Changes made to the draft Code of Practice for the ... Web viewSections of the draft Code for consultation. Original Proposals. Changes Made following consultation. Rationale for Changes

Changes made to the draft Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students following sector consultation

Sections of the draft Code for consultation

Original Proposals Changes Made following consultation Rationale for Changes

2 Commencement date: 1 January 2016 Change the commencement date to 1 July 2016

Less than 2% (3 respondents) supported the original date. Most consider 6 months from the day the final regulations are released to be necessary for getting ready for the new Code.

3(2) Transition period tied up with enrolment, ie the old Code still applies beyond the commencement date until the student’s enrolment terminates.

Provide six-month transition period from the commencement date. Providers will be required to apply full new Code by the end of the transition period. This means the new Code will take full effect on 1 January 2017.

60% of online submissions supported the original proposal, but critics say this could be messy and some enrolments could last several years. The new proposal provides certainty and consistency in applying the new Code across the sector.

6(2) Under the old Code, the Code Administrator has no power to apply exemptions.

The Code Administrator may be empowered to apply exemptions to some parts or all of the Code when:

a student changes their status from domestic to international, or

when a student does a distance learning programme and some of the Code requirements cannot be reasonably applied.

72% supported exemptions when students studying offshore. This is the current policy and has not been changed.60% supported exemptions when a domestic student becomes an international and they would like to complete their current programme at the current provider which is not a Code signatory.52% supported exemptions for students doing a distance learning programme.There are increasing numbers of distance learning programmes offered to students either onshore or offshore. For distance learning programmes, students are only onshore

1



occasionally for a short stay, and therefore some parts of the Code may not be appropriately applied to those situations.

7(1) Definition of “educational instruction”: includes accreditation, training schemes, consents to assess, and courses approved under section 4E of the Act.

Definition of “educational instruction”: includes accreditation to provide approved programmes, training schemes, consents to assess, and courses approved under section 4E of the Act.

It should include section 224 of the Act, which says the university admits students in a programme or training scheme. “Programme” is missing. Section 4E is for schools only.

7(1) Definition of “enrol”: means register or admit a person as a student on a course of educational instruction provided by a signatory.

“Enrol” means register or admit a person as a student on a course of educational instruction provided by a signatory, after the student has accepted an offer of place for the study by the signatory.

Enrol is a process, involving making an offer, accepting an offer, and being registered as a student. The sector suggested that the definition needs to reflect this process. This definition also needs to be aligned with the definition of “enrol” in section 159 of the Act.

7(1) Definition of “Legal guardian”: means a person who, by court or testamentary appointment, is responsible for the student’s wellbeing and financial support.

“Legal guardian” means a person who, by court or testamentary appointment, is responsible for the student’s wellbeing and financial support, and provides for the care of the student in the student’s home country.

Revert to the definition of “legal guardian” under the current Code, at the request of some written submissions and Immigration New Zealand.

11 Outcome 1: Signatories are required to provide their prospective students with “clear, complete and accurate information” enabling them to make informed decisions.

Replace “complete” with “sufficient”. 20 submissions (about 25% of total commented) opposed to the word “complete”, saying it is difficult to determine and would result in information overload for students.The policy objective is to ensure students have sufficient information to make informed decisions.

12(b) Each signatory must regularly develop and review information packages for international students

Replace the original with:

Each signatory must develop and review information provided to international students

The policy objective is to ensure that info provided to students is always up-to-date. There are concerns that the “info package” may mean hard copies (which is not intended) and “regularly” may

2



to keep the information up-to-date. be unnecessary and vague.

12(c) This section lists information required to be provided to prospective international students as a minimum.

Add the requirement of providing information on the DRS.

There is a need for the provider to help publicise the DRS as an external disputes resolution forum if disputes are not resolved through internal grievance procedures.

12(c)(i) As a minimum in the information package provided to prospective students, signatories are required to include information on “the signatory’s credentials, including the credentials of its agent”.

Delete this requirement to provide “the signatory’s credentials, including the credentials of its agent”.

88% opposed to the requirement of providing credentials of their agents, believing it is “impossible” to ascertain or obtain their agents’ credentials given the large number of and the diversity of agents they use. Universities NZ is also opposed to the requirement of providing “signatory’s credentials” because it is unclear what “credentials” should include. UNZ considers it sufficient to require signatories to provide latest quality assurance results as stated in 12(c)(ii).

