Memorandum by the National Union of Teachers
INTRODUCTION
In an increasingly globalised world all pupils
and their teachers clearly benefit from opportunities to learn
alongside pupils from other cultures and backgrounds. Schools
who have a high proportion of children whose parents are migrant
workers, or asylum seekers, report how the diversity that their
pupils bring has enriched their school communities. Similarly
pupils and teachers also greatly benefit from the experience and
knowledge of teachers from overseas.
The arrival of new children from other countries
provides opportunities for children of all ages to learn about
empathy, sharing and caring, respect and kindness. Teaching against
racism and stereotyping can help develop positive attitudes and
foster social and community cohesion.
In recent years, however, communities in a number
of areas across the UK have faced significant rates of demographic
change—partly due to mass migration. As Jon Cruddas MP pointed
out in an article published in April 2007 "The major demographic
changes are off the radar of public policy-makers who remain attached
to census data that offers diminishing returns in terms of understanding
the day to day realities of life . . ...In particular communities,
the local population grows at a faster rate than the state's refinancing
of public services, as decisions on funding are based on an out-of
date formula for resource allocation."[17]
It is vital that schools are consulted by local
authorities and central government in the establishment of funding
and other support mechanisms to meet the educational needs of
children. It is the educational achievement of pupils in local
schools which, of course, will have a significant impact on the
economic growth of an area. As Jon Cruddas points out it is the
year-on-year information collected via school rolls, more than
any other existing data set that can help illustrate the demographic
shift in a particular community.
POSSIBLE LINE
OF QUESTIONING
What is the proportion of migrants among school
teachers in the UK? In what subjects and at what levels of education
is the proportion of migrants particularly high, and why? Do you
expect this to change in the future?
There is very little data in relation to the
nationality of school staff in the UK. There is the equivalent
of the pupil level annual school census PLASC data collected for
staff by the DCSF but this only asks the question of ethnic background—not
home nationality. The only data collected which allows a partial
assessment of the number of migrant teachers to the UK is the
number of visas granted by the Home Office to teachers from the
Commonwealth. There are around 100 teacher supply agencies recruiting
teachers from overseas. The OECD in a report published in 2005
estimated that around 10,000 people were recruited to teach in
the UK in 2000.
Between 2001 & 2003 there were 12,844 UK
Approved Work Permits granted by the Home Office to teachers from
Commonwealth countries. The majority of these were from South
Africa (4702); Australia (2679); New Zealand (1548); Canada (898);
Jamaica (974) and Zimbabwe (547) but also there were teachers
recruited from tiny Caribbean and Pacific islands such as St Kitts
and Vanuatu.
Between 2003 & 2005 there were 3578 UK Approved
Work Permits to teachers from Commonwealth countries. The vast
majority of these were from South Africa (979); Australia (1,181);
New Zealand (398); Canada (550); and Jamaica (142).
There is, of course, no such data for migrant
teachers from EU countries.
What estimates do you have of the changing proportions
of migrant pupils in the total number of children at school in
the UK? Is there significant variation across regions and between
different types of school?
During Summer 2006, the NUT, in collaboration
with the National Association for Language Development in the
Curriculum (NALDIC), conducted a survey of 170 LAs, 500 head teachers
and 58 EMAG teachers in England and Wales to assess Ethnic Minority
Achievement Grant funding. Both LAs and head teachers reported
an increase in English as an Additional Language needs over the
last 18 months. This was in a large part due to the migration
of families and workers from the new EU accession countries.
Ninety-four per cent of respondents from LAs[18]
reported that there had been an increase in EAL and/or EMA need
in the last 18 months. This was either due to the increase in
EAL students or the changing profile of students due to the arrival
of new communities.
The majority of head teachers (55%) responding
to the survey[19]
reported an increase in EMA needs in their schools.
According to DCSF statistics:
|
| Maintained primary and secondary schools in England: number and percentage of pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than english, as at January each year 2003-07 (provisional)
|
| Number of pupils
| Number of pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than English
| Percentage of pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than English
|
|
| 2003 | 6,779,930
| 657,300 | 9.7
|
| 2004 | 6,752,670
| 669,480 | 9.9
|
| 2005 | 6,711,420
| 694,470 | 10.3
|
| 2006 | 6,655,620
| 734,550 | 11.0
|
| 2007 | 6,574,560
| 789,790 | 12.0
|
|
On average, how do the costs of teaching a migrant child compare
to those of teaching a local child? What research evidence is
available on the resource implications of the increased diversity
among children at school?
This is an overly simplistic question. A child born in this
country may still have English as an Additional Language while
a migrant child, depending on his or her particular background
and previous educational experience may have a good grasp of English
when they start at the school.
There are, of course, increased costs involved. In October
2006 the DFES stated "The cost of teaching English for speakers
of other languages will vary between schools however funding is
at record levels."
In 2007-2008 the EMAG grant was £179 million in England.
Few initial teacher training courses focus on the special
issues associated with inducting and teaching children from migrant
families, and especially those associated with refugee children.
However, long they have been teaching, teachers new to teaching
refugee children should not be expected (nor should they expect
themselves) just to cope with the new demands on their teaching
skills.)
The teaching materials and resources in many classrooms may
not be sufficient or suitable to meet the needs of refugee and/or
migrant children. Improvisation is a strength amongst teachers
but they should not be expected to continually "reinvent
the wheel".
There is an enormous demand for materials by teachers. The
NUT's advice to teachers new to teaching children from refugee
and asylum-seeking families "Relearning to Learn[20]"
is, some 150,000 copies later, now out of print.
The NUT has also run CPD courses in areas which address issues
to combat racism and discrimination where the pupil population
is predominantly white. The course in the form of a day long conference
"The Other Side of Silence"[21]
has been extremely popular—for example the one held in Bristol
attracted over 200 teachers.
Has additional government funding been adequate to deal with
the increased numbers of migrant pupils? When a school experiences
a sharp rise in pupil numbers due to migration, how long does
it take for the extra government funding to come through?
While the Dedicated Schools Grant, based on data from school
rolls, may be relatively responsive to changes in pupil numbers
even the DCSF acknowledges that "the spend plus method of
distribution does not readily recognise changes in the numbers
of pupils with additional educational needs".[22]
The current funding levels and mechanisms to support schools in
meeting the educational needs of minority ethnic pupils are out
of date and inadequate.
The grant is devolved to schools annually on April 1st, through
a locally agreed formula based on the Annual Schools' Census.
If a pupil arrives at the school after the Census date the school
will have to wait until the following April to receive any funding
for that pupil.
The mechanism of funding for the achievement of minority
ethnic pupils through the Standards Fund should be re-examined,
as the current system is preventing LAs from planning strategically.
The inability of LAs to make long-term plans has caused logistical
problems for schools in meeting the needs of minority ethnic children,
refugees and pupils with English as an additional language. The
situation has also had a detrimental effect on EMAG staff, causing
low morale and resulting in specialist teachers leaving the profession
with the consequential loss of expertise.
The Government should make arrangements for a separate national
fund for the education of asylum seeking and refugee children
as well as for children of migrant workers. Since increases in
pupil mobility and unexpected increases in asylum seeking families
have occurred in some areas, it is recommended that the fund be
a ring-fenced grant, held centrally by the DfES for LAs to apply
when unforeseen need occurs.
The National Union of Teachers has campaigned consistently
for the stability, security and coherence of race equality funding
and for sufficient levels of funding to be maintained. As a result
of this sustain campaigning the DCSF have introduced an Exceptional
Circumstances grant to help address the needs of LAs who face
significant increases in their proportions of EAL pupils.
The NUT was concerned that despite a commitment by Charles
Clarke, the then Secretary of State, in 1998 the future of the
Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant may be in jeopardy. The Government
has just announced its school funding allocations for 2008-11
and it has maintained the EMAG grant which will be a considerable
relief to schools and authorities.
Dr Dobson said in her written evidence that many asylum seekers
and migrant families in low-paid employment move from place to
place in the early part of their time in the UK. Such children
may stay only a few weeks, or even days, in one school. How does
this high pupil mobility affect the schools concerned and what
are the resource implications?
See response to previous question.
How do schools view the teaching of children of illegally resident
migrants? Are schools generally aware of the immigration status
of a child's parents?
A teacher and head teacher's first priority is to the well
being and educational achievement of the child; their interest
in the child's immigration status is a poor second. Schools would
be more concerned with a child's human right to education rather
than the immigration status of a child's parents.
In addition local government advice[23]
states that "all children have the right to be safeguarded
from harm and exploitation regardless of their:
— race, religion, first language or ethnicity;
— any criminal behaviour; and
— political or immigration status".
