“Being a Presence to Each Other”: Adult Educators Who Foster Empowerment With Incarcerated Women

Abstract

Our research explored the experiences of educators who teach in a gender-responsive program for women in a jail. We interrogated how educators fostered empowerment in their classes, what their motivations were for teaching in the program, and the tensions that existed for them when using emancipatory teaching practices in jail. Findings indicate that educators used Freirean concepts to foster empowerment, were motivated to share their knowledge, were motivated to counter dehumanization, and recognized their commonalities and privilege. Trust and agency created tensions while using an emancipatory pedagogy at a jail. Findings have implications for educators teaching marginalized populations.

Keywords

educators jail gender-responsive programs emancipatory learning Freire

In 2014, 1.3 million women were arrested in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015). There was a 44% increase in women incarcerated in jails between 2000 and 2013 (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014). Twice as many African American women as White women were incarcerated in 2014, while Hispanic women were imprisoned at a rate 1.2 times that of White women (Sentencing Project, 2016).

While an increasing number of men and women have been incarcerated over the past 40 years making the United States the leader in incarceration worldwide (Sentencing Project, 2017), gender differences exist regarding experiences with victimization, mental health issues, substance abuse, and relationships. Women are more likely than men to have experienced trauma, mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness (Fedock, Fries, & Kubiak, 2013).

To support women and reduce recidivism, correctional facilities need gender-responsive programs (GRPs) that recognize women’s unique circumstances. Gender-responsive programming focuses on addressing issues that contribute to women’s incarceration. It is based on theories concerning women’s pathways to prison, which are often paved with multiple forms of systemic oppression based on race, class, and gender. It is also based on relational, women’s development, and trauma theories (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2005). Educators focus on teaching women about physical and emotional safety, building healthy relationships, and increasing self-esteem (Day, Zahn, & Tichavsky, 2015).

This type of programming has the potential to empower learners. Empowerment concerns increasing learners’ power to improve their lives (Gutiérrez, 1990). Fostering empowerment in learners includes teaching students to think critically, express emotions, and question their peers (Costelloe, 2014; McCarthy, 2006). Instructors can accomplish these goals by teaching with love and building trust with students (Freire, 2000). Critical thinking is encouraged through role playing, journaling, and dialoging with classmates in a safe space. Teachers can facilitate appropriate emotional expression through art projects and group discussion. Students learn to question others by observing instructors and peers. Learning these skills in a safe environment can foster empowerment. These goals may be incompatible with the correctional system. While there are studies concerning educators’ experiences teaching in prison, the realities of women educators teaching in a GRP for women offenders in jail have rarely been explored. This study investigates the experiences of women educators in a GRP at a jail in the southwestern United States. We wanted to know: (1) How do educators foster empowerment in their classes? (2) What are educators’ motivations for working with women in a GRP? (3) What tensions exist for educators using emancipatory adult education practices in a jail? Findings may have implications for educators who work in prisons, for women educators who work with women in prisons, and for those who utilize emancipatory teaching techniques in other settings.

Literature Review

We offer a brief explanation of trauma-informed education as this is the type of programming our educators use in the GRP. We also review literature concerning how educators foster empowerment in prison and their motivations for teaching in this setting.

Trauma-Informed Education and Gender-Responsive Programming

Trauma is “a personal experience of interpersonal violence, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, severe neglect, loss and/or the witnessing of violence, terrorism and disasters” (Gillece, 2009, p. 48). These events can be shocking and terrifying, are intentional, and occur over time. Responses to trauma can include increased substance use and abuse, self-harm, and dissociation (Gillece, 2009).

Trauma-informed programming for women addresses its impact on individuals’ lives and decision making. Ideally, trauma-informed education instituted in a jail, prison, or detention center involves staff training on issues related to substance abuse, as well as trauma and its effects on inmates and staff since staff run the risk of burnout and “vicarious traumatization” (Gillece, 2009, p. 49). Program modules include definitions and examples of trauma, physical and sexual abuse, the interaction between trauma and addiction, self-calming techniques, boundaries and safety, barriers to trust, and parenting (Gillece, 2009).

Educators’ Emancipatory Practices, Challenges, and Motivations

Trauma-informed programming may empower women. Empowerment is “a process of increasing personal, interpersonal, or political power so that individuals can take action to improve their life situations” (Gutiérrez, 1990, p. 149). Although we found no studies discussing educators’ experiences teaching women in a GRP, prison educators have examined teaching practices that foster empowerment, teaching challenges, and personal motivations. The prison system focuses on control, discipline, and obeying authority, and those who are incarcerated may receive poor treatment and find little meaning in their daily lives (McCarthy, 2006). In contrast, prison educators who use emancipatory, empowering teaching practices encourage students to think critically, question their peers and instructors, and express their emotions (Costelloe, 2014; McCarthy, 2006).

