CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES‘
OF EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS AS PE‘RCEIV-ED BY ~
SUPERVISORS OF EDUCATION IN FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS 7

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D,
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT AUSTIN GUNNELL
1973

 

I” " tiny” I u.-.- ). 1-...— I

I///////////////////////// I” LIB. R .l ‘1 f

f“

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Characteristics and Competencies of Effective
Correctional Education Teachers as Perceived by
Supervisors of Education in

Federal Correctional Institutions
presented by

Robert Austin Gunnell I
I

has been accepted towards fulfillment i
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degreein Vocational/Technical
Education

 

(a A.“ GI j; {/1

Major professor ‘

Date 5/16/73 ’

0-7639

‘._.. \‘~

  
  

   
 

smomc in
HOAB & SONS'
BOOK BINDERY INC.

' 'BRARY amozns n
IIII mifiiiiiiillmsn IIII 1

    

PLACE III RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

f
C. .

————.—

I“’TTZ~Z . I
‘ 241/5 * _
' Ire. é’t‘l‘jfiwéé/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inditution
emu»:
\ _ __ a

 

.—

ABSTRACT

CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES OF EFFECTIVE
CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION TEACHERS AS PERCEIVED
BY SUPERVISORS OF EDUCATION IN FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

BY

Robert Austin Gunnell

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study was to contribute to
reduction of failures of ex-offenders by securing data to
help in upgrading correctional education teachers. Speci-
fically, answers to the following questions were sought:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in
rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in

specific types of institutions suggest the need for

Robert Austin Gunnell

teachers with different characteristics, competencies,

educational preparation and other experiences?

Procedures

 

A survey of twenty-six supervisors of correctional
education in institutions of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
provided the basic data for the study. Information solici-
ted from the supervisors provided data concerning (1) char-
acteristics of inmates of specific types of institutions,
(2) criteria used in rating teachers, (3) characteristics
and competencies essential for effective teaching in cor-
rections, and (4) areas of study and other experiences
Ithat might enhance competencies of correctional teachers.

Data secured regarding inmate characteristics were
based on factual information from institutional records;
data secured regarding rating teachers were based on cur-
rent practices of respondents; and data regarding charac-
teristics, competencies, areas of study and experiences
were based on opinions of the respondents. Reactions to
items by the respondents were analyzed on the basis of
values assigned to each individual item by the following
juries: (1) total responses, (2) combined youth and
female institutions' responses, (3) and combined adult
institutions' responses. Items were placed in rank order
based on the highest reaction scores from institutions

for each of the three juries of respondents.

Robert Austin Gunnell

Findings

1. Characteristics of inmates between the various
types of institutions varied considerably, but showed com-
monalities between combined youth and female offenders and
commonalities between adult male offenders.

2. Supervisors of correctional education use both
measurable objectives and nonquantitative factors in rating
teachers, and consider both inputs (teacher's activities in
the classroom) and outputs (behavioral changes of students)
as criteria for identifying effective teachers; however,
outputs were used by more supervisors as evaluative cri-
teria than inputs when both factors were not used collec-
tively. A11 domains of student learning (cognitive,
affective, psychomotor) were used equally by the majority
of the respondents, while affective was used singly more
often than the other two domains as evaluative criteria.

3. Characteristics and competencies' items rela-
tive to human relation skills were ranked higher by each
of the three juries than items relative to teaching strate-
gies as essential factors for effective teaching in cor-
rections.

4. Physical characteristics such as a specified
age, ethnic background, residential background, and sex
of the teacher were rejected by all juries as essential

elements for effective correctional teaching.

Robert Austin Gunnell

5. Areas of study that might enhance competencies
of correctional teachers solicited slight differences in
rank order between the three juries, but areas related to
education methodology were ranked generally higher than
psychological and sociological related areas. Reactions
to items of experiences that might enhance competencies of
correctional teachers represented almost identical re5ponses
between the three juries. Items relative to adult basic
education teaching; educational administration and super-
vision; three years or less public school teaching experi-
ence; and Youth or Job Corps teaching were placed in the

highest ranked positions.

Conclusions

 

Analysis of the data supports the following conclu-
sions:

l. Measurable behavioral objectives were used as
criteria for evaluating correctional teachers; however,
not exclusively.

2. Patience, tolerance, self-control, understand-
ing of disadvantaged students and innovativeness are more
essential to effective correctional teaching than teaching
strategies.

3. Personal characteristics, such as specified

age, ethnic background, residential background and sex

Robert Austin Gunnell

are not viewed as essential items for effective correc-
tional teaching.

4. In the preparation of correctional teachers,
areas of study relative to educational methodology, with
emphasis on adult and disadvantaged students, were of
more importance than most psychology and sociology dis-
ciplines.

5. Student teaching and internships in correc-
tional environments, adult basic education teaching
experience and experience in educational administration
were considered most desirable in preparation of correc-
tional teachers.

6. Public school teaching experience is important
in preparation of correctional teachers only up to three
years. More than three year public school teaching experi-
ence is not a desirable prerequisite for work in correc-
tional education.

7. There is some relationship between inmate
characteristics and preparation for correctional education

teachers; however slight.

CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES OF EFFECTIVE
CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION TEACHERS AS PERCEIVED
BY SUPERVISORS OF EDUCATION IN FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

BY

Robert Austin Gunnell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1973

DEDICATION

To my wife, Doris, and son, Robert, Jr., who
experienced numerous social and economic sacrifices dur-
ing my advanced graduate studies and subsequent research
project, I dedicate this work.

To inmates, in all types of correctional institu-
tions, I dedicate this project, with hopes that they will

reap some benefits from the products of these efforts.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To my committee chairman, Dr. 0. Donald Meaders,
I will be forever indebted. His time, effort, patience
and understanding made the completion of this job pos-
sible.

I also wish to express by appreciation to the
other members of my guidance committee, Drs. Charles
Blackman, William Goldberg and Rex Ray.

Further expression of appreciation goes to per-
sonnel in the Federal Bureau of Prisons who made this
project possible, especially the supervisors of education
in the various institutions, whose cooperation and inter-

est resulted in the successful completion of this goal.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . 5
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . 6
NEED FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . 7
DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Correctional Education . . . . . . . . . 10
Correctional Education Teachers . . . . . . 11
Effective Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Juries of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 12
OVERVIEW OF THIS STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 13
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Goals of Correctional Education . . . . . . 16
Innovative Correctional Education Programs. 17
Factors that Affect Inmate Students . . . . 20
The Correctional Teacher . . . . . . . . . 24
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MEASURING TEACHER
EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES OF
EFFECTIVE TEACHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

iv

Chapter Page

III.

IV.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 44
STUDY DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
PRE-SERVICE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
SELECTING THE PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . 48
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . 49
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS AND METHODS USED IN
ANALYZING AND PRESENTING THE DATA . . . . . . 50
Institutional Type and Inmate -
Characteristics . . . . . 51
Factors Considered in Rating Teachers . . . 52
Teacher Characteristics and Competencies . . 52
Areas of Study and Other Experiences . . . . 53
SUWARY O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O S 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND PRESENTATION
OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S6
INSTITUTIONAL TYPES AND INMATE
CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Types of Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Characteristics of Inmates . . . . . . . . . 58
Age 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O S 8
Ethnic Background . . . . . . . . . 59
Years of Schooling Completed . . . . . . . 63
Mental Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Grade Placement . . . . . . . 65
Length of Time Actually Served . . . . . . 67
Characteristics of Typical Inmates . . . . 69
CRITERIA USED BY SUPERVISORS IN RATING
TEACHERS . . . . . . . . . . . 72
TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES . . . 76
Rank Order of Characteristics and Come
petencies by the Total Jury . . . . . . . . 77

Rank Order of Characteristics and Com—
petencies by Combined Juries of

Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Rank Order by Youth and Female Jury . . . 81
Rank Order by Adult Male Jury . . . . . . 86

AREAS OF STUDY AND OTHER EXPERIENCES . . . . . 87

Rank Order of Areas of Study by the

Total Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Chapter Page
Rank Order of Experiences by the
Total Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Rank Order of Experiences by Combined
Juries of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . 92
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Institutional Types and Inmate
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Criteria Used by Supervisors in
Rating Correctional Teachers . . . . . . . . 98
Characteristics and Competencies . . . . . . 99
Areas of Study and Other Experiences . . . . 99
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 100
SUWARY O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 1 00
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Study Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . 103
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Institutional Types and Inmate
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Criteria Used in Rating Teachers . . . . . 104
Teacher Characteristics and Competencies . 106
Areas of Study and Other Experiences . . . 109
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED AREAS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Areas for Further Research . . . . . . . . . 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
A. NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED DURING
DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THE INSTRUMENT . . . . . 123

vi

Appendix:

B.

QUESTIONNAIRE-~STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS AND
COMPETENCIES OF EFFECTIVE TEACHERS IN

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

BUREAU OF PRISONS EDUCATION DIRECTORY
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING PERMISSION TO

CONDUCT THE SURVEY . . .

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND SUBSEQUENT

FOLLOW- UP LETTERS . .

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 3

OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 4

OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

vii

Page

124
132

134

137

140

144

Table
4.1

4.2

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

LIST OF TABLES

Ages of inmates in Federal Correctional
Institutions 0 I I O O O O O O O O O O 0

Ethnic background of inmates in Federal
Correctional Institutions . . . . .

Level of formal education completed by
inmates in Federal Correctional
Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mental abilities of inmates in Federal
Correctional Institutions . . . . . . .

Median grade placement of inmates in
Federal Correctional Institutions as
measured by standardized tests . . .

Ranking of evaluative criteria .
Priority of domains of student learning

Teacher characteristics and competencies
listed in rank order from responses of the
total jury O O O O O O O O O O 0

Teacher characteristics and competencies
listed in rank order from responses of the
youth and female jury . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher characteristics and competencies
listed in rank order from responses of the
adult male jury . . . . . . . . . . . .

Areas of study and experiences listed in rank
order from responses of the total jury . . .

Areas of study and experiences listed in rank

order from responses of the youth and
female jury . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

60

62

64

66

68

75

76

78

82

84

89

93

Table Page

4.13 Areas of study and experiences listed in rank
order from responses of the adult male jury . 95

5.1 Profiles of typical federal offenders . . . . 105

5.2 Characteristics and competencies that showed
mean values of 1.3 or higher by juries . . . . 107

5.3 Areas of study and experiences that showed
mean values of 1.3 or higher by juries . . . . 110

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

For many years inmates of correctional institu-
tions have been a neglected manpower resource, although
reports state that over 95 percent of the nation‘s prison

1

population will eventually return to society. Tradi—

tionally, ex‘offenders have had difficulty in participating
fully in the Americgn economy. In terms of education and
training, offend rs rank far below average and unemploy-
ment contributes to high rates of rearrest and imprison-
ment. Of all federal prisoners released in 1963, approxi-
mately 63 percent were rearrested within five years.2
Quality correctional education and training programs are
needed to help break this cycle of poor education, unemploy-
ment, confinement, and recidivism.

In order to develop and maintain quality correc-

tional education programs, several essential factors are

required. The Manual of Correctional Standards lists

 

1U.S. Bureau of Prisons Annual Report--1969 (Wash-
ington: U.S. Department 6f Justice, Bureau of Prisons,
1969), p. 5.

2U.S. Manpower in the 1970's: Opportunity and
Challenge (Washington: U.S. Department of Labor, Govern-
ment Printing Office), p. 24.

 

several essential factors for determining the effective-
ness of education in correctional institutions with
special emphasis placed on the importance of competent

teachers:

The caliber of the teachers selected to work in a
correctional institution must be of the very highest.
Correctional education will suffer when in the hands
of personnel who are non-professional in their ap-
proach and so regarded by the teaching profession.

It must not be overlooked that frequent association
of inmates with men of intelligence, skill and
balanced personality is one of the recognized means
of achieveing desirable changes in inmate personali-
ties. The most important element in education is

the teacher. In correctional settings, particularly,
the influence of a strong sound teacher upon his
students may be of more lasting importance than the
skills or knowledge which he imparts.

Correctional education supervisors often have
difficulty in recruiting the caliber of teachers needed
to do an effective job of teaching in correctional set-
tings for the following probably reasons: (1) character-
istic of inmate students, and (2) lack of specific
pre-service training by teacher preparation institutions

for correctional education teachers.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

John C. Watkins, Warden of Draper Correctional
Center in Alabama, lists several typical social and emo-

tional characteristics of inmate students:

 

r—v

3Manual of Correctional Standards (Washington:
American CorrectionaliAssociation, 1966), pp. 485-486.

1. They are from the lower echelons of society;
2. They have a low tolerance for frustration;
3. They are self-centered;

4. They are experts at selfvjustification;

5

They have a defeatist outlook, with little
experience of success; and

6. They attempt to manipulate those about them.4

In addition to the above social and emotional
characteristics, inmate students are also characterized
by academic and occupational deprivations. Studies have
shown that from 10 percent to more than 30 percent of
prison inmates are functionally illiterates; that is,
they test below the fourth grade level on achievement
test. The percentage is even higher in institutions with

5 In

large black and nonvEnglish speaking populations.
Federal correctional institutions, where inmates are con-
sidered somewhat sophisticated, approximately 15 percent
of the population at admission score below the sixth
grade level in achievement, with an average achievement
score of 7.6; 90 percent have not completed high school;

and an estimated 80 percent possess no saleable skill.6

 

4John C. Watkins, "Characteristics of the Inmate
Population," in Manpower Development and Training in Cor-
rectional Programs (Washington: U13. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration, 1968), p. 103.

 

 

5American Correctional Association, 92. cit., p. 488.

 

6Education and Trainin§_of Incarcerated Federal Of-
fenders: TAnnuEI”Reportv-CY I9 1 (Washington: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Bureau of Prisons), p. 2.

 

Because of the social and academic background of
inmates, they can be correctly classified as disadvan-
taged according to descriptions offered by Bobbitt and
Letwin and Kemp.7’8

These disadvantaged inmates, encumbered with the
pressures of a correctional setting, present special teach-
ing problems and only those teachers possessing special
characteristics and competencies can be effective in this
unique teaching environment. The experience and training
of most teachers have been with youth, who for the most
part, had the "right" attitude toward studies and gener—
ally possessed positive aspirations. With few exceptions,
education courses and student teaching assignments prob-
ably have not prepared teachers to deal with the multiple
problems of communication gap, varying social norms,
habits and behaviors that are found among disadvantaged
students, especially those confined in correctional
settings.

Historically, preparation of teachers for special

needs programs has been neglected by most teacher education

 

7Frank Bobbitt and Linda Letwin, Techniques for
Teachin Disadvantaged Youth in Vocational Education
(East ansing, MiEhigEfi: ’MiCHigan State University,
Rural Manpower Center, 1971), pp. 4-7.

 

8Barbara Kemp, The Youth We Haven‘t Served: A
Challenge to Vocational Education (Washington, D.C.:
. . epartmentfiof Health, Education and Welfare, 1966),

pp. 3-4.

 

 

institutions as evidenced by Ferns in a study of teacher
education institutions in Michigan.9 Teachers with tra-
ditional K«12 preparation have had to make the transition
to Special needs programs involving adult and correctional
education assignments. Specific training for correctional
education teachers is almost nonexistent in teacher educa-
tion curricula.

However, in spite of a lack of specific prepara-
tion for correctional education assignments, numerous
teachers have managed to become effective over a period
of years as evidenced by merit promotions and outstanding
ratings by supervisors. By surveying the characteristics
and competencies of these effective teachers, it may be
possible to establish guidelines that should be benefi-
cial in recruiting, selecting, training and placement of

future correctional education personnel.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Most teacher education institutions do not pre-
pare teachers for working in correctional settings, and
correctional supervisors, without the benefit of adequate

research have had to rely on trial«and-error approaches

 

9George W. Ferns, Michigan‘s VocationalvTechnical
Education Personnel DevelopmentTNeeds--197l«1975 (Lansing,
Michigan: State SUpported’Universities and Department of
Education, 1971), pp. 123-124.

and models, to pre-service and in—service training for,
correctional teachers. The problem to which this study
is addressed is the determination of characteristics of
successful correctional teachers. Such information will
then be organized in the form of a guide to the eventual
development of guidelines in upgrading the methods used
in selection, recruiting and training of correctional

education personnel.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to contribute to
reduced recidivism and improved rates of success for ex-
offenders through more effective correctional education
teachers. There are two major objectives:

1. To determine the criteria used by correctional
education supervisors in assessing effective—
ness of teachers in correctional environments,
and seek opinions of supervisors regarding
characteristics and competencies of correc-
tional teachers that have been rated as most
effective.

2. To offer recommendations for establishing
guidelines for selecting and training cor-
rectional education teachers.

Specifically, the following questions will be

answered in the study:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in
rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional
teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in
specific types of institutions suggest the
need for teachers with different character-
istics, competencies, educational preparation

and other experiences?
NEED FOR THE STUDY

With the current attention focused on prison reform,
all treatment programs should be upgraded, and special
emphasis should be placed on educational and occupational
training. Many authorities think that occupational compe-
tency serves as a deterrent against criminal activities.
Glaser and Rice discuss the positive relationship between
crime rate and unemployment.10 Glaser further suggests
that employment is not only a major factor in enhancing

the possibility of released offenders making successful

 

10Daniel Glaser and Kent Rice, "Crime, Age and
Unemployment," American Sociological Review, XXIV (October,
1959), 679v686.

life adjustment in aspects of life other than economics,
but that the failure to obtain or maintain employment
might enhance significantly their chances of returning to

11 Pownall stated that while precommitment unemploy-

crime.
ment is one of the best predictors of parole failure, this
negative factor can be reduced when the offender is made

12 Thus, viable education and training

more employable.
programs are considered essential ingredients in correcv
tion of the offender and making him more employable upon
release. As stated earlier, the teacher is the most im-
portant element in the educational process.

In their model for education and training in fed-
eral correctional institutions, Hitt and Agostino, sug-
gested the need for developing a procedure for recruiting

13 They concluded

and selecting instructional personnel.
that to select the best possible instructors, the follow-

ing research is needed:

 

11Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison and
Parole System (New York: The Bobb-Merrill Company, Inc.,

1964), p. 7.

12George A. Pownall, "Employment Problems of Re-
leased Prisoners: Dimensions and Sociological Implica-
tions," in Education and Trainin in Correctional
Institutions (Madison, WiSconsin: niversity ofTWisconsin,
Center for Studies in Vocational and Technical Education,
1968), p. 65.

13William Hitt and Norman Agostino, Model Education
and Training System for Inmates in Federal Correctional
Institutions (Columbus, Ofiio: Battelle Memorial Institute,

9 P- -

 

 

 

Job analysis, to identify characteristics that
correlate with job success or failure.
Selection and development of suitable instru-
ments to measure these characteristics.
Application of an appropriate experimental
design to validate the relationship between

the selection instrument and job success.

Other recommendations recorded in the above model

that have implications for this research project are: (l)

organize and implement continuing education for instructors,

and (2) develop methods for evaluating instructor perfor-

mance .

Authors of The Manual of Correctional Standards

cite the need for research in correctional education pro-

grams and two questions closely related to the purposes

of this study:

1.

What are the unusual personal characteristics
necessary for success as a correctional
educator?

What standards of preparation should be

required?14

Pressures of a correctional setting coupled with

the low motivation and aspiration level of inmates create

special problems for the correctional teachers. Hopefully,

 

14American Correctional Association, op. cit., p.

500.

10

this study will reveal those characteristics and compe-
tencies that are considered essential for effective teach-
ing in correctional institutions, and will have implications
for recruiting, selecting and training of future correc-
tional education teachers and also serve to assist in
developing those teachers who are currently employed in

correctional settings.
DEFINITION OF TERMS

Because some of the terms used in this study are
not presented in their usual context, definitions are pro-

vided for clarification.

Corrections

In this study, the term corrections is used to

describe the correctional institution environment.

Correctional education

This term refers to definitions given by T. A.

Ryan which is:

. . . a part of the total process for changing deviant
behavior, providing the offender an opportunity to
acquire and/or improve academic, vocational and social
skills, and to develop attitudes, values and accept-
able behavioral patterns which will enable him to
achieve a positive self-image and prepare him to

achieve his place as a contributing member of society.15

 

15T. A. Ryan, (ed.), Model for Adult Basic Educa-
tion in Corrections (Honolulu: TUhiVersity of Hawaii,
Education ResearEH'and Development Center, 1970), p. 2.

