Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to National Inquiry
into Children in Immigration Detention from
South Australian Department
of Education, Training and Employment
May 2002
- Introduction
- Children
Currently in Detention
- Children
Released from Detention
- Children
in Alternative Detention
- Links
with Woomera Area School
- Conclusion
- Case
Study 1
- Case
Study 2
- Case
Study 3
- Attachment
2
Introduction
This submission makes
brief comment on the education of children in detention. It provides a
more complete picture of the education services offered to these children
by the Department of Education, Training and Employment in South Australia
(hereafter the department) after they have been processed as refugees
and released into the community. Note is also made of a group of children
who have been sent to Adelaide as detainees in a place of alternative
detention and also of recent discussions on the issue of children in detention
being enrolled at Woomera Area School. The overall number of children
in department schools is provided, as is the costing for each of these
children in the New Arrivals Program (NAP), into which all released children
are enrolled for the first year of education in South Australia. Case
studies are included to capture the human element central to the submission.
Children
Currently in Detention
The Convention
on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) provides that all asylum
seeker children, including those who have had their applications for refugee
status rejected, are entitled to the same educational opportunities as
all other children in Australia. The Convention obliges State parties
to afford similar treatment to nationals and asylum seekers with respect
to all stages of education.
The Convention suggests
that all children, including asylum seekers, have 'an inalienable right
to education aimed to strengthen the child's capacity to enjoy the full
range of human rights and to promote a culture which is infused by appropriate
human rights values.' Education must be 'child centred, child friendly
and empowering'. Such statements within the Convention clearly resonate
with the aims of all schools and sites across the department.
The provision of
education inside the Woomera detention centre has been treated as the
responsibility of Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) within guidelines
provided solely by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration, Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). These guidelines provide no formal process
or mechanism for contact to be established between the department and
ACM or DIMIA. As a result minimal contact has taken place between ACM
and the department regarding the provision of education services for child
asylum seekers.
The department's
understanding of education practices within detention is based on anecdotal
evidence provided by children now enrolled in the New Arrivals Program
(NAP) and their teachers, as well as general observations and comments
made by NAP schools as to the overall psychological wellbeing of a number
of these children. From such evidence it is clear that the reality for
children in detention is different from the aims enunciated in the Convention's
mission statements.
Clearly, services
provided by the department are not matched within the detention situation.
The breadth of curriculum offerings, the range of educational pathways,
the extent of support services provided to children in need requires extensive
resource allocation which is not evident in detention. This is reinforced
by documentation on the DIMIA website entitled 'Facilities at Detention
Centres' which indicates that the level of education provision in detention
is lower than if the child were enrolled in a department school (see Attachment
1). The department has developed within its teaching force and support
services a range of highly specialised expertise and skills that is utilised
when dealing with newly arrived children and families. It is not feasible
to expect that such experience and expertise could be paralleled in the
short time span of educating children in detention in South Australia.
It would be highly unlikely that an education service offered in the community
could be matched by any similar service provided in detention. Detention
changes the environment in which the education process is taking place,
which inevitably impacts on the quality of the service.
It is understood
that there is no Commonwealth funding available to support vocational
education and training initiatives for senior secondary children in detention
and that little information is available to detainees and/or their carers
with regards to opportunities for vocational education and training. If
the child detainees were enrolled in their local school, they would have
access to information and the opportunity to participate in activities
that would facilitate their transition to vocational education and training
and employment.
At a more concrete
level of human resources it is understood that only 1 of 5 teachers currently
employed within the Woomera detention centre is registered to teach in
South Australia (see Attachment 1). The registration process is closely
adhered to by the department, and the Teachers Registration Board is an
independent body which provides a degree of quality control on the recognition
of teacher qualifications in South Australia. It runs police checks, for
example, on all applicants for registration. Also at the level of recruitment
there is no evidence of teachers being drawn from the pool of contract
teachers in South Australia. It is not known if the experience of the
teaching staff matches the needs of the particular group of learners.
It is evident that only one of the teaching staff is a specialist ESL
teacher (see Attachment 1).
