Kayah State - Education Quality and Access For Returnees

Education Access for Returning Students in Kayah State:
Loikaw Diocese, Kayah State, Myanmar

15 March – 30 June 2019
FINAL REPORT
Author: Mara Pinto, International Education Consultant
Supervisor: Gregory St Arnold, JRS International Office
Support: JRS Asia Pacific Regional Office, JRS Myanmar
Key words: returnees’ education; access education; quality education; integration; inclusion education; child
protection
JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 1

Table of Contents
Tables and figures ........................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................. 6
Background of JRS education work in Myanmar ....................................................................................... 7
Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 7
2. Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 8
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Key findings and recommendations.......................................................................................................... 9
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Research Team Composition .................................................................................................................. 12
Secondary Desk Review.......................................................................................................................... 12
Primary Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 13
Location ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Research questions ................................................................................................................................ 13
Informed Consent .................................................................................................................................. 15
Primary Data Sources by Date, Location, Method, and Place of Origin .................................................... 15
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Operating environment ...................................................................................................................... 17
Desk review........................................................................................................................................ 17
4. Contextual Analysis: Kayah State, Myanmar ........................................................................................... 18
Myanmar: Conflict and Displacement..................................................................................................... 19
Kayah State: Displacement and Returns ................................................................................................. 20
5. Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Secondary Literature – Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 23
Returnee Survey – Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 23
Returnee Informal Interviews– Summary of Findings ............................................................................. 27
Summary of Overall Findings by Theme.................................................................................................. 28
1. Broad challenges to education for returnees, and relevant programme responses ......................... 29
2. Returnees’ access to schools.......................................................................................................... 29
3. Confidence to sit for examinations / placement tests..................................................................... 32
4. Cultural Integration ........................................................................................................................ 32

5. Actively participating in school life.................................................................................................. 33
6. Understanding language of instruction .......................................................................................... 34
7. Adapting to new teaching methods and curriculum ....................................................................... 35
8. Ability to understand curriculum content ...................................................................................... 36
6. Conclusions & Good Practices ................................................................................................................ 36
Good Practices Identified ....................................................................................................................... 36
7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 39
1. Coordination and policy.................................................................................................................. 39
2. Access to school and placement tests ............................................................................................. 40
3. Social harmony and School life participation................................................................................... 41
4. Language ........................................................................................................................................ 42
5. Teaching approaches and Curriculum ............................................................................................. 43
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendices 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 47
Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendices 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Statement of Informed Consent (Case study) ......................................................................................... 50
Appendices 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Statement of Informed Consent (children) ............................................................................................. 52
Appendices 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Statement of Informed Consent (+18) .................................................................................................... 53
Appendices 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Issues table ............................................................................................................................................ 54
Appendices 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 56
Questions matrix.................................................................................................................................... 56
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 60

Tables and figures
Table 1 - key findings and recommendations ............................................................................................. 10
Table 2 - snapshot of the full report’s recommendations ........................................................................... 11
Table 3 - secondary data summary ............................................................................................................. 13
Table 4 - Research questions ...................................................................................................................... 14
Table 5 - case studies framework ............................................................................................................... 15
Table 6 - Primary Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 1 - Myanmar map ............................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2 -Kayah State Map (EU 2013) ......................................................................................................... 21
Table 7 - Student Survey respondents ........................................................................................................ 23
Table 8 - Returnee Student Survey Respondents By Date of Arrival ............................................................ 24
Table 9 - Returnee Student Respondents by Location ................................................................................. 24
Table 10 - Key Findings by Area of Focus .................................................................................................... 27
Table 11 - Data access analysis by sub-theme............................................................................................. 31
Table 12 - causes for drop-out.................................................................................................................... 31
Table 13 - Confidence to sit for examinations ............................................................................................. 32
Table 14 - Cultural Integration.................................................................................................................... 32
Table 15 - school life participation.............................................................................................................. 34
Table 16 - Adequate language of instruction .............................................................................................. 35
Table 17 - Teaching methods and Curriculum ............................................................................................. 36
Table 18 - content understanding .............................................................................................................. 36
Table 19 - Coordination and policy ............................................................................................................. 40
Table 20 - Access to school and placement tests ........................................................................................ 41
Table 21 - Social harmony and School life participation .............................................................................. 42
Table 22 - Language ................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 23 - 5Teaching approaches and Curriculum....................................................................................... 44
Table 24 - Issues table ................................................................................................................................ 55

List of Acronyms
AVSI Association of Volunteers in International Service

CS Case Study
CPR Comprehensive Personal Record
CRC Child Rights Convention
DP Development Partners
ESWG Education Sector Working Group
ETWG Education Thematic Working Group
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GoUM/ GoM Government of the Union of Myanmar
IDP Internally Displaced People
IR Inception Report
JRS APR Jesuit Refugee Service Asia/Pacific Regional Office
JRS IO Jesuit Refugee Service International Office
KII Key Informant Interviews
KMSS Karuna Mission Social Solidarity
KnED/KED Karenni Education Department / Karen Education Department
KNPP Karenni National Progressive Party
KNRRRWG Karenni Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction Working Group
KTWG Karen Teacher Working Group
LDN Local Development Network
MIMU Myanmar Information Management Unit
MoE Ministry of Education
NCA National Ceasefire Agreement
NESP National Education Strategic Plan 2016-2021
NGCAs Non-Government Controlled Areas
NFME Non-formal Middle Education
NFPE Non-formal Primary Education
PTA Parent Teacher Association
AP RO Regional Office Asia Pacific
RTG Royal Thai Government
SCI Save the Children International
STLC Seh Teh Learning Center
TC Transfer Certificate
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
ZTM Zetaman (Church-based volunteer teachers)

1. Introduction
Acknowledgements
This research was commissioned by the Jesuit Refugee Service Asia Pacific Regional Office (JRS APR), in
collaboration with the JRS International Office (IO) in order to gain an understanding of the realities facing
returning refugee students, IDPs and IDPs returnees in Kayah State schools, Myanmar.
This final report reflects an intensive and important collaboration between the researcher and the supporting
research team: JRS APR, specifically Regional Director Louie Bacomo and Regional Programme Officer Ontira
Amatavivat (Prae); JRS Myanmar Country Director Rosalyn Kayah; JRS Kayah Project Director Rose Mary, and
JRS Kayah Education Coordinator Linda Khin Thu Zar. In addition, support was received from JRS IO Education
Specialist Greg St. Arnold.
The researchers would like to extend thanks to the education partners in Myanmar, especially in Loikaw.
Particular thanks are extended to UNCHR Loikaw Assistant Field Officer Gennie Khury; Khin Moe Aye of
UNICEF; SCI Field Manager Valerio Rireh; KNRRRWG Lead Khun Banya; ESWG Representative Helen of AVSI;
Moo Reh, Representative of KMSS; Naw Phaw Sha, representative of LDN; Zetaman partners including Fr.
Paul Tin Reh, Director; Sr. Martina, Coordinator; Su Mar, Trainer; Paulina, Monitoring Coordinator; Nelson,
Principal of STLC; Maw Ta Ke, Assistant Coordinator; KnED Programme Supporting Manager Khu Plu Reh;
Plyar Reh, Teacher at STLC; Mu Reh, teacher at STLC; the teachers, students and families of Sasha and Mia,
participants of the student case studies; and of course Sasha and Mia themselves. Several people made
important contributions to the research activities and to this report.
The preparation, review and dissemination of this report has been supported by the offices of JRS Myanmar,
JRS Asia Pacific and the JRS International Office.

Background of JRS education work in Myanmar
Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an international Catholic organization with a mission to accompany, serve, and
advocate on behalf of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons, that they may heal, learn and determine
their own future. JRS programmes are currently found in 52 countries, serving refugees and other forcibly
displaced persons in conflict zones and detention centers, on remote borders and in busy cities.
Since the mid-1990s, JRS has worked in Thailand alongside refugees from Myanmar, providing educational
and psychosocial services. In 2013, the JRS APR regional office established its first office in Myanmar. For
better accompaniment and direct service delivery, JRS Myanmar moved to Myitkyina, Kachin State in 2014.
It has been JRS Myanmar’s mission to ensure that both forcibly displaced people and non-displaced but
conflict-affected people live together peacefully, with equal access to quality education opportunities.
Currently, JRS Myanmar operates two projects: one in Kachin State, and the other in Kayah State. In these
projects, JRS Myanmar works with local partner organizations to address the educational and psychosocial
needs of children who have experienced displacement. By supporting the work of local church-based
organizations and other stakeholders in the most remote areas, JRS is able to improve access to quality
education in areas where government and international assistance is scarce due to access restrictions. The
main activities within these projects include the training, coaching and supervision of teachers, provision of
teaching and learning materials, school renovation, and parental education. In 2017, JRS Myanmar initiated
a new Peace Education project in both projects to promote peaceful coexistence among the various groups
living within those areas. Given the emergency in Kachin and northern Shan states, JRS Myanmar also works
with local partners in delivering food and non-food items to those affected by the conflict.
Structure of the report

This report, Education Access for Returning Students in Kayah State reports the findings of a mixed methods
research project undertaken in Kayah State, and offers conclusions, recommendations, and best practices
that might be considered to enhance access to quality education going forward. The research methods were
chosen to ensure that the perceptions of general education stakeholder groups were taken into account,
with a special emphasis on the perceptions of refugee returnee students about their experience and attitudes
towards educational transition. The report is structured as follows:
• Chapter 1 is a brief introduction introducing the work of JRS Myanmar and the purpose of the
research;
• Chapter 2 provides an executive summary of the key findings and recommendations;
• Chapter 3 details the research methodology and approach, and also notes limitations of the
research;
• Chapter 4 discusses the broader educational context in Myanmar and then discusses the particular
context in Kayah state in more detail.
• Chapter 5 reports on the findings of the field-based research.
• Chapter 6 contains the researchers’ conclusions, as well as good practices among stakeholders.
• Finally, Chapter 7 outlines recommendations for education stakeholders based on the research
findings.
• A bibliography, appendices and a glossary are included at the end of the report.

2. Executive summary
The discourse around refugee return and reintegration to Myanmar from the refugee camps in Thailand has
grown since 2015, as government reforms are undertaken within Myanmar and refugees are slowly returning
to their homeland. (World Education, 2017) Among this population, displaced children continue to
experience barriers as a result of prior gaps in their education, difficulties in integrating into a different
education system that may use a different curriculum, methods and language, as well as lack of inclusion in
national and education sector planning.
During discussions regarding the development of a cross-border, Thailand-Myanmar project proposal in May
2018, JRS Thailand and the JRS Mae Hong Son project suggested that JRS conduct research on education
access for refugee students from Thailand who return to Kayah State in Myanmar. Similar research had
been conducted previously by another humanitarian agency in Thailand, but the focus of that research was
only on refugees from Karen State, who represent the majority of refugees in seven of the nine camps along
the Thailand-Myanmar border. A similar research project looking at educational access for refugees
returning to Kayah State was therefore deemed a worthwhile project that could contribute addressing a key
information gap. The outcomes of this research will allow JRS to have a holistic overview of the status of the
refugee students here and improve future advocacy and programme strategies.
Purpose
After initial discussions about such a research project, staff from JRS Myanmar/ Kayah, JRS Thailand/ Mae
Hong Son, and the APR Regional Office further defined the scope of the research project to address the
following elements:
1. Broadening the focus on Returnees (IDP and refugee), IDPs, and host community children and
youth. The desired target group of the research was identified as children and youth who are IDPs,
IDP returnees, those in host communities, and refugee returnees, of age 6-24 years. Given the target
group, the research was to look as much as possible at mixed communities where IDPs, IDP and
refugee returnees, and host communities live together.
2. Focusing on the locations of Shadaw, Demoso, and Hpruso townships in Kayah State. These areas
represent both Government-Controlled Areas and Nongovernment Controlled Areas (which are
remote and difficult to access for aid agencies), with a focus on public schools that refugee returnees
and the other target groups might attend.
The primary audience of this research is JRS staff involved in JRS cross-border activities in Thailand and
Myanmar, including the JRS Mae Hong Son and JRS Kayah projects, the JRS Thailand and JRS Myanmar
Country Offices, and the JRS Asia Pacific Regional Office. Other stakeholders who may be interested in this
research include current or prospective donors, partner agencies, and other JRS offices that may be able to
benefit from the knowledge and practices documented herein.

