1
Running head: CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Critical Pedagogy in Prison Education: Teaching for Democracy, Liberation, and Civic
Engagement in an Institution of Control
Megan Janicki
Vanderbilt University
2
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Abstract
The purpose of my capstone essay is to situate prison education as an issue of justice and critical
pedagogy as the catalyst for transformation. The prison population is disproportionately from
non-dominant culture and is further disenfranchised through incarceration and the criminal
justice system. Critical pedagogy is appropriate, effective prison pedagogy because it addresses
injustice in the lived experiences of the prisoner-students, and in societal institutions and
structures, such as schools and public policy; further, it is adaptable to the needs of diverse
learners from non-dominant culture. Additionally, critical pedagogy can be employed to promote
democracy, liberation, and participatory learning that transforms the culture of the prison and has
implications for urban communities, where many ex-offenders return. This essay will explore the
sociopolitical and historical context of prison education and address implications for urban
communities, diverse learners, educators, and justice broadly. The learner of my capstone essay
is situated as society at large, and policy makers and educators more specifically, as I
demonstrate the ways that policies and public perception shape the prison experience and
reintegration outcomes for those who are or have been incarcerated. Ultimately, critical
pedagogy will yield positive outcomes in terms of rates of recidivism, successful reintegration,
and transformation of the inside prison culture that carries over to influence urban communities.
As the environment of the prison is educative and breeds violence and oppression, critical
pedagogy must transcend this schooling and call for critical thought and liberation. In
summation, the essay will address the learner, urban context, and diversity through a critical
view of the educational opportunities in the prison systems of the United States, the best
practices for prison education, and the implications of critical pedagogy on rates of recidivism,
community vitality, and justice.
3
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Critical Pedagogy in Prison Education: Teaching for Democracy, Liberation, and Civic
Engagement in an Institution of Control
Introduction
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, with over 2.4 million
people currently incarcerated (Petersilia, 2011; Hartnett, Wood, & McCann, 2011). More so, the
system is highly racialized: two-thirds of the prison population are Black and Hispanic, further
marginalizing non-dominant groups from participation in dominant society and perpetuating
negative perceptions of these communities (Alexander, 2010; Petersilia, 2011). Incarceration has
major implications for those who have been through the criminal justice system as well as the
communities that ex-offenders return to (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Visher & Travis, 2003;
Clear, 2007). In many states, basic rights, including access to public housing and the right to
vote, are not returned to the formerly incarcerated. Finding employment can be a challenge for
men and women reentering society because of a lack of education and skills training; in addition,
many employers will not hire ex-felons, compounding problems of successful reentry and
reintegration (Meiners, 2009; Visher & Travis, 2003). The longer one spends in prison, the more
likely that he or she is to recidivate: social networks in outside communities are often severed
and many have built capital within the prison (Germain, 2014; Corcoran, 1985; Visher & Travis,
2003). Corcoran (1985) stated that the “decivilizing” (p. 57) experience of incarceration is more
likely to breed criminality than correct it.
Through a critical lens that counters hegemonic and oppressive structures, prison
pedagogy must be enacted toward a goal of productive community members prepared to
participate in civic, democratic life. This goal of critical prison pedagogy is juxtaposed against
4
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ mission to assist offenders in becoming “law-abiding citizens”
(“BOP: Agency Pillars,” n.d.), which suggests the perpetuation of oppressive power structures
and social constructs of criminality (Foucault, 1977; Davidson, 1995) rather than democratic
participation. Unfortunately, due to limited social networks and lack of access to housing,
employment, and legal community participation, many returned citizens experience what
Meiners (2009) refered to as “civil death,” and struggle to reintegrate as productive members of
society or law-abiding citizens; policies such as these, coupled with limited educational
opportunities (Corcoran, 1985), seem counterintuitive considering the intended function of
corrections. The majority of those that are incarcerated will reenter society (Visher & Travis,
2003); therefore, time spent in prison must rehabilitate persons involved and reconcile these
individuals with the communities they have harmed (Rivera, 1995). Further, skills-based
education is not sufficient; a pedagogy of democracy, liberation, and anti-oppression must be
established in order to affect change, reduce recidivism, and foster growth and transformation
among prisoner-students (Clements, 2004; Torre & Fine, 2005; Hartnett, et. all, 2011).
Beyond the impact on individuals who participate in educational programming, a critical
pedagogy is needed to transform the culture of the prison, which is in itself a learning experience
that shapes the behaviors, thought processes, and perceptions of those incarcerated (Boudin,
1993; Visher & Travis, 2003; Duguid, 1981). The purpose of my capstone essay is to situate
prison education as an issue of justice; to do this, I will explore the sociopolitical and historical
context of prisons and prison education. In addition, in an effort to raise critical consciousness, I
will demonstrate to policy makers and educators the function of education through a lens of
critical pedagogy in order to illuminate the positive outcomes associated with emancipatory
educational strategies within an institution of control. Further, the outcomes of prison pedagogy
5
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
have implications for urban communities and civic life as ex-felons return and reintegrate into
society. I will explore the relationship between the culture of the prison and the outside
community with attention to the impacts of critical pedagogy. Thus, my capstone essay will
address the learner, urban context, and diversity through a critical view of the educational
opportunities in the prison systems of the United States, the best practices for prison education,
and the implications of critical pedagogy on rates of recidivism, community vitality, and justice.
