This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/Education in Burmese Refugee Camps in Thailand .jpg 2015-11-01T22:25:20-08:00 Education in Burmese Refugee Camps in Thailand 23 The Struggle for Education image_header 2015-12-02T17:07:33-08:00

  “If we had stayed in the village, we knew that our children could never attend school and I wanted my children to go to school to be educated people. We also didn’t have any house to stay in. We could only stay in the forest and we had to flee away when the SPDC came or patrolled around our area, so we decided it was better to go to the refugee camp.”
  —Saw, a 47-year-old male 

  There are 70 schools in the seven predominantly Karen camps with more than 34,000 students. There are 11 schools in the two Karenni camps in the north, which is run by the Thai authorities, and implemented by local and international NGOs as well as community-based organizations (Oh, 2010). However, in generally, refugees in these camps have limited educational and training opportunities. 

  • The Administration of Education in the Refugee Camps

  The Royal Thai Government decides the implementation of education service for refugees while Thai policies on education provision are decided by National Security Council (NSC), the Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) (Oh, 2010).
  
  In addition, the Thai government maintains a laissez-faire approach to refugees setting up their own schools and the accompanying structure to administer them. Teachers, caretakers, school committee members and principles are from the local refugee community. And because Karen is the main ethnic group in refugee camps, school policy is closely related to Karen Refugee Committee Education Entity (KRCEE) policy, but there is possibility of variation (Oh, 2010). The educational autonomy of Karen refugees in the camps are higher than those still in Burma who are not permitted to manage their own schools, to teach in their mother tongue, or to challenge the official version of the Burmese history (Oh, van der Stouwe, 2008). 
  
  And according to a study conducted by Oh and van der Stouwe (2008), the community management system is relatively well-structured and standardized across camps. For example, each camp has an educational committee consisting of teachers, parents, and community leaders, which also promotes interaction and communication between different stakeholders. 

  • Inclusion : A Nondiscriminatory Education Framework

  "My heart is heavy, especially for the young people who are growing up in the camp, like teenagers. When I walk through the camp and I see a lot of young people, especially students, I feel their need for rights; I feel for their futures. I think, “If I am that little girl, over the next 10 years how can I survive? How can I support myself?” 
  —A member of the Karen Refugee Committee 

  One crucial problem of education in the Burmese refugee camps is inclusion, which comprises the access to schools, quality and relevance of the learning experience, and equality and diversity in management structures (Bush & Diana, 2000).
  
  It emphasizes that nondiscriminatory education framework is the right to education (Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1949). And UNESCO also addresses the issue by highlighting that all children should have the right to receive the kind of education that does not discrimination on grounds of disability, ethnicity, religion, language, gender, capabilities and so on. Instead of discrimination, schools should value the diversity of learner and see difference as enriching rather than hindering the learning experience.
  
  In the case of refugee camps, inclusion can be interpreted as the absence of discrimination, not concern for or attention to the diversity of educational needs among children (Oh & van der Stouwe, 2008). Inclusion doesn't focus on education for all but paying more attention to students who are vulnerable to marginalization and exclusion (UNESO, 2003). To promote these students' engagement in education, explicit educational resources and investment should be made to ensure that traditionally excluded groups are included in the educational system and their needs are accommodated. 

      1. The access to Education
  
  Access to education refers to having the opportunity to enroll in learning programs and institutions and having physical access to buildings and other educational facilities(Oh & van der Stouwe, 2008). 
  
  Literacy rate in the camps is estimated as 60% (TBC, 2013). One of problems in educational access lies in the disparities of educational opportunities from one camp to another. Although in some camps, such as Tak camps, Mae La, Umpiem Mai, Nu Po and Mae Sot, students can the access to higher education, education is unattainable for students in the more remote camps such as Lae La Oon and Ban Don Yang. For example, the Australian Catholic University (ACU) in Mae Sot offers a diploma in Liberal Studies and some other schools include the Wide Horizons and Minmahaw GED Programs in Mae Sot, English Immersion Program in Umpiem Mai, and Global Border Studies Program in Nu Po. However, many young people have no means to get higher education in their remote refugee camps and many of them end up doing their family business such as working as a hairdresser in the camps. When things get worse, some of them turn to drugs and alcohol, or even commit suicide because of the loss of hope for the future (Purkey, 2006). 
  
