Complaints

Search

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention



Click 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

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 trialled 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.