Definitions
For the purposes of this essay, the learner is defined as policy makers and society at large,
who must advocate for effective prison pedagogies and justice within an institution that breeds
violence, racial inequities, and disenfranchisement. Prison systems and those incarcerated within
them are impacted by policies that shape the experience of incarceration as well as an
individual’s reintegration into society. Additionally, the public perception of prisons, crime, and
justice also plays a role in the way the institution functions. Therefore, it is critical that
politicians and policy makers, educators, and the general public understand the implications of
prison reform, education, and the current system and approach in order that prisoner-students are
provided effective teaching and learning opportunities.
An overwhelming majority of those incarcerated in the present-day United States are
from impoverished urban communities, and it is to these communities that they will also return
(Travis & Petersilia, 2001; Visher & Travis, 2003; Clear, 2007). Thus, despite the physical
location of most prisons in rural areas, the population of prisons is largely urban and the
implications of prison culture and corrections policy are evidenced in urban communities. With
the implementation of critical pedagogy and effective education programs, the process of reentry
6
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
and reintegration will also carry over into the urban communities. Therefore, this essay will
address the urban context through this lens.
Diversity is evident in the prison population as many prisoners are excluded from
dominant culture because of their cultural identities prior to incarceration. McLaren (2009)
defined dominant culture as the “values, interests, and concerns of the social class in control of
the material and symbolic wealth” (p. 65). Those with access to this culture generally have
privileged or dominant identities in terms of their race, class, gender, sexual orientation and
ability (Watt, 2007). The prison population inherently consists of individuals that are
marginalized from dominant society; Black, Hispanic, and other racial minority groups are
overrepresented in the prison (Alexander, 2010). For these reasons, prison pedagogy must
consider the identities of the students and be responsive to their cultures and bodies of
knowledge. Rivera (1995) posited that traditional prison education perpetuates a “white, middleclass, Eurocentric interpretation of the world, one that does not address the cultures of the
majority of prisoners” (p. 161); this provides context for my call for adaptive critical pedagogy
for the diverse learners within the prison.
I will frequently use the terms “reentry,” “reintegration,” and “recidivism” throughout
this paper. Reentry is defined by Visher and Travis (2003) as “the process of leaving prison and
returning to free society” (p 89); reintegration is the ability of the individual to successfully
reenter and participate in societally normative ways, such as legal employment and family
responsibilities (p. 90). There are many challenges to successful reintegration into society
including personal and situational characteristics, family, community, and state-level policies
(Visher & Travis, 2003); these barriers directly impact rates of recidivism, the situation in which
formerly incarcerated individuals reoffend and return to prison. For the purposes of this paper, I
7
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
use the terms “prisoner” or “incarcerated individual” to mean those currently incarcerated,
“prisoner-student” as those involved with educational services while incarcerated, and “exoffender” or “formerly incarcerated” to indicate those who have reentered the outside
community.
Throughout this paper, I use critical pedagogy as a framework for responsive, effective
prison education. Critical pedagogy is rooted in the belief that knowledge is dialectical and a
social construct used for power and stratification. Critical pedagogy acknowledges the inequities
in society and the forms of knowledge that are privileged over others (McLaren, 2009).
Therefore, I employ the term critical pedagogy throughout my discussion to mean education that
counters oppressive societal structures and values various forms of knowledge.
Review of Literature
The modern prison population disproportionately consists of low-income, non-White,
urban communities (Alexander, 2010; Travis & Petersilia, 2001). Because of the concentration
of incarceration in select urban communities, the experience of incarceration is normative in
these neighborhoods; Meiners (2009) called it a “life stage” (p. 90) for this reason. This
pervasiveness in turn breeds criminality, making it more likely individuals will reoffend. While
crime has not increased in recent decades, incarceration rates are growing and the prison system
is expanding (Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Visher & Travis, 2003); through this process, criminality is
painted as a problem isolated to low-income communities of color (Alexander, 2010; Clear,
2007). Sampson and Loeffler (2010) argued that “mass” incarceration is misrepresenting the
problem: incarceration is a localized experience (p. 4).
Failing public schools are an important parallel to prisons, as well as a causal factor in an
individual’s likelihood of being incarcerated (Meiners, 2009). Foucault (1977) theorized that
8
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
many societal institutions, including schools, are increasingly constructed like prisons.
