Education
Australia’s international obligations
Australia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international covenants carries certain obligations, including:
· The provision of education to all children in Australia, wherever they may be and whatever their circumstances, which necessarily includes children in immigration detention.
· The provision of special education programs to children of foreign origin residing in Australia.
· The provision of a consistent, relevant and culturally appropriate education for children in immigration detention centres that should occur outside detention.
Teachers and families report that education programs in Australian immigration detention are erratic, fail to reach all children, and are designed neither to be culturally or linguistically sensitive, nor sensitive to individual needs.
Teachers’ reports reinforce the findings of HREOC’s 1998 report on immigration detention, which found that education in the centres was under-resourced, understaffed, poorly regulated, culturally limited, and offered no instruction in languages other than English.
Guidelines established by HREOC in March 2000 covering such matters as education standards and quality, and cultural, religious and linguistic needs, appear not to have been implemented.
Linguistic and cultural rights
Children’s continued use of their first language is central to the critical early development of a child’s identity and self-esteem, and is of significance as a medium for continued learning. For a child, experiencing a loss of their first language, culture and family values can have serious, long-term consequences, including: loss of feelings of self worth; loss of motivation for learning and breakdown of family relationships.
Principles underlying education in Australia – virtually impossible to meet in detention
The psychological and physical effects of detention make it virtually impossible to provide an education that accords with the principles underlying the provision of education in Australia.
Specially designed education programs
Children in immigration detention have often experienced trauma and loss. Educational programs for these children need to be specially designed to address often overwhelming mental health issues which impact on their ability and willingness to participate in a formal education process. The design of appropriate programs requires highly qualified and skilled teachers willing to develop individual programs, rather than use a "one size fits all" approach to the curriculum.
Role of parents
It is crucial to make provision for parents to participate in their children’s educational experiences. Without this key element in a successful education, any program introduced would be seriously compromised. This is likely to be the result in detention, given the effects of detention on parental health and family life.
Early childhood education (0-6 years)
Early childhood educational programs should be offered in a safe, flexible, culturally affirming, interactive, family-friendly environment, by highly skilled educators with the necessary resources.
Primary education for detainees
Highly qualified, flexible and specialised primary teachers are required to meet the diverse needs of primary school children, as are appropriate resources to ensure that curriculum goals can be met.
Education for older children and young adults in immigration detention
Young detainees whose schooling has been disrupted need to re-establish trust in a safe learning environment, have uninterrupted study opportunities, have access to ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers, continue to develop their first language and develop connections with the wider, English-speaking community.
Intrinsic barriers to the education of children in immigration detention
There are a number of barriers to education which are intrinsic to immigration detention in Australia, including: isolation; a harsh, intimidating physical environment; problems of accountability and transparency in the provision of education; and the political environment inside and outside the detention centres.
These barriers doom to failure any attempt to develop sound, flexible, well-resourced education programs in immigration detention centres.
Interim models of education for children and young adults in immigration detention
As an interim measure, the following should inform models for education programs to be implemented within detention centres, until children are released from immigration detention:
Recommended features of interim early childhood education are: flexibility; recognition of a child as part of an empowered family unit; activities based on sound educational principles; respect for linguistic rights; and specially qualified staff.
An interim model for primary education may be based on the Collingwood English Language School (CELS) outpost program, which features: a local school environment outside the immigration detention facility; intensive ESL classes for small groups; and a thematic, outcomes based approach.
An interim model for secondary education may be based on the education program at the now-defunct Maribyrnong Settlement Centre, which featured: side-by-side institutions, one for children and one for adults; bilingual teachers qualified in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), with special skills in the teaching of preliterate children; an extensive bilingual program; capped class sizes; and strong links with local schools, making transition easier.
Investing in the future
Long-term economic and social benefits flow from investment in education, especially for disadvantaged children. But good educational outcomes flow only from education that is undertaken and enjoyed in liberty.
Education
Whether children build a world of peace or a world of hatred is as much a result of the choices we adults make, as the choices they make. Children will build a world using the tools and materials we provide them with, so let us choose to teach them the ways of peace.
Dr Wangari Maathai
Australia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises the universal right of all children to an education, obliges us to provide education to all of the children in this country, wherever they may be and whatever their circumstances. Children in immigration detention are no exception.
The United Nations has determined that all states should provide special education programs to children of foreign origin residing in their sovereign territory, and furthermore, that children in immigration detention centres have a right to an education that should occur outside detention in order to facilitate continuing education on their release.1
Numerous reports and inquiries have recommended that children held in immigration detention should be provided with a comprehensive education that is consistent, relevant and culturally appropriate.2 But despite such recommendations, education in Australian immigration detention centres remains erratic. It fails to consistently reach all children and it is not designed to be culturally or linguistically sensitive, nor is it sensitive to individual needs.