11

Correctional education
teachers

 

Teachers employed in a correctional environment
that have the responsibility of assisting inmates in
acquiring and/or improving academic, vocational and social
skills, through teaching, counseling, and displaying a

positive image.

Effective teachers

 

Those correctional teachers that have been recog'
nized by their supervisors as outstanding in their abili-
ties to affect a decided, decisive or desired change in
the cognitive, affective or psychOvmotor domains or a

combination of the three domains of student learning.

Characteristics

In this study the term characteristics refers to
personal physical traits such as age, ethnic background,

residential background and sex.

Competencies

 

This term refers to a combination of information
and skills. It includes human relation skills, technical
skills and interdisciplinary skills, which may be a com-
bination of the two formerly mentioned skills, or other

miscellaneous abilities.

12

Juries of respondents

 

The twenty-six participants that were surveyed in
the study are referred to as the "total jury." The eleven
participants from the combined sub-group of juvenile, young
adult and female institutions are referred to as the "youth
and female jury." The fifteen respondents from the com-
bined sub—group of adult long term, adult intermediate
term and adult camp institutions are referred to as the

"adult male jury."

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

As with the preparation of any survey, the investi-
gator had to assign some restrictions to his area of inves-
tigation. Rather than attempt to survey all criteria for
effective correctional education programs, this study
dealt only with effective teachers, as many studies
reveal that the teacher is the key to effective educational
programs. Bobbitt and Letwin cite that the teacher is the
key element in the education of the disadvantaged, stating
further that grouping, funding, and other considerations
are important; however, the teacher's ultimate effective-
ness is the crucial element that makes or breaks a pro—

gram.16

 

16Bobbitt and Letwin, op. cit., p. i.

13

This study is further limited to the supervisors
of education in institutions of the U. S. Bureau of Pri-
sons. It would have been unrealistic to contact the
correctional education supervisors in all of the correc-
tional institutions and jails throughout the country that
may have some form of education and training program.

Another limitation to be observed is that the
study was based on opinions and experiences of correc'
tional educators and such basic research that they may
have conducted or observed, rather than on controlled
experimental and psychological data. It is felt that in
the absence of controlled research, the opinions of these
correctional educators would have important implications

for the purposes of this study.

OVERVIEW OF THIS STUDY

The study is organized into five chapters. In
addition to Chapter I, which describes and supports the
need for the study, there are four related chapters.

Chapter II contains a review of literature related
to the study. This review is based on limited research
findings and positions of recognized authorities.

Chapter III contains a description of the methods
and procedures used in the study. Presented are descrip-
tions of pre-survey activities, survey procedures, and

methods employed in presenting and analyzing the data.

14

Chapter IV contains survey information on the find-
ings and interpretation of data that answers the questions
raised in Chapter I.

Chapter V contains a summary of the study, basic
conclusions that are drawn from the study, recommendations
for improvement in selecting and training teachers, and
suggestions for further research in the field of correc-

tional education.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In Chapter II the literature related to the area
of investigation is summarized.

Because research related to correctional education
teachers is somewhat limited, much of the literature re-
viewed was found in professional papers, reports and
professional publications written by authorities in the
field of correctional education. Also, literature in
other areas of education that have implications for the;

study is discussed.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

To set a conceptual framework for the study of
correctional teachers, attention was focused on goals
of correctional education, innovative programs in correc-
tional education, factors that affect inmate students and
needed competencies and characteristics of correctional
teachers. Additionally, general criteria for measuring
teacher effectiveness and characteristics of effective

teachers are delineated.

15

16

Goals of Correctional
Education

 

 

Ryan's definition of correctional education, as
defined in Chapter I, delineates the broad goals of cor-
rectional education, giving consideration to academic,
vocational and social skills designed to enhance the
offender in his preparation for taking his place in society
as a contributing member. In agreement with this, a recent
report shows that the U. S. Bureau of Prisons' education
and training programs are designed to prepare offenders
for employment. These programs are based on three
assumptions:

1. That satisfactory post—release employment will
reduce recidivism.

2. That chances for satisfactory post-release
employment will be enhanced if offenders are
more employable at release than they were at
intake, and

3. That increased employability will result from
effective education and training programs.

The three goals of education and training for the

1970's in federal correctional institutions are:

1. A11 inmates leaving the federal prison system
will be able to read at least at the sixth
grade level.

 

1Education and Training of Incarcerated Federal
Offenders: "AnnuaT'Reportv-CY 1971 (Washington: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons), p. l.

 

 

17
2. All capable inmates will have a high school
equivalency certificate upon release.

3. Every inmate with the need will have been
trained in a marketable skill.

The above mentioned goals also agree with Ryan's
and Silvern's goals of adult basic education in correc-
tions which are: economic efficiency, civic responsibility,
social relationships and selfvrealizations.3

From the stated goals, one can observe that cor-
rectional education is designed to contribute to cognitive,
affective and psychomotor domains of students' achievements,
with emphasis placed on self-sufficiency of the inmate
after release.

Innovative Correctional
Education Prggrams

 

 

One of the most significant mistakes made by cor-
rectional institutions in the past, and is still being made
by many institutions, is that of patterning their schools
after public schools. The public schools have not done a
very good job keeping people in school. The drop-out

figures are alarming and a great percentage of these young

 

ZIbid.

 

3T. A. Ryan and L. C. Silvern, (eds.), Goals of
Adult Basic Education in Corrections (Honolulu: Un1ver-
sity of Hawaii, Education Research and Development Center,
1970), pp. 17-18.

 

18

men and women end up in prisons. The public school, in
its own methods and practices, may simply be too passive
in meeting individual needs, especially the needs of those
who are somewhat "different." The assumption is that
public schools may have an indirect effect on delinquency
by the use of methods that create the conditions of fail-
ure for certain students. Mishandling by the school can
lower motivation to learn. It can aggravate students'
difficulty in accepting authority and generate or inten-
sify hostility and alienation. It can destroy the
student’s confidence, dampen his initiative and lead him
to negative definition of himself as a failure.

Confined offenders generally are school drop-outs,
and this should demonstrate the need to use techniques,
media and materials somewhat different from that found
in traditional public school settings.

In their efforts to provide education and training
programs that are different from traditional schools, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons has shifted toward instruction
specially tailored to inmate needs. Innovative approaches
are used, including learning laboratories, team teaching
and other up-to-date educational tools and techniques.

The use of programmed material has been expanded and high
school equivalency curriculum will be available to all in-

mates in programmed instruction form.4

 

4Robert Carter, Daniel Glaser and Leslie Wilkins,
Correctional Institutions (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott
Company, 1972), p. 101.TT

 

19

Other innovations of correctional education that
have gained widespread use and increased capabilities
include computer assisted instruction, dial access retrieval
systems, games and simulations, audio equipment, radios,
various types of projectors, CATV, CCTV and teaching
machines.S

Along with the innovative media, numerous correc-
tional institutions have developed innovative philosophies
that differentiate their programs greatly from traditional
schools. An example is the Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center
in Morgantown, West Virginia. Dana Straight, Supervisor
of Educational Services at the Kennedy Youth Center, cites
that the following innovative approaches are used in his
program: individual learning systems, individualized
instruction, personalized instruction, industrial literacy,
and performance objectives linked with contractual agree-
ments. The contractual agreements lead to pay off points
that can be exchanged for privileges, goods and services.

This approach changes the teacher's role from that of

instructor to that of educational manager.6

 

5Richard Williams and James Mahoney, "Survey of
Audio-Visual Instructional Capabilities," (Washington:
Bureau of Prisons, Education Division Clearinghouse, un—
dated). (Mimeographed.)

6Dana Straight, "Innovative Efforts in Correctional
Education" (Morgantown, West Virginia: Robert F. Kennedy
Youth Center, 1972). (Mimeographed.)

20

Factors that Affect
Inmate Students

 

 

Consideration must be given to the characteristics
of adult students, expecially the undereducated and those
confined in correctional institutions.

The National Association for Public School Adult
Education lists the following characteristics of underv
educated adults: lack of self-confidence; fear of school;
living in conditions of economic poverty; probably below
average in scholastic aptitude; culturally deprived;
values, norms and goals differing from upper and middle
class norms; weak motivation; usually sensitive to non-
verbal forms of communication; feeling of helplessness;
varying levels of intelligence; "live for today" philoso-
phy; unacceptable behavior; hostility toward authority;
reticence; use of defense mechanisms; need for status;
and tendency to lose interest.7

In addition to those characteristics which dis-
tinguish the undereducated as learners from the better-
educated adults, there are certain characteristics which
distinguish adult learners, in general from childhood

learners. Among these are:

 

7Adult Basic Education: A Guide for Teachers and
Teacher Trainers (WZShington: National AssoCiation for
Puinc Schbol Adult Education, 1968), pp. 11, 4, l4.

 

12.

To

21
The adult learner is likely to be more rigid
in his thinking.

He requires a longer time to perform learning
tasks.

He is more impatient in pursuit of learning
objectives.

He requires more and better light for study
task.

The older adult has restricted powers of adjust-
ment to external temperature changes and to
distractions.

He has greater difficulties in remembering
isolated facts.

He suffers more from being deprived of success.

He is motivated more by usefulness of materials
being learned.

He is less willing to adopt new ways.
He resents having adults talk down to him.

He may be attending class with a mixed set of
motives.

He may be fatigued when he attends class.8

make teaching in corrections even more diffi-

cult, the correctional environment adds to the before

stated adult student characteristics. To appreciate the

problems and pressures of correctional institutions, one

must have an understanding of the kind of regime that

exists in many institutions. The President's Commission

on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice summarized

 

8Ibid., pp. 11.18.

I.l1ll All lull] III I III .III II J

22

factors found in traditional correctional institutions

that create pressures for confined offenders, which could
serve as obstacles to educational motivations. Among the
factors, the following appear to be most detrimental to
inmate students' morale: security measures which result

in searching and restrictive movement, strict discipline,
mail censorship, limitation on visitation, loss of privacy,
rules restricting or limiting relationship between inmates
and staff, and enforced special forms of "etiquette."9

In addition to the above, inmates are further
pressured by fear of bodily harm from other inmates,
social pressures from peers, homosexual pressures, mass
treatment and other factors resulting from the inmate sub-
culture.

However, many of the negative influences mentioned
that affect inmate students are disappearing, but some will
remain for an indeterminate time due to the authoritarian
nature of some correctional institution personnel and
their reluctance to change.

Inmate characteristics and pressures play an
important role in the effective functioning of correctional

teachers, and would appear to suggest the need for teachers

 

9Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: The
PresidenthTCommission on LawTEnforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice, Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 46.

 

23

that are somewhat different from those teachers generally
found in public schools.

Along with social, psychological and emotional
characteristics of inmate students, their educational
backgrounds also merit consideration in teacher selection.
Reports indicate that generally inmates possess average
intelligence, but are retarded in academic achievements
and frequently have a history of failures in school. The
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice concluded that inmates' academic achieve-
ments are often far below what their intelligence test
scores indicate they are capable of attaining.10

Carter, Glaser and Wilkins point out that "tests
show that the intelligence level of federal offenders
follow the same distribution curve as the national popu-

11

lation." This if further supported by the 1971 Annual

Report of the U. 8. Bureau of Prisons' Education and
Training Division, which indicates that the average I.Q.

score of the offender population is 104.12

 

101bid., p. 53.

11Carter, Glaser and Wilkins, loc. cit.

12Education and Training of Incarcerated Offenders:
Annual Report--CY 197I} op. cit., p. 4.

 

24

The Correctional Teacher

 

Correctional education calls for professional work
of a high order, as much can be accomplished by a competent
staff in removing illiteracy, in developing occupational
skills, in discovering talents and stimulating creativity
among confined offenders.

Analyses of the psychological, as well as the
academic characteristics of inmate students, suggest the
need for teachers with special characteristics and compe-
tencies. The 10 to 30 percent of functional illiterates
found among offenders would indicate a need for remedial
teachers. The psychological and emotional problems inher-
ent among inmate students reflect a need for teachers with
special education competencies. While the high rate of
inmates without employable skills would seem to indicate
a need for teachers with competencies in vocational edu-
cation.

There is some agreement among recognized authori-
ties regarding needed qualities for effective correctional
teachers. The authors of The Manual of Correctional

Standards state that the influence of strong, sound

 

teachers upon their students may be of more lasting impor-
tance than the skills and knowledge which he imparts.

They also conclude that colleges and universities usually
provide the courses essential for regular teacher develop-

ment, but recommend such courses as: Guidance, Counseling

25

Theory and Practice, Applied Psychology, Occupational
Information, Abnormal Psychology, Remedial Reading,
Developmental Reading, Shop Management and Understanding

Delinquency and Criminals for correctional education

teaching.13

The above statements would seem to agree with

Erickson's concept that the correctional teacher is more

14

accurately described as "teacher'counselor." Erickson

further states:

In addition to competence in skill areas and counsel-
ing, the teacher needs special personal characteris-
tics. He needs maturity because the trainees he
teaches generally lack this characteristic and need
daily contact with a good example to follow.1

Ryan, in describing the desired qualities of adult

basic education teachers in corrections, stresses:

It is important that the classroom teacher possess
certain positive characteristics. He must genuinely
like people, be competent and highly enthusiastic in
his work be optimistic about the success of trainees,
and be able to infuse them with this optimism. He
must be flexible and be able to adopt the best teach-
ing tools quickly as learners interest in a specific
area rises and falls. He must be patient and under-
standing of the learners, most of whom are quite

 

13Manual of Correctional Standards (Washington:
American CorrectionaI’Association, 1969), p. 486.

14Robert Erickson, "A Philosophy for Adult Basic
Education in Correctional Institutions," cited in Collec-
tion of Papers Prepared for National Seminars Adult Bas1c
Education in Corrections, Ryan,’T} A., (ed.) (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii, Education Research and Development
Center, 1970), p. 175.

 

 

15Ibid.

 

26

sensitive about their shortcomings. He must be
creative, since adult basic education learners
quickly lose interest in boring units. He must be
supersensitive to learning and personal needs of his
learners, and move quickly to meet these needs as
they arise. Also, he must be a well—adjusted indi-
vidual who can serve as a positive model for the
learner to emulate.

Because the learning center has evolved as a major
facility in correctional education, it is desirable that
correctional teachers possess some background in instruc-
tional media. Griffin Peoples describes the learning

center specialist in corrections in this manner:

The L.C.S. [learning center specialist] should be-
sensitive to adult students' educational needs, and
must have the necessary insight to understand the
overt behavior as well as having the background in
education, learning theories and instructional
materials.17

Peoples further cites that because of the broad
role to perform in an adult learning center, the L.C.S.
should be familiar with the following basic requirements:
Counseling and Guidance, Curriculum, Record Keeping, Test

and Measurements, and Education Administration.18

 

16T. A. Ryan, Model of Adult Basic Education in
Corrections (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Education
Researchiand Development Center, 1970), p. 77.

 

17Griffin Peoples, Guidelines for a Correctional
Education Proggam in Adult Basic Education (Sandstone,
Minnesota: U.SI Department of’Justice, Bureau of Prisons,
Federal Correctional Institution, undated), p. 11.

 

18Ibid., p. 12.

27

In addition to special training and competencies
for specific innovative settings as described above, cor-
rectional teachers should become familiar with specific
characteristics of the inmate population with which they
work. Saleebey, in describing an innovative alternative
to traditional prisons, suggested that in-service training
of the staff include courses in culture of the ghetto and

19 The above courses are extremely

culture of ethnic groups.
desirable if the teacher is to gain a suitable working
relationship with those who happen to be different from
himself.

Bobbitt and Letwin, in describing teaching of dis-
advantaged students, stated that according to Maslow's
Theory, a lower need must be satisfied before a higher
need can emerge. Therefore, teachers should follow Mas-
low's Theory and assist students in satisfying physiologi-
cal needs, safety needs, belongingness or love need, before
students will be concerned with selfvesteem needs and self-
actualization needs.20

To be effective, then, correctional teachers must

have the qualities to help students meet all levels of

 

19George Saleebey, The NonvPrison, A Rational
Correctional Program (St. Paul, M1nnesota: Bruce Pub-
lishing COmpany, 1970), p. 60.

20Frank Bobbitt and Linda Letwin, Techniqpes for
TeachinggDisadvantaged Youth in Vocational Education (East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan‘State University, Rural Man-
power Center, 1971), pp. 8-10.

 

28

needs so the students can take advantage of the learning

experiences provided in class. Saleebey points out that:

While attitudinal changes remain the primary goal of
the treatment program, it is recognized that basic
skills and knowledge will help immeasureably in
validating and confirming new value systems and in
improving selfvesteem. It is one thing to convince

a person that it is easier to work than steal, but

it is quite another to get him a job if he ha? neither
the skill nor knowledge to work productively. 1

Recognized authorities seem to agree that the
correctional teacher's role is two-fold: to serve as a
model for attitudinal changes as well as to bring about
changes in knowledge and skills of his students.

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MEASURING
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

In measuring teacher effectiveness, student out-
come is important, but not necessarily paramount. Deci-
sions need to be made regarding what criteria are most
significant.

There are those who believe that teacher evalua'
tion should be based solely on student learning outcomes.
They contend that there is no teaching without learning.

Bloom is an advocate of this doctrine.22 Clayton supports

 

21Saleebey, op. cit., p. 58.

22B. S. Bloom, "Testing Ability and Achievement,"
in Handbook of Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage, (ed.),
(ChiEago: “Rand MCNally Company, 1963), pp. 379-397.

 

29

Bloom's concept regarding the significance of student
learning performance as the measure of teacher effective-
ness.23

Musella differs from Bloom and Clayton, in that
he lacks confidence in the ability to measure teaching
effectiveness by using only student growth criteria.
Musella offers the following factors for teacher evalua-

tion criteria:

1. Control of classroom (defined as determining
student behavior).

2. Displays flexibility (defined as shifts in
presentations and climate as demanded by
shifts in student response).

3. Permissive (defined as accepEing students'
initiative and leadership).

Mussella's concept of teacher evaluation is not
in the sdidents' gains as much as in providing a climate
conducive to student gains, which would imply that atten-
tion should be given to teacher's activities in the class-
room also.

Henderson and Lanier advocate that pp£h_process
and product must always be considered in identifying teacher

skills, abilities and competencies.25

23T. W. Clayton, Teaching and Learning: A Psycho-
logical Perspective (Englewood Cliffs, NlJZ: Prentice-Hall,
j.

 

 

24Donald Musella, "Improving Teacher Evaluation,"
Teacher Education, XXI (Spring, 1970), 15-21.

25Judith Henderson and Perry Lanier, "Teaching Com-
petence: Needed Knowledge and Performance Skills, A Concep-
tual Framework," (Michigan State University, School of
Teacher Education, March, 1972), p. l. (Mimeographed.)

 

30

Bobbitt and Letwin emphasize product or student
outcomes as measures of program success. They cite the
following as indicators: decreased truancy, lower dropout
rate, an improved attitude of students, or an increased
number of students continuing their education or attain-
ing immediate employment as evidenced by follow-up studies.
They state that other indications of success may be a
larger percentage of students reaching their occupational
objectives or positive measurable improvements in know-

26 These criteria are impor-

1edges, skills and attitudes.
tant as Bobbitt and Letwin stress that the teacher is the
key to successful educational programs, and these criteria
can be helpful in measuring teacher effectiveness.
Additionally, these criteria cover cognitive, affective
and psychomotor domains, and are based on programs for
disadvantaged, which have implications for students in
correctional settings.

Wiegman's steps in assessing post-secondary occu-
pational teacher effectiveness place more emphasis on the
teacher, rather than on his products (students). The
following steps are listed by Wiegman:

St p 1. Begin with the initial interview regard-

ing candidate's ability to express himself; his personal

appearance, his command of the discipline he plans to

 

26Bobbitt and Letwin, op. cit., pp. 92-93.

31

teach, personality, interest in people, and what he has
read recently.

Step 2. Collect evidence about his performance"
in the classroom.

Step 3. See if he has written out his objectives
for the course in clearly stated terms so students can
understand them.

St p 4. Assess the product of his instruction.

