Childhood and education in Thailand-Burma/Myanmar Border Refugees camps

Abstract

This article examines the childhood of those living inside refugee camps on the Thailand-Burma border, focusing specifically on education. Both quantitative and qualitative data are used. The article integrates objective research from international and national literature and subjective information collected through interviews with refugees and foreign workers from the camps. It gives a brief overview of the camps’ demographic, an in-depth description of education for refugees and looks at general perceptions of childhood. The findings reveal that despite violations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), young people still retain hope of a better future. However, this hope is largely maintained by the strong presence of and over-reliance upon international non-governmental organisations. The article concludes with suggestions for improvement.

Introduction

Refugees have been living in temporary shelters on the Thailand-Burma ¹ border since 1984, when around 10,000 Karen refugees fled from Burma to Thailand. Since Thai legislation forbids refugees from leaving the camps, many have been living within its parameters for 30 years, uncertain when or if they will ever return. Meanwhile others, who were born in the camps, have reached adulthood never having experienced life ‘outside’.

As in any war or armed conflict, children are a particularly vulnerable part of society and suffer great consequences. This article looks at everyday life for children living in Thailand’s camps, focusing specifically on their education, and gives a voice to these refugees through first-hand interviews.

In their 2014 Thailand Report, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that 136,500 refugees were living in the nine refugee camps settled along the 2107-km Thailand-Burma border. However, at least 57,500 refugees from Burma (42% of the total) were unregistered. Although statistics are difficult to contrast since there are no governmental data, similar percentages were presented the same year by The Border Consortium ² (TBC), establishing that more than 110,000 refugees were living in Thailand-Burma border camps, of which 49.7% were unregistered. Thus, almost half of these refugees don’t ‘legally exist’.

According to TBC, the female–male ratio is 49%–51%, and more than 45% of these refugees are aged under 18 years. The population aged between 5 and 18 years is 35%, almost 50,000 children. This stage is considered in most countries as Primary and Secondary education level age, compulsory phases in many cases.

With over 135 different ethnic groups, there is considerable diversity within the camps. TBC 2014 data analysed religious and ethnic differences. Its findings show that most of the refugees belong to the Karen group (78%), followed by Karenni (12%) and other minority ethnic groups, such as Mon, Chin, Arakan, Shan or others. The majority of refugees follow Buddhism, but Christianity, Animism, Islam and other minority beliefs are also practised.

There is also significant diversity of socio-economic backgrounds within the camps. Families from impoverished backgrounds and poor education live alongside political refugees, university students or high-profile lawyers, teachers or doctors in the same cramped accommodation and surviving on the same rations.

This essay will use the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of The Child as a framework to assess the quality childhood in the camps. Section ‘Methodology’ begins with a summary of the Convention and Thailand’s role. It then focuses on education within the camps, examining, in this order, its structure, opportunities for further education, teaching methodologies and teaching quality. Section ‘Childhood and Education’ focuses on the everyday life of children in the camps, comparing articles of the 1989 UN Convention to the reality of these children’s lives, and suggests whether or not, in each case, the Convention is being adhered to. The essay concludes with a summary of childhood in the camps and suggestions for improvements to education and opportunities for young refugees. Throughout the essay, first-hand accounts will be used, in addition to published reports from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who work in the camps.

Methodology

Data were collected through semi-structured and individual interviews with people from Ban Mai Nai Soi Refugee Camp (also known as Karenni Camp #1). Some of these interviews were held on-site, as one of the interviewers was working at the Karenni Social Development Centre (KSDC), a school for refugees. Further interviews were conducted online. Refugees were asked open questions about their experiences of education and everyday life in the camps. This familiarity and proximity created a safe environment for people to express themselves, facilitating honest answers. Questions were open, neutral, sensitive and understandable, and focused on gathering qualitative data.

Interviews were held between June 2013 and June 2015. Although most refugees were willing to express their opinions, due the fear of consequences, some preferred anonymity; therefore, some of the names have been changed.

For ethical reasons, interviews were with people aged 19 years and above. Samples were chosen to represent the views of students, teachers and parents of both genders. Three foreign teachers were also asked about their perceptions. Each person interviewed was told that any information they give may be used within the article and given the opportunity to review, change or withdraw their statements.

To ensure the article represents as many voices of refugees as possible, further interviews were gathered through published reports from NGOs based in and around the camps. Complementary information is based on research from reliable and official data from international organisations and NGOs working in the camps, such as the Democratic Voice of Burma, TBC and the Curriculum Project.

