Set 10 · Should the state pay for college in prison?

The task

The two articles below take opposite positions on one question:

Should the state spend $14 million a year to offer college degree programs in all of its prisons?

Read both. Then analyze both positions to determine which one is better supported by evidence. Use specific evidence from both articles in your answer.

You are not being asked which side you agree with, and you will not be scored on which one you choose. You are being asked to judge the arguing — and either article can be argued for. Allow about 45 minutes.

Article 1

The Surest Way to Fewer Crimes

Dr. Elena Vasquez is a professor of history at Northgate State University. For twelve years she has directed the university’s college program at the Ridge Hollow Correctional Facility.

1Nearly everyone who goes to prison comes home. The question is who they are when they arrive. In this state, 39 percent of the people released from prison are back within three years. Each return means a new crime, a new victim, and another year of prison costs paid by taxpayers.

2We know that education changes those numbers. In 2013, the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan research organization, reviewed 58 studies of education in prisons published between 1980 and 2011. People who took part in education programs had 43 percent lower odds of returning to prison within three years than people who did not. RAND also found that the programs saved money: every dollar spent saved four to five dollars in the cost of putting people back in prison.

3I have seen the same thing at Ridge Hollow. Since 2016, 96 of our students who earned at least 30 college credits have been released. Nine of them returned to prison within three years. That is fewer than one in ten, against the state’s 39 percent.

4The federal government has recognized this. Congress banned federal Pell Grants for people in prison in 1994, and restored them in July 2023. But a Pell Grant pays only part of the cost, not every student qualifies, and a college must first build a program that federal officials approve. Federal approval has been slow: by April 2024, only one new prison program in the country had received full approval. The $14 million in this budget would build those programs here.

5Every crime prevented is a family that is not harmed. If we want safer neighborhoods, college in prison is one of the surest investments this state can make.

Article 2

Not Before Our Own Students

Senator Dale Whitcomb represents the 14th District in the state senate and serves on the Senate Finance Committee.

1I support high school equivalency classes and job training in our prisons. They help people find work when they come home, and I have voted to fund them. This bill asks for something different: $14 million a year in state money for college degrees for people in prison, at a time when law-abiding students in this state are borrowing to pay for their own.

2Last year, students who earned a bachelor’s degree at our public universities owed an average of $28,600 when they graduated. The same $14 million would pay for state grants for about 3,500 community college students who have never broken the law.

3Washington has already acted. Since July 2023, people in prison can again receive federal Pell Grants to pay for college. If college in prison is worth paying for, the federal government has agreed to help pay for it. The state should not pay twice.

4The evidence is also weaker than it sounds. The RAND researchers themselves warned of methodological weaknesses in the studies they reviewed. People who sign up for college in prison are not a random group; they are often the most motivated people inside, the ones least likely to return in the first place. Dr. Vasquez’s own figures compare her students, who were chosen for her program, with everyone released from every prison in the state.

5This is not a new debate. In 2014, New York’s governor proposed using state money for college classes in ten prisons, at a cost of about $1 million. Within two months, he dropped the plan after lawmakers objected that many law-abiding families were struggling to pay for college. Those lawmakers were right then, and the same objection applies here.

Your 45 minutes

45:00 The clock keeps counting past zero, so you can see what it cost you.

Stop here if you have not written yet. What follows names the evidence in both articles and shows where each one is weak. Read it before you write and you will not be practicing the thing the test measures — which is finding all of this yourself, in forty-five minutes, with nobody helping.

After the clock — what was actually on the table

What each article put in front of you

The Surest Way to Fewer Crimes

A local starting point. In this state, 39 percent of people released from prison return within three years.
A large review of research. RAND, 2013: 58 studies, 43 percent lower odds of returning to prison, and four to five dollars saved for every dollar spent.
Her own program’s record. 96 students with at least 30 credits released since 2016; nine returned within three years.
The federal picture, including its limits. Pell Grants restored in July 2023, but they pay only part of the cost, not everyone qualifies, and by April 2024 only one new program had full approval.