Key findings and recommendations
Findings
▪ While the government’s role in leading the official integration process of refugees was identified by
research informants as a positive step, the pace with which information is received by stakeholders
has made planning activities to support the integration process difficult.
▪ Educational documentation carried by refugee returnees and IDPs is generally being accepted by
receiving schools without problems in practice, however there is need for more clarity around the
general policies and procedures, especially in a coordinated and cohesive way among the various
government stakeholders. For example, at the national level, the MoE’s policies around required
documentation and enrolment lack clarity, while at the state level there is verbal acknowledgement
by the MoE of a liberal policy around documentation, but limited written documentation affirming
this. Clear, written, portable policies applicable to all levels of educational authorities will serve to
augment the integration already underway in practice.
▪ There is need for more cross-border engagement and communication between all stakeholders in
Thailand and Myanmar regarding pre-departure and post-arrival school transition programmes that
prepare students for new schools in Myanmar.
▪ There is currently no uniform mechanism to collect data from spontaneous refugee returnees and
IDPs/IDP returnees and analyze and disseminate this information to support the transition of students.
▪ Due to the lack of formal reference to the return/integration of refugee students in the National
Education Sector Plan or national-level policies, these issues are relegated to the state or regional level
to develop their own policies and approaches, and inevitably results in different approaches by school
actors and unequal access outcomes.
▪ Students surveyed in research locations indicated discrimination and bullying as a significant issue. In
the case of refugee returnees, many identify as victims of bullying, attributing the factors for being
bullied chiefly to (a) differences in social class, and (b) identity as a returning refugee.
▪ Placement tests for returnee students were planned for the beginning of school year of 2019-2020,
with no provision for the returnees that will arrive when the academic year is already started.
▪ There are no fees for enrolment in schools but receiving schools often charge extra fees for various
purposes, one cause of student dropout.
▪ Nearly all students surveyed (80%) reported difficulties with Burmese language in all skill areas.
Language difficulties pose a significant challenge for returnees’ integration in schools and
communities.
▪ The curriculum and teaching style differences pose challenges for returnee and IDP students. There is
a need to prepare returnee students for changes in pedagogical approach.
▪ Psychosocial, emotional-learning and practical mainstreaming of children’s rights are identified as an

area of urgent need by teachers, partner agencies, and other key education and civil society
stakeholders.

▪ Most schools have dedicated structures for parent engagement, namely PTAS, however the focus of
these groups is often narrowly defined as fundraising, whereas national policies for PTAs also
encourage PTAs focus on students’ well-being, child protection, and school safety strategies.
Table 1 - key findings and recommendations
The table below represents a snapshot of the full report’s recommendations. Full recommendations can
be found in Chapter 7.
Recommendations
Engage in or continue joint advocacy initiatives with other partners directed to the
leading organizations and MoE, to have transparent, timely, and comprehensive
information available to returning families and individuals about educational
options and placement procedures.
Coordination and
Policy
Advocate for the recognition of teachers’ trainings done in refugee camps, or
create a special process to recognize and complete the training of these teachers,
in order to integrate them in the Myanmar education system.
Advocate for formal alternatives and policies that can facilitate the access to
education, especially college and higher education.
In conjunction with joint advocacy to the MoE to clarify and standardize the
Access to school integration procedures, ensure Thailand-based potential returnees, IDPs and other
and placement migrants have access written information about policies and procedures to inform
tests their decision-making.
Train school focal points (working with government and local authorities) in Thailand
and Myanmar about how people, especially children, can obtain their
documentation and identity papers.
Social harmony With a pilot school or CSO, train school actors to implement a Study Buddy System
and school life to support returnees in their new school, environment and social context.
participation

Support PTA and school leaders with training to implement a more holistic approach
of their association, based on the MoE training manual.
In Myanmar, JRS programming should work with CSO and partners to promote
language support activities in both Burmese and mother tongue.
Language
Work with CSO and/or PTA to organize community-based language learning groups,
support with learning materials or with space arrangements.
Promote exchange of experiences between returnee teachers and host community

teachers through events or more informal social and professional activities.
Teaching
approaches and
Curriculum
Work with partners and teachers to create a mechanism to monitor and support
supplementary tuition for students who fall behind academically.
Table 2 - snapshot of the full report’s recommendations

3. Methodology
Research Team Composition
The Research Team comprised one lead researcher (an external consultant), and was supported and advised
by three staff members of JRS APR and one staff member of JRS IO. Primary data collection was done through
the employment of ten field-based research assistants and one independent consultant. The regional and
the country team were supporting the context analyses and facilitating the researcher team in the field. The
international supervisor was facilitating the communication between regional, country team and the
consultant and supporting scientifically and technically the deliverables.
The primary data collection research team was selected in order to have native speakers of the different
ethnic languages covered and Burmese and English speakers. Research assistants underwent a three-day
training with the lead researcher in order to have a deep knowledge about the process and about the tools
prepared.
Secondary Desk Review
METHOD DETAILS
Desk review guided by the question’s matrix, including data from:
▪ INEE Minimum Standards;
▪ Reports and documentation on returnees from Thailand and Myanmar;
▪ UNICEF, 3W;
Secondary ▪ Humanitarian Needs Overview and Humanitarian Response Plans;
Data ▪ JRS Regional and country documentation;
Collection ▪ UNHCR fact sheets;
▪ Other reports;
▪ World Bank documents and reports;
▪ Implementing partners’ Websites.
▪ 5 youth in age range (1 from host community, 3 IDP returnees, 1 refugee returnee)
Key ▪ 2 Education INGOs: JRS, Save the Children
Informant ▪ 2 UN agencies: UNICEF and UNHCR
Interviews ▪ 1 member of KnRRRWG (network of CSO/local NGOs working with refugees and
returnees across Thai-Burma border)
Focus ▪ 2 with education actors: Zetaman and KnED

Group ▪ 1 with Education Sector Working Group
Discussions ▪ 1 group of teachers from government schools
Case ▪ 2 participants:
Studies ▪ 1 refugee returnee from a camp in Thailand
▪ 1 out-of school

▪ Case study participants were selected based upon the following selection criteria:
- School age;
- Same gender (female);
- Same geographic zone, township.
• Of the 150 students surveyed, 123 were validated, including host community
Survey
students, IDPs, IDPs returnees and refugee returnees
Table 3 - secondary data summary
The research first employed a desk review of available existing research on education in Myanmar generally,
and in Kayah State specifically, in order to provide a better contextual grounding for the analysis of primary
data. Data from government education information management systems at the township level was
compiled and analyzed in order to better triangulate findings drawn from the own primary data that would
be later collected.
Primary Data Collection

Primary data was collected through a mixed methods approach. Qualitative data was collected through ten
key informant interviews (KIIs), four focus group discussions (FGDs), and the above-mentioned desk research.
Quantitative data was collected through the administration of a validated student survey of 123 (63F 60M)
from ages 6 to 24 years old. Two in-depth interviews were conducted for the purposes of case studies, and
an informal interview was carried out of returnees that completed local placement tests in order to join new
school classes. In addition to these methods some informal conversations were made to gather some
background information.
Location
The primary research was undertaken at various locations in Kayah State, Myanmar. The main research
locations selected, in Kayah State were 3 townships – Demoso, Hpruso and Shadaw. Specifically, most of the
KII and most of the FGD interviews data collection were made at Loikaw and, for the surveys, in some villages
of the referred 3 townships:
1) Shadaw Township---Shadaw and Dovero;
2) Demoso Township – Dotada and Pampet;
3) Hpruso Township - Maprosje, Tawkhu and Dolaso
More detailed discussions of location are outlined in the Sampling section below.
Research questions
The main question of the research was originally defined as follows:
How are the refugees and IDPs students integrated in the Kayah schools and how can we improve and
facilitate their transition (from Thailand and from Myanmar)?
The original terms of reference (ToR) (Appendix 1) proposed a set of research questions that were refined
here to the following:

1. What is happening in Kayah State where IDP and host communities live, when considering access to
education? What scenario can be expected for the returning refugee students, in this State?
- Is there information and support for integration? From whom? Are there orientation sessions with parents,
students and teachers?
- How is the student/teacher interaction?
- Are there cases of discrimination? Explicit and implicit?
- Are there school in the township for all the students’ grades?
- Are the schools accessible and near to the students’ houses? Or are there transport options…?
- Are the fees affordable? Are there material and uniforms for the students?
- Is there place in the classrooms for the new students?
- Is there students’ representation in the management boards and school related meetings?
- The attendance and progress of the students in this schools are being monitored? By whom? If yes, the
analyses lead to concreate and effective actions? What kind of measures are taken? By whom?
- Which documentation is requested from refugee camps in Thailand? Which are the procedures? How are
defined the procedure and by whom was decided?
- The education environment is facilitating the integration? The certificates from Thailand for example, are
accepted and accredited here?
- What are the physical conditions of schools? Construction, hygiene, playground, …
- Is there presence of ethnic armed groups during the students commute to school?
- Are there any risk/safety concern for the students to go to school?
- What emotional and psychosocial offer are available for children and youth? In the schools we can see child
rights activities and psychosocial support mainstream?
- There are social groups/events organized where the refugee and IDP can integrate?
- Which everyday life activities or services the refugees and IDP's can participate (ex. weekly market)?
- Are there student buddy systems and/or extra-curricular activities where refugees and IDPs can be part of?
- Are there Parent-Teacher Association organized in the schools? To which level are they participating in the
integration of migrant learners?
- The refugee students and IDPs do placement tests? They have preparation classes or other support?
- What are the language of teaching of this schools? Are there difficulties with the language? Is there any
support?
- Is there curriculum orientation support?
- Are there tuition classes or other pedagogical support activities?
- Are there language support classes for the ones in need or other strategies (examples: bilingual/multilingual
teachers, community based language groups)?
2. What is the basic profile (age 6-24) of those living in the mixed communities including the IDP, IDP
returnees and the host communities?
- What’s the average gender?
- What’s the average age?
- What are their mobility situation?
- What’s the location, the refugees/IDPs and IDPs returnees are coming from, the most?
- How long they stayed out of their original village/Kayah and how long they are already being here?
- What are their parents work (sectors)?
- Do they have the family members/relatives in the host communities?
3. What lessons can we learn from case studies of returning refugee students who have already returned to
Myanmar?
- Which good practices for integration we can find and maybe reproduce?
- Which are the main difficulties/challenges they suffer and how to surpass them?
- Which opportunities they can find and how to manage them?
- Which mechanism we can create to a smooth transition?
Table 4 - Research questions

Case studies focused on three elements within the following three dimensions:
Personal Strength Formal Support Informal support
Proactivity INGO and UN Family
Resilience National system and Local NGOs Host community
Problem solving skills Education Actors Peers
Table 5 - case studies framework
Informed Consent
The principles of gender balance and risk/harm mitigation were employed throughout the research, and in
particular with respect to the selection of sample populations. The following protocol was developed for
organizing and holding key informant interviews, focus group discussions, case study interviews, and surveys:
• The purpose of the research and the role of the researchers as acting on behalf of JRS was clearly
communicated.
• An informed consent form detailing voluntary nature of participation, freedom to express opinions
without fear of organizational repercussions, and other aspects of research interaction (i.e. right to
talk, take breaks, etc.) was read and explained by the research team.
• Participants signed informed consent forms.
• At conclusion of research, time was offered for questions from participants.
Primary Data Sources by Date, Location, Method, and Place of Origin

Initially the sample for survey data was selected by school, village and number of returnees. Later, with the
overlap of holidays and planned field work, this strategy couldn’t work because there were no one in the
schools. Finally, an open invitation, by village allowed us to have the number of students between 6 to 24
years old, that we needed.
Survey or Origin of
Survey and Number of
Dates Participants Interview participants
Interviews participants
Location
Maprosje Maprosje; 24 (13M
27 April LobyarLe; Kay 11F)
Lyar
28 April Dotada Do Kaw 9 (4M 5F)
Demoso Demoso;
14 (4M
Survey 28 April Children and youth (6-24 years) Chiang Mai
10F)
(Thailand)
Pampet Daw Kii;
Rung Khu; 37 (31M
30 April
Ka Te Khu; 6F)
Bansa

