The Role of NGOs in an Uncertain Policy Environment for Migrant Schools

China Development Brief, No. 52 (Winter 2011)

中文 English

CDB Staff Writer Li Simin examines Beijing’s uncertain policy environment for private migrant schools, and the role that NGOs continue to play in providing services to migrant children and families in these difficult times.

In Summer 2011, school closures [in Beijing] affecting migrant workers’ children once again pushed the issue of  their education into the headlines.  Suddenly, a number of related issues arose, ranging from the need to keep close watch on the whereabouts of children, to questioning the legality of the closures, to exposing the profit-seeking nature of private schools.  Now, three months later, some children have entered the public school system, while others have returned to their hometown. The topic though is no longer in the headlines.  NGOs that deal with migrant children education, on the other hand, are still dealing with the changes brought about by these decisions.

The Effect of Policy on NGO Work

What is Beijing’s policy on migrant children’s education?  In the eyes of Lin Zhaoxing, the director of the New Citizen Schools, that policy has not yet taken shape.

He explained that currently, Guangzhou and Shanghai have adopted their own methods of handling the issue of migrant children education. Guangzhou’s solution is to completely embrace privately-run, locally organized schools, giving them favorable development opportunities.  Over 400 such privately-run schools have opened. They are legally registered, and can basically take in all the migrant children in the city.  Shanghai has taken another path, letting the government foot the bill.  Currently, 160 migrant children schools receive full support from Shanghai’s Municipal Education Commission.  They enjoy annual subsidies of 3000 RMB per student, plus start-up support of 500,000 RMB for each new school.  Beijing’s policy hovers somewhere between Shanghai and Guangzhou’s approaches. It   remains ambiguous, and varies greatly across Beijing’s  urban districts and outlying counties.

This author discovered, in an online search for resources linked to the development of migrant children’s education, that in recent years the Beijing government has put forward several documents on this topic.  In 2003, the State Council General Office released a document titled “Opinions on Furthering Compulsory Education Work for Migrant Children,” 《关于进一步做好进城务工就业农民子女义务教育工作的意见》 requesting that “various localities should draw on privately run schools in order to fill this role, and offer support and administrative assistance”  The city of Beijing subsequently approved a few migrant children’s schools.  But starting in 2006, it issued a “Beijing Municipal Education Commission  Notice on Strengthening the Management  of Private  Schools for the Floating Population” 《北京市教育委员会关于加强流动人口自办学校管理工作的通知》, calling for a revamping of migrant children’s schools, with a proposal to “redistribute some, standardize some, and close some”.  After this policy, some localities began large-scale closures of migrant children schools.  Haidian District had declared as early as 2004 that in order for migrant children and Beijing children to enjoy the same quality of education, it would begin accepting migrant children.  Under the premise that every child should be able to go to school, the district gradually began closing illegal migrant children’s schools and stopped issuing permits to open new ones.

However, just because the policy was put into place does not mean that conditions were ripe to implement it.  Due to redistribution problems, this policy’s implementation has been compromised.  As a result, the closed migrant children’s schools have reopened to accommodate those with no prospect of entering public schools.

Against this background, Lin Zhaoxing believes the main problem is an uncertain future, which hinders the development of NGOs with a focus on migrant children as they cannot make long term plans, and also bars entry for other NGOs.  He raised the example of an NGO focused on education service work that after less than a year only has one school left after applying for three. How do they explain this to their funders?

In actuality, the reduction in schools has also caused the number of NGO service staff to contract.

Founded in April 2006, the Beijing Rural Children’s Cultural  Development Center (北京农民之子文化发展中心) is a NGO that focuses on migrant children educators.  It was founded by alumni who were part of a Beijing Normal University student club “Rural Children — China’s Rural Development Promotion Committee” (农民之子—中国农村发展促进会)。

Starting in 2007, Rural Children, Zhiquan School (智泉学校), and the China Zigen Rural Education Development Association (中国滋根乡村教育与发展促进会) jointly published The Candlelight Dispatch, a newsletter for teachers of migrant children.  Wang Chunhua, project coordinator of Rural Children explained, the newsletter’s editorial team consists of migrant children educators, “with some teachers writing, some editing.  Every meeting to discuss the paper becomes an opportunity for educators to meet each other.  Everyone gets together and grabs a newsletter, and we chat about the current situation, as well as the situation in our  particular schools and our feelings about it.”

