Tertiary Education Report: Refugee ESOL: further information and options for funding

This document has been released under the Official Information Act 1982. 4 3 December 2010 ED30/04/06/2 Tertiary Education Report: Refugee ESOL: further information and options for funding Executive summary This report follows on from the 3 November report Tertiary education funding for refugees [METIS 510676 refers]. It responds to your questions about the effectiveness of different types of existing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), including for settlement. You also asked for options for bringing funding together in a single ESOL for refugees pool. In 2009, Refugee Study Grants had higher average completion rates than other levels 1-3 ESOL qualifications. There is evidence that settlement is a component of these programmes and an important focus for refugees in learning English. We propose that ESOL funding for refugees adhere to a series of principles to ensure that programmes meet the needs of refugees. It is important that there is sufficient variety to match the varying circumstances of refugees, and their levels of English. Funding also needs to be flexible, provide adequate educational support and access to financial support. Ideally funding should be simple and fit well with existing funding pools. We assess three options against these principles. The first option would create streams in two existing funds: one stream providing ESOL for preliterate people and beginners and the other for people at more advanced levels to cover fees for SAC-funded courses. The second option would create a national ESOL programme for refugees and migrants, similar to the Australian Migrant Education Programme. The third option would bring together ESOL funding for refugees in a single pool that would allow providers to place refugees in existing programmes, or create special programmes for them if numbers allow. We consider that funding new places through both option one and three would provide sufficient places to meet the needs of refugees. The main drawback of option one is that ESOL funding for refugees would continue to lack coherence. Pulling all ESOL funding for refugees together would help make it easier to track refugees through the system, but we would still need to fund a range of programmes, because refugees are at different levels and have varying needs. Both options would cost $4.5 million for places. We would need to seek further decisions from you in order to cost option two, if that is the option you prefer. All three options would struggle to provide the support refugees need to access the system or the flexibility to respond to new arrivals of refugees throughout the year. We therefore recommend expanding the role of Ministry of Education refugee education coordinators to provide that support. They would also need access to a flexible pool to create new programmes at short notice where a group of refugees settle in a new area, or where there are no programmes at the right level. This would cost an additional $500,000. Financial support is a further barrier that may prevent refugees taking up ESOL provision, even if more places are available. We do not recommend any changes to student support in the Budget, because they would require a complex set of exemptions that go against the basic assumptions of the scheme. Depending on the option you choose, the Minister for Social Development will need to decide how the benefit system should respond. We

recommend that you forward this report to Hon Paula Bennett once you have reached a decision. Recommended actions We recommend that you: a. note that this report responds to the questions you have raised about the effectiveness of current ESOL provision, including for wider settlement b. note that it is not possible to compare across funding streams, but that refugees appear to be achieving more highly in ESOL courses than other domestic students at levels 1-3, despite their higher needs c. indicate which of the options you would like to consider in the Budget: (i) option one: create ESOL places for refugees in existing funding streams YES/NO (ii) option two: create a national ESOL programme for refugees and migrants YES/NO (iii) option three: create a single English for Refugees pool YES/NO d. note that options one and three would both require an additional $4.5m per year to fund adequate places e. note that if you prefer option two, we would seek further decisions from you about the size and scale of the programme and then estimate the costs f. note that the Ministry of Education refugee education coordinators already link refugee children with education and could support adult refugees to find a course, or create new programmes where none are available g. agree to consider expanding the role of refugee education coordinators and create a flexible pool as part of Budget 2011, at an estimated cost of $500,000 AGREE/DISAGREE h. note that the student support system is not designed for refugees and would require a complex set of exemptions to adequately support them to learn English i. note that we therefore do not recommend any changes to student support settings for refugees in Budget 2011 j. note that we have discussed the possibility of aligning support for refugees in the benefit system with new ESOL funding for refugees with the Ministry of Social Development, Work and Income and Studylink 2

k. agree to forward this report to Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Social Development and Employment, as she will decide whether and how the benefit system should respond AGREE / DISAGREE Dr. Andrea Schöllmann Group Manager, Tertiary Education Ministry of Education NOTED / APPROVED Hon Steven Joyce Minister for Tertiary Education / / 3