Step 5. Observe the teacher's service to the
college.

Step 6. The next and last step might be classi-
fied as general, where one would look for evidence as to
how the instructor provides for input from the field, such
as advisory committees, keeping abreast of development

27 Al-

from the field through reading and consultation.
though designed for post-secondary teachers, most of these
steps can be modified to be relevant to correctional
education teachers' assessment.

In commenting on Wiegman's report, Kray stated

that in classroom performance, assessment should not

place too much emphasis on just the use of media, but

 

27Robert Wiegman, "Strategies for Assessing Teacher
Effectiveness in Post-Secondary Occupational Programs,"
cited in The Second Annual Pennsylvania Conference on
Post-Secondary Occupational Education, Angelo C. Gillie,
(ed.) (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State
University, 1971), pp. 45-59.

 

 

32

their appropriate use, stating that some instructors can
still teach effectively in the "standard style." He fur-
ther states that measuring student outcome by the level of
employment of students in the field for which trained for
teacher assessment may be difficult to achieve as a number
of noncontrollable factors enter in--the part that indi-
viduals other than the teacher plays in getting the
student employed, decisions of students to enter military
service or continue their education--may make the situa-

28 In a correctional

tion appear worse than it really is.
setting uncontrollable factors may have a like effect on:
this criterion as a sound basis for teacher assessment.
Failure to make parole, detainer to other jurisdictions,
and failure to secure employment because of a felony
record are factors that could prevent employment in the
field for which trained, or ever securing employment at

all. This is pointed out in a recent chamber of commerce

publication regarding bars to employment of ex-offenders.29

 

28Eugene J. Kray, "Commentary on Dr. Wiegman's
Paper," in The Second Annual Pennsylvania Conference on
Post-Secondary Occupational Education, Angelo C. Gillis,
(53.) (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State
University, 1971), pp. 60-63.

 

29Marshalling Citizen Power to Modernize Correc-
tions (Washington: Chamber of Commerce of theTUnited
States, 1972), pp. 13-14.

33

Radebaugh developed the following assumptions

about effective teacher behavior that reflect some rela-

tionship between teacher knowledge and effective teaching

behavior:

1.

If teachers demonstrate their convictions that
students have potentialities for growth, the
students are more likely to achieve significant
growth.

If teachers can demonstrate skill and confi-
dence in organizing a classroom, then effec-
tive teaching behavior in classroom situations
tends to be increased.

If teachers show enthusiasm for some subject
matter, topic or area of interest, the student
interest in similar areas tends to be increased.

If teachers are able to individualize their
standards of achievement for students, they
are more likely to be effective in their
teaching.

If teachers listen to and make use of pupils'
ideas, then their teaching effectiveness is
likely to be increased.

The above assumptions could be valuable in design-

ing correctional teacher assessment instruments.

Whenever possible, teacher assessment criteria

should be translated into behavioral terms. This approach

was demonstrated in Conway School in Ladue, Missouri,

where evaluative criteria were related to observable

 

30

Byron Radenbaugh, "Student Teachers' Knowledge

and Effective Teaching Behavior," Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, XXI (Summer, 1970), 173-177.

34

31 These evaluative

behavior of both teacher and pupil.
criteria were established by the teachers and covered the
areas of planning instruction, establishing learning be-
havior, providing instructional resources and evaluating
teacher effectiveness through student behavior.

From the above citations, one can see that in
evaluating teacher effectiveness, assessment should be
based on cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain of
the students' outcome as well as on behavioral changes in
the teacher as it was pointed out explicitly or implied
that teacher behaviors as well as knowledge affect stud-
ent outcomes.

Teacher assessment instruments should be clear,
concise, specific and brief, with as many objective, mea-

surable features as possible. In a recent issue of School

and Community, Dickenson displays humorous cartoons reflect-

 

ing some of the unrealistic items found on a ten-page,
fifty-item evaluation form that was presented at a local

teacher association banquet.32

CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES OF
EFFECTIVE TEACHERS

Research has provided little or no evidence in

identifying cause-effect relationship in teaching-learning

 

31Dorothy B. Wiegand, "Teachers Write the Evaluative
Criteria at Ladue," School and Communipy, LVII (January,
1971), 24.

32Phillis Dickenson, "Teacher Evaluation," School
and Community, LVII (April, 1971), 23.

 

 

3S

situations, and decisions must be made on intuitive,
experienced-based judgments. When assessing teacher
characteristics, one should be aware of the distinction
between assessment and evaluation. Ryans gives the fol-

lowing distinction:

In assessing a characteristic of a teacher, we are
trying to estimate to the extent to which that de-
fined characteristic is manifest by the teacher . . .
evaluation has to do with judgments that should be
derived from assessments of clearly defined observable
teacher characteristics considered in light of agreed-
upon educational objectives and the expectancies of
individggls or groups with respect to teacher be-
havior.

In assessing teacher characteristics, several
factors have been described, including physical, emotional,
personal and acquired traits.

Wagner lists personal characteristics, professional
qualifications, instructional efficiency, staff relation-

34

ships and community relationships. For evaluating cor-

rectional teachers, most of these would be applicable.

If one can assume that there is a relationship
between effective teachers in corrections and innovative
teachers, Willsey's list of criteria in reference to inno-

vative teachers, can well be used in assessing correctional

 

33David Ryans, "Teacher Behavior Can be Evaluated,"
cited in The Evaluation of Teaching, Jane Hill and Betty
Humphrey (edSi) (waEhington, D.CZ: Pi Lambda Theta, 1967),
p. 50.

34 Guy Wagner, ”What Schools are Doing: Identify-
ing Components of Good Teaching,” Education, LXXIX (February,
1969), 280-285.

36

teacher characteristics. In his study, Willsey suggested
six criteria to identify innovative teachers. He cited

that an innovative teacher:

1. Expresses a willingness and desire to partici-
pate in programs that are labelled 'experi-
mental.'

2. Frequently diverges from the routine and goes
off in new directions when it seems appropriate
to do so.

3. Enjoys uncertainty and encourages students to
enjoy uncertainty also.

4. Is concerned with the far-reaching effects of
his/her methods and techniques on the entire
school system.

5. Solves teaching problems with imaginations.

6. Is constantly searching for new ways of doing
things.35

In the above study, Willsey found no differences
in innovationness of teachers when compared on the basis
of age, years of teaching, years taught on present high
school staff, the number of school systems taught in, the
number of hours beyond the highest degree earned, the
recency of the latest class taken, sex, subjects taught,
undergraduate major and minor, whether or not working
towards an advanced degree, and if a Master's Degree had

been earned, whether it was in education or a subject

 

3SJack Willsey, "A Study to Determine Selected
Demographic Characteristics of High School Teachers
Identified as Innovators," (Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1971).

37

matter field. The major conclusion reflected by this
study was that teachers who scored highest on the innova-
tive scale were more concerned with students and the
effects the education program was having on them. This
fact alone, has implications for the importance of innova-
tive characteristics in a correctional teacher.

In a study designed to determine differences in
personal characteristics and judgment capacities of effec-
tive and ineffective women teachers, Mohoney revealed that

the major differences found were:

1. Effective teachers showed stronger tendencies
toward restraint.

2. Effective teachers leaned towards the submis-
sive direction.

3. Ineffective teachers expected more of children
than did effective teachers.

This would seem to imply that tolerance, indulgence
and realistic expectation of students are desirable quali-
ties for teachers to possess.

Because frustrations are common among students in
correctional settings, a teacher's tolerance toward frus-
trations plays an important role in dealing with this

situation. A research study conducted on student teachers

 

'7

36William M. Mohoney, "A Study to Determine the
Difference in the Personal Characteristics and Certain
Judgment Capacities of Effective and Ineffective Primary,
Intermediate and Secondary School Teachers" (Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1957).

38

showed that "secure" student teachers met frustrations
with impunitive response (void or aggression), while "in-
secure" student teachers gave extrapunitive response
(blamed individuals or groups).37
Taylor's study of characteristics of best liked
and most effective teachers in a teacher training institu-
tion revealed that 88 percent of the respondents reported
that their best liked teachers were also their most effec-
tive teachers while in no case did respondents report that

38 The quali-

the least liked teacher was most effective.
ties of best liked teachers included many qualities which
appear to be desirable for teaching in correctional set-
tings; namely, skillful in measuring learning of students,
obviously enjoys working with students, gives personal

help to students, seems proud of a class, classroom is
well-planned, skillful in leading discussion groups,
patient, kind, considerate, and skillful in using data to
analyze situations.

According to Kemp, vocational education teachers of
disadvantaged students, if they are to do an effective job,
need to have:

37Carson M. Bennett, "The Relationship Between Re-
sponses to Pupil Aggression and Selected Personality Char-

acteristics of Student Teachers” (Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Michigan, 1957).

38George F. Taylor, "Characteristics of Best Liked
Teachers, Least Liked Teachers and Most Effective Teachers
in Teacher Training Institutions” (Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, the University of Connecticut, 1959).

 

39

l. Competence in subject matter and work skills
in the field of specialization.

2. Interest in working with young people who have
special problems.

3. Ability to reinforce the slow learner and to
refrain from responding only to those who
respond to them.

4. Ability to seek and find additional techniques
to enable them to communicate with all students.

5. Skill in presenting goals to the student and
in helping them to meet challenges.

6. Ability to measure students by their individ-
ual achievements without lowering standards
for the class.

7. Special training or knowledge for work with
disadvantaged, including understanding their
way of life.

8. Ability to work with other school personnel
to increase the effectiveness of their work.

9. Willingness to use instructional material
geared to the understanding of their students
and patience to work with the slower learners.

10. Skill in working with students to build up
their self-concept, in seeking hidden strength,

and in helping to channel these in positive
directions.

If one accepts Erickson's concept that the correc-
tional teacher be described as "teacher-counselor," the
characteristics of counselors for effective work with dis-
advantaged students that were described by the Committee

on the World of Work will have implications for correctional

 

39Barbara Kemp, The Youth We Haven't Served: A
Challenge to VocatiOnal EduCatibn (Washington: U.S.
epartment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966), p. 12.

 

 

40

teachers, especially those directly involved in occupa-

tional preparation:

To be effective in any guidance program the counselor
should have latest information about: (a) social and
economic trends of job market and its opportunities
and changes, (b) occupations in which there is great
demand, (c) opportunities for advancement, (d) employ-
ment security, (e) fields in which there is a shortage
of available workers, and (f) fields in which there is
a shortage of competent workers.

Along with the counselor's role in working with the
disadvantaged, Kemp summarizes that the counselor must
understand the needs and characteristics of the special
population groups with which he is dealing. He must under-
stand the varied cultural backgrounds which make up the
community and be able to recognize the different effects
poverty causes in each individual student in each cultural
group. His greatest contribution is the help he can give
those whose inferior social status has depressed their
educational aspirations and achievements.41

Studies have been conducted to determine if ethnic
background and age are factors in effective teaching of

disadvantaged adults. Pagano reports on a study designed

to compare age, background and teacher preparation as

 

40The Committee on the World of Work, "Preparing
Pupils for the World of Work" (Detroit Public Schools,
1962). (Mimeographed.)

41Kemp, op. cit., p. 14.

41

factors in adult basic education student achievements.42

It was noted that for adult students within the "normal"
ranges, the teachers with common background with their
students were slightly more successful, but it was stressed
that further research is needed before definite conclusions
could be drawn. This study did reveal, however, that the
older former elementary teachers were least able to estab-
lish rapport with adult students. This fact may suggest
that age and background are significant factors for assess-
ing teacher characteristics for programs for students with

special needs such as found in a correctional setting.

SUMMARY

In determination of characteristics for correc-
tional teachers, authorities were concerned with those
characteristics that would be considered critical for
work in stress areas. The demands of teachers in correc-
tional settings are somewhat different from those for
teachers in public schools, post-secondary schools and
colleges in which some of the studies were conducted.
Some of the apparent differences are: students' social,

emotional and academic backgrounds, innovative programs in

 

42Jules Pagano, "Teachers in Adult Basic Education
Programs," Strategies for Adult Basic Education, Joseph
Mongano (ed.) (Newark,TDelaware: International Reading
Association, 1969), p. 73.

 

42

correctional education, and pressures caused by correc-
tional environments and inmate subcultures.

The literature reveals that criteria for measuring
teaching effectiveness, based on student outcomes, should
be part of teacher evaluation, but equal or greater atten-
tion should be given to affective outcomes in comparison
to cognitive and psychomotor outcomes. Teachers' class-
room control and behavior should be considered; classroom
techniques and use of technology should be given strong
consideration also. Permissiveness should be stressed,
with permissiveness defined as permitting students to make
decisions and have control of their own destinies.

Listing of characteristics and competencies of
effective teachers included: professional and/or techni-
cal qualifications in subject areas, innovativeness, atti-
tudes toward subject matter and attitudes toward students
who are "different," restraint in dealing with aggressive-
ness and frustration, possessing techniques to evaluate
constructively, patience, and kind consideration towards
students. Common background and/or understanding of the
various ethnic groups, and skill in building self-concepts,
and seeking hidden strength, are factors that have strong
implications for teaching in correctional settings. Al-
though of little significance in studies dealing with
high school students, age was an important variable in

working with disadvantaged adults as described in one study.

43

On the basis of the above factors, an instrument
for seeking information for the purpose of this study

was developed.

CHAPTER III
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the following information rela-
tive to the study is discussed: study design; details of
pre-survey activities; selection of participants; survey
arrangement procedures; questionnaire items and methods

used in analyzing and presenting the data.
STUDY DESIGN

This is a study in which a design has been employed
to obtain descriptive information by use of the question-
naire technique. This study was designed to answer the
following questions which appeared in Chapter I:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in

rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional
teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in

specific types of institutions suggest the

44

45

need for teachers with different characteris-
tics, competencies, educational preparation
and other experiences?
The survey method was selected because of the
descriptive nature of the study and the apparent increase
in acceptance of this method of research in the field of

social sciences. A review of Borg's and Gall's Educational

 

Rgsearch revealed that studies involving surveys account

 

for a substantial proportion of the research done in the
field of education.1 In 1964, Lazarfeld and Sieber did a
content analysis of education research appearing in forty
journals, and found that about a third of them involved
the use of the survey method.z Additionally, Lovell and
Lawson concluded that before much progress can be made in
solving educational problems, descriptions of phenomena
must be obtained by means of descriptive research. They
emphasized that many different types of educational
phenomena can be investigated by means of the survey tech-
nique, namely: (1) the condition under which learning
takes place, (2) the characteristics of educators, and (3)
the characteristics of pupils.3 All of the above are

related to the data sought in this study.

 

1Walter Borg and Meridith Gall, Educational Re-
search (New York: McKay Co., Inc., 1971), p. 1877’

2Paul Lazarfeld and Sam Sieber, OrganizingEduca-
tional Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964).

3K. Lovell and K. S. Lawson, Understanding Research
in Education (London: University of London Press, Ltd.,
1970), pp. 29-36.

 

 

46

Although parts of the study were based on factual
information, the major portion was based on opinions.
The authenticity of opinions in an investigation is sup-

ported by Hillway:

. . . there are times when opinions may be the best
evidence available. In such cases, care is exercised
to make sure the opinion is qualified and authorita-
tive. Ordinarily, this means the opinion of one who
is an experX with regard to the matter under con-
sideration.

PRE-SERVICE ACTIVITIES

By combining data summarized in the review of
literature with his experiences in correctional education,
the investigator prepared a tentative instrument for
field-testing. The instrument was initially prepared as
an interview schedule, consisting of three sections: (1)
characteristics of correctional institutions and inmate
populations, (2) rating of teachers, and (3) teacher char-
acteristics and competencies.

The investigator field-tested the instrument by
interviewing selected supervisors of education in institu-
tions administered by the U. S. Bureau of Prisons. The
supervisors who were interviewed represented education

programs in the following institutions:

 

4Tyrus Hillway, Introduction to Research (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1956), p. 271.

47
Kennedy Youth Center
Morgantown, West Virginia

Federal Reformatory
Petersburg, Virginia

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
Springfield, Missouri

Federal Correctional Institution
Milan, Michigan

United States Penitentiary
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Supervisors of education of the five institutions
were selected because they represented a different inmate
population, with differences based on age, length of
sentence served, criminal sophistication and extent of
programming. (See Appendix A for names of persons inter-
viewed.)

The supervisors were interviewed to determine the
validity of the instruments and to seek additional infor-
mation relative to the purpose of the study. Based on
the responses to items contained in the interview schedule,
face validity for the items was established and supplemen-
tary items regarding areas of study and other experiences
that enhanced effective correctional teaching were added
to the original instrument.

Comments received during the interviews and respon-
ses to the items provided a basis for major modifications
of the instrument. The modified instrument emerged in the

form of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was reviewed

48

by the investigator's major and minor advisors, and per-
sonnel in the Office of Research Consultation at Michigan
State University. After further refinement, the instru-

ment was prepared in its final form (see Appendix B).

SELECTING THE PARTICIPANTS

The participants for the study consisted of the
twenty-six supervisors of education in institutions of
the U. S. Bureau of Prisons. (See Appendix C for insti-
tutions and names of supervisors.) These participants
were selected for the following reasons:

1. The Bureau of Prisons facilities cover eight
distinct categories, seven of which have educa-
tion and training programs on site, with per-
manent,full-time teaching staffs.

2. The twenty-six institutions operate under one
central administrative agency; thus, common
language and technical terminology are under-
stood throughout the entire system, and all
use common record-keeping techniques.

3. The seven categories of institutions are deter-
mined by inmates' characteristics and program
needs. These various categories match insti-
tution populations found in state and local

correctional facilities; therefore,

49

generalizations can be drawn that may have

implications for other correctional programs.
4. The twenty-six participants supervise a total

of 313 teachers, counselors and specialists

and a total daily pupil load covering more than

7,000.5

Further, they are responsible for
developing programs for some 20,000 inmates,

if all of the inmates so desire programming.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SURVEY

The investigator contacted the Research Division
of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington requesting permis-
sion to conduct the survey and also requested the names
of supervisors of education in the various institutions.
Permission was granted and the supervisors were informed
of the proposed survey (see Appendix D).

The questionnaire and a letter of transmittal were
mailed to each participant. The letter of transmittal gave
a brief description of the purpose of the study. Follow-up
letters were forwarded to those supervisors who had not
responded within thirty days. Another reminder was mailed
to those who had not responded after an additional thirty

days. After several phone calls, 100 percent of the

 

5Education and Training in Incarcerated, Federal
Offenders--CY 1971 (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Prisons, 1971), pp. 1-2.

 

 

50

questionnaires were returned. (Copies of the letter of
transmittal and follow-up letters are shown in Appendix E.)
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS AND METHODS USED IN
ANALYZING AND PRESENTING THE DATA

This section describes the rationale for each of
the four parts of the survey instrument and explains how
the data are presented. The instrument consisted of the
following parts: Part I--Institutional type and inmate
characteristics; Part II--Factors considered when rating
teachers; Part III--Teacher characteristics and competen-
cies and Part IV--Areas of study and other experiences
that may enhance effective teaching in correctional educa-
tion.

The data are presented in Chapter IV in the order
as stated on the questionnaire. Information discussed in
each of the sections answers questions one, two, and three
mentioned earlier. The summary section in Chapter V con-
tains data that answer question number four regarding
differences between institutional types and suggested
needs for teachers with different characteristics, compe-
tencies, education preparation and other experiences.

Data relative to inmate characteristics were analyzed by
percentages, while data relative to responses from the
twenty-six participants were analyzed by raw numbers
rather than percentage, due to the small number of parti-

cipants involved.

51

INSTITUTIONAL TYPE AND INMATE
CHARACTERISTICS

The items under Part I were designed to identify
the institutional type, as reflected by age, sex and
length of sentence of the inmates. This was essential,
because the official name of an institution is sometimes
misleading, as in several cases, the inmate population of
correctional institutions has changed while the original
name is maintained.

Once the current institutional type was deter-
mined, inmate characteristics such as age, ethnic back-
ground, level of schooling completed, mental ability
ranges, grade placements, and length of time actually
served provided a basis for determining the answer to
the question raised in Chapter I concerning differences
in teacher characteristics and competencies that may be
suggested by inmate differences.

