2. Education on the Move: How Migration Affects Learning Outcomes
© 2022 Kelcey, Guven, and Burde, CC BY-NC 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0256.02
Introduction
Education is a right regardless of one’s migratory status. Moreover, access to quality education can help migrants navigate the uncertainties of geographical displacement and contribute to the social and economic development of their host states (Dryden-Peterson, 2017; OECD, 2018b; UNESCO, 2019). Of the estimated 7.4 million school-aged refugees registered with UNHCR, only 61 percent are enrolled in primary school, compared to a global average enrollment rate of 92 percent (UNHCR, 2018a). Yet refugees comprise a relatively small proportion of the world’s migrants. More numerous, but largely overlooked in the literature, are internally displaced people (IDPs) and the large number of people who migrate for other reasons, including economic need or climate change (United Nations, 2019). Much migration is mixed—people move beyond and within national borders for various and often overlapping reasons, including conflict, violence, poor governance, poverty, and—increasingly—environmental and climate-related pressures (Mixed Migration Centre, n.d.). Although refugees’ education has received increased attention in recent years, there is still a paucity of research on how education relates to these other types and causes of migration.
In this chapter, we examine the relationship between education and migration in the Global South.1 Approximately 82 million South-South migrants account for roughly 36 percent of all migrants globally. Migration plays an important role in the economic and social development of many developing countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), n.d.), and providing migrants with access to good-quality education can unlock this potential. Thus, understanding the education provisions for migrants in these contexts and how migrants fare in terms of learning outcomes is critical. We review available literature to understand how policies towards migrants affect their learning outcomes. We also consider case studies from Lebanon and Ecuador, which host large numbers of migrants from Syria and Venezuela respectively.2 Formal education provisions for migrants vary considerably between these countries, reflecting their different geographies, histories, and domestic policies. These contrasts offer rich insights for policymakers.
Data on this topic are limited and only infrequently disaggregated. However, there is evidence to suggest that migrants in the Global South perform lower on standardized tests than non-migrants. Underscoring this problem are discrepancies between global norms, national provisions, and local resources, which impede the provision of quality education for migrants. In spite of global proclamations regarding migrants’ right to education (United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2018; 2016), we found that migrants remain legally and socioeconomically vulnerable within host states. Moreover, migrants’ learning outcomes cannot be understood apart from existing inequities in host states. In other words, existing weaknesses within host-state education systems tend to be reproduced through policies and practices towards migrants. To address these challenges, we argue that policymakers need to adopt a systemic approach to migrant education that addresses inequities within host-state education systems. This achievement requires national and cross-national data on learning outcomes that is disaggregated by factors including migration status and country of origin. There is also a need for historical and qualitative research that examines whether and how different migration regimes (e.g., for refugees, internally displaced people, or guest workers) support access to quality education. Lastly, it is necessary to understand how the learning needs of migrants vary by geographical context and across time (e.g., newly arrived migrants compared to protracted refugees), as well as by other demographic characteristics (not least, gender).
Migration and education: A global priority
We use the following definition of a migrant: “any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) what the causes for the movement are; or (4) what the length of the stay is” (United Nations, n.d.). This broad definition includes voluntary or economic migrants who select their destinations as well as forced migrants fleeing violence and oppression (i.e., refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs).
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (UNGA, 2016) and the Global Compact for Migration (UNGA, 2018), when considered together, highlight the role of migration in sustainable development, and the importance of examining and managing different forms of migration. Policy literature also underscores the complex and bi-directional relationship between migration and education, and the fact that education can influence decisions to migrate. Education plays a key role in supporting the integration of migrants into host societies, and migration can create benefits as well as pose challenges for education systems (UNESCO, 2019). Thus, access to quality education is a prominent feature of global declarations and strategies related to migration.
In recent years, education has also emerged as a tool to govern migration and refugee situations (Buckner, Spencer, & Cha, 2018; Root, 2019). In keeping with UNHCR’s most recent education strategies, many countries now include school-aged migrant children in national education systems (UNHCR, 2019b; UNHCR, 2012). Although this approach has been the norm in the Global North for decades, its adoption in the Global South is more recent and less uniform (see Bellino & Dryden-Peterson, 2019; Dryden-Peterson, Adelman, Bellino, & Chopra, 2019). More generally, the education of migrants in the Global South is shaped by the concept of “responsibility sharing” (UNGA, 2018). Responsibility sharing recognizes the strains that large-scale migration places on low- and middle-income states and seeks to manage migration through collective and cooperative efforts that involve a wide range of state and non-state actors.
Our examination of education and migration focuses on learning, which we define as “a change—such as in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values—based on experiences of some kind” (Schmelkes, 2018, p. 11). We limit our analysis to academic learning outcomes in the context of formal schooling. While we recognize the broader contexts within which learning takes place (including through the non-formal sector) and the importance of diverse education outcomes for migrants (such as protection and social and emotional skills) our focus reflects the current global approach to migrant education: the inclusion of migrants into host-state education systems, which is justified, recognized, and accredited through migrants’ performance on standardized national tests (OECD, 2018b; UNHCR, 2019b).
Methods
To understand the relationship between migration and learning outcomes, we drew on peer-reviewed literature, policy reports, and available datasets. We identified peer-reviewed literature by searching for keywords related to education and migration in academic databases. We complemented this review with a focused examination of the policy environments and learning outcomes for migrants in Lebanon and Ecuador. We selected these countries because: (1) they represent two ends of a policy continuum (restrictive vs. progressive policies), and (2) they capture two prominent large-scale migration situations in the world today (Syrians and Venezuelans).
Lebanon has experienced significant out-migration and large-scale internal displacement; it also hosts large numbers of Palestinian and Syrian refugees, and a significant population of economic migrants. However, the country has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, and domestic labor laws do not apply to migrant workers. Consequently, there are few legal protections for migrants. Education provision is insufficient, fragmented across different service providers, and often threatened by political currents within the region. Like Lebanon, Ecuador has also historically been a recipient and sender of many migrants, and today hosts a large number of Venezuelan migrants.3 However, unlike Lebanon, Ecuador has progressive policies towards migrants, who are granted the same rights as nationals, including the right to education and work. These case studies highlight the diverse and dynamic nature of policies and provisions for migrants. They also show how national histories of migration shape contemporary responses. Based on our literature review and these case studies, we argue that migrants’ learning needs should not be addressed through piecemeal, project-based efforts that prioritize the needs of some migrant groups over others. Instead, we argue for system-wide approaches that address inequities within host states’ education systems, which ultimately benefit all vulnerable learners, including migrants.
Migration, education, and learning: Linkages and discontinuities
Trends in the literature
Though there are numerous studies that examine the education of migrant populations in the Global North (e.g., the US and Australia), far less has been written about the educational experiences of migrants in the Global South. Literature on migrants in the Global North highlights challenges related to the language of instruction, as well as the possibilities and limitations of migrants’ inclusion in host-state education systems. Although these barriers resonate with research from the Global South, especially with respect to refugees (see, for example, Bellino & Dryden-Peterson, 2019; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019; Dryden-Peterson, Dahya, & Adelman, 2017), distinctive challenges facing host states in the Global South limit the applicability of recommendations from studies conducted in the Global North.