Limitations of the methodology are mainly due to the specific characteristics of the sample and the difficulties of reaching refugees inside the camps. This article bases the majority of its research in the lesser-studied Karenni camps of Mae Hong Song province, Northern Thailand.

Childhood and education

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations General Assembly, 1989) has been taken as the basis to describe what is considered a ‘desirable’ childhood to better understand the implications of living in a Thai refugee camp. Core concepts reiterated from the preamble, and also mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, refer to a secure family environment, an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, freedom, dignity, equality and legal protection. Childhood is considered a special stage of life entitled to special care and assistance. It is the time in which the child should be fully prepared to live as an individual in society, and it is, as well, when children should enjoy the right to rest, play and engage in recreational activities.

The role of education is given special consideration in the Convention’s articles 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32 and 33. Articles 28 and 29 state that every child should have equal access to educational opportunities, regardless of wealth or other factors. Education, says the Convention, should nurture the development of the child’s personality, including their talents and mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential. Article 31 emphasises that each child has the right to learn about their own cultural identity, language and values. The Convention also stressed the need for a compulsory and free primary education with regular attendance and accessibility of secondary and higher education.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Thailand in 1992. A UN Committee met in 2012 to monitor Thailand’s adherence and noted their concern with regard to the protection of the rights of asylum-seeking and refugee children, and their access to basic services.

Education in Thailand-Burma border refugee camps

Organisation and real opportunities for education

All activities in Thai refugee camps must be sanctioned by the Royal Thai Government. Educational policies are decided by the National Security Council, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Education. Developing and improving the education system can therefore be difficult. ‘We have limitations of education programs because of the Thai authorities’, said Khu Myar Reh, principal of KSDC. ‘Whatever we want to do to improve our education, we need to inform them first. It is dependent upon their permission’. When asked how improvements could be made, Johnfreeco Komoe, who also lived in Karenni Refugee Camp #1, established, ‘It is up to Thai authorities [to improve education] because we are living in their land. Karenni leaders have many human resources to improve Refugee education system but Thai doesn’t allow it. They will only give us basic education’. For example, there are strict guidelines and restrictions on foreign teachers entering the camp, and there is no electricity or Internet. This has greatly restricted the refugees’ access to learning resources.

The Karenni Education Department (KnED), which is run by Karenni refugees, takes responsibility for all educational services in the two Karenni camps, while the Karen Education Department (KED) is responsible for the seven Karen camps. Community-based organisations (CBOs), local and international NGOs work together under TBC to coordinate activities and support.

The school system is divided into 10 grades, categorised in three stages: primary school, middle school and high school. There are also pre-schools for children aged 2–5 years. In Karenni Camp #1, there are 20 sections, and each has a pre-school. There are currently 11 primary schools, five middles schools and two high schools to provide for a population of 10,000 students (KSDC, 2013). There are only a few post-secondary schools, known as ‘Post-10s’. Each Post-10 school only accepts 50–60 students, so many students cannot continue their education.

There are no universities in the camp, although it is possible for a small minority of young people to continue studying outside. Ta Reh, aged 19 years, who was born in the camp, for example, was able to study at a Canadian college, thanks to support from Minmahaw Higher Education Programme ³ and the World University Service of Canada (WUSC).

Johnfreeco crossed into Thailand and lived in the camps, specifically for the educational opportunities, which he claims were better than in Karenni State. He was also able to continue into higher education and currently studies at a university in Bangkok. ‘For refugees who want to go to University like me, they can do it too. All they need is a qualification such as TOEFL or IELTS’.

There are, however, several barriers to studying in a foreign university. First, many students were born in the camp and are therefore ‘stateless’. They struggle to get the required travel documents. ‘Many children who were born in this camp […] are not recognised as citizens […] so they will lose opportunity like education’, said Khu Myar Reh.

Second, restricted Internet access makes it very difficult for students to complete courses such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which are generally conducted online. Furthermore, Johnfreeco was granted funding from Child’s Dream Foundation. Scholarships such as his are limited, leaving the vast majority without the financial means to study at a high level. ‘When they grow up, when they are more than 20 years, they should become university students, but most of them do not have this opportunity’, said Khu Myar Reh.

Like many students, Khin July Soe, a student at Karenni Community College, is not without ambition. However, lack of higher educative opportunities makes her dream to become a doctor incredibly difficult to achieve:

Regardless of my strong desires to fulfil this dream, it is almost unrealistic due to our current living and education conditions. […] Due to many reasons, our education system is still needed huge improvement and it will be a long way for international education institutions to recognise our system of teaching and qualifications. (Karenni Education Support Network, 2014)

Curriculum and teaching methodologies

Curriculum design and cultural identity

One of the benefits of education in the camps is community ownership over the curriculum. In the camps, Karenni language, literature and history are a central part of the curriculum. Schools pause for important Karenni holidays; Karenni songs are sung at the beginning of the school day, and their culture is celebrated. KnED’s vision includes, ‘Love and value for national religion and culture’ and ‘strong national spirit’ (KSDC, 2013).

On the other hand, complete ownership of education by the ethnic community has danger of radicalisation and intense nationalisation. Saw Law Eh Mootold, secretary for the KED, said,

We teach the cause of the Karen struggle, what kinds of rights we are fighting for, what sorts of freedoms we are fighting for, and why we have to wage a revolution against the Burmese […] They call us rebels or terrorists, and we also call them the same. (Michaels, 2014)

According to KSDC’s 2013 report on education in Refugee Camp #1, there are five compulsory subjects in primary school, grades 2–4 (Karenni, mathematics, basic Burmese, basic English and social studies), and some elective classes, such as health, physical education and arts, which do not require assessment. As for middle school, grades 5–8, there are seven compulsory classes (Karenni, mathematics, Burmese, English, geography, science and history) and elective vocational classes, which aim to offer practical skills. During the final period, high school, there are seven compulsory subjects (mathematics, Burmese, English, geography, science, South East Asian history and general science studies) and no elective subjects.

Students usually go to school for 32 hours, of which most are dedicated to mathematics (between 5 and 8 hours a week). A lot of time is also dedicated to Burmese and Karenni (between 4 and 5 hours/week). English language is taught 5 hours/week in primary and middle school and 8–10 hours/week in each of the 2 years at high school. Science, geography and history are each taught for 4–5 hours/week.

Teaching methodologies

Oo Reh, aged 19 years, described his memories of primary and high school in the camp:

The teacher will give a paragraph to read. Students read it and then the teacher will explain about it. Then they will read again. Students don’t speak in class. They just listen […] Students need to memorise a paragraph and then read to other students.

This rote technique has faced criticism for limiting independent critical thinking. Oo Reh said, ‘We don’t know how to be confident. We only know how to be afraid and shy’. Andy Smith, a volunteer English teacher said, ‘For English, the teachers focus on grammar but they do not teach the students to hold basic conversation’.

However, things are changing. For instance, The Curriculum Project is an initiative to increase critical thinking for Burmese living in exile. Run by five staff from Burma and four foreigners, the project works with local teachers, CBOs and local communities to develop a curriculum for students living on the Thailand-Burma border. It uses methods such as debates and persuasive essay-writing. The project aims to ‘develop and implement community-focused, skills-based curricula that would instil critical thinking and independent learning skills’: ⁴

Johnfreeco said,

One thing I am sure is graduates from camp and graduates from [Karenni] State is still a big different.

If you compare to their critical thinking or learning style, I can say people from refugee is better in it. In the state, they still using dictating style of learning and some blockage of critical thinking too. They may have changed the system of education but not the subjects they are teaching and the way they teach.

Saw Law Eh Mootold said,

Only after we moved closer to the border, where we received attention from NGOs and international organizations, were we able to receive more support to upgrade our curriculum. We shifted from the traditional teaching approach to the more child-centered approach in 1995 with help from outside experts. (In Michaels, 2014)

Teachers

Teacher turnover

‘One of the biggest challenges is that the teaching situation is in flux’, said Smith. Every year, thousands of people are resettled in other countries, leading to a high teacher turnover. ‘Resettlement is always a problem’, says Jimmy, a resettled primary school teacher. ‘Every year we must train new teachers […]. We lose teachers. We replace them. We train others. Then we lose them. Honestly, we can do nothing for this’. In 2010, for example, 35 teachers out of 173 were resettled (White and Mullen, 2010).

This constant rotation of teachers leaves large gaps in the children’s education. New teachers may begin halfway through a term without knowing what has been taught previously. It is difficult to build relationships with the students in such a short time period – to learn where they excel or need extra support. Students may not reach their full potential or may fall through the cracks for this reason.

In addition, teachers are required to change the subject they teach year by year, leading to further inconsistencies. ‘They do not know the strengths and weaknesses of their subjects. A few teachers know the specifics of their subject’, reported students from KSDC; ‘They should keep teaching one subject for a long time. They don’t need to change to another subject’ (Reh et al., 2013).

