EVT0010655_-_Attachment_A.pdf

TERRAIN

LEVELING

Design Strategies for Improving Higher Education in Prisons

CONTENTS

01 OPERATIONS & RESOURCES

04 POLICY FRAMEWORK

05 CONCLUSION

CONTRIBUTORS

Ennead Architects, including Amy Mielke, Elizabeth Austin, Molly McGowan, Sam Johnson

Ithaka S+R, including Catharine Bond Hill, Ess Pokornowski, Laura Brown, Sindy Lopez, Tammy Ortiz, Tommaso Bardelli

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is made possible with funding from Ascendium Education Group, whom we thank for their support. Most importantly, a big thank you to the higher education in prison instructors, administrators, and students who spoke with us—your voices and experience make this work possible. We hope the report will be as useful to them as to the wider higher education in prison community. Thank you additionally to our advisory panel—including Regina Chen, Mychal Pagan, Ved Price, Rachel Sander, Michelle Tolbert, and Dr. Kebbler Williams—whose insights during the development of the report were invaluable.

Thank you as well to our colleagues at Ithaka S+R and Ennead Architects, who have contributed their time and effort along the way, including Kurtis Tanaka, Shalini Abeyaratne, and Corliss Ng.

Ennead Lab is the research, development, and advocacy initiative of Ennead Architects. Our mission is to advance critical narratives, ideas, and processes in support of a just and lasting world. We develop theories, tools, and objects that contribute to a larger discourse around architectural and urban spaces and inform our own practice. We support multidisciplinary collaborations working to solve relevant and transcending issues.

Ithaka S+R provides research and strategic guidance to help the academic and cultural communities serve the public good and navigate economic, demographic, and technological change.

Ithaka S+R is part of ITHAKA, a nonprofit with a mission to improve access to knowledge and education for people around the world. We believe education is key to the wellbeing of individuals and society, and we work to make it more effective and affordable.

Copyright 2025 ITHAKA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Published March 2025

INTRODUCTION

On September 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, commonly known as the 1994 crime bill.

The most far-reaching piece of criminal justice legislation Congress ever passed, the bill incentivized states to pass harsher sentencing laws and build more prisons.¹ Among a slate of punitive and “tough on crime” measures, the bill also eliminated access to federal Pell Grant funding for incarcerated students.

The effect on higher education in prison was swift. In the early 1990s, there were an estimated 772 college programs operating in 1,287 correctional facilities, but by 1997 only eight such programs remained.²

Despite overwhelming evidence about the benefits of attending college in prison for incarcerated people, their communities, and society as a whole, it took Congress almost 30 years to fully reverse the policy.³ After extending federal financial aid to approximately 40,000 incarcerated students under the Second Chance Pell Experiment starting in 2015, on July 1st, 2023, Pell Grant funding was reinstated for all incarcerated people. According to Department of Education estimates, 800,000 people could now be eligible to receive federal financial aid and tuition assistance to attend college in prison,⁴ and the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison estimates that there are currently 406 programs offering college courses to people behind bars across the US and its territories.⁵

The reinstatement of Pell Grant funding has also initiated a sector-wide reexamination of how higher education in prison is provided and how its impact and success are measured. Revised regulations, moreover, note that “oversight entities are required to consider whether a prison education programs’ academic services are comparable to similar services that the institution offers to its on-campus students.”⁶ While it is an important development that regulations require services for students inside be comparable to those for students outside, it is left up to oversight entities (primarily departments of correction) to decide what exactly comparable might mean.

A growing body of research documents the barriers faced by incarcerated students—such as limited access to technology and conflicts with correctional staff—but far less attention has been paid to the role of the built environment in shaping educational experiences. This project, led in partnership by Ennead Lab and Ithaka S+R, examines how spatial, architecture, and design features impact learning inside prisons.

It draws on qualitative interviews with formerly incarcerated students and prison education program staff and site visits to five correctional facilities, to advance both research findings and a portfolio of design interventions aimed at improving these educational environments.

When it comes to the built environment, some of the challenges incarcerated students experience are not different in nature from the ones faced by their peers in the most dilapidated corners of the American public education system.⁷ Prison education program students and instructors told us about malfunctioning HVAC units, rusty water leaking from a ceiling, and poor ventilation inside their classrooms. Aging infrastructure and outdated equipment aside, however, carceral settings have little in common with even the most underfunded and neglected higher education facilities on the outside.⁸ The design and aesthetics of the prison, criminologist Yvonne Jewkes notes, are deeply infused by an “architecture of harm.”⁹ “Hard architecture”—from thick bars and bare concrete walls to hard-surface floors and metal furniture—Jewkes explains, is meant to enhance security but also to dehumanize the incarcerated, destroying their self-esteem and influencing the ways in which staff think of, and behave towards, people in their custody.

This built environment poses unique challenges to both students and instructors. First, these spaces feature a laundry list of design and environmental elements that are proven to negatively impact learning, including overcrowded classrooms, persistent and loud noise, poor lighting and temperature control, and issues with air quality and circulation. Put simply: the environmental conditions prevalent in correctional settings often do not align with, and at times directly contradict, learning and educational best practices.¹⁰ As importantly, the punitive and dehumanizing nature of the carceral built environment clashes with the primary purpose of higher education: not only providing knowledge and building skills, but nurturing independent and critical thinkers, able to question established assumptions and dogmas.¹¹

Building on our research on the challenges faced by students and instructors in correctional spaces, this report advances a series of actionable strategies to integrate educational best practices in the redesign of these spaces. Ultimately, we propose that architects and designers working in correctional education should not just foster better learning experiences for incarcerated students, but shift the balance from punishment toward rehabilitation in carceral settings.

1. Udi Ofer, “How the 1994 Crime Bill Fed the Mass Incarceration Crisis,” ACLU: News & Commentary, June 4, 2019, https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/how-1994-crime-bill-fed-mass-incarceration-crisis.

2. Nathaniel J. Pallone, “Abolition of Pell Grants for Higher Education of Prisoners: Examining Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 39: no. 2 (2004).

3. Alexandra Gibbons and Rashawn Ray, “The Societal Benefits of Postsecondary Prison Education,” The Brookings Institute, August 20, 2021.

4. Department of Education, “U.S.

Department of Education to Launch Application Process to Expand Federal Pell Grant Access for Individuals Who Are Confined or Incarcerated,” Press Release, June 30, 2023, https://www.

ed.gov/about/news/press-release/ us-department-of-education-to-launch-application-process-to-expand-federal-pell-grant-access-for-individuals-who-are-confined-or-incarcerated.

5. The Alliance defines higher education in prison programs as programs that provide postsecondary education, are formally affiliated with a college or university, and require students to have obtained a high school diploma or equivalent to be eligible for admission.

See: https://www.nationaldirectoryhep.

org/national-directory/stats-view.

6. “Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs; Determining the Amount of Federal Education Assistance Funds Received by Institutions of Higher Education (90/10); Change in Ownership and Change in Control,” 34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 690, Federal Register 87,

no. 208 (October 28, 2022): 65435.

7. Victoria Jackson and Nicholas Johnson, “America’s School Infrastructure Needs a Major Investment of Federal Funds to Advance an Equitable Recovery,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 17, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/ research/state-budget-and-tax/americas-school-infrastructure-needs-a-major-investment-of-federal.

8. That is not to say carceral logics play no role in the design of our educational infrastructure, especially K-12 grades.

See: J. Schept, T. Wall, and A. Brisman, “Building, Staffing, and Insulating:

An Architecture of Criminological Complicity in the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” Social Justice 41, no. 4 (2014):

138.

9. Yvonne Jewkes, “Just Design: Healthy Prisons and the Architecture of Hope,” Journal of Criminology 51, no. 3 (2018).

10. A large literature has documented the impact of spatial and environmental factors on both K-12 and postsecondary education outside of prison. See: Mary C. Hill and Kathryn K. Epps, “The Impact of Physical Classroom Environment on Student Satisfaction and Student Evaluation of Teaching in the University Environment,” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 14, no. 4 (2010): 65;

Nurul Jannah Amirul, C. N. Ahmad, A. F.

Yahya, M. F. N. L. Abdullah, N. M. Noh, and M. Adnan, “The Physical Classroom Learning Environment,” Proceedings of the International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Conference 2, no.

1 (2013): 1-9.

11. Basile Baudez and Victoria Bergbauer, Carceral Architecture: From Within and Beyond the Prison Walls (Berlin: JOVIS, 2025).

METHODS

Our portfolio draws on qualitative research that Ennead Lab and Ithaka S+R conducted between February 2023 and late Fall, 2024. We wanted to ensure that our analysis, and the recommendations we put forward, were grounded in the experiences, needs, and aspirations of the people closest to the issue, namely incarcerated students and prison education program instructors. Who better understands the impact of carceral spaces and architecture on teaching and learning, and how these spaces could be reimagined to support, rather than impede, students’ educational journeys?

In early 2023, we started by conducting 25 semi-structured interviews across three groups: formerly incarcerated people who attended college-in-prison classes, prison education programs’ faculty and staff members, and corrections officials. All interviews were conducted remotely, lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, and were audio recorded. Formerly incarcerated students were paid $50 as a compensation for their time and as a token of appreciation for sharing their experiences and insights with us.

Qualitative interviews allowed us to delve into the lived experiences of those teaching and attending college inside carceral facilities; we heard about their everyday struggles trying to learn a new subject in noisy and dimly lit classrooms, often without access to even the most basic technological equipment. Beyond practical obstacles, we learned about what it feels like to be a student and an instructor in spaces that have been designed to punish and dehumanize, rather than to foster collaboration and critical thinking.

By bringing us closer to the experiences of students and their instructors, these interviews profoundly shaped our approach. Many of the design interventions presented in the following sections are directly informed by insights from our research participants, or seek to address the challenges they identified.

This initial phase of research also broadened the scope of our intervention. While our focus began with enhancing the experience of prison classrooms, we soon recognized that learning for incarcerated students extends far beyond these spaces, taking place in a range of formal and informal secondary learning environments within the prison—from libraries and chapels to individual cells or any space where a desk is available. Many participants shared how these secondary spaces, or their absence, had shaped their college journey. As a result, this portfolio also includes proposals for creating additional, more effective secondary learning spaces within the existing carceral infrastructure.

In addition to semi-structured interviews, two members of the project team visited educational spaces at five different facilities in Maine, Kansas, and North Carolina. At each site, they conducted focus groups with incarcerated students and had the opportunity to observe the educational infrastructure, including classrooms, libraries and study spaces, and, when available, living quarters designated for students.

All interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts, along with ethnographic notes from site visit observations, were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis, with categories and themes derived iteratively from the data. After completing the coding process, we presented our findings to an advisory board composed of field experts, including educational correction leaders, higher education in prison program directors, and system-impacted students.

(Clockwise from Top Left) © Jeff Goldberg / Esto © Jeff Goldberg / Esto © Aislinn Weidele / Ennead Architects © Aislinn Weidele / Ennead Architects © Richard Barnes © Jeff Goldberg / Esto © Joonhwan Yoon

DEFINING THE

HIGHER EDUCATION

ENVIRONMENT

Higher education is more than just coursework—it is an immersive, holistic learning experience that extends beyond the classroom. College students need uninterrupted knowledge exchange, where they not only receive instruction from expert faculty but also have the time and space to absorb complex material, think critically, and develop their own ideas.

Incarcerated students, who earn degrees from the same institutions as their peers on campus, deserve an education that meets the same academic standards and provides a comparable level of intellectual engagement. While higher education in prison programs may not be able to replicate every aspect of the traditional college experience, they must uphold the core qualities of a rigorous and enriching higher education environment.

Unimpeded Access To Education On a college campus, students have continuous access to their education—classes during the day, regular office hours with faculty, study sessions with peers, and 24-hour libraries filled with academic resources. Learning does not happen in isolated moments; it is a process that requires ongoing engagement.

Distraction-Free Learning Spaces A productive learning environment requires spaces where students can focus, participate, and engage without unnecessary disruptions. On a college campus, classrooms are designed to support lectures, structured discussions, and various forms of group work, allowing students to concentrate and process complex material.

A Variety Of Learning Environments College learning happens in many different types of spaces. Students attend lectures in large halls, participate in small-group discussions in seminar rooms, conduct research in libraries, and collaborate in study lounges or tutoring centers. They may take electives in ceramics studios or engage in hands-on experiments in science labs, depending on their field of study. These varied environments support different modes of learning, from independent study to interactive, experiential education.

(Next Page)

1. Jackie Ross and R. Gangi, “Education from the Inside, Out: The Multiple Benefits of College Programs in Prison,” Correctional Association of New York, New York, NY (2009): 42, https://perma.

cc/678G-979E; Laura Winterfield, Mark Coggeshall, Michelle Burke-Storer, Vanessa Correa, and Simon Tidd, “The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education: Final Report,” Urban Institute (NJ1) (2009), https://perma.cc/H4ZJ- 7KTG; Kyleigh Clark and Jason Rydberg, “The Effect of Institutional Educational Programming on Prisoner Misconduct,” Criminal Justice Studies 29, no. 4 (2016):

325-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/147860 1X.2016.1229770; Ntombizanele Gloria Vandala, “The Transformative Effect of Correctional Education: A Global Perspective,” Cogent Social Sciences 5,

no. 1 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/233118 86.2019.1677122.

2. Lois M. Davis, Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams, Susan Turner, Jeremy Miles, Jessica Saunders, and Paul S. Steinberg, How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation Santa Monica, CA.:Rand Corporation, 2014), https:// perma.cc/Q4RQ-DMZW.

A SHARED OBJECTIVE

For prison education programs to be successful, they must be supported by all stakeholders: the incarcerated individuals participating in the program (students), higher education institutions (HEIs), and departments of corrections (DOCs). Each plays a crucial role in ensuring these programs are functional, effective, and sustainable. Although many of the issues addressed in this report affect all three stakeholders, the responsibility for remediation falls primarily on HEIs and DOCs, given the power dynamics within the carceral system

BENEFITS FOR EACH PARTY RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PARTY

Students gain access to an education, a productive way to focus their time while incarcerated, and the sense of purpose that comes with intellectual engagement and academic achievement.

Students must support each other, advocate for their needs constructively, and uphold positive behavior as part of their partnership with both HEIs and DOCs. They are also responsible for engaging in their coursework, attending classes, completing assignments, and upholding the academic integrity expected in any higher education setting.

HEIs expand their student base, increase diversity within their programs, and benefit from highly engaged students. Faculty members interviewed for this report consistently noted how rewarding it was to teach incarcerated students, describing them as motivated and eager to participate.

HEIs must provide high-quality instruction, ensure students have access to essential academic resources (such as research materials, advisors, faculty, and tutors), adapt curriculum delivery and necessary modifications and accommodations to the prison setting, and advocate for the sustainability of these programs.

DOCs benefit from improved facility conditions and improved reentry and employment opportunities for residents under their supervision. Research indicates that incarcerated students tend to have fewer disciplinary infractions, reducing the burden on correctional staff.¹

DOCs must implement facility policies, staffing structures, and security procedures that allow education programs to function effectively. This includes accommodating academic schedules, permitting necessary access to resources, supporting educational access and success, and allowing students a level of autonomy that supports their educational progress.

Society at large benefits from reduced recidivism rates, improved post-release outcomes, and lower incarceration costs.²

Society at large must recognize prison education as a public good and advocate for its support and funding.

This diagram shows the relationship of parties and responsibilities that together create a successful higher education in prison program. Blue areas show which inter-party relationships yield the biggest impacts for those elements.

Learning Environments

Instruction

Scheduling & Program Structure

Staffing & Operations S e c urity

D O

Cs

STUDENTS HEIs

KEY TAKEAWAYS

COLLEGE IS MORE THAN

JUST A CLASSROOM

Providing classrooms is only the first step—facilities must also support study spaces, resource access, and social environments that allow a college education to thrive.

RESPONSIBILITY

LEADS TO CARE

When students are trusted to steward their educational spaces and resources, they take greater pride in maintaining and improving them.

LEARNING IS A

COURAGEOUS ACT

Education in prison fosters growth, but only when students feel respected. Dismissive or hostile attitudes from staff can undermine their progress, while a supportive environment fosters confidence, camaraderie, and academic success.

THE RIGHT SPACE CREATES

THE RIGHT MINDSET

Students are more likely to engage fully in their education when learning environments feel like true college spaces, distinct from the rest of the prison.

EDUCATION IS A LIFELINE

HEP programs offer students the tools for a better future after release, but they also provide purpose, structure, and connection while incarcerated. Expanding degree options and engaging alumni strengthens this impact.

COLLABORATION

DRIVES PROGRESS

Across the country, HEIs and DOCs are solving similar challenges in isolation. Sharing ideas, strategies, and successes between programs will inspire greater improvements system-wide.

OPERATIONS

& RESOURCES

“A lot of times there would be security issues. For example, they couldn’t find somebody in their dorm, and everybody in the library building would have to go back, and then they would just cancel class after that. The classes were canceled quite frequently because of that. Maybe once or twice a week.”

B.W., formerly incarcerated student

Spatial design alone cannot fully resolve the material challenges of running higher education programs in prisons. Even the most thoughtfully designed spaces will fall short if operational and scheduling logistics are not properly considered, or educational materials are not made available. Without commitment from both prison administrators and educational institutions, physical improvements can only go so far.

The solutions outlined in this chapter aim to lessen staffing burdens and account for related logistical constraints, but operational planning must work in tandem with spatial design. This chapter highlights key operational considerations and strategies that can support the long-term success of prison education programs.

Prioritizing Higher Education In prison education, college programs are often treated as lower priority compared to vocational training and GED programs. This is largely because departments of corrections (DOCs) are legally mandated to provide vocational training and high school equivalency education, while postsecondary education is not required by law and is typically offered in partnership with a higher education in prison (HEP) program rather than as a DOC-led initiative. While vocational training and GED programs serve important roles, higher education should be recognized as an equally valuable pursuit. When postsecondary education is viewed as optional, it becomes more difficult to secure classroom space, instructional resources, and staffing support. For HEP programs to succeed, facility administrators must treat them as a core part of programming, rehabilitation, and reentry readiness, rather than as a supplementary offering. This means establishing policies that allow for students to have consistent access to their courses and dedicated study time.

Scheduling Educational programs should be structured so that students don’t have to choose between pursuing college coursework and participating in work assignments, vocational training, or other required activities.