Teachers working in immigration detention centres well described this erratic approach to education in a recent edition of the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent:
There is no curriculum, syllabus and no accountability. It’s solely dependent on the teacher.... participation is voluntary… there is no continuity … there are no resources… teachers are not being replaced.3
In at least one immigration detention centre, deprivation of education appears to be management practice. A detained family reports:
In the two years we have been here, apart from some English lessons, [our children] have had no schooling… [our daughter] was taken to a school near the detention centre for about three months this year, between May and August, but after her hunger strike the staff stopped taking her. She used to be taken to school with two girls and one boy accompanied by two officers, and she continues to ask that she be allowed to go back to school, as it is the only thing to keep her occupied and sustain her in this place, which she hates… However, officers from Australasian Correctional Management and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs still refuse to take her as they consider her too dangerous since the hunger strike which she… took part in last August.4
· Insufficient resources are directed towards the provision of education services.
· There is no formal policy, instruction or standard for the provision of education services.
· No languages other than English are taught in the elementary education of children and children are not provided with formal lessons about their culture.
· School-aged children do not attend local schools.
· English classes are insufficiently resourced, with one teacher likely to be responsible for the instruction of over thirty detainees with diverse backgrounds, languages and varying degrees of English comprehension.
· Existing libraries at Port Hedland, Villawood and Maribyrnong are insufficient to be of genuine recreational or instructional interest.
Guidelines relating to the education of children in immigration detention
In March 2000, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission established immigration detention guidelines that include the following:
· The right of children in immigration detention to education shall be recognised.
· Education provision should be assured within a reasonable period of admission, taking into account the need to assess the child and make necessary staffing and related arrangements.
· The education provided to children of compulsory school age shall be of a standard and quality equivalent to that in Australian schools. Children above the Australian compulsory school age should have an opportunity to continue their education.
· Special attention should be given by educators to the particular cultural, religious and linguistic needs of children in immigration detention. Children who are illiterate or have cognitive or learning disabilities may require special education assistance.
· Education of children in immigration detention shall promote, among other things, respect for their cultural identity, language and values.
· Wherever possible, the education of children in immigration detention should take place outside the detention centre in the general school system to facilitatethe continuation of their education upon release and their social and cultural development.
· Opportunities forEnglish language instruction and furthereducation, including technical and vocational education should be provided where possible.
But two years on there is no indication that these guidelines have significantly affected practices in immigration detention centres. In February 2002, current Human Rights Commissioner Dr Sev Ozdowski informed the Legal and Constitutional Committee that children in immigration detention centres under 12 received two hours of education per day overall, certainly less than a child would have if that child were in the community at large.
Linguistic rights
According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, failure to provide cultural and linguistic support for children in immigration detention contravenes basic human rights.
Skutnabb-Kangas (1999) cites the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the most far-reaching article in human rights law granting linguistic rights:
…in those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.7
In Australia, with a population in which many are categorised as belonging to minorities, we have key obligations with respect to linguistic rights. We are obliged to support children in the continued use of their first language, which is central to the critical early development of a child’s identity and self-esteem, and is of significance as a medium for continued learning.
Children unable to express themselves fluently in their first language may be cut off from the security of their family background and the support of family members. They may suffer stress, pain and trauma and succumb to powerful forces for assimilation as they realise that their language and culture are not valued, that their parents are not valued, or worse, that they are vilified by mainstream cultures in Australia.
For a child, experiencing a loss of their first language, culture and family values can have serious consequences, both for the present and the future. These may include:
· loss of feeling of self worth
· loss of motivation for learning
· breakdown of family relationships leading to a loss of
intimacy with family members
· rejection by family members through trauma and poor
feelings of self worth
· loss of socialisation within their family culture leading to
a loss of values, traditions, beliefs and family wisdom
Principles underlying education in Australia
The key principles that underpin provision of education in Australia are:9
· Education is a right for all children enshrined in international, national and state and territory conventions and legislation.
· Education is a life-long process that begins at birth and continues into old age.
· Education is grounded in the relationships between the learner, the teacher, family, peers and the community.
· Education involves a complex interaction between teaching and learning.
· Language is fundamental to the learning process.
· Education is concerned with 'what ought to be'.
· Education is generally located within local communities, but it must provide a 'world' of opportunity and awareness for the children and their families.
· Early and intensive specialised intervention can help to reduce education disadvantage and to maximise opportunities for vulnerable children and their families.
Children and young adults in immigration detention should be provided with educational opportunities in accordance with these principles. However, the psychological and physical effects of detention on these children make it virtually impossible to provide an education that accords with these principles for them, as long as they remain in detention.
Many children and young adults in immigration detention have experienced a significant degree of emotional trauma, stress, grief and loss. Some have parents who are suffering from depression. Others have left their families behind. As a consequence, educational programs for children in immigration detention need to be specially designed to address often overwhelming mental health issues which impact on their ability and willingness to participate in a formal education process. The design of appropriate educational programs for children in immigration detention requires highly qualified and skilled teachers who are willing to develop individual programs, rather than employ a “one size fits all” approach to the curriculum.
The role of parents
Parents are generally the primary agents in their children’s education. They provide the primary context for young children’s development and learning. Parents make a significant contribution to all aspects of the child’s learning, particularly of language, their social development, and the emergence of their self-regulation.
Research demonstrates that children whose parents actively participate in their education, are more likely to have more positive attitudes and behaviours, are more motivated to learn, have higher aspirations, earn higher grades and are more likely to graduate from high school and enrol in higher education.6 It is crucial to the successful education of children in immigration detention to make provision for parents to participate in their children’s educational experiences.
Taking into consideration the contention in the mental health chapter of this submission that ordinary life is utterly impossible in the detention centre environment, we must ask whether the essential support of parents could ever be activated in detention. In other words, without this key element in a successful education, any program introduced would be seriously compromised.
Early childhood education (0-6 years) for detainees
Accumulating research points to the early years as crucial to a child’s later life experiences and position in society.10 Highly significant for children in immigration detention centres is research that demonstrates the strongest positive effects of early childhood educational programs are found for children from families with the fewest resources, and who suffer the greatest stress.11
Children in immigration detention are likely to profit from exposure to early childhood programs which:
· provide a safe, supportive environment with sensitive staff who are familiar with the trauma and experience that children’s parents and friends are experiencing
· are designed to reflect the individual needs of the young children attending
· provide positive cultural, religious and linguistic experiences
· provide continued exposure to the child’s first language
· respond to the child’s interests and their need to learn through play, which fosters social interactions, language and communication skills, negotiating skills, self-direction, persistence, problem solving skills, intellectual exploration and inquiry, reasoning, imagination, and creativity
· provide and encourage parent and family participation within the family’s level of comfort
· are provided by appropriately qualified and highly skilled early childhood educators
· are well resourced and offered in an environment which meets health and safety needs; establishes appropriate pupil-staff ratios and learning group sizes, and provides opportunities for a child to develop relationships with both other children and adults
Primary education for detainees
In Australia, children between the ages four-and-a-half and six, depending on individual state regulations, commence primary education. The primary curriculum, in which there is a focus on the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills, is designed to address key learning areas related to English, Languages other than English, Mathematics, the Arts, Science, Health, Studies of Society and Environment, Physical Education and Technology.
In immigration detention centres it is likely there will be a range of educational experiences among children of the same age. Some children will have had opportunities to attend school in their first country. For others, attending primary school as detainees will be the first experience of formal education. Highly qualified, flexible and specialised primary teachers are required to meet the diverse needs of these children, as are appropriate resources to ensure that curriculum goals can be met.
Older children and young adults, whose education has been disrupted by trauma, prolonged periods in camps, lack of previous schooling and uncertainty about their future, may experience great difficulty in learning. They may fail to reach the level of proficiency in English they need to participate successfully in education, training and future employment.12
For some young people in immigration detention the extreme uncertainty of their prolonged status as asylum seekers may inhibit concentration or ability to settle into study and training. Such young people are at great risk of experiencing isolation, alienation and depression, of inflicting self-harm, attempting suicide, taking drugs and becoming involved in crime.
Young detainees whose schooling has been disrupted must catch up on what they have missed, but their ability to do this may be blocked by post-traumatic stress. They are compelled to learn a new language in a new educational culture, but they may have forgotten their ‘learning-how-to-learn’ skills and habits, as well as knowledge and skills they have previously acquired.
In addition to learning basic survival English, to successfully interact with the broader community young detainees need to acquire conversational fluency. They also need enough academic language to be able to participate in secondary and tertiary studies and training courses. It may take seven years or more to acquire such academic language proficiency.
To acquire education, older children and young adults in immigration detention need:
· to have opportunities to re-establish trust which has been disturbed by the circumstances that led them and their families to flee their countries of origin, or of first asylum
· to experience a safe environment and stable relationships in which they may integrate their past, present and future
· to have a sense of connection with members of the wider community who recognise them as individuals and respect their cultural background, in order to foster a sense of belonging and mutual inclusion
· to study without further disruption
· to have access to systematic programs taught by teachers trained in teaching English to speakers of other languages
· to maintain proficiency in their first language, particularly if there is a possibility that they may be deported back to their country of origin
· to have access to social and communicative networks of English-speaking peers to enable them to develop fluency in English
The greatest impediment to the education of children in immigration detention is their detention, and more particularly so if detention is prolonged.
For learning to take place children require qualified teachers, a culturally responsive environment, adequate and relevant resources, parental involvement and a connection with the community. These requirements are not satisfactorily met in immigration detention centres.
Characteristic aspects of immigration detention may inhibit the provision of education to children within the system. These include isolation, the physical environment, management attitudes to accountability and transparency, and the political environment:
The location of our immigration detention centres in some of the most remote areas of Australia is one of the biggest barriers to the provision of education inside them. Providing appropriate resources, both human and economic, as well as access to expert advice and a wider learning community, is extremely difficult in such isolation.
The sharing of teaching knowledge and skills assists effective communication with children who have been traumatised and promotes more sympathetic educational environments, in which, for example, children may use play and drawing as a way of communicating their anxieties.14 Staff attitudes are a key factor in influencing the quality of an early childhood program. Professional meetings promote staff morale, critical assessment of teaching methods, and flexibility,15but such meetings are made difficult by geographical isolation.
Children gain access to the fabric of their culture from written materials in their first language. But the isolation of immigration detention centres limits access to teaching resources, including those that promote positive images of a first culture and language, which are a critical starting point for the education of children.
Qualified and highly skilled educators with significant experience in working with refugee children are less likely to be available or willing to take up teaching positions in remote and isolated areas. The sole teacher at the Port Hedland immigration detention centre in April 2000, who had just resigned because of poor conditions, told the ABC’s Four Corners it takes many months to find someone who will take up such a teaching position, and that some teachers are simply not replaced.16
This even applies to less isolated detention centres. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report Those who've come across the seas: detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998) describes a situation in Villawood, where as of March 1997, there had been no classes for approximately six months, owing to the difficulty of replacing a teacher.
The delivery of education to children in remote immigration detention centres by local schools and childcare centres is problematic. Local educational services, with stretched resources and limited teaching staff who are likely to have little experience of refugees, are not well equipped to meet the needs of immigrant children who have undergone severe trauma and emotional distress.
The environment is a powerful regulator of behaviour. It can influence both child and adult behaviour, either positively or negatively. It communicates clear messages of intent and feeling.17
Living conditions in remote immigration detention centres are not conducive to the education of children. Children suffering excessive heat in desert climates, overcrowding and a general lack of resources will not find it easy to engage in a learning process.
The immigration detention centre itself can be intimidating and is a significant barrier to the provision of a safe and secure environment in which to educate children. Multiple layers of high fencing topped by razor wire, security check points and room searches are certainly not conducive to learning.
In the prison-like environments of Australian immigration detention centres, parents and children are dehumanised. They are assigned numbers, forced to comply with daily musters and nightly head counts, and to listen to blaring address systems.
Communal living conditions in detention centres inhibit privacy and access to larger cultural communities, thereby diminishing parental authority and undermining the critical role parents play in the education of their children.
Unsuitable and overcrowded living conditions also contribute to a reduction in the general health and well-being of children, and any such reduction is likely to result in a compromised education. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998) describes unacceptable conditions in which very limited space is available to detainees, there are few recreational and educational activities in which they can participate, and inadequate, uncomfortable recreational areas.
Information about the education provided to children within privately run immigration detention centres is limited, contradictory and erratic. It would appear that the centres are not required to adhere to state based children’s services regulations which establish requirements for staff numbers and qualifications, staff ratios, and the physical space in which learning is to take place.
The paucity of information on educational practices in immigration detention centres demonstrates that these private sector providers of education are less accountable than responsible authorities in the public sector. This lack of accountability makes it impossible for Australia to meet its obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
…to ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children conforms with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in areas of safety, health, in number and suitability of their staff, as well as supervision. 18
The current political environment in Australia is one in which provision of services to detainees may be resented. If the community at large does not regard education for children in immigration detention as a priority, there will be limited public pressure to ensure that adequate educational services are provided.
The political climate within immigration detention centres is likely to be unstable, and one in which education becomes a lesser priority for both families and management.
These intrinsic barriers doom to failure any attempt to develop sound, flexible, well-resourced educational programs for children inside immigration detention centres. These children, with their parents, must be released into the community if they are to have any chance of obtaining an education that accords with Australian education principles, and with our international obligations.
Interim measure models of education for children and young adults in immigration detention
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998) has recommended that:
· The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) should develop a formal standard on the provision of education. Any contractual arrangement with a service provider should require that standard to be met.
· Education services should be resourced at a level comparable to English as a Second Language or special needs classes.
· Elementary education should include instruction in first language and classes of cultural relevance to children, wherever possible. Elementary education should be compulsory for all children.
· DIMA, State government education agencies and local schools should develop a protocol for access by children in immigration detention to classes at local schools. DIMA could conduct a pilot scheme. If a child cannot enrol, the child should be allowed to participate in a limited range of classes, such as music and sport.19
The experience of children mandatorily detained in Australian immigration detention centres makes a mockery of the principles that underpin the provision of education in the rest of the country. We are loath to recommend models for education in immigration detention because of our findings that detention and education are essentially incompatible. All of the conditions that promote a child’s education are lacking or compromised in the detention centre environment. As an interim measure, however, we will outline some models for educational programs to be implemented within detention centres, until children are released from immigration detention.