As a consequence
of limited communication and consultation processes being established
or encouraged, it has not been possible for the department to gather important
information which would be used to ensure a smooth transition from detention
to state education facilities for each child. A constructive relationship
between the key stakeholders would enable:
- the provision
of support and advice on the South Australian Curriculum, Standards
and Accountability (SACSA) Framework, the mandated curriculum used in
department schools, when designing teaching and learning programs.
- the provision
of detailed information on the specific needs, educational history and
learning expectations of each child, and on student assessment and achievement
reporting processes.
- sharing of good
practice and expertise between educators.
- a consistent and
continued learning and teaching program between the Woomera education
facility in the detention centre and the schools the children are enrolled
in when they are released.
To date there has
been little information made available to the department regarding the
provision of education to children in the Woomera detention centre.
The South Australian
Office of DIMIA has been the official channel through which issues about
the children in detention and those released have been brought to the
attention of ACM and also the Commonwealth Government. The department
has been represented on a Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) Interagency
Group since July 2000. This group, convened by the Department of Human
Services (DHS), includes membership from the South Australian Office of
DIMIA and has been the forum in which the concerns and activities of a
wide range of government and non-government agencies have been brought
to the attention of DIMIA at the state level, and through the state body
to the Commonwealth Government.
DETE is also represented
on COSMIC, the Commonwealth State Migration Committee. Whilst the terms
of reference for this committee relate primarily to migration and settlement
matters, issues and concerns held by the department as well as other government
agencies about children in detention have also been tabled and discussed.
Children
Released from Detention
Former child detainees,
now enrolled in the New Arrivals Program (NAP), speak of a school day
in detention which comprises classes of one to two hours in total. The
focus of these lessons is on English and information technology, specifically
computing skills. There is a strong sense that the lessons are voluntary,
especially for secondary aged learners. Thus, the term "curriculum"
is used with reservation when considering the educational experiences
of children in detention. Again, this is confirmed in the DIMIA document
' Facilities at Detention Centres' (Attachment 1). In fact, this document
appears to indicate that all education is non-compulsory. Certainly the
teachers in the NAP do not assume any past experience with the SACSA Framework.
As no educational history accompanies the children when they come to enrol
in the NAP, teachers need to piece together each child's experiences and
achievements into the learning program.
Children released
from the Woomera detention centre enrol in department schools with no
accompanying educational documentation. All of the children enrol in the
NAP which caters to the full range of learners from Reception to Year
12. Thus, children enrol in the Junior Primary unit, one of the five Primary
units, or the Secondary New Arrivals Program school.
Since May 2000, approximately
250 child asylum seekers have been enrolled in the NAP. The broad aim
of the NAP is to provide intensive English language support within a caring
environment. The language of the mainstream curriculum is learnt as well
as the culture of schooling in South Australia in as short a time as possible.
The students exit from the NAP and enrol in mainstream schools usually
after one year. Of course, this timeframe has some flexibility. Where
students are progressing particularly quickly it may be possible to exit
earlier, and where there are diagnosed learning difficulties the time
in NAP may be extended.
The NAP is a well
resourced part of the total ESL Program in South Australia. Staffing guidelines
in the NAP provide for relatively generous allocations of teachers to
provide the intensive teaching and support at this initial point of schooling.
Teachers in the NAP are qualified and experienced ESL teachers. Bilingual
support is offered via Bilingual School Service Officers, whose role it
is to support teachers and learners in the classroom. Community Liaison
Officers are in place to provide valuable links between 'at risk' communities
and the education system, an ESL Guidance Officer is at hand in support
of students with learning difficulties, and a budget to provide interpreters
and translators for communication between home and school is also available.
The Preschool Bilingual
Program, which supports preschool services to provide for the access and
participation of children and families from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds who have very limited English, has also offered support
to approximately 22 preschool aged children enrolled in department preschools
after their release from detention. Many of these children progress into
department schools. The Preschool Bilingual Program provides children
with support in their mother tongue language while their English language
skills develop.
In total there is
a concerted effort within the department to ensure positive and intensive
educational experiences at the initial point of schooling or in the preschool
setting with a view to full participation in schooling and the community.