12(c)(iv) Signatories are required to include information on “potential employment outcomes”.

Change to “potential learning outcomes, including pathways for further study or employment, where applicable”.

Many providers considered “employment outcomes” irrelevant to their students, especially schools and PTEs which provide short-term English language programmes. Some were worried about the risk of giving advice perceived to be misleading and/or breaching rules on immigration advice.

12(c)(vi) Signatories are required to include information on “accommodation and transport”.

Add “or how to obtain such information”. Some felt it was difficult for education providers to give accurate information on these due to the wide variety and constant changes. They should just have to direct students to the source of such

3



information.

13 Outcome 2: Signatories must effectively manage and monitor their agents…

Change to: “Signatories must effectively manage and monitor agents which signatories have contracted to represent them …”

There is a need to differentiate between agents engaged by signatories to represent them and agents engaged by students/parents to represent students/parents. It wouldn’t be fair to require providers to be responsible for agents representing students, and therefore it is important that the Code makes it clear that signatory providers are only responsible for managing agents representing providers, not students or their parents.

14(a) Each signatory must carry out and record due diligence on potential agents…

Change “due diligence” to “reference checks”. Over half thought this was a difficult, if not impossible, requirement. Some said they would not turn away new/one-off agents because due diligence hadn’t been completed.

14(c) Each signatory must terminate contracts with agents if those agents or their subcontracted agents(i) have been involved in any conduct that is in breach of the law, false, misleading, or deceptive.

Each signatory must terminate contracts with agents if there is evidence suggesting those agents or their subcontracted agents have been involved in any serious, deliberate, and ongoing conduct that is false, misleading, deceptive or in breach of the law.

Half thought this should only apply to serious, deliberate and ongoing misconduct. Others suggest there should be a process to establish facts before a contract is terminated.SIEBA and others from schools and universities consider that it is unproductive to terminate a contract with an agent if issues could be resolved and problems won’t occur again.

14(d) Ensure that its agents have access to, and maintain up-to-date information, knowledge, and skills relevant to their duties.

Ensure that its agents have access to, and maintain up-to-date information knowledge, and skills relevant to their duties as specified in the contract with the signatory provider.

Many felt it was impractical and unreasonable to expect signatories to be responsible for agents’ knowledge and skills. Agents carry out a lot of functions that may not be required by a signatory

4



provider and are not within the signatory provider’s control.

14(e) Maintain and publish a full list of all its agents on its internet site.

Delete. Over three-quarters of respondents objected, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and issues about the practicality. Some say they have over a thousand agents and their agents change all the time. Many question how this requirement could help improve the quality of agents.

15 Outcome 3: signatories must:(a) Support international students to

make fully informed enrolment decisions that are appropriate to their needs;

(b) ensure international students have all the information required to understand their interests and obligations before entering into a legally binding contract with a signatory.

(a) Support international students (or parents/legal guardians for students under 18) to make fully well informed enrolment decisions that are appropriate to their needs the educational outcomes sought;

(b) ensure international students (or parents/legal guardians for students under 18) have all the information required to understand their interests and obligations before entering into a legally binding contract with a signatory.

Many respondents felt they couldn’t be totally responsible for this outcome – students and their parents have a role to play too, and so the language should be more measured.Also, the outcome needs to include the scenario where parents/legal guardians make enrolment/contractual decisions for international students under 18.Universities NZ thinks students’ needs are too broad for this context, and it is best to replace this “needs” with “the educational outcomes sought”.

16(1)(a) Each signatory must ensure international students receive information about:“The outcomes of the most recent evaluation results by quality assurance authorities”

Each signatory must ensure international students receive information about:“The outcomes of the most recent evaluation results by quality assurance authorities”

The current wording does not make sense – it should either be “outcomes” or “results”, not both.

16(1)(a)(i) Each signatory must ensure international students receive

Add “and the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme”.

There is a need for the provider to help publicise the DRS as an external disputes resolution forum

5



information about this Code. if disputes are not resolved through internal grievance procedures.

16(1)(b)&(c) Each signatory must ensure international students receive information about:Current and within the previous 12-month period compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act.

Each signatory must ensure international students receive information about:Current and within the previous 12-month period compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act. Compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act which are required by the Code Administrator to be disclosed to prospective international students.