Interim education models for immigration detention centres may be drawn from what are known to be successful programs within the wider community. Such models are guides to the implementation of sound educational practices, but do not provide instant solutions. Education is only successful when it responds to real children, their individual families and beliefs. Each time education is undertaken within an immigration detention setting, management should consider the needs of those to be educated. No singular approach to education can effectively provide for the diverse educational needs of all children in immigration detention.
The models outlined below for early childhood, primary and secondary education are drawn from educational interactions in Victoria with newly arrived families and their children. These programs are flexible by design, they have the capacity to change rapidly to accommodate the individual needs of children, particularly those with very high needs, and have been based on sound educational philosophies and practices that respect the cultural and linguistic identity of the children.
Towards an interim model for early childhood education
Cultures have different ways of socialising children and have different attitudes and beliefs about what constitutes appropriate behaviour:
Some cultures rely more on faith than on problem solving in facing adversity. Some cultures are more concerned with punishment and guilt while others with discipline and reconciliation. Some cultures expect children to be more dependent on others for help in adversity rather than becoming autonomous and more self reliant. The parents in some countries maintain a close relationship with their children, while others ‘cut off’ their children at about age five. The resilient children manage this rejection; the non resilient children withdraw, submit and are depressed.
Particular attitudes and beliefs contribute to a young child’s ability to cope with stress and violence and to embrace education. Therefore, early childhood education programs for children in immigration detention should be developed by staff with in depth understanding of the specific cultural practices of the children they seek to educate.
Early childhood education must be flexible to accommodate the different cultural experiences of children using them. More appropriate for very young detainees than implementing a single educational model, would be the development of a set of principles, which could underpin the early childhood educational programs in an immigration detention centre.
Children experience fewer traumas if the immediate family and community are displaced together. If familiar structures and practices are maintained, children may experience a sense of continuity and security, even though the setting has changed. But when detention centre managers impose changes in rites and ceremonies; prohibiting cultural practices that once brought the community together — whether to do with education, religion or ways of earning a living — children are left without familiar supports and may be traumatised. A child separated from family members who takes refuge in a cultural group where customs are different may experience greater trauma.
According to Dr Ruth Wraith, Chief Psychotherapist at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, to be psychologically and physically healthy enough to embrace education, children need:
· safety
· warm, caring acceptance and a permanent relationship with at least one adult
· to be a part of a family in which relationships enable the child to develop a wholesome personality and sense of self
· to be a part of a community which supports the child’s development as a member of society
Dr Wraith says that traumatised children such as those in immigration detention require particular assistance in order to:
· symbolically represent their experience
· regain a sense of inner security, safety, and trust in the world
· regain a sense of trust so that they may eventually express their thoughts and feelings
· re-establish positive, self-enhancing identification
· master and develop personal efficacy
· identify coping skills for the future
· engage their parents and family system in the educational process
Dr Wraith adds that the effective educational assistance of traumatised young children in immigration detention requires additional considerations, such as:
· Time itself does not heal children’s traumas.
· Children do not spontaneously treat their own trauma. They need support from adults.
· Many refugee children are not only suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but also bereavement due to losses in all areas of their lives.
· Before the child can be assisted, there may be a need to assist parents and care givers to deal with their own trauma.21
Taking into account the special circumstances of young children in immigration detention, a model for their early childhood education is characterised by:
1. Flexibility
· allowing children to move through activities at their own pace
· allowing children to move in and out of the service easily
· allowing children to have access to materials that provide them with physical comfort
· offering children consistent limits appropriate to their circumstances
· allowing children to move between indoors and outdoors
2. Recognition of a child as part of a family unit
· fostering parent-child interactions by providing an environment that encourages parents to spend time with their children
· consulting parents about the needs of their children
· providing adult oriented activities
· acknowledging and supporting the role of parents continuously
· involving parents in all aspects of the program
3. Empowerment of families
· creating a service that also belongs to the families who use it
· contributing to the overall running of the centre
· consulting with parents about the kind of educational environment they would like for their child
· providing sufficient tools for communication, such as pens, notepads, and bilingual dictionaries, which allow parents to communicate more confidently with staff
· assisting parents or care givers to understand the emotional needs and behaviours of their children
· helping parents to help their children
· providing a nurturing and nourishing environment for the family.