Quality of teaching

A consequence of high resettlement rates was the reduction in teacher training to 2 weeks, to ensure there are enough teachers for every class. Most teachers are therefore undertrained and inexperienced. Furthermore, many teachers are recent high school graduates themselves, the same age as their peers. It is not uncommon for young people to be teaching their childhood friends, to socialise together or even to be in a relationship with one of their students. Christina, a high school maths teacher said, ‘It is difficult to teach students who are the same age. There is no respect for teachers’ (White and Mullen, 2011).

In addition, poor salaries cause low motivation and poor quality of teaching. Teachers receive just 900/1000 Baht per month (US$1 per day). ‘Students only get 1,000 baht worth education because Bachelor degree holders won’t work in here, only [recent high school] graduates’, said Johnfreeco. Furthermore, there are different salaries in different schools, adding to teachers’ frustrations. One teacher said, ‘When we go to teach students, we do the same. Why is our salary different? Education directors should assess all teachers so there is no wage discrimination’ (Reh et al., 2013).

Foreign Teachers

Since most people in the camps are not university educated, they are limited by what they are able to teach. This is where foreign volunteers can provide a valuable resource. They can pass on knowledge gained at university level and have a greater experience of English language and computer skills. These skills are important for development and the advance of democracy, as refugees will be able to increase awareness in the international community, research human rights and share knowledge through online forums. ⁵

However, there are limitations to using foreigners as teachers. A lack of pay or fixed contract, and the psychological strain of living in a different culture can cause teachers to leave after short periods of time, with little or no notice period. This adds to a great list of inconsistencies in the children’s education.

Linguistic barriers also cause difficulties for foreign teachers. At KSDC, for example, foreign volunteers teach complex subjects such as ‘Systems of Democracy’ and ‘International Law’ in English. Sometimes, teachers and pupils struggle to communicate or understand challenging concepts in a foreign language, which can result in gaps in their knowledge.

Childhood in the camps

Once education context had been described, and in order to give a wider picture of childhood in the camps, this section is organised based on some core principles of the aforementioned Convention of the Rights of the Child, along with the feelings and opinions of the refugees.

On one hand, children and young people of the camps are lacking in opportunity. They have no clear future and, rather than earn, are forced to accept hand-outs from NGOs. This lack of motivation has led to many children leaving school early to start families or due to lack of money. ⁶ On the other hand, dreams keep growing. A significant number of young people work very hard, seizing every opportunity they are given and have sustained their ambitions in the face of uncertainty. Hannah Feldman, a British teacher who worked at KSDC, said,

To practice English, I asked my students to write a journal every day. Although I never told them what to write, almost every person chose to write about their future ambitions. These ambitions were all the same – some wanted to be politicians, some wanted to teach human rights, and one girl wanted to be a doctor – but ultimately, they all had the same goal – to support the Karenni people.

Khin July Soe further demonstrates this ambition:

In my life there has always been one that has attracted me deeply. And that is to become a doctor. It is true that to become a doctor, one must try their best in any way possible and must always be ready to sacrifice for that ambition. With that realization, I always try my best in classes and outside classes with the hope of getting closer to that dream.

Or Prey Reh, a refugee in Karenni Camp #1, adds,

It depends on me. If I try hard, if I trust myself, I don’t waste my time for useless reasons, if I focus on my education, the dream will become true one day, I hope. The chance will come, it just depends on me trying. (Open History Project, 2015)

Children living in the camps enjoy some of the opportunities their families were lacking, such as freedom of speech, protected in Article 13 (children have the right to find out and share information and opinions without discrimination). This right was denied to children while inside Karenni State. Now inside the camps, children are allowed and even encouraged to share their opinions. The Children Education Project, for example, ran a project entitled ‘Self-Identity’ in 2011, where teenagers were taught to express themselves through art and drama. One participant said,

Making pictures to express ourselves allows us to share our stories with others. The Burmese army oppresses the Karen people. I want people to feel something deep in their heart when they look at the pictures and understand our stories. ⁷

Their drama teacher, Naw Tay Khu Paw, said, ‘They have lost their shyness and are able to effectively communicate their opinions’. ⁸ This is an example of how young people are given the tools and support to express themselves and demonstrates the creativity of those within the camps.

