1
Changesmade to the draft Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students
following sector consultation
Sections of the draft Codefor consultation / Original Proposals / Changes Made following consultation / Rationale for Changes2 / 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.
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 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 accreditationto 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 to keep the information up-to-date. / 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 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 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 ongoingconduct 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 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 needsthe 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 information about this Code. / 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 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 –
- to and from New Zealand; and
- within NZ, and
- outside NZ.
(a)The student’s travel –
- to and from New Zealand; and
- within NZ, and
- outside NZ, if the travel is part of the study.
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.
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 totheir 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 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 terminatesreceive 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 licensed hostel. / Each signatory must ensure that its international students under 1110 years live with a parent or legal guardian, unless they are accommodated in a licensedschool hostel.
Suggest adding definition of “school hostel” as “a licensed hostel owned or administered by a boarding school” – consistent with the current Code. / 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 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: