Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 08 October 2014, At: 06:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Intercultural EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20
Developing inclusive educationalpractices for refugee children in theCzech RepublicMarkéta Bačáková a
a Faculty of Education , Charles University in Prague , Prague,Czech RepublicPublished online: 24 May 2011.
To cite this article: Markéta Bačáková (2011) Developing inclusive educational practicesfor refugee children in the Czech Republic, Intercultural Education, 22:2, 163-175, DOI:10.1080/14675986.2011.567073
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.567073
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Intercultural EducationVol. 22, No. 2, April 2011, 163–175
ISSN 1467-5986 print/ISSN 1469-8439 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14675986.2011.567073http://www.informaworld.com
Developing inclusive educational practices for refugee children in the Czech Republic
Markéta Ba[ccaron] áková*
Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech RepublicTaylor and FrancisCEJI_A_567073.sgm10.1080/14675986.2011.567073Intercultural Education1467-5986 (print)/1469-8439 (online)Article2011Taylor & [email protected]
All children in the Czech Republic have the legal right to primary education,regardless of nationality and legal status. This article is based on a study ofrefugee children and their educational situation. The study reveals that refugeestudents in the Czech Republic are not benefiting fully from this fundamentalright and that their educational future is in jeopardy. The study identified sixmajor barriers to full participation and educational benefits. Finally, a plan ofaction to overcome barriers is put forward. Key ingredients are effectiveinformation transfer among state agencies, non-governmental organizations,parents, children and schools.
Keywords: refugee children; right to education; inclusion; Czech Republic
Introduction
Much has been written on the importance of education and the school environmentin the process of successful integration of refugees. There is agreement amongresearchers, educational practitioners, state representatives and others that educationplays a crucial role in facilitating the inclusion of both refugee children andadults into a host society (see e.g. Ager and Strang 2008; Heckmann 2008; Rutter2003; Salinas and Müller 1999; Szente, Hoot, and Taylor 2006; UNHCR 2007).The major arguments put forward to support the importance of educationalenvironments are: schools facilitate contact with members of local communities;reintroduce a sense of normality and routine; provide a safe environment; increaseself-reliance and empowerment; and foster social, psychological and intellectualdevelopment.
Migration flows and associated issues are relatively new phenomena in the CzechRepublic – a result of its effectively closed borders during the communist regime until1989. Measures to manage migration were designed only at the beginning of the 1990s(Drbohlav 2003). At this time, the Czech Republic served mainly as part of a transitroute for many migrants. Gradually, the Czech Republic itself became their destina-tion (Eurydice 2004). In the 1990s, the state’s priorities were to develop a democratic,pluralistic and parliamentary society based on a free-market economy (Drbohlav2003), an agenda in which the education of immigrant/refugee children was of littleor no interest.
*Email: [email protected]
c
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
164 M. Bacakova
Similarly, the concept of inclusive education has become widely discussed onlyrecently. The education system of the Czech Republic has been experiencing vastchanges since 1989 (Berend 2009). However, it has a long tradition of segregatedschooling for children with special educational needs (SEN), resulting in one of thelowest proportions of mainstream-included children with SEN internationally(Evans 2000). The country is facing serious criticism mainly, but not only, withrespect to its approach to the education of socially disadvantaged students, includ-ing Romani children (see the judgment of the European Court on Human Rightsagainst the Czech Republic in the case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic).As Evans (2003) points out, unlike other OECD countries, the Czech Republicdoes not educate socially disadvantaged students exclusively in mainstreamschools.
The current School Act (561/2004) gives equal access, in a formal sense, toprimary education for non-Czech citizens and Czech citizens alike. However, in orderfor refugee children to enjoy their full right to education, several conditions need tobe met. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights1 describes the rightto education identifying four aspects – availability, accessibility, acceptability andadaptability. The first two refer to ‘access’, i.e. a sufficient supply of school places andaccessibility for all (non-discrimination, physical and economic access). The lattertwo relate to the quality of the educational process – the appropriateness of thecontent, delivery and flexibility of programmes.
For the purposes of this article, economic access will not be discussed since educa-tion in the Czech Republic is provided free of charge. However, three further condi-tions are required. One appears in the UNHCR Education Strategy 2010–2012 as acomponent of ‘quality education’ – positive home (family/parents and community)links with schools. Carreón, Drake, and Barton (2005), Henderson and Mapp (2002)and Smrekar (1996) all consider parental involvement in their children’s education tobe a central factor in better educational outcomes for children.
The next condition is the availability of pedagogical counselling and assessmentservices, as they are an indispensable part of the education system of the CzechRepublic, along with schools and teaching. They therefore need to be just as accessi-ble to all children as are schools and teaching. Finally, but crucially, is the acknowl-edged respect for, and observation in all circumstances of, ‘the best interest of thechild’, as embedded in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (Article 3.1).Only with this guarantee will parents of refugee children be able to act in the bestinterest of their children by being enabled to take well-informed decisions about theirchildren’s education.
The five conditions required for refugee children to fully participate in and benefitfrom education in the Czech Republic are, then, the following:
(1) equal educational opportunities in a mainstream, physically accessible setting(‘non-discrimination and physical access’ in ICESCR2);
(2) appropriate curriculum and methodology (‘acceptability and adaptability’ inICESCR);
(3) possibility of informed decisions by parents/family, including the child (‘thebest interest of the child’ in CRC);
(4) counselling and assessment services need to be made available; and(5) parental involvement (‘school–community/home links’ in UNHCR Education
Strategy 2010–2012).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 165
Research context and aims
Resettlement programme
In 2008, the Czech Republic joined global resettlement efforts with its pilot project ofresettling 40 refugees from Myanmar/Burma, who arrived in the Czech Republic inlate 2008/early 2009 from Malaysia, which had acted as an interim host country. Therefugees received asylum immediately upon arrival in the Czech Republic. After sixmonths spent in an integration centre, individual families were dispersed around thecountry and moved separately to private accommodations due to the Czech Republic’sresettlement policy, based on housing availability. Because of the pre-planning inte-gral to refugee resettlement programmes, the processes of dispersal and accommodat-ing these families were much faster than those of refugees arriving spontaneously,who usually spend long periods in refugee facilities waiting for a court decisionregarding permission to remain. Thus problems that the resettled families face (causedto a large extent by their limited knowledge of Czech and exposure to the Czech wayof living) may actually be greater because of their shorter period of in-country inten-sive support. At the time of our research, the families had spent from 8 to 12 monthsin the Czech Republic.
Research aim
The research task was defined as mapping the educational practices in relation to agroup of refugee children who arrived in the Czech Republic as part of a pilot reset-tlement programme. It was hypothesized that they would encounter some barriers toeducation. The research questions were framed to take into account not only the refu-gee children’s attendance in Czech schools, but also the previously listed requiredconditions to full access to, participation in and derived benefit from the educationprovided. The research questions were:
(1) Do refugee children (and their parents) have access to pedagogical counsellingand assessment services?
(2) According to which assessment parameters are refugee children allocated tospecific classes/years/schools?
(3) What support programmes are run by schools/public and the private sector?(4) What is the role of language training regarding the school attendance of refu-
gee children?(5) What is the role that refugee parents play in school life?
The qualitative study, conducted between September and December 2009, involvedthe primary schools attended by the refugee children and the social/NGO workerscooperating with the refugee families in question, in addition to the children andparents of the families concerned.
Participants
The participant sample included all the Burmese families within the pilot resettlementprogramme who had children of school age (six out of the nine resettled families).Four of the six participant families were already living in private accommodations and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
166 M. Bacakova
leading a largely independent life in separate towns/villages at the time of theresearch. The two remaining families were visited in two different settings – firstwhile residing in the integration centre and, subsequently, in private accommodation.Thus children of these two families were observed in two different schools.
The participants were:
● six refugee families from Myanmar/Burma with a total of 18 school-agechildren;
● eight primary schools (i.e. 20 principals and teachers) educating the refugeechildren; and
● five social/NGO workers cooperating with the refugee families.
Methodology
The following data collection methods were selected as being most appropriate tofulfil the aim of gaining in-depth insight into the current situation of inclusive educa-tional practices in relation to refugee children in the Czech Republic:
● semi-structured interviews with refugee children and their parents;● theme-related interviews with teachers/principals of schools and NGO/social
workers;● observation at the schools attended by the children; and● document analysis (legislation, school reports, UNHCR reports).