Some providers found these requirements may unnecessarily impact negatively on their business without many benefits to students. Others thought this could be unfair because breaches could be minor and some remedies could already be in place. NZQA as the Code Administrator and the quality assurance body for PTEs and ITPs could decide which important compliance notices and conditions imposed must be disclosed to prospective students. These will be related to serious breaches of regulations but not all breaches.

16(3) Before entering into a contract or enrolling, international students and their parents or legal guardians are informed of their rights and obligations…

Replace “and their parents or legal guardians” with “(or the student’s parent or legal guardian if the student is under 18 years old)”.

Parents or legal guardian must be involved only if students are under 18.

16(5) Each signatory must ensure that, while an international student is enrolled with the signatory, the student has appropriate insurance covering:

(a) The student’s travel –i. to and from New

Zealand; andii. within NZ, and iii. outside NZ.

Each signatory must ensure that, as far as practicable, while an international student is enrolled with the signatory, the student has appropriate insurance, covering:

(a) The student’s travel –i. to and from New Zealand;

andii. within NZ, andiii. outside NZ, if the travel is

part of the study.

13 respondents (and Universities NZ) said it is currently difficult to ensure students’ insurance policy covers outside of NZ, and the premium could increase. English NZ indicates that it would be impractical for them to check their students’ insurance policies given their study is often very short and their insurance is often purchased from overseas and written in a foreign language. Guidelines will clarify good practices to check insurance policies.

6



Students studying for less than 2 weeks may be exempt from holding the insurance as required.

We estimate there are about 2.5% (around 400) school students and about 4% (around 2000) tertiary students enrolled for under 2 weeks.

16(5)(b) The student has appropriate insurance covering emergency medical care in NZ.

Deleting “emergency”. Hard to define emergency, and UniCare suggests deleting this.

16(6) Each signatory must ensure that significant matters involving a student under 18 are managed through his or her parent or legal guardian, and that where appropriate the signatory obtains the written agreement of the parent or legal guardian to decisions affecting the student.

Each signatory must ensure that significant matters involving a student under 18 are managed through parent or guardian, and that where appropriate the signatory obtains the written agreement of the parent or legal guardian to decisions affecting the student.

Half of the respondents said communication with parents is usually via an agent and direct communications with parents is impractical. They felt “significant matters” need to be clarified, and that this would be a “minefield”, especially with regards to sensitive issues such as contraception and alcohol consumption which could be contradictory to some people’s beliefs.The Ministry considers that involvement of parents or legal guardians should be aligned with what schools would normally do with domestic students under 18. There is no blanket regulatory requirement about this, and it needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

20(2) For students under 18, each signatory must offer an orientation programme to their accompanying parents, legal guardians and residential caregivers.

For students under 18, each signatory must offer an orientation programme to their ensure, where applicable, these students’ accompanying parents, legal guardians and residential caregivers who are onshore have access to the orientation information and/or programme that has been provided to these students.

The policy intent is to ensure that information provided to young international students is also provided to their parents and caregivers to ensure that important information is fully understood by students with the help of their parents. Feedback suggests confusion around what “orientation programme” means, difficulties to reach parents offshore, language barriers, and what and why this should be provided to students’ parents and

7



caregivers.

21 Outcome 6: Signatories must (a) ensure that international students study in a safe environment; (b) provide adequate support for the well-being of their students; (c) as far as practicable ensure that international students live in a safe environment.

Change (a) to: “provide a safe study environment for international students”.

Universities NZ submitted that signatory providers cannot control where international students choose to study outside their campuses (and this is not the policy intent anyway).

23(a) Each signatory must not enrol an international student 11 years or older but under 18 years who does not live with a parent or legal guardian unless they are in a properly supervised group or in the care of a residential caregiver.

Change “11 years or older” to “10 years or older”.

The current Code allows 10-year-olds to study in a properly supervised group, and this new draft excludes 10-year-olds. This is not intended.

23(e) For international students under 18, each signatory must ensure that each student is in the care of a parent, legal guardian, or residential caregiver when the student’s enrolment with the signatory terminates.

For international students under 18, each signatory must ensure that each student is in the care of a parent, legal guardian, or residential caregiver when the student’s enrolment with the signatory terminates receive written confirmation from the parent or legal guardian of the under-18 student as to the plan to hand over the care of the student after their enrolment ends.

