In the context of the current donor funding crisis and the generally low standards of refugee education world-wide, the Bhutanese refugee education programme in Nepal offers an encouraging case study. What makes this programme of such comparatively high educational quality and what lessons can it offer such situations in other parts of the developing world?

In on-going conditions of conflict and strife, where refugee camps and settlements are more established, ‘formal’ schools are often set up. These schools are normally run by the refugees themselves on limited budgets with the help of outside organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

In the case of Bhutan, most of the school rooms are temporary structures made of bamboo and grass. The school is supplied with a limited amount of paper and marker pens so the teacher can make visual aids and all pupils are supplied with textbooks and stationery, the amount depending on their grades but supplementary reading materials are limited. There are a total of nine main schools with 964 teachers, not all full-time, many of whom are refugees themselves and 40 204 students. Pupil-teacher ratios are 42:1 but classes are often much bigger as teachers do not teach all the time.

The community, pupils, teachers and the unique environment that refugees face influence the quality of education they receive in these schools. For this reason, this research considers the whole refugee context within the reality of a continuing tightening of resources from UNHCR and other donor agencies. When making recommendations to staff at field level and at policy level it focuses on qualities that can be transferred at limited cost.

The main strengths of the Bhutanese programme include:

• positive attitudes towards education on the part of children, youths, families, and teachers
• the promotion and development of cooperation and motivation among actors involved in refugee education
• ongoing teacher training and support including teacher training follow-up and supervision by an in-school teacher trainer
• good organisation and cost-effectiveness, for example, stringent monitoring of resources and using refugees as teachers and teacher trainers.

The main weaknesses of the programme, which are more likely to be beyond the control of local actors and development agency staff, include the refugee situation itself, decreasing funding and the lack of further education activities.

Field offices are encourage to build on the strengths by:

• fostering co-operation and motivation among actors involved
• ensuring that appropriate training is given to managers and teachers
• monitoring the programme efficiently
• providing the opportunities for refugees to advance themselves through further education and participation in camp activities.

The report recommends that at head office, development agencies should encourage:

• the development of effective reporting procedures, guidelines and training tools
• collaboration of other partners who have expertise in education and resources of their own
• further research to find practical ways of dealing with huge classrooms and refugee schools in situations of stress and limited funding.

Source(s):
'Improving Quality and Attainment in Refugee Schools: The Case of the Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal' in Learning for a Future: Refugee Education in Developing Countries, UNHCR, by T. Brown 2001
'Learning for a Future: Refugee Education in Developing Countries', UNHCR

Funded by: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

id21 Research Highlight: 7 April 2004

Further Information:
Timothy Brown
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Case Postale 2500
CH-1211
Geneva 2 Depot
Switzerland

Tel: +4122 739 7657
Fax: +4122 739 7366
Contact the contributor: BROWNT@unhcr.ch

UNHCR

Other related links:
'Education for repatriation: providing refugees with vocational skills'

'Re-conceiving war-affected children: from passive victims to active survivors'

'Education for repatriation: providing refugees with vocational skills'

'Meeting the needs of refugee children: is UNHCR protection sufficient?'

'Could do much better: Britain’s treatment of young refugees under the spotlight'