Communication with the participants from Myanmar/Burma was conducted inCzech, with one exception where the interview with parents was conducted inEnglish at their request. Interpretation into Burmese via a telephone interpretationservice was available and offered in each case but participants chose to communicatein Czech. The participants’ level of Czech proficiency proved to be sufficient as theyall succeeded to express their views to the interviewer. The interviews wereconducted separately with all the participants and lasted from 30 minutes to threehours depending on the interviewees’ willingness to talk. Collected data from theabove-mentioned methods were subsequently analysed with reference to groundedtheory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Much attention was also paid to ethical dimen-sions, which were guided by the Revised Ethical Guidelines for EducationalResearch (BERA 2004).
Results
Identified issues
The data analysis identified major barriers faced by the interviewed refugee childrenand their families in the primary education system in the Czech Republic.
Schools’ lack of information
The child came two months ago and we have no information about him. We don’t knowwhat to do with him Honestly, I am quite desperate. (Principal)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 167
All eight schools interviewed complained about the lack of information they were givenin advance regarding the refugee children. The only information schools obtained werebrief reports from the previous schools in the vicinity of the integration centrescommenting on the children’s ability to learn (mostly limited to simple phrases suchas ‘hard-working’), and a recommendation for level (grade) of school placement with-out elaboration. The schools received no information regarding the educational historyof the children, no advice as to what would comprise an ‘appropriate grade’ for refugeechildren, no literature on the possible specific needs of refugee pupils and no informa-tion about the availability of materials for Czech as an additional language. Nor didmany schools – only two schools out of eight – actively seek any of this information.
The seriousness of incomplete or inconsistent transfer of information has beenemphasized by Reakes (2007) in her research, conducted in fellow EC member coun-try Britain, who reported it to be the most frequent deficiency.
Insufficient teacher experience and qualification
This is my first time teaching a refugee child. You know, I try to make some specialexercises for him, but I have to make everything myself, so it’s difficult. I don’t havemuch time for that. (Teacher)
Seven out of the eight schools reported no prior experience educating children withlimited Czech language proficiency, or from different cultural backgrounds. It becameclear during the interviews that none of the schools were informed about the existenceof seminars on teaching children from different cultural backgrounds and thus had noprofessional development in this area. Current university-based teacher educationprogrammes do not sufficiently reflect the changing population in Czech schools – noneof the teachers reported any qualification in teaching Czech as an additional language.
This situation is not unique for the Czech Republic. Ford, Glimps, and Giallourakis(2007) have commented on the ill-preparedness of US teachers to meet the challengesof a diverse classroom, including refugee students. Hughes and Beirens (2007), in theirresearch, mention particular shortcomings among British school-based staff in relationto working with refugee students – the coverage of various languages and the provisionof emotional support. Arnot and Pinson (2005), on the other hand, have highlightedthe positive effect of previous experience with heterogeneous school populations in theUK, reflected in the experiences of one particular school in this Czech study. Thisschool principal referred to the presence of refugee children as ‘enriching’, in contrastto the other principals’ view of them as complicating matters. Some of the teachers inthis school had already developed their own teaching materials and were prepared tosupport the refugee students during after-school hours. The whole school benefitedfrom the students’ presence and participation in discussions during ‘democracy day’,when both their accounts of their refugee experiences and life in a non-democraticcountry were listened to intently. Their presentations were highly valued.
Insufficient funding and resources
I prepared a special workbook for my [refugee] pupils, but if I want to work with themI have to stay here in my free time and I get no extra money for that. And you know, Ihave my own things to do. (Teacher)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
168 M. Bacakova
All eight schools interviewed mentioned serious lack of financial and other resourcesto support the extra work of teachers educating refugee children, lack of resources forrecruiting teacher assistants – none of the schools interviewed had a teacher assistantespecially for their refugee pupils – and insufficient funds for extra materials on Czechas an additional language. Only one school was aware of the possibility to apply foravailable special funding for schools educating refugee children from the Ministry ofEducation.
Insufficient cooperation between schools, parents and social workers
Principal: Well, communication with parents is difficult, they hardly speak anyCzech, you know. But if we need to tell them something urgent, we contacttheir neighbour.
Interviewer: Does she speak Burmese?Principal: Well, no. But she somehow tells them. I think.
Little or no communication was observed between schools and parents and whatdid take place was inadequate in quality and content. In two cases, the schoolconducted no communication whatsoever with the refugee parents, justifying it onthe grounds of parental incompetence in Czech comprehension. In three cases, theschool communicated through another Czech-speaking person (social worker,neighbour, external Czech language teacher) and could not satisfactorily explainhow another person communicating with the family in Czech could convey theinformation while school personnel were unable to do so. All of the schools statedthat they would welcome the services of an interpreter, but had no financialresources for this. It was also discovered that none of the parents had been involvedin the process of selecting a school for their children. This had been negotiatedentirely by the Refugee Facilities Administration, in cooperation with the localauthorities.
The importance of parental involvement in schools is stressed by many authors.Hek (2005) writes that when parents feel welcome at school, then most will attendparent meetings, which makes the refugee students feel more part of their school. Shementions that in the UK key factors for refugee parents are helpful teachers and avail-able interpretation services. Other authors (Cornfield and Arzubiaga 2004; Shieldsand Behrman 2004; Szente, Hoot, and Taylor 2006) also call for interpreters, bilingualteachers and support staff to be available to facilitate communication between familiesand schools and for the creation of parent support groups.
Insufficient support provision in schools
Interviewer: What do you do when classes finish?Pupil: I go home.Interviewer: Do you attend any after-school activities with other children?Pupil: No.
The support offered by Czech schools varied considerably, depending mainly onthe initiative of individual teachers. The interviewed children expressed that theywould appreciate more individualized support which the schools were not provid-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 169
ing. Generally, the schools offered very few, and very rarely, after-school activi-ties for refugee children and there was a lack of language support. Individualizededucational plans were prepared for the interviewed refugee children in only oneschool. The rest of the children and the teachers were basically left to ‘sink orswim’.
Hek (2005) stresses the crucial role of support in achieving educational and socialgoals. This perspective is shared by Australian teachers (Taylor 2008) who call formore teachers and support staff to implement English as an additional language.Shields and Behrman (2004) stress the importance of after-school activities organizedby community-based organizations.
The need for support provisions is evident, especially language support, currentlynon-existent in the Czech Republic for children under 16 years within the State Inte-gration Programme provided by the Government. Consequently, school performanceof refugee students is negatively affected, while their grade placement may be inap-propriately low since their abilities tend to be underestimated due to limited languageproficiency and insufficient pedagogical assessment.
Inappropriate grade placement
We put the kid into fourth grade because that’s what was written in the short letter wegot from the previous school. What else could we do? (Principal about a boy aged 16 –age of students in 10th grade)
The children interviewed were often placed in grades completely inappropriate notonly for their age, educational history and academic potential, but also in relation totheir social and cognitive development. No professional pedagogical/psychologicalassessment was made to support such a placement. The children themselves voiceddissatisfaction with their placement. This view was expressed directly to the schoolprincipal in only one case. Unlike in some other western European countries, psycho-metric assessment is still held in high regard and tends to dominate matters such asschool and grade placement in the Czech Republic (O’Nions 2010). Examples of suchplacement can be seen in Table 1.
The placement of, for example, a 17-year-old girl, who had completed nine yearsof education, into the fourth grade with nine-year-old children is extraordinary, as isthe five grade ‘jump’ made by some students without pedagogical/psychologicalassessment, presumably when teachers realized that the initial placement was
Table 1. Inappropriate grade placement.
Age Sex Previous education Grade placement
18 M 8 years 4th grade/7th grade
17 F 9 years 4th grade/9th grade
16 M Unknown 4th grade
16 M 8 years 4th grade/7th grade
13 F 7 years 4th grade/6th grade
Note: The double information on grade placement indicates the fact that some of the children wereobserved in two different schools.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
170 M. Bacakova
ludicrous. It also turned out during the interviews with the children that none of themwere asked to express their views regarding grade placement, which is in contrast toArticle 12 of CRC stating that children have the right to express their views freely inall matters affecting them, and the views must be given due weight in accordance withthe age and maturity of the child.
