National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Parramatta
2.0 The current situation for children in detention
3.0 Minimum standards in Parramatta Catholic Schools
4.0 Minimum standards embodied in international agreements
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As organisations with a strong commitment to social justice, and in particular to the education of young people, the Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Parramatta, and the Edmund Rice Centre, are most appreciative of the opportunity to make a submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention.
The Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Parramatta (CEO), conducts some 71 Catholic schools in the western area of Sydney, with an explicit commitment to reaching out particularly to those who are poor, marginalised and most in need, and to taking a public stance on issues of injustice and inequality. The Edmund Rice Centre (ERC) is committed to action, advocacy, research and education in social justice areas and has close ties to other organisations in the justice and welfare sections both within and beyond the Catholic church.
CEO and ERC have chosen to make this submission because of our deep concern over the whole treatment of asylum seekers. These concerns are summarised in a public statement issued by CEO on March 23rd, 2002 and published in the Sydney Morning Herald. A copy of this statement is attached.
In the context of the current request for submissions we have opted to focus on Section 6 – Education, because this is an area in which we have significant expertise. We are acutely aware of the highly emotional nature of this issue, and we have chosen to couch our response in terms of the facts of the situation, measuring these up against two sets of benchmarks. In the first case we ask, “If these children came to a Catholic school in Parramatta diocese, what would we see as a minimum acceptable response to their needs?” Accepting that, with our strong tradition of pastoral care, this might be seen as an unacceptably high standard, we then ask, “What are our minimum commitments under international agreements?” Our conclusion is that, regrettably, we meet neither standard.
In an effort to provide useful, factual data to the Inquiry, our organisations tapped into their respective networks to gather reliable data on the circumstances for children in detention. Much of our material refers to Villawood, but we have spoken to people released from other centres. Our data-gathering techniques were as follows:-
- Visits to Villawood.
- Interviews with persons released from Villawood and other centres.
- Interviews with people who work with and visit detainees including Church workers, advocates, students and well-wishers
- Written statements from current and past detainees and visitors to the centres.
- Relevant documentation including UN declarations.
It must be stressed that we have not seen the educational provision at firsthand.
The remainder of our submission is structured as follows:
- A description of the current situation for children in detention.
- The minimum standards we would provide in our schools.
- The minimum standards outlined in international agreements.
- Our response to “Questions for Submission” in light of the above.
The title of our report, “I wondered how long a year in there would be” was taken from a written response from a Year 12 student at a secondary girls’ school, Parramatta, to her visit to Villawood detention centre. It captures aptly the pervading sense of boredom, hopelessness and despair which characterises the experience of young people in detention.
2.0 THE CURRENT SITUATION FOR CHILDREN IN DETENTION
For most children in detention, their schooling experiences occur in the centre itself, utilising facilities that were not purpose built for education. Within this context, the reality for these children militates against worthwhile, growth-filled, holistic educational experiences and the achievement of appropriate educational outcomes.
The environment of the centres has a focus on prevention of escape (including razor wire, guard checks, alarms, musters, physical restraint, interrogation, room searches, use of isolation and solitary confinement). Children witness violence, self mutilation, hunger strikes, fights, suicide attempts. This does not lend itself to the creation of an appropriate learning environment which is creative, peaceful, stimulating and encouraging.
Documented and anecdotal reports would indicate that the psychological state of the children is severely affected. Indicators are sleep disturbance, depression, aggression, eating disorders, panic attacks, physical withdrawal, apathy, listlessness, tiredness, and expressions of fear, isolation and loss of hope and confidence. It is unlikely that whatever schooling opportunities the children are currently receiving would have any positive impact whilst these particular psychological conditions remain unaddressed by specialist personnel. Indeed, children experiencing such disturbances would require assistance even at a basic level to facilitate concentration.
The social reality for children in detention is such that there is little opportunity to form solid friendships and constructive relationships - important elements in a young person’s educational experience. Children experience a range of fractured relationships including separation from family, fear of making friendships that can end suddenly on movement to other centres or release, difficulty in sustaining quality relationships in a daily pattern of boredom, aimlessness, frustration, sadness, lack of trust, hopelessness and violence. Many reports speak of the absence in detention of laughter, smiles and play.
The educational provision for children in detention is very basic. The highest estimate we heard of time available in Villawood is four hours per day on four days per week. It is not clear what the syllabus is, but this allocation of time is totally inadequate to cover a NSW curriculum. It would appear that English lessons are offered in all centres. No provision seems to be made for age or ability specific lessons. No support appears to be provided for children with learning or physical disabilities. Some children in some centres have access to computers and to basic maths and science classes and painting activities. These activities take place in rooms with few teaching resources and no specialist facilities. (Preschool has a 5 by 5 metre room, and since 2001, the previous 6 by 8 primary classroom has been replaced by a new double classroom.) Some children have access to books and toys donated by charities. Recreational space and sporting facilities and opportunities are extremely limited.
3.0 MINIMUM STANDARDS IN PARRAMATTA CATHOLIC SCHOOLS
As an educational system which has considerable expertise in accepting refugee children from many parts of the world, many of whom arrive suffering trauma, with little language and few community connections, we have developed a range of relevant practices and support structures.
Our first concern is to extend a genuine welcome to students and to provide an environment which is calm and safe. Unless and until needs for security and safety are met, educational efforts can be futile. Thus, issues from Section 3 of this Inquiry (Mental Health and Development) are intrinsically connected to educational matters.
