Migrant Education in Shanghai: Policy Implementation and Impact

Dongmei Li (presenting)Doctoral Candidate, UT Austin

Tak Cheung Chan (non-presenting)Professor emeritus,

Kennesaw State University

Acknowledgement to Under-Represented Ethnic and Ability Groups (UREAG)

• Thanks for UREAG’s travel grant to assist my attending of this conference.

Introduction• In China, migrant children who do not hold local

residency status have long been denied access to public education.

• Policies in the late 2000s pushed for free compulsory education and equal access. However, the status quo does not change much: – Inaction/slow response at the local; – Additional requirements leads to new barriers.

Gap in the Literature• Existing research largely investigates

migrant children’s educational experiences within low-quality private migrant schools (e.g., Goodburn, 2009; Han, 2004; Human Rights in China, 2002).

• A small number examines the practice of migrant education policies in public schools (Ren &Yang, 2011; Xiao, 2011; Yiu, 2014) but fewer of them are empirical.

Purpose and Research Questions

• Purpose: Exploring how public schools implement policies of free compulsory education and equal access from the perspectives of parents.

• Research questions – How have the free compulsory education and equal

access policies been implemented in public schools? – How have these educational policies affected the

access of migrant children to public education?

Methods• Qualitative interviews were conducted in the

suburban administrative district of Shanghai. – While Shanghai does better in educating

migrant children than other cities, it is still difficult for migrant children to attend local public schools due to additional barriers (Ren &Yang, 2011).

– The suburban area is where many migrant workers work and reside (convenient site)

Methods (continued) • Recruiting strategies: personal network; “guerrilla

interviewing” (Gold, 1989).

• The interviewees: 12 migrant parents– Diverse in background representing 11 cities of 9 provinces. – Their children attend five different schools.

• Semi-structured interviews/follow-ups (Jan – June 2015): parents asked the same interview questions such as registration requirements and policy impact on their children.

Findings • All the parents verified free compulsory education being

guaranteed in the public schools under study. (no extra fee was charged.)

• However, the findings in this study do indicate that the equal access policy was not supported in public schools.– Although the interviewees have worked and lived in Shanghai

for an average of 10 years, they must submit additional documents to enroll their children. Schools require a range of 1-3 documents (property, employment, social security, etc.).

Findings • Basically, the implementation of equal access to public

schooling across schools varies and seems to be arbitrary.

• Prior to 2014, property title was not a must but was required by some schools. – Two participants with high education background were able to

enroll their children without having to show their property titles in 2005 and 2013.

– An uneducated and unsophisticated couple were asked for property title; do not own real property and could not register their two children in 2007 (the only option is migrant school and their children was later sent back to hometown)

Findings • In terms of the policy impact

– the policies of free compulsory education and equal access do not improve educational opportunities for all migrant children.

• The equal access policy has not actually been implemented in local public schools.

• The presumed positive free education policy does not improve education equity for migrant children when local districts require additional registration requirements= new barriers, i.e., real property title.

• Migrant students’ access to public education remains unequal as it depend on family socioeconomic status and schools’ varying requirements.

Discussion • Additional paperwork requirement for access to public

education such as property title is not unusual in the district where I collected data. It is the same in other districts and seems to be known by non-local residents, especially those from the rural.

• Possible reason: not just bureaucracy. It is intentional to keep those children out. Official saying:

– 1. Shift of Shanghai local government’s policy from “accepting all” to “social control”;

– 2. Cannot accept all students due to lack of space and resources; – 3. The government argues that problems such as pollution and traffic jam have

something to do with the large number of outsiders/non-local residents. Denying migrant children to public schools is one way to keep those people out.

Discussion (continued)• Possible reason: not just bureaucracy. It is intentional to keep

those children out. In reality (informed by…):– 1. Skilled labor is still valued and accepted by the local. The control

seems to target and affect rural migrants and their children. In the heat of urbanization, construction workers were in high demand and a large number of rural workers flew to the urban. Now that urbanization is completed and those people are not needed any more and then got pushed out.

– 2. Also due the one-child policy, many schools are under-enrolled and local schools do have the capacity and resources.

– 3. Pollution and traffic problems actually have nothing or little to do with non-local residents. Just an excuse by the government.

Significance

• Reinforcing extant literature and will extend the knowledge on international migrant education.

• May also serve as a reference for policy changes.

• The results can be used for advocacy and suggest more studies.

YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY.

Thanks so much for attention.