Of the literature that does relate to migrants’ education in the Global South, three important trends emerged from our review. First, pre-existing inequalities in host-state education systems affect migrants’ educational opportunities. Migrants often face challenges stemming from socioeconomic vulnerability, the availability and accessibility of schools, teacher preparation, and school-level resources (see, for example, Bellino & Dryden-Peterson, 2019; Burde, Guven, Kelcey, Lahmann, & Al-Abbadi, 2015; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019; Mendenhall et al., 2017). Moreover, whereas migrants who move within the Global North or who reach the Global North can often access pathways to resettlement or legal status, these options are less common elsewhere. In short, the learning outcomes of migrants in the Global South cannot be addressed without considering the systematic and structural challenges facing migrants and education systems in their host states.
Second, despite the recent increase in research on migrant education, much of this work focuses on refugees. IDPs and economic migrants are often overlooked, even though they are more numerous than refugees. Thus, while global strategies underscore the importance of adopting a holistic approach to migration (UNGA, 2018; 2016), research on migration and education continues to be fragmented along the lines of migrant status. Within the scholarship on refugees, certain populations and geographies are better represented than others. Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan—as well as refugees in Kenya and Uganda—account for a sizeable portion of research on education and migration (see, for example, Akar & Erdoğdu, 2018; Assaad, Ginn & Saleh, 2018; Bellino & Dryden-Peterson, 2019; Buckner et al., 2018; Karam, Monaghan & Yoder, 2017; McCarthy, 2018; Mendenhall et al., 2017).
These trends are likely due to the high number of Syrian refugees in the Middle East, the large number of refugees in Kenya, Uganda’s progressive refugee policies, and the relative accessibility of these host states to researchers. However, it is essential to bring other migrants into view in order to “bridge the gap between refugee studies and broader social scientific theories of social transformation and human mobility” (Bakewell, 2008, p. 432). Further, the diverse education experiences of migrants in countries of first asylum are conceptually and practically relevant to understanding post-resettlement experiences, including in the Global North (Dryden-Peterson, 2016). In short, it is important to conduct research about geographically and nationally diverse migrant populations and their learning outcomes, as well as research that captures the different phases of migration and the implications of this for learning.
Third, existing research mostly focuses on access to education. Far less has been written about learning outcomes, despite the focus of global policy actors on the importance of learning for development (World Bank, 2018). A bias towards access is partly caused by the short-term framing of the humanitarian approach to education, which has dominated the responses of international agencies to situations of conflict and displacement (Burde, 2005; 2014). Addressing the analytical separation of access and quality also requires more comprehensive and disaggregated data on learning outcomes for migrants. The majority of studies we reviewed were qualitative and most were conducted at a small scale (at the level of a single school or classroom). Such studies are valuable since they offer rich and in-depth insights into the factors that support student learning. However, to more fully understand migrants’ learning outcomes, data on student performance—disaggregated by migration status—is also needed.
Data considerations
To understand whether and how migration shapes learning outcomes, we looked at the factors that shape data collection. Globally, data on migration is weak (UNHCR, 2019a). This is also true of education data related to migration. In 2015 and 2018, for example, tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) sought to examine the education outcomes of students from immigrant backgrounds.4 However, even in OECD countries that collect education data systematically, many countries do not gather information on students’ countries of origin, thus limiting analysis to the generic category of “immigrant background” (OECD, 2018b).
Data challenges are more prevalent and significant in the Global South, where many countries do not disaggregate enrollment or performance data by migrant background.5 In Lebanon, for example, Palestinian refugees who learn in schools operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) were only included in national statistics in the 1990s—five decades after their arrival in the country—while the majority of Syrian refugees who attend Lebanese public schools are not included in national statistics at all (see Lebanon case study). Although international agencies—including the World Bank, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNESCO—are working to address data gaps, important methodological challenges remain. Migrant communities can be difficult to access, especially if their migratory status is not legally recognized by host states, and sampling strategies may differ across organizations, limiting the generalizability and comparability of data that is collected.
Migration is also a dynamic, politically contested, and often unstable phenomenon. Countries categorize migrants in inconsistent and different ways, which has important implications for data collection (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2018). Time lags and significant onward migration can render time-specific data on migrants quickly obsolete. Additionally, much of the research examines education outcomes at the level of the nation-state, and this methodological framing has limitations in the case of migrants, who are by definition transnational and increasingly subject to sub-national and local policies and norms within host states (OECD, 2017). Comparative analyses that consider how migrant communities fare across national contexts—and within them—are needed to capture these dynamics.
Learning outcomes for migrants
Irregular migration makes it difficult to know how many school-aged migrants are out of school. However, enrollment rates for refugees fall far below global averages for primary, secondary, and tertiary education, suggesting that access to education for migrants is a pervasive challenge. For example, recent UNHCR statistics suggest that 63 percent of school-aged refugees are enrolled in primary school compared to a global average of 91 percent. These differences are exacerbated at the level of secondary education, where 24 percent of refugees are enrolled compared to a global average of 84 percent. The discrepancy for higher education is just as stark: only 3 percent of refugees are enrolled compared to 37 percent globally (UNHCR, 2019c). These troubling statistics are an indication of the problem facing migrant children. Compounding the problem, many countries deny education to asylum-seeking children in detention, and bureaucratic barriers such as residency requirements prevent many migrants from accessing education (UNESCO, 2019). This suggests that large numbers of migrants in the Global South are unable to access formal accredited education.
Evidence on student performance is even more sparse, but data from the Global North is probably indicative of similar trends in the Global South. Analysis of data from the OECD PISA tests and the European Social Survey shows, for example, that on average students from a migrant background performed less well than students from a non-migrant background (OECD, 2018b). In 2015, OECD’s PISA program sought to understand the resiliency of students from an immigrant background. They measured resiliency through a combination of baseline academic proficiency, along with self-reported feelings of belonging at school and general life satisfaction. First-generation migrant students scored on average 17 points lower than non-migrant students, indicating that migrant students were less resilient than their non-migrant peers (OECD, 2018b).6 Interestingly, learning disadvantages were less pronounced among second-generation immigrants and more pronounced for first-generation late arrivals (children who migrated after the age of 12) (OECD, 2018b, pp. 56–57). Four important patterns emerged from these tests: (1) academic outcomes are linked to migrants’ overall wellbeing; (2) students with recent experiences of migration tend to perform less well than their non-migrant or second-generation peers; (3) the age at which migration occurs influences performance (older migrant children do less well); and (4) post-migration academic adjustment needs time.
We also found evidence to suggest a similar learning gap between migrant and non-migrant students in the Global South. For example, UNESCO’s Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (TERCE), which was conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2013, demonstrated that third- and sixth-grade migrant students scored lower in reading and math compared to their non-migrant peers (see Ecuador case study). However, we also identified one study that found that refugees outperformed their non-refugee peers. Using data from the PISA and TIMSS tests conducted in 2007, classroom observations, and interviews with students, the World Bank examined how Palestinian refugees attending UNRWA schools performed compared to their peers in public schools in Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank (Abdul-Hamid, Patrinos, Reyes, Kelcey, & Diaz Varela, 2016). Findings showed that refugee students outperformed non-refugees by the equivalent of one year of schooling. The authors argued that refugee students’ better performance was likely related to a rigorous and comprehensive teacher training program, a world-class assessment system, and a supportive culture of learning within the Palestinian community.