Taw Khu Taw Khu
12 (7M 5F)
(Old)
Shadaw Aung Chan
Thar;
Kayah Qr.;
29 (3M
Hpar Taw;
26F)
Su See;
Say Ko Le;
Donoklu
Dolaco Hpruso; Pan
11 (6M 5F)
Kann; Yangon;
Dovero Dovero 14 (8M 6F)
KII UNICEF 25 April Khin Moe Aye, Manager chief of field office Loikaw - 1 (1F)
27 April Maprosje -
5 Children or Youth (refugee returnees and
KII Students and 30 5 (2M 3F)
host community students)
April
KII SCI 29 April Field manager Valerio Rireh Loikaw - 1 (1M)
KII Loikaw -
3 May Khun Banya; Lead WG 1 (1M)
KNRRRWG
3 JRS members: Loikaw -
KII JRS Linda Khin Thu Zar, JRS Kayah Education
9 to 15
(written Coordinator (with review of Rosalyn, JRS 3 (3F)
May
interview) Myanmar Country Director and Rose Mary,
JRS Kayah Project Director )
10 May Loikaw -
KII UNHCR Gennie Khury Assistant Field Officer 1 (1F)
(10am)
FGD 4 Government school teachers from Demoso -
28 April 4 (4F)
teachers Demoso
3 ESWG members: Loikaw -
FGD ESWG 8 May Helen representative of AVSI; Moo Reh, rep 3 (1M 2F)
of KMSS; Naw Phaw Sha, rep of LDN
4 Zetamen members: Loikaw -
Fr. Paul Tin Reh, director of ZTM; Sr.
FGD 10 May
Martina, coordinator of ZTM; Su Mar, 4 (1M 3F)
Zetamen (4pm)
trainer of ZTM, Paulina, monitoring
coordinator ZTM
4 KnED members: Demoso -
Maw Ta Ke, Assistant Coordinator; Khu Plu
FGD KnED 11 May Reh, programme supporting manager; Plyar 4 (4M)
Reh, teacher at STLC; Nelson, Principal of
STLC,; Mu Reh, teacher at STLC
30 April Hpruso -
Case Study
– 03 1 girl: Successful case of transition 1 (1F)
Mia
May
06 May Ywar Thi -
Case Study
– 09 1 girl: Drop-out case 1 (1F)
Sasha
May
Informal Loikaw - 41: 18 (11F
10 and Refugees doing placement tests during the
open 7M) from
11 May week and family
Interview which 9

children at
10 May
And 23
from which
18 children
at 11 May
Table 6 - Primary Data Sources
Limitations
There are a number of limitations with this study that should be acknowledged when considering the
reliability and validity of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations:
Operating environment
• JRS is not independently registered in Myanmar as a non-governmental organizations and operates
under the legal umbrella of the KMSS diocese of Loikaw. Access to some agencies, organizations and
government stakeholders were sometimes affected by this arrangement, however affiliation with
the church also allows JRS access to locations and implement activities where other INGOs are unable
to go.
• Even with a multi-lingual research team (with all the participants speaking two languages at least),
because the linguistic diversity of the participants, language was a limitation. Considerable time was
dedicated to translations, also due to unfamiliarity among translators with certain accents. Team
members worked in pairs and in the case of one case study interview, a third translator was added
to the team after the first day of interviews.
• As a result of legal status of JRS in the country, the research team was not able to meet with the
Ministry of Education, a key partner that would have confirmed several findings regarding
documentation and policy questions.
• The geographical dispersion and limited transportation for community members presented an
obstacle to meeting the teachers and students from the villages.
• The access to the certain locations was sometimes limited for security reasons and in some limited
access and direct participation of the lead researcher in certain aspects of the research, including
one of the two case studies.
Desk review
• The lack of data and information on developments regarding the returning process was also a
limitation. More detailed information is needed surrounding aspects of resettlement: returnees’
processes, numbers, situations of families and vulnerability cases. The refugees/ returnees’ cases are
sensitive, and the actors keep most of information as confidential. One of the consequences of this
necessary and understandable approach is that it is difficult among the various actors and
stakeholders to coordinate work and share specific information.

4. Contextual Analysis: Kayah State, Myanmar
Figure 1 - Myanmar map

Myanmar: Conflict and Displacement
Myanmar continues to experience difficulties in transitioning from military rule to a full civilian government
due to its internal political dynamics and decades-long ethnic conflicts. National reforms by the civilian
authorities have been affected by lingering, overarching military control, such as (1) in the national legislative
body where the military’s representation quota still bars other parties to participate in amending the
constitution in favor of rule of law and governance; and (2) in the executive branch, where top positions in
key ministries including Home, Border Affairs, and Defense, are reserved for military officials. Media
restrictions continue to threaten freedom of expression, and recent years have seen the arrests of many
journalists. The economic situation is challenging for many, with people facing high commodity prices and
high inflation. The development of special economic zones and the acquisition of lands for large-scale agri-
business, which were enabled by the current land law and economic policy, risk triggering new waves of
displacement while simultaneously limiting land available for settlement and cultivation by refugees
returning from Thailand.
Despite landmark progress on peace negotiations that resulted in the signing of the National Ceasefire
Agreement (NCA) in October 2015 and the 3 peace conferences since 2016, deep-rooted distrust remains
especially among the non-signatory armed groups that doubt the intention of the government and its forces
to pursue peace and reconciliation nationwide. Many civilians are equally doubtful in the peace process since
there have been clashes between Burmese Army and the NCA signatories such as the Karen National
Liberation Army (KNLA) in March 2018, which have caused more than 2,000 civilians to be newly displaced.
Since the early 1980s, refugees from Myanmar have been fleeing to Thailand to escape conflict and human
rights abuses. Currently, there are approximately 85,000 refugees residing in nine refugee camps (termed
temporary settlements by the Royal Thai Government) along the Thailand – Myanmar border. (TBC T. B.,
2019) Currently, JRS works in two of the northern refugee camps: Ban Mai Nai Soi and Ban Mae Surin, both
of which border Kayah State in Myanmar.
From these camps, there are two movements of refugees back to Kayah State: spontaneous refugee returns,
which are organized independently by families or communities outside the auspices of official authorities,
and facilitated returns, which are organized and supervised by a number of authorities and stakeholders,
including the Government of the Union of Myanmar (GoUM), Royal Thai Government (RTG), UNHCR, and civil
society partners.
Political changes in Myanmar and the signing of numerous ceasefires between the Government of the Union
of Myanmar (GoUM/ GoM) and ethnic armed groups, have raised hopes for the potential voluntary
repatriation of refugees living in the refugee camps along the Thailand – Myanmar border. However, the slow
pace of return/repatriation suggests the process will likely extend longer than originally anticipated.
Nonetheless, a major objective of JRS’ education strategy is to support durable education solutions for
refugees who may voluntarily return to Myanmar in the short to medium term.
Humanitarian needs in Myanmar are characterized by a complex combination of vulnerability to natural

disasters, food insecurity, armed conflict, inter-communal tensions, statelessness, institutionalized
discrimination, protracted displacement, human trafficking and risky migration. The situation is compounded
further by chronic poverty, intensified violence especially against children and women, and underlying

inequalities, that exacerbate needs, vulnerabilities and marginalization of affected people in many parts of
the country. (Humanitarian Country Team, 2019)
Through Myanmar, there have been problems with integration of minorities into mainstream public
schooling, an issue bound up with a reluctance to acknowledge some border populations as legitimate
national citizens. This underlines the potential value of encouraging students to study the languages (and
cultures) of bordering nations, since solving problems facing minorities often depends on detoxifying
poisoned relationships with close national neighbors. (UNESCO, 2017)
In terms of education, Myanmar is currently engaged in the process of reforming its educational system. The
Ministry of Education is taking the lead in implementing its five-year strategic plan. The implementation of a
new Kindergarten curriculum started in Academic Year 2016-2017, with Grade 1 curriculum starting the
following academic year (2017-2018), and Grade 2 underway presently, in the academic year 2018-2019. One
major focus of the reform is to disrupt the rote learning culture that exists in Myanmar’s schools and develop
a more learner-centered pedagogy tailored to the needs of the 21st century economy. The government will
also enhance teachers’ skills and qualifications at all levels and enacting education laws through technology
and vocational education. However, given the current security situations in Myanmar, the realization of
national plan in remote and IDP returnees’ areas will not happen overnight.
Kayah State: Displacement and Returns

Kayah is Myanmar’s smallest state by population, with 320,216 inhabitants, according to the 2014 national
census. Loikaw serves as the state capital. The largest ethnic armed organization in Kayah, the Karenni
National Progress Party (KNPP), is not a signatory to the National Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), and therefore
remains in control of territory in Kayah where the government cannot access, called non-government-
controlled areas (NGCAs). KNPP’s active engagement with the government through monthly talks was
recently disrupted by an encounter and exchange of gunfire between the Government’s Army/ Tatmadaw
and KNPP in October 2018, when the Army entered KNPP- controlled area in Hpasaung Township without
informing in advance. Without resolution of these political and security issues, economic development and
social services will continue to struggle to reach remote areas in Kayah, especially those under the Non-
Government Controlled Areas (NGCAs). Since 1957, at least 34,600 people were displaced within the state
(IDMC, 2018) while 11,369 are camp refugees in Thailand.

Kayah State, Myanmar
Figure 2 -Kayah State Map (EU 2013)
While the overall situation is not yet conducive to the promotion of large-scale returns, ‘spontaneous’ returns
have been ongoing for several years in south-eastern Myanmar, and the option of facilitated return has been
available since 2016 for verified refugees in Thailand. So far, three facilitated return exercises of refugees
have taken place facilitated by the RTG and GoUM, with the support of UNHCR and partners:
• Oct 2016 = 71 refugee returnees (none to Kayah);

• May 2018 = 93 refugee returnees (20 to Kayah);
• February 2019= 565 refugee returnees (59 to Kayah).
Currently a few hundred refugees have signed up to return to Myanmar through the facilitated process and
are awaiting clearance to repatriate. (Humanitarian Country Team, 2019). At the same time, spontaneous
returnee movement is continually taking place in this area. Some repatriation with help and support of
UNHCR and others INGO and other repatriation, maybe in a more significant number that are ‘spontaneously’
returning to Myanmar. In this moment there are movement of repatriation. Some repatriation with help and

support of UNHCR and other INGOs and other repatriation, maybe in a more significant number that are
‘spontaneously’ returning to Myanmar. We know that, since 2010, approximately 15,000 refugees have
‘spontaneously’ repatriated to Myanmar and UNHCR has facilitated the return of two groups of refugees (Oct
2016 and May 2017). (Supporting Refugee Student Repatriation: Interconnected Factors Enabling Success,
2018) . The education is sometimes a hard transition and complex integration with administrative,
geographic and inter-relational factors. In this 2 groups of UNHCR organized returnees, 51 school-aged
children have traveled but not all of them are integrated and done an easy transition. (Supporting Refugee
Student Repatriation: Interconnected Factors Enabling Success, 2018)
From Humanitarian Response Plan 2019 Myanmar, as well as UNICEF Humanitarian Action for Children, there
aren’t references to Kayah State or Thailand returnees. A 2018 JRS evaluation report points out “a perception
among some in the diocese that many refugees do not want to return because life is easier in the camps.
Returnees face a very difficult life. Some do not have villages to return to, others have a hard time supporting
themselves. While it is true that some refugees become very dependent on handouts, I am not sure that this
is the general situation for everyone.” (Joaquin Martinez, 2018)

5. Findings
Findings are summarized below from three principal data sources: secondary literature, a survey of returnee
students, and focus group discussions with returnee students. Further findings are detailed according to
specific themes below.
Secondary Literature – Summary of Findings

The preliminary findings from secondary data revealed were considered correct and applicable to the context
of Kayah State, in the studied areas:
• From Save the Children Beyond Access report (Dare, Beyond Access: Refugee Students’ Experiences
of Myanmar State Education, 2015), we know that The Government of the Union of Myanmar’s
(GoUM) current policy on accepting returning refugee students into state education requires
students to sit a placement test before being accepted into government schools. Placement tests
purportedly exist for Myanmar/Burmese, English and Mathematics. (Dare, Beyond Access: Refugee
Students’ Experiences of Myanmar State Education, 2015)
• The situation for students born in Thailand without Myanmar ID or documentation is unclear and
needs further research. (Dare, Beyond Access: Refugee Students’ Experiences of Myanmar State
Education, 2015)
• Some children return without academic transfer documents; (Supporting Refugee Student
Repatriation: Interconnected Factors Enabling Success, 2018) This situation is improving, in early July,
all returnee students brought back the TC.
• Generally, no formal orientation programme at the school level, students relying on peers to help
them adapt and settle into the new school environment. (Supporting Refugee Student Repatriation:
Interconnected Factors Enabling Success, 2018)
• Refugee students, parents and teachers reported that refugee students are adjusting to differences
in curriculum, textbooks, teaching style and the school environment quite well. (Supporting Refugee
Student Repatriation: Interconnected Factors Enabling Success, 2018)
Returnee Survey – Summary of Findings

Surveys were administered to 120 children and youth, ranging in age from 6 to 24 years of age. Of the 120
surveyed students, 20 indicated they had returned after being displaced to another area. Gender and age
disaggregation is reflected in Table 1: Student Survey Respondents.
All Students Surveyed Returnee Students Only

Total Female Male Total Female Male
6-13 years 79 44 35 15 5 10
14-17 years 37 17 20 3 0 3
18+ years 7 2 5 2 0 2
Total 123 63 60 20 5 15
Table 7 - Student Survey respondents

Of the 20 respondents who were returnees, a large majority (16/20) had arrived in 2018 or earlier. Four
respondents reported returning in the first four months of 2019. Gender and age disaggregation can be
found in Table 2: Returnee Student Survey Respondents By Date of Arrival.
Returnee Students Surveyed

Arrived within last Arrived in last four Arrived in 2018 or earlier
month (April 2019) months (Jan-Mar 2019)
T F M T F M T F M
6-13 years 2 1 1 1 0 1 12 4 8
14-17 years 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2
18+ years 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Total 3 1 2 1 0 1 16 4 12
Table 8 - Returnee Student Survey Respondents By Date of Arrival
The majority of returnee respondents (14) came from Demoso township and the most common place of
residence during displacement was Ban Mai Nai Soi refugee camp in Thailand (16). No students reported
returning from Ban Mae Surin refugee camp.
T F M
Demoso 14 3 11
Hpruso 4 1 3
Shadaw 1 1 0
Other 1 0 1
Total 20 5 15
Table 9 - Returnee Student Respondents by Location
Survey Area of Focus Key Findings and Comments

Transition • All of the surveyed students (20/20) brought documentation from the refugee
experience – camp in Thailand and were asked to present documentation at their new
documentation and school in Myanmar.
process
• The most requested document was the school transfer certificate. Other
documents references included: recommendation from the principal; a
certificate of passing exam; a student achievement report card; and other
certificates and transcripts. One student also reported providing a
recommendation from the head of village.
• 80% of the surveyed students (16/20) reported not having any written
guidance materials or documentation to help them prepare their documents
for the transition. The remaining students (4/20) who did report having some
guidance materials could not cite a specific guidance document.

Placement tests • Half of the respondents (10/20) reported taking a placement test upon arrival
in their new school.
• The subjects more tested were the Burmese, Mathematics and English but
was also referred science and social science tests.
• In the 2019 May placement test, organized by MoE, 6 subjects were tested.
Language integration • All students reported Kayah as their mother tongue.
• 80% of students (16/20) reported speaking Burmese as second language and

four students (4/20) reported as second language speaking Thai.
• Eleven students (55%) reported learning in their mother tongue. In the first
years of school, mother-tongue based instruction is common both in refugee
camps in Thailand as in public schools in Myanmar.
• Six students reported Burmese as their main language of instruction, and the
remaining three reported English.
• The majority of students reported difficulties with some or all language skills.
Of those who reported challenges, the highest areas reported were:
challenges with vocabulary (85%); Written expression and spelling (65%);
Grammar (60%).
• Most of the surveyed students reported language difficulties in all areas, and
just one student reported no language difficulties at all.
• Only 20% (4/20) of the surveyed students reported having bilingual or

multilingual teachers that help them with the language skills.
• Thirteen students (13/20) reported joining and participating in community-

based language learning groups after their arrival in Myanmar. (possible that
they refer to peer support or informal groups).
School-level • Uniforms:
enrolment, o Eighteen (18/20) of the surveyed students perceive a school uniform
administration and as being mandatory at their school.
materials o 19 of the 20 surveyed students report that the family payed for the
uniforms.
o Although ten (10/20) referred that the school offered the uniform, the
same surveyed students identified the parents paying for it. In fact, if
the school give one uniform, the parents need to pay for the second
one to make all the days of the week. The other 50% (10/20 students)
refer that, in fact, they don’t use the uniform because the family can’t
afford, and schools accept the children not using it.

• School Accessibility and Transportation:
o Only 13/20 students (65%) reported feeling safe enough to walk to
school without the company of an adult.
o Twelve (12/20) students reported being able to get to school in less
than 15 minutes. For 6 students travel time ranged from 16 minutes
up to 30 minutes and for the remaining 2 the travel time ranged from
30 minutes and 1 hour.
o Six (6/20) students reported that they used school provided
transportation to attend school.
o Seven (7/20) students reported that cost of transportation was a
difficulty for them and/or their family.
• PTA:
o Nearly all students (19/20) reported that a parent-teacher association
(PTA) exists in their school.
o A similarly high number (17/20) reported that PTAs play an active role
in participating in school decision-making.
• Learning Materials:
o Fifteen students (75%) of students reported having all the school
books they need for class. For the majority of these students, (13/15),
the books were provided by the school.
• School Fees:
o Sixteen students (80%) reported that the payment of additional school
fees apart from registration fees. (By policy in Kayah, school is free
and compulsory, and schools are not supposed to collect additional
fees.)
o Students reported additional fees being charged for the following:
▪ family registration card;
▪ salary bonus to teachers;
▪ school closing ceremony;
▪ Christmas and Buddhist festivals;
▪ nutrition for students; and
▪ Books.
o The extra fees charged ranged from 100 MMK/year to 6000
MMK/year.
o Students reported the following fees:
▪ 200 – 1200 MMK/year (USD $0.13 – $0.80) (10 students)
▪ 6000 MMK/year (USD $3.97) (1 student)
Perceptions of • Seventeen (17/20) students reported they liked or strongly liked their
Teachers and Peers teachers’ approaches when they needed help.
• Seventeen (17/20) students agreed or strongly agreed that their teachers are
interested and open to their questions.

• Thirteen (13/20) students agreed or strongly agreed that their teacher makes
them feel that he/she really cares about them.
• Seventeen (17/20) of the surveyed students recognize encouragement from

the teachers to do their best.
• Thirteen (13/20) of the surveyed students agree that there is an emotional

support from the teachers, helping them feel better in bad situations.
• Seventeen (17/20) students reported that their teachers give them time to
explain their ideas.
• Thirteen students (65%) agree that teachers seek to understand student’s

misbehavior. Seven of the twenty surveyed students disagree or strongly
disagree that the teachers try to understand what the conversation is about
before telling children to stop talking.
• Sixteen (16/20) surveyed students agree or strongly agree that their peers
support them in class and outside.
• Fifteen (75%) students refer having other kids making fun of them, meaning a
high possibility of bullying problems in schools.
Classroom • Sixteen students (16/20) agree with the statement, “My classmates behave
experiences the way my teacher wants them to.”
• Ten (10/20) of the surveyed students agree that their behavior is so bad that
slows down their learning.
• Eleven of the twenty surveyed students reported time management is not

adapted to their needs. Just nine (45%) refer the time management as good,
agreeing that they are given time and flexibility for the activities.
• Eighteen (18/20) of the surveyed students reported the inexistence of

orientation sessions with teachers and students to returnee students.
• None of the surveyed students (0/20) identified opportunities to join a study

buddy or peer-tutoring programme, extra tuition classes, extra-curricular
activities, or other non-formal events/activities available in their schools or
communities.
Table 10 - Key Findings by Area of Focus
Returnee Informal Interviews– Summary of Findings

Focus group discussions were conducted with returnee students who completed placement tests. On 10
May, 18 children (11 F, 7 M) participated in the discussion. The following day, 11 May, a focus group

discussion was held with 23 people (gender disaggregation unavailable), 5 of whom were parents/interested
adults and 18 of whom were children under age 18.
Questions and a summary of responses are as follows:
How are you feeling about moving to a new school?
• Answers ranged from “excited and happy” to “sad, leaving many friends in the camp”; “shy”;
“afraid”; “worried because we can meet bad people”; “concerned about the placement test”;
“worried about the curriculum and the lessons differences”.
• One student reported to be very interested in being able to speak and use the Burmese language
• Parents and adults reported the following responses: “when they arrive here they learn how to
study hard”; feelings of inferiority due to living in relatives’ houses; and feeling suffocated with
the cultural habits and traditions.
What do you expect from your teachers and other students? How do you expect they will help you in
the integration process?
• Student responses used emotional terms like kindness, and patience but also words related with
teaching skills and knowledge such as “very good in teaching” or “interactive learning”.
• Student responses also showed concerns about peer relationships, saying that they are expecting
to make friendships, going to school with new people, and doing things together, such as
inclusive studying.
• Parents expressed a desire for fair teachers that are concerned about the kids and support them.
Some also stated that teachers should teach the life styles, habits and culture of the students.
What do you think that could be done by the community to help you in the transition?
• Student responses centered on getting financial and material help, like expecting a bicycle,
school materials, food or housing support.
• Some mentioned ideas to support students, such as “group study led by the community in the
rural areas”, “allow options to study at home if there is no money”, “organize a study group in
the village for free for the kids”
• Students also mentioned assistance in maintaining relationships with friends in the refugee
camps: “help to have connections with friends from the camp”.
Summary of Overall Findings by Theme

The following section combines data from student surveys, informal interviews, key informant interviews,
and focus group discussions to summarize findings by theme.

1. Broad challenges to education for returnees, and relevant programme responses
Data suggested that the most relevant challenges affecting the return and reintegration of returnees were:
1. the lack of national and local policies specific to educational reintegration;

2. the Burmese language levels of returnees and the curriculum content in Burmese; and
3. the coordination system between returnees, local communities, civil society/NGOs, and government
stakeholders.
The data also suggests that the most relevant programming activities are directly related to the challenges:
• language support;
• curriculum support;
• policy level developments;
• psychosocial support;
• examination preparation classes to aid placement for returnees;
• increased information dissemination/outreach to local receiving/host communities;
• activities to prevent and fight the bullying and discrimination against refugee returnee or other
displaced learners, given the high number of surveyed returnees that consider themselves bullying
victims.
2. Returnees’ access to schools

“The host community has low income to afford to send their children to school. Children also are less
interested in schooling than in earning money.”- Education Partner Staff
In order to facilitate smooth transition to schooling for returnees, a cross-border engagement can provide
more up-to-date information, coordinated planning, and a more holistic response.
Access Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments

• There are primary schools in every village but to go to college and higher
education, the students need to take expensive transportation or stay at
Schools available in
religious houses. There are high school in each township. In KNPP-controlled
return areas
area, there are some community schools.
• All the interviewees and surveyed responders denied some paper information
from the government or other source. According to UNICEF , for the facilitated
Information booklets
returnees, the government do a reception with presence of some ministers or
or others
representatives that give some oral information and answer some questions.
• Children are required to present some form of document as proof of identity.

A national ID is preferred but not required in all places, and other forms of
ID documents
proof of identity have been accepted by some schools/authorities.
• While class size is not a problem in all schools. In remote villages, interviewees
report that class size can be a problem. (JRS staff indicate class size is less
Adequate school
often a problem in remote areas but can be an issue in schools in bigger towns
infrastructures
such as Demoso.)

• Respondents report that city schools are structurally safe, made with
permanent material, and contain adequate WASH facilities for boys and girls.
Some rural schools don’t have WASH facilities for both genders and some with
have restricted access to water. Community schools are sometimes semi-
permanent structures.
• Some remote schools lack playgrounds, gardens, and adequate classrooms.