4. Activities based on sound educational principles
· allowing children to achieve success
· providing children with a sense of familiarity and security
· enabling children to move through activities at their own pace
· fostering pride in a child’s cultural heritage
· recognising the child’s level of development, rather than being age appropriate
· encouraging children to express their feelings and experiences so they can be publicly shared, if the child so wishes
· enabling children to experiment and test their boundaries
5. Respect for linguistic rights
· fostering the maintenance of the first language
· providing opportunities for children to hear their first language via the provision of books, music and resources in their first language
· making bilingual staff available
· recognising the importance of the maintenance of the first language in discussions with parents and encouraging parents to speak in their first language with their children
· supporting children to develop a positive sense of their cultural identity by promoting wider appreciation of basic words in their first language and the first languages of others
6. Well qualified staff
· having training in early childhood education
· having experience of working with children who suffer from trauma
· having the ability to think laterally
· having a strong sense of self
· understanding that they work in a “special” early childhood centre and modifying their expectations accordingly
· having bilingual language skills
· having the same cultural background as some of their students
· having strong interpersonal skills
· recognising the importance of accessing ongoing specialist debriefing
An interim model for primary education
A good educational model for primary aged children in immigration detention is an outpost program provided by Collingwood English Language School (CELS), in central Melbourne. In addition to intensive English language courses that CELS provides for new migrants on its premises, the school offers outpost classes to primary schools in other areas where there is a need.
The outpost program consists of qualified English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers working intensively for four days per week with a maximum of thirteen new arrivals per learning group. Groups of thirteen may be formed by learning levels, such as Prep to Grade 2, and Grade 3 to Grade 6. Teachers are adequately equipped with resources and typically use a thematic, outcomes based approach to structure lessons.
Children in immigration detention could benefit from classes modelled on the CELS outpost program, especially if the lessons were held in a local school environment outside the immigration detention facility. Both children and teachers could benefit from access to additional equipment in schools, and the more everyday experience of education outside of detention. For the program to work effectively, it is essential that teachers have ESL training.
An interim model for secondary education
The education once provided at the Maribyrnong Settlement Centre provides an excellent model for secondary education in immigration detention centres today.
Throughout the years of its existence the Maribyrnong Settlement Centre took many different forms, but for most of the time it was a place for immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers to settle into comfortable furnished apartments when they first arrived in the country. Passport and visa questions were handled on campus, the medical centre did all the screenings for illnesses, and most were free to come and go without hindrance. It is ironic that the only vestige of the complex now remaining is the immigration detention centre.
The on-campus services were available to all eligible people, whether they lived on site or not; so the settlement centre became a very valuable and very busy conglomeration of the full range of on-arrival services. People came from miles around to see a settlement officer, negotiate housing and employment and see friends and, of course, to go to school.
Teachers at the Centre aimed to provide a comprehensive education program for all school-age children, English language classes for adults and child-care and, eventually, pre-school programs for younger children.
The school was operated as two side-by-side institutions, one for children and one for adults. Primary and secondary-age children enjoyed a varied school program provided by qualified primary and secondary teachers, most also qualified in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), many bilingual and some with special skills in the teaching of preliterate children. Class sizes were capped at twelve, and some students with special needs worked in smaller groups. The adults attended English language courses of varying lengths, provided by trained adult ESL teachers.
Because of this juxtaposition of adult and child programs the potentially terrifying experience of entering a foreign school environment with no language to protect oneself was greatly ameliorated. Parents and other trusted adults learned right next door to children, and were in the playground during recess and lunch breaks.
The program provided for school-age children had a strong transitional emphasis. There were many excursions right from the start, and a lot of exchange activities of various kinds between the language centre and local mainstream schools. All secondary-age students studied a variety of subjects and handled texts and concepts they would meet when they transferred to mainstream schooling. Naturally the subject lessons were sometimes wholly language lessons, the 'language in context' model serving both as a suitable language-learning environment and a preparation for return to a full school program.
Some lucky Vietnamese and Spanish-speaking students enjoyed an extensive bilingual program including the learning of some subjects in their first language. It would have been desirable to make that sort of facility available to all, but staffing the program proved difficult. The language centre, however, had quite a good collection of suitable books in appropriate languages.
The language centre also had strong links with several local primary and secondary schools. Each term students assessed as soon-to-be ready for transfer to a local school (or who were eager to make the transfer) were introduced to their new schools and new teachers well in advance of the move taking place. The farewell parties at the end of each term were always very happy-cum-tearful affairs.
Investing in the future
The better the care and stimulation a child receives, the greater the benefit — for the national economy as well as the child. The world is finally recognizing that children’s rights to education, growth and development — physical, cognitive, social, emotional and moral - cannot be met without a comprehensive approach to service their needs from birth.
World Bank, 1996
Numerous longitudinal studies have attested to the fact that educationally investing in the early years of children will have substantial long term gains for society.22Research confirms that the nature of experiences children have in their early years will have a significant impact on the structure of the brain and its capacities, and hence on development and learning.
Research23 also confirms that young children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have participated in high quality early childhood programs over a period of time:
· display sizeable and persistent effects in relation to their achievement, grade retention, special education, high school graduation, and socialisation
· display less disruptive and impulsive behaviours
· contribute to a reduction in the incidence and severity of juvenile delinquency and are less likely to become involved in the Criminal Juvenile Justice System, or to be chronic offenders
· have better language development, pre-literacy and maths skills through the period from the preschool years to second grade at primary school, and higher levels of school readiness
· are less likely to receive welfare assistance or other social services benefits.