Tertiary Education Report: Refugee ESOL: further information and options for funding Purpose 1. This report responds to the questions you have raised about current English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision. It then presents options for funding new provision and other forms of support for refugees in Budget 2011. Background 2. On 3 November you received the report Tertiary education funding for refugees [METIS 510676 refers]. You agreed to the objective we proposed for refugee ESOL and to consider new funding in Budget 2011. 3. You also asked for the following information for the next stage: a. Evidence of the results we get for different ESOL provision for refugees. b. Evidence that the courses improve settlement outcomes for refugees (taking a wide perspective). c. The options for collecting current funding and any new funding together in an ESOL for refugees fund. 4. The Minister of Immigration intends to take a new Refugee Resettlement Strategy to Cabinet in February. This strategy proposes to improve outcomes through providing relevant services to support resettlement, as well as better service planning and coordination for refugees on their reception in New Zealand. We are talking with the Department of Labour, as ESOL for adult refugees is a vital part of achieving the main aim of the draft strategy: Refugees are participating fully and integrated socially and economically as soon as possible so that they are living independently, undertaking the same responsibilities, and exercising the same rights as other New Zealanders and have a strong sense of belonging to their own community and to New Zealand. 4

How effective is current ESOL provision for refugees? Fund/provider name Adult Literacy Projects funding (English Language Partners NZ) 1 Intensive Literacy and Numeracy Training Opportunities Refugee Study Grants Funding and places $659,484 311 places (waiting lists of over 100) Approx. 200 places for refugee ESOL. 630 trainees on 16 programmes in 2009 $1.324 m 300 places (waiting lists of over 100) Description 6-10 hours a week for min. 32 weeks per year (attendance is flexible to allow the learner to manage family settlement). Mainly refugees. Currently run in 6 centres where pre-literate refugees settle. Provider allocates funding flexibly between centres depending on refugee needs. Includes ESOL programmes for people at the lower levels of English proficiency, especially those with low literacy in their own language. Free to the learner. Not restricted to refugees. Employment-related ESOL. Not restricted to refugees. Includes transport costs. Covered the fees of around 300 refugees and family members studying for ESOL qualifications in SAC-funded programmes in polytechnics and universities. Places agreed through investment plans. Results In a 2002 study of 50-60 learners: 87% showed progress in reading 78% showed progress in writing. Learners in classes with a bilingual tutor made greater progress. Learners who did 12 hours a week made more progress than those who did 2 hours. 2 Since 2002, provider has redesigned based on research findings. Fund was redesigned and reallocated in 2010. No performance information is available. Average positive employment or educational outcome: 72% Average completion rates in 2009: 68% 3 Average completions across all SAC ESOL in 2009: 51%. 1 Disestablished from next year, funding divided into Intensive Literacy and Numeracy and Workplace Literacy Fund. 2 Shammem, McDermott, Blaker and Carryer (2002), Through Language to Literacy: A Report on the Literacy Gains of Low-level and Pre-literate Adult ESOL Learners in Literacy Classes. Collaborative project by UNITEC, AUT and ESOL Home Tutors (Ministry of Education funded as part of 2001 Adult Literacy Strategy). 3 Includes results from 11 of the 13 eligible polytechnics and universities. One reported course completions only and one did not report course or qualification completion. Range is 38%-93%. 5

5. It is important to note that it can be difficult to identify ESOL programmes in more general funding streams. It is also not possible to identify refugee learners as distinct from migrants in those programmes. We are not able to compare across funding streams, because they do not have consistent measures. From next year the Literacy and Numeracy Assessment Tool for adults will be used across a greater number of programmes, but we do not yet know how well it will measure gain for ESOL learners. Settlement outcomes 6. Settlement is a major context for learning in ESOL programmes. ESOL courses provide knowledge of social institutions and cultural awareness. Learners with no prior English have reported that basic ESOL courses have helped them fill in forms and use the telephone. 4 Low intensity Adult and Community Education ESOL, such as one-hour a week with an ESOL home tutor, may not have major benefits for English language, but can play a large part in settlement. 7. The tertiary system does not collect evidence of wider settlement outcomes for refugees. The only source is a detailed qualitative study of refugee resettlement from 2004, Refugee Voices. A new study of refugees 10 years after arrival is underway now. Key findings will be available early next year, with a full report by the end of 2011. 8. In the 2004 study, newly arrived refugees mentioned ESOL home tutors as a useful service in settlement. Refugees who had been in the country longer said that education is the most useful service for their settlement. 5 The reasons refugees gave for learning English were: Reason for learning English Number of responses To get a job 74 To survive and deal with everyday events 58 To do further study and training 52 For communicating and socialising To integrate into New Zealand society 47 29 Principles for funding ESOL for refugees 9. You have agreed to the objective: All adults from refugee backgrounds can access suitable ESOL provision on first arrival in New Zealand. They are supported to reach a level of English that will allow them to move into employment, or their choice of vocational or degree-level education. 4 Shameem et. al (2002), p. 152. 5 New Zealand Immigration Service (2004), Refugee Voices: A Journey Towards Resettlement, p. 133. 6