Another right is strongly stressed by the international community: the right to play (Article 31). This is perhaps one of the most important rights of the UN conventions for the children’s development and happiness – and this is something children in the camps have many opportunities for. There are sports fields in each of the camps, where children gather after school in their hundreds to play. Football is among the most popular sports, alongside volleyball and the Burmese sport of cane ball. There is support from NGOs to follow sports and activities. The NGO Right To Play, for example, trained young people and women inside the camps to be basketball and football coaches. Feldman said,

My students were like most teenagers across the world. They lie in bed at night and gossip about the boys who are texting them. They sing and dance to Justin Bieber. But they are also incredibly responsible and resourceful. They would wake up 5am each day to catch fish in the river, to carry water from the river, to repair the school, and the other daily chores.

Besides playing, when asking about spare time and the community, it seems that a bittersweet sensation comes across the camps. Refugees and teachers talked about games, fraternity and community values. Ta Reh established that

People in camp love to socialize. They help each other. For example, when one builds a house maybe twenty or more will come and help. Therefore, they can finish building a house within a couple weeks. People are visiting each other every day and sharing their knowledge and information what they know or they hear from outside.

At the same time, with a lack of jobs or freedom to move, and plenty of spare time, Prey Reh states, ‘many young people, like me, we get bored living here for a long, long time’ (Open History Project, 2015). This boredom can have dangerous consequences. Khu Myar Reh said that

[their parents] feel very bored, so depression is very high. They quarrel with each other, domestic violence very often. They waste their time, so sometimes they would like better relaxation, so sometimes they use alcohol, drinking too much, so they make a quarrel with each other, with their neighbours, so it’s bad.

One problem children often need to face is working at a young age. Article 32 states that children have the right to protection from work that harms children, yet it is not uncommon for adolescents to join their families in illegal work outside of the camp. Each time young people step outside the camps’ parameters, they are at risk of arrest by Thai Authorities. Work is often long, hard and poorly paid. Ta Reh, for example, said,

When I was grade 10 (about 16), I was working in Thai farms illegally for a couple days with 90 bath payment per day [about US$2–3]. We stay on farm, sleep in gazebo with caution because polices sometimes came and arrest people.

Conclusion

The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognised that ‘children are the holders of their own rights and are therefore not passive recipients of charity but empowered actors in their own development’. However, being a ‘recipient of charity’ or being ‘empowered actors in their own development’ is not only determined by international declaration of intentions. Education, for example, plays a key role. The research and interviews made for this article have led us to some conclusions.

The testimonies of these young people have demonstrated their will to make the most of every opportunity they have, and despite the unfavourable conditions they are living in, they are unwilling to become passive recipients of charity. They have shown their resilience, tenacity and determination, coping in incredibly difficult circumstances. Yet, lack of higher education, high teacher turnover, restrictions of infrastructure and limited resources, among other things, have limited the opportunities these children have access to. Their curiosity, ambitions and educative needs are not being satisfied, and their potential and positive attributes are going un-nurtured.

Second, children and communities cannot afford to lose their teachers every year. Incentives and salaries need to increase and homogenise to make the profession more attractive. Teachers should specialise in a particular subject, and follow their students throughout their school life, to give children and teachers the opportunity to know one another, to know the teaching and learning materials and to design their own careers and futures. This would improve consistency and motivations. Furthermore, restrictions on foreign teachers should be loosened and, where possible, fixed contracts signed to increase their number and reliability.

Third, even when one of the aims of education is to protect children from working, these children live with adult responsibilities, helping their families and their community, and sometimes placing school duties in second place. This gives children a great sense of belonging, but prevents them from having a worry-free childhood. Initiatives to stress and respect the differences between childhood and adulthood should be taken. Benefits such as extra rations, or ‘child benefit’, should be considered as incentives to keep children in school rather than go to work.

Fourth, the presence of NGOs has had many benefits for refugees’ childhood, such as giving them the time and spaces to play, to freely express themselves, to be creative or to access information. However, the future of Karenni’s children currently depends on charity. The over-reliance on NGOs and external aids does not solve real difficulties in education or other fields. Refugee camps need to develop a more sustainable community led system. Autonomy would assure them that even if funding and external support run out, their communities would be able to keep growing.

At the same time, not only financial support but a range of tools are necessary for independent and sustainable development. Greater access to resources such as Internet, technology, information, quality teachers, recognised academic certification and university scholarships are vital to the advancement of the whole community, and it is a global responsibility to improve this access.

To summarise, a quote from Justin, a 28-year-old American English teacher who worked with students from Karenni Refugee Camp #1 for 7 months:

The ability of people from across the world to work together to achieve social goals is inspiring – the Karenni people, like other displaced people across the world, have a right to live without harassment. As a white person I have immense privilege at home and visiting the refugee camps. We can’t overlook the fact that with great privilege comes great responsibility.