Children in detention
began to be released into the South Australian community in April/May
2000. It is now almost two years since the first children were enrolled
in the NAP. Since that time and up until 15 March 2002, approximately
250 children have been enrolled across the NAP. Approximately 70 of these
learners are classified as Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs). Not
all of these children have remained in the system and progressed from
the NAP into mainstream educational settings. However, approximately 200
of the 250 have remained in the system and have remained in the NAP or
will remain in the NAP for the prescribed twelve months. It is understood
that the other 50 students have entered TAFE, employment within the wider
community, attended mainstream high schools or moved interstate. There
is no instrument to track individual student destinations once they leave
NAPs.
Some of the issues
encountered by the New Arrivals Program are as follows:
- It is difficult
to ascertain how long the children have been in detention.
- It is difficult
to determine an accurate date of birth. The date given is very often
the 1st of January in a year. Anecdotally, some of the New Arrivals
Program units have reported that they suspect children to be in some
cases older and in other cases younger than the date of birth provided
at enrolment.
- The lack of information
flow between ACM and the department leads to a lack of information about
released children with special needs. This may lead to inappropriate
placement of learners and further delay in the provision of services.
- The impact of
the changes to the Migration Act has led to a sense of futility amongst
some children, especially older children. They have reported a feeling
of hopelessness in their situation at the thought of further temporary
visa entitlement or resettlement to their home country.
- The uncertainty
about the future has led to a range of behaviour management issues particularly
amongst the Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors, that is the older children
now attending the NAP. Teachers have reported a number of instances
of refusal to participate in learning activities.
- Unaccompanied
Humanitarian Minors may be living alone and isolated from any community
support or involvement.
Resourcing
The cost to the State
of providing this initial education is considerable (see Attachment 2).
At the Reception to Year 7 level it is estimated that the cost per child
is $7,500 per annum and at the secondary level this increases to $8,000
per annum. For newly arrived children with permanent visas this cost to
the State Government is offset by the Commonwealth New Arrivals Grant
(CNAG) of $3,990. This is a once off grant provided by the Commonwealth
for the initial English language support of new arrivals. It is not available
to any category of temporary resident of which Temporary Protection Visa
(TPV) holders are a subset. In the case of the TPVs, the South Australian
Government bears the total cost of the education of these children.
With respect to the
provision of preschool services, the State Government funds the Preschool
Bilingual Program. The Commonwealth Government has made no funding provision
available. This has resulted in a further increase in the number of children
being placed on the waiting list to receive preschool bilingual support.
As an interim measure, the department will fund a further two officers
to join the program from May 2002 on a short-term basis to provide language
and cultural support to children released from Woomera.
The cost to the State
is calculated at more that $1.5m. This expenditure has not been offset
by any support from the Commonwealth Government.
Children
in Alternative Detention
In February 2002,
a group of 14 Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors were sent to Adelaide
from Woomera without any processing for refugee status having taken place.
These children have been placed in foster homes which have been designated
as alternative places of detention, with guardians who have been designated
'directed persons' under the Migration Act. Family and Youth Services
(FAYS) as part of the Department of Human Services have responsibility
for this group. They are now enrolled in the Adelaide Secondary School
of English, the department's secondary NAP centre. An agreement between
SA and DIMIA is being pursued that will see the school being declared
an alternative place of detention and possibly teachers as 'directed persons'
under the Act. An agreement is currently being negotiated between the
Department of Human Services and DIMIA to, among other things, seek full
cost recovery for educational services provided to children in alternative
detention.
Links
with Woomera Area School
In August 2001, two
Commonwealth DIMIA personnel met with department officers to discuss the
establishment of links between ACM and the Woomera Area School. It was
suggested that a project be trialed in which detained mothers and young
children would be moved out of the detention centre and housed in the
community. The trial would also see the children enrol at the school.
The department's position at that meeting was (and remains) that all costs
associated with any pilot enrolment program would need to be met by the
Commonwealth.
In February 2002,
the matter of children in detention enrolling in Woomera Area School was
raised by ACM with the school directly. Some initial discussions have
taken place between ACM staff and the principal of the school with the
suggestion that a trial enrolment of a small number of young children
take place.
The Woomera Area
School Governing Council met on the evening of 9 April 2002 to consider
a proposal from ACM to trial integration of children from the Woomera
Detention Centre in the Woomera Area School. The Governing Council deferred
any discussion of it due to the short notice for its consideration - some
members had only seen it just prior to the meeting.