78% wanted clarification what “enrolment terminates” means – does it include enrolment completes in due course or early termination, withdrawal by a student? The policy intent includes all these scenarios, and is to ensure that providers hand over their pastoral care duty to someone else upon the student’s completion of the study.

24(1) Each signatory must ensure that its international students under 11 years live with a parent or legal guardian, unless they are accommodated in a

Each signatory must ensure that its international students under 11 10 years live with a parent or legal guardian, unless they are accommodated in a licensed school

40% of respondents objected, of which half were primary and intermediate schools. They prefer to keep the current provision for enrolling 10-year-olds who do not live with parents or legal

8



licensed hostel. hostel.

Suggest adding definition of “school hostel” as “a licensed hostel owned or administered by a boarding school” – consistent with the current Code.

guardians. “Licensed hostel” includes hostels owned and operated privately by individuals (as well as by schools) and this constitutes an expansion of the current provision, which may increase risks to young international students.

25(1) N/A Add: Ensure that parents for international students under 18 or the next of kin of students aged 18 and over are aware of the situation where the international students are at risk or have special needs.

Many submissions noted the importance of involving parents for young international students at risk or with special needs, and involving the next of kin for adult students at risk or with special needs.

25(1)(a) Each signatory must take steps to identify international students at risk or with special needs;

Delete. English New Zealand objects to placing onus on providers to identify students at risk or with special needs.

25(1)(c) Ensure issues are reported to relevant agencies.

Ensure that issues are reported to relevant agencies where appropriate, subject to the Privacy Act and other relevant legislation.

Reporting to agencies on personal matters will need to be subject to the Privacy Act, and depending on different cases, it may be appropriate to report to a particular authority.

25(2) A student is at risk if either or both the following apply: (a) the student is unable to adequately protect themselves against significant harm or

A student is at risk if a signatory has reasons for serious concerns for a student’s health, safety and well-being, for example either or both the following apply: (a) the student is

Several felt “student at risk” needs to be clarified. There are also concerns that these two examples may not cover all – they are just examples.

9



exploitation; (b) the student is unable to adequately safeguard their personal welfare.

unable to adequately protect themselves against significant harm or exploitation; (b) the student is unable to adequately safeguard their personal welfare.

25 N/A Adding a new section: A student could be described as having special needs if:(a) the student requires the provision of

adapted programmes or learning environments, specialised equipment or materials to support them to access the curriculum, participate, learn and achieve.

(b) the student experiences difficulties which affect their ability to participate, learn and achieve. These difficulties could include physical, sensory, cognitive, psychosocial or behavioural issues, or a combination of factors.

Many submissions asked the Ministry to clarify what students of special needs means. Some suggested that it should be aligned with the definition for domestic students with special needs.This proposed definition is consistent with that used for domestic students.

26(1) This section sets out required processes “in relation to an international student under 18 who lives in accommodation provided or arranged by a signatory”.

“in relation to an international student under 18 who lives in accommodation provided or arranged by a signatory is in the care of a residential caregiver”.

Add: The signatory must conduct sufficient student interviews and home visits to monitor and review the quality of residential care, taking into consideration the age of the student, the length of the stay, and other relevant factors.

SIEBA and other school representatives believe it is important for this section to cover all young students who do not live with parents/legal guardians, so that signatories could better ensure students’ safety and wellbeing. Residential caregiver as defined in the Code covers all caregivers who are not parents/legal guardians.SIEBA and other school representatives feel strongly that the Code needs to specify expectations of student interviews and home visits.

10



Add: The signatory must have written agreement with the parent or legal guardian that the designated caregiver will be subject to the approval of the signatory and that the signatory is not responsible for the student’s care when the student is in the custody of the designated caregiver.

Add: The signatory must ensure that international students of different ages are kept separate and supervised in their accommodation, as appropriate.

This group also believes that signatories should have power to determine whether designated caregivers selected by parents are of acceptable quality, and if not, should be able to reject such arrangements. Schools also think it is important that young students of different age groups should be kept separate and supervised in their accommodation to better manage risks of bullying and/or abuse. Officials consider that having detailed processes such as specifying minimal times of home visits would undermine the policy intent of shifting the focus from processes to outcomes, which is strongly supported by the rest of the sector. To accommodate the schools’ needs to have more specific processes, the new Code has added these relatively high-level processes, with more detailed examples set out in guidelines.

