{"id":1385,"date":"2015-06-15T14:49:47","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T13:49:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?p=1385"},"modified":"2022-12-19T11:09:36","modified_gmt":"2022-12-19T11:09:36","slug":"putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/","title":{"rendered":"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_left_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”2\/3″][vc_custom_heading text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h3″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Articles[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_separator sep_color=”color-210407″ el_height=”1px”][vc_custom_heading auto_text=”yes” text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h1″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”accent”]This is a custom heading element.[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Published<\/span><\/td>\n15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Type<\/td>\nArticle<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Author(s)<\/td>\nRoss Little<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corresponding Authors<\/td>\nRoss Little, Lecturer in Criminology, De Montfort University<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOA<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOI<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

This paper draws on the views of children and young people in a Young Offender\u00a0Institution (YOI) to explore education provision in the youth secure estate from their\u00a0perspectives. The paper includes research findings from work undertaken in a YOI as part\u00a0of the U R Boss project, based at campaign group The Howard League for Penal Reform.\u00a0The research comprised a questionnaire (n=47), discussion groups (n=25) and one-to-one\u00a0interviews (n=4) with children serving a sentence in one YOI in July 2012. Nine in 10 of the\u00a0children surveyed had been excluded from school. Nearly all felt they had had the\u00a0opportunity to participate in educational activities at the prison, but their views about the\u00a0education provision varied. The findings highlight how listening to the\u00a0 experiences of\u00a0children expected to participate in education provision, helps to think about how the\u00a0provision might be improved to best achieve what it set out to. They can be a key source\u00a0of information about the barriers to the effectiveness of current education provision in\u00a0prisons holding children. These\u00a0 barriers include some fundamental issues associated with\u00a0engagement with education in a prison environment. Education provision could achieve a\u00a0lot more. Rather than simply achieving functions of control and management and\u00a0meeting minimum legal and contractual obligations, it should seek to enable young people\u00a0to make positive developments in their own lives. The most popular learning activity\u00a0amongst participants in the current research, the Raptor project, stood out as an activity\u00a0in which the children felt they had positive opportunities for learning, the potential for\u00a0increasing levels of responsibility and, eventually, opportunities to leave the prison for\u00a0short periods of time. This type of opportunity was the exception, not the norm, but is\u00a0suggestive of the type of educational experience that could help some of the most\u00a0vulnerable children move on from negative prior experiences of formal education.[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_center_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″][uncode_share layout=”multiple” bigger=”yes” separator=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Transforming Youth Custody<\/strong>
\nThinking about education in prison has been on the recent policy agenda of government.\u00a0The United Kingdom coalition government between 2010 and 2015 sought to make\u00a0significant changes to the composition of the youth justice secure estate in England and\u00a0Wales. They proposed a new network of Secure Colleges, the first of which was planned\u00a0for 2017 on a site in Leicestershire, next to the existing HMYOI Glen Parva (MoJ, 2014).\u00a0The apparent motivation for this new approach was the poor level of education in prisons\u00a0or children. The government response to the consultation on their Transforming Youth\u00a0Custody Green Paper (Ministry of Justice, 2014) highlighted several particularly concerning\u00a0findings in relation to the educational achievements of children in prison:<\/p>\n

‘Latest figures suggest 86% of young men in Young Offender Institutions\u00a0(YOIs) have been excluded from school at some point, and over half of 15-17\u00a0year olds in YOIs have the literacy and numeracy level expected of a 7-11
\nyear old. Research also indicates that 18% of sentenced young people in\u00a0custody have a statement of special educational needs.’ (MoJ, 2014:3)<\/p>\n

The high rates of exclusion from school for children prior to custody have previously been\u00a0documented by Cripps and Summerfield’s (2012) review of findings from two HMIP\u00a0reviews on the resettlement provision for children and young people and the care of\u00a0looked after children in custody. However, government recognition of these problems has\u00a0not usually been so forthcoming. The proposal for a new network of secure colleges\u00a0would apparently put “education at the heart of youth custody”.1*<\/p>\n

Developmentally appropriate education and skills provision is vital to help children move\u00a0on from life after prison (McAra & McVie, 2010; Youth Justice Board, 2014). What this\u00a0might look like in practice, and what children have to say about the education they receive\u00a0has been sidelined during political discussions over whether we have a Secure College\u00a0(network) or not. Whilst the Secure College plans were quietly abandoned by government\u00a0(Hansard, 2015), interest in increasing the number of hours spent in education provision\u00a0has remained. The number of hours spent on education doubled from 15 to 30 in August\u00a02015, with 60% of these hours being ‘protected’ as part of a new ‘core day’ (Youth Justice\u00a0Board, National Offender Management Service, NHS England, 2015).<\/p>\n

The reasons for this increase in the quantity of education are multiple, but the changes\u00a0take place in a context in which the numbers of children in custody at any one time have\u00a0dramatically reduced in recent years, whilst re-Offending rates remain stubbornly high\u00a0(see Bateman, 2014). There is no reason to suggest that the priority given by the secure\u00a0estate to security and control is changing, but there may be a recognition that something\u00a0different needs to be done. The appointment of a previous secretary of state for\u00a0education as the secretary of state for justice, following the general election in May 2015\u00a0appears to have helped continue the emphasis on education and employment (BBC News,\u00a02015).<\/p>\n

The Youth Justice Board has education, training and employment as the third of seven\u00a0identified national ‘resettlement pathways’ (Youth Justice Board, 2014). The stated main\u00a0objective is to “provide all young people with suitable and sustainable education, training\u00a0and employment throughout their sentence and beyond” (Youth Justice Board, 2014: 4). This is laudable, but worthy of exploration from the perspective of children experiencing the education provision inside prison.<\/p>\n

About the research<\/strong>
\nThis paper draws on research undertaken by the author when working as part of the U R\u00a0Boss project, a youth justice participation project funded by the Big Lottery Fund and\u00a0hosted by The Howard League for Penal Reform. Access to Young Offender Institutions for\u00a0the purposes of research, information gathering or discursive, participatory work can be\u00a0very challenging, particularly for employees of prison reform groups with a reputation for\u00a0airing their views about the state of our nation’s prisons. The author of this paper’s\u00a0involvement in a Youth Justice Board working group on access to college education for\u00a0children in prison, also attended by senior staff from Young Offender Institutions, helped\u00a0facilitate access to a YOI. The aim of the research was to find out what children’s\u00a0experiences of education in a YOI were like from children themselves.<\/p>\n

There were three methodological elements to the research: a questionnaire, a discussion\u00a0group and one-to-one interviews with individual children accommodated on different\u00a0wings of the prison, including one on the Care and Separation Unit.<\/p>\n