Of the current policy shift, Wang Chunhua said, “The main effect on our program is that service staff are slowly being reduced, the number of schools is declining, as is the number of teachers.”  The Dispatch‘s  activities are still continuing and contacts are being maintained with  teachers who went to work in the public schools. However, “despite the fact that their class time is shorter, these  teachers need to adapt to new administration, new study habits, and multimedia classrooms.  These changes put a great deal of pressure on teachers, requiring more time from them. They don’t have much time to participate in our activities.”

Above and Beyond the “Focus on Schools” Service Model

If the number of privately-run schools drops, does the space for NGO development necessarily shrink too?  As it relates to migrant children educators, a group entirely at the mercy of their industry, this might be true.  But looking at the wider issues of migrant children’s education, perhaps there are other paths.

Lu Lei, a staff member of [the well-known migrant labor NGO] Beijing Facilitators’ (北京协作者), stated that one of the special characteristics of NGOs is their flexibility.  As their environment changes, the key is to find the best way to provide professional services.  “On the topic of migrant children education, there is so much more to focus on than just the classroom.  It should also include family and community education.”

Beijing Facilitators is a community support social work organization, founded on the belief that community is the core of social development.  Taking root within communities, it aims to develop a participatory style of service, training the floating population to develop their own capabilities and promoting understanding and cooperation among different groups within the community.

Lu Lei explained that Beijing Facilitators categorize migrant children under the broad scope of educational services.  If we look at people as members of  a community, we need to think about more than just education. We can see that different people have been in the city  for different periods of time, so the content of our services needs to be differentiated.  It’s not just about relying on schools but focusing on the community.  Some migrant children live in the city outskirts, and some live in residences throughout the city.  Therefore, by choosing a community as the service point, one can cover a wider area.  Even if schools are closed  we must still make sure that services are being developed.

Beijing Facilitators uses the community as its base, and has developed public service summer camps in three communities.  Using different topics, they develop topic-specific group activities, such as “Happiness in the Eyes of Migrant Children,” which  has been run 42 times in total, directly serving 976 children.  Moreover, they have also established community centers for children, developing after school activities and services.  Under the leadership of social workers, young volunteers are organized to develop cultural, sports, arts, and academic activities, that  have benefitted a total of 1505 migrant children and 120 migrant families.  These activities have also benefited 360 people indirectly, by helping migrant workers who are too busy to look after their children. They also focus on developing harmony between parents and children, as well as between migrant children and Beijing native children.

Beijing Facilitators is also training children to be volunteers, and establishing a youth volunteer team.  “Every time we start an event, the kids come early to help workers set up or post flyers.  Throughout the entire event, they serve not only as beneficiaries, but also as helpers. ”

In his book Liquid Modernity, Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s uses “liquid modernity” as an analytical framework.  As he sees it, globalization brings about “uncertainties in the affairs of the world, making it difficult to drive independence.”  Contemporary society is as unstable as liquid, fluid and volatile.  The motto of today’s labor force is adaptability and flexibility.  “There are no jobs where things are set in stone, and the new catch phrase is ‘we’ll let you know when we get there,’ and so careers are filled with uncertainties.”  Because of this, it is not just migrant laborers’ children who are facing educational problems; “new migrants,” urban white collar workers, are also seeing their children denied access to schools due to household registration issues.  Mobility is high, household education is weak, and society is entering a difficult phase.

Education is inevitably an issue of government-provided public services. Most people support the idea that “public school education should be the mainstay, and so primary responsibility should be left to the government”.  They consider public schools to be the government’s responsibility, and children have the right to an education.  As a result, one can say that migrant children schools are a historical product of social transformation.  When society changes, they’ll change as well, or even disappear.  But NGOs won’t stop paying attention and addressing the problem of migrant education.

打工子女教育政策变动不定,NGO如何应对
李思闽
中国发展简报NO.52
打工子女教育政策变动不定,NGO如何应对
2011年 夏 天,有关北京打工子弟学校关停的消息,将农民工子女教育问题再一次推到社会舆论的前台。一时间,关注孩子们的去向、质疑关停行为的合法性、揭露民办学校牟利面向等等,来自各种背景的声音此起彼伏。如今,三个月过去了,有的孩子进了公办学校,有的孩子回了老家,他们不再是媒体舞台上的主角,因为媒体时常更新 着剧目。然而,不同于媒体,对从事农民工子女教育的NGO而言,这一政策引发的变动与他们息息相关。
政策对NGO工作的影响
北京对于农民工子女教育的政策是什么?在新公民学校总干事蔺兆星看来还没有“成型”。
他介绍说,目前广州和上海在农民工子女教育问题上,都形成了自己的处理方式。广州的情况是完全开放民办,给予民办学校较为良好的发展土壤,因此目前广州的民办学校大约有400所,这400所都有合法的注册身份,并基本上能够吸纳完所有打工子弟学生。上海则走的是另外一条道路,即政府全部买单。目前,上海160所打工子弟学校全部获得上海市教委的支持,而且享受每年生均3 000元的补贴,在接纳学校时,给50万基础建设补贴。而北京的政策算是游弋在广州和上海模式之间,并不十分明朗,且各个区县的步伐也不一致。
笔者在搜索关于打工子弟学校发展的资料中发现,近些年来,北京市政府针对打工子弟学校出台了很多文件,2003年国务院办公厅转发《关于进一步做好进城务工就业农民子女义务教育工作的意见》,要求“各地要将这类学校纳入民办学校的扶持和管理范畴”之后,北京市先后有一些打工子弟学校获得了审批。但从2006年开始,北京市发布《北京市教育委员会关于加强流动人口自办学校管理工作的通知》,要求对打工子弟学校加以整顿和管理,提出“分流一批,规范一批,取缔一批”的指导方针。在这个政策背景下,各地先后开始大规模取缔打工子弟学校。而海淀区早在2004年就宣称,为保证农民工子女与北京孩子一样能享受优质教育资源,海淀区在解决农民工子女入学问题上提倡以公办校接收为主,在保证每个学生都能进入学校读书的前提下,逐步取缔非法打工子弟学校,不再给予其合法办学批复。
然而,政策的出台并不意味着相对应的条件已经成熟,因为无法解决学生分流问题,这些政策的实施打了折扣。也正因如此,无法进入公办学校孩子的存在,让被取缔学校又重新开学。
在这个背景下,蔺兆星认为对NGO的主要影响是未来的不可知性使得工作无法做长期规划,这限制了关注农民工子女教育问题的NGO的发展,以及其他NGO的进入。他举例说,一个NGO在做一些教育服务工作,不到一年后,只有一所学校还在继续,而之前申请的是三所学校的项目,那他怎么和资助方解释呢?
确实,学校的减少,在一定程度上使得一些NGO的服务人群在萎缩。
成立于2006年4月的“农民之子”,全称是“北京农民之子文化发展中心”,是由北京师范大学学生社团“农民之子——中国农村发展促进会”毕业老会员发起成立的民间公益组织,关注打工子弟教师是其主要工作内容之一。
从2007年 起,农民之子和智泉学校、中国滋根乡村教育与发展促进会一起办起了打工子弟教师报纸《烛光通讯》。该通讯的工作团队由打工子弟教师组成,“有的老师们做通讯员、有的做主编,每一期的评报会就成为老师们见面交流的平台,大家聚在一起,通讯员来拿报纸,聊报纸的情况,也把各所学校的情况和个人感受带过来了。” 该组织打工子弟教师项目负责人王春华介绍。
