Research Handbook on Migration and Education 9781839106361, 1839106360

Citation preview

RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON MIGRATION AND EDUCATION

ELGAR HANDBOOKS IN EDUCATION Elgar Handbooks in Education present a comprehensive analysis of the latest scholarly research in education. Edited by prominent experts, each Handbook features a wide range of chapters covering the latest international developments in the field. Often widely cited, individual chapters offer an overview of the current state of research in education, whilst also creating a forum for challenging current perceptions, and offering new perspectives of how research may develop in the future. Handbooks in the series often take an interdisciplinary approach, assessing the relationship between education and research areas as diverse as technology studies, social policy, public policy and environmental studies. These Handbooks will form a vital reference point for all researchers and students of education, creating a comprehensive and overarching guide to the field. For a full list of Edward Elgar published titles, including the titles in this series, visit our website at www​.e​-elgar​.com.

Research Handbook on Migration and Education Edited by

Halleli Pinson School of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

Nihad Bunar Department of Special Education, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dympna Devine School of Education, University College Dublin, Ireland

ELGAR HANDBOOKS IN EDUCATION

Cheltenham, UK · Northampton, MA, USA

© Halleli Pinson, Nihad Bunar and Dympna Devine 2023   All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.     Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK   Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA       A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library     Library of Congress Control Number: 2023946647     This book is available electronically in the Sociology, Social Policy and Education subject collection http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.4337​/9781839106361    

ISBN 978 1 83910 635 4 (cased) ISBN 978 1 83910 636 1 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents

List of contributors

ix

1 Introduction: education and migration as a field of research Halleli Pinson, Dympna Devine and Nihad Bunar

1

PART I  APPROACHES TO THE EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION OF REFUGEE AND MIGRANT CHILDREN 2

The border within: decolonizing refugee students’ education Fabio Dovigo

3

Inclusive systems as relational space in and around schools for supporting migrants in education: transitions from diametric to concentric spatial systems Paul Downes

37

Migration and acculturation: supporting migrant students’ school adjustment in multicultural schools Elena Makarova and Petra Sidler

54

The organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany: identifying gaps in the current state of knowledge Mona Massumi, Christina Brandl and Annette Korntheuer

68

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools: organizational models and support measures Nihad Bunar

83

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education in Norway Lutine de Wal Pastoor

98

4

5

6

7

22

8

Perceptions of immigrant parental engagement in primary schools in Ireland Dympna Devine, Merike Darmody and Emer Smyth

114

9

School choice of West African migrants in Ghana Daniel Owusu Kyereko and Daniel Faas

130

PART II  SUPPORTING PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS AND THE COMMUNITY: LANGUAGE(S) AND LEARNING SUPPORT 10

Evidence-based instructional responses to opportunity gaps experienced by immigrant-background students Jim Cummins v

142

vi  Research handbook on migration and education 11

12

Measuring the academic progress of newly arrived migrant and refugee youth: an Australian school-based longitudinal study Sue Creagh

157

Language brokering and immigrant children’s everyday learning in home and community contexts Marjorie Faulstich Orellana and Inmaculada García-Sánchez

173

13

Migration, special educational needs and inclusive education William Kinsella, Amalia Fenwick, Paula Prendeville and Michelle Kelly

14

Complementary schools as heritage language communities of practice: reaching beyond language maintenance Yongcan Liu and Lottie Hoare

203

Educational services of informal local refugee support organizations in Türkiye: their role and practices Ozlem Erden-Basaran

221

Mentoring and other educational support for children of immigrants: research, policy relevance, and good practice Jens Schneider

236

15

16

189

PART III   VULNERABILITY, VOICE AND AGENCY 17

18

Representing vulnerable, Syrian migrant children’s insights: testimonies of inclusion and exclusion in schooling Eleanore Hargreaves and Jumana Al-Waeli

249

Rethinking inclusion: empowering the children of sex workers in Kalighat, Kolkata, India Khaleda Gani Dutt

262

19

The education of left-behind children in rural China Rachel Murphy and Yan Zhang

20

Push up, be grateful, and tell us your challenges: youth caught between dependency and self-reliance in Kakuma Refugee Camp Michelle J. Bellino and Rahul Oka

285

Convivial education: unaccompanied youth challenge power structures in South African schools Noa Levy

299

Refugee-background students in southern New Zealand: educational navigation and necessary self-sufficiency Vivienne Anderson, Alejandra Ortiz Ayala and Sayedali Mostolizadeh

310

21

22

272

Contents 

vii

PART IV  MIGRATION, INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 23

International student mobility: themes and issues Rachel Brooks and Johanna Waters

324

24

Student mobility in Korean higher education Rennie Moon

338

25

Student migration between Mexico and the United States: possibilities and disputes associated with becoming mobile Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Juan Carlos Aguilar Castillo and Christian Cortes-Velasco

26

Access and integration of refugees into higher education: a Turkish inclusive approach Ayselin Yildiz

27

Mind the gap: asylum seeker and refugee access to post-compulsory education Caroline Oliver

28

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive? An example from the Netherlands Nasser Mohamedhoesein, Maurice Crul and Marieke Slootman

29

Globally mobile professionals and school choice Khen Tucker, Miri Yemini and Claire Maxwell

353

370 384

397 421

PART V  BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE SCHOOL: THE TENSION BETWEEN IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION POLICIES 30

31

32

Migration and education in the media: a discourse analysis of the press in France and England Oakleigh Welply

434

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights in the context of international migration Ruth Brittle

449

The promises of Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system and challenges for local implementation Alebachew Kemisso Haybano

465

33

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China Min Yu and Christopher B. Crowley

34

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century: policy and practice trapped in time Silvia Carrasco

480

496

viii  Research handbook on migration and education 35

36

Index

Education in Australia for forced migrants: examining the differences in entitlements between permanent and temporary protection Sally Baker, Loshini Naidoo and Jennifer M. Azordegan

509

Best practices for integration: analyzing the migration and education policies in Latin American host countries Jessica Crist and Katharine Summers

525 543

Contributors

Juan Carlos Aguilar Castillo holds a BA in languages, he earned his master’s degree at the Education Research Department (DIE-Cinvestav) in Mexico City. His dissertation was entitled: On Mexican teacher education students and international student mobility in IberoAmerica and France: building aspirations and developing international skills. He has worked in the International Advancement Office at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (UAEMéx), where he has served until recently as Director of Nivel Medio Superior. Jumana Al-Waeli is a postdoctoral research fellow at Ulster University and an associate fellow at UCL Institute of Education. Her work examines the political economy of education and peacebuilding and the sociology of education in relation to social justice in contexts of conflict and displacement. Jumana’s doctoral research, at UCL Institute of Education, investigated the learning of Syrian refugee students in the UK through the lens of social justice, belonging and acculturation. She holds a master’s degree in effective learning and teaching from UCL Institute of Education and an MSc in Environment and Sustainability from Damascus University. Vivienne Anderson is Dean of the University of Otago College of Education, where she researches the connections and disconnections between policy and practice for refugee-background young people navigating educational transition. Jennifer M. Azordegan manages Australian Catholic University’s national community engagement programme, which provides curriculum-based, community-embedded learning opportunities in conjunction with partners in the community and non-profit sectors. She also coordinates the university’s refugee scholarship programme for students with temporary protection. An experienced teacher educator, Jen has also worked as an education policy analyst and taught in diverse, low socio-economic schools. Her PhD research was a communityengaged, sociological exploration of the connections between an Australian primary school and parents from a refugee background. Guided by the work of Pierre Bourdieu, the study details the complexities involved in school-family relationships in diverse modern Australia and considers the role of schools in perpetuating cycles of disadvantage. Jen’s professional interests centre around the role of educational institutions in building social cohesion and fostering greater inclusion of children, youth, and families from diverse and marginalised communities in the educational process. Sally Baker is an Associate Professor of Migration and Education in the Australian National University. Sally’s teaching and research interests centre on language, literacies, transition, and equity in higher education, particularly with regard to culturally and linguistically diverse students, and refugee students in particular. Sally is the Chair of the national Refugee Education Special Interest Group for/with students from refugee backgrounds (http://www​ .refugee​-education​.org/).

ix

x  Research handbook on migration and education Michelle J. Bellino is an Associate Professor at the University of Michigan School of Education. Her research centres on the intersections between education and youth civic development, with particular attention to contexts impacted by armed conflict and forced displacement. Across diverse settings, she explores how experiences with violence, asylum, and peace and justice processes influence young people’s participation in schools and society, future aspirations and educational access and inclusion. In her work, she traces youth experiences from schools to their homes and communities in order to understand how knowledge and attitudes towards historical (in)justice travel across public and private spaces, as well as between generations. She draws on ethnographic methods and youth participatory action research to ask how young people construct understandings of justice and injustice while shaping an evolving sense of themselves as local and global civic actors. She is the author of Youth in Postwar Guatemala: Education and Civic Identity in Transition and co-editor of (Re)constructing Memory: Education, Identity, and Conflict. Her work has been featured in Harvard Educational Review; Anthropology and Education Quarterly; and Comparative Education Review. She has been recognised as a Peace Scholar by the United States Institute of Peace and a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Spencer Foundation. Her book Youth in Postwar Guatemala won the Council of Anthropology and Education’s Outstanding Book Award in 2018. Christina Brandl is a master’s student of social work at the Catholic University of EichstättIngolstadt. Her research focus is on migration and vocational education as well as participatory research in social work. Ruth Brittle is a Lecturer in law at Leicester University specialising in immigration, asylum, and refugee law. Her research interests focus on children’s rights in the context of international refugee law and children’s rights-based approaches to protection, education, age assessment, and access to asylum procedures. Prior to her academic career, Ruth was a solicitor specialising in complex claims relating to historic child abuse in children’s homes and alternative care settings. Ruth is an advisor for an educational provision for separated and unaccompanied sanctuary seekers aged 16–19 years. Rachel Brooks is Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean for Research and Innovation at the University of Surrey, UK. She is also editor-in-chief of Sociology and an executive editor of the British Journal of Sociology of Education. Her research focuses largely on the sociology of higher education. Recent books include: Constructing the Higher Education Student: Perspectives from Across Europe (Policy Press, 2022, with Achala Gupta, Sazana Jayadeva, Anu Lainio and Predrag Lazetic), Student Migrants and Contemporary Educational Mobilities (Palgrave, 2021, with Johanna Waters), and Reimagining the Higher Education Student (Routledge, 2021, with Sarah O’Shea). Nihad Bunar is a professor at the Department of Special Education at Stockholm University, Sweden. His main field of research is education and migration. Schools in socially deprived and immigrant-dominated neighbourhoods, the impact of school choice policy on those schools and their local communities, and newly arrived refugee students are some of the researched areas. Nihad has served as a special investigator for the Swedish government writing a law proposal on the use of first language and language support teachers for migrant children. He has also worked as an expert and advisor for the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) and the European Federation of Education Employers (EFEE) for conducting research in Spain, Serbia, and Belgium on effective measures for the integration

Contributors 

xi

of refugee and migrant students in education and for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on preparing training manuals for the education of refugee and asylum-seeking students. Silvia Carrasco is Professor of Social Anthropology at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Founder of EMIGRA-CER Migracions, her research focuses on the educational and social experiences and trajectories of the children of immigrants, as well as education and integration policies, with fieldwork mostly in Spain and the United States. Christian Cortes-Velasco is doing a PhD at the Educational Research Department (DIECinvestav) in Mexico City. His main research interests are the internationalisation of higher education, student mobility, and worldwide university rankings. He has worked as a Research Assistant at the Insituto de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo de la Educación (INIDE)Universidad Iberoamericana and at Cinvestav. He has collaborated on several statistical reports on student mobility in Mexico coordinated and published by the National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (ANUIES). Sue Creagh is an Honorary Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Queensland and a researcher in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at Queensland University of Technology. Her research is primarily in the area of migrant and refugee education within the school system to support policy that enables greater equity within education. Sue also works with teachers to enable continued and contemporary sharing of the best pedagogy for English language teaching and learning. Jessica Crist is a graduate of the George Washington University (GW) Graduate School of Education and Human Development and a co-founder of the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory (REAL) at GW. Crist studied international affairs, Spanish language, and international education at GW and studied in both Costa Rica and Chile. After working as an English teacher at a professional institute in Chile, she returned to the United States to continue working in student migration and admissions at various higher education institutions. Crist was the 2022 recipient of the Nakyuin Shin International Education Award for her academic and professional contributions to the field. Christopher B. Crowley is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. His primary area of research is situated within the field of curriculum studies and focuses on the politics of education reform. His research critically examines how various stakeholders are becoming increasingly involved in multiple aspects of teacher education and how such entities are altering feasible responses to core questions asked of/by the field curriculum studies. Crowley holds an MSEd in reading/writing/literacy from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education and received his PhD in curriculum and instruction from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research has appeared in journals such as Teaching and Teacher Education, Review of Research in Education, Educational Studies, The China Quarterly, and others, as well as in several edited volumes. Maurice Crul is a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is a specialist in school and labour market careers of children of immigrants and refugees in Europe and the United States. He coordinated the TIES project, which was the first European comparative study on the second generation in Europe. He has further coordinated

xii  Research handbook on migration and education two ERC Grant projects. The first looked at the upcoming elite among the second generation (ELITESproject​.​eu), and the second, an ERC advanced grant project, BAM looks at the new minority in superdiverse cities: the people of native descent (BAMproject​.​eu). He has written extensively about issues of diversity and inclusion. Some of his books include: The New Face of World Cities (Russell Sage Foundation Publishers), Coming to Terms with Superdiversity. The Case of Rotterdam (Springer), and Superdiversity. A New Vision on Integration (Free University Press). Jim Cummins is a Professor Emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. His research explores literacy development in multilingual and intercultural classrooms with particular emphasis on the ways in which teachers’ pedagogical choices intersect with societal power relations and teacher-student identity negotiation. Merike Darmody is a Research Officer at the ESRI and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Trinity College Dublin. Her research interests centre on the association between education and migration as well as socio-cultural diversity in education. As part of the consortium of the PIONEERED project, funded by the European Union Horizon 2020, her current work focuses on intersectionality and inequality in education. Dympna Devine is Full Professor of Education at UCD School of Education and Vice Principal for Research, Innovation and Impact at UCD College of Social Sciences and Law. Her specialist field is sociology, researching at the intersection of sociologies of education and sociologies of childhood with a distinct focus on children’s rights, citizenship, equality, and wellbeing. She has published extensively in the area of migration and education, is series editor of the Routledge Migration and Education book series and executive editor of the British Journal of Sociology of Education. Recent work includes large-scale mixed methods longitudinal studies of children’s school experiences in rural Sierra Leone (www​.safelearning​.ie) and in Ireland (www​. cslstudy​.ie). Fabio Dovigo (PhD) is a Professor of Developmental Psychology at the School of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark. His research interests are in Inclusive Education and Early Childhood Education. He is currently coordinating the EU projects BESSIE and ITIRE. His recent publications include The Educational Inclusion of Forced Migrants with a Disability: A Critical Analysis of the Washington Group Questionnaires (doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7283-2. ch009) and Diversity, Access, and Success in Higher Education: A Transnational Overview (doi: 10.1163/9789004446304_003). Paul Downes is Professor of Psychology of Education, and Director of the Educational Disadvantage Centre, Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Ireland and Affiliate Professor, University of Malta, Centre for Resilience and Socio-Emotional Health. He has over 110 peer-reviewed publications in areas of education, psychology, sociology, philosophy, law, anthropology, and social policy, and has given keynote lectures and invited presentations in 30 countries. His contribution to international policy and practice includes invitations from 16 different countries’ official ministries. He has been involved in various expert advisory roles for the European Commission, including its School Policy Working Groups and was one of three experts specifically selected in an open call across Europe under the ‘Inclusion and Citizenship’ heading for the European Education and Training Expert Panel to support the EU’s post-2020 Strategic Cooperation Framework for Education and Training (2018). He has been a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Victoria

Contributors 

xiii

University, Melbourne and University of Cambridge, Lauterpacht Centre, a member of the Irish Senate and Parliament Expert Advisory Group on early school leaving and a consultant for the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) on minority groups’ holistic educational needs in Kosovo. Khaleda Gani Dutt is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Special Education, Stockholm University. She lectures in the courses on special education at the advanced level and also at the undergraduate course with a special focus on international comparative education. She also lectures on the master’s programme at the Department of Education, Stockholm University on human rights and education and education for sustainable development. Khaleda’s dissertation focuses on the role of literacy in empowering women in rural India. She believes that strategic partnerships are vital for transformation and education is a key factor that can initiate a chain of advantages for women. She has a PhD and a master’s in international and comparative education from the Department of Education at Stockholm University. Her research interests are gender studies, inclusive education, ICT for rural transformation, human rights, and education for sustainable development. Her ongoing research is on the violence on women and girls with disabilities – a comparative study between Sweden and India. Khaleda is a member of the Advisory Board at Adamas University, Kolkata India, and an external research associate at the Centre for Research in Inclusion, Education and Diversity (CREID) at the University of Edinburgh. Ozlem Erden-Basaran is currently working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at TED University. Dr Erden-Basaran’s research interests are refugee and immigrant education, multicultural education, curriculum theory and development, sexuality politics, and inquiry methodology. Erden-Basaran earned her PhD in curriculum studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, United States, under the sponsorship of the Fulbright Foreign Student Program. She completed her postdoctoral research at the Centre for Research into the Education of Marginalized Children and Young Adults in the Faculty of Education, Humanities, and Social Sciences at St. Mary’s University, London. Dr Erden-Basaran also holds a Master of Science degree in curriculum and instruction from Middle East Technical University as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in science teaching from Hacettepe University. She also has postgraduate certificates in forced migration studies from the University of Oxford; sexuality, politics, culture, and society from the University of Amsterdam; and education studies from Middlesex University. She served as an academic specialist and project coordinator for the Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching, the Afghan Junior Faculty Development Program, and the Fulbright Russian International Education Administrators at Indiana University Bloomington’s Centre for International Education, Development, and Research. She also served as a project and field coordinator for various migration-related programmes and projects with Middle Eastern and North African immigrant and refugee groups in the UK, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Daniel Faas is Professor in Sociology (full professor), founding Director of the MSc Comparative Social Change, and a University Board Member at Trinity College Dublin. His research is in the sociology of migration and consists of three interlinked strands: identities and integration; comparative curriculum analyses; religion and schooling in Ireland and Europe. He has published widely on these topics in high-impact peer-reviewed international journals, as well as a sole-authored monograph (Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth in Europe, London: Routledge).

xiv  Research handbook on migration and education Marjorie Faulstich Orellana is Professor of Urban Schooling in the School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA, and Associate Vice Provost of the International Institute. Her research centres on the experiences of children and families in contexts of migration, both in and out of school. She is the author of Translating Childhoods: Immigrant Youth, Language and Culture (2009, Rutgers University Press), Immigrant Youth in Transcultural Spaces: Language, Learning and Love (2016, Routledge), and Mindful Ethnography: Mind, Heart and Activity for Transformative Social Research (2019, Routledge), as well co-editor of Language and Cultural Practices in Communities and Schools: Bridging Learning for Students from Non-Dominant Groups (2019, Routledge). Amalia Fenwick is a PhD student at UCD School of Education and Coordinator of a large research intervention project, ‘Power2Progress’, which aims to support students attending schools which are categorised as disadvantaged under a Department of Education initiative, entitled Delivering Equality in Schools (DEIS). Amalia has recently published on this topic. Inmaculada García-Sánchez is Professor of Social Research Methodology in the School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA. Rooted at the intersection of linguistic anthropology, education, and migration studies, her research focuses on language and the (im)migrant experience of children and youth. She is a Past Postdoctoral Fellow of the National Academy of Education (USA). She is the author of Language and Muslim Immigrant Childhoods: The Politics of Belonging (2014, Wiley-Blackwell) and numerous articles and chapters on immigrant children and youth, as well as co-editor of Language and Cultural Practices in Communities and School: Bridging Learning for Students from Non-Dominant Groups (2019, Routledge). Eleanore Hargreaves is Professor of Learning and Pedagogy at the UCL Institute of Education in London, UK. She is Academic Head of Research in the Department of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. Her research and teaching focus on the voices of children and young people about their schooling, including in UK and international contexts. In 2017, her book Children’s Experiences of Classrooms was published by Sage. Lottie Hoare is lecturer in Education and Early Childhood Studies in the Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education at Middlesex University and Teaching Associate at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Her peer reviewed publications analysed the representation of education in non-fiction BBC broadcasts and documentary films between 1934 and 1972 as well as the role of certain individuals who promoted widening participation in and access to education. Her current research interests focus on arts pedagogies and the experiences of teachers and students in weekend home language schools. Michelle Kelly is an Educational Psychologist. She completed her professional doctorate in educational psychology at University College Dublin. She currently works in a Children’s Disability Network Team. Michelle’s research interests include Special educational needs and disabilities, educational disadvantage, and inclusive education. Alebachew Kemisso Haybano is an Assistant Professor and a faculty in the Centre for Comparative Education and Policy Studies at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Currently, he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard University Centre for African Studies and an

Contributors 

xv

inaugural fellow at the Open Society University Network East African Hub. His research interests include national education systems and mechanisms to deal with issues of identity development and the inclusion of refugees, and international development cooperation in education. William Kinsella is Associate Professor Head of UCD School of Education. He lectures in Education, Special Education, and Educational Psychology. He is Course Director of three programmes within the School of Education, including the recently developed national online training programme for Special Needs Assistants (SNAs). Research Interests include inclusive education, special educational needs and disabilities, ethical education, and educational disadvantage. Annette Korntheuer is Professor of Social Work Theory at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt in Germany. Her research focuses on educational equity in diverse societies and the intersection of displacement and disability. She is currently leading a participatory project in Bavaria that seeks to develop VET opportunities for refugee youth in rural communities. Daniel Owusu Kyereko is a lecturer with the Department of Education, University of York. He worked on the Ford Foundation-funded project ‘Forum on Expanding Youth Learning and Opportunity Pathways in, and Linked to, West Africa’. He was commissioned by UNESCO to write a paper for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report, ‘Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls’. Noa Levy is a researcher of unaccompanied child and youth migration, focusing on African migrations. She holds a PhD from the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University and is currently a post-doctoral fellow at Advancing Children’s Rights Network: Israel, with the University College Cork and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Yongcan Liu is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Languages Education at the Faculty of Education and co-director of the Centre for the Study of Global Human Movement at the University of Cambridge. His research focuses on the teaching and assessment in linguistically diverse contexts and the role of language(s) in schooling, integration, and wellbeing. He has published widely in these areas and is co-author of the Bell EAL Assessment Framework for Schools which received a British Council ELTons Award in 2018. Elena Makarova received her PhD and her Venia Docendi at the University of Bern, Switzerland. She was the SNSF research fellow at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and at the University of Illinois at Chicago, USA. Currently, she is a Full Professor of Educational Sciences and Director of the Institute for Educational Sciences at the University of Basel, Switzerland. Makarova is a fellow of the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR). Her research focuses on development, learning and teaching in the face of heterogeneity in the school context. Makarova’s research interest includes topics such as acculturation and school adjustment of minority youth, gender and career choice, and value transmission in the family and school context. Alma Maldonado-Maldonado is a researcher at the Educational Research Department [Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas] of the Center for Advanced Research of [Centro de Investigaciones Avanzadas] since 2010. Previously, she was an assistant

xvi  Research handbook on migration and education professor at the University of Arizona’s Center for the Study of Higher Education in the United States. Maldonado was born in Mexico City and obtained her undergraduate education at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Later, Alma earned her doctorate at the Boston College’s Center for International Higher Education in the United States. Her research focuses on comparative higher education, international organisations, higher education policy and research in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, and issues regarding globalisation, mobility, and internationalisation of higher education (institutions, faculty and students). Mona Massumi is Professor of Vocational Education at the Institute for Vocational Teacher Education at Munster University of Applied Sciences. Her research focuses on educational migration research, education in the context of heterogeneity and educational equity, and the professionalisation of teachers. Claire Maxwell is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Copenhagen. She researches globally mobile professionals and their families – seeking to understand how mobility across borders shapes transitions into new workspaces, identities, and relations to ‘home’, and the conversion of capital processes. She also writes about the internationalisation of education and elites. She is co-editor of International Studies in Sociology of Education and of the CIES book series Education in Global Perspectives. Nasser Mohamedhoesein is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the VU University Amsterdam. His work focuses on studying the conditions college social and academic environment should satisfy to nurture diverse students’ inclusion, motivation, and success. Previously, he was a Senior Lecturer and Project Leader at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, where he founded the Diversity of Talent community. This community helped students foster peer relationships across ethnicities and cultures by leveraging their diverse talents and skills. Additionally, he introduced blended learning in the classroom to personalize student learning and support their academic achievement. His contributions have been recognized with a National Award from Zestor and the Lecturer of the Year Award from the Department of Technology Innovation and Society of The Hague University of Applied Sciences. Rennie Moon is a Professor at the Underwood International College at Yonsei University in Incheon, South Korea. Her research has focused on topics related to globalisation and education, citizenship education, and higher education systems in Asia. Sayedali Mostolizadeh is an Assistant Research Fellow at the University of Otago College of Education and a doctoral student at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He utilises documentary film to foreground non-dominant stories of displacement and resettlement. Rachel Murphy is Professor of Chinese Development and Society at Oxford School of Global and Area Studies and author of The Children of China’s Great Migration (2020) Cambridge University Press. Loshini Naidoo teaches sociology of education at Western Sydney University. Her academic areas of interest include equity and access, transition and aspirations of refugee, migrant and low SES students, school-university-community partnerships, and language and literacy development. She is the recipient of numerous national (ALTC, 2009, 2010, 2011) and international (2012 – Duke University) teaching awards for her outstanding contribution to student learning. She led a large cross-institutional study that investigated school-university

Contributors 

xvii

partnerships for refugee students’ access and participation in tertiary education. Through her deep engagement with the refugee communities in Greater Western Sydney, she continues her social justice work in the conduct of educational research on communities affected by forced migration. Rahul Oka is Research Associate Professor of Anthropology and Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame Keough School for Global Affairs. His research interests include the anthropology of urbanism, social network analysis, the development of complex socioeconomic systems, the evolution of inequality and conflict, and the relationship between climate, conflict, and migration. He focuses on the impact of trade, commerce, and traders on social, political, and cultural infrastructures. These impacts are explored through 1) archaeological and historical analysis of trade in the Indian Ocean, ca. 1000 BCE–1800 CE, history, and 2) ethnographic and network analysis of social and political economies in unstable environments such as conflict zones, and refugee camps/displaced peoples’ settlements in East Africa, South Asia, and Central Europe. He has worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the US State Department, and the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration for the Serbian Government on various relief projects. Oka is the co-author of Refugee Impacts on Turkana Hosts, edited two special issues of Economic Anthropology on the social economies of Greed (2014) and Convenience (2021). He is the author of several book chapters, and his work has also appeared in prestigious peer-reviewed journals including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Social Science and Medicine, Hormones and Behavior, Economic Anthropology, American Anthropologist, Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, American Journal of Human Biology, Journal of Archaeological Research, and Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Caroline Oliver is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Institute of Education, University College London. Her research interests are in international migration and social justice, explored in relation to retirement migration, family migration, and most recently, innovation in asylum seeker reception. Alejandra Ortiz Ayala is a political scientist and Research Associate at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Germany. Her research explores social cohesion in contexts of displacement and resettlement in Colombia and New Zealand. Halleli Pinson (BA, TAU; MPhil, PhD, Cambridge University) is an associate professor at the School of Education at Ben-Gurion University. Pinson is a political sociologist of education, and her main interest is with the changing role of schooling in the age of globalization. She has three main research areas: State education responses to global migration, especially educational policies and school practices in relation to the integration of asylum-seeking children; citizenship education in conflict-ridden societies and the impact of political populism on education policy; and gender patterns of participation in STEM fields. She is the co-author of Education, Asylum and the ‘Non-Citizen’ Child, and a co-editor of Citizenship, Education and Social Conflict and the co-editor of the Routledge series on Education and Migration. She is the outgoing Presidential Advisor on Gender Equity and the deputy-head of the School of Education at BGU. She is the former president of the Israeli Comparative Education Society. Pinson is also a member of the editorial boards of the British Journal of Sociology of Education and Race Ethnicity and Education.

xviii  Research handbook on migration and education Paula Prendeville is a Chartered Educational Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. She is Head of Inclusion, Policy and Practice at the National Council for Special Education in Ireland. She works at a national level developing and implementing policy to support the needs of students with disabilities in schools. She has a particular interest in ethics and values-based practice. She has published internationally in the areas of teacher education, special education needs, inclusion, autism, and ethics education. Jens Schneider is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) at the University of Osnabrück, Germany. He studied anthropology, musicology, linguistics and ethnic studies at the universities of Hamburg and Amsterdam and received his PhD in Anthropology at the University of Tübingen. He was a post-doc at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and Senior Researcher at the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies at the University of Amsterdam. His major recent publications include: ‘Young refugees in education: The particular challenges of school systems in Europe’ (2019; Comparative Migration Studies Vol. 7, article 28 (2019) with C. Köhler); ‘“Ausländer” (foreigners), migrants, or new Germans? Identity-building processes and school socialization among adolescents from immigrant backgrounds in Germany’. In New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 160/2018, 59–73; ‘Demographic “Megatrends” and Their Implications’ (2018; Siirtolaisuus/ Migration); Diversifying the Teaching Force in Transnational Contexts. Critical Perspectives (2016; edited with Clea Schmidt); Social Mobility, Habitus and Identity Formation in the Turkish-German Second Generation (2014; New Diversities; with Christine Lang); and The European Second Generation Compared: Does the Integration Context Matter? (2012; edited with Maurice Crul and Frans Lelie). Petra Sidler completed her PhD in Migration Studies at the University of Neuchâtel, the NCCR – on the move, and the School of Education at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland. In her doctoral thesis, she assessed adolescents’ attitudes towards mutual acculturation within the school context. She has a Bachelor of Arts in sciences of societies, cultures, and religions, and a Master of Arts in political, legal, and economic philosophy. Marieke Slootman works as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research focuses on processes of identification and social mobility, and on diversity and inclusion in educational institutions. Slootman has studied diversity and inclusion in higher education, including the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), using qualitative and quantitative methods, which laid the basis for diversity policies at UvA and VU. Slootman contributes to the development of inclusive education, for example, through the mixed classroom educational model, which is being implemented by teachers inside and outside VU, and through the Erasmus+ project ‘e-Inclusion’ that develops modules to support teachers in creating inclusive online education. Emer Smyth is a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and an Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin. She is Principal Investigator of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study. Her main research interests centre on educational inequality, school-to-work transitions, gender, and comparative methodology. Katharine Summers is an International Development Practitioner and Researcher focused on the intersection of education and migration in Latin America. Summers completed a

Contributors 

xix

master’s degree in international development studies from the George Washington University (GW) Elliott School of International Affairs and is a co-founder of the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory (REAL) at GW. She has worked in international education in the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Argentina and co-authored several publications focused on migration and education. Khen Tucker is a PhD student at Tel Aviv University. His research interests include parenting practices of global middle-class families and globalisation in education. Lutine de Wal Pastoor, PhD Educational Anthropology, is currently a Visiting Researcher at the Danish Research Centre for Migration, Ethnicity and Health, University of Copenhagen. Earlier she was a Research Professor at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, Oslo. Her research is primarily aimed at the education of children and young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds, with an emphasis on psychosocial conditions for an inclusive school environment. She participated in the Nordic research project Coming of Age in Exile (2015–2020) as a researcher and as the coordinator for the substudy Transitions Upon Resettlement in Norway (TURIN). In addition, she has been actively engaged in initiating the European H2020 project RefugeesWellSchool (2018–2022) and developed its inservice teacher training intervention (INSETT). Johanna Waters is Professor of Human Geography and co-Director of the Migration Research Unit at University College London. Her research interests include transnational higher education, international student mobilities, transnational families, and household educational strategies. Her latest book, with Rachel Brooks, is entitled Student Migrants and Contemporary Educational Mobilities and is published by Palgrave. Oakleigh Welply is Professor of Education in the School of Education at Durham University, UK. Her areas of research focus on the relationship of education to issues of language, religion, immigration, integration, globalisation, identity, gender, and citizenship. Her latest book, Immigration, Integration and Education: Children of Immigrants in France and England was published by Routledge in 2022. Miri Yemini is a Professor of Education at Technion, Israeli Institute of Technology. She works on topics related to globalisation and internationalisation in education. She serves as Joint Editor of the International Studies of Sociology of Education. Ayselin Yildiz has extensive publications, international projects and consultancy activities in the field of migration and refugee studies. She received her Phd in international relations and MSc in European Studies from Middle East Technical University. She held research fellowships at Wageningen University, University of California Berkeley, University of Pittsburgh and SciencesPo. She was the founder and head of UNESCO Chair on International Migration at Yasar University. She is also the committee member at UNESCO Turkey Management of Social Transformations (MOST) and Migration Group.She is the author of the book The European Union’s Immigration Policy: Managing Migration in Turkey and Morocco, published by Palgrave Macmillan. Min Yu is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Wayne State University. Her work situates within the fields of curriculum studies and comparative and international education and focuses on the roles of community organising and the impact of social,

xx  Research handbook on migration and education political, and economic conditions on the education of children. Specifically, her research advocates for the recognition of the collective efforts of parents and teachers in marginalised communities and the representation of communities’ languages, cultures, and knowledge in school curriculum as necessary, relevant, and impactful pedagogy. She is the author of the book The Politics, Practices, and Possibilities of Migrant Children Schools in Contemporary China (Palgrave Macmillan 2016) and her work also appears in journals such as The China Quarterly, Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, Review of Research in Education, Educational Studies, Curriculum Perspectives, and Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education. Yan Zhang is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Oxford.

1. Introduction: education and migration as a field of research Halleli Pinson, Dympna Devine and Nihad Bunar

The period over which this Handbook was written has seen an increase in global migration, in spite of the Covid-19 pandemic. Currently, it is estimated that globally there are over 281 million migrants, over 12% of whom are children (IOM, 2022), many of them migrating under various degrees of compulsion. Recently, the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan and the war in Ukraine brought once again to our TV screens the sight of people fleeing. Alongside this very visible and forced movement, there are millions more people whose movement is perhaps less visible to us and does not fall so easily into the voluntary/forced dichotomies of migration. What is clear today is that globalization has shaped new child migration flows. According to the latest IDAC (International Data Alliance for Children on the Move, 2021) report, in 2020 (even before the overtake of the Taliban and the war in Ukraine), child migration reached an all-time record of 35.5 million children living outside the country of their birth. Some are globalization-induced migrants, many are displaced, or on the move, crossing borders, and subjected to considerable instability (UNICEF, 2022). Children are also overrepresented among the world refugee population, with nearly a third of migrant children population being refugees (UNHCR, 2022). To a great extent, we live today in ‘a world on the move’. This reality brings with it many challenges to education systems, schools, teachers, and families, as well as to the rights of migrant children to an equal education. It is essential today for education systems to shape their policies and practices in the context of global migration and refugee crises. This poses both immediate and long-term challenges to how education systems plan, implement change, and evolve. Modern education systems, which were formed initially as national institutions aimed to shape future citizens, are having to adapt their pedagogic task to the presence of large numbers of migrant families and their children, many of whom are stateless, while others are temporal, transiting in the host country. School populations are becoming much more diverse, ethnically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically. This also requires schools to rethink how they manage diversity, how they facilitate the inclusion of migrant children, and what are the implications for teaching practices, pedagogies, classroom management, language, and other supports. We are also faced today with the need to rethink what the challenges are to the right to education of vulnerable groups of migrant children and how to address them, and what life skills and opportunities should host societies provide for mobile and migrant children and youth. These questions are deeply affected by often hostile responses to mass migration within government or mass media, portraying migration as a demographic threat to host countries. Wider and very powerful global policy debates related to the role and purposes of education as economic and human capital investment add a further layer to the impetus for change (Devine, 2013). Displaced children often suffer from a disrupted education and lack of access to quality education. According to the latest UNHCR report (2022), in 2020–2021, refugee enrolment 1

2  Research handbook on migration and education rates in primary education stood at 68% and only 37% had access to secondary education. However, in the Global South, in low-income countries, where states often struggle as it is to meet the Education for All (EFA) goals, rates of refugee children out of school can reach over 60%. Moreover, the millions of displaced children, including those in refugee camps, raise a whole range of questions from how and who should provide them with education, to what curriculum they should be taught, and in what language. In 2012, the UNHCR released the Global Education Strategy (GES) policy which shifts the responsibility for the education of displaced and refugee children from supernational power to national systems calling for their integration in national systems (Dryden-Peterson, 2016). This policy, intended to promote the integration of refugee children, acknowledges that their presence is not temporary, and has given rise to additional challenges including new strains on national education systems in low-income countries, as some of the contributions to this Handbook demonstrate. Whether we are focusing on the challenges of education and migration in low-income countries in the Global South or in high-income countries in the Global North, the uncertainty and temporality that characterize global migration today undercuts the assumed ‘stability’ that education provides alongside the expectation of education as a tool for social mobility. While global migration and with it the increasing numbers of migrant and refugee children in schools is a disruptive force within education systems, this Handbook also highlights the transformative and productive power of migration in the creation of global knowledge economies. Global migration also means young people traversing different systems in search of global identities and knowledge, and economic opportunities. Higher educational institutions in particular have played a key role in this movement of students, teachers, professionals, and scholars and have also contributed to the growth of new offshore institutions. Similarly, the transfer of remittances has affected educational provisions in low-income countries while international education standards have helped international movements across national systems. All in all, global human movement has shaped and is still reshaping education systems, our schools, and other educational institutions. In that respect, it demands our scholarly attention. Despite the magnitude of global migration as a social phenomenon, and the impact it has on the right to education, the future of millions of children and youth, and on education systems and schools’ practices, the interdisciplinary field of education and migration is still emerging. For instance, while the volume of research in the area is undoubtedly growing, there is still no research journal that focuses on education and migration, and only recently we see the emergence of special interest groups (SIGs) on migration in international educational associations. There is still a need to identify key issues for research and establish it as a distinct field of research.

THE SCOPE AND AIMS OF THE HANDBOOK This Handbook, along with other recent publications, contributes to the shaping of education and migration as a distinct field of interdisciplinary research. Our aim is to draw attention to the range of challenges faced by education systems and migrant children and students today and to provide a site in which to learn from different national and regional cases, educational initiatives, and approaches and policies that have been developed around the needs of migrant and mobile students, educational professionals, and schools. Global migration is a complex

Introduction 

3

phenomenon and its impact on schooling is multifaced. Thus, it is a difficult, or rather impossible task to encompass all its many manifestations in one Handbook. The Handbook brings together both empirical and theoretical works dealing with the educational challenges and opportunities associated with global migration today. The 35 chapters in this Handbook draw on a breadth of disciplinary perspectives and methodologies within educational research. Together they cover a wide range of educational contexts (different national education systems) and different educational provisions – from mainstream schools to community schools, support centres, and schools in refugee camps. Combined, they provide a broad understanding of the complexity and the multifaced nature of global migration today and its impact on the educational trajectories of migrant children and on education systems. In compiling this Handbook, it was important for us to capture different types of migration – from refugee and asylum seekers to internal migrants, and to those moving in order to improve their educational and economic opportunities, across a diverse range of contexts. We were also mindful to include a range of contrasting contexts and realities – from inclusion practices and support services in high-income countries (EU countries, New Zealand, and Australia), internal migration in China, to policy and educational initiatives in Latin America, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, South Africa, and Türkiye. The multifaced challenges of providing education for the growing population of migrant children are also reflected in the range of topics covered by this Handbook. Some of the chapters offer a policy analysis of states’ response to migrant children, others bring the voices of migrant children to the fore, highlighting their agency and competencies in reflecting on the impact of migration and the role education has or should have on their lives and future trajectories. The Handbook includes examples of inclusion, policy, and support services at primary, secondary, and tertiary-level education. Together, the contributions to this Handbook also raise some of the most prominent themes in education and migration today. They touch upon cross-cutting questions and debates such as mainstreaming newly arrived migrant children and young people versus offering them separate provisions, or the balance between mainstreaming and tailored provisions; academic and social inclusion and the visibility versus invisibility of migrant children in mainstream classes; and challenges and tensions around access to education and whether access is enough in terms of fulfilling the right to education. The balance between the acknowledgement of child migrants’ vulnerability without dismissing their agency is also discussed.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK The Handbook is organized into five parts, each focusing on a theme that addresses a different aspect of global migration and education. However, aligning chapters to distinct sections was at times challenging, given synergies across themes, testimony in itself to the complexity of global migration and the educational responses to it. There are, for instance, some overlaps between Part I, which focuses on social inclusion and integration of migrant children, and Part II, which is more focused on educational support services and programs within schools and the community. It is not surprising, however, that the social and academic integration of migrant children is intertwined. Part III, which brings the voices of refugees and other groups of vulnerable migrant children, also has some overlaps with earlier sections. Part IV, which focuses on the international movement of students at the tertiary level, touches upon some of the aspects such as social inclusion and support provisions that were the focus of Parts I

4  Research handbook on migration and education and II, as well as the main organizing theme of Part V – policy. And the organizing theme of Part V – policy – to a great extent cuts across many of the other themes explored in this Handbook. Part I: Approaches to the Educational Inclusion of Refugee and Migrant Children The eight chapters in this section explore, theoretically and empirically, approaches to, and practices of, the inclusion of migrant and refugee children. One of the major challenges faced by such children is often perceived as access to education; however, access in itself is not sufficient for them to fully enjoy the right to education. There is a broad agreement among scholars that inclusion is necessary for countering migration-induced inequalities in schools (Block et  al., 2014; Hilt, 2017; Rawal & De Costa, 2019; Baak et  al., 2020). International organizations (European Commission, 2017; UNESCO, 2018), under the conceptual umbrella of inclusion, advocate for policies of equal access and opportunities, removal of obstacles, provision of education in mainstream schools and classes, and tailored support for students with migration backgrounds. Understanding inclusion as a dynamic process, moulded at the intersection between policy, organizational practices, and discourses and the broad spectrum of actions by community and school actors (Ainscow & Messiou, 2018; Allan & Slee, 2019; Azorin & Ainscow, 2020), is essential. The contributions in this section share the understanding that once in schools, migrant children and especially those who are displaced, potentially have the opportunity to be integrated, and that education, and schools in particular, are essential for rebuilding their lives and imagining a better future. However, the chapters also highlight how different forms and degrees of integration – the practices that are employed and the approaches underlying them – generate different levels of inclusion and different future trajectories for migrant children. The first three chapters in this section offer theoretical perspectives through which we can examine the challenges to inclusion. Throughout, tension is evident between processes of acculturation and assimilation practices and the need for successful inclusive practices to have migrant children’s culture, background, and heritage acknowledged and recognized by the schools they attend. Examining the challenges of the educational and social inclusion of migrant children from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds in the context of European countries, Fabio Dovigo outlines the bordering practices that permeate the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers in schools, underpinned by a colonialist mindset. His chapter provides a detailed overview of the characteristics of this colonialist and Eurocentric orientation in Western education systems and the boundary maintenance that occurs through the denial and invisibility of the cultures, deep knowledge, and experiences of refugee children. Rather than viewing such cultures in deficit terms, focusing on a narrow range of indicators of educational progress, Dovigo argues for schools to embed holistic practices that focus on refugee engagement and wellbeing. Giving voice to refugees’ experience, he suggests, involves a dialogical project of ‘relearning’ among host students and teachers, in so doing generating a more humanized education, dismantling colonialist attitudes, and contributing to the inclusion of refugee children. In the following chapter, Paul Downes too offers us a theoretical lens through which we can understand the inclusion of migrant children and its challenges. Similar to Dovigo’s emphasis on holistic approaches to inclusion, Downes outlines the meaning of such approaches through a reconsideration of both relational space and transitions. Whereas diametric spatial systems

Introduction 

5

in education embody structures of exclusion, a shift towards concentric structures of inclusion in and around schools accelerates the focus on relational spaces, the inclusion of the ‘other’, and openness to minority parents and local communities. A relational space offers an inclusive system for migrants and challenges ‘heroic’ models of integration that emphasize individual resilience. This invites distinct policy and system responses to address a diversity of needs, including trauma and adverse childhood experiences of migrant children and overcoming school segregation, suspension, and discriminatory bullying. Concentric spatial-relational systems, Downes argues, promote a positive school climate and the fostering of multidisciplinary teams in and around schools and service coordination. In the third chapter, Elena Makarova and Petra Sidler explore another theoretical perspective – the acculturation framework and its conceptualization in school contexts. Based on acculturation research in the educational sciences, they demonstrate how characteristics of educational systems, schools’ culture (e.g., teaching practices, discipline styles, educational goals), and teaching and learning environments can support or inhibit the adjustment of students with a migration background. The chapter is concluded by outlining a pedagogical practice to support the acculturation process of students with a migration background and facilitate their school adjustment. The three following chapters in this section address different aspects and contexts of the inclusion of migrant children in mainstream schools. Focusing on Germany, Mona Massumi, Christina Brandl, and Annette Korntheuer review different local practices in the German educational system with respect to refugee children and youth. They suggest that there are discrepancies between the states in Germany in terms of access refugees have to schooling, which is often connected to bureaucratic delays in registration, confirmation of legal status, and assignment to specific municipalities. Once access to schools is gained, there are also significant differences across municipalities in support services. The authors identify five models of provision on a continuum from complete integration to partial integration into the mainstream system, to complete separation in the form of distinct classes or schools. Notwithstanding some ‘blurriness’ in practice across each category, consistently the research notes the tendency to treat refugees as a homogenous group with insufficient attention to individual needs, prior learning experiences, and preferences. The authors call for a greater emphasis on co-participatory research with refugee children and youth and political and educational stakeholders to address gaps in knowledge and the development of more transformative practices. Fundamentally they argue research needs to guard against essentializing and further ‘othering’ refugee children and youth using an intersectional lens to identify the appropriate model of integration. Following the review of different models of integration in Germany, Nihad Bunar explores the main models for organizing education for newly arrived migrant students in elementary schools (from separate classes to immersion) and in upper-secondary schools (Language Introduction Program) in Sweden. The overall conclusion put forward in this chapter is that the organizational models deployed in elementary schools affect conditions for the inclusion of newly arrived students only to a certain degree. In upper-secondary schools, the Language Introduction Program does not facilitate inclusion. As evident from research accounts, precisely the opposite seems to be taking place. Additionally, two major support measures are presented: a) initial assessment of student background and experiences of learning and schooling and b) multilingual classroom assistance. In spite of the ambitiousness of these measures for the inclusion of newly arrived migrants in schools, their implementation in practice can

6  Research handbook on migration and education be distorted, undermining their capacity to promote the social and pedagogical inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools. Following Bunar’s account of the Swedish context, Lutine de Wal Pastoor explores the educational and psychosocial challenges concerning the inclusion of recently arrived refugee students in upper-secondary education in Norway. The findings presented in this chapter frequently point to a policy–practice gap, that is, a discrepancy between national policy principles on inclusive education and their implementations in schools. The study further discloses a particular need for more expertise and skills in how to promote principles of inclusion and belonging in relation to diverse student populations in general and newly resettled refugee students in particular. The last two chapters in this section address another aspect that affects the inclusion of migrant students – the role of migrant parents and their relationships with schools. Studies show that migrant parents are often in a disadvantaged position when it comes to choosing a school for their children or getting involved in their children’s education in general. The loss of social capital, limited social networks, unfamiliarity with the education system of the host country, the migrant legal status, and economic constraints all shape migrant parents’ relationships with schools and ultimately their children’s integration. Dympna Devine, Merike Darmody, and Emer Smyth draw on national-level data from Ireland in relation to teacher perceptions of immigrant parents’ contact with them and interest in their children’s education. In addition, the chapter also draws on qualitative analysis of patterns of engagement between immigrant parents and their teachers/principals in a number of primary schools. Teachers report lower levels of contact with non-Western European parents and tend to see them as less interested in their children’s education. Contrary to the perceptions of teachers, immigrant parents report high levels of interest in their children’s education but face challenges in navigating the Irish education system. The chapter highlights the importance of intercultural competence and proactive engagement by schools in fostering meaningful engagement with immigrant parents. School choice is an additional factor influencing immigrant parent engagement with the education system. Daniel Owusu Kyereko and Daniel Faas build on the existing literature in this area, predominantly in the Global North, taking the exemplar of Ghana. A multicultural society, Ghana has no central policy of school placement and, in principle, migrant parents have the freedom to choose their children’s school. However, this alleged freedom also highlights the constraints immigrant parents face. Based on qualitative interviews with migrant parents in two areas – a migrant-dominant area and an area with low rates of migrants – they demonstrate the importance of the location of the school and informal social networks in the decisions parents make. While informal social networks can be valuable in assisting parents to make a decision, they can also be sources of inaccurate information. The chapter thus demonstrates not only the importance of social networks but also the quality of the networks in shaping parents’ choices and ultimately their children’s integration and future educational trajectories. Thus, the overall conclusion emanating from the contributions in Part I is that inclusion is never only a matter of good policy ‘on paper’ or a prerogative of some schools or teachers. Inclusion in education generally, and especially concerning children with a migration background, can be effective only if it is designed and enacted in a truly inclusive matter. The ‘how’ of inclusion – the practices involved – is the subject of contributions in Part II.

Introduction 

7

Part II: Supporting Practices in Schools and the Community: Language(s) and Learning Support This part focuses on schools’ and communities’ practices designed to support the learning of refugee and migrant children. The chapters in this section, drawing on examples from Australia, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Canada, and Türkiye, highlight the gaps within school systems around the recognition of both the heterogeneity of migrant and refugee groups and the multiple skills and resources they bring to learning. Consistently, examples of good practice emphasize the importance of cultural and linguistic recognition and engagement with home languages and the need for individualized learning strategies combined with a strength and asset-based approach to teaching immigrant and refugee students in schools. This section also includes contributions that examine support systems beyond the mainstream school system and their importance for the learning as well as the inclusion of migrant children. Jim Cummins’ chapter situates the underachievement of immigrant and refugee students in schools in the context of pedagogies that fail to draw on the strengths and potential of children’s multilingual skills. Through a comparative analysis of the performance of immigrant and native students in PISA studies, he highlights differences in second-generation immigrant student achievement. He argues that these cannot be solely connected to differences on the basis of socio-economic status or home/school language differences. While policies to reduce what Cummins terms as the ‘opportunity’ gap in immigrant achievement tend to focus on broader issues of school composition and immigrant parental engagement, he argues for greater attention to be paid to instructional practices and strategies in schools. Drawing on his own extended research in the field, in addition to research in the United States and New Zealand, Cummins highlights how ‘opportunity gaps’ arise from the home-school language switch that occurs for refugee and immigrant children once they start school, in a context of the devaluing of their cultures and identities, itself connected with wider inequalities of power and status of immigrants in the settlement society. For effective change, he emphasizes the implementation of asset-based pedagogies that build on students’ linguistic and cultural resources and focus on affirming student identities. The empowerment of immigrant children through a distinct valuing of their home languages, implementing anti-racist and culturally sustaining pedagogies, and collaborative relations of power resonates with the themes discussed in the previous section – the social inclusion of migrant children. Cummins situates this in a context of tangible improvements in immigrant children’s literacy achievement and learning engagement which is of benefit to the system as a whole. Sue Creagh touches on similar themes, highlighting examples of good practice in schools with respect to recognition and respect for the languages, cultures, and heritage of refugee and immigrant students. Creagh’s chapter details findings from a longitudinal study of newly arrived immigrant and refugee students in an intensive English language immersion school in Queensland, Australia, and the progress they made in their learning across a three-stage extended programme of English language support. Her research is timely given the shift in policy towards entry to the mainstream school system as soon as possible after arrival, and her concerns about the capacity of mainstream schools to provide adequate English as an additional language (EAL). She draws specifically on detailed data with respect to the social educational background and visa status of the students, in addition to their academic progress during their time in the school. Her analysis highlights the heterogeneity of the immigrant

8  Research handbook on migration and education and refugee student population and the importance of looking beyond the visa category in terms of needs (and funding) within the system – especially the pace of transition into the mainstream system. She notes the strengths of the school in terms of its connectedness with the experiences and contexts of the diverse students and flexible whole school and individuated approaches in catering to their needs. These need to be mirrored within the mainstream system to ensure that students are adequately catered for in light of the wider policy reforms. Marjorie Faulstich Orellana and Inmaculada García-Sánchez examine the learning of children of (im)migrants in their everyday lives in home and community contexts. Using a sociocultural lens on learning as shaped by relationships, tasks, purposes, goals, and contexts; the chapter focuses on a core set of everyday routine activities that are common to and/or shaped by experiences of migration. This practice, which has been called ‘language brokering’, calls on children to use their knowledge of linguistic and sociocultural processes to read, write, listen, speak, and do things for others. The aim is to illustrate how the common daily life experiences of immigrant children can support the development of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and competencies that are not typically recognized or valued in school. Resonating with Cummin’s analysis, the chapter highlights how this everyday learning could be recognized, sustained, and critically expanded in schools, in contrast with the more common approach to treating immigrant youth’s everyday experiences as obstacles to be overcome, deficits to be remedied, or mere token steppingstones to academic skills. To some extent, all chapters in the Handbook highlight the disruption of migration to the educational trajectory of children. However, little attention has been given by educational research so far to the additional disruption that occurs for children with other educational needs including those with disabilities or special needs (Oliver & Singal, 2017). Kinsella, Fenwick, Prenderville and Kelly draw on intersectionality theory and disability critical race studies (DisCrit), to explore the issues arising when migrant status intersects with disability and special educational needs, filling an important gap in the research literature. This chapter draws on a systematic review of the literature, giving rise to core themes related to: intersectionality, perceptions of race, models of disability, and over-representation in special education. The chapter also reviews international policy and practice in relation to migrancy and disability. Key challenges that arise with regard to the intersection of migration and disabilities include accurately identifying the needs of such students and differentiating between issues arising from not being educated in one’s native language and those arising from a possible disability. This has implications for the type of support required. Disability is not an individual issue, it is a family issue and parents are an essential part of the ‘therapeutic alliance’, along with clinicians and school personnel. The linguistic and cultural barriers between native teachers and clinicians and migrant parents render this alliance fragile. Parents of migrant children with disabilities frequently do not have the social and cultural capital to access adequate support services and report overwhelming feelings of being isolated and consequently refrain from engaging with support services and parent associations. Migrant parents of children with disabilities or special educational needs frequently lack the support of extended family, especially grandparents, which has been shown to be of considerable benefit in raising children with a disability, such as autism. The relatively under-researched field of complementary or community-based language schooling is the subject of the chapter by Yongcan Liu and Lottie Hoare, which the authors theorize as communities of language practice that evolve through grassroots initiatives. Notwithstanding the evidence base of the benefits of multilingualism, such initiatives arise

Introduction 

9

from the gap in the provision of heritage-based languages in schools. Yet, the authors argue that these schools not only contribute to furthering the linguistic development of students and the preservation of heritage languages but also contribute to their emotional and social wellbeing and resilience through positive cultural identities that support wider integration into the settlement society. Their exploratory research draws on perspectives and practices of teachers and parents across six such schools that catered for children’s extended learning in Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Korean, Polish, and Spanish. Teachers varied across schools in their levels of qualification. Consistently evident, however, were their hybrid and flexible approaches that included translanguaging and a positive valuation of the heritage language and culture. The research suggests that it is the shared multifaceted vision evident within each school that is the source of strength, the creation of a sense of community, of which language maintenance is but one outcome. However, the authors query the longer-term sustainability of these schools in the absence of government support, arguing for a progressive policy in the area. Equally, the chapter draws attention to the benefits of incorporating immigrant and refugee children’s cultural and linguistic capitals into the mainstream system, and its central role in creating a sense of belonging, positive identity, and community, over and above language development. Following Liu and Hoare’s chapter on complementary schools, Ozlem Erden-Basaran’s chapter sheds light on another form of educational support – informal local refugee support organizations in Türkiye. Türkiye, which in the past decade has become the host of close to 4 million refugees, of which around 1.2 million are school-age children, has faced a tremendous challenge when it comes to providing for their educational needs and their right to education. Into this challenge, local refugee support organizations stepped in, providing support that ranges from sporadic tutoring to de-facto schooling. Erden-Basaran focuses on the societal curriculum constructed by these organizations and the effect they have on the inclusion of refugee children in mainstream Turkish schools. She points out the tension that derives from these organizations and the hold on refugee children and their families and the loyalty they demand, which raises questions about whether they might act as an obstacle to the inclusion of refugee children since their existence to a great extent relies on the refugees’ dependency on these organization. The contributions in this part, focusing on the involvement of local communities in the education of children with migration backgrounds, further illuminate the additional sources of support that schools can rely on. Nevertheless, the schools are not always ready or willing to accept this valuable support. Looking at the relationship between formal education and complementary education, Jens Schneider explores another form of support – mentoring. The concept of mentoring is understood as an instrument or a methodology for enhancing the educational potential, especially of young persons in vulnerable positions or with a need for special support. The surge of non-school-based programmes, that is, mentoring, tends to be interpreted by schools as a critique and indication of failing to fulfil their own explicit or implicit ambition: to provide all the education that children and youth need in order to succeed in life and for them to find their place in the labour market. Mentoring programmes, on the other hand, do not always reflect well on their goals and whether their methods and approaches are really the best suited. With reference to some good practice examples from different fields and countries, the chapter outlines a model for how schools and non-school-based education can be conceived as two complementary elements of an ‘educational landscape’ that draws on a broader understanding of education and its benefits for young people – especially those from immigrant families.

10  Research handbook on migration and education Part III: Vulnerability, Voice and Agency This part consists of six chapters that explore various types of vulnerability migrant children are exposed to – displacement, forced migration, trafficking, left-behind children, and unaccompanied minors. The contributions provide insights into the vulnerability-generating contexts and the mitigating role of civil society organizations, teachers, and principals. Particularly important is that the contributions in this section prioritize the voices of young migrants themselves and their experiences. Displacement, conflict, and forced migration place children and youth in a vulnerable position. The authors in this section address the vulnerability that derives from such contexts but avoid falling into the trap of vulnerability/at-risk discourse that often characterizes the research on child migration and emergency situations (Ensor & Gozdziak, 2010; Gildoi, Allbert, & Nienaber, 2022). On the contrary, what all six chapters in this section have in common is their commitment to giving voice to these children and putting a spotlight on their agency. The opening chapter of Part III, by Eleanore Hargreaves and Jumana Al-Waeli, highlights the voices of Syrian refugees and their schooling experiences in two very different contexts – Lebanon and the UK, highlighting the importance of social and educational contexts for the inclusion of refugees. They draw on data from two case studies. One study was conducted in Beqa’a Valley in Lebanon with children that received schooling operated by a charitable foundation called Multi-Aid Programmes (MAPs). The second study focused on Syrian refugee children attending a state school in London, UK. In both cases, experiences of inclusion and exclusion were explored, noting differences in the support they had from the local and national communities. In Lebanon, the children felt a connection to their teachers who are also Syrian refugees but felt estranged from the local community and Lebanese society at large. While in London, the children experienced some alienation within the school where they were singled out as non-English speakers and not always made to feel welcome. Yet, sometimes, they saw the advantages of being in a new national context and the possibilities of improved life chances this promised. In the next two chapters, we are presented with the impact of internal migration, displacement, and trafficking on the lives and educational opportunities of children. Khaleda Gani Dutt highlights the voices of trafficked migrant children living in the red-light district of Kalighat in the city of Kolkata, India, who attend a Children’s Learning Center. This qualitative study sheds light on the lived-in realities of the children in such contexts. The findings suggest that the ‘safe space’ provided by the centre enables the children of Kalighat to complete their education and ensures that they are not harvested back into the human trafficking industry. Practices of inclusion were imperative for the children in order to realize their dreams and aspirations. Global migration and internal migration trends today bring a growing phenomenon of children growing up without their parents. Whether it is children in the Philippines, Mexico, or China whose parents migrate internally, global migration of parents without their children also has consequences for their lives and education. However, so far little attention has been given to the educational needs and trajectories of children growing up without their parents. Rachel Murphy and Yan Zhang consider the implications of large-scale rural-urban adult labour migration in China for children’s educational outcomes. This migration has led to tens of millions of children growing up with at least one parent living away from them. In this chapter, Murphy and Yan Zhang argue that the impacts of parental migration on their

Introduction 

11

left-behind children’s educational outcomes vary by the indicators under consideration (test scores, school progression rates or classroom behaviour), the children’s age and gender, who migrates and who provides care, the timing and duration of the parents’ migration, and the household’s social and economic status. Aspects of local contexts such as the school infrastructure, the prevalence of boarding, and rates of adult outmigration also interact with the children’s individual and household characteristics to affect their educational experiences and outcomes. However, although policymakers increasingly expect rural schools to play a role in mitigating the care deficits and educational disadvantages experienced by some children, the authors argue that measures reliant on schools are at best partial. Globally, the majority of refugees and displaced people, including children, move between neighbouring countries in the Global South. According to the UNHCR, 74% of refugees and displaced people are hosted by low- and middle-income countries (UNCHR, 2022). In such contexts, children are migrating to countries that already face significant challenges in providing education for the local population. The next two chapters focus on the reality of child migration in the Global South, continuing the focus of the other chapters in this section on children’s resilience and agency in the face of existing challenges. Drawing on ethnographic research in Kenya’s Kakuma Refugee Camp (2015–2017), Michelle J. Bellino and Rahul Oka explore how refugee youth develop an understanding of their right to education and the civic means available to them as non-citizens for claiming these rights. Everyday school-based interactions carry mixed messages about the level of rights and autonomy that refugees have over shaping the content and contexts for their learning. When invited to identify and share challenges with school actors and humanitarian agencies, students are frequently dismissed and repositioned as beneficiaries with limited agency in the context of exile. Simultaneously, refugee youth are instructed to cultivate self-reliance as an antidote to dependency on their host country and service providers. This dual logic circulates discursively through global policy and local practices. Relationships and practices in school spaces signal that claiming one’s educational rights in the camp context can be arbitrarily rewarded or disciplined. This chapter explores how young people learn to strategically adapt to, perform, and resist this wider framing of youth as both dependent and self-sufficient rights-bearers. What happens when children cross into neighbouring countries, what sort of educational opportunities are they given and what are their voices telling us? Focusing on Zimbabwean children arriving as unaccompanied minors in South Africa, in the border town of Musina, Noa Levy challenges underlying assumptions that institutions and host communities are responsible for setting the tone and shaping the inclusion or exclusion of migrant children. She suggests that Zimbabwean children and youth’s migration to South Africa reveals alternative power dynamics, where young migrants have considerable influence over social and educational interactions in schools. Levy demonstrates how young Zimbabwean immigrants carry a culture of education that challenges the common power relations between unregulated migrants and locals, using their diligence and academic proficiency as a path to conviviality. Zimbabwean unaccompanied children and youth living in community-based shelters manage to mitigate their vulnerable situation by becoming known for their high academic abilities. By positively influencing the learning climate in the classroom and getting good grades, they manage to create close relationships with their teachers and set themselves as an example for local students. Having much to offer to the people around them, they navigate their place within the social fabric of the schools, relying on school and schoolwork as facilitators of mutually beneficial relationships that facilitate conviviality.

12  Research handbook on migration and education The final chapter in this section by Vivienne Anderson, Alejandra Ortiz Ayala, and Sayedali Mostolizadeh draws on participatory methodologies with young refugees in New Zealand, querying what we can learn from refugees’ experience to improve educational and resettlement policies. The authors situate their analysis of the experiences and aspirations of students in two refugee centres in the context of neo-liberal policies that emphasize self-sufficiency and the productive capacities of refugees in their settlement to New Zealand society. Drawing on participatory methodologies with 34 young refugees, 16–21 years old, over three years, they focus on the ‘peopledness’ of policy enactment and the spaces for action these young people carve out as they navigate their educational transitions within the constraints of educational policy. In doing so, the authors highlight how creative self-sufficiency was required by the young people to access the system (rather than being an outcome of it). Key challenges included knowledge about education pathways, a monolingual education system, and deficit constructs by teachers who viewed refugees solely as language learners in addition to coping with the trauma of their forced migration. Their analysis shows how policy constructed an educational experience which was both one of risk as well as a pathway to self-sufficiency, as the young people drew on their creative determination to navigate the system. The authors use the young refugees’ experience to query the current policy thrust within the New Zealand Refugee Resettlement Strategy in light of the bordering practices that predominate through a lack of provision of adequate support and a system that individualizes refugee struggles to deficits in culture and disposition. Part IV: Migration, International Mobility and Educational Opportunity The contributions in this part explore one of the most prominent themes in migration and education research today – the movement of international students, especially in the context of higher education. As Rachel Brooks and Johanna Waters describe in the opening chapter of this section, there has been a constant increase in the number of international students, worldwide, with the latest statistics suggesting there are about 5.6 million international students globally (OECD, 2023). Country-based reports suggest that even if the movement of international students has slowed down during the pandemic, in 2022, it has been on the rise again, with an increase, for example, of 4% in the United States (Washington Post, 14/11/2022). This type of global movement is often more welcomed by host countries, seen as less problematic, and fits into neo-liberal internationalization discourse. One of the major outcomes of globalization with respect to education is the mobility of children, young people, and families for the purpose of pursuing educational opportunities. This part focuses on such aspects of education and migration, highlighting the movement of families for a better education of their children and the movement of global middle-class families in the pursuit of global capital, as well as the movement and experiences of international students in higher education institutions. Indeed, educational opportunities and the internalization of higher education generate movements. The contributions in this section provide a wide perspective on student mobility across different contexts: South Korea, the UK, Türkiye, the Netherlands, and the movement between Mexico and the United States. Some of the contributions focus on the internationalization of higher education and students’ mobility while others look at the disruption migration causes for the educational trajectory of refugees and migrants and how it can or should be addressed.

Introduction 

13

We start with Brooks and Waters, who give us an overview of the main trends in what they refer to as the ‘explosion’ of scholarship work on international mobility students. They highlight the most significant debates pertaining to contemporary international student mobility by drawing on extensive literature (both empirical and theoretical) in sociology, geography, and education. The authors identify five prominent themes in recent research: changes in the geographies of student mobilities; socio-economic diversification in mobile students; migration, citizenship, and state-building projects; learning and classroom experiences; and ethics and international student mobility. These themes are not exhaustive but reflect what Brooks and Waters see as some of the most significant developments in the academic literature over the past ten years (Waters and Brooks, 2021). They draw upon this review to call for an interdisciplinary understanding of international student mobility (ISM) that brings together scholarship from different areas of enquiry and they conclude with some directions for future work in this area. This includes expanding research on student mobility to other, less traditional migrant-receiving contexts. Rennie Moon, in a sense, takes up on the call made by Brooks and Waters and focuses on international student mobility trends, policies, and their evolution in South Korea – a country that until recently was mostly a sending country rather than a destination for international students. The chapter addresses the main factors that have contributed to the large influx of international students in South Korea since the 2000s and considers some of the remaining challenges that have resulted from this inbound trend. Moon also examines some of the challenges of inbound student mobility such as the rising tensions between international and local students and international student employment and retention. Overall, the case of international student mobility and related policies in South Korea demonstrates a complex process of policy change. Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Juan Carlos Aguilar Castillo, and Christian Cortes-Velasco demonstrate how through the internationalization of higher education, power relations and asymmetries between countries still play an important role. They examine student mobility between Mexico and the United States, stressing the importance of the changing political context on trends of mobility. The chapter discusses, first, the history of migration dynamics between the two countries and offers a framework for understanding the role of academic mobility within the context of the internationalization of higher education. At the centre of this chapter is an overview of the asymmetrical academic exchange between Mexico and the United States as it was shaped by two programmes: the 100K Strong in the Americas and Proyecta 100,000. These two programmes are a good example of initiatives that were timely at one point, but once the political climate in the two countries changed, did not last. This comparison enables the authors to draw some conclusions on how the internationalization of higher education is context-dependent. Finally, by drawing on the authors’ previous research projects, the chapter also discusses the extent to which low-income students who have the opportunity to migrate for a study programme abroad can translate it to social mobility. While the international movement of students has been a major focus of much of the research on education and migration, the right to tertiary education of refugees is very rarely addressed. Ayselin Yildiz and Caroline Oliver in their respective chapters both note that while rights to education have received policy attention with respect to refugee children in the primary and secondary sectors, attention to refugees’ participation in tertiary education has belatedly become a policy focus, framed especially in terms of the waste of talent and the possible contribution of refugees to the host society.

14  Research handbook on migration and education The impact of policy changes on the possibilities of social mobility is the focus of Ayselin Yildiz’s chapter. In recent years, Türkiye has developed a novel and inclusive policy designed to facilitate the access of refugees to higher education. In this chapter, Yildiz reviews this policy change and the challenges of its implementation. The chapter focuses on how topdown policy intervention is complemented or confronted by institutional bureaucracies and how local social and organizational contexts impact its implementation. Yildiz suggests that while Türkiye has adopted a national inclusive policy, as part of its internalization of higher education attempts, since its implementation is decentralized, its success or failure depends on institutions’ capacity, willingness, and the relationships between local and refugee students. In order for such a policy to be fully implemented successfully, the policy also needs to address institutional differences. Oliver overviews policy in relation to post-compulsory education for refugees in the UK. The chapter details the policy shifts that have occurred including the provision of a limited number of scholarships to the ‘deserving few’ in British universities. Yet problems of access remain for forced migrants who have yet to gain legal status. In its absence, education provision tends to focus on language and civic education, without accreditation, limiting the pathways to further higher-status opportunities. Oliver’s review also details the challenges in accessing higher and further education for refugees with legal status. Gaps in knowledge of university staff in relation to procedures and immigrant regulations also set limits to opportunities, giving rise to conservative decision making in offering university places. Her review also notes the supports required for refugees once they have secured qualifications in terms of understanding and accessing work and the employment market. Oliver notes the positive shift in policy towards post-compulsory education but argues this needs to move beyond bridging gaps in access and provision to a more fundamental critique of the status of ‘refugeeness’ itself – a status that offers conditional acceptance to a limited few and operates in practice to curtail and limit opportunities for settlement. The importance of social inclusion and relationships between host and migrant student, as well as inclusive institutional policy, is highlighted in the chapter by Nasser Mohamedhoesein, Maurice Crul, and Marieke Slootman. They focus on students’ inclusion, confidence in diversity policies, and academic achievement in one Dutch four-year college. The chapter draws on a survey examining the differences between college students with and without a migration background and international students. Migration background students are divided into migration from OECD and non-OECD countries. The findings reveal four inclusion profiles describing different levels of social (involvement with peers) and academic (involvement with staff) inclusion. National students without a migration background had the best inclusion profile. They felt most at home on campus, had the most confidence in diversity policies, and showed the highest academic achievements. In contrast, non-OECD students felt the least at home on campus, and their confidence in diversity policies and their academic achievement is the lowest of the four groups. Students with an OECD migration background and international students show similar inclusion and confidence in diversity policy outcomes. However, OECD migrant students’ academic achievement is higher than international students due to more involvement with peers. To overcome the gap, they argue that more interventions should be developed in and outside the classroom to connect students and staff across ethnic and racial boundaries. The final chapter in this section addresses a different type of student mobility. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 15 Israeli Jewish globally mobile professional families, Khen Tucker,

Introduction 

15

Miri Yemini, and Claire Maxwell examine school choice strategies those families employ. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital and Ben-Porath’s (2009) notion of ‘bounded rationality’, they illustrate an evolving pattern of decision making, where further relocations instigate new criteria that determine school choice. Their findings highlight the shifting responses and priorities arising from multiple moves. In the first move abroad, a ‘bounded rationality’ prevails – the importance of retention of their Jewish/Israeli national and cultural identities while abroad was paramount. Most sought out Jewish/Israeli schools, in spite of being themselves secular, prioritizing the familiar (especially the Hebrew language) and the creation of a ‘soft landing’ through the retention of strong Jewish/Israeli links. However, with second and subsequent moves, the basis for choices made mirrored those more typically found among middle-class professionals, including a more cosmopolitan outlook and the generation of cultural capital through accessing schools with high reputation and prestige and English language proficiency. Connections with Jewish/Israeli communities were now ensured outside the school system – through social and extra-curricular activities. Importantly, parents viewed these strategic choices not only in terms of conferring competitive advantage in the transnational space – as ‘globally mobile families’ but also on any pending return to living in Israel. Part V: Between the State and the School: The Tension between Immigration and Education Policies The final part of the Handbook details more broadly the impact of policy discourses and enactments that sets the context for how migrants and refugees experience education. The chapters in this section also address the importance and sometimes overlooked tension between migration policies and their impact on the right to education of migrant and refugee children and their schooling experiences and opportunities. They highlight the importance of understanding policy tensions and examining school practices in their wider policy context. Detailing research from the UK, France, Spain, Ethiopia, China, Australia, and Latin America, the chapters highlight the significance of education to the wider framing of immigrants within settlement societies and the often-constrained approach to their education, and the implementation of educational policy in the context of immigration control. Ultimately, the physical borders mapping nation-states become reflected in their bordering practices, with respect to immigrant ‘others’ within them. Themes of threat, securitization, limitation, and risk permeate policy initiatives and responses within a wider neo-liberal framing that individualizes failure to deficits among immigrant groups. Oakleigh Welply’s chapter on policy and media discourses in the UK and France highlights two countries with historically very different approaches to integration and education – (the British model of multiculturalism and the French Republican model of laïcité), yet strong points of convergence with respect to migration and education. Situating her analysis in the context of critical policy discourse, Welply examines the portrayal of migrants in the media in both countries, in the wider context of the growth of populist, far right, and xenophobic movements in both countries and the positioning of migrants as the ‘threatening other’. Welply highlights the prominence of negative discourses of language and religion (especially Islam) and their (in)compatibility with core ‘British’ values and the threatening immigrant ‘other’. Immigration is positioned as a ‘drain’ on educational resources, in addition to a threat to the safety and security of British schools amid a moral panic around the loss of national identity

16  Research handbook on migration and education and ‘Britishness’. While similarly negative narratives are evident in the French press, the discourse tends to be framed in terms of concerns over threats to the republican and secular [laic] nature of French society (and education) by Muslim immigrants (mainly from North Africa) in addition to security threats arising from the concentration of urban immigrant youth in the ‘banlieues’. Welply notes that while such discourses do not cause policy shifts in education, nonetheless, they converge with policy developments that individualize immigrant failure to ‘undesirability’ and deficits in culture and disposition, a threat to national cohesion, and increasingly securitized responses to immigrant youth, including counter-security policy measures in schools. A detailed overview of the centrality of rights to education policy with respect to refugee and migrant children is provided by Ruth Brittle. Coming from a legal framework, she outlines the legislative shifts internationally with respect to human rights and children’s rights in education, and their alignment with policy developments, including most recently the Sustainable Development Goals. As with previous chapters throughout the Handbook, she notes that policy does not necessarily guarantee implementation, and this is especially evident with respect to the distinction she draws between rights to education and education rights of refugee and migrant children. Similar to Welply, Brittle notes the tension between an inclusive approach to the education of refugee and migrant children and the securitized immigration control agenda of a state, which seeks to strictly regulate the entry and stay of non-nationals. While international treaties – such as, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – stipulate children have a right to education, Brittle notes its minimal interpretation as no legal barrier to accessing the school system. However, she argues that the realization of children’s education rights in practice is dependent not only on the minimum standards of education (for all children) set within host countries, but also the more hidden barriers of the legal status of their parents, their capacity to advocate for and access local schools, in addition to the varied resources (and social infrastructure) available within host states to support the education of refugee and migrant children. Brittle also points to the importance of education as an enabling right – central to the realization of other rights for children – including social, economic, and cultural rights, as well as those relating to civil and political rights. Providing an overview of the five As that are required to realize migrant children’s rights (availability, access, acceptability, adaptability, and affordability), she also notes the importance of spaces for the voice and participation of refugee and migrant children in education about and for them, in addition to the need to be empowered to exercise that voice. Changes in educational policy in relation to migrants and its effect on the relationship between hosts and migrants and the right to education are discussed by Alebachew Kemisso Haybano, examining the case of Ethiopia. Most African migration remains in the continent where 21 million documented African migrants live in another African country (IOM, 2022). Recent shifts in policy (UNHCR Education Strategy, 2012–2016) advocate a mainstreaming approach to the education of refugee children, including in Africa, where the education of refugee children was previously provided by international agencies. Haybano focuses on the effect of this policy shift on the policy of inclusion of refugees into the national education system in Ethiopia and the challenges associated with implementing such a major policy change, particularly in primary education. Ethiopia is one of the countries that signed the September 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and immediately announced what is called the nine pledges. Expanding access to education for refugees was one of those nine pledges. Drawing on an analysis of policy documents and interviews with

Introduction 

17

officials in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions – two of the four peripheral regions in Ethiopia hosting refugees – this chapter examines the tensions between inclusion and exclusion that emerged from the introduction of this new inclusion policy. By exploring the tensions between the official refugee policy, which emphasizes inclusion, and local contexts, which may have exclusive practices towards refugees, the chapter sheds light on how the marginalization of host communities in the peripheral regions of Ethiopia shapes the inclusion policy. Haybano shows how the tension between inclusion and exclusion in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions has led to fears and hopes among refugees and the host communities towards the possible outcomes of the new refugee inclusion policy. This chapter contributes to the understanding of the complexities involved in implementing inclusive education policy in a context where members of the host communities also suffer from exclusion, it thus highlights some of the challenges of promoting inclusive education for refugees in the context of the Global South. The ambiguous positioning of migrant children in China is evident in the chapter by Min Yu and Christopher B. Crowley. Migrant children in this context refer to the children who move with their parents from rural to urban centres, a feature of the rapid transformation of China since the 1990s. Their research, tracing the development of educational policies in Beijing over a period of eight years, highlights not only the challenges facing these children in accessing public schools but also how these challenges were a direct and explicit outcome of initiatives to curb population growth in cities. In other words, educational policy operated discursively as a mechanism for population control, the latter prioritized over the educational opportunities (through constrained access to public schools) of migrant children. Through extended qualitative research with five communities across six districts in Beijing between 2010 and 2018, their analysis traces the development of unofficial ‘migrant children schools’ as a direct response by parents to ensure some form of education for their undocumented children in the absence of official registration to the local district. Rather than extend provision through the public system, they highlight how the introduction of increasingly stringent registration requirements (with the covert aim of encouraging parents to send their children back to rural villages) established legal barriers to migrant children entering public schools. Given the lower status of rural migrants in Chinese society, a culture of blame ensued with respect to migrant parents who ‘failed’ to register their children appropriately, enabling local schools to reject them. They note that crackdowns and closures of these schools, especially in the build-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and their replacement with privately run state-funded schools, have done little to improve the quality of migrant children’s experience. The authors note the discursive implications of these policy responses in consolidating the negative reputation of migrant children schools (and migrants) in public consciousness while simultaneously serving the wider government remit of population control. The international reach of these discourses is also evident in Silvia Carrasco’s overview of the shift in educational policy in Spain over the past 20 years. She traces the rapid change of Spain to an immigrant-receiving country from the 1990s and the ensuing cycles of educational reform and counter-reform that emerged in line with the exigencies of economy and political representation, rather than the needs of immigrant communities themselves. Her analysis highlights how patterns of segregation of immigrants from the native population were embedded through neo-liberal reforms and the establishment of a state-funded private sector, with immigrants concentrated in less well-resourced public schools. This dovetailed with the concentration of immigrants in working-class communities. Earlier reforms emphasizing

18  Research handbook on migration and education respect for diversity became supplanted with an increasing focus on monolingualism as the route to social integration. Carrasco’s discussion of the increasing poverty among immigrant groups and public discourse about the lack of integration of immigrant youth into Spanish society mirrors Welply’s analysis of public discourse in the UK and France. Similarly, she traces the evolution of a securitization approach to migration management and increasing discourses of anti-immigration from the far right, including ethnic profiling, especially of young immigrant men. This included requirements by teachers in schools to report on students they suspect of becoming radicalized. Carrasco however queries the meaning of integration in practice, in light of the failed impact of policies in education evident through higher levels of early school leaving among immigrant youth and among the greatest discrepancies in educational achievement between native and immigrant youth in the OECD. She also notes the lack of attention to diversity and intercultural education in teacher education, combined with policy reforms conflating special education with the education of immigrant students under the banner of inclusive provision for all, reinforcing the construction of immigrants in deficit terms. Drawing on three illustrative case studies, she argues that a return to the fundamental goals of education and its connection to citizenship is needed. This includes centring teaching and learning on students’ experience and ensuring due attention to the heterogeneity and intersectional influences on children’s readiness and capacities to learn – both immigrant children and their native peers. This Carrasco notes is a matter of rights as well as social cohesion. The remaining two chapters in this section provide tangible examples of how policy responses constrain the realization of education rights through their conditional legal status and limited social support. Sally Baker, Loshini Naidoo, and Jennifer M. Azordegan offer a policy review of the types of education available for refugees and asylum seekers in Australia and the policy changes in the past decade. Their review stresses how migration policy and migration categories shape educational responses and access of refugees and asylum seekers to education provisions. They demonstrate how the different visa categories, namely bridging visa (BV), temporary protection visa (TPV), and safe haven enterprise visa (SHEV), means different access to education and different funding and support. The authors distinguish between migration categories which provide temporary versus permanent protection and their implication for the access of refugees and asylum seekers to schooling, English language education, vocational education, and higher education. The review of the Australian migration and education policies in this chapter stresses the tension between migration policy and the emergence of different migration categories creating new forms of temporality, and the right to access and benefit fully from education. In the final chapter of the Handbook, Jessica Crist and Katharine Summers draw our attention to one of the most rapidly growing areas of human mobility – Latin America. Over the past 20 years, long-term migration crises in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Central America’s Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) have displaced millions of people. These Latin American crises stem from political unrest, economic uncertainty, and gang and drug-related violence, among other push factors. Migrants from these countries arrive and settle in neighbouring Central and South American countries, as well as the United States and Mexico. In this chapter, Crist and Summers, take a comparative approach to bring to our attention these three Latin American migration crises and analyse host countries’ policy responses with regard to migrants’ access to education. As a result of differences in legal practices among host countries, Latin American migrants face unequal access to educational opportunities across grade levels and geographic spaces. Migrants from Venezuela,

Introduction 

19

Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle experience enrolment challenges, xenophobia, and other difficulties that impede their integration in their host countries. The chapter presents a Latin America-oriented policy analysis focused on migration and education policies while identifying and providing reasoning for points of similarity and difference within and across crises.

REFERENCES Ainscow, M., & Messiou, K. (2018). Engaging With the Views of Students to Promote Inclusion in Education. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 1–17. Allan, J., & Slee, R. (2019). Not Dead Yet? In M. J. Schuelka, C. J. Johnstone, G. Thomas, & A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Inclusion and Diversity in Education. London: SAGE Publications. Azorín, C., & Ainscow, M. (2020). Guiding Schools on Their Journey Towards Inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(1), 58–76. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900. Baak, M., Miller, E., Sullivan, A., & Heugh, K. (2020). Tensions Between Policy Aspirations and Enactment: Assessment and Inclusion for Refugee Background Students. Journal of Education Policy. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2020.1739339. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge. Ben-Porath, S. R. (2009). School Choice as a Bounded Ideal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(4), 527–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00726.x. Block, K., Cross, S., Riggs, E., & Gibbs, L. (2014). Supporting Schools to Create an Inclusive Environment for Refugee Students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1337–1355. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2021). International Students and Alternative Visions of Diaspora. British Journal of Educational Studies. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2021.1948501. Devine, D. (2013). Value’ing Children Differently? Migrant Children in Education, Children & Society, 27, 282–294. Dryden-Peterson, S. (2016). Refugee Education: The Crossroads of Globalization. Educational Researcher, 45(9). doi: 10.3102/0013189X1668339. Ensor, M. O., & Gozdziak, E. (Eds.). (2010). Children and Migration: At the Crossroads of Resilience and Vulnerability. Palgrave. European Commission. (2017). Migrants in European Schools: Learning and Maintaining Languages. Brussels: EC. Gilodi, A., Albert, I., & Nienaber, B. (2022). Vulnerability in the Context of Migration: A Critical Overview and a New Conceptual Model. Human Arenas. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/ s42087-022-00288-5. Hilt, L. T. (2017). Education Without a Shared Language: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Norwegian Introductory Classes for Newly Arrived Minority Language Students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(6), 585–601. IDAC. (2021). Stronger Data, Brighter Future: Protecting Children on the Move With Data and Evidence. IOM UN Migration. (2022). World Migration Report 2022. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. https://publications​.iom​.int ​/ books​/world​-migration​-report​-2022. Migration Data Portal. (2012). Child and Young Migrants. https://www​.migrationdataportal​.org​/themes​ /child​-and​-young​-migrants. OECD. (2023). International Student Mobility (Indicator). doi: 10.1787/4bcf6fc3-en. Oliver, C., & Singal, N. (2017). Migration, Disability and Education: Reflections From Social School in the East of England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1217–1229. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2016.1273757.

20  Research handbook on migration and education Rawal, H., & De Costa, P. I. (2019). ‘You Are Different and Not Mainstream’: An Emotion-Based Case Study of Two South Asian English Language Learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 209–221. UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2018). Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, Not Walls. Paris: UNESCO. UNHCR. (2022). Refugee Data Finder. https://www​.unhcr​.org​/refugee​-statistics​/insights​/explainers​ /100 ​-million​-forcibly​-displaced​.html. UNICEF. (2022). Child Displacement. https://data​.unicef​.org​/topic​/child​-migration​-and​-displacement​ /displacement/. Washington Post. (2022, November 14). International College Enrollment Ticks Back Up After Pandemic.  https://www​.washingtonpost​.com ​/education​/2022​/11​/14​/international​- college​-student​enrollment​-rise/.

PART I APPROACHES TO THE EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION OF REFUGEE AND MIGRANT CHILDREN

2. The border within: decolonizing refugee students’ education Fabio Dovigo

INTRODUCTION In the last few years, the discourse on migratory flows has been dominated by the idea of crisis. According to this common perspective, millions of migrants are headed to Europe to seek new life opportunities, disregarding both the dangers of travel and the impossibility of welcoming everyone without jeopardizing the very foundations of European welfare and way of life. But what ‘crisis’ are we actually talking about? According to the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR, 2021), the number of asylum applications in Europe fell steadily during the period from 2015 (when the number of applications peaked at 1,283,000) to 2020, with the Covid-19 outbreak and subsequent travel restrictions and border closures resulting in a drastic reduction in the total number of applications (471,000). Moreover, these numbers must be considered considering the broader picture of forced displacement across the globe, with more than 26 million refugees and asylum seekers currently worldwide (UNHCR, 2021). The historic wave of refugees recently fleeing the war in Ukraine made the image of a crisis that permeates the widespread contemporary narrative concerning refugees even more complex. While forced Ukrainian migrants are seen as victims that deserve support and sympathy, asylum seekers from other countries face opposition and hostility, with Europe regarded as a fortress under siege by barbarians from countries that simply envy the European lifestyle. As the chapter will demonstrate, this narrative preserves the Eurocentric imaginary that helps maintain exclusionary practices based on a neo-colonial approach to refugee education. The misrepresentation is especially apparent if we examine how the EU budget is spent (European Union, 2021). The multiannual financial framework, which sets out the EU’s spending priorities and limits from 2021 to 2027, has a total budget of 1074.3 billion euros, with an additional 750 billion earmarked for NextGeneration EU, the temporary instrument designed to boost financial recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The budget for managing migration, which includes interventions targeting forced migrants and asylum seekers, amounts to 9.7 billion euros. This is not only less than 1 per cent of the total budget, but also less than the sum set aside for border management (12.6 billion), with the aim of discouraging immigration through forced repatriation of migrants (European Parliament, 2021). Briefly, a combination of economic interests, technocracy and carelessness explains why over the years the Mediterranean has been transformed into the world’s deadliest frontier (International Organization for Migration, 2022). The chapter begins by analysing the conceptual framework that underlies current discourses on refugees in Western countries. A review of evidence emerging from research on refugee education policies and practices is provided, noting the pivotal role of schools within this context. Finally, the chapter concludes by examining how a decolonizing approach to refugee education can help promote more equitable and inclusive education for all. 22

The border within 

23

MIGRATION, BELONGING AND THE POLITICS OF BORDERING It is crucial to remember that this context of forced migration is the by-product of neoliberal globalization, whose expansion has caused the destruction of those areas of the market – mostly local economies in the Global South – that cannot be exploited or manipulated. Evidence suggests that money-making per se is not a strong enough reason for people to migrate to foreign countries (Banerjee & Duflo, 2019). Most people tend to stay where they are, even if migration could offer better salary conditions within the same country, with no borders to be crossed or border patrol to be ‘dodged’ (Zaveri et al., 2021). But when poverty combines with the collapse of everyday normality resulting from war, civil unrest or other forms of violence, especially the young and skilled are driven to seek out better life opportunities at any cost (Shrestha, 2017). In such cases, even though the journey is fraught with danger and migrants know that their skills are of limited use or will be undervalued in the new context, the chance to get a job can become attractive – even if such work is usually temporary and pays below the living wage. It would be natural to assume that the richer countries that migrants choose as their potential destination would welcome young workers who are eager to adapt and embrace the kinds of hard labour that many locals refuse to perform (McKenzie, 2008). Similarly, it would be logical to organize pre-migration procedures that could facilitate job matching, as well as to provide migrants with rent subsidies and childcare provisions to ensure their speedy integration into the host country (Bryan et al., 2014). However, the spectre of violence travels with them. It does not matter if that violence is the product of wars spurred by the increasing demand for oil or rare earth elements needed to produce more cars and mobile phones (Kalantzakos, 2020). Therefore, governments of wealthy countries are asked by their citizens to drive the spectres out by exercising preventive violence and punishing asylum seekers in advance (Chatterjee, 2013; Bosworth & Turnbull, 2017). Sometimes, this results in the creation of limbos – islands, ships, isolated centres – where asylum seekers are segregated indefinitely. But the most effective punishment, in economic terms, is neglect: just letting them disappear as they cross the desert or sea (Mavelli, 2017). Border politics have come to the fore as a central aspect of managing the contemporary tension between inclusion and exclusion through what Crowley defined as ‘the dirty work of boundary maintenance’ (Crowley, 1999: 30). While initial enthusiasm towards cultural and linguistic diversity promoted by a multicultural perspective has eroded, a new conceptual framework has emerged linking the traditional ideas of community and identity to the notion of belonging. A pretextual emphasis on associating belonging with the myth of autochthony – the belief that the natives, as those that are ‘born from the soil’, have more rights than those that arrived later – inherently leads to the development of an attitude of resentment by those that ‘belong’ more towards those that are not seen as legitimate members of the community. Paradoxically, the stronger the position of the self-proclaimed autochthons, the more the discourse of resentment seems to proliferate based on the alleged potential for discrimination and loss afflicting the natives (Block, 2018). Current racialized discourses of belonging as ‘purity’ foster increased border control in the form of securitization policies aimed at reaffirming the natives’ rights at the expense of the overwhelming ‘hordes’ of would-be immigrants that are apparently ready to pour over European borders (Messina, 2014). However, like Pandora’s box, as soon as governance technologies for preventing supposed external threats were put in place, the same technologies of power have also been readily employed to control perceived internal threats (Olwig et  al., 2019). Consequently, the borders themselves have broadened

24  Research handbook on migration and education their traditional role of differentiating one country from another by expanding their control across multiple sites and permeating most aspects of our lives at the global level. On the one hand, jurisdiction to check national identities has been extended from traditional locales like airports and train stations to everyday places such as hospitals, employment offices, universities and schools. On the other hand, those working in these institutions are held responsible for verifying the legal residency status of those in their charge and, when the proper documentation cannot be produced, reporting them to the authorities (Spencer, 2018). In this way, border politics have become a pervasive tool that internalizes and nurtures fear and suspicion, which in turn influences educational policies and practices (Yuval-Davis et al., 2019). Fear of the other has become the latest goldmine for neoliberalism, a raw material collected and exploited to generate a new economic sector comprising surveillance systems and security services. More importantly, it pushes democracies towards a polarized dynamic, in which governments are characterized by endemic fibrillation and instability or, conversely, by nationalistic claims that, in many countries, lead to populism and to the stretching of the constitutional rights of migrants beyond their limits (Urbinati, 2019). Understanding the ‘Crisis’: Paradoxes and Phantoms The widespread notion of a refugee crisis is ambiguous in both its content and delineation. This ambiguity mirrors the many discrepancies, inconsistencies and, sometimes, denials that typify debates on migration and, especially, on refugees (Menjívar et al., 2019). The vagueness regarding the content of the ‘crisis’ is confirmed by the difficulty of defining its object, which is characterized by multiple paradoxes. Current Danish refugee policy is a good example of such a paradox. One of the first countries to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention, Denmark‘s long tradition of providing sanctuary to those in need of international protection has recently been repudiated by legislation introduced by successive Danish governments. In 2019, the Danish Integration Act established that asylum seekers should be relocated to remote areas away from urban settlements while dispersing refugees who have been granted asylum to municipalities with low immigrant populations to guarantee ‘better integration’ (Jørgensen, 2020). These measures were combined with a range of projects, such as the introduction of a temporary subsidiary protection category, confiscation of valuables from asylum seekers, restrictions on family reunification, restrictive criteria for permanent residency and placing the resettlement programme on hiatus. While the plan to house ‘unwanted’ migrants on an island was eventually scrapped, legislative changes went as far as to redefine asylum status as temporary. More recently, Denmark has become the first European country to revoke the residence permits of Syrian refugees, claiming it is safe to return to some parts of Syria. Moreover, Danish authorities have recently signed an agreement with the Rwandan government to start processing asylum applications outside the European Union, which potentially includes sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. As the number of asylum seekers has dropped from 21,000 in 2015 to 1500 in 2020, the obvious question is why, over the space of a few years, successive Danish governments have moved from active integration policies to an expulsion system (Statistics Denmark, 2021). The Danish example, which is anything but isolated in Europe, confirms that a crisis is underway, even though the meaning of this critical situation, the direction it will take and the way it could be tackled are still under scrutiny. The migration ‘influx’ towards Europe that reached a sudden peak in 2015, and the ensuing tragic mass events and dramatic individual

The border within 

25

stories, cannot be considered an unexpected occurrence, as such migration patterns had already existed for many decades and continue today (Gammeltoft-Hansen & Tan, 2017). While refugee numbers have now returned to a small and easily manageable level, the negative reaction of European governments has disproportionately grown over time, leading to increasingly restrictive measures such as those described above. Therefore, the crisis can be interpreted as a way for many European countries to use the phantom menace of migrants’ invasion to create widespread moral panic, justifying the introduction of draconian measures by exacerbating an ‘us against them’ rhetoric (Goodman et  al., 2017). If migrants want to come here, it means that this country must be an attractive place to live, the rhetoric suggests. However, this generates anxiety concerning identity, values and lifestyle: if those living here are really so good, and their values so strong, why are they afraid of accommodating people from other countries? The easy way to avoid this painstaking dilemma is to simply reverse the question. Therefore, migrants are required to show that they are ‘as good as we are’, while natives continue to raise the bar for what constitutes ‘goodness’ (which unfortunately increases their anxiety even more). Refugees, as the extreme version of migrants, risking their lives to reach Europe, are thus the object of multiple and powerful projections that subjectivate them into opposing images (Lems et al., 2020). At one extreme, they are seen as victims, acquiring an exceptional status because of the violence they suffered. At the other extreme, they are considered a possible threat to Western social organization due to a perceived risk that they are simply economic migrants breaking the law by pretending to need asylum. Therefore, violence and violation are inextricably linked in the conflictual perceptions of asylum seekers. Labelling and the Invisibility of Refugees Within the framework of ‘tough’ anti-immigration policies recently developed in many European countries, migrants are placed in a contradictory position (Geddes & Scholten, 2016). On the one hand, entire sectors of the population are classified according to various forms of ethnic categorization as part of an extensive plan to ‘other’ migrants (Mbembe, 2017). On the other hand, as such classification denies migrants the status as citizens of the state in which they reside, they are pushed into an identity limbo, where what was previously considered the sacred and inalienable rights of man (sic) that provide the foundation of Western democracies are no longer secure. As Agamben (1995: 117) suggests, ‘by breaking up the identity between man and citizen, between nativity and nationality, the refugee throws into crisis the original fiction of sovereignty’. This contradiction is made possible by the process of linguistic naturalization of the labels that governments adopt and apply to refugees. These labels are incorporated into institutional documents and then spread through political discourses that acknowledge and endorse them as neutral, objective facts. In this way, ‘the process of labelling, by its very familiarity and ubiquitousness in bureaucratic activity, may almost go unnoticed or unquestioned’ (Zetter, 1991: 45). Beyond becoming invisible through naturalization, these figures of speech also move, stick and slide as they become associated with hate speech, which transforms asylum and migration into a common threat (Ahmed, 2013). The emotional reading provided by hate creates a collective imaginary that positions migrants and national identity as incompatible and oppositional (Gijsberts & Hagendoorn, 2017). However, it also produces a narrative that paradoxically generates a dependency of the nation on migrants to establish a sense of national identity.

