Feedback from ‘Meeting the Needs of Offender Learners Colloquium’, 4th June 08
Plenary Summary (Will Swann)
There are three streams of future activity, only one of which is directly the responsibility of the Open
University.
1. Accessibility: The method that the Open University has been using to retrofit IT access to its
courses is unsustainable. There needs to be a shift by Faculties to think about IT accessibility
during course design.
2. Technical: The quality of the discussions today was excellent. There is a need to maintain the
dialogue and ensure that the technical developments continue. Good partnerships are
essential and the European input will undoubtedly help these developments.
3. Common Framework. There is a need for a common language to talk to each other. For
example how do we record success? The Protocol through the Prison Service Order (PSO)
will hopefully bring about a shared understanding. The Open University has put a lot of work
into Customer Relations Management (CRM) through VOICE, an in-house CRM package
linked to its internal student records system. Can we apply CRM to the Prison Service? The
notion of the Customer Journey is mirrored by the Offender Learning Journey. We could build
all services around that journey to ensure services are developed from initial Information,
Advice and Guidance through to successful graduation.
Workshop 1: Support & Progression (DIUS/LSC/Providers/practitioners):
1. How can we improve support for OU students in prison?
a. There is a need to agree a protocol via the Prison Service Order (PSO), in which all
parties can agree their role. Thereafter there is a need to work in partnership to ensure
that the Learning Journey is complete and the Offender Learner is adequately supported
throughout. There are already a lot of people trying to support Offender Learners – ALs,
prison teachers, OLASS providers etc. But there is at present no joined up, coherent
approach and so it is too easy for people to have ‘teflon shoulders’ and not accept
responsibility for various tasks. The HoLS need to be on-board with this also.
b. Prison Officer training is needed to ensure a better understanding of education. There is
already some PO training – the NVQ in custodial care is paid for by the LSC. See
Workshop 3 for further ideas.
c. Peer Mentoring is a very good idea – probably not good to have a specific mentoring
qualification for Offenders but could be an optional module within a more general
qualification.
d. More Flexible Learning Space would allow students to broaden their horizons and would
provide better use of limited resource.
e. Post-custodial support – give the students a hotmail address (of their choice) when they
leave so that they can keep in contact and maintain momentum
2. How can we provide FE/HE as the natural progression? There is a Learner Record (LSR)
which the LSC have developed but it does not yet include Higher Education or indeed other forms
of ‘out of scope’ education. This needs to be extended to include all forms of education and
training.
Pike, A. (2008) Feedback from the OU Offender Learning conference. Meeting the Needs of Offender Learners
Colloquium, The Open University, 4 June 2008
3. How can we evaluate the success of HE students into employment? There is a need for
research to establish how education is linked to employment and reduced re-offending. Also the
Unique Learner Number might allow for better tracking of progress.
4. Ideas on engaging Governors in finding a solution? Don’t try to get the Governor to us – they
are far too busy. We should go to the Governor. We could go through their education channels
and promote discussion at their training day.
Workshop 2: Technological developments (Technical):
1. Virtual Campus, Polaris, Intranet trials – Output Project Plan for OU involvement
2. Proposed off-line Moodle – where are we now?
3. Ideas on engaging Governors in finding a solution?








Polaris and Meganexus (Virtual Campus Trials) can encompass an Intranet model so they do not
need to be seen as separate models.
Students don’t have enough information to study. There needs to be better Information Advice
and Guidance to ensure that students can choose the right course for them. There is already a
leaflet which goes out but everyone knows that this is not adequate. A bespoke OU website for
Offender Learning could be set up with links from Polaris and Meganexus.
The developing technology needs testing – streaming of video/ bandwidth, pdf and other content.
Security is the main issue. Start with a few courses and get those working. Suggest Y162 (no
problem), B120 (Amber), M150 (Red in England). Michel to send promotional materials to
Meganexus on the 3 courses.
The OU have spent a long time developing Moodle – the roles and permissions architecture has
been set up with offenders in mind so they can give access in a modular way
Openlearn has been set up on the Whitemoor intranet and is very successful. Now needs to be
set up on Polaris and Meganexus.
There are issues with the hyper-links to other sites. These hyperlinks do not open (so there is no
security breech) but the student may get a poor learning experience by trying to open unopenable hyperlinks.
The new systems will not replace the face-to-face tutorials but they will mean that tutors will be
able to contact prison students more easily and the need for security clearance will not be so
immediate. (At present delayed security clearance often means that tutors cannot see their
students until after the first assignment)
The eTMA system should be accessible and Meganexus have a similar system (which could link
in?)
Workshop 3: Widening the OU Offer/ Marketing (Stakeholders)
1. What is the Action Plan for Prison/Probation Staff Course/Degree?
2. Employer Engagement - Foundation Degrees for students – can they be delivered in prisons?
3. Ideas on engaging Governors in finding a solution?






The Prison sector is no different from other sectors in its approach to and need for further
learning. Need to identify needs through the Sector Skills Council, Prison Service Training and
Development Unit and the Prison Officers Association. Assess aspirations to professionalise the
Prison Officer Service.
Map exisiting provision for Officer education and adapt our courses to link in with it.
Look at Frameworks for Accreditation
Look at exisiting research eg. Centre for Criminal Justice studies
Identify a prison area manager to look at the application of possible solutions in recruitment,
development and retention in one region. Trial it in one region then roll out when successful.
Governors are interested in education but they have other higher priorities. Engage the Heads of
Learning and Skills who can then attempt to engage their own Governors.
2

There is a need for a better partnership between the OU, OLASS and its Providers, Prison staff
and Probation. In the Prisons, this would provide more continuity for Offenders from their entry
into custody through to their release. In the Community this would lead to continuity of offer into
mainstream education.
Workshop 4: Alternative Solutions (Course teams/ Assessments/ Practitioner)
1. What is reasonable adjustment?
b. Programme groups and Course Teams need to consider Offender Learners in the same
way as students with disabilities. Access to IT should be considered as a special need.
c. A clear strategy is required. The assessment criteria needs to be such that the Offender
Learner is not completely excluded from the course. For example the inaccessible iCMAs
(eg S104) should only account for a small percentage (eg 5%)
2. Feasibility study on access marker - what is the way forward?
At the moment Offender Learners are identified by an H1 marker and a Catchment code. As the
prison’s access to the internet improves, this identification will not be sufficient. An OL Access code
will be needed to identify the level of IT access that the student/prison have available. There is a need
to understand the technology behind this code. It needs to be easy to use and change
3. Ideas on engaging Governors in finding a solution?
a. Influence those who won’t do, through those who are doing. Arrange for communication
between the Irish and the Scottish Governors to show the other Governors how they do it.
b. A top-down approach from Government is required – providing them with a clear
message that it can, and will, be done.
c. Target Heads of Learning and Skills
3