Just before the new school
year, I read a newspaper item on children who completed primary school and were
about to start at their new secondary schools. Significantly, the many changes and concerns
that came with this transition period were highlighted. The start at a new
school would require the child to adapt to a whole new environment involving
new classmates, new friends (hopefully), new teachers, a new route to school,
new learning methods and so on. All stressful changes that require anticipation
and support from both parents and teachers to make the impact on the child’s
education as small as possible.
Instantly, this item reminded
me of children living in asylum seeking centers.
This move from one school to
the other is something that every child in the Netherlands around the age of 12
must go through. A big step accompanied with changes and worries that a child
thankfully, generally speaking, only undergoes once. Yet, the situation of asylum-seeking children
in the Netherlands is different. Research has shown that these children are
moved to another asylum-seeking center approximately once every year. Consequently,
these children are changing schools every year. Not unusually, at short notice
and often during an ongoing school year. Similarly, it takes time before a new
school is found so it is often uncertain when and where the child can resume
schooling. As you can imagine, these constant and regular disruptions result in
learning difficulties and as a consequence educational disadvantages for these
children. [1]
It is undeniable that this
situation is at variance with the child’s right to education enshrined in
several international (binding) human rights documents. Importantly, Article 2
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires states to ensure
and respect the rights set forth in the Convention to each child in its
jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind. The child’s right to education
laid down in Article 28 of the CRC thus applies equally to asylum seeking
children. Furthermore, Article 28(2)
requires that the developed forms of secondary education are made accessible to
every child and, under (e), the State is required to take measures to encourage
regular attendance at schools.
Similarly, the prohibition of
discrimination of children with regards to the access to education also follows
from the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Anatoliy Ponomaryov and Vitaly
Ponomaryov v Bulgaria.[2] In
this case Bulgaria violated Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article
2 of protocol No 1 to the Convention because two Russian boys where, unlike their
Bulgarian classmates, required to pay fees for attending their secondary
education.
Janneke has pointed out that asylum-seeking children may have formally a right to education but that in practice their rights are interfered with. In other words, their human right is not 'practical and effective' as the Human Rights court requires. It is also significant that although asylum-seekers in general (including children) may be excluded from many rights, especially benefits and services, there is a specific provision in the Immigration Act Article 10(2) that this general exclusion does not apply to education. This means that much more can and should be done, through legal procedures and politics, to prevent this damaging shunting of children from one centre to another. I am aware however of some examples (at my office) where schools and immigration authorities have made impressive efforts to minimize the damage to children's schooling. In one case the children and family were obliged to more from Tilburg to Ter Apel in Groningen. But the school, municipality and immigration authorities arranged that the move to Ter Apel did not take place until the children had completed their school year.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen