Understanding Migrant School-Aged Children’s Education in Public Schools Thailand: Teachers’ Perspectives and Classroom Narratives

Abstract

Despite Thailand’s popularity as a destination for migrant laborers from neighboring Southeast Asian countries, little research has been conducted on the education of migrant school-aged children in Thailand’s public schools. However, knowledge in this area is important for improving Thailand’s education policy and curriculum for migrant children and addressing issues related to Thailand’s migrant education. As a response, framed by a phenomenological approach, this study conducted classroom teaching observations and interviews with Thai public-school teachers in the provinces, which are well-known for their large migrant populations. Presented in classroom narratives and teachers’ perspectives individually, the findings revealed teachers’ intentional misperceptions of ethnicity, pedagogical strategies to integrate migrant children into classrooms with Thai students, barriers that teachers must overcome to aid the educational advancement of migrant children, and non-governmental organizations’ support for teacher training (NGOs). Since Thailand has implemented a policy allowing migrant and stateless children to freely enroll in public schools, this study calls for the implementation of non-discriminatory, integrative efforts at the school level, beginning with the provision of training for teachers on multilingual education and ending with the enhancement of school participation in the integration of migrant children into the educational environment.

Keywords

migrant children Thai public schools multilingual education classroom narratives teachers’ perspectives

Introduction

Over the last two decades, there has been a considerable number of studies investigating migrant children’s education in public schools, with the majority focusing on access (e.g., Chen & Feng, 2013; Yan et al., 2021), performance gaps (Wang et al., 2017), language barriers (Curdt-Christiansen, 2020), and education policy (Hu & West, 2015). Boldermo and Ødegaard (2019) reviewed research articles on migrant children’s childhood education and discovered that most of the articles are framed within issues of social justice, citizenship, and the building of stable societies, with only a few articles specifically investigating migrant children’s situations in the context of early childhood education over long periods of time. The current research, hence, aims to add to such understanding by specifically studying the issues confronting migrant school-aged children’s education in Thailand from the teachers’ experience and perspectives.

Thailand, located in the center of mainland Southeast Asia, is a popular destination for migrant laborers from surrounding nations. It has 17,787,776 registered migrant workers as of April 2022; school-aged children may account for up to 10% of the migrant population (ILO, 2022). UNICEF (2019) reported, “Thailand has a progressive and generous education policy that mandates 15 years of free education for all children, whether they are Thai nationals, undocumented migrants or stateless children (p. 1).” Since the 1999 Education for All Policy and the 2005 Cabinet Resolution on Education for Unregistered Persons, there has been a rise in the number of migrant and stateless children enrolled in Thai public schools. Despite such accommodating educational policies from the Thai government, little is discussed about the difficulties faced and supports received by educators at the school level, whereas they are crucial to the success of the education of school-aged migrant children in Thailand.

Previous research conducted in nations other than Thailand has revealed that the challenges teachers face when teaching refugee children are distinct and context-dependent (Free & Križ, 2016; Khansa & Bahous, 2021); teachers face different dilemmas on a daily basis as a result of their students’ living situations (Högberg et al., 2020). Häggström et al. (2020), who researched teachers’ experience in teaching migrant children in Danish schools, discovered that teachers feel unprepared to meet the psychological needs of incoming migrant students, which, in the lack of external support, converts to emotions of stress and guilt. Since the L1 of migrant children is often different from the L1 of the nation to which they immigrate, language barriers have been identified as one of the greatest obstacles, prompting demand for multilingualism and teacher training in this area (Alisaari et al., 2019).

Using a phenomenological approach (Van Manen, 2017), this study explored Thai teachers’ everyday experiences of teaching migrant children in public schools in two provinces that are known for accommodating a large number of migrants in Thailand. It delves into teachers’ experiences and perspectives that enable us to gain a deeper and more authentic understanding of teacher support and student struggle, which may be useful for formulating strategies for supporting teachers teaching migrant children. The following research question is addressed:

What are the perceptions of Thai public-school teachers regarding the process of integrating and addressing the challenges faced by migrant children within their classroom settings?

To what extent do Thai public-school teachers incorporate migrant children into their classroom environments, as evidenced by their observed instructional strategies and pedagogical approaches?

Literature Review

Migrant Children in Thailand

Migrants and refugees are distinct categories within human mobility (Long, 2015). Migrants move voluntarily, either within their own country or across international borders, primarily driven by economic, educational, familial, or personal motives (FitzGerald & Arar, 2018). Conversely, refugees are forcibly displaced from their home countries due to well-founded fears of persecution, conflict, violence, or life-threatening conditions (FitzGerald & Arar, 2018). They are unable or unwilling to return and are protected under international law. Differentiating migrants from refugees is crucial for policy formulation and humanitarian efforts, influencing legal status, protection access, and addressing specific challenges (Long, 2015).

In the Thai context, linguistic limitations lead to the umbrella term “migrant” encompassing stateless individuals, refugees, and asylum seekers (Thet & Pholphirul, 2016). Thus, “migrant children” is used when they enroll in Thai public schools. This paper employs “migrant” to refer to individuals from Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar seeking enhanced opportunities in Thailand.

The majority of migrants in Thailand hail from Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, seeking a better quality of life (Haguet, 2014). They predominantly engage in low-paying, demanding employment sectors like domestic work, fishing, agriculture, industry, and construction (Chalamwong et al., 2010). Around one-third initially migrate alone, later reuniting with their families, while 50% of migrant couples in Thailand have children (Chalamwong et al., 2010). This overview encompasses historical context and life experiences of migrant groups. In addition, as illustrated, Table 1 shows the representation of migrant children enrolled in public schools, providing a comprehensive perspective.

Table 1.

Migrant Children Studying in Thai Public Schools (Basic Level) in 2021 (OBEC, 2021).

	Approximate number of migrants	Number of migrant children in school
Myanmar	1,574,324	22,997
Cambodia	1,220,197	13,953
Laos	300,000	6,368

Myanmar

Myanmar exhibits a significant level of ethnic diversity, with over 9,000 different tribes identified (Smith, 1994). According to the Thai Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC, 2021), there was an estimated population of 1,574,324 Burmese migrants residing in Thailand. Among them, 22,994 children were reported to be enrolled in government schools. Along the Thai Myanmar border, an estimated 100,000 migrants confronted statelessness or illegal status (Ball & Moselle, 2015). Notably, these migrants come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including Mon, Karen, and Rohingya.

Burman (Burmese)

Primarily from Myanmar, Burmans frequently pursue employment in the industrial and fishing sectors of Thailand. They communicate primarily in Burmese. Numerous Burmese children attend Thai institutions, aided in part by assistance programs (Institute for Population and Social Research [IPSR], Mahidol University & Asian Institute of Technology [AIT], 2014).

Karen

Over 80% of Myanmar migrants in Thailand are Karen, according to Save The Children (2014). Due to persecution in Myanmar, many Karen children were born in refugee centers in Thailand, where they face linguistic and cultural challenges.

Mon

The Mon people, who reside near the Thai Myanmar border, historically inhabited mountainous regions with distinct languages and cultures (Lang, 2002). Throughout the provinces of Thailand, there are numerous Mon villages where Mon children were reared (Ball & Moselle, 2015).

Rohingya

Citizenship is denied to the Rohingya, a Muslim minority from Myanmar (Ullah et al., 2016). In 2013, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) acknowledged a significant number of 2012 of arrivals to Thailand’s coast as refugees. NGOs assist Rohingya children in attending public institutions, navigating language and cultural adjustments.

Cambodia

The history of Cambodia is marred by devastating natural disasters, leaving many formerly agriculturally dependent individuals without land for cultivation or alternative employment opportunities. The extreme scenario has played a pivotal role in motivating Cambodian individuals to migrate to Thailand (Walsh & Ty, 2011). As of the year 2021, the number of Cambodian migrants residing in Thailand was recorded to be 1,220,197 individuals. Additionally, among this group, a total of 13,953 Cambodian children were observed to be enrolled in public schools in Thailand. Cambodians, commonly known as Khmers, mostly secure jobs in Thailand as construction laborers and factory employees. In rural areas, it is common for locals to actively participate in agricultural activities, with a particular focus on cultivating rice fields (ILO, 2018).

The research conducted by Spires and Duan (2014) classifies Cambodian migrant children into two distinct groups: those who live with their parents and those who are categorized as street children. Children who reside with their parents generally encounter a lifestyle that resembles that of conventional low-income households. In contrast, street children seek refuge and assistance from a range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It is of significance worth noting that both groups of Cambodian migrant children are granted the opportunity to enroll in Thai schools within the local community.

Laos

When referring to Laotians, the words “Lao” or “Laotian” are often used. There were approximately 300,000 Laotians entering Thailand because of the country’s strong economic growth and booming labor market (ILO, 2018). Due to the close linguistic similarities between the two nations, many Laotians can communicate in Thai, which gives them an advantage over migrant workers from Cambodia and Myanmar in terms of employment opportunities (Baker, 2015). Additionally, Laotians often work in manufacturing, restaurants as waiters or waitresses, merchants in small retail establishments, hotels as maids, and other domestic jobs (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2016). Laotian migrant workers’ children’s living standards are a little bit higher than average because of their parents’ better jobs (IOM, 2016). Laotian migrant children are mostly born and raised in Thailand.

Table 1 provides a summary of migrant children enrolled in Thai public schools at the basic level during the year 2021, as reported by the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC, 2021).

Integration and Inclusion of Migrant Children

Scholars have extensively investigated the strategies employed by host nations to integrate migrant children into their educational systems, revealing a variety of approaches. Some nations, such as Japan, Singapore, and Germany prior to 1973, excluded migrant children from government-funded education, whereas others, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and France, emphasized integration, which frequently entails assimilation (Castles, 2004; Nieto, 2004). In contrast, multicultural education values and respects migrant children’s cultural identities, using them as bridges to mainstream society (Banks, 2009; McLaren, 1995).

As global migration patterns evolve, scholars advocate for the recognition of the multifaceted identities of migrant students and the promotion of global citizenship through “cosmopolitan citizenship education” (Starkey, 2017). This approach prioritizes universal human rights across national borders, nurturing a sense of belonging within diverse communities (Abu El-Haj, 2015; Banks, 2019; Castles, 2004).

In parallel, substantial progress has been made in the study of immigrant inclusion in public assistance and its societal impact. Condon et al. (2016) present a theoretical framework for analyzing state-level policy decisions on immigrant inclusion in public assistance, focusing on the period following the 1996 welfare reform. Their findings indicate a correlation between greater inclusion of immigrants in the social safety net and higher high school graduation rates among young Latinos and Asians, indicating a broader message of social inclusion. In contrast, Done and Andrews (2020) shed light on the changing landscape of inclusive education in England, highlighting the importance of parental choice and child voice. This analysis examines recent policy developments, highlighting shifts in teacher workload and their position in the educational discourse, thereby disclosing the shifting dynamics of inclusive education (Tienda, 2013).

Thailand’s Education Policy and Curriculum for Migrant Children

In the past, it was strictly forbidden for children of migrant workers, refugees, and those without Thai citizenship to attend Thai public schools. Many of these migrant children either remained at home or received their education at non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) learning centers (Muangmee, 2005). Through a cabinet resolution in 2005, yet migrant children were granted access to public education for the first time (Arphattananon, 2012). Consequently, all children domiciled in Thailand, regardless of their nationality, are now eligible for up to 15 years of free public education, from kindergarten through high school. This inclusive education includes free school uniforms, refreshments, textbooks, and other educational necessities (Nawarat, 2012). During the initial implementation of this policy, many local schools resisted enrolling migrant pupils out of fear of potential difficulties and disruptions to school performance (Petchot, 2014). Therefore, it has only been within the last decade that migrant children have been permitted to attend public institutions with Thai students (ILO, 2014).

Educational Options for Migrant Children

Presently, migrant children are allowed to choose the mode of education they prefer. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), migrant children have access to three kinds of education: Thai government schools, migrant learning centers (MLCs), and schools for migrants within Thai schools (ILO, 2014). Government institutions in Thailand adhere to the standard Thai curriculum and teach primarily in Thai. To assist migrant children, some schools provide supplementary Thai language classes (Wallace & Athamesara, 2004). However, adjustments are made to the curriculum to accommodate multiculturalism, and instructors may modify certain courses and activities to fit the context of their school (Arphattananon, 2018). Before integrating migrant students into grade-level classrooms, transition programs are implemented to improve the Thai language proficiency of migrant students in regions with a high concentration of migrant populations. These programs incorporate Thai language lesson as a second language and reduced class sizes to promote effective language acquisition (Phonlabutra, 2012). Contrary to this, some studies have discovered a dearth of bilingual programs due to a lack of bilingual teachers and funding (Suwannasang, 2018).

Migrant Learning Centers (MLCs)

Approximately 5% of migrant children pursue education in non-formal education centers or migrant learning centers (MLCs) outside of government schools. Unfortunately, nearly 60%, or approximately 238,402 migrant children, continue to lack access to formal education (Save The Children, 2014). MLCs frequently employ Burmese (Myanmar) curricula for practical reasons. This strategy addresses resource limitations by providing access to readily available instructional materials and educational resources. Simultaneously, it maintains cultural relevance, allowing migrant students to study in their native languages and fostering a strong sense of cultural identity (Nawarat, 2012).