对于这次政策变动,王春华说:“对我们项目的影响,主要就是服务人群在逐渐萎缩,学校在减少,相对来说教师就在减少。”虽然通讯活动仍然在继续开展,和一些进了公立学校的教师也保持联系,但是这些教师们“尽管课时量减少了,但需要适应新的管理办法,新的教学习惯,学习用多媒体讲课等,这些改变让老师们在业务 上的压力比较大,需要投入更多的时间,所以参加我们活动的时间就少了。”
超越以学校为主体的服务模式
是否民办学校减少,NGO发展的空间就必然减少呢?相对于打工子弟学校教师,这样一个完全从属于打工子弟学校的群体来说,可能如此。但对于更广泛的流动儿童教育问题来说,兴许还有其他的路径。
北京协作者(以下简称“协作者”)工作人员卢磊说,NGO的特质之一就是有很强的灵活性,环境是总在变动的,主要是看用什么样的专业方法介入服务。“对流动儿童的教育,不仅需要关注在学校中的义务教育,还应该包括家庭教育、社区教育等。”
协作者是一家支持性社会工作专业机构,基于相信社区是社会发展核心单位的理念,扎根社区,致力于开展参与式社区发展服务,培育包括流动人口在内的社区各群体参与社区发展的能力,促进社区各群体的理解与融合。
卢磊介绍,协作者对于儿童的服务,是在宽泛教育下的服务。我们把人看作社区人,需求就不只是知识的教育,落脚点不一样,服务内容也会有区别。不是依托于学校,而是在社区。城市里的流动儿童,有些是在城乡结合部,有的在城区混杂居住。因而,选择社区为服务点,覆盖面更广泛。不会因为学校不在了,服务就无法开展了。
据了解,协作者把社区当作服务的场所,在三个社区分别开展了社区公益夏令营,以不同主题开展专题小组活动,如关注“流动儿童眼中的幸福什么”,共计开展主题活动 42 次,直接服务流动儿童 976 人次;此外,他们还建设社区儿童之家,开展课后文娱课堂服务。组织青年志愿者以志愿服务的形式,在社会工作者的指导下开展课后文化课堂、体育、绘画及读书活动,共计 1505 人次社区流动儿童直接受益,120个农民工家庭 360 人间接受益,解决了农民工因工作忙碌无暇照顾子女的后顾之忧。他们还关注和培育家长亲子间的融合,以及北京孩子和外地孩子之间的融合。
在能力建设方面,协作者还从儿童中培养志愿者,建立了儿童志愿者团队。“每一次开展活动,孩子会早点来和工作人员布置场地、贴海报等。整个活动中,他也是参与者,而不只是享受者。”
德国思想家齐格蒙特·鲍曼 (Zygmunt Bauman) 在 其《流动的现代性》一书中,提出了“流动的现代性”这一分析框架。他认为,全球化带来了“世界事务的不确定、难以驾驭和自立推进性”。当代社会就像流体一样动荡不定、流动易变,今天劳动力市场最流行的口号是“适应性”和“灵活性”,“工作岗位没有任何固有的安全可靠性,只有‘直到进一步通知’的条款,工作 生涯充满了不确定性”。因此,不仅仅是农民工子女面临着颠沛流离的教育问题,对于非出生地就业的“新移民”“都市白领”来说,因为户籍等问题,他们的子女也将面对同样的流动性带来的教育问题——流动性大、家庭教育薄弱、社会融入困难等。
教育问题必然是政府的公共服务问题,大多数人还是支持“以公办学校教育为主,以流入地政府处理为主”的政策,认同公办学校是政府责任,孩子应该享有义务教育 的权利。因此,可以说,打工子弟学校是一个社会转型背景下的历史产物,随着相对应的社会状况的变化,它也会随之变化,甚至消失。但NGO对于流动儿童教育问题的关注和解决,不会停止,也不应该局限于此。

CDB Staff Writer

Translated by Eric Couillard

Reviewed by Mary Hennock

No related content found.

Share: