In a recent story published by NBC Connecticut’s Jo Ling Kent, Kent compiles several interviews with various opinions regarding Connecticut’s $17 million per year spending on prison education. In the article, Kent’s interviewees vary in support for which type of programs should be funded— although all of them agree that some sort of change is needed in the prison’s educational system. In particular, Kent interviews Andrew Ferraro, a formerly incarcerated man of over 18 years, who claims the education he received in prison was not necessarily helpful.

The 18 state prisons of Connecticut currently in USD#1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia user SGT141 VIA creative commons license)
Ferraro, along with Kent, both seem to imply that the vocational training programs Ferraro received while incarcerated were not important to his rehabilitation. As an example given from the article, Ferraro completed programs in basic baking skills, culinary skills, facility design, and menu planning. On the surface it’s understandable that completing a “basic baking skills” program is not going single-handedly lower Connecticut’s recidivism rate, but I feel this article is approaching these educational issues in the wrong manner.
The problem I have with this article is with its limited viewpoint, and blatant lack for investigating the state’s educational system as a whole. What Kent has done in her piece is take multiple similar viewpoints, bundle them into one article, and claim it to be an “investigation”. Furthermore there is literally no attempt by Kent, or any of her interviewees, to suggest solutions for what they all feel is a prison educational system in need of change. By failing to find anyone with a different opinion, or critical message to convey, the piece lacks in reporting what could be a more full story.
Continue reading →