Instructors who foster empowerment in the classroom sometimes ground their methods in the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, which includes concepts of respect, validation, ownership, and choice (Freire, 2000). Power cannot be “given” to others; however, facilitators can create conditions where learners see themselves as human, recognize they are part of a community, critically reflect on their world, and empower themselves (Freire, 2007). Freirean empowerment concepts have been used to improve women’s literacy and subsequent income generation in Uganda (Akello, Lutwama-Rukundo, & Musiimenta, 2017). Advocates of these techniques in prison education argue for “democratic forums that encourage dialogue, equalize power relations, and provide conditions where prisoners learn about democracy by practicing democracy” (Costelloe, 2014, p. 33). This can lead to new meaning making and deeper change.

In addition to promoting critical thinking and empowerment, Freire discusses teaching with love and compassion and connecting material to students’ cultures (Freire, 2001). Educators of juvenile boys in a detention center showed compassion and understanding toward students, and mutual respect developed (Flores, 2012). Culturally appropriate instruction and materials aided in students’ comprehension (Flores, 2012).

Teaching practices that fostered empowerment in a correctional setting included using native Spanish-speaking students as teaching assistants in a Spanish class (Palomino & Ragsdale, 2015). The teaching assistant felt empowered and appreciated contributing to his communities, and there was increased communication between races (Palomino & Ragsdale, 2015). Other empowering practices included focusing on learners’ needs (Kilgore, 2011) and creating safe spaces for discussions (Cantrell, 2013).

While social transformation may be a goal, educators detailed the daily challenges that may impede this outcome. They reported feeling unwelcomed by prison staff who believed that those in prison or jail did not deserve to be educated, and that prison educators cared too much about the well-being of those who were incarcerated (Crawley, 2004). Instructors are subject to the correctional institution’s regulations and staff authority, which can make implementation of program goals challenging. Additional demands included ever-present surveillance and contradictory program goals of participants, prison staff, and educators (Castro & Brawn, 2017; Spaulding, 2011). Educators coped with building trust, teaching students with different abilities, and having a lack of resources including access to the Internet and limited access to books (Flores, 2012; Palomino & Ragsdale, 2015).

Despite the challenges, teachers remained motivated because students were invested in the courses, asked insightful questions, and connected course material to their experiences (McCarthy, 2006). Other reasons mentioned for teaching in correctional facilities included helping inmates, self-improvement such as improving one’s ability to think quickly, and experiencing the joys of teaching such as seeing students break through learning and attitude barriers (Lawton, 2012; Michals & Kessler, 2015). Teachers learned more about themselves and the systemic racism, sexism, and classism that contribute to inequities in the legal system. Some viewed prison education as activism (Cantrell, 2013).

Method

Using purposive sampling, semistructured interviews were conducted with seven educators who volunteered to teach courses in a GRP in a county jail in the southwestern United States. We refer to the program as “The GRP.” The GRP included psychoeducational classes, as well as yoga, dance, art, and other creativity classes aimed at personal development and healing. Depending on the schedule, the women could participate in one to three classes per day that were 75 to 90 minutes long. Interview questions included: What motivated you to become a volunteer? How do you define empowerment? What changes do you notice in the participants? This study was part of a larger study that investigated the lived experiences of incarcerated women who participated in The GRP.

Participants who taught classes in The GRP were recruited for this study. They ranged in age from 29 to 71 years. Six of seven described themselves as White or Caucasian and one educator indicated she was Black and White. They taught courses in the program, including life skills, creative writing, art, domestic violence, and incest recovery. Their involvement in The GRP ranged from 1 year to the inception of the program 6 years prior.

The study was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained, and participants were assured that their involvement would remain anonymous. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants. Individual interviews were conducted at a location of the participant’s choosing. Interviews lasted between 35 minutes and 3.5 hours with an average of 1.25 hours.

Data Analysis

After interviewing the participants, we read the transcribed interviews multiple times. Atlas.ti was used to create and apply codes using grounded theory guidelines (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The analysis focused on themes of empowerment and tensions of teaching for empowerment in a jail setting. Freire’s (2000) conceptualization of education for emancipation informed interview coding. This conceptualization included the importance of respect, validation, ownership, and choice in the teaching/learning experience. Other concepts we coded for included critical reflection on the world, culturally relevant teaching, teaching with love and compassion, examples of praxis (action and reflection), and the use of dialogue in the teaching/learning transaction (Freire, 2000, 2001, 2007).

Issues of Credibility and Consistency

We ensured credibility and consistency through triangulation of multiple data sources, including class observations, interviews, and detailed field notes. Adequate engagement in data collection also occurred. Along with collecting 9 hours of interviews to understand the “natural” setting of the jail and educators’ experiences while teaching, the second author conducted field observations as a volunteer for the program for 1 week. As a volunteer in 10 classes, her goal was not to situate herself as an objective outsider, but as an involved volunteer member engaged in the learning process (Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000). An audit trail was kept that included verbatim transcripts of the interviews, initial summaries of each interview, emerging categories and themes, and field notes throughout the research process (Merriam, 2009).

Findings

Educators fostered empowerment through relationship building, collaborative teaching, and affirming dignity and self-worth. Educators’ motivations for working with women in The GRP included (1) the need for change in the criminal justice system, (2) a desire to give back, and (3) self-interest. Last, there were tensions between the emancipatory practices of The GRP and the jail setting, including issues of trust and agency.

Fostering Empowerment

Educators built authentic relationships, provided learners opportunities to reflect on past behaviors and practice new skills, shared power, and affirmed strengths to foster empowerment.

Building authentic relationships

Mutual respect, trust, and genuine concern for one another provided the foundation for building authentic relationships that fostered empowerment. Compassion, authenticity, flexibility, and power sharing were important to achieving this goal. When Terri taught, she emphasized that “we are all learning together” and the importance of “being a presence to each other.” She explained that the inmates know better than anyone the experience of being incarcerated and the paths that led them there and because of this, they are able to give one another affirmation, hope, and reassurance that they are not alone. Terri discussed the paradox of the women being able to experience healing as a result of their relationships with one another, when most of the women in the program have been harmed by their relationships. She said, “The women-centered programming that we do is that we build on relationships.”

Sharing personal stories established trust. Nancy explained, “I think it is empowering for the women to hear each other’s stories, and so, to encourage that personal dialogue and to hear that understanding that they are not alone.” Diane discussed the importance of the personal narratives in The GRPs’ work. As an artist, Diane along with Nancy, who has a background in counseling, collaborated to use art to help the women access part of their personal narratives. For example, a facilitated discussion about self-care was followed by the making of a group self-care quilt in which each woman created a square that became part of the group quilt. Diane said that the creativity classes were a unique strength of the program and that they were a favorite among the participants. She said, “And it’s almost like they need that in order to swallow the bitter pill of some of the other aspects of programming that are really hard.”

Reflection and practice

Educators used teaching strategies that encouraged practice and reflection on skills and fostered empowerment. Angela used role play so the women could practice the skills they were learning and could make connections to course content. Angela told of a participant who began to take control over her life by getting a sponsor to help her work through her addiction. Angela explained that taking these steps while in jail empowered the women to prepare for their lives post-incarceration. Lindsey, who facilitated the domestic abuse and incest recovery classes, also used role play so the women could practice effective confrontation, communication, and coping strategies.

Nancy used guided meditation to help the women focus and release negative thoughts. Given the constant activity in jail, participants faced challenges finding quiet time for meditation and reflection. She told of one participant’s determination to meet her goal of meditating at least 5 minutes a day:

She said [the participant], “There is not five minutes in this pod that are quiet except for two in the morning and I am meditating at two in the morning.” So, she’s like, you know, I’ve found the time for five minutes. So, it’s interesting to watch her really commit to, you know, “I’m going to practice this.” And so, that’s a very clear example of how they are really practicing, tangibly practicing.

Intentional reflection and practice provide an opportunity to examine the past in a safe environment and see the possibilities for a different future. Terri noted that one participant who had been “so down in the dumps” approached Terri and thanked her for starting the program and bringing it to the jail because all the classes were finally “working together” for her. She explained to Terri that when discussing resources in one class, she realized her estranged family could be a resource. She said that she wrote a letter to her mother telling her what she was learning in the program and for the first time since she had been incarcerated, her children and her mother visited her. When the participant credited Terri for the initiative the learner took to reach out to her mother, Terri replied,

“It’s to do with you. It’s to do with what you’ve chosen to do here. And it’s phenomenal. It’s amazing. And you know, if you can do things like this, you can make it. You can.” I mean she was holding my hands and crying and just crying and laughing at the same time. It was just this personal moment of just being so thankful in her life that she had taken that step. And again, it’s nothing personal (laughing). It’s about what can happen when you give these women just the least bit of encouragement and empowerment.