The questionnaire asked participants 18 questions about the type of educational activities\u00a0they were involved in at the YOI; whether they were in education prior to entering the\u00a0YOI; whether they had ever been excluded from education; about their educational\u00a0qualifications; what courses they had been on at the YOI; what kind of help and support\u00a0they had received to help them find education and employment; what kinds of education\u00a0and employment plans they have for after the YOI; potential barriers to these plans and,\u00a0what else the YOI might do to help them. Eighty-five questionnaires were distributed by\u00a0YOI staff at the end of June 2012. Respondents filled in the questionnaire of their own\u00a0volition. These were either handed directly to young people attending education classes\u00a0in Warren Hill during the final week of June 2012 or placed under their cell door. Fortyseven\u00a0questionnaires were returned by participants, a response rate of 55%. There was\u00a0no extra support provided for filling out the questionnaire. Whilst respondents did not\u00a0need to write much, they would have needed to be able to read the questions. Not every\u00a0participant responded to every question, so question response numbers reported in this\u00a0article may not always equal 47.<\/p>\n

Five discussion groups were facilitated over three days in July 2012. Each lasted up to two\u00a0hours, the duration of the morning and afternoon education slots, to fit in with the prison\u00a0regime. There were 24 discussion group\u00a0 participants in total, an average of five children\u00a0attending each discussion group. Themes explored were the same as those covered by\u00a0the questionnaire, with scope for the discussion to flow in ways determined by the\u00a0participants. Because the groups were live discussions between humans, the precise\u00a0nature of conversation varied between the different groups, depending on the level of\u00a0engagement of the participants, their curiosity and degree of comfort with the set-up and\u00a0their fellow participants. Each of the discussions was facilitated by two members of staff\u00a0from the U R Boss project at The Howard League for Penal Reform. One facilitator tended\u00a0to facilitate discussion while the other was responsible for note-taking. The purpose of\u00a0the project and that participants’ anonymity would be respected was explained to each\u00a0group. These groups lasted one or two hours each, focused on exploring the questions\u00a0attached and were carried out with a member of YOI staff present. The presence of the\u00a0YOI staff member was a condition of the discussion groups taking place and may have\u00a0impacted on the responses of some of the children.<\/p>\n

Also completed were four interviews with individual young people on three different\u00a0wings, including one on the Care and Separation Unit, colloquially known as ‘The Seg’\u00a0owing to the segregation of its inhabitants from the\u00a0 mainstream YOI population. These\u00a0individuals had been deemed unsuitable for group work by the management team. These\u00a0individual sessions took place subject to the agreement of the individual child. Whether\u00a0or not they were asked to participate would have been the decision of the senior member\u00a0of prison staff facilitating the research. The research may have therefore excluded the\u00a0involvement of children experiencing the most difficulties in the prison at the time. YOI\u00a0staff were not present for these meetings with young people. A brief outline of the\u00a0context for each of the four children interviewed in segregation appears at several points\u00a0in the text, relating to points made about experiences of, or attitudes towards, education\u00a0in the YOI.<\/p>\n

Taken together, the research engaged with up to 75 children detained in the YOI, around\u00a0half of the population there at the time. The reason it is not possible to be precise about\u00a0the number of different individuals engaging with the research is because there was no\u00a0way of matching discussion group participants to questionnaire respondents. Individuals\u00a0attending the discussion groups were asked whether or not they had completed the\u00a0questionnaire but only half a dozen indicated that they had. Findings from the\u00a0questionnaire, discussion groups and interviews were presented to the management team\u00a0at the YOI later in the same year. This report, including the questionnaire, can be found\u00a0on the U R Boss website (U R Boss, 2012).<\/p>\n

In terms of how the sample was selected, questionnaire respondents did so of their own\u00a0volition and returned completed questionnaires in a blank envelope. Potential\u00a0participants for the discussion groups were recruited from\u00a0 education classes.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that the research took place before some of the effects of the\u00a0government’s budget reductions had impacted on staffing levels across the secure estate\u00a0and before the YOI was ‘re-rolled’ to become an adult prison the following year.<\/p>\n

Ethics<\/strong>
\nThere are complex ethical and moral issues to consider when undertaking work of this\u00a0nature with children in custody. A key issue is the ability of child participants to consent\u00a0to their involvement in the research (NSPCC, 2013). It was important that participants\u00a0were able to participate voluntarily in the research based on informed consent. However,\u00a0the very nature of a prison environment in which an individual is being detained against\u00a0their will, raises questions about the concept of voluntary engagement.<\/p>\n

With regards to the questionnaire, respondents chose to complete the questionnaire in\u00a0their own time. With regards to the discussion groups, the opportunity to be involved was\u00a0communicated to children in the YOI by prison staff. Likewise, the opportunity to be\u00a0involved in the interviews was mediated by a member of staff. This has implications for\u00a0how the opportunity was communicated to the child prisoners. In this respect, the\u00a0researchers were dependent on the prison staff involved in communicating with the\u00a0children. Mutual trust and respect between the researcher and the prison staff is useful\u00a0here. Overall, as a representative of a youth justice participation project, with a belief in
\nchildren as experts in their own experiences, the need to “let young people speak for\u00a0themselves, subject to appropriate safeguards” (Williams, 2006) underpinned the\u00a0approach to the research. Therefore, it was explained to participants that if anyone\u00a0wanted to leave the room, or they wanted to terminate the discussion or the interview,\u00a0they could do so at any point.<\/p>\n

There was no incentive offered to the children to participate in the research. Based on\u00a0initial responses of those that did participate, a key reason they were pleased to be\u00a0involved was to be out of cells at a time they would have been “on bang up”. The\u00a0opportunity to meet different people, have different discussions and break up the\u00a0boredom seemed to be key motivating factors for their involvement. It was also explained\u00a0to participants that what they said would be anonymised and not attributable to them as\u00a0individuals. A key issue here was the presence of an officer in the discussion groups, as\u00a0requested by the prison management.<\/p>\n

There are broader issues regarding the presence of a project such as U R Boss in the prison\u00a0environment. Because the project was based at a well-known prison reform campaign\u00a0group, it is possible that the prison’s management might use it as a way to demonstrate\u00a0that their practice was in some way being approved by the organisation. The possibility\u00a0that our presence as researchers might be used as a way to legitimise the institution or its\u00a0practices constitutes a dilemma when working for a penal reform charity. This is perhaps\u00a0one small example of a reformer’s dilemma and the extent to which change can occur\u00a0when researchers and reformers must co-operate with the existing system in order to gain\u00a0access.<\/p>\n

Findings<\/strong>
\nThe following section summarises some of the findings from the report, highlighting key\u00a0themes and points for thinking about the broader role that education in prison can play\u00a0for children in prison. The findings are drawn from responses to the questionnaire, the\u00a0discussion groups and the interviews. Key findings discussed here include:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Perceptions and experiences of education. Many of those that engaged with the\u00a0research stated that their prior experiences of education had been extremely negative.\u00a0Despite this, education and qualifications remained important to their perceived\u00a0chances of subsequent employment.
\n\u2022 The issue of choice is important here. If children are expected to willingly engage in\u00a0education provision, the choice provided needs to be meaningful.
\n\u2022 There are various practical barriers that exist to limit access to children’s choices.
\n\u2022 Partly as a result of the barriers, the way education is provided in prisons does not\u00a0engage children as well as it might.
\n\u2022 The children’s experiences of education in prison raise questions about the nature of\u00a0education provision in the ‘secure estate’.<\/p>\n