10. We have identified the following funding principles for ESOL for refugees to meet the overall objective: a. Variety: Refugees needs and circumstances vary, so a range of provision should be available, including different levels, learning contexts and intensity. b. Simplicity: Funding needs to be administratively simple and build on existing programmes where possible. c. Flexibility: There needs to be flexibility in the funding to allow for the arrival of new groups of refugees. Funding rules need to take account of second language learning and the high needs of refugees. They should recognise that those with low levels of prior education will make slow progress and take a number of years to learn English. d. Support: Refugees often require additional support to access English language programmes. Funding should recognise the additional costs to providers of employing bilingual tutors, and other forms of support for refugees. e. Cost: Refugees should not be required to pay fees to gain the English language skills that will place them on a level playing field with other New Zealanders. They should be responsible for the cost of any further study. f. Financial support: Refugees receive adequate financial support while they are learning English. Preferably they will remain on benefit so that they do not need to use up their entitlement to student loans and allowances for ESOL study. 11. The options we discuss below are focussed on intensive ESOL provision. We consider that Adult and Community Education funding for home tutors and social English classes and schools funding for adult refugees should still be available separately. Options for funding ESOL for refugees Option one: create ESOL places for refugees in existing funding streams 12. This option would expand the existing places available for refugees by creating dedicated streams in two existing funds. Intensive Literacy and Numeracy (ILN) could be broadened to include an explicit language stream. It would cater for both preliterate people and those with literacy in their own language, but no English. 13. The fund would continue to cater to both migrants and refugees, but the TEC would direct any new funding to ESOL providers who already cater for refugees. It would bring people up to a level where they are capable of moving into an ESOL qualification in a polytechnic or university, or a Training Opportunities programme for those who want to work. 14. A new English for Refugees stream would cover fees for refugees to study higher levels of English in universities and polytechnics. It would sit alongside English for Migrants funding, which the TEC administers for spouses and children of skilled migrants who do not meet a certain English language threshold and have pre-purchased ESOL provision. This fund would operate by covering refugees fees for approved ESOL programmes, but the Crown would supply the funding to top up the existing Student Achievement Component (SAC) funding. 7

