Coates Prison Education Review

Every prison must use a consistent and rigorous assessment mechanism to set a baseline against which to measure individuals' academic performance and screen for learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LDD).

The recruitment of high quality teachers needs to be developed. Focus should be on both the training and recruitment of new teachers, and on the recruitment of high quality teachers from other sectors (e.g. Further Education, schools and Industry) to teach in prisons. As part of this work Governors might prompt their education providers to adopt a 'Prison Direct' approach where teachers can be trained 'on the job'.

A new scheme to attract high calibre graduates to work in prisons for an initial period of two years should be introduced. The role should be as a prison officer with an additional remit to support education at the heart of the prison regime.

The current mechanism for funding prison education should be revised so that Governors and/or providers can design a curriculum that meets the individual needs and Personal Learning Plan of each prisoner for whom they are responsible. There should be no restrictions on the funding for arts, sports and Personal and Social Development courses (PSD) if the Governor believes these are appropriate to meet the needs of prisoners.

Governors should be free to design a framework of incentives that encourage attendance and progression in education. These might include increased pay, more time out of cell, and release on temporary licence (ROTL).

The early release of certain categories of offenders when they have demonstrated exceptional progress in education should be explored.

Governors and providers should begin from a planning assumption that there will be substantial numbers of prison learners who will have significant learning support needs. Every prison should adopt a whole-prison approach to identifying, supporting and working with prisoners with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (LDD). This means that: (i) prison and provider staff must include those appropriately trained and qualified to develop and meet the additional support needs of prisoners; (ii) all prison information, forms and digital systems should be available and/or be designed in simple, plain English, with suitable adaptations to support those with dyslexia, and illustrative diagrams or images to accompany the text where possible; and (iii) prison inspection should explicitly cover the prison's effectiveness in meeting the needs of prisoners with LDD.

Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP) that apply in secure youth custody and require local authority action should be extended to cover those in the secure adult estate aged up to the age of 25.

Performance measures for Governors (as commissioners) and providers should include: the progression of prisoners in their care beyond Level 2 where this is part of their Personal Learning Plans; the extent, quality and effectiveness of Level 3 provision in the prison; and assessment of their success in building partnerships with external providers of Further Education and Higher Education, based on best practice.

Governors should be able to use their education budgets to fund learning at Level 3 and above.

The Education (Student Support) Regulations should be amended to extend student loan eligibility to prison learners with more than six years to run on their sentence who are currently unable to access student loans.

Every prisoner must have a Personal Learning Plan that specifies the educational activity that should be undertaken during their sentence. This should be in a consistent digital format that can follow the prisoner through the system if they move prisons. This plan should be informed by initial assessment, be subject to regular review, be integrated with the sentence plan, be owned by the prisoner, be shared with key agencies and be accessible on release. Where appropriate the plan should be directed towards an agreed employment pathway.

Public funding used for Access or 'taster' modules at the Open University should be available to support a prisoner opting instead for the first module of an Open University degree.

Grant funding for part-time OU degrees started before the introduction of the requirement to take out a student loans to pay for such studies should be continued to enable existing prisoners to complete their studies even when they been unable to meet the original timetable for completion.

The planned investment in digital infrastructure should be used to enable more flexible learning across prisons. As part of this there should be a prompt and rigorous strategic review of the Virtual Campus (VC) to assess if and how it can be made fit for purpose. The review should: assess the nature and cost of the infrastructure required to enable the VC to work effectively in all prisons; consider where terminals are sited in prisons to ensure all prisoners have regular access; and explore how the process for administration and vetting of content can be streamlined to enable a broader range of education resources to be uploaded more quickly, with individual Governors having some administration rights. There should also be work carried out to accelerate the testing and use of 'In-cell' or tablet learning technology (including the capability to provide teaching via video-links).

The security arrangements that currently underpin the use of ICT in the prison estate should be reviewed. Governors should be allowed to develop an approach that allows suitably risk-assessed prison learners to have controlled access to the internet to support their studies and enable applications for jobs on release.

The roles and responsibilities of existing organisations supporting prisoners into employment should be reviewed with opportunities to rationalise these roles and responsibilities explored. This should be supported by improved data sharing protocols. Data should be collected and reviewed to evaluate the success of the CRCs and other agencies in supporting ex-offenders obtain and sustain employment, training and/or education on release.

The government should continue to develop an approach that encourages and supports employers to work in prisons and to employ prisoners on release. This should include encouraging current facilities, maintenance and construction providers to prisons to support the training and 'employment' of prisoners, both in-prison and on release. There should be a similar expectation that businesses using prisoner labour in jails should considered suitable prisoners for employment on release. The impact of this recommendation in terms of work opportunities created and taken up should be measured.

The development of a charter mark for employers who demonstrate willingness to support offenders back into employment should be explored.

The University and Colleges Admissions Services (UCAS), individual universities, colleges and training providers should review their current system for risk assessments on those with criminal convictions to ensure that all applicants are treated in a just and transparent way.

ROTL should be routinely used at the Governors' discretion as part of his or her autonomous powers to facilitate access to education in the community and to enable training and employment.

The government should consider how employment support for ex-prisoners can continue to be provided when the Work Programme is reformed in 2017.

A core set of performance measures should be used by all prisons. Such data should be monitored consistently to drive continuous improvement. The performance data from the top-performing prisons should be shared to celebrate their success and encourage healthy competition.

Reforms to prison education provision should be introduced in three phases, linked to wider prison reforms. As part of this, the current OLASS contracts should be extended up to August 2017.

Evaluation of the education reforms should be considered as part of the evaluation strategy for overall programme of prison reform

The government should explore legislation to enable data on individuals sentenced to custody to be shared so prisons can access prisoners' previous records of educational attainment from the National Pupil Database.

Awarding bodies should work together to agree a core basic skills curriculum for all prisons. This will lead to consistent standards and supporting materials with progression better supported when prisoners move across the estate, are released or go to a job or a different education provider/establishment. This might include new 'adult' modular GCSEs in English and maths.

Ofsted should carry out inspections using the same framework as the adult skills sector, with inspection intervals and follow-up arrangements driven by performance data and levels of performance.

HMIP should give prisons an overall performance measure, with educational performance (as measured by Ofsted) receiving a separate, distinct assessment. This will be made available to the Governor concerned much closer to the 25-day Ofsted timetable in its work in schools and colleges than currently. It should not be possible for a prison's overall performance to be more than one grade higher than the measure awarded for its education provision.

An 'Inadequate' or second 'Requires Improvement' judgement on the overall effectiveness of a prison's education arrangements should lead to specific action urgently to improve the leadership and management of the prison.

Governors, senior leaders, teachers, prison officers, instructors and peer mentors must be given appropriate professional development to support them to deliver high quality education.