Background

1. Potential Certification of Learning Achievements for Burmese Refugees in ThailandAn NGO PerspectivePresentation by: Marc van der StouweFormer Programme Advisor, ZOA Refugee Care Thailand (currently Education Advisor BMB Mott MacDonald)IIEP Seminar, Paris, 22 January2008

2. Background • ZOA works with Burmese refugees in Thailand since 1984 • ZOA’s basic education programme started in 1997 • Adjusting our intervention strategies from “emergency relief” to “longer term educational development” • Changing ZOA role: basic service provider capacity builder lobbyist/advocate

3. Curriculum development thus far • Curriculum development as an emergency intervention focused on repatriation • Curriculum development synonym for materials development. Move towards a broader definition of curriculum • Teaching and learning materials collected from many different sources: fragmentation of curriculum • Changing ZOA role based on strategic assessment

4. Why do we think certification is important? 1. Recognition of learning achievements: • Access to educational or job opportunities outside the camps. Complex issue: Certificate can not be used in the “here and now”. But even for the future link between certification and access to education/ work is unclear (resettlement, local integration) • Motivational factor and reduction of drop-out • Realising curriculum change • Quality improvements • Enhancing comprehensiveness of the curriculum • Inclusion of sensitive topics in the curriculum 3. Achieving a broader policy agenda: • “Opening up the camps” – Access to higher education in Thailand, opportunities for income generation

5. How can certification be achieved? • Not possible through Burmese Government for political reasons or through other agencies because of closed refugee situation • Certification through Thai MOE only option (various options within this) • Seek alignment with MOE curriculum (follow MOE standards, 70-30% rule, language issue, testing/assessments, system change) • Long term process

6. Why now? • RTG is getting involved in education for refugees and migrants; • Involvement based on (i) realisation that refugee situation will stay for the foreseeable future and (ii) MOE commitment to Education for All • Earlier RTG/MOE actions confirm this commitment

7. Main actors in the process • The Karen Education Department (KED) and camp communities • Royal Thai Government (RTG) – the Ministry of Education (MOE) in particular • Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) – including ZOA • UNICEF Thailand • Various opportunities and complexities in the accreditation process, which are linked to specific actors

8. The KED and camp communities • Opportunities: • Initial acceptance of the idea of certification • “Kill two birds with one stone”: Certification as an incentive for quality improvement • Complexities • Still resistance in KED: (i) fear of losing Karen identity and values, (ii) fear of losing institutional control. But: various levels of community response, (iii) changes go beyond curriculum change, it is also about systemic changes • Lack of capacity and resources to work on curriculum change

9. RTG/MOE • Opportunities: • Unprecedented RTG openness and commitment • Technical expertise available within MOE • MOE has a standards-based curriculum that does not strictly prescribe detailed curriculum content • MOE in at local level (Tak) are very open and pro-active with regard to certification of refugee education • Complexities: • Focus on refugee education might be “imposed externally” rather than “internally motivated” • Different objectives within MOE and between MOE and other RTG departments and individuals • Slow processes of policy adjustment • Focus on Thai language

10. NGOs/ZOA • Opportunities: • NGOs are ideal “brokers” and “process facilitators” given their understanding of the local context, their close links with camp communities, their ability to interact with RTG and their process management skills • Complexities: • Limited technical expertise available within NGOs • Learn a new role as a lobbyist/advocate • Lack of coordination between NGOs and therefore lack of linkage between migrant and refugee certification processes

11. UNICEF • Opportunities: • Availability of funding • Potential for policy influencing at the “upper echelons” of MOE • Complexities: • Lack of understanding of the refugee context and the community ownership of education

12. The certification process • The certification process combines two sub-processes: • Political process - creating acceptance, commitment and effectuating policy change • Technical process - content, infrastructure, capacity to implement curriculum change

13. What has happened thus far? • Expression of initial interest: Policy Coordination Meetings at Chulalongkorn University • Creating commitment: Curriculum Conference and bilateral meetings with MOE; meetings with KED • Process design: Project defined, submitted and approved by UNICEF Thailand • Starting to adjust the curriculum: work with KED, camp communities, MOE and other NGOs to revise the curriculum

14. The process: steps to be taken • Submit first draft curriculum framework to MOE: February 2008 • Adjust curriculum framework based on MOE feedback • Continue lobbying with MOE and communities at various levels • Get approval of curriculum framework • Develop teaching and learning materials (using materials already developed in migrant education process) • Conduct training for teachers and other educational staff

15. Further issues and questions • Consider options for shorter term solutions in addition to the long-term accreditation option. Possibility to let students sit for MOE exams (in their own language)? • Issue of accreditation of teacher training • Potential negative impact of emphasis on testing and assessment on relevance and “innovativeness” of curriculum and on the learning process • Impact on IDPs in Burma • Other positive experiences: VT Programme and Higher Education