In the United States, follow up studies of early childhood programs indicate that for every dollar spent, the public received $7.16 USD in benefits.24 Applying similar criteria to Australia, Vimpari (1998) argues:
For every dollar not spent on the early years of a child’s life in the provision of quality education costs our society $8.95 a year until the child reaches 27 years of age. This figure represents remedial costs, social security payments, and costs associated with the effects of extreme anti-social behaviour.25
The educational opportunities available to children at all stages of their development have a major and lasting impact upon them, and consequently on the society in which they live. To continue to systematically under-educate children in immigration detention, or any of the children residing in this country, is to lower the standard of education in Australia.
Children suffering in immigration detention need good educational programs in order to overcome past and present difficulties and create sustainable and productive futures. But to achieve good educational outcomes, and to counter the damaging effects of detention, these children must be released into the community and allowed to pursue their education in liberty.
Contributors:
Dr. Priscilla Clarke, Melinda Chapman, Anne Kennedy, Berernice Nyland, Brian Newman, Catharine Hydon, Creina Porter, Helen King, Denise Rundle, Patricia Nichol, Helen Walker-Cook, Janet Tonkin, Jennifer Nathan, Julie Hamston, Lisa Dawes, Robert Walker, Shannon Slee, Sophie Treloar, Tony Ferguson.
NOTES
1. UNHCR (1995) The state of the world’s refugees: in search of solutions London, United Nations High Commission for Refugees
2. UNHCR (1995); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, ratified by Australia in 1975
3. Foreign Correspondent (10 April 2001) ABC Broadcasting Commission, Sydney
4. Modified affidavit by immigration detainee. Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, WA.
5. Commonwealth of Australia. Proof Committee. Hansard: Senate Legal And Constitutional Legislation Committee: Consideration of Additional Estimates. Monday, 18 February 2002. Senate—Legislation L&C 93.
6. Espinosa (1995); United States Department of Education (1997); Eldridge (2001).
7. Skutnabb-Kangas (1999) “Linguistic human rights: are you naïve, or what?” TESOL Journal, Autumn. pp 6-12.
8. Clarke (2001) “A sense of belonging” Paper presented at ESL Conference. Victorian Department of Education, Melbourne.
9. Kennedy, A. (2002) Unpublished correspondence, Monash University.
10. NRC (2000); Shonkoff & Phillips (2000); NICHD (2000).
11. NICHD (2000) Early Childhood Research Network.
12. Walker, R. (2002) Experience of young people from Vietnam and the Horn of Africa. Melbourne.
13. Cummins (1984)
14. Atwool (2000)
15. Ramsey (1982)
16. Four Corners (10 April 2000) ABC Broadcasting Commission, Sydney.
17. Greenman (1988); Sebastian (1988).
18. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3:3
19. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report Those who've come across the seas: detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998).
20. Evans (1998) p125.
21. Dr Ruth Wraith, Chief Psychotherapist, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne (2001).
22. McCain & Mustard (1999); NICHD (1997); National Crime Authority (1999).
23. NICHD (1997); McCain & Mustard (1999) High/Scope Pre-school Study 2002.
24. NICHD (1997); McCain & Mustard (1999) High/Scope Pre-school Study 2002.
25. Vimpari (1998) p1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adamson, L. & McArthur, D. “Joint attention, affect and culture” in Moore, C & Dunham, P. (eds.) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers, 1995. pp 205 -221.
Atwool, N. “Trauma and children’s rights” in Smith et al, Advocating for children. Otago, Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago, N. Z., 2000.
Birch, L., Johson, S., & Fisher, J. “Children's eating: the development of food-acceptance patterns”. In Berk, L. (ed.) Landscapes of development: an anthology of readings. Melbourne, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.
Bowes, J. & Hayes, A. Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences. Sydney, Oxford University Press, 1999.
Broberg, A., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. & Hwang, C. “Effects of day care on the development of cognitive abilities in 8-year olds: a longitudinal study”. Developmental psychology. vol. 33 (1997): 62 - 69.
Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council (Australia) Child care: beyond 2001. Canberra, The Council, 2001.
Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. “Child maltreatment in the early years of life” in Osofsky, J. & Fitzgerald, H. (eds.) The handbook of infant mental health, vol. 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2000. pp 479 - 255.
Clarke, P. “Language and identity”. Keynote paper. London University Conference: Supporting identity, and language in the early years. May 2000.
Clarke, P. “A sense of belonging”. Paper presented at ESL Conference, Department of Education, Melbourne, 2001.
Cole, M. Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline, Boston, Harvard University Press, 1996.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. The hundred languages of children. New Jersey, Ablex Publishing, 1994.
Emde, R. & Easterbrook, M. “Assessing emotional availability in early development” in Frankenberg, W. & Beeghly, M. (eds.) Early identification of children at risk. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1985. pp 79 - 101.
Erikson, E.H. Childhood and society. New York, Norton, 1950.
Frankenberg, W. & Beeghly, M. (eds.) Early identification of children at risk. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Graue, E. & Walsh, D. “Children in context: interpreting the here and now of children's lives” in Hatch, A. (ed.) Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, Praeger Press, 1995. pp. 135 - 155.
Greenman,J. Caring spaces, learning places: children’s environments that work. Redmond, WA : Exchange Press, c1988..
Halliday, M. Learning how to mean: explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1975.
Harris, J. The nature assumption: why do children turn out the way they do. New York, Free Press, 1998.
Hatch, A. Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, Praeger Press,1995.
Hayden, J. & Macdonald, J. Health promotion: A new leadership role for early childhood professionals. Australian journal of early childhood. vol. 25, no. 1 (2000): 32 - 40.
Henry, M., Gahan, D., Broughton, B. & Mc Donald, J. “Infant development in the context of everyday activities”. Paper presented at the Australian Early Childhood Triannual Conference, Perth, July 1994.
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation website –
www.highscope.org/research/RESPER.HTM
Investing in the future. Proceedings of the World Bank Conference on Early Childhood Development. Altanta ,Georgia, April 8-9, 1996.
Jencks, C., Perman, L. & Rainwater, L “The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighbourhood”. American journal of sociology. vol. 93 (1988): 1322 - 1357.
Karoly,L.A., Kilburn,M.R., Bigelow,J.H., Caulkins,J.P., Cannion,J.S. “Assessing costs and benefits of early childhood intervention programs: overview and application to the starting early starting smart program”, Rand Corporation, 2001.
Lally, J. “Brain research, infant learning, and child care curriculum”. Child care information exchange. vol. 5 (1998): 46 - 49.
McCain, M.N. and Mustard, J.F. Reversing the real brain drain: early years study. Ontario, Final Report Publications, 1999.
Miller, P. & Goodnow, J. “Cultural practices: towards an integration of culture and development” New directions for child development. vol. 67(1995): 5 - 16.
Moore, C. & Dunham, P. Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers, 1995.
Nelson, C. & Bloom, F. “Child development and neuroscience”. Child development. vol. 68 (1997): 970 - 987.
NICHD – National Institute of Child Health & Development. Chronicity of maternal depressive symptoms, maternal behaviour, and child functioning at 36 months. Washington, Early Child Care Research Network, 1998.
Press, F. and Hayes, A. OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy. Australian background report. Canberra, Department of Education, 1999.
Osofsky, J. & Fitzgerald, H. (eds.) The handbook of infant mental health, vol. 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,2000.
Osofsky, J. “The effects of exposure to violence on young children”. American psychologist, vol. 50, no. 9 (1995): 782 - 788.
Palmer, G. “Resilience in child refugees: an historical study”. Australian journal of early childhood, vol. 25, no. 3 (2000): 39 - 45.
Rinaldi, C. “The emergent curriculum and social constructivism”. In Edwards, C., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. (eds.) The hundred languages of children. New Jersey,
Ablex Publishing, 1994. pp.101 - 113.
Rizzini, I. “Urban children and families in distress: global trends and concerns” in Smith et al, Advocating for children. Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago, N. Z., 2000.
Rogoff, B. Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Shonkoff, J.P. and Phillips, D. (eds.) From neurons to neighbourhoods. the science of early childhood development. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 2000.
Sims, M., Hayden, J., Palmer, G. & Hutchins, T. “Working in early childhood settings with children who have experienced refugee or war-related trauma”. Australian journal of early childhood, vol. 25 no. 4 (2000): 41 - 46.
Siraj-Blatchford and Clarke P. Supporting identity, diversity and language in the early years. Bucks, Open University Press, 2000.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. “Linguistic Human Rights- Are you Naive, or What?” TESOL journal,Autumn (1999): 6-12
Super, C. & Harkness, S. “The developmental niche: a conceptualization at the interface of child and culture”. International journal of behavioural development, vol. 9 (1986): 545 - 569.
Trevarthen, C. “An infant's motives for speaking in the culture” in Wold, A. (ed.) The dialogical alternative: towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo, Scandinavian University Press; New York, Oxford. Distributed world-wide excluding Scandinavia by Oxford University Press, c1992. pp. 99 – 139.
Trevarthen, C. “The child's need to learn a culture” in Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D. & Littleton, K. (eds.) Cultural worlds of early childhood, London, Routledge, 1998.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva , Defence for Children International and the United Nations Children's Fund, 1989. p.16.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
Valsiner, J. Culture and the development of children's action. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
Wold, A. The dialogical alternative: towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo, Scandinavian University Press; New York, Oxford. Distributed world-wide excluding Scandinavia by Oxford University Press, c1992.
Woodhead, M., Kaulkner, D. & Littleton, K. (eds.) Cultural worlds of early childhood. London ,Routledge; New York, The Open University, 1998