUALIFICATIONS
1. The contribution of specific qualifications
towards key performance targets should be reviewed urgently to
ensure actual parity between qualifications deemed to make the
same contribution. For example, a one-day food-handling course
is believed to have the same target value as a full CLAIT course
which may take several weeks or months to complete.
2. Units of achievement should be recognised
and contribute towards performance targets at all levels, not
just level 2, in order to allow lower-achieving offenders to accumulate
units towards a full qualification.
3. Decisions on the eligibility of qualifications
to count towards targets should become consistent between prison
regions. At present there are uncertainties and anecdotal indications
of inconsistency in regional judgements on the eligibility of
qualifications.
4. Prisoners should be entered for qualifications
which are available nationally rather than for home-made or "prisons
only" qualifications which have limited currency.
5. A national database of unitary achievement
should be established to record all achievements which contribute
towards performance targets. The database should enable any prisoner
to accumulate units even if s/he is transferred without notice
to another prison; in effect, operating as an achievement tracking
system. At present records seem rarely to follow a prisoner from
one establishment to another.
WIDER RECOMMENDATIONS
IN RELATION
TO PRISON
EDUCATION
6. A longer-term funding commitment for
learning should be initiated by the management of the service.
This would be analogous to the three-year arrangement between
further education colleges and the LSC. This would enable longer-term
planning and staffing decisions. Funding should be ring-fenced
to education and training activities, not siphoned off for unexpected
operational expenditure.
7. Prisoners should receive equal pay for
education and other job roles to redress the current disincentive
to participate or continue in learning when more lucrative alternatives
are available.
8. The balance of full-time and part-time
staffing should be improved to the same level as in the general
further education sector, and the development of staff's skills
should continue to be treated as a priority.
June 2004
| 