Teachers reported a lack of fencing in some schools to protect from animals.
• “In the camp, schools are built with bamboo but are more happy” and [here]
everything are built with safe structures but is not happy.” – Student, informal
interview
• Documentation required to access government schools is not clear and

changes depending on school. There is a need to clarify and standardize
entrance policies and procedures at GoUM schools to ensure that students
can access to education without problems and in a smoothest way possible.
Enrollment
• The document mentioned by all the interviewees as essential is the TC,
procedures
although this information is not outlined in any national documentation.
• Other documentation reported by interviewees: academic record, household

list, birth certificate, proof of level in the camp, and CPR.
• By law, there are no school fees for students’ enrolment, but the schools, in
general ask for extra fees.
• The extra fees are paid by a majority of students and can varied from a
symbolic value of 100 MMK/year to and more significant amounts (6000
MMK/year).
School fees,
• All the interviewees related insufficient support in terms of school supplies
materials and
and materials especially to vulnerable children. The government supports
uniforms
children in their first year of schooling with some material and uniforms.
However, the uniforms and materials that children are provided by
government or NGOs/CSOs are not enough for all the school year.
• Money is the biggest reason the participants pointed for the drop-out, mostly
pointing that the children need to make money to help the family.
• For formal education, according to MoE guidance, returnee or displaced

learners are placed based on the level they had in their displacement setting,
according to the results of a placement test. Depending on the results of their
Place in the grade
placement test, students who pass the minimum scores can continue their
and level available
study in one grade higher than the previous academic year in the camps, not
repeat or lower (the exception is for those who return after Grade 9 and have
to take Grade 9 test anyway).

• All interviewees reported that schools accept and recognize the TC and other
Certificates and supporting documentation from the refugee camp.
curriculum
recognized and • Despite this finding, in-depth data collected from one of the student case
accepted by the new studies (Sasha) suggest that in that case, a certificate acquired in a refugee
school camp was not recognized by the village upon return.
Table 11 - Data access analysis by sub-theme
While dropout of students was mentioned in several interviews as a challenge to be acknowledged, there
were no specific cases cited in which causes could be discussed and analyzed – instead, it was recognized
more generally as a threat to educational access. The greatest identified point for potential dropout was
after 9th grade, as the lack of clear policies and information for transition to secondary school left several
returnees and their families afraid of being denied access to the upper level due to having studied with a
different curriculum during their primary schooling. Anecdotally, it was related that some students chose to
return to the refugee camps to continue their secondary studies in these situations.
Causes for dropout cited by:

• Poverty;
NGOs/Agency • low value of education for the population.
interviews • distance from school
• poverty;
Student surveys / • health difficulties;
interviews • challenges with new curriculum and teaching
methods/assessment;
• the fact of not having good results;
• fear;
Focus group discussion
• poverty;
participants
• curriculum differences;
• drugs and crime.
Table 12 - causes for drop-out
Poverty was the most cited issue by all informants and is reflected in two ways: (1) lack of money to pay extra
fees, supply materials or uniforms, and (2) need to work to sustain the families. Also, an important point to
note is that rural areas were deemed more vulnerable for dropout due to the distances from middle schools
and high schools. In these cases, faith-based boarding houses and non-formal schools were mentioned as
viable solutions for these learners and families.

3. Confidence to sit for examinations / placement tests
“The placement tests should cover all year [and not be just in April].” - Partner Refugee Support Staff
Placement Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments

• There are no formal preparation classes or other forms of support
organized by the education system. Informally, some volunteers and
Examination preparation
organizations (such as JRS) are tracking the returnee students and
classes
organizing some support classes.
• Placement tests are offered up to grade 9. This poses problems for those
returnees who want to continue school after having already earned their
grade 9 certificate or a more advanced level.
• At the moment, these returnees need to take the 9th grade placement
test and repeat this year to proceed to higher grades. (If they pass the 9th
grade placement, they will begin study in grade 10; If failed, they will
Appropriate placement repeat grade 9).
tests
• The placement test is based on Myanmar curriculum but there are no
official national structures, syllabi, or mechanisms to inform students
and/or assist them in preparation for the test.
• The placement tests are planned and administered only once per year, at
the beginning of the school year, which can be a problem for students that
arrive after the beginning of school.
Table 13 - Confidence to sit for examinations
4. Cultural Integration
“Sometimes the host community calls them [ the returnees] people of the rebellious groups.” - Education
Partner Staff
Integration Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments

• Interviewees noted that local CSOs are very active and make organize
different initiatives mostly about human rights; entrepreneurship;
Integration in social
politics; youth; women; language; culture and also agriculture.
groups (formally or non-
formally organized)
• Nonetheless, they also all agree that returnees have yet to be involved in
large numbers in these initiatives.
• Ways of participating in community life described by informants included
going to the market and the store, participating in traditional and local
Participating in celebrations, and participating in religious events.
community activities
• Informants did note that the refugee and IDP returnees often struggle so
much with daily money, they don’t participate very often.
Table 14 - Cultural Integration

5. Actively participating in school life
“The social skills are greater among refugees’ returnees, especially in remote areas.” - Education Partner
Staff
Participation Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments

• One partner organization (AVSI) has reported positive results from
implementing a student buddy system in schools, but this method has
Student buddy system yet to be widely adopted.
• 62% of surveyed students reported existence of study buddy system.

• Sports and competitions between classes and schools were one of the
most cited extracurricular activities.
• Ethnic literacy is promoted by the government with support from UNICEF

and is increasing not only the competencies in their mother tongue but
Extra-curricular activities
also developing soft skills and increasing results in their second language.
• “Open class” school days for parents before the final tests was
mentioned by informants as another promising practice.
• School attendance and progress is monitored by the teachers and by the

MoE mentor of each village. UNHCR is also monitoring the enrolment and
attendance of the returnees.
Attendance & progress
actively monitored
• Informants showed interest in a more complete and holistic monitoring,
specially about the progress and integration.
• All informants reported the absence of representation of students on

management boards. However, some leadership in classrooms and
Student representation
school councils (where sometimes returnees have just observational
on management boards
participation) were reported as means of secondary participation and
decision-making.
• 92% of surveyed students reported that there are PTAs in their schools.
• Most participants reported that their main activity is to collect money

and support school management.
Parents Teacher
• The MoE issued guidelines in 2014 concerning the main objectives of
Association
PTAs, including: ensuring access to school for all school aged children;
promoting retention and completion of primary school, and protecting
children from endangered situations. It is unclear to what extent these
objectives are fully realized among PTAs.
• Informants identified psychosocial support within schools as an

Psychosocial Support important, urgent, and well-established need.

• “There are no psychosocial support activities, technical or mainstream.
None. [And], it’s very challenging for school staff” – Partner Education
Staff
• In some schools, child rights are part of the curriculum and teachers are
trained specifically about child rights.
• At the same time, students reported that some teachers still give
punishments and organizations reported that some teachers, even if
knowledgeable about the topic of child rights, don’t know how to deal
with this topic in the practical sense.
• Discrimination against returnees is a problem reported by practically all

informants (including students) and some examples were revealed.
• Students point class divides (“rich/poor”) as one cause for discrimination

Child Rights respected
between their peers; agencies also report discrimination towards the
disabled and toward returnees generally. One student reported
discrimination as being done by teachers and administrators.
• All the participants identifying discrimination as a reality described this

as unintentional. One student and all teachers say that there is no
discrimination.
• 53% surveyed students agree that their peers make fun of them, that’s
an indication of possible bullying and 10% strongly agree. This make
clearly more than half – 63% - of students agreeing with an indicator of
possible bullying and discrimination.
Table 15 - school life participation
6. Understanding language of instruction

Language Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments
• More than the 80% of surveyed students reported difficulties with
Burmese language in all five of the skill areas presented: vocabulary,
listening comprehension; reading comprehension; oral expression; and
written expression/grammar.
Language support
• Oral expression and vocabulary were the highest identified challenge
programmes
areas, though the other three areas were reported close behind.
• There are support language programmes for the ethnic dialect (MoE and
UNICEF project) as an extra-curricular activity but not for Burmese.
• There are bilingual and multilingual teachers in most of the schools.

Bilingual/multilingual
However, not all of these teachers are native speakers of the Kayah
teachers / lessons
mother tongue, with some coming from other areas of the country.
available

• While informants reported that Burmese is important as a unifying
language between different ethnicities, they also point that the
returnees come with a low level of Burmese, which increases their
difficulty of social integration.
• No informants reported the existence of community-based language

learning groups. However, study groups and language learning groups
Community-based
were suggested by returnee informants as a possibility to increase the
language learning groups
children’s competencies.
Table 16 - Adequate language of instruction
7. Adapting to new teaching methods and curriculum

“There is a different curriculum with more creative and critical learning in the other side of the border [in
the camps] and here the learning is based in memorization and repetition.” - Partner Education Staff
“In the camp, the education system is better than here, and here the teachers do not have patience and
their explanations are not clear”- Returnee Student
Pedagogy Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments

• Informants reported that the methods and approaches in teaching are
different in refugee camps of Thailand and public schools in Myanmar,
with most generally describing teaching in the camps as more theory-
practical based, and the Myanmar teaching as exigent and rigorous, but
essentially different.
• One student mentioned the activity about sharing experience in

classroom. This activity promoted by a teacher is supporting the
integration for IDPs/returnees and understanding between their
students.
Student-teacher
• Generally, some students report no classroom-based problems upon
interaction
return and that there is a mutual respect, while others say the teacher-
student relationship is primarily based in fear and power. One of the
students mentioned the use of stick and punishment by the teachers.
• Teachers and some local organizations refer to the new system, in

primary level of school, as very different than before and “the students
are happy in school now”. Teachers at higher levels, meanwhile, express
more skeptical attitudes, saying little has changed and the interaction
between teachers and students are not as open and participative as the
primary level.
Non-Formal Education • UNICEF supports accelerated education programmes (NFPE and NFME)
activities to reintegrate learners who have dropped out (mainly due to work) into

primary and middle school. The programmes operate during the
evening.
Table 17 - Teaching methods and Curriculum
8. Ability to understand curriculum content

Curriculum Sub-theme Key Findings and Comments
• There is no formal orientation programme for returnee students to be
introduced to the new curriculum upon arrival. This is largely done at the
Curriculum orientation
school level by teachers in an informal way.
• Tuition classes are offered in most schools, but fees are always charged,
Tuition classes as a way to contribute or add to teachers’ salaries.
Table 18 - content understanding
6. Conclusions & Good Practices

Recent political reforms in Myanmar and socio-economic developments in both Thailand and Myanmar have
led to intensifying discourse around refugee return and reintegration, alongside the first UNHCR supported
voluntary return in 2016 and ongoing spontaneous returns to the country in recent years. Limited inclusion
of refugee interests and the continued lack of recognition of ethnic and refugee education systems raise a
number of concerns for children returning to Myanmar. Despite the rise of local and governmental efforts,
including state-level agreements to facilitate enrollment, children remain likely to experience barriers to
enrollment as well as successful completion upon return. As such, and in response to findings from this
review, recommendations, best practices are offered to programme development and advocacy engagement
to ensure that refugee children have continued access to quality and recognized education, and no child from
Myanmar is left behind.
Good Practices Identified

1. The government education system reform process is adapting to the issues of returnees.
Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR), which is led by the Ministry of Education with the assistance
from UNICEF and UNESCO, aims to create a two and five-year education action plans, in order to provide
quality education for all Myanmar children, which in the government words also “strengthens the traditions
and culture of Myanmar”. The government’s new national education law, enacted in 2014, also mentions the
objective to create, value and preserve all ethnic groups’ languages, cultures, histories and traditions.
2. Multi-Stakeholder Education Convergence Strategic Plan Developed

The Karen Education Department (KED) also signed up to a strategic plan towards education convergence,
together with KTWG and refugee camp education providers. The plan supports mother tongue based
multilingual education, quality and culturally relevant local curriculum development and recognition of
refugee students and teachers’ qualifications. (Karen Refugee Committee - Education Entity; Karenni
Education Department; Karen Education Department; Karen Teachers Working Group, 2014)

3. Education Thematic Working Group (ETWG)
The ETWG is a cooperation platform that coordinates a range of actors and organizations working for quality
education for all children in Myanmar, and is co-chaired by UNICEF and Save the Children and supported by
Partners of the Myanmar Quality Basic Education Programme (QBEP). The aim of this working group is to
provide a platform for sharing best practices, lessons learned and initial findings from work on language and
education in Myanmar and in the region.
4. The Basic Education Support Towards Transition (BEST) Project

