News

By Tom Wright

And the irony in this learning process regarding doing what it takes to prevent recidivism? It’s that inmates have a distinct advantage in this process over the rest of the population because they’re hungry. How do I know this? Because inmates have been the best students I have ever had, particularly when you offer them anything, that in any way, looks like it will help them to establish meaningful lives as a fully functioning, productive citizen. That would be, law abiding. But again, even with the best training in the world, if their hunger for normalcy in their lives isn’t also addressed, then that training will fail. In our modern world, no one survives alone, least of all those on the fringe of support. If the only person you can call to come pick you up when you are released is an alcoholic relative, and you are an alcoholic, what chances do you think that that freed person has for living a life away from addictions and old habits? Not much of one, I would say.

By Tom Wright

Learning is a function of hunger. What? That’s right, the hungrier a student is for the mind food you are offering them, the better the learner they are. And they will also digest what you have to offer more readily as well. Regardless of how “smart” you think they are, or what their I. Q. is. Digestion equals the ability and a willingness to apply what has been learned. This is because the easier it is to access skills, information, and tools, the more likely a human being will use them. This rule is immutable. This observation applies to most of the human race, bar none. Other than those who have physical characteristics that prevent them from learning, this rule always applies. And those with physical limitations are a very, very, small portion of the entire populace.

By Christopher Zoukis

A cost-effective method of providing this anticipatory socialization is through correctional education. Almost any learned person will agree that the pursuit of an education is a means of healthy, pro-social growth. The same is true not only outside of the prison environment, but inside it, too. By allowing offenders to grow through education they will be able to not only compete in the job market upon release, but be afforded the opportunity to change their criminal mentality and motivations.

Through the act of reading about sociology the offender can come to a better understanding of the social class that they came from; hence, come to a better understanding of their own role inside their class and perhaps even an understanding of why they do the things they do. Likewise, an English course can afford the offender with the skills needed to convey their thoughts and feelings in an appropriate manner.

By Christopher Zoukis

Generally, the idea of crime is a violation of generally agreed upon societal norms; societal norms which have been codified into law via criminalization. The concept is that society has deemed certain actions to be acceptable and others to be unacceptable. When someone violates a social norm they are chastised so as to acknowledge the breaking of social norms. This in turn acts as a correction to the individual who violated the norm and as a warning to the rest who might do so. This chastisement maintains the agreed upon social order which facilitates basic life in our nation and throughout the world.

Some forms of chastisement are not so bad. For example, a friend voicing disagreement, a teacher giving a bad grade, or even a parent grounding their child as a show of disapproval. All of these, while not pleasant, allow the offender to reflect upon their actions, correct them, and go on with life relatively unabated. This is the purpose of small correction; the person is not hindered from living life, but they will remain with the reminder of their correction. Hence, their behavior should theoretically conform according to the level, kind, and motivation of the correction.

By Christopher Zoukis

“Who is the Republican front runner?”

“The Vice President?”

“Head of State?”

“Secretary of the Treasury?”

All of the above questions should easily be answered.  Yet, my students can’t answer them.  I’d imagine that most undergraduates would be able to, but why not incarcerated GED students?  Did I even know these answers when I was in high school?  If not, why?

The other day I was reading the New York Times and I found that I wasn’t truly reading it.  I was scanning it and only reading a few select articles.  The same I found was true of my alleged reading of USA Today and the Wall Street Journal.  As I reflected upon this trend of mine to just scan and select, I tried to remember an article of real importance.  While I could come up with a few, these were restricted and specialized; certainly not readings of general knowledge.  I thought, if this was true of me, it must be true of others, too.

by Dortell Williams

In 1991, Senator Jesse Helms argued that prisoners were being afforded free education that   many tax-paying citizens  couldn’t afford, inciting a hate debate. In 1993, Senator Kay Bauley  Hutchinson  claimed  that prisoners “received as much as $200 million in Pell Grant funds.”  A year  later,  the hate debate had grown so fierce that Senator Claiborne Pell, for whom Basic Education Opportunity Grants were named, interceded to clarify the record, stating:  “…  a student qualifies for a grant,  and  the size of the grant depends on the availability of appropriations.  Thus, the child of a police officer would not be denied a grant in favor of a prisoner. If both are eligible, both would receive grants.”

Another  more  accurate delineation of Pell Grant distribution to people incarcerated was published in 2004, the last year the grants were  available to us. Approximately 25,000  incarcerated individuals  received   funding among the 4.7 million Pell Grants dispersed. Only one-half of one-percent of all grants  went  to people incarcerated. The average amount issued was $1400 – a mere fraction of the $200  million that Senator Hutchinson had claimed.