These data are presented in narrative form and
tables by analyzing populations' percentages of the vari-
ous characteristics. Although 100 percent of the instru-
ments were usable, some respondents failed to supply data
regarding inmate characteristics in the same ranges
requested by the instrument. In such cases, the percen-
tages shown are based only on total populations of the
institutions involved with that specific item. Following

individual characteristic analyses, typical characteristics

52

of an inmate in each of the institutional types are dis-
cussed along with the typical characteristic of an inmate
in the total federal system.

Factors Considered in
RatinggTeaEhers

 

 

Part II of the instrument was designed to secure
data regarding the factors that the participants considered
when rating correctional teachers. Inasmuch as this study
was concerned with opinions of supervisors regarding char-
acteristics and competencies of effective teachers, the
investigator felt that these items were essential in
determining what the criteria were for identifying effec-
tive teachers.

Responses to Part II of the instrument are pre-
sented narratively under the following categories:
Measurable objectives, domains of student learning and
rating priorities. Factors under these categories were
ranked according to the number of responses to each
specific item.

Data presented in this section provided answers
to the question: "What are the criteria used by super-
visors in rating correctional education teachers?"

Teacher Characteristics
and Competencies

 

Part III of the instrument contained a listing of

twenty-eight items to which the participants were requested

53

to respond, reflecting their agreement or disagreement
with each item as essential for effective teaching in
his/her respective institution.

Reactions to these items were one of five responses:
”strongly agree," "agree," "no opinion," "disagree" and
("strongly disagree." Each possible response was assigned
a value ranging upward from (-2) for ”strongly disagree,"
(-1) for "disagree," (+1) for "agree" and (+2) for "strongly
agree." The "no opinion" response was assigned no value
(0). For those items obviously checked between responses,
one half point (.5)‘ was added to the value. (See Appen-
dix F.)

Data secured by these items were tabulated and
listed in rank order from all of the responses to each
respective item. The highest possible value for each
item is 52 (all respondents strongly agree: 26 x 2).
These data were designed to answer the question: "What
are the characteristics and competencies of effective
correctional education teachers?" Presentation of differ-
ences between combined types of institutions are presented
by grouping juvenile, young adult, and female institutions
and by grouping adult male institutions.

Areas of Study and
Other Experiences

 

Items in Part IV of the instrument were designed

to provide data to answer the question: ”What areas of

54

study and other experiences might enhance competencies of
correctional teachers?" This section contained twenty-two
items relating to areas of study (numbers 4.1-4.22) and
ten items relating to experiences (numbers 4.24-4.33).

The participants were asked to list additional items

under areas of study (4.23) and experiences (4.34). Super-
visors were requested to respond to each item in view of
his/her current institution. Each item was designed to
solicit one of five responses: "very important," "impor-
tant," "no opinion," "of little importance” and "of no
importance." Reactions to these items could range upward
from (-2) for "of no importance" to (+2) for "very impor-
tant," and (0) assigned to ”no opinion” responses. These
items were ranked by total participant responses under
separate headings: (a) areas of studies and (b) experi-

ences (see Appendix G).

SUMMARY

The foregoing sections of this chapter contained
discussions relative to the study design, data collecting
procedures and method used in presenting and analyzing
the data.

The survey method was cited as a valid technique
for collecting data for descriptive studies, as supported
by several references from authorities in the field of

educational research.

55

Due to the lack of specific instruments for col-
lecting data relative to the purpose of the study, the
investigator conducted a series of interviews with super-
visors of correctional education. These interviews served
two major purposes: (1) to determine clarity and face
validity of that portion of the instrument that had been
developed from the review of literature and experiences
of the investigator, and (2) to help in the actual develop-
mental process of the instrument by suggestions and
recommendations.

Although the participants selected for the study
may appear rather small, the twenty-six supervisors of
education, however, represent all of the institutions of
the U. S. Bureau of Prisons that have educational programs.
Additionally, these participants supervise a total of 313
correctional education personnel as well as an average
daily pupil load of over 7,000. The seven categories of
institutions, with their different age groups, may have
implications for generalizing the findings to state and
local facilities, with similar inmate populations.

Information regarding questionnaire items and
techniques used in presenting the data were discussed,
pointing out how each of the questions stated in Chapter I

would be answered.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND PRESENTATION
OF FINDINGS

This chapter contains the analysis of data secured
by the survey and a detailed presentation of the findings.
The following areas are discussed: institutional types
and inmate characteristics; criteria used by supervisors
in rating teachers; characteristics and competencies of
effective correctional education teachers; and areas of
study and other experiences that may enhance competencies
of correctional teachers. These discussions address the
four questions raised in Chapter I:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in
rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional
teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in
specific institutional types suggest the need
for teachers with different characteristics,
competencies, educational preparation and
other experiences?

56

57

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES AND INMATE
CHARACTERISTICS
In this section, institutional types and inmate
characteristics are discussed. Characteristics of inmates
described include age ranges, ethnic backgrounds, levels
of schooling completed, mental ability (I.Q.), achievement
test scores and average length of time actually served by

inmates of respective institutional types.

Types of Institutions

 

Rather than discuss institutions by their official
names, they were clustered into seven types by other char-
acteristics such as age, length of average time served and
sex of the current inmate population.

The types of institutions and numbers of each are
shown below along with the inmate population at the time

of the survey (December 1972-March, 1973).

 

IXEEE- 532233 PopfiIztion
Juvenile 3 1,022
Young Adult 6 4,061
Adult Long-Term (Penitentiary) 6 8,770
Adult Intermediate Term 6 3,665
Adult Camp 3 993
Medical Center 1 Data Available for

Camp only. Popu-
lation shown above.

Female 2 696
Total 19,207

58

Because the data received from the Medical Center
were for camp inmates only, those inmates were counted and
discussed as part of the category of camp inmates. Also,
for the purpose of this study, responses from the supervisor
of education of the Medical Center were grouped with the

data from camp supervisors of education.

Characteristics of Inmates

 

Characteristics of inmate populations that may have
implications for correctional education teachers include
differences in the ages between inmates of different types
of institutions, ethnic backgrounds, years of schooling com-
pleted, mental abilities, scores on achievement tests and
length of time actually served within the institution.
Tables in this section show percentages rounded to the
nearest whole numbers.

Age
The ages of inmates provided one basis for clarify-

ing the institutions.

Nearly 70 percent of the inmates in juvenile institu-
tions were in the age range of 15-20 years old, while the
age range of 15-25 years included nearly 90 percent of
juvenile inmates. In young adult institutions 60 percent
of the inmates were in the age range of 21-25 and nearly 95
percent were under thirty years of age. In the adult long-
term institutions the ages of inmates were more evenly dis-

tributed, and length of sentence, rather than age was

59

probably responsible for this classification of institu-
tions. Approximately 25 percent of inmates in adult,
long-term institutions were over forty years of age, 34
percent were in the age range of 21-30 and 34 percent in
the age range of 31-40. Also, in adult camps and inter-
mediate-term institutions, the ages of inmates were
relatively evenly distributed, with approximately 20 per-
cent of the inmates in each of the five-year age ranges
between twenty-six and forty years of age. Female insti-
tution inmates' ages were similar to the ages of juvenile
and young adu1t institutions' inmates. Over 40 percent
of the female inmates were in the age range of 15-25
years and 65 percent were less than thirty years of age.
Data in Table 4.1 show detailed descriptions of the age
distributions of inmates in Federal Correctional Institu-

tions.

Ethnic Background

Unlike age, where the types of institutions are
somewhat planned, ethnic background of inmates in respec-
tive types of institutions are incidental. If there is a
majority of a specific race in an institution, it is prob-
ably due more to geography than any other reason. In
institutions near major metropolitan areas, large Black
populations were noted, while institutions located in the

southwest and west, large percentages of Chicano and

6O

ofinmm: copuHEQSm pony

.mcfipczon on one me. coca mmoHV oHnHMHHwo: momoucoonomw

.wcwpcsou ou mop ooH Amoco uo: Ame mowmucoouom .mumw

mcoflusuflumcw may mo mcowpmfismom map no women one ozonm mamuou oak .oHnmmsco

one: was poumosoon mm mowcmn esp :H no: one: poppHEQSm «new 0:» .moocmumcw Hono>om cHe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm omo o o NH ow OH Hh MH Mm MN mmH QM OMN 5 HM o o GHMEwm
memo
mm Mam v NV MN OMN HN GON mH HmH VN HVN OH hm N MN 0 o

9H5fi<
mu m m Hm m m m m some ooaHeoa
OOH HmmN o 0 0H m H N m 6N0 O 5 HH 5N H ON C o rhoufiH PHSfl<
snob wcoq
OOH onmo h mwv MN NOOH VH Mom ON owNH VN mme CH MMO 6 NH o o 9H5fl<
mm Hcov M NVH o o m H N Hh MN HMOH 00 VMVN m NwM o o 9H56< wfifio>
OOH NNOH o o o o o o o o m H OM 00M m0 NOB H OH OHH=0>5H

aw .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02
pounomoa . I r III 1 me asap coapopfiumcH

mflaoos ooz o4 oo>o as on mm Hm om SN mm HN ON mg map; we make
mowzmm ow<

 

 

.mcoquOHumcm Ho:o«uoonnou Hanopom :H moumscfi mo mom< .H.v canoe

61

Non-English speaking Spanish surnames were noted. In some
institutions where the Chicano population is negligible,
Chicanos were classified as white; therefore, in several
instances, the ethnic descriptions are somewhat distorted.

The data in Table 4.2 indicate that there are
strong similarities between the racial backgrounds of the
institutional types; however, noted exceptions are found
in the percentage of Chicanos in the adult intermediate
institutions and the percentage of Blacks in female insti-
tutions.

As further indicated in Table 4.2 the percentages
of whites range from a low of 41 percent in female institu-
tions to a high of 70 percent in adult camps. The percent-
ages of blacks range from 21 percent in adult intermediate
institutions to a high of 52 percent in female institutions.
The percentages of Chicanos reported range from 6 percent
in juvenile and female institutions to 28 percent in adult
intermediate-term institutions. The percentages of other
ethnic groups, which include Indians and Orientals, range
from 1 percent to 8 percent. Data were not available for
a small percentage of the various populations.

Life style and cultural patterns of various ethnic
groups, along with language barriers, are considered as
factors that have possible implications for effective
teaching in different types of institutions where a speci-

fic ethnic group is prevalent.

62

.mcchsop ow one wooH Hmzoo no: Noe mowwucoupomex

.o:HUH:u pom ouHcs mm noon poucsoo
can on: moumecH osmcusm :chmmm Ho :OHumuHHasw oEom mucomonmoh opstw mHaee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HoH coo o o N NH 0 Ne mm mmm He mmm onEom

HoH mam m ow H A o o mm cam on «mo meow pHse<

some opmeoE

HoH mnom o o N oo mm AHOH Hm Hun cm Hme -HoucH pst<

Shoe m:0H

OOH «mmmw H mm N HwH m omw om nmom mm ABHm pHoe<

HOH mmoH m Hom e wVH w owH om ONN we omm uHow< mono»

HOH NNOH o o m cm 0 mm Hm uHm om mom oHHco>Sh
««w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02

pouuomom :oHHSHHumoH

mHmuoe ucz Honuo ocwano HumHm oanz «0 omxh
mmsopu ochum
.m:0HuouHum:H Hm:0Huuoupoo Hmuoeom :H mopmscH Ho poochmxoma uchum .N.e oHnmb

63

‘Years of Schooling
Completed

The level of education completed by inmates in the
various types of correctional institutions may have impli-
cations for the competencies of.correctional education
teachers. Observations of Table 4.3 show that the percent-
ages of the populations that have completed less than nine
years range from 37 percent for young adults to a high of
56 percent for juvenile institutions. In the range from
10-12 (high school attendance and/or completions) the per-
centages range from a low of 29 percent for adult inter-
mediate-term populations to a high of 52 percent for adult,
long-term populations.

In the categories above high school completion
(12+ years), percentages range from 2 percent to 16 percent
of the various populations. The percentages possessing a
degree or equivalence (16+ years) completion were small in
comparison with other ranges, with 2 percent representing
the highest frequency.

Data revealed in Table 4.3 show that levels of
education completed by inmates of the various types of
institutions are incidental, and unlike age, is not a
determining factor in the assignment of inmates to specific
institutions. However, responses from supervisors of the
respective types of institutions, may reflect the needs of

their current populations, especially in such areas as

64

.mcchsou ow mow oHnHmHHwoc mowmucoonoma
.wchcson on out NOOH Hence no: Nae mommpcoonomaa

.mcoHpmoHHmsv on mac NHnmnoum cam mcoHumHsmom HmcoHHSHHpmcH voooxo mHmu0p 090:3 moocmumcHa

II,

 

 

 

 

 

HOH NOON O O N OH O mm mm ONN Hm Hon N OH m H O O onsom
mm mam m «m N NN HH OOH on Omm Om mom 0 cm m Hm H NH memo uH3O<
shoe opmHOoE

OOH «NNON O O HH me OH OOv wN Omw ON new HH va m ON N HN rumch pH3O<
snob wcoH

OOH NONOO N mNo v mam NH «OOH mN OONN Nm OONm v mom v NNm m ON 9H3O<
OOH HOOO m NHH N NN o OmN ON owHH Nm HHHN N NON a v H we szv< Mano»
OOH NNOH O HO a N HH NHH mv wmv mm wwm N wH a N O O oHHco>5O
aaN .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 EOHpopHumcH

_ . mo maze
Oouuomom m can» I s s s s
mHmuON uoz mmoq o O O N NH OH OH mH OH mH OH no>o
.HmumoNO

mcoHusuHumcH Hm=0Huoouhou Hanovom :H moumacH NH wouonEou :OHumospo Hushom mo mHo>oH cm.e oHamN

65

teacher preparation and experiences that enhance effective

teaching.

Mental Ability

The mental abilities (I.Q.) of inmates in all of
the institutions were measured by the Revised Beta Examina-
tion, a nonverbal intelligence test, used predominantly
for its ability in assessing the I.Q. of those with language
barriers and reading disabilities.

Data contained in Table 4.4 show that the highest
percentages of populations in every institutional type are
in the "normal" range (91-110). Percentages of the popula-
tions in the 91-110 I.Q. range are from 47 percent to 59
percent. In the majority of the institutional types, a
larger percentage of the populations show I.Q. scores above
the 91-110 range than below this range. The exceptions

were noted in the adult camp and female populations.

Grade Placement

Grade placement of inmates was determined by the
Stanford Achievement Test (S.A.T.). Grade placement is a
Inore realistic appraisal of the inmates' current level of
achievement than the years of schooling completed and should
‘have implications for effective teacher's characteristics,

competencies and preparation.

66

.mcchsog on mac NOOH Hmsco Ho: NOE mommpcoupome
.mchcsou on mow oHnHmHHmo: mommucoUHomm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH OOO O OO H O O NO mm NNm NH NHH HH ON OOHOEOO
OO ONO O O m NH NHH Nm NON OH ONH O NO OEOO OH5O<
EHmNIoOOHOoE
OOH mNNm O O H Nm ON ONO Om ONNH OH Nmm H Om -HOHOH HH5O<
OOH HO N H m H NO Hm HHmN m EpoN-NOOH
O N Om NHO NH NONH N ONH HHOO<
OO HOOO a NOH N NO NN «NHH NO OOOH NH NON O OON OH2O< maze»
OOH NNOH O NO N NN NN ONN NO ONO NH HOH H O OHHOO>OO
«N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02

OOHNOOON OmH - - - OOHHONHONOH

mHONON ooz Ho>o. ONH HHH OHH HO OO HN ON-Om No OONN

momcmm .O.H

.mcoHHSOHumcH HOdOHuooHHou Hmaowom cH moumEGH mo moHpHHHnm Hmucoz .0.0 oHnON

67

Data in Table 4.5 reveal that the juvenile insti-
tutions have the highest percentage (19 percent) of their
population testing above 12.0, followed by adult interme-
diate with 16 percent testing above 12.0; young adult with
11 percent; female with 10 percent; adult long-term with 6
percent and adult camps with 4 percent testing above 12.0
grade placement level.

Also, in the 8-ll.9 S.A.T. range, the young adult
and juvenile populations showed a slightly higher percent-
age than the adult populations. The adult populations
showed a noted higher percentage in the ranges of 4-7.9
and 0-3.9.

Length of Time Actually
Served

In reply to the item regarding length of time
actually served in the institution by the majority of
inmates in their populations, the respondents' answers
ranged from less than six months to more that thirty-six
months. However, several respondents failed to provide
usable answers to this item. The only institutional type
submitting unanimous responses was the adult long term,
which indicated more than thirty-six months. The juvenile
and young adult responses were in the 6-12 months and
13-24 months range; the adult intermediate were in the less
that six months bracket and 13-24 months range; and adult

camps were in 6-12 month range and 13-24 months ranges

68

.OcHOcsop 0» mac NOOH Hmzuo poo NOE mommpcoopmm«

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOH OOO O NN OH OO ON NOH OO NNO OH OO OHOEOO

OO ONO O OO O ON ON OOH OO HON ON NOH mamu OHDO<

SHON-oumHOoE

OOH ONON O O OH OOO ON NON NO HNOH OH NOO -HOch pH5O<

EH09

HOH ONOO O OOH O OHO NO OOOH OO OOON OH OOO -O:0H pHDO<

OOH HOOO O OOH HH NOO OO OONH NO OONH O OOO pH5O< mono»

HOH NNOH m mm OH OOH Om OOO Om OOO O OO oHHco>sO
«N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02 N .02

Ooppomom Ho>o . . . :OHuspHpmcH

mHmpoe uoz Oom O.NH O HH-O O N-O O 0-0 mo oQNN
mmwcmm

 

 

.mumou OONHONOOEOOO NO Oopzmmoe mm
chHpspHumcH HmcoHuooHHou HOHOOOO CH moumscH mo unoEoomHm OOONO :mHOoz

.0.0 oHnmN

69

and the one female response was in the less than six
months bracket.

The length of time in which inmates are in the
institution have the following implications that may in-
fluence effective correctional teaching:

1. The immediacy in meeting individual needs of
short-termed inmates;

2. Interest and motivational problems of long-
termed inmates;

3. The decision of emphasizing cognitive or

affective domain in planning, preparation
and evaluation.

Characteristics of
Typical Inmates

Based on data furnished in Tables 4.1 through 4.5,
characteristics of a typical federal offender in the dif-
ferent types of federal institutions, can generally be
described, by reviewing the highest percentages of inmates
in the respective ranges. Additionally, general charac-
teristics of a typical inmate in the combined correctional
system can likewise be described.

Juvenile Inmates. A typical inmate in juvenile

 

institutions will likely be between fifteen and twenty
years of age, with a 55 percent probability of being
white, having completed between seven and nine years of
formal education, possessing normal intelligence (I.Q.

range 91-110), testing between 8.0 and 11.9 median grade

70

placement on standardized tests and serving a sentence
between thirteen and twenty-four months.

Young Adult Inmates. Inmates in young adult in-

 

stitutions are quite similar in characteristics to inmates
found in juvenile institutions, except slightly older;
however, there is an overlap in age ranges between the two
populations. The young adult inmate is likely to be in
the age range between twenty-one and twenty-five; he will
have a 48 percent probability of being white; he will have
attended high school (10-12 years of formal schooling);

he will possess normal intelligence (I.Q. range 91-110);
he will score between 8.0-11.9 median grade placement on
standardized tests and will serve a sentence ranging from
thirteen to twenty-four months.

Adult Long-Term Inmates. Here one can note a

 

marked difference between an adult long-term inmate and
the previously described youthful offenders. The adult
long-term offender is likely to be over forty years of age;
he will have a 58 percent probability of being white; he
will likely have attended high school (10-12 years of
formal education); he, too, will possess normal intelli-
gence (91-110 I.Q.); he will score between 4.0-7.9 median
grade placement on standardized tests and will serve a
sentence in excess of three years.

Adult Intermediate-Term Inmates. Inmates in adult

 

intermediate institutions are quite similar to the long-term

71

adult offender, although slightly younger. The adult inter-
mediate inmate is likely to be between twenty-six and
thirty years of age; he will have 50 percent probability of
being white; he will have attended high school (10-12 years
of formal education); he will possess normal intelligence
(91-110 I.Q.); he will score between 4.0 and 7.9 median
grade placement on standardized tests, and he will serve

a sentence of between six and twenty-four months.