Insufficient proficiency in Czech was usually the rationale given by schools forsuch inappropriate placements. How lower grade placement was supposed to aidlearning Czech or promote other aspects of their learning was never satisfactorilyexplained.
Kanu (2008), in her study of refugee students in Canada, writes that they are toooften wrongly placed into classes. This proves to be very frustrating for them.However, many of the students interviewed by Kanu perceived their grade as tooadvanced, whereas among students in the Czech study this was too low. In any case,however, sensitive and valid assessment of refugee students prior to and during theirgrade placement in order to avoid frustration, social humiliation and to foster theirfull academic potential is essential. At present, there is little possibility to assessimmigrant/refugee students’ educational experience and potential in the CzechRepublic due to the lack of professionals in this field. This obviously has seriousconsequences for the children’s class placement, social status and psychologicalwell-being.
Relations between the identified issues
A general lack of educational information and the absence of appropriate assessmentand counselling services for refugee students and their families were identified aspossible causal factors that hinder the full participation of students in educationalinstitutions. Lack of information results in:
● Insufficient funding: schools are not provided with and do not search for infor-mation on available grant programmes.
● Insufficient resources and teacher competences: schools do not know where tolook for already existing resources. They are not informed about the existenceof ‘Czech as an additional language’ textbooks and they lack information onavailable seminars, which would enhance teacher qualifications.
When added to the second obstacle – the absence of appropriate pedagogical assess-ment and counselling services – lack of information may result in:
● Insufficient support provision: schools lack information on how individualizededucational plans for children with limited proficiency in Czech should bedeveloped. They do not receive support from counselling services that employexperts on inclusive educational practices. On the other hand, these servicesfocus on students with disabilities and specific learning disorders.
● Insufficient home–school cooperation: schools are not provided with informa-tion on ways to involve immigrant/refugee parents in school life. They lackinformation on effective and varied means of communication, and counsellingservices are not offered to immigrant/refugee parents to enable them to takewell-informed decisions about their children’s education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 171
● Inappropriate grade placement: schools currently lack the expertise regardingsecond language acquisition by immigrant/refugee children. They tend toconfuse temporary limited language proficiency with lack of cognitive ability.Counselling services lack expertise regarding appropriate pedagogical assess-ment of immigrant/refugee children. Refugee children and parents are not giventhe opportunity to actively participate in the decision-making process.
Where are we now?
We earlier identified five conditions for full enjoyment of the right to education forrefugee children in the Czech Republic. It can be concluded that even though therefugee children regularly attended school, their equal educational opportunities havebeen jeopardized – most importantly, their opportunity to fully benefit fromelementary education. According to current Czech legislation (School Act 561/2004),elementary schools can educate children only up to the age of 18. Two of the chil-dren interviewed will therefore leave elementary school not having completedelementary education, and will thus have very limited (if any) possibilities on thelabour market as they will have no access to further education and only very limitedpossibilities to perform even unskilled work due to the country’s rigid qualificationbarriers and limited opportunities for ‘2nd chance’ education. Consequently, success-ful socio-economic integration into their host country – their new country – isseriously threatened.
Pedagogical counselling was not offered to the refugee children/parents. However,unless this is made available to children from culturally different backgrounds andwith limited proficiency in Czech, unless refugee parents, together with their children,can participate in the decision-making process and unless schools are aware of the factthat limited language proficiency is not a sign of lack of ability, appropriate gradeplacement may remain no more than a dream.
Our research findings highlight the lack of educational support for those who needit. Czech policies on education for children with SEN (the Czech legislation alsoincludes refugee children in this category) is currently guided by Directive 73/20053
which states that the most desirable educational possibility for this group is individualintegration into a mainstream setting with appropriate support. In accordance with thecurrent inclusive trends, this gives refugee children the right to attend any primaryschool in the Czech Republic. Accordingly, such schools need to take appropriatemeasures in cooperation with pedagogical counselling services to offer each childquality education with individualized support. If that is not provided, their schoolattendance will not result in the achieved goals of education stated by the School Act,nor will it help them to be included socially within their local community. The schoolenvironment is globally acknowledged as one of the most efficient tools of integra-tion, and obviously the Czech Republic is not successfully taking advantage of thisknowledge in the case of the interviewed refugee students.
