Respondents(officials and/or offenders) strongly argued thatcorrectional educationis not treated like how it is happening in the education sector. They felt that because democracy brought about equal rights that meant that all discrimination was eliminated in all areas of life. They looked at the empowerment they perceived would come with getting educated and the sense of freedom this engenders for the future of offenders when they leave prison.They found it heart breaking that democracy neitherprotects the right of correctional education by givingit the equality it deserves. They believedthat their school environment should be characterized by democracy wherestakeholders take heed of theendeavours of offenders and give such endeavours recognition.
116
Offenders, as indicated in their profiles, came from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds. It is for this reason that a show of the spirit ofubuntu which in Boon’s (1996:31) understanding is constituted by “morality, humanness, compassion, care, understanding and empathy which encompasses a spirit of sharing and hospitality, of honesty and humanity,”would see offenders confident in changing their lives by realizing their capabilities which they could not do before. Ubuntu in their view bestows advantagesdescribed by Nassbauw (2000:78) (cited in 2.4) that “in a liberal democratic environment citizens can achieve the capabilities.”
According to their experiences,correctional education operates in such uncertainty that the achievement of their capabilities is under threat. To them obtaining education through correctional programmes is a perpetual anxiety inducing exercise. Respondents maintained that if education was extended to offenders remembering how itwas previously denied to them as a race, they would have enjoyed the support of the Department of Education concomitant with the Department of Correctional Services facilitating that they achieve redress and receive education as recourse.Offenders particularly felt that their right to equality is denied in that in view of their background where they were denied education, they should be getting the full attention of the state primarily as a measure of redress and secondarily for optimum rehabilitation.
The challenge of the state in their view is to overcome past negative socializing influences (cited in 2.4)in matters of treatment and control of prisoners, which if left unchecked defeat the very purpose of rehabilitation. Respondents further felt that correctional management must question the status quoabout the general perception of offenders as incorrigible criminals in society, and be vocal about it so that offenders are seen as learners who are as empowered as any other educationally engaging citizen, and deservingsupport as all learners do. They felt that the state should cease to make offenders the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services alone and recognize its(state’s) role, too.
Their perception of theireducationalattempts within the correctional environment brings to mind memories of the disempowering influences brought by their socialization under the apartheid era where the school operated at the whims of the defenseforce after the 1976 student uprising. They believed that their education is a microcosm of the greater society
117
some of whom still view offenders as incorrigible criminals that belong in the lowest rung of society,a statement that point to the labeling theory cited in 2.4.1. Respondents interpretedthe absence of democratic practice(Nassbauw,2000:79) cited in 2.4 in the running of their education as an expression of the social order of power relation where offenders are the lowest.
They advocated that the nation must move to a democratic and egalitarian mindset whereat offenders are viewed as prospective citizens who can role model their empowerment to other citizens countrywide and break free of the existing stereotypes.They believed thatgenerally offenders are viewed and depicted as incorrigible criminals that should be distrusted, feared, and denied economic participation through accentuation of their criminal records when they are released. This in their view is the weapon recidivists wield in the face of correctional education, using themselves as living examples of social and economic discrimination that drove them right back into crime.
Affirmation of offenders’ capabilities through state and societal support would inspire confidence in correctional education thereby inspiring their non-participating peers to embrace it and strive for a better future too.Nassbauw (2000:78) statesthatwhen one liveswith uncertainty one does not feel safe to exercise one’s capabilities. Correctional management has already extended development to offenders and apparently only needs effective strategies to transform from the previous culture and achieve its mandate.
Respondents maintained that some of the policies that complicate the operation of correctional educationweremeant for the prison and not for the correctional environment and therefore in view of the profound changes that occurred they shouldchange.Respondents believed that in a liberal democracy they have the power to challenge and even change their realities that cause uncertainty yet there are so many obstacles that they cannot speak to anyone about such realities. A respondent said in this regard:
“It is frustrating that we cannot call the Minister of Education together with the Minister of Correctional Services and discuss the challenges to thecrucial
118
offenderdevelopment. No one can call the minister without repercussions,and even when the Minister comes,it is only a selected few and not everyone that sees her”.
The importance of stakeholders in the view of respondents is paramount to the achievement of optimum rehabilitation in that only stakeholders can enable outreach for offenders. Rehabilitation in their perception operates in a network or chain. Correctional education can be seen to be achieved if and when it is strongly reinforced by the Department of Education and affirmed by the public and private sector through the process of absorbing rehabilitated offenders to work. Thus unless the above mentioned stakeholders interact with offenders and to an extent know them, there is little hope that they can facilitate their reintegration.Rules 58 and 59 of the United Nations (1984:10) state:
“The purpose and justification of the sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure of depravity of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. The end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure so far as possible that upon his return to society the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law abiding and self-supporting life”.
The factors that present the challenges to prison education management are presented subsequently.
Respondents felt thattheir education is relegated to a segregated type of prison education of which the Department of Education has abrogated its responsibility. The Department of Correctional Services is expected to immediately understand education and administer it single-handedly. According to them the Department of Education is aware of the existence of their school but only allocates its self-assessment and examination duties without monitoring what is being learned and how it is learned.They maintained that the government knows about them and that their academic deprivation was never their choice. Their sentiment is echoed by the deprivation theory cited in 2.4.1. They perceived that the circumstances that brought them to prison are directly linked to their deprivation but Department of Education does not aid their efforts in getting education and inteaching, by training them so that when they leave prison they can have a qualification.
119
A qualification, in their view would lead to a direct profession to feed into after release.They furthermore felt that if the Department of Education could offer in-service training it wouldinspire confidence in terms of their learning being monitored to accord it a genuine status. Offender teachers are dedicated and enthusiastic to teach fellow offenders.However, lack of guidance, training and educational resources dampens their enthusiasm.
They feel that they have no professional claim to teaching afterthey leave prison becausethe Department of Education does not train themdespite their efforts that produce the same results as those produced in mainstream schools by qualified teachers.