In addition, there are barriers both within and outside of schools that contribute to migrants’ learning outcomes. In schools, barriers include difficulties with the language of instruction, challenges adapting to a new curriculum, a lack of well-qualified or adequately supported teachers, insufficient educational infrastructure, a lack of administrative capacity, and discrimination against migrant students (Dryden-Peterson, 2011; Dryden-Peterson, Dahya, & Adelman, 2017; Karam et al., 2017; Mendenhall et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Gómez, 2019; UNHCR, 2018a). Outside of schools, barriers include the denial of migrants’ right to work (or restrictions on their right to work), precarious legal status, and societal discrimination against migrants, all of which deter and demotivate migrant students. We expand on these barriers in our case studies.
Case study: Lebanon
Migration context
Lebanon has a long history of internal displacement and outward migration related to economic struggles and conflict. The country has also provided asylum for several refugee populations including Armenians (early twentieth century), Palestinians (post 1948), Iraqis and Sudanese (post 2000), and Syrians (post 2011). Currently, Lebanon hosts the largest number of refugees per capita in the world.
Lebanon’s complex history of migration has shaped its contemporary policy environment. In 1993, three years after the country’s long civil war (1975–1990), the government of Lebanon set up a Ministry of the Displaced and a Central Fund of the Displaced. The stated goal of these institutions was to provide the millions of IDPs in the country with compensation and support to return to their communities within 10 years (i.e., by 2003). However, only a small fraction of Lebanese IDPs received reparations and restitutions, and by 2000 only an estimated 25 percent of IDPs had returned to their communities of origin. Reported reasons include government corruption and inefficiency, inter-communal mistrust, the fact that many of the places IDPs are from have been resettled (resulting in significant resistance to return), and insufficient social services in communities of origin (Migration Network, n.d.). Despite the frequency and scale of migration in Lebanon, the country lacks effective mechanisms to manage internal displacement. Instead, support for IDPs tends to be community-driven or dependent on humanitarian aid agencies and sub-national political actors.
These shortcomings are mirrored in the country’s restrictive and discriminatory policies towards refugees. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention. Nor is there an active regional refugee regime in the Middle East (unlike in Africa and Latin America).7 The policy environment is weakly legalized (Buckner et al., 2018) and domestic responses to migration are highly susceptible to shifting political currents (Kelcey & Chatila, 2020). Lebanese politicians frequently invoke the protracted Palestinian case as a justification for the lack of legal protections for migrants, and refugees in particular (Janmyr, 2017). Popular attitudes towards refugees are also shaped by historically fractious relationships between the Lebanese on the one hand, and Palestinian and Syrian political actors on the other.
Education provisions for migrants in Lebanon
Internally displaced Lebanese people are able to access free compulsory education from ages 6 to 15 through the Lebanese public education system. However, public education is under-funded and accounts for only 32 percent of student enrollment in the country; 65 percent of Lebanese students are enrolled in private or state-subsidized private schools and just over 3 percent in UNRWA schools (Government of Lebanon Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2020). Three institutions oversee the status of foreign migrants in Lebanon, with related implications for their access to quality education opportunities.
- UNRWA: Over 470,000 Palestinian refugees fall under the mandate of UNRWA. UNRWA operates its own schools (currently 65), which provide free compulsory education to school-aged Palestinian refugees who are registered with the agency. UNRWA also operates a limited number of secondary schools and vocational training centers; however, supply is not enough to meet demand (UNRWA, n.d.). UNRWA schools are staffed by Palestinian refugee teachers and teach the Lebanese curriculum (and national examinations). Unlike refugees registered with UNHCR, the majority of compulsory school-aged Palestinian refugees are enrolled in education.
- UNHCR: UNHCR serves all other refugee populations in Lebanon, including over one million Syrian refugees. UNHCR promotes the inclusion of refugees in host-state public schools and the Lebanese government allows Syrians to attend public schools through a double-shift scheme. Double shifting means that two schools are operated out of one school building (one school in the morning and another in the afternoon) (see, for example, Dryden-Peterson et al., 2018). Double shifting facilitates the rapid expansion of access to education while minimizing unit costs (Bray, 2008). The majority of Syrian students who attend Lebanese public schools attend an afternoon shift where they learn the same curriculum and sit the same examinations as Lebanese students. This ensures their education is accredited by the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education. However, significant barriers to education remain for school-aged Syrian children in Lebanon, more than half of whom remain out of school (UNHCR, n.d.-a). Barriers include poverty and child labor, bureaucratic constraints, discrimination, inaccessible schools, and problems with the language of instruction (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2018; Human Rights Watch, 2016).
- Work sponsorship: Lebanon also operates a work sponsorship program for around 250,000 migrant domestic workers. Most of these workers are women from African and Asian countries. These migrants are excluded from the provisions of Lebanese Labor Law and are at risk of experiencing exploitative working conditions (Amnesty International, 2019). Prior to 2014 (when the number of Syrians seeking asylum in Lebanon rapidly increased), migrant workers (like refugees) were able to enroll their children in public schools and extend their residency in Lebanon based on their children’s school enrollment. Since 2014, the government of Lebanon has increased restrictions on migrants’ ability to enroll their children in public schools, even if they legally reside in the country. Some migrants have also been denied residency and deported, interrupting their children’s education (Human Rights Watch, 2017; Insan Association, 2015).
Although all migrant children whose status is officially recognized by the Lebanese government can enroll in private schools, fees are often prohibitively high. Thus, although official policies make provisions for migrants within the Lebanese public system, in practice significant barriers remain.
Learning outcomes for migrants in Lebanon
Data on learning outcomes says little about students’ migration status
The Centre for Educational Research and Development (CERD) at the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education compiles data on enrollment rates and performance in standardized tests. However, these data are disaggregated by service provider (e.g., Lebanese government, private actors, UNRWA) rather than by student nationality. The most recent data on student performance in the Lebanese national examination taken in Grade 9 (the Brevet) showed high failure rates for Palestinians who attend UNRWA schools. However, government statistics do not include data on the learning outcomes of Syrians who attend the second shift in Lebanese public schools. Although UNHCR publishes data on enrollment rates for Syrian refugees, it does not publish data on their performance. Except for Palestinian refugees who attend UNRWA schools, it is very difficult to get a nationally representative or comprehensive picture of education outcomes for Lebanon’s migrant populations.
Data suggests that migrants perform less well than their Lebanese peers on standardized tests
PISA test results published in 2018 shed light on learning outcomes for Lebanese nationals and migrants. These tests reveal that on average, students in Lebanon scored lower than the OECD average (see Table 1).
Mean PISA scores for Lebanese students |
OECD average (mean) PISA score |
|
Reading |
353 |
487 |
Mathematics |
393 |
489 |
Science |
384 |
489 |
As in other countries, socioeconomic status was an important predictor of education outcomes. In other words, socioeconomically advantaged students (who are more likely to attend private schools in Lebanon) outperformed socioeconomically disadvantaged students (who are more likely to attend Lebanese public schools).