These conflicts can arise from direct schedule overlaps or from movement restrictions that make it impossible for students to transition between different areas during limited movement periods. Thoughtful scheduling—such as ensuring that academic programs are available at different times and do not conflict with meal times or mandatory programming, or aligning class periods with movement schedules—can help prevent these barriers.

The typical college student’s day is loosely structured. Students create their schedule based on the class times set by the university throughout the day.

Meals, free time, and study time can be proportioned and arranged as the student pleases.

In contrast, the incarcerated student’s day is rigidly organized, often allowing few—if any—windows for learning and study if not contained within one of the preallocated periods.�

Reducing Unnecessary Movement Managing movement within a prison is one of the most resource-intensive aspects of daily operations. Any opportunity to reduce unnecessary student transfers between spaces eases the burden on staff and increases the likelihood that students will be able to attend class regularly. In some cases, class sessions are canceled simply because there aren’t enough officers available to escort students. Adjusting operational protocols can make a significant difference. For example, instead of requiring students to return to their housing units between classes or study periods, count procedures could take place in classrooms or study halls. This simple change would reduce movement-related disruptions, making education more accessible and less dependent on staffing levels.

An effective relationship of spaces will also have a positive impact on the operational burden of movement. Concepts such as conversion of spaces within housing wings or consolidating academic activities are addressed in CHAPTER 02: EDUCATIONAL SPACES and CHAPTER

03: SHIFTING THE BALANCE.

Consistent Access to Resources Students and instructors report inconsistencies in what materials can be brought into the classroom. For example, a professor may be allowed to bring in whiteboard markers one day, only to have them confiscated the next—despite no formal rule change. If basic instructional supplies aren’t reliably available inside the facility, this unpredictability directly impacts student learning. To address this, prisons should establish clear, consistent policies on allowable materials and maintain on-site storage for essential classroom supplies so educators don’t have to depend on bringing materials in from outside. Other amendments to policies, such as allowing students to keep study materials within their housing units, can help improve educational outcomes.

Engaging Students in Operations Students can play an active role in maintaining and organizing their learning environments, which not only reduces the burden on staff but also fosters a sense of investment in their education. Students should be provided with greater access to the spaces in exchange for more administrative responsibilities, such as setting up classrooms or organizing materials. HEIs and DOCs should also coordinate to allow paid job opportunities within the facility for current students or graduated alumni, including positions such as tutors, teacher’s assistants, and even co-teachers for entry level classes. Fair compensation should be provided for students serving in such roles and they may need greater access to classrooms and other educational spaces. This approach creates a more self-sustaining learning program, reinforces students’ sense of agency and accountability, and provides valuable employment experience.

Building Trust In Students Strict policies that limit access to materials, movement, and study spaces can make it difficult for students to engage fully in their education.

Trust is an essential component of a successful program. Allowing students greater access to books, study spaces, and materials outside of scheduled class hours—while maintaining appropriate security measures—demonstrates confidence in their commitment to learning and supports education beyond the classroom setting.

Additionally, disciplinary measures within prisons, even those considered routine, can severely disrupt a student’s progress. Situations beyond a student’s control can result in measures such as lockdowns, temporary loss of privileges, or restricted movement—any of which can prevent a student from attending class, meeting with instructors, or completing assignments on time. Given the fast-paced nature of college courses, even a short absence can create setbacks, sometimes making it impossible for a student to catch up. In interviews, students emphasized how these interruptions derailed their academic progress, preventing them from completing coursework or even forcing them to withdraw from their programs entirely. To mitigate these challenges, policies should be established to protect students from suffering adverse educational impacts resulting from circumstances beyond their control, such as lockdowns or interruptions caused by other individuals.

Locating educational spaces within the same security boundary can reduce staffing burdens and movement times between spaces.

Technology Education and learning spaces on typical college campuses feature a host of integrated technology—from instructional tools like projectors, smartboards, and classroom computers that are connected to the internet and campus IT systems; to integrated environmental controls, like digital lighting presets and automated shades. They also increasingly support students using personal electronic devices in classrooms and other learning environments, often providing access to high speed wireless internet and power sources to charge personal electronic devices. Departments of corrections and their postsecondary education partners should consider what technology must be in place in a given space to ensure that education and learning experiences in prison are comparable to those on a higher education institution’s main campus.

Features like digital lighting presets and electronically raised and lowered projection screens may not be necessary, for example, but providing modular lighting and enabling the screening of video content, might be essential to a given program’s educational experience.

Likewise, independent learning and study spaces should afford access to technologies that can help students focus—like headphones and individually controlled lighting in study carrels. Correctional agencies and their college partners should also consider how to establish access to technology that will digitally empower students, mirror the student experience on campus, and allow them to perform basic higher education learning functions—like reading course materials, performing independent research, digitally completing and submitting assignments, and accessing study aids or supplementary materials and services.