The department's
District Superintendent for the Far North region explained to the meeting
that the proposal put undue pressure on the school and any request of
the kind being presented should be made at government-to-government level
consistent with the discussion that had been held in August 2001. In response,
the Chief Education Officer stated that proposals of the kind detailed
by ACM had been put locally in Victoria and Derby. The District Superintendent
was not able to have this confirmed independently at the meeting and reiterated
the necessity of operating at a Ministerial/Government level for such
matters.
The Governing Council
agreed to defer any discussion of the proposal until 7 May. There was
a strong view expressed that any consideration of the proposal ought to
be on a community basis. The Chief Education Officer stated that ACM would
be publishing the proposal in the local community newsletter. The District
Superintendent advised the principal to inform the school community in
the school's final newsletter for term 1 of the exact status of the proposal
from the government's and the department's perspective.
A range of issues
is still to be resolved before any trial could proceed including:
- the amount of
resources to be provided by ACM
- the quantity of
ESL support required to make the learning experience meaningful for
the children
- current information
about the state of health of the children
- the need for a
focus on cultural inclusivity
- the school as
an alternative place of detention and school personnel as 'directed
persons' under the Migration Act.
The department's
position is that all costs associated with the trial should be met by
the Federal Government and that no implementation will commence without
a firm and formal Federal Government commitment to meeting all the costs.
Conclusion
It
is nearly two years since children were first released from detention
and entered the education system in South Australia. These children have
experienced serious hardship, which has impacted on their psychological
and educational well being. They have very real histories with deep emotional
scars. Full recovery from such experiences will be very long term in extreme
cases.
This department has
made a commitment to provide full educational services to these children
and there are many joyful stories of children settling in to school life
and flourishing in their new surroundings. The demands placed on personnel
in the New Arrivals Program have been met with a level of expertise and
professionalism equal to the task. The New Arrivals Program has more than
25 years of experience in supporting migrants and refugees from the latest
'trouble spot' or war zone. The children released from Woomera are welcomed
in our schools and provided with the best educational services available
to all learners.
It is important to
note that these services place a great demand on the resources of the
South Australian Government. Currently the State Government provides all
of these services without support from the Commonwealth Government. It
is recommended in the strongest manner that, at the very least, the Commonwealth
provide the New Arrivals grant to these children. This would indicate
a welcome commitment on behalf of the Commonwealth to the education of
these children.
Case Study
1
This
story has been written by a teacher within the NAP relating the experiences
conveyed to the teacher by one child in her class. It is included in the
submission to demonstrate the extreme nature of the disruption faced by
some children and also some of the challenges they bring with them to
our department schools. It is of M, a 7 year old in a Junior Primary setting.
M's father was politically
active in Iraq. He was executed publicly. A video was made of his execution
and sent to the family. The family escaped to Iran where they decided
that M's 21-year-old brother and M would try to get to Australia. They
flew to Indonesia and took a boat from there. It was planned that after
their arrival in Australia M's mother and sister would follow the same
route to Australia. Of the people on board M was the only child among
an all-male group. The journey was difficult and took four months to accomplish.
On arrival in Australia they were taken directly to Woomera and were in
the forefront of riots taking place at the time. M was one of the children
filmed wielding sticks, while his brother was jailed for his involvement.
M was fostered (according to A) to a nurse working in Woomera at the time.
Eventually A was released and they received their TPV status. They arrived
in Adelaide and sought the help of the Coalition for Justice for Refugees.
This school was contacted by the Co-ordinator for the Coalition for Justice
for Refugees and the school enrolled the child.
Life was difficult
for both M and A. As a 21 year old male A struggled with the role of guardian
he had taken on. M became used to a life with A's male friends. M was
often left alone at home to take care of himself and to deal with household
chores eg. cooking.
Even though M had
some schooling in Woomera, there was considerable adjustment for him to
attend the NAP. The NAP Guidance Officer was consulted. M was traumatised
and used to making decisions for himself or being told what to do by A.
A was genuinely concerned about his brother's welfare and trying to come
to terms with his responsibilities as a guardian. M wanted to run away
and on a couple of occasions he ran onto the road outside the school.