26  Research handbook on migration and education One consequence of this process is to homogenize asylum seekers as a group of people that are more similar and homogeneous than is the case (Chang-Muy & Congress, 2009). However, the condition of seeking asylum is only one of the many and varied elements that compose the life experience of forced migrants. Saddling them with a generic label contributes to a sense of invisibility that is both physical (as they are hidden away in segregated centres and camps) and psychological (as the label discourages any potential sense of commonality that could emerge from a deeper knowledge of the migrants’ stories, needs and desires). The level of invisibility is inversely proportional to the level of over-exposure of refugees in public discourse (O’Reilly, 2019). Moreover, the label ‘refugee’ confers the dubious privilege of being distinguished from other lower-grade statuses like ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘displaced person’, which are used as filters to select migrants and reduce access to the most valued refugee condition. As Zetter (2007) emphasizes, the refugee condition has been transformed from a right that is claimed to a highly prized status. This is mirrored by the dramatic changes the political discourse on refugees has undergone. Over the years, the discussion has shifted from an emphasis on rights and entitlements to an essentialist debate on citizenship as a way of belonging to a particular national identity and ‘character’ (Grillo, 2003). Consequently, while in the past the labelling practice was intended to support inclusion, even if it came at a high cost for those involved in the process, current labelling strategies seek to validate procedures that pursue the marginalization and exclusion of refugees. Another side effect linked to these exclusionary labelling procedures is polarization regarding the way refugees are currently represented in the political realm and the media in Europe. As noted above, this polarization is centred on the ‘victim/threat’ opposition, which is often linked to analogous dyads, such as victim/survivor, regular/irregular, deserving/undeserving and bogus/genuine (Donà, 2007). In the last few years, the latter distinction has been increasingly stressed to differentiate the ‘good’ refugees, who are genuinely fleeing from war and persecution, from ‘fake’ asylum seekers, whose aim is to cheat the welfare system or, worse, to pursue illegal activities. Decisions regarding the legitimacy of individual refugees and their asylum claims are increasingly influenced by a culture of disbelief, based on an assumption that most asylum seekers are economic migrants trying to abuse protection by circumventing asylum regulations. Accordingly, the stigmatization and criminalization of migrants are put at the service of neoliberal economics, which depends on the availability of cheap migrant labour that can be exploited (Mezzadra & Neilson, 2013). Unaccompanied child refugees are a clear example of this binary attitude. Pictures of children stranded en route from Syria to Europe flooded television news and the front pages of newspapers for weeks during the Summer of 2015, triggering emotional reactions and a wave of empathy. However, only a few weeks later the same media began to cast doubt on the situation, telling a different story of ‘bogus’ children. Young adults, it was claimed, were posing as minors to be included in the national protection system, when they, in fact, were members of criminal groups trying to expand their illegal activities to the host country (Gerard, 2016). These negative stories stripped away the previous sense of compassion and replaced it with a new attitude towards unaccompanied minors, who were no longer considered blameless children, but seen as potential criminals and assimilated within a narrative of youth gangs that has a very long history within Western culture (Lems et al., 2020). This reversal is a typical example of the way the refugee category has been manipulated to transform understandings of forced migration from the result of conflicts rooted in economic exploitation and political violence to the cause of the crisis currently afflicting Europe. Consequently, it has been used

The border within 

27

to justify the shift from the previous framework of ensuring protection to the current approach that automatically links refugees to illegal activities and threats of terrorism. Reversing this shift requires the raising of several critical questions: How can we go beyond the reactions (whether positive or negative) elicited by the figure of the refugee, currently associated with stereotypes and projections, to develop and bolster a sense of moral responsibility towards forced migrants? How can refugee voices be included in public debate and what role can education play? On this subject, Gilbert (2019) points out that juncture and critique – that is, a critical moment and its critical assessment – are indissolubly embedded in the word ‘crisis’. The ‘refugee crisis’ is rooted in an ethnocentric perspective that views the critical event of forced migration from a limited Western position, according to which the Global South will move en masse to ‘invade’ the Global North. However, when the opportunity for critique emerging from a crisis is seized, it can produce alternative interpretations that help overcome the reproduction of the discourse labelling refugees. This entails a specific effort to dismantle the colonialist attitude that still permeates many school policies and practices, especially evident in the way refugee education is organized in terms of preclusion, seclusion and exclusion. Colonialism and the Exclusion of Epistemic Indigenous Knowledge Colonialism can be defined as a grand dismembering and dehumanizing process that inflicted itself on the non-Western world (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018) that enables cultural imperialism of the colonized. In this regard, Enriquez (1994) identified five main stages of the colonization process: • • • • •

Denial and withdrawal: the local culture is regarded as meaningless and worthless by the colonizers and, consequently, also starts being introjected as such by the colonized. Destruction and eradication: in the next stage, the local culture is recognized and perceived as a potential threat by the colonizers, who actively seek to expunge it from every dimension of public life. Denigration, belittlement and insult: resistance to the Indigenous culture leads to the use of moral violence against it in an attempt to diminish Indigenous knowledge and replace it with education systems imported from the metropole. Surface accommodation and tokenism: at this stage, what is left of the Indigenous culture is tolerated as a folkloric oddity and displayed as proof of the supposed openness and benevolence of the colonizers. Transformation and exploitation: in the last stage, the residual native culture is absorbed and transformed into a source of exploitation, with elements of the cultural tradition incorporated and conveyed to strengthen the predominance of the governing culture.

This process uses categories of whiteness and ableism to build and maintain a long-standing Western ideology, which privileges individual rights and freedoms above collective rights and imposes an economic model based on imperialism and, more recently, the expansion of global corporate capital to the detriment of the participatory economy. Through a combination of power and violence, sovereignty functions as an apparatus that assumes the right to differentiate humans from non-humans and quasi-humans (Agamben, 2009). In this perspective, defining people living in a vulnerable position or at the periphery of the Western empire as dispensable others justifies their invisibility and, consequently, exploitation as morally

28  Research handbook on migration and education acceptable. Moreover, it ensures that those rendered invisible will stay in a liminal position by applying ‘naming and blaming’ strategies, which methodically label diversity as a lack or deficit that can be not only oppressed but also manipulated and capitalized on (Mamdani, 2013). Accordingly, the discourse on human diversity is accepted only to the extent that it can be bent to a system of classification and hierarchization of the other that preserves and strengthens the status quo. This discourse employs a linguistic approach that claims to be universal, even though the perspective adopted only mirrors and takes for granted the metropole’s viewpoint. It produces gestures of exclusion of the epistemic knowledge that originates from those put in a marginalized or colonized position, leading to its systematic erosion and, sometimes, erasure (Connell, 2014). Consequently, those subjected to the normalizing exercise are pushed to see their worldview and experiences as false or irrelevant, introjecting a distorted perception of themselves and their culture that often leads to the transgenerational transmission of the abuse suffered because of colonial oppression. Education plays a pivotal role in helping tackle categorization and abuse by developing equitable forms of participation and learning that include refugee students.

THE ROLE OF REFUGEE EDUCATION In this context, there is an urgent need to take seriously the potential of education to recalibrate, rather than augment, crisis narratives and colonialist attitudes concerning refugees. As a wide body of evidence from multiple countries with extensive experience in providing refugee education shows, it plays a central role as a protective factor for students (DrydenPeterson, 2016; Fazel et  al., 2012). Schools are on the frontline in terms of supporting the refugee accommodation process, as well as providing a secure and supportive environment that helps students recover from the experience of forced migration and strengthens their resilience and coping strategies. However, refugee children often experience multiple barriers concerning information about and access to education, the transition from reception to mainstream classes and trajectories after compulsory education (Koehler & Schneider, 2019). Even though many years have passed since refugees have become a stable presence in Europe, the European Union has been unable to design and implement clear-cut policies, leaving it to other organizations working in the field (medical and social services, non-governmental organizations and voluntary associations) to fill this gap. However, activities promoted by these organizations usually have two main limitations: on the one hand, they mostly address refugees as an undifferentiated group, lacking the ability to diversify interventions; on the other hand, they tend to focus on single issues – in terms of health, legal procedures or social and psychological needs – resulting in a fragmented and sometimes incoherent picture of the refugee experience (Dovigo, 2021). Meanwhile, schools have a better opportunity to work with refugees within a more holistic framework, engaging with them not simply as patients or customers, but as whole persons (Dovigo, 2020). This point is also acknowledged by many international institutions (including the United Nations and the European Union) that affirm the right to education for refugees regardless of their legal status (UNESCO, 2017). However, in many countries, this right is frequently infringed, with refugees facing multiple bureaucratic and organizational barriers that limit their access to education. Moreover, even when enrolment is guaranteed, schools and teachers rarely have the necessary resources and skills to deal with the specific educational,

The border within 

29

linguistic and psychological needs of refugee students. The situation is especially challenging in countries that enrol refugees in low-quality schools or employ early tracking systems to divide them into groups based on ability or academic performance. In such cases, refugee students’ performances are regularly below those of their peers, very often leading to grade retention (Bunar, 2019; Devine, 2013; Pinson & Arnot, 2020). Grouping students according to ability or early tracking criteria has a detrimental effect on all students, but especially those in vulnerable situations, such as refugees (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Moreover, the stress on individual aptitude overshadows other decisive educational dimensions, such as the school’s ability to increase awareness of the value of cultural differences and a more diverse population. This ability can be realized by developing partnerships with parents and other stakeholders – not only to support the settlement of refugee students but also to seize the opportunity to promote better community empowerment. A Holistic, Whole-School Approach Against this background, research underlines that the conceptual and organizational framework adopted by schools deeply influences national educational policy and the way support is provided to refugee students (Dovigo, 2018; Sheikh & Anderson, 2018). Schools commonly prefer to employ an approach focusing on one of the many aspects that influence the educational experience of refugees, such as improving language proficiency, implementing social protection programmes or launching anti-bullying initiatives. However, a growing body of literature emphasizes that the learning, social and emotional needs and potentials of refugee students are better addressed through a holistic approach that provides targeted support, promotes parental involvement, endorses a multi-agency approach and bolsters community involvement (Cerna, 2019). The holistic model aims to strike a balance between the necessity of helping refugee students to acquire the knowledge and skills required by the curriculum and fostering their well-being and participation through an alliance between schools, social services and local communities. Such an alliance has the potential to strengthen multiple aspects of refugee education: sensitivity to and celebration of cultural diversity; a shared commitment to social justice and inclusion; sustaining parents’ engagement in school activities and mutual support; developing cooperation between schools involved in refugee programmes; and promoting a distributive leadership approach for developing partnerships with local agencies. From this perspective, ensuring refugee students’ access to education and providing further educational support that helps them settle in is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, promoting educational programmes for refugees also requires the performance of an organizational analysis to help the school identify and remove barriers to learning and participation for all, which the presence of those students helps identify (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). This analysis facilitates the identification of both internal and external resources – in terms of educational, linguistic and psychological support – needed to adapt and transform teaching and curriculum. Research shows that educational institutions commonly suffer from implicit social, cultural and gender biases that reproduce inequality and marginalization by rewarding students who match a specific profile while others are systematically disempowered (Staats, 2016). Consequently, educational interventions to support refugee students cannot be limited to ‘add ons’ targeting them or their families but should involve the whole school in developing and sharing inclusive values, expanding cooperation with other community partners and reviewing and reshaping the curriculum, including the hidden curriculum rooted in colonial education.

30  Research handbook on migration and education The Hidden Curriculum of Colonial Education Colonial education played a central role in fostering the Eurocentric assumptions that have been at the core of migrants’ exclusion over time and continues to intersperse the school curriculum and educational practice directly and indirectly. This is evident in narratives based on race and culturalism that affirm the Western viewpoint as the only one with legitimacy (Apple, 2013). Therefore, it is no surprise that refugee students attending educational institutions are regularly exposed to one or other forms of hostility and depreciation, from ignoring, devaluing or hindering their native language and cultural competencies to making perfunctory efforts to assimilate (and even exploit) certain aspects of their culture perceived as exotic (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). Building on the colonial process noted by Enriquez (1994), the educational goal of colonialism has always been not only to civilize those whose minds are seen as blank or gullible, but also to display power through the creation of ‘scenes full of moral meaning about who was supposedly good, virtuous, and strong’, with the aim of maintaining a sense of awe towards Western civilization among the colonized (Manjapra, 2020: 144). In this regard, the school curriculum has historically been the main path to the assimilation of colonialist culture and values as normative conceptions in education. The design and implementation of curricular content is a process of selection managed by the governing culture, emphasizing viewpoints and interpretations in line with the worldview of dominant groups to create and maintain the status quo (Apple, 2019). While some perspectives on ability, gender, class and race are assumed as conceptual pillars, other representations are diminished, misrepresented or silenced. This normative structure of the curriculum is rarely articulated and made explicit. More often, it is presented as a neutral and objective representation of reality, the only possible representation, as summarized in the slogan ‘there is no alternative’ repeated by many conservative politicians in the past (Scott, 2021). In this way, specific values and norms imbued with ableism, sexism, classism and racism are surreptitiously included in the educational experience and become taken for granted as common-sense knowledge. The way this ‘hidden curriculum’ is implicitly postulated and naturalized makes it very effective in ensuring broad consensus in support of the dominant model of power (De Lissovoy, 2012). A relevant element of this narrative regarding refugee students is the ability of Western culture to project a humanitarian and salvationist image by setting up inclusive programmes targeting ‘special’ students and ‘developing’ countries (Harry, 2014). The rationale for these activities rests on the assumption that ability deficits or wealth gaps are an individual problem that must be fixed, or at least mitigated. This will help ensure that everyone resembles as closely as possible the American human model that Goffman aptly describes as young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height, and a recent record in sports. […] Any male who fails to qualify in any of these ways is likely to view himself – during moments at least – as unworthy, incomplete, and inferior. (1986: 128)

Aiming to benevolently extend the economic and cultural benefits of this model to nonable and/or non-white peoples, inclusive programmes are often conceived and implemented through educational packages that are based on a linear view of what constitutes normal development, whether at the individual level among school students or at the national level concerning how countries should develop (Srivastava et al., 2015). Instead of giving a voice to and empowering the people they are supposed to help, these packages and programmes

The border within 

31

determine predefined goals and benchmarks to guarantee that interventions will be ‘successful’, meeting the accountability requirements on which schools, governments and NGOs base their economic viability (Singal & Muthukrishna, 2014). The US ‘Child Find’ programme is a typical example in this regard (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2017). The programme requires local education agencies to identify and locate children with disabilities or from a migrant background, so they can be referred for a full individual evaluation to help determine eligibility for special education and related services for those that show ‘developmental delay’. Collecting the views of children and carers about their expectations concerning education is not included in the procedure. Decolonizing Refugee Education By and large, this kind of intervention also applies to educational programmes for refugee students, requiring them to rapidly adapt and integrate into a new environment and curriculum that denies or patronizes their own cultures, instead of approaching them as an opportunity to expand the conversation regarding the values, purposes and practices of education. Compared with other migrants, this situation is especially challenging for children and families who deal with forced migration and the connected experience of separation, loss or trauma (Pugh et al., 2012). Can this apparatus be dismantled to enable the emergence of another kind of education, underpinned by knowledge that does not socially classify and racially hierarchize human beings? As Ngugi wa Thiong’o (2009) noted, the dismembering procedure embedded within the colonial logic of Western education can be reversed by promoting memory as a critical process aimed at (re)composing/combining knowledge fragments from the minority cultures into an alternative narrative that can be valued and disseminated. Like in the Japanese kintsugi art of repairing broken pottery using a precious metal (such as liquid gold or silver), through critical remembering the previously doomed culture regains the right to speak and undergoes a self-healing process that helps to understand and elaborate on the past. As a result, it becomes more robust and precious than before it was broken. This concept of cultural cracks is positioned by Anzaldúa (1999) within the powerful metaphor of nepantla, a word that in the Nahuatl language indicates the space between two bodies of water and, by extension, between two worlds (ibid: 237). It is a liminal place, where transformation is possible precisely because it enables detecting the cracks (rajaduras) in the concept of cultural identity as monocultural belonging. The cracks – the experience of being in-between two cultures – provide a third point of view that, by disrupting the binary opposition between ‘us’ and ‘the others’, makes it possible to recognize ourselves as subjects outside existing dominant relations. Through the cracks, it is possible then to overcome any single culture or ideology based on oppositions like insider/outsider or internal/external exile. This view from the cracks (the ‘nepantleras perspective’) allows us to refuse to turn right onto the dominant culture’s assimilation/acquiescence highway, [as well as] to turn left onto the nationalistic isolationism path demanding that we preserve our ethnic cultural integrity. Instead, las nepantleras construct alternative roads, creating new topographies and geographies of hybrid selves who transcend binaries and depolarize potential allies. (Anzaldúa, 2015: 82)

It is important not to romanticize nepantla, as it is an awkward and uncomfortable spot where unpleasant aspects of ourselves – pain, anger, despair – can come to light. However, the knowledge that exposes our fears also lets us navigate them and emerge on the other side

32  Research handbook on migration and education where they can be overcome and their energy, in turn, can be used to help others undertake a similar healing process. This resonates with Bhabha’s (1994) notion of a ‘third space’ – a hybrid space that provides a dialogic window of opportunity emerging from the encounter between ruling and subaltern subjects. The theory of nepantla – the location where hybridity becomes evident and can be transformed into a productive transcultural contact zone – helps reframe refugee education independent from notions such as ability deficits or cultural gaps, as well as identifying possible paths towards decolonizing Western curricula. Following Chilisa’s (2012) suggestion of how to develop decolonizing methodologies by ‘researching back’, we can promote decolonization as a process of doing education in such a way that ‘the worldviews of those who have suffered a long history of oppression and marginalization are given space to communicate from their frames of reference’ (ibid: 14). It is a process that involves learning to unlearn – to break free from programmes based on an exploitation and self-exploitation logic – to relearn, remember and rehumanize education. It implies critically reviewing the current paradigm of mainstream education – not only to dismantle racist and ableist ideologies embedded in the curriculum but also to understand traditional forms of knowledge. Epistemologically, these forms rely on relational accountability (Wilson, 2008) – the way education acknowledges being part of the set of relationships that form a community and demonstrates respect, reciprocity and responsibility when it is put into action; and on catalytic validity (Lather, 1991) – the systematic attempt of the educational activity to reorient, focus and empower participants and thereby foster personal and social transformation. Accordingly, decolonizing education entails fostering a dialogical project that helps deconstruct tacit assumptions entrenched in the curriculum and repositions teaching practices to consider knowledge that is produced at the margins. Commenting on the dismembering mechanism depicted by Enriquez (1994), Laenui (2000) suggests that remembering can be seen as a symmetrical process that especially contributes to fulfilling this dialogical project. This project can be further adapted to align with the purpose of including refugee students within an educational framework that pursues decolonization, which entails five phases: • • • • •

Rediscovery and recovery: this is the phase where education enables refugee students to rediscover their stories and recover their own culture, language and identity. Mourning: the mourning phase allows refugee students to express their grief regarding what has been left behind because of forced migration. Dreaming: this phase helps refugee students explore their cultures and investigate their histories, worldviews and knowledge systems to restore hope and imagine possible life projects. Commitment: the commitment phase follows, in which education supports refugee students in outlining, expressing and discussing the change they want to make in their lives. Action: the final phase is action – when dreams and commitment translate into educational strategies that strengthen refugee students’ empowerment and ability to pursue their life plans.

Even though it aims to foster valorization and self-determination among refugee students, this process does not target them as the umpteenth minority group that needs compensatory measures to be integrated into the current social order. On the contrary, it sees refugee education as a pivotal chance to reconsider the Western system of values and shared priorities.

The border within 

33

CONCLUSIONS The ability of schools to provide immediate and appropriate support to students from a refugee background is crucial in favouring a smooth accommodation process. However, to support refugee students in linguistic, educational and psychological terms, schools must overcome many barriers. These barriers can be better understood within the wider context of the current ‘refugee crisis’ narrative, which cultivates the myth of autochthony to nurture border politics aimed at spreading moral panic and exclusion strategies. The exclusion of refugees from education is the result of labelling procedures whose raison d’être can be identified in the persisting remnants of colonial oppression. On the one hand, those procedures categorize asylum seekers as a pretended homogeneous group. On the other hand, they engender a binary attitude towards them based on the ‘victim/threat’ opposition. To remove those barriers, school staff require specific training and professional development to deal with the complex learning, social and emotional needs of refugee students. Moreover, clear anti-bullying policies must be put in place, as refugees are natural catalysts for negative projections about diversity. Finally, setting in motion an organizational change that helps schools identify and remove the barriers to learning and participation of refugee students implies adopting a holistic programme, focused on supporting students’ engagement and well-being as much as on developing literacy and curriculum. Removing colonialist barriers that prevent refugee students from fulfilling their right to education is not only the right thing to do but also an opportunity to decolonialize ourselves and our educational culture. Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur: with the name changed, the story applies to you. So, we can thank refugee students for letting us start a new, better story.

REFERENCES Agamben, G. (1995). We refugees. Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures, 49(2), 114–119. Agamben, G. (2009). ‘What is an apparatus?’ And other essays. Stanford University Press. Ahmed, S. (2013). The cultural politics of emotion. Routledge. Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands: la frontera. Aunt Lute. Anzaldúa, G. (2015). Light in the Dark/Luz en lo oscuro. Duke University Press. Apple, M. (2019). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2013). Knowledge, power, and education. Routledge. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2019). Good economics for hard times: Better answers to our biggest problems. Penguin Random House. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge. Block, P. (2018). Community: The structure of belonging. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. CSIE. Bosworth, M., & Turnbull, S. (2017). Immigration detention, punishment and the criminalization of migration. In Pickering, S., & Ham, J. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on crime and international migration. Routledge, pp. 91–106. Bryan, G., Chowdhury, S., & Mobarak, A. M. (2014). Underinvestment in a profitable technology: The case of seasonal migration in Bangladesh. Econometrica, 82(5), 1671–1748. Bunar, N. (30/10/2019). Education of refugee and asylum-seeking children. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/acrefore​/9780190264093​.013​.118. Cerna, L. (2019). Refugee education: Integration models and practices in OECD countries’, OECD working papers 203, OECD; https://doi.org/10.1787/a3251a00-en.

34  Research handbook on migration and education Chang-Muy, F., & Congress, E. P. (2009). Social work with immigrants and refugees. Springer Publishing Company. Chatterjee, D. K. (Ed.). (2013). The ethics of preventive war. Cambridge University Press. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Connell, R. (2014). Using southern theory: Decolonizing social thought in theory, research and application. Planning Theory, 13(2), 210–223. Crowley, J. (1999). The politics of belonging: some theoretical considerations. In Favell, A., & Geddes, A. (Eds.), The politics of belonging: Migrants and minorities in contemporary Europe. Ashgate Publishing, pp. 15–41. De Lissovoy, N. (2012). Education and violation: Conceptualizing power, domination, and agency in the hidden curriculum. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 463–484. Devine, D. (2013). ‘Value’ing children differently? Migrant children in education. Children & Society, 27(4), 282–294. Doná, G. (2007). The microphysics of participation in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 210–229. Dovigo, F. (2018). We’re in together: Inclusive approaches from refugee education in Italy. In Dovigo F. (Ed.), Challenges and opportunities in education for refugees in Europe: From research to good practices. Brill|Sense, pp. 31–57. Dovigo, F. (Ed.). (2020). An overview of refugee education in Europe. Aarhus University. https://projects​ .au​.dk​/fileadmin​/ingen​_mappe​_valgt​/ ITIRE​_Report​.pdf. Dovigo, F. (2021). Beyond the vulnerability paradigm: Fostering inter-professional and multi-agency cooperation in refugee education in Italy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(2), 166–181. Dryden-Peterson, S. (2016). Refugee education in countries of first asylum: Breaking open the black box of pre-resettlement experiences. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 131–148. Enriquez, V. G. (1994). From colonial to liberation psychology: The Philippine experience. Manila: De La Salle University Press. European Parliament. (2021). Briefing 2021–2027 MFF. Migration and border management. https:// www​.europarl​.europa​.eu​/ RegData​/etudes​/ BRIE​/2021​/690544​/ EPRS​_BRI(2021)690544​_ EN​.pd​f. European Union. (2021). How the EU budget is spent. https://europa​.eu​/european​-union​/about​-eu​/eu​ -budget​/expenditure​_en. Fazel, M., Reed, R. V., Panter-Brick, C., & Stein, A. (2012). Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: Risk and protective factors. The Lancet, 379(9812), 266–282. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., & Tan, N. F. (2017). The end of the deterrence paradigm? Future directions for global refugee policy. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 28–56. Geddes, A., & Scholten, P. (2016). The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. Sage. Gerard, L. (2016). The Press and immigration: Reporting the news or fanning the flames of hatred? SubScribe. http://www​.sub​-scribe​.co​.uk ​/2016​/09​/the​-press​-and​-immigration​-reporting​.html. Gijsberts, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2017). Nationalism and exclusion of migrants: Cross-national comparisons. Taylor & Francis. Gilbert, A. S. (2019). The crisis paradigm: Description and prescription in social and political theory. Springer. Goffman, E. (1986 [1963]). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall. Goodman, S., Sirriyeh, A., & McMahon, S. (2017). The evolving (re) categorisations of refugees throughout the ‘refugee/migrant crisis’. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 105–114. Grillo, R. D. (2003). Cultural essentialism and cultural anxiety. Anthropological Theory, 3(2), 157–173. Harry, B. (2014). The disproportionate placement of ethnic minorities in special education. In Florian, L. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Sage, pp. 73–95. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (03/05/2017). Sec. 300.111 Child find. https://sites​.ed​.gov​ /idea​/regs​/ b​/ b​/300​.111. International Organization for Migration. (2022). Migration within the Mediterranean. https:// missingmigrants​.iom​.int​/region​/mediterranean.

The border within 

35

Jørgensen, M. B. (2020). Representations of the refugee crisis in Denmark: Deterrence policies and refugee strategies. In Abdelhady, D., Gren, N., & Joormann, M. (Eds.), Refugees and the violence of welfare bureaucracies in Northern Europe. Manchester University Press, pp. 67–84. Kalantzakos, S. (2020). The race for critical minerals in an era of geopolitical realignments. The International Spectator, 55(3), 1–16. Koehler, C., & Schneider, J. (2019). Young refugees in education: The particular challenges of school systems in Europe. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(1), 1–20. Laenui, P. (2000). Processes of decolonization. In Battiste, M. (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. UBC Press, pp. 150–160. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. Routledge. Lems, A., Oester, K., & Strasser, S. (2020). Children of the crisis: Ethnographic perspectives on unaccompanied refugee youth in and en route to Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(2), 315–335. Makarova, E., & Birman, D. (2015). Cultural transition and academic achievement of students from ethnic minority backgrounds: A content analysis of empirical research on acculturation. Educational Research, 57(3), 305–330. Mamdani, M. (2013). Define and rule: Native as political identity. Wits University Press. Manjapra, K. (2020). Colonialism in global perspective. Cambridge University Press. Mavelli, L. (2017). Governing populations through the humanitarian government of refugees: Biopolitical care and racism in the European refugee crisis. Review of International Studies, 43(5), 809–832. Mbembe, A. (2017). Critique of black reason. Duke University Press. McKenzie, D. J. (2008). A profile of the world’s young developing country international migrants. Population and Development Review, 34(1), 115–135. Menjívar, C., Ruiz, M., & Ness, I. (2019). Migration crises: Definitions, critiques, and global contexts. In Menjívar, C., Ruiz, M., & Ness, I. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of migration crises. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–17. Messina, A. M. (2014). Securitizing immigration in the age of terror. World Politics, 66(3), 530–559. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press. Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2018). Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and decolonization. Routledge. Ngugi wa Thiong’o. (2009). Something torn and new: An African renaissance. Basic Civitas Books. Olwig, K. F., Grünenberg, K., Møhl, P., & Simonsen, A. (2019). The biometric border world: Technologies, bodies and identities on the move. Routledge. O’Reilly, Z. (2019). The in-between spaces of asylum and migration: A participatory visual approach. Springer Nature. Pinson, H., & Arnot, M. (2020). Wasteland revisited: Defining an agenda for a sociology of education and migration. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(6), 830–844. Pugh, K., Every, D., & Hattam, R. (2012). Inclusive education for students with refugee experience: whole school reform in a South Australian primary school. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 125–141. Scott, J. A. (2021). ‘There is no alternative’? The role of depoliticisation in the emergence of populism. Politics, 0263395721990279. Sheikh, M., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Acculturation patterns and education of refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic literature review. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 22–32. Shrestha, M. (2017). Push and pull: A study of international migration from Nepal. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 7965. World Bank. Singal, N., & Muthukrishna, N. (2014). Education, childhood and disability in countries of the South. Re-positioning the debates. Childhood, 21(3), 293–307. Spencer, S. (2018). Multi-level governance of an intractable policy problem: Migrants with irregular status in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(12), 2034–2052.

36  Research handbook on migration and education Srivastava, M., De Boer, A., & Pijl, S. J. (2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look at its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review, 67(2), 179–195. Staats, C. (2016). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. American Educator, 39(4), 29. Statistics Denmark. (2021). Asylum applications and residence permits. https://www​.dst​.dk​/en​/Statistik​ /emner​/ befolkning​-og​-valg​/indvandrere​-og​-efterkommere​/asylansoegninger​-og​-opholdstilladelser. UNESCO. (2017). Protecting the right for education of refugees. Working Paper, UNESCO. https:// www​.refworld​.org​/pdfid​/5a5f41fc4​.pdf. UNHCR. (2021). Refugee data finder. https://www​.unhcr​.org​/refugee​-statistics/. Urbinati, N. (2019). Me the people. Harvard University Press. Wilson, S. (2008). Research as ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2019). Bordering. Polity Press. Zaveri, E., Russ, J., Khan, A., Damania, R., Borgomeo, E., & Jägerskog, A. (2021). Stay or go? In Zaveri, E., Russ, J., Khan, A., Damania, R., & Jägerskog, A. (Eds.), Ebb and flow: Volume 1. Water, migration, and development. World Bank Publications, pp. 49–74. Zetter, R. (1991). Labelling refugees: Forming and transforming a bureaucratic identity. Journal of Refugee Studies, 4(1), 39–62. Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172–192.

3. Inclusive systems as relational space in and around schools for supporting migrants in education: transitions from diametric to concentric spatial systems Paul Downes

INTRODUCTION Much international research on migration recognises the simplifications involved in the use of the term migrant as an essentialist unifying label. For example, Dale’s (2010) report for the European Commission highlights the vast heterogeneity in any conceptions of migrants. This term covers differences in education levels, skills, and wealth in social and cultural capital, those newly arrived with complex language and cultural needs, second- and thirdgeneration migrants with established patterns of need and aspiration, illegal migrants with complex forms of insecurity and instability, refugees and asylum seekers, potentially bearing complex health and welfare needs, and citizens from former colonies with a history of social and cultural engagement with their new context. While language issues (Alisaari, Sissonen & Heikolla, 2021), grade retention and tracking (Darmody, Byrne & McGinnity, 2012) and admission policies and processes (Crul, 2018) for migrants are pervasive concerns in international research on migration, time is also frequently a central dimension of analysis. A temporal lens tends to distinguish first-, second- and thirdgeneration migrants (OECD, 2015) to contrast the performance of those who migrate in their early years with those who migrate in their teens (Rousseau & Frounfelker, 2019), to differentiate trajectories of premigration, migration and postmigration settlement (Kirmayer, Narasiah et al., 2011), as well as in highlighting differences between recently arrived and more settled migrants (Crepet et al., 2017). However, it needs to be more fully recognised that marginalisation and exclusion are spatial concepts (Downes, 2020) and migration is a transition in space, thereby inviting a focus on spatial concerns with migration and education. This is part of a ‘spatial turn’ taking place across a range of disciplines such as sociology, geography and education (Massey, 2005; Gulson & Symes, 2007; Ferrare & Apple, 2010; Downes, 2020). For scrutiny of educational systems, Ferrare and Apple (2010) rethink spatial processes in education and seek methodological tools that conceptualise spatially. At a global policy level, United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030. Against this backdrop, inclusion needs to be recognised as a spatial concept. The European Education and Training Expert Panel (European Commission, 2019, pp. 71–73) describes a spatial reconfiguration focus in which priority themes for inclusion include bridging health and education needs and systems, addressing holistic emotional-relational needs and reconfiguring physical and relational spaces in and around schools. Space here requires understanding beyond a mere 37

38  Research handbook on migration and education change of place (Downes, 2020), as part of the scrutiny of transitions and as part of concerns with system supports impacting on mental health and wellbeing needs of migrants. The current chapter will argue for the need to interrogate specific spatial systemic aspects pertaining to migration as transitions, namely, movement away from diametric spatial systems of exclusion and towards a different relational space of concentric systems. A focus on a diametric space of assumed separation as a splitting process offers a conception of system fragmentation and blockage, whereas system fragmentation is a neglected feature in early and later Bronfenbrenner’s accounts (Downes, 2014). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1995) systems focus minimises focus on system blockage and splitting (Downes, 2014) and diametric spatial conditions underpinning systems serve as processes and structures to perpetuate fragmentation in systems. These system conditions are spatial and malleable and require reconfiguration towards contrasting concentric spatial systems assuming a connection between functioning elements.

CROSS-CULTURAL DIAMETRIC AND CONCENTRIC SPATIAL SYSTEMS: KEY CONTRASTING FEATURES Downes, Anderson and Nairz-Wirth’s (2018) interrogation of transitions queries if Eurocentric modes of space can be identified and challenged. While this question is a large one, a preliminary response to this is postulated here, building on the cross-cultural observations of spatial structures of diametric and concentric spaces highlighted by Lévi-Strauss (1963, 1973) for spatial systems. A diametric spatial structure occurs where a circle is split in half by a line that is its diameter or where a square or rectangle is similarly divided into two equal halves (see Figure 3.1). In a concentric spatial structure, one circle is inscribed in another larger circle (or square); in pure form, the circles share a common central point (see Figure 3.2). Lévi-Strauss (1963) cites a range of examples of the concentric spatial opposition observed by different anthropologists. The contrasting structural relation of diametric spatial opposition

Source:  Author.

Figure 3.1   Diametric dualism

Inclusive systems as relational space  39

Source:  Author.

Figure 3.2   Concentric dualism has also been observed cross-culturally by Lévi-Strauss (1962); he notes that examples of diametric dualism ‘abound’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1962, p. 135), citing specific tribes in North and South America. A purportedly key distinguishing feature of concentric and diametric spaces, observed by Lévi-Strauss (1973), is that they tend to coexist in ‘functional relation’ (LéviStrauss, 1973, p. 73) and not simply in isolation. They are structures of relation as part of a system of relations. In other words, this relational interaction offers a conception of movement and interplay between these spaces, resonant with a spatial transition focus. Lévi-Strauss observed two key contrasts between concentric and diametric structured systems. Diametric spaces are i) relatively more closed and boundaried than the more open interaction with a background of concentric spatial systems. For concentric systems: Its frame of reference is always the environment … In a diametric system … virgin land constitutes an irrelevant element; the moieties are defined by their opposition to each other, and the apparent symmetry of their closed structure creates the illusion of a closed system. (Lévi-Strauss, 1963, p. 152)

Diametric space offers ii) a feature of mirror image symmetry (Lévi-Strauss, 1973). A mirror image is not an identical one but a left-right inversion of polar opposites, for example, hierarchies of good/bad, success/failure, powerful/powerless (Downes, 2013). The simple ‘subjective’ (Leach, 1965/2000, p. 111) everyday cross-cultural oppositions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are structured in a diametric oppositional way. A further contrast is as follows: iii): a concentric spatial relation between poles is one of assumed connection, of mutual overlap around a common centre, a co-centre; in contrast, any interaction between diametrically oppositional poles is one of assumed separation and splitting (Downes, 2012, 2013). Though Lévi-Strauss did not explicitly highlight this difference, it is evident that the inner and outer poles of concentric structures are more fundamentally attached to each other than diametric structures. Both concentric poles coexist in the same space so that the outer circle overlaps the space of the inner one. The outer circle surrounds

40  Research handbook on migration and education and contains the inner circle. In contrast, diametric oppositional realms are both basically detached and can be further smoothly detached from the other. A concentric relation assumes a connection between its parts and any separation is on the basis of an assumed connection, whereas diametric opposition assumes separation and any connection between the parts is on the basis of this assumed separation (Downes, 2013). Migration and Transition The question arises as to how transitions affecting migrants relate to system blockages and in specific spatial terms to system blockages as diametric spatial systems, building on insights of Lévi-Strauss’ cross-cultural contrasts between diametric and concentric spatial systems as physical and mythological structures, also developed for further domains such as relationships in social and educational systems (Downes, 2014). The European Education and Training Expert Panel (European Commission, 2019) recognises the importance of ‘creating concentric spaces, which will bring people together, can create feelings of social and emotional belonging’ (p. 71). The Panel recommends: The need to improve the relational and physical spaces in schools…[by] reconfiguring spaces…Diametric oppositional spatial systems divide into us versus them, ‘good’ students versus ‘bad’ students, rigid ‘above/below’ hierarchies. Such diametric splits in communication can lead to student fear of asking teachers questions. A contrasting concentric space is one in which both concentric poles are in assumed connection with each other around a common centre, offering a web of connectivity for inclusion. (European Commission, 2019, p. 64)

This is a scrutiny of how the spatial relational conditions of a system are sustained and the change transitions that influence the interaction of individuals with schools as systems and subsystems. Souto-Manning (2018) asks a fundamental question in relation to migration and transitions, ‘How can we, as a field, re‐examine transitions through new lenses, moving from remediative lenses to re‐mediative approaches?’ (Souto-Manning, 2018, p. 466). This invites a question regarding change at the system level to develop mediating spaces. Souto-Manning (2018) seeks to disrupt the location of issues of blockage and fragmentation within immigrant families and unveil how they are promoted by current conceptualisations and enactments of transitions. Both transitions and spaces are concepts of mediation and relation, as is migration. The angle of scrutiny here becomes one on shifting background spatial systems of mediation affecting migrants rather than predominantly on the foregrounded individual as a migrant. In doing so, it requires reconsideration of the construct validity of migration and static labelling of people as migrants to a focus on spatial systemic terms as transitional movements bringing inclusion or exclusion. Transition approaches tend to examine whether the migrant child or young person is a fish out of water in the new context, rather than placing greater scrutiny on whether the background river is polluted, that is, how much the school system itself and wider societal macrosystem need to change to provide inclusive systems. If a fish swims into a polluted river, this is not a problem of transition as such, but of pollution – of the need to change the river as a background system rather than focus on the need for the fish to adapt to this polluted river. It is not the change features associated with transition understandings that require emphasis but rather the stability issues. In other words, the residual background environmental conditions

Inclusive systems as relational space  41 require change. System change is not the problem as a problem of transition, lack of system change is the fundamental problem – a problem glossed over by attributing problematic features to transition rather than background environmental stasis (Downes, 2019). This applies also to migrants, conceptualised as a mode of transition of relational spaces, to foreground critique of system inertia and blockage that leads to a problematising of the dynamic aspect of the system, namely, the migrant. The whole area of transitions is conceptually fragmented in its understanding. The very term ‘transition’ underpinning conceptions of migration means something very different in different domains and contexts. Rather than impose a uniformity of meaning on each use of the term transition or migrant, this variety, complexity and fragmentation in the very understanding, in the construct validity of transitions and migrants, needs to be brought to the fore. For example, different meanings to transition require recognition and include: a) System mismatch where at least one system needs reform – the transition bridge is not the problem. For example, environment A is the problem that becomes manifested in environment B, or environment B is the problem, not the transition per se. b) System mismatch in expectations and conditions between environments A and B (where A and B are purportedly individually well-functioning systems considered apart from each other). c) Lack of communication between environments A and B (where A and B are nevertheless individually well-functioning systems considered apart from each other). d) Individual change to the foregrounded child through supports in moving from background environment A to B (Downes, 2019). Much of the international research on migrants emphasises the potentially traumatic experience of the actual journey for particular kinds of migrants (Crepet et al., 2017), so this adds a fifth level to a discourse on transitions that focuses on the bridge itself as an issue. Diametric spatial opposition can be associated with Western-biased understandings of space, including Aristotelian A/Non-A logic (Downes, 2020) and experiential binaries in adolescent female experiences described by Gilligan et al. (1990) as ‘the straightline categories of Western thinking’ (Gilligan, 1990, pp. 18–19), and experience, ill-suited to the phenomenological worlds of many teenage girls in the United States. Competition rests on a precondition of a winner/loser, success/failure, diametric oppositional space criticised as alienating ethnic minorities and working-class female students in education (Reay, 2018; Souto-Manning, 2018). The diametric mirror image reversal process divides into failure/success, defeat/victory, normal/not normal, and smart/not smart as a cultural ‘logic’. As highlighted in Downes (2020), this diametric spatial communication of judgement is mediated by the diametric space of those in the system with power and those without power. The concern for a discourse on migrants is that even international research that seeks to highlight the relative strengths of migrants in comparison with the native population to go beyond deficit labels for migrants is still locked within a diametric oppositional winner/loser spatial understanding. Thus, for example, the OECD (2015) identifies ‘immigrants’ high aspirations – and the willingness to work to achieve them’ (OECD, 2015, p. 18) and the EU Commission’s evaluation of the EU Council’s 2011 Recommendation on Early School Leaving as an ET2020 Headline Target for Education noted some countries where early school leaving was lower for migrants than the rest of the population (Donlevy et al., 2019).

42  Research handbook on migration and education A concern with promoting inclusive systems of relational space for migrants in education seeks to broaden the questioning beyond a flattening into two diametric oppositional halves of an empirical questioning, whereby migrants are either above or below the rest of the population on a given dimension score. It focuses instead on embedding adequate systemic supports for students at different levels of need, including migrants at these different levels of need. Diametric spatial opposition underpins the us/them structure that frames understanding of the supposed norm versus the other. ‘Othering’ is a subtle process of exclusion that treats one reality as the norm and marginalises a different perspective or group to subsidiary status, and being defined in relation to the norm or dominant group rather than on its own terms (Said, 1978). The ‘other’ becomes a reification, a static category rendered passive and inert in this role as a mere object of the gaze from the vantage point of the supposed norm. There is a need to challenge the diametric oppositional space as a precondition for othering in a discourse on migrants. Specific examples of the need to transition from diametric oppositional system spaces of exclusion to concentric spaces of inclusion in and around schools will be offered in this chapter with regard to migrants. These involve an examination of system processes such as school segregation, suspensions and expulsion, overcoming splits between health and education in co-locating support services in and around schools and assertive outreach systems of care, as well as school climate and discriminatory bullying affecting migrants. It is notable that both the WHO (2018) report on migrants’ health and the OECD (2015) report on migrants’ education overlook the themes of bullying, suspension and expulsion from school.

DIAMETRIC SPACE AS SCHOOL SEGREGATION, EXPULSION AND SUSPENSION Segregated schools by race or social class is a clear example of diametric spatial exclusion in the school system. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court was that the practice of providing separate education facilities for black and white children violated the equal protection 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It constituted a decisive rejection of the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537. Rendered unconstitutional in the United States regarding race, school segregation based on ethnicity is still problematic in some European contexts. The Roma population constitutes the largest ethnic minority in Europe, in total close to 12 million citizens (Rostas & Kostka, 2014). The illegality of educational segregation of Romani children has been demonstrated in the European Court of Human Rights by judgments in DH and others v Czech Republic (2007), Sampanis v. Greece (2008), Orsus v. Croatia (2010), Sampani v. Greece (2012) and Horvath and Kis v. Hungary (2013) all of which rejected ethnic segregation in mainstream schools and/or the placing of Roma students in remedial special schools (Rostas & Kostka, 2014). Dale’s (2010) review concludes that the concentration of migrant young people in schools that already have high levels of socio-economic and multiple disadvantages produces heightened risks of early school leaving. It calls for the removal of clustering, concentration or ‘ghettoisation’ of migrant young people in particular schools to be addressed through reform of school admission policies in Europe. Excluding migrants from many middle-class schools and engaging in a process of ghettoisation of them in schools of higher poverty exemplifies

Inclusive systems as relational space  43 a diametric spatial systemic response of us/them exclusion and segregation. A concentric system response of assumed connection between migrants and all of society in schools is required and often does not occur. Expulsion and suspension from school are additionally the imposition of a diametric spatial system structure. Gregory et al.’s (2010) review concludes that the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in discipline sanctions has not received the attention it deserves. While substance abuse tends not to be associated with migrant populations (WHO, 2018), both the WHO’s (2018) and OECD’s (2015) interrogation of migrants’ health and education needs completely overlook the issue of at least documenting any overrepresentation of migrants in school suspension and expulsion cases. The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement (2013) on school suspension and expulsion recognises that the adverse effects of out-of-school suspension and expulsion can be ‘profound’ (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013, p. 1001); such students are as much as ten times more likely to leave school early and are more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system. The policy statement observes that these measures can also be very superficial if, in using them, school districts avoid dealing with underlying issues affecting the child or the district, such as drug abuse, racial and ethnic tensions, and cultural anomalies associated with violence and bullying (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013). Ford et  al.’s (2018) British population study investigating associations between school exclusion and mental health explicitly addresses this issue of support services or their lack, as more than half of those excluded reported multiple exclusions, while the reports of no access to educational or mental health provision were seen as particularly striking (Ford et al., 2018, p. 638). Against a backdrop where racial and ethnic minority groups may be overrepresented in school exclusions, impositions of diametric spatial splitting through suspensions and expulsions are antithetical to inclusive systems and require multidisciplinary team supports onsite in schools as alternatives to suspension and expulsion (Downes et al., 2017).

OVERCOMING DIAMETRIC SPATIAL SPLITS BETWEEN HEALTH AND EDUCATION IN CO-LOCATING SUPPORT SERVICES IN AND AROUND SCHOOL A 2020 BMC Public Health article acknowledges ‘a growing interest in the mental health condition of migrants’ (Lebano et al., 2020, p. 4). While the potential trauma of the journey of some migrants is recognised in international research (Crepet et al., 2017), as is the mental health impact and trauma dimension of refugees fleeing war leading to depression and/ or post-traumatic stress disorder (Rousseau & Frounfelker, 2019; WHO, 2018; Crepet et al., 2017), much of the wider discourse on migrants and education (as distinct from health) tends to overlook the need for mental health supports for system supports to be in place in and around schools to address issues of trauma and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). The ACEs framework tends to examine ten types of trauma: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, parental separation/divorce, family violence, household substance use, household mental illness and imprisonment of a household member (Dong et al., 2005). ACEs are far from an exhaustive account of kinds of trauma, for example, it omits natural disasters (Iachini et al., 2016), forced displacement, medical illness, community violence, serious accident/injury and bereavement (Bartlett et al., 2018).

44  Research handbook on migration and education The neglect of this area of trauma and adverse childhood experiences, as part of a policy bifurcation between education and health, is a feature of the OECD’s Ten Steps to Equity in Education for socio-economically marginalised groups. Over a decade ago, the OECD’s Ten Steps to Equity in Education (Field, Kuczera & Pont, 2007) did not include any direct focus on students’ mental health and wellbeing, or on trauma and adverse childhood experiences in their priority steps (Downes, 2020). This omission extends to international research of leading policymakers on migrants in education by the OECD (2015) and the EU Commission (Harte, Herrera & Stepanek, 2016; Janta & Harte, 2016). While trauma and mental health issues of migrants are well recognised in international research (Gambaro, Mastrangelo & Sarchiapone et  al., 2020; Bustamante et  al., 2017), mental health issues, trauma and adverse childhood experiences are often overlooked in accounts of migrants in education such as Harte, Herrera and Stepanek (2016) and Janta and Harte (2016), though the latter report does acknowledge the issue of social isolation of migrants. Concern with system fragmentation in response to migrants’ needs is identified in an Italian context, with Crepet et al. (2017) noting that the Italian immigration reception system is rather fragmented as the government outsourced service delivery to private organisations. In a similar vein, Curcic et al. (2014) highlight that many Roma parents do not have the means to obtain and submit the array of legal documents needed to navigate the system. The issue of system fragmentation of multiple, diffuse services and territories was also raised across ten European city municipalities (Downes, 2015), where a need was observed for clarity of responsibility to ensure that families and young people do not fall through the gaps in support services, as many vulnerable populations may not be in a position to access available supports. It is key that there is a lead agency that can guide them to the overall picture of services available for them in a given municipality to ensure the educational and more holistic needs of children and young people from ethnic minorities and migrant families are being met. There needs to be a clear path of responsibility to provide such support, and this is clearly communicated to migrants and ethnic minorities. A number of the municipality responses did not specify a concrete lead agency that coordinates and builds bridges to other agencies for the support of parents and children as migrants and ethnic minorities (Downes, 2015). A concentric space of assumed connection between local services for migrants is required, rather than diametric split services in silos side-by-side. Reconfiguration from diametric spatial splits assuming separation to concentric spatial systems assuming connection invites a shift away from a discourse of interagency working to multidisciplinary team case management. This is a change from systems of multiple agencies operating in parallel and even in competition with each other for state resources, bringing territoriality, to fewer agencies and more explicit multidisciplinary teams working over shared goals and outcomes centred on the needs of migrant students and their families and based in one location. Eurochild (2011) recommend one-stop-shop family centres that bundle services together in one location to maximise access for children and families and seek these to be located in all local areas. Again, this is part of a spatial shift in the configuration of services for marginalised groups, including migrants, which is a shift away from diametric split systems of fragmentation. The concern is not simply with physical space change but also with the change to relational space in systems. The organisation of multidisciplinary social support services in and around schools involves a challenge to system blockage as diametric space. This includes confronting diametric space as a splitting process into the fragmentation of systems., while the increasing interest in analysing systems of care in community

Inclusive systems as relational space  45 psychology (Suarez et al., 2012) reveals a frequent concern to address issues of inertia and fragmentation. An OECD (2015) report recognises that integrating social services for vulnerable populations has the potential to address the multiple underlying issues of vulnerable populations simultaneously while acknowledging that there is limited evidence internationally on the implementation and long-term evaluations of integrated social services delivery for vulnerable groups. A key dimension of a spatial turn for the reconfiguration of schools regarding wellbeing and mental health is to treat schools as a site for the co-location of health services. For example, nurses are part of all schools in France and many schools in Finland, while onsite speech and language therapists in schools are a growing feature of schools in high-poverty areas in Ireland (CDI/EDC, 2016), with emotional counsellors/therapists onsite in schools in many European countries (Donlevy et al., 2019). The UNESCO GEM report 2020 on inclusion highlights a range of country examples of these spatial reconfigurations of school between health and education. It observes that South Africa’s integrated School Health Policy, initiated in 2012, provides a package of basic health services at all schools. The GEM 2020 report notes that in the United States, school-based health centres offer co-located, multidisciplinary support to primary and secondary school students through case management. They have reduced gaps in access to health services among marginalised groups (Arenson et al., 2019). The GEM report 2020 goes on to note that in Nordic countries, health, mental health and social support are available to all learners in compulsory education (Nordic Welfare Centre, 2019). While there are isolated examples internationally of common system strategic planning for the co-location of health services in schools, it is also to be emphasised that most European countries require much more integrated strategies between their education, health and social services ministries (European Commission, 2014) – both generally and with relevance for migrants. In other words, diametric spatial splits between education and health require overcoming at this exosystem level between government departments and at local mesosystem levels as part of an inclusive systems approach for meeting migrants’ holistic educational needs.

BEYOND A DISCOURSE OF ‘RESILIENT’ MIGRANTS: CONCENTRIC SPACES OF ASSUMED CONNECTION THROUGH ASSERTIVE OUTREACH APPROACHES ‘Heroic’ models placed on children are being increasingly criticised in educational psychology, such as through legal and psychological concerns raised regarding placing children in the role of peer defenders to challenge the bullying perpetrator (Downes & Cefai, 2019). There is a similar need to challenge a ‘heroic’ discourse of resilience for migrant children. Ungar (2008) broadens Rutter’s conception of resilience to a socio-ecological model of resilience: In the context of exposure to significant adversity, whether psychological, environmental, or both, resilience is both the capacity of the individual to navigate their way to health-sustaining resources, including opportunities to experience feelings of well-being, and a condition of the individual’s family, community and culture to provide these health resources and experiences in culturally meaningful ways. (Ungar, 2008, p. 225)

However, this places the onus for accessibility onto the individual and treats migrants’ lack of accessing supports as a weakness in their ‘capacity’. Ungar’s (2008) broadening of resilience

46  Research handbook on migration and education beyond the individual to a focus on environmental supports in so-called resilient systems does not include a focus on state systemic supports, such as integrated services (Edwards & Downes, 2013), for developing inclusive systems of care. Ungar’s (2012) socio-ecological broadening of Rutter’s resilience needs to go further in its systemic concerns, for example, to include a systemic focus on outreach to marginalised families (Downes, 2014) and a concentric relational space of assumed connection between individuals and system supports. The discourse of resilience for migrants risks characterising migrants’ vulnerabilities as being due to a ‘lack’ of resilience. An inclusive systems focus moves away from seeking to characterise migrants as heroes in the face of adversity to one which offers appropriate and responsive system supports to meet their holistic, multidimensional needs. Multidisciplinary team supports often do not proactively make efforts to reach so-called harder-to-reach groups. They do not change their locations to try to meet vulnerable groups on their own ‘patch’ or in places where they feel they belong and are most comfortable. An assertive outreach dimension emphasises proactive steps needing to be taken by service providers to break down social, cultural, economic, practical and geographical barriers to accessing services. Critique of the abstract other, though not made in terms of diametric spatial assumptions, is a pervasive principle of much feminist thought that seeks to critique the female as other (Benhabib, 1988), as part of a common concern with the diametric spatial us/them othering of migrants. Assertive outreach is needed to reconstruct the diametric space founding abstraction of the other, to engage with the complex, lived needs and experiences of marginalised individuals and families. These approaches resonant with the need to deconstruct abstract categories of groups that are recognised for ethnicity by Said (1978). Community lifelong learning centres  offer one model of community outreach to engage those whose needs have not been met in the school system (Downes, 2011). As Cross (2017) highlights, through an ecological systems theory lens, ‘all minority communities have a grapevine system’ (p. 769) of informal sources that need to be tuned into as part of a word-ofmouth approach as a positive potentiality of assumed connection. An assertive outreach as an assumed connection beyond the abstract other is a feature of developing concentric relational spaces with those excluded from the system. Emphasis on the how question as part of outreach approaches gives attention to a dialogue process between the migrant and the staff members from the ‘system’. An emphasis on the voices of migrant students deconstructs the diametric spatial above/below hierarchy to promote concentric spaces of assumed connection (Downes, 2013) for inclusive systems. Whereas information-reliant approaches assume a one-way, top-down directional flow of information from the system to the passive individual, a dialogue process is two-way. The approach needs to be interpersonal, relational, contextual and pragmatic. This  relational  outreach  approach requires dialogue with individuals and group cohorts. It fundamentally starts from where the person is, centred on the person’s needs in a concentric relational space of assumed connection and not in a diametric oppositional space of hierarchy and assumed separation. A concentric relational space for outreach presupposes not only a relational competence but also a cultural competence. Resonant with the key principles of equality of esteem and building on strengths, a recommendation of Heckmann’s (2008) NESSE report for the European Commission is to integrate elements and symbols of the cultures of origin into school life, in the curriculum, textbooks and other school material. Heckmann (2008) recommends that this be done in consultation with representatives of the new communities. Yet much work needs to

Inclusive systems as relational space  47 be done to make this a reality. Moreover, it is evident from community-based lifelong learning centres and social support centres in Nantes, Munich, Usti and the Hague (Downes, 2015) that the expression of symbols of the cultures of origin of different ethnic groups and migrants is not yet a feature of these centres or community spaces.

DIAMETRIC SPACES OF EXCLUSION AS DISCRIMINATION AND NOT-AT-HOMENESS IN RELATION TO SCHOOL CLIMATE The diametric spatial feature of mirror image inverted symmetry is a framing condition for the us/them approach to discrimination and discriminatory bullying. The impact of discrimination on the mental health of adolescent migrants has been raised as a key issue in an Israeli context (Nakash et al., 2012), whereas the WHO (2018) review of the health profile of migrants and refugees noted that discrimination and the impact of discrimination on migrants’ and refugees’ mental health tend only to be briefly discussed in international research. System blockages as a variant of framing the ‘other’ in ethnic terms include discriminatory bullying (Elamé, 2013). This is a key issue in the context of increased migration internationally. Elamé’s (2013) research on discriminatory bullying involved a sample of 1352 immigrant and Roma students as part of a wider sample of 8817 students across ten European countries. The findings regarding the fundamental importance of teacher influence on discriminatory bullying are of particular interest. Those immigrant and Roma students who think the teacher exhibits similar behaviour towards ‘native’ and immigrant and Roma children in the class are those bullied least in the last three months. In contrast, those immigrant or Roma children who sense a bias in the teacher’s attitudes against different ethnic groups in their class are also those who have been bullied with the highest frequency during the previous three months (Elamé, 2013). It is the propagation of diametric spatial relations of splitting and exclusion by the teacher that reveals a system-level impact on the classroom relational space for those experiencing teacher discrimination. The fracturing of concentric relational spaces of trust in bullying leads to a system reaction of diametric oppositional relations. The emphasis in Elamé’s (2013) research on the role of the teacher in overcoming discriminatory bullying of migrants is resonant with a focus on the preconceptions of teachers with regard to first language use in the home (Alisaari, Sissonen & Heikolla, 2021). From an inclusive systems perspective, both these issues of discriminatory bullying by teachers and preconceptions of teachers regarding migrants’ first language use invite further scrutiny of the need for adequate initial teacher education and continuing professional development of the cultural and relational competences of teachers (Downes, Nairz-Wirth & Rusinaite, 2017). Such approaches need to embrace the normalcy of people’s movement between countries as a universal feature of human behaviour historically (Virupaksha, Kumar & Nirmala, 2014; Rousseau & Frounfelker, 2019). Diametric exclusionary and oppositional spaces of discrimination are also an issue at the university campus level, as documented by Gutiérrez (2008) in a US context, ‘they learned how to respond to the daily taunts and name-calling like “Illegals, Mexicans go home” that they experience as they move around the campus’ (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 159). Though not explicitly spatial terms of concentric relational spaces of assumed connection, Cohen et al. (2009) recognise a feeling of connection to one another as a pivotal aspect of school climate. A spatial sense of dislocation, of not being at home in the educational institution was

48  Research handbook on migration and education articulated by minoritised parents in Li (2018) and working-class higher education students in Reay (2018). For Li (2018), families recognised their marginal status in the urban school structure, where, in the words of one mother, they felt like ‘a guest in another person’s house’ (Li, 2018, p. 476). A diametric spatial relational system of assumed separation fosters loneliness. Li (2018) highlights that refugee children frequently experience social isolation, loneliness and depression, including the risk of suicide, in US school contexts (Li 2018). This experience of an institutional culture as a diametric space of assumed separation leading to isolation and loneliness has also been observed as a key factor for early school leaving, and as a strong factor in negative academic attainment in a Norwegian context (Frostad et al., 2015). Elamé’s (2013) findings on the key influence of the teacher regarding parity of esteem among students, the absence of which can foster a negative climate of bullying, gains support from a Greek study (Kapari & Stavrou, 2010) of 114 secondary school students (58 female, 56 male) drawn from three Greek public middle schools: two urban schools in Athens and one rural school on the island of Zakynthos. In schools with high levels of bullying, students consider their treatment by adults to be unequal, the rules to be unfair and student participation in decision-making to be very limited. According to Kapari and Stavrou (2010), particular attention must be given to the significant strong correlation between bullying and authoritarian practices of enforcing discipline in the school. In other words, authoritarian teaching as fear and anger-based approaches project diametric spaces of exclusion (Downes, 2013). Souto-Manning (2018) argues that Eurocentrically focused transitions uphold racist ideas (one group being better than others and their practices upheld as norms) and may effectively marginalise and traumatise young immigrant children, thereby hindering their learning (Souto-Manning, 2018). Challenges to Eurocentrism include the challenge to diametric space and engagement with concentric spatial systems. Souto-Manning (2018) conceptualises transitions in terms of spaces that are tantamount to relational spaces, ones that overcome a diametric mirror image split between official and unofficial constructions of reality and experiences. She advocates: ‘Interrupting extant remediative approaches and promoting the re-mediation of mesosystems by design offer the potential to disrupt Eurocentric epistemologies’ (Souto-Manning, 2018, p. 466). This involves the disruption of diametric space as a supporting precondition for Eurocentric epistemologies while promoting concentric relational spaces resonant with experiences of space across a diversity of cultures internationally.

CONCLUSION Whereas diametric spatial systems in education embody structures of exclusion, a shift towards concentric structures of inclusion in and around schools involves a focus on relational spaces of assumed connection for inclusion of the ‘other’. Shifts from diametric spatial perceptions, relationships, emotions and practices including above/below hierarchical splits at various system levels offer a spatial lens into the distribution of power in a system. Diametric spaces of exclusion, opposition, closure, hierarchy, discrimination and fragmentation offer a unifying lens for scrutiny of the operation and manifestation of power. This lens promotes changes in education and wider system policy, school planning and design away from diametric spaces and towards concentric relational spaces, often so obvious they are overlooked. An interdisciplinary, relational space focus on inclusive systems for migrants challenges ‘heroic’ models emphasising individual resilience (Downes, 2020). It goes beyond

Inclusive systems as relational space  49 Cartesian diametric oppositional splits between mind/body, reason/emotion in education as part of a commitment to holistic education. It further seeks to reconstruct simplistic labels upon ‘migrants’ to go beyond essentialist categorisation treating the meanings, significance and implications of being a migrant as being embedded in specific system contexts and networks of interplay. Reframing migration in spatial terms as an issue of spatial transitions, this chapter has argued that a key lens of analysis is on background system conditions affecting migrants, as part of a transition, a shift, in relational spatial systems from diametric oppositional to concentric spaces of assumed connection in and around schools. Examples offered of the need to challenge diametric spatial systems of system blockage in the transition towards concentric spatial systems of inclusion include firmly addressing issues such as discriminatory bullying, promoting a connective school climate of belonging that celebrates diversity, developing alternatives to suspension/expulsion from school and ending segregated schools. System fragmentation must be overcome to heal diametric spatial splits between health and education through multidisciplinary teams in and around schools, including to centrally address the key issue of trauma and adverse childhood experiences through emotional counsellors/therapists onsite in schools – for all vulnerable students, not only migrants. Promoting concentric relational spaces of assumed connection for assertive outreach to engage marginalised migrant populations recognises that trust cannot be assumed but is a relational space to be developed. Overcoming diametric splitting fragmentation of local services is another key part of an inclusive systems focus. This inclusive systems lens shifts focus from a problematising of the individual as migrant to one on the postmigration education system to promote fundamental elements of a quality system for inclusion in and around schools. Issues of overcoming diametric spatial structures and processes of exclusion such as school segregation, expulsion, suspension, discriminatory bullying and fragmentation of services are basic issues of system quality. Many of these issues can also be underpinned by a human rights-based framework, including the UN right to the highest attainable standard of health (Downes et al., 2017). Building bridges between health and education supports co-located in and around schools such as through multidisciplinary teams, with a specific focus on emotional counselling/therapeutic supports to engage with students’ trauma and adverse childhood experiences, as well as concentric relational spaces of assumed connection for assertive outreach and positive school climate, again attest to the quality of the educational provision in a given national system to meet the holistic, differentiated needs of students, including migrant students. Addressing the neglect within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework in developmental psychology with regard to system blockage and fragmentation, the spatial scrutiny of diametric systems of blockage is in an interplay with spatial openings towards concentric relational spaces to challenge these system blockages at different system levels of description. Inclusive systems offer a challenge to ‘heroic’ models of children, including migrant children, operating in a discourse of resilience while deconstructing deficit models of migrants through a focus on system development. As part of a whole school and community system lens, change is needed to structures, roles and communicative processes, including school policies and climate to address the inclusion of migrants in school, as part of a process of inclusion, belonging and engagement and to challenge system closures to change. Space is both a unit of analysis as a domain of inquiry and a method for interpreting meaning, challenging cultural logics and assumptions in a given educational and societal system (Downes, 2020).

50  Research handbook on migration and education Extending Lévi-Strauss’ accounts of cross-cultural diametric and concentric structures to a) construal of these as spaces and not simply structures, b) different domains of relevance beyond myths, social and physical structures, including educational systems and lived experiences and c) with wider inferences in terms of assumed separation and connection, concentric space is understood as a transitional space that allows for distinction and difference within a framework of assumed connection. Concentric space offers a broader understanding of identity than Western diametric framed oppositions and monistic subjugation and assimilation of a migrant’s identity to a dominant culture. Identity as relational space can transcend the tribalism of diametric spatial ingroups versus outgroups to a common space of assumed connection where the other is an extension of self (through a common humanity) around a common centre in concentric space. Concentric spaces of assumed connection between self and other do not reduce one to the other but retain distinction within the different though overlapping concentric poles. While the proposed spatial framework of inclusive systems for migrants as transition from diametric to concentric spatial systems in and around schools goes beyond Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist epistemological commitments (Downes, 2012, 2020), structuralist understandings of migrants pertaining to systems may offer an important additional lens for understanding. In particular, the structuralist tenet building from Saussurean linguistics that meaning resides not in a single term (such as ‘migrant’) but in a network of differences in a language or cultural system offers an apt antidote to an essentialist labelling approach to migrants in any given context. The meaning of an individual person’s and family’s migration resides in the network of differences they operate within, at distinct levels of description, for cultural systems of relation, linguistic systems of relation and educational systems of relation. Migration can be understood as the system synergies and mismatches between these cultural, linguistic and education systems of relation as they pertain to their countries of origin and transitions to the new country context. Spatial shifts in background system conditions from diametric to concentric relational spatial systems can help re-mediate education systems as part of a holistic, differentiated approach to supporting the multiplicity of migrants’ needs in education internationally.

REFERENCES Alisaari, J., Sissonen, S., & Heikolla, L. M. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs related to language choice in immigrant students’ homes, Teaching and Teacher Education, 103, 103347. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Policy statement: Out-of-school suspension and expulsion, Pediatrics, 131, 1000–1007. Arenson, M., Hudson, P., Lee, N., & Lai, B. (2019). The evidence on school-based health centers: A review, Global Pediatric Health, 6, 1–10. Bartlett, J. D., Griffin, J. L., Spinazzola, J., Fraser, J. G., Noroña, C. R., Bodian, R., … Barto, B (2018). The impact of a statewide trauma-informed care initiative in child welfare on the well-being of children and youth with complex trauma, Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 110–117. Benhabib, S. (1988). The generalized and the concrete other, in S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective, in P. Moen & G. H. Elder, Jr., (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bustamante, L. H. U., Cerqueira, R. O., Leclerc, E., & Brietzke, E. (2017). Stress, trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder in migrants: A comprehensive review. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 40(2), 220–225.

Inclusive systems as relational space  51 CDI/EDC. (2016). ‘Chit chat’: Early intervention speech and language therapy model and linkages to the education sector: Policy briefing paper. Dublin: Childhood Development Initiative and Educational Disadvantage Centre. Cohen, J., McCabe, E., Michelli, N., & Pickeraln, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education, College Record Volume, 111(1), 180–213. Crepet, A., Rita, F., Reid, A., Van der Boogard, W., Deiana, P., Quaranta, G., Barbieri, A., Bongiorno, F., & Di Carlo, S. (2017). Mental health and trauma in asylum seekers landing in Sicily in 2015: A descriptive study of neglected invisible wounds, Conflict and Health, 11(1), 1–11. Cross, W. E., Jr. (2017). Ecological factors in human development, Child Development, 88, 767–769. Crul, M. (2018). How key transitions influence school and labour market careers of descendants of Moroccan and Turkish migrants in the Netherlands, European Journal of Education, 53, 481–494. Curcic, S., Miskovic, M., & Plaut, C. C. (2014). Inclusion, integration or perpetual exclusion? A critical examination of the decade of Roma inclusion, 2005–2015. European Educational Research Journal, 13, 257. Dale, R. (2010). Early school leaving: Lessons from research for policy makers, An independent expert report submitted to the EU Commission by the NESSE network of experts, 2010. Darmody, M., Byrne, D., & McGinnity, F. (2012). Cumulative disadvantage? Educational careers of migrant students in Irish secondary schools, Race Ethnicity Education, 17(1), 129–151. Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Williamson, D. F., Dube, S. R., Brown, D. W., & Giles, W. H (2005). Childhood residential mobility and multiple health risks during adolescence and adulthood: The hidden role of adverse childhood experiences, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(12), 1104–1110. Donlevy, V., Day, L., Andriescu, M., & Downes, P. (2019). Assessment of the implementation of the 2011 council recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Downes, P. (2011). Community based lifelong learning centres: Developing a European strategy informed by international evidence and research. Brussels: Commissioned Research Report for European Commission, NESET (Network of Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training), Directorate General, Education and Culture. Downes, P. (2012). The primordial dance: Diametric and concentric spaces in the unconscious world. Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang. Downes, P. (2013). Developing a framework and agenda for students’ voices in the school system across Europe: From diametric to concentric relational spaces for early school leaving prevention, European Journal of Education, 48(3), 346–362. Downes, P. (2014). Access to education in Europe: A framework and agenda for system change. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. Downes, P. (2015). Early school leaving prevention and engaging parents from ethnic minority and migrant backgrounds: Key issues and guiding principles across 9 European city municipalities. Paris: European Union, European Regional Development Fund, Urbact Secretariat. Downes, P. (2019). Transition as a displacement from more fundamental system concerns: Distinguishing four different meanings of transition in education, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1465–1476. Downes, P. (2020). Reconstructing agency in developmental and educational psychology: Inclusive systems as concentric space. New York/London/New Delhi: Routledge. Downes, P., Anderson, J., & Nairz-Wirth, E. (2018). Editors’ (special issue) ‘conclusion’: Developing conceptual understandings of transitions and policy implications, European Journal of Education, 53, 541–556. Downes, P., & Cefai, C. (2019). Strategic clarity on different prevention levels of school bullying and violence: Rethinking peer defenders and selected prevention, Journal of School Violence, 18(4), 510–521. Downes, P., Nairz-Wirth, E., & Rusinaite, V. (2017). Structural indicators for inclusive systems in and around schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Edwards, A., & Downes, P. (2013). Alliances for inclusion: Developing cross-sector synergies and inter-professional collaboration in and around education. Foreword by Jan Truszczynski, DirectorGeneral of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture. Brussels: European Commission, DG Education and Culture.

52  Research handbook on migration and education Elamé, E. (2013). Discriminatory bullying: A new intercultural dialogue. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Eurochild. (2011). The role of local authorities in parenting support: Family and parenting support. Thematic Working Group Round Table report. Brussels: Eurochild. European Commission. (2014). Tackling early leaving from education and training in Europe: Strategies, policies and measures. Eurydice and Cedefop Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2019). The European Education and Training Expert Panel. Issue paper on Inclusion and citizenship. Brussels: Education and Training ET 2020. Ferrare, J. J., & Apple, M. W. (2010). Spatializing critical education: Progress and cautions, Critical Studies in Education, 51, 209–221. Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD. Ford, T., Parker, C., Salim, J., Goodman, R., Logan, S., & Henley, W. (2018). The relationship between exclusion from school and mental health: A secondary analysis of the British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Surveys 2004 and 2007, Psychological Medicine, 48(4), 629–641. Frostad, P., Jan Pijl, S., & Egil Mjaavatn, P. (2015). Losing all interest in school: Social participation as a predictor of the intention to leave upper secondary school early, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 110–122. Gambaro, E., Mastrangelo, M., Sarchiapone, M., Marangon, D., Gramaglia, C., Vecchi, C., Airoldi, C., Mirisola, C., Costanzo, G., Bartollino, S., & Baralla, F. (2020). Resilience, trauma, and hopelessness: Protective or triggering factor for the development of psychopathology among migrants? BMC Psychiatry, 20, 358. Gilligan, C. (1990). Making connections: The relational world of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Boston: Harvard University Press. Global School Health Statement. (2015). Statement for the integration of health and education. ASCD & ISHN. http://www​.wholechildeducation​.org​/about​/glo​bals​choo​lhea​lths​tatement. Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T. H., & Lim Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization, Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 483–496. Gulson, K. A., & Symes, C. (2007). Knowing one’s place: Space, theory, education, Critical Studies in Education, 48, 97–110. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space, Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Harte, E., Herrera, F., & Stepanek, M. (2016). Education of EU migrant children in EU member states. California: RAND Corporation. Heckmann, F. (2008). Education and migration strategies for integrating migrant children in European schools and societies: A synthesis of research findings for policy-makers, An independent report submitted to the European Commission by the NESSE network of experts, 2008. Iachini, A. L., Petiwala, A. F., & DeHart, D. (2016). Examining adverse childhood experiences among students repeating the ninth grade: Implications for school dropout prevention, Children and Schools, 38(4), 218–227. Janta, B., & Harte, E. (2016). Education of migrant children: Education policy responses for the inclusion of migrant children in Europe. California: RAND Corporation. Kapari, K., & Stavrou, P. D. (2010). School characteristics as predictors of bullying and victimization among Greek middle school students, International Journal of Violence and School, 11, 93–113. Kirmayer, L. J., Narasiah, L., Munoz, M., Rashid, M., Ryder, A. G., Guzder, J., Hassan, G., Rousseau, C., & Pottie, K. (2011). Common mental health problems in immigrants and refugees: General approach in primary care, CMAJ, 183, E959–E967. Leach, E. (1965/2000). Claude Lévi-Strauss: Anthropologist and philosopher, in S. Hugh-Jones & J. Laidlaw (Eds.), The essential Edmund Leach, Vol. I, anthropology and society. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lebano, A., Hamed, S., Bradby, H., Gil-Salmerón, A., Durá-Ferrandis, E., Garcés-Ferrer, J., Azzedine, F., Riza, E., Karnaki, P., Zota, D., & Linos, A. (2020). ‘Migrants’ and refugees’ health status and healthcare in Europe: A scoping literature review, BMC Public Health, 20, 1039. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind (Trans. G. Weidenfeld). London: Nicolson Ltd.

Inclusive systems as relational space  53 Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology: Vol. 1. Translated by C. Jacobsen & B. Grundfest Schoepf. Allen Lane: Penguin. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973). Structural anthropology: Vol. 2. Translated by M. Layton, 1977. Allen Lane: Penguin Books. Li, G. (2018). Divergent paths, same destiny: A Bourdieusian perspective on refugee families’ negotiation of urban school transition in the US, European Journal of Education, 53, 469–480. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage. Nakash, O., Nagar, M., Shoshani, A., Zubida, H., & Harper, R. A. (2012). The effect of acculturation and discrimination on mental health symptoms and risk behaviors among adolescent migrants in Israel, Culture Diverse Ethnic Minor Psychology, 18, 228–238. New, W. (2011–12). Stigma and Roma education policy reform in Slovakia, European Education, 43, 45–61. Nordic Welfare Centre. (2019). Adolescent health in the Nordic region: Health promotion in school settings. Stockholm: Nordic Welfare Centre. OECD. (2015). Helping immigrant students to succeed at school and beyond. Paris: OECD. Reay, D. (2018). Working class educational transitions to university: The limits of success, European Journal of Education, 53, 528–540. Rostas, I., & Kostka, J. (2014). Structural dimensions of Roma school desegregation policies in Central and Eastern Europe, European Educational Research Journal, 13, 268–281. Rousseau, S., & Frounfelker, R. L. (2019). Mental health needs and services for migrants: An overview for primary care providers, Journal of Travel Medicine, 26(2), 150. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul. South Africa Department of Basic Education. (2015). National policy on HIV, STIs and TB for learners, educators, school support staff and officials in all Primary and Secondary schools in the basic education sector. Souto-Manning, M. (2018). Disrupting eurocentric epistemologies: Re‐mediating transitions to centre intersectionally‐minoritised immigrant children, families and communities, European Journal of Education, 53, 456–468. Suarez, L. M., Belcher, H. M. E., Briggs, E. C., & Titus, J. C. (2012). Supporting the need for an integrated system of care for youth with co-occurring traumatic stress and substance abuse problems, American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3–4), 430–440. UNESCO. (2020). Inclusion and education: 2020 global education monitoring report. Ungar, M. (2008). Putting resilience theory into action: Five principles for intervention, in L. Liebenberg & M. Ungar (Eds.), Resilience in action (pp. 17–38). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ungar, M. (2012). The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice. New York: Springer. Virupaksha, H. G., Kumar, A., & Nirmala, B. P. (2014). Migration and mental health: An interface, Journal of Natural Science, Biology, and Medicine, 5(2), 233–239. WHO. (2018). Report on the health of refugees and migrants in the WHO European region: No public health without refugee and migrant health. Copenhagen: WHO.

4. Migration and acculturation: supporting migrant students’ school adjustment in multicultural schools Elena Makarova and Petra Sidler

INTRODUCTION The 2020 World Migration Report documents almost 272 million international migrants, amounting to 3.5% of the world’s population (IOM, 2020). A sizable proportion of the migrant population is children and youth (IOM, 2018, 2020). Although approximately 37 million child migrants and 13.5 million child refugees live outside of their place of birth (IOM, 2020), some children of immigrants were born in the place to which their parents migrated. Therefore, societies and schools in receiving countries are challenged to accommodate newly arrived migrant students and descendants of migrants with increasingly diverse cultural backgrounds (Celeste et  al., 2019). As one of the most crucial contexts of child and youth development (Eccles & Roeser, 2012), schools in multicultural societies need to employ diversity approaches while simultaneously addressing developmental and achievement issues (Baysu et al., 2020). According to educational reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010), students with a migration background are generally at risk of underachieving in school in Europe. Migrant students’ school experience is often complex, multifaceted, and connected to issues of language, culture, identity, and social integration (Haim, 2019). Compared with their native peers, they often experience achievement gaps, higher levels of burnout and stress, and lower school engagement, which often lead to poor educational outcomes (Özdemir & Özdemir, 2020). Such achievement gaps are often consequential for their psychological development and future life opportunities. The considerable (hidden and actual) dropout rate among migrant students is a challenge for educational systems, not only relating to the first but also to the second migrant generation (Teuscher & Makarova, 2018). The latter relates to the immigrant paradox, the finding that developmental and achievement outcomes among immigrant students worsen as the time of their residence in the host country proceeds (MottiStefanidi et al., 2012). Therefore, length of stay in the country of residence and migrant generation are important factors to consider when supporting the school adjustment of students with a migration background. As migrant students’ development and academic achievement are embedded in their acculturation process, the experience of acculturation becomes crucial in understanding and supporting favourable school outcomes for migrant students (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Given that school outcomes have long-lasting implications for future life opportunities, the question of how school adjustment can be promoted for students with a migration background is of great importance in multicultural societies.

54

Migration and acculturation 

55

ACCULTURATION FRAMEWORK Acculturation describes individual or ethnocultural group changes in behaviour and attitudes under the condition of intercultural contact or a change in cultural context. Acculturation research describes changes that individuals and/or ethnocultural groups undergo during acculturation and the effects of acculturation on their adjustment to the new environment (Berry, 2006). Acculturation was first defined in a “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation” in the journal American Anthropologist by social anthropologists: “Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield et al., 1936, p. 149). Since then, research on acculturation has been expanding rapidly in the 21st century and has become prominent in the social sciences in general. While social anthropologists have focused on changes at the group level, psychologists have become interested in how individuals adjust when facing a change in cultural context. Given that migrant students’ individual development and academic achievement are embedded in the process of their acculturation, research on acculturation has won a permanent place in the educational sciences. In psychology, two traditions of acculturation research in plural societies can generally be differentiated: (a) the social psychological tradition and (b) the tradition of cross-cultural psychology (Ward & Leong, 2006). Social psychological theories aim at analysing relationships between dominant and nondominant ethnocultural and/or migrant groups. Studies originating within this theoretical and empirical framework focus on phenomena such as ethnocentrism, ethnic prejudice, ethnic stereotypes, ethnic attitudes, and discrimination. The central concept in this area is ethnic prejudice, which is usually divided into three components: (a) a cognitive component, which involves ethnic stereotypes about common characteristics of ethnocultural groups; (b) an affective component, which includes attitudes towards ethnocultural groups and their evaluation; and (c) a behavioural component, which is expressed in discriminative actions against ethnocultural group members (Berry et al., 2011). Generally, in examinations of ethnic relations, researchers often look at the dominant group’s views of and behaviours towards nondominant ethnocultural groups and fail to examine reciprocal views. In the tradition of cross-cultural psychology, acculturation research is of great interest. The locus of the acculturation framework distinguishes two levels of contextualization: (a) the cultural level, which includes a broader view of cultural change as a result of intercultural relations with a focus on ethnocultural groups, and (b) the psychological level, which emphasizes changes that groups or individuals of a specific ethnocultural group experience during their acculturation and the effects of their adaptation to the new environment (Berry, 2005). From a theoretical point of view, there are three approaches to the study of acculturation (Makarova, 2008). First, the stress and coping framework is based on known psychological stress models. It assumes that acculturation involves psychological adjustment after migration and may influence an individual’s psychological well-being, life satisfaction, health vulnerability, and psychosomatic complaints. Then, the social learning approach is used to analyse aspects of behaviour under conditions of culture contact. According to the acceptance of cross-cultural differences in behaviour patterns and value systems, the nature of individual or group interaction differs based on culture type. Culture contact can appear as a major and stressful life event that may lead to acculturative stress. Therefore, to manage interaction

56  Research handbook on migration and education and communication successfully in a new cultural context, acquiring new skills is essential. Finally, the social identification perspective is based on a social psychological conception of identity and has an individual’s self-identification with a cultural group as its focus. It is linked to individual or group-specific acculturation.

ACCULTURATION CONSTRUCT Acculturation as a construct subsumes acculturation outcomes, acculturation orientations, and conditions of acculturation. Acculturation outcomes include psychological well-being and sociocultural competencies. Acculturation orientations (also called acculturation attitudes, expectations, or strategies) describe individual or group preferences in relation to the acculturation of migrants and/or ethnic minorities. Acculturation conditions relate to personal characteristics, perceived intergroup relations, and (objective and perceived) characteristics of the receiving society (such as characteristics of the context of school) of the society of origin and of the immigrant group (Arends-Toth & van de Vijver, 2006).

ACCULTURATION ORIENTATIONS The operationalization of acculturation orientations relates to directionality and dimensionality. Most commonly, a bidimensional model is used. On a bidimensional scale, it is possible to maintain contact with or avoid the culture of the society of residence and at the same time retain or lose one’s involvement in the heritage culture. Through these two dimensions (cultural maintenance and relationships sought among groups), four acculturation strategies have been identified for migrants and for the national majority (integration/multiculturalism, assimilation/melting pot, separation/segregation, and marginalization/exclusion; Berry, 2005). Bourhis et  al. (1997) developed this model into an interactive acculturation model, replacing the contact dimension relationships sought among groups with cultural adoption, and an additional differentiation of individualism as an alternative strategy to marginalization. Other acculturation models have focused on the concordance of acculturation attitudes among dominant versus nondominant groups or domain-specific (e.g., social, family, religion) acculturation preferences. Recently, a multidimensional operationalization of acculturation orientations has been developed and applied in educational research, addressing the issue that in culturally diverse societies not only do migrants adjust to changes in the sociocultural context but the members of the ethnic/national majority also need to adjust to the multicultural school environment (Haenni Hoti et al., 2019; Sidler et al., 2021).

CONDITIONS AND OUTCOMES OF ACCULTURATION Characteristics of the receiving society and the society of origin (e.g., institutions), characteristics of cultural groups and individuals, perceived intergroup relations, and the various contexts in which acculturation takes place (e.g., family, school) are commonly conceptualized as acculturation conditions. Acculturation outcomes relate to psychological and sociocultural

Migration and acculturation 

57

adjustment (Arends-Toth & van de Vijver, 2006). For immigrants, psychological adjustment involves individuals’ psychological well-being, mental health, and self-esteem. Sociocultural adaptation relates to how immigrants deal with their daily lives in the new environment of their receiving country (e.g., truancy, problematic behaviour, disciplinary infractions). Psychological adjustment can be improved through variables such as personality, life-changing events, and social support. Sociocultural adaptation is enhanced through cultural knowledge, degree of contact, and positive intergroup attitudes. The integration strategy (i.e., maintenance of heritage culture while adopting specific cultural characteristics of the majority culture) and minimal cultural distance (e.g., in terms of language or religion) between immigrants and the society of residence are conducive to both psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Searle & Ward, 1990).

CONTEXTUAL APPROACH IN RESEARCH ON ACCULTURATION The contextual approach in research on acculturation emphasizes that considering the surrounding context is important, as the relationship between acculturation and adjustment is modelled by it (Birman & Simon, 2014). The contextual approach is embedded in the ecodevelopmental outline of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), stating that the development of adolescents is embedded in their immediate environment. This environment consists of various interacting microsystems, including family, peer group, and school class. These microsystems are again embedded in the wider societal environment, consisting of the macrosystem. Consequently, acculturation of immigrant youth takes place in various microsystems; some of them are more oriented towards the mainstream culture (e.g., school), whereas others preserve the heritage culture (e.g., family context of immigrants). Therefore, not only an immediate context of acculturation but also the interaction between different contexts where acculturation unfolds can influence adjustment outcomes. As shown in a research synthesis, family related factors can facilitate or hinder school adjustment of immigrant and ethnic minority youth (Makarova et al., 2021). Migrant youths’ successful adjustment therefore depends on the conditions in various acculturation contexts and their interplay (Birman, 2011; Makarova et al., 2021).

ACCULTURATION IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH In the school context, the acculturation process affects not only migrant and native students and teachers but also the whole school, as all actors and the institution itself face adjustment challenges in a culturally diverse environment (Sidler et al., 2021). The way in which cultural diversity is handled at school plays a crucial role in accommodating migrant and native students, as the acculturation process affects both groups (Celeste et al., 2019; Haim, 2019). Research focusing on the acculturation process among migrants and ethnic minority youth has shown that those youth face various adjustment challenges that may be multidimensional, dilemmatic, and stressful (Makarova & Birman, 2016). The outcomes of acculturation in the school context can be assessed along three dimensions: a) in terms of students’ psychological adjustment to the school environment, such as their well-being and self-esteem; b) in terms of students’ sociocultural adjustment, including quality of social relationships with peers and

58  Research handbook on migration and education teachers and the gain of school-relevant skills and behaviours; as well as c) in terms of students’ achievement outcomes and educational aspirations (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Furthermore, research on acculturation and school adjustment has revealed that the characteristics of school contexts decisively shape migrant students’ adjustment, as migrant students need to adjust to a new academic culture, complying with new academic requirements and assessment practices, as well as to a new school culture, including “canteen services, religious rituals, extracurricular activities, dress codes, rule transparency and liability, norms regarding school behaviour” or a multicultural school composition (Makarova & Birman, 2016, p. 6). Migrant students’ academic achievement is intertwined with the acculturation process and its outcomes, such as cultural identity development as well as psychological and sociocultural adjustment. It is therefore crucial to understand the complexity of the relationship between migrant students’ acculturation and school adjustment. Similarly, Berry et al. (2011) stated: Schools and other educational settings constitute the main acculturation context for immigrant children and youth. They can be viewed as a miniature society of settlement; schools represent and introduce the new culture to immigrant children. School adjustment can be seen as a primary task, and as a highly important outcome, of the cultural transition process. (p. 326)

Considering this statement, the school context is one of the most important acculturation settings for children and youth (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012; Makarova et al., 2019; Makarova & Herzog, 2013; Vedder & Horenczyk, 2006).

CONDITIONS OF ACCULTURATION IN MULTICULTURAL SCHOOLS Warikoo and Carter (2009) emphasized the role of school as a cultural actor “with pervasive ideologies, rules, and codes that bolster status hierarchies among social groups” (p. 376), as it transmits and reproduces societal inequalities and hierarchies. Ideally, all students’ needs are identified and addressed at school. However, given migrant students’ achievement gaps, addressing their needs is crucial, as it can facilitate their equal participation in society (Manzoni & Rolfe, 2019). First, school policies favouring multiculturalism (i.e., valuing cultural diversity and differences) were predictive of smaller belonging and achievement gaps between native and migrant students over time. Colour blindness (i.e., ignoring cultural diversity and differences) and assimilationism (i.e., rejecting cultural diversity and differences) were associated with larger achievement and belonging gaps (Celeste et al., 2019). Implementing equality approaches in schools where students perceive that everyone is being treated equally and fairly was found to improve migrants’ academic outcomes and prevent students from disengaging in the face of discrimination (Baysu et al., 2016). Second, some school systems are beneficial to school careers as more open systems, as opposed to rigid systems with a high level of differentiation and early tracking, allowing for more opportunities for migrant students (Baysu et al., 2018). Likewise, a review study on acculturation in the school context showed that not only characteristics of the school system, such as academic tracking, school-based programmes to accommodate diversity, and resources to support the adjustment of migrant students, but also educational culture, including specifics of curriculum and pedagogy as well as teaching and learning methods, can support or hinder migrant students’ transitional school experience and their adjustment (Makarova & Birman, 2016).

Migration and acculturation 

59

Third, depending on diversity management, organizations and institutions can diminish or strengthen inequalities (Banks, 2016). Moreover, diversity management and the high quality of relationships in schools are crucial to a positive school climate (Wang & Degol, 2016). Additionally, Haenni Hoti et al. (2017) found that students’ and teachers’ perceptions of diversity approaches were associated with migrant students’ school adjustment. Finally, perceived support from peers and teachers plays an important role in migrant students’ school engagement, which has been associated with better psychological and sociocultural adjustment and, as a result, with less truancy and greater academic success (Teuscher & Makarova, 2018). Migrant students experiencing little support from their teachers and peers therefore are at risk of disengaging from school (Göbel & Preusche, 2019). Schools, as societal institutions, and teachers, as diversity managers, can foster more inclusive and more enabling intergroup interactions, policies, and norms (Phalet & Baysu, 2020). In addition, peers are potential socialization agents, who may help promote cultural belonging and migrant students’ positive adjustment at school. Therefore, in the educational context, schools may involve teachers as well as migrant and native students in creating culturally inclusive spaces and practices (Vietze et al., 2019).

ACCULTURATION ORIENTATIONS AND SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT With respect to the impact of migrant students’ various acculturation orientations on school adjustment, findings regarding which acculturation orientation would be most conducive to school adjustment are inconsistent (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Based on an extensive review of the research literature on the acculturation process and its outcomes in the school context, Makarova and Birman (2015) suggested that although a bicultural orientation is generally associated with successful school adjustment among minority students, their assimilation attitudes can also positively impact their academic achievement and psychological well-being. Alternatively, Baysu and Phalet (2019) suggested that a bicultural orientation may either improve or obstruct migrant students’ school performance, depending on their experience of stereotypical threats in the school. This means that in low-threat contexts, a bicultural identity can be beneficial; however, it can be costly in high-threat contexts. Therefore, for a bicultural orientation to be beneficial at school, the school context must support it and the variety of migrant cultures. Makarova and Birman (2016) reported that schools often favour an assimilationist strategy in accommodating cultural diversity, aiming at transforming migrant students into mainstream students, thereby providing little support for a bicultural orientation of migrant youth. This strategy may hinder migrant students’ psychological adjustment and their connectedness with their heritage ethnic community. This, in turn, leads to an acculturation dilemma, a situation in which “it is easier to fit into the national educational system if they favour assimilative orientations, but loss of connection with their heritage country may cause psychological distress” (Makarova & Birman, 2016, p. 11). In other words, to successfully adjust to a new school environment, migrant students need to overcome not only the experience of cultural dissonance based on discrepancies in school systems and cultures but also the acculturation gap between parental and their own acculturation preferences, ultimately meaning “that acculturation in the school context of the host country implies adaptation to the mainstream culture at large as well as to the school culture in particular” (Makarova & Birman, 2016, p. 12).

60  Research handbook on migration and education

TEACHERS’ ROLE IN SUPPORTING MIGRANT STUDENTS’ ADJUSTMENT Teachers play a pivotal role in migrant students’ acculturation in school, as they can create a school environment in which migrant students’ needs are recognized and addressed. By widening or narrowing the acculturation gap migrant students have to bridge, teachers can positively or negatively affect migrant students’ acculturative stress and hence their psychological adjustment (Makarova et  al., 2019). Often, however, teachers do not have the professional knowledge and skills to teach diverse classes (Wubbels, 2010). Teachers’ management of culturally diverse classes can encourage or hinder students’ learning (Weinstein et al., 2003), and their support or lack of it can positively or negatively influence the rate of hidden dropouts, such as truancy and passive behaviour at school. Additionally, teachers’ acculturation attitudes are related to their diagnostic expertise in social areas and their classroom management. Teachers who encourage migrant students to adapt certain aspects of the mainstream culture while maintaining their heritage culture (i.e., integrative attitudes) are successful in their classroom management and can help migrant students feel integrated in school (Makarova & Herzog, 2013). Moreover, the match and mismatch of acculturation attitudes between teachers and migrant students impact school adjustment. Matching acculturation orientations between teacher and student influences migrant students’ school satisfaction and academic self-concept. Similar attitudes to cultural assimilation and cultural diversity between teacher and migrant student resulted in students being more satisfied at school. However, the matching combination of teachers valuing cultural diversity and the students having a minority orientation also showed that students had a lower academic self-concept and worse adjustment. Therefore, when teachers create culturally sensitive attitudes and behaviours, the risk of creating a stereotype threat should be addressed (Haenni Hoti et al., 2019). Finally, Van den Bergh et al. (2010) showed that achievement gap sizes across classrooms in relation to migrant students can be explained by teachers’ achievement expectations of migrant students and that teachers’ prejudices against migrant students have been associated with lower achievement expectations of them. Summarized findings from empirical research on teachers’ effects on ethnic minority students’ school adjustment show that teachers can positively or negatively affect migrant students’ school adjustment in multiple ways (Makarova et  al., 2019). Among teacher-related resources that positively impact ethnic minority students’ adjustment in the school context, Makarova et al. (2019) identified the following aspects: •

Teaching practices that were considered a resource for migrant students’ school adjustment were culturally sensitive teaching; open, cooperative, interactive learning activities; student-centred teaching, a personal and trusting teacher–student relationship; fewer language barriers; and the creation of opportunities for students to share their experiences. Resource factors were the flexibility to adapt lessons based on students’ needs, taking their needs and experiences into account, and perspective-taking. Additionally, an accommodating learning climate, teachers’ continuous learning and self-development, the use of formative assessment in combination with other types of assessment, and teachers valuing as well as allowing all languages to be present in the classroom and even be used for instruction.

Migration and acculturation  •

•

61

Regarding teachers’ attitudes and behaviours, a caring, empathic attitude towards migrant students, valuing difference, seeing diversity as an enrichment, and promoting understanding are considered protective factors. Creating a nurturing learning environment as well as helping students acquire life skills and achieve and celebrate their milestones are also protective factors. Concerning teachers’ expectations, high expectations for migrant students’ achievements and abilities to overcome difficulties as well as teachers’ belief that they can make a difference in their students’ success are protective factors (p. 17).

Whereas Makarova et al. (2019) found that teachers’ attitudes, behaviours, and expectations were just as often a protective factor as they were a risk factor, unfavourable teaching practices have more often been considered a risk factor.

DISCUSSION The acculturation framework, which emphasizes acculturation orientations, conditions, and outcomes, has been applied in educational research on acculturation and adjustment in the school context (Makarova & Birman, 2015, 2016; Makarova et al., 2019) and has been further developed through acculturation research in schools (Haenni Hoti et al., 2019; Sidler et al., 2021). Particularly, acculturation conditions relating to characteristics of the school as a proximal context of migrant students’ acculturation and characteristics of teachers as main actors within the school context have an immediate impact on migrant students’ school adjustment. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the results of research on migrant youths’ acculturation and adjustment in the school context. Schools are social places and institutional contexts with distinct diversity patterns and norms. Schools where diversity is valued and discussed tend to have students with high wellbeing, motivation to learn, and self-esteem (Vedder & van Geel, 2012). The characteristics of multicultural schools’ educational systems, cultures, teaching and learning environments, curricula, and pedagogy can support or inhibit the adjustment of students with migration backgrounds (Makarova & Birman, 2015, 2016; Makarova et  al., 2019). Migrant students often face mainly monocultural curriculum content and assimilative pressures (Makarova & Birman, 2016). Schools’ implementation of a “comprehensive, inclusive education policy” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 7) and effective responses to the needs of both migrant and native students are crucial for not only migrant students’ psychological adjustment but also their educational achievement (Makarova et al., 2019). To address migrant students’ needs, schools must evaluate measures to accommodate culturally diverse student populations at various levels: first, educational policies and curricula at the macro level of the educational system; second, means of inclusion at the intermediate level of educational institutions; and third, attitudes, practices, and cultures at the school level (Verhoeven, 2011). Of utmost importance is preventing discrimination and racism within the educational system and institutional practices (Warikoo & Carter, 2009) while promoting positive intercultural relationships. Reducing and preventing racism, social inequalities, and injustices is crucial because directly and/or indirectly experiencing these threats has negative effects on migrant students’ psychological well-being, academic outcomes, and social integration. Thus, the establishment of social equality and justice in education is central to supporting migrant

62  Research handbook on migration and education students’ academic, social, and psychological adjustment (Baysu et al., 2016; Makarova & Birman, 2016). Teachers can positively or negatively affect migrant students’ acculturation by enhancing or reducing acculturative stress and by widening or narrowing the acculturation gap. The way teachers think about and behave towards cultural diversity, migrant students, and their heritage culture has an impact on these students’ psychological well-being and academic achievement. Anticipation of assimilative pressure can cause acculturative stress among migrant students and therefore has a negative effect on their psychological adjustment, especially if the students themselves do not have an assimilationist attitude (Makarova et  al., 2019). Students suffering from acculturative stress are in danger of receiving low ratings on schoolrelated competencies from teachers. Because teachers’ judgements and expectations predict students’ future achievements (Jussim et  al., 1996), they are crucial when accommodating culturally diverse students in the school context. In contrast, teaching practices, attitudes, and expectations that embrace cultural diversity and inclusion can improve migrant students’ school adjustment (Gagné et al., 2012). However, this effect is context-dependent and relative to students’ needs (Makarova et al., 2019). Nurturing and supportive relationships are significant for the school-adjustment process, particularly when not only the students’ needs but also their experiences are considered. Certainly, it is a challenge for teachers to meet every student’s needs. Therefore, teachers should be appropriately trained in cultural proficiency because cultural consideration has an impact on educational quality. In training, teachers should have opportunities to reflect on, examine, and discuss personal beliefs and attitudes as well as learn about the impacts of their beliefs and attitudes on migrant students’ academic achievement. Additionally, they should acquire diversity management skills and learn to create constructive and productive learning environments in culturally diverse classrooms (Makarova et al., 2019). For migrant students, supportive and appreciative relationships with peers and teachers as well as a sense of belonging to school are conducive to successful school adjustment. There are, however, inconsistent results regarding the most favourable acculturation orientation among migrant youth in relation to positive acculturation outcomes (i.e., their psychological and behavioural adjustment as well as their academic achievement). These inconsistencies can be explained by contextual factors, such as the country of residence’s social and economic context, the educational environment, or the socioeconomic backgrounds of students’ parents (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Additionally, because individual acculturative outcomes are embedded in the context of intergroup relations, adjustment outcomes may be less dependent on specific acculturation attitudes and more strongly associated with matching students’ acculturation attitudes with teachers’ (Haenni Hoti et al., 2019). Moreover, different adjustment trajectories of different migrant groups may cause inconsistent results or different operationalizations of acculturation orientations, ethnic identity, and academic achievement (Makarova & Birman, 2015).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS In educational research, a life domains perspective proves valuable when studying acculturation; this perspective acknowledges the importance of context in that a given acculturation approach may be beneficial in one context but maladaptive in another (Birman, 2011).

Migration and acculturation 

63

Therefore, diverse school contexts should be studied, either nationally or in terms of groupspecific diversities (Makarova & Birman, 2016). Further research should focus on how acculturation attitudes and behaviours differ in influencing migrant students’ school adjustment (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Most studies in this field focus on the minority or migrant youth’s school adjustment. However, particularly in relation to school diversity measures, it is important to consider their effects on native students as well (Celeste et  al., 2019). How native students’ role could be conducive to migrant students’ school adjustment as well as how native students acculturate should also be investigated (Sidler et al., 2021). However, practices that can make native students feel excluded and alienated at school should also be studied (Baysu et  al., 2020). Given that teachers are pivotal actors in relation to migrant students’ school adjustment, their practices, attitudes towards diversity, and expectations of migrant students should be further studied (Makarova et al., 2019). Further analysis is needed regarding implicit ethnic and racial associations to understand “why and when teachers and other school personnel engage in behaviours that reproduce racial inequality, often in spite of best intentions and commitments to racial equity” (Warikoo et al., 2016, p. 508). More research is also needed to understand the possibilities and limitations of teachers’ support in relation to migrant students’ school adjustment.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE Based on empirical evidence from research on acculturation in the school context, the following suggestions can be made to support migrant students’ school adjustment: Improving inclusivity of school culture. Characteristics of the school context, particularly those relating to cultural diversity policies and institutional practices of segregation and discrimination, are pivotal for migrant students’ school adjustment (Makarova et al., 2019). Baysu et al. (2020) found that emphasizing and communicating fairness and the value of diversity have long-term benefits. Establishing and maintaining a nondiscriminatory and inclusive school culture and healthy intercultural relationships are crucial for migrant students’ adjustment (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Also, Makarova and Birman (2016) found that creating a caring, sharing, and trusting community along with facilitating resourceful institutionalized programmes support migrant students’ psychological adjustment. Institutional rules and routines should therefore be reviewed to vet for marginalizing practices (Makarova & Birman, 2015). However, creating antidiscrimination policies at the institutional level does not guarantee their implementation. Therefore, each school must monitor its own practices in addressing cultural diversity and establish means of preventing discrimination and supporting inclusion to nurture a sense of school belonging among all students. Implementing inclusive pedagogical practices. Teachers play a pivotal role because they can implement inclusive education policies into their everyday pedagogical practices. Their attitudes, expectations, and teaching approaches can be both risks and resources for migrant students’ adjustment, particularly in relation to unfavourable attitudes and actions towards accommodating cultural diversity (Makarova et al., 2019). Teachers should establish supportive classroom climates and appreciative relationships to strengthen students’ school engagement and self-concept. Moreover, teachers should be educated about power, privilege, and hegemony to reflect on their own biases and values. Additionally, they should learn about cultural diversity (Banks, 2016) and migrant students’ cultures and communities (Weinstein

64  Research handbook on migration and education et al., 2003) and allow for the provision of cultural resources to migrant students at school (Makarova & Birman, 2016). Teachers should employ inclusive instructional design and classroom routines (Makarova & Birman, 2015). Therefore, teacher education institutions should implement competencies in teaching culturally diverse classrooms as transversal and subjectspecific competencies. Creating a constructive learning environment. The literature discussed here highlights two main issues: curriculum content and learning environments for the acquisition of the instructional language. Accordingly, curriculum content should be free from critical, stereotypical, or even negative representations of minorities and migrants. The social power and constructions of race and ethnicity should be critically reflected on because experiencing negative notions of one’s ethnic group at school leads students to internalize negative self-perceptions, low self-esteem, and negative perceptions of one’s group (Urrieta, 2004). Curriculum content should embrace migrant students’ cultural backgrounds and relate to their experiences (Makarova & Birman, 2016). As insufficient mastery of the instructional language is associated with marginalization, frustration, stress, depression, and anxiety – acquisition of the instructional language is indispensable for migrant students’ successful school adjustment. Although empirical literature provides inconsistent findings regarding the optimal arrangement to acquire the instructional language in the school context, there is empirical evidence that nonsegregated, welcoming, and child-friendly environments with opportunities for intercultural communication and collaboration could enhance learning. Thus, bilingual teachers can support second language learning. It has been suggested that arrangements for language acquisition should be adapted to the changing needs of students of various ethnocultural groups. For example, segregated classes might prove successful with freshly arrived students; however, the longer students are in school, the more ineffective segregation becomes, and it may even have negative effects on well-being and social integration (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021).

CONCLUSION We find the acculturation framework is a useful tool when assessing migrant students’ school adjustment. Studying acculturation orientations (i.e., attitudes, expectations, and strategies), conditions, and outcomes in relation to migrant students, their peers, and their teachers aids the identification of risk and protective factors for migrant students’ school adjustment. Improving understanding of the latter is crucial, not only as a result of the acculturation process but also in the long term; protective factors serve as the basis of migrant students’ inclusion into society. We emphasize the need for a reciprocal view of acculturation and simultaneous consideration of the power relations within a given society and a particular school context. Additionally, it is important to study structural inequalities and the multidimensional understanding of individual development (affective, cognitive, and behavioural) in culturally diverse environments. The impact of intercultural relations and acculturation on individual development should be analysed not only at the macro level of society at large but also at the micro level, that is, in the school and classroom contexts. Schools, in turn, are called on to address the wide range of needs of migrant students, who are a highly diverse group. There is considerable room not only for schools but also for teachers to foster more inclusive and more enabling intergroup interactions, policies, and norms. The regular inconsistency in results concerning the relationships among acculturation, migrant

Migration and acculturation 

65

students’ school adjustment, and academic achievement suggests that the successful implementation of diversity programmes depends on the context and the specific groups these programmes address.

REFERENCES Arends-Tóth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2006). Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationships (pp. 33–62). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9780415963589-3 Banks, J. A. (2016). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed.). Routledge. Baysu, G., Celeste, L., Brown, R., Verschueren, K., & Phalet, K. (2016). Minority adolescents in ethnically diverse schools: Perceptions of equal treatment buffer threat effects. Child Development, 87(5), 1352–1366. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/cdev​.12609 Baysu, G., de Valk, H., & Alanya, A. (2018). School trajectories of the second-generation of Turkish immigrants in Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, and Germany: The role of school systems. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59(5–6), 451–479. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /0020715218818638 Baysu, G., Hillekens, J., Phalet, K., & Deaux, K. (2020). How diversity approaches affect ethnic minority and majority adolescents: Teacher–student relationship trajectories and school outcomes. Child Development, 92(1), 367–387. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/cdev​.13417 Baysu, G., & Phalet, K. (2019). The up- and downside of dual identity: Stereotype threat and minority performance. Journal of Social Issues, 75(2), 568–591. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/josi​.12330 Berry, J., Poortinga, Y., Breugelmans, S., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/cbo9780511974274​.017 Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ijintrel​.2005​.07​.013 Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1017​/cbo9780511489891​.006 Birman, D. (2011). Migration and well-being: Beyond the macrosystem. Psychosocial Intervention, 20(3), 339–342. https://doi​.org​/10​.5093​/in2011v20n3a11 Birman, D., & Simon, C. D. (2014). Acculturation research: Challenges, complexities, and possibilities. In F. T. Leong, L. E. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology, vol 1. Theory and research (pp. 207–230). American Psychological Association. https://doi​.org​/10​.1037​/14189​- 011 Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–386. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/002075997400629 Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The social ecology of human development: A retrospective conclusion. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development (pp. 27–40). Sage Publications. Bunar, N., & Juvonen, P. (2021). “Not (yet) ready for the mainstream” – Newly arrived migrant students in a separate educational program. Journal of Education Policy. Advance online publication. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02680939​.2021​.1947527 Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., Meeussen, L., & Kende, J. (2019). Can school diversity policies reduce belonging and achievement gaps between minority and majority youth? Multiculturalism, colorblindness, and assimilationism assessed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(11), 1603–1618. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0146167219838577 Council of Europe. (2016). Time for Europe to get migrant integration right. https://rm​.coe​.int​ /16806da596 Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2012). School influences on human development. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development (pp. 259–283). Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/CBO9781139016827​.017

66  Research handbook on migration and education Gagné, M. H., Shapka, J. D., & Law, D. M. (2012). The impact of social contexts in schools: Adolescents who are new in Canada and their sense of belonging. In C. Garcia Coll (Ed.), The impact of immigration on children’s development (pp. 17–34). Karger. https://doi​.org​/10​.1159​ /000331022 Göbel, K., & Preusche, Z. M. (2019). Emotional school engagement among minority youth: The relevance of cultural identity, perceived discrimination, and perceived support. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 547–563. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14675986​.2019​.1616263 Haenni Hoti, A., Wolfgramm, C., Müller, M., Heinzmann, S., & Buholzer, A. (2019). Immigrant students and their teachers – Exploring various constellations of acculturation orientations and their impact on school adjustment. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 478–494. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /14675986​.2019​.1586214 Haenni Hoti, A. H., Heinzmann, S., Müller, M., & Buholzer, A. (2017). Psychosocial adaptation and school success of Italian, Portuguese and Albanian students in Switzerland: Disentangling migration background, acculturation and the school context. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 85–106. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s12134​- 015​- 0461-x Haim, O. (2019). “It is hard at school, but I do my best to cope”: The educational experience of multilingual immigrant youth in high school. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 510–530. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/14675986​.2019​.1598095 Horenczyk, G., & Tatar, M. (2012). Conceptualizing the school acculturative context: School, classroom, and the immigrant student. In A. S. Masten, K. Liebkind, & D. J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of immigrant youth (pp. 359–375). https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/cbo9781139094696​.018 International Organization for Migration & United Nations. (2018). World migration report. International Organization for Migration. https://www​.iom​.int​/sites​/g​/files​/tmzbdl486​/files​/country​/docs​/china​/r5​ _world​_migration​_ report​_2018​_en​.pdf International Organization for Migration & United Nations. (2020). World migration report. International Organization for Migration. https://publications​.iom​.int​/system​/files​/pdf​/wmr​_2020​.pdf Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281–388). Academic Press. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/s0065​-2601(08)60240-3 Makarova, E. (2008). Akkulturation und kulturelle Identität. Eine empirische Studie bei Jugendlichen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund in der Schweiz [Acculturation and cultural identity. An empirical study with adolescents with and without migration background in Switzerland]. Haupt. Makarova, E., & Birman, D. (2015). Cultural transition and academic achievement of students from ethnic minority backgrounds: A content analysis of empirical research on acculturation. Educational Research, 57(3), 305–330. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/00131881​.2015​.1058099 Makarova, E., & Birman, D. (2016). Minority students’ psychological adjustment in the school context: An integrative review of qualitative research on acculturation. Intercultural Education, 27(1), 1–21. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14675986​.2016​.1144382 Makarova, E., Döring, A. K., Auer, P., ‘t Gilde, J., & Birman, D. (2021). School adjustment of ethnic minority youth: A qualitative and quantitative research synthesis of family-related risk and resource factors. Educational Review. Advance online publication. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/00131911​.2021​ .1905610 Makarova, E., & Herzog, W. (2013). Teachers’ acculturation attitudes and their classroom management: An empirical study among fifth-grade primary school teachers in Switzerland. European Educational Research Journal, 12(2), 256–269. https://doi​.org​/10​.2304​/eerj​.2013​.12​.2​.256 Makarova, E., ‘t Gilde, J., & Birman, D. (2019). Teachers as risk and resource factors in minority students’ school adjustment: An integrative review of qualitative research on acculturation. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 448–477. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14675986​.2019​.1586212 Manzoni, C., & Rolfe, H. (2019). How schools are integrating new migrant pupils and their families. National Institute of Economic and Social Research. https://www​.niesr​.ac​.uk​/sites​/default​/files​/ publications​/ Mig​rant​Chil​dren​Inte​grat​ionF​inal​Report​.pdf Motti-Stefanidi, F., Asendorpf, J. B., & Masten, A. S. (2012). The adaptation and well-being of adolescent immigrants in Greek schools: A multilevel, longitudinal study of risks and resources. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 451–473. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/s0954579412000090

Migration and acculturation 

67

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). OECD reviews of migrant education – Closing the gap for immigrant students: Policies, practice, and performance. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1787​/9789264075788​-en Özdemir, M., & Özdemir, S. B. (2020). Why do some immigrant children and youth do well in school whereas others fail?: Current state of knowledge and directions for future research. In D. Güngör & D. Strohmeier (Eds.), Contextualizing immigrant and refugee resilience: Advances in immigrant family research (pp. 51–72). Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​- 030​- 42303​-2_4 Phalet, K., & Baysu, G. (2020). Fitting in: How the intergroup context shapes minority acculturation and achievement. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–39. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. https://doi​.org​/10​.1525​/aa​.1936​.38​.1​.02a00330 Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4), 449–464. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/0147​-1767(90)90030-z Sidler, P., Kassis, W., Makarova, E., & Janousch, C. (2021). Assessing attitudes towards mutual acculturation in multicultural schools: Conceptualisation and validation of a four-dimensional mutual acculturation attitudes scale. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 84, 300–314. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ijintrel​.2021​.08​.009 Teuscher, S., & Makarova, E. (2018). Students’ school engagement and their truant behavior: Do relationships with classmates and teachers matter? Journal of Education and Learning, 7(6), 124– 137. https://doi​.org​/10​.5539​/jel​.v7n6p124 Urrieta, L. (2004). Dis-connections in “American” citizenship and the post/neo-colonial: People of Mexican descent and Whitestream pedagogy and curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32(4), 433–458. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/00933104​.2004​.10473264 Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497–527. https://doi​.org​/10​.3102​/0002831209353594 Vedder, P., & van Geel, M. (2012). Immigrant youth and discrimination. In G. C. Coll (Ed.), The impact of immigration on children’s development (Vol. 24, pp. 99–121). Karger Publishers. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1159​/000331031 Vedder, P. H., & Horenczyk, G. (2006). Acculturation and the school. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 419–438). Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/cbo9780511489891​.031 Verhoeven, M. (2011). Multiple embedded inequalities and cultural diversity in educational systems: A theoretical and empirical exploration. European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 189–203. https://doi​.org​/10​.2304​/eerj​.2011​.10​.2​.189 Vietze, J., Juang, L. P., & Schachner, M. K. (2019). Peer cultural socialisation: A resource for minority students’ cultural identity, life satisfaction, and school values. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 579– 598. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14675986​.2019​.1586213 Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​ /s10648​- 015​-9319-1 Ward, C., & Leong, C. H. (2006). Intercultural relations in plural societies: Theory, research and application. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 484–503). Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/cbo9780511489891​.035 Warikoo, N., & Carter, P. (2009). Cultural explanations for racial and ethnic stratification in academic achievement: A call for a new and improved theory. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 366– 394. https://doi​.org​/10​.3102​/0034654308326162 Warikoo, N., Sinclair, S., Fei, J., & Jacoby-Senghor, D. (2016). Examining racial bias in education: A new approach. Educational Researcher, 45(9), 508–514. https://doi​.org​/10​.3102​/0013189x16683408 Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom management: Awareness into action. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 269–276. https://doi​.org​/10​.1207​ /s15430421tip4204_2 Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher education – Macro factors. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 518–524). Elsevier. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/ b978​- 0​- 08​- 044894​-7​.00649-7

5. The organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany: identifying gaps in the current state of knowledge Mona Massumi, Christina Brandl and Annette Korntheuer

INTRODUCTION In 2009, Behrensen and Westphal (2009) described the situation of refugee students in German education systems1 as a “blind spot” of migration and education research. Until the “long summer of migration” in 2015 (Hess et al., 2017), there were hardly any empirical studies and no established research field in Germany that examined the educational situation of refugee students. The research of the “Hamburg group”, which published on the educational and living situation of young refugees as early as the 2000s, is among the few exceptions in this regard (Neumann et al., 2003; Seukwa, 2006). This early research already emphasized the importance of a differentiated perspective on restrictive legal and educational contexts that shape the education pathways of refugee children and youth in Germany. Although the international comparative PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) study in 2000 sparked research interest in the intersection of migration and education more than 20 years ago (OECD, 2001), educational research in the context of forced migration is a nascent field in Germany. The increase in research on forced migration and education since 2015 is strongly related to the arrival of large numbers of refugees seeking protection in Germany and the significant investments of research funding agencies in this area (Crul et al., 2019). International research on newly arrived migrant students (NAMSs) emphasizes two main fields of factors influencing their educational careers: (i) singular or individual factors, such as the socio-economic status of the families, age at arrival, educational attainment in the country of origin, or transition countries and language abilities, and (ii) institutional or school structural factors, such as integration/transition models, the availability of institutionalized assessment, ability tracking, segregation, available (language learning) support systems, and school cultures. Both fields are closely interrelated (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021). Newly arrived refugee students2 can be shown as a particularly vulnerable subgroup of migrants that are frequently affected by exclusion from the education system due to interlinked individual and structural factors like restrictive provisions in the asylum and immigration law, disrupted school trajectories, and traumatic experiences before, during, and after the flight (Bunar, 2018; Seukwa, 2006). While the focus of this chapter is the organization of school integration for refugee students in Germany, educational policies and institutional arrangements mostly will not differentiate newly arrived migrant students according to their legal status or the cause of their migration, since the school measures are initially oriented towards the lack or insufficient knowledge of 68

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  69 German (El-Mafaalani & Massumi, 2019). The term “refugee classes” or refugee students is often used erroneously, other newly arrived students (for example from EU countries) with little or no command of German are equally addressed in these school measures. For the organization of school integration, Massumi et al. (2015, p. 44) identified five models, which have been widely used in the current literature on educational integration of newly arrived refugee students in Germany (Korntheuer & Damm, 2020; Vogel & Stock, 2017; SVR, 2018). There has been a significant increase in the production of empirical knowledge on school integration and educational participation of refugee children and youth in Germany from 2015 to 2020. Nevertheless, scientific findings remain incoherent and fragmented. Accordingly, in this chapter, we pose the question, what do we (not) know now – after this period of intense research activities – about the organization of school integration of refugee children and youth in Germany? For this chapter, we examined the literature on empirical studies on the topic of forced migration and schooling in Germany from 2015 to 2020, with a focus on original research investigating the organization of school integration of refugee children and youth in the comprehensive school system. To broaden our database for comparison and contrast of the results, publications on related subjects such as informal and non-formal support systems and research on the complex life situations of refugee children and youth were also included. If applicable, studies on the situation of newly arrived migrant students (including refugee students as a subgroup) were integrated. Through this strategy, we could identify 40 publications on original research from 2015 to 2020. Our results refer to four central aspects: first, legal frameworks and educational policies have a significant impact on the access, assessment, and placement practice relating to refugee students in the German federal states. Empirical data and policy analysis show that some policies are leading to educational exclusion. Second, the current organizational models of school integration contain a significant portion of “blurry practice” and tend to place newly arrived refugee students in non-academic school forms. Third, besides organizational models, the impact of learning arrangements in the classroom on the educational outcomes of refugee students is not sufficiently considered in research yet. Finally, inclusion and social support systems remain another important gap in research. In conclusion, we discuss how the current gaps in knowledge production could be addressed methodologically.

EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS, FEDERAL POLICIES, AND ACCESS CRITERIA Various agreements under international and European law, as well as the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, ensure the right to education for every child (Art. 28 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; article 14 paragraph 1 European Regulations 2003/9/ EG; Art. 26 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and so on). The Reception Directive of the European Union sets the standards for the arrival of asylum seekers in the EU Member States (2013/33/EU). Art. 14 requires that minor applicants and minor children of applicants shall be granted the same access to the education system as nationals. Further, the Directive states that access to the education system must be granted no later than three months after the lodging of the asylum application. Even though these (inter)nationally ratified agreements and specifications enable access to schools in principle, they do not regulate the concrete implementation of the right. Education falls within the domain of the federal level of

70  Research handbook on migration and education governance and is a responsibility of the 16 federal states. Responses to refugee children and youth of school age vary widely in the federal states (Massumi et al., 2015). Waiting Time and Exclusions from the School System In all 16 federal states, compulsory schooling is based on the criteria of the student’s place of residence in the respective state. In the case of asylum seekers, the federal states do not consider these criteria sufficient to clearly define their compulsory schooling. Therefore, most federal states explicitly regulate compulsory schooling for this group in their school laws or administrative regulations (Massumi et al., 2015, pp. 33–40). In a few states such as Hamburg, compulsory schooling applies directly at the beginning of the stay, regardless of the legal status and placement in an initial reception centre. Other federal states specify a period of stay of three to six months after arrival before compulsory schooling starts. In some federal states, compulsory schooling applies only when refugees are transferred from the first reception centre to the municipality. This means that weeks or months can pass between the time of arrival in Germany and the issue of the transfer or residence permit – and thus the start of compulsory schooling – depending on the processing time and the workload of the migration and education authorities (SVR, 2018, pp. 11–13). In the context of the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act (Asylverfahrensbeschleunigungsgesetz), which came into force in 2015, the exclusion of refugees from so-called ‘safe countries of origin’ (‘sichere Herkunftsstaaten’) from the formal education system is also becoming increasingly problematic, as their chances of being assigned to a municipality and thus becoming obliged to attend school are dwindling, or (as in Bavaria) they are taught in specially set up learning groups within AnkER-centers3 (centre for arrival, decision, and repatriation). Classes in these learning groups are not based on the curriculum of the mainstream school and do not permit formal qualifications (ecre, 2019, p. 17).4 However, empirical studies on the educational situation of refugee children and youths in the first reception and AnkER-centers are still lacking. School attendance rates of 90% for refugee children and youth (6–17 years old) for the school year 2016/2017 in the refugee cohort (N=3500 refugee households) of the socio-economic panel (IAB-BAMF-SOEP study)5 are significantly lower than those of students without migration experience (98%) or other migrant students (98%). The exclusion increases with age: while among the 6–10-year- olds only 7% do not attend school, for the 17-year-olds, it is 33% (Pavia Lareiro, 2019a, p. 7). Institutional networks and professional support seem to buffer exclusionary practices for unaccompanied minors, as can be shown in qualitative (Korntheuer, 2016) and quantitative (B-umf, 2017) research. For refugee youth and young adult refugees, full-time compulsory schooling or compulsory vocational schooling applies in most federal states until the age of 18. Some states have extended this to 21 years and in exceptional cases to 24 (Weiser, 2016). The exclusion of refugees of full age from compulsory schooling is particularly problematic if compulsory schooling ends before a school-leaving certificate and/or if there is no basic school education that can be followed up, for example, in adult education. The dual-cohort and multi-informant panel study ReGES (Refugees in the German Educational System) interviewed more than 4300 refugee families in five federal states. For their youth sample (age 14–16; N=2415) they determined a waiting time of 7.1 months until these youth were able to attend school after arriving in Germany. While some started school within the first month after arrival, for others, it took several years (standard deviation of 6.7

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  71 months) (Maurice & Will, 2021, p. 10; Homuth et al., 2020, p. 126). There is a significant variance in the waiting time, according to empirical studies. The ReGES results are confirmed by other findings showing that some children and youth access schools with less than a month of waiting time (Lewek & Naber, 2017), while qualitative studies indicated that other NAMSs were denied access to school for more than a year (Massumi, 2019, p. 178). Waiting times for a school place are also prolonged by the allocation processes of the education administration, which is organized on a state-specific, local level (Emmerich et al., 2016). The residential status of the new immigrants is relevant when attempting to register for school on their own. For example, findings indicate that undocumented children and young people who have migrated to Germany are rejected by schools when they attempt to register (Emmerich et  al., 2016; Funck et al., 2015). The refusal of schools to accept children without valid residence documents is attributed to the lack of knowledge of the legal right to education for all children, bureaucratic and practical hurdles, or a negative attitude towards children or youth without identification or residence papers (Emmerich et al., 2016, pp. 31–34). Refugees perceive the denial of direct access to schooling and long waiting times for a school place as burdensome (Lechner & Huber, 2017, p. 57). An analysis of the school biographies of NAMSs shows that they can avoid these exclusions from the school system and thus shorten their waiting time for a school place, only if they are able to actively circumvent the official allocation practices of the municipal education administration, by registering directly for school at the local level (Massumi, 2019, pp. 203–206). To succeed in this, they usually need the support of volunteers, social workers, or family members. Assessment, Placement Practice, and Tracking If minors who have migrated to Germany are of compulsory school age and are to be placed at a school in their municipality, the question arises not only as to which school close to home can guarantee admission due to capacity, but also which grade level and which secondary school in the secondary school system with differentiated performance levels the students should be assigned to. Even though federal states have specified and further developed their assessment practice in recent educational policies and frameworks (Korntheuer & Damm, 2020), the assessment of the relevant competencies of refugee children and youth remains problematic because of language barriers and missing or non-assessable school reports (Emmerich et al., 2016). Since school attendance rates vary considerably from region to region, it is assumed that the allocation of newly migrated students can be attributed to the different regional school structures and places available in each municipality, rather than to the assessment of their competence (El-Mafaalani & Kemper, 2017).6 Further, regionally, different contextual factors for the integration of refugees such as the availability of psychosocial services, interpreters, language courses, housing, and so on can also have an indirect effect on the assessment practice of children and youth (El-Mafaalani, 2017). In North Rhine-Westphalia, across various municipalities, there is an increased allocation of refugee students, and NAMSs generally, to transition classes in lower-qualified secondary school forms (Emmerich et al., 2016; Massumi et al., 2015). Most regulations of the education authorities state that the initial allocation of NAMSs does not yet represent an actual school form allocation, which takes place only after the initial support in the transition system (usually after a maximum of two years) (Ministry of School and Education of North-Rine Westphalia, 2018).

72  Research handbook on migration and education Given the lack of systematic implementation of standardized procedures for assessing levels in German and other languages, and for determining subject-specific competencies for refugee children and youth (Massumi et al., 2015, p. 66), educational researchers question the overall appropriateness of allocating newly immigrated children and youth to a class grade or type of secondary school. Further, it is doubtful that a re-allocation is carried out according to performance after the preparatory period (Massumi, 2019). Qualitative research before 2015 (Neumann et al., 2003; Seukwa, 2006) already noted restrictive policies as an important barrier to school attendance of refugee students, but no quantitative and statistical data was available in Germany. More recent research, since 2015, can confirm these early qualitative findings and demonstrates complete exclusion from the school system due to a number of factors, including the following: the lack of compulsory schooling for refugees during the process of legal status determination in some federal states; the phased exclusion of some of the NAMSs due to the delayed access to compulsory schooling after arrival in Germany; the duration of compulsory school assignment; bureaucratic hurdles and lack of knowledge of educational rights. Furthermore, older youth and young adults are shown to be especially vulnerable to educational exclusion. Qualitative research points to the importance of informal and non-formal supports to avoid exclusion (Massumi, 2019; Jording, 2022). However, there is no general data yet on how many refugee children and youth are excluded from compulsory education nationwide. Furthermore, a study across the federal states focused on the relevance of placement practices to educational biographies is still pending. Quantitative findings on the educational pathways of NAMS within the differentiated school system are also lacking.

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS OF SCHOOL INTEGRATION IN GERMANY Various school organizational models can be identified for the school integration of NAMSs without sufficient command of German. They can be systematized according to the learning time in specific learning groups, and regarding specific language support in German (Massumi et al., 2015, p. 45; figure 3.1). Five models can be systematized (Figure 5.1), and all models aim to enable a successful transition into the regular system through focused German language support, with the exception of the model “separation principle until leaving school”. Empirical studies show that even if there are major differences in schooling concepts, they all have a common focus on the acquisition of the German language so that NAMSs can (prospectively) participate successfully in the lessons of a mainstream class (Otto et al., 2016, p. 27 and others). Korntheuer and Damm (2020) find in their policy analysis of the federal states Saxony and Hamburg that with reference to Massumi’s (2015) models of educational integration, all five models are implemented in both states, differing in educational stages and depending on the individual school or centre. Although various school organizational models are possible, refugee students are often placed in so-called welcome, preparation, international, or transition classes for one or two years before being transferred to regular classes (Massumi et al., 2015; Pagel et al., 2020; Pavia Lareiro, 2019a). A panel study in 2016/2017 showed that at least one-third of all refugee students in Germany were still attending preparatory classes (Maurice & Will, 2021, p. 11). Pagel et al. (2020), referring to data from the refugee cohort in IAB-BAMF-SOEP, calculated (without giving concrete numbers) on the other hand that more than one-third of the refugee students entered mainstream classes directly

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  73

Source:   Massumi et al., 2015, p. 45.

Figure 5.1  Organizational models of school integration after arrival, and that in 2018, only a few children and youth were still attending classes in the transition system. Various studies point to the precarious circumstances in parallel models (among others, Pagel et al., 2020); Karakayalı et al., 2017; Lechner & Huber, 2017, p. 59): the difficult teaching conditions created, inter alia, by insufficient resources in schools, large class sizes, and the high fluctuation and heterogeneity of students. Improvement of German language skills is stated as the main goal during the arrival and transition, irrespective of the organizational model. However, in an analysis of phone interviews with refugee children and youth (N=337) in 2017 within the IAB-BAMF-SOEP refugee cohort, 77% stated that they did not participate in any language learning programmes (Pavia Lareiro, 2019b, p. 7); this is supported by the ReGEs study: only 35.1% of their adolescent sample (N=2412) received language learning supports in 2016. If they were attending, most programmes were located (91%) at their schools (von Maurice & Will, 2021, pp. 14–15). For school retention and success, it can be shown that refugee youth arriving at later points of their schooling can profit more than younger students from parallel models with specialized supports, while they often remain excluded in terms of subject, language, and social learning when attending mainstream classes (Massumi, 2019). The analytical models that have been defined since 2015 help differentiate between the ranges of schooling of newly arrived refugee students. However, there remains the question

74  Research handbook on migration and education of the meaningfulness of the research in these different kinds of schooling arrangements because their implementation is ambiguous and blurry in practice. Furthermore, there is a lack of intersectional perspectives, for example, with regard to the interweaving of the impact of the social background of the families, religion, gender, age, health, and so on. Educational research so far focuses primarily on the commonality of NAMS: the lack of or insufficient German language skills and their later entry into the German school system.

LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES Studies show that newly arrived refugee students, regardless of the school organizational model, are insufficiently supported individually in class, so their prior knowledge and skills that are above or below the level of the class average are ignored in class (Erichsen, 2020, p. 404; Lechner & Huber, 2017, pp. 58–60; Massumi, 2019). In “migrant students only” learning groups, this often occurs when NAMSs have, for example, no prior knowledge of the German language or are not literate. At the same time, the findings indicate that when attending mainstream classes, their language skills in the mother tongue and further languages, their insufficient command of German, and their insufficient subject knowledge through interrupted school biographies are often ignored. Discontinuities in educational biographies or a complete lack of previous school experience are more likely to be found among refugee students (Massumi, 2019; Homuth et al., 2020). Further, due to insufficient German language skills, compensation through more time, for example, in-class tests, rarely takes place in mainstream classes and (subject) lessons are also not designed in a language-sensitive way. These findings are confirmed by another empirical study – a qualitative-reconstructive study at six primary schools on NAMSs in North Rhine-Westphalia – which shows that in the initial support, regardless of the school organizational model according to which the students are taught, in many of the cases studied, there is no provision for the teaching of curricular subject content or targeted integration into the subject lessons of the mainstream class (Jording, in press). Further, due to the lack of curricular requirements, a clear shift in the level of instruction for new immigrants towards the teaching of “basic skills” can be seen, which is legitimized by the need to enable NAMSs first to participate in formal education. At the same time, resource constraints in the form of a lack of teacher hours have led to a reduction in subject teaching (Jording, in press; Erichsen, 2020, p. 402). The qualitative research available so far indicate that NAMSs are generally not prepared for the teaching content of primary or secondary school when they transfer completely to the mainstream class and are thus confronted with a massive disadvantage (Karakayalı et al., 2017; Massumi, 2019). The extent to which these more in-depth findings translate into quantitatively measurable educational disadvantage remains to be seen in forthcoming research. Even if the participation and educational outcomes of refugee students cannot be precisely surveyed, statistical analysis of the available student and migrant population data can indicate the outcomes approximately. A study of the largest federal state showed that refugee students attend the lower secondary school track significantly more often and the higher secondary school track significantly less often than non-refugee students (Kemper, 2020),7 which holds for NAMSs too, generally. NAMSs (42.4% vs. 8.4%) attend the lower secondary school track five times as often and the higher/academic secondary school track only about half as often (23.0% vs. 43.4%) compared with the total number of students (Emmerich et al., 2020, p. 140). Statistical findings indicate that refugees are significantly less likely than other migrant

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  75

Source:   Kemper, 2020, p. 41.

Figures 5.2  Educational certificates of refugee and non-refugee students in North Rhine Westphalia in the school year 2018/2019 students or students without migration experience to attend a type of school where they cannot obtain a higher school leaving certificate (Kemper, 2020; Pavia Lareiro, 2019a, pp. 9–10). The data for the school year 2018/2019 shows that 40.2% of refugee students in North RhineWestphalia have acquired a lower secondary school-leaving certificate, 25.6% a specialized upper secondary school-leaving certificate, and 8% a (specialized) higher education entrance qualification. More than a quarter (26.2%) left general school without a school leaving certificate. It is possible that they subsequently take the opportunity to obtain a school leaving certificate, for example, at a vocational school (see Figures 5.2a and 5.2b). Even though more and more research on the educational participation of newly arrived refugee students has been undertaken since 2015 and approximate values on the number of NAMS and their distribution within the German school system have been generated, precise data is still lacking. Nevertheless, there are strong indications, in the studies available, that refugee students and NAMSs generally attend academic secondary tracks less often and hence have less access to academic-level secondary certificates. For a less fragmented picture of placement and educational outcomes, these would have to be recorded in the official school statistics. Available statistical data since 2015 confirms that there is a lack of equity in educational outcomes, which can lead to long-term socio-economic inequality. There is also a lack of quantitative data on how newly arrived refugee students and other NAMSs are prepared for learning in mainstream classrooms. It is furthermore questionable whether the importance of learning arrangements is sufficiently considered in research.

SOCIAL INCLUSION AND INFORMAL AND NON-FORMAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES Well-being at school is significantly shaped by social interactions and relationships at school and has a major influence on individual development opportunities. Although the importance

76  Research handbook on migration and education of social relationships with teachers and especially with classmates is significant, this aspect has so far been ignored in most educational policy and educational science discourses on the integration of refugee students into German schools (Massumi, 2019). Social Inclusion in the Class Community A quantitative survey of refugees shows that the majority feel they make friends easily at school and are liked by classmates (Pagel et al., 2020, pp. 35–37). Of the students surveyed, the majority attended parallel models. The ReGES study shows that in their adolescent refugee sample (age 14–16, N=2392), life satisfaction and well-being at school did not differ between adolescents who attended newcomer or mainstream classes. With 7.4 out of ten for life satisfaction and 4.0 out of five for well-being, refugee youth rated both rather positively (Homuth et al., 2020, p. 138). Qualitative findings show a more differentiated view of the situation with classmates. Interviews with both refugees (Scherr & Breit, 2020) and NAMSs in general (Massumi, 2019) indicate that they often feel comfortable in preparatory classes, as they share challenging experiences in the migration context, such as learning a new language, getting used to a new environment, and so on, with their classmates who are also refugees or NAMSs. Teachers also see these specific classes as a kind of safe space (Karakayalı et al., 2017). At the same time, refugee students or NAMSs as well as their teachers stress that they would like more contact with German-speaking peers in mainstream classes (Bohn et  al., 2016, pp. 36–37; Massumi, 2019). Another qualitative study however indicates that NAMSs are insecure when attending regular classes and are afraid of making mistakes, especially before their classmates, both during the transition phase and thereafter (Massumi, 2019, pp. 333–346). Consequently, they cannot always display their full potential and are often reserved in informal situations at school. Further, the findings reveal that NAMSs often feel disregarded by their classmates growing up in Germany and do not feel integrated into the class community in regular classes. In addition, some experience explicit rejection and racist insults from their classmates (Massumi, 2019, pp. 325–333). These findings show that general or normative demand for formal integration of NAMSs into a mainstream class is problematic, as long as those are not inclusive (Idib.). Inclusion in mainstream classes needs to be recognized as being more than “physically shared places with non-NAMSs” (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021, p. 5). Teacher Attitudes Qualitative findings indicate that teachers are often not able to perceive the complexity of the more difficult school requirements for NAMSs – especially for refugee students – and the effects of the sometimes-precarious living conditions and psychological stresses on their learning and performance and/or to react to them adequately (Massumi, 2019, pp. 311–317). Teachers are not aware of school law and educational policy guidelines and their options for action at school; they also misinterpret the behaviour of students, for example, viewing overload as a lack of motivation or refusal to perform (Massumi, 2019, pp. 317–325). This has serious consequences when school biographies are prolonged, educational advancement is prevented, and educational motivation is inhibited (Massumi, 2019, p. 363). In contrast, teachers working in specially established preparatory classes show a high level of commitment and motivation (Niederhaus & Schmidt, 2016). Interviews with

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  77 the students indicate that these teachers are perceived as supportive and empathetic (Scherr & Breit, 2020, pp. 194–196), whereas they often feel unnoticed by teachers from mainstream classes (Massumi, 2019). Although teachers usually emphasize their sensitivity to essentializing arguments and perceive migration-related heterogeneity as an enrichment (Terhart & Dewitz, 2018), some studies point to monolingual German teaching practices (Panagiotopoulou et al., 2018) as well as culturalizing attributions and othering by teachers towards NAMSs (Karakayalı et al., 2017, p. 9). Informal and Non-Formal Support Structures All-day and afternoon classes are considered to have great potential for supporting the integration processes of NAMSs, as they can contribute to more targeted German language support and social integration, inter alia, as some qualitative studies have found (Karakayalı et al., 2017, p. 9; Otto et al., 2016, p. 41). NAMSs are largely left to their own devices to cope at school and meet the linguistic and subject requirements (Bohn et  al., 2016; Massumi, 2019). While some struggle through and learn exclusively on their own – partly with the support of digital media – some resort to support persons, such as volunteers, and/or extracurricular support institutions, such as migrant self-organizations or the extracurricular educational offers in youth institutions, to secure school support (Massumi, 2019). Refugee students in particular are dependent on and make use of such support due to their precarious legal residence situation and the resulting difficult living conditions (Massumi, 2019; Scherr & Breit, 2020). Leisure activities (such as those offered by sports clubs or open child and youth work) also play an important role for refugee students in the integration processes, as they are named in several qualitative studies as the places where friendships with peers can be forged and most are also happy to accept them (Lechner & Huber, 2017, p. 77). However, quantitative data shows that refugee students attend such leisure activities less often than their peers without migration experience (36% vs.75%) (Pavia Lareiro, 2019a, p. 7). Educational research in recent years has made the perspectives of refugee students and other NAMSs on their experiences and perceptions of the German school system more transparent. Nevertheless, social interaction and relationships as important influencing factors for individual development have not been sufficiently taken into account. Research with a critical racism perspective furthermore is necessary to generate knowledge on existing power structures in the school community. Another research gap is evident regarding the topic of non- and informal supports and how these influence social inclusion, well-being, and learning conditions.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter examined new empirical knowledge from 2015 to 2020 on the organization of school integration of refugee students in the compulsory school system in Germany. Educational governance stakeholders such as federal education ministries, school boards, municipalities, and school leaders do need to decide how to organize school integration. However, the possibilities of analysing educational outcomes of the different models remain limited, since practice is blurry, often without any sharp distinction. Further, the organizational models are

78  Research handbook on migration and education of limited value if the concrete teaching-learning arrangements and the qualitative design of the organizational forms are not considered. Longitudinal studies on the consequences of placement practice and tracking in secondary schooling represent an apparent gap in research. We can hope this gap can be partly bridged by the analysis of the next survey waves in the ReGES and the IAB-BAMF SOEP studies. However, it is still to define how the complexity of a “blurry practice” can be methodically captured in quantitative research on educational pathways and educational outcomes of refugee students. Furthermore, official school statistics of the federal states could be an important source of data, but so far, the data collection of the federal states is insufficiently standardized and not all federal states specify data on refugee students and other NAMSs. We need to consider new, innovative ways of addressing the apparent but very complex research and practice gap in organizing successful pathways to schooling for newly arrived refugee students. Participatory research in real-world labs can open up spaces for a co-constructive knowledge production process among scientific and political stakeholders, educational practitioners, and refugee children and youth to address the research gap on organizational processes and foster practice transformation (Korntheuer & Thomas under review). Who is a refugee student – and for how long? The new empirical studies analysed in this chapter did find distinct answers to this question. Panel studies based their sample mostly on the filing of an asylum application upon arrival in Germany (Pavia Lareiro, 2019a; von Maurice & Will, 2021). While Kemper (2020) calculated with a statistical construct that combined different data sources on countries of origin and legal status, in other quantitative studies, the term refugee is used without specifying the legal status or concrete statistical operationalization (Lewek & Naber, 2017; SVR, 2018). Qualitative research has mostly applied a broad definition of refugee, considering children and youth that arrived seeking protection, independent of whether they are granted a legal refugee status (Korntheuer, 2016; Lechner & Huber, 2017; Scherr & Breit, 2020). Providing statistical data on the allocation and outcomes of refugee students can increase the visibility of exclusionary and discriminatory practices in school systems on the one hand, and might construct and essentialize refugee students as a homogeneous group on the other. Stereotyping and othering can be a consequence. Applying intersectional methodological perspectives (Korntheuer et al., 2021) in the field of forced migration and education should be a methodological consequence. In terms of the organization of school integration, we need to question more intensely: What kind of model is good and what roles do intersecting categories such as gender, disability, race, sexual identity, and socio-economic background play? Even though educational research has increasingly focused on refugee students since 2015, and important knowledge has been generated, research gaps remain unaddressed and new desiderata still emerge. Though the pandemic lockdown in 2020 and 2021 was problematic for all students, it can be assumed that this period was particularly challenging and of consequence for NAMSs, especially for refugees.

NOTES 1. Education in Germany is highly federalized. The description of the German educational system might be misleading since there are some common features in all federal states as well as some substantial differences in secondary education. Since there is a wide variety of educational provisions in different federal states, this publication speaks of German educational systems.

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  79 2. This chapter understands refugee students as school-age (ages 6–17) refugee children enrolled in formal education. We refer to a broad understanding of the term refugees as displaced persons seeking protection as asylum applicants, accepted refugees, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and people with certificates of suspension of deportation, as well as resettled refugees and refugees accepted through humanitarian admission programmes. 3. Refugees are to be accommodated in an AnkER-centre until they are distributed to municipalities or deported to their country of origin. 4. Although this practice is legitimized with the reference that the maximum duration of stay in anchor centres should be only six months, many children and adolescents have significantly longer durations of stay (Flüchtlingsrat Bayern). 5. The Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) is a longitudinal survey conducted every year since 1984. It includes 30,000 respondents in 11,000 households. In 2013, this sample was expanded to include 2500 migrant households to form the IAB-SOEP migration sample. Since 2016, this survey has additionally been supplemented by the IAB-BAMF-SOEP survey of refugees, in which an additional 4500 refugees in 3500 households were interviewed (Pavia Lareiro, 2019a, p. 2). 6. This data does not provide any information on whether the persons recorded were born in Germany or only moved to Germany during their school biography. 7. Since the school statistics do not contain any information on whether students have a refugee history, the study combines data from the Central Register of Foreigners (Auländerzentralregister) on the legal residence status of children and young people with education data from the official school statistics in North Rhine-Westphalia. According to the data of the Central Register of Foreigners, 28 nationalities in the school-going age group of 6–18 years have a residence status indicating a proportion of at least 50% refugees. However, the study does not provide any information on age and date of arrival and hence, on whether the students grew up in Germany or migrated to Germany during their school biography.

REFERENCES Behrensen, B., & Westphal, M. (2009). Junge Flüchtlinge – Ein blinder Fleck in der Migrations- und Bildungsforschung. In L. Krappmann, A. Lob-Hüdepohl, S. Kurzke-Maasmeier, & A. Bohmeyer (Eds.), Bildung für junge Flüchtlinge – ein Menschenrecht: Erfahrungen, Grundlagen und Perspektiven (pp. 45–55). Bertelsmann. Bohn, I., Landes, B., Seddig, N., & Warkentin, S. (2016). “Ich brauche hier nur einen Weg, den ich finden kann”: Ankommen und Einleben in NRW aus der Sicht geflüchteter Kinder und Jugendlicher. Zwischenbericht des Projektes “Young Refugees NRW”. Institut für Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik e.V. https://www​.iss​-ffm​.de​/fileadmin ​/assets​/veroeffentlichungen ​/downloads​/641​ _yr​-zwischenbericht​_web​_neuesimpressum​_einzeln​.pdf B-umf (Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.V.) (2017). Die Situation unbegleiteter minderjähriger Flüchtlinge in Deutschland. https://b-umf.de/src/wp-content/ uploads/2018/02/2018_01_18-publikation-online-umfrage-2017.pdf Bunar, N. (Ed.). (2018). Education: Hope for Newcomers in Europe. Education International. Bunar, N., & Juvonen, P. (2021). ‘Not (yet) ready for the mainstream’ – Newly arrived migrant students in a separate educational program. Journal of Education Policy. Advance online publication. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02680939​.2021​.1947527 Crul, M., Lelie, F., Biner, Ö., Bunar, N., Keskiner, E., Kokkali, I., Schneider, J., & Shuayb, M. (2019). How the different policies and school systems affect the inclusion of Syrian refugee children in Sweden, Germany, Greece, Lebanon and Turkey. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(10), 1–20. https://doi​.org​/10​.1186​/s40878​- 018​- 0110-6 ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles). (2019). The AnkER centres. Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return. El-Mafaalani, A. (2017). Flucht in die Migrationsgesellschaft: Allgemeine Zusammenhänge und politische Herausforderungen. In L. Hartwig, G. Mennen, & C. Schrapper (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit mit geflüchteten Kindern und Familien (1st ed., pp. 20–34). Beltz Juventa.

80  Research handbook on migration and education El-Mafaalani, A., & Kemper, T. (2017). Bildungsteilhabe geflüchteter Kinder und Jugendlicher im regionalen Vergleich.: Quantitative Annäherungen an ein neues Forschungsfeld. Zeitschrift Für Flüchtlingsforschung, 1(2), 173–217. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.5771​/2509​-9485​-2017​-2​-173 El-Mafaalani, A., & Massumi, M. (2019). Flucht und Bildung: Frühkindliche, schulische, berufliche und non-formale Bildung (State-of-Research Papier 08a). Bonn. https://flucht​-forschung​-transfer​.de​/ wp​-content​/uploads​/2019​/06​/SoR​- 08​-El​-Mafaalani​-WEB​.pdf Emmerich, M., Hormel, U., & Jording, J. (2016). Des-/integration durch Bildung? Flucht und Migration als Bezugsprobleme kommunalen Bildungsmanagements. Neue Praxis (Sonderheft 13, Flucht, Sozialstaat und Soziale Arbeit), 115–125. Emmerich, M., Hormel, U., & Kemper, T. (2020). Bildungsteilhabe neu migrierter Schüler/-innen in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Regionale Disparitäten und überregionale Allokationsmuster. ZSE – Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Der Erziehung Und Sozialisation, 40(2), 133–151. https://www​.pedocs​.de​ /frontdoor​.php​?source​_opus​=22324 Erichsen, G. (2020). Zur Situation der Beschulung neu Zugewanderter Schüler/innen: Situationsanalytische Untersuchung eines Fallbeispiels. Info DaF, 47(4), 392–409. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1515​/infodaf​-2020​- 0065 Funck, B. J., Karakaşoğlu-Aydın, Y., & Vogel, D. (2015). “Es darf nicht an Papieren scheitern”: Theorie und Praxis der Einschulung von papierlosen Kindern in Grundschulen. Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft. https://www​.gew​.de​/index​.php​?eID​=dumpFile​&t​=f​&f​=33994​&token​​=a7da​​698d4​​77adc​​ 42f4b​​d2590​​c786b​​fdae0​​1152b​​2​&sdownload=​&n​=Nic​​htAnP​​apier​​enSch​​eiter​​n​_201​​5​_Bro​​schue​​re​_we​​b​.pdf​ Hess, S., Kasparek, B., Kron, S., Rodatz, M., Schwertl, M., & Sontowski. (2017). Der lange Sommer der Migration: Krise, Rekonstitution und ungewisse Zukunft des europäischen Grenzregimes. In S. Hess, B. Kasparek, S. Kron, M. Rodatz, M. Schwertl, & S. Sontowski (Eds.), Der lange Sommer der Migration (pp. 6–24). Assoziation a. Homuth, C., Will, G., & von Maurice, J. (2020). Broken school biographies of adolescent refugees in Germany. In A. Korntheuer, P. Pritchard, D. Maehler, & L. Wilkinson (Eds.), GESIS Working Papers. Refugees in Canada and Germany: Responses in policy and practice (pp. 123–142). Jording, J. (2022). Flucht, Migration und kommunale Schulsysteme: Differenzierungspraxen und Partizipationsbedingungen in der Grundschule. Transcript. Karakayalı, J., Groß, S., Heller, M., & Kahveci, Ç. (2020). Kulturalisierung statt Curriculum? Natioethno-kulturelle Differenzzuschreibungen im Kontext von Vorbereitungsklassen für neuzugewanderte Schüler*innen. In J. Karakayalı (Ed.), Unterscheiden und Trennen: Die Herstellung von natio-ethnokultureller Differenz und Segregation in der Schule (1st ed., pp. 107–123). Beltz Juventa. Karakayalı, J., zur Nieden, B., Groß, S., Kahveci, Ç., Güleryüz, T., & Heller, M. (2017). Die Beschulung neu zugewanderter und geflüchteter Kinder in Berlin: Praxis und Herausforderungen. HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (BIM). https://www​.bim​.hu​-berlin​.de​/media​/ Beschulung​_Bericht​_final​_10052017​.pdf Kemper, T. (2020). Bildungsbeteiligung und Schulerfolg von Geflüchteten in NRW: Sekundäranalytische Potentiale von Daten der amtlichen Schulstatistik. Universität Osnabrück: Institut für Erziehung und Bildung in der Migrationsgesellschaft. http://www​.int​egra​tion​smon​itoring​.nrw​.de​/int​egra​tion​sber​ icht​erst​attung ​_ nrw​/ berichte​_ analysen ​/Sonderauswertungen ​/ Bildungsbeteiligung​-und​-Schulerfolg​ -von​-Gefluechteten​-in​-NRW_​-Bericht​-2020​.pdf Korntheuer, A. (2016). Die Bildungsteilhabe junger Flüchtlinge: Faktoren von Inklusion und Exklusion in München und Toronto. Waxmann. Korntheuer, A., Afeworki Abay, R., & Westphal M. (2021). Forschen in den Feldern von Flucht und Behinderung. Ein Vergleich von forschungsethischen Herausforderungen und notwendigen forschungspraktischen Rahmenbedingungen. In J. Franz & U. Unterkofler (Eds.), Forschungsethik in der Sozialen Arbeit (pp. 229–242). Barbara Budrich. Korntheuer, A., & Damm, A.‑C. (2020). What shapes the integration trajectory of refugee students? A comparative policy analysis in two German states. Refuge, 36(2), 31–44. https://doi​.org​/10​.25071​ /1920​-7336​.40719 Korntheuer, A., & Thomas, S. (under review). Participation of refugee youth in Germany’s vet system: real-world labs as opportunities for co-constructive knowledge production and innovative practice transformation. Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2021.

Organization of school integration for refugee children and youth in Germany  81 Lechner, C., & Huber, A. (2017). Ankommen nach der Flucht: Die Sicht begleiteter und unbegleiteter junger Geflüchteter auf ihre Lebenslage in Deutschland: Bericht. Deutsches Jugendinstitut. https:// www​.dji​.de​/fileadmin ​/user​_upload​/ bibs2017​/25854​_lechner​_huber​_ankommen​_nach​_der​_flucht​.pdf Lewek, M., & Naber, A. (2017). Kindheit im Wartezustand: Studie zur Situation von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Flüchtlingsunterkünften in Deutschland. Deutsches Komitee für UNICEF. Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge. https://www​.unicef​.de​/ blob​/137704​ /053​ab16​048c​3f44​3736​c404​7694cc5d1​/studie-​-kindheit​-im​-wartezustand​-data​.pdf Massumi, M. (2019). Interkulturelle Pädagogik und postkoloniale Theorie: Band 7. Migration im Schulalter: Systemische Effekte der deutschen Schule und Bewältigungsprozesse migrierter Jugendlicher. Peter Lang. Massumi, M., Dewitz, V. N., Grießbach, J., Terhart, H., Wagner, K., Hippmann, K., & Altinay, L. (2015). Neu zugewanderte Kinder und Jugendliche im deutschen Schulsystem: Bestandsaufnahme und Empfehlungen. Mercator-Institut. https://www​.mercator​-institut​-sprachfoerderung​.de​/fileadmin​ /Redaktion​/ PDF​/ Publikationen​/ MI​_ ZfL​_ Studie​_ Zugewanderte​_im​_deutschen​_ Schulsystem​_final​ _screen​.pdf Ministry of School and Education of North-Rine Westphalia. (2018). Runderlass BASS 13-63 Nr.3 v. 15.10.2018. https://bass​.schul​-welt​.de​/18431​.htm Neumann, U., Niedrig, H., Schroeder, J., & Seukwa, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Lernen am Rande der Gesellschaft: Bildungsinstitutionen im Spiegel von Flüchtlingsbiografien (1st ed.). Waxmann. Niederhaus, C., & Schmidt, E. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer für das Unterrichten neu zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler qualifizieren: Zur Qualifizierungsreihe für Lehrkräfte neu zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler des Instituts für Deutsch als Zweit- und Fremdsprache der Universität Duisburg-Essen. In C. Benholz, F. K. Magnus, & C. Niederhaus (Eds.), Sprach-Vermittlungen: Band 16. Neu zugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler – eine Gruppe mit besonderen Potentialen: Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis (pp. 261–284). Waxmann. OECD (Ed.). (2001). Lernen für das Leben: Erste Ergebnisse der internationalen Schulleistungsstudie PISA 2000. OECD. Otto, J., Migas, K., Austermann, N., & Bos, W. (2016). Integration neu zugewanderter Kinder und Jugendlicher ohne Deutschkenntnisse: Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. Waxmann. Pagel, L., Schmitz, L., Spieß, K. C., & Gambaro, L. (2020). In der schule angekommen? zur Schulsituation geflüchteter Kinder und Jugendlicher. APuZ, 51. https://www​.bpb​.de​/apuz​/schule​-2020​/322690​/zur​ -schulsituation​-gefluechteter​-kinder​-und​-jugendlicher Panagiotopoulou, J. A., Rosen, L., & Strzykala, J. (2018). Inklusion von neuzugewanderten Schüler*innen durch mehrsprachige Lehrkräfte aus zugewanderten Familien? Deutschförderung unter den Bedingungen von (Flucht-)Migration. In İ. Dirimi & A. Wegner (Eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit und Bildung: Band 2. Normative Grundlagen und reflexive Verortungen im Feld DaF_DaZ* (pp. 210–227). Barbara Budrich. Pavia Lareiro, C. D. (2019a). Ankommen im deutschen Bildungssystem: Bildungsbeteiligung von geflüchteten Kindern und Jugendlichen (BAMF-Kurzanalyse 2/2019). Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. https://www​.bamf​.de​/SharedDocs​/Anlagen ​/ DE​/ Forschung​/Kurzanalysen ​/ kurzanalyse2​ -2019​-ankommen​-im​-deutschen​-bildungssystem​.pdf?_ ​_blob​=publicationFile​&v​=12 Pavia Lareiro, C. D. (2019b). Kinder und Jugendliche nach der Flucht.: Lebenswelten von geflüchteten Familien in Deutschland (BAMF-Kurzanalyse 5/2019). Nürnberg. https://www​.bamf​.de​/SharedDocs​ /Anlagen ​/ DE​/ Forschung​/ Kurzanalysen ​/ kurzanalyse5​-2019​_ iab​-bamf​-soep​-befragung​-gefluechtete​ -familien​.pdf?_​_blob​=publicationFile​&v=7 Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (SVR). (2018). Schule als Sackgasse? Jugendliche Flüchtlinge an segregierten Schulen. Studie des SVR-Forschungsbereichs 2018-1.  https://www​.svr​-migration​.de​/wp​- content​/uploads​/2018​/02​/SVR​-FB​_ Bildungsintegration​ .pdf Scherr, A., & Breit, H. (2020). Risikobiografien und negative Individualisierung: Die Bedeutung von institutioneller Diskriminierung und Diskriminierungserfahrungen für Bildungsprozesse bei jungen Flüchtlingen. In S. Thiersch, M. Silkenbeumer, & J. Labede (Eds.), Individualisierte Übergänge: Aufstiege, Abstiege und Umstiege im Bildungssystem (pp. 207–232). Springer VS.

82  Research handbook on migration and education Seukwa, L. H. (2006). Der Habitus der Überlebenskunst: Zum Verhältnis von Kompetenz und Migration im Spiegel von Flüchtlingsbiographien. Waxmann. Terhart, H., & von Dewitz, N. (2018). “Sprache und so”: Überzeugungen und Praktiken von Lehrkräften zu Heterogenität im Unterricht mit neu zugewanderten Kindern und Jugendlichen. In N. von Dewitz, H. Terhart, & M. Massumi (Eds.), Neuzuwanderung und Bildung: Eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive auf Übergänge in das deutsche Bildungssystem (1st ed., pp. 268–291). Beltz Juventa. Vogel, D., & Stock, E. (2017). Opportunities and hope through education: How German schools include refugees. Education International Research. Education International. https://www​.gew​.de​ /index​.php​?eID​= dumpFile​&t​=f​&f​= 64713​&token​​=f108​​33036​​41e3d​​21002​​03df9​​b5ce7​​9613f​​498e4​​ 9​&sdownload=​&n​= Opp​​ortun​​ities​​_ and_​​Hope_​​t hrou​​gh ​_ Ed​​ucati​​on ​_ Ho​​w​_Ger​​man ​_ S​​chool​​s ​_ Inc​​ lude_​​Refug​​ees​.p​​df Von Maurice, J., & Will, G. (2021). Geflüchtete Kinder und Jugendliche im deutschen Bildungssystem: Zentrale Befunde der Studie ReGES (LlfBi Forschung kompakt Bericht Nr. 2). Leibniz Institut für Bildungsverläufe. https://www​.lifbi​.de​/ Portals​/13​/ Transferberichte​/ LIfBi​-Forschung​-kompakt​_02​ _ReGES​.pdf Weiser, B. (2016). Recht auf Bildung für Flüchtlinge: Rahmenbedingungen des Zugangs zu Bildungsangeboten für Asylsuchende, Schutzberechtigte und Personen mit Duldung (schulische oder berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung) (2nd ed.). Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration. https://www​.nds​-fluerat​.org​/wp​- content​/uploads​/2017​/02​/ Recht​-auf​-Bildung​-f​%C3​%BCr​-Fl​%C3​ %BCchtlinge​.pdf

6. Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools: organizational models and support measures Nihad Bunar

INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses conditions for the inclusion of newly arrived migrant students (NAMSs) in Swedish elementary (age 7–15 years) and upper-secondary (age 16–19 years) schools. A NAMS in the legislation (SFS 2010:800) is defined as a student who arrives from abroad at a Swedish school at the age of seven or later. All children, irrespective of their migration status, have a right to education under the same conditions as their Swedish-born peers. The only difference is that compulsory elementary school is not mandatory for asylum-seeking and undocumented children. Upon arrival, NAMSs are provided schooling within various organizational models from separate classes to direct immersion in mainstream classes, and they are eligible for comprehensive as well as individually tailored support measures. This includes both special education accommodation and systematic initial assessment of students’ background and experiences of learning and schooling to multilingual classroom assistance. Some of the measures end after the expiration of the NAMS status, which formally lasts four years, yet others are available as long as a student is deemed in need. The aim of the chapter is first to present the main organizational models for reception and educational support measures provided to NAMSs in Sweden. Second, the aim is to explore how their enactment affects the inclusion of these students in schools’ social and pedagogical contexts. The chapter is based on a (primarily Swedish) literature review. Additionally, insights from several research projects the author and colleagues (Bunar, 2015, 2019, 2021, 2022; Bunar & Juvonen, 2021; Dávila & Bunar, 2020; Tajic & Bunar, 2022) have recently conducted are included. Sweden is an interesting empirical case to explore. During the past decades, it has become one of the main European destinations for refugees and asylum-seekers from Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Eritrea, as well as a country increasingly attracting high-skilled workers from eastern Europe, China, and India. Today, almost 20 per cent of the population of about 10.5 million was born abroad. Twenty-six per cent of children in elementary schools and nearly one-third in upper-secondary schools have an immigrant background (either born abroad or having both parents born abroad). However, this diversity is unevenly distributed among the municipalities and schools. A growing housing and school segregation along social and ethnic lines threatens to undermine the basic pillars of the welfare society: solidarity, justice, equality, and equal life chances as well as the quality of schools in the most impoverished areas (Delmos, 2022). The same is true for the distribution of NAMSs. In some smaller municipalities, the proportion of newly arrived in elementary schools is up to 30 per cent (Skolverket, 2020), even if the number has decreased in the last two years. The war in Ukraine was projected by the 83

84  Research handbook on migration and education government to create another “wave of refugees” similar to the one in 2015 with 167,000 mainly Syrian asylum-seekers. Nonetheless, up to June 2022 around 40,000 refugees from Ukraine arrived being granted temporary protection with a broad range of social rights, without having to formally apply for asylum. For Ukrainian children, it means full and equal access to education and all support measures. Apart from an introduction, the chapter contains four sections. First, the concept of inclusion will be presented in a manner that serves the analytical purposes of the chapter. Second, the main organizational models in elementary and upper-secondary schools and their enactment will be presented and discussed against the backdrop of available research. Third, the same will be undertaken for major educational support measures. Fourth, the concluding discussion will attempt to bring together some main insights, messages, and recommendations emanating from the chapter.

INCLUSION AND NAMSs Ensuring that migrants and refugees attend and complete school is only the first step towards inclusion. The main challenge in fully including these students in the host society is to offer an education of high quality that ensures the prevention of prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination. (UNESCO, 2018, p. 93)

There is no inclusion without providing education of high quality to NAMSs. Equally, there is no education of high quality without assuring these students have proper individual support in a school ethos (Arnot & Pinson, 2005) that recognizes diversity as a strength and recognizes NAMSs as having multiple skills and not just shortcomings and needs. Inclusion is thus not just about the physical placement of students in mainstream classes and schools, which has been one of its most pernicious (mis)understandings, theoretically and in practice. It embraces both “high-expectations” discourses among the educators reflecting their understanding of NAMSs as capable and resilient, and a set of policies and practices of their enactment. As pointed out by Watkins (2017), inclusion is about removing obstacles and barriers, creating common spaces of learning, while simultaneously providing tailored learning support to newly arrived students. Based on this understanding, I have elsewhere proposed the concept of support-based inclusion (Bunar, 2019; Tajic & Bunar, 2020) to capture its multifarious nature. It consists of: (a) removing barriers or as Ainscow and Messiou (2018) put it, eliminating exclusionary processes (see also Slee, 2011) – the barriers could be legal, organizational, pedagogical, or related to attitudes; (b) providing shared spaces where NAMSs can interact and benefit from relations with non-newly arrived and be socially included (see also Van Mieghem et al., 2020); and (c) making sure individually tailored socio-emotional and pedagogical support measures are in place (see also Messiou & Azaola, 2018). In other words, there is no inclusion without removing barriers and eliminating deficit-based approaches (Uptin, Wright & Harwood, 2012) and exclusionary processes in the form of teachers’ disengagement, policy and attitudedriven stances on the perceived harmful role of a first language, bullying, discrimination, and the absence of tailored support. Even if there is considerable agreement in international research (Block et al., 2014; Hilt, 2017; Baak et al., 2020; Rawal & De Costa, 2019) and policy recommendations (European Commission, 2017; UNESCO, 2018) that inclusion is a desirable goal, notable are tendencies

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  85 to reduce the concept to its physical dimension (Bunar, 2017). Anyway, some researchers have been strong advocates of separate classes, programmes, and even schools “only for refugees” (Short, 2002), presenting them as good practices (Bartlett, Mendenhall & GhaffarKucher, 2017; Mendenhall, Bartlett & Ghaffar-Kucher, 2017). The main arguments are that NAMSs in these secluded educational forms are taught by experienced teachers with skills to work in multicultural and multilingual classes as well as with second language acquisition; that NAMSs run a considerable risk of being stigmatized, excluded, and even discriminated against in mainstream education; and consequently, they are insulated from these phenomena in “their own” schools and programmes, assuming there is no exclusion when everyone shares the same status. These and similar appeals for separate schooling have been harshly criticized by a number of researchers calling for changes in the operation of mainstream education, rather than simply removing the most vulnerable students to separate classes, programmes, and schools (Uptin, Wright & Harwood, 2012; Block et  al., 2014; Shapiro & MacDonald, 2017; Watkins, 2017; Allan & Slee, 2019; Rawal & De Costa, 2019; Baak et al., 2020). Hence, inclusion, as understood and used in this chapter, is based on rebuffing the reductionist views of the concept. Instead, I advocate for support-based inclusion where shared spaces are accompanied by individually tailored and adequately enacted support, positive discourses, and efforts to remove barriers in the wider school context.

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS: AMBITIONS AND OPERATIONS The entire system catering for NAMSs’ schooling in elementary schools has been overhauled since 2016, thereby ensuring that Sweden has one of the most advanced and comprehensive approaches to inclusion (Crul et al., 2019). When upper-secondary education was reformed back in 2011, it also included the creation of a new track for NAMSs with limited knowledge of the Swedish language. Following this political and legislative “awakening”, research interests increased as well, pointing out that the treatment of newly arrived students’ educational needs has been upgraded from taking care of traumatized refugees (Rutter, 2006; SuárezOrozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009) and a sole focus on second language acquisition (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2009; García, 2009; Hornberger, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) to justice and equity. In this section, the focus is on the organizational aspects of these reforms. Elementary Schools: Which Model Is More Inclusive? Prior to reform in 2016, the organizational aspects of NAMSs’ schooling in elementary schools were not regulated. It was up to each school to decide whether to place a student in a mainstream class, in a separate class or somewhere in between. Although separate classes for NAMSs did not exist formally, the schools instigated them using legislation granting students with special educational needs temporary separate classes. For NAMSs, they were anything but temporary and students could be held up in such classes as long as teachers found it necessary, sometimes for up to four years (Skowronski, 2013). The entire system was heavily criticized for its arbitrariness, low quality, and a heavy focus on Swedish as a second language with very little, if any, teaching in other academic subjects; for treating students as one homogenous group; and for exclusion (Skolinspektionen, 2009; Fridlund, 2011; Brännström, 2021). Besides, worrying reports from governmental agencies made it clear that a substantial

86  Research handbook on migration and education number of NAMSs who arrived after the ordinary school start (age seven) had difficulties achieving final grades at the end of elementary school (SOU 2021:11). As a response, in 2016, the government launched a new organizational structure for schools when receiving NAMSs. Its main traits were to: a) legitimize the existence of separate preparatory classes (in Swedish förberedelseklasser). However, school principals can also decide to place all newly arrived directly into mainstream classes. In other words, a separate class model is not mandatory, it is an option. In practice, a third model has appeared in some municipalities adding yet another step in a student’s journey towards inclusion in ordinary structures (Lund, 2021). Before even being allocated to a school, a newly arrived student could be placed in a preparation programme at the municipal level for a period of two to eight weeks, where a basic introduction to the Swedish school system is conducted. Thereafter, a student is transferred to a school and placed in one of the above-mentioned models; b) impose a time limit the students can spend in separate classes to two years; c) make sure the students, if placed in a separate class, at least partially attend lectures together with their peers in mainstream classes, in which subjects and how many hours per week is up to school principals to decide; and d) the same number of teaching hours is granted to NAMSs as to all other students irrespective of whether they receive teaching in all or in just some academic subjects. Pertinent to the organizational system for reception and schooling of NAMSs is thus a great deal of freedom for school principals to operate within a broadly defined policy framework, formally laying the ground for inclusion. Seemingly contradictory possibilities of either separation or immersion (both for inclusion) are resolved by taking individual circumstances and needs as the sole steering principle for placement. Additionally, the two-year time limit and the rule of partial placement in separate classes are expected to facilitate the effects of temporary physical exclusion from mainstream classes. According to Brännström (2021), unlike the “old” (existing in practice without support in legislation) separate classes that aimed at preparing students for the future regardless of time aspect, the main focus of the current (formally recognized) separate classes is a quick transfer to mainstream classes. Inclusion in social arenas with Swedish-speaking students and being taught by subject matter teachers are presented as prerequisites for learning and a sense of belongingness. Brännström warns further that this policy of obsession with (inadequately understood and defined) inclusion risks harming the most disadvantaged students, those with limited or interrupted schooling, with insufficient Swedish, or without knowledge of English. Based on a survey among half of all Swedish municipalities, formally in charge of public schools, Mörtlund (2020) found that 60 per cent regularly place newly arrived in grades 7–9 (age 13–15) in separate classes; 40 per cent do so with students in grades 4–6 (age 10–12) and 25 per cent with students in grades 1–3 (age 7–9). However, this allocation is highly dependent on the number of students in particular municipalities. The more students the greater the likelihood to be placed in separate classes, with the exception of the youngest who are more frequently placed in mainstream classes. Despite a steadily growing body of research in Sweden, a few studies have attempted to compare the models and their operations and outcomes to answer mounting queries from educators: What works better for learning and inclusion? I have elsewhere raised doubts if it is even possible to answer this question: Can we, with reference to scientific research and independent evaluations, claim which model is “the best”? A short answer is: No, we can’t really in every case, because individual circumstances of refugee

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  87 and migrant children vary significantly and the organization of education should have these circumstances as a starting point and not organizational models. Besides, there are no flawless models and even theoretically informed and empirically grounded models, proved to work in one educational setting, could in the process of inadequate implementation lead to obstacles in another. (Bunar, 2019, p. 16)

The intention is not to claim that the organization of schooling is unimportant or that separate classes per se are not exclusionary, but rather to redirect the critical gaze from a somewhat pointless search for the perfect model towards students and their needs. Tajic and Bunar (2020) further develop this perspective in an article based on ethnographic material from two multicultural elementary schools in the Stockholm region. One of the schools deployed separate classes and the other direct immersion in mainstream classes. No decisive differences between schools, their student compositions, resources, teacher competencies, or the background of the NAMSs could be detected. Interestingly, during the first contact with schools’ principals and other leading personnel, the same legitimizing ground for the disparate models was presented: inclusion. To paraphrase: “We have separate classes because we are for inclusion” and “We have direct immersion because we are for inclusion”. Do both get it right or is it that one of them gets it wrong? Instead of focusing on the models themselves, the researchers explored what meanings are attached to and what practices and support measures underpin the concept of inclusion within the process of its enactment. One of the conclusions was that meanings and practices are constructed against the backdrop of three contextual perspectives, reflecting the school ethos: a) contextual requirements – what education and what support measures are mandatory to provide to NAMSs; b) contextual possibilities – what resources the schools consider to have at their disposal in order to achieve inclusion; and c) contextual flexibility – how much or how little quality content the discourses and practices can contain and still be called inclusion. Is it possible to designate everything as inclusion by merely calling it as such? The analysis showcases a complex interplay going on between the perspectives in schools’ social and pedagogical arenas, ultimately deciding what support the students get and with what quality and outcomes. And these may be independent of the choice of a model. To exemplify, having a newly arrived student upon arrival placed directly in a mainstream class might be presented as inclusion (contextual requirement). But feeble contextual possibilities leave the student without proper support, effectively undermining learning and social inclusion. At the same time, wide contextual flexibility continues to generate a legitimizing discourse on inclusion, with references to physical placement in a mainstream class, thus paralyzing any substantial reform. Why would the system be reformed when inclusion is accomplished? Tajic and Bunar conclude that the schools tend to replenish models with arbitrarily defined priorities and collective solutions by recurring references to a lack of resources. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not and both schools get it right and wrong in some aspects. In other words, there are no inherent quality features of the models that automatically generate more proper and sustainable support. Sharing the common places in the direct immersion model for a relatively short period of time appears as the only model-generated difference. Given the multicultural and multilinguistic student composition of the school with separate classes, in Tajic and Bunar’s (2020) empirical example, even these initial boundaries are blurred and overcome in the school’s social life. Similar conclusions have been presented in a number of other Swedish research contributions, not primarily criticizing the models, but rather the way newly arrived students and their

88  Research handbook on migration and education legitimate educational needs are treated (Svensson & Eastmond, 2013; Juvonen, 2015; Nilsson & Bunar, 2016; Zetterqvist Nelson & Hagström, 2016; Svensson, 2019; Ehrling & Wigg, 2019; Karlsson, 2021). Poorly educated and unprepared teachers especially when assigned to work with students with limited school background (Brännström, Reimers & Asp-Onsjö, 2019); “deficit-approach” to students’ existing knowledge and experiences (Obondo, Lahdenperä & Sandevärn, 2016); and lack of strong and trustful relations with parents (Osman & Månsson, 2015) are some other problematic features of the organizational structures identified in recent Swedish research. An overall conclusion is that the organizational models deployed in elementary schools only to a certain degree affect conditions for the inclusion of NAMSs. Separate classes are indeed initially more exclusionary (Allan & Slee, 2019), but there is no evidence that direct immersion in itself, designed and carried out in the current form, provides more inclusion. Once again, the policy attention has to shift from models to students, granting proper individual support and practices aiming at overcoming the barriers emanating from a socially and pedagogically exclusionary school ethos. Upper-Secondary Schools and (Lack Of) Inclusionary Spaces Swedish upper-secondary education is three years long, non-mandatory, and generally enrols students in the age span of 16–19 years. It consists of three main tracks (each harbouring several programmes). Enrolment in the university preparation track requires final grades from 12 subjects (including three compulsory: Swedish/Swedish as a second language, English, and mathematics) from the last year of elementary school. The vocational track requires final grades from eight academic subjects (including the three mandatory subjects). Finally, the individual track is for students who have not met the requirement criteria for access to at least a vocational track. One of the programmes within the individual track, the Language Introduction Programme (LIP henceforth), is designed for newly arrived students without the necessary grades from elementary schools and for those who arrive in Sweden when they are 16 years old or older. Lack of sufficient knowledge of Swedish is a pivotal factor in both cases. Consequently, the learning focus in LIP is on the Swedish language and the academic subjects the students need in order to continue their education in mainstream tracks, but also in case they do not succeed, to prepare them for adult education and/or the labour market. LIP is thus the main organizational model for reception and education of NAMSs in uppersecondary schools. Even if it is similar to separate classes in elementary schools, there are two key differences. First, students are allocated to LIP based on their grades and their level of knowledge in Swedish. As we saw in the previous section, newly arrived students in elementary schools, irrespective of grades and Swedish, can be directly placed in mainstream classes if the school principal decides. Second, newly arrived students in elementary schools must receive a certain number of teaching hours in mainstream classes, while there is no such rule for students in LIP. The separation here is deeper and more obvious, not least due to the fact that LIP classes are more often even physically separated from the rest of a school in their own parts of the buildings and corridors. As Fejes et al. (2018, p. 74) conclude: What we have been able to see in our study is that the placing of LIP in separate buildings, places alongside, has a negative impact on students’ self-esteem and motivation, where students are risking to develop a negative view of themselves, as different and less worthy and of their ability to learn.

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  89 One commonality between LIP and separate classes, notwithstanding the obvious fact that both are organizationally separated from the rest of their schools, is the opaque and arbitrary rules for transfer to mainstream classes and tracks. At first glance, the rules for transfer from LIP to a mainstream track are straightforward and meritocratic (“achieve the grades and move on”). However, as shown in a number of recent Swedish research contributions (Sharif, 2017; Bomström Aho, 2018, 2020; Hagström, 2018; Bjuhr, 2019), there is a tendency to keep students in LIP and “prepare them a little bit more” even after they have fulfilled all necessary transfer requirements. Paradoxically, the policymaking of these practices can possibly be found in the flexible nature of the track assuring the individual approach to each student. This flexibility is being used by teachers and school principals, ultimately deciding who and when is “ready” for transfer, to subjectively interpret the “overall needs” of the students and link them to a protracted stay in LIP. According to some research accounts (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021), there is even pressure from ordinary tracks to delay the transfer, questioning whether the students are “really ready” for the mainstream. Not even the teachers working in LIP are satisfied (Högberg, Gruber & Nyström, 2020). Too large classes, students with a wide variety of prior schooling and needs, limited resources, students in a hurry to get transferred to mainstream tracks, and poor cooperation with mainstream tracks lead to difficulties in motivating and teaching NAMSs in LIP. Another insight from the research focusing on NAMSs’ voices is the experienced gap between individual aspirations to leave LIP as soon as possible, not understood as a real school, and “slow structures” of the track, denying them agency (Fejes et al., 2018; Hagström, 2018; Wedin, 2021). Learning Swedish and getting integrated with Swedish students are understood as capital forms with the utmost importance for life chances, as 19 newly arrived students enrolled in LIP expressed in a study by Berggren, Torpsten, and Järkestig Berggren (2020). A major obstacle is the segregated construction of LIP, according to the students interviewed in this study. In any event, as reported in two studies by Bomström Aho (2018, 2020), the students find LIP as a vital social arena for forging strong social relations with other newly arrived students. The point is that NAMSs, interviewed in various studies, almost unanimously are critical of the track for being exclusionary and segregating from the places where “real” education is offered and where the ground is being laid for “real” life chances. An overall conclusion is that the organizational model deployed in the form of LIP for newly arrived migrant students in Swedish upper-secondary schools does not provide inclusion by removing obstacles, focusing on individual needs and strengths, and providing shared physical spaces. As evident from research accounts, precisely the opposite seems to be taking place: new obstacles are imposed, physical segregation is cemented, and students are being treated as a homogenous collective. Obviously, there is a need for a thorough overhaul of the LIP design and operations.

SUPPORT MEASURES An essential aspect of inclusion, more than organizational models, even if their importance should never be underestimated, is the volume, timing, quality, and sustainability of comprehensive and individually tailored support measures provided to NAMSs. In this section, two of the main measures deployed in Swedish schools will be presented and discussed against the

90  Research handbook on migration and education backdrop of recent research. Since the measures are more or less the same for elementary and upper-secondary schools, they will be presented and discussed together. Systematic Initial Assessment of Students’ Background and Experiences Upon arrival at a school, a newly arrived student will go through an initial pedagogical assessment, based on the material provided by the National Agency for Education (NAE, in Swedish, Skolverket). The assessment is carried out by teachers in Swedish as a second language with the assistance of a special education teacher and a mother tongue teacher or a translator, either at the school or at the municipality level. It consists of two mandatory and one optional step. First, a student’s background, such as experiences of formal schooling and informal learning, language(s) spoken, interests and aspirations, and family situation, are recorded. Thereafter, the attained level of literacy and numeracy according to biological age is assessed, based on text readings and mathematical tasks translated into the child’s first language. These two steps ought to be conducted as soon as possible and are supposed to provide qualified information to the school principal and teachers about the student’s needs. The information can also be used to decide whether a student in elementary school will be placed in an age-appropriate class, in a separate class, or in a mainstream class, although as shown in the previous section, these decisions are made collectively rather than individually. In other words, if a school already hosts a separate class, it is almost certain that the student will end up there, and vice versa, if a school does not have separate classes, all students will end up in mainstream classes. Similarly, the students arriving at upper-secondary schools will end up in LIP. Finally, the third step can be conducted after a couple of months, assessing a student’s knowledge of academic subjects’ content, also based on the material provided by NAE. One major reason behind enforcing this measure was a hope that not only students’ shortcomings and needs will appear, but also their strengths, thus moving away from the deployment of a deficit approach at the outset (Uptin, Wright & Harwood, 2012; Migliarini, Stinson & D’Alessio, 2019). Additionally, having systematically learned about the student’s needs and strengths, a path is opened for educators to calibrate and adjust support measures to every child’s particular situation. Given the fact that the measure is fairly new, enacted in legislation in 2016 for elementary and in 2018 for upper-secondary schools, there is not much research to draw upon when discussing how it works in practice. One of the early studies was a comprehensive audit conducted by The National School Inspectorate (NSI, in Swedish Skolinspektionen). The NSI (Skolinspektionen, 2017a) concluded that the material obtained through the initial assessment is scarcely utilized, especially as a base for planning newly arrived students’ continuing education. Conducting assessments at the municipality level and subsequently passing down the material to principals and teachers further diminished its use in receiving schools. To put it simply, despite high ambitions, seemingly very few schools have established practices for putting the assessment material to work. Once again, the contextual requirement is fulfilled – the assessment must be conducted – but wide contextual flexibility and lacking contextual possibilities tend to water down its implementation. It becomes arbitrary and can lead to unequal outcomes. Vuorenpää and Zetterholm (2018), Vuorenpää, Duek, and Zetterholm (2019), and Lund (2021) have in three ethnographic studies exemplified how the initial assessment can be carried out. Perhaps the most significant takeaway from these studies is the importance of having a relaxed dialogue with students and their parents (also present), instead of mechanically

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  91 following the interview and task templates. The students may be under the impression that the assessment is a kind of admission test, with long-term consequences for their further education. Needless to say, this may increase students’ anxiety and “calculated answers” based on “what they want to hear” rather than “this is me”. Another important takeaway is the need to provide ample information to students and parents about the Swedish school system, rights and obligations, support measures, and various tracks and programmes at the uppersecondary level. Finally, all three studies bring attention to how important it is to use qualified interpreters. The initial assessment of newly arrived students’ background and experiences of schooling and learning is a theoretically appealing idea, based on the notion that both strengths and challenges of every child must be recognized and used as a starting point for education planning. Theoretically, it also appears as an essential aspect of schools’ efforts to provide inclusive education. With regard to its practical implementation, we know from previous research, more or less, what is needed to assure assessment quality. On the other hand, we know virtually nothing about the outcomes of NAMSs’ inclusion, learning, or provision of other support measures. The report from Skolinspektionen (2017a) implied that the assessment material is generally not utilized. Therefore, a plausible conclusion concerning the chapter’s main question is that, at least for now, the initial assessments’ impact on the inclusion of NAMSs in schools’ social and pedagogical arenas is limited to none. Multilingual Classroom Assistance Voices from policymakers (SOU 2017:54; SOU 2019:18), researchers (Avery, 2017; Dávila & Bunar, 2020), and governmental agencies (Skolverket, 2016; Skolinspektionen, 2017b), have been almost unanimous in commending multilingual classroom assistance (MCA, in Swedish studiehandledning på modersmål), also referred to in international literature as bilingual classroom assistants, paraeducators, or multilingual teaching assistants (Martin-Jones & Saxena, 2003; Kakos, 2022) as the most important support measures for NAMSs. No other measure in such a direct way addresses the interlinkage between knowledge, language, and inclusion. MCA is based on the recognition of students’ first language as a leverage for learning through the deployment of multilingual personnel when insufficient knowledge in Swedish (oral or literacy) is deemed as an obstacle. Students in both elementary and upper-secondary schools can receive the support if they need it (not only NAMSs), which is often subject to local interpretations and variations (wide contextual flexibility). However, the right is more explicit for NAMSs enrolled in grades 7–9 in elementary schools (SFS 2010:800). Ultimately, school principals decide which student is eligible, for how many hours per week (often one hour), and for how long (for newly arrived often one to two years). Becoming a multilingual classroom assistant is not conditional on any specific training and their responsibilities are formally restricted to acting as a bridge between language and subject content knowledge. In practice, they tend to assume and are asked to perform a number of other duties: homeschool liaison officers, interpreters, cultural mediators, counsellors, and so on (Dávila & Bunar, 2020). Swedish research has shown considerable interest in MCA, in particular for its local enactment and the multilingual classroom assistants’ (MCAs) professional status. Less interest has been devoted to its pedagogical aspects. Concerning the enactment and status, the research

92  Research handbook on migration and education (Rosén, 2017, 2018; Dávila, 2017; Reath Warren, 2016, 2017; Avery, 2017; Engblom & Fallberg, 2018) has repeatedly pointed out three weaknesses: a) lack of cooperation between MCAs and subject matter teachers, indispensable for the quality of the support; b) lack of understanding from school principals and other teachers for what MCA is and what it is not, leading to confusion and erroneous expectations; and c) a lack of qualified MCAs, partly caused by difficulties to recruit and partly by tepid efforts from schools to offer incentives. In combination, and if not properly and timely addressed, these weaknesses threaten to undermine this much-needed support and the overall process of inclusion for NAMSs as well. There are good practices in how some municipalities, in order to rectify the lack of qualified assistants, have organized MCA online (Larsson & Persson, 2018). Pedagogically, MCA is increasingly presented as part of translanguaging (García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2014) and content and language-integrated learning (Gibbons, 2013; Kaya & Rehman, 2015; Unsal, 2017; Svensson Källberg, 2018). Leaning in these currently immensely popular traditions in Sweden is not just a source of theoretical inspiration, but also a way to gain more acceptance in modern pedagogy and by teachers themselves. Additionally, with inspiration from Li Wei (2011), Dávila and Bunar (2020) have presented MCA enactment as the creation of a translanguaging space where the transfer of knowledge using students’ language repertoires occurs as well as the advancement of students’ identity as knowledgeable and multilingual users and learners. Even newly arrived students, interviewed in various studies (Skolinspektionen, 2017b; Larsson & Persson, 2018), have expressed their appreciation of the support measure. A number of qualitative studies (SOU 2019:18) based on interviews with subject matter teachers, MCAs, and students have corroborated a direct link between MCA and enhanced learning, although no systematic quantitative studies have been undertaken. Multilingual classroom assistance is the most important support measure for promoting pedagogical and social inclusion of newly arrived migrant students. No organizational model, no initial assessment, or any other deployed support measures can fully compensate for its absence. Its expected outcomes, if enacted properly, are enhanced learning in academic subjects and proficiency in both Swedish and first language, better grades, increased self-esteem, and an ability to independently function in schools’ formal and informal arenas (Dávila & Bunar, 2020; Kakos, 2022). The steering legislation is correctly designed to put a single child and its needs at the centre of decisions about what kind of MCA and for how long is appropriate in every case. However, the inept enactment seriously undermines its capacity. While the research has been able to clearly point out problems with the practical organization of the measure and the assistants’ professional status, there has been more confusion about the enactment of its pedagogical aspects. Given the limited time the support is provided, up to an hour per week, what should the assistants focus on? Translation of text chunks, repetition of lessons already done or preparation for the upcoming ones, which academic subject to prioritize, preparation for tests or meticulous learning, when to leave the subject contents aside and act as a counsellor discussing the students’ fears and hopes on their first language, to follow teachers’ instructions, or to let the students themselves decide what to focus on? The outcome of these negotiations and stances – once again caught up in the interplay between contextual requirements, possibilities, and flexibility, additionally reinforced by the MCAs’ lack of power – decides ultimately the impact this support measure will have on NAMSs’ inclusion. In other words, the potential for MCA support is undoubtedly substantial, to what extent it is translatable into practice is not entirely clear.

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  93

CONCLUDING REMARKS Based on a thorough review of mainly recent Swedish literature, the aim of the chapter has been to present and explore organizational models for reception and schooling of and support measures provided to newly arrived migrant students in Sweden. Inclusion has served as a semi-theoretical concept that partly encapsulates policy aims: enhanced quality of education and equity in its outcomes for NAMSs. Partly, it encapsulates basic conditions for the achievement of policy aims: shared physical spaces, school ethos celebrating diversity, high expectations, support in the first language, and the progressive interplay between contextual requirements, possibilities, and flexibility. Thus, inclusion is in this chapter understood as a dynamic process, moulded at the intersection between policy goals, organizational practices, and discourses and the school actors’ individual willingness and ability to act in the best interests of their students. Power asymmetry pervades the dynamics of inclusion, with authority to interpret and enact the policy as well as to define the needs of NAMSs concentrated in the hands of school principals and a few teachers. The students themselves and their perhaps foremost advocates, multilingual classroom assistants, are to a large degree stripped of their agency, expected to adjust to whatever local version of organizational models and support measures are invented. However, research accounts from both Sweden (Tajic & Lund, 2022) and internationally (Kakos, 2022) prove that subjugation is never absolute. Students express their voices against a protracted stay in separate classes demanding a swift transition to “real schools” understood as an arena where “real” learning can take place and social relations can develop. MCAs, as Kakos (2022, p. 1) puts it, from their peripheral position develop creative, individualized, and culturally relevant pedagogies. The chapter has further argued that more attention has to be paid to how ambitious support measures are negotiated in the process of their enactment and that a critical gaze ought to be redirected from focusing on specific models, without underestimating their impact, to individual circumstances and educational needs and strengths of every student. These needs cannot be reduced to an issue of second language acquisition. Recognition as learners in a broader sense and harnessing the first language as a vehicle for learning are prerequisites for academic success. Furthermore, to paraphrase Dávila and Bunar (2020, pp. 2–3), the rights of NAMSs cannot remain solely ideological declarations on equity and superficial discourses around “color blindness”. Newly arrived students have experiences and previous knowledge that must be recognized and taken as a starting point for their education in the resettlement context. Thus, educators must be encouraged to find a way to cultivate, develop, and also go beyond those experiences. To recognize and transcend a migration background is a fine-tuned balance teachers must master to ensure the academic success of their students.

REFERENCES Ainscow, M., & Messiou, K. (2018). Engaging With the Views of Students to Promote Inclusion in Education. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 1–17. Allan, J., & Slee, R. (2019). Not Dead Yet? In M. J. Schuelka, C. J. Johnstone, G. Thomas, & A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Inclusion and Diversity in Education. London: SAGE Publications. Arnot, M., & Pinson, H. (2005). The Education of Asylum-Seeker and Refugee Children. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

94  Research handbook on migration and education Avery, H. (2017). At the Bridging Point: Tutoring Newly Arrived Students in Sweden. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(4), 404–415. Baak, M., Miller, E. Sullivan, A., & Heugh, K. (2020). Tensions Between Policy Aspirations and Enactment: Assessment and Inclusion for Refugee Background Students. Journal of Education Policy. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2020.1739339. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. North York: Multilingual Matters. Bartlett, L., Mendenhall, M., & Ghaffar-Kucher, A. (2017). Culture in Acculturation: Refugee Youth’s Schooling Experiences in International Schools in New York City. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 109–119. Berggren, J., Torpsten, A. C., & Järkestig Berggren, U. (2020). Education is My Passport: Experiences of Institutional Obstacles Among Immigrant Youth in the Swedish Upper Secondary Educational System. Journal of Youth Studies. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2020.1728239. Bjuhr, Å. (2019). Avslut och fortsättning. En studie om övergången från introduktionsprogrammet Språkintroduktion till nationellt program vid gymnasieskolan. Luleå: Luleå Technical University. Block, K., Cross, S., Riggs, E., & Gibbs. L. (2014). Supporting Schools to Create an Inclusive Environment for Refugee Students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1337–1355. Bomström Aho, E. (2018). Språkintroduktion som mellanrum. Karlstad: Karlstads universitet. Bomström Aho, E. (2020). Nyanlända gymnasieelever – Elevidentiteter och språkbarriärer. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(1), 1–20. Brännström, M. (2021). From Subjects of Knowledge to Subjects of Integration? Newly Arrived Students With Limited Schooling in Swedish Education Policy. Power and Education, 13(1), 14–27. Brännström, M., Reimers, E., & Asp-Onsjö, L. (2019). “Han är lite av en gåta för oss” – Begripliggörande av elever med kort skolbakgrund. Utbildning & Demokrati, 28(1), 7–28. Bunar, N. (Ed.). (2015). Nyanlända och lärande – mottagande och inkludering. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Bunar, N. (2017). Migration and Education in Sweden. NESET II ad hoc question No. 3/2017. Brussels: Erasmus +. Bunar, N. (2019). Promoting Effective Integration of Migrants and Refugees in Education. Brussels: ETUCE. Bunar, N. (Ed.). (2021). Inkludering och skolframgång för nyanlända elever. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Bunar, N. (2022). Integration och utbildning – en forskningsöversikt. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Bunar, N., & Juvonen, P. (2021). “Not (Yet) Ready for the Mainstream” – Newly Arrived Migrant Students in a Separate Educational Program. Journal of Education Policy, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2021.1947527. Crul, M., Frans, L., Özge, B., Bunar, N., Keskiner, E., Kokkali, I., Schneider, J., & Shuayb, M. (2019). How School System Differences Affect the Incorporation of Refugee Children in Education in Europe, the Middle East and Turkey. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(10), 2–20. Cummins, J. (2009). Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy: School-Based Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11, 38–56. Dávila, L. (2017). Newly Arrived Immigrant Youth in Sweden Negotiate Identity, Language & Literacy. System, 67, 1–11. Dávila, L. T., & Bunar, N. (2020). Cross-District Analysis of the Roles of Multilingual Classroom Assistants in Sweden. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1–20. Delmos. (2022). Platsens betydelse. Stockholm: Delegationen mot segregation. Ehrling, A., & Wigg, U. J. (2019). Being Moved to the Outer Edge – Experiences of Working with Newly Arrived Students in a Newly Diverse School. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(7), 84–98. Engblom, K., & Fallberg, K. (2018). Nyanländas lärande och språkutvecklande arbetssätt. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. European Commission. (2017). Migrants in European Schools: Learning and Maintaining Languages. Brussels: EC. Fejes, A., Aman, R., Dahlstedt, M., Gruber, S., Högberg, R., & Nyström S. (2018). Introduktion på svenska: Om språkintroduktion för nyanlända på gymnasieskola och folkhögskola. Linköping: Linköpings universitet.

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  95 Fridlund, L. (2011). Interkulturell undervisning – ett pedagogiskt dilemma: talet om undervisning i svenska som andraspråk och i förberedelseklasser. Göteborg: Geson Hylte Tryck. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. A Global Perspective. Boston: Basil Blackwell. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbons, P. (2013). Stärk språket, stark lärandet: språk- och kunskapsutvecklande arbetssätt för och med andraspråkselever i klassrummet. Stockholm: Hallgren & Fallgren. Hagström, M. (2018). Raka spår, sidospår, stopp. Linköping: Linköpings universitet. Hilt, L. T. (2017). Education Without a Shared Language: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Norwegian Introductory Classes for Newly Arrived Minority Language Students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(6), 585–601. Högberg, R., Gruber, S., & Nyström, S. (2020). Teachers’ Work and Positionings in Relation to Newly Arrived Students in Sweden. Teaching and Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103156. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Juvonen, P. (2015). Lärarröster om direktplacering av nyanlända elever. In N. Bunar (Ed.), Nyanlända och lärande – mottagande och inkludering. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Kakos, M. (2022). A Third Space for Inclusion: Multilingual Teaching Assistants Reporting on the Use of Their Marginal Position, Translation and Translanguaging to Construct Inclusive Environments. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2073060. Karlsson, S. (2021). Children’s Lived Rights. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Kaya, A., & Rehman, K. (2015). Språk- och kunskapsutvecklande arbetssätt – framgångsfaktor eller urvattnat modeord? Svenskläraren, 3(15), 10–12. Larsson, B. A., & Persson, M. (2018). Utvärdering av projekt BIU Online i Ronneby kommun. Ronneby: Ronneby kommun. Li, W. (2011). Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Construction of Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. Li, W. (2014). Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms. In S. May (Ed.), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge. Li, W., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging Classroom Discourse: Pushing Limits, Breaking Boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3/4), 209–215. Lund, A. (2021). ”Det är viktigt med en bra start” – kartläggning av kunskaper och situationell etik i mötet med nyanlända barn. In N. Bunar (Ed.), Inkludering och skolframgång för nyanlända elever. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Martin-Jones, M., & Saxena, M. (2003). Bilingual Resources and “Funds of Knowledge” for Teaching and Learning in Multi-Ethnic Classrooms in Britain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3/4), 276–282. Mendenhall, M., Bartlett, L., & Ghaffar-Kucher, A. (2017). “If You Need Help, They Are Always There for Us”: Education for Refugees in an International High School in NYC. The Urban Review, 49(1), 1–25. Messiou, K., & Azaola, M. C. (2018). A Peer-Mentoring Scheme for Immigrant Students in English Secondary Schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(2), 142–157. Migliarini, V., Stinson, C., & D’Alessio, S. (2019). “SENitizing” Migrant Children in Inclusive Settings: Exploring the Impact of the Salamanca Statement Thinking in Italy and the United States. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 754–767. Mörtlund, T. (2020). Arbetet med nyanlända elever i grundskolan. Uppsala: IFAU. Nilsson, J., & Bunar, N. (2016). Educational Responses to Newly Arrived Students in Sweden: Understanding the Structure and Influence of Post-Migration Ecology. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1024160. Obondo, M. A., Lahdenperä, P., & Sandevärn, P. (2016). Educating the Old and Newcomers: Perspectives of Teachers on Teaching in Multicultural Schools in Sweden. Multicultural Education Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/2005615X.2016.1184021.