Security is provided by our Intensive English Centre which introduces students not only to English language but the culture and practices of our schools. Our small centre has practices in place to provide supported transition to mainstream schooling. In cases where students have experienced trauma, specialist counselling support is provided.
Educationally, our goal is to move students – many of whom have had severely disrupted schooling – to a state of readiness to engage with mainstream NSW curriculum. This involves appropriate educational assessment, especially tailored programs and remediation delivered by specialist ESL teachers. Our program is full-time (30 hours per week). Once students move to mainstream schools in a gradual process, they receive some itinerant support as well as the support of specialist ESL teachers in schools, and access to the full range of pastoral care, special education (where necessary) and counselling support our schools have to offer.
4.0 MINIMUM STANDARDS EMBODIED IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
It might be argued that our local practices go beyond an acceptable minimum provision, and that we need only meet our international obligations. We have extracted the following standards from the background papers.
(a) Education should be free and compulsory.
(b) For primary students it should meet minimum curriculum standards for Australian children.
(j) For secondary students it should meet minimum curriculum standards for non-Australian residents. [In practice b and c) are the same].
(j) Provision should be made for students with disabilities.
(j) Education should be provided in a culturally sensitive way.
(j) There should be access to vocational education.
(g) There should be access to higher education.
(j) The environment should be child-friendly.
(j) Educational provision should be gender-sensitive.
(j) Education should take cognisance of the appropriate language of instruction.
(k) The environment should contribute to psychosocial stability.
In the background papers for Section 6, these criteria are, by and large, embodied in the “Questions for submission”.
5.0 OUR RESPONSE TO “QUESTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS”
5.1 How does Australia support the right to education of child asylum seekers in detention? What is the quality of educational opportunities available and what measures would enhance the quality?
As far as we can determine, the right to education is seen as a very low priority in detention centres. In both quantity and quality educational opportunities fall short of reasonable expectations. The best solution would be to allow the children to attend mainstream schools as has recently been proposed by the NSW Teachers Federation. Failing this, implementing at the very least the standards embodied in our international agreements is essential.
5.2 What are the relevant legislative, administrative and other measures in place to ensure children in immigration detention centres receive the education they need? How do they compare to education in relevant states and territories for other children? What are the gaps?
Our work did not examine the legislative measures in place. Administratively it would appear that there are no procedures in place to guarantee the quality or adequacy of educational provision. Estimates of time allocated to education varied from 8 – 16 hours per week (as opposed to 30 hours plus for students in NSW schools). There is no attempt to follow, in the case of Villawood, the NSW syllabus. Educational provision could be improved by formally establishing the centre as a school, subject to the usual requirements for registration and accreditation. It would be easier, and educationally and socially better, to simply send students to a local school.
5.3 In each detention facility, is an individual assessment of educational needs undertaken by qualified educators and is an educational plan involving the student and her or his parents developed and implemented?
As far as we were able to determine, no individual assessments are carried out. We are unsure as to the qualifications of educators, but certainly in the secondary area, given the small number of staff, there would appear to be no specialists. There was no evidence of individual educational plans – negotiated or otherwise.
5.4 To what extent is adequate pre-school, primary, secondary and vocational education, available for child asylum seekers, both in detention facilities and in local schools?
By the standard of what we have committed to internationally, or what would be the norm in our system of schools, provision at all levels ranges from non-existent to almost totally inadequate within detention facilities. We have grave concerns about the quantity and quality of secondary education available. Some reports from Villawood indicate that the 12-18 year age group receives no education at all, but others speak of limited hours. Provisions available in local schools and systems are not made available to Villawood detainees.
5.5 What measures have been taken to encourage school attendance and prevent non-attendance? What are the practical barriers to school attendance?
Detainees gave the impression that there was little compulsion to attend school, and that the major barriers to attendance were the lack of a rich and stimulating curriculum combined with the apathy bred of trauma, boredom and despair.
5.6 To what extent is special education available for children with physical and/or mental disabilities? Does it take into account the child’s age and developmental needs? To what extent is it available for children with learning difficulties?
In the absence of either diagnostic testing and specialist staff, and given that – at Villawood at least – students seem to be in groups with such a wide range of ages, cultures, experiences and needs that there is little likelihood of these issues receiving appropriate attention.
5.7 Is the curriculum relevant and appropriate to the child? Are gender, age, culture, language and the child’s personal background taken into account?
As far as we were able to determine, the minimal provision is very much focussed on English language, and is a ‘one size fits all’ approach. In this circumstance, it is unlikely that the usual standards of curriculum individualisation would be met.
5.8 How are different age groups and capabilities accommodated?
Structurally there seems to be little provision, although good teachers could be making internal provision in their classes.
5.9 What educational assessment programs are in place? Are records kept of students’ achievements? Are certificates available to validate the formal academic and/or vocational achievement of students in immigration detention? Are these qualifications recognised in all Australian states and territories?
We have little data on this, but given the limited provision, would doubt if certification is a possibility.
6.0 CONCLUSION
As educators we are distressed at the total inadequacy of the educational provision within the detention centres, which fails to meet either our international obligations, or the standards which we would hope to see applied to our own children. The combination of this and the distressing (and often traumatic) environment of the centres will unquestionably result in a body of young people who are severely socially, psychologically, linguistically and educationally disadvantaged. Even from the most selfish of stances, these are problems which our society will have to address, since a large number of detainees is eventually released into the community. As it stands, the development of these young people is being at best delayed, and at worst irreparably damaged. As Australian citizens we are ashamed that this situation can be allowed to continue. As an education system we would be open to any approach from government to become involved in addressing the needs of these children and young
Last Updated 14 July 2003.