Adult Camp Inmate. The camp inmate is likely to be

 

between the ages of twenty-six and thirty, but has high
possibility of being over forty (24 percent vs. 23 percent,
respectively). He will have a 70 percent probability of
being white; he will have completed between seven and nine
years of formal schooling; he will possess normal intelli-
gence (91-110 I.Q.); he will score between 4.0 and 7.9
median grade placement on standardized tests and he will
serve a sentence from six to twenty-four months.

Female Institutions. The typical female inmate

 

differs somewhat from adult male inmates. In addition to
the obvious sexual differences, there is also the difference
of frequency in age ranges and racial probability. The
typical female offender is likely to be between twenty-one
and twenty-five years of age; she has a 52 percent prob-
ability of being black; she will have attended high school
(10-12 years of formal schooling); she will possess normal

intelligence (91-110 I.Q.); she will score between 4.0 and

72

7.9 median grade placement on standardized tests and based
on the one response, she will probably serve less than six
rnonths. The female inmates are more similar to the juvenile
and young adult offenders in total characteristics than
they are to offenders in the three adult institutional
categories.

Typical Inmates in Federal Institutions. When the

 

characteristics of inmates are analyzed for the entire
institutional populations, the profiles present data that
have implications for all correctional teachers. A typical
offender appears as follows:

1. The offender is likely to be a male;

2. The offender is likely to be in the age range
between thirty and forty;

3. He will have a 54 percent probability of being
white;

4. He is likely to have attended high school
(completed between 10-12 years of formal
education);

5. He is likely to score between 4.0 and 7.9
median grade placement on standardized tests;

6. He is likely to possess normal intelligence
(91-110 I.Q.);

7. And he is likely to serve a sentence ranging
from between thirteen and twenty-four months.

CRITERIA USED BY SUPERVISORS IN
RATING TEACHERS

Data discussed in this section are responses to

items found on Part II of the instrument regarding factors

73

crxnsidered by correctional education supervisors when

rating teachers .

The first two items were directed toward determin-

111g if the respondents had rated any teachers either as

t>edng below average or outstanding and/or meritorious dur-

iJng the past year, and what were the specific reasons for

ssuch ratings. Only three of the twenty-six respondents

llad rated teachers as being below average, while thirteen

11ad rated teachers as being outstanding and/or meritorious.

ratings

Reasons given for below-average ratings were:

"Lack of coordination and failure to contribute
to common goals.”

"Absenteeism, lack of discipline in classroom,
low amount of completions per year."

Reasons given for outstanding and/or meritorious
are as follows:

"Outstanding contributions to the program."
"Ability as vocational instructors.”

”Interest in his students.”

"Professional image and attitude.”

"Cooperation with other departments."

"Demonstration of ingenuity and ability to make
and develop training aids."

"Outstanding teaching abilities."

"Excellent teachers and instructors working far
beyond what was expected."

”Outstanding performance such as designing new
programs, developing training aids and related
classroom materials and ability to relate to
students.”

74

”Demonstrated growth and maturity."

"Number of completions per year, grade point
increase in total grade level."

"Dependability, classroom rapport with students
and number of students receiving G.E.D. certifi-
cates."

”Outstanding work--publishing of articles in
professional magazines."

"Demonstrated ability to organize and present
meaningful information systems to inmate students.

Ability to develop comprehensive curriculum
systems.”

From the reasons given for granting outstanding
and/or meritorious ratings to teachers, it is noted that
(:ognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of student
(Jutcomes could have been involved, as well as the profes-
ssional and technical performances of teachers.

The item that secured information about the use of
nueasurable objectives as evaluative criteria for rating
'teeachers, requested responses to several suggested factors
811d solicited criteria other than those suggested. Of the
‘ttventy-six respondents, twenty-one answered in the affirma-
tcive; four answered in the negative; and one answer was
VWDided because the respondent checked both choices of
Galswers. Ranking and frequency of responses are shown in
Table 4.6.

One of the items was designed to secure data regard-
ilig priority of domains of student learning as one factor

ill rating teachers by student outcomes. Four options were

I .I III|| ill: l‘lllJ

75

Table 4.6. Ranking of evaluative criteria.

 

 

 

 

Rank Criteria Frequency

 

If

1 Program development and improvement 19
(e.g., conducts research to determine
best methods; proposes new programs).

1 Grade level achievement of students. 19
2 Low drop-out rate from teacher's class. 16
3 Attitudinal changes of students (e.g., 14

a noticeable reduction of students'
adjustment problems in the institution).

4 Others:
Incentive to assist in all areas. 1
Selling of the education program and l

recruitment of students.

offered for answering this question: ”Cognitive,” "affec-
‘tive," "psychomotor" and "all equally important." Ranking
21nd frequencies of responses are shown in Table 4.7.

In response to the item relating to the priority
t>etween Input and Output in rating teacher's performance,
tihe following results were shown: sixteen of the respondents
(Zhecked "equal priority" between the two; eight checked
"output" and two checked "input.”

In response to question number one, "what are the
(Iriteria used by supervisors in rating correctional

tleachers?", most of the respondents reported that they

76

'Table 4.7. Priority of domains of student learning.

I
L

 

_-
J

 

 

 

 

IRank Domain Frequency*
1 All equally important 15
2 Affective domain 10
3 Cognitive domain 3
4 Psychomotor domain 0

 

*The frequency total exceeds 26 because several
respondents checked both cognitive and affective domains.

Lwe measurable objectives as evaluative criteria in rating

correctional teachers.
TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES

Results of the quantitative analysis of the opinion
(of the jury of participants with regard to their reactions
1:0 the items listed under characteristics and competencies
Eire presented in this section.

The purpose of the quantitative analysis was to
Cletermine the relative total scores which each of the items
‘Vkould have when reviewed as a response from (a) total jury,
(13) youth and female jury, and (c) adult male jury. The

tlotal score for each item was determined as follows:

77

 

 

Possible Responses: Assigpgd Values
Strongly agree +2
Agree +1
No opinion 0
Disagree -1
Strongly disagree -2

Total score = the sum of responses from partici-
pants in each jury.

Maximum score for total jury = N (26) x 2 = 52.

Maximum score for youth and female jury = N (11) x 2 =

Maximum score for adult male jury = N (15) x 2 = 30.

Total scores served as the basis for determining
rank order and means.

Rank Order of Characteristics
and Competencies by the
TotaI'Jury

 

 

 

The ranking and total score of each item is shown
in Table 4.8. An analysis of Table 4.8 reveals that the
first twenty items, ranked in order one through eleven, each
llas a total score greater than twenty-six. This indicates
‘that the jury "agreed” that these items were essential for
czorrectional teachers to be effective.

Items ranked twelve and thirteen, showing scores
C)f +22 and +3, respectively, indicate positions between
"no opinion" and "agreement."

Items ranked fourteen through eighteen, showing
Ilegative values of less than negative twenty-six, reflect
Jceactions between "no opinion” and "disagreement," while

1:he item with the score of negative twenty-nine reflects

78

 

 

 

Table 4.8. Teacher characteristics and competencies
listed in rank order from responses of the
total jury (N = 26).

Rank Scores Means Items

1 43 1.65 15 able to exhibit patience in
handling hostilities.

2 41 1.57 Exhibits self-control during
crisis.

3 39 1.50 Is able to understand low as-
piration and motivation of
inmate students.

3 39 1.50 Shows innovativeness, curiosity
and creativity.

4 37 1.42 Develops objectives with students
rather than for them.

4 37 1.42 Possesses realistic expectations
of inmate students.

4 37 1.42 Is able to understand slow
learners. .

5 36 1.38 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
adults.

5 36 1.38 Shows skill in varying activities
and media to help students meet
their goals.

5 36 1.38 Is able to produce own material
to meet specific student needs.

5 36 1.38 Displays firmness and fairness in
classroom control.

5 36 1.38 Works toward overall goal of
institution regarding safety and
supply economy.

5 36 1.38 Displays reliability in being at
assigned place at the assigned
time.

6 34 1.30 Is able to use good counseling
techniques.

7 33.5 1.28 Allows flexibility in students'

seating and study arrangements.

79

 

 

 

'Table 4.8. Continued.
Rank Scores Means Items
8 33 1.26 Exhibits flexibility in handling
teaching problems.
9 30 1.15 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
youth.
9 30 1.15 Exhibits skill in allocation of
resources.

10 28 1.07 Displays positive image in dress,
grooming and actions.

11 27 1.03 Is able to conduct research to
determine the best methods for
achieving objectives.

12 22 .84 Participates in self-improvement
on voluntary basis.

13 3 .11 Is slightly older than the stu-
dents.

14 -3 -.11 Shares similar residential back-
ground with students (rural or
suburban).

15 -4 -.15 Possesses common ethnic background
with the majority of the students
with whom he/she works.

16 -ll -.42 Is of the same general age of the
students with whom he/she works.

17 -18 -.69 Is much older than the students.

18 -23 -.88 Should be of the same sex as the
students.

19 -29 -l.ll Is younger than the students.

80

reactions of the respondents between "disagreement" and
"strong disagreement." It is interesting to note that
the respondents rejected physical characteristics such as
specified age, ethnic background, residential background,
and sex as being essential factors for working effectively
in correctional education. Also, little emphasis was
placed on voluntary participation in self-improvement
activities, as an essential factor for effective correc-
tional education teaching.

Items ranked one through three, showing scores of
43, 41, and 39, respectively, reflected a leaning toward
"strong agreement." Incidently, these items dealing with
patience, self-control, understanding of low aspirations
and motivations of inmate students and innovativeness,
support the assumption that demands upon correctional
education teachers may be somewhat different from demands

lipon teachers in public schools, as stated in the litera-

‘ture review.

Egank Order of Characteristics
559d Competenciesiby Combinedi
gluries of PartiCipants

The characteristics of typical inmates of various
ignstitutional types, as compared previously, show that
tlhere were commonalities between juvenile, young adult and
iEemale offenders in age and length of time served, while

tihe adult male inmates (long-term, intermediate-term and

81

camp type) showed commonalities. Because of these common-
alities between inmates of the various types of institu-
tions, the supervisors were grouped into two groups prior
to analysis of their responses concerning items essential
for effective teaching. Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show ranking
and scores of characteristics and competencies according
to respondents from the two groups. Total respondents

for juvenile, young adult, and female institutions were
eleven, while total respondents for the adult institutions
were fifteen.

Rank Order bngouth and Female Jury. Data in

 

Table 4.9 reveal that the twenty items ranked one through
seven show a score that equals or exceeds the number of
participants (11). This points out that this jury agreed,
as a group, that these items are essential for effective
teaching in their respective types of institutions. The
item ranked eighth with a score of three reflects reac-
tions just slightly above "no opinion" in the direction
of "agreement," while items ranked nine through twelve
range between "no opinion" reaction (0) toward ”disagree-
ment." Only the item ranked thirteenth, with a score of
negative thirteen exceeded "disagreement" slightly in the
direction of "strong disagreement." It is interesting to
note that the items of disagreement again are those phy-
sical factors such as specified age, residential background

and sex as reflected by the total jury of twenty-six.

Table 4.9.

 

L

82

Teacher characteristics and competencies listed
in rank order from responses of youth and
female jury (N

= 11).

 

Rank Scores Means Items

1 19 1.72 Exhibits self-control during
crisis.

1 19 1.72 Is able to exhibit patience in
handling hostilities.

l 19 1.72 Shows innovativeness, curiosity,
creativity.

2 18 1.63 Is able to understand slow
learners.

2 18 1.63 15 able to understand low aspira-
tions and motivations of inmate
students.

3 17 1.54 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
youth.

3 17 1.54 Possesses realistic expectations
of inmate students.

3 17 1.54 Shows skill in varying activities
and media to help students meet
their goals.

3 17 1.54 Is able to produce own material
to meet specific student needs.

3 17 1.54 Displays reliability in being at
the assigned place at the assigned
time.

4 16 1.45 Displays firmness and fairness in
classroom control.

4 16 1.45 Works toward overall goal of the
institution regarding safety,
security and supply economy.

5 14 1.27 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
adults.

5 14 1.27 Allows flexibility in students'
seating and study arrangements.

5 14 1.27 Develops objectives with students

 

rather than for students.

83

TFable 4.9. Continued.

iRank Scores Means Items

 

10

ll

12

13

14

13

13

11

11

1.27

1.18

1.18

1.0

.27

-.27

-1.18

Exhibits skill in allocation of
resources.

Displays positive image in dress,
grooming and actions.

Participates in self-improvement
on voluntary basis.

Is able to use good counseling
techniques.

Is able to conduct research to
determine best methods for
achieving objectives.

Is slightly older than the
students.

Shares similar residential back-
ground with students with whom
he/she works (suburban, urban,
or rural).

Possesses common ethnic back-
ground with majority of students
with whom he/she works.

Is of the same general age of
students with whom he/she works.

Is slightly older than the
students.

Should be of the same sex as the
students.

Is younger than the students.

 

84

Table 4.10. Teacher characteristics and competencies
listed in rank order from responses of the
adult male jury (N = 15).

W

Rank Scores Means Items

 

——r

 

l 24 1.60 Is able to exhibit patience in
handling hostilities.

2 22 1.46 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
adults.

2 22 1.46 Exhibits self-control during
crisis.

3 21 1.40 Is able to understand low aspira-
tion and motivations of inmate
students.

4 20. 1.36 Allows flexibility in students'
seating and study arrangements.

5 20 1.33 Exhibits flexibility in handling
teaching problems.

5 20 1.33 Shows innovativeness, curiosity
and creativity.

5 20 1.33 Displays firmness and fairness
in classroom control.

5 20 1.33 Works toward overall goal of the
institution regarding security,
safety and supply economy.

6 19 1.26 Develops objectives with students
rather than for them.

6 19 1.26 Possesses realistic expectations
of inmate students.

6 19 1.26 Is able to understand slow
learners.

6 19 1.26 Is able to use good counseling
techniques.

6 19 1.26 Shows skill in varying activities
and media to help students meet
their goals.

6 19 1.26 Is able to produce own material

to meet specific student needs.

 

85

 

 

 

Table 4.10. Continued.
Rank Scores Means Items

6 19 1.26 Displays reliability in being at
the assigned place at the
assigned time.

7 16 1.06 Exhibits skill in allocation of
resources.

7 16 1.06 Is able to conduct research to
determine the best methods for
achieving objectives.

8 15 1.0 Displays positive image in dress,
grooming and actions.

9 13 .86 Enjoys working with disadvantaged
youth.

10 9 .60 Participates in self-improvement
on voluntary basis.

11 0 0 Is slightly older than the stu-
dents.

12 -2 -.13 Shares similar residential back-
ground with students (rural,
suburban, urban).

12 -2 -.13 Possesses common ethnic background
with the majority of the students
with whom he/she works.

13 -8 -.53 Is of the same general age of
students with whom he/she works.

14 -12 -.80 Is much older than the students.

15 -13 -.86 Should be of the same sex as the
students.

16 ~16 -l.06 Is younger than the students.

 

86

Further analyses of Table 4.9 show that the items
ranked one through three are essentially the same for this
sub-group as they were for the total jury, with minor ex-
ceptions. Item number 3.12 (innovativeness, curiosity
and creativity) was moved from rank three up to rank one
in this sub-group; item number 3.1 (enjoys working with
disadvantaged youth) was moved from rank nine to rank
three. Additionally, item numbers 3.7, 3.14, 3.15 and 3.21
were moved from rank four and five to rank three. Item
number 3.8 (displays positive image in dress, grooming and
actions) progressed from rank ten in total jury position
to rank six in the sub-jury. This was probably due to
the fact that youth and females are more impressionable
than adults and the shorter sentence of this group may
tend to make grooming factors more important.

Rank Order py Adult Male Jugy. The number of par-

 

ticipants for the combined adult male institutions equaled
fifteen; therefore, any item with a score of fifteen or
higher represented agreement on the part of this sub-group.
Nineteen items, ranking from one through eight have scores
that were equal to or exceeded the number of participants.
For comparison of the combined adult male institutions
ranking of the characteristics and competencies, see Table
4.10. Review of Tables 4.8 and 4.9 reveals that the total
jury as well as the two combined juries rank the majority

of the items with marked similarity, with very few

87

exceptions. Item number 3.11 (is able to exhibit patience
in handling hostilities) was ranked one by each jury.
Obviously, item number 3.2 (enjoys working with disadvan-
taged adults) was raised in ranking from rank five by both
the total jury and the combined juvenile, young adult and
female jury to rank two by the adult male jury. Also,
item number 3.8 (displays positive image in dress, groom-
ing and action) was ranked eighth by the combined adult
male institution sub-group while the other subgroup ranked
this item third.

As revealed by the other juries, the adult male
institution rejected the physical characteristics as essen-
tial items for effective teaching in their type of institu-

tion.

AREAS OF STUDY AND OTHER EXPERIENCES

Rankings of the relative importance of areas of
study and other experiences that enhance competencies of
correctional education teachers are discussed in this
section. The items evaluated include areas related to
psychology, sociology and educational methodology, rather
than content areas.

The purpose of the quantitative analysis, like
the analysis of characteristics and competencies, was to
determine rank order and means that the participants, by

juries, would assign to the areas of study and experiences.

88

Rank Order of Areas of
Study by the Totai Jury

 

 

In Table 4.11A rankings of areas of study are
shown as calculated from responses of the total jury. The
seventeen items, ranking from one through fourteen, have
scores that were equal to or exceeded the number of re-
spondents. This indicates that, as a group, the jury
considered that these areas of study were "important" in
enhancing competencies of correctional teachers. Observa-
tions of items ranked fifteen through eighteen with scores
totaling less than the number of respondents, but greater
than zero would indicate reactions from the group leaning
from "no opinion" toward "important"; however, there were
no negative scores among these items. The four items
ranked one through four, with total scores exceeding
thirty-nine, lean toward the "very important" response
due to the fact that the mean score exceeded 1.5. It is
interesting to note that in the top five rankings, four
are related to educational methodology, while one is
related to guidance.

Of the eight items found in the ranking from six
to ten, four are related to methodology; three are related
to the area of psychology, while one is related to socio-
logy. The additional nine items, ranking from eleven

to eighteen, show two areas of sociology, five areas of

Table 4.11.

89

Areas of study and experiences listed in rank
order from responses of the total jury (N =

 

Rank Scores Means A. Areas of Study
1 43 1.65 Student teaching or internship in
correctional institutions.
2 42 1.61 Occupational information.
3 41 1.57 Adult basic education techniques.
4 40 1.53 Instructional media and technology.
5 39 1.50 Remedial reading techniques.
6 38 1.46 Developmental reading techniques.
7 36 1.38 Psychology of adult learners.
7 36 1.38 Test, measurements and evaluation.
8 35 1.34 Counseling theory and practice.
9 34 1.30 Remedial mathematics.
10 32 1.23 Sociology of deviant behavior.
10 32 1.23 Curriculum development.
10 32 1.23 Principles of guidance.
11 31 1.19 Black history and culture.
12 30 1.15 Culture of the ghetto.
13 27 1.03 Applied psychology.
14 26 1.00 Understanding delinquency.
15 24 .92 English as a second language.
16 21 .80 Abnormal psychology.
16 21 .80 Mental hygiene.

90

Table 4.11. Continued.

 

Rank Scores Means A. Areas of Study
17 20 .76 Criminal psychology.
17 20 .76 Adolescent psychology.

 

B. Experiences

 

1 38 1.46 Adult basic education teaching.

2 20 .76 Education administration and
supervision experience.

3 ll .42 Three years or less public
school teaching (secondary level).

3 ll .42 Three years or less public
school teaching (elementary
level).

4 8 .30 Youth and Jobs Corps teaching.

5 5 .19 Teaching in business or industry.

6 -2 -.07 More than three years public
school teaching (secondary).

6 -2 -.07 Peace Corps assignment.

7 -4 -.15 More than three years public

school teaching (elementary).

8 -6.5 -.25 Military teaching.

 

91

psychology and one area related to methodology (English as
a second language).

