Local conceptualisations of the education of asylum‐seeking and refugee students: from hostile to holistic models

Abstract

Sociological research on the presence and yet invisibility of asylum‐seeking and refugee pupils in the educational system in the UK is noticeably absent. This article offers insights into the ways in which the presence and the needs of such pupils are conceptualised by local authorities and schools. It draws on the results of a survey of 58 English local authorities and qualitative data from three case studies of LEAs and a sample of their schools. The ethical position adopted by officials and teachers in these three sites offers a compassionate model of social inclusion based on a holistic approach to the asylum‐seeking and refugee child. It contrasts with the restrictive and often hostile government stance on immigration, asylum and integration.

Keywords:

• asylum‐seeking
• refugee
• holistic
• inclusion
• UK

Acknowledgements

This paper was based on the research report The education of asylum‐seeker and refugee pupils. The project was supported by the Research Consortium on the Education of Asylum‐seeker and Refugee Children and the authors are grateful for the advice given to them by members of the General Teaching Council, The Refugee Council, and the National Union of Teachers. The authors would like to thank the referees for helpful comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.

Notes

1. Despite the decrease in asylum applications since its pick in 2001, numbers are still significant. According to the Home Office, in 2006, 28,320 asylum applications, including dependants, were received in Britain. Among them 4715 were dependants, 81% of which were children under 18 years of age.

2. New Immigration and Asylum legislations were introduced in 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2001. In 2002 the Home Office White Paper Secure borders, safe havens was published, followed by the most recent Immigration and Asylum Act in 2004.

3. Rutter (2006) also addresses this aspect.

4. The study was initiated by the Education of Refugee and Asylum‐seekers Research Consortium.

5. In order to draw a sample that reflected the diversity of LEA experience, we used a range of data sources, none of which was statistically reliable given the lack of monitoring by central government of asylum‐seeking and refugee children in the school system. First we used the Home Office official data on dispersal areas (numbers of asylum‐seekers being dispersed and the area to which they have been dispersed between 2000 and 2002), and data were collected by the survey conducted by the Refugee Council in 2002 on the numbers of asylum‐seekers and refugee children located in different LEAs and the extent to which LEA data on the numbers of these children were collected. We cross‐referenced these two main sources by dividing LEAs according to three locations: London, dispersal and non‐dispersal, and according to the Refugee Council’s categories: LEAs who indicated in that they collected data; LEAs who did not; and LEAs who did not reply. We then created a grid of nine boxes that represented potentially different experiences of LEAs with asylum‐seeking children, into which we have classified all English LEAs. We then selected a number of LEAs from each box. Since this was a purposeful and not representative sample, we ensured that the London Boroughs and the dispersal areas were given preferences since we believed that in these locations there will be more activity around the presence of asylum‐seeker and refugee children. We initially contacted 62 LEAs of which 58 cooperated with us (over one‐third of English LEAs).

6. The telephone survey of LEAs involved the following strategy. We called the central telephone line in each of the 58 LEAs and asked to speak to the officer responsible for asylum‐seeker and refugee children. When a contact person was hard to identify, we asked to be transferred to the Ethnic Minority Achievement Support (EMAS) or English as Additional Language (EAL) unit and asked them to identify the officer responsible of this area. Among the 58 officers interviewed, 24 LEAs named a specialist Asylum‐seeker and Refugee Officer as the contact person; 22 named the head of EMAS or one of the EMAS officers; four LEAs named an officer on the EAL service as the contact person; and in eight LEAs the officer who was identified as the person responsible for asylum‐seeker and refugee pupils was part of the Race Equality, Diversity, or Multicultural Education team.

7. Questions included closed‐ended questions such as ‘Do you collected data’; ‘Do you have specific policies regarding asylum‐seeker pupils?’ and open‐ended questions such as ‘Why you do not collected data?’; ‘How did you developed your policies?; and ‘Tell me about the provision the LEA has regarding the admission of asylum‐seeker and refugee pupils’. For more information, see Pinson and Arnot (2005).

8. Each of the three LEA was asked to provide the main policy document addressing the education of asylum‐seeker and refugee children and other policy documents which they find relevant for understanding the LEA’s approach and practices. The documents were then analysed using Atlas.ti around the three following grand themes: (1) description: the type of document, the author and the target population; (2) types of education provision; and (3) discursive framework, including sub‐themes such as the image of asylum‐seekers and refugees, the identified needs of these children, and strategies of inclusion.

9. Each LEA was asked to identify officers at senior and support level that would be best able to reflect the LEA’s approach and provide information regarding its practices. In Cheston interviews were conducted with the following officers: Cheston’s Deputy Director; the head of EMAS, the deputy head of EMAS acting as asylum‐seekers; and the refugees officer. In Greenshire interviews were conducted with: the head of Inclusion; the head of EMAS; the deputy head of EMAS; and the refugee and asylum‐seekers officer; the LEA’s advisory support teachers for primary and secondary education and one of the LEA’s cultural mediator. In Horton the following interviews were conducted: the head of Inclusion, the asylum‐seekers and refugees team (included two officers one for primary and one for secondary education), and an education and welfare officer for asylum‐seeker and refugee children.

10. In Cheston three schools were visited: a secondary school where we interviewed the head teacher and the head of EMAS; a primary school where interviews carried out with the head teacher and one mainstream teacher, and a primary Catholic school where we interviewed the head teacher and one of the school’s governors. An interview was also carried out with a deputy head teacher of a Sixth Form College which integrates asylum‐seeking and refugee students. In Greenshire, because of time constraints, only one school was visited – a secondary school where interviews were held with the head teacher, the deputy head teacher, the head of EMAS, and the deputy head of EMAS. Finally, in Horton, three schools were visited. In an all girls secondary school we interviewed the deputy head teacher and the EMAS support teacher; in a comprehensive secondary school we interviewed the head of EMAS and lastly, we interviewed the head teacher and the head of EMAS in a local primary school.

11. Initial analytical codes included: background and previous experience; reactions; approaches; service and support; indicators of inclusion; the needs of asylum‐seeking and refugee students; the school/LEA role; and the image of asylum‐seekers and refugees.

12. With the exception of those who reside in removal centres in which case education would be provided by the centre.

13. Since 2005 the DfES became more involved in producing guidelines and material to schools in collaboration with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the National Refugee Integration Forum (NRIF). However, there is still no central educational policy.

14. Support for teachers is provided by the General Teaching Council, although this is unlikely to be able to identify the scale of need for networking and sharing good practice locally and nationally (see http://www.gtce.org.uk/networks/achieve/resources/promoting_equality_spring08/).

15. We do expect though that due to the recent emphasis of the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) on pupils’ mobility, this framework might be have gained more prominence since the survey was conduct.

16. Moreover, she points out that behind the trauma discourses or humanitarian rhetoric often lie poor support services.