The possibility of informed decisions in the best interest of the child concernsmainly parents of refugee children and the children themselves. The presentedresearch revealed that none of the parents interviewed were offered any form of coun-selling prior to or after their child’s school enrolment, which largely diminished theirpossibility to participate in the decision-making process. More troublesome, however,is that none of the parents and children interviewed were invited to participate in theselection process of the school and they were thus deprived of the possibility to take
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
172 M. Bacakova
any decision at all. This is in contrast with the concept of meaningful participation ofrefugees in the decision-making on matters affecting their lives, well described byUNHCR (2008) as a part of the rights-based approach with refugees as active partic-ipants and partners.
This leads to the more general issue of parental involvement in the life of theirchildren. One of the basic forms of involvement, which this research examined, iscommunication between schools and parents. As the research findings demonstrated,very little communication took place, depriving the parents of many integrationpossibilities for themselves such as parent–teacher meetings, whole school events,after-school clubs, etc.
As illustrated above, none of the previously discussed necessary conditions aresatisfactorily fulfilled by the Czech education system at present. This leads inevitablyto the conclusion that the refugee children whose families participated in this small-scale study do not have an effective opportunity to fully participate and benefit fromeducation, despite regular attendance and despite the best efforts of a few teachers tobe inclusive in their approaches. Such positive efforts, however, were the exceptionto the rule. There is clearly the need for more systematic approaches throughoutCzech education at all levels, including legislation, which would ensure that allschools are able to educate refugee children. It cannot be left to a minority of teach-ers willing to dedicate some of their free time to voluntarily give support to theirrefugee students.
Where do we go from here?
The study leads us to reflect on how Czech society might overcome the barriersidentified above and take initiatives to achieve the ultimate goal of full enjoyment ofthe right to (inclusive) education for refugee children in the Czech Republic. It ispossible to identify five sub-goals. These are related to the need to improve andensure appropriate:
● provision of support● teacher training for competence● financial, personnel and teaching resources● school–home partnerships● grade placement
The barriers associated with lack of information and appropriate assessment,earlier identified as possible causal factors, remain and generate the following ques-tion: How may those be used to promote inclusive educational practices for refugeechildren?
There appear to be possibilities to ameliorate the situation by providing availableinformation on further education to teachers, as well as information on fundingoptions and on existing teaching materials for refugee children. If teachers are madeaware of the specific needs of refugee children and schools are informed about possi-bilities for in-service training, teacher competences will rise. Providing schools withadequate information on how to involve parents in school life will give schools moremeans of communication. Strengthened communication should also enable refugeeparents to play a more active role in their children’s education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 173
Finally, grade placement of refugee children can be done in a more appropriateway if schools are provided with the crucial information concerning the length andcontent of the students’ previous educational experiences. At the same time,however, professionals on pedagogical assessment of refugee children need to betrained.
Conclusion
The present study reveals that there are refugee children in the Czech Republic whodo not have sufficient access to educational opportunities and cannot fulfil theireducational potential. This can have a devastating effect on the children’s future lives.
The barriers faced by the children and their parents with respect to education in theCzech Republic proved to be numerous. However, there are clearly ways to moveforward and improve what is now an unsatisfactory situation. An important first stepis an effective transfer of information regarding students’ past educational career andeducational competences. Accessible and appropriate pedagogical assessment wouldalleviate some of the key problems presently experienced.
The Czech education system still has a long way to go in order to become fullyinclusive. More than 10 years ago, international authors describing the system in theregion stressed that curricula and assessment policies lacked the flexibility torespond to student diversity (Ainscow and Haile-Giorgis 1998). Even though therehas been some progress in this area in the meantime, many of the described barriersstill exist, as, for instance, Amnesty International (2010) has pointed out. It needs tobe stressed, however, that this study also identified a number of examples of goodpractice where schools were making real progress in implementing successful effortswithout any additional support. This suggests that ‘bottom-up’ developments in theCzech education system provide some hope for growth in the direction of equity andinclusion.
AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge the immense contribution made by Marta Miklu[scaron] ákováto the research that this article is based on, and thank her together with Areti Sianni, AlisonCloss and Zsuzsanna Millei for their insightful comments. The study was commissioned byUNHCR, where a full report is available. This article, however, does not necessarily representthe official views of UNHCR.