Correctional agencies should put measures in place to ensure that students have adequate access to technology to complete coursework, perform independent research, and compose and submit assignments digitally. This may involve creating loan programs that allow devices to be checked out for extended periods rather than locked away, addressing staffing shortfalls to keep libraries, study spaces, and computer labs open as scheduled, and ensuring equitable access to technology without barriers like movement restrictions, inaccessible spaces, or program conflicts.

While integrating education technology may sound like a luxury, it is crucial for building digital empowerment, helping smooth the transition to education and work on the outside, and ensuring that there is a measure of parity between the student experience inside and out.

“You may miss class because somebody decided to act up and they locked everything down. So, there was a lot of challenges in terms of trying to get the education, but bottom line is you had to stay motivated and inspired. With that mindset, I just kept going no matter the obstacle.”

P.P., formerly incarcerated student

EDUCATIONAL

SPACES

“In a 80-men unit, we only had three tables. So, it was hard to find tables and you couldn’t stay in your cell too much because your cellmate wanted cell time.

There wasn’t a study area that you could go to and there wasn’t accommodation for people in college to have a place to go work and do their papers.”

P.P., formerly incarcerated student

Access to dedicated educational spaces is a foundational component of prison-based higher education. However, many existing spaces within prison facilities that are currently being utilized for these programs were not originally designed with learning in mind. While structural changes may be necessary in some cases, significant improvements can be made by optimizing the spaces that are already available.

This chapter examines the key elements that define effective educational spaces and outlines strategies to improve their functionality. It is divided into two sections:

1. Classrooms, which explores the physical, spatial, and environmental factors that contribute to a productive learning environment, including layout, lighting, acoustics, and accessibility.

2. Accessory Spaces, which addresses the broader ecosystem of learning beyond the classroom, including individual study areas, group collaboration spaces, and resource storage.

The recommendations in this chapter emphasize practical interventions that enhance existing spaces to support student success within the constraints of the facility. CHAPTER 03: SHIFTING THE BALANCE, will address how to combine some of the recommendations made throughout this section together into large scale conversions and comprehensive educational spaces.

© Jeff Wilson

CLASSROOMS

While this report emphasizes the importance of a holistic educational experience, classrooms for structured instruction remain at the center of learning. At its most basic level, a classroom must provide an environment conducive to focused learning. This means ensuring that students and instructors can see, hear, and move through the space without unnecessary disruptions.

The hallmarks of a well-functioning classroom include:

1. A Distraction-Free Environment: Comfortable temperatures, good acoustics, and lighting that supports different learning activities, such as reading, writing, or using digital screens

2. Clear Circulation Routes: Pathways that allow students and faculty to move without interrupting others

3. Sufficient Seating: Desks and chairs that accommodate different body types and mobility needs

4. Functional Teaching Surfaces: Whiteboards, projection screens, or other tools that allow instructors to present materials effectively

Beyond these essentials, classrooms benefit from thoughtful enhancements that improve engagement and accessibility. Natural light, adaptable seating arrangements, and dedicated storage help create an environment that not only meets the basic requirements of instruction but also supports long-term academic success.

While these elements are important in the planning of a traditional classroom, in a prison environment, their quality and relationship to each other becomes even more critical, and even more precarious. Seemingly pedestrian decisions, such as the relationship of the seating layout to the entry door, can become highly charged in the carceral context. The following sections examine how spatial design, layout, and infrastructure impact the classroom experience in prison settings—and how strategic improvements within existing constraints can help create educational spaces that are both practical and effective.

COMPONENTS OF A CLASSROOM

A | Entrance A transition point into the classroom that is observable if desired without interrupting instructional flow

B | Circulation Space Clear and appropriately sized pathways that support smooth movement and minimize disruption between seating and teaching zones

C | Seating & Work Areas Flexible arrangements that offer students options for proximity, visibility, and comfort, while allowing freedom of movement

D | Teaching Zone A defined area for instruction that ensures visibility of all materials and accommodates faculty presence and storage

E | Views to Outdoors Sources of natural light are optional but provide connections to the outside environment and support well-being

F | Views Into Classroom Prison security protocols often require at least one window into a classroom space. Seating should relate to this window such that students are not forced to observe it if preferred.

D

E

A

B

C

F

LOCATION

The placement of classrooms within a prison facility impacts accessibility, security efficiency, and overall program effectiveness.

Proximity To Housing Prison classrooms are rarely located within housing units, meaning students must travel to attend class. This presents both advantages and disadvantages due to the logistical requirements within a prison.

