How do schools integrate refugee students? First experiences from Serbia.

Abstract

Presently Europe is confronted with the need to cater for hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East, mostly from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and to ensure their education The importance of education for migrant communities and refugees is based not only on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, but also on the fact that schooling is an essential means for ensuring life continuity, job prospects, social integration and peer relationships. However, literature addressing education of immigrant or refugee children lists a variety of barriers that can hinder education integration and negatively affect education attainment of these children and youth. Recommendations for overcoming the barriers and pitfalls in the education trajectory of refugee and immigrant children include measures such as language integration, early childhood education and care, parental engagement, limiting concentration in disadvantaged schools, building the capacity of schools and teachers, and limiting tracking and grade repetition. Serbia was until recently only a transit country for refugees aspiring to move on to more developed countries and its education system was caught unprepared for their integration. Since the education system in Serbia never before faced a challenge of similar complexity, the process these schools are piloting is a unique opportunity to observe and register the educational changes entailed in enrolling refugee students. In response to changing aspirations and needs, in September 2016 the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (MOESTD), in cooperation with the Centre for educational policies (CEP) and UNICEF, launched a one-year pilot project “Supporting the education of refugee/migrant students in the Republic of Serbia” with five elementary schools being selected (out of 12 applicants) to participate based on criteria of (a) proximity to the asylum/refugee centre and (b) estimated capacities for providing quality education in diversified classrooms. The Project design was informed by best international experience, and in accordance with these, refugee children were to be enrolled in regular school classes as well as provided with additional classes targeting language acquisition (Serbian and English), cultural and civic competence building and social adjustment. The Project aimed to assist the development of a comprehensive strategy of education integration of refugee students throughout the education system in the Republic of Serbia. From transit station Serbia turned into a semi-destination country for refugee pupils, hence obtaining a unique status among the countries responding to the refugee crisis. This, in turn, required a serious shift from the usual way of functioning for schools, and a new capacity for responding to the new situation had to be developed.

Study aims. The study we are reporting about builds on the pilot project, and its aims are fully pragmatic: we were witnessing the unfolding of a new phenomenon in Serbia that is unique in several ways, and we wanted to take a snapshot of this developing phenomenon in status nascendi and learn from what we see, hear and understand. Particularly compelling seemed the following aspects to register: (a) Serbia is a country of emigration and not immigration, and it is not prepared to face sizable cultural and linguistic differences – did children and teachers embrace the differences brought about with the newly arriving refugee students at all and if yeas, how? (b) Schools in Serbia are working under fairly strict curriculum constraints, meagre financing, and have almost no autonomy in their functioning – could they adjust and successfully respond to such an outstanding challenge at all and, if yes, how did they bring this about? We were interested to collect both positive and negative experiences of the schools in order to develop recommendations for the forthcoming nation-wide action. Methodology. Three interconnected case studies of schools were conducted using a mixmethod research design, with quantitative and qualitative research procedures being implemented within two consecutive research phases. Research Phase One: Quantitative Overview of the General School Climate Regarding Integration. Student sample. The first variable we measured is social distance that domicile students expressed toward refugee students. For that purpose, we administered a version of the Bogardus scale adapted to the Serbian school context and fitting to situations. 148 students in total participated from three schools, from classes that had refugee students. Out of these 40% were girls and 30% declared themselves as Roma, which reflects student profile in the three selected schools. Social distance of the entire student group was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the individual scores for the two targeted groups separately. Multiple ANOVA and t-tests were performed. differences in the dependent variable, namely, social distance, are examined taking into consideration two factors, domicile student group (Serbian or Roma) being the unrepeated one, and student group toward which the distance is assessed (Serbian, Roma or refugee) being the repeated factor. Teacher sample. The second type of characteristics we measured as an indicator of psychosocial classroom climate is intercultural competence of teachers. Data were collected by using Teacher Intercultural Competence Scale, a recently developed multidimensional instrument that is intended to measure self-reported levels of competence for teaching in culturally heterogeneous classrooms standardized on the Serbian sample. The scale measures three dimensions of competence. Each of the dimensions are self-assessed through a number of Likert type items with a 1–4 rating scale. The Scale has 68 items in total and requires approximately 20 minutes to complete. 44 teachers in total from the three targeted schools responded to the ICC questionnaire, 91% of which were females, within age range 27–60. Two-factor mixed analysis of variance was performed on the teachers’ data. The first of the two factors was Intercultural competence dimension and was repeated (by respondents), having 3 levels, one for each dimension of the ICC scale: (1) beliefs, values and goals, (2) motivation and (3) self-regulation. last of the two factors is unrepeated and represents the three schools wherefrom teachers were asked to participate. Research Phase Two: School-Level Qualitative Overview of the Inclusion. Process. Semi-structured focus groups with local-level experts from the three selected schools were conducted. Focus-group guidelines were formulated around inclusion-relevant themes, covering several thematic blocks, depending on the participants. Four semi-structured focus groups were carried out, three of them held in each of the participating schools with internal experts, while the fourth one was organised for the school mentors at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. Each focus group discussion lasted up to 120 minutes and was conducted with 10 to 20 participants per session, making it around 50 informants in total. Thematic analysis was applied going from particular statements to more abstract themes, with no a priori defined coding system, so that the themes would more naturally emerge from data. Identified core themes were then interpreted in light of similar international experiences, as well as taking into consideration distinctive features of the national context and of the selected schools. Triangulation and reporting of participants’ original statements were used as means for reliability insurance.

Findings. Three schools participated - Flexible survivor, Frustrated and Overburdened and Young and enthusiastic. Social distance towards refugee students. The findings suggest that there is no difference between Serbian and Roma pupils regarding their distance towards the refugee pupils. Findings also show that that the distance of the domicile students’ population towards refugee pupils is of a medium level. The results considered separately for the two groups of domicile students demonstrate that Serbian students exhibit a relatively high distance towards Roma students, which is significantly higher than the distance to their own group, and this distance is also significantly higher than the distance to the refugee students. On the other hand, within the Roma student group there is no statistically significant difference in the distance towards their own Roma group compared to their distance towards Serbian students. There is a significantly higher distance towards refugee pupils than towards Serbs. Hence, the distance of all domicile students towards the refugee population, although larger compared to the distance to their own group, is shown to be lower than expected. Teachers’ intercultural competence. Teachers report higher intercultural competences than what is theoretically expected. The teachers reported highest scores on the scale reflecting their beliefs, values and goals concerning intercultural education. They assessed somewhat lower their own motivation to work in an intercultural environment. Finally, teachers evaluated their self-regulation skills in the situation of teaching in an intercultural environment as being the lowest compared to the other two dimensions. teachers from different schools marginally differ in the assessment of their intercultural competence. Teachers from the school labelled as “Survivor” report a higher level of intercultural competences in relation to the other two schools. teachers from all of them are similar in their expressed beliefs, values and goals concerning intercultural education, rating them relatively high. On the other hand, estimates of the motivation to work in an interculturally diversified environment were not as high in all the schools, while the self-assessed self-regulation skills for managing the teaching and learning process in diversified classroom conditions proved to be the weakest point of teachers’ intercultural competence, showing that favourable attitudes and previous experience are, even for these most prepared and willing schools, perceived as insufficient when it comes to the new challenge of integrating refugee students. Qualitative Overview of the School-Level Inclusion Process: Surprisingly positive experience – (a) Resilience instead of trauma. Teachers were faced with children who were seen as resilient and with no visible disruptive distress symptoms - they faced resilient and smiling youngsters. (b) Low expectation revised - The children plead for homework, and the next day they would come to school asking for feedback. (c) Students’ academic aspirations as inspiration for teachers - Teachers formulated their own gains from this process as inspiration, greater challenges and a general feeling of satisfaction, feeling that they were “encouraged to give more”. (d) Positive peer interactions - Domicile children were friendly, and they expressed the need to learn refugee students’ language, and independently organized a humanitarian action (collecting clothing and footwear) for the newcomers. (e) Benefits for local students - The schools noted important benefits for domicile learners – the development of empathy, increased sense of personal value by helping others, “decentration” from their own cultural and school practices, and the prioritization of the development of competences over and above the typical focus on school grades. (f) Benefits for parents - These positive experiences of domicile students with newcomers contributed to their parents’ more positive and agreeable reactions to the integration process. (g) Teacher – (refugee) student relationship. The acceptance of personal responsibility for the process and the autonomous search for solutions to the problems they were experiencing was beneficial to the process of inclusion, especially if it was accompanied with sensitivity to and respect for cultural specificities. (h) Cherished resources - When it comes to the characteristics of the schools themselves, the first and mostly addressed resource were the teachers, professional associates and principals themselves and their proactive attitudes. The schools recognized the importance of their own efforts in planning, implementing and adapting activities needed for the process of refugee inclusion. schools could easily rely on some of their previous systemic experience: inclusion of refugees during the civil war in the former SFRY in the 1990s, a decade of integration of Roma students into formal education (2005–2015) and the implementation of inclusive education starting in 2009. Weak Points. (a) Poor macro-level organization. Schools assessed an aggravating circumstance in the process of integration was the lack of a clear and coherent policy for refugee integration. In addition to such difficulties, a very negative experience of schools, gravely present towards the end of the school year, was the lack of basic necessities for newcomers such as food, clothing, transportation, and school supplies. The schools also identified less than adequate communication and coordination between the relevant institutions during the entire project – collective centres for refugees, the centre for social work, relevant state institutions and non-governmental organizations. internal experts uniformly expressed a sense of general lack of support and assistance for schools, even by the institutions that they explicitly asked for support. (b) Unexpected diversity among the refugee population - There were many differences in terms of cultural characteristics and the educational background in the country of origin, the students’ years of formal and non-formal education, level of competence in different school subjects. The lack of a common language between refugees and the domicile population but also among the refugees was a substantial problem. The refugee students spoke English on a very basic level. Additionally, there was a high degree of fluctuation in school attendance by the refugee students. (c) Coping with students’ nascent education needs - As the refugee students spent more and more time in schools, their interest shifted from socializing with peers to mastering computer sciences and mathematics, and learning English and German language. (d) Dilemma between conflicting goals - Numerous relevant questions remained unanswered for teachers: Should the focus be on preparing refugees for further migration or for longer stays? Should teaching be focused on socialization or on learning? Should students be taught English or Serbian language? (e) Professional concerns of teachers - The experience of being overburdened was clearly stated by the teachers. Teachers described their working setting and additional requirements in this process as “working in a mine”. Teachers expressed concern on whether the quality of teaching could be maintained in a setting of such diversity. Finally, teachers also questioned how long their motivation for working under such challenging conditions will last. Teachers felt frustrated and abused as “free of charge labour” and stated how it was “unjust to only resort to their humanity” while no systematic and focused support was provided. Three main recommendations are given and elaborated on in the paper: (a) Provide better organization: procedures, inter-sectoral cooperation, mediator; (b) Providing support to teachers for their teaching; (c) Develop an external support network for the schools.