Notes1. In its implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) – General Comments No. 13.2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.3. Directive on the Education of Children, Pupils and Students with Special Educational
Needs and of Children, Pupils and Students Exceptionally Gifted.
Notes on contributorMarkéta Ba[ccaron] áková is a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Education, Charles University inPrague. In 2010 she worked as a consultant for UNHCR Representation in the Czech Republicon issues connected to education of refugee children and adults.
s
c
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
174 M. Bacakova
ReferencesAger, A., and A. Strang. 2008. Understating integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of
Refugee Studies 21: 166–91.Ainscow, M., and M. Haile-Giorgis. 1998. The education of children with special needs:
Barriers and opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe. Florence: UNICEF.Amnesty International. 2010. End injustice: Elementary schools still fail Romani children in
the Czech Republic. London: Amnesty International.Arnot, H., and M. Pinson. 2005. The education of asylum-seeker and refugee children.
Cambridge: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.BERA (British Educational Research Association). 2004. Revised ethical guidelines for
educational research. Notts: BERA.Berend, I.T. 2009. From the Soviet Bloc to the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Carreón, G.P., C. Drake, and A.C. Barton. 2005. The importance of presence: Immigrant
parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal 42:465–98.
Cornfield, D.B., and A. Arzubiaga. 2004. Immigrants and education in the U.S. interior:Integrating and segmenting tendencies in Nashville, Tennessee. Peabody Journal ofEducation 79: 157–79.
Drbohlav, D. 2003. Immigration and the Czech Republic (with a special focus on the foreignlabor force). International Migration Review 37: 194–224.
Eurydice. 2004. Integrating immigrant children into schools in Europe – Czech Republicnational description. Brussels: Eurydice.
Evans, P. 2000. Including students with disabilities in mainstream schools. In Meetingspecial and diverse educational needs: Making inclusive education a reality, ed. H.Savolainen, H. Kokkala, and H. Alasuutari, 31–9. Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairsof Finland.
Evans, P. 2003. Aspects of the integration of handicapped and disadvantaged students intoeducation: Evidence from quantitative and qualitative data. Paris: OECD.
Ford, T.N., B. Glimps, and A. Giallourakis. 2007. Under-prepared students: Essentials beyondacademics. Multicultural Perspective 9: 51–6.
Glaser, B., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Heckmann, F. 2008. Education and the integration of migrants. Bamberg: EFMS.Hek, R. 2005. The role of education in the settlement of young refugees in the UK: The expe-
rience of young refugees. Practice 17: 157–71.Henderson, A., and K. Mapp. 2002. A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.
Hughes, N., and H. Beirens. 2007. Enhancing educational support: Towards holistic, responsiveand strength-based services for young refugees and asylum-seekers. Children & Society 21:261–72.
Kanu, Y. 2008. Educational needs and barriers for African refugee students in Manitoba.Canadian Journal of Education 31: 915–40.
O’Nions, H. 2010. Different and unequal: The educational segregation of Roma pupils inEurope. Intercultural Education 21: 1–13.
Reakes, A. 2007. The education of asylum seekers: Some UK studies. Research in Education77: 92–107.
Rutter, J. 2003. Supporting refugee children in 21st century Britain – A compendium of essen-tial information. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Salinas, C., and G. Müller. 1999. Good practice guide on integration. London: World UniversityPress.
Shields, M.K., and R.E. Behrman. 2004. Children of immigrant families: Analysis andrecommendations. The Future of Children 14: 4–15.
Smrekar, C. 1996. The impact of school choice and community in the interest of families andschools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Szente, J., J. Hoot, and D. Taylor. 2006. Responding to the special needs of refugee children:Practical ideas for teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal 34: 15–20.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Intercultural Education 175
Taylor, S. 2008. Schooling and the settlement of refugee young people in Queensland: ‘…The challenges are massive’. Social Alternatives 27: 58–65.
UNHCR. 2007. Education strategy 2007–2009: Policy, challenges and objectives. Geneva:UNHCR.
UNHCR. 2008. A community-based approach in UNHCR operations. Geneva: UNHCR.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
6:28
08
Oct
ober
201
4