CHALLENGES OF DISTANT CLASSROOMS BENEFITS OF DISTANT CLASSROOMS

Longer travel times reduce total available instructional time

A distinct learning space allows students to shift into “student mode”

Students with limited mobility may be unable to travel to distant classrooms

Relieves congestion within already crowded common areas of housing units

If travel is outdoors, classes may be canceled due to bad weather like heavy snow or dangerous winds

Classrooms may be closer to other educational resources like libraries or workshops

Distant classrooms may require passing through additional checkpoints and security screenings, leading to delays, increased staffing demands, and potential disruptions to students’ focus due to the dehumanizing nature of these procedures

Can potentially allow for greater control over environmental factors, such as lighting and noise, minimizing distractions

Proximity To Other Spaces The placement of classrooms in relation to other key spaces affects accessibility, security efficiency, and the overall functionality of educational programs.

Classroom Clusters Consolidating educational spaces within a facility can improve security efficiency and create a more structured learning environment. Instead of requiring separate security staffing for individual classrooms, one or two central monitoring stations can oversee multiple spaces, reducing staffing demands while maintaining oversight. Clustering classrooms in a dedicated academic zone can also help reinforce the legitimacy of education as a priority within the facility.

Proximity to Other Programs If classrooms cannot be placed near housing, they should be located near other key spaces students visit regularly, such as dining halls or job training sites. Clustering educational and vocational programs within the same security perimeter allows staff to oversee multiple programs at once, reducing the need for constant escorts and supervision.

However, if higher education is placed too closely alongside other programs, it risks being deprioritized in favor of vocational training or GED programs. Additionally, mixing different program types too freely may create distractions that make it harder for students to focus on their coursework. Striking a balance between proximity and program distinction should be considered.

Accessibility Once inside a building, the location of classrooms impacts accessibility and usability, particularly for students and faculty with limited mobility or those responsible for transporting materials.

Floor Level If classrooms are only accessible by stairs and there is no elevator, students with limited mobility may be unable to attend. Whenever possible, classrooms should be located on the ground floor to allow for accessibility.

Restrooms Accessible restrooms should be nearby to support students with disabilities.

Material Transport Transporting books or other materials between floors without an elevator creates logistical challenges for both students and instructors, disabled and non-disabled alike. While routes to all classrooms should be step-free, designated storage solutions on each floor can help reduce the burden of carrying materials between levels if upper-floor classrooms are necessary. See RESOURCE STORAGE & ACCESS for more information.

Where students are expected to bring their own materials to and from class, solutions for addressing the burden of transport should be implemented, such as providing rolling bags, particularly for those with disabilities.

LAYOUT

The layout of a classroom affects learning dynamics, collaboration, and accessibility. In prison classrooms, layout challenges often stem from space constraints, fixed furniture, and the need to accommodate multiple classes in a single room. Classrooms in prison settings can vary widely in size, often because they were not originally designed as educational spaces. A poorly arranged classroom can create barriers to student engagement, limit instructional flexibility, and make it difficult to incorporate different teaching styles. While entirely reconstructing classrooms to an appropriate scale or shape may not be feasible, strategic modifications can help mitigate these challenges.

Classroom Types The appropriate layout and scale of a classroom depend on the style of instruction taking place. While an imperfect classroom is better than no classroom, a better understanding of different teaching formats allows for a more effective assessment of available spaces within a prison facility. This also enables corrections and education staff to make informed decisions about adapting existing spaces to better support the types of courses being offered.

For the purposes of this report, we categorize educational spaces into four main typologies: discussions, seminars, lectures, and labs. Each has distinct spatial and furniture requirements that influence how students engage with course material, instructors, and each other. The diagrams in this section illustrate general layouts and classroom dimensions suited to each teaching style.

“Design of the environment can really shape people’s pedagogical choices, even unwittingly and especially inexperienced instructors might assume that they need to leave the space the way it is and teach accordingly.”

A.D., HEP director

Discussion-Based Discussion-based courses prioritize conversation and student engagement, with faculty acting primarily as facilitators rather than lecturers. These courses are typically small, ranging from eight to fifteen students, and require seating arrangements that promote face-to-face interaction. An iconic model for discussion classrooms is the Harkness Table, a singular central table that seats 12 students in a way that allows for equal participation and visibility.

Because discussion courses do not rely heavily on instructional materials such as whiteboards or projection screens, the space itself can be relatively compact. The only essential spatial requirement is enough clearance—at least four to five feet around the seating area—to allow for movement. These classrooms can often fit into repurposed offices, small conference rooms, or other modestly sized spaces within a facility.

Seating Capacity 8–15 students

Square Feet Per Student

15–20 SF

Notable Characteristics Seating should be located in the center of the space.