In addition, replicating elements of the Burmese curriculum in MLCs prepares migrant children for integration into mainstream Thai schools by guaranteeing proficiency in both their native language and Thai (ILO, 2014; Petchot, 2014). The collaboration between MLCs and Thai government institutions formalizes their connection, allowing for the exchange of resources and the modification of curricula. This collaborative approach promotes cross-cultural comprehension and the exchange of knowledge (Arphattananon, 2018). Overall, curriculum replication in MLCs accommodates the unique educational requirements of migrant children while preserving their cultural identities.

Challenges in Thailand’s Migrant Education

Socio-Psychological Challenges

Children from low-income backgrounds who migrate to Thailand face difficult living conditions. The empirical research of Vungsiriphisal (2011) emphasizes the difficulties these children face, including low self-esteem, feelings of exclusion, and negative perceptions of their ethnicity due to local hostility. In addition, Petchot (2014) emphasizes that migrant children face educational challenges due to the fact that schools and teachers tend to disregard their home circumstances and specific requirements. Despite the Thai government’s policy that allows migrant children to attend Thai schools, they frequently struggle to fully integrate, resulting in higher dropout rates and inferior academic achievement (ILO, 2014). Recent research by Nawarat (2017) emphasizes the need for Thai authorities, educators, and policymakers to improve the educational experiences of migrant children.

Cultural Challenges and Exclusion

Faucher (2012) examined the experiences of Burmese migrants in Thailand and found that being Burmese in Thailand entails a stigma. This negative perception is linked to Thai nationalist rhetoric, which is reflected in the derogatory epithet “Pama” for Myanmar natives. In addition, Faucher notes that educational contexts perpetuate these prejudices, with Thai literary courses, history classes, and social studies frequently depicting “Pama” as ignorant, unpleasant, and uncultured. Vungsiriphisal (2011) emphasizes the predominance of “Thai-ness” as the dominant value in Thailand, labeling those who lack it as “different.” Nationalist beliefs have a substantial impact on school activities and curricula, which may exacerbate feelings of exclusion among migrant students in Thai schools.

Language Barriers and Educational Challenges

Teachers who work with migrant students face significant difficulties due to language barriers. Studies by Wallace and Athamesara (2004) reveal that many migrant children can speak Thai but struggle with reading and writing, a problem that is exacerbated by teachers’ lack of proficiency in teaching Thai as a second language. The IPSR & AIT (2014) study indicates that newly arrived migrant children in Thailand who enroll in school promptly perform poorly due to a lack of Thai language proficiency. This presents obstacles for instructor-student communication. Petchot (2014) notes that schools dealing with linguistic challenges frequently employ multilingual instructors, receive assistance from non-governmental organizations, and enroll students from learning centers.

In conclusion, the preponderance of the research in this section identifies persistent obstacles in the education of Thai migrants. A key obstacle is the inadequacy of Thai educators’ expertise in assisting migrant children (Arphattananon, 2012). Vorapanya and Dunlap (2014) emphasize the exclusion of migrant children from the “inclusive education” concept in Thailand. Their investigation into teacher education reveals that while instructors are encouraged to consider each child as an individual, they receive insufficient training on how to do so effectively, particularly considering the religious diversity of Thai students. Petchot (2014) and Nawarat (2017) advocate for government guidelines instructing educators on how to interact appropriately with migrant children. Finally, Wallace and Athamesara (2004) suggest modifying teaching methods to encourage greater student participation, allowing instructors to better comprehend and communicate with students.

Methods

Research Design

Phenomenological research is defined as the study of lived experience—the world as we instantly perceive it pre-reflectively rather than as we learn to comprehend, classify, or reflect upon it (Manen, 1997). Phenomenology seeks an explanation of the phenomenological meaning of experiences, not of texts. Simply put, phenomenology asks, “How does this or that kind of experience feel?” It seeks pre-reflective descriptions of how we see the world without taxonomizing, categorizing, explaining, conceptualizing, abstracting, or even ascription of meaning (Van Manen, 2017). The phenomenological method was used to investigate Thai teachers’ daily experiences of teaching migrant children in public schools, with a particular emphasis on classroom narratives and teachers’ perspectives on the integration and struggle of migrant children in their classes.

Research Context and Participants

This study was conducted at three schools using A, B, C for identification purposes. These schools are in two distinct Thai provinces: Province 1 and Province 2. These two provinces house a substantial number of migrants. Province 1 has a border with Myanmar, whereas Province 2 is a province close to the Gulf of Thailand via which migrants may enter the nation by boat. There are two migrant camps with about 3,000 Myanmar migrants and a large Mon population in Province 1. According to reports, many migrant laborers are employed in agriculture in Province 1 (Jampaklay, 2006). Moreover, Province 2 is reportedly the province with the greatest number of migrant families. In 2014, more over 200,000 migrant laborers resided in Province 2, according to research (IPSR & AIT, 2014). Province 2 has been the principal destination for migrants from Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia because of its various factories and enterprises producing canned seafood (IPSR & AIT, 2014).

Participants were three experienced Thai primary school teachers from the middle class. Regarding the phrase “experienced teacher,” scholars (Haynes, 2011; Melnick & Meister, 2018; Sezer, 2017) argue that an experienced teacher is one who is knowledgeable with the school environment, has effective classroom management abilities, and has spent significant time with their pupils in the past. They would regard teachers with a minimum of 2 years of experience as experienced educators. As the primary emphasis of this research was on teachers’ experiences, participating teachers were chosen based on their direct involvement with migrant children. It is vital to emphasize that the selected schools are regular public schools where migrant and Thai students attend the same classes. All the selected teachers have always worked with immigrant students. All participants’ names were substituted with pseudonyms.

Mali, a 26-year-old with 3 years of teaching experience and a Bachelor of Education (BEd) from one of the top universities in Bangkok, was the first teacher. She taught kindergarten through sixth grade at School A, a primary school in Province 1. Both refugee camps and the Mon community are nearby. This school has a total enrolment of 569 pupils, 172 of them are migrants. All migrant pupils were listed as “Burmese” on the school’s issued documentation. Observation indicated, however, that not all migrant children are Burmese. They came from many cultural origins, but the majority were Mon.

The next teacher was Sirin, a 45-year-old BEd-holder with 18 years of teaching experience. She was employed at the modest, 165-student School B in Province 2. This school has more than 50% migrant pupils from different ethnic origins. In contrast to School A, School B keeps track of students’ ethnicities. Karen and Burmese students make up the bulk of migrant students at this institution. Children from Cambodia and Laos are also enrolled in this institution. Despite being a small school, this school has a very high overall performance since 100% of its students get passing grades on the National Standardized Exam.

The third educator was Napa, 57 years old, with 30 years of teaching experience and a Bachelor of Education (BEd). She was a homeroom teacher at School C in Province 2, a big primary school where many of the students are migrants. This school is unable to offer the precise number of migrant children but reports that around 70% of its students are migrants. This school has the worst academic performance of the three schools.

