Education in Burma: Guaranteeing hope of a better future "Our own determination can get us so far. The support of the people of Britain and of peoples around the world can get us so much further." Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, address to both Houses of Parliament, 21 June 2012 Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to Britain is our chance to offer her and her country support in her struggle to end poverty. Burma needs our help because today the country spends less than almost any other country on the education of its children. Only 1% of its national income goes to education. About half young people of secondary school age do not go to school at all. And even now 10% of primary age children are not at primary school. The missing 10% – over 400,000 boys and girls – who are out of school and denied their chance of education must get a school place before the Millennium Development Goals expire in 2015. And there are thousands of child refugees - mainly in camps in Thailand - who, having escaped the Burmese repression, also need our support. The international community must do more, both to increase aid to education and to pressure the Burmese government to invest more of its country’s wealth in its young people, their education and their future. This paper provides an overview of where Burma stands in education, looks at the current levels of finance to education, and calls on the international community to take urgent action.

1

1) Primary School Participation Enrolment 10 per cent of children in Burma are out of school – approximately 400,500 children. Whilst at a national level there is no notable gender gap in enrolment, there are visible gaps between children from the poorest and the richest households. Children from poorer household are more likely to attend school late – only 64% of five year olds from the poorest households are in first grade. This figure rises to 80% for children from the richest households. The education of a child’s mother also matters – 82% of five-year olds whose mothers have secondary or higher education are attending first grade, but the figure falls to 75% for those whose mothers have primary education have entered school. Whilst the difference between urban and rural areas is very slight, the state with the lowest rate of attendance is 59% in North Shan state, compared to the highest attendance of 93% in Tanintharyi state. Completion Almost half of all children have not completed primary school (46%) by the age of 9 (the completion age in Burma). The overall percentage of children who complete primary school is likely to be higher because there is a tendency for children to begin school later than at age five, but this delay in education is nonetheless concerning. When it comes to completion there are large differences between urban and rural areas. Two thirds of 9 year olds in urban areas are in the last grade of primary school but less than half are in the last grade in rural areas. In the state of Rakhine the figure is lower than one-third. As with attendance, the wealth of a child’s parents and education level of their mother is highly important. Less than one third of 9-year-old children from the poorest households have reached the last grade of primary, compared to nearly 80% of 9-year-olds from the richest households.

2

2) Refugee camps on the border with Thailand Education in the camps on the border with Thailand is coordinated and funded by NGOs in cooperation with the refugee community under the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC). In the seven predominantly Karen camps there are 70 schools staffed by approximately 80 headteachers and 1 600 teachers. They support and foster the learning of more than 34 000 students. There are also 11 schools in the two Karenni camps in the north. Enrolment Whilst 96% of children are enrolled in primary school, only 16% are enrolled in secondary school. And according to one survey of parents, almost a third of children drop out of school. Of these, nearly one-third were dropping out to get married whilst almost one-fifth dropped out because of a lack of money. How the schools are run There is a high level of community ownership over the education system. This stems mainly from the refugees’ own belief in the importance of education but also as a side-effect of the Thai government’s restrictions on foreigners living in the camps. Teachers, principals and caretakers alike are all drawn from the community. Each school’s policy is determined by a school committee made up of members of the community, aligned to the policy of the Karen Refugee Committee Education Entity (KRCEE). KRCEE, in collaboration with NGOs and community organisations, manage general education and adult education programmes across all seven predominantly Karen camps. The principal NGOs are ZOA, World Education, Adra and Burma Education Partnership (BEP). Challenges a) Staff capacity is limited There is a lack of qualified teachers for three reasons: refugees are returning home creating a brain drain; turnover is high because salaries are low; and NGO personnel are banned from working as teachers by the Thai authorities. Refugees are legally banned from working, so community incomes are low. This fact, combined with low donor funds, means that staff salaries are only $15 a month, leading many to choose better-paid jobs offered by other NGOs over the long hours and challenging conditions of teaching. Teacher training is provided by organisations such as ZOA, World Education and BEP, providing mobile units of teacher trainers to all of the camps throughout the year. This training, while invaluable,is not enough to combat the high turnover resulting from the low wages and the brain drain of teachers back to Burma. Schools in the camps are understaffed and having to use newer teachers with a lower subject and skill base. b) Poor infrastructure