Since the PISA test included a sub-category of students from immigrant backgrounds, this dataset also sheds light on how migrants in Lebanon compare to their Lebanese peers. Six percent of students who participated in Lebanon had an immigrant background and one in three of these students was socioeconomically disadvantaged (OECD, 2018a, p. 6).8 Non-immigrants in the Lebanese sample (i.e., Lebanese nationals) scored higher on average than immigrant students, even after accounting for socioeconomic differences between the two groups (OECD, 2018a, p. 6). Immigrant students in Lebanon also performed less well on the PISA reading tests than immigrant students within the OECD (only 15 percent of immigrants in Lebanon scored in the top quarter of reading performance, compared to 17 percent in the OECD) (OECD, 2018a, p. 6). In other words, not only were learning outcomes in Lebanon on average lower than in OECD countries, but migrants in Lebanon were more likely to underperform on these tests than (1) Lebanese nationals, and (2) immigrants in OECD countries. The OECD’s report on these findings did not, however, offer possible explanations for these differences.
Structural and systemic barriers lead to comparatively lower learning outcomes in Lebanon
Studies that examine dropout rates among Palestinian refugees find that students and teachers are demotivated by the Lebanese curriculum, which is considered out of date and irrelevant (Al-Hroub, 2015; Shuayb, 2014). Other significant barriers to access and learning are the severe restrictions placed on the participation of Palestinian and Syrian refugees in the Lebanese labor market. Refugees can only work in a limited number of professions (and in the case of Syrians registered with UNHCR, they are not allowed to work at all). This forces refugees into the low-paid and informal job markets which, along with high unemployment rates, disincentivize their continuation in formal education (Insan Association, 2015; Shuayb, 2014). Concerns have also been raised regarding the quality of education available to Syrians who learn in the second shift in Lebanese public schools. These shifts are under-resourced and are often staffed by over-stretched and poorly-supported temporary contract teachers (Buckner et al., 2018; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2018; Mendenhall et al., 2017).
More generally, the learning outcomes of migrants in Lebanon cannot be understood apart from pre-existing concerns related to the overall quality of education in Lebanon (Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019). Public education in Lebanon is perceived as low quality, and few provisions are made for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (including migrants) (Shuayb, 2016). Indicative of the systemic problems with the Lebanese education system, in 2013 (the last year for which data is available) only 2.5 percent of Lebanese GDP was spent on education.9 Although two consecutive strategies were developed to help expand access to education for Syrian refugees (Reaching All Children with Education (RACE) I and II) these strategies focus predominantly on access, and pay less attention to quality-related concerns. Studies show that there is a pressing need for curriculum reform, reduced reliance on teacher-centered approaches and student memorization, and a need to better enforce policy (Buckner et al., 2018; Dryden-Peterson et al., 2019; Kelcey & Chatila, 2020; Mendenhall et al., 2017). This literature suggests that unless more attention is paid to the systemic problems facing Lebanese public schools, it will be difficult to raise learning outcomes among migrants (and vulnerable Lebanese).
However, current prospects for transforming these inequities are low. Since October 2019, Lebanon has experienced a trifecta of political, economic, and health crises. The rapid devaluation of the Lebanese Lira against the US dollar has eroded the salaries of teachers and the ability of many parents to pay school fees or cover education related costs. This has reportedly led to large numbers of students leaving the private sector and enrolling in public schools, which are already under-resourced and over-stretched (Babin, 2020; Rahhal, 2020). Widespread political protests which began in October 2019 resulted in significant school closures at the beginning of the 2019/20 academic year. Additional closures owing to the COVID-19 pandemic have since prevented access to school for more than half of this academic year (Save the Children, 2020). School closures have increased the economic burden on already struggling families―including many migrant families―who now have to adapt to, and support, distance learning for their children (Inter-Agency Coordination Lebanon, 2020). Moreover, virtual learning solutions are unavailable to many families owing to the country’s irregular electricity supply, and the prohibitive costs of ICT equipment and private electricity generators.
In Beirut, these pressures were compounded by the devasting explosion that occurred in August 2020. The explosion killed over 200 people, injured 6,500, left 300,000 homeless and damaged or destroyed 178 public and private schools in the city (UNOCHA, 2020; see also France 24, 2020). Migrants were especially vulnerable in the aftermath of the explosion since they often lacked the resources to reconstruct damaged shelters and because they live in densely populated neighborhoods with often inadequate access to basic services (UNOCHA, 2020). Ongoing school closures, coupled with the seemingly slim prospects for political reform in Lebanon, risk exacerbating learning inequities between socioeconomic groups and for migrants whose economic situation was strained even before these latest crises.
Case study: Ecuador
Migration context
Ecuador also has a long history of migration. Millions of Ecuadorians migrated to the United States and Europe, although in recent decades there has also been a significant return migration back to Ecuador (Jokisch, 2014). The country has also experienced significant internal migration, especially among young people moving from rural to urban areas for employment (Cazzuffi & Fernández, 2018). Ecuador currently hosts a longstanding refugee population from Colombia and a more recent population of displaced people from Venezuela. According to UNHCR data for 2018 the total number of “persons of concern” in Ecuador was 374,879. This figure includes refugees, people in refugee-like situations, asylum seekers, and migrants. The majority of these persons of concern (almost 70 percent) are Venezuelan (UNHCR, n.d.-b).10
Ecuador has progressive immigration laws and policies. The country has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as the regional 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, which adopts a broad and inclusive definition of a refugee. These international commitments have also been fully integrated into Ecuador’s domestic legislation. The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 recognizes the needs and vulnerabilities of migrants and upholds the principle of “universal citizenship”, meaning that migrants in the country should enjoy the same rights as citizens (Comparative Constitutions Project, n.d.; Ortiz, 2011). Alongside a Human Mobility Law passed in 2017, this means that migrants officially enjoy the same rights to education, work, healthcare, and freedom of movement as Ecuadorians.
However, the implementation of these laws has faltered. Reasons for this include bureaucratic barriers, decentralized decision-making, low levels of institutional capacity, discrimination and xenophobia, and security concerns (Benítez & Rivera, 2019; Beyers, 2016; Ruprecht, 2019). The gaps between official policies and the realities facing many migrants have become more pronounced upon the arrival of large numbers of Venezuelan migrants. Ecuador’s institutions were unprepared for the arrival of such a large number of migrants in a relatively short period of time, and its approach towards them has become increasingly restrictive in spite of its progressive legal framework (Miller & Panayotatos, 2019).
The most common ways migrants in Ecuador regularize their legal status are through refugee visas, MERCOSUR work visas, and dependent visas (Beyers, 2016). Because many asylum applications are denied, Ecuador also hosts a large population of undocumented migrants (Beyers, 2016). Ecuador considers all non-Ecuadorians within its borders “migrants” or “non-citizens” (Donger, Fuller, Bhabha, & Leaning, 2017). Consequently, data on the situation of migrants in the country is generally not disaggregated by migrants’ status (e.g., refugees, asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers, or economic migrants) (Donger et al., 2017).