  Another problem is that refugee students are excluded from educational opportunities that are available to local Thai students. Because Thai government only intends to provide Burmese refugees a temporary shelter, it makes public schooling inaccessible to refugee students and acclaims that refugees occupy a particular administrative status that is only valid within the camps. If they get any chance to leave the camps, they become illegal migrants and are permitted to enroll in Thai public school, so that the access to education for refugees is confined in the camps. 
  
      2. Quality and Relevance of Education
   

  In spite of gaining physical access to educational facilities, many factors, including individuals' background, will greatly impact educational attainment and academic outcomes. Oh and van der Stouwe (2008) divided factors influencing whether students are able to fully engaged in the classroom into two levels: individual level and program/institutional level. The former refers to individuals’ own background, such as available resources, motivation and knowledge. The latter refers to structure, curriculum, teaching practice, school culture, and so on. 
  
         >>>Interaction between education and ethnicity/religion
  
  Based on school culture, they identifies the influence of ethnicity and religion on students. Living together with different groups in the same environment creates possibilities for intergroup interaction and social integration. Although intergroup interactions can create diverse experiences for students and teach them how to deal with ethnic and religious issues in a harmonious way, ethnicity and religions can also cause problems at school, such as bringing religious and ethnic conflicts to learning by victimizing minority group members and segregating students based on religious and ethnic backgrounds. However, education that may be hindered by religious and ethnic conflicts can play a crucial role in refugee situations by improving intergroup attitudes and interactions. Positive education can create a tolerate climate by teaching students to respect differences and deal with them with an appropriate way. For Burmese refugees in the ethnically and religiously diverse camps, how to teach students to deal with ethnic and religious differences is a crucial part of education, which contributes to a peaceful environment in the camps and after their return to Burma. And because of the isolation in the camps, teachers and students don't have access to the outside world and different perspectives, the recognition of diversity by education is key to promote students' attitudes and behaviors toward out-group members. But at the same time, education can function as a two-edged sword if students are taught with values that are not useful decrease ethnic and religious tensions, which exacerbates intergroup hostility and prejudice. Therefore, whether education is used as a weapon in cultural repression for hatred and segregation or a tool for peace promotion remains a big challenge for Burmese refugee education. 
  
         >>>Curriculum and Language
  
  According to UNHCR report on challenges of refugee education, “The inherently political nature of the content and structures of refugee education can exacerbate societal conflict, alienate individual children, and lead to education that is neither of high quality nor protective” ( Dryden-Peterson, 2011). The content of what is included in curriculum shapes what children will learn and how they think about themselves and imagine the future both for themselves and their society. However, in burmese refugee camps in Thailand, freedom of speech and learning is as limited as their physical movement. It is barely possible for teachers and students to challenge the official version of the Burmese history and talk about negative aspects of refugee policy of Thai government (Oh, van der Stouwe, 2008), which large restricts students’ understanding of what have happened in their home country and what is happening in their host country from a balanced perspectives. In addition, whether students follow curriculum of host country is another issues. Although it helps with the process of local integration, to what degree knowledge and skills based on situations of host country can contribute to learning and working after repatriation creates the gap between learning in camps and adapting to life in host countries. 

  Meanwhile, learning in mother tongue is the foundation for understanding learning materials. Although in camps, different languages may be used, the official language is based on the population of ethnic groups. A challenge for language of instruction in refugee education is that even within one ethnic group, people speak different languages let alone people from different groups. For example, the official spoken language of instruction in mainstream schools in Karen camps is Skaw Karen, while other people may speak Pwo Karen and Burmese instead (Oh, van der Stouwe, 2008). Using Skaw Karen for teaching excuse all non-Skaw Karen speakers student so that they have to look for schools which can meet their language requirement. But some Burmese-language muslim schools are quite underdeveloped and offer different curriculum for students, which creates inequitable educational access and quality for people from different groups. Meanwhile, although providing separate education for people speaking different languages brings some benefits, parallel provision, in the long run, may raise serration and prejudice rather than diversity and understanding.  In addition, some textbooks are written in English while both teachers and children have problems to use.
  