15. Building on existing funds has several advantages: Simplicity: We avoid creating small funds that do not fit well into the system, which is one reason refugee study grants were abolished. The TEC and providers will adjust easily to the changes. Variety: The small number of refugees with highly variable needs would not create critical mass to provide a variety of special programmes for refugees at different levels. In this option, refugees will still attend classes with migrants, which ensures a wide offering will remain available. Cost-effectiveness: The administrative costs of this option are low. 16. The disadvantages of this option are: Lack of coherence: There is still no coherent pathway through the system for refugees learning English. NZQA is currently consulting providers and stakeholders on a proposal that they take a lead role in the development of a suite of national ESOL qualifications. However, these will apply to PTEs and polytechnics only, not universities or community providers offering lower-level ESOL. Lack of flexibility: Having separate pools would not allow much flexibility to cater for newly arriving refugees. Particular groups may have greater numbers of preliterate people or people with some education, who require different types of provision. Exposure to wider system changes: It relies on investment plans to fund ESOL provision at different levels in all areas where refugees settle. Other shifts in tertiary settings (e.g. move to higher levels, performance funding) may still adversely affect refugees. Existing financial support arrangements would still apply: The same complex rules would still apply as to whether refugees are eligible for benefits. Those at higher levels would need to take up student allowance. Option two: create a national ESOL programme for refugees and migrants 17. This option would create a national programme for ESOL for refugees and migrants. We recommend that it take the form of a wider ESOL pool to create the necessary scale to offer a sufficient variety of ESOL programmes, with additional hours to meet the higher needs of refugees. Essentially it would mean that all domestically funded ESOL would be centrally managed in a single fund offering a variety of types of provision. 18. It could be broadly based on the comprehensive ESOL programme Australia has provided for refugees and migrants since the 1950s. The Australian Migrant Education Programme is a national ESOL and settlement programme delivered by specially accredited providers. Each person is eligible for a minimum of 510 hours. Those with little formal education and those who have experienced trauma are eligible for an additional special preparatory programme, which increases their total eligibility to up to 910 hours. 19. The advantages of creating a similar programme here are: Coherence: A centrally managed system would set standard levels to create a more coherent path for refugees and migrants to learn English. Currently there is a proliferation of ESOL qualifications, and each provider sets it own levels and divides its classes in different ways. 8

Variety: As in Australia, the programme could be offered by a range of providers, include part-time or full-time study, during days, evenings, or weekends to suit learners. 20. The disadvantages are: Lack of flexibility: Having a standard entitlement would not recognise the varying needs of refugees. Some may not make sufficient progress in the allocated hours. Complex to establish and administer: It will be difficult to gather all the existing ESOL funding together in a single pool. We would also have to establish how the programme would run, what it would teach, what the levels would be. We may be able to draw on the work the Australians have already done, but we would still need to adapt it to New Zealand. Cost to the Government: Given the scale of change, it is likely to be the most expensive option to establish and administer. New Zealand does not have the scale of Australia (which caters for 52,000 migrant and refugee learners a year), which would make a national programme less cost-effective. 21. It is difficult to assess what financial support would sit alongside this option, since it represents a significant change to the status quo. An ESOL pool for all levels of study may allow for a single source of support, rather than learners switching between benefits and student allowances depending on the course they are taking. 22. We do not recommend this option because of its higher cost and complexity to administer. The time needed to set up a national programme means that it would not start until 2013, which could leave many refugees waiting for two years to study English. Option three: create a single source of ESOL funding for refugees 23. This option would collect all the funding for refugees, whatever their level of English, in a single pool. It would include the whole per-learner funding for ESOL at lower levels (which do not charge fees) and cover fees for refugees studying higher levels of English in universities and polytechnics. 24. The TEC would approve a set of providers with experience in teaching ESOL to refugees for an indicative range of places. Providers would receive the funding on enrolment of a refugee. It would allow them to create special classes for refugees where the numbers are sufficient, or place the refugee in a class alongside migrants with a similar level of English. Funding would be set at different levels depending on the learners level of English. 25. The advantages of this option are: Coherence: A single pool would allow refugees to move through the levels of English smoothly, without having to transfer between several funding streams. Flexibility: the funding follows the individual wherever they are. There could also be greater flexibility about the mix of provision, depending on the different levels of need in an intake of refugees. Targeted to refugees: settings can be designed to meet the needs of refugees. Variety: Providers could fit refugees onto existing courses or design specific courses where the numbers are high enough. 9

26. The disadvantages are: Financial support could still be complex, because refugees are likely to still be split between benefits and allowances, depending on the type of ESOL course they are in. Places at higher levels will still depend on SAC-funded ESOL being available at appropriate levels. This option is inconsistent with other tertiary education funding, which is based on purchasing a fixed number of places in plans. Providers would have less certainty. 27. However, we would not recommend moving the SAC tuition subsidy into the pool. Providers need to be certain through the investment planning process that they will have enough EFTS for programmes to be viable. 28. Option three is a good compromise between the two previous options. It would fit well with the new approach to settlement, where a range of agencies will collaborate on individual settlement plans for refugees, which will include how they will improve their English. It would be easier to follow how refugees progress through the system and ensure that they reach a level of English to work or move into a mainstream tertiary qualification. The administration costs would be significantly lower than option two. Costs and possible sources of funding 29. We consider that funding new places through both option one and three would provide sufficient places to meet the needs of refugees. The main drawback of option one is that ESOL funding for refugees would continue to lack coherence. Pulling all ESOL funding for refugees together would help make it easier to track refugees through the system, but we would still need to fund a range of programmes, because refugees are at different levels and have varying needs. 30. In the previous paper we estimated that 2,400 ESOL places would need to be available each year for refugees. However, not all refugees are in a position to take up ESOL provision at one time. In the table below we have also attempted to estimate how many places are needed at each level. Given refugees high needs, we assume that more places are required at preliterate and beginner to pre-intermediate levels than at higher levels. 31. The main difference between options one and three is how they are administered. The numbers and cost of places should be steady. We have not costed option two, because we would need to seek your views on the basis on which migrants would access the programme and the funds that would be pulled into the pool. 10

Option one : Extra places in existing funding streams Language stream in intensive literacy and numeracy (preliterate to pre-intermediate): Existing funding: approx $1.25m Additional funding: Approx $2.5m (up to 1000 places) 6 English for Refugees top-up on SAC funding: $2.0m (500 places at $4000) Total new funding: $4.5 m (no additional admin funding). Option three: ESOL for Refugees pool funding follows individual English for Refugees : 2400 places for refugees at different levels. (Include existing ESOL funding of $1.25m). New funding: Preliterate to pre-intermediate: $2.5m Intermediate and above $2.0m Total new funding: $4.5m for places. 32. A possible source is the unused English for Migrants funding, which is forfeited to the Crown after five years. The forfeited funds are approximately $1.9 million a year. The difficulty is that the amount can fluctuate over time, due to the changing composition of migrant intakes and varying uptake of pre-purchased ESOL. It could only be used to purchase places year by year. You could also consider using some of the university ACE funding (total of $1.3m). Options for other support to access the tertiary system for refugees Expand the role of existing refugee education coordinators to include adult ESOL 33. Whichever option you choose, we recommend expanding the role of Ministry of Education refugee education coordinators. They already support refugee youth to make the transition into tertiary education and we propose to extend their role to helping adult refugees to find appropriate ESOL provision. The coordinators work with Refugee Services, schools and refugee families, so expanding their role would link adult ESOL with the wider settlement process. 34. Several secondary schools already have special refugee education programmes that receive Ministry of Education funding for adult students in schools. The refugee education coordinators could work with new schools to create programmes if gaps emerge that the tertiary system cannot fill. 35. However, the schools ESOL funding does not recognise the extra costs associated with programmes for refugees such as providing bilingual support. The TEC s Foundation Learning Pool used to fund schools for some of these costs, but this funding stopped when the pool was reallocated as Intensive Literacy and Numeracy. 36. As well as creating extra positions, we propose a small flexible pool for the refugee coordinators to administer that would address those needs. It would also overcome some of the lack of flexibility in the tertiary system that the options above identify. They could use that funding to establish a special programme when a group of refugees arrives partway through the year and no provision is available. We estimate the total cost of the refugee education coordinators and the flexible pool would be $500,000. 6 Number of places is approximate because it will depend on the intensity of provision. 11