Increasingly, urban schools are using surveillance methods like metal detectors, hall sweeps, and
uniforms; and punishments that include solitary confinement and exclusion (Meiners, 2009). As
public schools militarize with expanded surveillance and fewer academic and employment
opportunities become available for youth, criminality and incarceration rates increase (Meiners,
2009). Additionally, some states are spending more money on prisons than higher education
(Meiners, 2009), which limits the opportunities and trajectories of youth and demonstrates the
intentions of control, discrimination, and oppression within structures and institutions, including
the public school. Meiners (2009) demonstrated that in addition to policy regarding corrections
and crime, education policy and housing policy also influence outcomes and justice. These
examples provide context for politicians and educators, who are often from dominant society, to
better address and develop policy and education for diverse, non-dominant communities.
The Historical and Sociopolitical Context of Prison Education
In order to understand the nature of prison education programs and establish best
practices, the function and societal role of the prison as an institution must be considered. Prisons
are meant to reduce crime, make communities safer, and rehabilitate those incarcerated so that
they might return to society reformed (Petersilia, 2011); on another level, they are institutions of
punishment and social control, where politics of hierarchical societal power are manifested
(Foucault, 1977). Policy and public perception hinder the execution of these basic goals: many of
those incarcerated are victims of bad public policy, including the war on drugs, the “tough on
crime” era, “three strikes” laws, and mandatory minimum sentencing (Meiners, 2009; Alexander,
2010). In addition, these goals often work in conflict: the punitive methods of corrections strip
felons of civil rights such as voting and access to social services. These punishments are meant
9
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
to be a deterrent or preventative measure against crime; however, this effectively counteracts
many of the methods used to rehabilitate citizens and ultimately leads to more crime as those that
are returned are unable to reintegrate into society (Visher & Travis, 2003).
In recent years, policy around corrections and criminal justice has focused on the punitive
(Clements, 2004; Corcoran, 1985), and as the prison population has grown, fewer educational
opportunities have been available to those incarcerated (Visher & Travis, 2003), despite the
benefits of successful reintegration for both the individual and the larger community. Davidson
(1995) stated that everything about schooling in prison is political (p. 3), and this is evidenced in
the various shifts in formatting, funding, and requirements. Post-secondary education in prisons
began in the 1950s, and quickly began growing with federal funding. Pell Grants became
available to prisoner-students interested in higher education (Davidson, 1995); however, in the
1990s, President Clinton ended prisoner-student access to Pell Grants (Torre & Fine, 2005;
Meiners, 2009). This loss of funding has presented challenges to public universities establishing
a presence within prisons. While liberal arts and post-secondary education was being cut, support
was growing for vocational and basic literacy training in order that prisoner-students have
marketable, concrete skills (Davidson, 1995; Clements, 2004). While schooling has been part of
the penitentiary design since the eighteenth century, it has evolved over time, shaped by policies
and public opinion.
There have been many theories about the function of education within the prison. It is a
firmly held societal belief that prison education is meant to rehabilitate or reform prisoners;
traditionally, this has been divided into multiple schools of thought on the issue (Davidson,
1995). The medical model, a historical model of prison education that diagnoses the prisonerstudent as a “mental patient requiring treatment” (Collins, 1995, p. 51), is pervasive in the public
10
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
perception of criminality as a psychological problem. Many adult basic education programs
within prisons have roots in this model. Prescriptive, functionalist curriculums characterize these
programs; they are favored by corrections staff and policy makers as they lend themselves to the
goals of control and surveillance (Collins, 1995). Following the medical model, the “nothing
works” approach dominated (Clements, 2004). This approach considered the experience of
neglect an alternative to treatment or education, because it was difficult to measure the impacts
of education in prison resolutely (Clements, 2004; Kilgore, 2011). In this same vein, prisoners
were believed to be inherently criminal, and if education was provided, they would use it for
further crime or deviance (Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Morin, 1981).
A modern model of prison education, known as the “opportunities model” (Clements,
2004; Davidson, 1995), characterizes the prisoner as someone “who lacks the academic,
vocational, and social skills to achieve socially acceptable goals” (Davidson, 1995, p. 3). The
goal of prison education, then, is to open up legal and socially acceptable avenues for gaining
resources. This model emphasizes vocational training, basic literacy, and concrete knowledge, in
addition to marketable skills such as critical thinking and group decision-making (Clements,
2004; Collins, 1995). It allows more flexibility and student choice than the medical model that
preceded it, and provides the prisoner-students a false sense of purpose in busy work and some
degree of choice while still being characterized by surveillance and control (Collins, 1995).
A second modern school of thought, known as the cognitive deficiency model (Collins,
1995; Davidson, 1995), stems from Kohlberg’s (1975) cognitive development theory that
contends that individuals who make poor choices are unable to consider the various
consequences—including the personal, moral, societal, and legal implications—because they
have deficient reasoning abilities. According to Davidson (1995), the cognitive deficiency model
11
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
combines Kohlberg’s theory with a “neoliberal perspective on deviance” (p. 3) which considers
an individual’s moral reasoning abilities in capitalistic terms of calculating costs and benefits.
Using Kohlberg’s theory as prison pedagogy is complicated by Kohlberg’s position that moral
reasoning can only be taught in just schools (Kohlberg, 1975; Duguid, 1981): the model is
designed to promote democracy and collective decision-making. The prison is inherently unjust,
controlled by top-down authoritarian rule; however, there is a connection between cognitive
moral development and the critical pedagogy that I call for.
Liberal arts education is evidenced to be particularly effective in reducing recidivism and
many programs have had success providing college courses for credit (Clements, 2004). One
widely used model, The Inside-Out Prison Exchange model, brings outside college students into
the prison to learn alongside prisoner-students (Germain, 2014; Allred, 2009). There are various
benefits to this model related to democracy, civic participation, and understanding fostered
between groups. Outside students are able to experience firsthand the systemic ills of the
institution, as well as some of the challenges education in this environment presents.
Additionally, outside students can extend the voices of the inside students, by carrying the
conversations from the class outside into their other classes on campus and into their outside
lives. Prisoner-students are able to express themselves to the outside students and raise
consciousness about the conditions. Both groups grow and become humanized to one another as
they foster dialogue and connection (Germain, 2014; Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Allred, 2009).
There are a variety of challenges and limitations associated with modern prison
education. Educators and prisoner-students must contend with environmental factors and
disruptions, including lock downs, announcements, and guards in the classroom space;
additionally, educators and prisoner-students are challenged by hostility and unease from guards
12
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
and corrections staff (Thomas, 1995). The environment can be chaotic and not generally
conducive to critical thinking and learning. Often prisoners-students do not have adequate time
or space to complete assignments; alternatively, they might be tired or unfocused after a night of
constant noise. To add nuance to an already complex situation, Sanford and Foster (2006) and
Torre and Fine (2005) observed that many guards react negatively to prisoner-students and
educators because they feel it is unjust that prisoners, whom they perceive as wrong-doers, have
an opportunity to partake in educational programming, when the guards and their children have
not had access to education, despite being law-abiding. Further barriers include prisoner-students
being moved to another location (Sanford & Foster, 2006) and skepticism about the quality of
the offerings (Thomas, 1995; Kilgore, 2011). These factors all contribute to a negative and
demoralizing environment that prisoner-students and educators must overcome.
Prison programming is often in a precarious position within the prison, by nature of the
institution and perception of what those on the inside “deserve” (Morin, 1981; Kilgore, 2011).
Relationships among educators, a supporting university or community college, and the prison are
essential for a programs’ survival, but can be tense. Those providing educational services or
bringing outside students into the prison might face barriers to access, contention regarding
curriculum, and miscommunication regarding reserved space and materials (Sanford & Foster,
2006). Prison education is met with resistance in part because it counters the learned culture of
the institution, which values compliance. These frustrations could be ameliorated with
responsive policy and the public’s empathetic understanding, which would in turn shape the
priorities of the institution.
Discussion
The Prison as a School
13
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
The culture of a prison is one of pain and dehumanization: prisoners daily encounter
violence, poverty, confinement, isolation, sexual deprivation, and a lack of personal autonomy
(Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Hayner & Ash, 1940; Corcoran, 1985). Because of these characteristics,
Hayner and Ash (1940) further contend that a prison is “the antithesis of the normal community”
(p. 540) and cannot prepare prisoners to return. The education within the prison walls, then, must
transform the culture of the prison, hence my belief that a lens of critical pedagogy is most
effective for education within systems of incarceration. Not all education is liberatory, and in
fact, much of the training and education provided in correctional facilities furthers oppression
and social control, and instills the values of the dominant culture into the prisoner-students.
Collins (1995) noted that the “educational provision is not only accommodative to the system of
surveillance and control...but in fact, is integral to the panoptican” (p.56) thus acknowledging the
degree to which many educational programs and schooling more broadly are often coercive
tactics intended to domesticate and perpetuate the status quo (Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2003;
Foucault, 1977). In the case of prison education, it is particularly important to recognize the
implications of oppressive and domesticating educational tactics as they relate to the prisonerstudents, who are generally of diverse, non-dominant backgrounds.
The institution influences and coerces the individuals within; more than any single prison
program, the culture and conditioning of the institution is pervasive; it “intrudes within the
consciousness” of the prisoner-students and “into the operation of the program with arbitrary
rules and prohibitions” (Duguid, 1981, p. 155). Within the institution, prisoners are shaped by
the norms and environment of the space. They are conditioned through the rules, procedures, and
interactions with guards, staff, and fellow prisoners. A critical pedagogy must transcend and
pervade the existing prison culture in order to disrupt the culture of violence and break down
14
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
barriers among groups of prisoners and prisoners and guards, which in turn will promote peace,
stability, and humanization, and ultimately transform the interactions among individuals into
ones of critical thought and participatory action (Torre & Fine, 2005). As people form
community and become aware of the influence of the environment, genuine dialogue can exist.