Education provisions for migrants in Ecuador
Ecuador’s Constitution, its Organic Law on Intercultural Education (LOEI), and its General Education Regulations guarantee universal access to school regardless of migratory status (Mendenhall et al., 2017). These policies mean that all migrant children and youth can, in theory, access primary and secondary public schools. Presentation of any identity document—not necessarily documentary proof of migration status—is sufficient for access (Donger et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Gómez, 2019). Under this framework, the main responsibility for migrants’ education lies with national and local government actors. UN agencies and NGOs support the Ecuadorian authorities by providing non-formal education services (Mendenhall et al., 2017).
In 2017, UNICEF estimated that around 240,000 children and youth were excluded from education in Ecuador (UNICEF, 2017). However, it is unclear how many of these out-of-school children and youths were from migrant communities. This makes it very difficult to ascertain the relationship between Ecuador’s progressive education laws towards migrants and migrants’ access to formal education. There is some evidence to suggest that refugees and asylum seekers face minimal barriers to accessing education (see Benítez & Rivera, 2019; Donger et al., 2017, who document this in the areas of Cuenca and Lago Agrio). However, these findings are countered by a larger body of research that documents persistent barriers to migrants’ access to formal education. Barriers include lack of legal status, schools’ ability to manage migrant students, bureaucratic hurdles, lack of understanding of legal provisions among local officials, child labor, and discrimination on the part of teachers, peers, and host communities (Bartlett, Rodríguez-Gómez & Oliveira, 2015; Donger et al., 2017; Mendenhall et al., 2017, Rodríguez-Gómez, 2019). On balance, available evidence indicates that important discrepancies exist between official policies and the implementation of these policies.
Nevertheless, Ecuador’s government continues to actively uphold the rights of non-nationals to access education. In response to the arrival of large numbers of Venezuelan migrants, the Ministry of Education worked with international partners to quickly enroll out-of-school Venezuelan children into public schools (Response for Venezuelans, 2019). Some accounts indicate that local schools had registered at least 12,000 Venezuelan students by the end of 2018 (US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, n.d.). As such, Ecuador remains a powerful counter-example to current trends that often exclude migrant children.
Learning outcomes for migrants in Ecuador
The failure to distinguish migrants by their migration status creates policy and practice blind spots, and has far-reaching implications
Although migrants in Ecuador participate in national or cross-national tests, performance data is not disaggregated by migratory status. This makes it very difficult to compare migrants’ learning outcomes to the learning outcomes of nationals, and to develop policies and approaches to address learning inequities. The lack of focus on students’ migration status also means that education administrators, teachers, and students have a limited understanding of students’ migration status and their related administrative and pedagogical needs (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2019; Mendenhall et al., 2017). This may be especially harmful for migrants who do not have a legally recognized status in Ecuador. A study of the refugee youth in Quito and Lago Agrio found that those who had a recognized legal status were significantly more likely to attend school than those who lacked documentation (Donger et al., 2017).11 This suggests that migrants with a precarious or unrecognized legal status require more targeted support and outreach.
The Ecuadorian education system has increased its focus on learning outcomes; however it is unclear whether or how this benefits migrants
In the mid-2000s, Ecuador undertook a significant reform of its basic education system. Improving learning outcomes was a central goal of this reform, and improving teacher quality was a key strategy to achieve this goal. This was complemented by increased educational assessments and efforts to monitor system-level progress (Bruns, Akmal, & Birdsall, 2019). The Government of Ecuador also increased education spending from one percent of GDP in 2000 to more than five percent in 2014 (Bruns et al., 2019), surpassing the median public expenditure on education globally, which was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2015 (OECD, 2018c). This resulted in impressive gains in learning. Of note, the performance of third- and sixth-graders on the Regional Comparative and Explanatory Studies between 2006 and 2013 showed improvements in reading and math scores that were the equivalent of one extra year of schooling (UNESCO, 2014).12 These were the largest learning gains in the region (Bruns et al., 2019). Nevertheless, Ecuador’s reading, math, and writing scores in the TERCE examination were all average (UNESCO, 2015), indicating that there is still much room for improvement. Similarly, on the PISA for Development (PISA-D) test conducted in 2015, Ecuador performed far below minimum proficiency in reading and math (OECD, 2018c).13 Forty-nine percent of its test-takers reached minimum proficiency in reading, and only 29 percent achieved minimum proficiency in math.
Evidence from TERCE 2013 is also suggestive of migrants’ learning outcomes. Although Ecuador was not included in this particular analysis, regional results indicate that migrant students scored lower on average than non-migrant students in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) (UNESCO, 2016).14 We posit that these differences are also likely to exist in Ecuador owing to the similarity of education systems and migration patterns in the region (see Bruns et al., 2019; Schneider, Cevallos Estarellas, & Bruns, 2019, for a detailed discussion of Ecuadorian education system vis-à-vis the other members of the LAC region). Interestingly, in the regional analysis, migration status alone did not explain the learning gap between migrants and nationals. Rather it was the relationship between migration status and other variables, including parents’ socioeconomic and educational levels, that was associated with the lower levels of performance among migrant students (UNESCO, 2016). In short, migration status became salient when it occurred alongside other factors that are known to relate to inequities in academic performance.
In spite of progressive national policies, discrimination against migrants undermines the learning process
Qualitative research reveals significant discrimination against migrant students. A study of the schooling experiences of Colombian refugees found that they experienced school-level discrimination and suffered from social stigma, which affected their peer relationships, as well as their relationships with educators (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2017). In fact, community- and school-level discrimination against migrants in Ecuador was identified across several of the studies we reviewed (Donger et al., 2017; Mendenhall et al., 2017; Schmitz-Pranghe, 2018; Shedlin, Decena, Noboa, & Betancourt, 2014). This is concerning because experiences of discrimination are known to have negative impacts on migrants’ academic achievement and psychological wellbeing (Brown, 2015).
Given such challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have negative ramifications for migrant students’ learning outcomes in Ecuador. For example, school closures and unequal access to distance education modalities appear to be exacerbating the educational gaps in Latin American countries, including Ecuador (Basto-Aguirre, Cerutti, & Nieto-Parra, 2020). Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, such as migrant households, are at risk of falling behind in learning due to three main reasons: (1) Socioeconomically disadvantaged schools are not adequately equipped for digital learning; (2) Poor households often do not have access to digital devices―for instance, in Ecuador, less than 15 percent of poor students (those living on less than 5.5 dollars per day) in primary education have an internet-connected computer at home compared to more than 50 percent of affluent students (those living on more than 70 dollars per day); and (3) Parents of disadvantaged children are less likely to have the knowledge and digital skills needed to support their children’s distance learning (Basto-Aguirre, Cerutti, & Nieto-Parra, 2020).
The impact of COVID-19 on Ecuador’s economy also has implications for migrant students’ access to education and learning outcomes. Researchers at the Inter-American Development Bank have found that parents who have lost their income as a result of the pandemic have already moved their children from private to public schools (Olsen & Prado, 2020). In June 2020, when the school year had already started in the coastal areas, enrollment in public schools increased by 120,000 students (6.5 percent) (Olsen & Prado, 2020). The transition is anticipated to be more prominent and challenging in larger cities when schools open in September-October 2020, as the majority of the private schools (88 percent) are located in these cities, and there are also fewer spots available in public schools (Olsen & Prado, 2020). Because there are not more teachers to meet the educational needs of the increased number of students in public schools, crowded classrooms are projected to adversely affect the quality of instruction and learning (Olsen & Prado, 2020). No data yet show the effects of the reported private-to-public school transition, or of the pandemic more generally, on students’ learning outcomes in Ecuador. However, migrant students are likely to be among the most negatively impacted by the pandemic given the distinct socioeconomic barriers they face because of their migration status.