Shared power

In this highly regulated context, power sharing occurs between the staff and volunteers, and inmates in the one place it can—through the process and content of the classes. Volunteers’ backgrounds vary across multiple dimensions, including age, income, education, ethnicity, and work experiences, and they see themselves and the inmates as equal partners in the learning process. Unlike the treatment center where Nancy once worked, she said there was no hierarchy in The GRP. She stated, “I’ve never seen a power struggle with people in The GRP; there’s just this kind of level playing field for the women to see and I think that is a huge strength.” Ellyn, who teaches some of the dance classes, also discussed the sharing of leadership and power. She explained, “I have to have a good volunteer team. And we all work so well together I think that helps model to the women that this group of women is working together in shared leadership.” She said that they ask the participants for feedback and invite them to take turns leading parts of the class. Participants take the lead in other classes as well by leading discussions and choosing topics or activities that are relevant to their experiences that week. While there is a plan for each class, staff and volunteers remain flexible to address the needs and incorporate the ideas of the participants.

Affirming strengths

Educators fostered empowerment by eliciting, affirming, and appreciating the strengths and self-worth of the women. Terri shared a story of driving around with a purple pinwheel that one of The GRP participants made in an art class. The participant was so proud of her creation because it was the first project she had ever completed and it was a reminder to Terri of the trauma many of the participants survived. Terri explained,

I used to drive around with that purple pinwheel in my car, all the time, because it reminded me what it’s [The GRP] about. But I mean nobody ever loved her. Nobody ever cared if she had a childhood. Nobody thought about why she was selling her body or takin’ drugs. And who of us in that situation wouldn’t do the same? I mean, you survive. In some ways she was a better survivor than any of us. I mean, given the challenges of what her life must have been and she couldn’t recognize any of that in herself, but it was there.

Discussing the systemic oppression that the women face in the “free world,” Terri highlighted the importance of constant reminders of self-worth because, “what the world’s telling them out there is contradicting every self-valuing piece of themselves.” Diane shared an example of a participant who sometimes came across as aggressive.

She’s been through terrible things. I know she has. . . . But Sarah is so bloody determined. . . . And she shows up for every class even though she really damn well doesn’t want to be there sometimes, right. . . . She came to an Alanon meeting earlier in the week and she had a really bad toothache. She was in a lot pain and she sat there. She didn’t share. She didn’t read. But she sat there and she listened. And that kind of determination, that, I mean that part of her personality is very pronounced in Sarah, because when she pursues anything, she pursues it fairly aggressively. And that comes out in determination.

Diane explained that by providing the women the opportunity to examine strengths helps them realize that “they have resources within themselves that are untapped.”

Volunteers’ Motivations for Working in The GRP

While staff and volunteers focused on empowering learners, they also had their own motivations for working in The GRP. These included recognizing the needs and faults of the criminal justice system, countering dehumanization, educators’ recognition of their privileges and commonalities with The GRP participants, and being motivated by self-interest.

Recognizing need and countering dehumanization

Once exposed to the experiences of incarcerated women, participants realized that they needed to do something different from “warehousing” and “throwing away” women who, for the most part, were incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. Diane said, “The prison industrial complex is a blight on this country. And I hear one of those patriotic songs with the line ‘home of the brave, land of the free,’ and I just think ‘I can’t sing those songs.’” Diane was also drawn to working with incarcerated women because of what she had learned about the criminal justice system. She remarked,

There’s some sort of really negative things about what we do within our criminal justice system. Of what the premises are about human nature and about how you treat other human beings and what value they might have. We throw away people. We warehouse people. We put them behind bars and we throw away the key and they’re invisible.

Nancy talked about the first time she went to the jail and how she felt an “extreme sense of gratitude” that she wasn’t in jail. Despite previously working as a counselor in other high-stress circumstances such as hospice and hospital psychiatry units, she said she never experienced such a sense of gratitude. She commented,

I mean these women are so dehumanized on every level and it was so apparent to me that their souls were just hidden away for sheer survival. . . . I had never seen those kind of throw away people that society just doesn’t care about. That was my first exposure.

Terri told a story of a judge who complained to her that he gave a woman who was “a prostitute” a chance by allowing her to “go home,” and he was frustrated because she was back in jail the next week. Terri said,

So I’m thinking to myself, so she had no money, cuz she’d been in jail. She had no place to live. She had no food. She had no relationships probably except for him [her pimp]. You put her back on the streets and you didn’t help her with anything to put her back on the streets. What do you think she’s going to do?

When Lindsey first started offering domestic violence and incest recovery classes in the jail, she immediately recognized the impact of trauma and dehumanization in the women’s lives. Lindsey said, “. . . one in three women are sexually abused before the age 18. When we sit in there in the jail it’s usually about 95 to 98%. Which is very . . . that’s astonishing to me.” She wants the women to understand that the abuse is not their fault and to help them recover and move forward.

Recognizing privilege and commonalities

Respondents not only began to understand that the criminal justice system was broken and dehumanizing, but they also recognized their privilege as well as commonalities between their lives and the lives of women in jail, that fueled a desire to give back. Terri explained the connection she felt with the women:

I may not have totally all the same issues, but I have enough in my background that I know what it is like to be told “you’re not acceptable,” or “you’re not what I would wish you to be” from my caretakers. I have been through what we would call abuse. I’ve been through a time when I actually could have been charged with and convicted with stealing something. . . . But we’re all searching for the self-confidence, that sense of self that will allow us to flourish and to share, and to feel like we’re of value.

Diane said that one of the first things she noticed when she started volunteering was that “these women were just like me and I think that sort of commonality that we shared was the first thing that really got me involved because that was not something I was prepared for.” Despite recognizing all that she had in common and the “sense of sisterhood” she believed that she had with them, she also recognized the advantages she had that kept her out of prison. Because of this, she felt a sense of responsibility to contribute.

Working with the women opened Ellyn’s eyes to incarcerated women’s experiences and needs. She said,

I was kind of blind to that and so I got interested. And of course, once you go one time you kind of get hooked on it. And you know, you realize that “Oh gosh you know, if I was in a different situation, if I didn’t have this family support, if I was coming from that same background I could be there.” And so it was an eye opening thing for me.

Self-interest

Staff and volunteers were motivated by self-interest and the benefits they received from working with The GRP, such as being able to apply their professional skills toward something important, making a difference in others’ lives, and receiving gratitude from The GRP participants. Angela stated,

On a weekly basis when I go in, it’s just them being happy that I was there. That’s honestly rewarding, I kid you not. I know that’s very selfish. Sometimes I work all day and you know, and I’m travelin’ to the jail in 5:30 traffic. I’m tired and I get there I’m like ok I’m ready and they’re excited that I’m there, and we work on something. We get into it and the light bulbs go off and they’re thankful that I’ve been there, and I’ve been a part of that. I’ve been a part of a little bit of transformation, you know. And interestingly enough, you know, they’re a part of mine.

As an artist, Diane recognized the importance of color in the jail when an inmate in another unit expressed her gratitude for the art classes. Diane said that color immediately changed the atmosphere and that the inmate told her that it made a huge difference in her life. Teaching the creativity classes allowed Diane to use every skill except for her ability to speak French. She loved to introduce the arts to women who typically do not have access. She viewed creative self-expression as a human right that was denied to many people because of the elitism that surrounds the art world. She explained,

I have an opportunity to introduce these women to things that maybe they haven’t been introduced to before. I have an opportunity to talk to other members of my community about the effect that has on them to try to get them more involved. So I think that there is a sort of . . . I’ve got sort of an idealistic motivation for doing this work as well. And I find it personally very satisfying.

Ellen also commented that she felt the women helped her so much more than anything she could do for them.

Tensions Between Emancipatory Practices and Setting

As staff and volunteers attempted to build trust, establish supportive relationships, and reinforce self-worth in participants, jail processes such as solitary confinement could counter these goals, and could retraumatize and dehumanize. Establishing trust was challenging on two fronts: (1) inmates were treated by jail staff as untrustworthy and (2) for women who were victimized outside of jail, trusting others often resulted in harmful consequences; thus, in jail trust was resisted for self-protection and sometimes out of fear. Emancipatory practices also involve personal choice and control. Incorporating these elements was particularly difficult in a context where daily activities and people are under constant surveillance.

Trust

In jails and prisons the word duck is used to refer to correctional staff who are easily fooled or manipulated. Anyone working in jail as an employee or volunteer is required to read “Downing a Duck” (Allen & Bosta, 1981). Nancy resented the term and said,

I am more than willing to be a duck for three or four of them to reach. You know, actually I am willing to be a duck for six or seven of them if I get to reach two or three of them because it’s two or three who have never had anybody to really trust them. They really understand that I trust them.

Jean also referenced the “the duck story” saying there needs to be another option other than what the duck story teaches, which is that all inmates are untrustworthy.

