Gina Lobaccaro and all, 

By way of addressing your excellent question about motivating low-literacy 
level learners, I?d like to return to what I believe is a hugely untapped 
potential in correctional education: the incarcerated learner?s personal 
needs and interests. Anita Wilson describes ?Third-spaces? in prisons in 
the UK where prisoners express themselves in ways deeply personal and 
loaded with their own sense of identity ? poetry, music, art; ways of 
expression that they would likely not be engaged in ?back home? or in 
?official? prison discourses (including prison classrooms, work 
assignments, etc.). 

When I recently interviewed literacy learners on their views of prison 
literacy programs, I was taken back by their need to talk about families 
and loved ones back home. Most of the prisoners thought about their 
mothers, fathers, spouses, sisters, sons, daughters, and grandparents 
almost constantly, when they were not ?pulled back? into the reality of 
prison by another inmate or staff member. Based on Anita?s work I began 
seeing the reality of prison as the learners? ?First- space? and their 
personal thoughts of home as the hidden ?Second-spaces.? 

I wondered how this enormous emotional resource (Second-space) could be 
(respectfully) ?invited? into the classroom by teachers. Gina asked about 
motivating low-level literacy students. One possible solution ? though not 
necessarily an easy one ? is through Language Experience Approach lessons. 
An example: A student of mine ? 18 yrs old, doing time for murder, ADD big 
time and, weirdly, likeable -- was a profoundly disabled reader, barely 
knew the names of the letters. But he was convinced he did not need to 
study such ?childish? things as phonics. Because he was highly fascinated 
with himself (!) I put a tape recorder in front of him and let him talk. 
His early stories made me queasy ? how, once he got out, he was going to 
set up his own gas station and hire a team of his buddies to work for 
him?totally out of touch with reality! More than once I doubted my own 
judgment, but continued to transcribe the stories. They became his reading 
materials and he loved to read them. We made flash cards out of the words 
he most wanted to learn to read and spell, reread his stories to improve 
his fluency, and dread! even created daily phonics lessons based on his 
words.  In addition to rapid growth in his reading, he began writing 
letters home, and this sparked a dialogue with his estranged mother.  As 
time went by, his stories became much less fantastic, and much more real ? 
about facing his mother when she came to visit, etc. 

Language Experience Approach (LEA) can be time consuming, and some prisons 
don?t even allow tape recorders in the classroom. There is, also, a down 
side to this idea - that staff can get "too close" to their students -- 
and that can lead to disastrous results, and lead to harsh staff policies 
about keeping one's distance. (But, for example, if there were trustworthy 
tutors around, they could do the transcribing. Or discussion groups, 
instead of LEA, could be used to get learners engaged. Also, many staff 
have found ways to support students' personal needs and still maintain 
boundaries.) The point is that there are ways to motivate low-literacy 
adults -- Language Experience, Third-spaces, discussion groups, etc. -- 
but whether or not correctional educators are permitted to use them is 
another story. 

My guess is that if prisoners? ?Second spaces? were "invited" into the 
classroom (they should never be coerced into the classroom!), we?d have a 
lot more family and intergenerational literacy programs flourishing: 
support for letter writing, peer support for family crises (see my note 
about the Allenwood Father?s Group, few days back), and powerful and 
empowering purposes for literacy learning. I know that many prison 
classrooms do not engender the trust it would take to pull this off, but I 
also bet that those who care enough to participate in this discussion 
struggle everyday to sustain just such environments. 

A few related notes:
John Linton, thank you for bringing to our attention the Senate Judiciary 
Sub-Committee hearing, and the inside/outside work that Safer is doing. 
David ? Safer Foundation program may be the best example of the kind of 
programs you were asking about. Diane Williams reported that the Safer 
?model prison to community initiative?show[ed] a 50 % decline in 
recidivism and a 50% increase in job placement. Our most recent statistics 
show that 77% of the participants who are active in Safer?s services are 
currently working.?

About the testimony of the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee hearing on 
Reentry: Numerous experts talked about the need for support for families 
and children of prisoners, and the importance of family ties. But only 
once did a witness ? Roger Werholtz from Kansas ? mentioned a reentry 
program that involved ?maintaining family ties.? Why is it that this need, 
though recognized by Urban Institute and others as one of the major 
contributors to reentry success, is overshadowed by jobs, drug treatment, 
sex offender, and other (worthy) needs? Are these programs too messy? Too 
threatening? To personal? Again, at the risk of broke-record syndrome, I 
argue that family and intergenerational literacy programs could reach some 
of the least communicative parents in prison, and thus some of the most 
vulnerable children and families. 

Gina Lobaccaro is too modest to mention this, but she is the wiki-master!! 
Gina maintains the correctional education component of the Adult Literacy 
Education Wiki hosted by NIFL and supported by David Rosen, Erik Jacobsen 
and others (see: 
http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Corrections_Education ). This is a 
great resource for our community of practice. Thank you, Gina. My guess is 
much of our conversation will find its way to this wiki, yes?

June Crawford: As you know well, one alternative way to screen for reading 
disabilities in our classrooms is by assessing reading components in 
addition to reading comprehension.  Here is a link to John Strucker?s 
classic argument for the need for reading components testing: 
http://www.ncsall.net/?id=456

Sorry for such a long post!!!  -Bill




David Rosen <djrosen at comcast.net> 
Sent by: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
09/23/2006 06:18 AM
Please respond to
specialtopics at nifl.gov


To
specialtopics at nifl.gov
cc

Subject
[SpecialTopics 240]  Community re-entry programs






Colleagues,

Here's a question for our guests, and for anyone in this discussion 
who may work with a prisoner community re-entry program:

In "Locked Up and Locked Out"  a community re-entry program in 
Massachusetts is described as follows:

"Re-entry projects around the country have been similar, or at least 
somewhat similar, to the Offender Re-entry Program (ORP) in Suffolk 
County, Massachu-
setts. The lead educational agency is Boston?s Bunker Hill Community 
College. The program is detailed in a case study found in a report of 
the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).37 ORP provides soon-to-be- 
released inmates with an intensive 6-hour-a-day course of study over 
a six-week period. After release, the inmates continue to receive 
support from caseworkers and mentors for a minimum of six months ? 
and many choose to continue beyond this six-month period. Drawing on 
different community resources and agencies, the program includes:
? education during the final six weeks of prison provided by Bunker 
Hill Community College
? job assistance at the one-stop career center called Workplace
? case management provided by Community Resources for Justice
? mentoring support from the faith-based Ella J. Baker House"

How prevalent are programs such as the ORP? Do they reduce 
recidivism? What are the key ingredients of success?

David J. Rosen
Special Topics Discussion Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net
-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20060924/6158d0f9/attachment.html