Our prisons are boiling pots for angry people and universities of crime

Budgetary constraints dictate that money spent on prisons is earmarked for security. The physical, monetary and psychological barriers placed upon educational pursuits inside maximum security prisons are never-ending and Trevor Doherty illustrated some of those complex issues in a paper he presented to The International Forum on Education in Penal Systems in Adelaide during April, 1998:

"Education within a prison is viewed by authorities as a privilege and is consequently heavily policed. Although viewed favourably by the parole board, it is far from being encouraged by prison staff. The adamant opposition toward educational pursuits displayed by prison staff invariably brings about a 'play the game mentality' to which a large proportion of correctional educators succumb. Consequently, to safeguard their own careers, they often wear two hats."

Knowledge is power but the learning curves can be difficult to navigate inside maximum-security prisons. They remain seething cauldrons of anger, frustration and discontent that rest on an underlying current of tension and raw violence which can explode without warning at any time.

There is no privacy within a prison. Random cell searches, strip searches, body searches (squat and cough) and lock-downs are an integral part of prison life. All activities within a prison are geared to the security restrictions enforced within the prison and there is no control whatsoever as to what prison authorities may dictate as being policy on any given day.

A prisoner has no control over his own life. Helplessness and vulnerability have become prerequisites of the incarceration process that disempowers and totally crushes any initiative or individuality. Everyday prison life becomes one continuing battle to retain a dignified sense of balance between institutionalisation and subservience.

The learning experience is no weight to carry but there are two types of educational systems inside a maximum-security prison - the conventional and the unconventional. For some prisoners it is easier and less demanding to simply assimilate into a sub-culture where successful failures carry a mark of respect on the yard that is equivalent to a BA or a Phd in the outside world.

This concept was challenged by Senator John Tierney, Chair of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee, when he released a Report on 26 April, 1996, that recommended wide-sweeping reforms to conventional education programs inside Australian prisons.

The Report culminated a nation-wide series of public hearings and visits to correctional facilities throughout Australia and drew this observation from Senator Tierney:

"Currently prisoners who leave prison with useful skills and a positive outlook invariably lack the support to establish themselves with a job or further education in the community. As a result, a significant proportion re-offend and end up back in prison. This is an outrageous waste of skills, time and money.

"If we can reduce the levels of recidivism we can save millions of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of the social gains when ex-offenders can put their lives back together.

"If we are serious about rehabilitation - and let's face it, about 99% of prisoners will be returning to the community - we need to make sure what happens in prison with education and training is geared to the best possible outcomes for prisoners, because that's what will be in the best interests of society at large."

Those noble sentiments expressed by Senator Tierney were not validated on the prison exercise yard. The abandonment of prison as a last resort was replaced with the "get tough on crime" approach that politicians of both persuasions use in vote-grabbing exercises to woo the electorate.