Fear

Terri and Diane talked about “giving voice” as an important aspect of empowerment. Terri wanted the women to know that they each have a voice worth listening to and that they could be advocates for themselves and others. Diane said that her teaching was about giving the women an opportunity to “speak their truth” and talk about things they avoided talking about out of fear. She found this challenging in the jail setting where she said, “There’s a hell of a lot of fear you know. You can almost smell it in there. You know, it’s . . . there’s an awful lot of fear.”

Choice and control

Attempts to reinforce practices of agency through the curriculum competed with the jail’s rigid rules where choice was nonexistent. To counter this, class facilitators incorporated choice in the activities. Ellyn, who led dance classes, believed that while full participation was expected, women should have a choice of how and to what degree they participated. She said that participants frequently commented, “I felt for these two hours like I was free.” Staff also built flexibility into the program. An example of this was checking in with women who had exceeded the allowable absences in classes rather than automatically kicking them out. Nancy remarked that the women were surprised by this practice. She continued, “It was so apparent to me that their world was so black and white, good and bad, that they hadn’t really had anyone say, ‘We can adjust what we are doing. Is there something we can do differently? We are really invested in YOU.’”

Parts of the curriculum help women identify what they have control over. Angela said that interactions between jail officers or other inmates often trigger memories of previous trauma and abuse and that their prior coping behaviors get them in trouble with officers. Although it is difficult to feel any sense of control in jail, Angela reinforced the idea of personal control in her classes explaining to learners that while they may not have power over everything in their lives, they do have control over their reactions to situations. She talked about the daily stressors women faced in the jail and helped them identify what they had control over in hopes that they would transfer the learning outside of jail.

Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications

We uncovered the experiences of educators who work in a GRP. We wanted to know how they fostered empowerment, their motivations for working in a jail, and what tensions they experienced using adult education emancipatory practices. An integral component to fostering empowerment involved being an authentic, caring instructor and creating space for women’s stories to emerge. They countered the inhumane context by building relationships and showing genuine concern. Initially, instructors’ motivations arose from their desire to help others or apply skills, but educators became prison/jail reform activists when they recognized their privileged existence and the dehumanizing jail conditions. Tensions they experienced using emancipatory teaching practices in a jail included establishing trust, recognizing how fear permeated the jail environment, and giving women choice and control in a regimented environment.

Findings confirm that the educators used many Freirean principles and ideas to empower learners and teachers. First, Freire (2001) says, “There is no teaching without learning” (p. 31). Although educators believed that they had something to share with participants, they also learned in the process of teaching. They recognized their commonalities with students, how their race or economic situation privileged them, and how dehumanizing the correctional system can be.

Second, Freire discusses the need for dialogue. Participants stated that sharing stories promoted dialogue among the women and empowered class members because they were able to “name their world” (Freire, 2007, p. 88). Dialogue is at the heart of teaching and learning. Freire states, “Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of profound love for the world and for its people” (Freire, 2000, p. 70). Authentic relationships, centered on mutual respect and love are the foundation of good teaching and learning (Freire, 2000). Educators cared about their students and building positive relationships was at the heart of their work.

Educators’ motivations to work in The GRP included wanting to counter the dehumanization of the correctional system. Like Cantrell’s (2013) educators, the educators in this study became activists for prison reform. Unlike Cantrell’s educators, they explicitly discussed the dehumanization of jail and their need to work against it. In a world where there are only the oppressed and the oppressors, Freire (2000) may question the motives of our educators and warn them against showing “false generosity” (p. 26). However, the situation is more complex. Allies are needed to fight against dehumanization and our educators seemed internally motivated by this larger goal. Instructors recognized their commonalities and privilege and knew they could use that privilege to fight dehumanization in the prison system.

An equal motivation is that teachers like to teach what they know. Our participants wanted to share their talents and see individuals get excited about what THEY were passionate about and they liked to see individuals’ progress, which confirms previous findings (Spaulding, 2011). This study showed the small but significant ways in which educators engaged in emancipatory practices in a setting that focused on discipline and treated women as untrustworthy. To counter this environment, educators gave women choices in activities whenever possible, showed flexibility in learner attendance and participation, and created an atmosphere where women realized that educators were invested in them. Like the teachers in Flores’s (2012) study, educators volunteered their time and taught with the compassion and care espoused by Freire (2007). Educators in the Flores (2012) study showed their care by sharing their own pasts and creating drama programs and workshops without being paid. This counterhegemony of care in the teaching/learning interaction focused on mutual respect and being authentic and benefited everyone.