Before exploring these themes further, it is worth considering the context in which these\u00a0children are participating (or not) in education, particularly their previous experiences of\u00a0education.<\/p>\n

Pre-custody education experiences<\/strong>
\nConsistent with previous literature (Cripps & Summerfield, 2012) a disrupted experience\u00a0of education prior to entering custody was a common theme with young people who\u00a0participated in the work. Of 45 respondents, nine out of 10 (89%, 40) had been excluded\u00a0from education, 63% of which were permanent exclusions. This was consistent with the\u00a0findings from the focus groups, in which nearly all respondents reported having been\u00a0excluded from mainstream education, and the larger sample size in a study by Cripps and\u00a0Summerfield (2012). Over a quarter (27%, 12) of 45 questionnaire respondents said they\u00a0were last in school aged 14 years or under. The remaining 33 respondents said they were\u00a0last in school aged 15 years or over. In terms of the institutions they had been excluded\u00a0from, the questionnaire identified that nearly all those that had been excluded (38\/40)\u00a0were from a school. Seven of the 40 had been excluded from a pupil referral unit and\u00a0three had been excluded from a further education college.<\/p>\n

In the first focus group, all four participants had been excluded from school, two of them\u00a0permanently, one of these stating that “I was excluded almost every day”. Some\u00a0participants expressed a lack of interest or engagement in structured or formal education\u00a0and had clearly had prior negative experiences of classroom environments. Others\u00a0recognised that they had missed out by being excluded from education previously:<\/p>\n

‘I kept getting kicked out…I didn’t like people telling me what to do. I wasn’t\u00a0interested in school at the time. Now I’m older I think differently.’<\/p>\n

‘I got kicked out in Year 9. I lost focus. I was intelligent. I never got into\u00a0trouble with the police until I went to a PRU.’<\/p>\n

‘It was fun at the time, but I didn’t realise ’til it was too late…You end up\u00a0chilling with your pals on the street and you have bare time on your hands\u00a0and you end up getting in trouble.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In one of the focus group sessions, all five participants were unanimous in the belief that\u00a0education provision at Warren Hill could not make a difference to them. One had strong\u00a0views that education was just a waste of time relative to his goal of earning money:<\/p>\n

‘You don’t need education in your life, you need money.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another participant qualified this by saying that education in custody could make a\u00a0difference, but only if the support provided is sufficient.<\/p>\n

‘[Education can’t make a difference] unless you’re on a long sentence\u2026I’ve\u00a0had help and completed Level 2 Horticulture.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Overall, most participants’ lives had been characterised by unhappy, irregular and\/or\u00a0inconsistent experiences of education. More than four in 10 participants (20, 43%) did not\u00a0state any previous educational attainment.<\/p>\n

Choice<\/strong>
\nGiven the frequency of negative prior experiences of education, it is unsurprising that\u00a0respondents tended to have low expectations of the education they would receive in\u00a0prison. However, the issue of meaningful choice and activity were themes that\u00a0respondents returned to consistently in the discussion groups. The questionnaire findings\u00a0indicated that participants felt able to choose which courses they wanted to study: 38\u00a0respondents said they were able to choose what course they wanted to study, 30 of\u00a0whom said that they were able to get on to the course they wanted to. Four respondents\u00a0said they were not able to choose their course of study and five did not respond to this question.<\/p>\n

However, the group work allowed more discussion about the extent of the choice that\u00a0participants could actually exercise. Whilst individuals had been asked for their\u00a0preference about which courses they most wanted to attend, their options were limited\u00a0considerably by the type of course available at the time:<\/p>\n

‘I didn’t get the choice I wanted, which was radio, media and gym. Instead I\u00a0got Maths, English and ICT.’<\/p>\n

‘I wanted to construction, but had to do Maths instead. Then I went on\u00a0radio.’<\/p>\n

‘I wanted to do mechanics but had to do education\u2026’<\/p>\n

‘Sometimes you don’t get all you want, you make back-up choices. There’s\u00a0lots of choice, but they need more.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Some participants had strong ideas about what they wanted to study or train in and had\u00a0been left disappointed by the restricted options available.<\/p>\n

‘When I first came in I wanted to do geography, history and German but\u00a0they don’t do them here.’<\/p>\n

‘There should be more education – more options available…a barbering\u00a0course – there has to be one person who can do hair properly here – the\u00a0hairdresser who comes here has one hour to do everyone on the whole\u00a0wing. Plumbing. Woodwork.’<\/p>\n

‘I wanted to do languages but there was only one copy of the Spanish CDs in\u00a0the library and it wasn’t there.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Choice was particularly constrained if participants already had attained GCSEs. Twelve\u00a0respondents said they had GCSEs, eight of whom said they had five GCSEs graded A* to C.\u00a0Five respondents had NVQ Level 2 or a BTEC First Diploma. Three respondents had a NVQ\u00a0Level 1 or a BTEC Introductory Diploma. A common response referred to the lack of\u00a0education provision for those willing and able to study beyond GCSE level:<\/p>\n

‘It’s good quality [the education], but only up to GCSEs.’<\/p>\n

‘If you’ve done GCSEs, or if you don’t want to do them, there isn’t much else.\u00a0If people are working at their age-level and they’ve done GCSEs then they’re\u00a0at a disadvantage.’<\/p>\n

‘Yes [there was a choice], but I’ve done most of my GCSEs already.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Discussion group participants commented that doing higher qualifications is possible, but\u00a0that this was subject to having sufficient self-confidence and self-motivation:<\/p>\n

‘You can do distance learning – Open University. That’s alright but you have\u00a0to feel confident.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In addition to possessing this self-discipline in the prison environment, it was also\u00a0necessary to have access to a teacher qualified to teach above GCSE level. This relied on\u00a0more external factors, such as good fortune:<\/p>\n

‘I’m doing AS Maths and I can only do that cos there’s someone who can\u00a0teach me that here.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There was a lack of consistency regarding access to a suitably qualified tutor. Without this\u00a0support, one boy explained that he found the prospect of self-directed learning in prison\u00a0too daunting to contemplate:<\/p>\n

‘They offered me A-levels; I refused to do it. I work better face-to-face.\u00a0They only offered me study on my own, without a teacher.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These experiences raise important points about the lack of support available for the\u00a0significant minority of children in prison who do have a track record of educational\u00a0achievement. This is similar to the situation in the adult prison estate which struggles to\u00a0provide meaningful educational opportunities to men and women across a wide spectrum\u00a0of educational achievements and different motivations to learn (Prisoners’ Education\u00a0Trust, 2014).<\/p>\n