3

The Thai government’s restrictions on the camps mean that only semi-permanent structures can be built. As a result the school buildings are made of bamboo; tables and benches are also made of bamboo and are fixed into the ground. With only bamboo partitions between them, classrooms cannot keep out the noise of other classes. There is no electricity, no tables or chairs, no science laboratories and no way to cater for students who are disabled or who have special education needs. The Thai government has also restricted the space schools are given, which cannot be expanded. c) Return of refugees back into Burma Whilst it is of course welcome that, as the situation improves, refugees are returning to Burma, the transition must be properly managed. NGOs are warning that funding for the camps is being withdrawn too quickly, undermining support for those still residing in them. It is vital that funding be maintained until the camps are fully vacated. As mentioned above, there is also a brain drain of teachers back to Burma. Responding to the loss of local capacity this resettlement is causing, World Education have established four Transformative Learning Centres for young adults in Burma who have passed secondary school and have either worked in a community-based organization or attended tertiary education programs. Within Burma, academics such as Su-Ann Oh recommend that the future curriculum must be inclusive and reconcile Burma’s many ethnicities, particularly as ethnic groups such as the Karen people have developed their own distinct curriculum whilst in the camps. It is also vital that qualifications learnt in the camps in Thailand are recognized back in Burma (unlike, for example, the Rwandan refugees who returned from Tanzania in the [date?] to discover their qualifications counted for nothing). The NGO Burma Education Partnership (BEP) is already working with the Karen Education Department to train 200 teachers to educate an expected influx of 10,000 children in Karen state. BEP is a small British organisation working with World Education and ZOA to train teachers. Qualified teachers volunteer for six months to train Burmese teachers to teach English and all subjects. Meanwhile, World Education are training 90 teachers in their Teacher Training Institute in Mae Sot refugee camp. The teachers-to-be are from different ethnicities and have come from the refugee camps, migrant communities and inside eastern Burma. d) User fees The majority of parents are able to pay the fees required for primary school (between USD$1.20 and $3.00 per year) and secondary school (between $2.15 and $3.70 per year.) However, 14% of primary students and 16% of secondary students have reported that they had siblings who were not going to school because their parents could not afford to pay school fees.

4

3) Secondary School Participation Enrolment Over 40% of children are not attending secondary school – 1.8 million children. Some of that number are of secondary school age but are still attending primary school because they started their education late. 12% of children in Burma aged 10-15 years still attend primary school. And unlike with children of primary school age, regional discrepancies in secondary school attendance are extremely pronounced. Almost half of rural children do not attend secondary school, whilst 75% of children attend secondary school in urban areas. But as with primary school children, wealth impacts strongly on secondary school attendance. Whilst 86% of children from the richest households do attend secondary school, two thirds of children from the poorest households are not in secondary education. And, as is also the case with primary school attendance, mothers’ education is an important factor. Only 54% of children whose mother has primary education attend secondary school, but 84% of those whose mother have secondary or higher education attend secondary school. There is gender parity at the national level, albeit with some regional variations. Secondary school aged girls are at a disadvantage in Rakhine and North Shan states. Completion Only 45% of 15-year-olds attend secondary school, suggesting a high dropout rate for secondary school students.

4) Pre-school attendance and school readiness Overall just 23% of children aged 36–59 months are attending early childhood education. Whilst there is gender parity, urban and rural differences and differences between richest and poorest households are once again significant. In the rural Rakhine state only 5% of children attend preschool, compared to 61% in Kayah state. And as many as 46% of children in the richest households receive early childhood education, while the rate for the poorest is as low as 8%. Attending pre-school is an important indicator of school readiness. 40% of children attending the first grade of primary school had attended some form of pre-schooling. The proportion of children in the first grade of primary school who attended pre-school the previous year is an important indicator of school readiness.

5

5) Current Funding for Education in Burma Education spending in Burma is only 1.2% of GDP. This is well below the regional average (East Asian developing countries only) of 4% and the EU average of 5%. If Burma spent the regional average of its estimated GDP for 2011, finance for education would equate to $2 billion a year – $1.4 billion more than the current estimate. In the refugee camps, funding is being withdrawn too quickly, leading to a shortfall of $3.1million for 2011-2014. Overview of current funding for education in Burma by donors a) AusAID Australia is a leading donor in education. AusAID will spend US$80.5m over 4 years. Their work focuses on improving access to quality early childhood and primary education. Australian support for education in Burma is delivered through the Multi-Donor Education Fund (MDEF) and WFP Food for Education Programme. Australia is aiming to provide a full five years of high quality primary education by: providing essential school supplies including textbooks to 1.1 million children, training 20,500 teachers and supporting at least 85,000 children to access early childhood education; • improving enrolment and education quality in monastic and community schools, which operate in some of the poorest and remote areas of the country, through work including teacher training and providing water and sanitation facilities to stop children getting sick; • providing take-home meals for 1.3 million children who enter school and stay there for a whole year. When a child is fed each day at school and given rice to bring home to the family every month, this provides parents an incentive to send their children to school. In the poorest parts of the world, school meal programs can double primary enrolment in one year. •

Australia will also lift tertiary scholarships from 20 next year to 50 by 2015. Australia will support Burma to undertake a comprehensive education sector review to guide the Government of Burma and donors’ future investments in education. b) DFID DFID approved in June 2012 a US$16.4 million programme over four years to support: - UNICEF's Basic Education Programme (as part of the Multi-Donor Education Fund) - Save the Children's Early Learning and Transition Programme - A consortium of NGOs supporting education DFID are aiming for their aid to deliver: - 60,000 children benefitting from Early Childhood Care and Development services, particularly in poorer, rural areas; - 150,000 children receiving school supplies (including a number in conflict-affected areas) teaching and management of schools improved in 20 townships where the highest number of children are out of school - 10,000 children from under-served areas benefitting from second chance education - 300 communities assisted in managing their own education services and provide targeted support to the poorest children 6

c) USAID USAID provides basic and higher education to IDPs in Burma and to numerous communities of migrant and displaced people living in Thailand. Higher education includes vocational and technical training, professional skills development, and increased understanding of democratic principles. USAID supports distance education and makes it possible for Burmese students to earn an Associate Degree from Indiana University. USAID provides teacher training to English instructors working through civil society organizations in the country, and also offers material assistance to the American Centre’s English as a Foreign Language program. Total USAID funding is $38 million a year for all programmes including education. d) EU Aid The EU-Burma Strategy Paper 2007-2013 states that their assistance focuses on improving access and completion of primary schooling and on supporting education services at the local level with the goal of achieving equitable basic education which promotes the right to quality education for children in Burma. Objectives of the EC intervention are to: - Improve access to education by focusing on improving teaching and learning methodologies (for example, child-centred learning), providing quality teaching/learning materials and basic infrastructure for needy schools and children in vulnerable areas; - Reach out-of-school children and prevent further school drop-outs by developing non-formal education, and by strengthening human resource development (e.g. through appropriate vocational education and training) for out-of-school youth; - Increase access to quality early childhood programmes; and - Strengthen educational planning and monitoring by improving planning and monitoring tools. Education, together with health, is the main focus of the EU’s assistance. The multi-annual indicative programme (2007-2010) covers the first four years of the strategy and allocates US$40.2m to support these sectors. The funding shortfall in the refugee camps Funding for the camps is being withdrawn too soon by international donors, to the detriment of those still residing in the camps. The Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT) have put the total funding requirements for basic education services for 2011– 2014 at US$5.7m. Funding for education made up11% of overall aid to the camps in 2007. By 2011 that figure had fallen to just 5%. The Dutch NGO ZOA have secured US$2.5m of the required funding from the EU but there is a shortfall in funding of $3.1m. In addition to this shortfall, there is the added complication that ZOA themselves are phasing out there operations in the camps. World Education are likely to take over the majority of their operations, with support from NGOs such as Burma Education Partnership and Adra. But because they are not currently registered in Europe, World Education may not be eligible for tha US$2.5m ZOA have already secured from the EU.