The first priority was to keep M safe and the other children safe. He
vented his anger by hurting other children. He was intelligent, manipulative
and always wanting to 'make deals'. Consistency and follow through were
important, but most important was the development of a trusting relationship
with his teachers. In addition considerable meetings around M's behaviour
to discuss issues as they arose resulted in M taking more responsibility
for his own actions. He had an ability to learn quickly and his English
language developed quickly.
During M's time at
the school he also spent some time being cared for by a foster parent.
This was a useful adjustment period for both M and A. A spent some of
this time working in Mildura. Phone calls with his mother were vital.
There was discussion between M, A, mother and DIMIA as to whether M would
be deported to Iran to be with her. After hearing of M and A's plight
their mother did not want to attempt the trip to Australia especially
with the possibility of being detained in Woomera. A decision was made
for M to remain here with A.
Case Study
2
The following comments
have been made by a Year 7 NAP teacher.
Of the four TPV students
in my class two Afghani boys manifest behaviours that have concerned me.
A's mother spoke to me early in the year regarding her own concerns about
his worrying about everything and becoming frequently and easily upset.
She was very distressed and felt helpless in her efforts to reassure him.
He is an observant and intelligent boy who has taken all the uncertainties
of his family's future on board. This intensity and stress flows through
to school where he is extremely conscientious but easily upset. In an
informal setting he expresses insecurity and fear for his future and his
family. In a more formal context he is more guarded and doesn't readily
express his fears. B is A's friend. They met when his boat sank and his
family was picked up by A's boat. B has times when he is very withdrawn.
He also has nightmares and difficulty sleeping. He feels a great weight
resting on him and often has stomach aches and headaches. As with A he
only discloses his fears and worries in informal contexts and likes to
appear to be strong and in control.
Case Study
3
The following comments
are made by another Year 7 teacher in a different Primary NAP location.
In 2001, I had three
Year 7 TPV students in my class. They were highly motivated students who
were thorough in all aspects of their work, and worked quickly and quietly.
One of these students, a girl from Afghanistan, had only attended 'underground'
school as an education was not permitted. She continues to excel. Another
girl, from Iraq, had the confidence to join the school choir and speak
on stage at an assembly. The 3rd student, a boy from Afghanistan, appeared
reserved and a little fearful, yet still was able to present a discussion
on life under the Taliban at a whole school assembly. There are normal
differences between these three children, as you would find anywhere in
the world.
ATTACHMENT
2
Education costs for permanent
and temporary protection visa holders for whom English is a second language
The following details
the approximate cost of education for students for whom English is a second
language. These students receive year level per capita funding and can
access ESL support services depending on level of need. All costs are
per capita.
|
Permanent
Resident |
Temporary
Protection Visa Holder |
||||
|
Cost
of education |
Notes
|
Commonwealth
funding |
Cost
to State |
Commonwealth
funding |
Cost
to State |
ESL
New Arrivals |
~
$7,200 |
Dependent on year level. Comprises year level per capita funding + ESL funding |
one-off
grant of $3990 |
~$3210
|
none
|
~$7200
|
|
$1735
- $3511 |
ESL
component |
||||
Transport
to NAP Centres |
$1500
|
Under
10 year olds and students with complexity of travel |
None
|
$1500
|
None
|
$1500
|
ESL
students in the general support program |
$3704
- $5455 |
Dependent on ESL category Comprises year level per capita + ESL support allocation |
Eligible
for General Recurrent Grants |
$3704
- $5455 less General Recurrent Grants |
Eligible
for General Recurrent Grants |
$3704
- $5455 less General Recurrent Grants |
$570
- $1791 |
ESL
component |
~
$235 of ESL component from SAISO Programme |
$335
- $1556 for ESL component |
~$235
of ESL component from SAISO Programme |
$335
- $1556 for ESL component |
|
Translating
& interpreting services |
$100
|
None
|
$100
|
None
|
$100
|
TPV Students with
a Disability
In addition to
ESL support services, TPV students access disability services. Current
costs to the end of Term 1 2002 have been detailed
1 Sensory Impairment
(Hearing) R-2 - $19,029
1 Mainstream A -
$1,293
1 Special School
- metro R-2 - $7,927
1 Special School
-metro R-2 - $7,927
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.