The item regarding student teaching or internship
in correctional institutions received the score of forty-
five and a ranking of one, followed by occupational infor-
mation, adult basic education techniques, instructional
media and technology, and remedial reading techniques,
respectively. These choices probably reflect the charac-
teristics of inmate students as discussed in the literature
review, namely, pressures of correctional environments,
poor employment record of inmates, characteristics of dis-
advantaged adult students, innovative materials and media
used with the learning center concept and relatively high
rate of functional illiteracy found among offenders.

Rank Order of Experiences
by the Total Jury

 

 

Table 4.11B shows the rank order of the ten items
of experiences as calculated from responses from the total
jury. These items are ranked from one through eight, with
two sets of items ranked identically. Analyses of Table
4.11B show that adult basic education teaching and educa-
tional administration and supervision experience were
ranked as one and two, respectively. Following these
are two items ranked in the third position. These items

make reference to threegyears or less teaching in public

 

school. It is interesting to note that the respondents

92

ranked three years or less public school teaching experi-

 

ence higher than three years or more public school teaching

 

experience. Items ranked one through five reflect reactions
from the respondents leaning from the positive side of "no
opinion" (0) toward "important" with one item leaning
toward‘ the "very important" response.

Items ranked six through eight, with scores ranging
from negative 2 to negative 6.5, reflect responses ranging
on the negative side of "no opinion" toward "of little
importance." Military teaching, ranked eight, probably
solicited its low ranking from the inherent autocratic and
rigid nature related to the military.

Rank Order of Experiences by
Combined Juries of Respondents

 

 

Table 4.12A and Table 4.13A provide a comparison
between the combined jury of juvenile, young adult and
female institutions with the combined jury composed of
adult male institutions. Analyses of the rankings show
strong similarities between the two sub-groups. Although
there are slight variations in positions, the top four
rankings in the areas of study contain the same items.
Also, for the most part, the top ranked items for both
sub-groups reflect areas of study related to methodology;
however, in the combined youth and female jury's responses,

more emphasis is placed on guidance and counseling.

93

 

 

 

Table 4.12. Areas of study and experiences listed in rank
order from responses of the youth and female
jury (N 11).
Rank Scores Means A. Areas of Study
1 18 1.63 Occupational information.
2 17 1.54 Principles of guidance.
2 17 1.54 Counseling theory and practice.
2 17 1.54 Instructional media and tech-
nology.
3 16 1.45 Sociology of deviant behavior.
3 16 1.45 Remedial reading techniques.
3 16 1.45 Adult basic education techniques.
15 1.36 Psychology of adult learners.
4 15 1.36 Developmental reading techniques.
4 15 1.36 Remedial mathematics.
4 15 1.36 Tests, measurements and evalua-
tion.
4 15 1.36 Student teaching or internship
in correctional institutions.
5 14 1.27 Understanding delinquency.
5 14 1.27 Culture of the ghetto.
5 14 1.27 Curriculum development.
6 13 1.18 Applied psychology.
6 13 1.18 Black history and culture.
7 10 .90 Abnormal psychology.
8 9 .81 Adolescent psychology.
8 9 .81 Mental hygiene.
9 7 .63 Criminal psychology.

94

 

Table 4.12. Continued.
Rank Scores Means B. Experiences
1 14 1.27 Adult basic education teaching.
2 8 .72 Education administration and
supervisor experiences.
3 5 .45 Three years or less public school
teaching (elementary level).
3 5 .45 Youth or Job Corps assignments.
4 3 .27 Three years or less public school
teaching (secondary level).
4 3 .27 Teaching in business or industry.
5 0 0 More than three years public
school teaching (secondary).
6 -2 -.18 More than three years public
school teaching (elementary).
6 -2 -.18 Military teaching.
7 -3 -.27 Peace Corps assignments.

 

As observed in the total jury rankings, the com-

bined sub-groups' scores for each of the areas of study

exceeded zero, showing a leaning toward the ”importance"

response.

Analysis of Tables 4.12B and 4.13B shows strong

similarities between ranking of the two sub-groups. Items

ranked one through four show identical items between the

two sub-groups, with the exception of an additional

95

Table 4.13. Areas of study and experiences listed in rank
order from responses of the adult male jury

 

 

 

(N = 15).
Rank Scores Means A. Areas of Study
1 25 1.66 Adult basic education techniques.
2 24 1.60 Occupational information.
3 22 1.46 Remedial reading techniques.
3 22 1.46 Developmental reading techniques.
3 22 1.46 Instructional media and tech-
nology.
4 21 1.40 Psychology of adult learners.
4 21 1.40 Tests, measurement and evalua-
tion.
5 19 1.26 Remedial mathematics.
6 18 1.20 Counseling theory and practice.
6 18 1.20 Black history and culture.
6 18 1.20 Curriculum development.
6 18 1.20 Student teaching or internship
in' correctional institutions.
7 16 1.06 Culture of the ghetto.
7 16 1.06 Sociology of deviant behavior.
8 15 1.0 Principles of guidance.
8 15 1.0 English as a second language.
9 14 .93 Applied psychology.
10 13 .86 Criminal psychology
11 12 .80 Mental hygiene.

ll 12 .80 Understanding delinquency.

96

Table 4.13. Continued.

 

 

 

Rank Scores Means A. Areas of Study
12 11 .73 Abnormal psychology.
13 6 .40 Adolescent psychology.

 

B. Experiences

 

1 24 1.60 Adult basic education teaching.

2 12 .80 Education administration and
supervision experiences.

3 8 .53 Three years or less public school
teaching (secondary level).

4 6 .40 Three years or less public school
teaching experience (elementary
level).

5 3 .20 Youth or Job Corps teaching.

6 2 .13 Teaching in business or industry.

7 0 0 Peace Corps assignments.

8 -.5 -.33 Military teaching.

9 -2 -.13 More than three years public
school teaching (secondary level).

9 -2 -.13 More than three years public

school teaching (elementary
level).

 

97

duplicate item shown ranked third by the youth and female
sub-group. Likewise, the four lowest ranked items of both
sub-groups ranged from "no opinion" toward "of little

importance."
SUMMARY

Chapter IV was divided into four major parts for
presentation and analysis of data. The first part con-
tained descriptions of institutional types and character-
istics of inmates found in federal correctional institu-
tions. The remaining four sections contained data relative
to the four questions raised in Chapter I which were:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in
rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional
teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in
specific institutional types suggest the need
for teachers with different characteristics,
competencies, educational preparation and
other experiences?

InStitutional Types and
Inmate Characteristics

 

 

Data presented in this section indicated the total
numbers of institutions in the federal correctional systems,
the types of institutions, the number of institutions

classified in each type, population of each type and total

98

populations. Data were also presented relative to inmate
characteristics that would possibly have implications for
correctional teachers. The following inmate characteris-
tics were discussed: age, ethnic background, years of
schooling completed, intelligence level, grade placement
on standardized tests and length of time actually served
within institutions. These data were presented and analy-
zed for each institutional type, and comparisons were
shown between these characteristics for the populations.

Criteria Used by Supervisors in
RatingCbrrectionaiiTeachers

 

 

Criteria used by supervisors in rating correctional
teachers were discussed and responses from the participants
analyzed. Data presented indicated that the majority of
the respondents used measurable objectives for rating
teachers. A suggested listing of performance standards
were ranked according to frequency of responses from the
participants. Additionally, data revealed that the majority
of the supervisors considered both inputs (teacher activi-
ties) and outputs (student performance) as criteria for
evaluating teachers. Also, the majority of the supervisors
emphasized all of the domains of student learning (cogni-
tive, effective, psychomotor) as criteria for assessing
teachers' performance based on student behavioral changes.

Data presented in this section addresses the question:

99

What are the criteria used by supervisors in rating correc-

tional teachers?

Characteristics and
Competencies

 

 

Reactions to twenty-eight items relative to factors
essential for effective teachers in correctional institu-
tions were analyzed and placed in rank order, based on
responses from the supervisors. Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10
show the ranking of items by three juries: (1) jury of
total participation; (2) jury of combined juvenile, young
adult and female institutions; and (3) jury of combined
adult long-term, adult intermediate and adult camp institu-
tions. The question addressed in this section was: What
are the characteristics and competencies of effective cor-
rectional teachers?

Areas of Studies and
Other Experiences

 

 

Data analyzed in this section pointed to areas of
study and other experiences that the supervisors felt would
enhance the competencies of correctional teachers. The
items were analyzed and ranked by three juries: total
participants, youth and female institutions' group and
adult male instituions' group. Information discussed in
this section focused on the question: What areas of study
and other experiences might enhance the competencies of

correctional teachers?

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purposes of this chapter are to present a
summary of the problem, methodology and findings, to pre-
sent conclusions relative to the findings, and to offer
recommendations and suggestions for further research in

the area of correctional education teachers.

SUMMARY

General statements from each of the chapters are

reviewed in this summary.

The Problem

 

Most teacher education institutions do not prepare
teachers for teaching in correctional institutions, and
the experiences of most teachers recruited for correctional
education work have been with students whose ages and other
backgrounds differed significantly from that of inmate
students. In spite of this obvious problem, numerous
correctional education teachers have managed to become
effective as evidenced by outstanding ratings and meri-

torious promotions.

100

101

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the
success of ex-offenders through the upgrading of correc-
tional education programs by identifying characteristics
and competencies of correctional education teachers. The
assumption was that the teacher is the most important
element in an education program.

Specifically, this study was designed to determine
the criteria used by supervisors in assessing effective
teachers in corrections, and provide data to assist in
establishing guidelines for selecting and training cor-
rectional education teachers. The study has dealt with
these concerns by addressing the following four questions:

1. What are the criteria used by supervisors in
rating correctional teachers?

2. What are the characteristics and competencies
of effective correctional teachers?

3. What areas of study and other experiences
might enhance competencies of correctional
teachers?

4. Do differences in inmate characteristics in
specific institutional types suggest the
need for teachers with different characteris-
tics, competencies, educational preparation
and other experiences?

Literature Review

 

Although research relative to correctional education
teachers is somewhat limited, the literature review revealed

important information with implicationszfixrthe study. The

102

literature review was discussed under three general head-
ings: (l) conceptual framework of correctional education
programs, (2) criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness,
and (3) characteristics and competencies of effective
teachers.

The conceptual framework of correctional education
programs contained discussions based on the opinions of
authorities in the field regarding such areas as: goals
of correctional education, innovative approaches in cor-
rectional education, factors affecting inmate students,
and needed competencies of correctional teachers.

Criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness as
reported in the literature were based mainly on the opin-
ions of authorities in the general field of education,
rather than correctional education specialists.

Characteristics and competencies of effective
teachers identified from the literature were based on
research and opinions of authorities in the general field
of education; however, most of the literature reviewed in
this section was related to disadvantaged youth and adult
students, and had implications for correctional education.

Information gathered during the literature review
provided the basis for development of the survey instru-

ment.

103

Study Design and Methodoldgy

 

The survey method was used in this study to
gather data from the twenty-six supervisors of education
in federal correctional institutions.

The instrument was developed and field tested
through interviews with five supervisors of correctional
education in selected types of federal institutions.
After refinement, the survey questionnaire was mailed to
the twenty-six participants, and 100 percent return was
achieved. Data from the four-part questionnaire were

analyzed and findings presented.

Findings
A summary of findings for each part of the question-
naire is discussed in this section.

Institutional Types and Inmate Characteristics. The

 

twenty-six institutions were classified in seven types and

the numbers of each type are shown below:

Juvenile institutions (3)
Young adult institutions (6)
Adult long-term institutions (6)
Adult intermediate-term institutions (6)
Adult camps (2)
Female institutions (2)

Medical center (1)

104

Because data secured from the medical center were for camp
inmates only, these data were combined with data from
adult camps..

Data concerning inmate characteristics revealed
the percentages of each characteristic as found in respec-
tive institutional types. TheSe data covered characteris-
tics that were assumed to have implications for correctional
education teachers, namely, age, ethnic background, years
of schooling completed, intelligence level, scores on
standardized tests, and length of time served in the in-
stitution.

Profiles for a typical inmate of each institutional
type are shown in Table 5.1. These profiles were based on
the highest percentages of specific populations in the
areas surveyed. Also, a profile for the typical offender,
based on the total collective survey is shown.

Criteria Used in Ratidg Teachers. Data analyzed

 

in this section pointed out the following:

1. Twenty-one of the respondents used measurable
objectives as evaluative criteria for rating teachers.

2. The objectives used for rating teachers, in
rank order according to frequency of responses, were:

Item Frequency

 

 

a. program development and improvement 19
b. grade level achievement of students 19

c. low dropout rate from teachers'
class 16

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oHOE on ou NmeHH OH Newcommo HONOOOH HOOHQNH mo xom«

NA Q O «HQUCGMMO
ON-mH O.N-O.O OHH-HO NH-OH H OHHHOOMMMOONOOO OO-OO HONOOOO
. HOOHQNN

mmoH . . HNNHHHOOOONO NNOO
HO O O N-O O OHH-HO NH-OH NUOHO ON-HN OHOEOO

. . HNOHHHOOOONO NONO OO Om>o
ON-O O N-O O OHH-HO O-N OONH: No OO-ON OEOO OHOOO
ON-O O.N-O.O OHH-HO NH- HNOHHHOOOONO NOOO - ENON-ONOHOOs
OH ONHOO ON ON -NONOH NHOOO
. . HNNHHHOOOONO NNOO OO shoe
ON O N-O O OHH.HO NH-OH OONH: No>o -OOOH NHOO<
N O
ON-NH O.HH-O.O OHH-HO NH-OH H OHHHOOMMMOONNOO ON-HN OHOOO maze»
ON-mH O.HH-0.0 OHH-HO O-N OONH; ON-OH OHHOO>OO
Hmnucosv
acosoomHm . . OcHHoonum
Oo>uom OOONO o H OHOON msouo Ochpm om< macho
OEHN

.mhmwcomwo Hmhowmm HOUHQNH mo OOHHOOHO .H.O oHOmN

106

Item Frequency

 

 

d. attitudinal changes of students. 14

e. incentive to assist in all
areas. 1

f. selling of education program,
recruitment. l

3. Fifteen of the supervisors placed equal
priority on all three domains of student learning as cri-
teria for teacher assessment; while ten placed priority on
affective domain, and three placed priority on cognitive
domain.

4. Sixteen of the supervisors considered Ippup
and Output equally in rating teachers; eight emphasized
Output; and three emphasized Ippug.

Teacher Characteristics and Competencies. Rankings
of items concerning characteristics and competencies essen-
tial for effective teaching in correctional institutions
were analyzed for three juries: (a) total participants'
responses; (b) respondents from juvenile, young adult,
female institutions, and (c) respondents from adult long-
term, adult intermediate-term and adult camp institu-
tions. The items with mean values of 1.3 and higher are
shown by respective juries in Table 5.2.

A review of the characteristics and competencies
listed in Table 5.2 indicated that six of the items were

listed by all three of the juries with a mean value of 1.3

107
Table 5.2. Characteristics and competencies that showed

mean values of 1.3 or higher by juries.

m

Total Jury

 

Is able to exhibit patience in handling hostilities.

Exhibits self control during crisis.

Is able to understand low aspirations and motivations of
inmate students.

Shows innovativeness, curiosity, and creativity.

Develops objectives with students rather than for them.

Possesses realistic expectations of inmate students.

Is able to understand slow learners.

Enjoys working with disadvantaged adults.

Shows skill in varying activities and media to help students
meet goals.

Is able to produce own material to meet specific student
needs.

Displays firmness and fairness in classroom control.

Works toward overall goals of the institution regarding
security, safety and supply economy.

Displays reliability in being at the assigned place at
the assigned time.

Is able to use good counseling techniques.

 

Youth and Female Jury

 

Exhibits self control during crisis.

15 able to exhibit patience in handling hostilities.

Shows innovativeness, curiosity and creativity.

Is able to understand slow learners.

Is able to understand low aspirations and motivations of
inmate students.

*Enjoys working with disadvantaged youth.

Possesses realistic expectations of inmate students.

*Shows skill in varying activities and media to help

students meet goals.

*Is able to produce own materials to meet specific student

needs.

*Displays firmness and fairness in classroom control.

Works toward the overall goal of the institution regarding
security, safety and supply economy.

108

Table 5.2. Continued.

 

 

Adult Male Jury

 

Is able to exhibit patience in handling hostilities.

**Enjoys working with disadvantaged adults.

Exhibits self-control during crisis.
Is able to understand low aspirations and motivations
of inmate students.

**Allows flexibility in student seating and study

arrangements.

**Exhibits flexibility in handling teaching problems.
Shows innovativeness, curiosity and creativity.
Displays firmness and fairness in classroom control.
Works toward overall goals of the institution regarding

security, safety and supply economy.

 

*These items were not listed by the adult male jury
in the 1.3+ mean value category.

**These items were not listed by the youth and
female jury in the 1.3+ mean value category.

or higher. Those characteristics and competencies found in
all three of the juries are shown below:
Is able to exhibit patience in handling hostilities.
Exhibits self-control during crisis.

Is able to understand low aspirations and motiva-
tions of inmate students.

Shows innovativeness, curiosity and creativity.
Displays firmness and fairness in classroom control.

Works toward overall goals of the institution
regarding security, safety and supply economy.

All three juries rejected physical characteristics
such as specified age, ethnic background, residential back-

ground and sex as being factors essential for effective

109

teaching in correctional institutions. (See Appendix F
for mean values for items by individual institutional

types.)

Areas of Study and Other Experiences. Reactions

 

to items concerning areas of study and other experiences
that might enhance competencies of correctional teachers
were analyzed from responses of three juries: (a) total
participants, (b) youth and female jury, and (c) adult
male jury.

Although all of the suggested areas of study were
considered by each jury as having some importance in
enhancing competencies of correctional teachers, several
items of experience were rejected by each jury. The items
with mean values of 1.3 and above are shown in Table 5.3.
(See also Appendix G.)

Analysis of the data in Table 5.3 indicated that
there were seven items common to all three of the juries.
These items were:

Occupational information.

Instructional media and technology.

Remedial reading techniques.

Adult basic education techniques.

Psychology of adult learners.

Developmental reading techniques.

Test, measurements and evaluation.

110

Table 5.3. Areas of study and experiences that showed mean
values of 1.3 or higher by juries.

 

 

Total Jury

 

Student teaching and internships in correctional institu-
tions.

Occupational information.

Adult basic education techniques.

Instructional media and technology.

Remedial reading techniques.

Developmental reading techniques.

Psychology of adult learners.

Test, measurements and evaluation.

Counseling theory and practice.

Remedial mathematics techniques.

Adult basic education teaching experience.

 

Youth and Female Jury

 

Occupational information.
*Principles of guidance.
*Counseling theory and practice.
Instructional media and technology.
*Sociology of deviant behavior.
Remedial reading techniques.

Adult basic education techniques.
Psychology of adult learners.
Developmental reading techniques.
*Remedial mathematics techniques.
Test, measurements and evaluation.
*Student teaching and internship in correctional institu-

tions.

 

Adult Male Jury

 

Occupational information.
Instructional media and technology.
Remedial reading techniques.
Adult basic education techniques.
Psychology of adult learners.
Developmental reading techniques.
Test, measurements and evaluation.

**Adult basic education teaching experience.

 

*These items were not listed by the adult male jury
in the 1.3+ mean value category.
**These items were not listed by the youth and female
jury in the 1.3+ mean value category.

111

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are related to the ques-
tions posed in Chapter I of the study. An analysis of
data from the survey of supervisors of education in
federal correctional institutions was the basis from which
the conclusions were drawn. Included in the conclusions
are generalizations drawn from the investigation.

1. A variety of criteria are used by supervisors
in rating correctional teachers. Although the majority
of the respondents used measurable objectives, it can be
noted by analyzing the list of reasons suggested for
granting outstanding and/or meritorious rating, that some
criteria other than measurable objectives were used.
Emphases are placed both on inputs and outputs as factors
considered in evaluating teachers. When outputs are used,
all domains of student learning are considered. The con-
clusion then, is that the correctional teacher who partici-
pates in program development and improvement, produces
specified grade level gains in his students, maintains a
low dropout rate from his class, brings about attitudinal
changes in the students with whom he works as shown by
students' institutional adjustment, assists in all pro-
gram areas, and sells the program as favorable is identi-

fied as effective.

112

2. Characteristics and competencies essential
for effective teaching in correctional institutions in-
clude both human relation skills, technical strategies and
understandings of disadvantaged students.

3. Tolerance, self-control, understanding of low
motivations and retarded learning rates, creativity, and
enjoyment in working with disadvantaged persons are more
important characteristics for correctional teachers than
competencies related to teaching strategies.

4. Teaching strategies are considered more essen-
tial for effective teaching in corrections than personal
physical characteristics of the teachers.

5. Personal physical characteristics such as
specified age, ethnic background, residential background
and sex are not considered as essential characteristics
for effective teaching in corrections.

6. Although all of the areas of study suggested
in the survey were considered important in enhancing com-
petencies of correctional teachers, those areas related
to educational methodology are most important.

7. Student teaching or internship along with
adult basic education techniques are of utmost importance
in the preparation of correctional teachers.

8. Special psychology and sociology areas are not

as important in the preparation of correctional education

113

teachers as educational methodology that emphasized adults
and other students that are ”different."

9. Adult basic education teaching is the most
important experience in preparation of correctional edu-
cation teachers.

10. Educational administration and supervision
experience is quite valuable in correctional educational
preparation.

11. Extensive teaching in public schools is not
considered as real valuable preparation for correctional
teaching, while three years or less is considered quite
valuable. This is probably due to the negative attitude
of inmates toward public schools, and the long-standing
practices of some public school teachers.

12. Teaching in Youth or Job Corps and business
and industry enhances competencies of correctional teachers.

13. Military teaching is an undesirable factor for
enhancing competencies of correctional teachers.

14. The differences in characteristics of inmates
in different types of institutions do not suggest the need
for teachers with different characteristics and competen-
cies, but suggest the need for different preparation for
such teachers for work in youth and female institutions

and for work in adult male institutions.

114

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED AREAS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
From an analysis of the findings and conclusions
derived from the study, recommendations and suggested
areas:finrfurther research with references to correctional

education teachers are discussed.

Recommendations

 

The recommendations will be addressed to two
agencies that should be concerned with the upgrading of
correctional education teachers: (1) correctional insti-
tutions and (2) teacher education institutions.

Correctional Institutions. The following recom-

 

mendations are addressed to correctional institution
personnel. It is recommended:

1. That correctional education supervisors
develop realistic, measurable objectives for identifying
effective correctional education teachers. These objec-
tives should be based on the individual needs of each
teacher, and the teachers involved should take part in
the development of such objectives. Because the ability
to develop objectives KEEN students was ranked high as an
essential item for effective teaching, the supervisors

should provide the leadership in this area by example.

115

2. That guidelines be developed, based on find-
ings in the study, that would serve to help in recruiting
and selection of future correctional teachers.

Because many of the characteristics and competency
items are not observable prior to teacher selection, inter-
view schedules and instruments, designed to solicit refer-
ence data from current and prior supervisors, should
include items ranked highest by the survey participants.

3. That special guidelines be developed for
recruiting and selecting teachers for youth and female
institutions, and special guidelines be developed for
recruiting and selecting teachers for the adult institu-
tions.

4. That considerations be given to rankings of
items by specific types of institutions when reviewing
request for transfer from current teachers to other types
of institutions.

5. That correctional education personnel cooperate
with teacher education institutions' personnel to develop
and operate pre-service and in-service correctional teacher
education programs.

This can be brought about by the following activi-
ties:

(a) Arranging internship and student teaching

activities in correctional institutions.

116

(b) Arranging workshops and seminars for in-
service correctional education teachers.

(c) Providing inputs to teacher education insti-
tution personnel for curriculum development and upgrading
to meet needs of personnel interested in teaching in cor-
rections.

(d) Conducting on-going research projects.

Teacher Education Institutions. The following

 

recommendations are directed toward teacher education
personnel. It is recommended that:

1. That teacher education institutions cooperate
with correctional institutions to arrange both short-term
internships and longer periods of student teaching experi-
ences in correctional environments.

2. That teacher education institutions develop
and organize a "specialty" in correctional education
teaching as a part of special education, adult basic
education and/or vocational education.

3. That students desiring careers in correctional
education be provided options of choosing those courses
that will strengthen specific deficiences as assessed
against the essential characteristics and competencies
for effective correctional education teaching, after a
period of field experience in correctional work.

4. That teacher education institutions develop a

master's level program in correctional education for

117

persons desiring careers in correctional education teach-
ing. A practicum in correctional environments would make
up from one fourth to one third of the requirements for
the degree.

5. That teacher education institutions, along
with correctional education personnel and state departments
of education personnel, develop special certification re-

quirements for correctional education teachers.

Areas for Further Research

The following areas for further research concerning
correctional education teachers are suggested:

1. Conduct surveys of correctional teachers and
inmate students to determine if there are any correlations
with this study which was based only on opinions of correc-
tional education supervisors, and also expand surveys to
state and local correctional facilities.

2. Conduct longitudinal studies, comparing teachers
recruited, selected and provided with pre-service and in-
service education based on data derived from this study
with a control group to determine if there be significant
differences in performances.

A longitudinal study is suggested due to the time
required to measure teacher performance as a vehicle for
reduction in recidivism. This should be the ultimate cri-

terion for evaluation.

118

3. Conduct experimental research project to
determine what inmate characteristics and teacher char-
acteristics are most compatible for maximum outcomes.

For example, a project of this nature could match inmates
with specific characteristics such as age, race, intelli-
gence level and grade level with teachers of various ages,
racial backgrounds and other physical characteristics to
determine what combination is most conducive to maximum
student performances.

Research is one of the areas where cooperation
between correctional institutions, teacher education
institutions and community agencies are both desirable
and essential in the long-range fight against the current
high rate of failure experienced by ex-offenders in trying
to break the vicious cycle of poor education, unemploy-

ment, confinement, and recidivism.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

 

Adult Basic Education: A Guide for Teachers and Teacher
Trainers. WEShington: thibnai‘AssoCiation for
Public School Adult Education, 1969.

Bobbitt, Frank and Linda Letwin. Techniques for Teaching
Disadvantaged Youth in VocationaIVEducation. East
Lansing:“M1.: MiEhigan State University, Rural
Manpower Center, 1971.

 

Borg, Walter and Meredith Gall. Educational Research.
New York: McKay Co., Inc., 1971.'

Carter, Robert, Daniel Glaser and Leslie Wilkins, (eds.).

Correctional Institutions. Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott Co., I972.

Clayton, T. W. Teachin and Learnin : A Psychological
Perspective. EngIewood CIiffs, N. J.: Prentice

Ha , .

 

 

Ferns, George. Michigan's Vocational-Technical Education
Developments Needs--197l-1975. East Lansing, Mi.:
State Supported Universities and Department of
Education, 1971.

 

Gillie, Angelo (ed.). The Second Annual Pennsylvania Con-
ference on Post-Secondary Occupational Education.
University Park: Pa.: The Pennsylvahia State
University, 1971.

 

Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole
System. New Yofk: BdbbiMerrill Co., Inc., 1964.

Hill, Jane and Betty Humphrey (eds.). The Evaluation of
Teaching. Washington: Pi Lambda Theta, 1967.

Hillway, Tyrus. Introduction to Research. New York:
Appleton-Century-Ciofts, Inc., 1956.

 

119

120

Hitt, William and Norman Agostino. Model Education and
Training System for Inmates in Federal Correctional
Institutions. ColumbuSTTOhioi"TBattelle Memorial
Institute,’I968.

 

Lazarfield, Paul and Sam Sieber. Or anizing Educational
Research. Englewood Cliffs,‘ . J.: Prentice-
HaII, 1964.

Lovell, K. and K. S. Lawson. Understandin Research in
Education. London: University 6 ondon Press,
Ltd., I970.

Manual of Correctional Standards. Washington: American
*CorrectionaiiAbsodiatibn, 1966.

 

Marshalin ng Citizen Power to Modernize Corrections. Washing-
ton: Chamber ofTCommerce of the United States,

 

1972.
Mongano, Joseph (ed.) Strate ies for Adult Basic Educa-
tion. Newark, Del. nternational Reading

Association, 1969.

Ryan, T. A. (ed.). Collection of Papers Prepared for
National Seminar, AduItTBasic Education in COrrec-
tions. Honolulu: "University of Hawaii, Research

and Development Center, 1970.

Model for Adult Basic Education in Corrections.
Honolulu: UniVersity of Hawaii, Research and
Development Center, 1970.

, and L. C. Silvern (eds.). Goals of Adult Basic
Education in Corrections. Honqulu: University
of Hawaii, Researdh and‘Development Center, 1970.

 

Saleebey, George (ed.). The Non-Prison: A Rational Cor-
rectional Program. St. Paul,“Minn.: Bruce Pub-
lishing Co.7’1970.

 

Government Publications

Education and Training of Incarcerated Federal Offenders:
Annual Report--CY 1971. Washington: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 1971.

 

121

Kemp, Barbara. The Youth We Haven't Served: A Challenge
to Vocational Education. (Washington: *U}S.*Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966.

 

Manpower Development and Training in Correctional Programs.
Washington: U.S. Department Of Labor, Manpower
Administration, 1968.

Peoples, Griffin. Guidelines for a Correctional Education
Pro ram in Adult Basic Education. Sandstone,
1nn.: UTS. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, undated.

Task Force Rpport: Corrections. Washington: The Presi-
dent's'Cbmmission on Law Enforcement and Adminis-
tration of Justice, Government Printing Office,
1967.

 

U.S. Bureau of Prisons Annual Report--1969. Washington:
’U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons,
1969.

U.S. Manpower in the 1970's: Opportunity and Challenge.

Washington: U.S. Department of Labor, Government
Printing Office, undated.

Periodicals

 

Dickerson, Phillis. "Teacher Evaluation." School and
Community, LVII (April, 1971), 23.

 

Glaser, Daniel and Kent Rice. "Crime, Age, and Unemploy-
ment." American Sociological Review, XXIV (October,
1959), 679-686.

 

Musella, Donald. "Improving Teacher Evaluations."
Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (Spring, 1970),
15-21.

Radenbaugh, Byron. "Student Teachers' Knowledge and Effec-
tive Teaching Behavior." Journal of Teacher
Education, XXI (Summer, 19 , -

 

Wagner, Guy. "What Schools Are Doing: Identifying Com-
ponents of Good Teaching." Education, LXXXIX
(February-March, 1969), 280-283.

 

122

 

Wiegand, Dorothy B. "Teachers Write Evaluative Criteria
at Landue." School and Community, LVII (January,
1971), 24. ’T

Unpublished Works

 

Bennett, Carson. "The Relationship Between Responses to
Pupil Aggression and Selected Personality Charac-
teristics of Student Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1957.

The Committee on the World of Work. "Preparing Pupils
for the World of Work." Detroit Public Schools,
1962. (Mimeographed.)

Henderson, Judith and Perry Lanier. "Teaching Competence:
Needed Knowledge and Performance Skills, A Concep-

tual Framework." Michigan State University,
School of Teacher Education, March, 1972. (Mimeo-
graphed.)

Mohoney, William. "A Study to Determine the Difference
in the Personal Characteristics and Certain Judg-
ment Capabilities of Effective and Ineffective
Primary, Intermediate and Secondary Teachers.”
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University,

1957.
Straight, Dana. "Innovative Efforts in Correctional
Education." Morgantown, W. Va.: Robert F. Kennedy

Youth Center, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

William, Richard and James Mahoney. "Survey of Audio-
Visual Instruction Capabilities." Washington:
Bureau of Prisons, Education Division Clearing-
house, undated. (Mimeographed.)

Willsey, Jack. ”A Study to Determine Selected Demographic
Characteristics of High School Teachers Identified
as Innovators." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED DURING
DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THE
INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX A

NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED DURING
DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THE
INSTRUMENT

Arthur Ellard
Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
Springfield, Missouri

Lex Enyart
Federal Correctional Institution
Milan, Michigan

Newton Lewis
Federal Reformatory
Petersburg, Virginia

Dana Straight
Kennedy Youth Center
Morgantown, West Virginia

Tony Young

United States Penitentiary
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

123

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE
STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES
OF EFFECTIVE TEACHERS IN CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS

IY'IIIIII'IIII‘III'.‘

 

l l 1 . II III!

QUESTIONNAIRE
STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES

OF EFFECTIVE TEACHERS IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

PART I. INSTITUTIONAL TYPE AND INMATE CHABHCTERTSTICS

1.1 What is the category (or type) of your institution based on inmate
population? ‘
Juvenile Adult short-term (camp)
Young adult Medical center
Adult long-term (Penitentiary) Female institution

Adult intermediate (FCI)

Please use the third quarter report fbr 1972 (or the most recent) as the
basis for the questions about age, race, level of’schooling, mental ability
and'grade placement of'the inmates.

- 1.2 Age of inmates

Age ranges No. of'inmates

55 an 15 ars

 

Total

1.3 Race of inmates
- Ethnic group Nb. af'inmates

ite
Black

Chicano
Others

 

124

I i l l '
III III. I 1‘. All I ' Ii 1' III III! ‘I'IIIII II I I II

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

125
-2-
Highest level Of schooling completed by inmates

Years of'schooling
completed No. of inmates

er 16
15-16
13-14
10-12

—0
4-6
1-3

 

Mental ability of inmates

I. Q. ranges No. of inmates

71-90

111-130

 

Name of test:

 

Grade median on achievement test
Grade placement No. of’inmates

-3 9
4-7.9
8-1

1.9

 

Name of test:

 

What is the average length of time actually served by inmates of
your institution?

less than 6 months 25-36 months

6-12 months over 36 months
13-24 months

III III. I A.

126
-3-

In the space below, list any specific characteristics of your inmate
population that may be unique to your institution (e.g., large
percentage of blacks in school; large Spanish—speaking population).

In the space below, list any specific characteristics of your educa-
tional program that may be unique to your institution (e.g., token
economy system; computer assisted instruction). '

PART II. FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN RATING TEACHERS

During the past year, have you rated any teachers as below average?

Yes No

 

 

If yes, list reasons:

During the past year, have you rated any teachers as outstanding or
granted any meritorious performance ratings?

Yes NO

 

 

If yes, list reasons:

127
-4-

2.3 Do you use measurable objectives as a basis for evaluative criteria
in rating teachers?

Yes No

 

If yes, check any of the following factors that you use.

Grade level achievement of students

Low drop out rate from teacher's class

Program development and improvement (e.g., conducts research
to determine best methods; proposes new programs)

Attitudinal changes of students (e.g., a noticeable reduction
of student's adjustment problems in the institution)

Others (be specific):

2.4 In rating teachers by student behavioral changes, or which domain
of student learning do you place highest priority? (Check one)

Cognitive (Knowledge, recall of information)

Affective (Attitudes, behaviors that are related to emotions)
Psychomotor (Manipulative, motor skill area)

All equally important

 

2.5 In rating teachers, where do you place tOp priority? (Check one)

Input (teacher's activities in the classroom)
Output (changes in students' behaviors in cognitive, affective
or psychomotor domains

Equal priority

PART III TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPETENCIES

Now I would like your opinion about each of the following 28 items as being
ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING in your institution. Please check the
appropriate column for each item, indibating the extent of your agreement
or disagreement with the item.

 

2
O
has) Q) 'S 3:
NQ) Q) R‘ N
gas. :1. 'e c:
g: o: £1. m :m
0 d Q m 0O)
hm to $4 $8..
-& s 0 Q: ~th
co'B ”C3 2 d and

3.1 Enjoys working with disadvantaged youth

 

3.2 Enjoys working with disadvantaged adults

 

3.9

.10

.ll

.12

.13

.14

.15

.16

.17

.18

128

strongly
disagree

Exhibits flexibility in handling teaching

disagree

no opinion

agree

strongly

agree

 

problems

Allows flexibility in student's seating
and study arrangements

 

Develops objectives with students rather
than for them

 

 

Exhibits self control during crisis

 

Possesses realistic expectations of inmate
students

 

Displays positive image in dress,
grooming and actions

 

Is able to understand slow learners

 

Is able to understand low aspiration and
motivations of inmate students

 

Is able to exhibit patience in handling
hostilities

 

Shows innovativeness, curiosity,
creativity

 

Is able to use good counseling techniques

 

Shows skill in varying activities and
media to help students meet their goals

 

Is able to produce own material to meet
specific student needs

 

Exhibits skill in allocation of resources

 

Displays firmness and fairness in class-
room control

 

Is able to conduct research to determine
best methods for achieving objectives

 

129

strongly
disagree
disagree
no opinion
strongly

agree
agree

3.19 Participate in self-improvement on
voluntary basis

 

3.20 Works toward overall goal of the
institution regarding security, safety
and supply economy

 

3.21 DiSplays reliability in being at the
assigned place at the assigned time

 

3.22 Shares similar residential background with
students (rural, urban or suburban)

 

3.23 Possesses common ethnic background with
the majority of the students with whom
he/she works

 

3.24 Is of the same general age of the students
with whom he/she works

 

3.25 Is younger than the students

 

3.26 Is slightly older than the students

 

3.27 Is much older than the students

 

3.28 Should be of the same sex as the students

 

PART IV AREAS OF STUDY AND OTHER EXPERIENCES THAT MAY ENHANCE EFFECTIVE TEACHING
IN CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION

The following areas of study and experiences have been suggested in the literature
to enhance effective teaching in the general field of correctional education.
React to each item as you view its importance to effective teaching in your
current institution, considering the characteristics and needs of your inmates.

 

 

Q) Q) Q) §
0 Q) 3 Q) .8 ‘IQ *3
Areas of study §§ 434% f» E m§
‘k.& ts s Q. & & a
o o o o o m 0
SL %;£L o a. a g.
S S 2 5 ~.»

4.1 Principles of guidance

 

4.2 Counseling theory and practice

 

 

4.9

.10

.11

.12

.13

.14

.15

.16

.17

.18

.19

.20

.21

.22

.23

130

Q) Q)Q)
Q) NQ)
Og ‘DQ
”A 338
“as NE
9.. 98.9..
E 5

Applied psychology

no opinion

important

very
important

 

Abnormal psychology

 

Adolescent psychology

 

Criminal psychology

 

Psychology of adult learners

 

Mental hygiene

 

Understanding delinquency

 

Culture of the ghetto

 

Black history and culture

 

Sociology of deviant behavior

 

Occupational information

 

Remedial reading techniques

 

Developmental reading techniques

 

English~and a second language

 

Curriculum development

 

Instructional media and technology

 

Remedial mathematics

 

Tests, measurement and evaluation

 

Adult basic education techniques

 

Student teaching or internship in
correctional institutions

 

Other areas of study

III I II III .ll‘l ll. Ill! 4" III Ill-Ill I
I'll: ll. 4‘

4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27

4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32

4.33

4.34

THANK YOU.FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE TO

RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO:

131

Egperiences

 

of’no
tance

impor

Three years or less public school
teaching (secondary level)

 

of little
importance

no opinion

important

very
important

 

Three years or less public school
teaching (elementary level)

 

 

 

 

More than three years public school
teaching (secondary)

 

 

 

MOre than three years public school
teaching (elementary)

 

 

Adult basic education teaching

 

 

 

Teaching in business or industry

 

 

 

Military teaching

 

 

 

Youth or Job Corps Teaching

 

 

 

Peace Corps assignments

 

 

 

Education administration and supervision
experiences

 

 

 

Other experiences:

Robert A. Gunnell
1419-5 Spartan Village

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

 

APPENDIX C

BUREAU OF PRISONS EDUCATION
DIRECTORY

APPENDIX C

BUREAU OF PRISONS EDUCATION

 

 

DIRECTORY

United States Penitentiaries Supervisor of Education
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Mr. Tom McFarran, Acting
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048 Mr. Joe A. McKinley
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17837 Mr. Tony R. Young
Marion, Illinois 62959 Mr. Glen L. Henrickson
McNeil Island, Washington 98388 Mr. Joseph L. Palmquist
Terre Haute, Indiana 47808 Mr. Theodore Cleavinger

Federal Reformatories

 

Alderson, West Virginia

 

 

(Women) 24910 Dr. Jacquelen L. Smith
El Reno, Oklahoma 73036 Mr. Wesley A. Cox
Petersburg, Virginia 28304 Mr. Newton E. Lewis
Federal Correctional
IhstitutiOns
Danbury, Connecticut 06813 Mr. Cecil R. Nave
Fort Worth, Texas 76119 Mr. Robert J. Clark
LaTuna, Anthony, New
Mexico-Texas 88021 Mr. Leslie Dingess
Lompoc, California 93438 Mr. Donald R. Scott
Milan, Michigan 48160 Mr. Lex Enyart
Sandstone, Minnesota 55072 Mr. Perry D. Lyson
Seagoville, Texas 75159 Mr. Norman P. Langdon
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Carl L. Dooley
Terminal Island, California Mr. Joseph H. Taylor
90731 (Men's Division)
Mr. Donald M. Butts
(Women's Division)
Texarkana, Texas 75502 Mr. William C. Strong

132

133

Youth and Juvenile
Institutions

 

 

Federal Youth Center,
Ashland, Kentucky 41101

Federal Youth Center,
Englewood, Colorado

Federal Youth Center,
Morgantown, West Virginia
26505

80110

Federal Prison Camps

 

Elgin Air Force Base,
Florida 32542
Montgomer, Alabama 36112
Medical Center for
Federal Prisoners

 

 

Springfield, Missouri 65802

10/13/72

Supervisor of Education

Mr. James T. Sammons

Mr. Harold Devone, Acting

Mr. Dana G. Straight

Mr. James E. Rusmisell,
Jr.
Mr. Eddie G. Lore

Mr. Arthur R. Ellard, Jr.