The BEST Project is a consortium of education NGOs providing services across all 9 camps comprising of JRS,
Save the Children, ADRA and Right to Play. The project’s aim is to achieve three key results which include:
access and essential education operation; quality and relevance of education provision; and education
collaboration actions towards durable solutions. Durable education solutions will be achieved through
cooperation among project partners and government agencies in Thailand and in Myanmar. This partnership
will initiate, facilitate, and promote dialogue among key organizations and government agencies on both
sides of the border, and support efforts to validate teaching and learning in line with international standards.
(Save the Children Thailand Programme Office , 2019)
5. JRS Placement tests preparation

For the second facilitated return in February 2019, JRS in collaboration with the Catholic Teachers’
Association, provided one-week support in preparation for the government’s placement test. The placement
test was organized by the SED at Number(2) Middle School-Loikaw from 6th-11th May 2019, and 28 returnee
students (17M, 11F) took the assessment. All passed and were able to continue their next level of grade. The
State Minister congratulated them with a ceremony held on 11 June 2019.
6. SCI work with Child Rights in schools

Save the Children International (SCI) implements a project providing training to teachers, school leaders and
parents about Rights of the Child, based on the on the Rights of a Child (CRC). This is a holistic approach to
the quality improvement of the school management with PTA training and reactivation of School
Committees.
7. AVSI microcredit and livelihood programme

AVSI, an INGO operating in Myanmar, implements a microcredit and livelihood training programme available
for the most vulnerable in several villages, targeting not only refugee and IDP returnees but also the host
community. This is a holistic approach to achieve sustainable results, in which families will develop a stable
source of revenue to support their children’s education.
8. STLC cross-border exchange programme

The non-formal education ST Learning Center has a cross-border exchange programme between youths from
host community in Kayah State and the refugee camps in Thailand. This programme consists of groups of
participants that write an environmental or developmental short-term project that will be implemented
across the border: the refugees’ learners camp together with students from Kayah think and come to

implement a project or activity in Kayah State. This same non-formal center has several teachers themselves
returnee refugee what able a real inclusive environment to this population. Since 2016, JRS Myanmar has
supported this programme to promote meaningful cross-border interactions among the youth, leading to
more exposure to learn about and accept those from different backgrounds which is fundamental for co-
existence in the host communities in the future.
9. Ethnic language UNICEF programme and Education reform

In addition to its main language, Myanmar, formerly known as Burmese, Myanmar is home to some 135
spoken languages along with at least town main sign languages, many dialects and foreign languages, making
it one of the most multilingual society on earth. (Lo Bianco, 2016). While long-term reintegration in Myanmar
suggests the importance of developing Burmese language fluency, it is also important to maintain literacy
and fluency in one’s mother tongue. “A strong basis in initial literacy in mother tongue also helps children in
moving to higher order learning. Minority children can gain the literacy skills, academic concepts and study
practices expected in schooling to proceed to upper levels of education, that is to “learn deeply” (Tochon,
2014)
The UNICEF and MoE programme allows children to choose and learn an ethnic language at school. Children
can learn their mother tongue with a public teacher assigned at their primary school. Five periods per week
are allocated for local curriculum wherein ethnic languages are being taught currently.

7. Recommendations
This study has been drawn findings upon to develop recommendations in the areas of policy, coordination,
school access and student and teacher recognition. In doing so, this report aims to offer pathways toward
solutions to ensure the continued provision of quality, recognized education. These recommendations are
designed to influence the programming decisions of JRS Myanmar and JRS Thailand. In an indirect way, it is
also hoped that these recommendations can inspire or sustain programmes from other INGO or local NGO
as well as MoE or UN agencies. Here is a detailed table of recommendations linked to each educational issue:
1. Coordination and policy

Recommendation Area Recommendations and Comments
A. Engage in or continue joint advocacy initiatives with other partners
directed to the leading organizations and MoE, to have transparent,
timely, and comprehensive information available to returning
families and individuals about educational options and placement
procedures.
B. Engage with the GoUM’s Refugee Returnee Committee to improve

knowledge of specific issues among returnees (and IDPs) and ensure
stakeholders’ needs are understood.
C. Advocate with other partners to centralize data and information

management, where possible by using already existing platforms
such as MIMU.
D. Support partner NGOs and community-based groups to gather and

track data of refugee returnee school enrolment, academic
1. Coordination and
performance, good practices, and gaps in integration support.
information management
E. Train school communities to be sensitive to inclusion of displaced
learners and undertake local decisions in a holistic approach to
assure the access to education by understanding issues of identity
documentation or community integration among returnees.
F. Advocate with other partners to secure donor support for the

implementation of a cross-border, cross-sector, cross-level
education coordination mechanism, with linkages to national and
local-level active working groups.
G. Develop joint feedback mechanisms among education partners

reaching returnees, IDPs returnees and host families, including
directly with children and youth, that can provide information to
improve activities and programmes. This could involve identifying a
small set of quantitative questions about which all sector partners

would routinely seek feedback from children, and then report to the
sector information management system for analysis.
A. Joint advocacy focused on the MoE to ensure the integration of

returnees and IDPs in national education plans, budgets,
programming, and monitoring in order to ensure sustainable access
and inclusion for all children and youth to their right of education.
B. Joint advocacy and support to the MoE to create and disseminate

guidance and a clear policy about enrolment procedures and school
access requirements.
2. Policy engagement and
planning C. Advocate for the recognition of teachers’ trainings done in refugee
camps, or create a special process to recognize and complete the
training of these teachers, in order to integrate them in the Myanmar
education system.
D. Advocate for regulation on extra fees in school, in particular to have

a clear policy regarding the range of money that schools can ask from
families, in order to prevent exaggerated extra fee requests.
Table 19 - Coordination and policy
2. Access to school and placement tests

“The recognition of refugee children’s prior learning is crucial to a successful integration. Kayin and Kayah
state-level authorities would benefit from enhanced support from central MoE, alongside clarity in decision-
making authority, to address refugee student integration.” (World Education, 2017)

A. Advocate for formal alternatives and policies that can facilitate the
access to education, especially college and higher education.
B. Invest in joint partner mapping of resource and infrastructure gaps,

to make targeted and strategic interventions in areas of need.
1. Access to Schools In C. Advocate for alternative forms of education delivery from the
Areas of Return government and MoE, such as boarding facilities or mobile schooling
for students in remote areas.
D. Work with partners and CSOs to identify causes of insecurity to and

from school, and to create strategies and activities to increase safety
to and from school.
A. In conjunction with joint advocacy to the MoE to clarify and

standardize the integration procedures, ensure Thailand-based
2. Planning for
potential returnees, IDPs and other migrants have access written
integration and return
information about policies and procedures to inform their decision-
making.

B. Create a mechanism of information sharing and exchange between
refugees and refugees’ returnees from both sides of the border (JRS
Thailand and JRS Myanmar).
A. Train school focal points (working with government and local

authorities) in Thailand and Myanmar about how people, especially
3. ID Documents
children, can obtain their documentation and identity papers.
A. Advocate for flexible uniform policies if they are not provided by

schools, as it can lead to drop out or other consequences.
4. School fees, material
B. Work with partners in livelihood programmes, PTAs, or School
and uniforms
Committees in order to obtain fee exemptions and support for the
poorest families.
5. Standardize A. Advocate for a policy to clarify and standardize the documentation

Certification and requested and accepted by the schools.
Documentation
A. Advocate for MoE-approved guidance document that outlines topics
of examinations, competencies that will be assessed, and main
content by subject.
6. Exam preparation and
B. Advocate for a regulation or policy that allow students to access to
Placement Tests
school and/or take a placement test regardless of the moment they
arrive (e.g. placement test system on-going throughout the academic
year).
A. Advocate for a regulation or policy that allow students to access to

7. Appropriate placement school regardless the moment they arrive (placement tests system
tests for on-going academic year).
Table 20 - Access to school and placement tests
3. Social harmony and School life participation

A. Joint mapping between partners and CBOs of institutions,
1. Integration in social
organizations and cultural sites that can serve as integration,
groups
gathering, and resource points for returnees and IDPs.
A. With a pilot school or CSO, train school actors to implement a Study

Buddy System to support returnees in their new school, environment
2. Student buddy system
and social context.
A. Work with CSOs and partners to jointly promote extra-curricular

3. Extra-curricular
events, discussions and meetings.
activities

A. Work jointly with partners, UN agencies and government to create
an attendance and progress monitoring system provides long-term
4. Attendance & progress
data tracking. Ideally, this system should have child protection and
actively monitored
well-being indicators mainstream.
A. Work with MoE, partners, and pilot schools to integrate students on

school management boards.
5. Student representation
on management boards B. Explore other ways to scale up the participation of students in
decision making.
A. Support PTA and school leaders with training to implement a more

6. Parents Teacher holistic approach of their association, based on the MoE training
Association manual.
A. Work with CSOs to provide or enhance social-emotional and

inclusion technical and skills training for teachers and school
management.
7. Psychosocial Support
B. Provide leadership training to principals and PTAs including
psychosocial support in schools.
A. Work with MoE and partners, especially local NGOs, to create a

mechanism of support for disabled children (services, infrastructure,
and human resource capacity).
B. Promote and ensure sufficient investment in programmes targeting

additionally vulnerable groups among refugee, IDP and IDP
8. Child Rights returnees, especially disabled learners, unaccompanied or separated
child, and ethnic minorities.
C. Work with partners and local school groups to disseminate and

promote information on child rights and the CRC, and create a
community-led mechanism of monitoring and technical support.
Table 21 - Social harmony and School life participation
4. Language
“People who have a good mastery of the language of instruction and are able to read well in that language
are better equipped to participate in the society and economy of the country. This is a benefit not only to the
individual but to the society, as well.” (PISA consortium, OECD Directorate for EDU and OECD Dictorate ELS,
2012)

1. Language support A. In Thailand, JRS programming should promote language support
programmes activities for Burmese language.

B. In Myanmar, JRS programming should work with CSO and partners
to promote language support activities in both Burmese and mother
tongue.
A. Jointly implement or advocate to do a mapping of teachers’

2. Bilingual/multilingual
languages and map to the needs of returning students/schools.
teachers
A. Work with CSO and/or PTA to organize community-based language
3. Community-based learning groups, support with learning materials or with space
language learning groups arrangements.
Table 22 - Language
5. Teaching approaches and Curriculum

“The recognition of refugee teacher skills is key to successful reintegration. Refugee and ethnic teachers offer
a solution to addressing current and future teacher demand in the Southeast of Myanmar, both in the
teaching of ethnic languages and across all curricular content. Recognizing teacher skills and qualifications
would support refugee teachers to return with dignity, with opportunities to be self-sufficient in supporting
their families, and would provide opportunities to contribute to a developing Myanmar by supporting
communities in the Southeast to enhance learning outcomes.” (World Education, 2017)

A. Advocate for the recognition of refugee returnee teachers’ skills
and competencies.
B. Promote exchange of experiences between returnee teachers and

host community teachers through events or more informal social
1. Student-teacher
and professional activities.
interaction
C. Work with partners to provide teachers pre- and in-service training
to support the integration of IDP/refugee returnees into schools and
classrooms, as well as to promote the principles of inclusive
education generally.
A. Work with the MoE to promote and inform returnee families and
students of the non-formal education opportunities available in the
region.
2. Non-Formal Education
B. To address the needs of out-of-school children and youth, promote
activities
flexible programming such as the Non-Formal Primary Education
(NFPE) programme or Vocational Training opportunities among
returnees and host communities.
A. Work with partners and CSO from both countries’ border regions, to
3. Curriculum content
propose a guidance booklet to the MoE about the curriculum content
orientation
and assessment differences between the two countries, and the

educational opportunities in Kayah State (both formal and non-
formal).
A. Support the PTA, parents and school-based groups with livelihood

activities that can sustain tuition classes for the students in need.
4. Tuition classes B. Work with partners and teachers to create a mechanism to monitor
and support supplementary tuition for students who fall behind
academically.
Table 23 - 5Teaching approaches and Curriculum

Bibliography
(2010, April 01). Retrieved from INEE International Network in Education in Emergency:
https://toolkit.ineesite.org/resources/ineecms/uploads/1202/INEE_2010_Minimum_standards_for
_education.pdf
Children, S. t. (n.d.). Successful Transition Framework - Holistic Support for returnin refugee students.
Bangkok, Thailand: European Union, Australian Aid.
Consortium non-governamental organizations (INGO and NGO). (2013). Kayah State Socio-economic analysis.
Myanmar.
Dare, A. (2015). Beyond Access: Refugee Students’ Experiences of Myanmar State Education. Myanmar: Save
the Children.
Dare, A. (2015). Beyond Access: Refugee Students’ Experiences of Myanmar State Education. Thailand: Save
the Children.
Humanitarian Country Team. (2019). Humanitarian Needs Overview. Myanmar: UN and partners.
Humanitarian Country team. (2019). Humanitarian Response Plan Jan-Dec 2019. Myanmar: UN and Partners.
IASC Inter-agency Standing Committee. (2007). Guidelines on Mental Health and Psycosocial Support in
Emergency settings. Geneva.
IDMC, I. D. (2018). Myanmar Figure Analysis – Displacement Related to Conflict and Violence.
Informing more effective humanitarian action (REACH). (2015).