Research Procedures

Ethical Approval

With the consent of the university’s research committee and authorization from the chosen schools and participants, the study processes were initiated. All participants were informed of the aims of the study, and participation was voluntary. All the data was kept anonymous and confidential. In addition to informed consent and secrecy, Webster et al. (2014) believe intrusiveness to be an additional ethical consideration. Since this study entailed classroom observation, which might imply invading someone’s privacy, researchers observed only individuals who agreed to be monitored; throughout the observation, they did not interrupt the class and did not take photographs or recordings.

Data Collection

Two methods were used to collect data: observation and semi-structured interviews. The purpose of observation is to grasp the researched culture, environment, or social phenomena from the perspective of the participants (Hatch, 2002). This study included the observation of three classes at three different schools on a walk-in basis. Observed classes were those pertaining to culture, such as Thai language and Social Studies. Later, the same teachers who had been watched also participated in the interview. During class observation, field notes were obtained. Particular attention was paid to the relationship between teachers and students, children’s participation in classroom activities, and teachers’ integration of migrant children. This study is greatly aided by classroom observation since it affords the chance to gather sensitive information from participants that they may be unwilling to offer later. In addition, it facilitates the interview since the participants’ context is already grasped.

For qualitative approaches, a semi-structured interview is one of the most often utilized interviewing patterns. This type of interview allows researchers to acquire an intuitive grasp of the participants’ social and personal concerns (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). In this study, eight interview questions were designed. The interviews were done at the schools of the participants. All participants selected the interview location, and all interviews were done one-on-one in Thai, the individuals’ native tongue. In addition, the interviews were recorded on a cell phone using a recorder application. For further analysis, it was transcribed verbatim and translated into English.

Data Analysis

The data analysis was undertaken using the phenomenological method, which, as opposed to focusing on identifying patterns and similarities within human experience, aims to uncover some of the underlying structure or essence of that experience via the in-depth examination of individual instances (Thorne, 2000). First, researchers drafted class descriptions for each observed teacher. For the interview data, Olsen (2012) suggests that listening to the recording and reading the transcripts several times is an excellent way to recall the visual impressions made during interviews. This will aid the researcher in adding more significance to the text. As all interviews were recorded and transcribed, the researchers analyzed the data by listening to the recordings multiple times to jog their memories of what transpired during the interviews and by reading the translated versions of the transcripts carefully to identify keywords as well as differences and similarities in the perspectives of each participant to present them in the following section as personal narratives.

Results

Teacher Perspectives on Migrant Children Integration and Challenges

This section explores the findings related to RQ 1, investigating how Thai public-school teachers perceive the integration process and address challenges faced by migrant children within their classroom settings. The research results shed light on the complexities and variances in the perceptions of Thai public-school teachers toward the integration and challenges faced by migrant children. Teachers offered a range of perspectives, from empathetic to apathetic, on this crucial educational matter. These perspectives were drawn from interviews with Mali, Sirin, and Napa, each teaching in different schools and grades.

Mali from School A in Province 1 provided an intriguing narrative about her evolution as a teacher dealing with the cultural and linguistic diversity in her class. She initially assumed that she would “only teach Thai and Burmese kids,” but her assumption was shattered on her first day itself. “That kid said she didn’t know [Burmese] but she could teach me how to say ‘hi’ in Khmer because she came from Cambodia,” she recalls. Mali also noted the “limited” Thai language skills of Abdul, a “Rohingya” migrant student. She is aware that the “Thai language is hard for all non-Thai children” and, thus, adapts her teaching method to be more inclusive. Mali does not “correct kids in front of their peers,” considering it might cause them embarrassment. Despite being left to her own devices with no formal guidance on how to “handle migrant children,” Mali seems to be leaning toward a more empathetic and practical approach. These are reflected in the following extracts:

“My first job was as a teacher, and, you know… I always think that there are only Thai kids in Thai schools. On the first day I started working, the school gave me the name list of students in my class, and next to the name was the nationality. When I looked at the name list, I thought that I would teach just Thai and Burmese kids because they were the only two nationalities shown. Then, when I walked into my class, after I called out all the names, I randomly picked one student’s name and asked her how to say ‘hello’ in Burmese. You know… what? That kid said she didn’t know but she could teach me how to say ‘hi’ in Khmer because she came from Cambodia. After that, I never trusted the nationality written on the name list ever again. I think at that time, as a new teacher, I knew nothing about teaching non-Thai kids, but now I am kind of used to teaching them.”

“In my class this year, I have five migrant children… They are all from Myanmar, but they come from different parts of the country and speak different languages. The boy sat alone, his name is ‘Abdul’, and he had just come to school. He is ‘Rohingya,’ and he used to live in the refugee camp not so far from school. He does not mingle with anyone, and he does not want to talk to me. Maybe his Thai is limited, so he does not want to talk to me.”

However, Mali’s account also reveals the inadequacy of the current school system. For instance, she said, “the school classified all migrant children as Burmese,” a problematic practice that undermines the distinct identities and needs of these children. This aligns with the issues noted in the literature review about the United States misclassifying migrant children (Rong & Brown, 2002). The following extract represents her opinion:

“I just want all my students to enjoy the class. I know that the Thai language is hard for all non-Thai children since they don’t speak Thai at home. In terms of communication with the migrant children in my class, I know that they can understand me when I give instructions, but just to make sure that they truly understand, I tend to speak slowly and use easy vocabulary. For me and Abdul, language is a barrier. He speaks a little bit of Thai, but as he rarely talks to me, I don’t know how much he understands. Well, I don’t correct kids in front of their peers, but I will do it after school. I feel like if I correct them, they will feel embarrassed or other kids in class might tease them. Every evening, I will help all the kids who need my help for 30 min. For migrant children, I try to play a Thai vocabulary game with them and read them stories. I don’t know if it works, but no one tells me how to handle migrant children, so I just do what I can.”

In contrast, Sirin from School B in Province 2 was largely positive about the capabilities of migrant children. “Migrant children are all working hard, and they want to have a great future,” she observes. Her students perform well academically, and their “parents care about their children.” However, she also points out the issues faced by “Rohingya” children in social integration. She acknowledges that some migrant children come from “families that have problems” and sometimes “have to miss school.” The following extract presents these perspectives:

“Migrant children are all working hard, and they want to have a great future. They are smart and they do well in almost every subject. Many teachers complain about language, but well, even though they complain, they teach them after school anyway. I think I’m lucky because I always get children that have been prepared by the learning centre. Although some of them need more support than others, they still do well. These kids can speak and understand Thai. I asked my students, and they told me that in the learning centre they got Burmese teachers who could speak their language, Burmese, and Thai. If they didn’t understand anything, these teachers would help them. They also go to the learning centre on Saturday to learn their languages. I have worked with migrant children whose Thai is limited and who struggle with their academic work, but as they are hard workers, they manage to pass everything. .. (Sirin paused)… Migrant parents care about their children. Many migrant children told me that their parents were very strict and made sure that they finished their homework. For May, for example, her mom could not read or write in Thai, but she forced May to read at least a few sentences from her school textbook every evening.”

“I think for most children, they are happy in school and enjoy playing with their friends. But for ‘Rohingya’ kids, they tend to play among themselves. I think they find it hard to blend in with other children and they feel uncomfortable approaching teachers. The older migrant children in class once told me that they found some activities too childish and did not want to play with the younger ones. But well, I understand them. I just don’t know what I can do. For other migrant children, I don’t know if they think it is a problem, but some of them come from families that have problems. Sometimes, they have to miss school. Also, for some of them, their parents are illegal and undocumented, and that will affect them if they want to continue to study in good secondary schools.”

Napa, from School C, had the most disconcerting perspective. “They make my job more difficult,” she complains. She exhibits a level of discomfort and unwillingness to adapt her teaching methods to the needs of migrant students, suggesting a form of institutional inertia. Her stance that these children “must learn to behave like Thais and learn all the things Thai kids learn” undermines the importance of fostering a multicultural learning environment. Napa’s use of derogatory labels like “aliens” and “filthy” indicates not just her personal biases but perhaps a broader issue that might need to be addressed in teacher training. Napa’s perspective seems congruent with theories that negative attitudes from teachers can adversely affect the academic performance of students (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). Her unwillingness to help migrant students with domestic issues also raises ethical concerns. She’s aware of the unique challenges migrant students like Tan face, but she opts for a passive approach. She confesses, “I did not know how to help because they were not Thai,” revealing a limitation in either the system or her understanding of her role as a teacher. The following extracts confirm these perspectives:

“They make my job more difficult. I was taught to teach Thai kids, not them. However, it is something that I can do nothing about, so I just teach them like I teach Thai students. They are in Thai schools, so they must learn to behave like Thais and learn all the things Thai kids learn. Oh, Burmese kids, they are very disrespectful sometimes. They always talk to each other in their own language. I don’t know what they say, and I don’t know what language they speak… but, well, I don’t care. My concern is that they should not talk in my lesson. You know, it is even worse in the parents’ meeting. Their moms ask a lot of questions, but I don’t know why. They can’t help their kids with anything anyway.”

“Well, all students come to me when they want me to help them. Apart from the four Rohingyas, I have a great relationship with all of them. I’ve got one smart Burmese boy in my class. His name is Tan. He never misses any classes and always finishes his homework. He wants to go to secondary school, so that’s why he studies hard. Just last month, Tan missed lots of classes and did not finish his assignments. So, I talked to him, and I found out that his dad abused his mum when he was drunk… Now mum takes Tan and his sister away from dad. His mom does not have enough money for him to come to school. Tan told me that if it was like this, he did not want to be good and did not want to study hard anymore. I did not know how to help because they were not Thai. If this happens to my Thai students, I will visit their home and refer them to some organizations to get some help. I will help find scholarships too. I know that many migrant students face the same problems, and it affects them badly, but not Laotians. They are great. I tried to help them as much as I could, but as they were not Thai, they did not deserve any financial support from Thai people’s taxes.”

In sum, while Mali and Sirin show varying levels of adaptability and understanding toward the inclusion of migrant children, Napa’s apathy suggests that there is a pressing need for systemic change. Such changes should include better teacher training in multicultural education and policies that consider the unique challenges faced by migrant children. The diversity of teacher perspectives reveals not only the complexities of teaching in a multicultural setting but also the need for a more standardized approach to migrant education in Thai public schools.

Teacher Approaches and Challenges in Migrant Student Integration

Regarding RQ 2, examining how Thai public-school teachers integrate migrant children into their classrooms through observed instructional strategies, the finding emphasizes the complexity of teaching migrant students in Thai classrooms and the need for more comprehensive teacher training to effectively address the diverse backgrounds and needs of these students. It also underlines the importance of recognizing and respecting the identities and individual circumstances of migrant children to create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.

In the observed classroom, Mali, a 4th-grade homeroom teacher, implemented teaching strategies rooted in Thai cultural elements. The classroom accommodated 25 students, except for one boy who sat alone in a corner near a window at the rear of the room. Despite Mali’s encouragement to join the class, the boy remained seated. Throughout the session, Mali delivered a lecture on ancient Thai harvesting practices, highlighting the distinctive attire worn by Thai farmers. An interesting moment occurred when a student with a foreign accent and pronunciation issues pointed out differences in clothing worn by farmers in his own country. Instead of correcting the student, Mali invited him to share his country’s farming attire through a drawing. Mali then resumed her lecture, followed by the distribution of worksheets. She conveyed the lesson clearly and patiently, allowing students to complete their assignments independently. Mali also engaged with the isolated student and attempted to involve a female student who initially did not respond to her questions. These classroom observations underscore Mali’s commitment to providing equal attention to all students, including migrant children who often face language barriers in Thailand.

However, Sirin’s teaching approach demonstrated a blend of assimilation and integration strategies. The school day commenced with a morning assembly where all students, including two non-Thai students who later raised the national flag, sang the Thai national anthem. A Buddhist prayer followed, with some students choosing not to participate but maintaining respectful silence. Toward the assembly’s conclusion, a teacher asked a girl to teach her peers how to count in the Karen language, which led to a lively counting game. This school’s approach appears to lean more toward integration, as migrant students are required to participate in national customs, such as singing the anthem. However, they are not compelled to partake in religious practices, indicating a degree of respect for students’ religious freedom. The presentation of migrant children’s languages to the school community reflects a step toward multicultural education.

School B utilizes Distance Learning TV (DLTV) due to a shortage of teachers, and their classroom activities mirror those in the video. Despite the differences in location and student demographics between the two schools, the 1999 Thai Education Reform Act, as evaluated by Arphattananon (2018), mandates that students cover the same subject matter but engage in varied activities. In the observed class, 16 students sat in pairs facing the TV as Sirin introduced the topic of individual distinctions and ID cards. She encouraged her students to interact with the TV instructor, pausing the video to have students record personal information on a table. During this activity, some students expressed unique circumstances, such as having no family name or nationality. Sirin sensitively handled these situations, recognizing the diverse backgrounds of her students. In this context, it is essential to note that teachers sometimes unintentionally otherize migrant students when attempting to convey their non-Thai identity. This behavior, as highlighted by research (Banks, 2008; Rumbaut, 1994), can have detrimental effects on children’s identities. May and her classmates, who resist being labeled as Burmese, demonstrate a desire for integration into Thai society while downplaying their own cultural identities, aligning with Gordon’s (1964) definition of assimilation. The heterogeneity among Myanmar’s migrant children becomes evident, but teachers persist in using the term “Burmese” to refer to them.

When asked about her teaching approach, Sirin explained her challenges: “It’s simpler to identify them as Burmese because that’s what the documents say. I know there are various ethnicities in Burma, but I struggle to explain it to them. I’ve dealt with this issue for 7 years now. Last year, a Cambodian girl claimed to be Thai in this lesson, and I told her to change to Burmese because I was uncertain whom to believe—the document or the girl. Perhaps the girl who said she was Thai… I feel obligated to inform her she’s not Thai but Burmese. However, I’m pleased she aspires to be Thai. This year was somewhat better as the school administration asked us to record students’ ethnicities, aided by NGOs.” Sirin’s challenges in effectively addressing migrant students’ identities appear to stem from her uncertainty rather than a lack of expertise. She received support from NGOs, including language training in Burmese, Karen, and Mon, along with cultural exchanges facilitated by the school. However, she acknowledged that these efforts may not be sufficient in guiding her on how to better support her students. In her research, Petchot (2014) highlighted the assistance provided by NGOs in terms of hiring teachers from various ethnic backgrounds and developing instructional materials but did not specifically address teacher training. Moreover, the literature on Thai education acknowledges the need for improved teacher expertise in serving migrant children but rarely delves into teacher training (Arphattananon, 2012, 2018; Nawarat, 2012; Vungsiriphisal, 2011; Wallace & Athamesara, 2004).

Moving on to Napa’s classroom, which predominantly comprised migrant students, observations revealed a departure from the intended curriculum. National standardized test results displayed on a board near the academic office indicated that 80% of the students scored below the national average. Surprisingly, a significant number of migrant students excelled in various subjects, particularly the Laotian students who were generally older, more disciplined, and focused, aligning with Arphattananon’s (2012) observation that older migrant pupils tend to exhibit better behavior. However, their distinct physical and mental development compared to their peers may pose challenges. In Napa’s class, which included 21 out of 30 immigrant students, the lesson on personal health and cleanliness seemed unrelated to the computer class’s intended topic. When questioned by a student about this, Napa briefly explained the importance of personal hygiene and cleanliness. Observations indicated a lack of active engagement among students, with Napa being the primary speaker. Afterward, when asked why she chose this topic over computer instruction, Napa responded: “I must teach them personal hygiene and ensure they understand how to maintain cleanliness in the school. Migrant children often have hygiene issues, especially Rohingyas. Their habits need addressing, and as a teacher, it’s my responsibility.”

In summary, this research sheds light on the complex challenges faced by teachers in educating migrant students in Thai schools. While some teachers attempt to integrate migrant children into Thai culture, others struggle with effectively conveying their identities. These observations highlight the need for improved teacher training and support in addressing the unique needs of migrant students. Furthermore, the study highlights the diversity within the migrant community and the importance of recognizing individual identities rather than generalizing them as “Burmese.”

Discussion and Implication

The current era of globalization has fundamentally reshaped societies worldwide, with increased migrations leading to multicultural classrooms and diverse student populations. The present study, which delves into Thai public-school teachers’ perspectives on migrant children integration, resonates with broader concerns that globalization presents for education systems across the world. Several points are worth discussing.

Ethnic Classification of Children of Migrants

In the context of Thai public schools, the ethnic categorization of migrant children emerged as a major concern repeatedly voiced by interviewees. Despite their actual ethnic origins, it is evident that migrant children from various backgrounds are frequently misidentified as “Burmese” in school records. This practice of oversimplification in data collection is consistent with the critique presented by Rong and Brown (2002), who argued that such generalizations, similar to what occurred during the 1980s in the United States, do not serve the best interests of these diverse student populations. The findings of this study demonstrate that Thailand must reevaluate its student data collection methods. Despite the limitations of this study, it is clear that there are numerous distinct migrant groups attending Thai institutions, each with its own language, culture, and history. Even when educators acknowledge these differences, the persistent use of the term “Burmese” to describe migrant children suggests a systemic problem that may have originated from initial misinformation (Gilhooly, 2015).

Efforts to Integrate and Teacher Attitudes

This study centered on the efforts made by teachers to facilitate the integration of migrant children into the Thai educational system. The instructors’ integration strategies ranged from supplementary language instruction to incorporating students’ cultural backgrounds into classroom activities. This is consistent with the evolving literature on inclusive education, in which scholars such as Banks (2008) stress the importance of teacher attitudes and willingness to adapt pedagogical approaches. Despite the diversity in perspectives among the teachers interviewed in this study, a prevailing sentiment was that many regarded migrant children as “different” and resisted the idea of them becoming “Thai.” This perception of difference persisted despite the fact that the majority of instructors were aware of the cultural differences between migrant students.

Despite efforts to integrate multicultural elements into the curriculum, this observation demonstrates the enduring influence of “Thai-ness” as the dominant value in Thai education (Vungsiriphisal, 2011). This study reveals the influence of teacher attitudes on student performance and self-perception. For example, the more positive attitudes of teachers at School B correlate with improved academic outcomes, whereas the negative attitudes of teachers at School C are reflected in poor academic outcomes. As illustrated by May’s reluctance to identify herself by her ethnicity, these attitudes may also contribute to migrant students’ identity crises.

Barriers to Language and Assistance

Teachers identified difficulties in reading and writing Thai as a substantial barrier to the education of migrant children in Thai public institutions. While some teachers attempted to address this issue through additional Thai language lessons, others refrained from intervening because they believed it fell outside of their purview. This suggests the need for a standardized framework in Thailand to provide additional language support to migrant children, similar to what has been observed in countries such as England and Germany (Nusche, 2009). The data highlighted the importance of NGOs and Migrant Learning Centers (MLCs) in supporting the educational requirements of migrant children by highlighting their role in reducing language barriers. As suggested by Nawarat (2012) and Arphattananon (2012), the government should play a more significant role in teacher training, curriculum development, and the provision of specialized language education for migrant students.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The research delineates several areas requiring immediate reform in Thailand’s educational policies, especially concerning migrant children. A revamped data collection method, in line with global standards, is needed to better allocate resources and formulate policies (Rong & Brown, 2002). Teacher attitudes must evolve to embrace the multicultural realities of a globalized world (Banks, 2008; Waluyo & Bakoko, 2021). These reforms should be undergirded by sustained government involvement, potentially in international cooperation, to create a more inclusive educational system (Arphattananon, 2012; Nawarat, 2012; Panmei & Waluyo, 2022). By acknowledging and integrating these components, Thailand can better prepare its next generation for a world where multiculturalism is not just a buzzword, but an essential aspect of being a global citizen.

Conclusion

The recent study offers a complex portrait of the educational landscape for migrant children in Thailand, based on classroom observations and teacher interviews. Although teachers in the study have made some efforts to incorporate migrant students into academic activities, there is a glaring gap in cultural inclusion and acceptance. The surveyed instructors often view these children as “other,” which undermines full integration into Thai society. These perspectives are varied but generally highlight the teachers’ awareness of the migrants’ challenging backgrounds. However, the study reveals a substantial knowledge gap in dealing with specific migrant groups, such as the Rohingya, whom some teachers even considered burdensome. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by insufficient institutional support; teachers reported receiving little to no aid from their schools or the government, relying mostly on NGOs for assistance.

The study also uncovers critical shortcomings in teacher preparation for dealing with a multicultural classroom. Despite past curriculum changes, teachers still struggle to adapt their materials to meet the diverse needs of their students, who not only come from different cultural backgrounds but also often differ in age from their Thai peers. A disturbing finding is the incorrect categorization of all non-Thai students as “Burmese,” which points to a systemic lack of attention to students’ diverse backgrounds. Contrary to some previous research suggesting that Thailand has taken adequate steps in educational policy (Arphattananon, 2018), the current study makes it evident that further work is necessary, particularly in teacher training programs. Experts in the field have emphasized the need for teacher education that includes training in cultural sensitivity and diversity (Hattie, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Addressing these gaps could pave the way for a more inclusive educational environment that is responsive to the needs of all students, including migrants.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the data is largely based on teacher perspectives and classroom observations, potentially leading to a skewed understanding that may not capture the full range of experiences and challenges that migrant children face. Additionally, the sample size of schools and teachers is relatively small, limiting the generalizability of the findings to broader educational contexts in Thailand or other countries. The research also lacks input from other stakeholders, such as the migrant students themselves, their parents, and educational administrators, who might offer differing viewpoints. Furthermore, the study does not delve into specific regional variations within Thailand, which could be important given the diverse migrant populations across the country. Lastly, the research might suffer from social desirability bias, where teachers may have presented themselves in a way that they believe is socially acceptable, rather than being completely candid about their views and practices.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future studies should aim to address these limitations by incorporating a more diverse array of perspectives. Surveys or interviews with migrant students and their families could provide valuable insights into their unique challenges and experiences. Similarly, educational administrators and policymakers could offer a different angle on institutional barriers or supports that were not apparent in this study. A larger sample size, including schools from different regions of Thailand, would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, longitudinal studies could offer a more nuanced understanding of how both teachers and migrant students adapt over time. Given the lack of preparedness cited by teachers in the current study, future research should also focus on evaluating the efficacy of teacher training programs, specifically those that include cultural sensitivity and diversity training. Finally, comparative studies could be useful to see how Thailand’s educational system for migrant children stacks up against those in other countries, which could provide actionable insights for improvement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work has been supported by Walailak University PhD Excellence Scholarship (Contract No. 05/2020) and has been financially funded by the university’s Graduate Research Fund (Contract No. CGS-RF-2022/16).

ORCID iDs

Tipaya Peungcharoenkun

Budi Waluyo

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

Abu El-Haj

T. R.

(2015). Unsettled belonging: Educating Palestinian American youth after 9/11. The University of Chicago Press.

Alisaari

Heikkola

L. M.

Commins

Acquah

E. O.

(2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 48–58.

Arphattananon

(2012). Education that leads to nowhere: Thailand’s education policy for children of migrants. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(1), 1–15. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105075

Arphattananon

(2018). Multicultural education in Thailand. Intercultural Education, 29(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1430020

Baker

(2015). Migration experiences of Lao workers deported from Thailand in 2013. UNDP. https://www.undp.org/asia-pacific/publications/migration-experiences-lao-workers-deported-thailand-2013

Ball

Moselle

(2015). Living liminally: Migrant children living in the Myanmar-Thailand border region. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(4), 425–436.

Banks

J. A.

(2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002205741419400302

Banks

J. A.

(2009). Multicultural education: Dimensions and paradigms. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 9–32). Routledge.

Banks

J. A.

(2019, May 22–24). A transformative civic education for non-citizen and citizen students. A keynote address at the Korean Association for Multicultural Education 11th International Conference [Conference session]. Multicultural Education and Diversity: Driving the Potential for Changing Societies in a Globalizing World. Seoul, South Korea.

10.

Boldermo

Ødegaard

E. E.

(2019). What about the migrant children? The state-of-the-art in research claiming social sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2), 459.

11.

Castles

(2004). Migration, citizenship, and education. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 17–48). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Chalamwong

Prugsamatz

Hongprayoon

(2010). Exploitation and discrimination experience of migrant workers in five provinces. TDRI Quarterly Review, 25(4), 3–7. https://tdri.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/t5d2010001.pdf

13.

Chen

Feng

(2013). Access to public schools and the education of migrant children in China. China Economic Review, 26, 75–88.

14.

Condon

Filindra

Wichowsky

(2016). Immigrant inclusion in the safety net: A framework for analysis and effects on educational attainment. Policy Studies Journal, 44(4), 424–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12140

15.

Curdt-Christiansen

X. L.

(2020). Educating migrant children in England: Language and educational practices in home and school environments. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(2), 163–180.

16.

DiCicco-Bloom

Crabtree

B. F.

(2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

17.

Done

E. J.

Andrews

M. J.

(2020). How inclusion became exclusion: Policy, teachers and inclusive education. Journal of Education Policy, 35(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1552763

18.

Faucher

(2012). Capturing otherness: Self-identity and feelings of non-belonging among educated Burmese in Thailand. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 28(2), 54–81.

19.

FitzGerald

D. S.

Arar

(2018). The sociology of refugee migration. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041204

20.

Free

J. L.

Križ

(2016). “They know there is hope:” How migrant educators support migrant students and their families in navigating the public school system. Children and Youth Services Review, 69, 184–192.

21.

Gilhooly

D. J.

(2015). Lessons learned: Insights into one teacher’s experience working with Karen refugee students in the United States. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 10(1), 1–30. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=jsaaea

22.

Gordon

(1964). Assimilation in American life. Oxford University Press.

23.

Häggström

Borsch

A. S.

Skovdal

(2020). Caring alone: The boundaries of teachers’ ethics of care for newly arrived immigrant and refugee learners in Denmark. Children and Youth Services Review, 117, 105248.

24.

Haguet

J. W.

(2014). Thailand migration report 2014. United Nations Thematic Working Group on Migration in Thailand. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/TMR_2014.pdf

25.

Hatch

J. A.

(2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.

26.

Hattie

(2003, October). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence? [Paper presentation]. Building Teacher Quality: What Does the Research Tell Us ACER Research Conference. Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

27.

