The right to education

for children being evicted

Bruno Vanobbergen

Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner

What’s the problem?

Which stakeholders did we focus on?

How did we proceed?

Bringing stakeholders together

Getting things clear

Finding common ground

Meeting authorities

Obstacles we met

Different perspectives among stakeholders

Authorities’ perspectives

How far did we get, so far?

Or not that far?

Overview

Introduction (1)

“Belgium is a federal state” (art. 1)

Migration law & policy = federal competence

• Deputy-minister of asylum and migration

Education, Welfare, Youth care, Sports…

= Competence of Communities (Flemish, French, German)

No hierarchy in authority agreements needed

Example: undocumented minors

Right to education (enrolment, funding, …)

Federal state cannot obtain information from

schools on whereabouts of undocumented minors

Police cannot arrest undocumented minors in or

on the way to (nor back from) school (*)

Introduction (2)

Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner’s

Office

Founded by the Flemish parliament in 1998

Independent ‘para-parliamentary institution’

Office = Commissioner + 13 employees

Investigate complaints & mediate

Monitor policies & formulate policy advise

Flemish parliament

But also interventions with

Flemish government & ministries

Federal institutions

often in cooperation with French-speaking

counterpart

What’s the problem?

Eviction of children & youngsters on the move

Who have lived in Belgium for many years

Some of them born here

Unaccompanied or with family

Some in foster care

Attending Flemish school for many years

Some of them close to finishing secondary school

No residence permit for Belgium

For a variety of reasons (never got one, lost)

Eviction notice have to leave country in 30 days

Some of them suddenly ‘disappear’

Other ones live ‘under the radar’

What’s the problem?

Group ‘Zonderwijs’ (activist teachers)

complains:

Uncertainty about future harms development of

pupils, their psychological wellbeing, …

Abrupt disruption of schooling undermines

students’ future prospects

• Investment of many years is lost

• Can continue schooling in country of origin?

No opportunity to say goodbye – disruption of

normal school life

Flemish Foster Care Agency report (2014):

90 undocumented children in foster care

What after their 18th birthday?

Which stakeholders did we focus

on?

Children & youngsters involved, families, …

Group ‘Zonderwijs’ (teachers)

Federations of School Boards

Catholic school boards

City school boards

Board of Flemish state schools

Federation of Secondary School Students

Flemish Foster Care Agency (Pleegzorg Vlaanderen)

Youth Care organisations

Sports federations, …

All publicly

funded, cath.

privately run

How did we proceed?

Bringing stakeholders together

Phase 1: educational stakeholders

Phase 2: other stakeholders

Getting things clear

What are problems in daily work with these

children?

What changes do we want? Any proposals?

• What do they imply? Consequences?

• How do they relate to present legal procedures?

Can we find some common ground?

Meeting the authorities

Getting things clear

Original proposal & arguments

Argument: ‘Those kids are so well integrated’

Proposal: ‘educational stay’

• = no eviction before schooling is finished

Change in legal

procedures re

residence permit

children family

members

Work

permit

Eviction is only

temporary

postponed

How to prepare

them to return

‘home’?

Diploma /

certificate

Other?

Integration

argument

Conditions?

Permanent

stay?

Obstacles we met

Different perspectives among stakeholders

For example:

Some school boards’ federations:

‘Talking about migration law is beyond our

competence. We’d rather stick to the right-

to-education perspective.’

Other school boards’ federation:

‘We shouldn’t make distinctions between

children depending on their legal status.’

Obstacles we met

Authorities’ perspectives (meeting July ‘15):

Flemish Minister of Education:

‘Allow pupils to finish the school year.’

Federal Migration office:

• ‘Impossible to put into practice. Would

leave no time window for repatriation.’

• ‘Unacceptable. Comes down to ‘general

pardon’ for all undocumented families.’

• ‘Would lead to massive increase of influx of

refugees.’

• ‘We have to stick to the unity-of-family

principle.’

• ‘We shouldn’t make distinction between

unaccompanied minors and other minors.’

How far did we get, so far?

Analysis & position paper June 2015 (quite detailed)

1st meeting with authorities (July 2015)

Representatives Flemish Minister of Education

Repr. federal Migration Office & Deputy-Minister

More general ‘platform text’ (June 2016)

More ‘room to negotiate’

Signed by organisations (some with additional comments)

Hearing in Flemish parliament (June 2016)

Informal contacts at federal and Flemish level

Other actual issues as ‘opener’

The usual stuff:

Interviews & comments in media, year reports, …

Platform text

Basic principles

Take diversity of situations into account • Not just one rule for all ‘illegal immigrants’.

Best interest of child as primary concern

‘Unity of family’: child’s right – not duty

Predictions on outcomes empirically grounded

Proposals re undocumented children

Recently arrived & no perspective humane return policy • A.o. more flexible regulations allowing finishing school year

Been here longer finishing schooling trajectory (> 18 yr.) • Differentiated + humane return (incl. good preparation / ‘life project’)

Thoroughly rooted permanent residence permit

Under protective youth care measure temporary res. permit

Discussion

Similar problems experienced re return

policies involving undocumented minors?

Is this an issue in your country?

What are the perspectives taken by different

stakeholders?

Strategies to find common ground among

stakeholders?

Strategies to convince policy makers?

Step-by-step. Can we agree with different

policies answering different situations

children and youngsters are in?