One participant suggested the idea of ‘taster courses’, to give people choice about what\u00a0they might want to do more of and ultimately help people “to find their own path”. A\u00a0conversation with senior staff highlighted the administrative barrier to making curriculum\u00a0changes. For example, if the YOI wants to make a change to the curriculum this has to be\u00a0agreed with the education service provider, together with the Education Funding Agency\u00a0(the Department for Education’s delivery agency for funding and compliance and the\u00a0Youth Justice Board (YJB). One focus group participant noted a recent change to the\u00a0curriculum that meant he could no longer access his chosen subject of drama:<\/p>\n

‘My plans? Performing arts [in response to a question about what he wants\u00a0to do at college]. But drama isn’t on the curriculum now\u2026It used to be.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is worth noting here that because there are multiple stakeholders involved in\u00a0contemporary YOI education provision (including the YOI, the Youth Justice Board, the\u00a0Education Funding Agency and the education provider) changes to education provision in\u00a0YOIs can be very difficult to bring about.<\/p>\n

Barriers<\/strong>
\nIn addition to some restrictions on the practical choices they could make, participants\u00a0identified different types of barriers, including their difficulty in concentrating in the\u00a0prison environment, especially if they felt others were being disruptive:<\/p>\n

‘I can’t focus. You need to put people that do want to work in a place they\u00a0can concentrate.’<\/p>\n

‘Here I’ve found I can’t really learn…I just can’t concentrate.’<\/p>\n

‘I just don’t like being in groups really. Don’t like being around other\u00a0people.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These responses raise fundamental questions about what education provision really\u00a0means for these children in prison. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves about the dayto-day lived reality for children in prison. Drawing on research presented in ‘Life Inside’, a\u00a0report on the daily lives of 15-17 year old males in prison, it is clear that around half have\u00a0experienced time in care, or substantial social services involvement, compared to 3% in\u00a0the general population (NACRO, 2003, cited by The Howard League for Penal Reform,\u00a02010). A quarter of the boys report suffering violence at home and 1 in 20 report having been sexually abused (YJB, 2007). Three in 10 boys report having a recognised mental\u00a0health disorder (YJB, 2005), compared to 1 in 10 in the general population (ONS, 2005,\u00a0cited by The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2010:8). Relationships with others can\u00a0therefore be affected. As recent inspection reports have shown, the levels of self-harm,\u00a0suicide and general violence have increased considerably in YOIs in recent years (Her\u00a0Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons, 2014; 2015).<\/p>\n

A key barrier identified by discussion group participants was the nature of their risk\u00a0assessment, which could severely limit their educational options:<\/p>\n

‘I have a high risk assessment, so there’s not much I can do. I can do\u00a0different stuff but it’s all based around education (not practical activities). I\u00a0don’t wanna do education. I kick off a lot and just walk out.’<\/p>\n

‘I’m high risk. I can’t do things like mechs (car mechanics) and cookery…I\u00a0want to do cooking…I do FLL (Foundation Life Learning) instead.’<\/p>\n

‘I put down for horticulture when I arrived – I was low risk when I arrived. I\u00a0waited two and-a-half months for nothing.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nine respondents to the questionnaire said they had barriers getting in the way of them\u00a0making plans for education and training. Reasons given were related to being in prison\u00a0itself, to their offence, to mental health problems, a lack of GCSEs or issues with their\u00a0Youth Offending Team. Most questionnaire respondents chose not to answer this\u00a0question. Just four respondents stated that there were no barriers getting in the way of\u00a0their plans for education or training. A psychological barrier to engaging with education\u00a0for some was that they had bigger problems to worry about, including family issues and\/or\u00a0no accommodation on release. For example, when asked about his plans following\u00a0release, one boy stated:<\/p>\n

‘I ain’t got nowhere to go when I come out. Accommodation is a big\u00a0problem for me. I don’t know where I’m gonna live.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Issues such as uncertainty about where they are going to live after being in the YOI, can\u00a0affect how children feel about themselves, their lives and their perceptions and\u00a0motivations about education and learning. Those children experiencing some of the\u00a0biggest barriers to accessing education in the short term were those receiving education\u00a0on unit or ‘Ed on Unit’. The research included interviews with four young people receiving\u00a090 minutes of education in their cells each day, Monday to Friday: 45 minutes in the\u00a0morning, 45 minutes in the afternoon. The brief biographies of four individual boys below\u00a0outline something of their experiences relating to education and have been interspersed\u00a0throughout the remainder of this article. The first outlines a little of the context for Chris,\u00a0for whom education was a distant concern, at least partly because of his concerns about\u00a0his own personal safety in the prison environment (as with all other names used in this\u00a0article, Chris is not the participant’s real name).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1) Chris – 15 year old black male from London<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chris was receiving education separately in the segregation unit for his own protection. He had experienced difficulties in the YOI due to his recorded gang affiliations with other inmates.<\/p>\n

He received two 45 minute sessions each day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. One session focused on English tuition and the other focused on Maths tuition.<\/p>\n

Chris had previously been permanently excluded from school. He had been in a Pupil Referral Unit before being remanded to HMYOI Feltham. From there he had been transferred to his current YOI.<\/p>\n

For Chris, formal education barely featured on his personal radar, despite its daily presence in his life, at least on weekdays: “I don’t feel settled here so I’m not even thinking about education.” Chris explained that he had other things to worry about, namely his own personal safety, before concerning himself with his educational development. A bigger issue for him was the lack of physical activity available as part of the regime in segregation: “You’re not allowed to go to the gym on this unit.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

For Chris, the distance between his present state and voluntary engagement in education\u00a0or some form of productive learning appeared to be great. This was in contrast with Paul,\u00a0an older boy also receiving education segregated from the rest of the prison community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2) Paul – 17 year old white male from Kent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul was receiving education on unit due to his own disruptive behaviour in group classes. Like the others we spoke with receiving education on unit, he received two 45-minute sessions of tuition each day; once in the morning, once in the afternoon. At the time of the research, he was working towards Maths level one and English level two.<\/p>\n

Paul had only been at the YOI for one month having recently been transferred from a Secure Training Centre. Like the vast majority of the boys who participated in the research, he had previously been excluded from school. He had then been sent to a Pupil Referral Unit, but stopped attending when he was 15 years old.<\/p>\n

Despite these prior negative experiences, Paul was relatively optimistic about the education provision he was receiving in the segregation unit and in the prison more generally: “The subjects I’m doing here will be helpful for me.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Concern about accommodation in the community following a spell in prison was an issue\u00a0for some boys. For others, there were concerns about the consequences for their\u00a0education when they moved on to their next, adult, prison. Transfer of records between\u00a0institutions can be delayed and incomplete at times and continuity of education provision\u00a0for individuals can suffer (Ofsted, 2010). This was indeed related to one of David’s\u00a0concerns as a 17 year old in the segregation unit soon to ‘celebrate’ his Birthday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3) David – 17 year old white male from Kent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Like Paul, David was receiving education on unit because he had assaulted someone in the YOI. He was unique amongst the boys in segregation at the time for studying towards his Economics GCSE. Whilst it initially appeared that this was a subject he had himself chosen, he was disappointed that his choices were constrained by the limitations of what could be offered by the available tutor: “I can only do what the one-to-one tutor can offer.”<\/p>\n