Conclusion and recommendations
The relationship between education and migration is bi-directional and multi-faceted. Migration affects access to quality education, and education shapes experiences of migration. Through a review of the available literature and two case studies that examine national-level responses to migrant education, we sought to shed light on the particular relationship between migration and learning, which we defined as academic outcomes in the context of formal schooling. In this section we highlight three main findings and discuss their implications for education policy and practice.
The first finding is that data on migrants’ learning outcomes is inadequate, patchy, and collected in inconsistent ways. This limits our understanding of the relationship between migration and learning outcomes, and undermines the ability of policymakers to address learning inequities between migrants and nationals. Moreover, some categories of migrants are better represented in existing research than others. Of note, the recent upsurge in literature on the education of refugees has not been matched by literature on other migrant communities, in spite of the diversity of factors that propel migration and the need to understand the relationship between different types of migration and learning. We also found that there is considerably more focus on migrants’ access to education than on their learning outcomes. Our case studies revealed the limitations that occur due to these data gaps and silos. We found that national level responses to migrants’ education are shaped by complex histories of migration that are not limited to the category of refugees. These case studies also underscore that access to education is not synonymous with learning, and thus data on migrants’ access to education may conceal important learning inequities between migrants and nationals. As a result, we recommend collecting more comprehensive and disaggregated data on the learning processes and outcomes of migrants. This data should not be limited to large-scale learning assessments, however. Research that entangles the historical complexities of policies towards migrants as well as ethnographic studies that explore the learning experiences of migrants and host-state nationals—across and within different national contexts—are equally important to understanding the complex relationship between migration and learning.
A second finding relates to the dominant approach to include migrant students in host state education systems. To adequately address migrants’ learning needs, it is essential to understand the existing strengths and weaknesses of host-state education systems, and to address these issues in a systemic way. We found some evidence to suggest that migrants underperform their host state peers on standardized tests. Migrants in the Global South are often economically vulnerable, and many have a precarious legal status—factors that are likely to contribute to their marginalization within host states. This means that if the structural issues facing host-state education systems are not addressed, then existing policies are likely to reproduce and entrench existing education inequities towards migrants. This suggests that policymakers should not develop separate plans for migrants, but should instead consider how to strengthen existing policies, in order to offer integrated approaches that address underlying systemic inequities within host states while making specific provisions for the particular needs of migrants.
Third, we highlight the need for a multi-dimensional approach to supporting migrants’ education. In particular there is a need to better support and resource local education actors—teachers, school principals, and administrators. In the cases of Lebanon and Ecuador, we found that official policies differ or are interpreted differently at the sub-national level. These differences reflect a lack of information among local-level policy actors regarding migrants and their education needs, different perceptions of migration and migrants within host-state populations, and the fact that local-level actors may not have the necessary resources to uphold migrants’ education effectively. This finding highlights the need to ensure that education policies include adequate provisions to manage the local dimensions of migration. It also points to the value of research that examines how migrants’ learning processes relate to their school environments, as well as the ways in which student wellbeing and sense of belonging relate to academic outcomes.
References
Abdul-Hamid, H., Patrinos, H. A., Reyes, J., Kelcey, J., & Diaz Varela, A. (2016). Learning in the face of adversity. The UNRWA education program for Palestine refugees. Washington, DC.: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/683861468000250621/pdf/100532-PUB-Box393232B-OUO-6-PUBDATE-11-11-15-DOI-10-1596978-1-4648-0706-0-EPI-146480706X.pdf
Abu-Amsha, O., & Armstrong, J. (2018). Pathways to resilience in risk-laden environments: A case study of Syrian refugee education in Lebanon. Journal on Education in Emergencies, 4(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.17609/s563-0t15
Akar, S., & Erdoğdu, M. M. (2018). Syrian refugees in Turkey and integration problem ahead. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 20, 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-0639-0
Al-Hroub, A. (2015). Tracking drop-out students in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(3), 52–79.
Amnesty International. (2019). Their house is my prison. Exploitation of migrant domestic workers in Lebanon. London, UK: Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MDE1800222019ENGLISH.pdf
Assaad, R., Ginn, T., & Saleh, M. (2018). Impact of Syrian refugees in Jordan on education outcomes for Jordanian youth (Working Paper Series No. 1214). Economic Research Forum. https://erf.org.eg/publications/impact-of-syrian-refugees-in-jordan-on-education-outcomes-for-jordanian-youth/
Babin, J. (2020). The economic crisis has pushed 40,000 students to join public schools. Le commerce du levant. https://www.lecommercedulevant.com/article/29627-the-economic-crisis-has-pushed-40000-students-to-join-public-schools
Bakewell, O. (2008). Research beyond the categories: The importance of policy irrelevant research into forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen042
Bartlett, L., Rodríguez-Gómez, D., & Oliveira, G. (2015). Migration and education: Sociocultural perspectives. Educação e Pesquisa, 41(special edition), 1153–1171. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-9702201508144891
Basto-Aguirre, N., Cerutti, P., & Nieto-Parra, S. (2020). Is COVID-19 widening educational gaps in Latin America? Three lessons for urgent policy action. OECD Development Matters. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2020/06/04/is-covid-19-widening-educational-gaps-in-latin-america-three-lessons-for-urgent-policy-action/#_ftnref2
Bellino, M. J., & Dryden-Peterson, S. (2019). Inclusion and exclusion within a policy of national integration: Refugee education in Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1523707
Benítez, E. H., & Rivera, M. J. (2019). The Ecuadorian legal framework and humanitarian immigration of Colombians in Cuenca: Where is the gap? The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(9), 1422–1446. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1613381
Beyers, C. (2016). Preliminary reflections on irregular migration and assistance policy in Ecuador. Espacios Transnacionales: Revista Latinoamericana-Europea de Pensamiento y Acción Social, 4(7), 86–97.