Arguably the only valid reason for a head teacher to question
the immigration status of a pupil would be in the case of a planned
school visit abroad where current passports and appropriate visas
would be necessary.
The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 requires all employers in
the UK to make basic document checks on every person they intend
to employ before that individual commences work.
Are there any changes you would like to see in Government policy
on the education of migrant children? Are there any other comments
you would like to make about the economic impacts of immigration
on schools?
As already stated above, the Government should make arrangements
for a separate national fund for the education of asylum seeking
and refugee children as well as for children of migrant workers.
Since increases in pupil mobility and unexpected increases in
asylum seeking families have occurred in some areas, it is recommended
that the fund be a ring-fenced grant, held centrally by the DfES
for LAs to apply when unforeseen need occurs.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF IMMIGRATION—TEACHERS
Overseas trained teachers, both individually and collectively,
make an extremely valuable contribution to the education system.
They are not, however, always granted the necessary corresponding
rights and benefits which match their input and commitment.
The NUT is aware of two main categories of teachers who have
trained overseas and migrate to the UK. A number of overseas trained
teachers (OTTs) choose to migrate temporarily or longer term for
personal reasons. The teachers who form this group will be those
who are within a national group which is given a level of choice
under UK Immigration Law as to the basis on which they enter and
remain in the country. Other OTTs, often from national groups
which do not have the same level of choice as to their rights
within the UK migrate to the UK in response to an invitation from
UK based employers and recruiters, in order to fill the gap left
by a shortage of domestically-trained teachers.
What links both groups is the contribution that OTTs make
to the education service. The NUT is aware that a number of schools,
particularly in London and the South East, schools are reliant
upon OTTs in order to fill the complement of teaching posts.
THE NEED
FOR OVERSEAS
TRAINED TEACHERS
For a number of years there had been considerable concern
in England about the shortage of qualified teachers. A number
of factors contributed to the shortage, but the result has been
that teachers leaving the profession through retirement or for
other reasons have not been replaced by sufficient numbers of
new recruits. Both the relevant Government department (currently
the Department for Children, Schools and Families) and other agencies
have sought to identify the reasons for the shortages and to propose
solutions to improve the situation.
As a result of the shortages, teaching has been included
on the Home Office list of shortage occupations for a number of
years. The shortage occupation list enables employers to apply
for a work permit without meeting the requirement of showing that
the post has been widely advertised. It could be said that the
Home Office has by this means encouraged the migration of overseas
trained teachers to England (no work permits have been issued
in Wales, some are now being issued in Scotland) because of a
lack of domestically trained professionals.
THE IMPLICATIONS
FOR OVERSEAS
TRAINED TEACHERS
The Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England)
Regulations 2003 mean that, other than in specified exceptional
situations, only those who have acquired QTS can carry out "specified
work" in schools in England. The NUT supports the principle
that QTS should be required for teaching in the UK.
One of the exceptions to the requirement to hold QTS relates
to OTTs. By paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations, overseas
trained teachers may carry out specified work, ie teach, despite
not having acquired QTS, for a period of four years.
During that period, overseas trained teachers will be employed
as unqualified teachers. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions
Document sets out the statutory terms of employment and the pay
scales under which both qualified and unqualified teachers can
be employed in the maintained sector. The unqualified teacher
pay scale which is set somewhat lower than the scale for qualified
teachers, although school governing bodies are given discretion
to pay an additional allowance if they consider that the salary
is inadequate in the circumstances. The Immigration Judge who
heard a recent case relating to an OTT commented that "As
a result there is no incentive for a school I note to assist an
OTT in obtaining QTS".
We have received regular complaints from overseas trained
teachers, that whilst employed on the overseas trained teachers
route to QTS, they have not received appropriate and sufficient
support and assistance, such as mentoring, observation or time
off, to enable them to achieve QTS. As a result of such concerns,
the NUT has been involved in seeking to support such teachers
both individually and collectively.
In addition to the general concerns about the treatment of
OTTs, there were particular difficulties faced by some OTTs as
a result of a Home Office pilot to allow recruitment agencies
to recruit overseas with a promise of a work permit.
TEACHER WORK
PERMITS INITIATIVE
For a limited period of time around 2002, agencies were able
to apply for work permits for overseas teachers. This pilot was
called the Teacher Work Permits Initiative. During the time of
the Teacher Work Permits Initiative, one agency, Teaching Personnel
recruited a number of teachers from predominantly Commonwealth
countries. The teachers, it was later discovered, had been encouraged
to leave their homes and come to work in the UK with promises
of good jobs with decent pay and conditions. Teaching Personnel
offered to assist with finding homes and with settling the migrant
teachers into their new life but the agency failed to live up
to commitments it had given.
