EFFECTS OF THE CODE ON INSTITUTIONS

An important part of the institutional interviews was to ask a series of questions about what changes had been made as a direct result of becoming a signatory to the Code (cf. Appendix One). After the first few of these interviews, it was

signalled to respondents that some changes were 'inevitable'. In other words, all institutions had to include information about the Code in a number of their publicity and information documents. Equally, all had to include the mandatory statements from Section 3.3 of the Code. What the interviewers sought to determine was whether there were other changes to their policies or practices brought about by the Code itself, or through the process of becoming a signatory. As will be seen in

The first question in this area related to changes affecting agents because of the Code. Five institutions (four primary schools and one secondary) did not use agents. Of the remaining answers, just under half said that they had made changes, mostly in terms of what one interviewee called "tightening the

conditions". Those who made no changes either responded that their existing documentation/contracts were already sufficient, or that "controlling agents" was difficult, and that while the Code gave some assistance, they were doubtful about (particularly) its effect on agents based offshore.

The Evaluation Team has already signalled that the 'control' of agents is difficult.

The interviews clearly showed that "good agents" were welcomed and "bad agents" were eventually identified and no longer used. There remains, however, the problem signalled by three interviewees; when a bad agent is identified, how does an institution tell everyone else to avoid such a person. The suggestion made by the Evaluation Team was that either on the Ministry or the Education New Zealand website (or both), it be possible for a provider to identify themselves and simply to state that they were no longer using X as an agent.¹³

Question two related to pre-departure information to students. Here, over 70 per cent of those interviewed reported that their institution had made major or minor changes. In a few cases, this involved provision of completely new material - like refund or fees protection policies. In most cases it was reportedly "much more detail", or "being more precise about what we offer".

One or two of those who reported no change in this area claimed that (to quote one interviewee), "It's a waste of time. [The students] don't really take any notice till they get here, so that's when we give them the detail" (interview, state tertiary provider). Given the expense already incurred in terms of travel and other arrangements, this seems to the Evaluation Team to be a less than helpful approach.

13 The anonymity of the provider does not seem to be a realistic option, on legal grounds.

Changes in On-arrival information was investigated through two linked questions.

The first related to the information packs given to IS on arrival, while the second related to orientation programmes. It is accepted that there might be some overlap here, so these two questions are dealt with together.

Just over two-thirds of those interviewed reported that their information packs had been revised, typically by "giving much more information about everything". By way of contrast, only just over half reported making changes to their orientation programme. Furthermore, only just over two-thirds of those who did make changes signalled that these changes were significant.

The Evaluation Team considers that this is a positive sign. It strongly suggests that many of the 'good programme' institutions interviewed have already

developed sound orientation programmes, but they also recognised the need to improve on their information packs. As an aside, several of the institutions visited were asked for the information pack, especially when the interviewee expressed confidence in its usefulness. In all such cases, the Evaluation Team was

impressed with the quality of the range and depth of the information the pack contained.

The next question related to changes in teaching and learning for IS. This was not expected to be an area of change, as the Code does not explicitly cover this. It should immediately be noted that monitoring the attendance and the meeting of course requirements for IS was not covered here; that was the next question to be answered.

Not unexpectedly, therefore, only one interviewee said that the Code had led to changes, although five others said that minor alterations had been made. The one institution reported that they were making significant changes to the requirements of teaching staff to deal with IS (cf. section 6.3).

number of those who had not were able to demonstrate that their current systems completely satisfied both the spirit and the letter of the Code (Section 14). One institution had a computer-driven attendance system which allowed the institution to follow up absences from individual sessions on the same day. While this seemed to some of those interviewed subsequently to be a case of "overkill"

(secondary principal), it did mean that students knew the institution was concerned about them, especially as the first follow-up was normally to contact known friends of an absentee to ask if everything was all right. On the other hand, the Evaluation Team was very concerned at the response of several other institutions where a formal follow-up might not begin for a week or more.¹⁴

Pastoral care within the institution was the topic of the next question. Just over 50 per cent of those interviewed reported some change, although a third of these said the changes were minor. The most commonly reported changes were more

frequent meetings with IS to check that everything was going well, while a few institutions signalled that they had put (or were putting) in place much more formal processes than those used previously to check that IS had access to better

pastoral support. This could be the well-publicised designation of a staff member as someone whom IS were encouraged to seek out when they had issues to discuss, or the provision of Code-related information to teaching staff (though, as noted in Section 6.3, this was rare).

The important emphasis of the Code on accommodation, particularly for IS under the age of 18 was expected to result in a number of changes in institutional practice. The data show that the changes were found mainly in secondary

schools, though a few other institutions also made changes. Approximately a third of those who responded said that they had introduced police vetting of

accommodation for under-18 IS, while just under half of the institutions said they had made some form of change. Other than vetting, these changes universally related to a much more formal checking of the suitability of accommodation.

Those who did not report changes either had IS who were only over 18, or they already had quality provisions in place for checking on accommodation.

14 As discussed elsewhere, this does not apply to universities where follow-up may be delayed by much more than a week.

The last question about the effects of the Code related to such policies as fees remission, indemnity policies and the like. Again, the results were a little

surprising, but also pleasing. While approximately 45 per cent reported that they had made changes, these were mainly in terms of formalising existing policies, or clarifying legal issues required under the Code. With over half of the interviewees noting that no changes had been necessary, it appears that - at least in these institutions with reportedly good programmes - even the more 'technical' policies were already conforming to appropriate quality standards.

The data presented above do need some interpretation. First, and as signalled several times already, this was not a random sample. What this means is that reportedly good providers do in fact have good policies, and that is good news.

Second, it is important to ensure in the future that these good policies are available to all providers and, especially to new providers and to every provider about whom a substantiated complaint is made to the IEAA (cf. section 6.5).

Third, the policies of good providers need to be readily available to any future facilitators of PD relating to international programmes (cf. Peddie et al., 2003).

What, then, can be concluded? The Evaluation Team believes that the data gathered through institutional visits, and backed by more informal data gathered from PD and other interviews (e.g. the Code Administrator), show that the

introduction of the Code had a significant effect on institutions who wanted quality programmes and who realised that they needed to make changes. For institutions which already had (mainly) quality policies and provisions, the Code and the Code application process were "affirming" (an expression used by interviewees from three separate institutions).