96  Research handbook on migration and education Osman, A., & Månsson, N. (2015). “I Go to Teacher Conferences, But I Do Not Understand What the Teacher Is Saying”: Somali Parents’ Perception of the Swedish School. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(2), 36–52. Rawal, H., & De Costa, P. I. (2019). “You are Different and Not Mainstream”: An Emotion-Based Case Study of Two South Asian English Language Learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 209–221. Reath Warren, A. (2016). Multilingual Study Guidance in the Swedish Compulsory School and the Development of Multilingual Literacies. Nordand – Nordisk Tidskrift for Andrespråksforskning, 11(2), 115–142. Reath Warren, A. (2017). Developing Multilingual Literacies in Sweden and Australia. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet. Rosén, J. (2017). Spaces for Translanguaging in Swedish Education Policy. In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosén, B. Straszer, & Å. Wedin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Translanguaging and Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rosén, J. (2018). Bro eller krycka? Studiehandledning som pedagogisk praktik i svensk grundskola. In T. Otterup & G. Kästen-Ebeling (Eds.), En god fortsättning. Nyanländas fortsatta väg i skola och samhälle. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Rutter, J. (2006). Refugee Children in the UK. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shapiro, S., & MacDonald, M. T. (2017). From Deficit to Asset: Locating Discursive Resistance in a Refugee-Background Student’s Written and Oral Narrative. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(2), 80–93. Sharif, H. (2017). “Här i Sverige måste man gå i skolan för att få respekt”: Nyanlända ungdomar i den svenska gymnasieskolans introduktionsutbildning. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomer Programs: An Educational Alternative for Secondary Immigrant Students. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 173–198. Skolinspektionen. (2009). Utbildning för nyanlända elever. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen. Skolinspektionen. (2017a). Skolhuvudmännens mottagande av nyanlända elever i grundskolan. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen. Skolinspektionen. (2017b). Studiehandledning på modersmålet i årskurs 7–9. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen. Skollagen, SFS. (2010:800). Skolverket. (2016). Allmänna råd om utbildning för nyanlända elever. Stockholm: Skolverket. Skolverket. (2020). PM Elever och skolerfarenheter i grundskolan läsåret 2019/20. Stockholm: Skolverket. Skowronski, E. (2013). Skola med fördröjning. Lund: Lunds Universitet. Slee, R. (2011). The Irregular School. London: Routledge. SOU 2017:54. Flera nyanlända elever ska uppnå behörighet till gymnasiet. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. SOU 2019:18. För flerspråkighet, kunskapsutveckling och inkludering. Modersmålsundervisning och studiehandledning på modersmål. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. SOU 2021:11. Bättre möjligheter för att nå kunskapskraven. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2009). Educating Latino Immigrant Students in the TwentyFirst Century: Principles for the Obama Administration. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 327–340. Svensson, M. (2019). Compensating for Conflicting Policy Goals: Dilemmas of Teachers’ Work With Asylum-seeking Pupils in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–16. Svensson, M., & Eastmond, M. (2013). “Betwixt and Between”: Hope and the Meaning of School for Asylum-Seeking Children in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 3(3), 162–170. Svensson Källberg, P. (2018). Immigrant Students’ Opportunities to Learn Mathematics. In(ex)clusion in Mathematics Education. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Tajic, D., & Bunar, N. (2020). Do Both ‘Get It Right’? Inclusion of Newly Arrived Migrant Students in Swedish Primary Schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1841838.

Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish schools  97 Tajic, D., & Lund, A. (2022). The Call of Ordinariness: Peer Interaction and Superdiversity Within the Civil Sphere. American Journal of Cultural Sociology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1057/ s41290-022-00154-5. UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2018). Migration, Displacement and Education: Building Bridges, Not Walls. Paris: UNESCO. Unsal, Z. (2017). Bilingual Students’ Learning in Science Language, Gestures and Physical Artefacts. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Uptin, J., Wright, J., & Harwood, V. (2012). “It Felt Like I Was a Black Dot on White Paper”: Examining Young Former Refugees’ Experience of Entering Australian High Schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40, 125–137. Van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., & Struyf, E. (2020). An Analysis of Research on Inclusive Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 675–689. Vuorenpää, S., Duek, S., & Zetterholm, E. (2019). Kartläggning av en nyanländ elevs litteracitet i Sverige. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 5(3), 49–62. Vuorenpää, S., & Zetterholm, E. (2018). Första mötet med den svenska skolan – kartläggningssamtal med en nyanländ elev. In B. Ljung Egeland, T. Roberts, E. Sandlund, & P. Sundqvist (Eds.), Klassrumsforskning och språk(ande). Karlstad: Karlstads universitet. Watkins, A. (2017). Inclusive Education and European Educational Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.153. Wedin, Å. (2021). Positioning of the Recently Arrived Student: A Discourse Analysis of Sweden’s Language Introduction Programme. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/17447143.2021.1913174. Zetterqvist Nelson, K., & Hagström, M. (2016). Nyanlända barn och den svenska mottagningsstrukturen. Stockholm: Forte.

7. Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education in Norway Lutine de Wal Pastoor1

INTRODUCTION The growing number of refugees in Norway in recent years has made the “educational integration” (cf. Cerna, 2019) of refugee children and young people a crucial issue for educators as well as policymakers. A matter of great interest is how schools may promote newly arrived students’ inclusion into a new school environment as well as into a new society (Bunar, 2019; Bunar & Juvonen, 2021; Hamilton & Moore, 2004; Pastoor, 2015, 2016). Refugee students are in a more vulnerable situation than other migrant students as both their everyday lives and education have been disrupted due to “the refugee experience”, consisting of their pre-, trans- and post-migration experiences (Stein, 1981). Many young refugees have interrupted or limited formal schooling; some of them never even had the chance to attend school. Of particular concern are young refugees who arrive at a late school age and often have a lot to catch up on when entering the Norwegian school system (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). Even though there are large variations within the heterogeneous group of “late arrivals”, late-arriving refugee students tend to underperform in school and have the highest dropout rate in upper secondary education (Dunlavy et al., 2020). Upon resettlement in Norway, young refugees face several educational transitions, such as education-related processes of adjustment, catching up on schooling, the transition from school in the country of origin to school in Norway and the transitions between different school types in Norway. Moreover, young refugees experience various psychosocial transitions resulting from a close interplay between the psychological aspects of past and present experiences on the one hand and their social relations with others in the new country on the other. They have to meet a number of psychosocial challenges associated with separation and loss as well as exilerelated stressors encountered upon resettlement. Furthermore, young refugees’ transition into adulthood may become more complex due to the disturbing nature of the refugee experience (Pastoor, 2015). To enable newly resettled students to overcome the various challenges they encounter and facilitate their successful inclusion into a new school system and a new society, it is of decisive importance to receive the necessary support from teachers and other school staff (Hamilton & Moore, 2004; Lynnebakke et al., 2020; Pastoor, 2015, 2016). The present chapter draws on insights from the study Educational and Psychosocial Transitions upon Resettlement in Norway (TURIN). This Norwegian study is part of the Nordic research project Coming of Age in Exile (CAGE) – Health and Socio-economic Inequalities in Young Refugees in the Nordic Welfare Societies (2015–2020). The overall objective of the TURIN study was to gain a better understanding of the challenges newly arrived young refugees face upon resettlement as well as how schools and teachers respond to their educational and psychosocial needs. The aim of this chapter is to explore whether and 98

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  99 how fundamental national policy principles of inclusive and adapted education are implemented in schools and classrooms through educational provisions aimed at newly arrived refugee students’ inclusion in mainstream upper secondary education. Furthermore, special attention will be paid to refugee students’ own experiences of inclusion and belonging in school and beyond.

TERMS AND CONCEPTS In this chapter, the term young refugees refers to all young people with a refugee background, comprising young people who were granted a residence permit on protection or humanitarian grounds as well as those who were entitled to family reunification with a refugee. Upon entering the education system, young refugees may be labelled with a variety of terms, such as newly arrived, new arrivals, late arrivals, newcomers, migrant students, (language) minority students or students with short residency (Bunar, 2019). Historically, newly arrived migrant and refugee students have rarely been seen as a distinctive category, as often they are put into a broader category of “students with a migrant background”. However, lately, attention has been drawn to newly arrived students as being a new target group in international research as well as in policymaking (e.g. Bunar & Juvonen, 2021; Cerna, 2019; European Commission, 2013; Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012). Likewise, in Norway, policymakers and education authorities are paying increased attention to the growing number of students in Norwegian schools referred to as “new arrivals” (cf. nyankomne). According to the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (Utdanningsdirektoratet), the concept of “new arrivals” should not be fixed in time, as it in itself implies a certain delimitation of time. However, in connection with being entitled to adapted language education in upper secondary school, short residency is defined as six years or less (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012, p. 23). Consequently, for the newly arrived refugee student sample in the TURIN study, we recruited interviewees with a residency time of up to six years in Norway.

THE NORWEGIAN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT AND NEWLY ARRIVED STUDENTS The Norwegian education system is founded on the basic principle of a comprehensive school system (fellesskolen, which means “one school for all”), providing free, equitable and individually adapted education to all students on the basis of national curricula and a common legal framework (Tørslev & Børsch, 2017). The ten-year compulsory school comprises two main stages: primary school (grades 1–7) and lower secondary school (grades 8–10). Further upper secondary education is non-compulsory. Irrespective of their previous educational achievement, all students have a statutory right to proceed into an upper secondary educational programme after finishing grade 10 in lower secondary school. Upper secondary education lasts three years, though vocational study programmes involving apprenticeship last four years. Even if the Norwegian education system is governed by national legislation, the municipalities are responsible for operating and administering primary and lower secondary schools, whereas the county authorities are responsible for upper secondary education. This may imply

100  Research handbook on migration and education large regional differences within Norway regarding the educational introduction of newly arrived refugee students. Inclusive education is a fundamental principle in Norwegian education. In order to be inclusive, the Education Act (1998, § 1–3) states that all education and training – throughout primary and secondary education – must be adapted to the individual student’s abilities and needs. Moreover, it states the right to adapted language teaching for students from language minorities, including teaching Norwegian as a second language, and if necessary, bilingual subject teaching and mother tongue instruction (§ 2.8 and § 3.12). Short residency (i.e. up to six years) in Norway entails rights to certain educational provisions, such as adapted Norwegian language education and a separate curriculum. To enable adapted language education in primary as well as in secondary education and training, two level-based curricula have been developed: “Basic Norwegian for language minorities” and “Mother tongue for language minorities”. Since 2013, students in upper secondary education with a short period of residency – and with an individual decision on their right to adapted Norwegian education – may follow a special curriculum: “Curriculum in Norwegian for language minorities with short residency in Norway ‒ upper secondary education”. Educational Achievement In Norway, all students who have completed the last year of lower secondary education are entitled to enrolment in upper secondary education. This also applies to late-arriving refugees, regardless of how long they have attended school in Norway. The educational achievements of refugee students are, however, significantly lower than Norwegian-born students’ achievements (Dunlavy et al., 2020). Age at arrival seems to be a decisive factor for newcomer students’ school completion. Refugee students arriving at late school age, especially after turning 15, have the lowest educational outcomes and the highest dropout rates in upper secondary school. In Norway, the dropout rates among refugees who arrived at 15–17 years of age are 54% (Dunlavy et al., 2020). Having to learn a new language, adapt to a new school system and complete lower and upper secondary school in the course of a few years can be very challenging (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). Obviously, there is a need for policies and practices targeting late-arriving refugee students’ particularly dire educational situation. Educational Introduction Models Internationally, the “separate class” model is reported in the literature to be one of the most widely applied introductory provisions for newly arrived students (Bunar, 2019). However, in Norway, the most commonly used introduction model for new arrivals in primary and lower secondary school has been direct immersion in ordinary classes, sometimes combined with an introductory class provision (Svendsen et  al., 2018). The direct immersion model may not necessarily be a deliberately chosen approach; it may be due to the fact that it can be difficult to gather the rather few new arrivals in separate groups or classes in rural Norway. Since 2012, Norwegian local education authorities may legally organise introductory programmes for newly arrived students in separate groups, classes or schools. The introductory programmes are meant to be transitional provisions that students can attend for no more than

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  101 two years (Education Act, 1998). The majority of school owners, municipal as well as county municipal education authorities, already had separate introductory provisions before these were enacted in 2012. Nevertheless, the change in the Education Act resulted in establishing several introductory provisions for upper secondary education at the county municipal level and contributed to introducing new curricula as well as a further “institutionalisation” of the schools’ practices (Rambøll, 2016). Recently arrived students who only have shortly attended Norwegian lower secondary school or its equivalent but are deemed to be in need of more compulsory school competence can prepare for mainstream upper secondary education by voluntarily attending a one-year preparatory class (cf. the separate class model; Bunar, 2019) at an upper secondary school. In the preparatory class, the newcomer students are taught compulsory school subjects with particular emphasis on Norwegian language learning. In the present study, the term introductory class is used to refer to introduction provisions for mainstream primary and lower secondary education, while preparatory class is used for educational provisions at upper secondary schools that prepare recently resettled students for a good transition to mainstream upper secondary education (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). Another rather new provision facilitating newly arrived students’ transition from lower to upper secondary school is the combination class (1–2 years), which provides the opportunity for differentiated education by offering level-based education as well as attendance in the school’s mainstream classes in some school subjects (Tørslev & Børsch, 2017). The TURIN study has only studied schools with preparatory classes, not combination classes as the schools under study had not yet offered this alternative transitory provision. The primary aim of these transitory provisions, the preparatory class as well as the combination class, is to promote late-arriving migrant students’ completion of upper secondary education and prevent school dropout by providing targeted provisions to make students better equipped to manage the requirements of upper secondary education.

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Theoretical Framework: A Sociocultural and Socio-Ecological Approach The theoretical framework that has been employed in this study draws on sociocultural and socio-ecological approaches that imply a holistic perspective on learning, development and psychosocial adjustment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ungar, 2012; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998; Wertsch et al., 1995). The sociocultural approach places emphasis on learning and development as a process that is inherently social and cultural and as a process whereby meaning is made through joint interaction with other members of a community or society. Learning is considered to be an integral aspect of participation. The challenge upon resettlement is how to facilitate newly arrived students’ participation in educational as well as social settings of the school environment and thereby promote their inclusion in the school as a community of learning. The socio-ecological approach considers personal as well as contextual factors in relation to the developmental and psychosocial needs of refugee adolescents. Meaningful interactions and social relationships with majority language teachers and peers in the classroom and other school contexts may promote young refugees’ learning and development as well as their social

102  Research handbook on migration and education inclusion and sense of belonging (Pastoor, 2015, 2017). Furthermore, a supportive learning environment will encourage refugee young people’s engagement and resilience. Resilience stands for positive development and psychosocial adjustment in children and young people who are experiencing or have experienced stressful life events and adversity (Masten et al., 2008; Ungar, 2012). Conceptual Framework: Inclusion and Belonging Concerning the interface of migration and education, the concept of integration has dominated both political and educational discourses across the world for several decades. However, in later years, we have seen a shift of conceptual focus in both policy documents and research concerning the education of newly arrived students: from integration to inclusion and belonging (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021). Exclusionary policies and practices in the education of migrant children and young people have been challenged based on a growing international consensus regarding the recognition of children’s right to receive quality education in a school for all learners by adapting classroom practice to individual learners’ needs. According to UNICEF (2009), quality education is “education that works for every child and enables all children to achieve their full potential”. Inclusion and Inclusive Education The concept of inclusion in relation to education, that is, inclusive education, is a relatively new paradigm in the literature on migration and education. In education policy and practice, inclusion denotes a broader vision than integration as it not only requires adaptation on the part of the students but also on the part of the education system. The existing education system has to both address structural obstacles to the inclusion of diverse learners and adapt its teaching practice to individual learners’ needs and resources. The policy turn towards more inclusive education is about enhancing the quality of education in physically integrated settings by means of responsive teaching in mainstream classrooms. Furthermore, an inclusive school environment can create a sense of security and belonging that enables newly arrived students to develop meaningful relationships and make new friends (Cerna, 2019; Pastoor, 2017). The idea and practice of inclusive education were initially promoted by special education professionals in relation to the integration of students with disabilities into regular classrooms (Kiuppis & Peters, 2014). However, in recent years, the concept is more broadly used in response to the increasing diversity within school communities, including culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Taylor & Sidhu, 2012; UNESCO, 2005). Instead of separating students with particular needs from mainstream classrooms by offering them “special education” provisions, inclusive education aims at providing high-quality and equal learning opportunities to all learners in the classroom regardless of their diverse needs (Bunar & Juvonen, 2021). Inclusive and adapted education is a central principle in Norwegian education policy. The aim is to create a teaching approach that gives each individual student optimal learning and developmental opportunities. However, adapted education is neither a distinct nor a welldefined teaching approach (Haug, 2014, p. 27). It does not provide a simple recipe or a specific procedure for how it should be implemented into practice. The crucial question is then how school staff and teachers may successfully implement national policy principles of inclusive and adapted education into their schools and classrooms.

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  103 A Sense of Belonging Another rather new and significant concept frequently used in the context of inclusion is belonging. The concept of belonging captures the affective dimension of inclusion, a subjective feeling of identification and being part of a particular group or community (Pinson et al., 2010, p. 31). Furthermore, belonging can be understood as emotional attachment, feeling “at home” and feeling “safe” (Yuval-Davis, 2006). A sense of belonging implicates a feeling of community, with people as well as with environments, which makes one feels included and connected. Belonging may be perceived as a broad and rather loosely defined concept operating on multiple scales from the home and school to the nation-state (Halse, 2018). Nevertheless, it is a central notion in educational psychology, as international research demonstrates that students both need and benefit from a sense of belonging in school (Halse, 2018; Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007). The concept of belonging is particularly fundamental concerning the education of migrant students (Bunar, 2019; Cerna, 2019; Lynnebakke et al., 2020; Pinson et al., 2010). Adjusting to school and acquiring a sense of belonging to the school community is of decisive importance in the overall adjustment process of young refugees upon resettlement (Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007). However, how to optimally promote a sense of belonging among resettled young refugees remains under-researched (Brenner & Kia-Keating, 2016). As teachers’ support, both academically and personally, is crucial in refugee students’ development of belonging (Hancock et al., 2021; Ward, 2021), a central question is how teachers may support newly arrived refugee students in developing a positive sense of belonging through inclusive and adapted education. What do teachers experience as the main challenges and dilemmas in adapting their teaching to newly arrived refugee students? Based on the findings from the TURIN study, we will learn more about the teachers’ as well as the refugee students’ school experiences in the sections below. As belonging is a subjective affective dimension of inclusion, it is of vital importance to gain more insight into young refugees’ own thoughts and feelings concerning experiencing inclusion and belonging in relation to their new school environment and the new society.

THE STUDY The TURIN study adopted a qualitative, ethnographically oriented approach based on semistructured interviews and observations in five upper secondary schools in a variety of municipalities in Norway. Data were collected in three schools in the Greater Oslo Region (hereafter GOR) and in two schools in smaller and more remote municipalities in South-Eastern Norway (hereafter SEN) from June 2016 to June 2017. The selected schools offered general academic and/or vocational study programmes, while some of them also offered preparatory classes for newly arrived students. The study comprises individual interviews with 47 recently resettled young refugees (ages 16–24) as well as interviews with 46 teachers and other school staff (school leaders, advisors and social workers). All 47 interviewed refugee students (20 female and 27 male) had a short residency in Norway, that is to say, six years or less. Eighteen of the students were enrolled in a preparatory class, 13 in grade 1, another 13 in grade 2, two students in grade 3 and one student was enrolled in an apprenticeship programme.

104  Research handbook on migration and education The majority of young refugees who participated in the TURIN study were so-called late arrivals; this means that they arrived in Norway at a late school age. Late-arriving newcomers often have limited and/or interrupted formal education. To adapt to, and complete, lower and upper secondary school in the new country in the course of a few years can be very demanding, particularly for students who have no or little previous formal education. In addition, the TURIN study involves studies of relevant national education and integration policy documents.

FINDINGS: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION First, the study’s findings will be presented and discussed along the identified educational and psychosocial dimensions of the refugee students’ challenges concerning inclusion/inclusive education. The presentation of the psychosocial challenges is followed by a short section on students’ own experiences and perspectives regarding their sense of belonging in Norway. Then, we will take a closer look at schools’ and teachers’ competence and experience in working with migration-related student diversity in general and newly arrived refugee students in particular. Educational Challenges Concerning Inclusion Young refugees are a heterogeneous group of students with respect to age, gender, ethnicity, migration experiences, previous education and current life situation. Consequently, the young refugees entering the Norwegian school system will have very different educational and psychosocial needs. Providing inclusive education by offering good and equal learning opportunities to all students in schools with a highly diverse student population constitutes a considerable challenge for the schools and teachers involved. While various educational challenges were mentioned by the interviewed school staff and refugee students, both highlighted the Norwegian language as the most prominent challenge for newly arrived students. Several students emphasised that learning Norwegian is crucial not only to succeed in school but also for developing social relationships in school and beyond. Moreover, both teachers and students talked about the challenges associated with learning school subjects in a new language. Many students, including those who had substantial previous schooling, commented on the extra time they had to put into carrying out classroom tasks and homework because of language challenges. Even though students may speak the second language rather well in an everyday setting, they may experience problems with the school-specific language, especially the more academic, subject-specific genres. To enable refugee students’ participation and inclusion in the classroom discourse, it is thus important that not only Norwegian language teachers but also subject teachers have adequate competence in teaching students who are second language learners (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). Both linguistic and cultural differences may cause confusion and misunderstandings concerning the subject matter taught. Inclusive education implies transforming classroom practice towards a learner-centred approach (Pastoor, 2016), that is, placing students’ resources and needs at the centre in order to promote inclusion as well as opportunities for optimal learning for all students. Moreover, cultural responsivity and awareness regarding the curriculum and the means of classroom

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  105 communication as well as the choice of teaching materials will encourage refugee students’ participation and inclusion in the classroom discourse and thus facilitate enhanced classroom learning (DeCapua, 2016). The TURIN study’s findings demonstrated the pros and cons of preparatory class provision (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). The main pattern in the findings is that there are many positive aspects – educational as well as psychosocial – of attending a one-year preparatory class even though this is a provision by which newly arrived students are separated from the majority language students, which limits valuable interaction between the two student groups. The findings show further that there can be large heterogeneity in the preparatory class students’ prior education and Norwegian language proficiency, which often entails a considerable challenge for teachers in providing individually adapted education. In the studied schools, students reported different levels of contentment with the preparatory class. In the GOR schools, most students said they are very satisfied with the educational content of the preparatory class, whereas in the SEN schools, a number of students expressed strong educational discontent. In general, these differences seem to reflect the different levels of teachers’ competence in teaching and assessing minority language students in the schools that participated in the study. Similarly, a national evaluation shows that there are large local variations in the way the preparatory class provision is organised (Rambøll, 2016). Hence, refugee students’ experiences in relation to the preparatory class may vary considerably between different schools. Psychosocial Challenges Concerning Inclusion The findings indicate that newly arrived students might be confronted not only with educational but also with psychological and social challenges. National and international studies demonstrate that the hardships of pre-migration and flight as well as post-migration stress increase young refugees’ vulnerability to psychological distress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Cerna, 2019; Hayward, 2017; Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007; Pastoor, 2015). In light of these challenges, educators, health professionals and researchers have called for providing refugee students with, beyond academic support, adequate psychosocial support (Norozi, 2020; Pastoor, 2015). A number of refugee students reported that they had previously suffered from substantial psychological distress. Some of them had received professional help, and they said that their mental health had improved considerably. Other students reported that they still experienced mental distress due to migration-related stressors in their daily lives. The findings demonstrate that even though refugee students may not report mental health problems, this does not mean that their overall psychosocial well-being is good (Norozi, 2020). Upon resettlement, newly arrived young refugees have to adjust to a new society and a new education system in the course of a few years, which can be a very demanding process, especially for late-arriving students. During the process of adjustment, they may face “existential” challenges concerning finding their place in Norwegian society, their identity and the development of a positive self-perception. Where do they belong and feel at home? When one of the students, Alaia, a young female refugee from the Middle East, during the interview was asked whether she feels at home in Norway, she replied: “I feel free here, but not at home. … In a way that I don’t know, I feel left out”. Alaia came to Norway as a 16-yearold and felt that she had to learn so many new things: “Learn the system, learn the language, understand the culture, understand how people are … then you turn 18, and then you start your

106  Research handbook on migration and education education … and you’re right behind other people”. Furthermore, she said that she wished to have come to Norway as a child: “Then I could understand better, then I could feel Norwegian, and I wouldn’t be so much behind”. At the time of the interview, Alaia was attending the second grade of an upper secondary school in a regular class together with Norwegian students. She compared herself with her Norwegian peers and expressed a sense of exclusion, being “left out” and being “behind” them, which has an impact on her self-esteem and sense of belonging. Alaia’s experiences emphasise the decisive importance of a supportive school environment in acquiring a sense of belonging, feeling at home and feeling valued during the various transitions young refugees encounter upon resettlement. A school with an “ethos of inclusion” (Arnot & Pinson, 2005) and an inclusive approach to teaching diverse learners may support young refugees in the process of overall adjustment to their new environment. Meaningful interaction with Norwegian-born students can promote refugee students’ sense of belonging and inclusion in school and thus their psychosocial well-being. Moreover, a sense of belonging and connectedness to school is related to a number of other positive outcomes, psychological as well as academic (Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007). However, many refugee students told us during the interviews that they have little interaction with and few friends among the majority Norwegian students and they would like to spend more time with their Norwegian peers. With regard to social aspects, the preparatory class seems to provide a sense of belonging in several of the studied schools. School staff and students report good social relations that go beyond national backgrounds and migration categories. Still, some preparatory class students are negative about attending a class in which they are separated from Norwegian students. Members of the school staff tend to underscore the importance of preparatory classes; nevertheless, some reflect on teacher-initiated efforts to increase interactions between regular and preparatory class students outside the classroom. These efforts produced varying results; teachers describe that in some cases the students involved felt rather uncomfortable engaging in interactions in settings that felt “unnatural” (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). The resources people achieve through participation in groups or social networks and the opportunity to establish supportive relationships with others are a “social good” referred to as social capital (Naidoo, 2009; Putnam, 2000). Putnam (2000) distinguishes two different kinds of social capital that can be important for young refugees: bonding capital and bridging capital. Bonding refers to relationships among members of rather homogeneous groups, such as family and like-ethnic or co-ethnic groups (for example, the newly arrived students in the preparatory class), which are important for more immediate support. However, in order to promote social inclusion in a diverse society, the second kind of social capital is required: bridging. Bridging refers to social networks and relationships with members of heterogeneous groups, such as people from another sociocultural or ethnic background (for example, facilitating joint participation and positive relationships between newly arrived students and Norwegian-born students in school). The findings of another CAGE study (Børsch et al., 2019) conducted in a Danish folk high school, in which a number of young refugees were enrolled as part of the municipal integration programme, affirm the importance of joint participation in school-based activities as well as an inclusive school ethos encouraging diversity in order to promote refugee students’ social inclusion in the school community. Moreover, the study underlines that initiatives promoting students’ inclusion and well-being should be an integral part of existing school practices and structures and should not be “added on” to school-based activities.

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  107 To Belong or Not to Belong Above, we could read about newly arrived refugee students’ experiences of inclusion and belonging in school; however, newcomers’ experiences beyond school will also have an impact on their sense of belonging in their new country of residence. What does it mean to belong in Norway? Having been granted a residence permit in Norway may not be enough for young refugees to obtain a full sense of belonging in terms of feeling at home and safe. Upon resettlement, they merely get a temporary residence permit. Then, after three years, it is possible to apply for a permanent residence permit. When Dahabo, a young female refugee from Somalia, was asked in the interview whether she felt at home in Norway after four years in the country, she replied: Yes, I actually feel at home. But sometimes when I remember that I do not have a permanent residence permit yet (she applied for it some time ago but is still waiting for an answer) … then I think “why don’t they want you … why haven’t you been notified yet”. But here’s home after all, it’s here I live, right? We have peace, so here’s my home.

Moreover, young refugees may experience racism, harassment and prejudice, both in the school environment and beyond, which also may affect their sense of belonging. Said, a young male refugee from Somalia, expressed during the interview, that although he finds that some people doubt that he belongs in Norway, he himself feels that he belongs here: I don’t feel like I’m outside society. Although you can hear that many people say that you do not belong here, you are not Norwegian and go back to where you came from. But I, I feel that here in Norway, my life is here (…) As I’ve lived here for a long time, I think I belong here; I’m going to live here all my life.

Listening to the stories about the challenges related to inclusion and belonging that the interviewed young refugees experience in the host country underlines the importance of schools offering refugee students a positive, safe and welcoming environment, free from bullying and harassment, or in other words, offering them an ethos of inclusion. An inclusive school approach encourages newly arrived students to develop belonging – either to the school community and/or to the new society (Pinson et al., 2010). Concerning encouraging a sense of belonging in the school context, meaningful and stable relationships with teachers and peers as well as the decisive role of teachers in supporting students, both academically and psychosocially, is emphasised (Hancock et al., 2021; Ward, 2021). Schools’ and Teachers’ Diversity/Refugee Competence and Experience The interviewed school staff tended to focus more on educational than psychosocial issues when commenting on young refugees’ challenges and needs in school. One recurring teacher statement was that school is first and foremost an educational – and not a care – institution (Lynnebakke et  al., 2020). Moreover, the findings also underlined that non-teacher professionals (e.g. school health workers and social workers) may have an important additional psychosocial role for refugee students. However, several of the teachers and other staff members acknowledged the school’s role in promoting young refugees’ psychosocial well-being but expressed a need for more competence in psychosocial and refugee-related issues. One of the

108  Research handbook on migration and education schools’ social workers reflected on the need for more refugee competence as well as on the ethos of inclusion in school: It would be good to have someone from outside of the school who could explain about different aspects of being a refugee and having a short period of residency in Norway, how that influences them as students and us not being predisposed. We should meet them with open arms, have an open mind and all that. But I think that if we had more general knowledge in the school, one could accommodate students with a refugee background even better.

The study disclosed that schools and teachers have varying, and often insufficient, knowledge and competence concerning how to appropriately relate to a culturally, linguistically and academically diverse group of refugee students with multifaceted needs. In the more remote SEN schools, school staff reported that they have too few teachers with competence in diversity, multilingualism and teaching Norwegian as a second language. One of the SEN school teachers said that the lack of qualifications among teachers erroneously turns a “systemic” problem into an individual student’s problem (Lynnebakke et al., 2020). Generally, qualified and competent teachers are perceived as a crucial factor in the quality of schooling and refugee students’ school performance (Cerna, 2019; Hancock et al., 2021; Hayward, 2017; OECD, 2011, 2020). The study’s findings suggest further that, broadly speaking, there is a contrast between the GOR schools and the more rural SEN schools in terms of whether school staff have adequate qualifications and experience to work with refugees and migrant students. Several teachers and other staff in the GOR schools reported feeling confident regarding working with newly arrived refugees based on both their formal competence and the school’s long experience with student diversity. In the SEN schools, staff members recurrently reported that they lack the necessary competence and experience; they often felt rather uncertain regarding how to deal with newly arrived students and how to support their educational and social inclusion in the new school environment. The increasing migration-related diversity in classrooms in Norway places substantial demands on the school system, school owners, schools and teachers, as it requires specific knowledge and new competences to provide inclusive education to more diverse student populations. It turns out that the “one school for all” principle does not necessarily result in equitable educational outcomes for recently arrived refugee students in Norway (Dunlavy et al., 2020; OECD, 2011). While a number of factors affect refugee students’ school performance and their inclusion in mainstream education, a particularly critical requirement is their proficiency in the second language. It is thus crucial for newly arrived students to receive adequate language support by means of teaching of – and in – Norwegian as a second language and/or bilingual subject teaching. Along with promoting educational inclusion, enhancing young refugees’ social inclusion by facilitating access to more interaction with majority language peers in school may increase their Norwegian language and cultural competence as well as their sense of school belonging. The quality of teaching and a supportive school environment prove to be decisive factors in promoting refugee newcomers’ inclusion in the mainstream school system (OECD, 2020). Finally, continual professional development is needed to improve the capacity of Norwegian teachers as well as school leaders to become more responsive to the linguistic and cultural diversity of present-day classroom populations (OECD, 2009).

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  109

GENERAL DISCUSSION The inadequate school outcomes of young refugees who arrive in Norway at a late school age (Dunlavy et al., 2020; OECD, 2009) demonstrate that the mere existence of inclusive education policies and various introductory provisions does not necessarily result in educational success for all students. National policies and principles of inclusive education are important but are not necessarily sufficient to improve refugee students’ educational and social inclusion in schools. In this chapter, we have looked closer into whether and how policy principles of inclusive and adapted education are implemented by the schools and teachers that participated in the TURIN study. Barriers to implementing inclusive education in schools and classrooms turn out to be multifaceted. However, there are two issues that particularly stand out, which will be presented below. A Policy–Practice Gap The study’s findings point to a policy–practice gap, a divergence between national policy principles and objectives of inclusive education versus local implementations in schools and classrooms. For instance, the principle of adapting education to students’ abilities involves adapted language teaching for language minority students (Education Act § 3.12). In practice, the need for adapted language teaching, such as teaching in Norwegian as a second language as well as bilingual subject teaching, is frequently not met (Lynnebakke et al., 2020; Rambøll, 2016). Increased resources for adapted language teaching – both in terms of teacher competence and financial support – are needed. However, a Norwegian survey (Rambøll, 2016) assessing special language support for newly arrived migrant students emphasises that second language support is important but not necessarily sufficient to strengthen newcomers’ ability to complete further education. The report points out that migrant and refugee students often have complex challenges and there is a strong need for teachers with adequate knowledge of the particular challenges and needs of this particular group of students (Rambøll, 2016, p. 92). The report’s conclusion is consistent with the findings of the TURIN study. It is of crucial importance to invest in qualified teachers and comprehensive teacher training by means of pre-service as well as in-service training to obtain the necessary refugee competence and skills to support newcomer students’ inclusion and belonging in school by means of a holistic approach (cf. Arnot & Pinson, 2005; Cerna, 2019). A Highly Decentralised Education System Although the Norwegian education system is based on national curricula and a common legislative framework, it is a highly decentralised education system. Municipal and county authorities are given a high level of autonomy in the implementation of education policies as well as in the operation and administration of the schools (Tørslev et al., 2017). This local autonomy has its advantages, but it also has its challenges. An OECD review (2011) shows that the quality of education provided in Norway varies between municipalities, even between municipalities with otherwise rather similar characteristics. These variations may be due to substantial differences in resources, capacity and priority among the municipalities. Generally, it is the smaller municipalities that have the greatest challenges in recruiting qualified school staff and providing adequate support to migrant and refugee students in

110  Research handbook on migration and education their schools (OECD, 2011). The observed contrast between the GOR schools and the SEN schools in terms of whether school staff have adequate qualifications and experience or not and are prepared to provide inclusive education to refugees and other language minority students may thus be a result of rural municipalities’ challenge to recruit sufficiently qualified school staff as well as to provide the necessary resources for adequate support to newly arrived students.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The move towards a more inclusive approach to refugee education in order to facilitate quality education, i.e. equitable and individually adapted education, to all students requires changes at several levels in the Norwegian education system. The present study demonstrates that the education of newly resettled young refugees requires a cohesive whole-school approach that aims at promoting refugee students’ educational inclusion in mainstream schools as well as supporting their psychosocial adaptation, well-being and belonging (Arnot & Pinson, 2005; Bunar, 2019; Cerna, 2019; Pastoor, 2015; Taylor & Sidhu, 2012). Teachers’ competence and skills are vital in reaching these aims. However, the key to developing an inclusive and refugee-competent school is to acquire the necessary competence at all levels in school and facilitate close collaboration between school leaders, teachers and other school staff involved. Furthermore, the successful inclusion of young refugees in upper secondary education depends on supportive collaboration between national and local (i.e. municipal and county) education authorities as well as school leaders in order to facilitate a successful implementation of educational policies and principles in schools and classroom practices. The findings of the study disclose substantial differences in education provisions and approaches concerning providing inclusive education to newly arrived students as well as in essential qualifications among teachers and staff in the schools under study. This disparity will affect the quality of refugee education and, consequently, refugee students’ school experiences and outcomes. All schools in Norway, whether in urban areas or in municipalities in the countryside, should be allocated the necessary resources to strengthen teachers’ and other staff members’ capacity and competence in providing inclusive education to newly arrived refugee students. It is important to develop professional practical knowledge of how to promote newly arrived students’ inclusion and belonging as well as to develop an ethos for diversity in schools. Further research is needed on how to improve the implementation of national education policies and principles of inclusion into practice by including local education authorities’ and school staff’s perspectives and experiences. Generating a deeper understanding of the politics of inclusion at the intersection between the national and the local levels may enhance newly arrived young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering mainstream education in Norway.

NOTE 1.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the CAGE project in general and the TURIN study in particular. My special thanks go to Brit Lynnebakke and Ketil Eide for their contributions to the TURIN report. Furthermore, I greatly appreciate the trust and generosity shown by

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  111 the refugee students as well as the teachers and staff of the schools participating in the TURIN study. I am also very grateful to Nihad Bunar, Professor at the Department of Special Education of Stockholm University, for his valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. The CAGE project was funded by a grant from NordForsk, the Nordic Research Council (grant nr: 74645).

REFERENCES Arnot, M., & Pinson, H. (2005). The education of asylum-seeker and refugee children: A study of LEA and school values, policies and practices. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. https:// www​.educ​.cam​.ac​.uk​/people​/staff​/arnot​/AsylumReportFinal​.pdf Børsch, A. S. R., Skovdal, M., & Jervelund, S. S. (2019). How a school setting can generate social capital for young refugees: Qualitative insights from a folk high school in Denmark. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 718–740. Brenner, M. E., & Kia-Keating, M. (2016). Psychosocial and academic adjustment among resettled refugee youth. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Annual review of comparative and international education, international perspectives on education and society (Vol. 30, pp. 221–249). Emerald Publishing. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bunar, N. (2019). Education of refugee and asylum-seeking children. Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Education. Oxford University Press. Published online 30 October 2019. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/ acrefore​/9780190264093​.013​.118 Bunar, N., & Juvonen, P. (2021). ‘Not (yet) ready for the mainstream’ – Newly arrived migrant students in a separate educational program. Journal of Education Policy. Published online 1 July 2021. https://doi​.org​/1080​/02680939​.2021​.1947527 Cerna, L. (2019). Refugee education: Integration models and practices in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers No. 203. OECD Publishing. https://www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org​/education​/ refugee​-education​_a3251a00​-en DeCapua, A. (2016). Reaching students with limited or interrupted formal education through culturally responsive teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(5), 225–237. Dunlavy, A., de Montgomery, C. J., Lorentzen, T., Malin, M., & Hjern, A. (2020). Equity in education? A comparative analysis of educational outcomes among refugee children in the Nordic countries. In S. S. Jervelund, A. Krasnik, & A. K. R. de Lasson (Eds.), Coming of Age in exile: Health and socio-economic inequalities in young refugees in the Nordic welfare societies. CAGE Project Report 1. University of Copenhagen. https://cage​.ku​.dk​/publications​/dokumenter​/17665​_ MESU​_CAGE​ _FinalReport_ ​_autospread_​.pdf Education Act. (1998). Act relating to primary and secondary education and training. Last amendment May 2014. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. https://lovdata​.no​/dokument​/NLE​/lov​ /1998​- 07​-17​-61 European Commission. (2013). Study on educational support for newly arrived migrant children. https://op​.europa​.eu​/en​/publication​-detail/-​/publication​/96c97b6b​-a31b​- 4d94​-a22a​-14c0859a8bea Halse, C. (2018). Theories and theorising of belonging. In C. Halse (Ed.), Interrogating belonging for young people in schools (pp. 1–28). Palgrave. Hamilton, R., & Moore, D. (2004). Educational interventions for refugee children: Theoretical perspectives and implementing best practice. Routledge. Hancock, C. H. H., Midthassel, U. V., & Fandrem, H. (2021). Upper secondary teachers’ experiences promoting belonging and engagement in culturally diverse classrooms. Acta Didactica Norden, 15(2), Art. 4. Published online 26 August 2021. https://doi​.org​/10​.5617​/adno​.8381 Haug, P. (2014). Det vet vi om inkludering [That’s what we know about inclusion]. Gyldendal. Hayward, M. (2017). Teaching as a primary therapeutic intervention for learners from refugee backgrounds. Intercultural Education, 28(2), 165–181. Kia-Keating, M., & Ellis, B. H. (2007). Belonging and connection to school in resettlement: Young refugees, school belonging, and psychosocial adjustment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12(1), 29–43.

112  Research handbook on migration and education Kiuppis, F., & Peters, S. (2014). Inclusive education for all as a special interest within the comparative and international education research community. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2014 (Vol. 25, pp. 53–63). Emerald Publishing. Lynnebakke, B., Pastoor, L. D. W., & Eide, K. (2020). Young refugees’ pathways in(to) education. Teacher and student voices: Challenges, opportunities and dilemmas. CAGE Project Report 3A. University of Copenhagen. https://cage​.ku​.dk​/publications​/dokumenter​/ Young​_ refugees​_pathways​ _in​_to_ ​_education_-​_CAGE ​_ report​_2020​.pdf Masten, A., Herbers, J., & Cutuli, J. (2008). Promoting competence and resilience in the school context. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 76–84. Naidoo, L. (2009). Developing social inclusion through after-school homework tutoring: A study of African refugee students in Greater Western Sydney. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 261–273. Norozi, S. A. (2020). Going beyond academic support, mental well-being of newly arrived migrant pupils in the Norwegian elementary reception class. Pastoral Care in Education, 37(2), 108–125. OECD. (2009). OECD reviews of migrant education: Norway. OECD Publishing. https://www​.oecd​ .org​/norway​/43723539​.pdf OECD. (2011). Review of evaluations and assessment in education: Norway 2011. OECD Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​.1787​/9789264117006 ​-en OECD. (2020). Education policy outlook in Norway. OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 20. OECD Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​.1787​/8a042924​-en Pastoor, L. D. W. (2015). The mediational role of schools in supporting psychosocial transitions among unaccompanied young refugees upon resettlement in Norway. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 245–254. Pastoor, L. D. W. (2016). Rethinking refugee education: Principles, policies and practice from a European perspective. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Annual review of comparative and international education, international perspectives on education and society (Vol. 30, pp. 107–116). Emerald Publishing. Pastoor, L. D. W. (2017). Reconceptualising refugee education: Exploring the diverse learning contexts of unaccompanied young refugees upon resettlement. Intercultural Education, 28(2), 143–164. Pinson, H., Arnot, M., & Candappa, M. (2010). Education, asylum and the ‘non-citizen’ child. The politics of compassion and belonging. Palgrave Macmillan. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Rambøll. (2016). Evaluering av særskilt språkopplæring og innføringstilbud [Evaluation of special language tuition and introductory programmes]. Rambøll Management Consulting. Stein, B. N. (1981). The refugee experience: Defining the parameters of a field of study. The International Migration Review, 15(1/2), 320–330. Svendsen, S., Berg, B., Paulsen, V., Garvik, M., & Valenta, M. (2018). Kunnskapsoppsummering om enslige mindreårige asylsøkere og flyktninger [Knowledge summary on unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee minors]. NTNU. Taylor, S., & Sidhu, R. K. (2012). Supporting refugee students in schools: What constitutes inclusive education? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(1), 39–56. Tørslev, M. K., & Børsch, A. S. R. (2017). Refugee and immigrant children’s right to education. A comparative analysis of education policies targeting immigrant children in the Nordic countries. CAGE Policy Report 2. University of Copenhagen. UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. UNESCO. http:// www​.ibe​.unesco​.org​/sites​/default ​/files​/Guidelines​_for​_Inclusion​_UNESCO​_2006​.pdf Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13–31). Springer. UNICEF. (2009). Child-friendly schools manual. UNICEF, Division of Communication. https://www​ .unicef​.org​/media​/85731​/file​/Child​_ Friendly​_ Schools​_ Manual​_ EN​_040809​.pdf Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2012). Innføringstilbud til nyankomne minoritetsspråklige elever. Veileder [Introductory programmes for newly arrived language minority learners. Guide]. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher social processes (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Young refugees’ inclusion and belonging upon entering upper secondary education  113 Ward, C. (2021). Practitioners’ perspectives and needs: Developing skills to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASCs) in experiencing ‘belonging’ in English educational spaces. British Educational Research Journal. Published online 14 April 2021. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/ berj​.3768 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V., del Río, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge University Press. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214.

8. Perceptions of immigrant parental engagement in primary schools in Ireland Dympna Devine, Merike Darmody and Emer Smyth

INTRODUCTION It is widely recognised by practitioners and policymakers that parents’ engagement with schools plays an important role in students’ attitudes to school and their educational outcomes (Stroetinga et al., 2019). Existing research on parental engagement tends to focus on levels of contact between parents and schools (Levinthal et al., 2021), with greater contact and direct interaction found at the primary school level (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Campbell, 2011). Such contact is influenced by social class. Parents with greater levels of economic, social and cultural resources are most likely to engage directly with teachers in their children’s classrooms (Horvat et  al., 2003; Levine-Rasky, 2009). Ethnicity and immigrant background are also shown to be important, intersecting with social class in terms of parental engagement patterns (Antony-Newman, 2019; Bunar & Ambrose, 2016; Devine, 2011). Gender also plays a role, with mothers more likely to engage in day-to-day contact with teachers than fathers (O’Toole, 2019). Other research looks at specific aspects of parental involvement in their children’s school, highlighting how ‘resource-rich’ parents draw upon and activate social and cultural capital through focused participation in volunteering, fund-raising and membership of school management boards (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 1999; Lareau, 1989). Over time, parental engagement research has shifted from earlier ‘deficit’ discourses, that attributed low levels of involvement to a lack of value placed by parents on education, to research that recognises the impact of cultural discontinuities between home and school, and the significance of school cultures in accommodating (or not) to the diverse range of identities and cultures within which children’s family lives are embedded (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003). Such research highlights how schools differ in the level of engagement they promote with parents, ranging from those that seek to empower parents as co-educators of their children, to those that promote a distinct ‘expert’ and teacher-led approach. In either case, it is the school that sets the parameters for parental inclusion and involvement (Crozier & Davies, 2007). Increasing migration globally ensures that a focus on differences in immigrant parental engagement and feelings of belonging and inclusion in their children’s schools remains a key issue of concern. Immigrant families arrive from their country of origin embedded in their own cultural and ethnic background which may or may not be different to that of the settlement society (Devine, 2011). Some of the research points to specific barriers and challenges faced by immigrant parents in engaging with their children’s schools, including host country language proficiency (Olivos & Mendoza, 2010); cultural distance (Christie & Szorenyi, 2015); and personal circumstances and work arrangements (Antony-Newman, 2019); in addition to a lack of trust relationships between parents and teachers (Singh, 2020). Nord and Griffin (1999) note that while immigrant parents may attend requested meetings with teachers, they are less likely than native-born parents to engage in voluntary activities in schools. The lack 114

Perceptions of immigrant parental engagement in primary schools in Ireland  115 of engagement by majority ethnic parents with immigrant parents is also important. Research highlights, for example, exclusionary practices such as non-attendance by native parents at multicultural school events, ‘white flight’ in areas of intensive immigration and majority ethnic parents seeking segregated education (through tracking) for their children in multi-ethnic schools (Levine-Rasky, 2009; Reay et al., 2007). Such research also highlights the potentially negative impact of prejudice (and racism) on immigrant parents’ reluctance to engage with their children’s schools. The perspectives and dispositions of teachers are also important. A lack of understanding by teachers (typically themselves majority ethnic) of the wider contextual and cultural dynamics in immigrant parents’ lives can lead them to misinterpret immigrant parents’ actions. Cultural norms related to authority, status and power between teachers and parents may be very different for immigrant parents depending on their experiences with the school system in their country of origin (see Hofstede, 1986). In such contexts, immigrant parents may view teachers as experts and are thus reluctant to ‘interfere’ or engage in what is perceived as the teacher’s domain (Lopez, Scribner & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Conversely, teachers in the settlement country may perceive immigrant parents’ lack of engagement as a lack of interest in their children’s learning and school lives. Schools do, however, have an important role to play in engaging with and empowering immigrant parents and research is clear on the impact of school cultures in this respect. At issue especially is the level of cultural dissonance and/or discontinuity between the culture of the school and that of immigrant communities, who themselves may come from a diverse range of traditions, ethnicities and immigrant trajectories (McGovern & Devine, 2016). In such contexts, research points to the ‘othering’ of minority ethnic parents who are often perceived by teachers as ‘hard to reach’ and lacking the dispositions and attitudes necessary for supporting their children’s education (Crozier & Davies, 2007; Luttrell, 2020). Immigrant groups whose cultural norms and dispositions resemble more closely those of teachers can often be seen by them as ‘model minorities’, in turn underscoring the ‘otherness’ of parents with different cultural or dispositional characteristics (Francis & Archer, 2005). Class and gender intersect with ethnicity, in the overrepresentation of white middle-class mothers in multi-ethnic schools at both a formal and informal level, and in the value that is accorded both ‘whiteness’ and middle-classness in schools (Bunar & Ambrose, 2016; Reay et al., 2008). Conversely, school cultures that prioritise intercultural competence among teachers are seen to be especially effective in engaging immigrant parents (Levinthal, Kuusisto and Tirri, 2021; Egilsson, Einarsdóttir & Dockett, 2021). Positive communication with teachers can provide immigrant parents with the social capital needed to activate their own cultural capital to support their children’s education (Antony-Newman, 2019; Baker et al., 2016). In this chapter, we add to the existing literature with reference to research in the Irish context. Three key questions frame our analysis: First, are there differences in teacher contact with immigrant and Irish parents? Second, do teachers perceive any difference in the level of interest shown by immigrant and Irish parents in relation to their children’s education? Third, what influences perceptions and levels of engagement between immigrant parents and teachers in schools? The chapter draws on national-level data in relation to teacher perceptions of immigrant parent contact with them, and interest in, their children’s education, in addition to qualitative analysis of patterns of engagement between immigrant parents and their teachers/principals in a number of primary schools. In so doing, we explore (mis)conceptions in schools about immigrant parents’ engagement with them and highlight the importance of

116  Research handbook on migration and education intercultural competence and policies of proactive engagement by schools in fostering meaningful engagement with immigrant parents.

IRELAND AS A CASE STUDY Ireland represents an interesting case study given its recent immigration history, with immigrants making up 11.6 per cent of the population, and the heterogeneity of the group in terms of country of origin (CSO, 2016). Earlier Irish research has demonstrated that both immigrant parents and children faced a number of challenges navigating their way in a new country with an unfamiliar educational system (Devine, 2005; Darmody et  al., 2011; Smyth et  al., 2009). Such challenges must be understood not only in the context of rapid and intensive immigration in a predominantly white, Catholic society (Devine, 2013) but also by the trajectory of policy on parental engagement more generally within the Irish school system. Earlier research in Ireland by Hanafin and Lynch (2002) highlights engrained patterns of lower levels of engagement by schools with working-class parents, mostly limited to the giving and receiving of information, and minor responsibilities, despite the reported interest of these parents in their children’s education. With respect to ethnicity, challenges to the inclusion of ‘ethnic others’ in a relatively ethnically homogenous schooling system (Faas et al., 2018; Keane & Heinz, 2016) have given rise to what Devine (2011) refers to as a ‘practical tolerance’ in schools. Predominant is a form of pragmatic multiculturalism, with evidence of a benevolent sympathy towards immigrant communities (what Lingard, 2007, refers to as pedagogies of indifference) and deficit-oriented approaches to children and their families from immigrant communities that differ from majority ethnic Irish norms (McGovern & Devine, 2016). The remainder of the chapter adds further to this literature by considering patterns of contact and engagement of immigrant parents with their children’s primary schools through the lens of teacher reports of immigrant parental contact and interest, and the lived experiences of immigrant parents and teachers in a sample of schools.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY The chapter draws on multiple data sources. The Growing Up in Ireland (GUI)1 longitudinal study followed two cohorts of children. Analyses in this chapter relate to Cohort ’08, who have been followed from nine months to nine years of age. Due to its large sample size, the GUI study enables an analysis of the experiences of migrant parents broken down by nationality group. Information collected from the parents is used to determine the country of origin as well as background characteristics such as social class, maternal education and experience of financial strain – all factors known to influence levels of parental engagement with their children’s schooling. The analyses distinguish between the following categories: Irish (81%), UK (6%), Other Western European (1%), Eastern European (5%), African (3%), Asian (2%) and other (including the Americas and Australasia) (2%). At both five and nine years of age, surveys of the teachers of the sampled children collected valuable information on the extent of parent-teacher contact and on the perceived interest by teachers of mothers and fathers (see below) in their children’s education. At both time points, four different types of contact (meeting informally, the parent talking to the teacher about the child’s behaviour, the parent asking about the child’s schoolwork and the teacher asking the parent to come into the school

Perceptions of immigrant parental engagement in primary schools in Ireland  117 to discuss the child), as reported by teachers, were summed to give an overall measure of the level of contact. In addition, for each parent, a measure of teacher-perceived interest was combined to distinguish between teacher reports of parents being (or, at least, seeming to be) ‘very interested’ and other responses. Multivariate analyses were conducted to estimate the difference in teacher perceptions between migrant groups and Irish parents. The models looked at raw differences between the groups before controlling progressively for factors that might help explain these differences to look at the ‘net’ effect of nationality group on teacher-parent contact and perceived interest. These sets of factors related to: a) Socio-economic characteristics (social class, maternal education, whether the household was experiencing financial strain) as differences are evident among nationality groups in their prior educational experience and material resources. In addition, child gender is controlled for: b) Previous research indicates that migrant children in Ireland are disproportionately concentrated in schools that serve socio-economically disadvantaged communities (Smyth et al., 2009). We therefore control for whether the child was attending a DEIS2 urban or rural school (as a proxy for school social mix) to look at whether this helps explain the differences between nationality groups; and, c) Contact with parents may reflect teachers experiencing more difficulties with a certain child and therefore calling the parents in to talk about their behaviour. We therefore control for the teacher’s perceived closeness to, and conflict with, the child. This approach allowed us to unpack the extent to which any teacher-perceived differences between migrant and Irish parents were still evident taking account of other factors (such as educational resources) that might be associated with differences in experiences. We were also interested to see if these patterns changed over time as children moved through the primary school system. The second data source draws on a more intensive qualitative study of immigrant parents, principals and teachers in five schools in Dublin (for further details, see Devine, 2011). Through this more intensive immersion in the everyday life of immigrant parents, teachers and school principals, we complement information collected from teachers in a national study with a deeper analysis of the experiences which immigrant parents feel contribute to their engagement with, and participation in, their children’s schools. Of the 25 parents who were purposively sampled, there were 17 different nationalities (comprising three Asian, seven Eastern European, 12 African, and three others from the Middle East and South America), while the average length of time in Ireland was seven years. The sample is not only diverse in terms of ethnicity but also in terms of socio-economic background. There were variations in levels of education and participation in the labour market, with nine in full-time employment across professional (financial services and health care, and technological industries) and non-professional (services sectors) roles. In each school, interviews were also conducted with principals (five) and teachers (ten), the latter a mix of mainstream classroom teachers (four), as well as those who worked specifically with immigrant children through additional resource and language support (six). Interviews with parents centred around a number of core themes related to perceptions of schooling, parental experiences and background, and their perceptions of the barriers to, and opportunities for, involvement in, and engagement with, their

118  Research handbook on migration and education children’s education in Ireland. For interviews with school staff, the focus lay on exploring their experiences of engagement with immigrant parents both formally and informally in the course of everyday school life. The data sets drawn on for the chapter are complementary in that they combine nationally representative data on teacher-parent contact and teacher perceptions of parental interest in their children’s education with in-depth accounts from immigrant parents and school personnel that shed light on the reasons underlying the patterns found.

THE ENGAGEMENT OF IMMIGRANT PARENTS WITH PRIMARY SCHOOLS Levels of Contact between Immigrant Parents and Schools The GUI data provide systematic information on the extent to which levels of parent-school contact vary between Irish and immigrant parents, and among immigrant parents by region of origin. Using data at two time points (five and nine years of age) allows us to explore whether these patterns change, or indeed become ingrained, as children transition through the primary school system. Levels of contact were based on teacher reports as teachers were asked more detailed questions about home-school contact than parents. The analyses also allow us to identify whether immigrant-Irish differences in levels of contact are due to other family background factors (such as parental educational level), the social mix of the school the child attends or the quality of the relationship, as reported by teachers, between the child and the teacher. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 show the results of multivariate regression models which examine differences between immigrant and Irish parents in their levels of contact with teachers when their children were five and nine years of age respectively. The first column in Figure 8.1 shows that parents from the UK and Eastern Europe have significantly higher contact levels (by 0.4 on the scale) than Irish parents. Other national groups – Western European, African, Asian and other nationalities – do not differ significantly

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 –0.1 –0.2 –0.3 –0.4

Western European

UK

Raw

Eastern European

Social background

African

School

Asian

Other

Teacher-child relationship

Figure 8.1  Difference in parent-teacher contact levels (reported by teachers) between immigrant and Irish groups (with scores for Irish parents set at zero) (coefficients from regression models) when the child was aged five

Perceptions of immigrant parental engagement in primary schools in Ireland  119

0.6

Western European

UK

Eastern European

African

Asian

Other

0.4 0.2 0 –0.2 –0.4 –0.6 –0.8 –1 Raw

Social background

School

Teacher-child relationship

Figure 8.2  Difference in parent-teacher contact levels (reported by teachers) between immigrant and Irish groups (coefficients from regression models) when the child was aged nine from Irish parents in their level of contact with the teachers of their five-year-olds. If columns change in size as other variables are added (for example, if column 2 is smaller than column 1), that indicates that some of the difference between migrant and Irish parents is due to differences in social background (measured in terms of social class, parental education and experience of financial strain). We see that Eastern European parents no longer differ significantly from Irish parents when these social background characteristics are taken into account (compare columns 1 and 2), though UK parents continue to have higher levels of contact, even when we take into account the social mix of the school (column 3, Figure 8.1) and the teacher-child relationship (column 4, Figure 8.1). In sum, the regression models show very few significant differences by nationality group in parent-teacher contact in relation to five-yearolds, except in the case of UK parents. The analyses show a good deal more differentiation in parent-teacher contact by the time the child was nine years of age. As Figure 8.2 shows, Western European and ‘other’ nationality groups do not differ significantly from Irish parents in their patterns (column 1). UK parents have slightly more contact, as when their children were five, but the difference is at the margins of statistical significance (p 0.05), which indicates that the inclusion categories predicted by the model are not significantly different from the observed categories in the dataset. In other words, the independent variables adequately predict the inclusion categories in the model. The pseudo-R-square values of Cox and Snell, and Nagelkerke indicate that the independent variables explain 16.4% to 17.6% of the inclusion clusters’ variance. Likelihood ratio tests showed that all variables in the study are significant predictors of inclusion. How well each variable predicts the inclusion categories is estimated by significant values of the Wald statistic, the odds ratio (Exp(B)), regression coefficients (B), and the standard errors (SE) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI Exp(B)) presented in Table 28.A.3. The Wald statistic with a p-value smaller than 0.05 shows that a variable significantly predicts membership of an inclusion profile against the reference profile, while the odds ratio (Exp(B)) indicates the strength of the prediction. Note that the standard errors are smaller than 2, suggesting acceptable levels of multicollinearity among the independent variables. In other words, the corresponding 95% confidence intervals are not too wide.

404  Research handbook on migration and education Exploring the Four Student Inclusion Profiles Before we review the predictor variables of inclusion, let us first explore what student inclusion in college looks like. An overview of the percentages of students with different migration backgrounds across the inclusion profiles was found through a chi-square test (X 2(9, N = 1778) = 44.94, p = .001). The result is presented in Figure 28.1.

Figure 28.1  Expected versus observed percentages of students across the inclusion profiles (*significantly different (p < 0.05) from the expected percentage in the category) Figure 28.1 shows some similarities and differences among the student groups. Overall (54%) national students with and without migration backgrounds show similar high social and high academic inclusion. They are more often engaged with peers (32%) than with staff (22%). In contrast, international students are more involved with staff (29%) than peers (26%). Migration background primarily plays a role in the low overall and high overall inclusion profile. The greatest difference is seen between students without a migration background and those with a migration background from non-OECD countries. The students without a migration background are most likely to experience high overall inclusion (33%) and least likely to feel excluded (14%) in college. In contrast, students with a migration background from non-OECD countries are least likely to experience high overall inclusion (21%) and at the highest risk of exclusion (28%). Between the most and least included students are those who migrated from OECD countries and international students showing similar low and high overall inclusion. In the next step, we examine how the variables in the model predict these four inclusion profiles. Main Results: Explaining Variables for the Four Inclusion Profiles The most relevant variables predicting students’ inclusion are presented in Table 28.A.3 and summarized in Figure 28.2. Figure 28.2 clarifies the relationship between the four inclusion profiles and the variables academic achievement (AA), confidence in diversity policies (CDP), and migration background. The arrows in the diagram point to the predicted profile against the reference profile at the tail. The odds, in parentheses, indicate the strength of the prediction (Exp(B)) due to a one-unit increase in academic achievement, confidence in diversity policy, or change in migration background while keeping everything else constant. The odds

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive?  405 High Social Inclusion [HSI]

AA (5.2), CDP (2.1) Non-OECD (0.6)*

Low Overall Inclusion [LOI]

AA (3.0) International (0.3)*

CDP (3.0) OECD (0.7)*

AA (6.0), CDP (6.3) Non-OECD (0.4)*

CDP (2.5) Non-OECD (0.5)*

High Overall Inclusion [HOI]

AA (3.5), CDP (2.5) International (0.3)* High Academic Inclusion [HAI]

* Significantly different from national students with no migration background Note:   * Significantly different from national students with no migration background.

Figure 28.2  The predictors of the four inclusion profiles (*significantly different from national students with no migration background) for students with an OECD and non-OECD migration background and international students are compared with students without a migration background. Below we describe the main findings based on the outcomes shown in Figure 28.2. Inclusion associated with migration background National students without a migration background had the best inclusion profile on campus. Most of them were highly involved with peers and staff, enjoying high overall inclusion or sharing good peer relationships (high social inclusion). They were least likely to experience exclusion – scoring low on low overall inclusion. This shows that national students without migration background feel most at home in the college environment, are most confident about diversity policies, and are most likely to reach higher academic achievement. The main differences in inclusion between national students with and without a migration background occurred for the lowest and highest inclusion profiles. Non-OECD students were twice as likely to have poor peer and poor staff relationships and more often reported exclusion (low overall inclusion) than students without migration backgrounds. The inclusion of students with an OECD migration background is closer to students without a migration background than non-OECD students. The only difference is that OECD students are 30% less likely to develop both good peer and good staff relationships (high overall inclusion) rather than just good peer relationships (high social inclusion). International students, in contrast to national students, are more involved with staff than peers and around three times less likely to experience high social or high overall inclusion

406  Research handbook on migration and education rather than high academic inclusion compared to students without a migration background. Their lack of peer involvement may explain their struggle to feel high overall inclusion. Diversity policies and academic achievement The links in the diagram show that the more included students feel, regardless of their migration background, the more confidence they have in institutes’ diversity policies. Increasing confidence in diversity policies correlates two to three times more with belonging to a higher inclusion profile. In summary, the findings show that students without migration background feel more at home on campus and are most likely to reach higher academic achievement. In contrast, nonOECD students feel the least at home on campus, and their confidence in diversity policies and their academic achievement is the lowest among the students. OECD and international students have a similar level of inclusion and confidence in diversity policies. However, OECD students’ academic achievement is somewhat higher than international students due to being more involved with peers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study examined students’ sense of inclusion by peers (social inclusion) and staff (academic inclusion) and its relationship with confidence in diversity policies and academic achievement. We constructed four inclusion profiles based on cluster analysis. Students with the best inclusion profile are, as expected, national students without a migration background. They are highly involved with peers and staff, enjoy high overall inclusion, and are least likely to experience exclusion. Students without a migration background served as a reference group to interpret the inclusion of students with a migration background and international students. Compared with students without a migration background, students with a migrant background from non-OECD countries were most likely to have poor peer and staff relationships and be at risk of exclusion (low overall inclusion). International students struggled most with increasing peer connections, and migrant students from OECD countries struggled most with increasing staff connections. Interpreting the findings requires us to consider the idea of students identifying and sharing values with peers and staff. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) explain that student connections with peers and staff depend on how well they identify and share values with them. It seems that migrant students from non-OECD countries experience most problems with social and academic inclusion. This might be expected given the larger cultural gap when it comes to shared values, between them and their peers without migration background and academic staff. It is important, however, to consider that the mismatch is a two-way process. Most of the students with a migration background from non-OECD countries are born in the Netherlands and have one or both parents born in a non-OECD country. This means they grew up and were socialized in the Dutch context. During their school years (especially those in a pre-academic track), they have often studied in an environment with peers and staff without migration backgrounds. So, they are accustomed to it. This makes it more likely that it is not so much the student with the non-OECD migration background, but rather their peers and the staff members, who have not been raised and confronted with diversity in their school tracks and teaching,

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive?  407 that have trouble approaching them in and outside class. The data about feelings of exclusion seem to support this finding. The gap between students without migration background and migrant students from OECD countries and international students (mainly coming from the EU) seems to be smaller. The image probably is that these students share similar values as students without a migration background. However, the data shows that not all of them fully develop high-quality relationships with peers and staff and feel high overall inclusion in college. They are somewhat in between. It only goes to show that it is the group with a migration background that has to move in the direction of the dominant group that sets the norm – even when cultural differences are small – if they want to feel included. We might explain the struggle of migrant and international students to feel included through the concept of institutional habitus. Thomas (2002) suggests that crucial to students feeling at home on campus is the institutional habitus promoted by the institute. Given that most academic staff do not have a migration background (IVA report), the day-to-day interactions and the institutional habitus of the organization reflect the dominant culture. There has not been a lot of research on the relationship between diversity policies and feeling included among students with a migrant background in universities. However, we use Braxtons’ (2014) idea of institutional integrity to assess this relationship. Students who experience close and supportive peer and staff relationships, while hardly encountering exclusion, are more likely to find institutional policies in line with their daily experience (institutional integrity) than those who feel less included. Students with a migrant background from nonOECD countries experience the least inclusion and the most exclusion. They might experience the largest contradiction between the mainly performative diversity policies and their own daily experiences with peers and staff. It should, therefore, not surprise us that they have the least confidence and trust, among the four groups, in the institutes’ diversity policies. Another major finding of our study is the importance of peers. Even for those who reported having good relationships with staff, as the international students do, a lack of peer connections decreases their chances of performing well academically. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) and Sidelinger et al. (2014) pointed out that learning does not stop after classes. All that remains unclear during lectures, such as understanding new concepts or assignments, is often discussed with peers after classes. These exchanges with peers foster learning that complements their individual and classroom learning. A lack of peer involvement, regardless of students’ background, could consequently disrupt their learning and hinder academic achievement. However, as peer collaboration happens voluntarily, students need to get along and find the friendly, supportive social circles they want to be part of. Their social values, norms, and expectations must be met and appreciated in these circles in order to develop sustainable relationships. Given the fact that students without a migration background show higher academic achievements, the exclusion of students with migration backgrounds from social networks could also result in less productive after-class learning experiences. For instance, when assignments implicitly require knowledge of the Dutch lifestyle, which is less clear to international students or students with a migration background, this knowledge is not shared after class if students with and without migrant backgrounds belong to separate social circles. Another important outcome is that international students seem more focused on relationships with staff than with peers. They approach professors and study counselors more often when facing difficulties than peers. Hence, more than any other group, they experience

408  Research handbook on migration and education high academic inclusion. This finding is in line with previous studies (Skinner et al., 2019). However, this does not mean that they avoid peer relationships. International students often choose to study abroad to have an intercultural college experience but might feel disappointed as they find it challenging to make friends with national peers (Skinner et al., 2019). They sense these peer communities as less accessible partly because of language barriers (national students speaking Dutch among themselves) and unfamiliarity with national students’ habits and culture, as described by the I belong@VU report (Waldring et al., 2021). For this reason, they may be less successful in establishing high-quality peer relationships and high overall inclusion. Our findings show that universities that strive to create an inclusive environment like the university studied here, and even have explicit diversity policies (as is also the case for VU), do not automatically turn into an inclusive environment for all students who do not belong to the dominant national group. However, our study gives some suggestions and openings to create a more inclusive environment. Much emphasis is usually laid on student-to-staff and classroom interactions. Intercultural training modules for staff (like the ones which are available at the VU) and creating a more inclusive classroom environment (mixed classroom model at the VU) are some of the interventions aimed at this. The problem, however, is that these interventions are voluntary and only reach those who are convinced about the changes needed. So, it only reaches a fraction of the students and staff. Thus, to be more effective, these interventions should be implemented in training and classrooms by default. Second, and much less the focus of diversity policies, is the importance of peer-to-peer interactions. As our findings show, these interactions are crucial to academic achievement. Existing formats to stimulate peer-to-peer interactions through traditional student organizations have shown forms of exclusion. The high consumption of alcohol, for instance, in these organizations indirectly excludes religious Muslim students. But also placing students together on assignments often has a segregating effect as students tend to stick to friends or peers they are familiar with and have shared language or culture. The often-unintended effects of existing ways of organizing peer-to-peer encounters should be better studied, and alternative ways of bringing students together should be experimented with. For instance, at the VU, much effort and funding have gone into student organizations based on religious (Muslim) or national affiliation (Turkish). This creates a safe space for students who identify as such, but it is equally important to think of places where students can meet across ethnic and religious lines and get to know each other. There are also some obvious limitations to our study that could partly explain some of the outcomes. This study offers several predictors of inclusion for a typical Dutch nonresidential four-year college. In such a context, which is the common practice in the Netherlands, students spend relatively less time with peers on campus than in the case of residential colleges. Sharing more time and space with national and international peers on campus might support their social inclusion differently. Moreover, the migrant students from OECD countries in our study were mainly from Europe, which could create a greater familiarity with the Dutch campus culture and benefit their inclusion. However, if the study would have included more students from non-European OECD countries, it might have also affected these students’ inclusion differently. Likewise, international students’ low peer involvement, as seen in our study, might change in a setting where the national language is English instead of Dutch as it could improve the connection with national students. These factors limit the generalizability of our findings to other settings.

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive?  409 There are several factors to consider in future studies that we could not explore. First would be the diversity of staff. More resemblance between student and staff backgrounds may significantly impact students’ familiarity with the staff and influence their inclusion. Another aspect is the curriculum. Learning environments based on a curriculum that encourages peer collaboration, such as joint projects or learning communities, might give a completely different picture of students’ social inclusion than those primarily focused on individual assignments not requiring much teamwork. In conclusion, the student population in Dutch colleges is increasingly diversifying due to the enrollment of children of immigrants and international students. Supporting their inclusion is important for promoting their academic success and enables them to become valued members of society and to belong. It is therefore crucial for colleges to acknowledge differences in students’ cultural backgrounds shaping their norms and values and continuously adjust policies and practices based on students’ experiences of inclusion or lack of inclusion on campus. Learning environments that connect with students from diverse backgrounds and perspectives support their belief that they are at the right place for their studies and make them more confident of future success.

REFERENCES Antonio, A. L. (2004). The Influence of Friendship Groups on Intellectual Self-Confidence and Educational Aspirations in College. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 446–471. doi: 10.1353/ jhe.2004.0019. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2004, December). The Unbearable Automaticity of Being. Social Cognition, 228–249. doi: 10.4324/9780203496398-14. Barton, L. (1997, July). Inclusive Education: Romantic, Subversive or Realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231–242. doi: 10.1080/1360311970010301. Beil, C., Reisen, C. A., Zea, M. C., & Caplan, R. C. (1999). A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Academic and Social Integration and Commitment on Retention. NASPA Journal, 37(1), 1–10. doi: 10.2202/0027-6014.1094. Booth, T. (2005). Keeping the Future Alive: Putting Inclusive Values into Action. Forum, 47(2), 151. doi: 10.2304/forum.2005.47.2.4. Braxton, J. M. (2014). Rethinking College Student Retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. Braxton, J. M. (2016). How College Affects Students: Volume 3. 21st Century Evidence That Higher Education Works by Matthew J. Mayhew et  al. Journal of College Student Development, 57(8), 1059–1062. doi: 10.1353/csd.2016.0101. Chang, M. J. (2001). The Positive Educational Effects of Racial Diversity on Campus. In Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (pp. 175–186). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard Education. De Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Dillow, S. A. (2021). Digest of Education Statistics 2019 (NCES 2021-009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in Intercultural Education, 10, 241–266. Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial Diversity Matters: The Impact of Diversity-Related Student Engagement and Institutional Context. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353. doi: 10.3102/0002831208323278. EUA Publications. (2015). Retrieved June 16, 2021, from https://eua​.eu​/resources​/publications​/388​ :trends​-2015​-learning​-and​-teaching​-in​-european​-universities​.html.

410  Research handbook on migration and education Fredrickson, G. M. (1999). Models of American Ethnic Relations: An Historical Perspective. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural Divides: The Social Psychology of Intergroup Contact (pp. 23–45). New York: Russell Sage. Goldman, Z. W., Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2016, February). A Meta-Analytical Review of Students’ Out-of-Class Communication and Learning Effects. Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 476–493. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2015.1103293. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2017). Applied Multivariate Statistical Concepts. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2013, January). Educational Policy and the Politics of Change. doi: 10.4324/9780203349533. Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking Diversity and Educational Purpose How Diversity Affects the Classroom Environment and Student Development. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A Model for Diverse Learning Environments. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 41–122). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_2. Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino Educational Outcomes and the Campus Climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. doi: 10.1177/1538192705276548. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Migration Policy Institute. (2021, April 1). Retrieved June 16, 2021, from https://www​.migrationpolicy​ .org/. Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernández, J. S. (2005, January). Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): New Contributions With Regard to the Study of Acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 21–37. doi: 10.1016/j. ijintrel.2005.04.001. Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The Role of Perceptions of Prejudice and Discrimination on the Adjustment of Minority Students to College. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119. OECD. (2022). “List of OECD Member Countries” – Ratification of the Convention on the OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2022, from https://www​.oecd​.org​/about​/document​/ratification​-oecd​ -convention​.htm. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. (2001, 02). Making a Difference?: Institutional Habituses and Higher Education Choice. Sociological Research Online, 5(4), 14–25. doi: 10.5153/sro.548. Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2020, 10). Theoretical Considerations in the Study of Minority Student Retention in Higher Education. In Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (pp. 127–156). doi: 10.2307/j.ctv176kvf4.10. Roy, M., Lu, Z., & Loo, B. (2016). Improving the International Student Experience: Implications for Recruitment and Support. World Education Services. https://knowledge​.wes​.org​/ WES​-Research​ -Report​-Improving​-Intl​-Student​-Experience​.htm. Ruble, D. N., Eisenberg, R., & Higgins, E. T. (1994, August). Developmental Changes in Achievement Evaluation: Motivational Implications of Self-Other Differences. Child Development, 65(4), 1095. doi: 10.2307/1131307. Severiens, S., Dam, G. T., & Blom, S. (2006). Comparison of Dutch Ethnic Minority and Majority Engineering Students: Social and Academic Integration. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(1), 75–89. Severiens, S., & Wolff, R. (2008). A Comparison of Ethnic Minority and Majority Students: Social and Academic Integration, and Quality of Learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 253–266. doi: 10.1080/03075070802049194. Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Mcmullen, A. L., & Nyeste, M. C. (2014). Academic and Social Integration in the Basic Communication Course: Predictors of Students’ Out-of-Class Communication and Academic Learning. Communication Studies, 66(1), 63–84. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.856807. Skinner, M., Luo, N., & Mackie, C. (2019). Are U.S. HEIs Meeting the Needs of International Students? New York: World Education Services. wes​.org​/partners​/resear​ch/. Slootman, M. (2017, November). Social Mobility Allowing for Ethnic Identification: Reassertion of Ethnicity Among Moroccan and Turkish Dutch. International Migration, 56(4), 125–139. doi: 10.1111/imig.12406.

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive?  411 Snyder, T. D., Brey, C. D., & Dillow, S. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics 2017. Washington, DC: NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education. Statistics Netherlands. (2022, March 25). How Many People Immigrate to the Netherlands? Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www​.cbs​.nl​/en​-gb​/dossier​/migration​-and​-integration​/ how​-many​-people​ -immigrate​-to​-the​-netherlands-. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harlow, Essex: Pearson. Thomas, L. (2002, August). Student Retention in Higher Education: The Role of Institutional Habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423–442. doi: 10.1080/02680930210140257. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Second Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of Campus Culture on Students’ Critical Thinking. The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 421–441. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2000.0020. UNESCO. (2015). SDG4-Education 2030, Incheon Declaration (ID) and Framework for Action. For the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All, ED-2016/WS/28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved June 16, 2021, from https://www​.un​.org​/en​/ about​-us​/universal​-declaration​-of​-human​-rights. Waldring, I., Labeab, A., Hee, M. V., Crul, M., & Slootman, M. (2021, July 10). Belonging@VU. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://research​.vu​.nl​/en​/publications​/ belongingvu. Wolff, R. (2013). Presteren op vreemde bodem: Een onderzoek naar sociale hulpbronnen en de leeromgeving als studiesuccesfactoren voor niet-westerse allochtone studenten in het Nederlandse hoger onderwijs (1997–2010). Wong, B. (2018, April). By Chance or by Plan?: The Academic Success of Nontraditional Students in Higher Education. AERA Open, 4(2), 233285841878219. doi: 10.1177/2332858418782195. Woosley, S., & Miller, A. (2009). Integration and Institutional Commitment as Predictors of College Student Transition: Are Third Week Indicators Significant? College Student Journal, 43, 1260–1271.

412  Research handbook on migration and education

APPENDIX 28.1 Inclusion Questionnaires Social integration (alpha = 0.82) 1. I attend social activities that are organized by my study program. 2. I have good friends among my fellow students. 3. Fellow students approach me to discuss course material or course assignments. 4. I meet up with fellow students in my leisure time. 5. When my personal situation affects my studies, I discuss this with a fellow student or students. 6. When I am among my fellow students, I feel that I belong. 7. It is difficult to find fellow students to cooperate with on assignments (reversed). 8. My contributions during seminars are taken seriously by my fellow students. Academic integration (alpha = 0.62)

1. My contributions during seminars are taken seriously by my staff. 2. Staff recognize me when they encounter me in the hallway. 3. I can identify with my staff. 4. When I am in need of help with a course, I ask my teacher. 5. When my personal situation affects my studies, I discuss this with my teacher. 6. I think my staff underestimate my capacities this is (reversed).

Social exclusion (alpha = 0.70) 1. I feel uncomfortable with the dominant behavioral norms. 2. Jokes are made which make me feel uncomfortable. 3. I sometimes feel uncomfortable when I interact with fellow students who differ from me in terms of background, culture, or lifestyle. 4. I see practices that I consider exclusionary or discriminatory towards myself or others. 5. I feel that I have to debunk stereotypes. 6. I am being discriminated against by staff. 7. I am being discriminated against by fellow students. Frequency of exclusion (alpha = 0.77) How often do you observe or experience exclusion or discrimination?

1. By fellow students in class situations. 2. By fellow students outside class situations. 3. By staff. 4. By others/in other situations.

What makes a higher education learning environment inclusive?  413 Table 28.A.1  Tukey’s post-hoc test for the inclusion variables Tukey HSDa,b for social integration Inclusion clusters

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

LOI

307

HAI

400

HSI

555

HOI

516

Sig.

2

3

4

1.9191 2.3101 2.9021 3.3371 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

3

4

Tukey HSDa,b for academic integration Inclusion clusters

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05

LOI

307

2.0529

HSI

555

HAI

400

HOI

516

1

Sig.

2 2.3543

2.8788 3.0785 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Tukey HSDa,b for exclusion Inclusion clusters

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05 1

2

HOI

516

HSI

555

1.2882

HAI

400

1.3066

LOI

307

Sig.

3

1.2097

1.4343 1.000

0.849

1.000

Notes:   Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses harmonic mean sample size = 421.181. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

414  Research handbook on migration and education Table 28.A.2  Model fit indices of the inclusion model Model fitting information Model

Model fitting criteria

Likelihood ratio tests

−2 Log likelihood

Chi-square

df

Sig. 0.000

Intercept only

3867.067

Final

3547.778

319.290

36

Chi-square

df

Sig.

Goodness of fit Pearson

3527.488

3429

0.118

Deviance

3105.395

3429

1.000

Pseudo R-square Cox and Snell

0.164

Nagelkerke

0.176

415

−0.934 −0.520 −0.359 0 −0.118 0 0.035

Non-OECD Migrant students

OECD Migrant students

International students

Ref Non-Migration students

Female

Ref male

HBO

0 0.765 −0.189 0

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

One year enrolled

Ref Two years or more enrolled

0 −0.079

Ref VWO

−0.346

1.835

Confidence in Diversity Policy

−0.697

1.791

Academic Achievement

Other

−6.101

Intercept

HOI

Education abroad

B

Inclusion clusters (reference is LOI)

Table 28.A.3  Parameter estimates of the inclusion model

0.260

0.177

0.163

0.451

0.508

0.213

0.168

0.543

0.270

0.220

0.152

0.426

0.625

SE

0.525

18.645

0.235

2.387

0.462

0.027

0.494

0.438

3.711

18.079

146.119

17.662

95.301

Wald

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

df

0.469

0.000

0.628

0.122

0.497

0.869

0.482

0.508

0.054

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Sig.

0.828

2.149

0.924

0.498

0.708

1.036

0.889

0.698

0.595

0.393

6.263

5.993

Exp(B)

0.497

1.518

0.672

0.206

0.261

0.683

0.640

0.241

0.350

0.255

4.651

2.600

(Continued)

1.379

3.041

1.271

1.206

1.917

1.572

1.234

2.024

1.009

0.604

8.432

13.814

95% CI Exp(B)

416 −1.031 0.049 0 −0.050 0 0.161 −0.251 0

Education abroad

Other

Ref VWO

One year enrolled

Ref Two years or more enrolled

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

0 0.009

0.860

International students

Ref male

−0.136

OECD Migrant students

HBO

−0.735

Non-OECD Migrant students

0

0.918

Confidence in Diversity Policy

−0.233

0.548

Academic Achievement

Ref Non-Migration students

−2.332

Intercept

HAI

Female

B

Inclusion clusters (reference is LOI)

Table 28.A.3   (Continued)

0.250

0.176

0.163

0.372

0.597

0.213

0.166

0.621

0.263

0.218

0.141

0.381

0.553

SE

1.002

0.833

0.095

0.017

2.984

0.002

1.962

1.916

0.269

11.323

42.325

2.065

17.793

Wald

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

df

0.317

0.361

0.758

0.895

0.084

0.965

0.161

0.166

0.604

0.001

0.000

0.151

0.000

Sig.

0.778

1.175

0.951

1.050

0.357

1.009

0.792

2.362

0.872

0.480

2.504

1.730

Exp(B)

0.476

0.831

0.691

0.506

0.111

0.665

0.572

0.699

0.521

0.313

1.899

0.819

1.271

1.660

1.309

2.178

1.149

1.532

1.097

7.979

1.461

0.736

3.301

3.653

95% CI Exp(B)

417

HSI

−0.094 −0.521 0 −0.043 0 −0.099 0.028 −0.839

OECD Migrant students

International students

Ref Non-Migration students

Female

Ref male

HBO

Education abroad

Other

0 0.670 −0.375 0

Ref Two years or more enrolled

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

0

−0.581

Non-OECD Migrant students

0.058

0.739

Confidence in Diversity Policy

Ref VWO

1.642

Academic Achievement

One year enrolled

−2.832

Intercept

0.249

0.167

0.154

0.420

0.451

0.204

0.160

0.487

0.249

0.198

0.132

0.397

0.547

2.257

16.132

0.141

4.004

0.004

0.238

0.072

1.143

0.141

8.644

31.288

17.135

26.812

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.133

0.000

0.708

0.045

0.950

0.626

0.788

0.285

0.707

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.688

1.953

1.060

0.432

1.028

0.906

0.958

0.594

0.911

0.559

2.093

5.164

0.422

1.409

0.783

0.190

0.425

0.608

0.700

0.228

0.559

0.380

1.616

2.373

(Continued)

1.121

2.708

1.433

0.983

2.489

1.349

1.310

1.544

1.483

0.824

2.712

11.233

418

−0.200 −0.383 −1.219 0 0.115 0 0.026

Non-OECD Migrant students

OECD Migrant students

International students

Reference: Non-Migration students

Female

Ref male

HBO

0 0.604 0.062 0

Ref Two years or more enrolled

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

0 −0.029

Ref VWO

One year enrolled

−0.746

0.917

Confidence in Diversity Policy

0.685

1.243

Academic Achievement

Other

−3.769

Intercept

HOI

Education abroad

B

Inclusion clusters (reference is HAI)

Table 28.A.3   (Continued)

0.242

0.156

0.144

0.415

0.567

0.188

0.144

0.587

0.236

0.218

0.137

0.399

0.585

SE

0.066

15.074

0.040

3.235

1.461

0.019

0.637

4.305

2.647

0.834

44.567

9.706

41.455

Wald

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

df

0.798

0.000

0.842

0.072

0.227

0.891

0.425

0.038

0.104

0.361

0.000

0.002

0.000

Sig.

1.064

1.829

0.972

0.474

1.984

1.026

1.122

0.296

0.682

0.819

2.501

3.464

Exp(B)

0.662

1.349

0.733

0.210

0.653

0.710

0.846

0.093

0.430

0.534

1.911

1.585

1.711

2.481

1.288

1.069

6.028

1.484

1.489

0.935

1.082

1.257

3.274

7.571

95%CI Exp(B)

419

HSI

0 0.509 −0.124 0

Ref Two years or more enrolled

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

0 0.108

−0.888

Other

Ref VWO

1.059

Education abroad

One year enrolled

0 −0.109

Ref male

HBO

0.239

0.150

0.139

0.396

0.537

0.185

0.141

0.269

11.528

0.603

5.032

3.893

0.346

1.817

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1 1

6.096

1

1

1

1

1

0.190

0.559

0.038

0.577

2.044

8.276

0.895

Female

−1.381

International students

0.220

0.202

0.125

0.380

0.529

Ref Non-Migration students

0.153 0.043

−0.179

Confidence in Diversity Policy

Non-OECD Migrant students

1.094

Academic Achievement

OECD Migrant students

−0.500

Intercept

0.604

0.001

0.438

0.025

0.048

0.556

0.178

0.014

0.845

0.448

0.153

0.004

0.344

0.883

1.663

1.114

0.411

2.883

0.897

1.209

0.251

1.044

1.166

0.836

2.985

0.553

1.240

0.848

0.189

1.007

0.625

0.917

0.084

0.678

0.785

0.654

1.417

(Continued)

1.412

2.230

1.464

0.894

8.256

1.288

1.594

0.752

1.606

1.732

1.069

6.288

420 0 0.095 0.186 0

Ref Two years or more enrolled

University association

Non-university association

Ref No membership

0 −0.137

Ref VWO

0.142

Other

One year enrolled

−0.374

Education abroad

0 0.134

0.162

International students

Ref male

−0.426

OECD Migrant students

HBO

−0.353

Non-OECD Migrant students

0

1.096

Confidence in Diversity Policy

−0.075

0.149

Academic Achievement

Ref Non-Migration students

−3.269

Intercept

HOI

Female

B

Inclusion clusters (reference is HAI)

Table 28.A.3   (Continued)

0.242

0.145

0.131

0.456

0.415

0.177

0.135

0.449

0.217

0.195

0.128

0.402

0.566

SE

0.593

0.434

1.083

0.098

0.809

0.576

0.307

0.130

3.855

3.287

73.071

0.138

33.342

Wald

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

df

0.441

0.510

0.298

0.755

0.368

0.448

0.580

0.719

0.050

0.070

0.000

0.711

0.000

Sig.

1.204

1.100

0.872

1.153

0.688

1.144

0.928

1.176

0.653

0.703

2.992

1.161

Exp(B)

0.750

0.828

0.674

0.472

0.305

0.808

0.712

0.487

0.427

0.480

2.327

0.528

1.934

1.461

1.128

2.820

1.553

1.618

1.209

2.835

0.999

1.029

3.846

2.550

95%CI Exp(B)

29. Globally mobile professionals and school choice Khen Tucker, Miri Yemini and Claire Maxwell

INTRODUCTION Neoliberalism has been argued to shape government educational policies worldwide (Angus, 2015; Ball, 2016; Brathwaite, 2017; Davies & Bansel, 2007; Hursh, 2007). One of the tenets of neoliberalism, as articulated within education policy, is the notion of school choice (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Friedman, 1955; Windle, 2015). School choice refers to the right of parents to pursue the educational options they judge to be of most benefit to their own children. Stewart and Wolf (2016, p. 4) acknowledge in their work that ‘parental school choice, specifically, begins when families have access to multiple school options’. In the case of globally mobile professional families, who frequently relocate and change school systems, the need to choose schools happens relatively frequently. While non-mobile middle-class families have been shown to be adept at ‘playing the system’, as they have deep knowledge of their local and national education systems (Lareau, 2011; Rowe & Windle, 2012), globally mobile professional families are continually having to navigate different education systems in new and unfamiliar countries. This key distinguishing feature between these two types of middle-class families leads them to adopt different school choice strategies (Yemini & Maxwell, 2018). As the number of globally mobile professionals continues to grow (Finaccord, 2018), it is imperative to understand how school choice strategies are shaped by mobility, and how they interplay with the strategies of the local, non-mobile middle classes. Ball and Nikita (2014) identified this group of mobile middle-class families as a phenomenon needing further study, with little empirical data having been collected on them to date (Maxwell et al., 2019). Globally, mobile professionals are defined as highly skilled individuals who move around the globe working in high-tech, finance, law, management, engineering, and a variety of other professions (Ball, 2010; Beaverstock, 2005; Embong, 2000; Sassen, 2000; Sklair, 2001; Yeoh & Willis, 2005). In line with Koo (2016), we define globally mobile professionals as ‘a globally oriented, globally connected, and globally mobile segment of the middle class’ (pp. 449).

LITERATURE REVIEW: SCHOOL CHOICE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT The concept of school choice in state-funded schools draws on ‘market theory’ (Bulkley & Burch, 2011) and is rooted in a wider neoliberal approach to education that promotes a more competitive, economically oriented structure (Lynch et  al., 2012; Ball, 2012). In countries that adopt freedom of school choice, a quasi-market emerges and encompasses all school types. Proponents of school choice are guided by the belief that if all parents are given an equal opportunity to choose a school, they will all make a rational choice based on market research and objective measures. Such a context will ensure schools are more invested in 421

422  Research handbook on migration and education ensuring they provide a better educational service/product (Marshall, 2017), it is claimed. However, such arguments made by Friedman (1997) and Chubb and Moe (1990) have been challenged as making several assumptions that do not hold true – primarily that everyone has access to the same choices. For instance, Ben-Porath’s (2009) idea of ‘bounded rationality’ claims that parents’ choices are not per se ‘free’ and open choices but rather will often be limited by a family’s circumstances. Thus, working-class parents have less access to choice than middle- and upper-class parents (Ben-Porath & Johanek, 2019) because, in some cases, school choice requires that the child can be more mobile and take transport to new schools or there might be a cost in making an application to a school and securing a place (GaztambideFernández & Maudlin, 2016; Marshall, 2017). Research has found that working-class and/ or immigrant families are more likely to choose schools according to their proximity to their home (Söderström & Uusitalo, 2010), and upper-middle-class parents are better able to access specialized, publicly funded options, including Charter schools, specialist performing arts schools and specific programmes within public schools, which are often more exclusive and arguably of a higher quality (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2010; Gaztambide-Fernández & Maudlin, 2016; Yoon, 2020; Cordini et al., 2019). Thus, in practice, school choice is, as Ball (2003) explains, a middle class-phenomenon. According to Ball, it is only the more affluent parents who have the possibility of making use of a rational choice approach. In this sense, school choice may be considered to facilitate class-making strategies that reproduce social advantage (Ball, 2003; Bonal et al., 2017). Scholarship in this field asks in different contexts: Who has the choice? How much choice do they have? And is choice comparable among the different fractions of society? (Ben-Porath & Johanek, 2019). Parents have numerous reasons for choosing a certain school (Ben-Porath & Johanek, 2019; Erickson, 2017). Erickson (2017) showed that most parents prioritize their children’s academic performance over other factors. However, some parents are more concerned about issues of well-being and the pedagogical methods a school uses to cultivate intellectual development (Raveaud & van Zanten, 2007). There are also those who are more class-conscious. Leyton and Rojas (2017), for example, describe that Chilean middle-class mothers prefer their children to mix with others from a similar social class background. These mothers spoke of working-class children in derogatory terms. In other research, conducted in England, (white) middle-class parents, seeking future advantage, however, preferred urban schools with heterogeneous, diverse populations that exposed their children to cultural diversity of ‘the right kind’ (Reay et al., 2011, p. 91). Immigrant children from middle- and upper-class backgrounds are perceived by other parents as a desirable peer group, whereas immigrant children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less so (Kosunen, 2014). Kenway et al. (2017), in their study of elite schools, argue that elite schools are engines of ‘class choreographies’ (p. 9); they manufacture and reproduce social class through who has access to them and who is chosen, as well as the kinds of future subjects they create. Choice, therefore, seems to be both a product of and actively leads to the reproduction of social class. According to Bourdieu (1998), the education system constitutes a social field in which struggles over various kinds of capital take place. Bourdieu perceives education as a key source and indicator of cultural capital referring to an individual’s possession of cultural resources, artefacts, and practices that can be converted into other assets, including economic capital later. Thus, education becomes an arena in which struggles for the accumulation of cultural capital take place, and where the potential of social class reproduction can be embedded or disrupted. However, what happens when a middle-class family does not necessarily understand the

Globally mobile professionals and school choice  423 social field it enters when they relocate for a parent’s employment? Focusing on this relatively unexamined group – globally mobile professionals – we can explore more closely what priorities these middle-class families have when making their school choices. This allows for an understanding of how mobility, and lack of ‘full knowledge’ of an education system, despite often having enough financial resources, shapes school choice and the degree of ‘rational choice’ involved. Furthermore, it sheds light on processes of social reproduction in a more global context (due to these families’ mobility).

RESEARCH CONTEXT: ISRAELIS ABROAD People’s relationships with their homelands can often shape mobility patterns, desires to return, and education choices made for their children (Yemini & Maxwell, 2018). For Israelis, their relationship with Israel can be particularly critical in shaping their experiences of moving abroad and continuing bonds with their homeland (Stavrou, 2019). Many Israeli migrants identify themselves unequivocally as Israelis, wherever they live (Harris, 2015). Therefore, it follows that many Israeli middle-/upper-class expatriates gravitate towards opportunities that allow them to retain religious, cultural, and national identities, despite relocating to new countries (Gold, 2018). As Israel is an ethno-nationalist country, defined as both democratic and Jewish, and home to a Jewish majority; nationalism, ethnicity, and religion are also strong factors shaping parental school choice when abroad. For example, a recent study found that expatriate Israeli mothers preserve and promote a close connection to Israel by ensuring their children remain fluent in Hebrew, attend either a Jewish school or additional Hebrew classes, and celebrate major Jewish holidays (Yemini & Maxwell, 2018). Parents’ strong Israeli-Jewish identity shapes school choice when abroad both in terms of the need to maintain Jewish/Israeli links, but also to keep open the possibility of children and the whole family returning to Israel. Thus, the nation-state of Israel is likely to remain important in school choices abroad, while simultaneously the decision to relocate for parents’ work opportunities also opens new, more global horizons which these globally mobile families are also keen to exploit. This chapter will therefore examine which factors ultimately influence parents’ school choices the most, and whether the temporality of the families’ transnational journeys plays a role as well.