Report_Joint_Education_Needs_Assessment_Rakhine. NORTH RAKHINE STATE, MYANMAR.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2013). Data collection Survey on Education sector in Myanmar -
Final Report. Myanmar.
Joaquin Martinez, S. (2018). External Evaluation of JRS Education Projects Kayah State, Myanmar. Kayah
State.
Karen Refugee Committee - Education Entity; Karenni Education Department; Karen Education Department;
Karen Teachers Working Group. (2014). Strategic Plan Towards Education Convergence. Myanmar:
Committee of Coordination of Services to Displaced Services (CCSDPT), Education Sub Committee
(ESC).
Lo Bianco, J. (2016). Building a National Language Policy for Myanmar - a brief progress report. Myanmar:
UNICEF, University of Melbourne and MoE.
MIMU Myanmar Information Management Unit. (2017, April 08). MIMU Myanmar Information Management
Unit. Retrieved from MIMU Myanmar Information Management Unit: http://themimu.info/mimu-
township-profiles-dashboard
Ministry of Education . (2014). Capacity building training for PTA - facilitators manual. Myanmar: Project:
Quality Basic Education.

NAING, M. T. (2015). Parents welcome end of school fees. The Myanmar Times.
OHCHR. (2001). Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring. Geneva: United Nations.
Parlamentary Institute of Cambodia. (2017, January). Reform of the Education System: Case Study of
Myanmar - Regional Research Paper. Myanmar.
PISA consortium, OECD Directorate for EDU and OECD Dictorate ELS. (2012). Untapped Skills: realising the
potential of immigrant students. United Kingdom: OECD.
Save the Children Thailand Programme Office . (2019). Basic Education Support Towards Transition (BEST) .
Bangkok: European Union.
Supporting Refugee Student Repatriation: Interconnected Factors Enabling Success. (2018). CCSDPT Open
Meeting - Education presentation. Thailand: Australian Aid and Save the Children.
TBC, T. B. (2018). Annual Report .
Tochon, F. (2014). Help Them Learn a Language Deeply. Madison Wisc: International Network for Language
Education Policy Studies.
UNESCO, M. G. (2017, November). Rethinking Schooling for the 21st Century. The State of Education for
Peace, Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship in Asia. India.
United Nations. (2016, September 19). The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. General
Assembly.
World Education. (2017). Refugee Integration Education Review. Myanmar: USAID.

Appendices
Appendices 1
Terms of Reference
A. Background and Rationale
During discussion on cross-border project proposal for Caritas Australia 2018-2019 in May 2018, JRS Thailand
and JRS Mae Hong Son suggested that JRS conduct a research on education access for refugee students from
Thailand who return to Kayah State in Myanmar for JRS to have better understanding about their situation.
Similar research has been conducted by another researcher and humanitarian agency in Thailand, but the
focus is only on Karen State (where the majority of refugees in the other seven camps come from).
After JRS Cross-Border meeting in June 2018, the meeting (with a composition of staff from JRS Myanmar/
Kayah, JRS Thailand/ Mae Hong Son, and Regional Office), the scope of the research has been redefined as
followed:
1. This research will focus only on the children and youth (individuals, not their entire families, which is too
broad.
2. The target group of this research will be children and youth who are IDPs, IDP returnees, those in host
communities, and refugee returnees. Age for children will be 6-13 years old and 14-24 years old for youth.
3. Given the target group, the research will look into mixed communities where IDPs, IDP and refugee
returnees, and host communities live together. Therefore, the locations will be Shadaw, Demoso, and Hpruso
townships in Kayah State.
B. Audience and use of findings
The audience of this research will be primarily among JRS staff who are involved in JRS cross-border activities
including JRS Mae Hong Son (Thailand side), JRS Kayah (Myanmar side), JRS Thailand Country Office, and JRS
Asia Pacific Regional Office as well as the International Office who is engaged in the research. It will be shared
with donors who provide support to this research while some parts will be shared with JRS partners
considering sensitivity and confidentiality of information.
The use of the findings will be for following purposes:
i. To improve JRS ongoing projects’ activities and education programming concerning access to
education in preparation for the refugee return and for IDP and IDP returnees in the mixed
communities
ii. To bring out issues of barriers to education to policy level through evidence-based advocacy since
similar research has not been done on this target population before
iii. To structure JRS strategy and overall approach in working with other stakeholders on both sides
of Thailand-Myanmar border regarding refugee return

C. Objectives
i. To understand the situation in Kayah State regarding access to education especially in areas where IDP and
IDP returnees have experienced both under control of the Burmese government and ethnic armed
organizations
ii. To gain more systematic information about profile of IDP and IDP returnee students in potential host
communities where the refugee students have or will return iii. To identify expectations, opportunities, and
hindrances in accessing to education for the returning refugee children and youth
D. Sample of guiding questions:
i. What is happening in Government and mixed administration of government and ethnic armed groups
of Kayah State where IDP and host communities live, when considering access to education? Why?
ii. What is the basic profile of those living in the mixed communities including the IDP, IDP returnees
and the host communities?
iii. Given the scenario inside Kayah State, what can be expected for the returning refugee students?
iv. What lessons we can learn from case studies of returning refugee students who have already
returned to Myanmar? v. What are the common and different opportunities and hindrances when
compared to those who are already in Myanmar (IDP, IDP returnees, and host communities’
students) and those who will return (returning refugee students)?
Note: This question may look into how impact of education system has on individual students. One
structural hindrance identified as placement tests for Grade 4, 8, and 10 in Myanmar government’s system
with consideration of student’s preparedness in terms of language and subject knowledge. In addition, the
research can identify and compare differences of access to education of the target population in the 3
different mixed communities.
E. Suggested Methodology
Qualitative Methods: Key Informants Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), literature review,
and case studies
Quantitative Methods: Descriptive Survey
F. Areas of Coverage and Key Informants
Suggested list of individuals/ groups should include, but not be limited to, the following: - IDP, IDP returnee,
and host communities’ students - Refugee returning students from camps in Thailand - JRS partners such as
Zetaman, Diocesan Commission on Education (DCE) and Karenni Education Department (KnED) - Other
education stakeholders such as local authorities and local and international NGOs

Calendar
Task Date Responsible person Output/Deliverable

Finalize Terms of Reference March 1, 2019 JRS International Office, Terms of Reference
Education Unit
Recruitment and Hiring of March 22,2019 JRS International Office Researcher hired, contract
Researcher signed
Development of the April 12, 2019 Researcher Inception

research framework, (Exact date negotiable) Rep
outline, design and ort submitted to IO
instruments (interview Education Supervisor
guidelines and questions) and APR Regional Office
Recruitment of the April 26, 2019 JRS Myanmar Country Research team
research support team (Exact date negotiable) Director and JRS Kayah contracted
(interpretation, interviews, Project Director
enumeration, data input,
etc)
Desk research e.g. data May 3, 2019 Researcher and research Secondary Data Review
already collected by the (Exact date negotiable) team Report submitted to IO
programme's monitoring Education Supervisor and
and reporting systems APR Regional Office
Field research – Training of April-May 2019 Researchers (withlogistics 1) Biweekly field reports
support team; Data and administrative to JRS Myanmar Country
collection and analysis support by JRS Kayah such as Director, JRS APR RPO, and
access permission) JRS APR RD for duration of
field research
First Draft of the Full June 7, 2019 Researchers Draft Report submitted
Research Report (Exact date negotiable) to IO Education
Supervisor
and APR Regional Office
JRS Review of Report draft June 14, 2019 JRS APR, JRS Myanmar, and Consolidated feedback
JRS IO to
Researcher

Appendices 2
Statement of Informed Consent (Case study)
Permission from Parents/Tutors for Research with Children
Research Title: Education Access for the returning students in Kayah State in support of JRS Project:
Sustaining Education for Burmese Refugees Loikaw Diocese, Kayah State, Myanmar
Lead Researcher Name(s): Mara Sofia Garcia Pinto
We have asked your child, (Name)______________________________, to participate in this study.

We would like to invite him/her to participate in this case study. We would like to ask your child
questions about the conditions of access to school.
The purpose of this research is to give to JRS a holistic overview of the status of the Displaced
students (refugee returnees and IDPs) students. Redefine the programmes and interventions of JRS
Thailand and JRS Myanmar, as well as give data and testimonies to JRS advocacy.
For this Case Study we will use a fictitious name and never refer to the children or anything that can
reveal her identity. We will observe her daily routine and do some informal interviews to the ones
close to her, without never revealing identities in the report. We will take pictures and notes about
the situation. The main objective is, in the future, do our best to prevent out-of-school prevention.
His/her perspective will help us learn about your community and its particular needs. You have the
right to refuse your child’s participation in the study if you wish. If you become uncomfortable or no
longer wish for your child to participate, you can stop me at any time. Similarly, your child can refuse
to participate or decide to stop at any time. It’s okay. There is no penalty.
If you allow your child to participate, the information he/she provides us will remain confidential. It
will not be shared with you, or any other person. We will keep your child’s participation secret, and
your child will never be identified individually.
We do not have any money or gifts to offer for participation, but we know that your child’s
participation may provide information that can help improve programmes for your community.
If we hear allegations of child abuse or mistreatment, we are under obligation to report it.
If you have any questions about the study, you may contact MARA PINTO. If your child would like to
talk to someone about how he/she feels as a result of questions asked during this interview, you
can receive counseling in JRS office.

CONSENT
I consent the participation of the child named:
(Name)_________________________ (Date)_________________
(Name of the responsible) _________________________ (Date) __________________
(Name of Person Obtaining Consent) _________________________ (Date) __________________

Appendices 3
Statement of Informed Consent (children)
Permission from Parents/Tutors for Research with Children
Research Title: Education Access for the returning students in Kayah State in support of JRS Project:
Sustaining Education for Burmese Refugees Loikaw Diocese, Kayah State, Myanmar
We have asked your child, (Name)______________________________, to participate in this study. We

would like to invite him/her to participate in a case survey/case study/Interview. We would like to ask your
child questions about the conditions of access to school.
His/her perspective will help us learn about your community and its particular needs. You have the right to
refuse your child’s participation in the study if you wish. If you become uncomfortable or no longer wish for
your child to participate, you can stop me at any time. Similarly, your child can refuse to participate or decide
to stop at any time. It’s okay. There is no penalty. If you allow your child to participate, the information he/she
provides us will remain confidential. It will not be shared with you, or any other person. We will keep your
child’s participation secret, and your child will never be identified individually. We do not have any money or
gifts to offer for participation, but we know that your child’s participation may provide information that can
help improve programmes for your community. If we hear allegations of child abuse or mistreatment, we are
under obligation to report it. If you have any questions about the study, you may contact MARA PINTO. If
your child would like to talk to someone about how he/she feels as a result of questions asked during this
interview, you can receive counseling in JRS office.
CONSENT
I consent the participation of the child named:
(Name)_________________________ (Date)_________________
(Name of the responsible) _________________________ (Date) __________________