Not Before Our Own Students

A local fact about students outside prison. An average debt of $28,600 at graduation from the state’s public universities.
A comparison of what the money could buy. $14 million would fund grants for about 3,500 community college students.
A reading of the research’s limits. RAND’s own warning about weak studies, and the point that people who enroll are not a random group.
An example from another state. New York, 2014: a plan for ten prisons at about $1 million, dropped within two months after lawmakers objected.

Where each one is thin

Neither article is the right answer. Each has evidence a careful reader can question. Naming those weak points, in specific words, about a specific sentence, is most of what the first scoring trait rewards.

The Surest Way to Fewer Crimes

Her own figures compare students she chose with everyone else. Students in a college program had to qualify for it, and they may be more motivated to begin with. Comparing them with every person released in the state does not show what the college classes did. Article 2 names this problem directly, and Article 1 does not answer it.
RAND counted all kinds of education, not only college. The 58 studies include high school equivalency classes and job training, which Senator Whitcomb already supports. The review does not show that college, in particular, produced the result.
“Lower odds” is not the same as “less likely by that amount.” RAND reported 43 percent lower odds. The same review put the difference at about 13 percentage points, meaning that out of every 100 people, about 13 fewer returned to prison. That is still a real difference, but it is smaller than “43 percent” sounds.
She is the director of a program that the money would expand. That makes her an expert. It also gives her a reason to argue for the money.

Not Before Our Own Students

He does not answer the savings. RAND estimated that every dollar spent saved four to five dollars. Senator Whitcomb compares the $14 million with grants for other students, but he never responds to the claim that the programs pay for themselves.
His Pell Grant point leaves out what Article 1 said. Pell Grants pay only part of the cost, not every student qualifies, and approval has been slow. He says the state “should not pay twice” without answering any of that.
The New York example shows the plan was unpopular, not that it would fail. Lawmakers objected and the plan was dropped. That tells us about politics in 2014. It is not evidence about what college in prison does.
He raises a fair question about the research, but offers no research of his own. Naming weaknesses in the other side’s evidence is a strong move. It does not, by itself, show that the opposite is true.

Two essays, either of which could score well

Arguing for Article 1. A student who argues that Dr. Vasquez is better supported would build on the RAND review. It is large, it comes from an independent research organization, and it found both fewer returns to prison and money saved. She also explains why federal money is not enough, with a specific fact about slow approval. Then the student has to deal with Article 2’s strongest point, that people who choose college in prison may differ from people who do not, and with the fact that her own program’s figures are the clearest example of that problem.

Arguing for Article 2. A student who argues that Senator Whitcomb is better supported would build on his reading of the research. He points out, with RAND’s own warning, that the studies were weak and that students in these programs chose to be there, and he shows that Dr. Vasquez’s own comparison has this problem. He adds a local debt figure and a comparison of what $14 million could buy. Then the student has to deal with his weak spots: he never answers the savings estimate, his Pell Grant point ignores the limits Article 1 described, and the New York example is about politics, not results.

If both of those look like real essays to you, the set is working as intended. On the test you will have two articles built the same way, and no time to find a perfect answer, because there is not one. Choose the side you can support in forty-five minutes, and support it.

Check your own

The Extended Response is scored on three traits. Read your draft against them, one at a time — and then read How the essay is scored, which has the full rubric and two responses to the same task, one earning a 6 and one earning about a 2.

Analysis of argument and evidence. Did you say which article is better supported, in a sentence, near the beginning? Did you quote or name specific evidence from both articles — not just the one you chose? Did you say what is wrong with the evidence on at least one side, rather than only what is right?
Development and organization. Does each paragraph do one job? Does a reader who has not seen the articles know what they said? Did you get to the end, or did you run out of clock in the middle of a paragraph?
Clarity and command of English. Read it aloud. Sentences that you stumble over reading are sentences a scorer stumbles over too. Check that every sentence has a subject and a verb and ends where it should.

One more, which is not on the rubric and costs you the most: did you argue about which side is right instead of which side is better supported? That essay can be beautifully written and still score low, because it answers a question nobody asked.

☞ Quiz 4 (a conclusion tied to the sentence that earns it) and Quiz 5 (citing evidence). This set shows a writer answering the other side’s evidence directly, by name. When you write, you can do the same: quote the claim from one article, then show what the other article says about it.