This dialogue and sense of community can transform the experience of the prison and create
space for prisoners to acknowledge and reconcile with the crimes committed, leading toward
healing and change (Rivera, 1995). Though the prison is a powerful and manipulative school,
teaching compliance, fostering violence, and perpetuating hegemonic narratives about the value
of non-dominant groups (Duguid, 1981; Kilgore, 2011), a critical pedagogy can challenge these
teachings with a pedagogy that promotes healing and liberation through a discovery of an agentic
self.
Critical Pedagogy in Prison Education
After situating prison education historically and discussing various models and
approaches to traditional prison education, I will now discuss critical pedagogy in prison
education for the purposes of creating awareness for policy makers and educators about the
needs of prisoner-students and the value of critical pedagogy in this context. It is through this
lens of critical pedagogy that I envision powerful transformation of prisons that revisions justice,
promotes positive reintegration outcomes, and heals urban communities who are directly
influenced by the culture of the prison (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Rivera, 1995).
Through a lens of critical pedagogy, the purpose of education is to challenge hegemonic
and oppressive structures, politicizing and ultimately liberating students rather than
domesticating them (Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2003; Davidson, 1995; McLaren, 2009). Critical
consciousness is integral to educational practices with a goal of democracy; conversely, political
15
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
and civic engagement is essential to moral reasoning (Duguid, 1981) and fostering critical
consciousness (Freire, 1970). If rehabilitation and successful reentry are the desired outcomes of
a prison sentence, education that is humanizing, thought-provoking, and participatory is needed;
human development is required to create change (Morin, 1981). Beyond tangible outcomes,
critical pedagogy in the prison environment is an issue of justice: prisoners must be
acknowledged as humans and members of society who require an education that regards them as
such (Morin, 1981; Meiners, 2009). Hartnett, et. all (2011) argued for a pedagogy of empowered
citizenship in which participants can learn how to “participate in civil society, and hence begin
the long journey toward full citizenship” (p. 332). Establishing these practices in prison
education demonstrates a humanizing quality and can produce tangible results.
Rivera (1995) posited that just as in schools outside of prisons, prison education courses
“need a curriculum that is culturally specific to its student population” (p. 161) and includes
Latino and Afrocentric perspectives on “community political, social, and economic problems,”
that acknowledge that “people of color will not be allowed, by virtue of [their] ethnicity, to fit
into Eurocentric society and consequently transcend our poverty” (p. 161). Critical pedagogy
recognizes that dominant culture privileges Eurocentric values and schools of thought as a root
cause of disenfranchisement and marginalization of non-dominant groups. Through this lens,
then, prisoner-students can recognize the role that systemic oppression has played in their
institutionalization. Additionally, in order to be critical and democratic, as well as to engage
learners, curriculum must be relevant to prisoner-students’ lived experiences. Teaching and
learning practices should be student-centered and reflect prisoner-students’ interests, cultural
backgrounds, and identities with the goals of deeply engaging prisoner-students and creating
space for democracy in the curriculum (Rivera, 1995; Torre & Fine, 2005). Freire (1970) said,
16
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
“Education starts with the conviction that it cannot present its own program but must search for
this program dialogically with the people” (p. 118); this is foundational to critical pedagogy.
Critical education inside or outside a prison allows students agency to make decisions
about what they are learning and how they will apply it; according to Kincheloe (2003) and
Hartnett, et. all (2011), application of knowledge in a way that promotes democracy and civic
engagement is an essential component of learning. Participatory learning and collaborations on
meaningful work is personally fulfilling and beneficial to the community (Hartnett, et. all, 2011;
Allred, 2009). Employing their agency, prisoner-students engaged in emancipatory education
have the opportunity to use their voice and to raise the consciousness of others about the
conditions and experience of incarceration (Hartnett, et. all, 2011). To this end, individual
agency is a requisite component of personal and collective liberation and transformation (Freire,
1970). As individuals within a prison education program become agentic, the entire prison
environment shifts and transforms. As Hartnett et. all (2011) said:
The artistry of agency, then, means using the teaching of writing and public
speaking to men and women who have spent their lives feeling silenced, or
ignored, or incapable of self-expression, as a vehicle for helping them to envision
themselves not only as better writers and communicators, but also as empowered
citizens, as eloquent agents of change” (p. 335).
For example, in Torre and Fine’s (2005) action research project, many prisoners, even those not
currently participating in educational programming, built agency as they began to see themselves
as researchers working alongside the outsiders to understand the prison conditions and countereffects of prison education.
17
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Boudin (1993) and Torre and Fine (2005) were successful in shaping the culture of the
prison through the critical pedagogy they enacted in the prison classrooms. Boudin (1993) started
an initial curriculum with the focus of HIV, something that many of the women had experience
with or knowledge of. Torre and Fine (2005) engaged a number of individuals in an action
research project that built the agency of the individuals and transformed the community within
the walls as people began talking with one another and working toward a common goal that
would progress and better the community collectively. Through these projects, the culture of the
prison was transformed as the individual’s perceptions of themselves as political actors and
humans were developed. The selected projects were responsive to the diverse identities of the
prisoner-students and reflected their interests, abilities, and cultural background, rather than
relying on prescriptive lessons intended for students with dominant culture identities. Through
critical pedagogy, prisoner-students, who often believe themselves to be worthless (Kilgore,
2011), found new self-worth in their knowledge and identities. This new appreciation fostered
confidence and liberation; additionally, the projects fostered dialogue which ultimately
transformed the prison environment to one of community. This transformation is an important
objective of critical pedagogy within the prison (Freire, 1970; Torre & Fine, 2005).
Implications for Urban Communities
Particular communities produce more prisoners; consequently, these communities will
also be the ones to receive those who are reentering (Sampson & Loeffler, 2010). As exoffenders return to their home communities, successful reintegration is complicated by various
circumstances, including whether or not the community is receptive and welcoming to those
returning; whether or not the individual’s family or other network is able to support him or her
during the transition; and whether or not the individual is capable of finding employment (Visher
18
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
& Travis, 2003). As individuals return and recidivate, the prison culture impacts the urban
communities in a variety of ways, including the influence of prison culture; the loss of social
capital; stress, chaos, and disorder; further crime; and associated stigma and negative perceptions
of those living in these communities. According to Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999), the negative
consequences of incarceration can “damage human and social capital” (p. 122) of families and
communities impacted by incarceration; this is the most significant consequence.
High rates of incarceration and “coercive mobility” (Clear, Rose, Waring, & Scully,
2003) actually promote crime and destabilize communities, as informal social controls and
networks among neighbors are weakened when people are removed (Visher & Travis, 2003;
Clear et. all, 2003). As people return and recidivate in these highly disorganized neighborhoods,
the culture of the prison pervades these communities, which is characterized by violence and
control (Petersilia, 2011; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). When networks and social capital
constructed in prison are transferred to the outside community, they perpetuate cycles of crime
and violence, and normalize incarceration (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). For example, youth in
these neighborhoods are more likely to know an adult who is incarcerated than a professional
such as a doctor or lawyer (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999); young men are more likely to spend time
in prison than in a post-secondary degree program (Sampson & Loeffler, 2010).
Hayner and Ash (1940) posited that prison time must be a time to develop as citizens and
that people will struggle to reintegrate if they are “engaged in activities that are foreign to people
on the outside” (p. 577)—referring to the specific socialization and mindless routines that are
associated with prison time—the schooling that the prison provides. Prison culture influences
urban neighborhoods because of the high rates of people who have experienced incarceration in
concentrated areas; therefore, if the prison culture were to be transformed through critical
19
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
pedagogy and emancipatory educational programs, the outside culture would also be impacted.
In addition, ex-offenders who have had the opportunity to engage in responsive, participatory
education are more likely to reintegrate into their home communities (Torre & Fine, 2005).
Implications for Justice
According to Foucault (1977), knowledge is used for power and social control. This
belief is foundational to critical pedagogy (McLaren, 2009). In the context of the prison,
discipline and punishment are used to sanction knowledge. Boudin (1993) noted that the only
sources of knowledge in the prison classroom were the teacher and answer key, perpetuating
hegemony. Critical pedagogy must disrupt this oppressive system by challenging the status quo
and opening up dialogue between learners and teacher (Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2009). Prisoners
must be perceived as humans, and more so, as humans who have experienced grave injustice.
Laws and norms are social constructs not based on universal principles of morality, but
supported by “social authority” (Kohlberg, 1975, p. 673) and created to perpetuate structures of
power and oppression (Foucault, 1977). To provide context, Kohlberg (1975) explained morality
as “...principles of justice, the principles any member of a society would choose for that society
if he did not know what his position was to be in the society...” (p. 673). With this in mind, many
laws and the environment of the prison are intended to further inequity rather than promote
democracy: individuals of non-dominant culture often contend with laws and sanctions that
discriminate against and disenfranchise them. Often, prisoners are victims of injustice rather than
perpetuators of injustice; they have broken laws not in spite of justice, but for justice (Kohlberg,
1975).
Therefore, prison education must be recognized as an issue of justice. Beyond rationale
backed by statistics and measurable outcomes, access to education is a human right (Morin,
20
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
1981; Torre & Fine, 2005; Meiners, 2009). According to Morin (1981), society must
acknowledge prisoners as humans capable of change and reconciliation, and provide
opportunities for human development. In addition, according to Freire (1970), in order for
anyone to achieve humanization, all must be humanized collectively; dehumanizing oppression
must be countered with critical love, humility, and emancipation. Prison is inherently unjust, and
critical education must counter the dehumanizing experience. To do this, policy makers and the
public must realize the implications of time spent in a prison: it is an act of “violence to the
human spirit” (Torre & Fine, 2005, p. 580), “hazardous” (Meiners, 2009, p. 83), and associated
with declining mental health (Boudin, 1993). The conditions are unjust and inhumane (Hartnett,
et. all, 2011; Meiners, 2009).
