National Vocations Qualifications (NVQs) in Prisons: A Reflection of Effort and Achievement or the Perpetuation of Existing Patterns of Discrimination?
| DOI | 10.1177/135822919600100404 |
| Author | Vera Bermingham |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
International Journal
of
Discrimination
and
the
Law, 1996,
Vol.
1,
pp.
353-368
1358-2291/96 $10
© 1996 A B
Academic
Publishers. Printed
in
Great Britain
NATIONAL VOCATIONS QUALIFICATIONS (NVQs) IN
PRISONS: A REFLECTION OF EFFORT
AND
ACHIEVEMENT OR THE PERPETUATION OF EXISTING
PATTERNS OF DISCRIMINATION?
VERA
BERMINGHAM
Law
School, Middlesex University, Hendon, London NW4 4BT, UK
ABSTRACT
The purpose
of
this article is to examine the extent to which gender or racial ste-
reotypes are used
to
categorise or stigmatise inmates in the allocation of work,
training and education in prisons.
In
setting out the impact of recent legislative
reforms, the article begins by outlining the effects of the Further and Higher Edu-
cation Act 1992 and the changes resulting from the introduction
of
National Voca-
tional Qualifications (NVQs) to the prison regime. The requirement, for the pur-
poses
of
Sentence Planning, of documentary evidence
of
an inmate's education and
training profile will be seen to have far reaching effects at all stages through a
prisoner's sentence; and beyond, for the many prisoners who will be subject to a
period
of
compulsory supervision after release. Yet, it will also be shown that the
system operates to allow highly discriminatory decisions
to
be taken without proper
accountability. The effectiveness and implementation of the Prison Department's
equal opportunities policy will be considered. The article will conclude by recom-
mending further research that specifically focuses on the allocation
of
opportunities
for education and training for prisoners.
CURRENT
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
PROVISION
The provision
of
education in prisons derives from the Prison
and Criminal Justice Acts and is a Home Office responsibility. Statut-
ory instruments made under those Acts require that provision should
be made by the Home Secretary for prisoners' education. Tradition-
ally the Home Secretary has discharged this responsibility by inviting
local education authorities (LEAs) to provide teaching staff and the
related professional and administrative advice. LEAs exercised discre-
tion in their management
of
staff engaged in prison education. Some
appointed them to their further education colleges
or
adult education
institutes, in other cases LEA officers directly managed staff in
prison education. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 has
fundamentally changed the relationship between colleges and the
354
LEA; colleges have now become self-governing bodies and obtain
funding through a central funding council. Prison education has been
opened up to competitive tendering and contracts are now awarded
on a prison-by-prison basis. With the provision
of
prison education
no longer a responsibility for LEAs, their duty to make inspection or
perform any other function no longer exists, and consequently, it
could be argued, an important layer
of
quality control has been lost
to the service.
Prior to April 1993 the education officer organised the provision
of
classes in a particular prison, but the governor had ultimate
responsibility for education. Hitherto, governors have had the discre-
tion to decide, without giving any explanation, whether or not par-
ticular courses were offered and which prisoners were entitled to
enrol for them. A consequence
of
this, which was noted by Her Maj-
esty's Chief Inspector
of
Prisons in his 1991-2 Annual Report,3 is
the diversity between prisons in both the facilities available and the
range
of
courses offered to inmates. Fitzgerald and Sim4 have high-
lighted the predicament which such diversity presents for a prisoner
who is transferred during a course
of
study. This rather incoherent
and
ad
hoc delivery
of
education in prisons has been highlighted in
the Report
of
the Prison Education Consultancy (1994).5 The research
has shown that there is: much wastage in the service; fragmentation
of
provision; poor transfer
of
information about inmates; incoherent
and over lapping provision and qualifications; and no shared view
of
what education in prisons is or ought to be.
There has been a significant shift in the decision making process
since education services have been contracted out to private providers
and a wider range
of
interests are now involved. For example, in the
future, curriculum content, methods
of
delivery and means
of
assess-
ment will be determined by: advisers from the Chief Education
Officer's Branch
of
the Prison Service who will determine the criteria
which prison education is expected to meet; governors wishing to
develop their own plans, fitting in with developments in the total
regime; and, to a lesser extent, by the provider
of
the education ser-
vice who will aim to deliver the programmes within a framework
of
profitability. In addition, since 1993, the monitoring
of
regime activ-
ity has been introduced by the Prison Service. Key performance
indicators (KPis) are now used in to measure the effectiveness and
value for money in the provision
of
education and training. For
example, KPI:5 measures the number
of
hours a week which, on
average, prisoners spend in purposeful activity. KPI:6 measures the
proportion
of
prisoners held in establishments where prisoners are
unlocked on weekdays for a total
of
at least twelve hours.
Since 1993 the focus can be seen to have shifted, previously, the
measurement
of
time out
of
cell was the amount
of
the time which
To continue reading
Request your trial