Bray, M. (2008). Double-shift schooling: Design and operation for cost-effectiveness. Fundamentals of Educational Planning, 90. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
Brown, C. S. (2015). The educational, psychological, and social impact of discrimination on the immigrant child. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/22382/22382.pdf
Bruns, B., Akmal, M., & Birdsall, N. (2019). The political economy of testing in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa (Center for Global Development, Working Paper No. 515). https://www.cgdev.org/publication/political-economy-testing-latin-america-and-sub-saharan-africa
Buckner, E., Spencer, D., & Cha, J. (2018). Between policy and practice: The education of Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(4), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fex027
Burde, D. (2005). Education in crisis situations: Mapping the field. Washington DC: Creative Associates International. http://www.columbia.edu/~dsb33/Assests/BurdeEdCrisis11-11-05%5B2%5D.pdf
Burde, D. (2014). Schools for conflict or for peace in Afghanistan. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burde, D., Guven, O., Kelcey, J., Lahmann, H., & Al-Abbadi, K. (2015). What works to promote children’s educational access, quality of learning, and wellbeing in crisis-affected contexts. Education Rigorous Literature Review. UK Department for International Development. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470773/Education-emergencies-rigorousreview2.pdf
Cazzuffi, C., & Fernández, J. (2018). Rural youth and migration in Ecuador, Mexico and Peru (Working Paper Series No. 235). https://www.rimisp.org/wp-content/files_mf/1539440301DocumentoTrabajoenproceso_RuralYouthMigration_Cazzuffi_Fernandez_2018.pdf
Comparative Constitutions Project. (n.d.). Ecuador’s constitution of 2008. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ecuador_2008.pdf
Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The Global South: Key concepts in social research. Contexts, 11(1), 12–13. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504212436479
Donger, A. E., Fuller, A., Bhabha, J., & Leaning, J. (2017). Protecting refugee youth in Ecuador: An evaluation of health and wellbeing. UNHCR and Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2464/2018/05/UNHCR-ECUADOR-Report1.pdf
Dryden-Peterson, S. (2011). Refugee education: A global review. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/research/evalreports/4fe317589/refugee-education-global-review-sarah-dryden-peterson-november-2011.html
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515622703
Dryden-Peterson, S. (2017). Refugee education: Education for an unknowable future. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2016.1255935
Dryden-Peterson, S., Dahya, N., & Adelman, E. (2017). Pathways to educational success among refugees: Connecting locally and globally situated resources. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1011–1047. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217714321
Dryden-Peterson, S., Adelman, E., Alvarado, S., Anderson, K., Bellino, M. J., Brooks, R., … & Suzuki, E. (2018). Inclusion of refugees in national education systems (Background paper prepared for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report). Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266054
Dryden-Peterson, S., Adelman, E., Bellino, M. J., & Chopra, V. (2019). The purposes of refugee education: Policy and practice of including refugees in national education systems. Sociology of Education, 92(4), 346–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719863054
France 24. (2020). Dozens of Beirut schools damaged by port blast won’t reopen this autumn. France 24. https://www.france24.com/en/20200828-dozens-of-beirut-schools-damaged-by-port-blast-won-t-reopen-this-autumn
Human Rights Watch. (2016). Growing up without an education: Barriers to education for Syrian refugee children in Lebanon (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdu002
Human Rights Watch. (2017). Lebanon: Migrant domestic workers with children deported. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/25/lebanon-migrant-domestic-workers-children-deported
Insan Association. (2015). Shattered dreams: Children of migrants in Lebanon. https://www.insanassociation.org/en/images/Shattered%20Dreams-%20children%20of%20migrants%20in%20Lebanon.pdf
Inter-Agency Coordination Lebanon. (2020). Education sector short-term response to Covid-19: Lebanon (Guiding framework). https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/76675
Janmyr, M. (2017). No country of asylum: “Legitimizing” Lebanon’s rejection of the 1951 refugee convention. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 438–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eex026
Jokisch, B. D. (2014). Ecuador: From mass emigration to return migration? Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/ecuador-mass-emigration-return-migration
Karam, F. J., Monaghan, C., & Yoder, P. J. (2017). ‘The students do not know why they are here’: Education decision-making for Syrian refugees. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(4), 448–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2016.1222895
Kelcey, J., & Chatila, S. (2020). Increasing inclusion or expanding exclusion? How the global strategy to include refugees in national education systems has been implemented in Lebanon. Refuge, 36(2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.40713
McCarthy, A. T. (2018) Politics of refugee education: Educational administration of the Syrian refugee crisis in Turkey, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2018.1440541
Mendenhall, M., Russell, S. G., Buckner, E., Peter Bjorklund, B., Cha, J., Falk, D., … & Spencer, D. (2017). Urban refugee education: Strengthening policies and practices for access, quality and inclusion. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/centers/refugee-education-research-and-projects/Urban-Refugees-Full-Report.pdf
Migration Network. (n.d.). The Lebanese government and IDPs. http://www.lnf.org.lb/migrationnetwork/lebgov.html
Miller, S., & Panayotatos, D. (2019). A fragile welcome: Ecuador’s response to the influx of Venezuelan refugees and migrants (Report). Refugees International. https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2019/6/17/a-fragile-welcome
Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Lebanon, Centre for Educational Research and Development (MEHE-CERD). (2020). Statistical bulletin of scholastic year 2019–2020. https://www.crdp.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Stat_Nashra_Inside_2020_V_4.pdf
Mixed Migration Centre. (n.d.). MMC’s understanding and use of the term mixed migration. http://www.mixedmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/terminology_MMC.pdf
OECD. (n.d.). South-south migration. https://www.oecd.org/dev/migration-development/south-south-migration.htm
OECD. (2017). Localising the response (The Commitments into Action Series). https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf
OECD. (2018a). Lebanon: What 15-year-old students in Lebanon know and can do. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_LBN.pdf
OECD. (2018b). The resilience of students with an immigrant background. Factors that shape well-being. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en
OECD. (2018c). PISA for development: Results in focus. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-for-development_c094b186-en#:~:text=
Olsen, A. S., & Prado, J. (2020). COVID-19 and the transition from private to public education in Ecuador. https://blogs.iadb.org/educacion/en/covid-19-and-the-transition-from-private-to-public-education-in-ecuador/
Ortiz, G. (2011). Ecuador: “Universal citizenship” clashes with reality. IPS News. http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/02/ecuador-universal-citizenship-clashes-with-reality/
Rahhal, N. (2020). The impact of Lebanon’s economic woes on schools and parents: Putting a price tag on education. Executive Magazine. https://www.executive-magazine.com/economics-policy/the-impact-of-lebanons-economic-woes-on-schools-and-parents
Response for Venezuelans. (2019). Ecuador, working group on refugees and migrants (GTRM) (Situation Report, April 2019).
Rodríguez-Gómez, D. (2017). When war enters the classroom: A case study on the experiences of youth on the Ecuador–Colombia border. In J. Williams, & M. Bellino (Eds.), (Re)constructing memory: Education, identity, and conflict (pp. 269–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Rodríguez-Gómez, D. (2018). “That word is not used here”: Challenges of qualitative research in areas affected by armed conflict. In M. Mendenhall (Ed.), Data collection and evidence building to support education in emergencies (pp. 49–52). https://resources.norrag.org/storage/documents/nqvqcvRU7 rlA4hf1KvTI9WKwTVYD2HnhoSa57QsX.pdf
Rodríguez-Gómez, D. (2019). Bureaucratic encounters and the quest for educational access among Colombian refugees in Ecuador. Journal on Education in Emergencies, 5(1), 62–93.