Seminar Seminars accommodate slightly larger groups, typically 10 to 20 students, and blend elements of discussion and lecture. Faculty members present information from the front of the room, but they typically do so in a way that encourages frequent student participation and interaction. Seating should be arranged to allow for both clear sightlines to the instructor and teaching materials as well as student-to-student discussion. A horseshoe or U-shaped seating layout is often effective, as it provides a direct view of the instructor while maintaining a level of engagement between students. Rows of desks can also be oriented at angles or in arches to promote better visibility between students.

Seminar rooms should be a minimum of 20 feet in each dimension to allow space for seating, circulation, and teaching areas. The longer dimension should not exceed 1.5 times the short dimension. If a room is too deep, students in the back may struggle to engage. If it is too wide, visibility of instructional materials may be compromised for students seated at the sides of the room.

Seating Capacity 10–20 students

Square Feet Per Student

20–35 SF

Notable Characteristics Seating layout should allow for fluid switching between presenter-style lectures and inter-student discussions.

Active Learning Environments (ALEs) Active learning environments are a specialized subset of seminar spaces which incorporate any combination of faculty-led instruction, discussion, and hands-on work. Science labs, art classrooms, and maker spaces are typical examples of active learning environments. These courses require high flexibility, as instructors must pivot between teaching and supervising students. ALEs often involve small-group or individual work and frequently require specialized equipment or materials. Unlike other classroom types, where a singular focal point is typically practical, ALEs benefit from multiple distinct teaching zones, allowing instructors to provide demonstrations in one area while students work independently or in groups in another.

Because of these varied instructional needs, ALEs should be larger than seminar or discussion spaces and must be adapted to the specific requirements of the coursework. In prisons where classroom space is limited, repurposing irregularly shaped or unusually sized rooms for ALEs may be more viable than trying to fit other course types into them.

Seating Capacity 10–20 students

Square Feet Per Student

35–70 SF

Notable Characteristics Needs vary greatly depending on the course and often requires specialized equipment.

Lecture Lecture-style courses vary in size, accommodating anywhere from small groups of 20 students to much larger cohorts. While some lectures incorporate student feedback or Q&A sessions, the primary format involves faculty delivering information to attendees, often with limited interaction. In traditional college settings, lectures are typically held in auditoriums or tiered classrooms designed to support larger audiences.

However, in prison education programs, such spaces are rarely available, requiring existing rooms to be adapted to lecture-style instruction.

A well-designed lecture classroom should be deeper than it is wide, as this layout naturally directs focus toward the instructor and presentation materials. If the room extends beyond 35 feet in depth, tiered seating should be introduced to prevent visibility issues for students seated farther from the front. Where tiered seating is not feasible, alternative solutions, such as multiple projection screens, strategically placed whiteboards, or instructor mobility throughout the space, can help ensure all students have equal access to the material.

Seating Capacity 20–100+ students

Square Feet Per Student

15–20 SF

Notable Characteristics Seating may need to be tiered to allow for visibility from further seats.

Oversized Classrooms Large classrooms may host multiple classes simultaneously, creating an environment where competing discussions make it difficult for students to concentrate. Even when only one class is present, it is an inefficient use of space, and an oversized room can feel impersonal, reducing student engagement and making it harder for instructors to facilitate discussion. The sheer scale of the space may also result in poor acoustics, with sound echoing and making communication less effective.

Room Dividers Movable partitions, acoustic panels, or bookshelves can break up large rooms into smaller, more manageable sections. This helps reduce noise transfer when multiple classes are being held and allows for more structured group work when only one course is present.

Learning Zones Rather than physically dividing the room, creating distinct areas for different activities—such as a reading corner, discussion space, or hands-on work zone—can make the space feel more intentional and manageable. Strategic seating arrangements can further reinforce these zones; instead of spreading students evenly throughout the room, desks and tables can be clustered to support different types of engagement.

Mobile Whiteboards & Display Screens Positioning instructional materials closer to students, rather than relying on a single focal point at the front of the room, can improve visibility and participation. Mobile whiteboards and display screens can also act as flexible dividers, helping to visually segment the space as necessary.

Acoustic Enhancements Large classrooms often suffer from excessive reverberation, making it harder for students to hear instructors clearly. For specific strategies to address noise control, see ACOUSTICS.

Undersized Classrooms Small classrooms can suffer from overcrowding, restricting movement and limiting instructional flexibility. When space is tight, students using wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility aids may find it difficult to navigate, reducing their ability to fully participate in class. Additionally, instructors may struggle to integrate different teaching methods, such as group work or hands-on activities, when there is not enough space to accommodate varied seating arrangements. While classrooms below a certain size may not function effectively for full-class instruction, smaller spaces can still serve as valuable group or individual study areas. For strategies on utilizing these areas, see ACCESSORY SPACES.

Flexible & Multi-Purpose Furniture Furniture that can be easily rearranged or serve multiple functions helps maximize limited classroom space.