Prior to his spell in a YOI, David attended a Pupil Referral Unit for about a year. His main concern in relation to his education was his impending move to a different prison, particularly as this would be his first experience of an adult prison: “I’d like to go back to mainstream education in (this) prison but I’m 18 so I’ll get shipped out to a different prison soon.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Despite efforts by the institution to get each of these segregated children engaged in\u00a0education, each discussed their disengagement from education both before and during\u00a0their time in prison. This is problematic when it is clear the re-offending rate by under 18s\u00a0leaving YOIs is so high. Of those released from custody during 2010\/11, 72.6% were\u00a0reconvicted within 12 months (Youth Justice Board\/Ministry of Justice, 2013). Ofsted’s\u00a0review of arrangements for learning in custody and on release found that children often\u00a0did not have personal education plans on arrival in prison and that arrangements to\u00a0continue education when they returned to the community were unsatisfactory (Ofsted,\u00a02010).<\/p>\n

One of the main topics of conversation in the discussion groups focusing on education was\u00a0actually food, hunger and nutrition. This echoed the findings from Life Inside (The Howard\u00a0League for Penal Reform, 2010) where one of the most frequently voiced concerns of boys\u00a0in prison was the amount and quality of the food on offer. Together with the\u00a0hypermasculine context and the frequent threat of violence, the lack of food was a\u00a0recurring theme amongst the discussion group participants. Each of these elements\u00a0fundamentally impacts on what and how individuals learn in such environments.<\/p>\n

The most positive comments by children about the educational opportunities available in\u00a0the YOI were reserved not for the formal education classes but the ‘Raptor’ project. This\u00a0project allowed the children to work with, and care for, birds of prey living at the prison\u00a0site. Responses from participants who had been involved with the project were extremely\u00a0positive. For example, Matt, one of the four children interviewed in segregation, was\u00a0extremely enthusiastic about this project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4) Matt – 17 year old white male from Kent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matt was receiving education on unit for a month or two due to his vulnerability to attack from others being held in the same prison. He felt the need to complete GCSE English so that he would have three GCSE’s and thus be eligible for a mechanics course. For him, the experience of education in the segregation unit appeared to be an opportunity to focus in a way that had not been possible in the mainstream education provision: “I got more done in Ed on Unit than in class.” He was also unique amongst the boys in prison in expressing a preference for more exam-based assessment for courses. Despite this, his real passion, the thing that had really captured his imagination, was the Raptor project, which sought to build skills and confidence in the boys through working with birds of prey:<\/p>\n

“Raptor is one of the best things I’ve done since I’ve been here…on Raptor, I’m learning something new, I never knew it existed before.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

That these comments were made by a child who had been receiving one-to-one education\u00a0segregated from the rest of the YOI population highlights its potential for engaging even\u00a0some of the most vulnerable and disaffected children in prison. Another participant in\u00a0one of the discussion groups was also very enthusiastic about the Raptor project:<\/p>\n

‘Raptor is [the best thing offered here] – it’s unique – you can’t do it at any\u00a0other prison.’<\/p>\n

In addition to enthusiasm from the children held in the YOI, staff at the YOI were also\u00a0proud of the project and the attention it had received from outside the prison in the\u00a0community. As visitors enter the prison, colourful promotional material about the project\u00a0had been placed in a prominent position. In addition to on-site activities, some children in\u00a0the YOI had been allowed out on Release on Temporary License (ROTL) to attend local\u00a0events with the birds of prey. Ofsted was also sufficiently convinced about the\u00a0educational value of the project to present it as an example of good practice:<\/p>\n

‘[it]…uses care and display of predatory birds to engage young people who\u00a0traditionally don’t engage in learning activities. The Raptor Project builds\u00a0self-confidence, personal development and team-working skills and\u00a0improves academic skills such as English and mathematics.’ (Ofsted, 2014).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This link identified by Ofsted between informal learning opportunities in the prison\u00a0environment and educational skills is an interesting one. It could not be confirmed by the\u00a0current research but if enthusiasm for engaging in an activity is a proxy measure for\u00a0subsequent involvement and success, then it was clear that the feelings of those engaged\u00a0in the Raptor project were exceptionally positive relative to other learning opportunities\u00a0available.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that only a small number of children could be involved in the Raptor\u00a0project. Three survey respondents stated that they had been involved with Raptor. One\u00a0discussion group participant and one interviewee stated that they had been part of the\u00a0project. An associated problem of the project’s desirability was that it could only be\u00a0available to a small number of children in the YOI at any one time. In addition, the\u00a0children had to have retained ‘gold’ status for a certain period of time, which involved\u00a0maintaining an excellent behaviour record. This was a challenge for some of the children\u00a0especially those for whom confrontation was a regular occurrence. Together with food,\u00a0 a\u00a0child’s current earned privilege status was one of their main concerns for day-to-day living\u00a0in the prison.<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong>
\nThe current research highlights the importance of listening to children about their\u00a0experiences of education in order to understand more about the effects of the provision\u00a0they are receiving (see also Smith, 2011; Little, 2015; Creaney, 2013; NYA, 2011). The\u00a0findings reveal different attitudes and motivations amongst children in apparently similar\u00a0circumstances and highlight the importance of understanding that with education\u00a0provision, as with other services, that one size cannot fit all.<\/p>\n

Listening to the children held inside the YOI about their experiences of education before\u00a0and during their spell in prison provided a greater understanding of the challenges they\u00a0have faced, and continue to face in accessing education appropriate for their needs. This\u00a0small scale study also highlighted the very individualised nature of the educational needs\u00a0of the children in the YOI at the time. It is possible, indeed likely, that those children who\u00a0did not participate in the research had experienced, and were experiencing, even greater\u00a0challenges in accessing educational experiences.<\/p>\n

The general picture of severely disrupted prior educational experiences is crucially\u00a0important as it has been found that “pathways out of offending are facilitated or impeded\u00a0by critical moments in the early teenage years, in particular school exclusion” (McAra &\u00a0McVie, 2010:179). It also raises fundamental questions about what education for children\u00a0in prison can realistically achieve when things have gone so terribly wrong in the\u00a0community. It is surely unrealistic to expect much from educational provision inside\u00a0prison when the pupils have such terrible experiences of the mainstream education\u00a0system.<\/p>\n

The Youth Justice Board’s objective for the ‘Education, Training and Employment’\u00a0resettlement pathway requires that:<\/p>\n

‘Education provided during custody should be in line with resettlement\u00a0planning and available education, training and employment in the\u00a0community.’ (Youth Justice Board, 2014)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This seems sensible, and perhaps necessary, from the perspective of providing continuity\u00a0between educational provision inside and outside prison, and in the interests of equity\u00a0and fairness. However, some discussion group respondents felt that the education\u00a0provision bore too much resemblance to the very thing they had responded so badly to\u00a0before: “This is a prison, not a school. They’re teaching us like we’re in a school.”<\/p>\n

It might be tempting to conclude that very little can be achieved through formal education\u00a0provision in prison, at least as currently configured. Results from a Freedom of\u00a0Information request submitted by Children and Young People Now magazine show that\u00a0there were just 119 GCSE passes in public sector YOIs in 2010\/11 compared to 232 for the\u00a0previous year, a drop of almost half (49%) (Puffett, 2012). This information\u00a0simultaneously highlights a problem and yet also shows why it might be important to\u00a0retain education provision in prisons for children. Between the two data collection\u00a0periods, the number of education contact hours required of providers dropped from 25 to\u00a015 hours per week. These crude figures thus suggest that children in YOIs achieve more\u00a0with more contact time, supporting the case for more formal education time.<\/p>\n

However, this last point reduces educational achievement of children in prison simply to a\u00a0matter of counting GCSE passes. We know from what the children said in the current\u00a0research that the greatest levels of enthusiasm for education and learning experiences\u00a0were reserved for the Raptor project. The unique enthusiasm for the Raptor project\u00a0amongst the children in the YOI demonstrates that even the most disaffected children can\u00a0engage effectively with learning opportunities inside prison.<\/p>\n

However, the time, space and resources involved in providing the project made this the\u00a0exception rather than the norm across the youth secure estate. A more common scenario\u00a0was that, for a variety of reasons, children could not exercise their preferred educational\u00a0choice. This lack of choice was evident for those outside the relatively narrow band of\u00a0studying at GCSE level. This left those with poor levels of educational attainment\u00a0undertaking some qualifications with little use or relevance in the community. It also\u00a0means that those already with educational attainment at GCSE level were poorly catered\u00a0for. These students are equally important as they can be unhelpfully grouped together as\u00a0‘young offenders’ who are assumed to be educational underachievers or unable to learn. These types of label serve as a barrier to these children’s potential achievement, in\u00a0addition to well-documented barriers such as living within a culture of “mutual mistrust,\u00a0fear, aggression and barely submerged violence” (Crewe et al., 2014:56) and restrictions\u00a0to learning opportunities associated with their assigned risk level or privilege status.<\/p>\n

These other fundamental challenges in the lives of the boys – issues of greater concern to\u00a0them than whether or not they attend an education class – connects with the work of\u00a0learning theorists such as Maslow. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model (1987) suggests\u00a0that human beings are not motivated by any higher level needs (love and belonging, selfesteem,\u00a0self-actualisation) until the more basic, lower-level ones (physiological needs,\u00a0safety needs) have been met. Maslow’s model is useful in helping to identify why certain\u00a0young people, due to insecurity and trauma, might become ‘stuck’ at the lower levels and\u00a0might not achieve higher level ‘self-actualisation. Maslow’s ideas are also supported by\u00a0Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning objectives which suggests that one cannot effectively\u00a0address higher levels until those below them have been covered.<\/p>\n

These learning theories challenge the idea that education can play a useful role in the\u00a0rehabilitation and resettlement when basic welfare needs remain so gravely unmet. Since\u00a0the period in which discussion groups were held in the YOI, safety concerns in different\u00a0YOIs (HMIP, 2014; 2015) and indeed prisons more generally (Prison Reform Trust, 2015)\u00a0have increased. Consistent with other resettlement studies, the issue of accommodation\u00a0on release was an issue for some of the children.<\/p>\n

However, simply because some lower order needs are not met it does not necessarily\u00a0follow that learning cannot take place. More recent research tested Maslow’s theory by\u00a0analysing survey data of 60,865 participants from 123 countries between 2005 and 2010,\u00a0representing every major region of the world (Tay & Diener, 2011). The research findings\u00a0suggest that even though the most basic needs require (and get) the most attention, one\u00a0may not need to fulfil them in order to be able to gain benefits from the other (met)\u00a0needs. In this sense our needs can work independently of each other. However, in prison,\u00a0the context makes it much more difficult for individuals to feel that their safety and social\u00a0needs (love, support) are met, along with needs such as ‘respect’, ‘mastery’ and autonomy\u00a0(see, for example, The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2010). Blog posts written by\u00a0children and young people with experience of the criminal justice system on the U R Boss\u00a0website (U R Boss, 2015) also describe some of these unmet needs, and will be the subject\u00a0of a separate paper.<\/p>\n

Again, this raises questions about what we understand by education and learning in the\u00a0prison environment. If we take a view of education as a form of liberation, as the\u00a0“practice of freedom” (Freire, 1976), then a prison fundamentally fails the basic test of a\u00a0learning environment. Institutions dominated by concerns of security, control and fear\u00a0cannot possibly provide adequate effective learning environments in these terms.<\/p>\n

According to Rogers (1969, cited by Jarvis, 2004) the goal of education is to help\u00a0individuals become a fully functioning person. In order to do this, Rogers suggested selfdirected,\u00a0experiential learning in a social context that is not too oppressive for the learner.<\/p>\n

Again, as multiple government inspection reports tell us (see, for example HMIP 2014,\u00a02015), current YOI environments fail in fundamental ways to offer this opportunity to its\u00a0child learners. A recent inspection report for HMYOI Wetherby, for example, notes\u00a0“discernible deterioration” (HMIP, 2015a:6) in safety levels with “concerning levels of\u00a0violence” (HMIP, 2015a:6). In relation to education, the report notes that activity “\u2026was\u00a0poorly allocated, take up was too low, and attendance was poor, which all contributed to\u00a0needlessly negative outcomes” (HMIP, 2015a:5).<\/p>\n

Despite government plans to put education at the heart of custody, doubts remain about\u00a0the real ethos and aims of the proposed Secure College. These doubts exist not just\u00a0among criminal justice campaign organisations and academics, but some Members of\u00a0Parliament too:<\/p>\n

‘I would like to apply the duck test to secure colleges. The duck test is that if\u00a0it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a\u00a0duck. Looking at the Bill, if it looks like a prison, feels like a prison – particularly in the light of the planning application – and is staffed like a\u00a0prison, it is probably a prison.<\/p>\n

It is odd that, although the Government claim that secure colleges will put\u00a0education at the heart of youth custody, neither the Bill nor the consultation\u00a0response contains any detail about teaching, education, staff or\u00a0qualifications.’ (Hansard, 2014)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Changes to the quantity of education provided in YOIs (in the form of contact hours) could\u00a0be very important. Just as important will the quality of this education, and the extent to\u00a0which it is able to meet the variety of needs amongst the children who find themselves in\u00a0our prisons.<\/p>\n