Some teachers were placed in inappropriate accommodation.
One was placed in what was in effect a brothel; many were given
Social Services' bed and breakfast standard accommodation which
they were not able to access during the day. It was shocking that
these teachers who had been induced to come to the UK to teach,
with promises of permanent jobs, secure accommodation and assistance
with acquiring QTS, had found themselves in such circumstances.
The situation deteriorated even further when the teachers were
dismissed for redundancy.
The NUT has represented and supported a significant number
of OTT members as a result of this Home Office initiative. Such
teachers have been failed by the migration system which is aimed
at taking the benefit of the contribution of OTTs without taking
responsibility for the impact on the teachers themselves.
In the case mentioned above the Immigration Judge also stated
" . . . and the Secretary of State has from the evidence
that I have heard and seen entirely failed to acknowledge the
responsibility of his own department in conjunction with what
is now the Department of Children, Schools and Families, in specifically
recruiting Teachers from abroad due to the shortage of Teachers
in core areas in the United Kingdom".
COMMONWEALTH TEACHER
RECRUITMENT PROTOCOL
The plight of these teachers had also brought home the need
to take further steps to improve the framework under which teacher
migration takes place. This work culminated in 2004 with the Commonwealth
Teacher Recruitment Protocol.
The particular objectives in seeking to develop the Protocol
were to address some of the problems facing teachers who were
being recruited from developing countries to developed countries.
There was also a need to be able to respond to the concerns of
those developing countries who were losing some of their most
talented teachers, particularly in such subjects as physics and
mathematics, having made great strides in educating and training
teachers.
The Protocol seeks to balance the rights of individuals to
migrate, against the need to prevent exploitation of the human
resources of poor countries and the integrity of the national
education systems. It recognises the duty of recruiting countries
towards source countries, as well as to the individual teachers
involved and sets out best practice in relation to each.
The acquisition of QTS by teachers, and its value to the
education systems of source countries, was seen by all as an important
part of the bilateral support arrangements.
The Protocol was drafted and agreed by the Commonwealth country
Education Ministers at the NUT's training centre at Stoke Rochford,
Lincolnshire in August and September of 2004. It has subsequently
been adopted by UN agencies, International Labour Organisation,
UNESCO, Organisation of American States and the African NUT. It
is now widely recognised as a model of international best practice.
ACQUISITION OF
QTS
Earlier this year the Government sought to tighten the "Education
(Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003"
which were due to come into effect in August 2007. This would
have meant that it would therefore no longer be possible for OTTs
without QTS to continue teaching after four years under any circumstances.
Four years is a reasonable length of time within which qualified
teacher status must be obtained by overseas trained teachers (OTTs).
Those who are qualified to teach overseas should be able to achieve
QTS within that period, as long as they are aware of the need
to do so and have access to the means to do so.
Earlier this year the NUT conducted a successful campaign
in support of those OTTs had not previously been given the information
about the four year requirement and had not, therefore, had the
opportunity to access the training necessary to gain QTS. These
teachers were facing dismissal and also, in many cases, their
permission to remain in the UK. In July the Government announced
that for OTTs, about to start, or already on a QTS programme they
would grant a one year extension for OTT's to gain their QTS until
1 September 2008 from the original deadline of 1 September 2007.
27 November 2007
17
Race, Class and Migration: Tackling the Far Right (Jon Cruddas
MP, 18 April 2007) Back
18
Questionnaires were sent to 170 local authorities in England and
Wales, in receipt of at least £150,000 EMAG funding for 2005-06.
Thirty-six responses were received representing 21% of the sample. Back
19
Questionnaires were sent to 500 NUT headteachers within the LAs
included in the sample. Thirty-one responses were received, representing
a 6% return. Back
20
Relearning to Learn (NUT 2002) Back
21
The NUT has held 10 day long CPD conferences entitled The Other
Side of Silence in predominately white areas of England and
Wales. Each conference/course session has cost around £3,000. Back
22
School & Early Years Funding Arrangements 2008-11: Explanatory
note for local authorities (School Funding Unit, DCSF, 13 September
2007) Back
23
LEA Guidelines for Child Protection Procedure (Merton LEA, May
2004) Back
| 