7

Conclusion For the first time in more than two decades many in Burma have hope where they did not have hope before. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been able to lead the National League for Democracy to 43 out of 45 of the seats contested in the recent by-election on the 1st April 2012. Political prisoners, including student and ethnic leaders, have been released. One of the world’s longest civil conflicts looks to be coming to an end with the nominally civilian government led by President Thein Sein agreeing a ceasefire with the rebels of the Karen and Shan ethnic groups. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s enduring courage under so many years of house arrest sent a message to the world that no confinement or prison cell, no intimidation or brutality, no personal loss or even the threat to life itself could ever extinguish her determination that one day her people shall be free. So when Daw Suu tells us, as she did last week in her historic address to the Houses of Parliament, that the determination of her and the Burmese people can only get them so far, and that the support of peoples around the world can get them so much further, we should respond by ensuring the international community does what it can to ensure Burma stays on the path towards a better future. We must insist that all political prisoners are completely released, that all human rights are fully realised, and that Burma becomes the truly open, democratic, just and inclusive society its people deserve. And key to realising that vision of a better Burma is guaranteeing the right of every child to a quality education. As this report has highlighted, there are huge challenges to overcome on education. The government spends just 1% of the country’s GDP on education – less than almost any other country in the world. The international community must rally around Burma to help ensure education for all. Multilateral donors such as the Global Partnership for Education, leading bilateral donors such as AusAID, nongovernmental organisations such as World Education, ZOA, Adra and the Burma Education Partnership together with local community organisations should come together to develop a coordinated national strategy. Such a plan should help ensure; • Education for the 10% of children not attending primary school – 400,500 missing girls and boys • Education for the 40% of children not at secondary school – 1.8 million children - go to school and stay in school • A new curriculum is developed that is inclusive to Burma’s many ethnicities • The education of children who are refugees in Thailand are properly supported, and that this support continues until every child has returned home • The government of Burma is pressured to invest more of its country’s own wealth in its young people, reaching at least the regional average of 4% of GDP So let us not just give the people of Burma hope of a better future. Let us guarantee them a better future, by ensuring that every child has the chance to develop the skills that Burma will need if it is to be a twenty-first century success story.

8

Bibliography AusAID (2012) Supporting education in Myanmar, [Online], Available: http://www.ausaid.gov.au/HotTopics/Pages/Display.aspx?QID=671 [25 June 2012] DFID (2011) Burma Operational Plan 2011-2015, [Online], Available: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/burma-2011.pdf European Commission (2007) EC-Burma Strategy Paper 2007-2013, [Online], Available: http://eeas.europa.eu/myanmar/csp/07_13_en.pdf Oh, S.-A. (2010) Education in refugee camps in Thailand: policy, practice and paucity. Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. Oh, S-A (2012) Refugee Education in Thailand: Displacement, Dislocation and Disjuncture. In Dermidjian, L. (ed) Education, Refugees and Asylum Seekers. pp78-104. London: Continuum. Oh, S-A (forthcoming) Identity and Inclusion: Education in Refugee Camps in Thailand. In McCarthy, F. (ed) Achieving Equity in Education for Refugee and Immigrant Students. Thein Lwin, Ed.D (2012) What Should Be the Policy on Education in Democratic Burma/Myanmar? Discussion Paper on Educational Reform. University of Newcastle. UNICEF (2011) Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009-2010, [Online], Available: http://www.unicef.org/myanmar/MICS_Myanmar_Report_2009-10.pdf USAID (2012) Burma Country Profile, [Online], Available: http://transition.usaid.gov/rdma/documents/2012%20USAID%20Burma%20Country%20Profile.pdf

This report is one of a series released to support Gordon and Sarah Brown’s Education For All campaign. We are working to find solutions to the global education crisis - boosting the number of children in primary schools worldwide, and partnering with government, business and non-profit leaders and organisations across the globe to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015. Learn about the campaign at gordonandsarahbrown.com

The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown PO Box 67550 London EC2P 2JF Copyright ©The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown Limited 2012

9