METHODOLOGY This chapter draws on data collected from Israeli Jewish globally mobile professional families, as part of a larger study on globally mobile professionals who come from around the world. We examined globally mobile professional parental choices, strategies, and educational aspirations for their children in order to understand the underlying processes of social class reproduction in a global context. This study also explored how mobility reconstructed globally mobile professionals’ perceptions of their home nation, the extent to which they considered mobility an opportunity for their children’s education and futures, and the ways in which they sought to secure different kinds of cultural capitals (Castells, 2000; Kim, 2016; Weenink, 2008; Yemini & Maxwell, 2018). Participants recruited for our study had to satisfy the following criteria: having a higher education diploma, working for multinational corporations

424  Research handbook on migration and education (usually in the technology sector), and being highly mobile.1 We recruited mainly via social media, primarily Facebook groups, including ‘Relocation, Darling, Relocation’, ‘Returning from Relocation’, and ‘Relocation with Children’. The semi-structured interviews (as per Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014) were conducted in person or via video and lasted between one and two hours. We interviewed the globally mobile professionals and/or their spouses, talking to both parents whenever possible to maintain a balanced perspective.2 We tried to ascertain the parent’s approach to education and gain insight into the decision-making process of the family unit. In this chapter we present an analysis of 15 Israeli-Jewish heterosexual globally mobile professional families, having interviewed both the fathers and mothers.3

FINDINGS: SCHOOL CHOICE For families who moved countries for work, one of the most profound decisions to be made was what school their children should attend. Not only was school choice an important decision in its own right, but it also influenced many other decisions regarding when and where to relocate. For instance, school choice sometimes determined a family’s place of residence – which neighbourhood, how much income was to be spent on schooling, and the social milieu they gained access to – through the school’s network of families. Thus, a focus on school choice in this study allowed us also to examine what Israeli globally mobile professional parents prioritized when relocating and the work they did to ensure their and their children’s needs were met. For many globally mobile professional families, uncertainty is partially embedded in their mobile lifestyles. Will their company relocate them once again or might the desire for new work challenges necessitate another move; should, and if so when, part or all of the family return ‘home’; what if a member of the family does not thrive following a move? Due to these uncertainties, global professional families developed coping strategies to try to minimize or mitigate these effects. One focus for the parents was to create continuity for the children. Some favoured Israeli/Jewish schools, enabling their children to learn or maintain a native language (e.g., studying Hebrew), some chose schools with an Israeli majority, while others opted for an environment similar to that of a typical Israeli school (e.g., a less formal and strict atmosphere), or where they felt the school mirrored what they felt most aligned with Israeli/ Jewish culture. But ultimately, each family could only make choices within what was available in the specific location they moved to. Most interesting is that the priorities driving decisionmaking around school choice for this group of parents changed as the number of moves they made increased. First Relocation: Staying Close to Home – Bounded Rationality? When relocating for the first time, Israeli mobile parents always considered the option of sending their children to a Jewish school and many of them eventually did so. In accordance with Ben-Porath’s (2009) argument, we have found that school choice is not purely based on individual preferences, but rather is inextricably linked to social, economic, and cultural factors that served to limit these choices significantly. Though the circumstances of the individual families varied, throughout the interviews, they all mentioned seeking out Jewish schools, at least when they made their first relocation out of Israel. This was the case for Naomi, a mother

Globally mobile professionals and school choice  425 of two, who relocated to Geneva. Her oldest son was born there, at the beginning of the family’s term abroad, and she decided to stay at home for a year. Then, Naomi and her husband looked for a kindergarten for their child. As she recalls: I was home with my son and then after a year, we decided that we would send him to a Jewish kindergarten – Chabad.4 We didn’t know if we were going back or staying, so we decided to sign him up. We are not religious at all so we didn’t feel that comfortable but that was the best option. But they were very open about secularism.

As stated by Naomi, although she and her husband lived a secular life, they decided to enrol their child in the Jewish orthodox system, which applies a very different perspective and set of values. When asked what made this kindergarten the favourable option, Naomi explained: ‘It was a nice kindergarten and all was well because he learned to read (Hebrew). It was quite convenient, we could go on vacation in Israel, and he could communicate’. Naomi and her husband’s first choice of school abroad was a choice that prioritized the familiar, home culture, and especially language, above all other considerations. The couple decided to settle for a system less in keeping with their own personal values and beliefs (as secular Jews) in order to maintain their home/national identity. The need for a semi-familiar environment seemed to trump concerns about mirroring family values or concerns over academic quality. Alona and Yaniv (parents of two children, who relocated from Israel to Canada, then to the United States, and were currently residing in Bulgaria), despite wanting to detach themselves from Israel and the Israeli community, still chose an Israeli school when they first moved to Canada. Alona recalls: In Canada we wanted a private school. We had many private schools in Canada in Montreal, and basically I was feeling lost. I went looking for help at the Jewish Agency.5 The school was in the same building and that’s how I found that school.

Although there were many options available to them, Yaniv and Alona decided to choose the Israeli option. This type of choice was repeated by others in the interviews. It appeared that when parents felt unsure, insecure, or simply lacked enough local information, they automatically searched for the ‘familiar’, and what felt closest to home. Maintaining a close connection to their home culture and the home language (Hebrew) was a strategy used to mitigate the disruption of their move aboard. These parents utilized the familiar to navigate their way in an unknown sphere. Yaniv emphasized the need to create a ‘soft landing’ for their children: When we moved from Israel to Canada, the child only knew Hebrew. So we were looking for a place that would give us a relatively soft landing. We were looking for a place that would have Hebrew speakers – for both the child and for us, so that we could communicate with the staff. The main consideration was a soft landing. And so we made the mistake of putting him in a Jewish private school connected to the community.

Other Israelis were not prepared for a trade-off that undermined their personal values and beliefs. This was the case for Maor and Shira who relocated to Atlanta, Georgia. Their two girls attended preschool in Georgia. In Maor’s words: We didn’t want them to go to a Jewish orthodox school. We didn’t want them to learn how to pray and we didn’t feel it’s that important for us because we come from a non-religious family, both of us. We like the religion, but we wanted to maintain our way of life.

426  Research handbook on migration and education In this case, the couple rejected the option of a Jewish orthodox school, but at the same time, they did seek out a school which they felt approximated the kind of school culture they would have found for their daughters in an Israeli school: The reason we chose this school was also the culture. When we came to the US, we thought that this school would be closer to the Israeli culture because the people there were warmer, and a little less disciplined. And the other one, a top ranked school, was very ‘robotic’… We wanted a school that narrows the culture gap.

Maor and Shira consciously rejected prioritizing academic excellence in what Maor described as a ‘top ranked school’, instead, choosing a school that would allow his children to feel more at home. This time, by trying to approximate what was familiar to their children, the couple utilized their school choice to bridge the gap between familiar and unfamiliar spheres. Other couples managed to maintain continuity and familiarity by immersing themselves in local Israeli communities. The school was often the best entry point into the local Israeli community. This was the case for Dolev and his family. Dolev worked in the hi-tech industry and relocated with his family to the United States. He recalled the reason for choosing to live in a neighbourhood far away from his place of work: Most people lived very close to the office. Weymouth is about an hour’s drive. There weren’t many Israelis who lived close to the office. We took a conscious decision to live in a place where there were a lot of Israelis. It was important for us because we thought it would be easier for us to become familiar with the Israeli local community like that.

An hour-long commute to work appeared to be a small price to pay in order to maintain their Israeli identity and immerse themselves in an Israeli community. For Dolev and his wife, school choice was part of a wider array of choices all intended to enhance their sense of community and assimilation to Israeli culture. This finding is consistent with other studies on globally mobile professionals, which have found that they form expatriate communities of sociality (Favell, 2008; Duru & Trenz, 2017). In their new homes, globally mobile professionals tend to congregate with ‘people like us’, who share the same attitudes and face the same practical challenges derived from their lack of ‘insider knowledge’ about housing, access to social services, and in this case – schooling. This tendency is characteristic of other migrant groups too, but what differentiates globally mobile professionals is that they often experience several relocations, changing their attitudes, motivations, and decision-making over time. The chronological development of multiple relocations produces distinct behavioural patterns exclusive to this group. This critical point is examined further below. Second Term: Venturing Further Afield As we were following the stories of families during their various relocations, their narratives about school choice seemed to shift when it came to relocating for the second time. In fact, the data suggests that many parents began to align their school choice considerations with the more conventional factors that research has identified as guiding middle-class decisions (Erickson, 2017). Illustrative of this, was Naomi. She had previously sent her son to a Jewish orthodox kindergarten in Geneva in an attempt to make the relocation easier on him. Later, she shifted her school choice focus to a concern with educational philosophy and personal

Globally mobile professionals and school choice  427 and academic development, as opposed to being mostly concerned with the acclimatization process. In their second relocation, which took the family to Zurich, Naomi recalls: On the richer side of the city, there were two international schools, and because the local community itself is highly influential, the local schools have to compete with the international schools raising the academic levels. The schools in the neighbourhood were very competitive, boasted high academic standards, and offered a rich extra-curriculum that really suited us. We chose the Canton school. The local education system there is very good, and highly recommended and that is the reason we ultimately chose it.

After spending about eight years abroad, Naomi’s choices started to align with traditional upper-middle-class school choices, such as recognizing the benefits of prestigious primary schooling (Maxwell & Aggleton, 2014), and the acquisition of cultural capital through extracurricular activities (Vincent et al., 2012). After choosing a school that ‘narrows the culture gap’ in the first relocation, Maor emphasized the need to build cultural capital (in this quote – English language proficiency) that would expand his children’s range of options for the future in the schools chosen following the second move: They can see things (movies, plays, etc.) in English. Now … they can listen to guided audio tours in English and it has made them more open, more international and better able to understand others.

Sigal and Natti, along with other couples interviewed, demonstrated this change in perception as well. At the end of their first relocation to Canada, the couple moved to the United States. After ‘feeling lost’ and choosing the Israeli option out of convenience, the couple chose a topranked school in the United States, prioritizing academic considerations. In Sigal’s words: ‘In the States we chose a very good school (academically)… it was ranked 5th in all of California. It was a very, very good school, and our son had great teachers’. Notably, the parents in this study, despite coming from different backgrounds, having varying educational philosophies, contrasting attitudes towards Israel, and very different relocation experiences, when it came to the subject of school choice, all reported very similar experiences, thought processes, and even articulated their decisions in very similar ways. This suggests that choices are, in fact, embedded in social class location, shaped by mobility and very homogenous. It appears that in cases of continued mobility, the parents’ need to mitigate the gap between leaving behind the home culture and ensuring a ‘soft landing’ for their children became less necessary. Furthermore, the bounded rationality that characterized decision-making processes during the first time abroad no longer limited these families since they and their children had acquired some experience in trying to navigate new local systems. Additionally, their children had become acclimatized to relocating, so now parents were more focused on ensuring their children’s future advantages would be facilitated by pursuing what were perceived to be excellent local academic programmes of study. During the second relocation, many families relied, instead, on informal education to provide a cultural link to the homeland. This was the case for Reut, a mother of two, who had spent the last 20 years moving between New York and Tel Aviv. When asked about prioritizing school choice, Reut mentioned multiple reasons, including convenient location, academic excellence, small classes, student diversity, the quality of teaching, and the school fees. Later on, Reut stated that the children went to the local branch of the Israeli Scouts:

428  Research handbook on migration and education They have been in the local Israeli Scouts for years… Scouts is a must for me… They don’t attend Jewish schools, we don’t go to a synagogue, and this is the only Israeli-Jewish tie for them. In the Scouts, they celebrate Israeli holidays together, there are special activities for Israeli holidays and events… This is an Israeli home from home here in America.

Families in the study found different ways to nurture an affinity with Israel whether through regular visits to Israel, speaking Hebrew at home, or through extra-curricular activities like the Scouts. After the initial period of acclimatization in which assimilation to the home culture was prioritized, all the families in our study then went on to find ways to combine and promote cosmopolitan values and skills, while continuing to work on a connection to their home culture.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This chapter has examined the school choices of Israeli globally mobile professional parents, who live in different parts of the world. Although the sample informing our analysis is relatively small (15 families, where both parents were interviewed), it does chime with findings emerging from other studies and has enabled us to consider more carefully small but important factors that shape the school choices of this growing social group. Critically, our work contributes to a much larger literature on school choice, from the perspective of globally mobile professional parents, and specifically those of IsraeliJewish origin. This study illustrates the intersection between social class and mobility, and its effects on school choice. We have sought to explain the school choice of individual global professional families by drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, which we found always to be at play in these decisions (maintaining links to home and first language, but then also a cosmopolitan outlook, English language proficiency, and an academically rigorous curriculum), as well as Ben-Porath’s notion of ‘bounded rationality’. Interestingly, bounded rationality is not just about what choices are available, but also within the sphere of choice, which options parents are willing to consider. In the first move – all they can think about is providing stability, an entry point that connects with the familiar in terms of language, culture, and social networks. The focus is on ensuring a ‘soft landing’. Then, in families’ subsequent moves, the focus shifts, and school choice strategies are pursued that aim to build on pre-existing cultural capitals, as well as accessing additional forms of cultural capital. This could be linked to the families’ increasing embodiment as a globally mobile family – who becomes attuned to the necessity to secure the advantages gained from their mobility for their children. This strategy is understood by all the families in our study as enabling their children to enjoy a competitive advantage in life whether ‘back’ in their own homeland or if they decide to continue living in a more transnational space. Although the journeys of the different families varied greatly, interestingly, the choices and thought processes they articulated were extremely similar. This suggests that it is the intersection between resourced social class positions and the type of mobility these families engage in that becomes the determining factor in shaping the choices. We see that school choice is shaped not only by individual preferences but also by social, economic, and cultural factors that appear to initially limit and then open up choice.

Globally mobile professionals and school choice  429

NOTES 1. We focus on families in which at least one parent, but preferably both parents, are employed in multinational corporations in middle management, are highly educated, fluent in English, and mobile. The latter refers to families who have moved country of residence at least twice within the last 15 years. Preliminary results suggest that such families meet many of the criteria used to define global professionals in the literature (Ball & Nikita, 2014). 2. See Appendix 29.1. 3. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, immediately following the data collection. All names used are pseudonyms. The interviews were conducted in English, where feasible. In some cases, primarily where the spouses’ English was less fluent, the interviews were conducted in Hebrew (if this was the interviewee’s preference). The analysis was conducted using the stages described by Thornberg and Charmaz (2014: 156–158) and included initial (open) coding followed by focused coding and then theoretical coding. 4. Chabad is an orthodox Jewish Hasidic organization. 5. The Jewish agency serves as the main link between Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world.

REFERENCES Angus, L. (2015). School choice: Neoliberal education policy and imagined futures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(3), 395–413. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2013.823835. Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2010). Is there a global middle class? The beginnings of a cosmopolitan sociology of education: A review. Journal of Comparative Education, 69(1), 137–161. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059. DOI: 10.1177/1478210316664259. Ball, S. J., & Nikita, D. P. (2014). The global middle class and school choice: A cosmopolitan sociology. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), 81–93. Beaverstock, J. V. (2005). Transnational elites in the city: British highly-skilled inter-company transferees in New York city’s financial district. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), 245–268. Ben-Porath, S. R. (2009). School choice as a bounded ideal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(4), 527–544. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00726.x. Ben-Porath, S. R., & Johanek, M. C. (2019). Making up our mind: What school choice is really about. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bonal, X., Verger, A., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Making poor choices? Demand rationalities and school choice in a Chilean local education market. Journal of School Choice, 11(2), 258–281. DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2017.1286206. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (1998). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brathwaite, J. (2017). Neoliberal education reform and the perpetuation of inequality. Critical Sociology, 43(3), 429–448. DOI: 10.3102/0002831207306764. Bulkley, K. E., & Burch, P. (2011). The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236–251. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

430  Research handbook on migration and education Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, WA: Brookings Institution. Cordini, M., Parma, A., & Ranci, C. (2019). ‘White flight’ in Milan: School segregation as a result of home-to-school mobility. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3216–3233. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019836661. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. DOI: 10.1080/09518390701281751. Duru, D. N., & Trenz, H.-J. (2017). From diversity to conviviality: Intra-EU mobility and international migration to Denmark in times of economic recession. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(4), 613–632. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1249049. Embong, A. R. (2000). Globalization and transnational class relations: Some problems of conceptualization. Third World Quarterly, 21(6), 989–1000. Erickson, H. (2017). How do parents choose schools, and what schools do they choose? A literature review of private school choice programs in the United States. Journal of School Choice, 11(4), 491–506. DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2017.1395618. Favell, A. (2008). Eurostars and Eurocities: Free movement and mobility in an integrating Europe. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470712818. Finaccord. (2018). Global expatriates: Size, segmentation and forecast for the worldwide market. London: Finaccord. http://finaccord​.com​/uk​/report​_global​-expatriates​_size​-segmentation​-and​ -forecast​-for​-the​-worldwide​-market​.htm. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Friedman, M. (1997). Public schools: Make them private. Education Economics, 5(3), 341–344. DOI: 10.1080/09645299700000026. Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2010). Specialized arts programs in the Toronto district school board: Exploratory case studies. Report of the urban arts high schools project, phase 1: Exploratory research-2007-2009. Centre for Urban Schooling, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Gaztambide-Fernández, R., & Maudlin, J. G. (2016). ‘Private schools in the public system’: School choice and the production of elite status in the USA and Canada. In Elite education (pp. 55–68). London: Routledge. Gold, S. J. (2018). Israeli infotech migrants in Silicon Valley. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(1), 130–148. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2018.4.1.08. Harris, B. D. (2015). Beyond guilt and stigma: Changing attitudes among Israeli migrants in Canada. International Migration, 53(6), 41–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00732.x. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518. DOI: 10.3102/0002831207306764. Kenway, J., Fahey, J., Epstein, D., Koh, A., McCarthy, C., & Rizvi, F. (2017). Class choreographies: Elite schools and globalization. London: Palgrave. Kim, J. (2016). Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate students’ transnational occupational trajectories. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 30–50. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1096189. Kiwan, D. (2019). Special educational needs and the global middle class: Navigating local, national and global citizenship in the Middle East. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2019.1599821. Koo, H. (2016). The global middle class: How is it made, what does it represent? Globalizations, 13(4), 440–453. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2016.1143617. Kosunen, S. (2014). Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 443–466. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2013.844859. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Race, class and family life. Second edition. A decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press. Leyton, D., & Rojas, M. T. (2017). Middle-class mothers’ passionate attachment to school choice: Abject objects, cruel optimism and affective exploitation. Gender & Education, 29(5), 558–576. DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2017.1324130. Lynch, K., Grummell, B., & Devine, D. (2012). New managerialism in education: Commercialization, carelessness and gender. Berlin: Springer.

Globally mobile professionals and school choice  431 Marshall, D. T. (2017). Equity and access in charter schools: Identifying issues and solutions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 83. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.25.2745. Maxwell, C., & Aggleton, P. (2014). Agentic practice and privileging orientations among privately educated young women. The Sociological Review, 62(4), 800–820. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12164. Maxwell, C., Yemini, M., Koh, A., & Agbaria, A. (2019). The plurality of the Global Middle Class(es) and their school choices – Moving the ‘field’ forward empirically and theoretically. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(5), 609–759. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2019.1602305. Raveaud, M., & Zanten, A. V. (2007). Choosing the local school: Middle class parents’ values and social and ethnic mix in London and Paris. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 107–124. DOI: 10.1080/02680930601065817. Reay, D., Crozier, G., & James, D. (2011). White middle-class identities and urban schooling. Berlin: Springer. Rowe, E. E., & Windle, J. (2012). The Australian middle class and education: A small-scale study of the school choice experience as framed by ‘My School’ within inner city families. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 137–151. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2012.672327. Sassen, S. (2000). The global city: Strategic site/new frontier. American Studies, 41(2/3), 79–95. Sklair, L. (2001). The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 14(1), 67–85. DOI: 10.1080/09557570008400329. Söderström, M., & Uusitalo, R. (2010). School choice and segregation: Evidence from an admission reform. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112(1), 55–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2009.01594.x. Stavrou, D. (2019). Leaving Zion – The Israeli diaspora in Europe. Haifa: Pardes (Hebrew). Stewart, T., & Wolf, P. (2016). The school choice journey: School vouchers and the empowerment of urban families. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative analysis (pp. 153–169). London: Sage. Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., & Gillborn, D. (2012). Being strategic, being watchful, being determined: Black middle-class parents and schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(3), 337–354. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2012.668833. Weenink, D. (2008). Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital: Parents preparing their children for a globalizing world. Sociology, 42(6), 1089–1106. DOI: 10.1177/0038038508096935. Windle, J. A. (2015). Making sense of school choice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Yemini, M., & Maxwell, C. (2018). De-coupling or remaining closely coupled to ‘home’: Educational strategies around identity-making and advantage of Israeli global middle-class families in London. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(7), 1030–1044. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2018.1454299. Yeoh, B. S., & Willis, K. (2005). Singaporean and British transmigrants in China and the cultural politics of ‘contact zones’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), 269–285. DOI: 10.1080/1369183042000339927. Yoon, E. S. (2020). School choice research and politics with Pierre Bourdieu: New possibilities. Educational Policy, 34(1), 193–210. DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2016.1209637.

432  Research handbook on migration and education

APPENDIX 29.1  INFORMANTS AND THEIR BACKGROUNDS Children’s age (years)

Mobility path

Occupation Israel

Occupation abroad

1.

Father

9, 11, 16

Israel – Canada – Israel – USA – Israel – USA – Israel

High-tech manager

High-tech manager

2.

Father

10, 13

Israel – USA – Israel – USA – Israel

High-tech manager

High-tech manager

3.

Mother

Road and rail engineer

Stay-at-home mom

4.

Mother

9, 14, 16

Israel – Ireland – Israel – Ireland – Israel

Graphic designer

Stay-at-home mom

5.

Mother

9, 13

(Bulgaria – England: Nati) – Israel – Kindergarten Canada – USA – Israel – Bulgaria teacher

6.

Father

7.

Mother

3, 8, 11

8.

Mother

9.

Father

Stay-athome mom/ kindergarten teacher

Electronic engineer

Electronic engineer

Israel – Nigeria – Canada

Secretary in the electric company

Stay-athome mom/ kindergarten teacher

6, 10

Israel – Switzerland (Geneva) – Switzerland (Zurich) – Israel

Graphic designer

Stay-at-home mom

12, 15, 18

Israel – Geneva – USA – Israel

High-tech manager

High-tech manager

10.

Mother

10, 15

Israel – USA – Israel – USA

Student

Psychologist

11.

Mother

15, 18, 21

Israel – Serbia – Ukraine – Israel

Lawyer

Stay-at-home mom

12.

Father

CPA

CPA

13.

Mother

18, 22, 25, 28

Israel – USA (New Mexico) – USA (Arizona) – Israel

Chemistry engineer (High-tech)

High-tech manager

14.

Father

17, 20

Israel – USA – Israel – Italy – USA – Israel (then commuting to: USA, Belgium)

High-tech developer

High-tech developer

15.

Mother

17, 20, 26, 27, 29

Israel – USA – England – Israel– England – Israel

Social worker

Stay-at-home mom

PART V BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE SCHOOL: THE TENSION BETWEEN IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION POLICIES

30. Migration and education in the media: a discourse analysis of the press in France and England Oakleigh Welply

INTRODUCTION Interest in migration and education has increased in public discourse in Western democracies in the last three decades. In the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe, negative narratives of the ‘immigrant Other’, presented as a threat to national cohesion and society, have participated in negative media and policy representations of immigrant children in schools, framed along a ‘deficit’ or a ‘securitisation’ model (Rodriguez, 2018; Welply, 2018). Against this increasingly hostile background, education is given a central, yet paradoxical role. On the one hand, schools are accused of failing integration by not equipping children with the necessary cultural and linguistic skills necessary for becoming future citizens and participating in democratic societies. On the other hand, educational systems are invested with the goal of furthering ‘successful’ integration to address the perceived rise in communitarianism and foster a new sense of national unity (Devine, 2013; Welply, 2019). This chapter critically examines the framings of migration and education in France and England in public discourse (policy and media). Historically presented as ‘polar opposites’ in terms of ‘philosophies of integration’ and approaches to ‘difference’ in school (Bertossi, 2011; Meer et al., 2009), France and England in fact present multiple points of convergence with regard to immigration and education. The colonial history and the similar social, economic and demographic contexts of the two countries shape the experience of immigrants with regard to health, employment, education and attainment levels. Moreover, the recent emergence of populist, far-right and xenophobic discourses in both countries has contributed to narratives of the ‘threatening immigrant Other’, which permeate social imaginaries around Otherness and migration. Educational initiatives in recent years have echoed wider global tensions around migration and education: trying at the same time to reinforce national(ist) values through curricular changes (Fundamental British Values in the UK; Grande Mobilisation pour les Valeurs de la République in France) whilst promoting new ways of being inclusive towards linguistically and religiously diverse school populations (Welply, 2022). As such, France and England offer a good illustration of contemporary tensions around migration and education in Western societies and the ways in which these themes are articulated in media and policy discourse.

FRANCE AND ENGLAND1 AS ‘COMPARATIVE’ CONTEXTS France and England present valuable contexts to examine media and policy discourse around migration and education. Whilst France and England present similarities in the discourses promoted by media and policy, the different contexts, cultures and values that underpin each 434

Migration and education in the media  435 country and educational system contribute to somewhat different narratives around migration and education. Examining these discourses from a comparative perspective can help shed light on the ways in which discourses around migration and education are located at the intersection of wider global, national and local discourses, and shaped by specific historical, cultural, political, social, economic and linguistic contexts. The two countries are often presented as situated at two ends of a continuum in their conceptual constructions of ‘integration’ and ‘difference’ in education, which underpin different approaches to the inclusion of immigrant youth in schools. The UK ‘multicultural model’, which advocates the recognition and celebration of differences in all areas of public life has often been opposed to the French assimilationist ‘Republican model’, which promotes ‘indifference to differences’ and a colour-blind approach to belonging as a citizen of the French Republic (Meer et al., 2009). These models, however, are contested and have undergone adaptations and transformations in each country, marked by the interplay of global trends and ideologies with national or local contexts. In an increasingly neoliberal context of education, the British ‘multicultural model’ has undergone significant transformations that put the onus on the individual or community to ‘integrate’ and ‘manage diversity’. This context of marketisation of education, which emphasises the ‘value’ of ‘education subjects’ has been criticised for naturalising inequity and shifting the blame onto the individual, the family or the community (Barnard, 2020). As such, multicultural education has been strongly criticised in academic work as a way of masking discrimination under tokenistic ideas of ‘tolerance’, which fail to address white privilege and forms of institutional and systemic racism in schools and the curriculum (Arday, 2020; Mirza & Meetoo, 2018). On the other hand, in media and policy discourse, multiculturalism has been accused of encouraging communitarianism, separatism and extremism, as well as undermining an ever-elusive ‘English’ national identity (Morgan, 2015). Such a view underpins negative media narratives about migration and education, examined later in this chapter. In France, the traditionally dominant state-centred ‘Republican model’ of integration has dominated the French education system since the late 19th century, which has meant that the neoliberal shift in education has been less pronounced than in Britain (Dubet, 2013). This model promotes the integration of pupils as future citizens within the French Republic – based on principles of universalism and laïcité (secularism). Laïcité, which refers to a strict separation between the State and the Church, formally established in 1905, has deep historical and cultural roots. It is one of the three pillars of the French educational system and holds a central position in French society. Whilst the concept of laïcité was fairly well accepted until the 1980s, it has since become a source of polarisation in French society, centred around debates about the right for young Muslim girls to wear the hijab (headscarf) in laïc state schools. These divisions around laïcité in schools underpin discourses on immigration and integration in France, with an increased focus on Islam and Muslim youth. Concomitantly, Republican ideals of universality, laïcité and equality have been criticised for masking deep inequalities and excluding pupils from immigrant backgrounds, in particular, those living in areas of socio-geographical disadvantage in the urban periphery (banlieues) (Lorcerie & Moignard, 2017). As a result, the very suitability of the Republican model of education has been called into question, although adhesion to the aims and values of the Republican school remains high amongst teachers (Dhume & Cognet, 2020). These debates around the suitability of British and French ‘models of integration’ are intertwined with the emergence of anti-immigrant discourses and are inscribed within ideas of the

436  Research handbook on migration and education ‘crisis’ of public institutions and the modern nation-state in contexts of increased mobility and diversity (Joppke, 2017). Education occupies a central position in these debates, portrayed as both a vector of integration for immigrant youth into society and a source of division and communitarianism.

THEORISING MEDIA AND POLICY DISCOURSE ON IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION This chapter is premised on the idea that discursive constructions of the impact of migration on schools in policy and media have both shaped and been shaped by the paradoxical nexus of migration and education in Western democracies (Allen & Blinder, 2018). These discursive constructions emerge from the interplay of multiple discursive spheres: global, national and local (Boltanski & Esquerre, 2022). Wider ideologies, economic and political constructs (such as neoliberalism, citizenship, belonging or national identity) are translated and re-negotiated at national and institutional levels, giving rise to specific local variations in discourses around migration and education (Devine, 2013; Welply, 2019). These, in turn, participate in shaping educational policy and practice along two contradictory axes: promoting integration with assimilationist undertones whilst seeking an inclusive approach towards diversity. In this context, it is important to critically examine the ways in which media and policy discourse contribute to overarching and contradictory narratives around migration and education. This chapter is underpinned by the notion that media discourse and representations of ‘migration and education’ are important to understand wider public attitudes towards immigrant youth in schools and resultant educational policies. However, the impact of media representations on public attitudes and policy is not causal, and caution needs to be exerted in commenting upon these possible influences. Public attitudes and educational policies that, to some extent, develop in response to these discourses, are not a linear cause-effect, but the result of the interplay between different actors and dominant discourses in specific historical, social, political and economic contexts (van Dijk, 2015). Nevertheless, unearthing general themes present in the media can be a useful starting point to reflect upon conceptual constructions of immigration in public discourse, and how these might be articulated in public attitudes and in educational policy. As such, this chapter understands the construction of media representations of migration and education as an ‘attitude object’ (ibid, p.5), that is, the idea that ‘mass media’s discursive construction of “immigration” shapes public perceptions or mental images of immigrants’ (Allen & Blinder, 2018). This chapter focuses on the analysis of French and English newspapers rather than on other forms of media (radio, TV, social media). Academic work in both countries has shown how newspapers participate in negative discourses around immigration through the use of exclusionary semantic structures (e.g. constructions of dichotomies such as ‘them’ and ‘us’) and discriminatory or xenophobic lexicon (van Dijk, 2015, p. 20; Bourdieu, 1998). Although there are many points of convergence, the ways in which these discourses are constructed in the press are declined differently in each national context. As such, a comparative lens can reveal how each national context offers specific discursive logics and thematic orientations that are, in part, shaped by underlying values, beliefs and ideologies that underpin educational systems in each country. Points of divergence and convergence can highlight specific discursive patterns, as well as semantic and lexical variations, which help understand the complex interplay

Migration and education in the media  437 between global and national media discourses, public attitudes and educational policy in each country.

DATA AND METHODS The chapter builds on a critical review of the press in both languages, covering the period 2000–2021. This included tabloid, midmarket and broadsheet press or near-equivalent press in France (weekly magazines), as the tabloid press is less prominent (see Tables 30.1 and 30.2) (Allen & Blinder, 2018). Where relevant, additional searches of the local press (e.g. Birmingham Mail, Le Parisien) were included for specific topics. The research and analysis process consisted of three main phases. First, systematic query entries were carried out for each selected press outlet over the period 2000–2021 around the themes of migration and education and other cognate terms. Searches were adapted for each language to reflect the different conceptual constructions around migration and education in each country. For example, the terms ‘banlieues’ (urban periphery) or ‘laïcité’ (secularism) were specific relevant queries for the French press, which did not have direct equivalences in the English press. Articles were selected based on the following criteria: a) they applied to the context of England or France and b) they included at least one of the following topics: educational policy, curriculum, teaching and learning, schools or student/youth experience. Second, articles were thematically coded using qualitative software – Nvivo. The most salient themes that emerged from both the English and French press were as follows: (a) school as a site of ‘social fracture’; (b) migration, education and integration; (c) migration, language and Otherness in schools; (d) migration, religion and Otherness in schools; (e) migration, securitisation and education; and (f) migration, education and national identity. Third, in order to Table 30.1  National UK press included in the study Tabloids and local press

Midmarkets

Broadsheets

The Sun

The Express

The Times

The Daily Star

The Daily Mail

The Guardian

The Daily Mirror

The Daily Telegraph The Independent The Financial Times

Table 30.2  National French press included in the study Tabloid-style news magazines

Broadsheet-style news magazines

Broadsheets

Valeurs actuelles

L’Obs

Le Monde

Marianne

L’Express

Le Figaro

Le Point

Libération Les Échos

438  Research handbook on migration and education deepen the analysis and critically examine the discursive framings of immigration and education in the press in each country, articles were further analysed through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Baker et al., 2008; van Dijk, 2015). CDA seemed particularly well suited for the analysis of discourses around immigration and education in different contexts, in that it recognises the social and political dimension of texts and the underlying ideologies, forms of domination and power mechanisms at play (van Dijk, 2015; Welply, 2018). The next section presents the main findings from this research. It examines dominant media and policy discourses around migration and education in France and England, and how these discourses are reflected in some aspects of educational policy in each country, in particular, with regard to national identity and citizenship education.

CONSTRUCTING THE ‘IMMIGRANT OTHER’ IN SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE: DOMINANT DISCOURSES IN THE PRESS Alarmist discourses about immigration in a number of Western democracies have contributed to negative narratives about the ‘immigrant Other’ in schools (Evans et al., 2020). Such fear-mongering narratives, strongly present in England and France, have been dubbed a new ‘moral panic’ by some scholars (e.g., Falkof, 2020). Whilst the notion of ‘moral panic’, first introduced by Stanley Cohen in 1972, has been viewed as problematic and is debated in the academic literature (Falkof, 2020), it is a helpful concept here to encapsulate the negative narratives and discourses around the ‘immigrant Other’ and education in England and France in the last two decades.2 British Press: Language and Religion as New Categories of Otherness In England, a negative narrative of the undesirable ‘immigrant Other’, blamed for social fragmentation and insecurity, dominates much of the written press. Although negative media portrayals of immigrants have existed for decades, in the period 2000–2021, two parallel – yet at times overlapping – discourses became prominent around immigration and education, centred around language and religion (in particular Islam) and their compatibility with ‘British’ society. Following the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and 2007 and new waves of migration from the new European Union (EU) accession countries, a negative narrative focused on migration, language and education emerged in tabloid and midmarket (and some broadsheet) press (Terenshchenko et al., 2019). This narrative initially targeted immigrants from central and eastern Europe, but over time began to include Muslim communities, building on discourses of fear of religious extremism, which intensified after 2015 in the wake of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ and terrorist attacks in Europe for which ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) claimed responsibility. Although largely led by tabloid media, this narrative of the ‘threatening immigrant Other’ permeated more mainstream press and policy discourse during that time. A narrative of threat and fear, expressed through the use of terms such as ‘invasion’, ‘surge’, ‘flood’, ‘enemies’ and ‘chaos’ came to characterise this ‘moral panic’ around immigration in Britain (Laine, 2019). This narrative has tended to portray immigrants as draining the economy, decrying the failure of ‘national borders’ and presenting images of a country ‘under siege’. With regard to education, this ‘moral panic’ was echoed in negative discourses about children from immigrant backgrounds in schools, mobilising similar lexicon to convey images

Migration and education in the media  439 of schools being ‘invaded’, ‘flooded’ or ‘swamped’ by migrant children. A glance at alarmist titles from the populist tabloid press and some midmarket and broadsheet press offers a strong illustration of this anti-immigrant narrative, which draws on language, religion and migrant status as forms of ‘intolerable Otherness’, portraying schools as sites of societal tension and fragmentation. Language, migration and education in England In the press, children with English as an additional language (EAL) have been portrayed as draining support and resources away from ‘native’ English-speaking pupils and compromising the ‘British character’ of schools (Evans et al., 2020; Welply, 2022). This alarmist discourse is predominantly apparent in two decades of tabloid press but also appears in midmarket and broadsheet publications. One aspect of this discourse is an emphasis on the ‘numbers’ of EAL pupils and the cost of this ‘influx’ in schools, as exemplified in the excerpts below: ‘Schools where children don’t speak English. HALF of all schoolchildren in many of Britain’s biggest cities do not speak English as their first language an alarming report has revealed’. (The Daily Express, 19 June 2007) ‘More than one MILLION schoolchildren do not speak English as a first language’. (The Daily Express, 2 September 2017) ‘The schools where NO pupils speak English as a first language’. (The Daily Mail, 28 January 2009) ‘£244 MILLION – That’s the staggering sum YOU pay each year to help children in British’ schools who cannot speak English. (The Daily Mail, 30 November 2014) ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION. One in five primary school children don’t speak English as their first language, official figures show’. (The Sun, 15 December 2016) ‘More than 1m UK pupils do not speak English as their first language’. (The Guardian, 21 June 2012) English not the first language in 240 schools – with five primary schools having no native speakers at all. (The Independent, 17 October 2013) Schools struggling as more pupils can’t speak English. (Times Educational Supplement, 2 April 2015)

This discursive construction of non-English-speaking immigrants creates misleading images which carry the idea of immigrants ‘flooding’ or ‘swamping’ British schools. These representations mask a more nuanced and complex reality: although the number of EAL pupils did increase in the past 15 years in England, they still represent a small proportion of the school population in England: 21% in primary schools and 17% in secondary schools in 2018 (Department for Education, 2018). Furthermore, such numbers overlook the considerable linguistic diversity and different levels of proficiency of EAL students. By establishing a distinction between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers, the discourse developed in the press participates in creating dichotomous forms of legitimate and illegitimate belonging in schools, in which students are ‘valued’ differently (Devine, 2013). Moreover, the increase in

440  Research handbook on migration and education the number of children who do not speak English in schools is presented in the press as a cause for alarm or even a ‘crisis’, a threat for ‘native English’ speakers who will receive less attention or lower-quality education, at a high cost for the taxpayer as illustrated in the excerpts below: ‘Britain’s schools are in crisis as places are “swamped” by EU children’. (The Daily Express, 7 May 2016) ‘School migrant crisis: Britain needs 1600 primaries to cope. Influx of migrants is putting Britain’s primary schools under unprecedented pressure, a study reveals’. (The Daily Express, 26 September 2015) ‘Migrant influx could cause THOUSANDS of children to MISS OUT on primary school places’ (The Daily Express, 18 April 2016) ‘Immigration fuelling primary school crisis’. (The Daily Mail, 3 April 2015)

This media portrayal of EAL pupils is located within wider neoliberal discourses around immigration and society, in which speaking English is constructed as the litmus test for migrants, as a measure of whether or not they are ‘properly’ integrated citizens, whilst the failure to ‘integrate’ is shifted to individuals and communities (linguistic, religious), as shown below. Religion, migration and education: Muslim youth in England Whilst many of the articles presented above targeted immigrants from the EU accession countries, others focus on Muslim populations, drawing on both language and religion to construct negative images of the undesirable ‘immigrant Muslim Other’. This is well illustrated in the press title below: ‘If you don’t speak English you can’t belong in Britain’ The inability to speak a host country’s language reinforces dangerous divisions in society – and it is a very reasonable requirement for every immigrant. Parents need to be able write and speak English to help their children progress at school. [This article title was accompanied by a photo which showed a woman wearing a headscarf in the background.]. (The Daily Telegraph, 27 July 2011)

This example highlights the intersection of ‘Otherness’ in discursive constructions of migration and education: a Muslim family is portrayed under ideas of ‘dangerous divisions in society’, which are associated with the ‘inability to speak’ English. This article establishes clear lines of belonging and othering, reinforcing assimilationist ideas of integration that portray legitimate and illegitimate citizens, in parallel with legitimate and illegitimate pupils (those who progress in school versus those who do not). Although similar lexicon and semantics participate in the negative discourses about immigrants and their children in schools, there is a marked shift between the economic framing of European migrants as ‘flooding’ or draining resources and the securitisation framing of Muslim immigrants as a ‘threat’ for schools and society. This discourse of threat is inscribed within wider global and national securitisation discourses in media and policy in the West (often referred to as the ‘war on terror’), which emerged in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States and the 2005 bombings in London. One particularly salient example of this negative narrative was the press coverage of the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal in Birmingham, which carries strong imagery of threat and fear:

Migration and education in the media  441 ‘Revealed: Islamist plot dubbed “Trojan Horse” to replace teachers in Birmingham schools with radicals’. (The Daily Mail, 7 March 2014) ‘Trojan Horse Jihadist plot to take over city schools’. (Birmingham Mail, 7 March 2014) ‘Islamist plotters in schools across UK’. (The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2014) ‘Trojan Horse ‘just the tip of the iceberg’. (The Daily Telegraph, 12 October 2014)

The ‘Trojan Horse’ controversy emerged in 2014 in Birmingham following the suspicion that certain religious leaders were plotting to ‘Islamise’ state-funded schools. Although these claims were debunked as false, they are symptomatic of a climate of mistrust towards Islam and Muslim youth. This narrative of threat, in great part fuelled by the right-wing tabloid press, had a lasting impact in creating a hostile and suspicious climate around Muslim communities in England. Discourses around Islam, extremism and education draw on old and new imagery of a ‘threatening Muslim Other’, symptomatic of rising islamophobia in Britain and globally (Welply, 2018). These representations are inscribed within orientalist historical representations of the secretive, untrustworthy ‘Muslim Other’ in the West (Said, 1978), as well as contemporary securitisation discourses around Muslim youth, extremism and terrorism. This securitisation discourse was manifested in educational policy through anti-terrorism measures such as the Prevent Duty, introduced in England in 2015 to encourage the early detection of radicalisation or extremism in schools and to ‘prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’ (Qurashi, 2018). These discourses of securitisation also participated in the re-nationalisation of the curriculum through the introduction of the rather controversial Fundamental British Values (FVBs) in 2014 as a way of encouraging ‘common’ belonging and promoting national identity (Elton-Chalcraft et al., 2017). These FBVs were strongly criticised as tacitly targeting Muslim youth, for example, through the established distinction between the ‘law of the land and the rule of law’ (Department for Education, 2014, p. 2; Farrell & Lander, 2019), The examples above show how the British press has participated in creating a moral panic around the ‘immigrant Other’, which draws on ideas of fragmentation, loss of ‘national’ identity and threat to security, in which education occupies a centre stage. These negative narratives construct linguistic or religious Otherness as a threat to social cohesion, which puts the very nature of British society in peril. Within this discourse, schools are paradoxically positioned as both sites of division and vectors of integration for immigrant pupils discursively positioned as ‘undesirable Others’. These media narratives of the menacing immigrant Other, driven in great part by tabloid or midmarket British press, found echoes in political discourse, intersecting with a neoliberal ideology that emphasises individual responsibility and a culture of blame. Whilst far-right party leaders directly blamed immigration policy for terrorist attacks (Henley & Jamieson, 2017), political discourse around immigration and education developed a wider narrative of ‘blame’. In 2014, Iain Duncan Smith (then Pensions Secretary in the UK government) warned that migrants who could not speak English risked changing the character of British schools (Mason, 2014), a sentiment that was echoed over the years by Prime Ministers David Cameron in 2015 and Boris Johnson in 2019 (Mason & Sherwood, 2016; Versi, 2019). This shift of blame onto individuals and communities (linguistic, religious) for their own ‘failure’ to integrate negates forms of systemic racism or exclusion in schools.

442  Research handbook on migration and education This negation of structural mechanisms and institutional racism was made apparent in the recent ‘Sewell report’ published by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities in 2021, which was charged to investigate forms of racism and discrimination in the UK and was strongly contested for negating the reality of racism in UK institutions. French Press: Republic and Otherness around ‘Laïcité’, Banlieues and Islam In France, although the tabloid press is less prominent, a similar negative narrative around migration and education has been present in media and policy discourse over the past 20 years. Whilst in the UK press, one predominant strand was the economic impact of ‘mass migration’ (with ideas of immigrants taking away jobs or draining resources), in France, the emphasis has tended to be on cultural integration and the risk that immigration poses to the values of a Republican, laïc [secular] French society (Eberl et al., 2018). Immigration has been portrayed in the more right-leaning press (e.g. Le Figaro; Le Point; Valeurs actuelles) as a ‘source of societal trouble’ and, in some cases, a threat to security (Caviedes, 2015, p. 904; Bittencourt, 2021). Discourses on immigration and education in the French press have focused mainly on immigrants from North Africa (predominantly Muslim), which constitute the majority immigrant group in France. These discourses have centred on two main interrelated axes: immigration and ‘dangerous youth’ in the banlieues (urban periphery) and Islam as a threat to the core values of the French Republican school. Immigration and anomic urban spaces: the discursive construction of dangerous immigrant youth In the French press, the negative portrayal of the ‘immigrant Other’ has tended to draw on direct associations between immigration and youth delinquency, criminality or extremism, particularly associated with the context of the urban peripheries (banlieues), which have a high proportion of immigrant families. As such, education and the role of schools have been positioned centrally in discursive constructions of immigration in France. This negative discourse on the ‘youth of the peripheries’ intensified in media and public discourse following riots in the banlieues in 2005 and the terrorist attacks in France in 2015 (Horvath, 2020). The media representation of the banlieues tends to depict these areas as urban areas with high levels of immigration, poverty, school failure and criminality (Sedel, 2014). This moral panic around the banlieues and their youth has constructed a discourse in which these urban areas are portrayed as dangerous, lawless spaces, ready to ‘burn’ or ‘explode’ and controlled by gangs led by immigrant youth (Slooter, 2019). This narrative has persisted over almost three decades, as shown by the two articles below: ‘Sarcelles [famously ‘dangerous’ banlieues in the 1990s], melting-pot about to explode’. (L’Evènement du jeudi, 18 February 1993) ‘Explosive situation in the banlieues, let’s make no mistake’. (Le Figaro, 27 February 2019)

These discourses about the youth of the banlieues mobilise images of delinquency alongside perceptions of a ‘linguistic fracture’. Media and policy discourse have been quick to associate not speaking standard French with delinquency. This notion of an illegitimate, fractured language is located within the specific contexts of immigration in the urban periphery (banlieue,

Migration and education in the media  443 cités, quartiers); in which, in addition to speaking a variety of home languages (langues d’origine), young people speak a langage des cités, a form of vernacular speech that borrows words from other languages, many from post-colonial migration (Woloff, Arabic, Roma). At times portrayed as the root of exclusion and the cause of failed integration, the ‘langage des cités’ is seen as creating a gap between two worlds, as shown in some of the press: ‘Langage des cités a factor of exclusion. The linguistic fracture between “official French” and the dialect of the urban periphery is incessantly deepening the gap between two worlds and slows down integration’. (Marianne, 7 December 2012) ‘The ghetto of words’. (L’Express, 22 January 2008)

In the last decade, this negative construction of the banlieues and immigrant youth in the press has become increasingly centred on Muslim youth, drawing on the intersection of language, socio-geographic disadvantage and religion to construct negative portrayals of a threatening immigrant youth in France. French Republican school and the ‘Muslim Other’ In more recent years, negative media narratives around immigration and education have also centred around a perceived tension between laïcité and Islam, drawing on themes of securitisation, extremism, communitarianism and threats to free speech. Since the late 1980s, the deeply entrenched debates around the wearing of headscarves in schools (affaire du foulard), presented as incompatible with the Republican principle of laïcité, have heavily contributed to a negative framing around migration, Islam and education in the press. This was intensified after the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015. Some titles in the press offer a strong illustration of this ‘moral panic’ and fear of the ‘threatening Muslim Other’: ‘The urgency of laïcité in the face of political Islam’s society project’. (Le Figaro, 28 July 2016) ‘A study confirms it: the more students are Muslim, the less they feel French’. (Valeurs actuelles, 23 February 2018)

The examples above show a narrative of a separation between Muslim populations and the rest of France, underpinned by the idea of a threat to the cohesion and identity of the French Republic and its fundamental principles of laïcité, one of the three ‘pillars’ of the national educational system in France. This dichotomous opposition between Islam and the school of the Republic underpinned a new set of measures that were introduced by the then Minister of Education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, in the immediate aftermath of the shootings in the offices of the satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January 2015, under the name Grande Mobilisation pour les Valeurs de la République (Great Mobilisation for the Values of the Republic). The stated aim of these measures was to address the tensions, fractures and inequality in society, by reaffirming the central role of schools in transmitting Republican values and defending the principle of laïcité (Gouvernement français, 2015). A year later, a new programme of citizenship education (Éducation Morale et Civique, EMC), along with a Parcours Citoyen (Citizen Pathway) was introduced in 2016, aimed at reinforcing national Republican values and identity.

444  Research handbook on migration and education This negative discourse around immigration and education is strongly present in the populist discourse of the extreme right in France (in particular, the political party Front National, now Rassemblement National) but has also permeated more mainstream policy discourse on immigration and integration. One highly mediatised example is the discriminatory remarks made by politician Jean-François Copé in 2012 about young Muslims stealing ‘pain au chocolat’ from non-Muslim French children at school during Ramadan (Le Monde, 11 October 2012). More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron’s declared a ‘war on separatism’ in 2020, directly targeted at Muslim populations. These examples are illustrative of a discourse of blame which questions the compatibility of Islam with French Republican ideals of laïcité and free speech. Macron’s tribute to the murdered teacher Samuel Paty,3 held in October 2020 at the Sorbonne as a symbol of the legacy of the Enlightenment, drew on a strong affirmation of the principles and values of the French Republic, which carried veiled critiques of Islam as a threat to the French ‘Republican school’ (Ecole de la République) (Le Monde, 2 October 2020). Similarly, a controversy around ‘islamo-gauchisme’ (islamoleftism) in universities in 2020 and 2021 divided the political, intellectual and academic spheres in France about the legitimacy of research on ‘decoloniality’, ‘race’ and gender (Le Nevé, 2021). Intersections of Otherness: youth, language and religion in schools In a national context where the majority of immigrants are from North African countries, this backcloth of hostility towards Islam has shaped attitudes towards migration and education in France. Anti-immigrant attitudes in the press tend to associate youth, language and religion as markers of Otherness and threat. Much of this negative media discourse focuses on youth and schools, perceived as cut off from French society, in a narrative which mixes language, religion and laïcité: ‘These school where nobody speaks French anymore. Hidden from the view of the political world, whole areas of the territory are slowly seceding. A worrying process with starts as early as school’. (Valeurs actuelles, 27 January 2018) ‘Racism, laïcité, religion: youth is nearly seceding from the rest of society’. (Valeurs actuelles, 12 March 2021)

This conflation of language, religion, migration and fractures in society has been present in political discourse around the teaching of what is termed ‘languages of origin’ (students’ home languages). This is illustrated by the strong resistance to the proposal in 2016 to introduce Arabic as a foreign language in primary schools in France, in fear of fostering Islamic radicalisation and communitarianism. ‘The language of the Koran will be taught as early as CE1 [third year of schooling in France]’. (Valeurs actuelles, 5 May 2020) ‘Arabic taught from CP [first year of schooling in France]: do we really want to fight communitarianism?’. (Le Figaro, 7 June 2016) ‘Luc Ferry [famous French intellectual] alarmed by the teaching of Arabic at school, “the best way to Islamise France”’. (Marianne, 7 October 2020)

Migration and education in the media  445 From this highly polarised debate transpires the fear of religious extremism and keeping Muslim youth under the control of the state. This rhetoric of control underpinned the French government’s decision in 2020 to terminate agreements with other countries for the teaching of ‘languages of origin’ (ELCO), a shift which was announced during a presidential visit focused on fighting ‘Islamic separatism’ and radicalisation. These measures aimed to limit ‘foreign influences’ on Muslim communities in France (Lemarié, 2020), a view deemed overexaggerated by a number of French scholars (Tardy, 2020). This debate around language, integration and Republican values is not new in France (Sayad, 2014). However, there has been an increased conflation of language and religion, which particularly targets Arabic-speaking Muslim populations. Apparent in these media and policy discourses around Islam, laïcité, integration and education is that, whilst ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are seldom referred to in France as categories to understand diversity, language and religion act as proxies for discriminatory discourses around the immigrant Other.

CONCLUSION In both France and England, these negative narratives of the immigrant ‘Other’ in the national press, and the central role given to education within these discourses, reveal the complex and strained relationship between immigration and education in both countries. These media discourses both shape and are shaped by public attitudes, which in turn have been manifested in political discourse and educational policy in each country. Whilst these discourses take on specific themes and areas of focus in each national context, there are a number of points of convergence in the narratives about the ‘immigrant Other’ in the French and English press: immigration as a threat to national values; a need to protect and reinforce national identity; and a focus on Muslim communities as the epitome of ‘undesirable’ immigration, which presents a security threat to schools and society. Broad political declarations have mirrored these discourses, around notions of ‘failed integration’, ‘communitarianism’ and the need to reinforce security in both countries. In different ways, the emergence of these anti-immigrant discourses is interpreted as evidence of the failure of the French and British ‘models of integration’ and, more widely, are seen as symptomatic of the crisis of the modern nation-state and its public institutions (Joppke, 2017). French and English conceptions of ‘integration’, developed in the 19th century with the idea of fostering national unity, carry assimilationist orientations and reveal the multiple forms of othering of immigrant groups that are demonised as a ‘threat’ to this idealised national cohesion. Education is positioned centrally in this narrative of the ‘threatening immigrant Other’, giving schools a paradoxical place both as sites of tension and fragmentation and the solution for ensuring successful ‘integration’ for children of immigrants. This paradoxical discursive position of immigration and education in France and England is symptomatic of discourses in a number of Western democracies. As such, this chapter holds international significance beyond the contexts of France and England. The discursive mechanisms unearthed can help understand the ways in which immigrant youth tend to be framed along ‘deficit’ or ‘securitisation’ models in the United States, Australia and elsewhere in Europe. This chapter has shown how the discursive construction of immigration and education are located at the intersection of dominant global discourses and ideologies (neoliberalism, islamophobia, negative images of the ‘immigrant Other’) and national frameworks

446  Research handbook on migration and education shaped by specific values, cultures and institutions. These underpin national educational systems, the curriculum and pedagogical practices. The narratives developed in the press are echoed in political discourse and educational policy, these different spheres mutually shaping each other. The ‘politicisation’ of news via the media (Boltanski & Esquerre, 2022, p. 10) has underpinned shifts towards the ‘re-nationalisation’ of the curriculum in both countries, with an emphasis on national values and identity (e.g. FBVs in the UK; Grande Mobilisation pour les Valeurs de la République in France). Securitisation discourses have participated in creating a general climate of suspicion, supported by counter-terrorism policy initiatives in schools such as the introduction of the Prevent Duty in England in 2015 and the reinforcement of the Plan Vigipirate 4 in France in schools in 2015–2016. Discourses of deficit around the ‘immigrant Other’ in schools have been shown, in some cases, to shape teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical practices. This includes stereotyping and over-disciplining students from specific immigrant backgrounds, increased suspicion towards Muslim students and a negative view of multilingualism, which overlooks pupils’ multiple forms of literacy. Whilst it remains for future work to examine these relationships and areas of influence in more depth, this chapter has offered a reflection on the relationship between discourses of immigration and the role of education. This is important in that it will impact the quality of the school experience of young people from immigrant backgrounds and the way they might feel included or excluded. This raises urgent questions about how educational policy and pedagogical practices can engage with new forms of migration and diversity in inclusive ways in order to overcome the discourses of othering that permeate Western societies.

NOTES 1.

This chapter refers mainly to England rather than the UK, although the terms will be used according to variations across sectors, media and academic literature where appropriate. Whilst immigration law applies UK-wide, in terms of education policy and curriculum, England is separate administratively and legally from Northern Ireland and Scotland, and somewhat separate from Wales. 2. The profile of immigrants to the UK and France has varied over time. Broadly in England, migration from post-colonial countries (in particular, India, Pakistan, the Caribbean and West Indies and West Africa) was predominant (in different forms) between 1945 and the early 2000s. After 2004, there was increased migration from the A8 accession countries (Central and Eastern Europe). In France, the majority of migration is from post-colonial migration (in particular, from North Africa, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). 3. Samuel Paty was a history teacher at a secondary school in France. In October 2020, he was murdered outside his school by an ‘Islamic militant’ for having shown caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad when teaching a class on freedom of speech. 4. The Plan Vigipirate is France’s anti-terrorism initiative. It was revised in 2016 towards a ‘reinforced security, high risk of attack’ status (Gouvernement français, 2021).

REFERENCES Allen, W. L., & Blinder, S. (2018). Media independence through routine press-state relations: Immigration and government statistics in the British press. The International Journal of Press/ Politics, 23(2), 202–226. Arday, J. (2020). The Black Curriculum: Black British History in the National Curriculum Report. L. Stennett, L. Kennedy, and B. Thompson (Eds.). https://www​.theblackcurriculum​.com/

Migration and education in the media  447 Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0957926508088962 Barnard, M. (2020). Leadership in non-white majority schools: The symbolic negation of distance. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(7), 958–974. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/01425692​.2020​ .1799753 Bertossi, C. (2011). National models of integration in Europe: A comparative and critical analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1561–1580. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0002764211409560 Bittencourt, A. (2021). Les médias « grand public » et les médias « alternatifs » face à la « crise des migrants », Communication [En ligne], 38(1). https://doi​.org​/10​.4000​/communication​.13490 Boltanski, L., & Esquerre, A. (2022). Qu’est-ce que l’actualité politique? Gallimard. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Contre-feux. Raison d’agir. Caviedes, A. (2015). An emerging ‘European’ news portrayal of immigration? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(6), 897–917. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/1369183X​.2014​.1002199 Department for Education (DfE). (2014). Promoting fundamental British values as part of SMSC in schools. Department for Education. Department for Education (DfE). (2018). Revised GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2016 to 2017. Department for Education. Devine, D. (2013). Value’ing children differently? Migrant children in education. Children & Society, 27(4), 282–294. Dhume, F., & Cognet, M. (2020). Racisme et discriminations raciales à l’école et à l’université : où en est la recherche? Le français aujourd’hui, 209(2), 17–27. https://doi​.org​/10​.3917​/ lfa​.209​.0017 Dubet, F. (2013). Le néolibéralisme, bouc émissaire du malaise scolaire. Revue Projet, 333(2), 13–21. https://doi​.org​/10​.3917​/pro​.333​.0013 Eberl, J.-M., Meltzer, C., Heidenreich, T., Herrero, B., Theorin, N., Lind, F., Berganza, R., Boomgaarden, H., Schemer, C., & Strömbäck, J. (2018). The European media discourse on immigration and its effects: A literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(3), 207– 223. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/23808985​.2018​.1497452 Elton‐Chalcraft, S., Lander, V., Revell, L., Warner, D., & Whitworth, L. (2017). To promote, or not to promote fundamental British values? Teachers’ standards, diversity and teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 29–48. Evans, M., Schneider, C., Arnot, M., Fisher, L., Forbes, K., Liu, Y., & Welply, O. (2020). Language development and social integration of students with English as an additional language. Cambridge University Press. Falkof, N. (2020). On moral panic: Some directions for further development. Critical Sociology, 46(2), 225–239. Farrell, F., & Lander, V. (2019). ‘We’re not British values teachers are we?’: Muslim teachers’ subjectivity and the governmentality of unease. Educational Review, 71(4), 466–482. Gouvernement français. (2015). Grande mobilisation de l’École pour les valeurs de la République. https://www​.gouvernement​.fr​/grande​-mobilisation​-de​-l​-ecole​-pour​-les​-valeurs​-de​-la​-republique Gouvernement français. (2021). Risques. Comprendre le plan vigipirate. https://www​.gouvernement​.fr​/ risques​/comprendre​-le​-plan​-vigipirate Henley, J., & Jamieson, A. (2017). Anti-immigration politicians link London attack to migrant policy. The Guardian, 23 March 2017. https://www​.theguardian​.com​/uk​-news​/2017​/mar​/23​/anti​-immigrant​ -politicians​-link​-london​-attack​-migrant​-policy Horvath, C. (2020). Banlieues: Realities, myths, representations. In M. Demossier, D. Lees, A. Mondon, & N. Parish (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of French politics and culture (pp. 133–144). Routledge. Joppke, C. (2017). Is multiculturalism dead? Crisis and persistence in the constitutional state. John Wiley & Sons. Laine, J. (2019). Tabloid media and the dubious terrain of migration reporting. Ethical Space, 16(1), 34–40. Le Nevé, S. (2021). Frédérique Vidal lance une enquête sur « l’islamo-gauchisme » à l’université. Le Monde, 16 February 2021. https://www​.lemonde​.fr​/societe​/article​/2021​/02​/16​/frederique​-vidal​-lance​ -une​-enquete​-sur​-l​-islamo​-gauchisme​-a​-l​-universite​_6070195​_3224​.html

448  Research handbook on migration and education Lemarié, A. (2020). Contre le « séparatisme islamiste », Macron veut se positionner entre répression et intégration. Le Monde, 19 February, accessed 19 February 2020 at https://www​.lemonde​.fr​/politique​ /article​/2020​/02​/19​/a​-mulhouse​-macron​-veut​- combattre​-le​-separatisme​-islamiste​-sans​-froisser​-les​ -musulmans​_6030026​_823448​.html Lorcerie, F., & Moignard, B. (2017). L’école, la laïcité et le virage sécuritaire post–attentats: un tableau contrasté. Sociologie, 4(4), 439–446. Mason, R. (2014). Immigration is changing character of UK schools, claims Iain Duncan Smith. The Guardian. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from https://www​.theguardian​.com​/politics​/2014​/nov​/16​/ iain​-duncan​-smith​-eu​-immigration​-schools​-changing Mason, R., & Sherwood, H. (2016). Cameron ‘stigmatising Muslim women’ with English language policy. The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2016, from https://www​.theguardian​.com​/politics​/2016​ /jan ​/18​/david​-cameron​-stigmatising​-muslim​-women​-learn​-english​-language​-policy Meer, N., Pala, V. S., Modood, T., & Simon, P. (2009). Cultural diversity, Muslims, and education in France and England. In The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 413–424). Routledge. Mirza, H. S., & Meetoo, V. (2018). Empowering Muslim girls? Post-feminism, multiculturalism and the production of the ‘model’ Muslim female student in British schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(2), 227–241. Morgan, N. (2015). Nicky Morgan: Why knowledge matters. Carlton Club. https://www​.gov​.uk​/ government ​/speeches​/nicky​-morgan​-whyknowledge​-matters Qurashi, F. (2018). The prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: Embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslim communities. Palgrave Communications, 4(17), 1–13. Rodriguez, S. (2018). ‘Risky’ subjects: Theorizing migration as risk and implications for newcomers in schools and societies. European Education, 50(1), 6–26. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Random House. Sayad, A. (2014). L’immigration ou Les paradoxes de l’altérité. Tome 3, La fabrication des identités culturelles. Raisons d’agir. Sedel, J. (2014). Les ressorts sociaux de la médiatisation des banlieues. Savoir/Agir, 28(2), 51–56. https://doi​.org​/10​.3917​/sava​.028​.0051 Slooter, L. (2019). The making of the Banlieue: An ethnography of space, identity and violence. Springer. Tardy, S. (2020). Des ELCO aux EILE: genèse et enjeux d’une transformation. Administration & Éducation, 166(2), 107–113. https://doi​.org​/10​.3917​/admed​.166​.0107 Terenshchenko, A., Bradbury, A., & Archer, L. (2019). Eastern European migrants’ experiences of racism in English schools: Positions of marginal whiteness and linguistic otherness. Whiteness and Education, 4(1), 53–71. van Dijk, T. (2015). Racism and the press. Routledge. Versi, M. (2019). Denial, obfuscation, apathy: Why it’s so hard to get Islamophobia on the political agenda. The Guardian, 6 December, accessed 9 December 2019 at. https://www​.theguardian​.com​/ commentisfree​/2019​/dec​/06​/ boris​-johnson​-tories​-islamophobia​-muslims Welply, O. (2018). ‘I’m not being offensive but…’: Intersecting discourses of discrimination towards Muslim children in school. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(3), 370–389. Welply, O. (2019). A crisis in education? An Arendtian perspective on citizenship and belonging in France and England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(6), 759–775. Welply, O. (2022). Immigration, integration and education: Children of immigrants in France and England. Routledge.

31. A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights in the context of international migration Ruth Brittle

Education is a human right and a transformational force for poverty eradication, sustainability and peace. People on the move, whether for work or education, and whether voluntarily or forced, do not leave their right to education behind. (Antonio Guterres, UNESCO, 2019)

INTRODUCTION The right to education is a fundamental right guaranteed in international law that is consistently high on the global human rights agenda. The right is the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), which emphasises inclusive and equitable quality education for all (UN, The Sustainable Development Agenda, SDG4, 2015). For migrant children, ‘access to quality education… gives fundamental protection’ (UNGA New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, 2016). But, despite a global commitment to education rights for refugees and migrants, year after year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports significant numbers of refugee children who are not in school or formal education in host states (e.g. UNHCR, 2018, 2019b, 2020). This figure has increased exponentially with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. An estimated 258 million children, adolescents and youth, or 17% of the global total, were not in school in 2019/2020 (UNESCO, 2020). For refugee children, the figures are significantly higher – 48% of school-age refugee children were out of school in 2020 (UNHCR, 2020). Most refugees live in countries neighbouring those they have fled from (e.g. Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Uganda), which already have overstretched, poorly funded education systems and struggle to accommodate large numbers of refugee children (UN Special Rapporteur, 2018; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2017). Thus, for many refugees and migrants, this internationally recognised right may seem more illusory than real (Vandenhole et al., 2011). This chapter focuses on policy approaches that seek to protect, respect and fulfil the education rights of refugee and migrant children. Different policy approaches will be required depending on circumstances and whether the children are living in an urban setting or in a refugee camp or whether they have a temporary status or have been resettled. This chapter will identify common barriers to education rights for refugee and migrant children and examine rights-based approaches to policy which seek to realise their education rights. Education is a top priority for refugees and fulfilling their education rights must form part of the response to their situation (UNSR, 2018), but also provide the foundation for future economic prospects which may include integrating into the host community, resettlement or returning to their country of origin. However, in giving effect to this fundamental right, there is a tension where states conflate this right with the value migrant children add to society both through their 449

450  Research handbook on migration and education adherence to neo-liberal values and their productivity in schools (Devine, 2013). Developing a rights-based, inclusive education policy for a migrant or refugee child sits uncomfortably between recognising the child’s education rights under international law and the securitised immigration control agenda of a state, which seeks to prevent unauthorised or irregular entry and stay, and strictly regulate the entry and stay of non-nationals. As this chapter will demonstrate, the key barriers to education rights are in relation to access to schools/education, the quality of education they receive and recognition that children are primary rights holders in this context. Children’s rights are interdependent and indivisible and a failure to protect the education rights of any child, including a refugee or migrant child, will have consequences for other rights.

DEFINITIONS A child is defined in article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), as anyone under the age of 18. There is no legal definition of a migrant, but the International Organization for Migration (IOM) defines a migrant as a person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a home country regardless of whether the move is voluntary or involuntary and regardless of the length of stay (IOM, 2019). A refugee is anyone who meets the criteria in article 1A(2) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Refugee Convention), that is, a person who lives outside their country of nationality and because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their country of origin. Children who travel alone are described as being unaccompanied or separated. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has defined unaccompanied children as children who have been separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so (CRC, 2005: para 7). Separated children are children who have been separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver, but not necessarily from other relatives (CRC, 2005: para 8). The term ‘migrant children’ is not ideal not only because of the negative use of the term by governments and media but also because it does not describe the myriad of lived experiences of children who may fall within this category. ‘Children on the move’ may be preferable, as it does not confine children to a specific category legal or otherwise. However, it does not reflect the challenges such children face after arrival or resettlement (Bhabha and Abel, 2020: 233). In addition, children who are on the move or migrant children are not a homogenous group and narrowing the category to ‘child refugees’ does not address the fact that many young people cross borders for a variety of reasons that may be unrelated to fear or persecution (Bhabha, 2016). Neither does it overcome the need to consider intersectional dimensions such as gender, religion, disability or ethnicity when developing and implementing a rights-based educational policy. What these children have in common is a ‘protection deficit’ which the state must address (Bhabha, 2016). For the purposes of this chapter, I will refer to refugee and migrant children as a group, but cognisant of the limitations of doing so.

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  451

RIGHTS OF MIGRANT AND REFUGEE CHILDREN The UNCRC (1989) is the most widely ratified UN human rights treaty (only the United States has not ratified it), which means duty bearers (states) have obligations to all children within their territory and jurisdiction. Before the UNCRC, there was ‘no recognition of a child’s autonomy, of the importance of a child’s views, nor any appreciation of the concept of empowerment’ (Freeman, 2000: 277). Since the UNCRC came into force, states recognise that all children are rights holders with civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that must be respected, protected and fulfilled. Children’s rights are underpinned by four general principles: the right to non-discrimination (article 2); the right to life, survival and development (article 6); the best interests of the child as a primary consideration (article 3(1); and the right to participation and to be heard in relation to any matter concerning them (article 12). Rights are secured through legal norms established in legally binding treaties and nonbinding declarations, global compacts and goals. These global commitments by states should underpin domestic law which provides further normative protection for children’s rights. Each human rights treaty, including the UNCRC, has a treaty monitoring body (for example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child) that monitors and evaluates a state’s compliance with its human rights commitments and implementation of the treaty in domestic law, policies and programming. The committees publish general comments that clarify the content of the rights set out in the treaty, outline potential violations of those rights and offer advice to state parties on how best to comply with their obligations. In addition, UN specialised agencies and bodies (such as UNICEF, UNESCO and UNHCR) and UN Special Rapporteurs (for example, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education) work with the UN to ensure it meets its goals and hold states to account on the implementation of rights.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION OR EDUCATION RIGHTS? Most legal instruments whether international, regional or domestic refer to a ‘right’ to education focusing on access to and availability of education. However, the right to education does not operate in a vacuum and ‘education rights’ reflects a set of interlinked rights that includes not only access to a school building or to a school curriculum but also rights to, in and through education (Verhellen, 1993; Devine, 2013). It is more accurate to talk of ‘education rights’ because the right in the UNCRC appears in two articles and confirms its role as an empowerment right (CESCR, 1999) and as a multiplier right (Tomasevski, 2006). The right interacts and is closely aligned with other rights in the UNCRC, which reinforces ‘links between access to education, the quality of education and the child’s treatment in education’ (Lundy et al., 2017) and the right has the potential to ensure a refugee or migrant child’s access to a future of resettlement, return, integration or transnationalism (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). A right to education is not confined to a social, economic and cultural right but includes elements of civil and political rights (CESCR, 1999: para 2). The UNCRC recognises the interdependence and indivisibility of both generations of rights and the right to education is an example of a bridge between the two (Courtis and Tobin, 2019). To reduce it to a single ‘right to education’ restricts this broader meaning.

452  Research handbook on migration and education

LEGAL NORMS OF EDUCATION RIGHTS Thirty years of children’s rights should have improved the lives of migrant and refugee children and enabled them to build new lives in their host communities. Bhabha’s (2009) description of migrant children as ‘Arendt’s children’ arises because they do not have the ‘right to have rights’ (Bhabha, 2009). The tension between the rights of migrant and refugee children and the immigration control policy of a state means that realising children’s rights and their best interests is challenging in a hostile environment (Brittle, 2019). A right to education was first articulated in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and this formed the basis of the education rights in the legally and non-legally binding international instruments which followed. All states in the world have signed and ratified at least one of these instruments, which means all states recognise and should respect, protect and fulfil a right to education. Table 31.1 details these and specifies the promises that have been made by duty bearers to rights holders since 1948. A treaty (Convention or Covenant) is legally binding on the state and can be a useful vehicle for influencing public policy on education. This is only to the extent that it can bridge the gap between education rights, the lived experiences of rights holders and to what extent the rights are implemented and enforced in domestic law (Lundy, 2012). Education Rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Education rights in the UNCRC adopt a holistic approach to education which allows children to develop their personality, talents and abilities to their full potential, whilst also ensuring their education leads to the realisation of other rights (article 29). Education is also referred to in other parts of the UNCRC including the right to health (article 24), children with disabilities (article 23), protecting children from economic exploitation (article 32) and children in juvenile justice (article 40). This demonstrates the interdependency and indivisibility of children’s rights and the relationship of education rights with other rights. There is no mention of education, however, in the specific provision for refugee children: article 22. However, this article obliges states to ensure that refugee children ‘receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention’. Such ‘applicable rights’ include education, which is evidenced by the CRC Committee’s General Comments, which specifically remind states of their obligations to realise education rights for refugee children (CRC, 2005: paras 41–43; Joint General Comment 4/23, 2017: paras 59–63). Education rights must be inclusive of every child, and states must provide equitable, quality education in order to fulfil the right (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006: article 24; SDG no 4). The interaction of the right to education and other rights calls for close and regular monitoring and regulation of education rights by the state, to ensure full realisation (MacKenzie et al., 2020). Article 4 UNCRC obliges states to ‘undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention’. This provision includes the development and implementation of policies that impact children and young people directly and indirectly. In General Comment 19, the UNCRC Committee defines policies as ‘all public policies, strategies, regulations, guidelines and statements, including their goals, objectives, indicators and targeted results, that affect the rights of the child, or could do so’ (CRC, 2016: para 4h). Policy development and implementation should not only be consistent with the standards in the UNCRC but should be developed and implemented in a way which is child-rights compliant (CRC, 2003). Although all states

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  453 Table 31.1  International law, global compacts and sustainable development goals on the right to education Legal instrument

Date

Relevant provision

Text

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

1948

Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Free and compulsory elementary education. Secondary education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees plus Protocol (Refugee Convention)

1951 (and 1967)

Article 22

Refugees shall receive the same treatment as nationals with respect to elementary education. For secondary and higher education refugees shall receive treatment as favourable as possible, but, not less favourable than that accorded to other non-nationals.

UNESCO Convention 1960 Against Discrimination in Education

Article 4

There should be no discrimination, including on the basis of national or social origin, in connection with the right to education. National policies should promote equality of opportunity and of treatment in the field of education.

International Covenant 1966 on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Article 13

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and dignity and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 13(2) lists five elements leading to a full realisation of the right, including free and compulsory elementary education and progressive realisation of accessible, available and free secondary education.

Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

1979

Article 10

States shall eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure equal rights with men in the field of education. There are eight areas listed in article 10 where discrimination must be eliminated.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

1989

Articles 28 and 29

Article 28: States must recognise the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity. Primary education is compulsory and must be available to all children. States are encouraged to make secondary and vocational education available and accessible to every child. Article 29 sets out the aims of education. (Continued)

454  Research handbook on migration and education Table 31.1  (Continued) Legal instrument

Date

Relevant provision

Text

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW)

1990

Article 30

Children of migrant workers shall have a right of access to education on the basis of equality of treatment with nationals of the host state. Access to public pre-school educational institutions or schools shall not be refused or limited by reason of the irregular situation with respect to stay or employment of either parent or by reason of the irregularity of the child’s stay in the state.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

2006

Article 24

The right to education without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity. States shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning.

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)

2016

No 4

States shall ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

UN Global Compact on Refugees

2018

Paras 68 and 69

States will contribute resources and expertise to expand and enhance the quality and inclusiveness of national education systems to facilitate access by refugee children to primary, secondary and tertiary education. Minimise the time refugee children spend out of education, ideally a maximum of three months after arrival.

UN Global Compact on Safe and Orderly Migration

2018

Objective 15, para 31(f)

Provide inclusive and equitable quality education to migrant children including by strengthening the capacities of education systems and by facilitating non-discriminatory access to early childhood development, formal schooling and non-formal education programmes for children for whom the formal system is inaccessible.

recognise a right to education for children, policies for educating a migrant population can be politically charged thus, states tend to avoid an overt policy for migrant children as this may suggest an acceptance that refugees and migrants may remain in the country on a long-term basis. Child Migration and Education Many children and young people are displaced several times before they cross a border and become refugees. For children whose lives have been disrupted in this manner, school is often the first place they start to regain normality – safety, friendship, order, peace. (UNHCR, 2018)

Education rights cannot be denied to a migrant child on the basis of their status or that of their parents (CRC, 2005: para 41; CMW, Joint General Comment 4/23, 2017: para 59). Full access to education should be maintained at all stages of the displacement cycle without discrimination (CRC, 2005: para 41). Education is not only an essential right for children on the move but also

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  455 provides a route out of poverty (CESCR, 1999: para 1) and a means of integrating into host communities (UNHCR, 2019a), although integration in practice may be conditional on the perceived value a migrant child adds to society (Devine, 2013). Education can provide a migrant child with stability, protection and the opportunity to gain critical knowledge and skills for a more hopeful future (UNICEF, 2017; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). For a migrant child, education develops skills that can travel with the child, impacting their future by providing space for social inclusion, peer group encounters and new cultural and language acquisition (Bhabha and Abel, 2020) In many states there are no legal barriers to accessing school places, but access to education is often hampered because of individual, social and cultural barriers (Vandenhole et al., 2011) and many structural and administrative barriers remain for refugee and migrant children in realising their education rights. These include the availability of school places, the sufficiency of trained teachers, instruction in the language of origin and the recognition of prior attainment (Vandenhole et al., 2011; UNHCR, 2019a). In addition, many children arriving in a new place are having to deal with the aftermath of a traumatic past and difficult journey whilst facing xenophobia, exclusion and stigmatisation in their new home, which has an impact on their ability to engage with school and learn (UNICEF, 2017). Economic and social rights are often limited for irregular migrants or people without status, but in many states, such restrictions do not extend to education rights (Vandenhole et al., 2011). Most states extend access to education to all children on their territory, including refugee and migrant children, but are quick to emphasise that access to the education system does not equate to access to the territory or provide a right to stay in order to access education. However, fulfilling education rights for refugees and migrants requires states to have a national plan promoting equitable inclusion in national education systems (UNICEF, 2017; UN Special Rapporteur, 2018; UNHCR, 2019a). UNICEF works in partnership with some governments to develop a national plan to encourage refugee and migrant children to enrol in school, for example, the RACE programme in Lebanon doubled student enrolment (UNICEF, 2017). But despite calls to include refugee and migrant children in education plans, budgets and monitoring frameworks, there are few states where this is implemented. There may be no official educational policy for refugee and migrant children because of the hostile environments in which they are living (Vandenhole et al., 2011; McIntyre and Abrams, 2021) or because of a misalignment of their future plans and the host state’s intentions (DrydenPeterson et  al., 2019). The lack of a national educational policy usually means there is no funding for education focused on refugees and migrants and thus the fulfilment of education rights is ad hoc and localised (McIntyre and Abrams, 2021) and often dependent on the work and advocacy of civil society (Baatjes et al., 2012). Education policy should be designed to encompass different possible outcomes for refugees and migrants and provide globally transferable skills, knowledge and capacities that benefit both the host population and the individual refugee or migrant. Any investment in education for refugees and asylum seekers needs to be balanced with investment in the national population too, which can counter arguments that governments should not invest in migrants and refugees (Bhabha and Abel, 2020).

FRAMEWORKS TO RESPECT, PROTECT AND FULFIL EDUCATION RIGHTS Education policy based on a state’s obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the education rights of refugee and migrant children may take different forms. The goal of a human rights-based

456  Research handbook on migration and education approach to education is ‘to assure every child a quality education that respects and promotes her or his right to dignity and optimum development’ (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2007: 1). Ensuring that states fulfil their obligations under international law is not the solution to all the challenges facing refugee and migrant children accessing their education rights, but it should provide a pathway to allow them to claim their rights and seek enforcement (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2007: 2–3). The 4A Approach There can be no education rights without corresponding obligations of states. Under international law, states must respect, protect and fulfil a child’s right to education (CESCR, 1999; CRC, 2001). Tomasevski, the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, set out the standards that states must meet in order to fulfil their obligations, known as the 4A framework (UNECOSOC, 1999; Tomasevski, 2001). In this framework, states are obliged to make education available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Early in her mandate as Special Rapporteur, Tomasevski stated that, ‘The essential role of the State is to set educational strategy, determine and enforce educational standards, monitor the implementation of the strategy and put in place corrective action’ (UNECOSOC, 1999: 15). This 4A framework should form the basis of education policy for all children but especially those who are refugees and migrants: Available Free and compulsory education, particularly at the primary level, are two pillars of education rights in international human rights law. A child’s right to education exists because they lack the political rights to advocate for it themselves whilst the compulsion element ensures that it is enforced on their behalf because children cannot access the means to enforce it themselves (Tomasevski, 2006). Secondary education should be made available to all, and governments should take measures to ensure that it is free or ensure that children are given financial assistance. Parents play a role in ensuring their children go to school, but for parents with insecure status, there are additional factors at play, such as finding adequate employment, housing and healthcare as well linguistic challenges (Vandenhole, 2011). States should provide functioning educational institutions and programmes/curricula available in sufficient quantity for every child within the jurisdiction (CESCR, 1999: para 6(a)). This means school places must be available for refugee and migrant children. There must be school buildings with adequate facilities, trained teachers and other professionals who can support their education. In many states, refugee and migrant children will attend local schools, as part of a national education policy. However, in large refugee camps, schools will be provided by regional NGOs or large international organisations, such as the UNHCR (see UNHCR, 2019, 2020). Accessible All refugee and migrant children should have access to school places on the basis of equality/ non-discrimination. This includes physical accessibility in terms of access to the building and access to digital technology, and economic accessibility in terms of affordability (CESCR, 1999: para 6(b)). States must ensure the progressive realisation of free education at primary and secondary levels. In many states that host refugees, particularly in Western Europe, both

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  457 primary and secondary education is free. But many refugee and migrant children cannot access education because of unfulfilled economic, social and institutional conditions and poorly developed education infrastructures in the host nation. In Lebanon, Jordan and Uganda, for example, the state is reliant on international organisations such as UNHCR and UNICEF to ensure education provision for the refugee population (UNICEF, 2017; Baatjes et al., 2012). Refugee and migrant children may be excluded from school because they do not have the correct documentation to prove residence status or have not met the criteria to access the school place (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019), but they should not be excluded on the basis of their immigration status (UNCRC, 2005: para 41; Joint General Comment 4/23, 2017: para 59). There should be flexibility in the entrance requirements, especially for refugees and asylum seekers who face challenges proving prior educational experience and overcoming language barriers. In addition, schools near them may be at capacity and travelling long distances to school is not an option because of a lack of resources. During Covid-19, accessibility to school buildings was less of an issue for refugee and migrant children, given that many school buildings closed, but for many families, barriers to accessibility have been exacerbated by the pandemic because of digital exclusion (UNHCR, 2020). States are duty-bound to address this exclusion to ensure education rights are not diminished or denied as a consequence of school closures. The lack of access to online learning and resources not only impacts children’s education rights but their right to information under article 17 UNCRC. Covid-19 became a ‘pandemic of poverty’ because responses to the pandemic have exposed gaps in access to educational provision, which impacts children’s economic and social rights and future opportunities (UNHCR, 2020). Children without status struggle to exercise and enforce their rights (Bhabha, 2009) and a migrant or refugee child will struggle to claim their rights in a hostile environment (Brittle, 2019). To navigate a claim for asylum in a complex immigration system such as that which exists in the UK is challenging enough – claiming education rights is a further hurdle that compounds their trauma. Refugee and migrant children can wait months to obtain a school place and there is a limited basis on which to challenge lack of access to a school place. Acceptable The form and substance of education including curricula and teaching methods have to be acceptable, that is relevant, culturally acceptable as well as of good quality (CESCR, 1999: para 6(c)). According to the CRC Committee, education should be child-centred, child-friendly and empowering (CRC, 2001: para 2). The curriculum offered to refugee and migrant children in schools should be of good quality and offered to all children on the basis of equality and non-discrimination (SDG4, 2015). Acceptability also covers the regulation and monitoring of what is taught and how it is taught in schools as well as covering factors such as safeguarding, health and safety and punishment in the classroom. Ideally, a school’s curriculum should reflect the cultures and backgrounds of all its learners and not just the dominant culture (Pinson et al., 2010; Devine, 2011). This is especially important for refugee and migrant children entering the school system in a new country and language. Adaptable Education should be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings (CESCR, 1999: para 6(d)). Adaptability, in essence, means that education should be adapted

458  Research handbook on migration and education to fit the educational needs of every learner. Although this does not require an individualised programme for every learner, the school curriculum should adjust to the needs of different cohorts in the school population. For many refugees and asylum seekers, this means the provision of language support alongside mainstream lessons or a separate curriculum to adapt to their needs (although segregation should be avoided). An example of a curriculum that adapts to the needs of refugee and migrant children is one based on principles of safety, belonging and success (McIntyre and Abrams, 2021). Adaptability should include an assessment of the best interests of the child (article 3(1) UNCRC), and listening and giving due weight to children’s views (article 12 UNCRC) to ensure an education programme/curriculum will meet the needs of a particular child (Tomasevski, 2006) More Than 4As? Tomasevski (2006) has since added affordability to the 4A framework, meaning that fees should be abolished for secondary education and other costs associated with accessing quality education should be reduced or subsidised by the state, including digital accessibility. Participation and agency of the refugee child is important in policy development. Tomesevski does not explicitly emphasise the importance of the student voice in the 4A model, but she does recognise that acceptability must include the student ‘vision of how their rights should be interpreted and applied’ (Tomasevski, 2001: 15). The Lundy model of participation (2007) based on article 12 UNCRC emphasises the obligation of states to ensure children of their right to express their views, alongside a right to discuss their opinions freely (article 13 UNCRC) with a commitment to give due weight to their views in line with their age and maturity. In this model, there are four dimensions to the right under article 12 UNCRC: space – children must be given safe, inclusive opportunities to express their views; voice – children must be facilitated to express their views (or not); audience – the views must be listened to; and influence – the views must be acted upon, as appropriate, and children must be informed about outcomes and understand how their views influenced and shaped the policy (Lundy, 2007). The CRC Committee also emphasise the participation rights of children in education: ‘education must be provided in a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child and enables the child to express his or her views freely in accordance with article 12 (1) and to participate in school life’ (CRC, 2001: para 8). Rights-based approaches offer solutions that not only benefit refugee children but should also enhance the experiences of host nation children. Rights-Based Approaches What is a rights-based approach? Rights-based programming has developed to support human rights implementation and broadly describes activities based on international human rights standards (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012: 76). The CRC Committee advocates for rights-based approaches in all of the social structures and communities in which children interact and which impact on the lives of children, including education. In General Comment 13, the Committee defined a child rights approach as one which furthers the realization of the rights of all children as set out in the Convention by developing the capacity of duty bearers to meet their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil rights

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  459 (article 4) and the capacity of rights holders to claim their rights… Children also have the right to be directed and guided in the exercise of their rights by caregivers, parents and community members, in line with children’s evolving capacities (article 5). This child rights approach is holistic and places emphasis on supporting the strengths and resources of the child him/herself and all social systems of which the child is a part: family, school, community, institutions, religious and cultural systems. (CRC, 2011: para 59)

This approach applies to all children, including all migrant children and should be child-centred, equitable, inclusive and participative (Lundy, 2007; Byrne, 2018). A child rights-based approach must promote and protect rights and acknowledge the importance of process as well as substance and ensure that principles such as child participation and gender sensitivity are reflected in monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and in programme implementation (Byrne, 2018). A rights-based approach to education policy for refugee and migrant children There are three elements to a rights-based approach: it must contribute directly to the realisation of human rights; human rights standards guide all activities from planning and design (including setting of goals, objectives and strategies) to implementation, monitoring and evaluation; and the activity facilitates the development of the capacities of duty bearers to meet their obligations and of rights holders to claim their rights (UNDG, 2003). A rights-based framework on education policy for migrants and refugees should link and interact with the UNCRC and the relevant standards established by the CRC Committee. The CRC Committee, UNICEF and UNESCO have all adopted rights-based approaches to aspects of decision-making in children’s lives, including education. Although none of these has been developed specifically with refugee and migrant children’s education in mind, such approaches have been used in other areas of policy and practice (for example, asylum processes: Rap, 2019). Byrne and Lundy (2019) developed a six-point framework to address gaps in a children’s rights-based approach to policymaking based on the UN’s approach. Applied in the context of refugee children’s education, a rights-based policy for refugee education should address six core areas: first, the policy should make specific reference to and embed the principles or provisions of the UNCRC, especially articles 28 (right to education), articles 29 (aims of education) and article 22 for refugee children and the four general principles. Second, a children’s rights impact assessment process should be followed to ensure that the policy has been fully ‘benchmarked’ against the standards in the UNCRC. The process also helps to increase the visibility of the UNCRC in developing policy on refugee children, to counter the emphasis on immigration control concerns. Third, the participation of children and young people is key to effective policymaking and enables rights holders to claim their rights (article 12). Thus, refugee and migrant children ought to be involved at the government and local or regional levels in the development of education policy that directly affects them as individuals and affects them as a group (CRC, 2009: para 97). This is particularly challenging for refugee children who lack equality in accessing participatory processes and face uncertainty about their future (Stalford, 2018; Chase and Allsopp, 2021). Fourth, partnership – the Committee encourages coordination and partnership between different government departments and between government and civil society (CRC, 2003: para 27). Children’s rights are interdependent and indivisible, which means that the failure to protect education rights can have consequences for accessing other rights both now and in the future. Fifth, there should be focused public budgeting to ensure there are sufficient resources to implement the policy. All

460  Research handbook on migration and education rights require resources in order to be fully realised (CRC, 2016) – assessing and monitoring expenditure is central to the realisation of rights. In times of crisis, regressive measures, such as funding cuts for education, can only be considered if all other options have been exhausted. Education budgets in many states are a significant portion of public spending, but if a budget is not specifically targeted for refugee and migrant education, then it will get squeezed in times of austerity and cuts (McIntyre and Abrams, 2021). Finally, publicity to ensure children and young people are informed about the policy. This is a requirement of article 42 of the CRC to ensure that the principles and provisions of the Convention are widely known. Publicity about how rights are being implemented develops the capacities of children as rights holders to claim their rights. Providing information to refugees and migrants about their education rights must include, for example, the availability of child-friendly versions of policy and the accessibility of information in their own language. This rights-based approach that emphasises participation, transparency and accountability (Byrne and Lundy, 2019) is firmly grounded in the UNCRC and provides a comprehensive method to develop education policy for migrant children. ‘A children’s rights-based approach to public policy can act as a singular vehicle for a more comprehensive, holistic, engaged and measured approach to multi-faceted policy issues’ (Byrne and Lundy, 2019: 369). A rights-based policy can also address the gap between inclusive access to quality education and the potential exclusion from future prospects because of an ‘unknowable future’ (Dryden et al., 2019) Inclusivity and integration Education policies should be inclusive to achieve a sense of belonging and safety and to enable refugee children to overcome barriers to accessing education, remaining in education and thriving in education (UNICEF, 2017; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019; McIntyre and Abrams, 2021). The UNCRC approach to the right to education has tended to focus on non-discrimination rather than inclusion, which Freeman (2000) points out is problematic because it legitimises segregation. However, this concern is addressed with respect to disabled children in article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and for all children in SDG no 4 (2015). The concept of inclusive and equitable quality education for all forms the basis of a rights-based approach for developing policies to realise the right to education and to ensure that all children have access to the same opportunities to fulfil their potential. Underlying this goal is the recognition that providing quality education for migrant and refugee children should benefit all children. Until the 2010s, the UNHCR’s approach to refugee education was a short-term solution based on an assumption that refugees would soon return to their country of origin or resettle somewhere else. Thus, education policy at a global level was focused on ensuring provision on a temporary basis and separated from a national education programme. However, The UNHCR’s Global Education Strategy (2012–2016) marked a new approach to refugee education, which recognised that many refugee children experience long-term displacement living in refugee camps and protracted situations. Thus, the strategy switched to focusing on the integration and inclusion of refugee and migrant children in national education systems rather than in parallel structures. The UNHCR 2030 Global Agenda for Education seeks to include refugees in equitable quality education that will benefit all learners and not just refugees. This aligns with the targets, strategic objectives and approach of SDG no 4. Integration of refugee children into national education systems is preferable because it is a pragmatic mechanism to

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  461 achieve access to quality education, develop social belonging and provide refugees with better opportunities to pursue economic goals post compulsory education (UNHCR, 2019a). The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) provides a useful approach to inclusive, quality and equitable education which recognises that discrimination, isolation or segregation from other learners and receiving education of inferior quality are barriers to a right to inclusive education (CRPD, 2016: para 3). The CRPD Committee’s approach to inclusion assists in shaping a rights-based approach to education policy for refugee and migrant children. According to the CRPD Committee, there are four aspects to ‘inclusion’ in international human rights law: first, it is a fundamental human right of all learners and of the individual learner. Second, inclusion values learners’ well-being, respects their inherent dignity and autonomy and allows them to contribute to society. Third, inclusion is a means of realising other rights and a means of achieving an inclusive society. This aligns with a right to education being a multiplier right and an empowerment right (CESCR, 1999; CRC, 2001). Finally, inclusion is the result of a commitment to eliminating barriers impeding the right – including changes to the culture, policy and practice of schools. Inclusion requires structural changes to a class, school and educational system with a commitment to continuous monitoring and evaluation. A rights-based approach to policy that ensures inclusivity and integration of refugee and migrant children into the mainstream is a step towards the fulfilment of their education rights.

COVID-19: IMPACT ON REFUGEE EDUCATION, AN END WORD Crucially, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities, highlighted barriers to accessing equitable, quality, inclusive education and compounded previous failures to address entrenched inequalities in education systems – this has had a dramatic effect on the vulnerable and marginalised (UN Special Rapporteur, 2020). In addition, the pandemic has exposed gaps in technology provision and connectivity, and access to safe water, sanitation, food and adequate housing, leading to a ‘pandemic of poverty’ (UNHCR, 2020; UN Special Rapporteur, 2020).). The increase in enrolment of refugee children in schools in the decade before Covid-19 has dramatically decreased since the start of the pandemic and could be reversed permanently, especially in relation to girls, who are less likely to return to school after a lockdown than boys (UNHCR, 2020). As states around the world reopen their economies, education policy needs to focus more than ever on inclusive approaches and implementing measures that ensure children’s rights to, in and through education. A rightsbased holistic approach to developing education policy that gives due weight to the views of refugee and migrant children and their rights will benefit all children.

CONCLUSION Examining policy approaches from both a traditional 4A approach and a rights-based approach demonstrates the importance of grounding education policy in the UNCRC, especially for refugee and migrant children. There has been little empirical work with refugee children on their education rights, which embodies a rights-based participatory approach underpinned by article 12 UNCRC. There are good examples of research with young people to obtain

462  Research handbook on migration and education their perspectives on educational experiences and using that to influence curriculum design (McIntyre and Abrams, 2021), an insight into the barriers faced by migrant children that impact their well-being (Chase and Allsopp, 2021, McGovern and Devine, 2016) and research with young people living in refugee camps and their experiences of support from international organisations (UNHCR, 2018). Despite the focus at a global level on an inclusive approach to enable refugees’ futures, at a national level, ‘access to quality education, belonging and the economic prospects central to those futures remains elusive’ (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). The dearth of research on the voice of refugee and migrant children influencing education policy partly reflects the challenges of researching with young people who have an insecure immigration status. There is often a reluctance to say or do anything which might affect their claim for asylum (Stalford, 2018) and may give false hope of a future which is not possible (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). A rights-based approach involves understanding rights to, in and through education and developing a policy that tackles the barriers to realising these rights. The 4A analysis of a state’s obligations, alongside a rights-based approach, should focus on equal access to quality education, the content of the curriculum for refugee and migrant children and ensuring that the education provided to all children creates opportunities to address the social and economic challenges facing them. Educationalists and framers of education policy must adopt a holistic approach to the education of children who migrate with or without families, forcibly or voluntarily. Audrey Azoulay highlights the urgency of securing the education rights of refugee and migrant children: ‘[i]nvesting in the education of those on the move is the difference between laying a path to frustration and unrest, and laying a path to cohesion and peace’ (UNESCO, 2019). Such children require an education that prepares them for a hopeful future that is likely to involve mobility, either returning to their country of origin or resettlement elsewhere. All children need the education and skills to prepare them for a future that is not limited by geography.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baatjes, I. M., K. Hlatshwayo, S. Mackay, Carol Anne Spreen Sibanda, and Salim Vally (2012) The Education of Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in South Africa: Report to the Foundation for Human Rights. Centre for Education Rights and Transformation (CERT): University of Johannesburg. Bhabha, J. (2009) Arendt’s Children: Do Today’s Migrant Children Have a Right to Have Rights? Human Rights Quarterly 31(2), 410–451. Bhabha, J. and G. Abel (2020) Children and Unsafe Migration in World Migration Report 2020. International Organization for Migration. Geneva. 230–251. Brittle, R. (2019) A Hostile Environment for Children? The Rights and Best Interests of the Refugee Child in UK Asylum Law Human Rights Law Review 19(4), 753–785. Byrne, B., and L. Lundy (2019) ‘Children’s rights-based childhood policy: A six-P framework’, The International Journal of Human Rights 23(3), 357–373. Byrne, K. (2018) Towards a Child Rights-based Assessment Tool to Evaluate National Responses to Migrant and Refugee Children Innocenti Discussion Paper 2018-04. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti. Chase, E., and J. Allsopp (2021) Youth Migration and the Politics of WellBeing: Stories of Life in Transition. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Courtis, C. and J. Tobin (2019) Art.28: The right to education. In John Tobin (Ed.), The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary, 1056–1115. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A rights-based policy approach to realising education rights  463 Devine, D. (2011) Immigration and Schooling in the Republic of Ireland – Making a Difference? Manchester: Manchester University Press. Devine, D. (2013) Value/ing children differently? Migrant children in education. Children and Society 27(4), 282–294. Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornell University Press. Dryden-Peterson, S., E. Adelman, M. J. Bellino, and V. Chopra (2019) The purposes of refugee education: Policy and practice of including refugees in national education systems sociology of education 1–21. Dryden-Peterson, S., N. Dahya, and E. Adelman (2017) Pathways to educational success among refugee: Connecting locally and globally situated resources. American Educational Research Journal 54(6), 1011–1047. Freeman, M. (2000) The Future of Children’s Rights Children & Society 14, 277–293. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2019) Glossary on Migration. Lundy, L. (2007) Voice is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6), 927–942. Lundy, L., K. Orr, and H. Sheir (2017) Children’s education rights, global perspectives. In D. R. Martin, P.-B. Michele, and F. Michael (Eds.), Handbook of Children’s Rights: Global and Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. Lundy, L., and L. McEvoy (2012) Childhood, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Research: What Constitutes a ‘Rights-Based’ Approach? In Michael Freeman Law and Childhood Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lundy, L., and P. O’Lynn (2019) Education rights. In U. Kilkelly and T. Liefaard (Eds.), International Human Rights of Children. Singapore: Springer Nature. MacKenzie, A., C. Bower, and M. Owaineh (2020) Barriers to effective, equitable and quality education: A rights-based participatory research assessment of inclusion of children with disabilities in Palestine. International Journal of Children’s Rights 28(4), 805–832. McGovern, F., and D. Devine (2016) The care worlds of migrant children: Exploring inter-generational dynamics of love, care and solidarity across home and school. Childhood 23(1), 37–52. McIntyre, J., and F. Abrams (2021) Refugee Education: Theorising Practice in Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Rap, S. (2019) The right to effective participation of refugee and migrant children: A critical children’s rights perspective. Working Paper Series W-2019/3 United Nations University. Stalford, H. (2018) David and Goliath: Due weight, the state and determining unaccompanied children’s fate. Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 32(3), 258–283. Tomasevski, K. (2001) Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable: Right to Education Primers No. 3. Gothenburg: Novum Grafiska AB. Tomasevski, K. (2006) Human Rights Obligations in Education: The 4-A Scheme. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (1999) General Comment No 13, The Right to Education (art.13). E/C.12/1999/10. UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), Joint general comment No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return. CMW/C/GC/4-CRC/C/ GC/23. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2001) General Comment No 1, Article 29(1), The Aims of Education. CRC/GC/2001/1. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2003) General Comment No 5, General Measures of Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. CRC/GC/2003/5. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2005) General Comment No 6, Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin. CRC/GC/2005/6. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2009) General comment No. 12, The right of the child to be heard. CRC/C/GC/12.