Third, critical reflection and practice were important in the empowerment process. Educators used techniques such as role play for GRP class members to practice skills they learned in class and they also provided activities that encouraged reflection, which exemplifies Freire’s (2000) idea of “praxis” (p. 60). In an empowering environment, power resides within all and is shared (Freire, 2000). In this study, we see that to the extent possible in a jail context, there is shared power between The GRP staff, volunteers, and those who are incarcerated.

The findings show that the tensions of fostering empowerment through the use of emancipatory pedagogy come down to building trust in an environment that eschews it. Freire says that “Trust is established by dialogue. . . . Trust is contingent on the evidence which one party provides the others of his [sic] true, concrete intentions; it cannot exist if that party’s words do not coincide with their actions” (Freire, 2000, p. 72). Trust is difficult to create in a jail or prison environment. Lockdowns and body searches demonstrate that the guards do not trust those who are incarcerated. Additionally, the women struggle to trust others because of their past experiences. The social system of a prison is not built on trust. Despite this, educators established trust through the dialogue-rich and trauma-informed programming.

Implications and Future Research

One implication for adult educators in a correctional setting is that the first step to empowering learners is to care about them. Countering the dehumanizing conditions by showing care through being authentic, listening deeply to class members, supporting their critical thinking skills, and treating class members with respect is imperative. The teaching/learning transaction is reciprocal and the best teaching and learning occurs in an environment where dialogue can occur and individuals can flourish.

Second, teachers in correctional settings may be changed by the experience. They may come to better understand the daily inhumanities experienced by those who are incarcerated and begin to see the inherent systemic racism, sexism, and classism in the correctional system. They may not only support their students but may become advocates for prison reform. The results from this study confirm previous research (Cantrell, 2013).

Third, educators should consider how the physical environment affects learning. The GRP classes were held in a classroom that pulsed with creativity. Class members could escape the dull, institutional beige walls around them and join a different world, if only for a few hours. The women’s artwork, found throughout the classroom, included a range of projects such as self-portraits, poetry, origami boxes, and group quilts. The physical environment can affect cognitive load, which is the amount of effort or burden that a task “imposes on the cognitive system of the learner” (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994, p. 353). A person’s physical learning environment is considered part of his or her external cognitive load (Choi, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2014). Emotions can also add to cognitive load, so students who are in an environment that creates anxiety do less well on tasks (Beilock, 2010, as cited in Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994, p. 353).

There are practical implications for those leading orientations for new teachers in correctional systems. Teachers must understand how to work with the requirements of the correctional facility while empowering learners. They must also recognize that they may be changed by the experience of teaching in prison and the emotional labor involved in that process as evidenced by staff and volunteers’ reactions to the dehumanization they experienced in the jail. It is important when working in an emotional environment, such as a correctional institution, to have support from others at work or at home to work through and recover from the emotional labor of their job (Hochschild, 1983).

While this study addresses the experiences of women educators teaching in a GRP, future research is needed. Although scholars have investigated the transformative learning experienced by those who are incarcerated (Sandoval, Baumgartner, & Clark, 2016) and teaching for transformation (Costelloe, 2014), an area that needs further investigation is the learning that occurs for educators who work in prisons or jails. What kinds of changes occur? We get a sense that educators arrive at a “broader understanding of human nature” (Spaulding, 2011, p. 78) because of their teaching but what other realizations do they have? How do they learn to teach in this setting? What advice would they give to those wanting to teach in correctional settings?

Future research could also address some of this study’s limitations. A more diverse sample may yield different results. This diversity includes race, gender, class, number of years teaching in a correctional setting, and years of formal education, to name a few. This program is also located in the southwestern United States in a particular institution. Educators’ experiences may differ at different locations. The type of program, in this case, a gender-responsive educational program, may mean educators’ experiences vary from those teaching other subjects. Finally, an in-depth study of educators’ changes in political activism as a result of working in a correctional facility is necessary.

Seeing educators’ experiences through a different theoretical or conceptual lens other than Freire’s (2000) perspective on emancipatory pedagogy may be helpful. Freire’s pedagogy is oriented toward class differences and his writings do not acknowledge the interlocking oppressions of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and other positionalities that make each person’s journey unique (Weiler, 1991). Freire seems to suggest that those who are oppressed will see their oppression similarly and they will act in the same way to transform this oppression, which may not be the case (Weiler, 1991). Freire says that the teacher and the student should have a dialogue, but he does not discuss the “forms of power based on the teacher’s subject position as raced, classed, gendered and so on” (p. 454) and he assumes that the teacher and the student are on the same side (Weiler, 1991). A closer inquiry into educators’ power in the student–teacher relationship, the impact of educators’ positionalities on classroom interactions and the institutional power afforded teachers would add depth to the literature on educators’ experiences in GRPs.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Parts of this article were presented at the 2016 Adult Education Research Conference in Norman, OK.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lisa M. Baumgartner, EdD is an associate professor of adult education at Texas A&M University. Her research concerns adult learning and development in marginalized populations.