Financial support for refugees while they are learning English 37. If we create new ESOL places but do not address the issue of financial support, many refugees will not be able to take up the places. Financial support for refugees is currently disjointed and depends on the type of programme they are in. See the appendix for greater detail. 38. One option is to create a number of exemptions within the student support system to better meet the needs of refugees. For example, one option is to create an exemption to the 92 week limit for receiving a student allowance for those with low levels of prior education. The disadvantage is that several exemptions would be required, which would make the system more complex (and costly) to administer and would undermine the policy intent behind it. We do not recommend any changes to student support settings for refugees in this Budget. 39. We believe that the student support system is not ideally suited to supporting refugees. It assumes that people are ready to take up a qualification that will lead to employment immediately, whereas refugees usually need several years to learn English before they can do so. The appendix includes a table that illustrates the discrepancy between the assumptions underlying the student allowance system and refugees circumstances. 40. Refugees are allowed to remain on benefit for ESOL courses funded through ACE, Intensive Literacy and Numeracy and Training Opportunities. We have discussed with the Ministry of Social Development, Work and Income and StudyLink whether it would be possible for refugees to remain eligible for benefits for any kind of ESOL course. It may depend on the extent to which ESOL for refugees is consolidated or a new fund created. 41. We recommend that you forward this report to Minister Bennett. She will need to decide whether and how to align support for refugees in the benefit system with new ESOL funding for refugees. Risks 42. There is a risk that these proposals could be seen as going back on Budget 2009 decisions. In particular, the proposal to cover refugees fees for SAC-funded provision is very similar to the Refugee Study Grants that were disestablished. However, these proposals would create more places than were disestablished, at a range of levels to suit the needs of a wider group of refugees. 43. Budget 2009 also disestablished an ESOL assessment and referral service for refugees and migrants that assessed learners and placed them in appropriate courses. Some people in the sector might see the expansion of the refugee education coordinators role as recreating a similar service. 44. If these proposals do become part your Budget 2011 package, they are likely to be announced around the same time as the Government s new Refugee Resettlement Strategy. That strategy will present a comprehensive and coordinated approach to settling refugees. The refugee education coordinators fit well into the new approach, as they will work with other agencies to address the education needs of the whole family. 12

Next steps 45. Once we have your feedback, we will advise you on additional details, such as level of entitlement, and greater detail on costs and performance settings. We will then prepare a Cabinet paper for early next year. 13

Appendix: Financial support for refugees to study 1. Refugees are currently eligible for different types of financial support depending on their circumstances. Whether they can continue to receive benefit assistance and attend the ESOL programme depends on whether the benefit has work obligations and the type of ESOL programme in which they are participating: Stocktake of sources of financial support for refugees to learn English Student support Refugees and people they sponsor can receive student loan and allowance immediately (they are exempt from 2 year stand-down for other migrants and Australians). Student Allowances are available for up to 92 weeks for study at secondary school. The limit applies from 1 January 2011. 200 week limit for receiving a Student Allowance for tertiary education. Work and Income Quota refugees receive reestablishment grant of $1200 plus $100 per child if more than 2 children. These may be used for a number of reestablishment costs such as beds, bedding and essential appliances, connecting essential services and includes the cost of attending English language classes and transport costs for attending these English language classes. Quota refugees are eligible for emergency unemployment benefit immediately. They must meet the work obligations. People sponsored by former refugees (under the Refugee Family Support Category) also eligible for unemployment benefit on grounds of hardship straight away (if they meet the criteria). 7 EFTS lifetime limit on receiving a student loan. Refugees placed in Training Opportunities receive unemployment benefit and transport costs high demand from refugees for these programmes for that reason. Refugees placed in Work and Income-funded ESOL classes receive unemployment benefit. People can stay on benefits for some TEC-funded courses e.g. Intensive Literacy and Numeracy, ACE 14

Student support Work and Income Refugees have to leave benefit and take up student allowance for mainstream (SAC funded) ESOL courses that lead to a qualification. Some ESOL courses may not meet the current operational policy for approved training. For a client to be in approved training the course must: be reputable and likely to teach the client skills that will help them find employment have an emphasis on training rather than study offer full-time training (at least 20 hours per week) and be less than 12 weeks (other than Foundation Focused Training Opportunities or other approved Government sponsored courses). 2. The assumptions behind student allowance policy settings make the scheme inherently unsuitable for supporting refugees and their families, as the following table outlines: Student allowance settings and refugees circumstances Policy settings Assumptions Refugees circumstances Student allowance based on cost-sharing between the Government, the student and their families. Time limits on eligibility for a student allowance: 92 weeks at school and 200 weeks in tertiary education Student will gain private benefits from studying and should contribute. Students will supplement allowance with part-time work and savings from holiday jobs. Average student is young single person. Adults in school settings only need a short time to enter tertiary study. Average student has basic schooling and can move straight into a mainstream tertiary qualification. ESOL courses do not have the same direct private benefits as completing other qualifications. Majority will struggle to find part-time or holiday jobs because of level of English. Refugees often have large families with no adult working. Approx. 26% of quota refugees have no prior education and 21% five years or less. Refugees need to spend several years learning English before moving into a mainstream qualification. 15