      3. Outcomes
  
  The lower level of inclusion has many negative impact. Refugee children don’t share the equitable access to education and they are less likely to get access to higher education. Education doesn’t play a positive role in ethnic and religious conflicts in camps and instead it conveys dominant social values promoted by Thai government without offering multiple perspectives, wh[1] ich functions as a weapon in cultural repression instead of way to proper knowledge and freedom. And research showed that mental health problems are prevalent among Burmese refugee, including PTSD (Cardozo, Talley, Burton, & Crawford, 2004). However, refugee education doesn’t touch this topic but on the contrary restricts people’s freedom to manage their own schools and teach knowledge and skills that are important for their personal development both in Thailand and their home country after repatriation.
   

  • Funding Shortage and Teaching Quality

  
  Cuts in assistance from donor countries during these years have affected education in the camps. For example, after decades of providing education assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burma border, the Dutch NGO ZOA experienced a nearly 50 percent drop in its budget in 2010 when its biggest donor pulled their funds.  ​Because of the drop in funding budget, teachers in the camps lost half their stipends and the Dutch NGO ZOA could no longer adequately fund school materials or maintain school buildings. 
  Without sufficient money to keep the camp schools running, the Karen Refugee Committee Education Entity (KRCEE) and the Karenni Education Department (KnED) increased school fees by about 100 percent from previous years. So that families are compelled to break Thai law by sneaking out of the camp to earn income, which may lead to repatriation if they get caught. While many family cannot afford tuition fee for their children, which causes a increasing rate of dropout (TBC, 2015).  
  
  The funding for per primary and secondary students is $44 per year. Education staff who on average earn between $15, which leads to high rate of teacher turnover and create gaps between demand and supply of teachers let alone qualified ones (Oh, 2010). Because of the low stipends for teachers, and to some extent as a result of resettlement, there is an extremely high turnover rate for teachers; many of the teachers in the border camps are young, inexperienced, and under- trained. With such high turnover and because of budget cuts, new teachers, many of whom are recent high school graduates themselves, receive a one-month crash course before finding themselves in front of a class.

   

  
  Speaking of educational policy issue, according to the Thai government, NGO experts are not allowed to work as teachers in camps. Outsider experts can only work as advisors without being able to accept official training and teaching classes, which doesn’t help reduce the crisis of the lack of teachers in camps. And in many schools, foreign teachers and volunteers only stay illegally in camps and risk fines and deportation. In addition, the quality of education greatly varies from one camp to the other. In some remote camps, the access to education is largely unattainable for refugee children.
   

  • Higher Education and Recognition of Certification

      1. Higher education

  In the most camps, the available highest level of education is post-ten, which is provided by UNHCR and non-government organizations. So what will many young people do after finishing a primary or secondary school?  There are only few schools on the Thailand-Burma border where these young students can apply for. But with limited opportunities, only a small part of talented and dedicated students can get access to higher education. 

  Among these schools that offer higher education, one of the most prestigious schools is the Australian Catholic University (ACU), which offers a internationally recognized diploma in Liberal Studies in Mae Sot as well as in Ranong. However, thousands of students are left with no means to get into this school or pursue higher education as refugees. So many of them end up with opening a barber shop, becoming a nurse in the camps or even committing suicide, with no means to realize their dreams.
  
      2. Recognition of certification

  “These certificates are not recognized in Burma. As a result, we worry about repatriation.”

  —a young Karen woman from the Mon State in Mae La refugee camp, January 2015

  Nursery, general education, post-secondary schooling, and vocational and adult learning are available in the Burmese camps with the assistance of the Thai government, local and international NGOs, and community-based organizations (CBOs). And there is some progress towards certifying the learning in the camps. For example a framework of cooperation with the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) under the Thai Ministry of Education (MOE) was signed with certification as one of the objectives. However, the quality of refugee education is defined and measured by ineffective standards, which greatly affects the extend to which refugee qualifications are recognized (Dryden-Peterson, 2011).And many certificates from the camps are not still recognized in Burma, which greatly affects their decision about whether they will return to Burma and whether they can better benefit from education in the camps after their repatriation.