Implications for Educators
Based on the literature reviewed, teaching and learning in prisons should mirror teaching
and learning strategies in other settings: regardless of carceral status, humans have a right to
emancipatory education (Torre & Fine, 2005). Additionally, research suggests it is a universal
best practice for all contexts (Allred, 2009). Of importance for prison populations, critical
pedagogy values different forms of knowledge and makes learners aware of oppression and
injustice. Critical pedagogy promotes prisoner-students own knowledge and has the ability to
transform prison culture, rippling out into urban communities and reimagining justice,
opportunity, and community vitality. With education that is meant to empower rather than
control, prisons will transform, as will schools and neighborhoods. McLaren (2009) said:
Knowledge is relevant only when it begins with the experiences students bring
with them from the surrounding culture; it is critical only when these experiences
are shown to sometimes be problematic (i.e., racist, sexist); and it is
21
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
transformative only when students begin to use the knowledge to help empower
others, including individuals in the surrounding community (p. 80).
Additionally, policy makers, educators, and the general public must also employ a critical lens to
acknowledge oppressive structures that punish diverse groups. Through this lens, society can
ameliorate some community need and provide support and better access to resources.
Critical pedagogy is not a prescribed curriculum; it must take into consideration the needs
of the population and ultimately be directed by learners (Freire, 1970). Therefore, education must
be specifically focused on the needs of the community. For example, what supports are needed to
aid the transition of ex-offenders back to their home communities? (Visher & Travis, 2003). This
will look different based on the circumstances of the specific individual and community.
Additionally, stakeholders in the field must reach consensus on the intended function of time in
prison: at present, the ideology does not match the desired outcomes.
There are specific limitations to employing critical pedagogy in prisons that stem from
the culture of the institution. In addition to the previously discussed challenges associated with
any educational programs, engaging prisoner-students in critical pedagogy—often considered
radical teaching and learning practices--with the goal of liberation, within a space that is
designed to oppress and devalue critical thought, presents a further array of challenges. As
Thomas (1995) said, “Ideally, postsecondary education is an activity best pursued in an
environment unconstrained by coercion, threats, and impositions on access to intellectual
resources and ideas.” Importantly, the schooling of the prison is designed to counteract critical
thought (Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Boudin, 1993; Duguid, 1981; Davidson, 1995) and works in
conflict with the intentions of critical pedagogy. The system is designed in many ways for
compliance (Foucault, 1977); as such, prisons intentionally suppress opinions and silence voices.
22
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Programming that is meant to develop these voices and build consciousness of the dehumanizing
conditions is counter to the intention of the institution. For this reason, critical education is not
encouraged, and educators could be denied access. Educators must find an appropriate balance of
embracing prison ideology in order to keep their programs running. Many educators have
encountered this tension in their work (Boudin, 1993; Hartnett, et. all, 2011; Duguid, 1981;
Davidson, 1995; Collins, 1995).
The primary role of an educator in the field includes advocating for prisoner-students and
raising awareness about the conditions of prison. There are numerous benefits and positive
outcomes associated with prison education, and further with successful reintegration. To
acknowledge prisoners as humans acknowledges one’s own humanity, and this is also essential
to creating democratic classroom space—the teacher should not feel superior to her or his
students, but allow everyone to be a possessor of knowledge in the context (Boudin, 1993, p.
215). For the field to promote equity and justice, educators must think critically about the
education they provide: what purpose does it serve? Is it designed to liberate or domesticate?
How do these schooling practices create schools that are more like prisons and perpetuate
racism, sexism, poverty, and discrimination? Educators and policy makers must also consider
what the intended outcomes of educational services are—punishment, compliance, or civic
engagement, for example—and how effectiveness is measured.
Conclusion
There are many advantages to appropriate educational programming and rehabilitative
services offered within prison institutions for the incarcerated individuals, the communities they
have left behind and will ultimately return to, and the larger society as a whole. The majority of
individuals who are incarcerated reenter society, and educational opportunities during
incarceration will assist in making this transition successful (Visher & Travis, 2003; Travis &
23
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Petersilia, 2001; Torre & Fine, 2005). Beyond the more tangible individual outcomes of
successful reintegration, effective prison pedagogy transforms the culture of the institution, as
the prison itself is educative for those that are captive within the walls (Boudin, 1993; Torre &
Fine, 2005; Hayner & Ash, 1940; Duguid, 1981; Visher & Travis, 2003).
Public perception limits prison education opportunities, and educators and prisonerstudents must overcome this image through critical pedagogy—by advocating for change and
raising the consciousness of people such as policy makers. Despite the barriers, critical pedagogy
provides prisoner-students an opportunity to develop agency, participate in democracy, and work
toward liberating themselves and transforming their community. Prisoner-students need
responsive curriculum that enables them to engage critically in classroom dialogue and make
democratic decisions. These classroom transformations will carry over into the rest of their lives
in the prison, as students work together on homework, discuss readings and theory, and begin to
form community with one another.
In order to envision justice within the prison, politicians, educators, and corrections staff
must understand the injustice that prisoners have experienced. Prisoners are often victims of
discrimination and hegemonic, oppressive structures; they often come from communities that
have been disenfranchised. Sometimes, there are few legal options for participation in society.
Therefore, policy makers must acknowledge their complicity in the prisoner’s offense (Torre &
Fine, 2005; Duguid, 1981) and counteract injustice with policy that enables critical education
services in the institution.
24
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
New York: The New Press.
Allred, S. L. (2009). The Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program: The Impact of Structure,
Content, and Readings. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60(3), 240-258.
BOP: Agency Pillars. (2015, May 25). Retrieved from Federal Bureau of Prisons: www.bop.gov
Boudin, K. (1993). Participatory Literacy Education behind Bars: AIDS Opens the Door.
Harvard Educational Review, 2, 207-232.
Clear, T. (2007). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clear, T., Rose, D. R., Waring, E., & Scully, K. (2003). Coercive Mobility and Crime: A
Preliminary Examination of Concentrated Incarceration and Social Disorganization.
Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33-64.
Clements, P. (2004). The Rehabilitative Role of Arts Education in Prison: Accommodation or
Enlightenment? Jade, 23(2), 169-178.
Collins, M. (1995). Shades of the Prison House: Adult Literacy and the Correctional Ethos. In H.
Davidson (Ed.), Schooling in a "Total Institution:" Critical Perspectives on Prison
Education (pp. 49-64). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Corcoran, F. (1985). Pedagogy in Prison: Teaching in Maximum Security Institutions.
Communication Education, 49-58.
Davidson, H. (1995). Possibilities for Critical Pedagogy in a "Total Institution". In H. S.
Davidson (Ed.), Schooling in a "Total Institution:" Critical Perspectives on Prison
Education (pp. 2-23). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Duguid, S. (1981). Moral Development, Justice and Democracy in the Prison. Canadian Journal
of Criminology, 147-162.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House,
Inc. .
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Germain, S. (2014). Prison-based Education and Its New Pedagogical Perspective. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 25(2), 196-209.
25
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children,
Communities, and Prisoners. Crime and Justice, 121-162.
Hartnett, S., Wood, J., & McCann, B. (2011). Turning Silence into Speech and Action: Prison
Activism and the Pedagogy of Empowered Citizenship. Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies, 8(4), 331-352.
Hayner, N. S., & Ash, E. (1940). The Prison as Community. American Sociological Review,
5(4), 577-583.
Kilgore, J. (2011). Bringing Freire Behind the Walls: The Perils and Pluses of Critical Pedagogy
in Prison Education. The Radical Teacher, 57-66.
Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as Researchers, Good Work, and Troubled Times. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Kohlberg, L. (1975). The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Moral Education. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 56(10), 670-677.
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In A. Darder, M.
Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), The Critical Pedagogy Reader (2nd Ed.) (pp. 61-81). New
York.
Meiners, E. R. (2009). Resisting Civil Death: Organizing for Access to Education in Our Prison
Nation. DePaul Journal for Social Justice, 3(1), 79-96.
Morin, L. (1981). Inmate Right to Education. In L. Morin, On Prison Education (pp. 23-33).
Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Centre.
Petersilia, J. (2011). Beyond the Prison Bubble. The Wilson Quarterly, 50-55.
Rivera, J. (1995). A Nontraditional Approach to Social and Criminal Justice. In H. Davidson
(Ed.), Schooling in a "Total Institution:" Critical Perspectives on Prison Education (pp.
159-172). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for
Social Disorganization Theory. Criminology, 36(3), 441-479.
Sampson, R. J., & Loeffler, C. (2010). Punishment's Place: The Local Concentration of Mass
Incarceration. Daedalus, 139(3), 20-31.
Sanford, R., & Foster, J. (2006). Reading, Writing, and Prison Education Reform? The Tricky
and Political Process of Establishing College Programs for Prisoners: Perspectives from
Program Developers. Equal Opportunities International, 25(7), 599-610.
26
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN PRISON EDUCATION
Thomas, J. (1995). The Ironies of Prison Education. In H. Davidson (Ed.), Schooling in a "Total
Institution:" Critical Perspectives on Prison Education (pp. 25-42). Westport, CT: Bergin
& Garvey.
Torre, M., & Fine, M. (2005). Bar None: Extending Affirmative Action to Higher Education in
Prison. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 569-594.
Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry Reconsidered: A New Look at an Old Question. Crime
& Delinquency, 47(3), 291-313.
Visher, C., & Travis, A. (2003). Transitions from Prison To Community: Understanding
Individual Pathways. Annual Review Of Sociology, 29, 89-113.
Watt, S. (2007). Difficult Dialogues, Privilege, and Social Justice: Uses of the Privileged Identity
Exploration (PIE) Model in Student Affairs Practice. The College Student Affairs
Journal, 114-126.