The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO BILINGUAL LEARNERS, STUDENT DIVERSITY AND SCOTTISH EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Responses to the questionnaire were received from 14 of the 32 education authorities (44%) by the close of the survey. One other authority had written in to say that they had no asylum-seeking or refugee pupils in their schools, but did not complete the questionnaire. The majority of responding authorities were those with resident populations of 50,001 - 200,000 persons (based on 2001 Census data), and 8 of the responding authorities came from the central belt. A breakdown of respondents by resident populations is shown below.

Table 2.1: Responding authorities by resident population
(based on 2001 Census data)

With the purpose of ascertaining whether education authorities had structures currently in place that could be harnessed to respond to the needs of asylum-seeking and refugee pupils, if required, respondents were asked a series of questions relating to data collection, policies and support structures, and related funding streams.

Data collection: Respondents were firstly asked if they collected statistical data on (a) bilingual learners, (b) additional support needs information (other than education needs), (c) unplanned admissions (mid-term arrivals), and (d) circumstances of immigrant pupils such as asylum-seeker/refugee status. Those authorities collecting data on (d) were also asked for numbers of asylum-seeking and refugee pupils in their schools population.

Most respondents confirmed that they gathered data on bilingual learners (13 authorities) and on a wide range of additional support needs (12 authorities). Nearly half of responding authorities indicated that they collected information on unplanned admissions (6 in total); one other stated that this information was collected by schools but not held centrally. Only 5 authorities indicated that they collected information on asylum-seeking or refugee status of pupils. Of these, the 2 largest authorities recorded totals of 1,904 and 65 asylum-seeking and refugee pupils respectively, 2 authorities recorded less than 5, and one authority had recorded none. However, these figures represent known cases only, and the actual number of cases could be higher, since apart from families housed under NASS, this information would largely be obtained through self-disclosure, which is voluntary.

Policies and support structures: Authorities were asked about policies and support structures in place in relation to:

• bilingual learners
• vulnerable children
• refugee and asylum-seeking children
• new arrivals
• anti-racism
• anti-bullying.

This set of questions was designed firstly, to establish what policies and supports were available in these areas; and secondly, to ascertain whether authorities did have policies and structures that would support asylum-seeking and refugee pupils who did not disclose this status. Additionally, the availability of such policies and supports would prove to be valuable if asylum-seeking or refugee children were to be admitted to schools at a later date.

Of the 14 responding authorities, half reported having specific policies regarding bilingual learners; 4 others reported having policies towards bilingual learners that were part of wider policies, such as including pupils with additional support needs; one other stated that bilingual learners received special mention in a wider policy; and one more noted that their policies were currently in development. Only one authority reported not having a policy on bilingual learners.

In addition to policies, respondents reported having structures for supporting bilingual learners. Five identified a dedicated post in their authority responsible for this group of pupils; 8 indicated a post that had oversight for this area within a wider remit, and this included the authority which reported not having a policy on bilingual learners. These data indicate some awareness of the needs of bilingual learners among responding authorities.

Most authorities reported having either specific policies on vulnerable children (3 respondents), or that this area was part of wider policy or guidance (7). One authority indicated policy in development, and there were 2 non-responses. Fewer authorities reported having specific policies in relation to asylum-seeking and refugee children (4 in total), and for 3 of them this area was part of wider policy, such as for bilingual learners, perhaps reflecting the fact that in many authorities few, if any, asylum-seeking or refugee pupils are known to be in their schools. Half of all respondents indicated having policies relating to new arrivals; for 6 of them this area was part of wider policy. Most respondents (13 in total) reported having specific anti-racist policies, and the same number indicated having anti-bullying policies; though the authority indicating no policy in these areas was not the same in each case. Support structures were also indicated to exist in many of these areas in most authorities, with 12 identifying an officer/s responsible for vulnerable children; and 13 for anti-racism and anti-bullying respectively. Eleven authorities noted posts responsible for new arrivals, one of which was a dedicated post and another was at senior management level. Fewer authorities indicated posts responsible for asylum-seeking and refugee children (9) again perhaps reflecting the fact that in many authorities few, if any, asylum-seeking or refugee pupils are known to be in their schools; in all but one of these this responsibility was understandably part of a wider remit, given the low numbers of children known to be in that group in the respective authorities. In an authority that does have high numbers, responsibility for this area is indicated to be at senior management level.

Overall, therefore, it seems likely that whilst policy responses directed specifically towards asylum-seeking and refugee pupils are not available in the majority of responding authorities, possibly reflecting the size of the asylum-seeking and refugee children known to be schools, wider policies and structures can be brought into play to support the needs of new arrivals and vulnerable children, as required. The availability of anti-racist and anti-bullying policies and support structures in most responding authorities can prove important in protecting and supporting these children, particularly where their situations have not been disclosed. However, it must be emphasised that the availability of policies and structures, though important, do not of themselves guarantee good practice.

Funding: Authorities were asked whether specific streams of funding, either national or local, were available to them to support work in the above 6 areas. Seven authorities indicated specific funding to support bilingual learners, and 2 others noted the possibility of drawing on wider funding streams for this work if need arose. Eight authorities indicated the availability of funding for work with vulnerable children. One of them stated that this formed part of wider funding; 2 other authorities noted the possibility of drawing on wider funding if necessary.

Fewer respondents indicated the availability of funding to support new arrivals (3) and asylum-seeking and refugee children (3). Again, the possibility of drawing on wider funding for these areas of work, if required, was noted by an additional 6 and 5 respondents respectively. The availability of funding was indicated by 5 respondents each for anti-racist and anti-bullying work; 2 of whom in each case stated that this was part of wider funding streams. A further 4 and 5 authorities in each case indicated the possibility of drawing on wider funding for this work if required. It would seem therefore that, generally speaking, while specific funding in these areas is limited, there seems to be a possibility of drawing on wider funding if the need arose.

« Previous | Contents | Next »