26(1)(b) Signatory must ensure that a safety check in accordance with Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 has been completed for every person over 18 years who supervises or lives in the same accommodation as the student.

Signatory must ensure that an appropriate safety check has been completed for residential caregivers.

In the case of temporary accommodation, a supervisor may be exempt from police vetting, if the temporary accommodation is used once and for no more than 20 days. every person over 18 years who supervises or lives in the same accommodation as the student.

The Vulnerable Children Act (VCA) applies to education workers, which do not include residential caregivers. Officials consider that residential caregivers should be required by the Code to meet the same safety check standards as specified under the VCA, because the risk associated with residential caregivers would be similar to that for education workers. Safety checks under VCA include: Identity confirmation, interview, obtaining and considering employment history, checking references, seeking information from professional bodies, police

11



vetting, and assessing risks based on all information obtained. Officials think it will be more helpful to providers to outline these in the guidelines to the Code, rather than referring to VCA.Applying such safety checks to all other people living in the same accommodation would create compliance burdens which outweigh the risk. Signatory providers are already required to ensure that accommodation provided for students are safe, and there are other measures signatory providers may use to reduce the risk, such as reference checks and interviews without having to conduct the full list of safety checks including police vetting. Police vetting would be particularly impractical if applied to supervisors at temporary accommodation, when the stay is shorter than the time required for a police vetting (the Police’s standard timeframe is 20 working days).

27 Outcome 7: Signatories must ensure that international students are fully informed about relevant advice and services to support their goals and progression during, and for a reasonable period following, their study.

Signatories must ensure that international students are fully informed about relevant advice and services to support their educational outcomes goals and progression during, and for reasonable period following, their study.

31 respondents (about 1/3) felt that it was unreasonable to require support “for a reasonable period following” a student’s study. Students may have left NZ, moved to another provider, or not be contactable. Also, what’s the definition of “reasonable period”? Providers are only responsible for students under the Code during the period a student is enrolled.

28(e) Signatories must ensure that Signatories must ensure that international 20 comments suggested that this should be

12



international students have access to information and advice on minimum wages, labour conditions and maximum hours of work permitted under visa conditions.

students have access to information and advice on minimum wages, labour conditions and maximum hours of work permitted under visa conditions, where applicable.

limited to where /if applicable/relevant. Not all students work or are allowed to work.

30(1)(b) Each signatory must ensure that it provides its international students with sufficient information to understand their rights and obligations under those refund policies.

Each signatory must ensure that it provides its international students (or the student’s parent or legal guardian if the student is under 18 years old) with sufficient information to understand their rights and obligations under those refund policies.

Several respondents suggested this. Young international students often have their parents/legal guardians pay fees for them, and they need to understand refund policies.

30(3) For fees paid for services not delivered to a student, or the unused proportion of fees paid by a student, the signatory must refund the amount in question to the student or transfer the amount to another signatory as agreed with the student.

For fees paid for services not delivered to a student, or the unused proportion of fees paid by a student (or the student’s parent or legal guardian), the signatory must refund the amount in question to the student (or the student’s parent or legal guardian) or transfer the amount to another signatory as agreed with the student (or the student’s parent or legal guardian).

Young international students often have their parents/legal guardians pay fees for them, and so they should be the ones receiving a refund or directing the transfer of fees.

37(6) The Code Administrator may consult and share information with other government agencies, and receive and consider information provided by other government agencies for the purpose of agreeing interventions for the improvement of the code or compliance with it.

The Code Administrator may consult and share information with education quality assurance authorities and other relevant government agencies, and receive and consider information provided by education quality assurance authorities and other relevant government agencies for the purpose of agreeing interventions for the

The current draft implies that the Code Administrator is a government agency as well as an education quality assurance authority. This is not accurate. The Code Administrator could be any body which may not be an education quality assurance body or a government agency. For the effectiveness of monitoring the code compliance, however, it is important that the code

13



improvement of the code or compliance with it.

administrator collaborate with education quality assurance bodies and relevant government agencies.

39(2) The Code Administrator must report that issue or breach to other education quality assurance agencies and any other relevant government agency.

The Code Administrator must report that issue or breach to other education quality assurance agencies bodies and any other relevant government agency.

14

Documents

Changes made to the draft Code of Practice for the ... Web viewSections of the draft Code for consultation. Original Proposals. Changes Made following consultation. Rationale for Changes