Root, R. (2019). Why education stole the show at the Global Refugee Forum. Devex. https://www.devex.com/news/why-education-stole-the-show-at-the-global-refugee-forum-96246
Ruprecht, M. N. (2019). Colombia’s armed conflict and its refugees: International legal protection versus interregional state interests. Colombia Internacional, 100, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint100.2019.04
Save the Children. (2020). Lebanon: Students miss half the school year due to double impact of economic and coronavirus crisis. Save the Children. https://www.savethechildren.net/news/lebanon-students-miss-half-school-year-due-double-impact-economic-and-coronavirus-crisis#
Schmelkes, S. (2018). What is ‘learning’ in the case of marginalized populations in low-income countries? In D. A. Wagner, W. Sharon, & R. F. Boruch (Eds.), Learning at the bottom of the pyramid: Science, measurement, and policy in low-income countries (pp. 11–23). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265581
Schmitz-Pranghe, C. (2018). Protection, reconciliation and access to rights for DPs in Ecuador: Requirements for the integration of displaced persons (DPs) from Colombia and Venezuela in Ecuador (BICC Policy Brief, 9/2018). Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC). https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62621-8
Schneider, B. R., Cevallos Estarellas, P., & Bruns, B. (2019). The politics of transforming education in Ecuador: Confrontation and continuity, 2006–2017. Comparative Education Review 63(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1086/702609
Shedlin, M. G., Decena, C. U., Noboa, H., & Betancourt, Ó. (2014). Sending-country violence and receiving-country discrimination: Effects on the health of Colombian refugees in Ecuador. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9777-9
Shuayb, M. (2014). The art of inclusive exclusions: Educating the Palestinian refugee students in Lebanon. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 33(2), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdu002
Shuayb, M. (2016). Education for social cohesion attempts in Lebanon: Reflections on the 1994 and 2010 education reforms. Education as Change, 20(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1531
United Nations. (n.d.). Migration. https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.html
United Nations. (2019). International migration 2019. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/wallchart/docs/MigrationStock2019_Wallchart.pdf
UNESCO. (2014). Comparison of results between the second and the third regional comparative and explanatory studies: SERCE and TERCE, 2006–2013. UNESCO Santiago Office. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244239_eng
UNESCO. (2015). TERCE executive summary: Learning achievements. UNESCO Santiago Office. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243983_eng
UNESCO. (2016). TERCE in sight: What affects learning achievements among migrant children? UNESCO Santiago Office. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245060_eng?posInSet=1&queryId=cfe53c9d-2a31-47ca-8b98-14998497e51d
UNESCO. (2019). Migration, displacement and education. Building bridges not walls (Global Education Monitoring Report). Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366946/PDF/366946eng.pdf.multi
UNHCR. (n.d.-a). Education. https://www.unhcr.org/lb/education
UNHCR. (n.d.-b). Ecuador. http://reporting.unhcr.org/node/2543
UNHCR. (2018a). Turn the tide. Refugee education in crisis. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/publications/brochures/5b852f8e4/turn-tide-refugee-education-crisis.html
UNHCR. (2018b). UNHCR ramps up response as Ecuador declares emergency. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2018/8/5b6d4f554/unhcr-ramps-response-ecuador-declares-emergency.html
UNHCR. (2019a). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2018. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/5d08d7ee7.pdf
UNHCR. (2019b). Refugee education 2030: A strategy for refugee inclusion. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/publications/education/5d651da88d7/education-2030-strategy-refugee-education.html
UNHCR. (2019c). Stepping up. Refugee education in crisis. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/steppingup/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2019/09/Education-Report-2019-Final-web-9.pdf
UNICEF. (2017). Annual report 2017: Ecuador. https://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/Ecuador_2017_COAR.pdf
UNGA. (2016). New York declaration for refugees and migrants (Pub. L. No. A/RES/71/1). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_71_1.pdf
UNGA. (2018). Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. Marrakesh: United Nations. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/1807 11_final_draft_0.pdf
UNOCHA. (2020). Lebanon: Beirut port explosions (Situation Report No. 7). https://reliefweb.int/report/lebanon/lebanon-beirut-port-explosions-situation-report-no-7-25-august-2020-enar
UNRWA. (n.d.). Where we work. https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/lebanon
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. (n.d.). Venezuelan refugees: The Ecuador-Colombia border. Findings and recommendations. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/FINAL-Ecuador-Venezuela-Report.pdf
World Bank. (2018). Learning to realize education’s promise (World Development Report 2018). Washington, DC.
1 In this paper we use the term “Global South” to refer to the regions of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania. Countries in the Global South are generally characterized as lower-income than countries in Europe and North America and are often politically or culturally marginalized within geo-politics. While terminologies and categorizations of large numbers of countries and nations are never without limitations and necessarily over-simplify complex phenomena, we opt to use the term “Global South” owing to its emphasis on geo-political relations of power, rather than levels of development or cultural difference. As Dados and Connell (2012, p. 13) write, the term Global South “references an entire history of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained”.
2 Over six million Syrians have been forcibly displaced within Syria and beyond its borders, making them the largest refugee population in the world at the time of writing. Lebanon hosts the highest number of Syrian refugees per capita as well as a significant Palestinian refugee population. Venezuelans are the largest migrant population in Latin America and the Caribbean, numbering 4.5 million persons (UNHCR, n.d.-b). Ecuador also hosts a large Columbian refugee population.
3 Although Colombia hosts the largest number of Venezuelan migrants, Ecuador has emerged as an important host country. In 2018, Ecuador declared a state of emergency over the large numbers of Venezuelans entering the country (UNHCR, 2018b).
4 “Students with an immigrant background” were defined as students whose mother and father were both born in a country other than that where the student sat the PISA test. This includes first- and second-generation students.
5 Migration status may also be politically sensitive, especially in host countries that have experienced conflict themselves. In Lebanon, for example, tensions ascribed to sectarian identity mean that a national census has not occurred since the 1930s. Consequently, even if substantive data were collected from migrants in the country, the ability to compare this to the Lebanese population would be limited.
6 Similar findings are echoed in qualitative research that examines the resilience of Syrian refugees in Lebanon (Abu-Amsha & Armstrong, 2018).
7 In 1965, the League of Arab States passed the Protocol for the Treatment of Palestinians in Arab States, known as the Casablanca Protocol. Lebanon signed the protocol with reservations. However, this protocol has been largely disregarded by the Government of Lebanon.
8 The low percentage of students who have an immigrant background strongly suggests that Syrian students who learn in second shifts in Lebanese public schools were not included in the sample. Overall, 5,614 students—attending 320 schools in Lebanon—completed the assessment (OECD, 2018a, p. 11).
9 By comparison, El Salvador, Oman, and Norway—countries with similar-sized populations—spent 3.8 percent, 5 percent, and 7.5 percent of their respective GDP on education.
10 UNHCR data indicates that approximately 380,000 Venezuelans have migrated to Ecuador; however, not all of these people are classified as “persons of concern” by UNHCR (UNHCR, n.d.-b).
11 This issue is especially significant for older children and youths because graduation from secondary school or applications to attend university require a recognized legal status (Donger et al., 2017).
12 This is based on a 40-point difference between the results obtained in the Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory Studies (SERCE) conducted in 2006 and the Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Studies (TERCE) conducted in 2013.
13 PISA-D is a version of the PISA test specifically advanced for low-to-middle-income countries. Participating countries included Cambodia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Senegal, and Zambia. Minimum proficiency corresponds with a PISA Level 2 that all children should reach by the end of lower-secondary school to “participate effectively and productively in life as continuing students, workers and citizens” (OECD, 2018c, p. 5).
14 TERCE evaluates student performance on four levels, with Level I being the lowest and Level IV the highest. In third grade, 57 percent of migrant students and 73 percent of non-migrant students in LAC achieved at Levels I and II on the reading test while 64 percent of migrant students and 74 percent of non-migrant students achieved at the same levels in math (UNESCO, 2016). This trend was repeated in sixth grade reading and math.