Concluding comments<\/strong>
\nThe research highlights the importance of listening to children in prison about their\u00a0experiences of education to find out what needs to be improved. Whilst the YOI staff and\u00a0education provider sought to do their best to provide educational choices to engage\u00a0children in the education provision provided, in many respects the provision could not\u00a0meet the education and learning needs of many of the boys held there. This was due to a\u00a0number of factors associated with the boys’ prior negative experiences of education\u00a0provision outside the prison, the type of environment that prison is, with its dominant\u00a0focus on security and control over welfare and education and the inability to address the\u00a0variety of learning needs with a relatively narrow curriculum. This is particularly the case\u00a0for those boys on short sentences. For some boys, their pre-occupation with other more\u00a0fundamental concerns to do with their own personal safety or their accommodation after\u00a0prison, seemed to inhibit their motivation for engagement with the education provision\u00a0on offer.<\/p>\n

The experiences of these children tentatively suggest that it was possible for a small\u00a0number of them to have positive learning experiences inside such a secure environment,\u00a0despite what can often be a hostile environment that mitigates against educational\u00a0development. However, the Raptor project was very much the exception than the rule in\u00a0our prisons for children and only available to small numbers of participants at any one\u00a0time. As recent inspection reports indicate, our YOIs are currently a long way from being\u00a0the type of environments that education specialists would advocate as suitable site for\u00a0learning. Any achievements by children themselves therefore largely occur despite, not\u00a0because of, the system they find themselves subject to.<\/p>\n

This research highlights some of the individualised educational needs of the children in the\u00a0YOI at the time and some of the barriers in meeting them. These barriers can be\u00a0considerable and pose questions for how we understand and provide appropriate informal\u00a0and formal educational experiences for children in prison.<\/p>\n