Haynes

(2011). Novice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring experiences [Doctoral dissertation, Lamar University; Publication No. 3497350]. Beaumont ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

28.

Högberg

Gruber

Nyström

(2020). Teachers’ work and positionings in relation to newly arrived students in Sweden. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 103156.

29.

West

(2015). Exam-oriented education and implementation of education policy for migrant children in urban China. Educational Studies, 41(3), 249–267.

30.

Institute for Population and Social Research (IPSR), Mahidol University & Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). (2014). Migrant children’s education in Thailand: Policy brief. https://www.toyotafound.or.jp/english/international/2014/products/data/2015-0116-1023.pdf

31.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2014). Education for child labour and migrant children: Information kits for schools and teachers. http://www.ilo.org/Search5/search.do?sitelang=en&locale=en_EN&consumercode=ILOHQ_STELLENT_PUBLIC&searchWhat=Education+for+Child+Labour+and+Migrant+Children+Information+kits+…+-&searchLanguage=en

32.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2018). TRIANGLE in ASEAN quarterly briefing note. https://www.ilo.org/asia/publications/WCMS_614378/lang--en/index.htm

33.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2022). TRIANGLE in ASEAN quarterly briefing note. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/genericdocument/wcms_735108.pdf

34.

International Organisation for Migration (IOM). (2016). Thailand migration profile. https://thailand.iom.int/sites/default/files/Infosheets/IOM%20Infosheet%20-%20Labour%20Migration%20Trends%20in%20Thailand.pdf

35.

Jampaklay

(2006). Parental absence and children’s school enrolment. Asian Population Studies, 2(1), 93–110.

36.

Khansa

Bahous

(2021). Challenges of teaching Syrian refugee children in Lebanon: teachers’ insights. Intercultural Education, 32(3), 280–295.

37.

Lang

(2002). Fear and sanctuary: Burmese refugees. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501719363

38.

Long

(2015). From refugee to migrant? Labor mobility’s protection potential. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/refugee-migrant-labor-mobilitys-protection-potential

39.

Manen

M. V.

(1997). From meaning to method. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 345–369.

40.

McLaren

(1995). Chapter III: White terror and oppositional agency: Towards a critical multiculturalism. Counterpoints, 4, 87–124.

41.

Melnick

S. A.

Meister

D. G.

(2018). A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39–56.

42.

Muangmee

(2005). Education opportunities of Burmese migrant children in Samut Sakhon Province [Master’s degree thesis]. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/67200

43.

Nawarat

(2012). Thailand education policy for migrant children from Burma. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 956–961.

44.

Nawarat

(2017). Discourse on migrant education policy: Patterns of words and outcomes in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.08.001

45.

Nieto

(2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

46.

Nusche

(2009, February). What works in migrant education? A review of evidence and policy options (OECD Education Working Papers No. 22). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/227131784531

47.

Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). (2021). Number of students in schools (by nationalities). Education in Thailand.

48.

Olsen

(2012). Data collection: Key debates and methods in social research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473914230

49.

Panmei

Waluyo

(2022). The pedagogical use of gamification in English vocabulary training and learning in higher education. Education Sciences, 13(1), 1–22.

50.

Petchot

(2014). The right to education for migrant children in Thailand: Liminal legality and the educational experience of migrant children in Samut Sakhon. In Truong

T. D.

Gasper

Handmaker,

Bergh

(Eds.), Migration, gender and social justice (pp. 307–323). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-28012-2_17

51.

Phonlabutra

(2012). Immigrant children and their opportunity to gain education: A case study of Myanmar community in Phetchaburi, Thailand. Japanese Studies Journal Special Issue: Regional Cooperation for Sustainable Future in Asia, 80–87. http://www.asia.tu.ac.th/journal/J_Studies55/12_vol29special_Kamolthip.pdf

52.

Rong

Brown

(2002). Socialization, culture, and identities of black immigrant children: What educators need to know and do. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124502342008

53.

Rumbaut

R. G.

(1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748–794. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2547157.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A3831e14f001e0ac85fd4eb72387e61a2

54.

Save The Children. (2014). Pathways to a better future: A review of education for migrant children in Thailand. http://thailand.worlded.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MESR-Policy-Brief.pdf

55.

Sezer

(2017). Novice teachers’ opinions on students’ disruptive behaviours: A case study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 69, 199–219.

56.

Smith

(1994). Ethnic groups in Burma. Anti-Slavery International.

57.

Spires

Duan

(2014). Human trafficking, education and migration at NGOs in Cambodia and Thailand [Conference session]. Interdisciplinary Conference on Human Trafficking. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA.

58.

Starkey

(2017). Globalization and education for cosmopolitan citizenship. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research and teaching (pp. 41–62). The American Educational Research Association.

59.

Suwannasang

(2018). Significance, circumstance, and difficulties of immigrant children in Thai Language schooling of Thai public schools [Conference session]. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018). Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

60.

Thet

M. M.

Pholphirul

(2016). The perception of Myanmar development on its return migrants: Implications for Burmese migrants in Thailand. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17, 995–1014.

61.

Thorne

(2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 3(3), 68–70.

62.

Tienda

(2013). Diversity not equal inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13516164

63.

Ullah

Ganapathy

Balachandran

(2016). Rohingya crisis in Myanmar: Seeking justice for the “stateless”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216660811

64.

UNICEF. (2019). Education knows no border. https://www.unicef.org/thailand/reports/education-knows-no-border

65.

Van Manen

(2017). Phenomenology and meaning attribution [Book Review]. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 17(1), 1368253.

66.

Vernez

Abrahamse

(1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. RAND.

67.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.

68.

Vorapanya

Dunlap

(2014). Inclusive education in Thailand: Practices and challenges. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 1014–1028.

69.

Vungsiriphisal

(2011). The challenge of education policy for migrant children in Thailand from security standpoints. Center for Southeast Asian Studies. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/155735/1/ssh_105.pdf

70.

Wallace

Athamesara

(2004). The Thai community curriculum as a model for multicultural education. International Education Journal, 5(1), 50–64. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903836.pdf

71.

Walsh

(2011). Cambodian migrants in Thailand: Working conditions and issues. Asian Social Science, 7(7), 23–29.

72.

Waluyo

Bakoko

(2021). Vocabulary list learning supported by gamification: Classroom action research using Quizlet. Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1), 289–299.

73.

Wang

Luo

Zhang

Rozelle

(2017). The education gap of China’s migrant children and rural counterparts. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(11), 1865–1881.

74.

Webster

Lewis

Brown

(2014). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. In Ritchie

Lewis

Nicholls,

C. M.

Ormston

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science & researchers (pp. 77–110). Sage.

75.

Yan

Liu

Jiang

(2021). The distinction of elementary education for migrant children in Beijing: A multiple-case study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(1), 45–65.