Carolyn L. Sandoval, PhD is the associate director of the Center for Teaching Excellence and a visiting lecturer in the College of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include transformative teaching and learning, social justice education, life history research, and the impact of mass incarceration on women.

References

Akello

J. A.

Lutwama-Rukundo

Musiimenta

(2017). Functional adult literacy: An alternative gateway to grassroots women’s improved income generation in Lango Subregion, Northern Uganda. Adult Education Quarterly, 67, 79-96.

Allen

Bosta

(1981). Games criminals play: How you can profit by knowing them. Susanville, CA: Rae John.

Angrosino

Mays de Perez

(2000). Recontextualizing observation: Ethnography, pedagogy and the prospects for a progressive political agenda. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 729-745). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2005). Gender-responsive strategies for women offenders: A summary of research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Cantrell

(2013). Correctional education as democratic citizenship education. Journal of Correctional Education, 64, 2-12.

Castro

E. L.

Brawn

(2017). Critiquing critical pedagogies inside the prison classroom: A dialogue between student and teacher. Harvard Educational Review, 87, 99-121.

Choi

H. H.

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

Paas

(2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 225-244. doi:10.1007/s10648-914-9262-6

Costelloe

(2014). Learning for liberation, teaching for transformation: Can education in prison prepare prisoners for active citizenship. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 14, 30-36. Retrieved from http://arrow.dit.ie/ijass/vol14/iss1/4

Crawley

(2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Portland, OR: Willian.

10.

Day

Zahn

Tichavsky

(2015). What works for whom? The effects of gender responsive programming on girls and boys in secure detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 93-129. doi:10.1177/0022427814538033

11.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015). Crime in the United States, 2014: Ten year arrest trends by sex, 2005-2014. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-33

12.

Fedock

Fries

Kubiak

S. P.

(2013). Service needs for incarcerated adults: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 493-508. doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.759171

13.

Flores

(2012). Jail pedagogy: Liberatory education inside a California juvenile detention facility. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17, 286-300.

14.

Freire

(2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New Revised 20th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.

15.

Freire

(2001). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

16.

Freire

(2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.

17.

Gillece

J. B.

(2009). Understanding the effects of trauma on lives of offenders. Corrections Today, 71(1), 48-51. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/docview/215708337?accountid=7082

18.

Glaze

L. E.

Kaeble

(2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf

19.

Gutiérrez

L. M.

(1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149-153.

20.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feelings. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

21.

Kilgore

(2011). Behind the walls: The perils and pluses of critical pedagogy in prison education. Radical Teacher, 90(1), 57-66.

22.

Lawton

(2012). Preparing teachers for prison schools: A case study of the challenges, attitudes and motivations of correctional educators. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (922679893). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/docview/922679893?accountid=7082. (Order No. 3495154)

23.

McCarthy

H. J.

(2006). Educating felons: Reflections on higher education in prison. Radical History Review, 96, 87-94. doi:10.1215/01636545-2006-005

24.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Michals

Kessler

(2015). Prison teachers and their students: A circle of satisfaction and gain. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(3), 47-62.

26.

Paas

F. G. W. C.

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

(1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351-371.

27.

Palomino

E. N.

Ragsdale

(2015). The challenges and rewards of teaching Spanish in a community college prison program. In Scott

(Ed.), New directions for community colleges: Vol. 2015, Number 170. Bringing college education into prisons (pp. 41-49). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

28.

Sandoval

C. L.

Baumgartner

L. M.

Clark

M. C.

(2016). Paving paths toward transformation with incarcerated women. Journal of Transformative Education, 14, 34-52. doi:10.1177/1541344615602758

29.

Sentencing Project. (2016). Incarcerated women and girls. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf

30.

Sentencing Project. (2017). Trends in U.S. corrections. Retrieved from http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf

31.

Spaulding

(2011). Borderland stories about teaching college in prison. In Cox

E. M.

Watson

J. S.

(Eds.), New directions for community colleges: Vol. 2011, No. 155. Marginalized students (pp. 73-83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

33.

Weiler

(1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 449-475.