1*\u00a0Other proposals in the coalition government’s ‘at the heart of’ series included “Putting students at the heart of higher education”.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Bateman, T. (2014)\u00a0Children in conflict with the law – An overview of developments and trends<\/em>, London: National Association for Youth Justice.
\nBateman, T., Hazel, N. and Wright, S. (2013)\u00a0‘Resettlement of Young People Leaving Custody: Lessons from the Literature<\/em>‘, Beyond Youth Custody http:\/\/www.beyondyouthcustody.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Resettlement-of-Young- People-Leaving-Custody-Lessons-from-the-literature.pdf
\nBBC News (2015)\u00a0Prison education must be overhauled<\/em>, Michael Gove says http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-33554573
\nBloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956)\u00a0Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive Domain<\/em>\u00a0New York: McKay.
\nCanton, R., Hine, J. and Welford, J. (2011)\u00a0Outside Chances: Offender Learning in the Community, Final Report<\/em>, City and Guilds Centre for Skills Development.
\nChildren’s Rights Alliance for England (2014)\u00a0‘Criminal Justice and Courts Bill – girls and younger children in secure colleges: House of Lords Ping Pong<\/em>‘, Joint Briefing Paper between CRAE, Standing Committee for Youth Justice, The Prison Reform Trust and The Howard League for Penal Reform, December 2014. http:\/\/www.crae.org.uk\/media\/75262\/CJCB-Ping-Pong-Lords-Briefing-GirlsYoung- Children.pdf [date accessed: 1 May 2015).
\nCrewe, B. Warr, J. Bennett, P. and Smith, A. (2014) ‘The emotional geography of prison life’,\u00a0Theoretical Criminology,<\/em>\u00a018 (1): 56-74.
\nCripps, H. and Summerfield, A. (2012) ‘Resettlement provision for children and young people’ and ‘The care of looked after children in custody’: Findings from two HMIP thematic reviews,\u00a0Prison Service Journal<\/em>, 201, 31-8.
\nFreire, P. (1976)\u00a0Education: the practice of freedom,<\/em>\u00a0Writers and Readers Publishing Collective
\nHansard (2014) Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East), Member Environmental Audit Committee,\u00a0Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Deb<\/em>, 20 March 2014, c283 http:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm201314\/cmpublic\/criminaljustice\/14032 0\/pm\/140320s01.htm#14032080000055 [accessed 24 July 2015]
\nHansard (2015) Suella Fernandes (Fareham)\u00a0Secure Colleges Written Question 5710<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/business\/publications\/written-questions-answers-statements\/written-question\/Commons\/2015-07-06\/5710\/ [accessed 24 July 2015]
\nHer Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (2014)\u00a0Unannounced inspection of HMYOI Feltham (children and young people)<\/em>, 11-15 August 2014 http:\/\/www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk\/hmiprisons\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2015\/01\/Feltham-A-CYP-web-2014.pdf
\nHer Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (2015)\u00a0Report on unannounced inspection of HMYOI Glen Parva,\u00a0<\/em>31 March – 11 April 2014 https:\/\/www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk\/hmiprisons\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2014\/08\/Glen-Parva-Web-amended-2014.pdf
\nHer Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (2015a)\u00a0Report on unannounced inspection of HMYOI Wetherby<\/em>, 12-23 January 2015 https:\/\/www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk\/hmiprisons\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2015\/06\/Wetherby-web-2015.pdf
\nJarvis, P. (2004)\u00a0Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: theory and practice<\/em>, 3rd edition, Oxon: Routledge.
\nLabour Press (2014)\u00a0Secure College Announcement Response<\/em>, 9 June 2014 http:\/\/press.labour.org.uk\/post\/88269796419\/secure-college-announcement-response-sadiq-khan
\nLegislation.gov.uk (2015)\u00a0Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2015\/2\/contents\/enacted\/data.htm
\nLittle, R. (2015) ‘Participation and Practice in Youth Justice’<\/em>, Eurovista (3) 3, http:\/\/euro-vista.org\/eurovistavol3-3\/
\nMaslow, A. (1987)\u00a0Motivation and Personality<\/em>\u00a0(3rd edition) New York: Harper and Row.
\nMcAra, L. and McVie, S. (2010) Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime,\u00a0Criminology and Criminal Justice,<\/em>\u00a010 (2), 179- 209.
\nMcNeill, F. (2006), “Community supervision: context and relationships matter”,\u00a0in\u00a0<\/em>Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (Eds),\u00a0Youth Crime and Justice,<\/em>\u00a0Sage, London, pp. 125-38.
\nMezirow, J. (2000)\u00a0Learning as Transformation,<\/em>\u00a0San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
\nMuncie, J. (2009)\u00a0Youth and Crime,<\/em>\u00a0London: Sage.
\nMinistry of Justice (2013)\u00a0Transforming youth custody: putting education at the heart of custody<\/em>, London: MoJ https:\/\/consult.justice.gov.uk\/digital-communications\/transforming-youth-custody
\nMinistry of Justice (2014)\u00a0Transforming youth custody – government response to the consultation,<\/em>\u00a0London: MoJ.
\nMinistry of Justice (2014)\u00a0‘Major economic boost as Wates is chosen for secure college design and build<\/em>‘ Press release 8 June 2014. London: Ministry of Justice. https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/major-economic-boost-as-wates-is-chosen-for-secure-college-design-and-build
\nNational Youth Agency (NYA) (2011),\u00a0Participation in Youth Justice: Measuring Impact and Effectiveness,\u00a0<\/em>National Youth Agency, Leicester.
\nOfsted (2010)\u00a0Transition Through Detention and Custody: Arrangements for learning and skills for young people in custodial or secure settings<\/em>\u00a0London: Ofsted
\nOfsted (2014)\u00a0‘Improving skills for vulnerable, disengaged young people’, Ofsted Research and Analysis<\/em>, published 4 June 2014 https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/improving-skills-for-vulnerable-disengaged-young-people
\nParliament UK (2015)\u00a0‘Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Returns to the Lords<\/em>‘ http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/business\/news\/2014\/june\/lords-criminal-justice-and-courts-bill\/
\nPrisoners’ Education Trust (2014)\u00a0Brain Cells: Listening to Prisoner Learners\u00a0<\/em>(3https:\/\/fbclientprisoners.s3.amazonaws.com\/Documents\/Reports\/PET%20Brain%20Cells%203%20Report%20LR.pdf rd ed)
\nPuffett, N. (2012)\u00a0‘GCSE passes of young offenders plummets’,<\/em>\u00a0Children and Young People Now [accessed 28 March 2014] http:\/\/www.cypnow.co.uk\/cyp\/news\/1075367\/gcse-passes-offenders-halves
\nTay, L., & Diener, E. (2011) ‘Needs and subjective well-being around the world’.\u00a0Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,<\/em>\u00a0101(2), 354-365.
\nThe Howard League for Penal Reform (2010)\u00a0Life Inside: A unique insight into the day to day experiences of 15-17 year old males in prison.<\/em>\u00a0London: The Howard League for Penal Reform. https:\/\/d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net\/fileadmin\/howard_league\/user\/pdf\/Publicati ons\/Life_Inside_2010.pdf
\nThe Howard League for Penal Reform (2011)\u00a0Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collective Exclusion.<\/em>\u00a0London: The Howard League for Penal Reform. https:\/\/d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net\/fileadmin\/howard_league\/user\/pdf\/Publicati ons\/Life_outside.pdf
\nThe Howard League for Penal Reform (2012)\u00a0Education in HMYOI<\/em>\u00a0Warren Hill http:\/\/www.urboss.org.uk\/downloads\/Education_in_HMYOI_Warren_Hill_Report.pdf
\nU R Boss project\u00a0blog posts (2015)<\/em>\u00a0http:\/\/www.urboss.org.uk\/blog [accessed 28 May 2015]
\nWilliams, B. (2006) ‘Meaningful consent to participate in social research on the part of people under the age of eighteen’\u00a0Research Ethics Review<\/em>\u00a02(1), 19-24.
\nYouth Justice Board (2014)\u00a0‘Custody and resettlement: section 7 case management guidance’,<\/em>\u00a0London: Youth Justice Board https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/custody-and-resettlement\/custody-and-resettlement-section-7-case-management-guidance First published: 15 October 2014.
\nYouth Justice Board\/Ministry of Justice (2013)\u00a0Youth Justice Statistics 2011\/12: England and Wales (supplementary table 9.9)<\/em>\u00a0London: Youth Justice Board.
\nYouth Justice Board, National Offender Management Service,\u00a0NHS England (2015) Guidance on protected time for education in public sector under-18 young offender institutions<\/em>, London: Youth Justice Board. https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/450 206\/Protected_education_in_YOIs_guidance.pdf[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”2″ back_color=”color-lxmt” overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1593440492913{padding-right: 26px !important;padding-left: 26px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h4″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Latest Issue[\/vc_custom_heading][uncode_index el_id=”index-163686″ loop=”size:1|order_by:date|post_type:post|categories:3″ gutter_size=”3″ post_items=”title,date” screen_lg=”1000″ screen_md=”600″ screen_sm=”480″ single_text=”overlay” single_style=”dark” single_overlay_opacity=”50″ single_overlay_anim=”no” single_text_visible=”yes” single_text_anim=”no” single_h_align_mobile=”left” single_padding=”0″ single_title_family=”font-128611″ single_title_dimension=”h4″ single_title_weight=”500″][vc_button button_color=”accent” size=”btn-xl” radius=”btn-square” wide=”yes” custom_typo=”yes” font_family=”font-128611″ font_weight=”500″ border_width=”0″ link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmmuperu.co.uk%2Fbjcj%2Fnewsletter%2F|title:Newsletter||”]Subscribe to our Newsletter[\/vc_button][vc_raw_html]JTNDYSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10aW1lbGluZSUyMiUyMGRhdGEtd2lkdGglM0QlMjI0MDAlMjIlMjBkYXRhLWhlaWdodCUzRCUyMjU0NSUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGYmpjb21tdW5pdHlqdXN0JTNGcmVmX3NyYyUzRHR3c3JjJTI1NUV0ZnclMjIlM0VUd2VldHMlMjBieSUyMGJqY29tbXVuaXR5anVzdCUzQyUyRmElM0UlMjAlM0NzY3JpcHQlMjBhc3luYyUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGxhdGZvcm0udHdpdHRlci5jb20lMkZ3aWRnZXRzLmpzJTIyJTIwY2hhcnNldCUzRCUyMnV0Zi04JTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGc2NyaXB0JTNF[\/vc_raw_html][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This paper draws on the views of children and young people in a Young Offender\u00a0Institution (YOI) to explore education provision in the youth secure estate from their\u00a0perspectives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nPutting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This paper draws on the views of children and young people in a Young Offender\u00a0Institution (YOI) to explore education provision in the youth secure estate from their\u00a0perspectives.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"46 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"headline\":\"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":9225,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"Articles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/\",\"name\":\"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/\",\"name\":\"BJCJ\",\"description\":\"British Journal of Community Justice\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\",\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Monk\"},\"description\":\"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sleek.bio\\\/n\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/author\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ","og_description":"This paper draws on the views of children and young people in a Young Offender\u00a0Institution (YOI) to explore education provision in the youth secure estate from their\u00a0perspectives.","og_url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/","og_site_name":"BJCJ","article_published_time":"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00","author":"Nathan Monk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Monk","Estimated reading time":"46 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Monk","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"headline":"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution","datePublished":"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/"},"wordCount":9225,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/","name":"Putting Education at the Heart of Custody? The Views of Children on Education in a Young Offender Institution - BJCJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-06-15T13:49:47+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:09:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/putting-education-at-the-heart-of-custody-the-views-of-children-on-education-in-a-young-offender-institution\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/","name":"BJCJ","description":"British Journal of Community Justice","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061","name":"Nathan Monk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Monk"},"description":"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.","sameAs":["https:\/\/sleek.bio\/n","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/nathansmonk\/"],"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/author\/nathansmonk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1385"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2826,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1385\/revisions\/2826"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}