464  Research handbook on migration and education UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2011) General Comment No 13, The Right of the Child to Freedom From All Forms of Violence, CRC/C/GC/13. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2016) General Comment No 19 on Public Budgeting for the Realization of Children’s Rights (art.4). CRC/C/GC/19. UN Development Group (UNDG) (2003) The Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards a Common Understanding Among the UN Agencies. UN Economic and Social Council (UNECOSOC) (1999) Commission on Human Rights. Preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Ms. Katarina Tomasevski, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/33. E/CN.4/1999/49. UN General Assembly (2016) New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, A/Res/71/1. UN General Assembly (2018a) Global Compact on Refugees. A/RES/73/151. UN General Assembly (2018b) Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. A/RES/73/195. UN Special Rapporteur (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education. UN General Assembly. A/73/262. UN Special Rapporteur (2020) Right to Education: Impact of the Coronavirus Disease Crisis on the Right to Education – Concerns, Challenges and Opportunities. Report to the Human Rights Council, UN General Assembly. A/HRC/44/39. UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015). UNESCO (2019) Global Education Monitoring Report 2019: Migration, Displacement and Education – Building Bridges, Not Walls. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2020) Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education: All means All. Paris: UNESCO UNESCO and UNICEF (2007) A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. New York: UNICEF/Paris: UNESCO. UNHCR (2019a) Refugee Education 2030: A Strategy for Refugee Inclusion. Geneva: UNHCR. UNHCR (2019b) Stepping Up: Refugee Education in Crisis. Geneva: UNHCR. UNHCR (2020) Coming Together for Refugee Education. Geneva: UNHCR. UNICEF (2017) Education Uprooted: For Every Migrant, Refugee and Displaced Child, Education. New York: UNICEF. UNHCR (2018) Turn the Tide: Refugee Education in Crisis, Geneva: UNHCR United Nations (2003) Statement of Common Understanding on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Co-Operation. Geneva: United Nations (the ‘Stamford’ Statement). Vandenhole, W., E. Carton de Wiart, H. M-L. De Clerck, P. Mahieu, J. Ryngaert, C. Timmerman, and M. Verhoeven (2011) Undocumented children and the right to education: Illusory right or empowering lever? International Journal of Children’s Rights 19, 631–639. Verhellen, E. (1993) Children’s rights and education: A three-track legally binding imperative. School Psychology International 14(3), 199–208.

32. The promises of Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system and challenges for local implementation Alebachew Kemisso Haybano

INTRODUCTION In 2020, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)’s midyear report, there were 79.5 million people forcibly displaced across the world due to conflicts, violence, persecution, and other events seriously disturbing public order (UNHCR, 2020). Eighty-five percent of the world’s refugees (UNHCR, 2020) are hosted in neighboring countries, often experiencing conflict themselves, and have fragile political, economic, and educational institutions (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). With close to 770,800 refugees in 2020, Ethiopia was hosting one of the largest refugee populations globally, and the third-largest refugee population in Africa (UNHCR, 2020). In less developed countries like Ethiopia, local communities hosting refugees often experience high levels of poverty and are exposed to economic and social vulnerabilities. The focus of this chapter is the complexities that have emerged since a new refugee policy was introduced in Ethiopia in September 2016. Ethiopia is one of the countries that signed the September 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants during the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and immediately announced what is called the nine pledges. These pledges can be grouped into six thematic areas including expanding outof-camp policy, increasing access of refugee children to education, improving access to work and livelihood opportunities, providing access to documentation, enhancing social provision services, and allowing for local integration for those in a protracted refugee state (UNHCR, 2019a). Following the pledge to improve refugees’ access to education, Ethiopia committed to increasing enrolment in primary, secondary, and tertiary education for all refugees without discrimination (ARRA, 2017). The New York Declaration on refugees and migrants was adopted at the peak of the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe (Ferris & Martin, 2019; Triggs & Wall, 2020). The goal of the declaration was to address the large movement of migrants and refugees by protecting their human rights (Para. 26), offering more regular, safe pathways for cross-border movements of refugees along with more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting refugees (Para. 68, UN, 2016). In this chapter, I focus particularly on the policy for the inclusion of refugee students in the national education system in Ethiopia and the challenges associated with implementing such a major policy change, looking specifically at primary education. The UNHCR Global Education Strategy (GES) 2012–2016 institutionalized a policy of inclusion, shifting from the longstanding practice of providing education for refugees in isolated, largely camp-based, and 465

466  Research handbook on migration and education refugee-only schools (Dryden-Peterson, 2022). This shift to inclusion continues in the current UNHCR GES entitled ‘Refugee Education 2030: A Strategy for Inclusion’ (UNHCR, 2019b). Currently, close to 95% of refugees in Ethiopia reside in refugee camps located in the Tigray region, and other four peripheral regional states namely Afar, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella, and Somali. These peripheral regions are the least developed regions with respect to almost every indicator, including infrastructure, human resources, administrative capacity, and social services (UNHCR, 2021a). By exploring the tension between the official refugee policy, which emphasizes inclusion, and local contexts, which may contribute to the exclusion of refugees, this chapter aims to shed light on how the marginalization of communities in the peripheral regions of Ethiopia shapes inclusion policy and practices. This chapter deals with questions such as how the inclusion policy in Ethiopia is executed in these regions and how refugees and host communities perceive the policy of inclusion. The study focuses on two regions: Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz. These two regions together host more than 50% of the total refugee population in Ethiopia (UNHCR, 2022), residing in 12 refugee camps. The chapter begins by discussing the tension between inclusion and exclusion in the context of migration and education, focusing on how this tension unfolds in the East and Horn of Africa, where, according to the UNHCR (2021b), more than 4.7 million refugees are currently being hosted. Following this, the chapter outlines the major developments in refugee policy in Ethiopia and then addresses the specific conditions and characteristics of Ethiopia’s peripheral regions. The final sections of the chapter are devoted to discussing findings from the analysis of interviews and documents.

MIGRATION AND EDUCATION: THE TENSION BETWEEN INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION Though not a new phenomenon, due to its sheer size – 272 million migrants in 2019 (IOM, 2019) – international migration has become today one of the most complex challenges worldwide. As Adams and Kirova (2006) note, today, every nation is involved in the migratory process as a sending, receiving, or transit nation (or all the above together). Ethiopia is an example of simultaneously being a sending, a host, and a transit country for migrants and refugees, particularly from the East and Horn of Africa regions. In general, the majority of African international migrants move within the continent (Abebe, 2017; Flahux and De Haas, 2016). The complex relationship between education and migration is one of the growing areas of research in the field of international and comparative education (Arnot et al., 2013; Rao, 2010). Migration and displacement interact with education in multiple ways whereby migration can profoundly affect education and vice versa (UNESCO, 2020). Nation-states and their institutions, including education, are confronted with considerable political, economic, social, and moral challenges due to increasing international migration, and child migration in particular (Pinson & Arnot, 2020). International migration is creating an ever-evolving diversity that impacts the notions of citizenship, integration, and belonging with strong implications for national education systems (Arnot et al., 2013; Pinson & Arnot, 2020). While there is a growing body of research on international migration and migration and education in the Global North, as Bartlett et al. (2015) argue, there is often a lack of attention to South-South migration even though such migration constitutes the majority of the global migratory trends. Bartlett et al. (2015) further noted that social issues, particularly the nexus between

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  467 migration and education, have received insufficient attention in the context of South-South migration. Education systems, however, are facing new demands due to international migration and population displacement (UNESCO, 2020). In the current context of increasing international movement and population displacement, considering the magnitude of South-South migration, issues related to improving the quality of education and promoting the inclusion of migrant and refugee children into national education systems should be a central concern. Inclusion and exclusion as concepts are multidimensional and understood differently in different contexts. While the two concepts appear binary, they, however, have complex relationships. Mascareno and Carvajal (2015) show the complexities involved in explicitly defining inclusion and exclusion, stating that drawing a sharp distinction between inclusion and exclusion is not an easy task, although it may be beneficial in policymaking and implementation. The necessary first step thus can be to understand ‘the conditions of inclusion within the exclusion, and the conditions of exclusion within inclusion’ (Mascareno & Carvajal, 2015, p. 128). When it comes to the tension between inclusion and exclusion in the context of refugee education, we need to ask to what exactly refugees are expected to be included and how and what makes them feel included or excluded. Neto (2018) strongly advises the necessity of understanding precisely when and in what ways refugees feel excluded or included. Where Silver (1994) adds that belonging and inclusion are culturally constructed and thus what might be seen as an inclusive practice by policymakers can be experienced as an exclusive by refugees. Goodwin (1996, cited in Popkewitz et  al., 1999) also argues that policies and practices, like the policy for inclusion, do not always result in actual inclusion. Indeed, policies of inclusion may ultimately lead to exclusion (Popkewitz et  al., 1999). For example, there is often an underlying assumption that policies intended to include refugees in the national education systems are inclusive in their nature. Such assumptions resonate in the new international refugee policies and discourse that emphasize achieving durable solutions for refugee crises. It is also reflected in the dominant perspective on refugee camps, which, as Hovil (2016) suggests, is seen as the symbolization of refugee exclusion. However, refugee camps might be a good example that can depict the ambiguous boundaries between inclusion and exclusion (Neto, 2018). For refugees in Ethiopia, camps can present opportunities for inclusion into humanitarian support that spans from protection to food rations and access to basic health and education services, elements not easily available in the refugees’ countries of origin and for the host communities living near the refugee camps. However, in the same camps refugees’ fundamental rights, such as the right to movement and the right to work, are suspended. Dryden-Peterson (2022) articulates the tension between inclusion and exclusion in refugee education in terms of ‘structural’ and ‘relational’ inclusion. Through the structural inclusion of refugees into the national education system, access of refugees to the national curriculum, national examination, and certification can be ensured. However, these foundational efforts in policy and practice largely ignore relational inclusion in terms of accommodating what refugees bring to schools, promoting their belonging, and benefits from opportunities available in the host society (Dryden-Peterson, 2022).

AN OVERVIEW OF THE SHIFTS IN REFUGEE POLICY IN ETHIOPIA Throughout its long experience as a refugee-hosting country, Ethiopia has maintained an open-door policy. This policy, according to UNHCR (2014), is manifested in continuous

468  Research handbook on migration and education permission of access and protection, by successive governments, to those seeking refuge in Ethiopia. This policy draws first and foremost on Ethiopia’s commitment to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, as well as its commitment to the organization of the African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (Assefa, 1992). Indeed, Ethiopia has introduced national directives and guidelines for refugee management since the early 1960s (Khasiani, 1984). These directives, for example, require refugees to register at a local police station closer to their point of entry, hand over their arms (if any), and undertake an oath not to get involved in any political activity in Ethiopia (Khasiani, 1984). The refugee management approach of the Ethiopian government in the 1960s and early 1970s was to integrate refugees into local communities. Cultivable land was provided in the Gambella region for those with rural and agricultural backgrounds, and employment opportunities were arranged for educated refugees (Khasiani, 1984). However, at the turn of the century, this policy approach changed. In 2004, Ethiopia introduced the first refugee proclamation – proclamation number 409/2004. Article 21(2) of the proclamation authorizes the head of the Ethiopian national intelligence and security services (NISS) to designate areas where refugees and asylum seekers must live, thereby imposing an encampment for refugees. In addition, the Ethiopian foreign relations and national security policy is often cited as a policy framework for hosting and treating refugees (ARRA, 2012). Overcoming longstanding mistrust in people in neighboring countries was one of the principles of the 2002 foreign relations and national security policy of Ethiopia. The policy aspires to achieve security through strengthening what is called peopleto-people relations between Ethiopia and its neighbors, and the refugee policy of Ethiopia is often explained as part of this foreign policy aspiration (ARRA, 2012). Ethiopia started relaxing its strict refugee encampment policy in 2010 with the introduction of what came to be known as an out-of-camp scheme. This scheme was initially extended only to Eritrean refugees due to their historic ties with Ethiopia. The scheme was meant to allow Eritrean refugees to reside outside refugee camps in any city of their choosing provided that they can willingly withdraw from the UNHCR refugee substance support program by demonstrating a reasonable means to support themselves, either through relatives in Ethiopia or remittances from abroad (Haybano, 2016; Riggan & Pool, 2019). In 2016, Ethiopia took additional steps toward a more progressive refugee policy. The nine pledges Ethiopia announced during the New York Declaration required the country to explore more options to include refugees in the national development plans (Abebe, 2018). The UNGA, while adopting the New York Declaration, called UNHCR and its member states to agree on two compacts among which is the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) (UN, 2016). Following the call, in February 2017, Ethiopia agreed to be the CRRF pilot country (ARRA, 2017). The CRRF in Ethiopia was mainly developed as a vehicle for implementing the nine pledges (Graham & Miller, 2021). One of the incentives for this major refugee policy shift in Ethiopia was the country’s eligibility in 2017 for the World Bank IDA regional sub-window for refugees and host communities that provides dedicated funding for low-income countries hosting a large number of refugees (Graham & Miller, 2021; Nigussie & Carver, 2019; World Bank, 2021). Through the implementation of CRRF, Ethiopia sought a more sustainable response to refugees that promotes their self-reliance and local integration. This approach combines wider support to host communities, fostering peaceful coexistence between refugees and the host community, and greater integration of refugees in the national development plans

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  469 (UNHCR, 2018). Education, specifically educational inclusion policy, was identified as a key element for such an integrational approach in Ethiopia and one of the areas for financial assistance through the World Bank IDA regional sub-window for refugees and host communities (World Bank, 2021). Following the pledges and the signing of the CRRF, the Ethiopian government has introduced multiple policy documents to facilitate the implementation of the new refugee policy. Specifically, to refugee education, Ethiopia signed in 2017 the Djibouti Declaration on refugee education, agreeing ‘to integrate refugees into national education policies, strategies, programs, and plans of action’ (IGAD, 2017, p. 3). After years of negotiation, in 2019, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between the Ministry of Education (MoE) and ARRA. The MoU was meant to clarify the roles and mandates of these two government bureaucracies for refugee education and to strengthen coordination (MoE, 2019). The most significant development, however, was the revised refugee legislation, which was passed by the Ethiopian parliament in January 2019 under proclamation number 1110/2019. The new refugee proclamation is hailed for its provisions to effectively convert the nine pledges and the ideas of the CRRF into national law (Binkert et al., 2021). The proclamation in article 24(1) accords every recognized refugee and asylum seeker the same treatment as given to Ethiopian nationals with respect to access to pre-primary and primary education. Ensuring the inclusion of refugees into the national education system is not a straightforward task and can be affected by geography, history, resources, and regional capacity. Although Ethiopia signed the CRRF, so far, by and large, parallel service provisions for refugees and the host community in education persist, rather than having refugees and national children share schools in and around refugee camps (Crawfor & O’Callaghan, 2019). This is a result of multiple factors but most importantly it reflects the challenges faced by the peripheral regions hosting the majority of refugees in implementing the new educational inclusion policy. The peripheral regions that are hosting refugees in Ethiopia are not only remote geographically but also far removed from the center of political power. These are regions incorporated into the imperial state of Ethiopia only in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through conquest (Clapham, 2019; Markakis, 2011). What best explains their periphery status in the power structure in Ethiopia is their exclusion from essential state resources and loss of native resources through appropriation and the transfer of resources to the center (Markakis, 2011). These peripheries can also be considered as national frontiers that create a sort of buffer zone between the state and the hostile neighboring countries with which Ethiopia has borders and other conflicts. Vemuru et al. (2020) further noted that the peripheral regions in Ethiopia hosting refugees have poor state infrastructure and limited access to basic services including education. Modern education in the form of a national curriculum and provisions sponsored by the central government had a very late and slow start in the peripheral regions of Ethiopia that are hosting refugees. In Gambella, for example, the first state primary school was opened only in the 1940s, and the first secondary school in 1972 (Fayissa, 2010). Humanitarian support to refugees that included education had brought better educational opportunities for the local population in the peripheries, particularly in Gambella (Fayissa, 2010). The World Bank (2021) reports that currently, issues of equity in education are severe challenges in the peripheral regions. For example, in the 2016/2017 academic year, while in Addis Ababa 80% of those enrolled in grade five completed their primary education, the proportion in the Gambella region was only 49%.

470  Research handbook on migration and education

METHODOLOGY This study draws on the analysis of the Ethiopian refugee policy and other strategy documents as well as interviews with key informants. A total of 33 interviews were conducted in 2018 and 2019. Five interviews were conducted with staff members from the Agency for Refugee and Returnee Affairs (ARRA) – a semi-autonomous Ethiopian government agency responsible for refugee affairs and an additional ten with staff from the Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regional education bureaus (REB) and district education offices. Six interviews were conducted with staff from international organizations working in the area of refugee education in both regions and 12 with parents from refugee and host communities in both regions. Semi-structured interview guides were used to generate data. Interviews with the experts working on refugee education focused mainly on the roles the organization plays in refugee education, the mechanisms of coordination between organizations and stakeholders, and opportunities, tensions, and controversies that emerged and/or were anticipated during the implementation of the inclusion policy. Interviews with parents particularly emphasized the experiences of separate educational provision for refugees, their experience of the host community, and the anticipations of benefits and costs of the inclusion policy. While interviews with parents were conducted in local languages using interpreters, interviews with experts in various organizations were conducted in Amharic or English. The first step of the analysis was a repeated reading of field notes and transcripts to understand the data and identify emergent themes. Thematic analysis was then used to identify two interrelated factors shaping the tension between inclusion and exclusion in the peripheral regions of Ethiopia hosting refugees: bureaucratic setups for managing education and the relationship between ethnic groups and the challenges and possibilities of inclusion.

FINDINGS A closer look into what inclusion in the national education system means for refugees and the host community reveals the tension between inclusion and exclusion in the peripheral regions hosting refugees in Ethiopia. Several factors challenge the implementation of the new policy for the inclusion of refugees. The new policy has drawn attention to the bureaucratic arrangements for refugee education as one of the challenges to the inclusion of refugees into the national education system. In Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions, poverty, intra and inter-ethnic relations, and perceptions of benefits and costs of inclusion have shaped the tension between the inclusion of refugees into the national education system and their exclusion from it, in multiple ways. The interplay between these factors thus poses a challenge for the bureaucratic coordination of refugee integration and the conflicting perceptions of integration among refugee and host communities. These two aspects slowed the implementation of the policy of the educational inclusion of refugees. The following sections elaborate on these challenges.

PARALLEL BUREAUCRATIC PATHS FOR MANAGING REFUGEES’ AND HOST COMMUNITIES’ EDUCATION In Ethiopia, education for refugee and national children is managed by two parallel bureaucratic entities. Refugee education is managed by ARRA and the education of national children

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  471 is managed by MoE (Carver, 2020; Haybano, 2016; Wales et al., 2020). The vision of the new refugee policy requires, as one interviewee from the government refugee agency noted, ‘abolishing of this parallel bureaucratic arrangement’ and the inclusion of refugees in the national education system run by the MoE. However, there are different opinions as to which of the two bureaucratic organizations has the capacity and expertise to properly execute the new policy. The implementation of the new policy led to a dispute between the MoE and ARRA on who has the mandate over refugee education. This controversy led ARRA and MoE to sign a memorandum of understanding in 2019 (the details of which are discussed later on). Capacity and Expertise The need for the memorandum was a result of ARRA and MoE staff having different perspectives on the capacities and expertise of their respective organizations in the area of refugee education. These different perspectives were well reflected in the interview data. ARRA staff argued for the relevance of their organization for refugee education in several ways. They argued that regional education bureaus (REB) and district education offices in peripheral regions, like Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz, may lack expertise in issues of security and protection that are essential for providing services for refugees. ARRA staff from the Benishangul Gumuz region, for instance, stated that ‘there are additional security and protection standards we consider during provision of pre-primary and primary education.’ In addition, ARRA doubts the capacity of REBs and district education offices to deal with the sheer size of the refugee student population and the resources needed to integrate them. Referring to Itang special district in the Gambella region, ARRA staff noted that ‘the capacity of refugees hosting peripheral regions is a point of worry. If you go to Itang woreda [district] that hosts more than 200,000 refugees, I am worried about the implementation capacity of REB there.’ According to the Ethiopian Central Statistics Agency (CSA) population projection for 2021, in the Itang district, the total local population was 54,022 (CSA, 2021) while the total refugee population was 224,500 (UNHCR, 2022). This data strengthens the ARRA officer’s concerns about the REBs absorption capacity of refugees in some districts. Refugee camps in the Benishangul Gumuz region host refugees from multiple national origins including South Sudan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Uganda with diverse language backgrounds (Vemuru et al., 2020). This, according to ARRA staff in the region, complicates the process of integrating refugees into the national education system where REB lacks the experience of such cultural and linguistic diversity. However, staff from REB and district education offices in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions dispute the capacity of ARRA to manage education for refugees. REB staff from Benishangul Gumuz, for instance, commented on ARRA’s technical capacity to manage education, highlighting that ARRA has ‘one education officer and a single person cannot be an expert on all issues of education including curriculum, assessment, teacher training, and education leadership.’ A staff member from a district education office in the Gambella region echoed similar concerns with the ARRA capacity noting that ‘leading the whole education sector using a single officer is inadequate, I think.’ A staff member of a UN organization in Gambella suggested too that ARRA lacks professional educational staff, which compromises their capacity to adequality address the inclusion of refugee children in education. He stated that: ‘ARRA is an organization with big responsibility without adequate professional staff.’ Indeed, the ARRA has only one educational officer at the head office and one educational officer at each of the ARRA zonal offices in the refugee-hosting regions.

472  Research handbook on migration and education However, in both Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions, REB staff also pointed out the need to allocate sufficient resources that can enable them to manage the additional responsibility of including refugee children in mainstream education. For instance, REB staff from Benishangul Gumuz suggested that ‘inclusion brings additional burden, and this requires additional financial resources.’ Despite the concerns of REB and district education staff in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regarding the capacity of ARRA to manage education, they too lack the capacity to address the challenge of integrating refugee children by themselves. Thus, the MoU that was signed in 2019 between ARRA and the MoE institutionalized the parallel bureaucratic responsibility for refugee and host community education in Ethiopia as discussed in the next section. Disputing the Mandate over Refugee Education The lack of shared understanding of what inclusion means in practice and the lack of clarity of who has the mandate on the education of refugees challenges the implementation of the new policy of the inclusion of refugee children into the national education system. Both ARRA and the MoE claim a legal mandate over refugee education, drawing on different sources of legitimation. An MoE staff member, for example, argued that education in Ethiopia for everyone, including refugees, is the mandate of the MoE. However, ARRA claims that refugee education is part of the organization’s broader remit of responsibility for all refugee matters in Ethiopia. To clarify the issue of the mandate over refugee education and simplify its coordination, in April 2019, an MoU was signed between ARRA and the MoE. The MoU clarifies the specific role and responsibility of ARRA in refugee education, stating that ARRA ‘manages the implementation of primary refugee education program in the camps using Ethiopian curriculum’ (MoU, April 2019, p. 11). The responsibility of the MoE according to the MoU is to ‘gradually (phase by phase) integrate refugee secondary school education into the MoE/REB administrative and management system depending on the availability of funds’ (MoU, April 2019, p. 9). As agreed in the MoU, ARRA coordinates and implements primary education in refugee camps. Under ARRA coordination, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) implement pre-primary education programs and also secondary education programs for refugees until such time that it will be fully transferred to the MoE/REB. The MoU thus effectively preserves ARRA’s double posture of being a regulatory and implementing agency. It effectively keeps the education of refugee children within the realm of the camps. There is a longstanding technical collaboration between ARRA and the MoE in such areas as national examinations, textbooks, school supervision and inspections, and education information management systems facilitated through various directives issued by the MoE before the introduction of the new policy (Haybano, 2016; Wales et al., 2020). Given these experiences over several years, the MoU signed between ARRA and MoE in 2019 is not successful in laying down a new path toward creating a single bureaucratic arrangement that can manage both refugees’ and host communities’ education and effectively integrate refugee education into mainstream education. Indeed, the UNHCR considers the continuing existence of parallel bureaucratic agencies as a critical challenge to the implementation of the inclusion of refugees into the national education system in Ethiopia for several reasons (UNHCR, 2020). The most problematic is the different ways the MoE and ARRA are structured and operate, exacerbating disconnections

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  473 and coordination problems (World Bank, 2021). While the MoE educational management is structured at federal, regional, and district levels and is decentralized, the ARRA has a central office at Addis Ababa and zonal offices in refugee-hosting regions and is highly centralized. Bringing the parallel systems of education service provision under one roof is emphasized as a desirable policy goal not only because it enhances efficiency, but also because it can ensure a sustainable education system with a long-term vision that can bring refugees and national children closer together and contributes to the inclusion of refugees (Carver, 2020).

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ETHNIC GROUPS AND THE CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES OF INCLUSION In both Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions, the narratives of host communities and refugees about the benefits and costs of inclusion are mainly shaped by intra and inter-ethnic relations and conflicts, and access to better quality education. The interplay between these factors largely determines the tension between inclusion and exclusion. Refugee camps and the host communities surrounding the camps usually tend to be the least developed areas within the peripheral regions hosting refugees (Vemuru et al., 2020). A UN organization staff member interviewed for this study stressed the similarities in terms of the needs of refugees and host communities noting that ‘the symptoms of needs in the host community are almost the same with humanitarian needs.’ However, in many cases, it is the host community, such as the host community in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz, who complain about the lack of support from the government and the NGOs. When it comes to education, the host community sees the schools for refugees in the camps as better than schools for national children. For instance, a parent from the host community in the Benishangul Gumuz region made the following comparison: Refugee school is far better than our school. Their school is fenced and with clean water. Our students don’t have even clean water to drink. Refugee students are fed in the school. They are provided with school uniforms and school bags. Sometimes we get confused to understand who the host is and who is a refugee.

To access better schooling and services such as school meals, parents at the host communities in both Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions might register as refugees so their children can access schools in the refugee camps. An REB staff member in Gambella reflects on this phenomenon, ‘in some camps, we find local students in the refugee schools. Such students register as refugees and benefit from the support in the form of school meals and other scholastic materials.’ In Benishangul Gumuz, an REB staff member observed ‘due to [the] school meal program in the refugee schools sometimes children from the host community tend to register as refugees in refugee schools.’ A shared ethnic background, common culture, and similar language enabled both refugees and the host community to easily shift status from citizen to refugee or vise-versa following the best available opportunities inside or outside refugee camps (Carver & Guok, 2020; Carver et al., 2020; Lie & Borchgrevink, 2012). The youth of Nuer – one of the ethnic communities in the Gambella region – have a longstanding experience of changing statuses to refugees to get access to better educational facilities in refugee camps, joining their co-ethnic refugees from Southern Sudan (Feyissa, 2010; Markakis, 2011). In the Gambella region, Bayissa (2010) and Fayissa (2011) document

474  Research handbook on migration and education several examples of refugees pretending to be Ethiopian citizens. An REB staff member from Gambella commented that ‘refugees in Gambella change themselves to Ethiopians by joining host community schools for the final grades of the secondary school and get a local certificate and assume high ranking positions in the regional government structures.’ Shared ethnicity, common language, and common economic disadvantage have created a gray area in which distinction between refugees and the host community becomes difficult. This has presented opportunities for both refugees and hosts to switch between the categories of a citizen and a refugee, depending on where better education and future prospects are available. This has great potential when it comes to facilitating the implementation of the policy of inclusion of refugees into the national education system. Indeed, host communities and refugees perceive the benefits and costs of the inclusion policy in terms of whether it promotes access to better quality education. Overall, host community members in Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions were in favor of the inclusion of refugees into the national education system if it can provide access to better quality education in the refugee camps. A parent from a host community in the Benishangul Gumuz region expressed his expectation from the new policy stating: ‘we need integration because we want access to quality education in the camps.’ In Gambella, a staff member from district education offices commented that ‘education is better in the refugee camps. There are several problems in the host community schools.’ Carver (2020) points out that host communities in the peripheral regions of Ethiopia perceive the better organized and resourced education services in the refugee camps as an embodiment of their marginalization by their own state. A parent from Benishangul Gumuz region host community commented: ‘we are hosting refugees. But the focus of the government, as well as NGOs, has been only on refugees and the camp schools. We are neglected. They should also pay attention to us.’ They expect that the inclusion policy would also draw attention from the state and international organizations to them and lead to diverting resources to host community schools, providing a better quality of education. However, the inclusion policy is not only perceived as an opportunity but also as a challenge, potentially heightening ethnic conflicts. A perennial inter-ethnic tension and sporadic violent conflicts between, for example, Anuak and Nuer – the two major ethnic groups in Gambella – have rendered a move toward implementing the new policy for the inclusion of refugees into the national education system difficult. Since the 1960s, most refugees hosted in the Gambella region are Nuer from South Sudan (Fayissa, 2010; Lie & Borchgrevink, 2012). In Ethiopia, ethnicity is the major organizing category, and the population size of ethnic communities usually determines their access to power and resources. In such political and economic contexts, the influx of Nuer refugees over several decades into the Gambella region is a constant concern for the Anuak ethnic group. Due to the influx of Nuer refugees to the Gambella region, the hitherto majority position of Anuak was overtaken in the 1990s by the Nuer (Vemuru et al., 2020). In addition, the Anuak ethnic group considers themselves as an Indigenous group to Gambella and the Nuer as the ‘other’ with weaker territorial claims (Lie & Borchgrevink, 2012). Staff from the district education office in Gambella for the Anuak community area stated that ‘there must be a limit for the discussion about the inclusion of refugees in education’ and added that ‘to include there must be a balance of population.’ In the Gambella context, this means that the inclusion of refugees into the national education system can provide an advantage for the Nuer ethnic group when it comes to regional power struggles and resource distribution. The Anuak ethnic group, which is currently smaller compared with the Nuer, but with more claims over power and resources in the Gambella region, is thus unhappy with the new

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  475 policy of the inclusion of refugees into the national system. During the interviews, opinions like ‘the interest of the region and the specific districts must be considered’ by staff from the district education office in the Anuak area, and ‘ethnic tensions in schools can be exasperated’ by the NGO staff can illuminate how the new inclusion policy is perceived by some of the members of the Anuak group who fear the policy will eventually result in their exclusion. Many participants in this study from the Gambella region thus advise careful planning of the inclusion process, taking into consideration the ethnic dynamics in the region. Staff from a UN organization in Gambella commented that in some of the camps ‘bringing both refugee and host community into one classroom is a bit of challenge.’ An NGO staff member noted the magnitude of the challenge in the inclusion of refugees in education, highlighting that ‘the best way in this region is to provide quality educational services for both, but separately.’ In the Benishangul Gumuz region, there are minor conflicts between refugees and the host community over the use of resources such as bamboo trees, mango trees, firewood, and grasses. These are important resources for the local economy. A refugee parent from a camp in Benishangul Gumuz stated ‘I don’t think hosts will accept inclusion or even education. Hosts usually say refugees should stay in camps and should not go to their areas,’ thus education becomes another scarce resource refugees and hosts are fighting on. Concerns about the inclusion policy were also expressed by refugees, mostly raising the challenges of the relationship between refugees and host communities, the medium of instruction, and the possible drying-up of educational support in the form of school uniforms, school meals, and other resources. A remark from a refugee parent in Gambella can encapsulate the cost refugees anticipate with the new inclusion policy: With inclusion, we may be expected to buy school uniforms, exercise books, and bags to our children from our own sources. We have school meals in refugee schools, but it may be discontinued. Inclusion of educational services needs huge awareness from the government of Ethiopia so that the host community can accept our students.

Another refugee parent from Benishangul Gumuz commented that ‘inclusion has its own cost. Even we prefer our students attend in their own separate schools. Quality is better in our own school.’ Carver et  al. (2020) study documented similar concerns of refugees hosted in the peripheral regions about sharing the existing better-resourced educational services with the host community. Medium of instruction was another concern raised by both refugee and host community members carrying the possible cost of the inclusion policy. In the Benishangul Gumuz region, refugees expressed worries that the implementation of the inclusion policy would also mean a shift from the current medium of instruction for primary grades in refugee camp schools – English to Amharic – the federal government official language in Ethiopia, or another dominant local language. In Gambella, however, some Anuak community parents were worried that the inclusion policy would mean that the Anuak language as a medium of instruction in primary grades would be compromised and be taken over by the Nuer language.

CONCLUSION This chapter explores the complexities emerging from the implementation of the current Ethiopian policy to integrate refugees into the national education system in peripheral regions. The chapter addresses the tensions between inclusion and exclusion at the

476  Research handbook on migration and education organizational and community levels, and how these tensions have challenged the process of implementing the new refugee policy in the peripheral regions that host the majority of refugees in the country. The execution of the inclusion policy, though expected to put an end to the parallel bureaucratic arrangements for refugee and national children, so far has not been successful in establishing a single bureaucratic entity that can coordinate the work of ARRA and the MoE and create a structure that benefits from their different expertise. Refugee education, as it is currently executed following the agreement between ARRA and the MoE in the 2019 MoU, is not fully included and not fully excluded from the national education system. Indeed, the World Bank (2021, p. 15) proposes additional policy and institutional guidance be put in place to further clarify ‘the principles and processes of collaboration between MoE, ARRA, and other stakeholders for successfully including refugees in the national education system.’ In peripheral regions like Gambella, the tension between inclusion and exclusion is mainly shaped by intra and inter-ethnic relations. In such contexts, regional politics, power relations between ethnic groups, and access to economic resources impact the ways in which both refugees and host communities perceive the costs and benefits of the inclusion policy. Refugees are concerned that the inclusion policy might cost them access to some essential educational support services and relatively better educational services in the camps. The incentive of the host community for supporting the inclusion policy is that it might draw attention from the government and NGOs toward their needs and advance better support and resources to host community schools. On the other hand, in some regions, the host community also fears that the inclusion of refugees will lead to their exclusion. In Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz, the tension between inclusion and exclusion has led to fears and hopes among refugees and the host community about the possible outcome of the new refugee policy. Both the government and international organizations when coming to implement the new policy need to take those sentiments and concerns into account. In the context of South-South migration, the nexus between education and migration can be entangled with local poverty levels, ethnic relationships, and local politics. The findings of this study suggest that, in the context of South-South migration, the complex dynamics at the local level, by and large, determine the successful implementation of policies that aim to include migrants and refugees in the national systems. Thus, this chapter contributes much-needed research on migration and education from the perspective of the Global South.

REFERENCES Abebe, T. (2018). Promises and challenges of Ethiopia’s refugee policy reform (Policy Brief). Institute for Security Studies. https://media​.africaportal​.org​/documents​/ Promises​_and​_challenges​_of​_ Ethiopias​_ refugee​_policy​_ reform​.pdf Abebe, T. (2017, December). Migration policy frameworks in Africa (African report 2). Institute for Security Studies. https://reliefweb​.int​/sites​/reliefweb​.int​/files​/resources​/ar2​.pdf Adams, L. & Kirova, A. (2006). Introduction: Global migration and the education of children. In Adams, L. & Kirova, A. (eds.), Global migration and education: Schools, children, and families (pp. 1–12). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Agency for Refugee and Returnee Affairs. (2017). Roadmap for the implementation of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia government pledges and the practical application of CRRF in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/documents​/details​/62655 Agency for Refugee and Returnee Affair. (2012). Administration for refugee and returnee affairs update. Logic Printing Press.

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  477 Arnot, M., Schneider, C., & Welply, O. (2013). Education, mobilities and migration: people, ideas and resources. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(5), 567–579. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/03057925​.2013​.82219 Assefa, E. (1992). Migration and health: Refugees and returnees in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Health Development. https://ejhd​.org​/index​.php​/ejhd​/article​/view​/1141​/881 Bartlett, L., Rodriguez D., & Oliveira, G. (2015). Migration and education: Sociocultural perspectives. Educ. Pesqui., São Paulo, 41, n. especial. https://doi​.org​/10​.1590​/S1517​-9702201508144891 Bayissa, R. (2010). War and peace in the Sudan and its impact on Ethiopia: The case of Gambella, 1955–2008. Addis Ababa University Press. Binkert, E., Flaig, M., Frucht, J., Grävingholt, J., König, J., Kuhnt, J., Lendle, P., Muhumad, A., & Potinius, K. (2021). Local governments and the sustainable integration of refugees in Ethiopia (Discussion Paper 21/2021). Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik gGmbH. https://www​.die​-gdi​ .de​/uploads​/media​/ DP​_21​.2021​.pdf Carver, F. (2020, August). Refugee and host community in Ethiopia: 2018-2019 integrated national Study (Report). Oversees Development Institute. https://odi​.org​/en​/publications​/refugee​-and​-host​ -communities​-in​-ethiopia​-20182019/ Carver, F., & Guok, D. (2020). ‘No one can stay without someone’: Transnational networks amongst the Nuer-speaking people of Gambella and South Sudan (Report). Rift Valley Institute. https://www​ .ecoi​.net ​/en ​/document ​/2027286​.html Carver, F., Gebresenbet, F., & Naish, D. (2020, December). Gambella regional report: 2018-2019 refugee and host community context analysis (Report). Oversees Development Institute. https://odi​ .org​/en ​/publications​/refugee​-and​-host​-communities​-in​-ethiopia​-20182019/ Central Statistics Agency. (2021). Ethiopian population projection by woreda as of 2021. https://www​ .statsethiopia​.gov​.et ​/population​-projection/ Clapham, C. (2019). The political economy of Ethiopia from Imperial period to the present. In Cheru, F., Cramer, C., & Oqubay A. (eds.), Oxford handbook of Ethiopian economy. Oxford University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/oxfordhb​/9780198814986​.013.6 Crawford, N., & O’Callaghan, S. (2019, September). The comprehensive refugee response framework: Responsibility-sharing and self-reliance in East Africa (HPG Working Paper). Humanitarian Policy Group. https://cdn​.odi​.org​/media​/documents​/12935​.pdf Dryden-Peterson, S. (2022). rights where we belong: How Refugee Teachers and Students are Changing the Future of Education. Harvard University Press. Dryden-Peterson, S., Adelman, E., Bellino, M., & Chopra, V. (2019). The purposes of refugee education: Policy and practice of including refugees in national education systems. Sociology of Education, 92(4). https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0038040719863054 Ferris, E., & Martin, S. (2019). The global compacts on refugees and for safe, orderly and regular migration: Introduction to the special issue. International Migration, 57(6), 5–18. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/imig​.12668 Feyissa, D. (2011). Playing different games: The paradox of Anywaa and Nuer identification strategies in the Gambella region, Ethiopia. Berghan Books. Feyissa, D. (2010). The cultural construction of state borders: the view from Gambella. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 4(2), 314–330. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/17531055​.2010​.487341 Flahaux, M., & Haas, H. (2016). African migration: Trends, patterns, drivers. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(1). https://doi​.org​/10​.1186​/s40878​- 015​- 0015-6 Graham, J., & Miller, S. (2021, June). From displacement to development: How Ethiopia can create shared growth by facilitating economic inclusion for refugees (Case Study). Center for Global Development and Refugee International. https://static1​.squarespace​.com​/static​/506​c8ea​1e4b​01d9​ 450dd53f5​/t ​/60c​7959 ​f 83c​9e30 ​424d56695​/1623692708140​/ Displacement​-to ​-Development​-How​ -Ethiopia​-Can​-Create​-Shared​-Growth​.pdf Haybano, A. (2016). Integration and identity among refugee children in Ethiopia: Dilemmas of Eritrean and Somali students in the primary schools of Addis Ababa. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://localhost/xmlui/handle/123456789/3499 Hovil, L. (2016). Refugees, conflict and the search for belonging. Springer Nature. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-3​-319​-33563-6 Intergovernmental Authority on Development. (2017). Djibouti declaration on regional conference on refugee education in IGAD member states. https://www​.refworld​.org​/docid ​/60a28cea4​.html

478  Research handbook on migration and education International Organization for Migration. (2019). World migration report 2020. Author. wmr​_2020​.​ pdf (iom​.i​nt) Khasiani, S. (1984). Refugee policies, programs, and research in Somalia, Ethiopia and Tanzania: A review. https://idl​-bnc​-idrc​.dspacedirect​.org​/ handle​/10625​/54201 Lie, J., & Borchgrevink, A. (2012). Layer upon Layer: Understanding the Gambella Conflict Formation. International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 6(1/2), 135–159. https://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/41756938​ ?seq=1 Markakis, J. (2011). Ethiopia: The last two frontiers. James Currey. Mascareno, A., & Carvajal, F. (2015). The different faces of inclusion and exclusion. CEPAL Review, 116, 127–141. CEPAL Review | Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Ministry of Education. (2019). Ethiopian education statistics annual abstract 2011 E.C (2018/2019). https://moe​.gov​.et ​/storage​/ Books​/ ESAA​%202011​%20E​.C.​%20October​%202019​%20-​%20Ministry​ %20of​%20Education​.pdf Neto, P. (2018). Ambiguous boundaries between exclusion and inclusion: Experiences from the Meheba refugee camps (Zambia). In Abiom, S., Granjo, P., & Ramos, A., (eds.), Changing societies: Legacies and challenges. Ambiguous inclusions: Inside out, outside in (pp. 29–48). Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. https://doi​.org​/10​.31447​/ics9789726715030 Nigusie, A., & Carver, F. (2019). The comprehensive refugee response framework: progress in Ethiopia. Humanitarian Policy Group. https://odi​.org​/en​/publications​/the​-comprehensive​-refugee​-response​ -framework​-progress​-in​-four​-east​-african​-countries/ Pinson, H., & Arnot, M. (2020). Wasteland revisited: Defining an agenda for a sociology of education and migration. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(6). https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/01425692​ .2020​.1755229 Popkewitz, T., Lindblad, S., & Strandberg, J. (1999). Review of research on educational governance and social integration and exclusion (Uppsala Report on Education). https://files​.eric​.ed​.gov​/fulltext​ /ED473413​.pdf Rao, N. (2010). Migration, education and socio‐economic mobility. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(2). https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/03057920903545973 Riggan, J., & Pool, A. (2019). The global and local politics of refugee management in the horn: Ethiopian refugee policy and Eritrean refugee agency. In J. D. Schmidt et al. (eds.), Refugees and forced migration in the Horn and Eastern Africa: Advances in African economic, social and political development. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labor Review, 133(5–6). https://gsdrc​.org​/document​-library​/social​-exclusion​-and​-social​-solidarity​-three​ -paradigms/ Triggs, G., & Wall, P. (2020). ‘The makings of a success’: The global compact on refugees and the inaugural global refugee forum. International Journal of Refugee Law, 32(2), 283–339. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1093​/ijrl​/eeaa024 United Nations. (2016, September). New York declaration for refugees and migrants: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 September 2016: Seventy-first session. https://www​.un​.org​ /en ​/development ​/desa ​/population ​/migration ​/generalassembly​/docs​/globalcompact ​/A ​_RES​_71​_1​.pdf United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Migration, displacement and education: Building bridges, not walls. Global education monitoring report 2019. Author. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2022, February). Factsheet: Ethiopia February 2022. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/documents​/details​/91652 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2021a). Ethiopia: Country refugee response plan 2020–2021. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/documents​/details​/73572 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2021b). Global appeal: 2021 Update. https:// reporting​.unhcr​.org​/sites​/default​/files​/ga2021​/pdf​/Global​_ Appeal​_2021​_full​_lowres​.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2020). Mid-year trends: 2020. https://www​.unhcr​ .org​/5fc504d44​.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019a). Ethiopia: 2019 summary pledges progress report. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/documents​/details​/79240 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019b). Refugee education 2030: A strategy for refugee inclusion.  https://www​.unhcr​.org ​/en​-us​/publications​/education ​/5d651da88d7​/education​ -2030​-strategy​-refugee​-education​.html

Ethiopia’s new policy for inclusion of refugees into the national education system  479 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2018). Two years progress assessment of CRRF approach: September 2016-September 2018. https://www​.unhcr​.org​/5c63ff144​.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2017). Working towards inclusion: Refugees within the national systems of Ethiopia (Research Paper No. 284). https://www​.unhcr​.org​/en​-my​/5a55ed8c4​ .pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2014). UNHCR Ethiopia national refugee education strategy 2015-2018. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/documents​/download​/62627 Vemuru, V., Sarkar, A., & Woodhouse, A. (2020). Impact of refugees on hosting communities in Ethiopia: A social analysis. https://openknowledge​.worldbank​.org​/ handle​/10986​/34267 Wales, J., Khan. A., & Nicolai, S. (2020, May). Strengthening coordinated education planning and response in crises: Ethiopian case study (Report). Overseas Development Institute. https://cdn​.odi​ .org​/media​/documents​/200506​_ethiopia​.pdf World Bank. (2021). Additional financing to GEQIP-E for refugees integration: Project appraisal document.  https://projects​.worldbank​.org ​/en ​/projects​- operations​/document​- detail ​/ P168411​?type​ =projects

33. Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China Min Yu and Christopher B. Crowley1

INTRODUCTION China has undertaken a process of rapid social transformation since the late 1970s. One of the most significant aspects of this phenomenon is the massive rural-to-urban migration of domestic labourers. Many migrants also bring their children with them when they move to China’s largest urban centres. There are an estimated 35 million children from migrant families in China, among them roughly 13.95 million are between six and 14 years old,2 meaning that they are classified as being of compulsory education age in China.3 Potential issues stemming from worker migration and the accompanying hypermobility of school-age children present many types of concerns commonly discussed in the research literature—such as gaps in knowledge, differences in culture, issues of language and identity, and concerns about wellbeing, among other issues (See Woronov, 2004; Yi, 2011; Lan, 2014; Li & Xiong, 2019; Yiu, 2016; Xiang, 2018). The effects of this phenomenon within contemporary Chinese contexts remain understudied and in significant need of further exploration, particularly as it relates to the politics surrounding Chinese education policies with regard to educating migrant children in the cities. This chapter examines policies directly related to the education of migrant children living in and around China’s largest urban centres, with a specific focus on those implemented in Beijing. It is here where the education of migrant children is being contested and policy debates over access to education are currently unfolding (Chen et al., 2017; Liang & Song, 2016). This chapter seeks to analyse how these education policies develop and reflect the politics of population control at the local level. Population control is a term used in Chinese policy documents, and it is often used in reference to social and economic development concerns. There are multiple dimensions to population control. For example, population control has involved measures intended to control the overall size of the population. It entails efforts to curtail domestic migration, especially for the unregistered/migrant populations living in urban areas. Population control measures may also be established for the purpose of attempting to circumvent the potentially radical or disruptive impact of migrant populations. Previous policy studies on the issues of educating migrant children in Chinese urban cities largely discuss education policies as regulating the actions or practices of different stakeholders or institutions that deal with the education of migrant children. They address the role of established power structures, including the mechanisms through which they operate both within and across social fields (See Dong, 2010; Zhou & Wang, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). However, studies have yet to examine how these policies function to transform the identities of rural migrants and their children—creating new subjectivities and spatial identities through forms of disciplining, monitoring, and controlling individuals at both state and local policy levels. 480

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  481 With the intention of building upon and bringing transnational perspectives into ongoing discussions surrounding both the conception and purposes of policy sociology (Ball 1997, 2015; Grek & Ozga, 2010; Robert & Yu, 2018), this chapter makes two important arguments. First, education policies have an underlying agenda of population control that extends beyond that of simply addressing the educational needs of migrant children. Second, we raise the question: for whom are these policies intended, and who is best served by them? As such, this chapter extends current research by exploring the discursive functioning of education policies, bringing into consideration community perspectives regarding policy enactment. In addition, it addresses how policies come to shape collective understandings both of what is possible and what becomes constructed as outside of the realm of possibility for the education of migrant children in the cities.

WEAKENING RESPONSIBILITIES AND STRENGTHENING POPULATION CONTROL For the purposes of this chapter, the policy enactment process is interpreted through social, emotional, and cultural lenses leading to their construction in practice (Ball, 1997, 2015). As Maguire et al. (2015) note, one should pay attention to the discursive functioning of policies that highlights “the multifaceted ways in which policies are read alongside/against contextual factors, by different sets of policy interpreters, translators and critics” (p. 3). It can be argued that policies operate discursively while simultaneously being situated within dominant discourses. A number of research studies have examined the politics of urbanization and the impact of coercive state power occurring under contemporary neoliberal regimes on education reforms (See Reay & Lucey, 2003; Gulson, 2011; Lipman, 2013). While these and other studies point to the broader implications of education policies, much of this body of research is situated within Western contexts. There are some exceptions with studies that have addressed how forms of neoliberal governance have developed in the strong state contexts of certain Asian nations, including China (Takayama, 2013; Lim & Apple, 2016; Crowley, 2016). Aspects of this research help to highlight some of the tensions embedded within education reform policies wherein state responsibilities are weakened at the same time forms of state control are strengthened. In practice, this has meant an ongoing process of decentralizing responsibilities associated with the provision of public education and doing so in the name of establishing increased flexibilities and increased local governance. In urban Chinese contexts, this shift has coincided with an intensified and consolidated focus on initiating means by which to enforce greater degrees of population control. Education policies reflect in part a re-inculcation of existing state bureaucracies in addition to the reframing of discourses surrounding the consequences of large-scale domestic migration. Herein the semi-paternalistic role of the state in China becomes ensconced in the rhetoric of guaranteeing that it is “taking care” of the people, while simultaneously attempting to ensure this occurs under conditions continuing to advance state hegemony. This chapter focuses on the city of Beijing. As China’s capital city, Beijing serves as the nation’s political centre. Situating this chapter within this context offers a unique opportunity in terms of conducting research on education policies given the relations between local and central state governments and various policy actors. In certain regards, Beijing can be

482  Research handbook on migration and education thought of as the frontline for analysing emerging trends that will subsequently come to have an effect across the entire country/region. Beijing offers a unique context for understanding trends in education policy while at the same time serving as a bellwether for larger policy trends—it highlights both local socio-political factors as well as broader theoretical implications. Moreover, other scholars’ policy analyses and reports about different cities, including Shanghai and other provincial capital cities in China, inform and contextualize our argument related to policy enactments targeting the education of migrant children as a form of population control more generally in China’s urban centres (see Hu & West, 2015; Liang & Song, 2016; Zhou & Wang, 2016).

RESEARCH METHOD This chapter is based on longitudinal qualitative research conducted in Beijing. Data were collected during visits to various migrant settlements in the city, focusing on five communities across six districts in Beijing. Author 1 (Min Yu) initially conducted a 14-month ethnographic study in these five migrant communities from 2010 to 2011 and subsequently followed up with participants from the initial study for extended interviews and multiple re-visits during 2014 and 2016, and then again in the summer of 2017 and 2018. Group interviews were conducted with migrant teachers and parents in schools, community centres, and other public places, and 15 migrant teachers and parents were selected from different migrant settlements for multiple in-depth interviews. Additionally, nine activists and researchers were interviewed. They have been working closely with migrant children in schools and are affiliated with various governmental or non-governmental organizations that have established programmes across different migrant communities. Participant observations in schools, community meetings, and other public gatherings, such as public meetings with district officials, were also conducted. Rather than conducting a discourse analysis of policy texts, our focus is aimed at critically analysing the discursive functioning of educational policies (Ball, 2015). The primary data for this chapter includes a variety of policy documents related to the education of migrant children and the interviews and observation data that are presented through summaries of participants’ narratives and collective voices. This collection of data is complimented by information derived from interviews with teachers, parents, community members, and nongovernmental organization activists concerning school closings, community demolition, and migrant student relocation. These are further supplemented by field notes collected from participant observations occurring in migrant communities and during public meetings with district officials. The collective perspectives captured in the data represent those of migrants who moved to Beijing from different regions across China, have stayed for different periods of time, worked various jobs in different districts, and have children of different ages and genders. While not mutually exclusive, the adoption of this approach was crucial for uncovering continuities across time and space—it would be difficult to adequately capture key dynamics had we only examined individual narratives separately. Rather than thinking of personal experiences as the case, we consider the politics of population control as the phenomenon we explore—making connections across sites and scales to understand how this came into being.

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  483

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOLING FOR MIGRANT CHILDREN The struggles over educating migrant children in urban China in many ways stem from policies associated with the Chinese household registration system (hukou, 户口).4 The migrant population is commonly considered to be both out of place and out of control because they do not remain in the place where they hold their hukou.5 Given the extraordinarily large size of this demographic group, it presents stressors upon established modes of state control that are largely based on a degree of presumed stability in which populations remain fixed in space. Government officials view the provision of services to migrants as a drain on urban public resources. Issues related to the social and educational needs of migrant children emerged soon after migrant families started to move into major cities in the 1980s. However, it was not until 1996 that the Chinese central government drafted specific regulations concerning schooling issues for migrant children (See Dong, 2010; Yu, 2016). Consequently, it has largely been left to local governments to “experiment with different ways of providing education for migrant children” (Zhou & Wang, 2016, p. 564). The challenges connected to educating children from migrant families, who are often referred to as migrant children, highlight complexities stemming from an absence of government responsibility. It was the same absence of official state regulations that created opportunities for migrants to develop their own social and economic niches within cities. The formation of migrant worker organizations and coalitions was a direct response to the absence of meaningful state regulation and social welfare programmes in certain areas, such as migrant settlements in the cities. In response to concerns about the education of children from migrant families, “migrant children schools” (dagong zidi xuexiao, 打工子弟学校)—first established by parents within the migrant settlements in the early 1990s—emerged in several large cities in China to serve children from low-income migrant families (Kwong, 2004). These schools are also often known as “unofficial” schools because many are unregistered and thus have no officially recognized status.6 For many years, these schools have remained the primary education providers for migrant children. As many scholars in China studies have documented, a reconfiguration of socialist rationalities and practices created new problems and forms of inequality (Zhang, 2002; Kipnis, 2011; Lim, 2014). In the case of regulating migrant communities and migrant worker organizations in urban China, authorities made the decision to reclaim control over these new and evolving social spaces through the establishment of new policy initiatives. These policies targeted migrant communities and were intended to bolster and/or expand forms of regulatory oversight connected to other existing population control mechanisms. The enactment of new policies occurred as intended despite resistance from those engaged in forms of community action.7 After a decade of letting unofficial ‘migrant children schools’ serve as the primary education providers for the majority of migrant children, the Beijing municipal government responded to the 2001 central state regulation with its own policy, published in April 2002. This policy acknowledged that “social forces organized schools to accept migrant children and adolescents in the areas of floating population concentration” (Articles 9 and 10). By that time, migrant children schools in Beijing had begun to flourish, and the number of such schools in different migrant settlements across the city had reached several hundred (out of a total of approximately 2,000 public primary schools in Beijing at that time).

484  Research handbook on migration and education It was around this time, roughly between 2002 and 2003, when the Education Committee of a number of different districts started to issue official permissions to migrant children schools. Yet, there were no publicly available standards to reference at the time and the process was essentially relegated to local school district officials to determine which school would receive permission to operate officially. Many schools applied for permission to be recognized as official, district-sanctioned schools but received different and often contradictory statements from officials. Only a very small number of schools succeeded in obtaining official permission.

THE ENACTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL POLICIES FOR MIGRANT CHILDREN’S SCHOOLING There are arguably two stages in the development of centralized education policies and regulations targeting migrant children’s schooling (Dong, 2010). The first was a stage of vague governmental responsibility, characterized by three central state government policy regulations issued in 1996, 1998, and 2001. These policies encompass the central state government’s basic policy framework for the compulsory education of migrant children between 1996 and 2003. Specifically, the 1998 regulation proposed what came to be known as the “Two Mains” (liangweizhu, 两为主) framework—stating that migrant children in host cities could mainly attend the local public schools and that the host cities should take the main responsibility for managing issues related to schooling for migrant children. Although this framework placed the onus of responsibility on local governments, those in positions of power seemed reluctant to address the issue of educating migrant children, perhaps in large part because educational funding continued to be tied to the hukou system. In other words, there was no incentive, financial or otherwise, for local public schools to support the education of undocumented migrant children. Given mounting pressure and the need to address issues that might otherwise be construed as a large-scale educational crisis, some local governments were compelled to draft their own regulations in direct response to policies crafted by the central state government. As mentioned earlier, the first municipal regulation regarding different aspects of educating migrant children in Beijing was published in 2002. This regulation listed specific conditions under which migrant children could apply to attend a public school, albeit on a temporary basis (Articles 6 and 7), such as the particular documentation that would be needed and the requirements that would need to be fulfilled. However, the main focus was to urge migrant parents to send their children, irrespective of age, back to their hometowns where they hold their hukou (Articles 1 and 4). The second stage of re-emphasizing governmental control can be thought of as primarily characterized by central state government regulations issued after 2003. Despite the emphasis on the need for local governments to play a primary role in monitoring issues and administering procedures related to the education of migrant children, these regulations did not stipulate how the local governments should work to enact these policies. There remained a rather significant discrepancy between the stated aims of the central government’s policies and local governments’ responsibilities concerning the education of migrant children. Local governments were afforded a certain degree of latitude regarding how to interpret and adopt these regulations—including methods for initiating processes of allocating resources at different institutional levels.

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  485 Without clearly defined policies outlining the specific responsibilities of local governments at the provincial, city, and district levels, what often happened during the policy implementation processes could perhaps be best captured by the statement: “where there is a policy, there is the countermeasure” (Liang & Song, 2016, p. 7). The trends associated with the later stage of policy developments affecting migrant children schools—also referred to as the stage of re-emphasizing government control—reflected central state policies that placed greater restrictions on community-based organizing and the education of migrant children (Zhou & Wang, 2016). As for the city of Beijing, the responses to central state policies were perhaps most evident in the introduction of the five certificates requirement (wuzheng, 五证) and the implementation of the national student identification system (xueji, 学籍), and their impact on community-based organizing and relocating migrant students at the local level. To understand the dynamics of this situation, we next highlight several key mechanisms shaping the politics of school access for migrant children: the five certificates policy, the impact of the national student identification system, constraints placed on migrant children schools, and different ways migrant children are relocated. Five Certificates One of the most significant mandates put in place by the Beijing municipal government during this period was the introduction of the five certificates policy which stipulated specific documentation as a prerequisite for migrant children’s access to compulsory education in the city. In response to the 2003 state government regulation, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission issued a new regulation in August 2004. This regulation developed the procedural requirements for parents or legal guardians of migrant children applying to attend public schools in Beijing on a temporary basis through the city’s neighbourhood government official units. The policy—widely referred to as the five certificates—refers to the following categories of documents required for migrant children to have access to local public education: a Beijing Temporary Living Permit; a Certified Proof of Address (official rental contract or proof of home ownership); a Certified Labour Contract (official payroll verification or official business operator’s permit); a Certificate of No Potential Familial Guardian Residing in the Place of Origin, which must be issued by the local township level governments of the place of origin; and a Registry of the Entire Family’ Household Permanent Residency. In addition to the official and unofficial fees required to obtain this documentation, the five certificates have largely come to represent yet another substantial legal barrier for the majority of migrant parents to move forward in the process of being able to educate their children in state-supported schools, albeit for only a temporary basis. The underlying implication of this requirement is that children without a Beijing permanent residency should return to their place of origin, where they have hukou, in order to have access to compulsory education. In practice, it is tremendously challenging for migrant parents to collect all of these certificates in a reasonably short period of time. For instance, many migrant workers do not have stable employment, so a Certified Labour Contract is difficult if not impossible to obtain. As for the Certificate of No Potential Familial Guardian Residing in the Place of Origin, the process of collecting all the associated paperwork involves multiple trips back and forth between the city and the countryside. Migrant parents have to bear all the costs—in terms of both time and money, as well as the potential danger of losing their temporary jobs by taking leave—associated with returning to their places of origin. Moreover, undertaking the journey back to one’s

486  Research handbook on migration and education place of origin does not guarantee that a person will be able to obtain a certificate from the local government. Failing to provide the required certificates in a timely manner was, in turn, interpreted as a reason to blame migrant parents for failing to enrol their children in public schools even though the “door” to public education was supposedly “wide open.” Starting in 2014, Beijing put forward a new regulation known as the “five certificates consolidation.” This stated that only when the entire family’s place of residence and the parents’ workplaces were in the same district could a child apply to attend school in the district. Different districts and individual schools subsequently sought to reinterpret and extend municipal-level regulations by setting their own specific requirements regarding school admission for migrant children, such as adding social security payment records and other new requirements and requiring as many as 28 documents or certificates for the initial screening.8 Moreover, having to provide as many as 28 different documents only qualifies migrant families to submit an application to attend a public school. Many school districts and public schools also elect to conduct home visits and interview migrant children as a prerequisite for admission (Author 1 field notes). Ultimately, even in instances where migrant parents provide all required documents and pass the initial screening, access to public schooling is not guaranteed, given that the entire application could be rejected by the school if the home visit or the interview are regarded as unsatisfactory. In sum, the five certificates requirements have changed over time, with demands intensifying significantly in recent years. Furthermore, when the national student identification system was introduced, a policy originally intended to facilitate greater ease in processes related to student transfers and registration, was leveraged by local governments in ways that allowed public schools to continue to reject migrant children’s admission and enrolment (Liang & Song, 2016). National Student Identification System China’s Ministry of Education first introduced a unified student identification system in 2013.9 Following a year-long trial period, the student identification system, or xueji, was formally implemented nationwide.10 Its purpose was to ensure that each student receives only one unique 16-digit ID number in order to better track all students. This student ID number would thus follow the student throughout his or her entire education—from elementary through postsecondary education. This student ID system was initially touted as a means by which to simplify the process of tracking a student’s academic record and education history, not to serve as a way to determine school enrolment or function as a prerequisite for admission. However, this new system posed a unique problem for migrant children who attend unofficial migrant children schools. Students in these schools are not provided with an academic record that can be linked to their ID number because migrant children schools are not officially recognized by the Chinese Ministry of Education. Without this, even if a migrant student’s family was able to collect all required certificates, he or she could no longer transfer to a public school after having attended a migrant children school without official status (Chen et al., 2017). In certain instances, students who had been enrolled in a migrant children school that obtained official permission to operate from the Education Commission were not allowed to re-enrol in the same school if they lacked the required documentation associated with the five certificates policy and thus could not obtain an official academic record linked to their student ID number. Even if these schools were willing to accept migrant students regardless of their

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  487 document status, they would not be allowed to register these students or assign them student ID numbers. If a school did attempt to do so, it would likely face the risk of incurring severe punishments from the district government, including the possibility of having its permission revoked. As of May 2016, there were roughly 112 migrant children schools remaining in Beijing, serving over 65,000 migrant children (Liu, 2016). For these children and their parents, the creation of the national student identification system presents another more complex problem to navigate. It places migrant families in a situation where they are presented with a choice of three possible decisions to make regarding the education of their child/children: 1) have their child/children continue to attend an unofficial migrant children school, thus risking having to address further issues in the future; 2) leave their jobs/opportunities in the city—the reason why they migrated in the first place—and move the entire family back to the place of origin where their household registry is located in order for the child/children to participate in the national identification system; 3) send their child/children back to the family’s place of origin alone and become part of an increasingly large number of “left-behind children” in China’s rural areas. Regardless of the choice migrant families make, the reality is that the living and schooling experiences of thousands of migrant families and children have been drastically impacted by the creation of this national student identification system. Constraining Migrant Children Schools Restricting and inhibiting the further development of self-run migrant children schools has also been an area of significant focus for the Chinese government and its administrative agenda in recent years. For instance, the 2005 Beijing Regulation specifically focused on regulating migrant children schools and put forth guidelines related to strengthening and more clearly outlining regulations affecting these schools. The guidelines are commonly referred to as a policy that “diverge some; regulate some; and obstruct some” (fenliu yipi, guifan yipi, qudi yipi, 分流一批，规范一批，取缔一批). In practice, district governments opted to emphasize processes for cracking down on migrant children schools as the correct interpretation of this regulation. Not only did all districts stop accepting applications or issuing permits for migrant children schools to operate as soon as the 2005 regulations were published, but they also began shutting down many of these schools— along with other grassroots organizations aiming to provide social services to those living in Beijing’s migrant communities. For example, 239 migrant children schools across multiple districts were shut down during the summer of 2006, displacing over 100,000 migrant students. Even though the official statement was that these schools failed to meet the school operating standards, it is worth noting that this massive school closing in Beijing coincided with increasing anticipation surrounding the upcoming 2008 Olympics. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the creation of the “Standards for Running Primary and Secondary Schools” in Beijing by the municipal level government did not occur until December of that year, almost six months after these arguably low-performing schools had already been shut down.11 According to the 2011 statement issued by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission leading up to the initial round of school closings, all districts and county governments should follow the “three first and three later” (san xian san hou, 三先三后) principle. That is to say, municipalities attempting to address perceived issues with domestic migration should begin by first relocating migrant families before demolishing the residential homes where they had

488  Research handbook on migration and education lived; second, making plans to actively support the process of transitioning migrant children into local public schools; and third, establishing clearly demonstrated pathways for integrating the children of migrant workers into the local public schools. Then, only after completing these first three tasks should the municipality begin to: close migrant children schools; implement an organized process for enacting the pre-planned approach for relocating students who had been attending migrant children schools to local public schools, and finally demolish the now vacant buildings that had functioned as migrant children schools.12 However, the implementation of various regulations and policies often prioritized processes that aimed to outlaw and close schools, as opposed to taking more systematic and substantive approaches towards integrating students from migrant children schools into local public schools. The reality of the socio-political governmental undertaking associated with the enactment of the “three first and three later” policy principle, insofar as the multi-level relocation process was concerned, in practice became a matter of what most parents in the study described succinctly as: “you are on your own.” It meant that most students attending these migrant children schools not only lost access to the schooling they had been receiving but also did not gain access to public schools. However, the lack of proper arrangements and insufficient support for the systematic relocation of students did not halt the demolition of migrant children schools. Relocating Migrant Students To further examine the challenges migrant children and their parents face during relocation and the subsequent conflicts that have emerged, it is crucial to pay attention to the two types of local school relocation processes. One is the process of enrolling in local township public schools, the other is an alternative approach to relocate students to the government-subsidized privately run schools (minban gongzhu xuexiao, 民办公助学校). During one of the authors’ interviews with migrant parents and activists who closely worked with migrant communities, the narratives collected from community members proved quite different from what was described in the official government data and reports. Regarding local public schools, the major concerns for migrant children and their parents remain the bureaucratic requirements, namely the five certificates policy and the national student identification system after its establishment in 2014. Additionally, many local public schools established their own unique rules and requirements specifically for migrant children attempting to enrol. One of these rules is that migrant students who obtained the five certificates must then take the school-entrance examinations, and only those who score above a given threshold are able to enrol. Furthermore, many public schools have also developed various justifications—such as “seat shortages”—to ask migrant parents for “voluntary” sponsor fees. For some migrant families, they could still find themselves in a situation where they are not able to have their children attend the public school, they had been promised they could enter. For example, in over half of the public schools in the six districts where aspects of this research study were conducted, branch schools were created specifically for migrant children. These types of branch campus schools are often located in recently converted facilities and separated from the original schools with which they remain associated in name only. They are late additions to the public school system, sometimes appearing just before the beginning of the school year. Again, for the migrant parents and families who were able to successfully navigate and complete the requirements, more often than not they are late to discover that

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  489 their children are attending a branch campus school in addition to learning that the facilities are not comparable—with the branch campus schools seeming to be less resourced than their public-school counterparts. As some parents noted, they were startled to learn that some of the branch campus schools did not have enough desks or chairs for the children, or that the facilities appeared to still be under construction with building materials scattered about the school or playground. There was a certain degree of frustration expressed as some parents and family members believed the migrant children schools that had been demolished for “safety reasons” were in better shape than some of the new branch campus schools their children were expected to attend. The second type of school receiving migrant children is the government-subsidized privately run school. These schools are the main types of schools designed to support the relocation of migrant children to public schools. Most are technically private schools that also receive subsidies from the government (see, for example, Li, 2009). Furthermore, many of these schools had previously been migrant children schools—having received official permission from the government to continue to operate and not be forced to close. Many of these former migrant children schools were sought out by local district government specifically for the purpose of enrolling migrant students from other closing schools. One of the most significant differences between these government-subsidized privately run schools and other migrant children schools is that they are entitled to receive government-subsidized educational funds, as well as use public facilities in certain instances. The subsidized private schools are not significantly different from many of the now demolished migrant children schools, in terms of curriculum design, classroom structure, and even most of the teachers. Similar to how some of the branch public schools mentioned above were set up seemingly overnight, some of the newly converted government-subsidized privately run schools were also not well prepared to receive an influx of migrant students (Table 33.1). Issues such as oversized classes, insufficient classroom spaces and limited school supplies, shortage of teachers, and so forth are common. Somewhat ironically, these same types of issues were among the primary criticisms levied against migrant children schools and led to their closure and subsequent demolition in numerous instances. Furthermore, the official statements published by different districts and municipal governments use different terms to describe these private schools, leading to confusion and perhaps misleading the public in certain respects as well. Some referred to the schools as “legal Table 33.1  Different types of schools School types

Public or private

National student identification (Xueji) requirement

Five certificates requirement

Tuition fee requirement

Public schools

Public

Yes

Yes

No tuition fee; hidden fees

Public schools branch campus

Public

Yes

Yes

No tuition fee; hidden fees

Migrant children schools

Private

No

No

Tuition fee

Government-subsidized privately run schools

Private

No

No

Tuition fee

490  Research handbook on migration and education schools,” while others claimed that all government-subsidized schools are “public schools.” Moreover, if these schools are truly to be regarded as public schools, then no family should have to pay a tuition fee, as is required by the 2008 State Regulation. Yet, in spite of this, what became quickly apparent for migrant families was that the students being relocated to these schools continued to pay tuition fees each semester they remained enrolled in the schools. Some subsidized private schools might selectively overlook the absence of certain certificates but then apply an additional ongoing fee or surcharge to the tuition fee they were supposedly prohibited from charging families in the first place. It is crucial to recognize that these schools share many similar issues with the migrant children schools that were demolished. The administrators of the schools mainly use private funds to run the schools, they recruit and employ migrant teachers, and the students mainly come from migrant families. Questions regarding why and how these schools were originally deemed a better or more appropriate solution ought to be raised. Future studies might examine how these schools function, as well as addressing some of the complexities surrounding their purposes. And lastly, more critical research is needed in order to understand the types of strategic compromises that occurred in order for these schools to emerge as a legitimized temporary strategy for addressing issues related to the education of migrant children.

DISCUSSION: DISCURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION POLICY The case of Beijing’s migrant children’s education highlights important but frequently overlooked aspects related to the impact of education policies. On the surface, the regulatory aims and mechanisms of certain policies have affected the evolution of migrant children schools, the students who attend them, and the migrant families and communities who rely upon these schools. Less obvious are the nuances related to the broader impact of these policies insofar as they simultaneously function discursively in order to frame collective notions of “common sense” regarding the education of migrant children. As the capital of China and one of its largest cities, Beijing has undergone both significant and continuous urban expansion while simultaneously devoting significant resources and attention to promoting a positive image of the city. Despite their contributions, migrants are not widely viewed positively in terms of the image, status, or appearance of Beijing (Liu et al., 2018; Zhang, 2001). Crackdowns on migrant communities and migrant children schools have displaced large numbers of migrant families and their children. Decisions from both central and local governments have sought to reclaim control over new and changing social spaces. To achieve some of its goals around issues of both population management and social control, Beijing has undertaken an ongoing series of development projects which have coincided with the demolition of migrant children schools and structures in migrant communities—including some schools holding official permits. Ultimately, while the comparatively higher profile and larger-scale closures that occurred in 2006 and 2011 are in certain respects more indicative of landmark moments in the crackdown on migrant children schools in Beijing, it is essential to recognize that these types of occurrences have taken place on an ongoing basis throughout that time and continue to unfold in similar ways today. Processes of maintaining separations in terms of space through the perpetuation of urban/rural divides, ensuring local-level bureaucratic regulation enforcement, and

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  491 bifurcating potential interest convergences are in one sense being challenged while simultaneously in another sense being strengthened by education policies concerning migrant children. The implications of which raise critical questions about who is considered deserving and how migrant children are valued differently (Devine, 2013), not only in terms of eligibility for public schooling but also in terms of to whom these rules are applicable. In addition, questions emerge related to which kinds of students are considered “traditional” or “worthwhile” in instances of transferring from one school to another and which kinds of students are considered outsiders, as migrant children face relocation as a result of school closures. Discussed throughout this chapter are questions about the implicit intentions behind various policies, namely that regardless of the variety of stated aims, the consequences were the same: to suppress migrant children schools. Although there were countless claims in the mass media and existing literature about the rampant low quality of migrant children, this in itself is indicative of the more covert intentions of these policies—as regulatory and discursive enactments to eradicate migrant children schools and return the children of migrant workers back to their places of origin (Chen et al., 2017; Zhou, & Wang, 2016). In addition, policies targeting migrant children schools did not include supports for curriculum development, nor did they incorporate a direct focus on improving the academic achievement of migrant children. Similarly, there was no discussion among key government officials or university teacher education programmes of how improvements to preservice or in-service teacher education might serve as an effective means towards addressing the educational quality issues commonly cited in the critiques of migrant children schools. It is worth noting that both before and after policies impacting the education of migrant children were put in place, migrant children schools operated almost wholly outside of the official education system. These schools emerged as a response to the absence of schooling options for migrant children and operated for many years outside of the government’s oversight with little repercussion, again highlighting how migrants and migrant children are valued differently and, in many ways, deemed lesser (Devine, 2013). On the one hand, it is possible to claim that the schools were being closed as a result of a state-led crackdown, thus leading to their decline. On the other hand, the decline coincided with a reduction in community interest and support as the belief migrant children schools were of low quality and not a good option became widespread across the city and within the migrant communities. This is a result of strategic efforts by central and local governments and is evidence that perhaps speaks directly to the broader impact of education policies on how the public comes to regard particular schools. Again, it is here that a broader understanding of the discursive functions of education policies offers a compelling explanation. Since in addition to establishing new rules and regulations, the policies impacting migrant children schools, communities, and families were about altering and reframing what people’s options regarding the education of their children were as well as changing how migrant children schools (and the children within them) were perceived. With migrant children schools, the absence of direct policy-related regulation and oversight was in part what enabled their creation. However, with the later establishment of policies specifically targeting migrant children schools and students, people’s collective understandings were framed in terms of what the limits and possibilities of their actions are—fundamentally subverting possibilities for widespread public rejection of government action.13 In other words,

492  Research handbook on migration and education these policies function in ways that provide a regulatory framework as well as shaping collective understandings of what can or might be done. Indeed, rather than seeing massive opposition to the closure of migrant children schools gain momentum, there continues to be a seemingly gradual collective acceptance of this, as individual families instead seek to navigate newly established rules, rather than acting outside of them, as those involved in migrant children schools had done previously. That is to say, we see for the most part an acceptance of the policies and a shift in collective thinking about how to address the educational needs of migrant children. In countless instances, migrant families have needed to send their children back to their hometowns in rural areas to continue their education despite having to endure long periods of separation. Through an understanding of the discursive impact of the policies outlined throughout this chapter, it becomes clearer how possible action or resistance within migrant communities is rearticulated by the state. Individuals subsequently assume personal responsibility for meeting requirements in order to send their children to school.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter demonstrates and explores the complex functioning of education policies specifically affecting the education of migrant children, the schools responsible for educating them, and the migrant families who are attempting to provide their children with a formalized education. The interplay between notions of constraint and agency is key to policy analyses that recognize and/or consider the discursive functioning of education policies (Maguire et al., 2015). While the policies have offered a regulatory framework for transitioning migrant children to public schools, the impact has been much broader. In essence, these policies come to frame what people collectively assume to be possible regarding the education of migrant children in Beijing. This raises a number of important questions: Are these policies working effectively? How is effectiveness in this case being defined? For whom are these policies intended and who are the intended beneficiaries? And what will the long-term impact be? Among Chinese policymakers there is a widespread and somewhat pernicious understanding of domestic migration wherein the dominant policy response has been to focus on controlling and limiting the movement of certain populations, especially as it relates to making adjustments in the provision of social services (Liu et  al., 2018). Additionally, the deficitdriven conceptions of migrant workers and their families fuel beliefs that their contributions to cities fail to generate enough capital to justify their recognition as city residents and their inclusion in access to social services. The establishment of new policies related to education and social welfare programmes are constructed in ways that indirectly, yet intentionally, marginalize the so-called “low-end population” (diduan renkou, 低端人口) in order to achieve local governments’ goals of slowing population growth. Indeed, it remains a challenging and critical task for all levels of government to continually seek to improve both the quality and capacity of social services, including public education. Nevertheless, the proper administration of social infrastructure ought to remain a priority, given the inherent complexities that stem from demographic shifts and rapid population growth in order for people from marginalized and vulnerable populations not to feel silenced or as though they are being treated as a problem.

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  493

NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

This chapter was adapted from earlier work published in The China Quarterly: Yu, M. & Crowley, C. B. (2020). The discursive politics of education policy in China: Educating migrant children. The China Quarterly 241, 87–111. Reproduced with permission from SOAS, University of London. Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China. 2017. “2016 Statistical Bulletin of National Education Development.” July 10. Accessed August 02, 2017. http://www​.moe​.gov​.cn​/jyb​_sjzl​/sjzl​ _fztjgb​/201707​/t20170710​_309042​.html [in Chinese]. Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (1986) proposed a term of nine years of mandatory schooling that would be provided by local governments to children from the age of 6–14. Given the scope of this chapter, it is not possible to offer a thoroughly detailed discussion of the hukou system. For more information regarding the origin, functions, and socioeconomic consequences of this complex system, see Chan (2009) and Andreas and Zhan (2016). Their experiences in China’s urban centres vary greatly depending on a number of factors such as gender, place of origin, previous capital accumulation, and social network ties. See Zhang (2001), Xiang (2005), and Murphy (2009). Only a few migrant children schools have received official status. Even then, these schools do not receive public funding to operate. They are private schools, funded through the operators’ personal savings, tuition fees, loans, and donations from various organizations. Their ongoing operations, such as the development of a curriculum and school schedules, are excluded from local educational regulations. How the schools function largely depends on their owners/operators and varies widely from school to school. For more details, please see Yiu and Yu (forthcoming) and Yu (2021a). An important aspect of research addressing the education of migrant children in China involves a discussion of educational practices, especially as it pertains to recognizing that the ongoing work occurring within migrant children schools represent a community-based undertaking. This has broader social implications associated with the emergence of Chinese civil society resulting from collective action. However, this larger discussion of Chinese civil society and the politics of social movements in China lies outside of the scope of this specific chapter. For detailed discussion and analysis, see Kwong (2004) and Yu (2018, 2021b). For example, according to the Dongcheng District Education Committee, for school-age children without Beijing hukou, in addition to providing documents to demonstrate that the entire family resides in the district, migrant parents also need to show evidence of working within the district limit and hold a valid Dongcheng District temporary living permit. For more information, see “Audit Measures for the Admission of Non-Beijing-hukou School-Aged Children in Dongcheng District in 2015.” April 7, 2015. Accessed March 19, 2017. http://zhengwu​.beijing​.gov​.cn​/gzdt​/gggs​ /t1385691​.htm [in Chinese]. As for the Changping District, they elected to impose a stricter set of requirements for non-Beijing-hukou children, such as requiring both parents to have legal labour contracts that cover at least six months of employment, to show the records of them paying for social security in the city for at least four continuous months, and to hold valid Changping District temporary living permits issued on or before 31 December of the previous year. See “Audit Criteria for the Examination of ‘Five Certificates’ for Primary School Entrance for Non-Beijing-hukou School-Aged Children in Changping District.” May 7, 2015. Accessed March 19, 2017. http:// cphyjd​.bjchp​.gov​.cn​/tabid​/8156​/ InfoID​/314904​/frtid​/8155​/ Default​.aspx [in Chinese]. Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China. 2013. “Measures for the Administration of Students’ Identification System in Primary and Middle Schools.” August 11. Accessed March 19, 2017. http://old​.moe​.gov​.cn​/publicfiles​/business​/htmlfiles​/moe​/s3321​/201308​/156125​.html [in Chinese]. “National primary and secondary school students receive official electronic student identification number.” February 2, 2015. Accessed March 19, 2017. http://www​.moe​.gov​.cn​/jyb​_xwfb​/gzdt​ _gzdt​/s5987​/201502​/t20150202​_185550​.html [in Chinese]. “Standards for Running Primary and Secondary Schools in Beijing (Trial).” December 19, 2006. Accessed March 19, 2017. http://app​.bjedu​.gov​.cn ​/publish ​/portal0​/tab67​/info11543​.htm [in Chinese]. This is the content of the “three first and three later” principle announced by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission in a public hearing meeting on August 16, 2011. For more information, see https://www​.chinanews​.com​.cn​/edu​/2011​/08​-17​/3262685​.shtml [in Chinese].

494  Research handbook on migration and education 13. Some migrant workers, social activists, and local residents have engaged in forms of collective action opposing these efforts. For a detailed account of the resistance to the forceful shutdowns of migrant children schools, see Yu (2016).

REFERENCES Andreas, J., & Zhan, S. (2016). Hukou and Land: Market Reform and Rural Displacement in China. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(4), 798–827. Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy Sociology and Critical Social Research: A Personal Review of Recent Education Policy and Policy Research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274. Ball, S. J. (2015). What Is Policy? 21 Years Later: Reflections on the Possibilities of Policy Research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. Chan, K. W. (2009). The Chinese Hukou System at 50. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 50(2), 197–221. Chan, K. W., & Zhang, L. (1999). The Hukou System and Rural-Urban Migration in China: Processes and Changes. The China Quarterly, 160, 818–855. Chen, J., Wang, D., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Education for Population Control: Migrant Children’s Education Under New Policies in Beijing. In Y.-K. Cha, J. Gundara, S.-H. Ham, & M. Lee (Eds.), Multicultural education in global perspectives: Policy and institutionalization (pp. 153–166). Springer. Crowley, C. B. (2016). Teach For/Future China and the Politics of Alternative Teacher Certification Programs in China. In L. Lim & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The strong state and curricular reform: Assessing the politics and possibilities of educational change in Asia (pp. 131–147). Routledge. Devine, D. (2013). ‘Value’ing Children Differently? Migrant Children in Education. Children & Society, 27(4), 282–294. Dong, J. (2010). Neo-Liberalism and the Evolvement of China’s Education Policies on Migrant Children’s Schooling. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 137–160. Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2010). Re-Inventing Public Education: The New Role of Knowledge in Education Policy Making. Public Policy and Administration, 25(3), 271–288. Gulson, K. N. (2011). Education policy, space, and the city: Markets and the (in)visibility of race. Routledge. Hu, B., & West, A. (2015). Exam-oriented education and implementation of education policy for migrant children in urban China. Educational Studies, 41(3), 249–267. Kipnis, A. (2011). Governing educational desire. University of Chicago Press. Kwong, J. (2004). Educating Migrant Children: Negotiations Between the State and Civil Society. The China Quarterly, 180, 1073–1088. Lan, P.-C. (2014). Segmented Incorporation: The Second Generation of Rural Migrants in Shanghai. The China Quarterly, 217, 243–265. Li, M., & Xiong, Y. (2019). Producing the Morally Captive Guest: Discourse and Power in gratitude Education of Migrant Children in Beijing. The China Quarterly, 240, 1018–1038. Li, X. (2009). An Analysis of the Reform of the “Government Subsidized Privately Run” School in Beijing Area. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) (S1), 265–270 [in Chinese]. Liang, J., & Song, Y. (2016). Floating, Return and Left-Behind Dilemma: Costs and Solutions. Chinese Educational Finance, (No.128). Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://ciefr​.pku​.edu​.cn​/cbw​/kyjb​ /2017​/01​/ kyjb​_3606​.shtml [in Chinese]. Lim, K. F. (2014). “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”: Uneven Development, Variegated Neoliberalization and the Dialectical Differentiation of State Spatiality.” Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 221–247. Lim, L., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.). (2016). The strong state and curriculum reform: Assessing the politics and possibilities of educational change in Asia. Routledge. Lipman, P. (2013). Economic Crisis, Accountability, and the State’s Coercive Assault on Public Education in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 557–573. Liu, S., Liu, F., & Yu, Y. (2017). Educational Equality in China: Analysing Educational Policies for Migrant Children in Beijing. Educational Studies, 43(2), 210–230.

Educational policies and schooling for migrant children in China  495 Liu, T., Holmes, K., & Zhang, M. (2018). Better Educational Inclusion of Migrant Children in Urban Schools? Exploring the Influences of the Population Control Policy in Large Chinese Cities. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 12(1), 54–62. Liu, W. (2016, June 02). In the End, How Many Migrant Children Schools Are There in Beijing? Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://thegroundbreaking​.com​/archives​/38007 [in Chinese]. Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. J. (2015). “Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit”: The Social Construction of Policy Enactments in the (English) Secondary School. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 485–499. Murphy, R. (Ed.). (2009). Labour migration and social development in contemporary China. Routledge. Reay, D., & Lucey, H. (2003). The Limits of “Choice”: Children and Inner City Schooling. Sociology, 37(1), 121–142. Robert, S. A., & Yu, M. (2018). Intersectionality in Transnational Education Policy Research. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 93–121. Takayama, K. (2013). Untangling the global-distant-local knot: the politics of national academic achievement testing in Japan. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 657–675. Wong, T.-H. (2015). Social foundations of public–private partnerships in education: the historical cases of post-war Singapore and Hong Kong. History of Education, 44(2), 207–224. Woronov, T. E. (2004). In the eye of the chicken: Hierarchy and marginality among Beijing’s migrant school children. Ethnography, 5(3), 289–313. Xiang, B. (2005). Transcending boundaries: Zhejiangcun: The story of a migrant village in Beijing. Brill. Xiang, X. (2018). My Future, My Family, My Freedom: Meanings of Schooling for Poor, Rural Chinese Youth. Harvard Educational Review, 88(1), 81–102. Yi, L. (2011). Turning Rurality into Modernity: Suzhi Education in a Suburban Public School of Migrant Children in Xiamen. The China Quarterly, 206, 313–330. Yiu, L. (2016). The Dilemma of Care: A Theory and Praxis of Citizenship-based Care for China’s Rural Migrant Youth. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 261–288. Yiu, L. & Yu, M. (2022). Empowerment from what? Teacher ‘citizenship talk’ practices for migrant children in China. Comparative Education, 58(4), 526–541. Yu, M. (2015). Revisiting Gender and Class in Urban China: Undervalued Work of Migrant Teachers and Their Resistance. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 9(2), 124–139. Yu, M. (2016). The politics, practices, and possibilities of migrant children schools in contemporary China. Palgrave Macmillan. Yu, M. (2018). Rethinking Migrant Children Schools in China: Activism, Collective Identity, and Guanxi. Comparative Education Review, 62(3), 429–448. Yu, M. (2021a). Curriculum of Migrant Communities in Mainland China. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 30 Mar. 2022, from https://oxfordre​.com​/education​/view​/10​.1093​/acrefore​ /9780190264093​.001​.0001​/acrefore​-9780190264093​-e​-1155. Yu, M. (2021b). Education as Community Mobilization: Minjian Society and the Education of Migrant Children in China. Educational Studies, 57(3), 299–309. Yu, M., & Crowley, C. B. (2020). The Discursive Politics of Education Policy in China: Educating Migrant Children. The China Quarterly, 241, 87–111. Zhang, L. (2001). Strangers in the city: Reconfigurations of space, power, and social networks within China’s floating population. Stanford University Press. Zhang, L. (2002). Spatiality and Urban Citizenship in Late Socialist China. Public Culture, 14(2), 311–334. Zhou, Y, & Wang, D. (2016). Understanding the Constraints on the Supply of Public Education to the Migrant Population in China: Evidence from Shanghai. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 563–578.

34. Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century: policy and practice trapped in time Silvia Carrasco

INTRODUCTION Spain became one of the most important receiving countries of the immigration flows connected to globalisation by the turn of the century due to its economic growth, social development, and political status as an EU member state. It was an unexpected immigration (Izquierdo, 1996) from very diverse and geographically distant countries,1 far from limited to those with past colonial bonds. In 2005, Spain already was the second immigrant-receiving country in the world, after the United States (Izquierdo, 2006). In less than ten years, a significant sociodemographic shift had begun to take place and shortly after the 1994 family reunification first official regulation was issued,2 immigrant families’ projects of permanent settlement turned their children into unexpected students in the Spanish education system. The number of students with a national status other than Spanish (both other EU and thirdcountry nationals) has remained stable, around 10% on average, with important regional differences and a higher concentration in the richest areas, but also in those living on tourism and those with important enclaves of intensive agriculture for export (Ministerio de Educación, 2021). Although access to Spanish nationality is based on ius sanguinis (‘right of blood’), many children of immigrants born in the country or with long years of residence apply and obtain it. It is worth noting that, regardless of their nationality, 24% of young people between 15 and 30 years old in Spain have at least one parent born abroad (El País, 11.12.2018). Undoubtedly, the education of the children of immigrants became a new concern in parallel to their arrival. In order to analyse the relation between migration and education, in this chapter, I draw on more than 20 years of research grounded on a triple intersectional perspective: the capacity of the education system and education policies to adequately respond to the specific needs of immigrant students due to language learning and/or curricular mismatch; the experiences of students from immigrant families, their aspirations and social and educational expectations as well as the factors conditioning their right to education; and the place of education in family migration projects. Since the late 1990s, we have explored how social mirroring (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco & Todorova, 2010) perceived by immigrant students influences their academic performance and how the possibility to establish positive relations with their native-born classmates affects their motivation for learning. More than 20 years after their arrival, we have identified patterns of failure or success in education trajectories and labour market participation among first- and second-generation immigrant students, and the play of poverty, prejudice, and racism for those who have spent most of their schooling in Spain (Carrasco, Pàmies & Ponferrada, 2011; Pàmies & Bertran, 2018; Narciso & Carrasco, 2021). A key area of inquiry has been the role of monolingual ideologies and 496

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  497 segregated provision for language learning as barriers in the education of immigrant students (Reyes, 2017; Reyes & Carrasco, 2018), neglecting communicative approaches (Cummins, 2000), or understanding plurilingualism in a globalised world (Blommaert & Backus, 2013). Additionally, we have comparatively analysed education policy in practice by showing how different education systems and migration histories produce similar conditions of integration in schools (Gibson & Carrasco, 2009; Gibson, Carrasco, Pàmies, Ponferrada, Rios, 2013) and persistently reproduce multiple indirect segregation patterns and barriers to equity within schools. However, in the case of Spain, I argue that the education responses to meet the needs of immigrant students seem to be trapped in time. Approaches, provisions, and teacher education have been highly dependent on changing political and economic contexts in such a way that they have never really transformed education. Therefore, migrant students continue to occupy an implicitly anomalous and temporary place within it. This chapter is divided into three sections. First, I reconstruct the main characteristics of the incorporation of immigrant students in the Spanish education system and the educational responses implemented based on the most common approaches, arrangements, and discourses since the 1990s, when Spain became an immigrant-receiving country. Second, the failing assumption of education as the key to social integration is briefly analysed in relation to teacher education and the wider context of recent traumatic events. These relate especially to the terrorist attacks in the Barcelona Ramblas and Cambrils, a seaside resort, on 17 August 2017, carried out by a group of young men who were the children of Moroccan immigrants. In the third part, drawing on several research projects carried out in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, the chapter illustrates the experiences of immigrant students at different educational stages in the different periods identified.

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS IN SPANISH SCHOOLS SINCE 1994: APPROACHES, PROVISIONS, AND DISCOURSES The process of incorporation of immigrant students into the Spanish education system since the growing number of arrivals at the end of the 20th century can be divided into three periods according to different education responses. Education policies, with little regional variations, promoted the creation of specific provisions within schools to focus on language learning while developing a well-known, well-intended rhetoric of intercultural education and social integration. The first, short period between 1994 and 2000 is marked by the emergence of a double school network and a new type of social segregation by national origin as well as class and ethnicity (Carrasco, 2004). The beginning of family regrouping aligned with massive immigration runs in parallel to cycles of educational reform and counter-reform in a fierce debate between conservatives and social democrats. This resulted in an inclusive progressive reform proposed by the latter, which aimed to equip schools with an inclusive model to foster linguistic and cultural diversity and, a novel approach to Spanish pedagogy. However, the conservatives won the elections to the national parliament following the approval of this unprecedented reform and financial resources allocated to implement it were directed to the private education sector. Therefore, the number of state-funded private schools exponentially grew and a double school network was consolidated. Although 80% of immigrant students were over-represented in public schools, these were the most under-resourced, while state-funded private schools

498  Research handbook on migration and education had only 20% of new arrivals and used paralegal strategies to make families pay some fees, while being allowed to follow their own recruitment rules. Thus, while promoting a message of education as the key to integration, education policy was encouraging the flight of native students from public schools. Despite discourses celebrating uncritical, reifying notions of cultural diversity and interculturality in education, actual immigrant students were represented by deficit views and compensatory approaches that had been applied to Roma students previously. Finally, the national immigrant integration policy was oriented by what has been called a ‘practical philosophy’ (Zapata Barrero, 2010), largely inspired by a communitarian approach. ‘Respect for diversity’ and ‘intercultural education’ were promoted as ‘mantras’ by education authorities in their struggles against racist reactions in schools that were taking place (Serra, 2002) when the children of immigrants started to arrive. This laissez-faire approach however jeopardised the possibility of adequately dealing with unequal opportunities between girls and boys within some migrant groups. Clear frameworks for intervention regarding controversial topics such as dress codes, exemption from physical education, and so on were absent. Thus, decision-making with respect to girls’ full participation resided with local school management teams. The second phase is marked by the period between 2001 and 2006 when migration intensified and diversified exponentially in Spain. In this period, the focus of education policy started to be clearly on language and language-based reception arrangements. This was not free of contradictory rhetoric and worrying processes in the making. On the one hand, learning the language of the host society was presented as the key to social cohesion, exactly as education had been presented as the key to integration, while institutional monolingualism was the norm with no exception, as was being documented by the work of many scholars (García Castaño & Carrasco, eds., 2011). This fact was particularly contradictory in regions with their own and unique official language of tuition, such as Catalonia. Here migrant families were settling in working-class neighbourhoods with cheaper rents where almost all the population were Spanish-speaking descendants of immigrants from the rest of Spain who had arrived during a period of industrial development in the 1960s. On the other hand, while the discourse of cosmopolitan and abstract celebration of cultural diversity continued, the seed of new processes of social ethno-stratification was being planted, which is currently reflected among Spanish youth of different origins. During the years of the real estate and construction boom and the exponential increase in tourism, early school leaving among working-class youth in Spain, in which immigrants were over-represented, became the highest in the European Union. The problem was masked however by a strong demand for low-skilled labour where early school leavers found relatively well-paid jobs (García, Merino, Casal, Sánchez-Gelabert, 2011; Carrasco, Narciso, Bertran, 2015). The third phase runs from the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2007 to the beginning of the economic recovery in 2017. In the school year 2007–2008, mass immigration suddenly declined, and family reunification arrivals exceeded labour migration arrivals. A consequence of this was the exponential increase in in-year enrolment and placement of new students in schools in poorer areas. These were schools characterised by lower demand, hence more places, which in turn consolidated already existing segregation by origin and income. These social segregation dynamics also increased as a result of family mobility strategies to cope with the crisis, especially among those most affected by unemployment and evictions, both nationals and migrants (Bereményi & Carrasco, 2017; Martorell & Carrasco, 2020). In-year

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  499 enrolment ultimately became the new concern that replaced the focus on linguistic integration in education policy. A compounding factor related to the management of the financial crisis at the dictate of the neoliberal austerity policies of the conservative governments in Spain and in the European Union. In the case of education services, the reduction of public resources invested included cuts of up to 40% in public schools (Bonal & Verger, 2013), much higher than the budget reduction that affected privately owned, state-funded schools. In addition, inservice teacher education related to improving care for immigrant students was cut short, and language and curricular support for immigrant students was no longer funded and virtually disappeared from schools’ provision (Carrasco, Narciso & Bertran, 2015). Such policy responses took place against increasing poverty in Spanish society more generally and specifically among immigrant families who were hit particularly hard. During those years, both institutional research and public discourse focused on what we call ‘visible borders over hidden barriers’ (Carrasco, Pàmies, Ponferrada, 2011). The focus was on highlighting problems in relation to ‘immigrant integration’ in the receiving society rather than the multiple ways of exclusion immigrant families and students were experiencing. For example, research focused on the problem of gangs from Latin American and Central American countries, the incidence of female genital mutilation among Western African immigrants, the increase in crime among Eastern Europeans and others, Islam as a barrier to social integration, or higher school failure figures associated with the increasing numbers of immigrant students in schools. In sum, research made visible a selection of issues while many social problems experienced by immigrant children and families remained invisible (Carrasco & Pàmies, 2022). However, unemployment, poverty, the impact of the housing crisis, the subsequent loss of legal status and added difficulties to obtain Spanish nationality, and the everreducing resources in social services of support and their impact on the wellbeing and the education of immigrant students remained invisible. A securitarian approach to migration management (Ferreira, 2018) in public spaces was also evident, in line with anti-immigration discourses of the far right, with increasing ethnic profiling arrests specifically directed at immigrant young men. This has also favoured the transfer of stereotypes and prejudices of the receiving society to the school and to new generations of poorly trained teaching staff with no education on migration, social integration, or fair and effective approaches to including immigrant students, as we will show later in this chapter. The impact of these policies is clear. Evidence shows higher vulnerability to bullying as well as higher educational inequalities, with lower levels of graduation from compulsory education and a much higher early school leaving (ESL) rate after lower secondary, compulsory education among immigrant students (OECD, 2018). This is twice as high in the case of girls and three times higher in the case of boys than their native peers (Carrasco, Pàmies, Narciso, 2018). Spain has the second-highest ESL rate in the EU by national origin, after Malta, and the most polarised between national and foreign-born youngsters (Eurostat, 2020). Our study in Spain (Carrasco, Narciso, Bertran, 2018) found that although 75% of migrant-background young people aspire to further education and perceive high support from their families, one in three leaves his or her studies early. One of the main causes for this early leaving was found to be the lack of expectations and support perceived by their teachers. Early leaving from education and training renders these young people more vulnerable to unemployment and they run a higher risk of social exclusion than their Spanishbackground peers.

500  Research handbook on migration and education

EDUCATION OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS: A FAILED KEY TO SOCIAL INTEGRATION? To analyse the relation between the education and social integration of immigrant students in Spain, the impact of what happened in August 2017 must also be acknowledged. The terrorist attacks in the Barcelona Ramblas and in Cambrils’ sea promenade shattered the positive perception of social integration that Spanish society, particularly, Catalan society, had of itself (Mourekba, 2018). This traumatic event raises questions about the taken-for-granted belief in the successful role of the education system in progressively achieving social integration through discourses of shared citizenship and belonging of the children of immigrants beyond academic performance. Media, politicians, educators, and social workers who had closely known those young men from Moroccan families, raised and educated in a small village on the way to the Pyrenees, were all repeating that what happened was more difficult to believe because ‘they were integrated’. Most of the young men involved spoke Catalan fluently, had native friends, engaged in sports, and had regular jobs. But were they ‘integrated’? What does integration mean and how had their experiences of education contributed to their integration or lack of it? To what extent had education contributed to equality of opportunity for these young men? But instead of enhancing efforts to provide adequate resources to prevent increasing levels of stratification, public policies have been directed towards a combination of communitarian and securitarian approaches since the turn of the century (Pàmies & Carrasco, eds, 2021). On the one hand, as noted above, communitarian policy approaches addressed immigrant communities as if they were internally homogeneous, with unquestioned shared bonds. The authority of community leaders, usually older men – pioneers of immigration, with higher tolerance towards hostile experiences in the receiving society, was taken as given. On the other hand, since the mid2010s, practices of police racial profiling increased, as in other EU countries, especially affecting younger migrant men associated with Islam. This also occurred in schools where protocols required teachers to identify and report on young men about whom there were concerns in relation to radicalisation (Pàmies & Carrasco, 2021). Yet it was the non-elected religious and political leaders, deemed as representatives of all Muslim ‘communities’ who were consulted on education matters, further alienating the young men at whom the profiling measures were directed. This undoubtedly impacted their engagement with and (lack of) integration into the education system, hence society. Migrants already make up a significant proportion of the young people in Spain for whom, notwithstanding the role of other factors, the educational and social model available to them has failed at very many levels. As Alba and Holdaway (2013, p. 276) note: At a time of demographic transition in ageing countries, the future of societies, in this case Western societies, in economic, social and cultural terms, depends on how young people of immigrant origin are prepared.

But the education process has other actors and a close look at teacher education reveals that in spite of these wider processes of social change, it has remained quite unchanged. Higher education reforms undertaken in parallel to the arrival of immigrant students have failed to include in teacher education degrees crucial matters to meet the needs of immigrant students. For example, strategies for teaching the school languages3 and providing specialised support for them to ensure equal opportunities in education continue to be mostly part of in-service short-term training, often erratic, depending on changing dominant views and on available resources, contrary to well-known evidence-based recommendations (Carrasco, Pàmies &

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  501 Narciso, 2011). Teachers’ attitudes and practices in Spain have been widely described as reproducing deficit views and low understanding of barriers to learning and participation encountered by immigrant students and their families under ‘fashionable’ intercultural education discourses (García Castaño, Rubio & Bouachra, 2011; Garreta, 2014). Although diversity and inclusion soon became the key concepts of education discourse as part of the comprehensive education reform that coincided with the first arrivals of immigrant students in schools since the late 1990s, their meaning and place in teacher training curricula have remained unclear and vague. A further concern relates to the conflation of policies from the 1990s regarding special education with policies of diversity and inclusion with respect to migrant students, framing these in deficit terms. This is the case in teacher education for pre-primary and primary education stages,4 but the definitions and content of the one-year teacher training master’s official degree to qualify for secondary education teaching5 that all graduates in any field can take are quite similar. Inclusion can be mostly found in elective subjects of special education while diversity can be found in several mandatory subjects related to teaching methods and the social context of education. It is worth noting that those same subjects rarely include content related to social inequalities, or about minorities (Figueredo & Ortiz, 2018; Peñalva & Leiva, 2019). Although all these subjects refer to specific competencies on inclusion and even more on diversity, García and Arroyo (2014) argue this is insufficient if it excludes critical thinking and evidence-based practices that can actually be carried out by schools to meet the needs of their students, beyond abstract values. In sum, the teacher education framework in Spain has been experiencing a time dissociation between definitions and approaches to diversity and inclusion that were centrally focused on improving special education but divorced from the social changes that have been taking place in Spain since the turn of the century. This has severely conditioned the educational responses for newly arrived students and students with migrant backgrounds since education discourses have been ambiguously moving between psycho-pedagogical and sociocultural notions of inclusion and diversity. These emphasise deficit approaches to migrant education, including the naturalisation of their lower achievement and early school leaving. However, Cebolla (2009) found significant differences between regions and, in contrast, important similarities in the challenges being faced by working-class native students and immigrant students. Thus, issues related to immigrant exclusion are part of wider policy responses that failed to adopt effective medium- and long-term measures to achieve equality in education more generally. In the next section, I will focus on the experiences of three students with a migrant background selected from different projects carried out in each one of the phases described earlier in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, to show how the school views and the educational approaches to meeting their needs have undergone little variation in time, despite changing education policies and, apparently, teacher education plans.

STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES: CASE STUDIES FROM THE FIELD IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Julio and the Non-Existing ‘Durazno’ I first met Julio in 2003, when he was 11 years old and had just arrived from Ecuador with his family. He had been placed in his age-grade group, year 5 of primary education. Julio regarded

502  Research handbook on migration and education himself as a good student and was used to obtaining good grades. Julio’s school was included in the sample of a two-stage project6 in which we carried out comparative ethnographies of education in schools that were receiving increasing numbers of immigrant students. When Julio arrived in Catalonia, he had to learn Catalan, the language of tuition, but the school had judiciously chosen not to separate the newly arrived students for support, especially the Spanish-speaking students from Latin America. Spanish and Catalan belong to the same linguistic family and are close languages. Julio was quickly able to understand the new language. There were eight other immigrant students in Julio’s class, nearly one-third of it, and the teacher did her best to include them in all the learning activities she proposed. In one class of natural sciences, to understand the difference between dry and juicy fruits, the teacher followed this sequence: reading aloud to the class the abstract definitions from the textbook; identifying together the names of different fruits she was taking out of a basket and classifying them as dry or juicy; drawing them and putting each name underneath, as an individual task; and, finally, tasting a sample of different fruits in bowls she had been filling with the help of students who had finished the last exercise. Julio was frustrated all along: he had been asked to be the one to read aloud, in Catalan, where he was concentrating on the pronunciation rather than on the meaning while the class could barely understand it either; he had identified a peach as durazno and other students had called it melocotón,7 but none were accepted as correct by the teacher, who finally ‘revealed’ its name, préssec, in Catalan. Teacher, in Catalan, holding and showing a peach to the class: Does anyone know what this is? [Note the question is not ‘what is this called?’] Julio, in Spanish: Yes! It’s a durazno, my granny used to buy them all the time! Another student, in Spanish: I know, I know! It’s a melocotón, I like melocotones so much! Teacher, in Catalan: Noooo, nooo… It’s not, it’s not… Who knows what this is? Well, I’ll tell you: it’s a préssec and it’s veeery juicy! Look at it and later you will touch it, it has velvet-like skin… you’ll try it later.

Although many students had known what the fruit was, the name in Catalan prevailed over their knowledge of Spanish ways to call it, discarded as incorrect. The teacher lost the opportunity to provide multilingual and cultural context from the students’ experiences and knowledge and she involuntarily imposed a hierarchy between their language and the school’s. Many fruits were very similar once they had been drawn – most were round, in different sizes, and only the colours changed – and writing down only their names in Catalan was of little help for further study! But Julio was the last one to complete the final exercise. A perfectionist artist, he put in s drawing as compensation for his poor knowledge of Catalan and his denied knowledge of what that fruit was and how it could be called in Ecuadoran Spanish: a juicy durazno. The teacher’s assessment of Julio’s participation and learning in that class only highlighted his quality drawing, until we explained how exclusionary all the lesson had been despite her well-meaning plan with a variety of activities to include all the students. She had never heard of ways to effectively motivate minority students or about Cummins’ (2000) classical scheme of inclusive learning to do it by combining cultural context and cognitive complexity, from experience and participation through theory and language – in this case, a language still being learned. In fact, the very purpose of the class might have been better achieved for all students if it had followed the reverse sequence, starting with tasting the fruits and experiencing the notions of juicy and dry – for which language is not needed – and

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  503 ending with making sense of the abstract definitions in the textbook. Her in-service training on migration and education had barely gone further than superficial topics or even stereotypes of immigrant families, lower levels of students’ knowledge for their age, language difficulties viewed from a monolingual immersion approach, and the like. Samira, Lost on the Fly Our second case, Samira, was a successful student who had graduated from lower secondary education and was in her first year of a post-compulsory VET track on administration and finance when we first met her in 2014, in one of the high schools of a project8 on early school leaving. She had arrived at the age of eight from Pakistan with her family (in 2006, right before the economic crisis) and was placed for some time in a newcomers’ class in primary school. Her father was pushing her to succeed in education, but they had little or no information about the system in Spain. Her older sister and brother had attained higher education in Pakistan, and she also had high aspirations. In the long run, she dreamed of becoming an officer in an airport to work with travellers using her multilingual skills, since she was proud of being fluent in Urdu, English, and Spanish. Surprisingly – or not – she did not include Catalan in the list, the main language in which she had been taught in Catalonia, in which she had been examined and had obtained good grades because, as she said, she did not really have anyone to speak it with out of class. Despite her perception, she managed very well in Catalan in our interviews. But then she fell ill and during the second semester, she could hardly attend classes. When she returned, she was told that it would be very difficult for her to finish the year and therefore it was lost. She then informed the high school that she would not be staying there because her family, faced with the lack of economic prospects due to the crisis, had decided to emigrate to the Basque Country where they had relatives who could help them. In later interviews she had become more frustrated but also more critical: She believed that the teachers could have given her a transcript, at least for the first term, as she had passed all the subjects. The last time we talked to her it was by phone when she had already moved to the Basque Country. She sadly highlighted she felt her family was not welcome there and missed her friends and schoolmates in Barcelona, with whom she kept in daily contact through social networks. She regretted not having asked for more support in the school when she was just let go with a certificate and no further information from the school to help her continue with her education after moving. Even though she thought teachers considered her to be a good student, she believed that since she was ‘an immigrant’ no one had valued her fluency in English and her aspirations for college education but had rather counselled her to follow a VET track. Moreover, no one had informed her that in the Basque Country, she would have been able to study in Spanish – therefore, she believed it would be in the Basque language, a barrier she estimated to be unsurmountable, and did not even try. She learned this by chance when talking to us when she had already enrolled in a non-formal training course on hairdressing that she deeply disliked. Samira: I did pass my exams for the first term, but they did not give me any document to certify it. All the year was lost… Researcher: But why didn’t you resume that VET programme in the new town, in the Basque Country?

504  Research handbook on migration and education Samira: In another language? It was difficult enough in Catalan, it would have been impossible in Euskera! Researcher: But you can choose to study in Spanish in the Basque Country, with Euskera only being a subject… Samira: What?? Are you sure? No one told me, I can’t believe I didn’t have a clue!

She was very disappointed at not being able to continue her studies but did not rule out moving in with her Pakistani family to the United Kingdom, where all her cousins were already at university. There they could go to school in English, which she believed she could also do. However, if nothing changed, she would be included in the early school leaving figures at 18 in Spain – not with upper secondary, nor enrolled in it. It appears that her teachers bought into the assumption that for immigrant students graduating from lower secondary education was a success! Fátima, Six Years and Six Languages Finally, I met Fatima in 2017, in the framework of a recent project9 on schooling and parenting, based on the experiences of girls from Muslim immigrant families from different countries during their first years of schooling, focusing on family video ethnographies and the creation of scrapbooks. I started working with Fatima in her first year of primary school when she was six years old. She was born in Catalonia and had attended pre-primary education, like 98% of the children in Spain;10 therefore, she had no curricular delay due to migration, in contrast to the cases of Samira or Julio. Her mother spoke Darija, the Moroccan Arabic dialect, her Pakistani father spoke Urdu, and at school, she spoke and learned in Catalan, but she played in Spanish with many girls from the working-class neighbourhood where she lived. The family watched television in English regularly, from Pakistani stations, and she had also started English at school, compulsory from year 1 onwards in Spain. In addition, her mother and father generally spoke French because it was her mother’s second language and the language her father had learned in Belgium, where they had met. Finally, her parents sent her once a week to classical Arabic classes at the mosque so that she could also learn how to write in Arabic. Thus, Fatima was six years old, and her linguistic repertoire (Blommaert & Backus, 2013) consisted of six languages, at different levels of oral and written comprehension and production. When we started visiting Fatima, her mother was very worried because she had just received the school report for the first term, which described her as a student with learning difficulties who was barely passing most of the subjects, except physical education and arts. Fatima’s mother disagreed. She thought her daughter was smart and motivated but was not sure whether or how to address the teachers, with whom she was on friendly terms due to her collaboration with the group of mothers, unlike most immigrant mothers. I offered to talk to Fatima’s teacher and the school’s principal, who were very willing to understand the case and to help as much as possible. From the very first moment, they were surprised that the girl was exposed to/was learning six languages. From then on, their attitude sharply changed and began to complain about their lack of training on how to support immigrant students and to justify their possibly misguided approach to evaluation. The child might not have learning difficulties, but all the subjects were evaluated according to her linguistic competence in Catalan and not her cognitive competence in the content of each subject. They

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  505 also understood Fatima’s need to draw since it was the way she could express everything she wanted to represent and communicate, also given her high skills in doing so. This situation is unfortunately common, even 20 years after the first official in-service teachers’ training project, which had been planned to implement a communicative and holistic approach in Catalan schools that would make it possible to understand, consider, and fairly assess the processes, rhythms, and complexity of immigrant pupils’ learning. The principal immediately asked for training sessions to elaborate a whole-school improvement project and I could confirm that no one in the teaching staff had ever been exposed to any of the contents prepared and tested long before, during the period of the massive arrivals. In the following year, Fatima had greatly improved her fluency in Catalan, chose to shift to Catalan in her conversations and games with me, and was willingly doing her homework on her own. Her self-confidence had also improved a lot while continuing to express herself primarily through drawing, which was still very important to her. Fatima’s school engaged in a self-assessment process to identify barriers to learning and participation based on Booth and Ainscow’s 2000 Index for Inclusion that had been translated into Catalan in 2006 as part of the in-service teacher training plan that was developed during the second phase described earlier. A training plan that had been abandoned shortly after, when the budget cuts began, and rediscovered more than 15 years later.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION After 25 years of the first significant arrival of immigrant students in Spanish schools, this chapter has outlined some effects of the (dis)encounters between education responses, teacher training, and students’ experiences that seem to be disconnected and trapped in time. Although patterns of successful educational trajectories have been identified, they do not represent a general situation that seems to be fragile and too dependent on socioeconomic and political fluctuations, hidden under national imaginaries of social integration until the terrorist attacks in August 2017. To achieve the imperative of integration referred to by Alba and Holdaway (2013) by ensuring access to the best possible education for the children of immigrants, a prior imperative should be added: a change of perspective on the education of the children of immigrants. This cannot be realised if teacher education remains as it is. Above all, it appears to be essential to reach a political consensus on the foundations of education and its relation to citizenship that overcomes political exigencies at any one time. Also required is a dissociation between the meaning of diversity and inclusion and its ambiguous curriculum deployment in teacher education. Teachers and schools are poorly prepared to enhance equity when having to deal with diverse students’ backgrounds, in the wider context of deficit views. Although differences between the children of immigrants and their native peers in education outcomes and continuity in Spain are very high, this is a trend mirrored in most countries (OECD, 2018; Eurydice, 2019). The existing evidence on the educational inequalities experienced by immigrant students from the very first years of primary education that result in low achievement in graduating from compulsory education urgently calls for a focus on both immigrant students’ needs but also on their resources. To be able to do so, teachers should be trained on how to take advantage of cultural backgrounds and social networks to enrich and provide more complex learning and increase the participation of children and youth who, for example, master different languages. It is a matter of rights and social cohesion.

506  Research handbook on migration and education In this time of uncertainty and the effects of schools’ lockdowns due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the specific needs of students with a migrant background and of those recently arrived have virtually disappeared from public concerns in education debates or have been incorporated into more general labelling of those especially affected by the digital divide (Carrasco & Pibernat, 2022). It is necessary to recall the fundamental questions of education goals: teaching from the actual experiences of students and placing emphasis on all the intersections and specificities that children and youth with an immigrant background share with their peers. Ultimately, the role of education is to provide them all with the tools they need to be able to build a more inclusive and just society together.

NOTES 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The first ten nationalities of foreigners in Spain (INE 2020) reflect this diversity with immigrants from Africa (Morocco, Western Africa), South and Central America, Central Asia, and China, as well as Eastern Europe and wealthy European countries. Spain had not developed any norm concerning family reunification since it had been regarded as a country of transit rather than a country of destiny in international migration flows. After becoming a member of the European Common Market and, later, the European Union, migration increased exponentially and made it necessary to regulate the conditions of family reunification for immigrants for the first time in Spanish history. Spanish is the language of tuition in most regions, but it is not the first school language of tuition in regions with their own languages – Catalonia, the Basque Country, or Galicia. English is a compulsory subject from primary education onwards. Royal Decree 126/2014, of 28 February on curricular contents of primary education and Order ECI/3857/2007 of 27 December on official teacher education degrees in universities, Spanish Ministry of Education. Orden ECI/3858/2007, of 27 December, Spanish Ministry of Education. Educación e inmigración en Barcelona. MCYT I+D Plan Nacional. SEC2002-01953 (2002-2005); Familias transnacionales, relaciones interculturales e integración socioeducativa de niños y jóvenes de origen extranjero. MEC I+D Plan Nacional. SEJ 09333 (2005–2008). Durazno is very common for peach in many Latin American Spanish-speaking countries while melocotón is the usual word used in Spain. Reducing Early School Leaving in Europe (RESL​.​eu). FP7-SSH-2012.1 Grant Agreement Number 320223 (2013–2018). Migraciones y espacios transnacionales de educación: construcción de la identidad de las niñas y parentalidad en las familias marroquíes, pakistaníes y senegambianas en España (TRANSEMIGRA). MINECO Excelencia y Retos I+D+i MO08748. (2016-2019). Eurostat 2021: https://ec​.europa​.eu​/eurostat​/statistics​-explained​/index​.php​?title​=Early​_childhood​_ and​_primary​_education​_statisticsn

REFERENCES Alba, R., & Holdaway, J., eds. (2013). The Children of Immigrants in School. A Comparative Look at Integration in the United States and Western Europe. New York: New York University Press. Bereményi, B. Á., & Carrasco, S. (2017). Caught in the triangle of mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(1), 32–46. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2013). Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing Language’ in Superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. London: King’s College. Vol. 67, 1–26. Bonal, X., & Verger, A. (2013). L’agenda de la política educativa a Catalunya: una anàlisi de les opcions de govern. Barcelona: Fundació Bofill.

Migration and education in Spain since the 1990s and the turn of the century  507 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Index for inclusion. Manchester Centre for the Study of Inclusive Education. Carrasco, S., ed. (2004). Inmigración, contexto familiar y educación. Proyectos y experiencias de la población marroquí, ecuatoriana, china y gambiana. Educación y Sociedad, 15. Bellaterra: ICE-UAB. Carrasco, S., & Pàmies, J. (2022).  Investigación visible, problemas invisibles: balance crítico de los aportes de la etnografía educativa en España, en Juncosa, J. y Bravo, R., eds., Prácticas educativas, pedagogía e interculturalidad. Quito (Ecuador): Abya-Yala. 75–90. Carrasco, S., & Pibernat, M. (2022). El impacto del confinamiento escolar en los centros de clase trabajadora en Madrid y Barcelona por estatus migratorio y género. RASE. Revista de la Asociación Española de Sociología de la Educación-RASE, 15(1), 95–110. Carrasco, S., Narciso, L., & Bertran, M. (2015). ¿Qué pueden hacer los centros públicos ante el abandono escolar prematuro? Las medidas de apoyo al alumnado a través de dos estudios de caso. Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 19(3), 76–92. Carrasco, S., Narciso, L., & Bertran, M. (2018). Neglected aspirations. Academic trajectories and the risk of ESL among immigrant and minority youth in Spain, in Ch. Timmermann, L. Van Praag & N. Clycq, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Early School Leaving in the EU. London: Routledge. 164–182. Carrasco, S., Pàmies, J., & Ponferrada, M. (2011). Fronteras visibles y barreras ocultas: la experiencia escolar del alumnado marroquí en Cataluña y mexicano en California. Revista Migraciones, 29, 31–60. Cebolla Boado, H. (2009). Impacto de la inmigración y adecuación de los servicios públicos: la educación. Anuario CIDOB de la Inmigración, 164–180. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. El País (VERNE). (2018). Identidad y diversidad: así son los jóvenes españoles hijos de inmigrantes. https://verne​.elpais​.com ​/verne​/2018​/12​/02​/articulo​/1543777596​_ 555480​.html European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds into Schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications. Office of the European Union. Eurostat (2020). Early leavers from education and training. Statistics explained. https://ec​.europa​.eu​/ eurostat​/statistics​-explained​/index​.php​?title​=Early​_leavers​_from​_education​_and​_training Ferreira, S. (2018). From narratives to perceptions in the securitisation of the migratory crisis in Europe: https://www​.e​-ir​.info​/2018​/09​/03​/from​-narratives​-to​-perceptions​-in​-the​-securitisation​-of​ -the​-migratory​-crisis​-in​-europe/ Figueredo, V., & Ortiz, L. (2018). Teachers and cultural diversity: Analysis of initial teacher training in interculturality. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 9, 46–71. Garcia, L., & Arroyo, M. J. (2014). Teacher training within Intercultural Education: an overview of their initial and permanent training. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 7(2), 127–142. García, M., Merino, R., Casal, J., & Sánchez-Gelabert, A. (2011). Itinerarios de abandono escolar y transiciones tras la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Revista de Educación, 361, 65–94. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-361-135 García Castaño, F. J., Rubio, M., & Bouachra, O. (2011). Población inmigrante y escuela en España: un balance de investigación. en F. J. García Castaño & S. Carrasco (eds.), Población migrante y escuela: conocimientos y saberes de investigación. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación. 143–233. Garreta, J. (2014). La interculturalidad en el sistema educativo, logros y retos. Gazeta de Antropología, 30(2), 1–26. Gibson, M., & Carrasco, S. (2009). The education of immigrant youth: some lessons from the US and Spain. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 249–257. Gibson, M., Carrasco, S., Pàmies, J., Ponferrada, M., & Rios, A. (2013). Different Systems, similar results. Youth of Immigrant Origin at School in California and Catalonia, in Alba & Holdaway, eds., The Children of Immigrants at School, a Comparative Look at Integration in the United States and Western Europe. New York: New York University Press. 84–119. Izquierdo, A. (1996). La inmigración inesperada. Madrid: Trotta.

508  Research handbook on migration and education Izquierdo, A., dir. (2006). Demografía de los Extranjeros. Incidencia en el crecimiento de la población. Bilbao: Fundación BBVA. Martorell Faus, M., & Carrasco, S. (2020). Itinerarios de movilidad y precarización: experiencias y narrativas infantiles sobre la crisis habitacional. Revista Española De Sociología, 29(2), 249–265. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2021). Estadísticas de las Enseñanzas No Universitarias. Datos avance. Madrid. Mourekba, M., coord. (2018). Atentados de Barcelona: reacciones, explicaciones y debates pendientes. Barcelona: CIDOB. Narciso, L., & Carrasco, S. (2021). West African boys and early school leaving in Spain: persistence as the counter-narrative. Culture and Education, 33(4), 651–676. OECD (2018). The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background. Factors that Shape Wellbeing. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​.1787​/9789264292093​-en Pàmies, J., & Bertran, M. (2018). Factores de éxito y continuidad educativa entre jóvenes de ascendencia marroquí en Cataluña (España). International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation (IJERI), 10, 179–189. Pàmies, J., & Carrasco, S., eds. (2021). Una aproximación a los procesos de radicalización y extremismo violento, Focus on International Migration, 8. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Peñalva, A., & Leiva, J. J. (2019). La interculturalidad en el contexto universitario: necesidades en la formación inicial de los futuros profesionales de la educación. Educar, 55(1), 0141–158. Reyes, Ch. (2017). Etnografiando formas de aprendizaje, participación y agencia en la escuela y la mezquita. Revista Complutense de Educación. 28(3), 35–52. Reyes, Ch., & Carrasco, S. (2018). Unintended effects of language policy on the transition of immigrant students to upper secondary education in Catalonia. European Journal of Education, 53(4), 514–527. Serra, C. (2002). Inmigrantes en las escuelas. Discursos de identidad y violencia racista, in García Castaño, F. J., & López, C. M, coords., La inmigración en España: contextos y alternativas, vol. 2. Granada: Universidad de Granada. 361–370. Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2010). Learning a New Land. Immigrant Students in American Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2010). Managing diversity in Spanish society: A practical approach. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31(4), 383–402, DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2010.491274

35. Education in Australia for forced migrants: examining the differences in entitlements between permanent and temporary protection Sally Baker, Loshini Naidoo and Jennifer M. Azordegan

INTRODUCTION Access to education for forcibly displaced people has been the subject of increased international policy and advocacy attention (UNHCR, 2021). Accessing education offers a significant source of hope for refugees who are awaiting a durable solution for safety and security in countries of asylum (UNHCR, 2021) and is a fundamental component of integration for refugees who have resettled in new countries (Ager & Strang, 2008). Access to higher education is particularly low, with the UNHCR (2022) estimating that only 5% of refugees had access to higher education in 2021, compared with 39% of the global population. Resultingly, there has been increased scholarly attention to issues of refugee education in resettlement countries like Australia. This chapter offers an overview of the Australian context over the last decade, focusing on the available educational provisions for forcibly displaced people in Australia. We start by outlining the context of humanitarian migration in Australia, before taking a close look at four different sectors: schooling, Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provision, vocational and education training (VET), and higher education (HE), exploring educational policy and provision and associated challenges. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and challenges that face refugee education in Australia. Forced Migrants in Australia Australia has a current annual commitment to take in 13,750 refugees through its humanitarian migration program (Department of Home Affairs (DHA), 2022a), although occasionally additional provision is made available in response to crises; for example, in 2022, it also announced a one-off resettlement program of 16,500 Afghan refugees (DHA, 2022b). However, while Australia has an established humanitarian migration program, it is also notable for its hostile deterrence policy – Operation Sovereign Borders (DHA, 2022c) – for people who intend to claim asylum onshore. Under this policy, anyone who claims asylum onshore (once in Australia) is immediately placed on a Bridging Visa (BV) with limited work and study rights and no access to welfare payments. Processing asylum claims can take years and while many ultimately have received refugee status, they will never be offered the chance for permanent residency under this policy. Instead, refugees who sought asylum onshore from 2013 were offered either a three-year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) or a five-year Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV), both of which required refugees to continuously reapply for the right to remain – albeit only ever on a temporary basis – in Australia. In 2023, the new Labor government abolished TPVs and SHEVs and started the process of giving permanent protection 509

510  Research handbook on migration and education to refugees holding these visas. In this chapter, we refer to people on BV as ‘people seeking asylum’ (PSA). We note that while those refugees who previously held TPVs and SHEVs are transitioning to permanent protection, they will likely experience a period of instability which will impact on their educational access and participation in the short-to-medium term. For refugees who enter Australia via the offshore program (or ‘resettlement programs’), the situation is different, although they still face challenges inherent to forced migration and resettlement. This group is immediately offered permanent protection with the right to apply for Australian citizenship; they are also able to access the same levels of welfare (Centrelink, Medicare) and public services (such as education) as Australian citizens. In this chapter, we refer to this group as ‘refugees with permanent protection’ to distinguish between the two groups as their access to education is significantly different.

WHAT EDUCATION PROVISIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS IN AUSTRALIA? There are differences between refugees with temporary and permanent protection when it comes to the right to access education; as we will detail in what follows, refugees with permanent protection have access to the full range of educational offerings that Australian citizens can access, whereas PSA face limitations with what education is available to them, and there are often costs attached. In Australia, responsibility for funding education is distributed by different levels of government, depending on the sector: schooling, language tuition, and VET are the responsibility of the state/territory government, whereas the federal (Commonwealth) government has responsibility for HE. In what follows, we overview what schooling, English language, VET, and HE refugees with temporary and permanent protection can access. We also outline how the challenges that students from forced migration backgrounds face – such as physical and psychological trauma, language and literacy development issues due to disrupted or limited prior education, family responsibilities, issues with access, and a sense of belonging – are overlooked in policy and practice. Despite Australia’s multicultural policy mandating that government services and programs – including education – must commit to an access and equity framework to provide equitable services to Australians from all backgrounds, evidence suggests that students from refugee backgrounds are struggling with educational access, engagement, transition, attainment, and belonging. These challenges extend from Australian schooling (Correa-Velez et  al., 2017) to adult language (Hatoss, 2014), to VET (Choy & Wärvik, 2019) and to HE (Baker et al., 2018; Naidoo, 2021) contexts. As we will describe below, many of these challenges relate to a student’s visa category that unevenly limits access, as well as issues relating to broader funding issues in public education, which has created specialist teacher shortages (Neilsen & Weinmann, 2022). Australia’s policy of regional resettlement and its vast size means that these challenges can be acute in regional or rural locations, where local infrastructure (including specialist teachers) likely cannot meet the needs of forced migrants (Brown, 2022). Other challenges are created by the siloing of responsibility for humanitarian resettlement, meaning that resettlement organisations may not have strong connections with institutions like schools, colleges, or universities, nor awareness of pathways and educational opportunities beyond basic education. Moreover, the focus of Australia’s resettlement policies on immediate

Education in Australia for forced migrants  511 basic needs (school placement and language classes) as well as swift employment positions access to post-school (vocational or higher education) as a longer-term, non-urgent concern (Lenette et al., 2019). At the school level, research shows that refugee youth are particularly at risk of not completing secondary school education, with age on arrival and experiences of discrimination proving to be significant predictors of completion (Correa-Velez et al., 2017). Adult students appear to have a more difficult transition between the refugee journey (including life in protracted refugee situations) and adjusting to the requirements, environment, and expectations of study, particularly with the complexity of resettlement taking time and energy (Hatoss, 2014). Educational transitions create significant barriers for people from forced migration backgrounds. Longitudinal research confirms that transitions into education at any level are challenging for refugees because of their unfamiliarity with the host country, culture, and context (Correa- Velez et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2018). These are exacerbated by the myriad issues that forced migration can create for students, such as educational disruption during displacement, trauma-related learning challenges, and often learning a new language and learning (and being tested) through that language. Other challenges that can impede educational engagement relate to more sociological issues: unfamiliarity with educational systems and structures (Molla, 2021a), monolingual assumptions (Baker et al., 2018); and resultant deficit framings (Miller et al., 2021). All challenges are magnified substantially for PSA because of the constraints imposed by their visa conditions, as will be discussed in this chapter. Schooling Australia-wide, the level of access to schooling for students from forced migration backgrounds depends on their visa status. Australian public schooling is the responsibility of state and territory governments, with funding shared between the federal and the states/territories. As a federated system, it is very difficult to paint a national picture of how refugee children are supported with access, engagement, and success in the Australian schooling system because state and territory governments enact national policies and educational priorities differently. This is further complicated by the limited national data on the number of refugee children (on permanent, temporary protection, and Bridging Visas) in Australian schools and it is therefore very difficult to give accurate figures. In 2018/2019, the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (2020) reported that 17,497 school-aged children and young people (5–18 years of age) arrived in Australia across all migration streams, with the Humanitarian program representing 28.3% (4,952) of these arrivals. However, the border restrictions imposed by COVID19 have resulted in very low levels of migration from 2020–2022. In general, refugee children who have permanent protection visas are able to access public schooling immediately after arriving in Australia. In contrast, PSA have access to public schooling as ‘international students’ and generally have to pay fees to access many of the same services and supports as those with permanent protection. These costs vary by state. Victoria, for instance, clearly states on its website that an international student is not required to pay fees to attend a government school if they have applied for a Humanitarian Visa, including a Bridging Visa E 051 (Protection) (State of Victoria Department of Education and Training, 2019). However, in Queensland, the same visa does not exempt them from fees (Queensland Department of Education, 2020). Additionally, PSA are only entitled to access public education until they turn 18, although, in some states, such as Tasmania, students are permitted to finish the school year after turning 18 (Clarke et al., 2018). However, as this is not clearly set

512

No. Fees are determined by the conditions of the immediate previous substantive visa and the visa applied for.

Bridging Visa

• Refugee Student Team (counselling services) provides additional counselling services to schools and assists school counsellors across NSW in dealing with students of refugee backgrounds. • NSW Refugee Health Services, Local Area Health Services, and Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS) provide health care and specialist counselling for newly arrived students of refugee backgrounds in some schools. • Trained school counsellors and teachers to assist newly arrived refugees to adjust to life in Australia. • Families in Cultural Transition (FICT) course. (FICT) courses are conducted by STARTTS facilitators to assist newly arrived families from refugee backgrounds in dealing with settlement. As above

Done at the discretion of the school principal

Students can apply for on-arrival intensive English as an additional language/dialect (EAL/D) support. Discretion of the school.

Students can apply for on-arrival intensive EAL/D support. This is provided at the discretion of the school.

Other supports: Case study of NSW

On-arrival intensive English tuition for newly arrived students at the beginning and emerging levels of English language proficiency. Support is provided to newly arrived students in primary schools, high schools, and intensive English centres in order to develop their English language skills so that they are able to participate in learning with their peers in mainstream classes.

Access to language provision

Source:   Drawing on the overview of provision in New South Wales by Watkins, Noble & Wong, 2018, 28.

No. TPV/SHEV holders must obtain an ‘Authority to enrol in a state school’ from the Department of Education International. Fees may be charged. If fees are not charged there must be: • an exemption or • a waiver.

Yes

Permanent protection

Temporary protection

Free access to public education?

Visa type

Table 35.1  Overview of schooling provision by visa type

Education in Australia for forced migrants  513 out across all states, it leads to incidents where students have to leave school in the middle of the school year, regardless of where they are in their course of study. Table 35.1 offers an overview of schooling provision according to visa type, using New South Wales – Australia’s most populated state and recipient of the highest numbers of humanitarian migrants – as a case study for the support offered. Policy Context The national policy commitment to educational equity in Australia is rooted in the Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Education Declaration, which was signed by all federal, state, and territory education ministers in 2019. This document suggests that equity can be achieved through targeted support for individual needs (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2019). However, the new Declaration diverges from its 2008 predecessor (the ‘Melbourne Declaration’) in ways that impact equitable access to quality schooling for students from refugee backgrounds, particularly for PSA. This is evident in the chosen wording that has subtly erased migrant children from the remit. For instance, in Goal 1, the Mparntwe Declaration now promises this right only to ‘young Australians’ (p. 5), whereas the Melbourne Declaration stated its commitment to provide access to high-quality schooling that is free from discrimination to ‘all students’. Sub-clauses that had previously addressed the needs of refugees with either permanent or temporary protection in Australia have been removed in the updated Mparntwe Declaration, leading to a critical void in terms of a mandate for responsive policy and funding for EAL/D cohorts, including refugees (Neilsen & Weinmann, 2022). Language Provision The Australian government’s ESL–New Arrivals program delivers intensive English as an additional language (EAL/D) tuition to eligible newly arrived migrant primary and secondary school students. Eligible students receive a minimum of six months of intensive English language tuition either in an intensive English language centre (IEC) before they are moved into ‘mainstream’ primary or secondary schooling, or in schools. EAL/D high school students are entitled to attend an IEC for up to five terms before transitioning to high school, whereas primary students are likely to receive EAL/D support as part of their classes. An additional 400 hours is also available to refugees and humanitarian entrants through the Special Preparatory Program (SPP) for eligible humanitarian entrants assessed as having special needs arising from their premigration experiences, for example, torture, trauma, or low levels of schooling. Most IECs are located in, or attached to, a school and are found in areas that attract a significant proportion of migrants. Most IECs are located in Australian capital cities, although there are created in regional resettlement areas when migration numbers support the investment. However, since the closure of borders due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2022, many IECs have subsequently temporarily closed. In the absence of an IEC in the local area, intensive language provision should be offered by a trained teacher. Support for Refugee Children State governments have a suite of supports for newly arrived migrant children, including refugees. Interpreting and translating services can also be offered via the state Department for

514  Research handbook on migration and education Education. Some schools employ bilingual school learning support officers (SLSOs) to support new arrivals; however, like EAL/D support, the creation of these roles depends on the number of children in need, meaning emerging resettlement areas are unlikely to have SLSOs on staff when new children enrol. This is especially the case in regional and rural areas (Brown, 2022). Due to the small number of IECs, most Australian schools rely on peripatetic EAL/D teachers, or general teacher aides, to provide support to newly arrived students. However, this is challenging because there is limited EAL/D training in Initial Teacher Education (Australian Council for TESOL Associations (ACTA), 2022), meaning few ‘mainstream’ teachers feel able to support EAL/D students. It is vital that teachers seek the professional learning needed to understand their self-efficacy when working with culturally and linguistically diverse learners and to build their capacity to effectively support EAL/D students.  As described above, state/ territory governments provide different programs; in New South Wales, newly arrived children can access the Welcome Program,1 which provides orientation sessions on topics such as expectations, study organisation, challenges, and post-school options. Mechanisms for accountability and supervision of these local resources vary by state. Some state education department websites lay out specific accountability measures for how schools should use funds to support newly arrived students and then report annually on how this funding was used to improve student learning. Moreover, in recent years, for example, a trend towards making public schools more locally controlled has seen the responsibility of directing resources to the education of these students being transferred to the principal and whether they perceive the need for specialist support (Creagh et al., 2022). Challenges with Providing Schooling to Refugee Children A growing, but significant research base has been building around refugee education in the Australian school context. These studies have most often addressed how to effectively teach and engage these students once in school and furthered understanding of the challenges facing students from refugee backgrounds in the Australian education context, primarily focusing on issues for refugee children developing literacy (Woods, 2009); clubs for social inclusion (Naidoo, 2009); challenging deficit views (Miller et  al. 2021); and the intersection of the educational experience with refugee identities (Matthews, 2021). Scholars have also repeatedly drawn attention to a national and state policy environment that has for decades failed to acknowledge the complexities of educating refugee students with little to no schooling experience (Molla, 2021a; Matthews, 2021). However, not all students identified as needing EAL/D support are able to access this support due to critical staff shortages. For example, in NSW one-quarter of students (190,889) in government schools in 2020 were EAL/D; of these, one in 67 students were from refugee backgrounds, and one in 100 were newly arrived EAL/D students. These students are supported by only 896 full-time EAL/D teachers, a number that has barely changed in three decades, despite the significant migration experienced in the state (NSW Teacher Federation, 2019). Indeed, Watkins, Lean, and Noble (2016) reported that in 2012 only 86,661 of 137,487 eligible students received ESL support, meaning over 46,000 children did not have their language development needs met. This has led to the EAL/D provision being described as ‘decimated’: a casualty of increased autonomy for states and territories and devolved budget policies following the discontinued national programs of targeted support for new arrivals (ACTA, 2017, 7). Repeated warnings about the dismantling of EAL/D education have gone

Education in Australia for forced migrants  515 relatively unheard, in the face of dramatic growth in the numbers of students from refugee and migrant backgrounds needing intensive English support. The decline of EAL/D education could have far-reaching implications for refugee students and their families. It not only equates to inadequate funding needed to adequately support students with language development, but it also leaves schools with a significant vacuum of EAL/D specialists, forcing classroom teachers and general learning support staff to handle complex educational cases of refugee students without specialised support or adequate training (Watkins et al., 2018). This is particularly concerning given research showing that newly graduated Australian teachers feel insufficiently prepared to teach students from culturally, linguistically, and socio-economically diverse backgrounds (Mayer et al., 2015). More than a decade ago, it was argued that without proper support, refugee youth in Australia were ‘set to tread a path well worn by previous generations of migrants to become the new Australian underclass’ (Matthews, 2008, 35). Given the reports about the ‘decimated’ state of EAL/D education and the continued lack of policy recognition and proactive strategies, students seeking asylum from refugee backgrounds continue to be quietly treading down that path.

ADULT MIGRANT ENGLISH PROGRAM (AMEP) For adult refugees who arrive in Australia, the resettlement-educational priority is access to English language programs. The Australian federal government have responsibility for the AMEP, which is free to new migrants who meet the criteria of being a permanent resident, an eligible temporary resident, or a citizen who previously held an eligible visa; is 18 or over; and speaks little or no English. The AMEP, which has existed for over 70 years, offers English language tuition via a range of delivery options – primarily in-person classes and distance learning – as well as other services such as free childcare and student pathway guidance (Services Australia, 2022). The AMEP was revised in 2021 and now offers unlimited hours for students to achieve ‘vocational’ levels of English language, having previously been capped at 510 hours. The rationale behind this recent, wide-ranging reform package is described in terms of a changing linguistic profile of people migrating to Australia, a changing economy that requires more skilled workers, and an increased need for attention to digital literacies (Department of Home Affairs (DHA), 2021b). These reforms have resulted in an outcomes-based funding system, in which AMEP providers are paid based on student progression, reflecting concerns about how previous ‘input-based’ funding ‘incentivise[d] classroom attendance rather than student language progression’ (DHA, 2021b, 7). The shift in funding – from input to output-based – permits more flexibility to AMEP providers and encourages delivery options to be tailored to provide more flexibility to students. Within the revised funding arrangements, additional funding is given to AMEP providers for students who have had less than ten years of schooling – often the case with people who have experienced forced displacement, as well as a regional loading for providers based in non-metropolitan locations. Moreover, the shift to online delivery, enforced by the impacts of COVID-19, has led to both a move to flexible delivery methods (online and in-person options) as well as a greater focus on the development of digital literacies. The delivery of the AMEP is divided into two streams: the community-based learning stream – which encourages community-based conversational language tuition for low-level

516  Research handbook on migration and education Table 35.2  Overview of access to Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) by visa type Visa type

Can they access the AMEP?

What can they access?

Permanent protection

Yes

• Unlimited hours of English classes until they reach vocational levels of English (Certificate III). • Apply to enrol, even if they have been enrolled in AMEP before and have been living in Australia for many years.

Temporary protection

Yes

As above

Bridging Visa

Only those on Bridging Visas A, B, C, and E do not pay fees. All other Bridging Visa categories pay fees.

PSA who hold a Bridging Visa A, B, C, or E can access two full-time semesters or four part-time semesters of English language classes.

English speakers – and the work-based learning stream, which focuses on language and employment and, like the existing Settlement Language Pathways to Employment and Training (SLPET) sub-program, offers a structure that permits educators to create programs to develop the English language for specific occupations and local employment needs. To facilitate these changes to the AMEP, an EAL national curriculum is being developed to ‘cater for a broad range of refugee and migrant learners, acknowledging the impact of pre-migration experiences on learning [as well as offering] flexibility with inbuilt choice to contextualise learning and address learners’ needs and goals’ (DHA, 2021a, 11), as well as an enhanced focus on information technology and digital literacy. Refugees who have permanent protection visas are able to access the AMEP and under the newly revised format, there are no longer any time limits on starting or finishing the program. Any eligible person can continue to access the AMEP until they achieve a ‘vocational level of English’ (Services Australia, 2022). In contrast, people who seek asylum once they arrive in Australia face significant restrictions to what educational services they can access. At the federal level, people on TPV and SHEV are able to access English language tuition via the AMEP, while people on most BVs are not eligible (DHA, 2022d). Some states offer limited English language tuition to people who are ineligible for the AMEP; for example, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), BV holders can access two semesters of full-time or four semesters of part-time English language classes (Community Services ACT, 2022). Table 35.2 offers an overview of access to AMEP according to the different visa categories. Challenges with Accessing the AMEP It has been debated that longer-term refugee settlement goals are undermined through the Australian government policy focus on employment, ‘functional’ levels of English, and vocational education (Lenette et al., 2019). For example, if refugees are unable to access tertiary education because they do not meet language proficiency entry requirements, they may be limited to low-skilled employment without the option of progressing to better-paid and more stable employment. Other obstacles include the challenge of balancing many competing priorities, such as transport, finding paid work, and childcare (Watkins et al., 2012; Hatoss, 2014;

Education in Australia for forced migrants  517 Dallimore, 2018); gender (Burke et al., forthcoming); and age (Blake et al., 2019). For adults who are pre-literate or have low levels of literacy in their first language, the AMEP is particularly challenging; indeed, in Losoncz’s (2017) study of refugee service providers across Australia, all participants viewed the AMEP as ‘grossly inadequate’ for refugees who were pre-literate or had not experienced formal education before (p.59). For the Karen women in Watkins et al.’s (2012) study, the lack of access to any education prior to arrival in Australia meant they needed help with issues such as holding pens, using bilingual dictionaries, and learning to sit in classrooms, which foregrounds the kinds of training that AMEP teachers need (and often do not receive; Dallimore, 2018).

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (VET) Vocational Education and Training (VET) is one of two tertiary education sectors in Australia (with HE the second). VET is offered through registered training organisations (RTOs), primarily via the public network of technical and further education (TAFE) colleges across Australia, which – like schools – are run by state governments. There is also a private VET sector, which offers specialist training and flexibility that the TAFEs cannot offer. In Australia, the VET sector offers courses from Certificate I (beginner) to Advanced Diplomas. Fields of study range from engineering to telecommunications, childcare, hospitality, business studies, accounting, and hairdressing, to name but a few. As people with permanent protection, refugees are treated like any other permanent resident and have full access to the programs available in the post-secondary educational sector, including access to tertiary education loan provision.2 In contrast, there are significant barriers to access for PSA. Some states offer limited access to Bridging Visa holders, often dependent on having a document from the Department of Home Affairs that confirms the applicant has applied for a TPV or a SHEV. For example, in NSW, TPV and SHEV holders can access fee-free training for qualifications up to Certificate IV level on the NSW Skills List via the state government subsidised ‘Smart and Skilled’ training scheme (NSW Department of Education, 2022). Bridging Visa holders are not eligible for this scheme. Table 35.3 offers an overview of access to VET by visa type, using NSW as a case study for the support offered.

Table 35.3  Overview of access to VET by visa type Visa type

Can they access subsidised training?

Details: case of NSW

Permanent protection

Yes

In NSW, refugees with permanent protection are eligible for Smart and Skilled training from Certificate I to Advanced Diploma.

Temporary protection

Yes, but depends on the state

In NSW, PSA are eligible for fee-free training for qualifications up to Certificate IV.

Bridging Visa

Only Bridging Visa E (BVE) eligible for subsidised training

Ineligible for fee-free training.

518  Research handbook on migration and education

HIGHER EDUCATION The HE sector in Australia consists of 37 public universities. Collectively, they provide undergraduate and postgraduate education in a wide range of disciplines. Most Australian universities have been constituted under state or territory legislation, whereas the Australian National University was established under an Act of the federal parliament. Like other HE systems, Australian universities also offer high-level training for professions such as teachers, engineers, medical practitioners, and lawyers, as well as teaching non-vocational academic degrees, such as arts, social sciences, and sciences. To be eligible for a subsidised place for domestic students – a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) – a student needs to be an Australian citizen, a permanent resident, or a New Zealand Special Category Visa holder. As permanent humanitarian visa holders, refugees on permanent protection visas meet these residency requirements; however, PSA do not. Domestic undergraduate students with a CSP pay part of the cost of their degrees and defer this payment through a loan from the federal government known as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). This means that the cost of each course a domestic student takes will be added to their HECS loan, and they will not need to pay anything upfront, although like VET loans, only citizens and refugees with permanent residency can access this scheme. An increasing number of Australian universities offer full or partial tuition and/ or living allowance competitive scholarships for students from refugee backgrounds (often as part of an ‘equity scholarship’). Public universities also offer full fee-paying places to overseas students and these fees are subject to the discretion of individual universities (Norton & Cherastidtham, 2015, 1). There are significant constraints for PSA, who face a number of challenges, many caused by hostile rules relating to the Australian government’s deterrence policy, that significantly impact on their potential to access and succeed in HE. Without permanent residency status, universities are forced to classify PSA as international students, meaning applicants have to apply as full-fee-paying overseas students (Hartley et  al., 2018). The cost of enrolling at a university as an international student prevents them from furthering their education even if they have qualified for university entrance based on their Australian secondary school results (Hartley et al., 2018). They are not eligible for federal government programs providing financial assistance for students to attend university, such as CSP and HECS, and they cannot access alternative pathway courses or equity scholarships as these are limited to domestic students (Hartley et al., 2018). Table 35.4 offers an overview of HE provision according to visa types. Admissions and Pathways into Higher Education A key admissions pathway into Australian HE is via school matriculation, where universities use a student’s Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR)3 to select applicants for degree programs. Some programs require additional information for admissions decisions, such as portfolios, interviews, or an audition, depending on the discipline. The ATAR is based on a student’s High School Certificate (HSC) results within an age group and is calculated by each state’s tertiary admissions authority. Adjustments (or ‘bonus points’) can also be made through the Educational Access Scheme (EAS), which can increase a student’s overall ranking through the recognition of a serious impact on schooling. Adjustment factors include

Education in Australia for forced migrants  519 Table 35.4  Overview of access to HE by visa type Visa type

Access to Access to Access to other equity supports? CSP? HECS?

Access to supports for international students?

Permanent protection

Yes

Yes

Yes, although these are rarely targeted to refugees because they are not identified as an ‘equity cohort’.

No

Temporary protection

No

No

No

No

Bridging visa No

No

No

No

attending a ‘disadvantaged school’, living in regional areas, experiencing disrupted schooling, financial hardship, and personal illness and/or disability. Some universities will allocate specific places for EAS applicants. There is a specific category for refugee students. Although the ATAR is considered the primary admissions pathway, more students are admitted to university via other pathways; Tim Pitman (2019) reports that nearly 60% of the 279,000 students who received an offer to study at an Australian university in 2018 were accepted on a non-ATAR basis. Other pathways include early admissions programs, which offer other opportunities for students to demonstrate preparedness for tertiary study such as school recommendations or participation in a program administered by universities which assesses the ‘readiness’ for tertiary study through other means (such as portfolio completion). In addition, many universities offer alternative entrance pathways for ‘domestic’ students who have not met the entry requirements, such as preparation programs or diploma pathways, although these may have English language proficiency requirements. In addition, students may be able to use a VET qualification to gain entrance to an undergraduate degree. Thus, while many refugees experience challenges with prior qualification recognition (Refugee Council of Australia, 2022) and may struggle to access tertiary study through traditional pathways, such as the ATAR, there are other pathways into HE, although these take longer and are less wellknown (Baker et al., 2020). Scholarships To respond to this disadvantageous situation, many Australian universities offer fee-waiver scholarships to people on TPV, SHEV, and Bridging Visas, often with a stipend and sometimes with accommodation support (Refugee Education Special Interest Group, 2022). However, multiple barriers exist for PSA seeking to access a scholarship. First, the process of applying for a course or for a scholarship is complicated by inconsistencies between institutions in terms of application requirements, which are largely based on admission requirements for international students because of the way that universities are mandated to classify PSA as international students. Resultingly, assumptions about financial security and mobility made of the international cohort are passed on, largely via the systems and processes of applying for and administering scholarships. For example, the institutional expectation that students apply for course entry and a scholarship concurrently creates additional stress for asylum seekers who must initially be accepted into a course before being considered for a scholarship (Hartley et  al., 2018). These challenges are further complicated by low awareness of

520  Research handbook on migration and education humanitarian visa categories and documentary requirements, which are significantly different compared with the international cohort (Burke et al., 2020). Second, the precarious financial conditions under which most PSA live make studying towards a degree a near-impossible option. Even recipients of full-fee waiver scholarships may not be able to commit to HE studies due to their ineligibility for state welfare, such as student income support. Moreover, they lose the only source of income support available to asylum seekers – the Status Resolution Support Services payment (SRSS; DHA, 2021a) – if they enrol in a study program for more than a year (Hartley et al., 2018). This means that many asylumseeking students need to work full-time to cover living expenses, which is further complicated by the requirement of some universities for scholarship holders to maintain a full-time study load (Hartley et al., 2018). Finally, while there is a growing number of scholarships offered by Australian universities for students seeking asylum, this number is small in comparison with the number of potential applicants, and some go unfilled because of challenges for universities to communicate these scholarships to potential applicants. What Creates Barriers for Refugee Access to and Participation in University? There are several factors that impacted refugee access to HE such as time and cost pressures: unfamiliarity with the HE system entry and application processes, especially in a different cultural and linguistic context and low awareness of alternative (non-school/ATAR) pathways (Molla, 2021b). Although university fees and living costs vary widely by country, type of institution, and students’ residency status; lack of financial resources, including the cost of lost earnings over the study years, can force refugees to work part-time or even full-time while studying, or to choose vocational education as a quicker means to deal with financial constraints and obligations (Baker et  al., 2020). Moreover, access to HE may be inhibited if refugees are unable to provide official documents proving educational credentials and/or evidence of prior learning, or if they encounter difficulties in getting overseas qualifications recognised (Perales et al., 2021). A key issue with accessing and participating in HE is the lack of data gathered/reported on refugee students, rendering them an ‘invisible group’ within the domestic student cohort (Stevenson & Baker, 2018, 51). Without data to tell us how many refugee students are enrolled, which programs they are in, how many withdraw or pause their studies, how many attain a degree, and what their postgraduate outcomes are, we cannot accurately report on their access and engagement. This dearth of data is notable when compared against other cohorts on whom universities measure and report. Where data do exist, they are often captured under the label of ‘Non-English-Speaking Background’, which ignores the specificities of forced migration experiences. This lack of information fuels assumptions about the student cohort, which can inadvertently exclude refugee students. Thus, if there is a lack of awareness about refugee students’ experiences, their needs – such as disrupted education or traumatic experiences prior to settlement – are unlikely to be considered and can then (unintentionally) disadvantage this cohort, leading to disengagement and attrition (Hartley et al., 2018). Other challenges that limit participation in HE are similar to those in other parts of the education sector. Australia has been described as ‘aggressively monolingual’ (Clyne, 2005), with limited appetite for ‘linguistic hospitality’ in schooling, VET, or HE that could support students like those from forced migration backgrounds to draw on other linguistic resources

Education in Australia for forced migrants  521 to engage in learning (Ollerhead & Baker, 2019). Moreover, Australian education systems are built on firm Western/Eurocentric foundations, meaning that the cultural knowledge and practices of many students – including Australia’s First Nations peoples – are excluded. This extends to simplistic, linear thinking about educational transitions, which denies the complex and rhizomatic educational journeys that many students, and especially refugees, experience (Naidoo et al., 2018; Baker & Irwin, 2020) Lastly, although the UNHCR (2022) has highlighted the potential of online and hybrid learning for refugees wishing to undertake HE, COVID-19 has highlighted how issues of access to technology and the internet education contexts persist, even in relatively resourcerich countries like Australia (Mupenzi et al., 2020). Similarly, the expectation by some universities that applications are completed online, with limited support or guidance offered by university staff, increases the likelihood that refugees fail to submit applications correctly or miss out on scholarships that they may be entitled to apply for.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has offered an overview of the stratified educational provision that refugees can access in Australia, depending on their mode of entry (offshore or onshore) and visa status. It also offered a summary of the structural and systemic barriers that persist in making educational access, engagement, and ‘success’ inequitable for this cohort. It is clear from the description of educational provision available in Australia that temporary protection creates intense challenges for people who have sought refuge onshore, and this has significant implications for every level of education. Other challenges are a result of gaps in policy and practices, fuelled by assumptions about linguistic and cultural familiarity. On arrival, refugee students in Australia (whether on permanent or temporary protection) meet a statebased schooling system that inconsistently, or in some cases outright fails, to recognise their needs, particularly if they have had little or interrupted formal schooling. Urgent action is needed to prevent the further dismantling of the EAL/D field, particularly in a ‘migration nation’ that relies on new arrivals. Placing new arrivals in ‘mainstream’ classrooms with teachers with little to no EAL/D preparation is not only impractical, but it further marginalises these students, meaning that post-school options like VET and HE are much more difficult to achieve. Despite the proliferation of scholarly interest in refugee education, we argue that more work needs to be undertaken to translate this research into effective policy advocacy and classroom practice, including more professional development, teaching models and mentors, and ‘good-practice’ recommendations, to meet the UNHCR’s 15/30 strategy for increasing refugee participation in HE. This includes providing nurturing environments that support learning and creating conditions in which refugee young people can use their education for self-determination and personal/community advancement. This should also create the conditions for reciprocal integration, whereby both new and existing Australians can learn from and support each other in learning. Moreover, the differences in access and entitlement to education between the sectors highlight the importance of collaboration and capacity development in and across the different education sectors which will have the potential to ultimately catalyse growth for all.

522  Research handbook on migration and education

NOTES 1.

https://education​.nsw​.gov​.au​/teaching​-and​-learning ​/curriculum ​/multicultural​- education ​/refugee​ -students​-in​-schools​/whole​-school​-response​/the​-welcome​-program 2. All Australian citizens have access to VET student loans and the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP); interestingly, permanent residents who are not citizens do not have access to these feedeferral programs. 3. The ATAR is a number between 0 and 99.95 that represents a student’s ranking among a relative cohort of students of the same age group. The average ATAR in Australia is 70.00 because not every Australian student leaves school early or takes vocational education and training options that do not translate into the ATAR (University Admissions Centre, n.d).

REFERENCES Ager, A. & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA). (2017). Submission to The Joint Standing Committee on Migration Inquiry into Migrant Settlement Outcomes (108). Retrieved 26 August 2022, from http://www​.aph​.gov​.au​/ DocumentStore​.ashx​?id​=531a5c7e​-89de​- 4214​-a19e​-7d84b2a496fd​ &subId​=511555 Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA). (2022). National Roadmap for English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) Education in Schools. Retrieved 26 August 2022, from https://tesol​.org​.au ​/wp ​- content ​/uploads​/2020​/12​/ Roadmap ​-for​-English​-as​-an​-additional​-language​ -or​-dialect​-in​-schools​-ACTA​-May​-2022​.pdf Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2021a). Status Resolution Support Services. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://immi​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au​/what​-we​-do​/status​-resolution​ -service​/overview Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2021b). Reform of the Adult Migrant English Program: Discussion Paper. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au​/reports​ -and​-publications​/submissions​-and​-discussion​-papers​/reform​-of​-the​-adult​-migrant​-english​-program Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2022a). Discussion Paper Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2021–22. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au​/ reports​-and​-pubs​/files​/2021​-22​-discussion​-paper​.pdf Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2022b). Afghanistan update. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au​/ help​-and​-support​/afghanistan​-update Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2022c). AMEP Eligible Temporary Visas. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://immi​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au​/amep​-subsite​/ Files​/amep​-eligible​ -temporary​-visas​.pdf Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. (2022d). Operation Sovereign Borders. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://osb​.homeaffairs​.gov​.au Baker, S., Irwin, E., & Freeman, H. (2020). Wasted, manipulated and compressed time: Adult refugee students’ experiences of transitioning into Australian higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(4), 528–541. Baker, S., Ramsay, G., Irwin, E., & Miles, L. (2018). ‘Hot’, ‘cold’ and ‘warm’ supports: Towards theorising where refugee students go for assistance at university. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(1), 1–16. Baker, S., Anderson, J., Burke, R., De Fazio, T., Due, C., Hartley, L., Molla, T., Morison, C., Mude, W., Naidoo, L., & Sidhu, R. (2022). Equitable teaching for cultural and linguistic diversity: Exploring the possibilities for engaged pedagogy in post-COVID-19 higher education. Educational Review, 74(3), 444–459. Blake, H., Bennetts Kneebone, L. & McLeod, S. (2019). The impact of oral English proficiency on humanitarian migrants’ experiences of settling in Australia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 689–705.

Education in Australia for forced migrants  523 Brown, J. (2022). Educating in the context of ‘Dispersal’: rural schools and refugee-background students. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Online first: https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13603116​.2022​ .2041112 Burke, R.; Fleay, C.; Baker, S., Hartley, L., & Field, R. (2020). Facilitating access to higher education for people seeking asylum in Australia: Institutional and community responses. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 36(2), 59–69. Choy, S. & Wärvik, G.-B. (2019). Integration of learning for refugee and migrant students: VET teachers’ practices through practice theory lens. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 71(1), 87–107. Clarke, J., Connell, T., & Wallace, J. (2018). States of Refuge: Access to Health, Housing and Education for People Seeking Asylum and Refugees in Australia. Retrieved 26 August 2022, from https://apo​ .org​.au​/node​/181621 Clyne, M. (2005). Australia’s Language Potential. UNSW Press. Community Services ACT. (2022). Access Card. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​ .communityservices​.act​.gov​.au​/multicultural​/services​/access​_card Correa-Velez, I., Gifford, S. M., McMichael, C., & Sampson, R. (2017). Predictors of secondary school completion among refugee youth 8 to 9 years after resettlement in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(3), 791–805. Creagh, S., Hogan, A., Lingard, B., & Choi, T. (2022). The ‘everywhere and nowhere’ English language policy in Queensland government schools: a license for commercialisation. Journal of Education Policy. Online first: https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02680939​.2022​.2037721 Dallimore, C. (2018). Improving Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) outcomes for the Afghan community in South Australia. International Journal of Training Research, 16(2), 182–191. Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE). (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. Retrieved from https://www​.dese​.gov​.au​/alice​-springs​-mparntwe​-education​ -declaration ​/resources​/alice​-springs​-mparntwe​-education​-declaration Hartley, L., Fleay, C., Baker, S., Burke, R., & Field, R. (2018). People Seeking Asylum in Australia: Access and Support in Higher Education. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education Curtin University. Hatoss, A. (2014). Caught between the policies and the practices: Sudanese migrants’ experiences of AMEP in Australia. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(3), 193–210. Lenette, C., Baker, S., & Hirsch, A. (2019). Systemic policy barriers to meaningful participation of students from refugee and asylum seeking backgrounds in Australian higher education. In J. McBrien (Ed.), Educational Policies and Practices of English-Speaking Resettlement Countries (pp. 88–109). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. Losoncz, I. (2017). Goals without means: A Mertonian critique of Australia’s resettlement policy for South Sudanese refugees. Journal of Refugee Studies, 30(1), 47–70. Matthews, J. (2008). Schooling and settlement: refugee education in Australia. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(1), 31–45. Matthews, J. (2021). Maligned mobilities, absences and emergencies: Refugee education in Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(6), 720–734. Mayer, D., Allard, A., Bates, R., & Dixon, M. (2015). Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education – Final Report. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://dro​.deakin​.edu​.au​/view​/ DU​:30080802 Miller, E., Ziaian, T., Baak, M. & de Anstiss, H. (2021). Recognition of refugee students’ cultural wealth and social capital in resettlement. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Online first: https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13603116​.2021​.1946723 Molla, T. (2021a). Refugee education: Homogenized policy provisions and overlooked factors of disadvantage. International Studies in Sociology of Education. Online first: https://www​.tandfonline​ .com ​/doi​/full​/10​.1080​/09620214​.2021​.1948892 Molla, T. (2021b). Educational aspirations and experiences of refugee-background African youth in Australia: a case study. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(8), 877–895. Multicultural Youth and Advocacy Network (MYAN). (2020). National Education Roundtable Briefing Paper Education and Students from Refugee and Migrant Backgrounds: Briefing Paper. Sydney. Mupenzi, A., Mude, W., & Baker, S. (2020). Reflections on COVID-19 and impacts on equitable participation: The case of culturally and linguistically diverse migrant and/or refugee (CALD/MR) students in Australian higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1337–1341.

524  Research handbook on migration and education Naidoo, L. (2009). Developing social inclusion through after-school homework tutoring: A study of African refugee students in greater western Sydney. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 261–273. Naidoo, L. (2021). Traversing the terrain of higher education: Experiences of refugee youth on the inside. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(5), 182–195. Naidoo, L., Wilkinson, J., Adoniou, M., & Langat, K. (2018). Navigating Complex Spaces: Refugee Background Students Transitioning into Higher Education. Springer: Singapore. Neilsen, R. & Weinmann, M. (2022). When we talk about the teacher shortage, don’t forget those who teach English as an additional language (1 July). The Conversation. Retrieved 26 August 2022, from https://theconversation​.com ​/when​-we​-talk​-about​-the​-teacher​-shortage​-dont​-forget​-those​-who​-teach​ -english​-as​-an​-additional​-language​-185134 Norton, A. & Cherastidtham, I. (2015). University Fees: What Students Pay in Deregulated Markets. Grattan Institute. Ollerhead, S. & Baker, S. (2019). Is there any appetite for ‘linguistic hospitality’ in monolingual educational spaces? The case for translanguaging in Australian higher education. In H. Johnson & V. Anderson (Eds.) Migration, Education & Translation (pp. 145–160). London: Routledge. Perales, F., Kubler, M., Xiang, N., & Tomaszewski, W. (2021). Understanding Access to Higher Education Amongst Humanitarian Migrants in Australia. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education Curtin University. Pitman, T. (2019). Don’t Stress, Your ATAR Isn’t the Final Call. There Are Many Ways to Get into University (22 October). Retrieved 26 August 2022, from https://theconversation​.com​/dont​-stress​ -your​-atar​-isnt​-the​-final​-call​-there​-are​-many​-ways​-to​-get​-into​-university​-125429 Queensland Department of Education. (2020). DE International Schedule of Visa Subclasses and Enrolment Conditions. Retrieved April 29 2022, from https://ppr​.qed​.qld​.gov​.au​/pp​/fee​-exemptions​ -policy Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA). (2022). Information About Education for Refugees. Retrieved 26 August 2022, https://www​.refugeecouncil​.org​.au​/education​-info​/5/ Refugee Education Special Interest Group (RESIG). (2022). Scholarships. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.refugee​-education​.org​/scholarships Services Australia (2022). Adult Migrant English Program. https://www​.servicesaustralia​.gov​.au​/adult​ -migrant​-english​-program​?context​=22146 State of Victoria Department of Education and Training. (2019). International Students: Visa Fee Table. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www2​.education​.vic​.gov​.au​/node​/1194 Stevenson, J., & Baker, S. (2018). Refugees in Higher Education: Debate, Discourse and Practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. UNHCR. (2021). UNHCR Education Report 2021: ‘Staying the Course’: The Challenges Facing Refugee Education. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.unhcr​.org​/en​-au​/publications​/education​ /612f85d64​/unhcr​-education​-report​-2021​-staying​-course​-challenges​-facing​-refugee​-education​.html UNHCR (2022). Tertiary Education. Retrieved 29 April 2022, from https://www​.unhcr​.org​/en​-au​/ tertiary​-education​.html University Admissions Centre. (n.d). Australian Tertiary Admission Rank. Retrieved 24 August 2022, from https://www​.uac​.edu​.au​/future​-applicants​/atar van Kooy, J., & Bowman, D. (2019). ‘Surrounded with so much uncertainty’: Asylum seekers and manufactured precarity in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(5), 693–710. Watkins, M., Noble, G., & Wong, A. (2018). It’s Complex! Working with Students of Refugee Backgrounds and Their Families in NSW Public Schools. New South Wales Teachers Federation. Watkins, P.G., Razee, H., & Richters, J. (2012). ‘I’m telling you … the language barrier is the most, the biggest challenge’: Barriers to education among Karen refugee women in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 126–141. Woods, A. (2009). Learning to be literate: Issues of pedagogy for recently arrived refugee youth in Australia. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 6(1), 81–101.

36. Best practices for integration: analyzing the migration and education policies in Latin American host countries Jessica Crist and Katharine Summers

INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, several Latin American countries have faced escalating migration crises. The three largest migration crises in the region, in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle (Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala), have displaced millions of people within and outside of the Latin American region. As of 2022, there were over six million Venezuelans displaced globally due to political and economic instability in the country, with approximately five million residing in Latin America (R4V 2022). By 2022, approximately 200,000 Nicaraguans had fled the country due to increasing political instability and authoritarian governance (UNHCR 2022a). Finally, as of December 2021, over 550,000 people have been displaced from the Northern Triangle (UNHCR 2021a). These migrants are affected by continually changing legal contexts in their host countries. The three migration crises highlighted in this chapter were not caused by war or a specific humanitarian disaster, thus differing from other global migration crises. Instead, each of the crises was created by a mix of sociopolitical factors that have pushed people to flee their home countries. These are protracted crises, meaning that they last many years and require longterm solutions. For example, in Venezuela, authoritarian politics have motivated migration for years, while heightened economic instability since 2015 has caused an even larger wave of outward migration. Due to political unrest starting in 2018, thousands of Nicaraguans have been forced to flee. The Northern Triangle has historically faced violence and poverty which has resulted in several waves of migration, in addition to the worsening effects of climate change and other growing challenges. While current research discusses the benefits of education for migrants, there is a lack of literature focused specifically on migrants from and within Latin America. Furthermore, there is very limited policy analysis across crises within the region. This chapter explores the Latin American context while providing a timely analysis of recent policy changes within the region. As such, we focus on host country policies (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile for Venezuelans; Costa Rica for Nicaraguans; and the United States and Mexico for the Northern Triangle) that influence the efficacy of educational integration efforts. In particular, we assess general migration and educational policies. First, we provide a brief background on the migration trends in the region and the legal context in host countries. Then, we analyze migration and education policies for migrants and refugees across host countries in Latin America. We conclude with a discussion of the similarities and differences between policies in the various host countries and within and between crises.

525

526  Research handbook on migration and education

METHODOLOGY, POSITIONALITY, AND LIMITATIONS Using extensive desk research, we identified three migration crises in Latin America to focus on: Venezuela, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle. First, we researched the push and pull factors of each crisis. Then, we examined the migration and education policies and laws in the countries hosting migrants from each of these crises. Based on the findings from the desk research, we concluded with a series of analyses based on the similarities and differences between policies and overall migrant integration between host countries. We acknowledge that because this research does not include first-hand interview data, not all migrant and refugee experiences from the region are encapsulated. As such, we limit the interpretation of our results and frame this chapter as a policy analysis of existing programs and policies. As US-based, white, female researchers, we believe it is important for us to recognize our outsider view of the migration crises in Latin America, as we do not have first-hand experience as forced migrants. However, our experience living, working, and studying in Latin America as college students and as English teachers, our research focus on migration, education, and international development (see: Crist 2022; Gluckman et al. 2020; Summers et al. 2022), our interactions with refugees and migrants throughout our professional experiences, and our Spanish fluency has allowed us to connect with communities in the region to listen to and learn from their experiences.

BACKGROUND ON MIGRATION CRISES Push and Pull Factors Push factors are identified as challenges or realities within a country that motivate a migrant’s decision to leave their home country (Gordon 2019). Pull factors stem from the destination country and motivate migration due to potentially improved circumstances or opportunities (Gordon 2019). In the three Latin American migration crises that we examined, increased migration is associated with a variety of push and pull factors. Venezuela1 Since 2015, migration from Venezuela has increased due to push factors such as several years of economic decline as a result of significant drops in oil prices, global economic sanctions (Bahar and Dooley 2019), decreasing income levels (España et al. 2016), rising poverty rates (Doocy et al. 2019), devalued currency and hyperinflation (España et al. 2016; Doocy et al. 2019), authoritarian politics (Wolfe 2021), worsening social and living conditions (Bahar and Dooley 2019; Doocy et al. 2019), increasing rates of violence (UNDP 2020), and greater limitations on basic human rights and freedoms. Additionally, the repressive presidential regimes of Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, concentrated power in the hands of the elites while increasing the vulnerability of the general population (Summers et  al. 2022). These realities, coupled with pull factors such as the promise of economic and social stability in neighboring South American countries, have motivated Venezuelans to flee their home and continue to resettle across the LAC region. Colombia and Peru are hosts to the largest Venezuelan migrant communities with 1.8 million and 1.2 million, respectively (R4V 2022).2 Ecuador is the third-largest host country for

Best practices for integration  527 Venezuelans with 513,900, followed by Chile with 448,100 (Chaves-González et al. 2021; R4V 2022). Approximately 460,000 Venezuelans in Colombia in 2020 were school-aged, among whom an estimated 260,000 were out of school (UNESCO 2020a). By June 2020, 31 percent of Venezuelan families in Peru were not enrolled in the education system (Equilibrium CenDe 2020). In 2021, approximately 32 percent of Venezuelan children in Ecuador were not enrolled in school (R4V 2021). In Chile, approximately 10,475 children are under the age of 14, 7 percent of whom were out of school (Chaves-González et al. 2021; UNESCO 2021). Despite most Latin American host countries having universal access to education for all, Venezuelan migrant families still struggle to enroll their children in the education system. The majority of Venezuelans in the top four host countries are young, generally ranging from ages 18 to 35 (Chaves-González et al. 2021). Venezuelans’ difficulty ensuring recognition of their academic and professional credentials in their host country has hindered their ability to find work in the formal labor market, especially in their field (Chaves-González et al. 2021). As of October 2020, only 10 percent of Venezuelans in Chile, Colombia, and Peru reported having their credentials successfully validated (Chaves-González et  al. 2021). Attempts to validate credentials are impeded by bureaucratic barriers and high fees (Chaves-González et al. 2021). Not only does a lack of credential validation inhibit Venezuelans from entering the formal labor market, but it also prevents them from being able to enter tertiary education institutions. Nicaragua3 Push factors that have motivated migration from Nicaragua in recent years include the country’s political turmoil in 2018 during and after its general elections (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021), as well as weakening public services and greater insecurity (Sandoval García et  al. 2020). Approximately 150,000 of the estimated 200,000 Nicaraguan migrants have sought safety in the neighboring country of Costa Rica (UNHCR 2022a). Costa Rica has several pull factors which make immigration appealing. For example, the country has a strong economy and a stable democracy (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021). Costa Rica also has a robust social security system that provides universal basic education and is responsible for regularizing and integrating migrants (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021). Amidst growing authoritarian tendencies and democratic backsliding, Costa Rica’s stable democracy has appealed to many Nicaraguans as a place of refuge. As of 2019, a reported 29,216 Nicaraguans had applied for refugee status in Costa Rica (Sandoval García et al. 2020). Nicaraguan migration to Costa Rica has continued to increase, as nearly 23,200 Nicaraguans sought asylum in Costa Rica between January and September 2021 (Jesús Mora 2021). In 2020, of the 368,000 Nicaraguans living in Costa Rica, an estimated 200,000 had irregular legal status, meaning that they did not have official documents authorizing their presence in Costa Rica (Jesús Mora 2021). In 2019, 42,985 foreigners were enrolled in the formal Costa Rican education system (both public and private schools), with a reported 32,285 from Nicaragua (Ministerio de Educación Pública 2019). Northern Triangle4 Some push factors for outward migration in the Northern Triangle include the negative climate change impact, poverty, political dysfunction and corruption, weak institutions, gang and drug-related violence and crimes, and impunity (Gordon 2019; Meyer & Taft-Morales 2019; Restrepo et al. 2019; Wilson et al. 2019). Some pull factors for migrants from the Northern

528  Research handbook on migration and education Triangle include educational and economic opportunities, remittances sent to home countries, religious and political liberties, and family reunification (Gordon 2019; Meyer & Taft-Morales 2019; Selee et al. 2019b; Wilson et al. 2019). Traditionally, migrants from the Northern Triangle migrated to the United States to seek asylum. However, due to changing migration policies across recent US presidential administrations, a growing number of migrants have settled and requested asylum in Mexico (Restrepo et al. 2019). An increasing number of Northern Triangle migrants, including a growing percentage of women, families, and unaccompanied minors, have entered Mexico and the United States in recent years (Office of Refugee Resettlement 2020; Ruiz Soto et  al. 2019; Selee et al. 2019a; Wilson et al. 2019). As such, while Mexico was traditionally a site of transit for migrants heading north to the United States (and Mexico itself sent a large number of migrants to the United States), with the influx of Northern Triangle migrants and changing US migration policy, Mexico has transformed into a site of migrant reception, transit, and outbound migration. As of December 2021, there were approximately 550,000 refugees and asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (UNHCR 2021a). In mid-2021, Mexico hosted 172,626 refugees and asylum seekers (UNHCR 2021a). In both Venezuela and Nicaragua, outward migration spiked due to specific trigger events. In Venezuela, the 2015 oil crisis was the catalyst for greater outward migration, while in Nicaragua, the 2018 elections triggered an increase in migration. In the Northern Triangle, a culmination of climate crises and other intersecting challenges (poverty, economics, politics, and violence) led to a steady growth in outward migration. Given that the majority of outward migration in the Latin American region is irregular and does not go through formal channels or traditional routes, many migrants enter a country that borders their home country, rather than migrating to further destinations. Across the three migration crises, similar educational experiences exist. A common theme for migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle is the difficulty in achieving regular immigration status in the host country. Irregular migration status prevents Latin American migrants from accessing education. As seen in the three cases, documentation and degree certification challenges can delay or prohibit enrollment, resulting in many migrants remaining out of school. Differing migration and education policies in host countries affect migrants’ ability to access education. For example, open migration policies in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico and the provision of social services to migrants in Colombia, Mexico, the United States, and Chile have facilitated access to and integration of migrant students into the school system. In contrast, strict document requirements in Ecuador have made grade placement and integration difficult for migrants. The next section will identify various migration and education policies in host countries for Latin American migrants.

FINDINGS FROM HOST COUNTRIES The following findings present the varying migration and education policies within the main countries that host Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Northern Triangle migrants – Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile; Costa Rica; and the United States and Mexico, respectively. While some host countries have worked to create welcoming migration policies and to regularize undocumented migrants, other countries in Latin America have enacted policies that make migration more difficult. This section will provide some statistics on host countries and outline their main migration and education policies as they relate to migrants (Table 36.1).

Best practices for integration  529 Table 36.1  Main migration and education policies for each host country Sending country

Host country

Main migration policies

Main education policies

Venezuela

Colombia

• Temporary protected status

• Special Permission for Permanency for the Educational Sector

Peru

• Decriminalization of irregular migration

• Lima Aprende (Lima Learns) • Aprendo in Casa (I learn at home)

Ecuador

• 2019 Humanitarian visa requirement

• Placement exam option

Chile

• April 2021 law: visa required

• IPE and IPA: Provisional School Identifier

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

• General Migration and Foreigners Law: 2009 • 2022 migrant regularization plan

• General Common Education Law

Northern Triangle

United States

• Title 42: “Remain in Mexico”

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) • Binational Migrant Education Initiative

Mexico

• Title 42: “Remain in Mexico”

Binational Migrant Education Program Basic Education Without Borders Binational Migrant Education Initiative Programa para la Inclusión y la Equidad Educativa (PIEE)a • Clave Única de Registro de Población (CURP)b • • • •

Notes: a “Inclusion and Equity Educational Program” in English. b “Personal Identifier for Population Registry” in English. Source:   Adapted by the authors from Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2011; Congressional Research Service, 2022; Gobierno de Mexico, 2017; La Comision Permanente del Congreso Constitucional de la Republica de Costa Rica, 2018; MPI, 2022b; Ministerio de Educacion, 2021; Ministerion del Interior y Seguridad Publica, 2021; Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, 2017; R4V, 2022; USCIS, 2022; US Department of Education, 2020.

VENEZUELANS IN SOUTH AMERICA Visa Requirements and Regularization Across the top host countries for Venezuelan migrants (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile), there are different migration and regularization policies. Since May 2021, Colombia has been regularizing Venezuelans who entered the country before January 31, 2021 (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 2021). This new regular status creates a pathway to permanent residency and improves access to social services such as education, allowing Venezuelan migrants to plan a long-term future in Colombia (Chavez-Gonzales et  al. 2021). In Peru, the Supreme Court approved a legal decree in 2018 that decriminalized irregular migration through 2025, allowing Venezuelan migrants to enter Peru more quickly without waiting to obtain a visa (Defensoría del Pueblo 2020). While similar to the Colombian policy, the Peruvian legal decree is less comprehensive and does not guarantee migrants’ access to social services. In contrast, Ecuador and Chile have implemented more restrictive immigration policies in recent years. In 2019, Ecuador introduced stricter migration requirements for Venezuelans, requiring migrants to obtain a humanitarian visa to enter the country – a process that includes

530  Research handbook on migration and education fees and additional processing time (Selee and Bolter 2020). While Ecuador’s goal in creating stricter immigration requirements was to build a safer immigration system, the stringent requirements increased irregular migration (Selee and Bolter 2020). Similarly, since April 2021, Chile has required incoming migrants to obtain a visa before entering the country (Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública 2021). This policy also increased Chilean authorities’ power to expel undocumented migrants (Doña-Reveco 2021). However, the new Chilean presidential administration has proposed a policy change that would allow irregular migrants to amend their status in-country, improving access to education (Doña-Reveco 2021). While Colombia and Peru have worked to regularize irregular migrants from Venezuela, Ecuador and Chile have used visa requirements and pre-arrival legal processes to create stricter border controls and curb irregular migration. However, Venezuelans entering Ecuador and Chile who are not able to complete the legal processes find alternative ways to enter the countries. While both Ecuador and Chile have mentioned the possibility of implementing regularization policies, as of 2022, no official actions have been taken, thus restricting irregular migrants’ access to social services, such as education (UNHCR 2022b, Doña-Reveco 2021). Education Access and Integration Colombia’s open policies toward Venezuelan migrants facilitate access to its education systems. The Colombian government has attempted to remove some enrollment barriers and facilitate easier enrollment for migrant students by implementing the Special Permission for Permanency for the Educational Sector decree (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 2017). This policy allows primary and secondary students to enroll in school at any point during the school year, rather than waiting until the beginning of a new school year. Similar to Colombia, Chile provides unrestricted access to primary and secondary education without requiring documentation or identification for enrollment (Wolfe 2021). Chile implemented a Provisional School Identifier (or IPE in Spanish) policy that provides a temporary ID number to Venezuelan students so they can access educational services including university selection tests, certification of past degrees (Selee and Bolter 2020), school feeding programs, transportation benefits, and health services. In addition, Venezuelan parents and guardians also receive a provisional guardian identifier, or IPA in Spanish, which allows them to enroll their children in school and access services (UNESCO 2021). In contrast, while article three of Peru’s general education law guarantees the right to education for all and article four guarantees free education for all, not all Venezuelan migrants in Peru have access to the education system (Toledo et al. 2003). The majority of Venezuelans in Peru settle in the capital city of Lima, which has increased school overcrowding and strained an already struggling public education infrastructure (R4V 2020). Lima’s schools do not have sufficient places to accommodate all students, preventing many students from successfully entering the formal school system (R4V 2020; UNESCO 2020b). As an attempt to remedy the lack of places in schools, the Peruvian government has implemented two education policies: Lima Aprende and Aprendo en Casa (R4V 2020; Selee and Bolter 2020; Wolfe 2021). Lima Aprende is a second-shift school policy undertaken by 14 schools that allows for more students to attend additional courses in the afternoons and evenings (UNHCR 2019). The Aprendo en Casa policy implemented online course options for students who were unable to enroll in school (Ministerio de Educación 2021). Similarly, in Colombia, the government has also implemented flexible education models to allow for more students with additional needs or unique circumstances to attend school

Best practices for integration  531 (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 2017). These models include virtual learning, televised classes and materials, and the incorporation of linguistically and culturally relevant learning (OECD 2016). However, online programs have been less successful in the migrant community due to Venezuelan families’ lack of access to technology and the internet, especially those in vulnerable situations (Moloney 2021). Though Ecuador does not struggle with the same overcrowding issues found in Peru, the country has also implemented policies to facilitate education enrollment. Specifically, to enroll in school in Ecuador, migrants can either provide transcripts or complete a placement exam (Selee & Bolter 2020). Overall, Colombia and Peru have more welcoming migration policies in comparison with Ecuador and Chile through their efforts to regularize Venezuelan migrants in their respective countries. However, Chile’s provisional identification numbers have facilitated Venezuelan’s access to social services. Ecuador’s placement tests have improved Venezuelan’s grade placement. Colombia’s open enrollment has made access to the education system easier. Finally, while Peru has struggled to accommodate Venezuelans in their education infrastructure, the country has created online and second-shift schooling, similar to programs offered in Colombia.

NICARAGUANS IN COSTA RICA Pathways to Regular Legal Status Costa Rica boasts a comprehensive legal migration framework that facilitates migrants’ access to public services, including education (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021). The chief migration law, passed in 2009, is known as the General Migration and Foreigners Law (Nº 8764) (Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica 2009). In response to the most recent wave of Nicaraguan migrants, a growing number of whom are undocumented, Costa Rica has implemented new migration policies (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021). As of 2020, Costa Rica has used several special migration categories, including “applications for refugee status,” and “temporary work permits,” to facilitate a pathway toward regular legal status for undocumented migrants and increase migrant regularization (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021). Most recently, in August 2022, Costa Rica announced its plan to regularize 200,000 migrants, the majority of whom are Nicaraguan (Morland 2022). Access to Education Today, Costa Rica’s General Common Education Law and immigration policy guarantees everyone free access to the public education system, regardless of one’s legal status (La Comisión Permanente del Congreso Constitucional de la República de Costa Rica, 2018; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) & Organization of American States (OAS) 2019). When migrant students attempt to enroll in the Costa Rican education system, officials must determine the student’s age and then decide on the appropriate grade level for each student (Mora Román & Guzmán 2018). These processes often require parents to provide specific documents to verify the student’s information (Sandoval García et al. 2020). Each educational institution sets its own standards for flexible documentation requirements, though according to the Ministry of Education, families are only required to present a minimum of one of six different options to determine grade level placement or certify previous studies (Mata Fonseca et al. 2018). Parents can also present affidavits or sworn declarations

532  Research handbook on migration and education instead of IDs (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021) or apply for the use of special placement tests instead of presenting education certificates, diplomas, or grades (IACHR & OAS 2019). According to the Department of Intercultural Education, refugees are exempt from providing proof of the last grade they passed if they are unable to access those documents (ChavesGonzález & Jesús Mora 2021; Mora Román & Guzmán 2018). In practice, school officials decide internally whether to use a placement test, the last available grade passed, or another option (Chaves-González & Jesús Mora 2021).

NORTHERN TRIANGLE MIGRANTS IN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES Mexico’s Migration and Education Policies With changing migration patterns from the Northern Triangle, Mexico has had to contend with a migration and education system structure that was not built with significant migrant reception and integration in mind. With its relatively new position as a migrant host country, the Mexican government has not fully embraced its new status, nor addressed the “integration needs of the growing foreign-born population” (Selee et al. 2019a, 20). For example, despite campaign promises to improve human rights protections and treatment of migrants, the current administration has continued to engage in migrant deportations, as well as implemented the US-based “Remain in Mexico” policy, as described in the following section (Green 2019; Ruiz Soto 2020; Sherman 2020). In order to request refugee status in Mexico, Northern Triangle migrants must present evidence of a fear to return to their home country. Then, they must complete an interview process and await a response to their request (UNHCR n.d.). In article nine of its general education law, Mexico guarantees all children’s right to an education in the country, regardless of migration status (Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2019; Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2011; Gobierno de México 2022). Mexico does not publicly publish how many Northern Triangle migrants are out of school. As such, it is unclear what percentage of migrants do not have access to the school system. However, several government policies and programs have been implemented in recent decades to support migrant education. These include the Binational Migrant Education Program (PROBEM), and its subsidiary, Basic Education Without Borders, which was terminated in 2013 (Roman & Zúñiga 2014), as well as the Binational Migrant Education Initiative (US Department of Education 2020). Each of these programs stems from the collaboration between US and Mexican educators and policymakers to support migrant students. Finally, the Secretary of Public Education implemented the Programa para la Inclusión y la Equidad Educativa (PIEE) in 2014 (Gobierno de México 2017; Pacheco-Ladron et  al. 2016). The program supports education centers for migrants, along with educational programming for schools, services, and centers that target other vulnerable, excluded, or marginalized groups (Gobierno de México 2017; Secretaría de Educación Publica 2019). United States’ Migration and Education Policies Traditionally, most Northern Triangle migrants arrived at the southern border of the United States without visas and with the intention of seeking asylum. Between 2017 and 2020, the

Best practices for integration  533 Department of Homeland Security introduced policies that created more robust requirements to provide credible proof of fear and more intensive interviews for asylum seekers and refugees (Bolter et al. 2022).5 These policies placed further strain on the immigration infrastructure, making the asylum process longer and more difficult. In March 2020, a new public health policy was enacted that expelled incoming migrants from the US border based on COVID-19 concerns (Gelatt & Chishti 2022). Known as Title 42, or “Remain in Mexico,” the temporary policy required arriving asylum seekers to either return to their home country or reside in Mexico while awaiting their asylum case decision (Gelatt & Chishti 2022). An estimated 1.9 million asylum seekers have been expelled from the United States due to Title 42 as of May 2022, among whom Northern Triangle migrants have been disproportionately affected (Customs and Border Protection 2022). Northern Triangle migrants who are expelled to Mexico or their home country due to Title 42 while awaiting a decision on their asylum case face longer wait times in uncertain living situations. Title 42 was initially created as a temporary public health protection; however, it was not repealed until August 2022 (Barnes 2022; Gelatt & Chishti 2022). Aside from the changes to the asylum process, US refugee policy has shifted greatly over the past five years. During the previous presidential administration, the refugee admissions ceiling, or the maximum number of refugees that can be admitted into the United States in a given fiscal year, was consistently lowered. In 2020, only 11,814 refugees were resettled in the United States, 701 of whom were from the Northern Triangle (MPI 2022a; US Department of Homeland Security 2022). While previously discussed COVID-19 policies partially impacted this low number, other contributing factors include the reduced refugee admission ceiling and greater strain on the US immigration infrastructure (Crist 2022). As of 2022, the refugee admission ceiling has been restored to 125,000, however, the struggling immigration infrastructure continues to present challenges for new Northern Triangle refugees looking to resettle in the United States (MPI 2022a). For migrants and refugees looking to enter the education systems, legal struggles impact enrollment processes. The public education system in the United States is open and free to all regardless of migration status. Information and statistics about how many Northern Triangle migrants in the United States remain out of school are not publicly published, nor is the general data that is available disaggregated by nationality. Undocumented migrant students at the primary and secondary school levels are eligible to receive benefits such as free and reduced-priced school meals, special education and therapy services, and school-sponsored activities (NASSP 2019). Primary and secondary school administrators in the United States are bound by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), meaning that they legally cannot report undocumented students to migration enforcement agencies (NASSP 2019). US public primary and secondary education institutions are required to protect undocumented migrant students and ensure their access to services. At the tertiary level, in 2012, the United States created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (USCIS 2022). As of December 2021, there were 611,470 DACA recipients in the United States (MPI 2022b). While the majority of DACA recipients are of Mexican origin, the three Northern Triangle countries comprise the next largest nationality groups (MPI 2022b). DACA allows undocumented children in the United States to legally study and work by providing these students with a social security number and allowing them to apply for financial aid, loans, and additional financial opportunities (USCIS 2022). As of 2019, there were approximately 427,000 undocumented students enrolled in the US higher

534  Research handbook on migration and education education system (Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration 2021). Though not a perfect policy, the DACA program gives education opportunities to irregular migrants in the United States, especially those from the Northern Triangle.

DISCUSSION While the push and pull factors that instigate outward migration in Latin America appear similar, our analysis identifies how differences in migration and educational policies in host countries can impact the educational opportunities of migrant children and, ultimately, their integration. For example, Colombia and Peru have enacted more open and accepting migration policies and policies regarding status regularization which have allowed migrants to enter education and access social services, whereas Costa Rica and the United States have longstanding, welcoming immigration policies. Other countries such as Ecuador and Chile have adjusted their policies to restrict access to regular migration, leading to increased irregular migration. In terms of educational policies, flexible admissions policies through documentation alternatives or placement tests have resulted in higher enrollment and more accurate grade placement in Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Colombia. Other countries have facilitated access to public services through provisional and temporary ID numbers, such as in Chile, Colombia, and the United States.

MIGRATION POLICY ANALYSIS Colombia, Peru, and Costa Rica engaged in migrant regularization campaigns that have improved access to education and supported integration. Each of these countries has responded to a migrant crisis that included a catalyst event. Conversely, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, and US migration policies have included varying requirements and restrictions, as well as different responses to irregular migrants. One reason for the differences in migration policy is some Latin American countries’ resistance to regularization. This resistance has roots in the long-term partnerships between nations, the nations’ histories with regard to accepting migrants, and the push and pull factors motivating migration. For example, Colombia and Costa Rica have a long history of sending or hosting migrants from neighboring countries. When Colombia went through a civil war, many Colombians fled to Venezuela until the situation improved. In the case of Costa Rica, over the past few decades, many Nicaraguans have lived in Costa Rica as seasonal migrants, returning to Nicaragua after completing their job abroad. Shared borders, coupled with a tradition of border-crossing migration make some Latin American countries more easily accessible to migrants, creating a more welcoming environment, as seen in the cases of Colombia and Costa Rica. Conversely, the United States and Mexico receive ongoing flows of migrants fleeing a variety of challenges, rather than in reaction to a particular event, shaping their approach to migrant reception. In addition, Mexico’s history as a site of emigration, rather than reception, as well as many Northern Triangle migrants’ temporary residing in Mexico, as a transit host state, has resulted in differing migration policy frameworks. In particular, a regularization policy may be less necessary if migrants are not planning to seek long-term residency, employment, or social services.

Best practices for integration  535 For some Latin American countries, migrants put additional strain on already struggling public service infrastructure, such as in Peru. Migrants may not have access to necessary services due to failing infrastructure, and locals may wish for the limited public funds to be spent on vulnerable citizens instead. Finally, a lack of experience with migrants from different cultures has led to xenophobia in some Latin American countries, such as Chile. Migrants have become targets for discrimination and racism in some parts of the region, especially as the demographics of migrants have shifted from more highly educated and skilled migrants to migrants with less education who require greater support to address their vulnerabilities. While many countries struggle to integrate migrants due to discrimination and xenophobia, some countries in the region are making strides to provide alternative solutions to migration crises. Several countries have used alternative identity documentation formats in lieu of regularization to support migrant children’s enrollment and access to education. For example, Chile and Mexico’s practices of issuing temporary identification numbers have improved migrant students, asylum seekers, and/or migrant parents or guardians’ access to services. In the United States, the DACA program provides social security numbers to undocumented migrant students (USCIS 2022). DACA students are able to access higher education institutions, work opportunities, and federal financial aid benefits (USCIS 2022). While each of these policies is temporary, DACA differs from the Chilean and Mexican models in that recipients are required to renew their approval every two years, whereas the temporary IDs are used while legal status is pending (USCIS 2022). While these policies can speed up access to education, their temporary nature leaves migrant students and their families in flux, as they are still considered irregular migrants.

EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS For migrants, education can have an important role in their integration into the host community by providing opportunities to build relationships, learn about the host culture, and increase economic opportunities. While the majority of Latin American countries recognize the right to education for all children, regardless of one’s migration status, differences in education policy and migration histories across the region cause varying educational responses. Mid-year arrival to a host country can be a challenge for migrants who are enrolling in school. Two of the countries with regularization policies, Colombia and Peru, have also implemented flexible enrollment policies for migrant students who arrive mid-year. Specifically, Colombia’s 2017 decree allows Venezuelan students to register and enroll in school at any point during the school year (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 2017). This policy curbs learning loss by ensuring that students have quick access to education upon arrival to Colombia. In Peru, many migrant students use second-shift schools due to the limited availability of places in the formal school system. However, this reduces migrant students’ opportunities to meet Peruvian peers and thus bolsters their integration. In Mexico, the PIEE supports the existence and use of migrant-specific education centers that cater to migrants and other vulnerable populations (Gobierno de México 2017; Secretaria de Educación Publica 2019). They can serve as an alternative educational option for migrants who arrive mid-year, ensuring the continuation of studies. However, Northern Triangle migrants who view their stay in Mexico as temporary may be less likely to enroll their children in school, leading to less successful integration and more limited access to the formal Mexican education system.

536  Research handbook on migration and education Migrant students not only need access to education but also require access at the appropriate grade level. Since many migrant students do not have official transcripts or other educational documentation, it may be difficult to determine the appropriate placement. Costa Rica, Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico have all used alternatives to transcripts such as different forms of documentation or exams to support grade placement. In Ecuador, Venezuelan students who do not have official transcripts can take an exam to determine their grade level (Selee & Bolter 2020). While the placement exams are beneficial options, they do include knowledge specific to Ecuador, such as geography and politics, which can lead to inaccurate grade placement (Selee & Bolter 2020). Conversely, Costa Rica combines grade placement exams with a longtime practice of using an intercultural curriculum to incorporate diverse cultures within the classroom, prospectively improving the quality of the placement exam while minimizing the harm of inaccurate placement by utilizing knowledge from migrant students’ country of origin.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have highlighted three protracted migration crises in the Latin American region: Venezuela, Nicaragua, and the Northern Triangle. These long-term crises stem from similar and overlapping push and pull factors. Analyzing migrant students’ level of access to education can illuminate the impact of differing migration policies on opportunities for migrant integration. Our analysis reveals that a history of cross-border migration, a tradition of welcoming migration policy, policy in response to migration motivated by specific catalyst events, and flexible enrollment practices can all improve educational access. As a result, the countries that have most successfully facilitated migrants’ educational access are Colombia and Costa Rica. Colombia’s open migration policies and regularization efforts have improved Venezuelan migrants’ ability to quickly access education. Costa Rica’s multiple visa categories, regularization processes, and options for the use of placement exams have facilitated Nicaraguan migrants’ educational access. While policy implementation can be strengthened in both Colombia and Costa Rica, their exemplary migration and education policies encourage and support the integration of migrants. Open migration policies can improve migrants’ access to resettlement. Education is an essential part of the resettlement process, as it encourages integration and strengthens migrants’ involvement in their host community. As seen in Colombia and Costa Rica, a combination of open migration policies and accessible education policies not only provide migrants with a smoother resettlement process but also support migrants’ integration into and contributions to the host society. These successful policies demonstrate the global need for open access to education for migrants, as well as the clear benefits of such policies to both migrants and the host community from these open policies. Migration and education policies in Latin American host countries are constantly evolving and changing in response to shifts in governmental power. The United States and Peru are in the second year of new presidential administrations, Chile transitioned to a new presidential administration in 2022 and is in the process of writing a new constitution, and Colombia and Costa Rica elected new presidents in 2022. As such, ongoing policy analysis is needed in response to additional changes over the next few years. Policies in Latin America tend to be unstable in countries where there is frequent administration turnover, such as Peru. Mexican programs have also changed frequently across presidential administrations, though its laws

Best practices for integration  537 have seen limited updates. Additionally, as Colombia’s new president continues to regularize relations with Venezuela, migration policies and the fate of the ten-year regularization program could change drastically. Looking forward, it is important for scholars to engage in further research on migrant students in the Venezuela, Nicaraguan, and Northern Triangle contexts, specifically with regard to the analysis of the impact of migrant and education policies on integration. With the Venezuelan crisis, the rollout of migration policies and the success of graduated students is too recent for literature to be able to be published. As such, we call on colleagues to continue this research regarding the impact of new migration policies on migrants’ access to education within Latin America. In the context of Nicaragua and the Northern Triangle, literature on push and pull factors exists. Looking forward, however, it is necessary to include a greater focus on integration into host countries, such as educational outcomes and quality, to advance our analysis through more direct, participatory research. With greater policy analysis of the impact of migration and education policies on migrant integration, Latin American policymakers can create and enact more informed, inclusive, and successful policies.

NOTES 1. Since 1999, there has been a rise in authoritarianism in Venezuela, starting with President Hugo Chavez and continuing today with his successor, President Nicolas Maduro. Since 2020, the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, has claimed to be the interim president of the country, however, his mandate with the National Assembly has since passed, resulting in further controversy and division among the opposition and internationally regarding who is in control. As of 2022, Nicolas Maduro is still the official president of Venezuela. More than two decades of political instability have heightened inequality in the nation. The Maduro regime’s restrictions on freedoms of expression and freedom of the press, the expansion of state power in business, and economic mismanagement, specifically during the 2014 drop in oil prices, have trickled down to Venezuelan citizens, causing shortages of basic goods and high inflation. For additional background information, see (CIA World Factbook 2022; Council on Foreign Relations 2018; BBC 2021). 2. Peru hosts the largest number of Venezuelan asylum seekers and refugees with more than 532,000 asylum seekers and more than 3,000 legally recognized refugees (UNHCR 2021b). 3. Since 2007, Nicaragua has been ruled by President Daniel Ortega. With each successive election, Ortega has pushed Nicaragua further away from its democratic structure. In the most recent elections in 2021, Ortega jailed many of his opponents and political dissidents. While Nicaraguans have a history of migrating to the United States and Costa Rica for economic reasons, either to send back remittances or for seasonal migration, the shifting political environment has made the country increasingly hostile to a variety of groups such as university students and journalists while also becoming less stable due to the increasing political repression. For additional background information, see Mines and Speck (2021) and United Nations (2020). 4. Since the early 2000s, the Northern Triangle region has been known as one of the most dangerous in the world, with high homicide rates, a history of civil war, and ongoing political and economic strife. Coupled with natural disasters, growing gang violence, widespread poverty, and challenges with corruption, the region has faced instability and inequality for many years. For additional background information, see Congressional Research Service (2022), Cheatham and Roy (2022), and Chavez and Avalos (2014). 5. As part of the “Travel Ban” executive order from 2017, the Trump administration added additional vetting for refugees from “high-risk” countries that included longer interviews, separate interviews for children, and an expanded list of “national security indicators” that would warrant further screenings (IRAP 2021).

538  Research handbook on migration and education

REFERENCES Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica. 2009. “LEY GENERAL DE MIGRACIÓN Y EXTRANJERÍA.” Accessed August 19. https://migracion​.go​.cr​/ Documentos​%20compartidos​/ Leyes​/ Ley​%20General​%20de​%20Migraci​%c3​%b3n​%20y​%20Extranjer​%c3​%ada​%208764​.pdf Bahar, Dany, and Meagan Dooley. 2019. “Venezuela Refugee Crisis to Become the Largest and Most Underfunded in Modern History.” The Brookings Institute, December 9. https://www​.brookings​.edu​ /blog​/up​-front​/2019​/12​/09​/venezuela​-refugee​-crisis​-to​-becomethe​-largest​-and​-most​-underfunded​-in​ -modern​-history/ Barnes, Robert. 2022. “Supreme Court Clears Biden to End Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy.” The Washington Post, Accessed June 30. https://www​.washingtonpost​.com​/politics​/2022​/06​/30​/supreme​ -court​-remain​-in​-mexico/ BBC. 2021. “Venezuela Crisis: How the Political Situation Escalated.” Accessed August 12. https:// www​.bbc​.com ​/news​/world​-latin​-america​-36319877 Bolter, Jessica, Emma Israel, and Sarah Pierce. 2022. “Four Years of Profound Change: Immigration Policy during the Trump Presidency.” Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Accessed February. https:// www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/default ​/files​/publications​/mpi​-trump​-at​- 4​-report​-final​.pdf Chaves-González, Diego, and Maria Jesús Mora. 2021. “The State of Costa Rican Migration and Immigrant Integration Policy.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/ default ​/files​/publications​/mpi​-costa​-rica​-report​-2021​-english​_final​.pdf Chaves-González, Diego, Jordi Amaral, and María Jesús Mora. 2021. “Socioeconomic Integration of Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/ sites​/default ​/files​/publications​/mpi​-iom​_soc​ioec​onom​icin​tegration​-venezuelans​_2021​_final​.pdf Chavez, Suchit, and Jessica Avalos. 2014. “The Northern Triangle: The Countries That Don’t Cry for Their Dead.” InSight Crime, April 23. https://insightcrime​.org​/news​/analysis​/the​-northern​-triangle​ -the​-countries​-that​-dont​-cry​-for​-their​-dead/ Cheatham, Amelia, and Diana Roy. “Central America’s Turbulent Northern Triangle.” Council on Foreign Relations, Accessed June 22. https://www​.cfr​.org​/ backgrounder​/central​-americas​-turbulent​ -northern​-triangle CIA World Factbook. 2022. “Venezuela.” https://www​.cia​.gov​/the​-world​-factbook​/countries​/venezuela/ Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. 2011. “LEY SOBRE REFUGIADOS, PROTECCIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA Y ASILO POLÍTICO.” Accessed January 27. https://www​ .diputados​.gob​.mx ​/ LeyesBiblio​/pdf​/ LRPCAP​.pdf Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. 2019. “LEY GENERAL DE EDUCACIÓN.” Accessed September 30. https://www​.diputados​.gob​.mx​/ LeyesBiblio​/pdf​/ LGE​.pdf Congressional Research Service. 2022. “Central American Migration: Root Causes and U.S. Policy.” Accessed March 31. https://sgp​.fas​.org​/crs​/row​/ IF11151​.pdf Council on Foreign Relations. 2018. “A Venezuelan Refugee Crisis.” Center for Preventive Action, Accessed February 15. https://www​.cfr​.org​/report​/venezuelan​-refugee​-crisis Crist, Jessica. 2022. “Where Do We Go From Here? Examining Twenty Years of Refugee Policy and Admissions Numbers.” Refugee Educational Advancement Lab (REAL). Accessed February 23. https://blogs​.gwu​.edu ​/gsehd​-real ​/2022​/02​/23​/where​-do​-we​-go​-from​-here​- examining​-twenty​-years​ -of​-refugee​-policy​-and​-admissions​-numbers/ Customs and Border Protection. 2022. “Nationwide Enforcement Encounters: Title 8 Enforcement Actions and Title 42 Expulsions 2022.” Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www​.cbp​.gov​/newsroom​/ stats​/southwest​-land​-border​-encounters​?language​_content​_entity​=en Defensoría del Pueblo. 2020. “Personas Venezolanas en el Perú: Análisis de su situación antes y .defensoria​ durante la crisis sanitaria generada por el COVID-19.” Accessed July. https://www​ .gob​.pe​/wp​- content​/ uploads​/ 2020​/12​/ Informede​-Adjunt​%C3​%ADa​-N​- 002​-2020​-DP​-ADHPD​ -PersonasVenezolanas​-en​-el​-Per​%C3​%BA​.pdf Doña-Reveco, Cristian. 2021. “Chile’s Welcoming Approach to Immigrants Cools as Numbers Rise.” Migration Policy Institute. Accessed May 18. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/article​/chile​ -immigrants​-rising​-numbers Doocy, Shannon, Kathleen R. Page, Fernando de la Hoz, Paul Spiegel, and Chris Beyrer. 2019. “Venezuelan Migration and the Border Health Crisis in Colombia and Brazil.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 7(3):79–91. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/2331502419860138

Best practices for integration  539 Equilibrium CenDe. 2020. “Resultados: "Encuesta de Opinión a Población Migrante Venezolana en Perú" – Junio, 2020.” Accessed June. https://equilibriumcende​.com​/resultados​-de​-la​-encuesta​-de​ -opinion​-a​-poblacion​-migrante​-venezolana​-en​-peru​-junio​-2020/ España, Luis Pedro, José Ramón Morales, and Douglas Barrios. 2016. “Pobreza, cobertura de las Misiones y necesidades de protección social para la reforma económica de Venezuela.” Center for International Development at Harvard University, Accessed June. https://growthlab​.cid​.harvard​.edu​ /files​/growthlab​/files​/cid​_ rfwp74​.pdf Gelatt, Julia, and Muzaffar Chishti. 2022. “COVID-19’s Effects on U.S. Immigration and Immigrant Communities, Two Years On.” Migration Policy Institute (MPI), Accessed June. https://www​ .migrationpolicy​.org​/research ​/covid19​-effects​-us​-immigration Gluckman, Maxie, Katharine Summers, and Betsabe Roman González. 2020. “Honduran Teachers’ Experiences with Transnational Students in Rural Schools.” TRACE (79):182–206. doi: 10.22134/ trace.79.2021.763 Gobierno de México. 2017. “Programa para la Inclusión y la Equidad Educativa 2017–2018.” Secretaria de Educacion Publica, Accessed January 1. https://www​.gob​.mx​/sep​/documentos​/programa​-para​-la​ -inclusion​-y​-la​-equidad​-educativa​-2017​-2018​?state​=published Gobierno de Mexico. 2022. “Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes.” Accessed March 23. https://www​.gob​.mx ​/sipinna ​/documentos​/ ley​-general​-de​-los​-derechos​-de​-ninas​-ninos​y​ - adolescentes​ - reformada​ -20​ - junio​ -2018#:~​ : text​ =Tiene​ %20por​ %20objeto​ %2C​ %20entre​ %20otros,(DOF)%2023%20marzo%202022 Gordon, Rebecca. 2019. “The Current Migrant Crisis Was Created by US Foreign Policy, Not Trump.” The Nation, Accessed August 16. https://www​.thenation​.com​/article​/archive​/central​-america​ -migrant​-crisis​-foreign​-policy​-trump/ Green, Emily. 2019. “Mexico’s goodwill wanes as more migrants arrive.” The World, Accessed June 12. https://www​.pri​.org​/stories​/2019​- 06 ​-12​/mexicos​-goodwill​-wanes​-more​-migrants​-arrive Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and Organization of American States. 2019. “Forced Migration of Nicaraguans to Costa Rica.” Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. http:// www​.oas​.org​/en ​/iachr​/reports​/pdfs​/ ForcedMigration​-Nicaragua​-CostaRica​.pdf International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). 2021. “Debunking ‘Extreme Vetting’: Recommendations to Build Back the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.” Accessed June. https:// refugeerights​.org​/wp​- content​/uploads​/2021​/06​/ Vetting​-Report​-2020 ​-v6 ​-REVISED ​-JUNE ​-2021​-1​ .pdf Jesús Mora, Maria. 2021. “Costa Rica Has Welcoming Policies for Migrants, but Nicaraguans Face Subtle Barriers.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/article​/costa​-rica​ -nicaragua​-migrants​-subtle​-barriers La Comisión Permanente del Congreso Constitucional de la República de Costa Rica. 2018. “Ley general de Educación Común.” Accessed June 29, 2022. http://www​.pgrweb​.go​.cr​/scij​/busqueda​/ normativa ​/normas​/nrm ​_texto​_completo​.aspx​?param1​=NRA​&nValor1​=1​&nValor2​=35307​&nValor3​ =85629​&nValor4​= 0​&nValor5​=214840​&nValor6 ​=31​/07​/1918​&strTipM​=FA​# up Mata Fonseca, Esteban, Ana Laura Méndez Araya, and Victor Pineda Rodriguez. 2018. “Población Refugiada en el Sistema Educativo Costarricense.” Ministerio de Educación Pública. https://www​ .mep​.go​.cr​/sites​/default​/files​/guia​-personas​-refugiadas​.pdf Meyer, Peter J., and Maureen Taft-Morales. 2019. “Central American Migration: Root Causes and U.S. Policy.” Congressional Research Service, Accessed June 13. https://fas​.org​/sgp​/crs​/row​/ IF11151​.pdf Migration Policy Institute (MPI). 2022a. “U.S. Annual Refugee Resettlement Ceilings and Number of Refugees Admitted, 1980-Present.” Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/ programs​/data​-hub​/charts​/us​-annual​-refugee​-resettlement​-ceilings​-and​-number​-refugees​-admitted​ -united​?width​=850​&height​=850​&iframe​=true Migration Policy Institute (MPI). 2022b. “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Data Tools.” Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/programs​/data​-hub​/deferred​ -action​-childhood​-arrivals​-daca​-profiles Mines, Keith, and Mary Speck. 2021. “Is Nicaragua’s Descent into Dictatorship Irreversible?” United States Institute of Peace, Accessed November 15. https://www​.usip​.org​/publications​/2021​/11​/ nicaraguas​-descent​-dictatorship​-irreversible Ministerio de Educación. 2021. “Aprendo en casa.” Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www​.gob​.pe​/ institucion ​/munirazuri​/campa​%C3​%B1as​/3779​-aprendo​-en​-casa

540  Research handbook on migration and education Ministerio de Educación Pública. 2019. “Estudiantes extranjeros matriculados en educación regular 2009-2019.” Accessed October. https://www​.mep​.go​.cr​/indicadores​_edu​/ BOLETINES​/ Est​udia​ntes​ Extr​anje​rosM​atri​cula​dose​nEdu​caci​onRe​gular2009​-2019​.pdf Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. 2017. “Resolución Número 5797 de 2017.” República de Colombia, Accessed July 25. https://www​.migracioncolombia​.gov​.co​/jdownloads​/ Resoluciones​/ Resoluciones percent20-%202017/resolucion percent205797-PEP per​cent​20ve​nezolanos​​.pdf Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. 2021. “DECRETO NÚMERO 216 DE 2021.” Accessed March 1. https://dapre​.presidencia​.gov​.co​/normativa ​/normativa ​/ DECRETO​%20216​%20DEL​%201​%20DE​ %20MARZO​%20DE​%202021​.pdf Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública. 2021. “Ley 21325: LEY DE MIGRACIÓN Y EXTRANJERÍA.” Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile. Accessed April 20. https://www​.bcn​ .cl​/ leychile​/navegar​?idNorma​=1158549. Moloney, Anastasia. 2021. “Feature-Digital divide risks cutting Venezuelans out of new life in Colombia.” July 29. https://www​.reuters​.com​/article​/colombia​-venezuelan​-migrants​-technology​/ feature​-digital​-divide​-risks​-cutting​-venezuelans​-out​-of​-new​-life​-in​-colombia​-idINL8N2P303K Mora Román, Alberto, and Marisol Guzmán. 2018. “Aspectos de la Migración Nicaragüense hacia Costa Rica.” Inter-American Development Bank. https://reliefweb​.int​/sites​/reliefweb​.int​/files​/ resources​/Aspectos​-de​-la​-migracion​-nicaraguense​-en​-Costa​-Rica​.pdf Morland, Sarah. 2022. “Costa Rica prepares a plan to regularize status of 200,000 mostly Nicaraguan Migrants.” Reuters, Accessed August 10. https://www​.reuters​.com​/world​/americas​/costa​-rica​ -prepares​-plan​-regularize​-status​-200000 ​-mostly​-nicaraguan​-migrants​-2022​- 08​-10/ National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). 2019. “Position Statement: Undocumented Students.” Accessed March. https://www​.nassp​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2020​/06​/ NASSP19ADV​- 0005​_ Position​_ Statements​_ March​_Und​ocum​ente​dStudents​_ P1c​.pdf OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2016. “Revisión de políticas nacionales de educación: La educación en Colombia.” OECD and Ministerio de Educación Nacional. https://www​.mineducacion​.gov​.co​/1759​/articles​-356787​_ recurso​_1​.pdf Office of Refugee Resettlement. 2020. “Facts and Data.” Accessed December 10, 2020. https://www​.acf​ .hhs​.gov​/orr​/about ​/ucs​/facts​-and​-data Pacheco-Ladron de Guevara, Lourdes Consuelo; Cayeros-Lopez, Laura Isabel, and Madera-Pacheco, Jesús Antonio. 2016. “Interculturalidad y derecho a la educación de la niñez indígena jornalera migrante.” LiminaR 14(1): 92–105, http://www​.scielo​.org​.mx​/pdf​/ liminar​/v14n1​/v14n1a7​.pdf Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. 2021. “Undocumented Students in Higher Education.” Accessed March. https://www​.hig​here​dimm​igra​tion​portal​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​ /2021​/02​/ Undocumented​-Students​-in​-Higher​-Education​-Updated​-March​-2021​.pdf R4V. 2020. “RMRP 2021: For Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela – Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan: January – December 2021.” Accessed December 10. https://data2​.unhcr​.org​/en​/ documents​/details​/82927 R4V. 2021. “GTRM Ecuador: Evaluación Conjunta Necesidades – Mayo 2021.” Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www​.r4v​.info​/es​/document​/gtrm​-ecuador​-evaluacion​-conjunta​-necesidades​-mayo​-2021 R4V. 2022. “R4V América Latina y el Caribe, Refugiados y Migrantes Venezolanos en la Región – Mayo 2022.” Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www​.r4v​.info​/es​/document​/r4v​-america​-latina​-y​-el​ -caribe​-refugiados​-y​-migrantes​-venezolanos​-en​-la​-region​-mayo​-2022 Restrepo, Dan, Trevor Sutton, and Joel Martinez. 2019. “Getting Migration in the Americas Right: A National Interest-Driven Approach.” Center for American Progress, Accessed June 24. https://www​ .americanprogress​.org​/issues​/security​/reports​/2019​/06​/24​/471322​/getting​-migration​-americas​-right/ Roman, Betsabé, and Víctor Zúñiga. 2014. “Children returning from the U.S. to Mexico: School Sweet School?” Migraciones Internacionales 7(4), July: 277–286. https://www​.researchgate​.net​/publication​ /281748030​_Children​_Returning​_from​_the​_US​_to​_ Mexico​_ School​_ Sweet​_ School Ruiz Soto, and Ariel G. 2020. “One Year after the U.S.-Mexico Agreement: Reshaping Mexico’s Migration Policies.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/default ​/files​/ publications​/OneYearAfterUS​-MexAgreement​-EN​-FINAL​.pdf Ruiz Soto, Ariel G., Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas, Luis Arguesta, and Randy Capps. 2019. “Sustainable Reintegration: Strategies to Support Migrants Returning to Mexico and Central America.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/default​/files​/publications​/ MPI​-Rec​epti​onRe​ inte​gration​-FinalWeb​.pdf

Best practices for integration  541 Sandoval García, Carlos, Ada Soto Loaísiga, and Danny González. 2020. “Migración, desplazamiento y educación en Costa Rica: inclusión y educación de nicaragüenses en Costa Rica.” UNESCO. https:// unesdoc​.unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000374676 Selee, Andrew, and Jessica Bolter. 2020. “An Uneven Welcome: Latin American and Caribbean Responses to Venezuelan and Nicaraguan Migration.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​ .migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/default ​/files​/publications​/ Venezuela​-Nicaragua​-Migration2020 ​-EN​-Final​ .pdf Selee, Andrew, Silvia E. Giorguli-Saucedo, Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, and Claudia Masferrer. 2019a. “Investing in the Neighborhood: Changing Mexico-U.S. Migration Patterns and Opportunities for Sustainable Cooperation.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/sites​/default​/ files​/publications​/ US​-Mexico​-Migration​-English​-Final​.pdf Selee, Andrew, Silvia E. Giorguli-Saucedo, Claudia Masferrer, and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto. 2019b. “Strategic Solutions for the United States and Mexico to Manage the Migration Crisis.” Migration Policy Institute, Accessed July. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org​/news​/strategic​-solutions​-united​-states​-and​ -mexico​-manage​-migration​-crisis Sherman, Christopher. 2020. “Mexico’s Tough Response to Migrants Doesn’t Stir Outcry.” AP, Accessed January 23. https://apnews​.com​/article​/78a​fe00​55e5​11e7​4c48​9404​6dfcf5f34 Summers, Katharine, Jessica Crist, and Bernhard Streitwieser. 2022. “Education as an Opportunity for Integration: Assessing Colombia, Peru, and Chile’s Educational Responses to the Venezuelan Migration Crisis.” Journal on Migration and Human Security. https://journals​.sagepub​.com​/doi​/full​ /10​.1177​/23315024221085189 Toledo, Alejandro, Beatriz Merino Lucero, and Carlos Malpica Faustor. 2003. “LEY GENERAL DE EDUCACIÓN Ley Nro. 28044.” Accessed July 28. http://www​.minedu​.gob​.pe​/p​/ ley​_general​_de​ _educacion​_28044​.pdf United Nations. 2020. “Nicaragua: After two years of crisis, more than 100,000 have fled the country.” Accessed March 10. https://news​.un​.org​/en​/story​/2020​/03​/1059051 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2020. “Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Human Development Indicators.” http://hdr​.undp​.org​/en​/countries​/profiles​/ VEN UNESCO. 2020a. “Significant efforts by Colombia ensure that nearly 200,000 Venezuelan children and youth have access to the educational system.” Accessed May 25. https://en​.unesco​.org​/news​/ significant​-efforts​-colombia​-ensure​-nearly​-200000 ​-venezuelan​-children​-and​-youth​-have​-access UNESCO. 2020b. “Derecho a la educación bajo presión: Principales desafíos y acciones transformadoras en la respuesta educativa al flujo migratorio mixto de población venezolana en Perú.” https://unesdoc​ .unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000375182​?posInSet​=5​&query​​Id​=3c​​96ff1​​e​-b89​​5​- 423​​2​-8df​​4 ​- 04c​​3dd5c​​ 11b7 UNESCO. 2021. “Derecho a la educación bajo presión: Principales desafíos y acciones transformadoras en la respuesta educativa al flujo migratorio mixto de población venezolana en Chile.” https://unesdoc​ .unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000377181 UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2019. “Access to Education for Refugee Children in Peru with ‘Lima Aprende.’” https://glo​balc​ompa​ctre​fugees​.org​/article​/access​-education​ -refugee​-children​-peru​-limaaprende UNHCR. 2021a. “Strategy and Response to Displacement in and from El Salvador, Guatemala & Honduras.” Accessed June 21, 2022. https://reporting​.unhcr​.org​/document​/2496 UNHCR. 2021b. “Informe No 10 30 de noviembre de 2021.” Accessed November 30. https://www​.acnur​ .org​/op​/op​_fs​/61cca82d4​/acnur​-peru​-informe​-n​-10 ​-30 ​-de​-noviembre​-de​-2021​.html UNHCR. 2022a. “Displacement in Central America.” Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www​.unhcr​.org​/ en​-us​/displacement​-in​-central​-america​.html UNHCR. 2022b. “UNHCR and IOM Welcome Ecuador’s Move to Regularize Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants.” Accessed June 10. https://www​.unhcr​.org​/en​-us​/news​/press​/2022​/6​/62a371464​/unhcr​ -iom​-welcome​-ecuadors​-move​-regularize​-venezuelan​-refugees​-migrants​.html UNHCR. n.d. “¿Cómo solicitar ser refugiado en México?” Accessed June 30, 2022. https://help​.unhcr​ .org​/mexico​/como​-solicitar​-la​-condicion​-de​-refugiado​-en​-mexico/ US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 2022. “Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” Accessed April 12. https://www​.uscis​.gov​/ DACA US Department of Education. 2020. “Binational Migrant Education Initiative (BMEI).” Accessed December 15, 2020. https://www2​.ed​.gov​/admins​/tchrqual​/ learn ​/ binational​.html

542  Research handbook on migration and education US Department of Homeland Security. 2022. “Refugees and Asylees 2020 Data Tables.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www​.dhs​.gov​/immigration​-statistics​/refugees​-asylees Wilson, Jill H., Andorra Bruno, Jennifer K. Elsea, William A. Kandel, Lawrence Kapp, Rhoda Margesson, Peter J. Meyer, Clare Ribando Seelke, Audrey Singer, and Maureen Taft-Morales. 2019. “Recent Migration to the United States from Central America: Frequently Asked Questions.” Congressional Research Service, Accessed January 29. https://fas​.org​/sgp​/crs​/row​/ R45489​.pdf Wolfe, George. 2021. “Where Are Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees Going? An Analysis of Legal and Social Contexts in Receiving Countries.” Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS). https://cmsny​.org​/publications​/venezuelan​-migrants​-legal​-contextswolfe​- 010421/

Index

ableism and racism 191 Abu Moghli, M. 392 academic achievement, migrant students’ achievement gaps 54, 58 equality approaches, implement 58 immigrant paradox 54 intertwined with acculturation process 55–8 see also acculturation literacy achievement 7 policies favouring multiculturalism 58 research syntheses on attainment 148 educational reform issues 149 immigrant-background students 148–51 Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches 150–51 language and literacy issues 150 Māori students, differential treatment 149 NASEM report 151 quality teaching, dimension of 149–50 Quality Teaching for Diverse Students report 149 role of literacy engagement 151 ‘visible learning’ lists 150 influences 149 schools experiences 54 academic elites 330 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 342 acculturation assimilation practices and 4, 59 bicultural orientation 59 as construct 56 cross-cultural psychology 55 in educational research 57–8 framework 55, 61–2, 64 future research 62–3 interactive model 56 orientations and school adjustment 56, 59, 61, 63 outcomes 56–7, 61 pedagogical practice, suggestions 63–4 process of students 5, 55 psychological adjustment 57, 63 stress models 55 school context, research on 58–9, 61, 63 social learning approach 55 social psychological theories 55 sociocultural adaptation 57

support from peers and teachers 59, 62 teachers’ effects, in migrant students’ 60–62 Adams, L. 466 Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) 509, 515–16 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) 43 Africa 130 see also African migration; Ethiopia; Ghana; South Africa African migration 16 Ethiopia, refugee populations in see Ethiopia ethnographic research, Zimbabwean-South African borderland academic performance 304–5 among Zimbabwean migrants and South Africans 301–2 challenges/difficulties 303–4 DSD criteria 303 fieldwork and methodology 302–3 forming conviviality in schools 303–6 framing Zimbabwean-ness 304 School Health Policy 45 Zimbabwean children and youth’s migration to SA 11, 299 see also South Africa Intra-West 130 North African countries, immigrants 442, 444 West African migrants in Ghana see Ghana Agamben, G. 25 Ahmed, S. 385, 389 Ainscow, M. 84, 196, 505 Akar, B. 251 Alba, R. 500, 505 Alcaraz, A. O. 300 Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Education Declaration 513 Alim, H. S. 183 Alternative Pastoral Support (APS) unit 258 Anastasiou, D. 194 Anderson, J. 38 Annamma, S. A. 190–92, 195, 197 Anthony-Okeke, L. 331 Anzaldúa, G. 31 Apple, M. 37, 225 Armstrong, F. 194 Arnot, M. 254–5 Arroyo, M. J. 501 Asian regionalism 325

543

544  Research handbook on migration and education asset-based pedagogies 7 Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act 70 asylum seekers/applications access of higher education 370–71 bordering practices/politics impact 4, 23–4 conditions, that affect educational engagement 391–2 Covid-19 outbreak impact 22 Danish Integration Act 24 delays/waiting period 23–4, 391–2 in Europe 22 ‘fake’ 26 harsh conditions of ‘asylum world’ 392 homogenization 26, 33 legal status role 392–3 Rwanda, sending to 24 standards for arrival EU 69 status of living dead 391–2 see also education, for refugees Australia developing multilingual capacity 158 educational responses, for NAMs 159–62 English language schools or units 160–61 language backgrounds, diversity 161–2 migrant and refugee intake 18, 157, 159–62 challenges, for ‘new arrivals’ 159–60 English language support programme 157–8 on-arrival programmes 161 school mission 157 migration history 157, 159 provision of English language services 158, 161 school-based study see school-based longitudinal study, Australian school population 157–9 Australian migration and education policies Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provision 509, 515–16 challenges with accessing 516–17 community-based learning 515 permanent protection visas, access to 516 Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) 518, 522 decline of EAL/D education 515 educational provisions 509, 521 access to schooling and challenges 511, 514–15, 521 challenges 510–11 for forcibly displaced people in 509–11 language learning 513–15 scholarships, fee-waiver 519–20 Welcome Program 514, 522 English as an additional language (EAL/D) 521 decline of education, implications 515 support and tution 513–14 ESL–New Arrivals program 513

forced migrants in 509–10 higher education (HE) sector access to 509, 518 admissions pathway into 518–19 barriers for refugee participation in 520–21 Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) 518 Educational Access Scheme (EAS) 518 HECS loan 518 lack of data gathered/reported 520 monolingual approach 520 online and hybrid learning 521 UNHCR’s 15/30 strategy 521 loan provision, tertiary education 517, 518, 522 Mparntwe Declaration 513 national policy, to educational equity 513 Special Preparatory Program (SPP) 513 Status Resolution Support Services 520 supports for NAM children 513–14 interpreting and translating services 513 limited EAL/D training challenges 514 visa type access to HE 519, 521 access to VET 517 schooling provision by 512 TPV and SHEV 509–10 vocational and education training (VET) 509, 517 limited access to Bridging Visa holders 517 Awumbila, M. 131 Azoulay, A. 462 Bailey, D. R. 346 Baker, S. 18, 386 Ball, S. J. 421–2 Bandura, A. 288 Bargh, J. A. 399 Bartlett, L. 466 Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany 69 Bateson, G. 177 Bayissa, R. 473 Baysu, G. 59, 63 Behrensen, B. 68 belonging and autochthony myth 23 cultural identity as monocultural 31 Ben-Porath, S. R. 15, 422, 428 Berggren, J. 89 Berry, J. W. 58, 130 Bettina, B. 225 Bhabha, H. K. 32 Biesta, G. 289 ‘Big Brother Big Sister’ (BBBS) project 239, 243 biological reductionism 194 Birman, D. 59, 63

Index  Black-Hawkins, K. 200 blue-collar jobs 237 Bologna process 372–3 Bomström Aho, E. 89 Bonet, S. W. 310, 317 Booth, T. 505 bordering practices/politics 4, 23–4 bounded rationality, notion 15, 422, 424–6, 428 Bourdieu, P. 15, 422 Bourhis, R. Y. 56 ‘brain circulation’ effect 329 Brännström, M. 86 Braxton, J. M. 398, 407 Bridging Visa (BV) 18, 511, 517 British Press EAL pupils, media portrayal of 439–40 ‘immigrant Muslim Other’ 440–42 ‘immigrant Other,’ construction of 15–16, 438–9 immigrants, negative portrayals 438 language/religion, Otherness categories 438–9 moral panic creation 438, 441 narrative of threat and fear 438, 440–41 non-English-speaking immigrants 439 ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal 441 Broderick, A. 191, 199 Bronfenbrenner, U. 38, 49 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 42 Bulbul, A. 222 Bunar, N. 5–6, 87, 92–3, 160 Burman, E. 205 Byrne, B. 459 Callahan, R. 143 Cameron, D. 442 Carter, P. 58 Carvajal, F. 467 Carver, F. 474, 475 Castiello-Gutiérrez, S. 360 Cebolla Boado, H. 501 Chan, K. W. 273 Chartrand, T. L. 399 Chavez, H. 526 Chekero, T. 299, 302 Cheng, L. 148 Chiang, H. M. 195 child, definition 450 ‘Child Find’ programme, US 31 child refugees 450 child rights-based approach 458–9 Chile, immigration policies in 529–30 Chilisa, B. 32 China Beijing, educational policies in 17, 480–81, 490

545

analysing discursive functioning 482, 490–92 covert intentions of 491 five certificates policy 485–6, 493 longitudinal qualitative research 482 public rejection of government action 491–2, 494 re-emphasizing government control 484–5 unified student identification system 486–7 compulsory education age 480, 493 Gansu, survey data 277, 279 hukou (household registration) system 274, 483, 493 internal urban-urban migration 273, 276 inward migration, funded 325 labour migration in 10, 273, 480 left-behind children’s in rural 10–11, 273–4 lone paternal migration, affect 277 migrant children, schooling challenges, in accessing public schools 17, 488 early development 483–4 education policies, enactment 480, 484–5 government-subsidized privately run school 488–90 regulations concerning, 2005 Beijing 483, 487–8 relocation of students 488–9 shut down, of schools 487 neoliberal governance 481 parental migration idea, as sacrifice 275–6 population control, agenda 480–81 policy enactment 481, 483, 493 rural-based vs. urban-based children, inequality among 278 rural-to-urban migration 480 schools types in 489 social mobility and education link 274 “three first and three later” policy 487–8, 493 “Two Mains” framework 484 unofficial ‘migrant children schools’ 17, 483–4, 493 restricting and inhibiting 487–8 Choudaha, R. 360 Christensen, G. 144 Christian Women’s Ministries (CWM) 302 Chubb, J. 422 Cin, F. M. 374 Cohen, J. 47 Cohen, S. 438 Cohn, D’V. 354 Coleman, T. 300 Collins, D. 300 Colombia flexible education models 527, 530–31, 535

546  Research handbook on migration and education open migration policies and regularization 528, 529–31, 534–6 Venezuelans in 526–7 colonialism and colonial education, ‘hidden curriculum’ 30–31 defined 27 educational goal of 30 colonialist mindset 4, 27 Coming of Age in Exile (CAGE) study 98, 106 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 460–61 Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 450 rights-based approaches to education 459–60 community-heritage language schools (C-HL schools) 203 approaching language learning 211–13 benefits and contributions of 203, 208–10, 216–17 confidence, bolster pupils’ 208, 210 cultural inheritance impact 215–16 development of migrant children, role 204–7 diasporic inheritance experience 214–16 educational opportunities 213–14 focus on wellbeing 210–11 home-community partnerships 216 home language, emphasis 210 hybrid identities, promoting 209 learning adaptability, advantageous 213 method 207–8 drawing workshops 208–10, 213 in-person research 207 sample overview 207 pedagogical approaches, flexible 212–13 policy and educational context for 203–4 powerful cultural impact 205–6, 215–16 problems faced 216 role of ‘systems convening’ 217 sense of community, developing 210–11 social integration and transferable skills 208–10 teachers qualifications/training 212, 216 teaching for mobility 213–14 translanguaging strategies 212 types and mixed purposes 205–6 complementary schooling (SELEC), purposes of 203, 206 Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) 468 concentric dualism 38, 39 concentric spatial-relational systems 5, 38–40 assertive outreach approaches 45–6 Connor, D. 191 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 384, 450

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Refugee Convention) 450 conviviality 299 ethnographic research, Zimbabwean-South African borderland academic performance 304–5 among Zimbabwean migrants and South Africans 301–2 challenges/difficulties 303–4 DSD criteria 303 fieldwork and methodology 302–3 forming conviviality in schools 303–6 framing Zimbabwean-ness 304 incompleteness, recognition 299 local host communities and migrants 299, 307 in multicultural and migratory contexts 299–300 potential among children and youth 300, 306–7 reflections, in young ages 306–7 relationships, formed within schools 300, 306–7 in spaces of education 299–301, 307 teachers’ support, importance 303–5 see also South Africa Copé, Jean-Francois 444 Correa-Velez, I. 161 Cortes, C. E. 225 Costa Rica, host for Nicaraguans 525, 527, 531–2 Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA), programme 387 Courtois, A. 327 Covid-19 pandemic accessibility to education during 457, 461 access to technology 353, 457, 521 border restrictions/closure 353, 511 discrimination against Chinese students 332–3 discrimination against international students 332–3 impact on refugee education 449, 461 and migration 1, 159, 353, 449 schools’ lockdowns 457, 506 shift to online delivery 515 Crenshaw, K. 190–91 Crepet, A. 44 Cross, W. E., Jr. 46 Crowley, J. 23 Crul, M. 14, 240 Crush, J. 301 cultural capital 15, 428 cultural cracks, concept 31 Cummins, J. 7, 143, 150–51, 502 Curcic, S. 44 Dae-jung, K. 343 Dale, R. 37, 42 Damm, A.-C. 72

Index  Dang, H. A. 275 Danish Integration Act, 2019 24 Danish refugee policy 24 Darmody, M. 6, 132–3, 136, 138 Dávila, B. 192 Dávila, L. T. 92–3 decolonizing education 22, 31–2 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program 532 de Jong, E. J. 160 Dekker, R. 390 Denmark, residence permits revoked 24 Department of Social Development (DSD) 302 dependency syndrome 287–8 Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners report 150 Devine, D. 6, 116, 147, 390 De Vroey, A. 194 diametric and concentric, spatial systems 38–40 cross-cultural contrasts 39–41 distinguishing feature of 39 dualism 38–9 in education 48 educational challenges, of immigration 4–5 promoting inclusive systems of relational space 42, 48–50 reconfiguration, to concentric 44 relational interaction 39–40 school system, exclusion in 42–3 system fragmentation issue 44, 49 diametric mirror image, inverted symmetry 47 diametric spatial opposition 41–2, 49 Didou, S. 362 dilemma of difference 194 Dincer, O. B. 222 Di Pietro, G. 361 disability 8, 189, 200 challenges, for migrant families 198–9 difference in pathological terms, construction 196–7 dysconscious ableism 191 inclusive education, criteria 189–90 identification issue 189 international policy and practice 196–8 in Italy and the United States 197 for migrant students 189, 194–5 issue of ‘emergent bilinguals’ with 192–3, 195 labelling migrants, ‘mentally retarded’ 195–6, 200 linguistic and cultural barriers 8 neurodiversity paradigm 194 perspective or models of 193 identification and labelling of young people 189, 194

547

‘medical model’ and ‘social model’ 193–4, 196 over-representation issue 195–7 redistribution-recognition dilemma 194 and race intersection among migrant populations 192 relation to migrancy 8, 189, 197–8 schools and teachers role ‘culturally diverse ready’ need to be 199–200 in lives of migrant families 199 restructuring need, for inclusivity 197, 199–200 shifting nature of categories 195–6 US ‘Child Find’ programme 31 see also special educational needs (SEN) dis/ability critical race studies (‘DisCrit’) 189–92 intersectional theoretical framework 191–2 race and disability, understanding 192 racial hierarchy, unacceptable 192 tenets 191–2 discriminatory bullying and discrimination 47–8 displaced children 1–2, 254–5, 260 Doðan, N. 374 Downes, P. 4–5, 38 Dryden-Peterson, S. 390, 467 Duek, S. 90 Durham, D. 289 D’warte, J. 183 dysconscious, racism/abelism term 191 dyslexia 195 ecological systems framework, Bronfenbrenner’s 46, 48 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) policy document 130 Ecuador education system, access to 527, 531, 536 immigration/regularization policies in 529–30, 534 Venezuelan communities in 526–7 Educational and Psychosocial Transitions upon Resettlement in Norway (TURIN) study 98, 101, 103–4 findings, concerning inclusion belonging in school, students’ experiences 107–8 educational challenges 104–5 need for more expertise and skills 6, 107–8 psychosocial challenges 105–6 refugee competence, need for 107–8 GOR and SEN schools, contrast 103, 105, 108, 110 groups or social networks, participation 106 late arrivals, majority 104

548  Research handbook on migration and education learner-centred approach 104 objective of 98 preparatory class provision, pros and cons 105 qualitative, ethnographically oriented approach 103 educational integration models 72 Education for All (EFA) goals 2 education rights 370, 386, 398, 449, 451, 456 accessibility 451 affordability 457–8 barriers, social and cultural 455 child migration and 454–5 child’s treatment in education 451 free and compulsory education 456 4A framework 456–8 inclusivity and integration 460–61 international law, global compacts and SDGs 453–4 legal norms 452 national plan promoting equitable inclusion 455 obligations to respect, protect and fulfil 455–6 participation rights of children 458 policy approaches focus 449–50, 455–8 quality of education 451 of refugee and migrant children 449 rights-based approach 458–60 structural and administrative barriers 455 in UNCRC 451–2 effective pedagogy, dimensions 150 Elamé, E. 47–8 empowerment, defined 154 England C-HL schools impact 208 qualifications, teachers 212 relationship with teachers 213–14 community-heritage languages in 204 Covid-19 lockdown in 207 English as an additional language (EAL) 158, 160, 256, 439–40 migration figures 159 negative media discourses (see also British Press) ‘British character’ of schools 439, 442 EAL pupils, media portrayal of 439–40 language, migration and education in 438–9 Muslim population/youth 440–42 ‘Sewell report’ 442 newly arrived EAL learners 160 policy and practice changes in, implications for English 158 seating migrant children with lower-ability students 196 student testimonies, being schooled in 256–7 Syrian students in, English schools 255–6, 260–61

English as an additional language (EAL) 7, 159, 190, 193, 256, 439 in Australia 158–9, 161, 513 educational attainment of 144 in England 158, 160, 256, 439–40 ‘newcomer programs’ US 159 for newly arrived 162–5, 256 primary-aged 161 English as second language (ESL) programmes 143–4, 160, 358 English language learners (ELL) 193, 310 decline in special services for 160 heterogeneous needs of 158 institutional monolingualism impact 311, 314–15 instructional directions 151 in Queensland 158 tracking of performance 161 in United States 150 English-only monolingualism 314–15 English proficiency tools 161 Enriquez, V. G. 27, 30, 32 Erasmus/Erasmus+ mobility programmes 373 Erickson, H. 422 Ethiopia Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) 468–69 inclusion and exclusion tension 17, 467, 475–6 challenges and possibilities of inclusion 473–5 implementation, challenges in 469–71 parallel bureaucratic agencies, challenge 470–73 ‘structural’ and ‘relational’ inclusion 467 migration and displacement impact on education 466–7 international 466 South-South 466–7 new proclamation 469 out-of-camp scheme 468 peripheral regions, hosting refugees 17, 466, 469, 473 Anuak and Nuer ethnic group 474–5 challenges faced by 468 Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz regions 17, 470–75 host/ethnic communities, concerns about inclusion policy 473–5 intra and inter-ethnic tension 474–5 policy for inclusion of refugee students 465–7 proclamation number 409/2004 468–9 refugee management approach 468 refugee policy, analysis 16, 465, 467–9 Agency for Refugee and Returnee Affairs (ARRA), role 470–73

Index  dispute between MoE and ARRA 471–2, 476 Djibouti Declaration 469 education for refugee and national children 16–17, 470–71 implementation of CRRF 468–9 mandate over refugee education, dispute on 472–3, 476 methodology 470 MoU between ARRA and MoE 472 nine pledges, progressive policy 16, 465, 468–9 regional education bureaus (REB) role 470–71 shifts in refugee policy 467–9 ‘Ethnic mentoring’ concept 239 ethnic prejudice 55 ethnic profiling 18 Eurocentric assumptions, colonial education role 22, 30 Europe anti-immigration policies 25 migration ‘influx’ towards 24–5 Roma population in 42 see also specific countries European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) 373 European Education and Training Expert Panel 37, 40 European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 372 evidence-based instructional approaches 142, 151–2 external efficacy 288 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 532 family literacy brokering 178 Farrell, O. 391 fee-free camp schools 285, 287 Fejes, A. 88, 392 Ferrare, J. J. 37 Ferri, B. 191 Feyissa, D. 473 filial piety, cultural idiom 276 five certificates policy, China 485–6, 493 Fong, V. 327, 332 forced migration/displacement 10, 23, 26–8, 31, 68, 78, 370, 388, 393, 465 Ford, T. 43 Foreign Student Exam (YÖS) 374 Foucault, M. 193 4A approach to education rights 461–2 acceptability 457 accessibility 456–7 adaptability 457–8 availability 456

549

French assimilationist ‘Republican model’ 435 French Press anti-immigrant attitudes 444–5 immigrant youth delinquency in urban peripheries (banlieues) 442–3 on immigration and education, negative discourse 15–16, 442–4 ‘islamo-gauchisme’ controversy 444 laïc (secular) French society 442 langage des cités 443 ‘Muslim Other’ about 443–5 tension between laïcité and Islam 443–4 Friedman, M. 422 Fu, M. 277 Fundamental British Values (FVBs) 441 Gabel, S. L. 196, 199 Gangopadhyay, L. 270 Garcia, L. 501 García-Sánchez, I. M. 8, 179 Genesee, F. 150 Geneva Convention on Refugees, 1951 390 German, educational system 5, 68, 78 access to school, for NAMSs 5, 69–72, 74, 77–8 AnkER-centers 70, 79 difficult teaching conditions 73 educational outcomes 74–5, 78, 79 IAB-BAMF-SOEP survey 70, 72–3, 78, 79 language skills 69, 72, 74 learning arrangements 70, 74–5 “migrant students only” groups 74 North Rhine-Westphalia study 71, 74–5, 79 refugees legal status determination 72 ReGES study 70–71, 73, 78 restrictive policies as barrier 72 rights to education and federal policies 69–70 assessment of competencies 71–2 attendance rates 70–71 compulsory schooling, delayed access 70, 72 exclusion of refugees/NAMSs 70–72 waiting time, for schools 71 school integration models 68–9, 71–4, 77 social inclusion/relationships 75–6 in class community 76 teachers attitudes 76–7 support structures role 77 German language knowledge 69 skills, improvement 72 Geuijen, K. 390 Ghana 6 basic schools in, sections 132 “castle schools” 132 Constitution, Citizenship Act, 2000 131

550  Research handbook on migration and education education system in 131–2 indigenousness role 131 labelling citizens, as strangers/migrants 131 migrant parents’ school choices in 6, 130, 132–4, 138 disadvantaged positions of 133 exploratory case study, Accra 134 family resources and costing/fees 133, 136 location factor 133, 137 main themes and findings 134–8 market-oriented policies role 133 pre-migration decision making 135 proximity factor 137 religion role 136–7 Snowball sampling/interviews 134 socioeconomic background role 135–6 National Migration Policy 131 NPC defines migration 131 religious schools 132 social networks and kinship, importance 6, 137–8 ghettoisation process 42 Gilbert, A. S. 27 Gilligan, C. 41 Global Compact in Refugees (GCR 2018) 287, 384 Global Education Strategy (GES) policy 2 Globalization 255, 386, 496 child migration flows and 1 see also refugees and migrant children diplomacy, 343 forced migration, by-product of, 23 Korea, in context of, 342–3, 350 outcomes, education context, 12 global migration and refugee crises 1, 23–4, 54 belonging and autochthony myth 23 budget for managing 22 complex phenomenon 2–3, 23 ‘crisis’ understanding 24–5 as ‘drain’ on educational resources 15 due to war and civil unrest 23 education systems, challenges 1–3, 54, 236 increasing numbers and refugee children 2, 54 internal migration trends 10 international students, rise 12 Intra-West African migration 130 special interest groups (SIGs) 2 Global South and migration 2, 11, 23, 27, 177, 385, 388 Goffman, E. 30 Gregory, A. 43 Griffin, J. A. 114 Gu, X. 278 Gulson, K. 136 Gutiérrez, K. D. 47

Habib, S. 193, 199 Haenni Hoti, A. 59 Hamilton, P. 196 Hanafin, J. 116 Hannum, E. 279 Hardy, I. 194 Harper, C. A. 160 Harris, A. 300 Harris A. 388 Harte, E. 44 Hattie, J. 149 Hay, P. L. 302 Hayes, A. 331 health issues and education 43–5 diametric spatial splits, overcoming 43–5, 49 discrimination impact 47 mental issues 43–4 multiple agencies, operating in parallel 44 one-stop-shop family centres 44 support services, around schools 43–5 system fragmentation, concern with 44 trauma/ACEs 43–4 Heckmann, F. 46 Heil, T. 299 heritage languages, preservation 9 Herrera, F. 44 heterogeneity, migrants conceptions 7–8, 37, 73, 77, 158, 162, 167 higher education (HE) fee exemption and scholarship support 374, 387, 391 inclusive approach to refugees 13, 370–71 see also Türkiye integrating refugees into 370, 387 internationalization of 13–14, 324, 338, 347, 353, 372 academic and social mobility 360–63 social benefits of 362 in Korea 338, 340–42 see also Korean higher education massification of 327 migrant background students, underrepresentation 397 obstacles/challenges concerning access to 370–71 refugees’ experiences, limited research 386 Holdaway, J. 500, 505 Hollingworth, S. 300 Holloway, S. 327 Home, Heritage and Community Languages Advisory/Advocacy Group 204 home literacy practice 178 home-school language switch 152–3 Hornberger, N. 203 Hovil, L. 467

Index  Hu, S. 275 human development and education 262 human trafficking 10, 263 Hutchinson, J. 144 Illich, I. 300 immigrant-background students ‘achievement gap’ see opportunity gaps educational disadvantages marginalized group status 153–4 socioeconomic disadvantage, negative effects 145, 153 sources of 143 home-school language switch 152–3 OECD’s recommendations for 145–8 effective early learning programmes 147–8 Helping Immigrant Students Succeed at School–and Beyond report 145 home vs. school language focus 148, 152–3 instructional strategies 146–7 intercultural capacity, development 146–7 language barriers, support for 7, 146 ‘magnet’ schools 145 socioeconomic integration 145–6 students’ home languages (L1), role 145, 153 training for school leaders and educators 147 use of home languages 152–3 PISA reading scores/tests 143–5 scaffolding support for 152–3 support structures for newly arrived 147 underachievement instructional responses to sources of 151–2 minority/home language link 147–8, 151–2 and pedagogies context 7 immigrant Other 434 moral panic creation 438, 441 negative narratives, in schools 15–16, 434, 438 immigrant parental engagement 6, 114 barriers and challenges faced by 114–16 cultural and economic challenges 122–3 exclusionary practices 115 gender role 114, 120–21 ‘home’ countries, experiences 122–3 inclusive approaches 124 Irish context, research in see Ireland, schooling system lack of engagement/contact 115, 123–4 language, challenges with 123 ‘othering’ of minority ethnic parents 115, 123, 126 perceptions of teachers 6, 115, 124–5 representative level, involvement 124

551

school culture, influence 124–5 socio-economic/migrant status role 123, 127 Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches 150–51 inclusion concentric spatial-relational systems, promoting 5, 47–50 as dynamic process 4, 84–5 educational challenges 4, 14, 104–5, 398 Global Monitoring Report 2020 263 holistic approaches, whole-school 4, 29 Index for Inclusion, 2000 505 learner-centred approach 104 model, for students inclusion profiles 402, 403 model fit indices of 403, 414 from OECD/non-OECD countries 14, 397–8, 406–8 parameter estimates of inclusion 415–20 profiles, levels of social/academic 14 psychosocial challenges 105–6 questionnaires 402, 412 of recently arrived refugee students studies 5–6 relational space and 4–5, 37–8 shift towards concentric structures of 5, 38, 42, 44, 48, 50 spatial reconfiguration focus, themes 37, 42 support-based 84, 90–92 UNESCO GEM report 2020 on 45 UNHCR tertiary education strategy of refugee 384 variables, Turkey’s post-hoc test 400, 404–5, 413 see also students inclusion India human trafficking 263 Kalighat Kolkata, red-light district, case study 264–5 National Human Rights Commission, report 263 information-reliant approaches 46 integration barriers to, post-compulsory education (PCE), 385, 388–9, 394 Danish Integration Act, 24 educational models, 72 forms, and degrees, 4 Latin America, efforts in, 525, 530–32 Norway, education system, 102 philosophies 434 questionnaire academic integration, 402, 412 social integration, 400, 412 school integration models, 68–9, 71, 72–4, 77

552  Research handbook on migration and education school systems, organizational models of, 72–3 Spain linguistic, 499 policy, for immigrants, 498 in practice, problems, 18, 498–501 social, 500–501 student integration defined, 398 Tinto’s model of, 398–9 Türkiye HEIs, refugees, 373–5, 377 Integrazione Scolastica 197 internal efficacy 288 International Organization for Migration (IOM) 302, 450 international student mobility (ISM) 12–15, 324, 333–4, 365–6 for achieving social mobility 362–4 ‘Asian regionalism’ growth 325 for better education 12–13, 359 cities/university campuses, significance 326, 329–30 citizenship and migration-related objectives 328–30 drivers actions of individual universities 327 demand-side factors 327 migration policies of destination countries 327 monetary contribution 328–9 scholarships for study abroad 327 tightening up of non-education-related migration 327 ‘East to West’ pattern of movement 324–5 and educational opportunities 12–15 ‘education-migration nexus’ 328 ethics of 332–3 geographies of 324–6 ‘imaginative geographies’ 326 internationalization of HE aspects 360–62 international students Chinese students in US 331–2 cultural hegemony concept 331 curriculum, pedagogical approaches 330–31 different from ‘home’ students 332 discrimination and racism experiences 332–3 efforts to redesign curricula 331 Japan in 347 in Korea 338–9, 342–5 learning and classroom experiences 330–31 number increase 338 as resources 330 revenue/income from 329–30, 360 treatment by HEIs, ethical concerns 332–4

low-income students 13, 361, 363 between Mexico and US 12–13, 353–5, 358 asymmetrical academic exchange 13–14, 359–60 socio-economic impact 360–61 opportunities to acquire, skills/capital 361 shift in patterns of mobility 325 socio-economic diversification 326–8 soft power, assumptions 329 state-building strategies, outgoing students as 329 study of Chinese students in the United States 331 world-wide, increase in number 12–13 intersectionality theory 8, 189–92 concepts of ‘normal’ and normalcy 191 cultural/language differences and dis/abilities relationship 190–91 dysconscious, racism/ableism 191 intersection of racism and sexism 190 Intra-West African migration 130 Ireland, schooling system cultural and economic challenges 122–3, 126 DEIS programme 117, 126 fee payment system 122, 126 GAA 122, 126 Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study 116, 122, 126 HE scholarships 391 immigrant parents/teachers engagement 6, 116, 118, 121–2, 125–6 inclusion and visibility of immigrant groups 123, 126 inclusion of ‘ethnic others’ in 116, 125 intensive qualitative study 117–18 migrant and Irish parents, teacher-perceived differences 117 multiple data sources 116–17 parental involvement, passive approach 124 play-based nature, primary school curriculum 122 primary school, parents engagement with 118, 125 contact levels, between parents-schools/ teachers 118–19 ‘objective’ differences, in interest levels 121 parents’ interest 120–21 school cultures, importance 124–5 secondary schools, migrants 132 teachers, perceptions 6, 115, 117–19, 124–5, 127 ‘islamo-gauchisme’ (islamoleftism) controversy 444 Isola, R. R. 143 Israel 15, 47, 251, 423 Italian immigration reception system 44

Index  James, C. 208 Jang, N. 346 Jansen, J. 305 Janta, B. 44 Järkestig Berggren, U. 89 Jayadeva, S. 327 Johnson, B. 442 Jon, J. E. 333, 346 Jørgensen, C. R. 192–3, 198–9 Kakos, M. 93 Kalighat, Kolkata case study 264–5 Children’s Learning Center 10, 265 constructive-interpretive approach 264 education right 264–5, 268, 269 inclusive environment, impact in lives of children 264, 266–7 informants profile 265 Kalighat Morning Club positive impact 265–8 safe space creation for children 269 transformation, in lives 267–8 objectives 264 overcoming barriers 267–8 pandemic impact 270 social justice and inclusion 266, 268–9 success stories 269 working with sex workers and challenges 268–9 Kalobeyei 287 Kapari, K. 48 Kaplan, I. 316 Kasapoglu, A. 222 Kauffman, J. M. 194 Kelly, M. 147 Kemper, T. 78 Kenner, C. 208 Kenway, J. 422 Kenya’s Kakuma Refugee Camp 285 ethnographic research 286–7, 289–90 academic challenges and opportunities 290–92 as civic institutions 286–7 corporal punishment, teachers justify 292–3 data collection and methods 289–90 educational services 287–9 empowerment of refugee youth 294–6 establishing self-reliance, education for 288, 294 everyday school-based interactions/practices 286, 295 narrative vignettes 290–92 power use and disciplinary action in school 292–4 “resiliency humanitarianism” 296

553

schools’ role in socioemotional development 286 teacher absenteeism, issue 290–91 understanding refugee youth agency 288–9, 295–6 unnoticeability, in class 294 youth participatory action research (YPAR) collaboration 290 refugee youth, challenges 11, 286, 290–92 with school actors 11, 286, 295 understanding, right to education 11, 294 Kim, J. 205, 210 Kim, S. E. 347 Kim, S. W. 280 Kinsella, W. 8, 198, 200 kintsugi art 31 Kirova, A. 466 Kobo, O. 131 Koo, A. 279 Koo, H. 421 Korean higher education challenges associated with student mobility 345–8 inclusion, cultural and social 345–7 student employment and retention rates 347–8 tensions between local and international students 346–7 Education Reform Plan of 1995 343 globalization agenda, segyehwa 343 government funding schemes 344–5 International Education Quality Assurance System, 2011 345 internationalization policies 348–9 data and methods 339–40 framework of policy borrowing, stages 339, 348–9 implications 348–50 Korean language proficiency admissions criteria 340 international students, rise of 340–42 employment prospects and retention 347–8 enrolled in degree programmes 341 factors influencing 342–5 inclusion of, cultural and social 346–7 initiatives intended to increase enrolments 344–5 negative experiences 346 sense of exclusion 346 top sending/origin countries 341, 342 student mobility trends 340–42 outbound/inbound 340 shift in focus to inbound student mobility 344 “Study Korea Project” 344, 349

554  Research handbook on migration and education Korntheuer, A. 5, 72 Kraal, K. 240 Kyttälä, M. 196 labelling refugees 25–6, 33, 49 Ladson-Billings, G. 154 Laenui, P. 32 Lalvani, P. 191, 199 language brokering 8, 174–5 family literacy brokering 178 future research 184–5 immigrant children experiences 173–5, 178, 184–5 everyday practices-vignettes 173–5, 180 learning involved in 8, 175–80, 185 school, connections to 179, 181–4 learning 175 “activity setting” framework 176, 177, 179 apprenticeship model of 177–8 becoming professional translators 181 in everyday contexts 176, 182 “Learn by Observing and Pitching In” (LOPI) 178 “learning on the move” perspective 176–7, 179–80 micro-genetic 175, 180–81 ontogenetic 175, 180–81 out-of-school learning 175, 182 in particular activity settings 178–9 pitfalls 182 role of teachers 183–4 school, connections to 179, 181–4 sociocultural learning theory 8, 175–9 of specific language forms 181 teacher-directed “factory model” approach 178 time scales of 177 use of translation in pedagogic practice 184 linguistic, cultural, social, and pragmatic negotiations 175 schools, suggestion for 183, 184 teachers, recommendation 183 language-integrated learning 92 Language Introduction Programme (LIP) 5, 88–9 language schooling, community-based 8, 203 languages crisis 204 ‘languages of origin’ 444–5 Latin America history of cross-border migration 536 migration crises in 18–19, 525–6, 528, 536 migration/education policies, host countries analysis 18–19, 525, 528–9, 536–7 discrimination and xenophobia 535 education access and integration efforts 525, 530–32

education policy analysis 535–6 legal status, pathways 530 Mexico and United States, migration/ education policies 532–4 migration policy analysis 534–5 resistance to regularization 534 temporary identification numbers 535 visa requirements and regularization issue 529–30, 534 Nicaragua, migration from 18–19, 525–6 Costa Rica for Nicaraguans 525, 527, 531–2 Northern Triangle, migration from 18–19, 525–6 United States and Mexico asylum in 528, 532–4 open migration policies 536 push and pull factors role 526–8, 534 Venezuela, migration from 18–19, 525–6 Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile for Venezuelans 526–7, 529–31 learning on the move, approach 176–7 Lebanon 390 ethnographic research in school 296 Multi-Aid Programs (MAPs) 251 RACE programme 455 refugees influx in Beqa’a and Arsal 10, 251–2 Syrian migrant children’s insights 260–61 connection/admiration for teachers 10, 254–5, 260 fondness, to Syria 251–2, 260 inclusion and fairness, desire for 252–3 injustices and hostility experiences 249, 252 recommendations for improving schooling 255 schooling in refugee settlements, case study 249, 251–2 voices and representation 252–3 Syrians’ position within, background 250–51 Lee, A. R. 346 Lee, G. I. 347 Lee, K. H. 333 left-behind children 10–11 background 272–3 bullying issue 279 definition 273 education role in Chinese society 274–5 hometowns, schooling in 275 ‘migrant children’ boundary between 274 mobility, educational 275, 281 numbers of, ambiguities about 273–4 parental absence, affect 276, 277, 280 on children’s attachment 277 maternal migration 277

Index  parental migration 280–82 age factor 276 boys faring worse than girls 276 economic benefits/remittances 276, 278, 281 household SES and 278 implications, on educational outcomes 10–11, 273, 276–8, 281 lone or dual impacts 277–9 as sacrifice 275–6 rural-based vs. urban-based, inequality among 278 in rural China 272–4 at school, negative/positive experiences 278–1 support for, teachers role 280, 282 term 273 victimization risk 280 ‘work suggestions’ document 280 Lévi-Strauss, C. 38–40, 50 Leyton, D. 422 Li, G. 48 Li, W. 92, 204, 216 Lindorff, A. 161 linguistic capital, erosion 204 Liu, Y. 9, 205 local refugee support organizations, in Türkiye 9, 221–2 Lomer, S. 331 Losoncz, I. 517 Lu, Y. 277 Lund, A. 90 Lundy, L. 255, 459 Luthra, R. 327 Lynch, A. 116 Ma, Y. 331 Macron, E. 444 Maduro, N. 526, 537 Maguire, M. 481 Mahati, S. 304 Makarova, E. 5, 59–61, 63 Malkki, L. H. 384 Mangan, D. 388 Mansaray, A. 300 marginalized group status 153–4 Martínez-Álvarez, P. 190, 192, 195 Mascareno, A. 467 Massumi, M. 5, 72, 73 Matras, Y. 217 Mayblin, L. 392 Mayor, C. 143 Mbembe, A. 391 McCarthy, A. T. 223 McPake, J. 208 McWilliams, J. A. 317

555

media and policy discourse, on migration and education 15, 18 in France and England 434–6, 445, 446 analysis of French and English newspapers 436–7 colour-blind approach 435 comparative’ contexts 434–6 compatibility of Islam with French Republican ideals 443–4 concept of laïcité 435, 443 conceptual constructions of immigration 436–7 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 438 data and methods 437–8 exclusionary semantic structures 436 focuses on youth and schools 444–5 ‘immigrant Other’ in schools, construction 438–5 Islam, hostility/mistrust towards 441–4 model of integration 435 multiculturalism 435 Plan Vigipirate 446 polar opposites 434 populist, far-right and xenophobic discourses 434 public attitudes 436 securitisation discourses 441, 446 semantic and lexical variations 436 negative narratives/discourses, migrants 15–16 stigmatization and criminalization 26 story of ‘bogus’ children 26 see also British Press; French Press medical language brokering 178, 180 Meissner, F. 299 Mentoren op Zuid programme, Rotterdam 244 mentoring basic principles 240–41 for children of immigrants 238–9 classification of 239, 245 common elements 243 as complimentary educational tool, advantages 243–5 concepts and idea of 9, 240, 243 cultural intimacy, role 239 ‘diagnosis’ aspect 242 educational needs, explicitly address 239 effectiveness of, studies 242–3 mentors’ function as role models 241 Netherlands, ‘ethnic mentoring’ projects 242 offered by university students 241 paradox 243 professionalisation and scaling-up challenges 244 programmes, basic principles 9, 239–2, 245 school-related, complex 243

556  Research handbook on migration and education sense of commonality/shared backgrounds 239, 245 successful, findings about 244–5 term 239 ‘therapeutical’ potential 242 Weichenstellung programme 243 Messiou, K. 84 Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID) 358 Mexican higher education institutions 359 Mexico-US relations 12–13, 353–4, 358 academic exchange/migration 355–9, 365–6 during Donald Trump administration, decline 355, 365 Proyecta 100,000 program 357–8 student mobility program 362–4 technological universities participation 363 asymmetrical student exchange 13, 359–60 US advantage 360 binational research centers 358 decline in, academic mobility 365 Mexican HEIs, international student mobility in 358–9 Mexican students, enrolled in US HEIs 355 discrimination faced 355 short-stay programs for learning English 358 US visas granted to Mexicans 356–7 migration dynamics, history 13, 354–5, 366 during Obama’s presidency 354, 357 100,000 Strong in Americas Innovation Fund 13, 356–7, 362 US-American students into Mexico movement 356 micro-genetic learning 175 Miera, F. 136 Migliarini, V. 191, 196–7, 199 migrant, defined 37, 131, 450 migrant children see refugees and migrant children migrant parents’ engagement 6, 114 barriers and challenges faced by 114–16 contact levels, between parents-schools/ teachers 118–19 cultural and economic challenges 122–3 exclusionary practices 115 gender role 114, 120–21 ‘home’ countries, experiences 122–3 inclusive approaches 124 Irish context, research in see Ireland, schooling system lack of engagement/contact 115, 123–4 language, challenges with 123 ‘objective’ differences, in interest levels 121

‘othering’ of minority ethnic parents 115, 123, 126 parents’ interest 120–21 perceptions of teachers 6, 115, 124–5 primary school with 118, 125 representative level, involvement 124 school culture, influence 124–5 socio-economic/migrant status role 123, 127 school choices 6, 130, 132–4, 138, 424 ‘bounded rationality notion 422, 424–6, 428 Chabad 425, 429 concept 421 continuity and familiarity, preference 426 conventional factors 426–7 disadvantaged positions of 133 exploratory case study, Accra 134 family resources and costing/fees 133, 136 global context 421–3 Israeli-Jewish identity influence on 423 Israelis abroad and 425–8 location factor 133, 137 main themes and findings 134–8 market-oriented policies role 133 narrows culture gap 427 pre-migration decision making 135 proximity factor 137 religion role 136–7 seeking out Jewish schools 424–6 Snowball sampling/interviews 134 socioeconomic background role 135–6 see also mobile professionals Miles, S. 194, 205 Milton, S. 387 Min, G. S. 348 minority/home language 147–8, 152–3 Mittelmeier, J. 331 mobile professionals 424, 429 communities connections, Israeli Jewish 15, 423 defined 421 global, study on first relocation 424–6 informants and their backgrounds 424, 432 Israelis abroad and 423 participants/methodology 423–4, 429 relocating for second time 426–8 semi-structured interviews 424, 432 national and cultural identities 15, 423 school choice and 424 ‘bounded rationality notion 422, 424–6, 428 Chabad 425, 429 concept 421 continuity and familiarity, preference 426 conventional factors 426–7 global context 421–3

Index  Israeli-Jewish identity influence on 423 Israelis abroad and 425–8 narrows culture gap 427 seeking out Jewish schools 424–6 ‘soft landing’ through retention of links 15, 425, 427–8 mobility capital 361, 362 Moe, T. 422 monolingual bias 205 monolingual education system 12, 77, 148, 311, 314–15, 320, 498, 520 Moon, R. 13 ‘moral panic’ notion 438 Morreira, S. 299, 302 Morrice, L. 386, 388–9, 392–3 Mörtlund, T. 86 Multi-Aid Programs (MAPs) 10, 251 Multicultural Youth Affairs Network (MYAN) 159 multilingual classroom assistance (MCA) 91–2 Murphy, R. 10, 280 Murray, H. 225 Murray, R. 387, 391, 393 ‘Muslim Other’ narrative 440–44 Nairz-Wirth, E. 38 National Agency for Education (NAE) 90 National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) 161 national identity and migrants 25–6 National Migration Policy (NPC), Ghana 131 National School Inspectorate (NSI) 90 national student identification system, Beijing 485–7 neoliberalism 421 nepantla, metaphor 31–2 Netherlands academic tracking 237 asylum accommodation, regular movement between 392 ‘ethnic mentoring’ projects 242, 243 guest workers role 142 harsh conditions of ‘the asylum world’ 242, 243 migration background study, students inclusion (see students inclusion) PISA reading scores 144 Neto, P. 467 Neumann, U. 243 newly arrived migrant students (NAMSs) 68 defined 83 educational careers, factors influencing 68 education programmes for 159–2 inclusion approaches in Germany 68–9

557

in Norway 99–100 in Sweden 84–5 LIP, organizational model 88 newly arrived refugee students 68, 79 news ‘politicisation’ 446 New York Declaration on refugees and migrants 16, 465 New Zealand educational navigation in 312, 313 reflections on navigating school 312–6 strategies for addressing navigational challenges 316–9 education and resettlement policy 311–12, 319–20 English language learning support 311 monolingualism institutional 311 ‘peopledness’ of policy 312, 316 reflexive thematic analysis 313 school-based specialist English language learning support 311 self-affirmation and reframing 318 theoretical framing 311–12 immigration rules and laws 311 MBIE’s mandate role 311 quota commitment 310 refugee-background students, study 12 aims of study 312–13 ‘better life’ aspirations 317, 319 challenges encountered 12, 313–16, 320 institutional monolingualism, impacts 314–15 language and language learning 314, 320 misrecognition, instances 315 participatory action research (PAR) 12, 312 self-assertion strategy 317–18 sense of self-belief 316–19 subterranean navigation 316 tertiary education entry criteria and application processes 313–14 traumatic experiences 315–16 self-sufficiency focus, economic 12, 310, 318–20 Ngugi wa Thiong’o 31 Nicaragua, migration crises 18–19, 527, 536–37, 537 Costa Rica access to education system 531–32 General Migration and Foreigners Law 531 host for Nicaraguans 525, 527, 531 new migration policies 531 pull factors 527 push factors that motivated 527 trigger events 528 Nikita, D. P. 421 Nilsson, J. 160

558  Research handbook on migration and education non-school-based programmes 9, 241 Nord, C. W. 114 Nordstrom, J. 205 Northern Triangle, migration crises 18–19, 527, 536–7, 537 Binational Migrant Education Program (PROBEM) 532 Programa para la Inclusión y la Equidad Educativa (PIEE) 532 push factors for 527 “Remain in Mexico” policy 532–3 United States and Mexico asylum in 528, 537 COVID-19 policies 533 DACA program 532 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 532 migration and education policies 532–4, 537 pull factors for migrants 527–8 Norway, education system 98 belonging sense 107–8 combination classes 101 concept of “new arrivals” 99 Education Act (1998, § 1–3) 100 educational achievements, of refugee students 100 highly decentralised 109–10 inclusion challenges, for young refugee students 98, 102 educational transitions 98, 104–5 need for more expertise and skills 6, 108 newly arrived students 99–100 psychosocial challenges 98, 105–6 refugee competence, need for 107–8 transition into adulthood 98 upper-secondary education 6, 99–101 whole-school approach, need for 110 inclusive education, idea/practice 100, 102, 109 integration/inclusion, concept 102 introduction models 100–101 policy-practice gap 6, 109 preparatory classes 101 residence permit 107 sense of belonging 103, 107 “separate class” model 100 short residency, defined 99, 100 sociocultural approach 101–2 socio-ecological approach 101–2 special language support 109 teachers, lack of competence and experience 108 TURIN study 98–9, 103–4 Norwich, B. 194 Nusche, D. 133 Nyamnjoh, F. B. 299–300, 302

Obrador, L. 353, 365 Ochs, K. 339, 348 O’Connor, S. 333 Odyssey-epos (Homer) 239 Oliver, C. 13–14, 190, 198–9, 390, 392, 393 one-stop-shop family centres 44 ontogenetic learning 175, 180–81 opportunity gaps 7, 142, 154 evidence-based instructional responses to 151–2 immigrant students’ educational success and 142, 154 impact within US education system 143 socioeconomic disadvantage 145–6, 153 student engagement/attainment, effect 142–3 term, described 143 see also immigrant-background students Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 142 OECD vs. non-OECD, migrant students’ 14, 398, 400, 406–8 recommendations see immigrant-background students Ten Steps to Equity in Education 44 ‘Othering’ process of exclusion 42 out-of-school learning 175, 182 outreach approaches, assertive 45–6 over-representation issue, minority groups 195–7 Padilla, B. 300 Pagel, L. 72 Paniagua, A. 192, 195, 198–200 parental involvement and engagement 6, 114 barriers and challenges faced by 114–16 cultural and economic challenges 122–3 exclusionary practices 115 gender role 114, 120–21 ‘home’ countries, experiences 122–3 inclusive approaches 124 Irish context, research in see Ireland, schooling system lack of engagement/contact 115, 123–4 language, challenges with 123 ‘othering’ of minority ethnic parents 115, 123, 126 perceptions of teachers 6, 115, 124–5 representative level, involvement 124 socioeconomic background role 123, 127, 135–6 school choices in 6, 130, 132–4, 138, 421–3 disadvantaged positions of 133 exploratory case study, Accra 134 family resources and costing/fees 133, 136 location factor 133, 137 main themes and findings 134–8

Index  market-oriented policies role 133 pre-migration decision making 135 proximity factor 137 religion role 136–7 Snowball sampling/interviews 134 school culture, influence 124–5 teachers engagement 6, 116, 118, 121–2, 125–6 Paris, D. 183 Pascarella, E. T. 406–7 Paty, S. 444, 446 Peru 537 access to education system 527, 530–31 administration turnover 536 decriminalized irregular migration 529–30 flexible enrollment policies 535 hosts Venezuelans, largest communities in 526–7 overcrowding issues 530 regularization policies 529, 530 welcoming migration policies 531, 534 Peters, B. G. 373 Phalet, K. 59 Pherali, T. 392 Phillips, D. 339, 348 Pinson, H. 254–5 Pitman, T. 519 Platt, L. 327 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 42 Poland, identification numbers at birth 133 policy(ies) anti-immigration policies, Europe 25 Chile, immigration policies in 529–30 Danish refugee policy 24 diversity 400, 402–4, 406, 407 and educational context for 203–4 education policies Australian migration and see Australian migration and education policies Beijing see China, Beijing changes in 16 Korean higher education see Korean higher education, internationalization policies Latin America see Latin America migrant children, schooling 480, 484–5 national inclusive policy 14, 370–71, 374, 380 and resettlement policy, New Zealand see New Zealand, education and resettlement policy rights-based approach to 459–62 shift in 17, 497–9 education rights 370, 386, 398, 449–51, 455–8 enactment 481, 483, 493 favouring multiculturalism 58 five certificates policy, China 485–6, 493

559

GES policy 2 host/ethnic communities 473–5 immigration/regularization policies in Ecuador 529–30, 534 for inclusion of refugee students 465–7 integrated School Health Policy 45 international policy and practice 196–8 Lima Aprende and Aprendo en Casa policies 530 market-oriented policies role 133 media and policy discourse, on migration and education 15, 18 migration policies 531 of destination countries 327 open migration policies and regularization 528, 529–31, 534–6 and rights tension 15–19 national immigrant integration , 498 National Migration Policy 131 new migration policies 531 policy-practice gap 6, 109 population control 480–81 and practice changes in, implications for English 158 seating migrant children with lower-ability students 196 “reactive policy” 373, 379 refugee policy, Ethiopia see Ethiopia, refugee policy regularization policies 529, 530 “Remain in Mexico” policy 532–3 restrictive policies as barrier 72 rights to education and federal policies 69–72 School Health Policy 45 shifts in refugee policy 467–9 social mobility 14 “special student” policy 375 tensions and refugees education 15–19 “three first and three later” policy 487–8, 493 Türkiye, inclusive policy 371, 377, 380–81 United States and Mexico asylum 532–4 visa requirements and regularization policies 529–30 welcoming migration policies 531, 534 population mobility ethnocultural and linguistic diversity due to 142 languages movement across borders 203–4 unprecedented 142 see also student mobility post-compulsory education (PCE) 14, 384–5, 394 Ahmed’s examination to inclusion 389 barriers to integration 385, 388–9, 394 forced migrants’ access to, research on 385, 386, 390

560  Research handbook on migration and education immigration-related bureaucracy, complexity 393 invisibility, while accessing provision 393 legal status, issue 385, 391, 394 heterogeneity overlooked 386 invisibility 393 learning conditions, for those without 391–3 limited participation in 387 refugee student experiences opportunities/problems 387–9 social exclusion 388–9 rights to education 390–91 ‘sanctuary scholarships’ for HE 387, 391 scholarships and admissions tariffs 390–91 UNHCR 2030 strategy 387–8 UNHCR DAFI Scheme 387 young people, rights 390 Pratt, M. L. 179 Prendeville, P. 198 Pritchard, P. 160 private tutoring 242 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) studies 7, 142 in Australia 143–4 in Canadian context 144 of immigrant-background students 143–5 instructional implications, of findings 145–8 in non-European countries 144 OECD analyses of, educational disadvantage 159 OECD recommendations 145 reading scores 143–4 trends in PISA studies 145 see also immigrant-background students protection deficit 450 Proyecta 100,000 13 Putnam, R. 106 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings 342 Qualifications Passport for Refugees and Vulnerable Migrants, (UNESCO’s) 376 quality education 102 Reay, D. 48 refugee, definition 450 Refugee Convention 1951, Denmark 24 refugees and migrant children 1, 26, 450 accessibility to education 142, 157, 456–7 access to HE and obstacles 3701 challenges of education 1–3, 236, 371 crisis, restrictive measures 24–5, 27 cultures, knowledge, and experiences, denial/ invisibility of 4 discrimination, impact on mental health 47 economic and social rights 455

educational inclusion of, approaches 4–6 education for average educational outcomes 236, 245 bordering practices 391 challenges 236 changes in educational policy 16 critical importance of schools 285–6 decolonizing approach, phases 22, 31–2 disadvantages, dealing with 236 high opportunity costs 390 holistic model 29 idiosyncrasy of educational systems 237 interventions to support students 29, 33 lack of education 449 legal status and learning conditions 391–3 Lundy model of participation 458 neo-colonial approach to 22 policy tensions and 15–19 preclusion, seclusion and exclusion 27, 33 rights 262, 449, 451 role of 28–9 schools, complex social spaces 300 SDG 4 for 262, 384, 449, 460 South Asia, inclusive 262 spatial processes in 37 success, factors behind 237–8 tertiary education strategy UNHCR 387, 394 UK and France, media discourses 15, 18, 434–6 Western education, colonial logic of 30–31 ethnic categorization 25 exclusion from school 457 ‘heroic’ discourse, of resilience for 45–6, 48 heterogeneity of population 7–8, 37, 158, 162 ‘key persons/relevant other’ support 237–8 labelling and invisibility 25–7 as marginalized group 130, 384 migration policies and rights tension 15–19 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 384 portrayal in media 15, 436–7 post-compulsory education, challenges 14, 384–5 psychological and social challenges 105–6 reasons for migration 1 rights-based approach to education policy for 459–60 right to life, survival and development 451 school choices and education 132–4 social, economic and cultural right 451, 455 social inclusion and integration 3, 4 special student status 375 successful, educationally factors 237–8

Index  support practices, in schools/community 7–9 threatening other, positioning 15, 438–45 unaccompanied, binary attitude for 10–11, 26, 70, 299, 450, 528 visa categories 8, 18 visibility versus invisibility of 3 voice and agency 10–11 vulnerable groups, education challenges 1–2, 10 refugee youth agency, theorization 287–9, 295–6 relational outreach approach 46 relational space and transitions 4–5 Ren, Y. 273 representation right, of children 249 resilience conception, Rutter’s 45–6 diametric spatial assumptions 46 socio-ecological model 45–6 resiliency humanitarianism 296 rights-based approaches on education policy 458–60, 461–2 CRPD’s approach to inclusion 461 inclusivity and integration focus 460–61 for refugee and migrant children 459–60 six-point framework, to address gaps 459–60 three elements to 458 right to education 11, 294, 370, 386, 398, 449–51 see also education rights ‘Rising Asia’ regional development programme 329 Robertson, S. 327, 328 Rogoff, B. 178 Rojas, M. T. 422 Rosa’s Law 200 Rubio-Carbonero, G. 181 Ruby, M. 208 Rytter, M. 310 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) 18, 509 Said, E. W. 46, 324 Salamanca Statement 196–7 Sancho, D. 327 sanctuary scholarships 387, 391, 393 Save the Children, the South Africa Red Cross Society (SARCS) 302 Schneider, J. 9, 243 Scholars at Risk (SAR) programme 387 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). 374 school-based longitudinal study, Australian delivery of English language services, stages 158 English as an additional language or dialect (EAL/D) 158–9 performance analysis, NAPLAN performance 161

561

intensive English language programme (Figtree College) 157, , 158164, 169 age-appropriate years of schooling 164–5 entry and exit English proficiency levels 165–8 heterogeneity of student group 158, 162 on-arrival programme 158 school-based practices of inclusion 169 stages 158, 161, 169 time spent in each stage 164–6, 169 visa groups 164, 169 methodology 162–3 Bandscales levels 161–3, 166–8 challenges in tracking language learner progress 161 Figtree dataset 162–3 quantitative and qualitative components 162 primary-aged EAL students 161 use of Australian sign language (AUSLAN) 159 school choice 132–4, 421–4, 428 concept 421 first time relocation seeking out Jewish schools 424–6 semi-familiar environment, need for 425–7 ‘soft landing’ for children 425, 427–8 in global context 421–3 idea of ‘bounded rationality 422, 424–6, 428 middle class-phenomenon 422 by mobile parents 132–4, 421 reasons for 422 second relocation, shift in 426–8 school systems acculturation framework, adjustment 5, 55–9, 61–2, 64 average educational outcomes 236, 245 bias in teacher’s attitudes 47–8 charitable foundation by 10 choices, by migrants see school choice critical importance 285–6 diametric spatial exclusion 42–3 disciplinary action 292–4 discriminatory bullying and discrimination 47–8 diverse students population 1, 7–8, 54, 57 effect of ‘social class reproduction’ 237 ghettoisation of migrant young people 42 good practice 7 health services in 44–5 heritage-based languages in 9 holistic model 29 left-behind children at, China 278–81 ‘magnet’ schools 145 middle-class family norm 237 migrant students’ experiences 54

562  Research handbook on migration and education not-at-homeness in relation to 47–8 organizational models of integration 72, 73 parents’ engagement with 114–15 policy tensions and refugees education 15–19 ‘practical tolerance’ in 116 refugee education role 28–9, 33 role as cultural actor 58 safe spaces for 130 strengths 8–9 suggestions adjustment 63–4 suspensions and expulsions cases 43 transition from diametric to concentric spatial systems 50 securitization approach 18 security threats and immigrants 15–16, 441, 446 Segeritz, M. 144 segregation educational, illegality 42 separated children 10–11, 26, 70, 299, 450, 528 Settlement Language Pathways to Employment and Training (SLPET) 516 Sewell report 442 Shakespeare, T. W. 194 Shen, W. 277 Shumba, A. 305 Sidelinger, R. J. 407 Sidhu, R. 252, 329 Singal, N. 190, 194, 198–9 Sinkkonen, H. M. 196 Skrtic, T. 200 slavery and territorial expansion, US 142 Slee, R. 189, 199 Smith, I. D. 441 social capital, kinds of 106 social class reproduction 237 social good 106 social mirroring 496 social mobility, policy changes impact 14 social model of disability studies, culture role 263 sociocultural learning theory 175–6 socioeconomic disadvantage, negative effects 145–6, 153 socio-economic status (SES) 278ocrates programme 373 Sontag, K. 380 South Africa 325 border town of Musina 302 forming conviviality in schools 303–6 education system 301–2 Immigration Act 301 integrated School Health Policy 45 racism and xenophobia in 301–2, 304, 307 students, barrier to schools, Zimbabweans’ 301–2 unaccompanied minors in 11, 299, 301–2

Zimbabweans’ lives in 302 see also conviviality South Asia 262–3 Southern African Migration Program (SAMP) 301 South Korea 12–13, 325 South-South migration 466–7, 476 Souto-Manning, M. 40, 48 Spain access to Spanish nationality 496 diversity and intercultural education, lack of attention to 18, 497–8, 501 double school network 497 education system, immigrant students in 17–18, 496–7, 505–6 barriers, to learning 497, 499, 501, 503, 505 bullying issue 499 deficit approaches to 498, 501 early school leaving (ESL) rate 498, 499 experiences, case studies 501–5 language learning as barrier 497–8, 500 linguistic integration focus 499 shift in educational policy 17, 497–9 social integration, role in 500–501 teacher education issue 499–501 unexpected students flow in 496, 5056 financial crisis in 2007 498 immigrant-receiving country family reunification norm 496, 506 mass immigration, from distant countries 496, 498, 506 integration in practice, problems 18, 498–501 monolingualism, focus 18, 496, 498 police racial profiling practices 500 poverty among immigrants 18, 499 school languages, strategies for teaching 500, 506 segregation of immigrants, patterns 17, 497–8 state-funded private schools, growth 497 students’ experiences case studies 501–5 teacher education framework 500–501, 506 training plan, lack of 501, 503–5 terrorist attacks Barcelona Ramblas and Cambrils 497, 500 two-stage project 502, 506 spatial systems, diametric and concentric spaces 38–40 special educational needs (SEN) 189, 195–6 challenges faced by migrant families 193, 198–9 in context of cultural diversity 198 inclusive education of students with 190, 194–5, 197 role of schools/teachers 199–200 labelling migrants, as having 195–6 ‘mentally retarded’ 200

Index  lack of research, in migrant education 197–8 migrant children with 193, 198 over-representation, migrant children 195–7 SENitization of migrants 196 special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) 198 “special student” policy 375 specific language impairment (SLI) 195 specific learning difficulties (SLD) 195 Stavrou, P. D. 48 Stepanek, M. 44 stereotype threat phenomenon 154 Stevenson, J. 386 Stewart, T. 421 Strand, S. 161 student ID system 486–7 student integration, defined 398 student mobility 12–13 citizenship-related objectives 328 COVID-19 pandemic impact 353 different type of 14 diversification, socio-economic 326–8 ‘education-migration nexus’ 328 financial contributions 328 impact on agency of individuals 361 Mexican HEIs in 358–359 socio-economic impacts 360–61 state-building strategies and outgoing students 329 supply and demand-side factors 327 transnational human capital acquisition 361 see also international student mobility (ISM) students inclusion 397–8, 406–7 academic achievement (AA) 404, 406 differences in experiences 398 diversity policies 406 dominant institutional culture affect 399–400 I belong@VU report 408 inclusion profiles, predictors of 403–5 integration, social and academic 398 migration background, study 405, 408–9 Belonging@VU survey data and participants 397, 400 chi-square analysis 402 descriptive statistics and demographics 401, 402 findings 402–4, 408 limitations to 408 from OECD/non-OECD countries 14, 398, 400, 406–8 peer relationships, friendly 398–9, 406–7 questionnaire 400, 402, 412 training modules for staff 408 variables 400, 404–5 model fit indices 403, 414

563

questionnaire 400 academic integration 402, 412 confidence in diversity policies 400, 402–4, 407 exclusion frequency 402, 412 social integration 400, 412 sense of exclusion, factors 399–400 Tinto’s model 398 studying abroad effects 361–2 experience of, interview extracts 363, 364 as path for achieving social mobility 362–5 Suarez, E. B. 143 Sustainable Development Goals, UN 16, 37, 130, 262, 270, 370, 384 Sweden migrants education in 93, 159 destination for, refugees 83–4 inclusion, support-based 84–5, 93 Language Introduction Programme 88–9 NAMs inclusion in schools 5, 84–5, 87, 93, 159reform in 2016 85–6 special education accommodation 83 student’s background/experiences, assessments 90–91 models for organizing education 86 in elementary school 5, 83, 85–8 upper-secondary schools 5, 88–9 separate classes, for NAMSs 85, 87–8, 90, 93 LIP, commonality with 89 mainstream classes, exclusion 86–7 rule of partial placement 86 support measures 5, 83, 89–92 assessments, systematic initial 83, 90–91 multilingual classroom assistance (MCA) 91–2 Syrian migrant children, case studies 251, 255, 260–61 attending charity schools, camps in Lebanon 249 curriculum issues 255 fondness, to Syria 251–2, 260 inclusion and fairness, desire for 252–3 injustices and hostility experiences 249, 252 recommendations for improving schooling 255 teachers, connection/admiration for 10, 254–5, 260 voices, representation of 252–3 attending London secondary school 255 alienation within school 10, 256, 259 disciplinary treatment 258 disrespect and misrecognition, experiences 258 English, proficiency 257–8

564  Research handbook on migration and education experiences of inclusion/exclusion 10, 257–9 school life-histories 250 teachers’ attitudes 257–8 testimonies, new lives 256–9 exploring children’s experiences within schooling 249–50 goals and social justice issues 259–60 methodological approach 249–50 MultiAid Project (charity) schools in 250 series of life-history interviews 250 teachers’ importance 254–5 systems conveners 203 Tajic, D. 87 Tawodzera, G. 301 Taylor, S. 252 teachers and migrant students’ attitudes/behaviours and expectations 6162 connection/admiration for 10, 254–5 cultural proficiency, training 62 ethnic minority students’ adjustment, role 60 inclusive pedagogical practices 63–4 role in acculturation 60–62 in schools, bias in attitudes 47–8 teaching practices impact 60 technical and further education (TAFE) 517 technical and vocational education and training (TVET) 384 Tedder, M. 289 Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) 18, 509 Terenzini, P. T. 406–7 third space, notion 32 Thomas, L. 399, 407 Tinsley, T. 208 Tinto, V. 398 Tinto’s model, of student integration 398–9 Todos Santos Center 358 Tomasevski, K. 456, 458 Tomlinson, S. 200 Torpsten, A. C. 89 transitions in space, migration as 378, 48–9 different meanings to 41 relational spaces 41 relation and mediation 40 shifting background spatial systems 40, 50 spatial systemic aspects 38–9 translanguaging 9, 92, 184, 212 ‘Trojan Horse’ controversy 441 Türkiye access to education for everyone 223–4, 371 challenges, to inclusive policy 371, 377, 380–81 Council of Higher Education (CoHE) 372 “Equivalence Application Form” 376 growing hostility towards refugees 221, 379

higher education system/HEIs 372 access of refugees to 9, 14, 370–71, 373–4 admissions procedures/criteria 373–4, 377 Central Placement Exam (YKS) 373 competitive replacement system 373 decentralized system 373, 375, 377–8, 381 exclusionary measures 378 fee exemption and scholarship support 374 flexibility/willingness, to admit refugee students 377 Foreign Student Exam (YÖS) 374, 378 integration of refugees into 373–5, 377 national inclusive policy 14, 370–71, 374, 380 reform of internationalization of 372–3 “special student” or “transfer student” statuses 375 Syrian students, attraction factors 377–8 three levels 372 institutional challenges 377–8, 381–2 participation in, EU’s flagship programmes 372–3 qualifications and diplomas, recognition 375–6 “reactive policy” 373, 379 REFREC-TR research project 377, 381 refugee term, highest number in 221, 370–71, 379, 381 social interaction, challenges 377, 379 dropouts, high rate of 379 emerging ‘social ghettos’ risk 379 language proficiency, lack of 378–9 temporary protection status, for refugees 223–4 Turkiye refugee support organizations (ILRSO) educational strategies 223–5, 229–31 access to schools, helping 230–31 curriculum development 225 developing sense of responsibility 231–2 value and moral education 229–30, 232 expectation from refugees 231 hospitality functions 225, 230, 233 humanitarian support 222–23, 229–31, 233 inclusion of refugees 223 education practices, inclusive 223–24 international assistance to 225 notion of Misafir (guest) 222 organizational structure 221, 224–26 qualitative multiple-case study 226 data analysis 229 research participants 226–7 themes, data analysis 229 social and educational mission 231–2 societal curriculum 221–2, 225 support and services accommodation, protection, and nutrition 221, 223, 229

Index  Uganda 390 UK ‘multicultural model’ 435 Ukraine war in, refugees from 1, 22, 83–4, 142, 193 Uledi, P. 303 unaccompanied children 450 undesirable Others 441 Ungar, M. 45–6 UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) 130 UNICEF 455 unified student identification system 486–7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 16, 249, 250, 261, 370, 450–51 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) 465 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 288, 293, 294–5, 370, 449 approach to refugee education 460–61 Global Education Strategy 465–6 2020 report 465 2030 Global Agenda for Education 460 United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime in South Asia 262 Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) 302 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 262, 370, 452 UN Special Rapporteurs 451 Vallaud-Belkacem, N. 443 Van den Bergh, L. 60 Vemuru, V. 469 Venezuela, migration crises 18–19, 526, 537 authoritarian politics impact 525, 526 credential validation issue 527 due to push factors 526–7 low income levels/violence rate in 526 South America host countries 526–7, 529, 536–7 access to education 530–31 Chile, migrants in 527 Colombia and Peru, largest number migrants 526–7, 537 Ecuador, migrants in 526–7 Lima Aprende and Aprendo en Casa policies 530 migration policies in 531 visa requirements and regularization policies 529–30 trigger events 528

‘victim/threat’ opposition 26–7, 33 visa categories 8, 18 Volante, L. 144–5 voluntary immigrants 142 voluntary schools 203 vulnerability-generating contexts 10 colonialism role 27–8 mitigating role of society/teachers 10 social services role 45 Vuorenpää, S. 90 Vuranda, N. 303 Wang, S. X. 277 Ward, C. 130 Warikoo, N. 58 Warner, M. 136 Watkins, A. 84 Watkins, P.G. 517 Webb, P. 136 Weekes-Bernard, D. 136 Weichenstellung programme 243 Weller, S. 300 Wenger-Trayer, B. 217 Wenger-Trayer, E. 217 Westphal, M. 68 ‘Why is my curriculum white?’ movement 330 Williams, C. 184 Winter, L. A. 388 Wolf, P. 421 Woodbridge, A. 183 Woodcock, S. 194 Yang, M. K. 346 Yang, P. 328 Yeung, W. J. J. 278 Yosso, T. J. 179, 320 Yuval Davis, N. 332 Zacatecas (Clusmin) 358 Zetter, R. 26 Zetterholm, E. 90 zhongkao exam 275 Zhu, Y. 279 Zimbabwean education system 299, 305 Zimbabwean immigrants children and youth’s migration, to South Africa 11, 299 lives in South Africa 302

565