APPENDIX D

COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING PERMISSION TO
CONDUCT THE SURVEY

APPENDIX D

November 28, 1972

Mr. Howard Kitchener
Director of Research
U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Washington, D.C. 20537

Dear Mr. Kitchener:

I am hereby requesting formal approval to conduct a
research project with Supervisors of Education in the
Institutions of the Bureau of Prisons. Enclosed is a
questionnaire that was developed to collect the data
for the research project.

Please have Mr. Nate Fisher of the Education Branch
send me a current listing of the Supervisors of
Education in the respective institutions.

Your cooperation and interest in this project are
greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Gunnell
1419-E Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

134

135

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF PRISONS
Washington 20537

December 13, 1972

Mr. Robert A. Gunnell
1419 E. Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Dear Bob:

Your communication to Howard Kitchener was received
and the proposal reviewed. Research saw no problems with
the questionnaire and the education branch, likewise,
foresee no difficulties.

Attached is a recent list of the Supervisors of
Education and feel free to contact them.

Attached, also, is formal approval to conduct your
research project. I suggest you make copies of this and

send along with questionnaire to each Supervisor or Educa—
tion.

It's a great pleasure to be able to assist you in
anyway we can.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel A. Fisher
Program Operations Coordinator

Attachment

136

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
MEMORANDUM

TO: ALL SUPERVISORS OF EDUCATION DATE: December 13, 1972

FROM: Roy E. Gerard
Assistant Director,
Institutional Services

SUBJECT: Research Project by Robert Gunnell

This communication is two-fold: (1) to identify
Mr. Robert A. Gunnell and (2) to give approval for a
research project.

Mr. Gunnell is an emploEee of the Bureau of Prisons
who is on leave of absence wor 1ng on a doctoral disser-
tation at Michigan State University at East Lansing,
Michigan.

The Institutional Services Division, Central Office,
has given Mr. Gunnell approval to conduct an educational
research project pertaining to inmate characteristics,
teacher characteristics, and areas of study and other
experiences with the assistance of the Supervisors of
Education of each facility.

Your cooperation is solicited and appreciated.

APPENDIX E

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND SUBSEQUENT
FOLLOW-UP LETTERS

137
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - mane»: 48323

 

COLLEGE 01' EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM 0 ERICKSON HALL

December S, 1972

Dear Correctional Educator:

As a requirement for the Ph.D. degree, I am conducting a survey to assist in
identifying the characteristics and competencies of effective correctional
education teachers. As a professional educator in the field of correctional
education, you are in a strategic position to contribute to a better under-
standing of teacher expectations in the unique, difficult environment of
correctional settings. I am soliciting your cooperation in this project.

Having worked as an assistant supervisor of education at Lewisburg, I fully
realize the great demands on your time, but it is hoped that this study and
the implications it will have for upgrading the quality of correctional
teachers will create enough interest that you will take the time out of your
busy schedule to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire.

Please answer all of the items in light of your current institution. This

is important as I am attempting to draw some comparisons between teacher
characteristics and competencies in various types of institutions. In Part I,
please use the most current data available.

As I plan.to devote extensive time to the study during the holiday season, it
would be appreciated if you could complete and return the instrument at your
earliest convenience. If there are questions regarding any of the instructions
or items call me at this number: (517) 355-0936.

Having contributed to the success of this project, you will no doubt be
interested in having a summary of the findings and recommendations; therefore,
a copy will be forwarded to all participants as soon as the study is completed.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Gunnell
1419-E Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

138

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

College of Education, Department of Secondary Education
and Curriculum, Erickson Hall

January 29, 1973

Dear Correctional Educator:

During December, 1972, I received permission from Mr. Roy
E. Gerard of the Central Office to conduct a research study
involving the Supervisors of Education in the Federal Cor-
rectional Facilities. A questionnaire was mailed to you

on December 20th. I realize that you were probably quite
busy at the time with your year end activities; however, I
would like to get 100 percent returns due to the small
number of participants.

In case the initial questionnaire was lost in the mail or
mislayed, I am enclosing another, requesting your coopera-
tion in completing it at your earliest convenience.

If you have already returned the questionnaire, please dis-
regard this communication and accept my sincere thanks.
Your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Gunnell

1419 E. Spartan Village

East Lansing, Michigan 48823
jah

Enclosure

139

1419 E. Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

February 15, 1973

Dear Supervisor:

Help! I feel that my study concerning effective correc-
tional education teachers would be incomplete without
your input. Therefore, I am anxiously awaiting the
return of the questionnaire that was mailed to you
previously. Inasmuch as I plan to start processing data
on February 26, 1973, your cooperation in completing and
returning the questionnaire will be deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Gunnell

APPENDIX F

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 3
OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

140

APPENDIX F

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 3
OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

 

 

Adult AcIuIt

 

Item Juvenile igfiifi Female Long- Inter- Afinéf
Number N = 3 N = 6 N = 2 Term mediate N = 3
N = 6 N = 6
3.1 3 12 2 5 3 5
3.2 2 9 3 ll 5 6
3.3 5 ll 2 9 5 6
3.4 4 7 2 8 7.5 5
3.5 4 11 3 ll 3 S
3.6 5 11 3 11 6 5
3.7 4 ll 3 9 5 5
3.8 1 10 2 6 5 4
3.9 5 ll 2 9 5 5
3.10 5 10 3 10 7 4
3.11 5 ll 3 12 6 6
3.12 5 ll 3 10 5 5
3.13 4 9 2 10 5 4
3.14 5 10 2 10 5 4
3.15 5 10 2 9 5 5
3.16 4 8 2 7 5 4
3.17 5 9 2 7 7 6
3.18 3 7 1 7 6 3
3.19 3 9 1 5 l 3
3.20 5 9 2 8 7 5
3.21 5 10 2 9 5 5
3.22 0 l -2 2 -2 -2
3.23 l 0 -2 3 -3 -2
3.24 -l 0 -2 0 -5 -3
3.25 -4 -7 -2 -6 _7 _3

APPENDIX F. Continued.

141

 

 

Adult Adult

 

 

Item Juvenile X3325 Female Long- Inter- fliggt
Number N = 3 N = 6 N = 2 Term mediate N‘ I;
N = 6 N = 6
3.26 2 3 -2 2 1 -3
3.27 -3 -2 -1 -6 -3 -3
3.28 '2 -6 -1 -3 -7 -3
Legend: Strongly agree = +2
Agree = +1
No opinion = 0
Disagree = -l
Strongly disagree = -2

142

 

mmm>h H<ZOHH=HHHmzH >m mmHUthmmzou oz< mUHhmHmMHU<m<IU mo mmDH<> z<m2 zH mmozmmmmmHa

m xHQmem<

mm.H mw.o oo.H oo.H om.H mm.H om.H .moschsoou mcHHomesoo woom om: on OHHHw mH mH.m
. . . . . . . _ .qu>Humoao
66 H .mm o co H om H mm H so H om H was .HHHmoHaso .mmo=o>HHa>o:=H macaw ~H.H
. . . . . . . _ .moHuHHHumon
co m oo H oo N cm H mm H co H mm H wcHchmc :H 00:6Hpmm HHHHon_ou oHnm mH HH.m
. . . . . . . .mucowzum onwacH mo meoHum>Huos wee
mm H cH H 00 H cm H co H co H cm H :oHumHHmmm 30H wempmnovcs on oHnm mH oH.m
oo.H mw.o om.H oo.H mw.H oo.H N¢.H .msocumoH onm wcmumnowns on oHHm mH m.m
. . . . . . . .mcoHpom use meHsoonm
mm H mm o oo H oo H no H mm o no H .mmopv :H omeH o>HuHmom mmemmHo w.m
. . . . . . . .mucowspm oqucH
co H mm o cm H cm H mm H mm H Ne H mo mcoHuepoomxo OHumHHmOH mommommom n.m
oo.H oo.H mm.H om.H mw.H oo.H mm.H .mHmHHo mthsv HospcoosmHom muHHanm o.m
. . . . . . . .Eosu How can»
we H om o mm H cm H mm H mm H Ne H Hannah mucowspm squ mo>Huoonno mmoHo>oo m.m
. . . . . . . .mucoaomcannm Heapm pew
cc H mm H mm H oo H 0H H mm H mm H mcHuwom .mucowzum :H quHHHonHm monH< e.m
O O O O O o O O mam H Dog“
co H mm o cm H co H mm H so H SN H meHsomou mcHHeca: aH HHHHHHHAEHH mHHnHexm m.m
oo.~ mw.o mw.H om.H om.H eo.o wH.H .muHsea eomapna>esmHe HOH: mcHHHoz mHoHcm ~.m
so.H om.o mw.o oo.H oo.~ oo.H mH.H .Hpao» wommpea>emmHe nqu mstHoz mxohem H.H
u o u z o u I u
awe” oumHvoa Shoe m n ustu m u oNxhs
uHsv< -HoueH amcoH oneom wcuo> oHHco>Sh Hench
ust< pH:w<

 

 

143

 

oo.Hn
oo.Hu
oo.Hn
oo.Hu

oo.Hn

oo.o:

00.0:

oo.H

oo.H

oo.H

oo.H

oo.N

mm.H

oo.H

mm.H

0H.Hn

om.o:

0H.o

0H.Hu

mw.o:

om.o:

mm.o:

mw.o

0H.H

.oH.o

oo.H

0H.H

mw.o

mw.o

nw.o

om.os

o.Hn

mm.o

oo.Ha

oo.o

om.o

mm.o

om.H

mm.H

mw.o

0H.H

0H.H

0H.H

om.H

oo.H

om.o:
om.o:
oo.H|
oo.Hs

oo.Ha

oo.Hu

oo.Hu

oo.H

oo.H

om.o

om.o

oo.H

oo.H

oo.H

oo.H

oo.Hn

mm.ou

om.o

0H.Hn

oo.o

oo.o

0H.o

oo.H

om.H

om.H

0H.H

om.H

mm.H

oo.H

oo.H

oo.o:

oo.Hu

oo.o

mm.Hn

mm.o:

mm.o

oo.o

oo.H

oo.H

goo.H

oo.H

oo.H

mm.H

co.H

mo.H

ww.o:
mo.o:
HH.o

HH.H:

Nv.0u

mH.on

HH.o:

mm.H

mm.H

vw.o

mo.H

mm.H

mH.H

mm.H

wm.~

.mucow5um 0:» mm xom oawm 0:» mo on szocm
.mpcovzpm may cusp HowHo nose mH

.mpcov3um on» can» HowHo prstHm mH
.mpcow59m one ems» Homqsox mH

.mxhoz o:m\o: Eon; anz

mucoczum can we own Hmhocom oawm any mo mH
.mxnoz

ocm\o: Eon: anz menopaum 0:» mo poHohwa
on» nqu vzsohmxomn 0chuo soEEou mmommom
.mqmansnsm go away: .Hmpshv mucovspm

nqu vcsoumxown HmHucovaoy HwHHEHm monmnm

.oEHu coememm one an oomHm wocmHmmm
on» we mcHon :H quHHanHon mmemmHo

.xsocooo memsm
use .xpommm .HHHHSOOm wanHmmon :oHp
pspHumcH 0:» mo Hmom HHmHo>o wsmzou mxno:

.mHmmn HumansHo>
:o ucoso>ohmEHsmHom :H mommmHOHuHmm

.mo>H900mao weH>oHnom new avenues amen
ocHsHouow op nonmomon unavaoo on oHnm mH

.Houuaoo soon
smmmHo :H mmochHmm use mmocshHm mwammHo

.moonsomOH mo :oHpmooHHm :H HHHHm mananm

.mvoo: acousum onHoomm
Home on HmHHouma :30 convoum cu oHnm mH

.mHmom uHonp woos mucovsum mHon on «Hues
was moHuH>Huom mcHxnm>.:H HHHHm «zonm

wN.m
5N.m
om.m
mm.m

«N.m

mN.m

NN.m

Hm.m

om.m

mH.m

wH.m

5H.m
0H.m

mH.m

vH.m

APPENDIX G

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 4
OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

144

APPENDIX G

SUM OF SCORES TABULATED FROM PART 4
OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

 

 

‘H

—
—_

Types of Institutions
Item T7 Adu1t Adult

 

 

 

Number Juvenile ASUIE Female Long- Inter- fififiéf
N = 3 N = 6 N = 2 Term med1ate N = 3
N = 6 N = 6

4.1 4 10 3 6 6 2
4.2 5 9 3 7 8 2
4 3 3 8 2 6 6 3
4.4 2 8 0 6 3 3
4.5 3 6 0 l 3 3
4.6 1 6 0 6 5 3
4.7 4 9 2 8 8 4
4.8 2 S 2 4 3 4
4.9 3 9 2 2 5 5
4.10 3 8 3 7 6 3
4.11 3 7 3 6 7 4
4.12 4 10 2 6 5 5
4.13 4 11 3 9 9 5
4.14 4 10 2 9 8 5
4.15 4 9 2 9 8 5
4.16 3 4 2 5 6 3
4.17 3 9 2 7 7 3
4.18 4 11 2 9 8 5
4.19 4 9 2 8 6 4

145

APPENDIX G. Continued.

 

 

Types of Institutions

 

Item Adult Adult
Number Juvenile XSEEE Female Long« Inter- fligit
N = 3 _ N = 2 Term mediate __p

 

4.20 4 9 2 8 8 5
4.21 4 10 2 10 8 6
4.22 3 10 2 8 7 2
4.24 1 2 0 4 4 1
4.25 3 2 0 4 2 l
4.26 -1 2 -1 -1 -1 1
4.27 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 1
4.28 5 7 2 10 8 5
4.29 3 -1 1 -3 4 2
4.30 0 -2 0 -S 1.5 0
4.31 1 3 l 2 0 2
4.32 -4 1 0 0 -l 2
4.33 2 6 0 5 5 3

 

Legend: Very important = +2
Important = +1
No opinion = 0
Of little importance = -1
Of no importance = -2

146

.mcoHuszumcH HmcoHuoonaoo

 

co.o SH.H mm.H oo.H EE.H oo.H me.H :H HHnmcposcH Ho wcHeuaop pcoesum N~.4
oo.~ mm.H eo.H oo.H so.H mm.H Hm.H .moschnuou :oHumuseo OHman pH=e< HN.4
so.H Hn.H mm.H oo.H om.H mm.H mm.H .coHuasHm>o use mucmaocsmmoa .mpmme o~.4
mm.H oo.H mm.H oo.H om.H mm.H om.H .mUHHmaoHHme HmHeosmm mH.e
oe.H HH.H om.H oo.H mm.H HH.H mm.H .Aonocnoop was «Heme anoHpususmcH wH.v
oo.H EH.H 8H.H oo.H om.H oo.H MN.H .HcosmoHo>oe asHsanasu HH.4
oo.H oo.H mw.o oo.H oo.o oo.H Hm.o .mmmsmesH eaooom a ma :mHHmem EH.¢
so.H mm.H om.H oo.H om.H mm.H oe.H .mosechomH mcHeaoH HaueoemoHo>oo mH.4
oo.H mm.H om.H oo.H so.H mm.H om.H .moschnoou wcHeaoH HaHeoaam 4H.4
so.H om.H om.H om.H mw.H mm.H Ho.H .coHHREAomeH HmcoHuamsooo mH.4
oe.H mw.o oo.H oo.H oo.H mm.H mN.H .HoH>snon HeaH>oe Ho AmoHoHoom NH.e
mm.H SH.H oo.H om.H oH.H oo.H aH.H .ouspHso use AHonH; HosHm HH.4
oo.H oo.H SH.H om.H mm.H oo.H mH.H .ouuonm 0:» Ho ouspHsu oH.¢
eo.H mm.o mm.o oo.H om.H oo.H oo.H .HoemsecHHme meHeaaHmHoeco 8.4
mm.H om.o eo.c oo.H mw.o oo.o ow.o .oaon»: Hague: ”.4
mm.H mm.H mm.H oo.H om.H mm.H mm.H .mHoenaoH pHses Ho AmoHonuxma H.e
oo.H mm.c oo.H co.o oo.H mm.o ea.o .AuoHoeuHmm HacHanu e.e
oo.H_ om.o SH.o oo.o oo.H oo.H ea.o .HmoHoHoxmd pneumoHoe< m.e
oo.H om.o oo.H oo.o mm.H oo.o om.o .HmoHonong Hmspoen< 4.4
oo.H oo.H oo.H oo.H mm.H oo.H mo.H .AmoHonuxmm eoHHHH< m.e
oo.o Hm.H SH.H om.H om.H oe.H 4m.H .oOHHoaHH ens shoes» msHHomesou ~.4
oe.o oo.H oo.H om.H oo.H mm.H m~.H .ooemeHsm Ho moHaHocHHa H.e
o u w e u ,
m n o «H as she u u z u on u z
pwww< uwowwH , umaow ommaom. MMHWM onso>uh HMHMM Hv=um mo mmos< .<
uHse<, HH=e<

 

 

mmmwh H<ZOHHDHHHmzH >m mmUZmHmmmxm Qz< >DDHm mo m<mm< mo mDH<> z<m2 2H mmuzmmmmmHm

U xHszmm<

147

 

 

N: u oocwpnomaH 0: mo
H: u oocmpHomEH oHpuHH mo
0 u :oHcho o:
H+ u pemunomeH
~+ n ucwunomEH xho>
mosHm> mcoHuomom

chowoq

 

.moo:OHhomKo :onH>

 

 

00.H mw.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 05.0 Thomsm 00m coHHMHpchHewm :OHumonum mm.v
00.0 mm.0- 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.H- no.0- mucoscmHmmm mmpou oomom ~m.v
00.0 00.0 mm.0 00.0 00.0 mm.0 0m. .wchHmHu mmHou 000 no Hana» Hm.v
00.0 m~.0 00.0- 00.0 00.0: 00.0 mm.0u .wcHnomou meuHHHz 0m.v
00.0 00.0 00.0- 0m.0 0H.0: 00.H 0H.0 .xuumswcH Ho mmochsn :H meHsomOH 0~.v
00.H mm.H 00.H 00.H 0H.H 00.H 0v.H .mcHgomou :oHumosuo OHmmn ust< 0N.v
. . . . . . . .mHo>oH HampcoaoHOV mcHsomou
mm 0 0H 0: 0H 0- 0m 0; 00 0 mm 0- 0H 0- Hoozom OHHnnm mama» eons» nun» who: 5N.v
. . . . . . .mHo>oH xumwcooomv mcHnomou
mm 0 0H 0- 0H.0- 00 0- mm 0 mm 0- n0 0- Hoogom OHHnsm mumox manna can» Ono: 0~.v
. . . . . .nHo>oH HumanoEoHOV mchumou
00.0 mm 0 00.0 00 0 mm 0 00 H Nv 0 Hoosom OHHnam mmoH no mama» cough mm.v
mm.o 00.0 00.0 oo.o mm.o Hm.o ~4.o Hoogom.hwwmwm mmwwamwomwmmemwmmw 4~.4
moocoHuomxm .m
xvsum mo mmouw Honuo m~.v

‘I0.0m