Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:36:33 +1200
Subject: Submission relating to primary-aged students From: Roger Peddie, Evaluation Team Leader
I Introduction
Appendix Two shows that a Code report was supplied to the Ministry on 25 June, 2003. This report did not discuss primary-aged IS, as the Draft Revised Code omitted the proposals found in the Discussion Document released in early April, 2003.26 In early July, the Evaluation Team Leader asked if comment relating to primary-aged students would be useful. He received a very positive response, and the (slightly amended) submission below was sent the same day.
II Evaluation Data
2.1 Seven of the eight primary schools were asked for their views about the proposed changes, namely, the requirement to live with a parent or court-appointed guardian, along with some system of "tied" visas. These interviews were variously held before or after the discussion document was released.
Before, the question was framed up in terms of... "Given the Minister's public comments about his concern over the care of primary-aged IS, one possibility that has been talked about is...". This was also canvassed much more informally at a PD session for primary schools held earlier this year in Tauranga.
All but two of those who expressed an opinion were *strongly* in favour of the original proposals. Most of these were comparatively "small" players, with fewer
25 Greetings and sign-off omitted; headings added; minor formatting changes made.
Some sentences have been 'depersonalised' and/or made more formal in style
26 It should be noted that this was because the Ministry had wisely decided to collect further data relating to the primary sector, following the analysis of submissions made to proposals in the Discussion Document.
than 10 IS. One principal (13 IS) who expressed a different view said "I can understand why they are doing it, although in my own view it is unnecessary." A second principal with much bigger numbers stated that the whole Code review was "reactive and premature".
2.2 Several secondary and tertiary institutions commented on the proposals without even being asked. The common line was:
(i) there shouldn't be any IS in primary schools;
(ii) if they have to be there, then the presence of a parent or court-appointed guardian is the best approach.27
2.3 One primary-based person (not a principal) felt strongly enough to write directly about what she felt. I think it useful to quote what she says, as she has considerable experience in the field:
"I am concerned that decisions relating to the review will be made using the information from questionnaires - the questionnaires will not bring in totally
accurate information. Schools that support the notion that children under 13 may come to NZ without their parents are not going to respond to the questionnaire by saying that they have trouble with contacting international parents or with the behaviour of international students if this is going to put everything in jeopardy are they? Most primary schools do not have problems with behaviour of international students - the children are just so vulnerable and have no voice - they just have to get on with it whether they like it or not and whether they are happy or not.
"I believe that we have schools applying to become signatories when the children are already here - there are no programmes in place and kiwi mothers and
voluntary helpers are being used to "teach" the children. The International students do not come under the brief of the ESOL/ NESB advisors - so they are not in a position to do anything. The $$$$$ is really starting to drive some people and the needs of the children seem to be getting further away from the main point
"I am also very concerned about how the number of international students has risen but the relative number of ESOL staff has not - we have many really stressed ESOL teachers and staff because more and more students are being brought into schools without the equivalent adjustment in staffing. We must ensure that ERO looks carefully at all aspects of International education not just the Code paper work."
2.4 I remind you that all of those present at the recent (Evaluation) Advisory Group were against IS being in primary schools at all (the primary representative was not there; but she strongly supports the original proposals about
parents/guardians).
III The Views of the Evaluation Team Leader
It needs to be signalled that that is what these views are; they are not a collective view from the Evaluation Team.
3.1 Primary-aged children arrive at our schools in two main ways:
(i) because families are here in NZ;
(ii) because their families bring them to NZ for education.
The first group includes such children as:
• the children of an adult in NZ for a higher degree;
• the children of people (like a recent Whangarei case), who are for example sailing around the world and stopping off in NZ for 4-6 weeks;
• the children of people on visitors' visas who are applying for PR status.
The second group needs no further definition, but note that, as is commonly known, they often arrive with a parent, but sometimes the parent later leaves, with the child going to a different caregiver. It also includes children who turn up at the school with an agent, who has a letter appointing them as the "guardian", or (sometimes worse) "designated caregiver" of the child.
3.2 The complications of separating these two groups is probably very difficult, even though there is a hypothetically strong case for accepting the first group but not the second.
3.3 Some primary schools have reported built a large IS programme quite
deliberately (e.g., an Auckland primary school recently in the news), and are now acutely aware of and strongly against the financial consequences of the new proposals about accommodation/guardianship. The issue as to whether we set up a system like the Australians of "magnet" schools, approved individually to mount such programmes is, I suggest, something for later consideration - but it is a possibility.
3.4 Given the "accidental" nature of enrolments in many primary schools, it would be very difficult to develop a 'binary-system' approach, with two sets of rules for (what are here called) magnet schools and others. One of the major problems;
how do you decide which is which?
3.5 The proposed/possible shift to a system where a "close relative" is acceptable is very risky, given what we informally know about "aunties", "cousins" etc. I would recommend that such people be court-appointed guardians. While this is very unlikely to be an unpopular recommendation in some quarters, it still seems to be the safest option..
3.6 The bottom line: primary-aged students are here and in quite large numbers.
First, they will continue to come, in some cases (group (i), above), for very
sensible reasons. Second, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that some schools with considerable numbers have excellent provisions and programmes. Third, most primary schools with smaller numbers probably did indeed (as the informant quoted above suggests), not bother to put in a supporting submission, as they have so few IS, and the proposals "seem so obvious" (the comment of an interviewed primary principal).
3.7 This analysis seems very close to a 'no-win' situation. But, after looking at all the evidence - including the Analysis of Submissions - it does still seem that the original proposals were sound, and would be welcomed by the majority of the primary schools with IS in New Zealand.
Nevertheless, and despite somewhat negative comments made above in point 3.4, it could still be worth considering whether a binary system is possible. Under such a system, primary schools with more than a set number of IS (20?) could apply to be magnet schools. But they would be forced to comply with very stringent conditions (particularly with regard to guardianship and accommodation), more regular external monitoring, and a very clear-cut 'expulsion' clause which basically makes it clear that one serious breach would remove the school from magnet school status at the end of the current school year.
IV Concluding Comment
Note that at the time of writing the nature and outcomes of the "further research"
carried out by the Ministry was unknown. So it is possible that some of the comments above are already superseded by new information already held by the Ministry. But the writer remains convinced that the opponents of the original
proposals are not representative of the primary sector as a whole, while conceding freely that they may well be a significant minority.