Appendices 4
Statement of Informed Consent (+18)
Research with Adults (18+): Research Title: Education Access for the returning students in Kayah State in
support of JRS Project: Sustaining Education for Burmese Refugees Loikaw Diocese, Kayah State, Myanmar
Hello, my name is _________________, and I am conducting a study for JRS in a series of Villages of Kayah
State. The goal of the study is to improve our knowledge about the quality school access of refugees and
others persons of concern in Kayah State. This information will allow us to better understand how JRS might
help.
You have been selected to participate in this study. We would like to invite you to participate in an
INTERVIEW. It will take approximately _______ minutes/hours. We want to ask you about the conditions of
access to school, in Kayah State.
Your perspective will help us to learn about your community and its particular needs. Your participation is
very important, but you have the right to refuse to participate in the study if you wish. If you become
uncomfortable or no longer wish to participate during the study, you can stop me at any time. It’s okay. There
is no penalty. It is also okay to skip questions that you do not wish to answer. If you agree to participate, the
information you provide us will remain confidential. We will keep your participation secret, and you will never
be identified individually. We do not have any money or gifts to give you for your participation, but we know
that your participation may provide information that can help improve programmes for your community. If
we hear allegations of child abuse or mistreatment, we are under obligation to report it. If you have any
questions about the study, you may contact MARA PINTO.
CONSENT
I voluntarily agree to participate in the activities under the conditions described above.
(Name)_________________________ (Date)_________________

Appendices 5
Issues table
Specific Issue 1st INEE

Category Specific Issue standard - articulation
Learning structures and sites

Schools available in return areas
are accessible
Orientation sessions with parents,

Community involvement
students and teachers
Information booklets or others
ID documents
A. Access to school
Adequate school infrastructures
Enrollment procedures
School fees, material and uniforms
Place in the grade and level available Barriers to enrolment
Distance or transport
Certificates and curriculum recognized

and accepted by the new school
B. Confident to sit for examinations Examination preparation classes

/ placement tests
Appropriate placement tests
Bulling
Integration in social groups
C. Cultural Integration Discrimination
Participation in the everyday life
activities
Student buddy system Community involvement
Education opportunities to fulfil

D. Actively participating in school Extra-curricular activities
education needs
life
Attendance & progress actively

Quality and relevant education
monitored

Student representation on management
boards Community involvement
Parents Association
Psychosocial Support
Crosscutting
Child Rights respected
Language support programmes
E. Able to understand the language Bilingual/Multilingual teachers / lessons

of instruction available Education opportunities to fulfil
Community based language learning education needs
groups
Student-teacher interaction
F. Able to adjust to teaching
approaches
Non-Formal Education programme
Quality and relevant education

G. Able to understand curriculum Curriculum orientation
content
Tuition classes
Table 24 - Issues table

Appendices 6
Questions matrix
Question Set Includes guidance to facilitator(s) and note taker. Bold
Q.
Category type indicates key question for coding. Italics indicate instructions to
Code
facilitator and note taker.
Please tell me a bit about the main challenges faced by this community
in terms of access to education and quality learning environments. We
will have a chance to talk more about the main issues in detail, but for
now I’d like to know: In your opinion what are the most important
Crosscutting (Pertaining challenges to education transition for mobility students and the
to all categories – school host community (students, teachers, etc.)? [Opening question
All-1
Possible additional is designed to initiate conversation; issues will be probed in more depth
questions) later on, but allow people the opportunity to say what is immediately
on their mind. Note what in particular they mention first or most
prominently – is this the major issue that was emerging in other work?
—adapt the question as necessary to employ the most relevant,
understandable terms.]
Crosscutting (Pertaining
to all categories – In your opinion, what can facilitate the transition and integration of
All-2
Possible additional mobility students?
questions)
What are the most important things school communities are doing to
to all categories –
All-3 facilitate the integration and the good transition of mobility
Possible additional
students?
questions)
What support is needed from the Ministry of Education? What does

the ministry currently do that is helpful or less helpful, specifically in
to all categories –
All-4 terms of access to education of mobility students? What policies are in
Possible additional
place? What policies are needed? Is there corruption, and how does
questions)
this impact the sector? Does it support teachers or teacher training?
Crosscutting (Pertaining What are the main reasons students drop out or are excluded from
to all categories – education? Are certain groups more affected than others? What are
All-5
Possible additional some of the ways that students can be helped to stay in school or be
questions) better served?

Crosscutting (Pertaining Who are the country’s main actors, organizations, and institutions,
to all categories – and how does society view them? How stable or unstable are these
All-6
Possible additional institutions? What is the impact of these main actors on social,
questions) economic, and political life?
Please tell me about the role of civil society in your country’s

Crosscutting (Pertaining political, economic, and social situation. What are some of the major
to all categories – civil society actors in the country? Who or what do they represent?
All-7
Possible additional How do people feel about the role and potential of civil society? Does
questions) the government allow a space for civil society? Is the government
influenced by civil society?
All- What’s the location, the refugees/IDPs and IDPs returnees are coming
11 from, the most?
All- How long they stayed out of Kayah and how long they are already being
12 here?
A.1 Access to school There are schools in the township for all the students’ grades?
There is place in the classrooms for the new students? Is the size
A.2 Access to school
enough?
The school is accessible and near the students’ houses? Or there are
transport possibilities…?
There is information and support for integration (orientation sessions

or paper information)? From whom?
If there are information sessions, who is present? There are orientation

sessions with parents, students and teachers?
Which documentation is requested? Which are the procedures? By

A.6 Access to school Whom? The education environment is facilitating the integration? The
certificates from Thailand for example, are accepted here?
A.7 Access to school What are the physique conditions of schools?
The fees, material and uniforms are accessible to the students? There
are other fees for events or other activities? Which kind of fees are?
And, are they accessible to the students? And to the displaced students?
(specify the fees in the notes)
A.9 Access to school The school material are accessible for all students?

There are uniforms? Mandatory? There are support for the students
in need?
Confident to sit for

The refugee students do placement tests? They have preparation
B.1 examination/placement
classes or other support?
tests
There are cases of discrimination against migrants? Explicit and

C.1 Cultural Integration
implicit? Bullying?
There are social groups organized where the refugee and IDP can
integrate?
Which everyday life activities or services the refugees and IDP's can
participate (ex. weekly market)?
Actively participating in There are student buddy systems and extra-curricular activities that
D.1
school life refugees and IDPs can integrate?
Actively participating in
D.2 There are Parental Association organized and they are strong?
school life
Actively participating in What are emotional and psychosocial offer for the children and the
D.3
school life youth? Child rights activities and psychosocial mainstream?
The attendance and progress of the students in this schools are

monitored? By whom? There are actions taken after monitoring?
Actively participating in
D.4 Which? By whom?
school life
The schools where refugee, IDP and IDP returnee are integrated are
using Education Management Information System (EMIS) from UNHCR?
Actively participating in There are student representation in the management boards and
D.5
school life school related meetings?
Able to understand the What are the language of teaching of this schools? There are
E.1
language of instruction difficulties with the language? There are support?
There are language support classes for the ones in need or other
Able to understand the
E.3 strategies (examples: bilingual teachers, community based language
language of instruction
groups) ?

Able to adjust to
F.1 How is the student/teacher interaction?
teachers approaches
Able to adjust to The migrants’ students are placed in age-appropriate grade or Non-
F.2
teachers approaches Formal Education programme?
Able to understand
G.1 There are curriculum orientation?
curriculum content
Able to understand
G.2 There are tuition classes or other pedagogical support activities?
curriculum content

Glossary
This chapter give us some definitions of the main concepts of this research:
• The definition of “refugee” (OHCHR, 2001) is set forth in Article 1 of the Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees (modified by Article 1 of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees) as any
person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside of the country of
his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country”.
The definition of refugee has been expanded — particularly by the Organisation of African Unity
(OAU) Convention on Refugees and the Cartagena Declaration — to include persons fleeing
generalized violence (international war, internal armed conflict, foreign aggression or occupation,
severe disruption of public order, or massive violations of human rights) in the whole or part of the
country of nationality.
• “Returnee” (OHCHR, 2001) is the term used by the international community to identify a person who
was a refugee, but who has recently returned to his/her country of origin. Defining a returnee is thus
applicable on a person’s prior refugee status.
When a refugee decides to go home, it is usually because the threat or danger that had caused
him/her to leave his/her place of habitual abode has significantly diminished or the danger in the
place of refuge has become greater than the risk of returning home. The term “returnee” is a
descriptive term that acknowledges the fact that returning refugees are in need of certain assistance,
and sometimes protection, during an interim period until they have re-integrated their communities.
Defining the period of time in which a person can continued to be identified as a returnee is difficult
and will be different according to each specific situation.
• Internally displaced persons (OHCHR, 2001) according to the Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement, internally displaced persons are: “persons or groups of persons who have been forced
or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or
in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human
rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed any internationally recognized
State border.”
The definition includes the major causes of displacement — armed conflict, generalized violence,
violations of human rights, natural or human-made disasters — but uses the qualifying term “in
particular” to emphasize that it does not exclude other causes. The definition focuses on persons
who, if they were to cross an international border, would qualify as refugees. The definition does not
encompass persons who migrate because of economic reasons. IDPs are distinguishable from other
persons in movement, and are of concern to the international community, essentially because of the
coercion that impels their movement, their subjection to human rights abuse emanating from and
as a result of their displacement, and the lack of protection available within their own countries.
For this study, and because we have a range of age from 6 to 23 years old, we will consider IDP
returnee the population that came back to their homelands since 2009 (it means 10 years back).

• Access: The opportunity to enroll in, attend, and complete a formal or non-formal education
programme is known as access. When access is unrestricted, it means that there are no practical,
financial, physical, security-related, structural, institutional, or socio-cultural obstacles to prevent
learners from completing an education programme. (INEE International Network in Education in
Emergency, 2010)
• Branch school: A school teaching the government curriculum, attached administratively to the
nearest basic education school in the community and supported by the government for students who
reside at a distance from the basic education school. (Informing more effective humanitarian action
(REACH), 2015)
• State: the highest level of administrative sub-division in Myanmar along with regions, as well as self-
administered zones/divisions, and the Naypyidaw Union Territory. States differ from regions in that
they contain large numbers of ethnic minority populations. (Informing more effective humanitarian
action (REACH), 2015)
• District: The level of subnational governance below the state, formed of several townships.
Township: The level of subnational governance below the district, formed of multiple village tracts
and urban wards, and normally focused around one large population center at the township capital.
This is where the lowest levels of government office are located.. (Informing more effective
humanitarian action (REACH), 2015)

Kayah State - Education Quality and Access For Returnees

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kayah State - Education Quality and Access For Returnees

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education Access for Returning Students in Kayah State:

Loikaw Diocese, Kayah State, Myanmar

Author: Mara Pinto, International Education Consultant

Supervisor: Gregory St Arnold, JRS International Office

Support: JRS Asia Pacific Regional Office, JRS Myanmar

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 1

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 2

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 3

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 4

AVSI Association of Volunteers in International Service

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 5

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 6

Structure of the report

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 7

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 8

▪ Psychosocial, emotional-learning and practical mainstreaming of children’s rights are identified as an

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 9

Table 1 - key findings and recommendations

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 10

Promote exchange of experiences between returnee teachers and host community

Table 2 - snapshot of the full report’s recommendations

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 11

Secondary Desk Review

Focus ▪ 2 with education actors: Zetaman and KnED

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 12

Table 3 - secondary data summary

Primary Data Collection

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 13

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 14

Personal Strength Formal Support Informal support

Proactivity INGO and UN Family

Resilience National system and Local NGOs Host community

Problem solving skills Education Actors Peers

Table 5 - case studies framework

Primary Data Sources by Date, Location, Method, and Place of Origin

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 15

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 16

Table 6 - Primary Data Sources

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 17

Figure 1 - Myanmar map

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 18

Humanitarian needs in Myanmar are characterized by a complex combination of vulnerability to natural

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 19

Kayah State: Displacement and Returns

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 20

Figure 2 -Kayah State Map (EU 2013)

• Oct 2016 = 71 refugee returnees (none to Kayah);

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 21

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 22

Secondary Literature – Summary of Findings

Returnee Survey – Summary of Findings

All Students Surveyed Returnee Students Only

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 23

Returnee Students Surveyed

Survey Area of Focus Key Findings and Comments

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 24

Language integration • All students reported Kayah as their mother tongue.

• 80% of students (16/20) reported speaking Burmese as second language and

• Only 20% (4/20) of the surveyed students reported having bilingual or

• Thirteen students (13/20) reported joining and participating in community-

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 25

JRS Kayah State Research Final Report – June 2019 26

• Seventeen (17/20) of the surveyed students recognize encouragement from