(.5.
.‘t.

i
.. 23L}... .9
u _ ., .. ..

. 3
5......2.
a .

.1

mm!“

9.0.... i
15...... .
I...

2‘!!! . R:
2.1.1.5....{3‘ .
{1:112 I931
21..
9:.

g .25
ill-tax!!!-
«uvi‘xxxizif I:
.‘lwilltiit ..
$1.13.}.
ITxlal’ll.
ll .1.

k 1 3.2.

...2:..u.........l Eu
a .31

:2. ,

lawman}

[iiiliiuillziszo
521.333.}.51
.I. 31...!"
ta. 0“].

 

€§li§vﬁii
2 31:11.1.
I,i.)v,nt..' :l

g 0/0

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

LEVERAGING RELATIONSHIPS: SOCIAL NETWORKS AND
THE EDUCATION OF BURMESE MIGRANT CHILDREN

presented by

DAVID SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Curriculum, Instruction and

 

 

Teacher Education
[.44

\' Major Professor’s Signature

I Aft" iota

V Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KlProj/Acd-Pres/ClRC/Dateoue.indd

LEVERAGING RELATIONSHIPS: SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE EDUCATION
OF BURMESE MIGRANT CHILDREN

By

David Scott McLaughlin

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education

2010

ABSTRACT

LEVERAGING RELATIONSHIPS: SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE EDUCATION
OF BURMESE MIGRANT CHILDREN

By
David Scott McLaughlin

There are an estimated 200 million international migrants in the world today
(United Nations Development Programme, 2009). Though migration is often rooted in
searches for opportunities to enhance the one’s quality of life, it also brings costs and
uncertainties associated with travel and settlement at a new location. Analyses of
migration trends have highlighted the important role that social networks play in reducing
the risks and costs of migration, while increasing probabilities of success at destination
sites.

This study investigates the lives of 14 migrant families who travelled from Burma
to western Thailand. Using the lens provided by social capital and capital theory more
generally, I focus on the social ties and resources that families access in settling in
Thailand and enrolling their children in local state schools. Interviews with migrant
families, school teachers and administrators, Ministry of Education ofﬁcials, and staff of
nongovemment organizations are the primary data sources.

To facilitate travel to Thailand as well as access opportunities for housing and
employment, families drew on bridging social capital, their relationships with other
Burmese. Similarly, social ties within the Burmese community provided resources that
facilitated access to migrant learning centers for children. In contrast, access to Thai
schools depended exclusively on bonding social capital, social ties that reached beyond

the migrant community itself and made available a different set of resources. The most

prominent of these resources is a set of national education policies formulated by the
central government and made available to families through a number of state and non-
state actors. Families’ relationships with non-govemment organizations were also
sources of important capital, especially economic, used to supplement the families’ own
limited reserves. Further, the study draws attention to additional resources that support
effective policy implementation such as adequate classroom space and properly skilled
school staff. These ﬁndings enhance our understanding of the nature of relationships
and resources important to migrant children’s initial enrollment in the Thai schooling

system as well as their ongoing participation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation was very much a collaborative effort from inception to
submission. I wish to offer my sincerest thanks to everyone, in addition to those
mentioned here, from whom I was fortunate enough to receive assistance and support
throughout this journey. From the MSU community, I would like to acknowledge my
friends and cohort members Stefanie Kendall, for sharing and listening through those
ﬁnal, frantic semesters, and Amy Damrow, for her thoughtful and inspiring words. I
thank my dissertation committee members—Lynn Fendler, Lynn Paine, and Angela
Calabrese Barton—for their guidance and encouragement that extended to the whole of
my doctoral program. In particular, I am indebted beyond measure to my dissertation
director, Suzanne Wilson, for her inﬁnite wisdom and endless patience. Thank you so
much.

Among the many people who supported this work in Thailand were the Srisukri
family who generously provided me with a place to call “home” in Bangkok during my
research. In and around Mae Sot, I was the recipient of tremendous help from many
members of both the migrant learning center and Thai public education communities. I
would like to thank the teachers, administrators, and students of all the schools I visited
as well as the staff of the Tak Education Service Area 2 ofﬁce. Above all, I would like to
acknowledge the families along the Thai-Burma border who so graciously received me
into their homes and shared their time and life stories.

I am fortunate to be part of a wonderful family and group of friends who have

offered me unconditional love and unwavering support over the years. I am grateful

iv

beyond words for that stability. Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Yok, for giving me the

time and space I needed to ﬁnish my dissertation during our ﬁrst year together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1
Migrants and the Education of their Children ..................................................... 1
Global Migration ............................................................................. l
Mobility and Education ..................................................................... 7
Framing the Problem: Social Capital .................................................... 13
Research Questions ........................................................................ 19
Conclusion .................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 2
Migration and Education in Thailand ............................................................ 22
Geopolitical Context ........................................................................ 22
Migration into Thailand ................................................................... 23
Migrants’ Lives in Thailand ............................................................... 37
Child Migrants and the Children of Migrants .......................................... 43
Conclusion ................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3
Methods ............................................................................................... 56
Research Design ............................................................................ 56
Selecting a Research Site .................................................................. 58
Interview Protocol Development ......................................................... 60
Interview Sampling ......................................................................... 62
Data Collection ............................................................................. 66
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 71
Challenges and Limitations ............................................................... 74
“It is only us that must worry!”: Positioning Myself as Researcher ................. 75
CHAPTER 4
Migrant Education in Tak Province: Introducing the Actors and Their Roles .............. 80
Tak ESA2 .................................................................................... 81
Tak ESA2 Schools ......................................................................... 90
Getting Students into Schools ........................................................... 109
Nongovernmental Organizations ........................................................ l3 1
Conclusion ................................................................................. l 47
CHAPTER 5
Accessing and Activating Social Capital ....................................................... 150
Volume of Social Capital ................................................................. 150

vi

Forms of Social Capital .................................................................. 154

Social Ties and Resources Leveraged by Migrant Families ......................... 167
Discussion .................................................................................. l 70
CHAPTER 6
Implications and Future Directions ............................................................... I79
Implications ................................................................................ l 79
For Further Study ......................................................................... 183
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 189
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 193

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1
Key Indicators of Select GMS Countries ......................................................... 26
Table 3.1
Interview Participants .............................................................................. 62
Table 5.1
Bonding Social Capital Among Migrant Families ............................................. 156

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1

Map of Thailand and regional neighbors ......................................................... 23
Figure 2.2.

Structure of the Thai formal mainstream education system .................................... 48
Figure 3.1.

Map of the Thai-Burmese border and key cities ................................................. 57
Figure 5.1.

Network map of Burmese actors along the Thai-Burmese border .......................... 160
Figure 5.2.

Bonding and bridging social capital in a network ............................................. 163
Figure 5.3

The aggregate nature of migrant families’ social capital ..................................... 168

ix

Chapter 1
Migrants and the Education of their Children

Unable to meet their basic economic needs in eastern Burma, Sanda made the

short trip across the Moei River into Thailand with her two sisters, brother—in-

law, and niece. They settled in a small migrant community near the border where

Sanda ’s brother-in-law had pre-arranged work through a former boss in Burma.

Having entered the country without authorization, the family rarely wanders far

from their home to minimize chances of an encounter with local police that might

lead to detention or deportation. About the farthest place that Sanda does go to

regularly is a Thai elementary school a few hundred meters away where she was

enrolled a few months earlier. As each school day begins, Sanda takes her place

in the class line as the students prepare to sing the Thai national anthem. The

tallest girl in grade one, Sanda invariably ﬁnds herself at the back of the line. At

12, Sanda is also the oldest girl in the class, two years older than her sister and

twice the age of her niece who also study with her in the same classroom. As the

anthem proceeds, Sanda is only able to mouth some of the words, not knowing

enough Thai yet to sing along. ,

Global Migration

This study is about Sanda and other children like her who represent some of the
estimated one billion people around the work who have moved from their original place
of birth. Not only have they moved, but these children and their families have crossed
national boundaries on their journeys like some 200 million others (United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), 2009). As a percentage of the world’s population,
international migrants have represented a steady 3% for the past 50 years. In absolute
terms, however, the number today is more than double that from 1980 (Global
Commission on International Migration (GCIM), 2005). Changes in migration patterns
are at least as striking as their increasing magnitude. Fiﬁy years ago, “countries of

destination” were mainly limited to a handful of industrialized countries and “countries of

origin” were mostly found in Europe (International Organization for Migration (IOM), p.

2, 2008b). Today, most countries are simultaneously countries of origin, of transit, and
of destination, though to varying degrees.

As in the case of Sanda and her family, most international migration today
involves relatively short journeys. Almost half of all international migrants move within
their geographic region of origin, with about 40% arriving in a neighboring country. In
addition to offering spatial proximity, neighboring countries often have other
characteristics that may be desirable to migrants. For example, nearly 60% of migrants
move to a nation with the same major religion as their country of origin, and for 40% the
dominant language is the same (UNDP, 2009).

Barriers to Mobility

Though past discourse has often focused on “South-North” ﬂows (Schiff, 1996;
Stahl, 1991), movement from developing to developed nations represents less than 40%
of current international migration (IOM, 2008b). Further ﬂow in this direction is
inhibited by high transport costs and policy-based restrictions discouraging those without
sufﬁcient resources to facilitate such a journey, the particular skills desired by a
destination country, or the disposition to undertake a risky venture (UNDP, 2009).

Impediments to mobility are especially signiﬁcant for people with low skills,
despite the demand for their labor in more economically advanced countries. Migration
policies generally favor the admission of better-educated foreigners and governments are
usually far more cautious with respect to low-skilled workers, whose status and treatment
at destination sites are often much inferior to locals (IOM, 2008b). In many countries,
migrants working in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service sectors have an

irregular, or undocumented status, having arrived at the destination site or remaining

there without attention to appropriate legal procedures. It is estimated that 50 million
people today are living and working abroad with irregular status with some countries,
such as Thailand and the United States, tolerating large numbers of unauthorized workers
(UNDP, 2009).

In contrast to the broad consensus concerning the added value of skilled migration
to destination countries, the arrival of low-skilled migrant workers often generates much
debate. While these migrants ﬁll vacant jobs, it is widely believed that they also displace
local workers and push down wages. Other concerns posed by migrant inﬂows include
higher risks of crime, increased burdens on local services, and fears of diminished social
and cultural cohesion. These concerns, however, are often exaggerated, with research
showing that negative effects on local workers are generally small or entirely absent
(UN DP, 2009).

Benefits and Risks of Migration

Migration brings with it the potential for both beneﬁts and negative consequences
to sending and receiving countries (World Bank, 2006a). Positive economic advantages
at the national level may include addressing an over-supply of labor in domestic markets
and a reduction of worker shortages in particular labor sectors of receiving countries.
However, economic migration may widen economic disparities in receiving countries by
depressing the incomes of local low-skilled laborers. Sending countries may also
experience reduced growth and productivity due to a drain on more highly skilled
workers.

At the micro-level, beneﬁts to migration have also long been couched in

economic terms and personal earnings differentials (Sj aanstad, 1962). Additionally,

changes to place of residence are associated with improved access to basic services and
infrastructure, or better living conditions more generally. Recent quantitative analyses
have indicated that individuals with only moderate levels of formal education moving
from a typical developing country to the United States can beneﬁt an annual income gain
of approximately US$10,000—an amount greater than the GDP per capita of over 72% of
countries in the world (Clemens, Montenegro, & Pritchett, 2008). Migration between
developing nations may also have very signiﬁcant impacts on family welfare. Ortega
(2009) calculated an increase in over 20% in the probability of being enrolled in school
for the children of Nicaraguan migrants to Costa Rica.

Domestic and international movement does not always lead to better human
development outcomes. When the poorest migrate, they often do so under conditions of
vulnerability that reﬂects their limited resources and choices. This may mean decisions
are made on the basis of imperfect or inaccurate information increasing the likelihood of
eventual exploitation (UN DP, 2009). In addition, journeys may be associated with
sacriﬁces, including the emotional costs of separation from friends and kin, monetary
fees for safe passage, the physical vulnerability of illegal border crossings, and dangerous
occupations in destination locations. Further, many mobile populations must confront
systemic disadvantages which make it challenging, and at times impossible, for them to
access services on equal terms with local people (Touzenis, 2008).

Origins of Migration

A widely held approach to the origins of migration can be classiﬁed as “push-

pull” theories. Economic, social, and political hardships in certain parts of the world

combined with comparative advantages in others are presented as causal variables in

determining the size and direction of immigrant ﬂows (Portes & Borocz, 1989;
Zimmerman, 1995). This view of migration has come to be criticized from a number of
perspectives. Among these is its inadequacy in explaining why some areas experience
signiﬁcantly more emigration than other equally disadvantaged areas, or why certain
individuals are more likely to migrate than others living within the same country or
region (Boyd, 1989; Portes & Bdrbcz, 1989). Further, push-pull analysis is seen to
minimize the decision-making practices of migrants and neglect the role of social
channels in the migration process (Booker, 1995; Massey & Garcia-Espaﬁa, .1987).
Chain Migration. The role of kin and friends in supporting the domestic and
international movement of people goes back at least to the mid-19605. Rejecting crude
push-pull models that present population movement as a “mechanical reshufﬂing of
heads” (p. 82), MacDonald and MacDonald (1964) adopt a perspective of migration that
takes into account sociological factors. “Chain migration” and “impersonally organized
migration” are presented as two contrasting extremes of the ways in which prospective
migrants receive information and other forms of assistance prior to, during, and after
migration. Impersonally organized migration occurs when organizations such as the
International Organization for Migration are responsible for the selection, transportation,
and placement of mobile populations. Chain migration relies on more personal contacts
and occurs where “prospective migrants learn of opportunities, are provided with
transportation, and have initial accommodation and employment arranged by means of
primary social relationships with previous migrants” (p. 82, emphasis in original).
Social Networks. Vastly changing labor migration trends in the 19705 and 19805

further highlighted shortcomings in push-pull theories of migration and led to

consideration of structural factors, such as bilateral agreements and foreign investment
patterns, in shaping migration ﬂows. Structural approaches to understanding migration
emphasize linkages between societies (Boyd, 1989). Social networks are one such link
connecting migrants and nonmigrants across space and time. Studying networks, Boyd
argues,

permits understanding migration as a social product—not as the sole result of

individual decisions made by individual actors, not as the sole result of economic

or political parameters, but rather as an outcome of all these factors in interaction.

(p. 641)

A signiﬁcant body of work around the role of social networks in migration has
been contributed by Massey and colleagues (Massey, Alarcon, Durand, & Gonzalez,
1987; Massey et al., 1993; Massey & Garcia-Espaﬁa, 1987). Of particular interest is their
discussion of networks with respect to the monetary costs of migration. In this analysis,
the ﬁrst to leave for a new location ﬁnd migration costly and uncertain, with few social
ties available to seek assistance with a move or in settling at the destination site.
However, once established, migrant social networks can potentially make jobs and
housing more readily available to future migrants increasing the chances of successful
translocation. In reducing costs and risks, and increasing probabilities of success,
migrant networks also increase the likelihood of international movement among those to
who they are connected. In sum, these “sets of interpersonal ties that connect migrants,
former migrants, and nonmigrants constitute a form of social capital that people can

draw upon to gain access to foreign employment” (Massey et al., 1993, p. 448).

Mobility and Education

Despite uncertainties, most migrants reap gains in the form of higher incomes,
better access to education and health, and improved prospects for their children (UNDP,
2009). For children like Sanda, education is especially important as a route to speciﬁc
language, technical, and social skills that facilitate economic and social integration into
host societies (GCIM, 2005). In recognition of this critical role, the intersection of
mobility and education is a signiﬁcant topic of scholarly inquiry. Numerous studies of
internal and cross-national migrant children have examined the impact of mobility on
aspects of access, academic achievement, retention, and high school completion. Across
cases, the impact of mobility has been found to vary depending on such factors as the
number of school changes, when they occur, the reason for the changes, and the student’s
personal and family situation (Rumberger, 2002).

Coleman (1988) links human capital development with social capital in his
analysis of schooling and mobility. He posits that parents can further the cognitive
development of their children through the parents’ human capital and inter-generational
connectedness, or network closure. Closure is present only when there is a relation
between adults who themselves have a relation to the child. Adults are able to observe
the child’s actions in different circumstances, talk to each other about the child, and
establish norms. Where “families have moved oﬁen, the social relations that
constitute social capital are broken at each move” (1988, p. 8113). Coleman’s analysis of
school completion reveals that the frequency of residential mobility had the strongest

overall effect on dropping out of high school.

 

Global Access to Education for Migrant Children

Access to education for both international and domestic migrants can be difﬁcult.
In general, developed countries are more likely than less-developed nations to allow
immediate access to schooling for migrant children. However, in a study conducted by
the United Nations Development Programme (2009), one third of developed countries
sampled, including Singapore and Sweden, were found to not allow access to children
with undocumented status. The same was true for more than half of the developing
countries in the sample, including Egypt and India. Even where children with
undocumented status have the right to attend a state school, there may be real or
perceived barriers to their enrolment. In France, Italy, and the United States, fears that
families’ irregular situation will be revealed through school registration processes have
been found to deter enrolment. In South Africa, nearly one-third of school-age non-
national children are not enrolled, for a combination of reasons including an inability to
pay fees, the costs of transport, uniforms and books, or explicit exclusion by school
administrators (Landau & Segatti, 2009).

Immigrant children in the United States. More immigrants arrived in the US.
during the 19903 than in any previous decade and the school-aged foreign-bom
population increased by one million during this period. Along with greater numbers, an
increasingly broad geographic dispersion of immigrant populations has meant that many
US. communities have only recently begun to develop strategies to address the
educational challenges and opportunities these children and their families present (Fry,
2007). In concluding that immigrant children’s needs exceeded available institutional

support, Ruiz-de-Velasco, Fix, and Clewell (2000) noted the low academic achievement

and school completion rates of some immigrant children. Others have found that despite
the dislocation of an international move and a tendency toward having disadvantaged
family backgrounds, immigrant children often display a high level of resiliency and
educational success relative to later-generation minority counterparts (Kao, 1999).

Dropout rates. Perreira, Harris, and Lee (2006) investigated high school
completion rates among immigrant and native youth using data from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The data indicates that, while
the majority of all students ﬁnish high school, 15% drop out. While non-completion rates
vary minimally by immigrant generation, there are substantial differences associated with
race-ethnicity. The authors found that a far lower percentage of Asians drop out of
school between ages 18 and 26 than Hispanics, whites, or children of African heritage.
Those of Cuban ancestry are the least likely to drop out among Hispanics while among
Asians, dropout rates do not differ signiﬁcantly by country of origin. The authors also
explored interactions between immigrant generation and forms of capital. They found
that Hispanic youth in the third generation and beyond lacking English-speaking skills
(human capital) were at far greater risk of dropping out than those in the ﬁrst generation
and that ﬁrst-generation Hispanic and Asian youth with strong attachments to school and
high college aspirations (cultural capital) were less likely to drop out than those with
weak attachments and low aspirations. The results also suggest that living in a segregated
community (community social capital) may contribute to family and peer obligations that
inhibit youth’s educational attainment.

Fry (2007) examined changes over the 19903 in the dropout rate of foreign-bom

high-school-age youth using Decennial Census data for foreign-bom 15- to 17-year-olds.

Fry found that the foreign-born high school dropout rate declined during the decade.
Simultaneous increases in levels of parental education may have contributed to the
changes in dropout rate. Despite lower dropout rates, young adults with limited English-
speaking abilities were less likely to enroll in postsecondary education and complete
postsecondary degrees. These same individuals were also more likely to be employed in
traditionally low-wage occupations.

English language proﬁciency. By 1997, 20% of US. school-age children had at
least one immigrant parent, a share that had tripled between 1970 and 1997. Growth in
the proportion of the immigrant child population has been accompanied by a rise in the
number of school children who are limited English proﬁcient (LEP)(Ruiz-de-Velasco,
Fix, & Clewell, 2000). Foreign-bom immigrants who have been in the US. less than ﬁve
years represent a larger share of the secondary (2.7%) than elementary school populations
(2.0%). Recently arrived students are likely to require additional language and other
services though spending on language acquisition programs tends to be concentrated in
elementary schools. Across the United States, almost two-thirds of students attend
schools where less than 1% of students are LEP. However, almost half of the LEP
students attend schools where 30% or more of their fellow students are LEP. These data
may indicate emerging patterns of linguistic segregation.

Challenges to students and school staff. In their report on immigrant children in
US. schools, Ruiz-de-Velasco, Fix, and Clewell (2000) found that children’s diverse
educational backgrounds make it almost impossible to generalize about immigrant
education. Nevertheless, data on LEP students suggests that the number of

underschooled LEP immigrants in secondary schools has grown signiﬁcantly in the past

10

two decades. These students enter U.S. secondary schools with a weak foundation for
learning a second language and have difﬁculty working at age-appropriate levels in
required subjects even when taught in their native/primary languages. Making classroom
instruction fruitful for these students requires that teachers devote several months to
helping the students become familiar with expected study habits and classroom behavior.

Among the challenges teachers face is a lack of reliable assessment instruments to
use with LEP students, school schedules that inhibited individualized instruction,
accountability measures that have historically omitted LEP/immigrant students, research
gaps in the area of content instruction for LEP children, and shortages of appropriately
trained staff. Nationally, less than 3% of teachers with English language learners in their
classes have any special preparation to work with them (McGraener & Saenz, 2009;
National Research Council, 2010).

International migrants in the European Union. The European Union (EU)
hosts approximately 56 million migrants with between 10 and 15 per cent having
irregular status (GCIM, 2005). Investigations into educational opportunities for these
children found an extensive theoretical right to education protected by law and
examination of legislation did not reveal any case of direct discrimination at the
legislative level against undocumented children. In practice, however, educational
inequality and discrimination in European education systems continues to be widespread.
In Belgium, education is free and a right for every person, but not compulsory for
irregular children. In Poland, education for children between six and 18 years is a right
and is compulsory, but children with irregular status cannot be counted for funding

purposes which may lead the school to decline to enroll such children (UNDP, 2009).

ll

The most signiﬁcant barriers to the education of undocumented children in
Europe include (a) a lack of identiﬁcation documents sometimes solicited by schools as
proof of local residency, (b) an inability to meet extracurricular school expenses, (c) poor
knowledge of the local language(s), and (d) a transient lifestyle preventing continuous
enrolment and attendance. Even where enrolment is not problematic, the issuing of
diplomas at the end of a scholastic career often is. NGOs have reported that residence
permission or an identiﬁcation document is required for graduation diplomas to be
awarded (Bicocchi & LeVoy, 2008).

Internal migrants in China. China’s large volume of internal migrants was one
of its most signiﬁcant social trends during the 19905. Though adult migrants still face
signiﬁcant challenges in urban China, there is some consensus that migration has had a
major positive impact on the economies of both origin and destination communities.
However, the consequences of mobility for migrant children and children of migrants is
less clearly understood (Liang & Chen, 2007).

In China, residency requirements are a major barrier to the education of internal
migrants (Liang, Guo, & Duan, 2008). Rural-to-urban migrant children face the hukou
(registered urban residency) system restricting access to basic education. Pemianent
migrants are those who have obtained local household registration at their place of
destination and temporary migrants, also known as the “ﬂoating population,” are those
who have not obtained this registration. In Chinese cities two criteria are important for
schools to admit students: (1) students must reside within the local school district in the
city; and (2) students must also be registered in the school district. Recent data indicate

that only two-thirds of Beijing’s 370,000 migrant children are enrolled in public schools.

12

Another quarter were reported as attending unauthorized migrant schools of uncertain
quality (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
2010). Liang and Chen (2007) found that temporary migrant children with less than a
year’s duration in destination cities are less likely to be enrolled in school than non-
migrant children in the place of migration origin. The authors concluded that while
migrant parents may have made ﬁnancial gains working in the cities. the education of
temporary migrant children suffered.
Framing the Problem:
Social Capital

Throughout much of the writing on global migration, analysts and policymakers
alike use explanatory concepts drawn from sociological theories concerning “capital.”
The theoretical approach used in the present study draws on the work of Pierre Bourdieu
and, in particular, his concept of social capital. However, social capital for Bourdieu is
only one of several forms of capital that are considered together in accounting for “the
structure and functioning of the social world” (p. 242). Although these other forms of
capital are not the central focus of this study, all are entailed. It therefore seems prudent
to provide a brief overview of these other forms while maintaining a primary
consideration of social capital.

In an economic sense, capital can be deﬁned as “a commodity itself used in the
production of other goods and services” (Smithson, 1982, p. 111). In this way, capital
represents an amount saved for future use, or “an accumulation of foregone
consumption” (Robison, Schmid, & Siles, 2002, p. 4). Bourdieu (1986) describes the

accretion of capital over time and its “potential to produce proﬁts and to reproduce itself

13

in identical or expanded form” (p. 241). For Bourdieu, consideration of capital from a
purely economic perspective is critical yet incomplete. To understand how the social
world is structured and works, one must consider capital more broadly by taking into
account three speciﬁc forms—social capital, human capital, and cultural capital.
Economic capital retains its conceptual centrality for Bourdieu in that social capital,
human capital, and cultural capital are merely “disguised forms” of economic capital and
ultimately convertible to it. In the following sections, each of the three forms of capital
will be described brieﬂy.

Human Capital

Investments in human capital occur through activities, such as formal and
informal programs of education, that improve skills, knowledge, or health (Becker,
1975). For internationally mobile actors, the development of destination-language skills
can be an important form of human capital. Host-country language acquisition represents
the accumulation of human capital speciﬁc to the labor market of the host nation and
usually requires intensive contact with the native actors and with the lifestyle of the host
country (Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Dustmann, 1996).

Conventional wisdom holds that investments in human capital through education
lead to such beneﬁcial outcomes as improved economic health and welfare, reduced
social inequalities, and more democratic political systems (Hannum & Buchmann, 2005).
Unfortunately, much of the research on returns to education has operationalized
education simply in terms of seat time, or number of years of schooling. The failure to
consider the quality of education as well can lead to misleading conclusions regarding

potential and realized returns to education. Not only is quality relevant to the returns to

14

education once schooling is begun, it also highly inﬂuences the probability of initial
investment. Where low quality teaching and learning occur or are perceived to occur,
schooling is not likely to be seen worth the time and cost to parents and children
(UNESCO, 2004).

Where education and labor experiences acquired abroad earn a lower rate of
return than domestic human capital, human capital is seen to be imperfectly portable
(Friedberg, 2000). In other words, for families that migrate, different members may
accumulate domestic and foreign capital in different proportions. Parents may arrive
having largely completed formal education though they may acquire new skills at a new
job. Children have greater opportunities to develop a higher proportion of more valued
human capital at the destination site through participation in local schools or other forms
of education or training post-immigration.

Cultural Capital

Broadly deﬁned, the term “cultural capital” identiﬁes high-status cultural signals
used in the processes of cultural and social selection. Where families are mobile,
especially across borders, they can be expected to arrive with varying degrees of
competency with the cultural signals of the destination site.

Bourdieu (1977) describes a relationship between culture, class, and domination.
He holds that particular cultural competencies—style of speech, familiarity with speciﬁc
events and institutions such as museums and the theatre—are differentially distributed
through society such that the dominant, upper classes hold a monopoly. For members of
the elite class, processes of socialization and familiarization to dominant cultural capital

occur at home. These competencies are then legitimated through schooling, which

15

conﬁrms the culture of the dominant classes (by treating their norms as “normal”) while
disconﬁrming the cultures of other groups. For Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital appears
in three different forms: 1) an embodied state (as particular attitudes and behaviors, or
dispositions, of the mind and body), 2) an objectiﬁed state (as material objects or cultural
goods such as artwork, books, and machines), and 3) an institutionalized state (as
educational credentials or qualiﬁcations).

My understanding and use of cultural capital draws heavily on Bourdieu, but also
differs in at least one signiﬁcant way. Whereas Bourdieu studied differences in social
classes within a single national identity, I explore cultural differences across national
identities. That being said, cultural capital does not ﬁgure explicitly in data analysis
despite the intersection of multiple cultures in this study. I will return to the
interdependence of these forms of capital in the last chapter.

Social Capital

Notwithstanding a proliferation of uses and interpretations, scholars generally
agree that social capital represents resources that people accumulate by virtue of their
social ties with others (Portes & Landolt, 2000). In this study, I use Bourdieu (1986),
who characterizes social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources
which are linked to possession of a durable network of relationships” (p. 248). I
deﬁne a social network as individual or collective agents “embedded in webs of
connections” (Scott, 1988, p. 112). This network of social ties represents a site of
investment that can later be drawn upon to provide particular advantages, or proﬁts.

I break with Bourdieu where he ﬁnds social capital to represent “a process by

which individuals in the dominating class, by mutual recognition and acknowledgment,

l6

reinforce and reproduce a privileged group” (Lin, 1999, p. 32). This study has no
particular focus on the way social capital might maintain and reproduce a single,
dominant class. Rather than being wholly exclusive, my use of social capital necessarily
cuts across and connects a number of groups at various social levels.

Measuring social capital. Bourdieu’s deﬁnition distinguishes between two
elements of social capital: resources and social relationships. Measurements of the
amount, or volume, of social capital an actor has necessarily consider both the overall
size of the social network and the amount of capital possessed by each of the actors
connected through the network. While important, I concur with scholars who argue that
indications of the quantity of ties or resources are insufﬁcient in understanding the ways
that investments in social capital might be made and proﬁts accrued. Of equal
importance is the quality of social capital one can activate. Rather than a focus solely on
the amount of resources, Lin (1999) draws attention to their average composition, their
variety, and their use value. Similarly, it is not merely, the number of contacts actors have
that matters but their location in the social network. Location is described by the nature
of the relationship between actors and whether particular ties enable access to novel or
redundant resources. As we will see in future chapters, the quality of ties between
migrant families and other agents in the network have profound inﬂuence on the
resources that are made available.

Social capital and migration. Like much of social capital theory, its relationship
to migration in the literature cannot be generalized in any particular way. Coleman
(1988) and Putnam (2000) ﬁnd that mobility has a negative effect on social capital due to

the disruption of established social ties. Essentially, social capital held in these relations

17

becomes inaccessible to both those who leave and those who remain behind. However,
as described earlier in this chapter, migration and initial access to housing and
employment in the host community may draw signiﬁcantly on resources embedded in
social relations (Boyd, 1989; Massey et al., 1987). As Skeldon (2001) notes, it is
generally not the poorest who move, but rather those with access to personal or social
resources necessary to facilitate translocation from one place to another.

Where social ties are not broken through migration, migrants, former migrants,
and nonmigrants become connected through an expanding and increasingly established
set of social ties as migration networks mature. At some point in time, network
connections—especially in an origin area—may reach “a critical threshold [whereby]
migration becomes self-perpetuating because each act of migration itself creates the
social structure needed to maintain it” (Massey et al., 1993, p. 449). Thus, over time, one
can expect migration ﬂows between a set of particular origin and destination sites to
acquire a degree of stability. Such cases represent an “international migration system,”
characterized by stable migration ﬂows of a relative abundance of goods, capital, and
people between “sending nations” and a “receiving region” (Massey et al., 1993, p. 454).

Inequality of social capital. Not all social capital is created equal (Edwards &
Foley, 1997; Lin, 2000). Actors and social groups differentially acquire social capital
and receive anticipated returns from their acquisitions. Lin ﬁnds that this is due to the
interaction of two principles. The ﬁrst is a clustering of social groups at disadvantaged
socioeconomic positions. The second is a propensity for “homophily,” an association
with others of similar characteristics. Acting together, these produce a collection of

similar actors, each of relatively inferior socioeconomic standing, and a summative social

18

network that is resource-poor. When members recognize the existing restrictions in
resource access, some may be motivated to establish (bridging) social relationships with
members of more advantaged groups to gain access to better resources such as higher
quality information (Lin, 2000).
Research Questions

This study describes and explains the participation of Burmese migrant families in
the Thai public school system, using a frame of social capital. To do so, it draws on the
stories of migrant children and their parents, and a variety of other agents whose lives and
work link them together. I investigate the lives of migrant families broadly, revealing the
means by which they have crossed the border and settled in Thailand. In particular, I
consider how these particular migrant children gained access to schools when so many
others cannot or do not. Two research questions guide the present study:

° What can be learned from these families that might beneﬁt the majority who do
not access Thai schools?
' What kinds of supportive resources do families leverage in enrolling their

children in Thai schools?
Central Terms

Some of the terms and concepts that are central to this study have multiple, even
contradictory meanings in the literature or are laden with cultural or political
signiﬁcance. Here I brieﬂy clarify how some central terms used in this research and how
they are deﬁned. Other terms are deﬁned later when they arise in the argument.

“Burma”: The name Burma is used throughout this report, as are other colonial

place names such Rangoon rather than Yangon, since this is consistent with the majority

19

of the references cited. The word Myanmar is used only when it serves to preserve the
ﬁdelity of direct quotations from particular sources.

“Burmese”: This term refers to all people from or who have been born of parents
from Burma, without reference to ethnic nationality (Burman, Shan. Karen, Mon. etc). It
also refers to the language of the majority Burman people.

“Migrant”: A person who came to Thailand from another country after birth. or
was born in Thailand of migrant parents and has no document to prove their Thai
nationality.

“Irregular/undocumented migration”: Movement that takes place outside the
regulatory norms of the sending, transit and receiving countries usually through
unauthorized entry, stay, or work in a destination country. “Irregular” and
“undocumented” are also used to describe the status of a particular person in preference
of “illegal.”

Conclusion

In sum, human mobility across and within national borders is sufﬁciently
ubiquitous to be recognized as “one of the characteristic and perhaps even deﬁning
features of our contemporary world” (IOM, 2008b, p. 17). Though migration is often
rooted in searches for opportunities to enhance the one’s quality of life, it also brings
costs and uncertainties associated with travel and settlement at a new location. One of
these uncertainties is access to schools at the destination site though for some, the
primary goal of migration is to ﬁnd work for children and not school. From the literature
presented, it can be seen that challenges to school access is a global phenomenon for

migrant children, especially those with undocumented status.

20

Social scientists have used notions of capital to support understanding of the
mechanisms that affect life chances of individuals. Although there is abundance in the
number and variety of capital theories, they share a central thesis that “investment and
mobilization of capital will enhance the outcomes desirable to individuals or
communities” (Lin, 2000, p. 786). In this study, I use social capital—deﬁned as
resources available through social relations—to understand the experiences of migrant
families with the Thai school system.

In Chapter 2, I move from the global perspective of migration and education
presented in Chapter 1 to a more reﬁned description of the context in Thailand. Chapter
3 describes the methods used for sampling, data collection, and analysis. Chapter 4
introduces the varied actors involved in migrant education in Thailand’s Tak Province
including both government and nongovemment agencies. The chapter also presents the
stories of four children and their families highlighting their migration into Thailand and
their initial contact with Thai schools. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of how various
actors along the Thai-Burmese border access and activate social capital in light of the
data presented in previous parts of the study. In Chapter 6, implications of this research

are considered and areas for further study are described.

21

Chapter 2
Migration and Education in Thailand

Thailand is a lower middle-income country in central Southeast Asia. Regional
economic and demographic differentials, as well as civil conﬂicts in neighboring nations,
have contributed to the country’s increasing prominence as a destination of international
migration (Sciortino & Punpuing, 2009). The vast majority of those who arrive are from
neighboring Burma, seeking better living and working conditions than those available in
their home country. Periodic efforts by the Thai government to register migrant workers
suggest that hundreds of thousands of school-age children are among those who migrate.
While many of these children work, tens of thousands participate in Thailand’s state
schools and a parallel education system which is largely organized by the migrant
community itself. This chapter describes these two opportunities for schooling and
presents an overview of migration into Thailand.

Geopolitical Context

Situated in Southeast Asia, the Kingdom of Thailand is a nation slightly smaller
than the size of Texas. A signiﬁcant proportion of the country’s 67 million inhabitants
reside in a densely populated central plain. To the south, the country forms a narrow
isthmus connecting to Malaysia. The northeast, often referred to as Isan, is a sprawling
plateau, bordered largely by the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (Laos) and the
Mekong River. The mountainous west forms Thailand’s 2,096 kilometer-long border
with Burma. The majority of the population is Buddhist (93%) and ethnically Thai

(89%). Standard Thai is the ofﬁcial language of the country and is spoken in every

22

province, though many areas also have a local dialect. Figure 2.1 shows the location of

Thailand and its regional neighbors.

 

    
 

THAILAND

Bapgkok

 
 
   
 
  

Andaman
Sea

SouﬂtChma
Sea

 

 

29...? SINGAPORE

 

Figure 2.1 Map of Thailand and regional neighbors.

Migration into Thailand
Population mobility is not a new phenomenon to Thailand or its neighbors.
However, the characteristics of modern ﬂows are dramatically different from centuries

past. Previously, large—scale population movements occurred primarily as part of the

23

expansion of frontiers, with resettlement of populations defeated during warfare a
signiﬁcant form of movement. In addition, ethnic minority groups living in border areas
traveled freely in the region prior to the establishment of national boundaries (Caouette,
Sciortino, Guest, & Feinstein, 2006).

Over the past 60 years, Thailand has sheltered people ﬂeeing conﬂict and
persecution in their countries of origin. In the last three decades alone, Thailand has
provided asylum to over 1 million people, including displaced persons, refugees, and
others outside of international protection (Huguet & Punpuing, 2005b). In addition,
economic and demographic differentials have led to a ﬂow of workers having low skills
and thus, low human capital, from the weakest economies in Southeast Asia into the
country, while slightly more skilled Thai migrants move to stronger economies in Asia,
the Middle East, and destinations ﬁrrther abroad. The overall total foreign-born
population living and working in Thailand at the end of 2007 was estimated to be more
than 2.6 million. Approximately half are unregistered migrants from neighboring
countries (Sciortino & Punpuing, 2009). Conservative estimates place international
migrants at 1.7% of Thailand’s population by mid-year 2010, more than double the
proportion of 1990 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2009).
Migration from the Greater Mekong Subregion

Thailand is the fourth richest nation in Southeast Asia in terms of per capita
income after Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia (Sciortino & Punpuing, 2009). In
particular, Thailand is signiﬁcantly ahead of its immediate neighbors—Cambodia, Laos,
and Burma—three of the least developed countries in the world. In 2006, Thailand’s per

capita Gross Domestic Product was about seven times that of these three nations

24

 

(UNESCAP, 2007). Levels of education, health, and sanitation are also higher in
Thailand than in neighboring countries (Sciortino & Punpuing, 2009). These factors have
contributed to Thailand becoming the principal destination of population movement in
the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)l of Southeast Asia (Hugo, 2006; Skeldon, 2001).
The GMS includes Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Viet Nam, and the Yunnan and Guanxi
provinces of the People's Republic of China. Of these, movement to Thailand from
Cambodia, Laos, and Burma account for 70% of all migration in the GMS region
(Caouette et al., 2006). Table 2.1 presents a comparison of various indicators for
Thailand and select GMS nations.

Recall from Chapter 1 that Massey et al. (1993) deﬁne an “international migration
system” as a set of speciﬁc sending nations linked to a core receiving region. Huguet
(2008) notes that such a system has evolved in the GMS, “with Thailand attracting large
numbers of low-skilled and low-wage migrant workers and their dependents from its
three poorer neighbors” (p. 4). Informal and formal agreements between Thailand and
neighboring states, such as GMS development strategies, have supported growth of this
system. Rapid improvements in transportation and checkpoint facilities, in combination
with a relative easing of land travel restrictions for tourism and business purposes, are
facilitating unprecedented ﬂows of people across borders. Further expansion of the
existing current migration system is expected due to decreasing costs of movement in

combination with more developed cross-border social networks (Caouette et al., 2006).

 

I The GMS brings together its six member countries through an economic development
program launched in 1992 with the support of the Asia Development Bank and other
donors. The GMS program aims to facilitate sustainable economic growth and poverty
reduction through enhanced infrastructure and efﬁcient cross-border movement of goods
and people (Asian Development Bank, 2008a).

25

Table 2.1

Key Indicators of Select GMS Countries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burma Cambodia Laos Thailand
Mid-year population
(millions) 2007 57.7 14.4 5.9 65.8
GDP per capita 2006
(1990 US dollars) 417 384 403 2,797
Population living below 26.6 34.7 32.7 9.8
national poverty line (%) (2001) (2004) (2003) (2002)
Life expectancy at birth
(years) 2006 61.6 58.9 63.9 70.2
Under 5 mortality (per
1,000 live births) 2006 104 82 75 8
Rural population using
improved sanitation 81 19 38 96
facilities (%) 2006
Human Development
Index* (global ranking of 132 131 130 78
177 economies) 2008

 

* The Human Development Index is a measure of overall quality of life. The index is
constructed by combining proxies for health, education, and a decent standard of living.
Education is represented by literacy and school enrolment, health by life expectancy, and
standard of living by GDP per capita. The latter two are also given as unique measures in
this table. (Asian Development Bank, 2008b)

As of December 2007, there were more than 625,000 registered GMS migrants in
Thailand. An additional 1.3 million are believed to be living and working in Thailand
irregularly. Migration from GMS countries is complicated by the nature of the
registration processes in Thailand, which undermine conceptual distinctions between

“regular” and “irregular” migration. In Chapter 1, “irregular migration” was deﬁned as

movements taking place outside the regulatory norms of the sending, transit, and

26

receiving countries (IOM, 2004). In contrast, “regular migration” occurs through
recognized, legal channels. Thailand’s separate processes for work and immigration,
however, mean that migrant workers from neighboring countries can be considered
“regular” for work but “irregular” for migration. By recording their presence with
authorities during one of the organized registration periods, GMS migrants may be
allowed to work in speciﬁc locations in Thailand. Though this process documents them
in terms of their employment, they are still considered to have entered the country
illegally.

In general, GMS migrants arriving in Thailand have little human capital as
represented by accumulated skills and formal education. According to data from
Thailand’s 2004 registration scheme, 74. 1% of applicants had less than eight years formal
education (Huguet & Punpuing, 2005b). The 2000 Thai National Census found illiteracy
rates of around 30% for Cambodian, 40% for Lao, and 76% for Burmese migrants.
Approximately 30%, 33% and 80% respectively never attended school. The prominent
number of migrants from Burma who are illiterate and poorly schooled is partly due to
the higher percentage of ethnic minorities among migrants from Burma when compared
with Lao and Cambodian migrants (Caouette et al., 2006).

By and large, GMS countries do not have the capacity to properly manage the
mass movement of labor and to protect the rights of their migrant-nationals abroad.
Thailand itself has a fairly weak migration policy framework, much of it reactionary to
the arrival of large numbers of migrants over the last few decades. The lack of a legal
framework to regulate migration puts migrant workers at a higher risk of abuse and

reinforces the prevalence of smuggling rings involved in sexual exploitation and slave-

27

labor. Absence of an adequate migration policy framework thus contributes to increasing
the costs and risks of migration and to reducing its beneﬁts (World Bank, 2006a).
Migration from Burma

Migration from Burma, with whom Thailand shares its western border, is
especially noteworthy. In particular, there is signiﬁcant mobility of ethnic minority
groups. Much of this movement can be traced to ongoing discriminatory policies and
practices of the country’s ruling military regime (Thailand Burma Border Consortium,
2009b). At the same time, ethnic minority populations have historically inhabited
current boundary areas. As a result, cross-border movement is considered by some as part
of daily social, cultural, and economic mobility patterns rather than intentional
international migration (Aphijanyatham, 2009).

Country overview. In area, Burma is the largest of the mainland Southeast
Asian nations and more than 30% larger than Thailand. Its northern and eastern borders
with China and Thailand respectively are both more than 2,100 kilometers long. To the
east lies India. In ethnic terms, the country can be described as having a central core of
lowlands where the majority Burmans live with a horseshoe of highland areas inhabited
by minority peoples. In reality, very little recent and reliable demographic data exist, and
few of the available ﬁgures are disaggregated by sex, geographic area, or ethnicity.
Although current estimates generally place the population at 50 million or more, poor
infrastructure and ongoing conﬂict in remote parts of the country have meant that a
reliable population census has never been conducted in Burma. Though imperfect,
ﬁgures ﬁom the last ofﬁcial national census in 1983 are often cited. This data revealed

that ethnic minorities make up approximately one-third of the total population. Only one-

28

quarter of the population lives in cities and some rural areas are populated entirely by
non-Burman ethnic groups (Belak, 2002).

Over a period of 62 years (1824-1886) Britain conquered Burma and incorporated
it into its Indian Empire (Steinberg, 2010). Once administered as a province of India,
Burma gained its full independence in 1948. However, this time period was also marked
by power struggles and mistrust leading the country to the brink of civil war. In 1962,
the Burmese government was overthrown in a military coup. The following decades saw
the country ruled by decree with constant food shortages, economic hardship, and violent
suppression. Burma's once prosperous economy spiraled downward, and approximately
half the country's revenues went to support the military machine. In August, 1988,
hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, demanding the end to disastrous
economic policies and the brutal regime. Government troops responded swiftly and
opened ﬁre on demonstrators, killing thousands. The bloody conﬂict became known as
the "8888 Uprising" to commemorate the date. In response to international pressure and
tightening economic sanctions, the ruling junta called a general election in 1990. Though
the National League for Democracy (N LD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won a landslide
victory, the military government refused to recognize the election and, instead, arrested
opposition leaders, including Suu Kyi.2

Government policies and inaction are seen to be responsible for the rapid

deterioration of conditions in the country over the last half century. The International

 

2 Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of General Aung San, a hero of Burrna’s ﬁght for
independence from Britain who was assassinated by political rivals in 1947. Winner of
the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her nonviolent campaign for democracy, Aung San Suu
Kyi remains the symbol of hope to those opposed to the military junta. Aung San Suu
Kyi is scheduled for release in November 2010 after a total of 14 years of house arrest
and detention (http://www.nvtimes.com/info/daw-aung-san-suu-kvi/).

29

Development Committee (2007) claims that since military rule was imposed in 1962,
“Burma’s economic, industrial and social fabric” have been systematically ravaged,
“transforming it from one of South-East Asia’s wealthiest countries to a Least Developed
Country by 1987.” Least Developed Country status is deﬁned by three criteria set out by
the United Nations General Assembly: low income, economic vulnerability, and human
resource weakness. The latter of these is deﬁned by a composite index based on
indicators of nutrition, health, adult literacy, and education (United Nations & World
Bank, 2006).

The situation is especially grim in eastern Burma where military patrols and
landmines are the most signiﬁcant, and fastest growing, threat to civilian safety and
security (Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), 2009b). Humanitarian and
human rights groups have documented the destruction and forced relocation of more than
3,500 communities and hiding sites since 1996, including 120 villages between August
2008 and July 2009. At least 470,000 people are estimated to be internally displaced in
rural areas of eastern Burma. The scale of forced displacement is the strongest single
indicator of crimes against humanity in eastern Burma.

Education in Burma. The schooling system in Burma, once a model for Asia,
has deteriorated in quality and breadth of service under the junta’s rule. Cheesman
(2003) notes that “the degree to which the state exerts control over schooling in the
current period is without historic parallel in Burma” (p. 56). This extensive control has
been especially damaging given the meager attention the junta has afforded education.
Fink (2001) contends that this low priority has been enacted for several reasons. First, the

junta fears that the more people are educated, the more they are likely to mount serious

30

challenge to military rule. Second, the top generals are themselves poorly educated, and
often resent better-educated people. And third, with limited funds, priority has been given
to expanding and equipping the army rather than the country’s schools.

Meeting schooling costs. Primary schooling is said to be free but, in reality,
families must bear a range of associated costs—entry fees, monthly fees, book fees,
special activity and sports fees—in addition to uniform and school supply expenses
(National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (N CGUB), 2007). The fact that
most people living in the border areas rely on seasonal work for their income makes it
even harder for them to survive let alone make the ﬁnancial contributions expected of
them. The resulting ﬁnancial concerns are the major factor affecting students’ attendance
though children also drop out by choice because of poor performance and dissatisfaction
with school. Only around one third of the million children who begin school each year at
the primary level will ﬁnish four years of school (Committee for the Promotion and
Protection of Child Rights (CPPCR), 2009). Commenting on a local government school,
a parent in southeastern Mon State reported that

[t]he entrance fee is 4,000—6,000 Kyat for one student and that is for school

materials and maintenance cost. If the parents could not pay in cash they have

to donate building materials needed to repair the school, such as cement logs, and
galvanized iron sheets. If they could not donate, the children will lose the chance

to attend the schools. (“High drop-out rate,” 2005, p. 10-11)

Schooling for girls. Girls generally receive less education than boys. Adult
women interviewed by Belak (2002) cited the inability of families to pay the necessary

fees, and the need for girls, especially if they were the oldest daughters, to work, taking

31

care of other children or supporting the family with whatever income they could provide,
as the reasons they dropped out or did not attend school. When one or both parents died,
domestic responsibilities and pressure to work to generate income led to greater dropout
rates. Cultural norms that education for girls and women is not important are also a
signiﬁcant factor.

Education and child soldiers. One consequence of student dropout is the growth
in child soldiers and child laborers. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch
(2002), Burma has the largest number of child soldiers in the world. There are an
estimated total of around 70,000 child soldiers from both the government army side and
armed opposition in Burma. Children under 18 years old represent around 20 percent of
the government forces. According to a number of interviews done with former child
soldiers, most were conscripted into the army after dropping-out of school. Thus, even
when some children say they “volunteered’ to join armed forces or groups, deeper
analysis of their stories often reveals increased vulnerability and a lack of other
opportunities associated with a disrupted education (United Nations Children's Fund
WNICEF), 2002).

Burmese migration flows. Though reliable estimates of migration outﬂows are
difﬁcult to obtain, it has been suggested that up to 10% of Burma’s population migrates
internationally (IOM, 2008a) and that nearly three-quarters of the persons migrating out
of Burma cross the border into Thailand (Save the Children, 2001). As many as 150,000

reﬁrgees3 live in nine camps along the Thai-Burmese border (TBBC, 2009a) Of the two

 

3 Thailand has not yet signed the UN. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or
other relevant international instruments, and has enacted no domestic legislation relating
speciﬁcally to the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in the country. As such,

32

million migrant workers in Thailand, approximately 75-80% are from Burma
(Rukumnuaykit, 2009).

This immense population movement is often considered alongside the country’s
deteriorating political, social, and economic conditions. A joint study by World Vision
Foundation of Thailand and the Asian Research Center for Migration found that the three
most important reasons for migration out of Burma were low wages, high unemployment,
and family poverty (Huguet & Punpuing, 2005a). The fourth most important reason was
the traumatic experiences suffered in the country, including forced labor. The study
demonstrated that the frequency and scale of mobility was such that migration to
Thailand had become nearly routine for many persons in Burma. Almost half (48%) of
study participants entered Thailand along with family members or friends with more than
a third (3 6%) entering Thailand alone.

General social welfare is often cited as a factor inﬂuencing migration out of
Burma (Thornton, 2006). Overall, state provision of social services is minimal with poor
quality and limited availability contributing to the low human capital of the general
population and thus, migrants (Caouette et al., 2006). Thawnghmung and Sarno (2006)
found the pattern of state resource distribution in Burma to indicate “a complete disregard
for the welfare of the general population” (p. 53). Only 3% of the national budget is
allocated for health and 8% for education, while 29% goes to the military. In 2000,

overall health system performance in Burma was ranked 190th out of 191 countries

 

Thailand considers these groups to be illegal migrants who, being in breach of the
country’s Immigration Act, are subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, prosecution, and
deportation. However, Thailand does allow international and local NGOs to provide
humanitarian assistance. Considered “displaced persons” or “persons ﬂeeing ﬁghting,”
the Thai Government permits temporary respite in the country. In reality, distinctions
between economic and forced migrants are often blurred (Sciortino & Punpuing, 2009).

33

(World Health Organization, 2000). In their brief but stark comparison of Thailand and
Burma, the United Nations Human Development Report (2009) states:

Someone born in Thailand can expect to live seven more years, to have almost

three times as many years of education, and to spend and save eight times as

much as someone born in neighbouring Myanmar. These differences in

opportunity create immense pressures to move. (p. 9)

Migration to Tak Province. A signiﬁcant proportion of migration from Burma
into Thailand occurs in northwestern Tak Province, especially near the border town of
Mac Sot (Arnold, 2004). Lying across the Moei River from Myawaddy, in Karen State
and due east of Burma’s former capital city, Rangoon, Mae Sot is a major gateway to
Burma via the Asia Highway. In contrast to the Burmese in Thailand’s northern Chiang
Mai province who come primarily from Burma’s Shan State and those entering the south
of Thailand from Burma’s southern states and divisions, the Burmese in Mae Sot come
from all parts of the country.

The Committee for the Promotion and Protection of Child Rights (CPPCR, 2009)
undertook a research project to investigate and document the situation of Burmese
migrant children in the Mae Sot area. Among the ﬁndings were that Burmese families
enter Tak via a number of ways, which can be relatively straightforward or involve
considerable risk. The most dangerous part of the journey is often on the Burmese side of
the border, especially in times of active conﬂict where an extensive system of
checkpoints are active. “We were unable to take a car so we had to come on foot and

walked for 3 days,” reported one l7-year old girl:

34

We came with our friends and other people. At this time there were
demonstrations; the Karen and Burmese are at war too. If Burmese soldiers saw
people they would kill them all, whether they were local people or their enemies.

We were very ﬁightened and we had to hurry; we were so cold. (CPPCR, 2009, p.

33)

Upon reaching the border area, however, entering Thailand is relatively easy.
One-day passes are available between 6 am. and 6 pm. at the “Friendship Bridge,” the
official checkpoint connecting Mae Sot and Myawaddy. Regular migrants can go to
Thailand on a one-day pass and simply not go back, becoming irregular in the process. In
the ﬁrst six months of 2008, 298,847 Burmese entered Thailand legally across the bridge.
More than one quarter did not return, an average of almost 500 per day (Kasem, 2008).
Irregular entry is possible immediately below the bridge, and within sight of immigration
ofﬁcials, where small groups traverse the river on inﬂated inner tubes. During the dry
season, sections of the river are also navigable on foot. Social ties to relatives, friends,
and brokers make available numerous unofficial entry points (Caouette et al., 2006)

The number of Burmese migrants in and around Mae Sot may be as many as
300,000, and about 10% are children (CPPCR, 2009). In some areas, Burmese are the
majority. In one village built on the edge of the Moei River on the outskirts of Mae Sot,
the phooyaibaan (village leader) estimated that there were 12,000 Burmese compared to
3,000 Thais living there (Kheunkaew, 2009). Though no reliable data is available on
migrant worker demographics in Mae Sot, non-govemmental organizations estimate that
70% are young women, in their late—teens to mid-twenties (Arnold, 2004). The

manufacturing sector is a main source of employment with around 250, mainly garment,

35

factories in Mae Sot. In Phop Phra District to the southeast, migrants largely work in the
agricultural sector (CPPCR, 2009).

Thai-Burmese legal agreements. In 2003, Thailand and Burma signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that deﬁnes the legal channels for Burmese
nationals to work in Thailand. In 2006, the countries agreed to work more closely on the
veriﬁcation of the nationality of Burmese workers registered in Thailand who do not have
identiﬁcation cards and passports issued by Burma (IOM, 2008a). The veriﬁcation
process, to have been completed by February 2010, was intended to provide migrants
with legal status to live and work in Thailand for up to two years at a time for a period
not exceeding four years. Workers would also receive certain rights, including access
to accident compensation and the ability to travel within Thailand.

Progress on implementing this latest phase of the MOU has been slow. In part,
this is due to the process only being available to those migrants who have completed
annual registration procedures since 2004. Newly arrived migrants have no option but to
live and work illegally in the country (Pollock, 2009). Further, the process for Burmese
migrants is more complex than that for workers from Cambodia and Laos whose
governments sent representatives to Thailand to facilitate the veriﬁcation process.
Migrant workers from Burma are required to travel back to Burma for
registration. Travel expenses, fears of providing personal background information to
their own government, and doubts that registration would bring any improvements to
their working conditions are given as reasons that hundreds of thousands of

undocumented workers from Burma had likely failed to register (McCarten, 2010).

36

Migrants’ Lives in Thailand

Migrant workers in low-skilled positions, along with refugees and asylum seekers,
are among the mobile populations who have faced acute discrimination in Thailand.
Though national legislation and local measures toward migrant workers have often
shifted, they have retained a generally restrictive and punitive nature. As a result, regular
or otherwise, the GMS migrant population in Thailand is extremely vulnerable. They
often work in difﬁcult and exploitative conditions, live in unsanitary and crowded
environments, lack legal and social protection, have little freedom of movement and
reduced civil entitlements, and are exposed to arrest and deportation (Sciortino &
Punpuing, 2009). Further, the Thai community’s stance toward migrant workers,
especially those from Burma, is generally unwelcoming.
Working Conditions

In many cases, migrants take on work that has become less desirable to the
domestic labor force as Thais gain more options in an expanding economy. Inheriting the
so-called 3-D jobs—dirty, difﬁcult, dangerous—migrants have been left vulnerable to
injury and other health-related issues with little chance of securing compensation .
Discriminatory attitudes towards foreign laborers have helped to create a climate of
tolerance for the pervasive mistreatment of workers from Burma. Despite higher relative
wages in Thailand than in Burma, incomes of migrant workers are often lower than stated
minimum wage rates and the pay of local Thais. For example, the local minimum wage
for Thai workers in Mac Sot was just above US$4.40 per day as of December 2008, yet
Burmese workers were entitled to US$3.50 a day, with the majority earning US$2 or less

in practice (NCGUB, 2009).

37

A report entitled Underpaid, Overworked and Overlooked (Pearson, Punpuing,
Jampaklay, Kittisuksathit, & Prohmmo, 2006) investigated the realities of young migrant
workers in Thailand. One woman from Karen State in Burma described conditions at the
factory where she was employed:

I sew the seams on jeans—I will usually begin work at 6 or 7 o’clock in the

morning. I don’t get a break for lunch and I have to work straight through until 5

pm before I can rest. 80 I eat only 2 meals per day, one in the morning before

work and one in the evening after work My boss gives me a place to stay but
he deducts 250 Baht (US$6.25) for accommodation and 130 Baht (US$3.25) for
water and electricity expenses. He also deducts 500 Baht (US$12.50) per month
as the job assurance fee We get one day of rest every two weeks and do not
receive money for those days. I cannot speak Thai very well so I haven’t been
able to look for a new job. Besides, my boss threatened that if I were to leave he
would have the police come and arrest me. I would have to try and escape during

the night. (p. 30)

Perhaps not surprisingly, Thai employers dispute claims of unfair treatment of
migrant workers. In one The New York Times article (Cropley, 2007) , the Chairman of
the Federation of Thai Industries in Mae Sot, denied that migrant workers were poorly
paid, maintaining that employers need to deduct board and food from workers living on-
site, in addition to administrative expenses. The article also found that, although
migrants complained of cramped dormitory conditions and of inedible food, many
workers appeared happy, saying they were better off in Thailand than in Burma where

military rule, economic mismanagement, and Western sanctions have left the economy in

38

ruins. One worker reported, “In Thailand, we face difﬁculties, but at least it's a job. In
Myanmar, there's no work at all” (Cropley, 2007).
Limits on Social and Cultural Activities

Outside of the workplace, migrant communities have faced discrimination
through local restrictions imposed on expressions of cultural identity, including language
and celebration of cultural celebrations. The governor of Samut Sakhorn district, near
Bangkok, pushed to prohibit public signs in Mon or Burmese languages. As the 61 st
Mon National Day approached in February 2008, that same governor announced that
ethnic Mon migrant workers should refrain from wearing traditional dress, celebrating
Mon culture and traditions, and engaging in political activities (Htaw, 2008). Area
ofﬁcials also called on the public to not give their support to other Mon cultural events in
the area and Thai police blocked entry into a temple where celebrations were to take
place. According to a Bangkok newspaper, Thailand’s Internal Security Operations
Command issued a notice that the festival was prohibited from staging activities that
encouraged “national sentiment” (Weng, 2008).

A Provincial Decree on Migrant Workers adopted by the southern province of
Phuket in 2006, prohibits migrant workers from Burma, Cambodia, and Laos from
owning mobile phones, driving motorbikes or cars, gathering in public in groups of ﬁve
or more, and leaving their dormitories between 8 pm. and 6 am. unless working at night.
Failing to comply with the restrictions would result in the cancellation of the migrant’s
identity card and work permit prior to deportation (Malikaew, 2007). Since mid-2007,
seven other provinces in the restive south have adopted the decree on grounds of

improving local security.

39

Fear of the Police
Rather than providing support and assistance, police, military, immigration
ofﬁcers, and other government ofﬁcials have been accused of threatening, physically
harming, and extorting migrant workers with impunity (Human Rights Watch, 2010).
Migrants held in custody have reported demands for money or valuables in exchange for
their release. With their typically low wages, such incidents could cost migrants the
equivalent of one to several months pay. Lacking enough money to be freed, detained
migrants are frequently asked to ﬁnd relatives or friends to pay to secure their release.
Through a series of articles titled “Shattered Dreams,” Thailand’s daily
newspaper, The Bangkok Post, investigated the lives of migrant workers in Mac Sot
(Ekachai, 2003). The articles describe deadly attacks on Burmese workers by Thai youth
hate groups, extortionists, and trafﬁckers. Fears of arrest and deportation forced workers
to keep silent if they are robbed or abused. Those who had regularized their employment
were not immune to being victimized. After completing registration processes, workers
were often given only photocopies of their documents, or receipts for fees paid. These
papers were of limited value when detained by authorities:
The police do not acknowledge these informal papers. But both the ofﬁcers and
the workers know the rule of this cat-and-mouse game. Pay up to be let go, or be
kicked out of the country. “I never feel safe here,” said [a migrant worker named]
Lui Lui. “Walking down the street can be a risky business. We can be harassed
anytime. People with wives and children can be deported and their families
broken apart. Every time I see a policeman, I tremble and. sweat. It's a life full of

fear. It is so stressful.”

4O

Fears of arrest and deportation also limited workers’ mobility, forcing migrants to
spend much of their time at or near their places of employment. “We never knew that life
on this side of the border is also very insecure and dangerous,” another worker said
(Ekachai, 2003).

Public Opinion and Social Acceptance

Crush and Ramachandran (2009), noting largely unfavorable attitudes among the
general public, claim that “[o]fﬁcial policy resonates with Thai opinions on migrant
workers” (p. 32). Public acceptance of migrant workers and their families is, in part,
related to negative perceptions about the economic impact of immigrants on the Thai ,
although Martin (2007) has estimated that migrant workers contributed US$2 billion to
the Thai gross domestic product. More recent research found that a 10% increase in
migrant workers did not lower employment opportunities of Thai locals as often feared
and only reduced wages by 0.2% (United Nations Development Program, 2009). Real
gains and losses, however, are likely to be unequally distributed among the Thai
population. Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Board has
concluded that migrants primarily beneﬁt employers and corrupt ofﬁcials (Martin, 2004).

Public perception of Burmese migrants is also inﬂuenced by history and health.
Hostile attitudes towards Burma and its people are seen to go back well over 300 years to
1767 when an invading Burmese army destroyed Ayutthaya, a former capital of Thailand
(Fowle, 2008). Thai students continue to learn about the conﬂict as an integral part of
Thai education. The Thai ﬁlm industry has also popularized the battle.

Thais widely believe that persons from Burma pose a public health risk, entering

the country carrying diseases that have been eradicated or are rare in Thailand. Migrants

41

are also seen to be a burden on government hospitals, especially those in border areas, by
using services for which they are not able to pay (Huguet & Punpuing, 2005b). While
migrants do put demands on the health system, the problem has been exacerbated by
government policy, which sets hospital budgets solely according to ofﬁcial provincial
headcounts that exclude migrant populations. Further, changing proportions of registered
and nonregistered migrants has meant fewer ﬁnancial resources to care for all patients.

In 2004, an estimated 85% of migrant workers in Thailand registered with the Ministry of
Interior and paid into a national health insurance scheme. By 2007, that number had
dropped to 30% (F owle, 2008).

The Human Development Report 2009 demonstrated the Thai public’s limited
support for immigration (UNDP, 2009). Data from a World Values Survey revealed that
more than 72% of Thais called for the government to “limit/prohibit immigration” of
people coming from other countries looking for work. Only Malaysia and Indonesia had
a higher percentage among the 52 countries surveyed.

In 2006, a public opinion survey was administered by Bangkok’s Assumption
University to mark International Migrants Day. The poll, sponsored by the International
Labor Organization and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UN IFEM)
found that nearly 59% of respondents wanted the government to ban the entry of migrant
labor. More than 80% believed that migrant labor had an adverse effect on the wages of
domestic workers, especially those with lower skills and wages (UNIFEM, 2006). Most
poll participants, and in particular those personally acquainted with migrant workers,

indicated that migrants were hard working, if not honest or loyal.

42

Child Migrants and Children of Migrants

When the Ministry of Interior invited migrants from Cambodia, Laos, and Burma
to register in July 2004 to receive permission to remain in the country to work, 93,082
persons under age lS—among a total of 1.28 million migrants—were registered (Huguet
& Punpuing, 2005a). Though those less than 15 years represent only a fraction of the
total number of foreign migrants in Thailand, the ﬁgure indicates that much migration
from GMS countries involves families rather than individual adult workers. More than
77,000 of the children who registered were from Burma.4 More recent estimates put the
number of migrant children in the country at 200,000 (CPPCR, 2009). Along the Thai-
Burrnese border, children represent around 15% of the migrant population while seldom
reaching more than 5% of the population elsewhere.
Child Workers

In rural areas of Thailand, children work primarily in agriculture, such as rubber
plantations, orange orchards, and sugarcane and vegetable production. In urban areas,
children work in the service sector including gas stations, entertainment venues, and
restaurants. It is common that children also work in street vending, as well as the
construction, manufacturing, knitting, garment, and ﬁshing sectors (U .S. Department of
Labor, 2007).

Thailand’s legal working age, and the minimum age at which migrants can
register for work permits, is 15 years. For those 15 to] 8 years of age, Thai law places
restrictions on conditions of employment including limiting working hours to between 4

pm. and 10 pm. However, a substantial proportion of migrants aged 12 to 14 are likely

 

4 Thailand does not differentiate between children born in Thailand to Burmese parents in
and those born in Burma who later travel to Thailand (IOM, 2008a).

43

working in Thailand. The illegal nature of their employment increases the likelihood that
it is also exploitative, with working conditions and pay below local standards (Huguet &
Punpuing, 2005a). An investigation into child work in six Thai provinces by the ILO
found that 35% of more than 2,600 children surveyed were below the legal minimum
working age (Lisborg & Buckley, 2006). Many children faced abuse by employers,
including physical conﬁnement, physical punishment, general harassment, sexual
harassment, rape, and verbal humiliation.

A study of child workers in Mae Sot, Tak Province interviewed a total of3 l 3
Burmese respondents (The Federation of Trade Unions - Burma (F TUB), 2006). Though
more than 80% of children came from just three regions of Burma, the total sample
included children from diverse geographic areas with 12 of Burma’s 14 political divisions
represented. More than three-quarters of children were girls with seven younger the
minimum working age of 15 years (the youngest being 12 years old). A total of 94% of
the children indicated that relatives, a guardian, or friends assisted them in crossing the
border with most arriving legally and then overstaying their permit.

About 98% of the children indicated they had attended school in Burma and some
were enrolled immediately before undertaking their journey to Thailand. This data dispels
notions of migrant child workers in Thailand being similarly employed in Burma before
migrating. Very few workers were able to continue their studies in Thailand citing their
need to work, the costs associated with education, or a lack of access to schools.

Some child workers reported that they were virtually forced to remain at work
sites due to restrictions placed on their movements by factory owners, and by threats of

arrest and harassment by police and other ofﬁcials if they were stopped outside the

44

factory gates. “Put succinctly,” the report stated, “ Mae Sot has perfected a system where
children are literally working day and night. week after week, for wages that are far
below the legal minimum wage, to the point of absolute exhaustion” (FTUB, 2006, p. ix).
Trafﬁcking and Exploitation of Children

Trafﬁcking of minors is a signiﬁcant problem in Thailand and throughout
Southeast Asia. Shifting economic differentials signiﬁcantly inﬂuence its direction of
ﬂow while poor comprehensions of the consequences of trafﬁcking and high expectations
for the quality of life in other places exacerbate its extent. Research by the International
Labor Organization suggests a ﬁgure of 250,000 women and 12,000 children trafﬁcked in
Southeast Asia annually. Thailand’s domestic trafﬁcking victims are largely members of
northern hill tribes while migrant children arrive from neighboring Cambodia, Laos,
China’s Yunnan Province, and, in particular, from Burma (Burke & Ducci, 2005).

Minors are trafﬁcked for a wide range of service, industrial, and agricultural work
with an increasing number brought into the country’s growing sex industry (Boonpala &
Kane, 2002). Girls are frequent victims due to gender biases in law enforcement and
cultural contexts. Poor income-earning opportunities for women with low levels of
education, the desire to provide economic support for their families, and a relatively
tolerant attitude toward prostitution in some segments of Thai society help sustain a ﬂow
of victims towards the sex industry (Burke & Ducci, 2005).

Social ties to familiar others that facilitate migration ﬂows may also endanger its
participants. Impoverished families send or sell children to trafﬁckers, who may be a
neighbor, a local ofﬁcial, or other respected local person offering a way out of poverty.

Typically, local trafﬁckers feed persons into larger networks, after which they exercise no

45

further control. The type of work and working conditions are often misrepresented, and
victims subsequently ﬁnd themselves forced to remain and work in difﬁcult and
exploitative conditions. Frequently unable to speak Thai and considered illegal
immigrants, migrant trafﬁcking victims are particularly vulnerable to abuse (U .S.
Department of State, 2005).

Thailand has passed a number of legal measures to combat trafﬁcking and
prostitution among women and minors. Among these is the Prostitution Prevention and
Suppression Act of 1996 which recognizes that prostitutes are victims of poverty, social
problems, and organized crime. The intent of the Act is to shift the focus of criminality
from prostitutes themselves to procurers, trafﬁckers, brothel owners, customers, and
parents. Further, the Trafﬁcking Act of 1997 provides for foreign women and children
trafﬁcked into Thailand to be given food, shelter, and repatriation to their home country
(Burke & Ducci, 2005). Despite these measures, those trafﬁcked into prostitution
continue to be treated as criminals to be prosecuted rather than persons to be assisted
(Pearson, 2002; US. Department of State, 2005).

Access to Social Services

For some migrant families, the social and cultural exclusion experienced in Thai
society more generally extends to the public education system as well. Although
Thailand has demonstrated positive increases in national enrolment rates in recent years,
a Human Development Report (United Nations (UN), 2007) for Thailand articulated
lingering questions about differential access to educational institutions. Inequality in
access to education, health, and other social services was found to be “relatively high” for

a country at Thailand’s current level of development. An earlier report by UNICEF

46

(2005) expressed similar concerns about migrant children’s access to schooling, despite
claims by district ofﬁcials that universal education had been achieved for both Thai and
foreign national children. At the same time, the Thai Government has attempted to
improve the quality of, and expand access to, public education to all children through
various legislative, administrative, policy, and budgetary measures over the last decade.
These initiatives and their nascent outcomes are highlighted in the following pages after
ﬁrst considering the overall structure of the Thai education system.
Structure of the Thai Education System

Education in Thailand is divided into formal, non-formal, and informal
approaches (Ofﬁce of the Education Council (OEC), 2007). Non-formal and informal
education target those outside the regular school system such as infants and the elderly,
the labor force, and conscripts. Formal education, the focus of this study, describes
schooling with deﬁned aims, methods, curricula, duration, and assessment. Formal
mainstream education includes both general and vocational streams provided through
public and private institutions at both basic and higher education levels. Basic education
covers pre-primary education, six years of primary, three years of lower secondary, and
three years of upper secondary education. Figure 2.1 presents the structure of the Thai
formal mainstream education system.

Compulsory education requirements were lengthened to nine years in 2003. As a
result, all children between seven and 15 years of age, regardless of nationality or
citizenship, are to complete a primary education plus three years of lower secondary

education. Children must be enrolled in basic education institutions ﬁ'om age seven

47

Aaowﬁaﬁeaﬁﬁhﬁta “Bataan mcouﬂom can: Evan—gem 2E. Bob 03mm?“ Sec 93 Chem .3550 538:8 06 .«o
859 SQN 3233: S coweooanm Bob BEE}. .Boatomou BE. mo macaw—mama 0:28am 8m momoﬂaoam 033cm 3 mecca. @885
35:83 can Begum Son 89:2: acumen? 885832 .8893 838:3 anbmﬁme 3.58 RE. 05 mo oHBoEm .NN maamak

 

n cozmoaum 83.5252 into”.

‘7

All cosmusnm 5:3...

17

Ion-no...4|

c2333 23m not

 

‘7

All cosmoaum Bowie—too IIIV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

385:8
B mcﬁmm. .mco_umoo> .
_mco=muo>
_m>m._ $.me boaqcsoﬁ 382%.: NomxamEoSEn: >633:qu 263833
32629 $2938 $3326 0323 69336 BEEN EmEta EmEtaéi BESS
Emucoomm Long: 33:83 E33
ma ma 2 3 ma 3 ma NH 3 0H m m n m m e m N H my. new 972a mbEw
one.
m~ «N mm - HN o~ ma ma NH 3 ma 3 ma Na 3 0H m m N. o m w

 

 

 

868.333.

 

 

 

 

 

48

through the age of 16, except for those who have already completed Grade 9 (J umpatong,
2009)
Guiding Frameworks

Thailand’s current and previous constitutions and its National Education Act
1999/2002 guide the provision of education in the country guaranteeing the right—and
duty—of all Thais to receive education and training. Concerning Rights and Liberties in
Education, Section 49 states that “A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive the
education for the duration of not less than twelve years which shall be provided by the
State thoroughly, up to the quality, and without charge.” In 2002, twelve years of free
basic education was made available to students nationally for the ﬁrst time (OEC, 2007).

Budget allocation is a key mechanism to help increase access for schooling. A
predominant feature of budget distribution in the Thai educational system is that ﬁnancial
support is allocated upon a per head basis for those receiving basic education in both
public and private schools. To receive more subsidies, individual schools thus tend to
attract more students. Originally allocated only for the primary and secondary levels,
subsidies were expanded from 12 to 14 years in 2004 to cover two years of kindergarten
(Jumpatong, 2009). Beginning with the 2009-2010 academic year, an additional year of
funding was added at the pre-primary level. Individual schools receive a budget for
tuition fees and textbooks. Money for uniforms and consumable learning materials is
distributed to parents by schools upon presentation of receipts. The family of a child in
primary school is eligible for a total of 2,195 baht, or US$73. A student in upper

secondary would receive almost double that, or 4,030 baht (MOE, 2009).

49

Education Administration and Management

The 2007 Constitution also calls for the decentralization of government
administrative authority. Section 80 establishes the role of the State in promoting and
supporting decentralization of powers to local administrative organizations, communities,
religious organizations, and the private sector. The State retains duties such as
developing the standard of education management, national education plans and law, and
the quality of teachers and educational personnel. In 2003, 175 Educational Service Area
(ESAs) were established throughout the country; each was responsible for approximately
200 educational institutions and a population of 300,000 to 500,000 students (Ministry of
Education (MOE), 2008).

In accepting responsibilities for providing education and training, local
governments were required to have regard for the conservation of regional arts, customs,
knowledge, and good culture. An initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the individual
ESAs revealed varied capacities to take on the range of service delivery functions
transferred to them due to differences in geographic coverage area, number of qualiﬁed
personnel, and endowed resources (World Bank, 2006b). In response, the number of
ESAs was expanded to 185: three in Bangkok and 182 in the surrounding provinces
(OEC, 2007).

History of Migrant Participation in the State Schooling System

Education for all. Issues of access and equity in education have been brought to
the fore of Thai education in the last several decades through various national and
international initiatives. On the global stage, Thailand was host to the 1990 World

Conference on Education for All. Article III of the Declaration that arose from this

50

meeting urges an active commitment be made in removing educational disparities and
discrimination in access to learning opportunities suffered by underserved groups.

In 2002, “education for all children”——including refugees, stateless persons, and
other marginalized groups—received ﬁrrther attention in an oft-publicized speech made
in Geneva, Switzerland by the daughter of the King of Thailand, Princess Maha Chakri.
Highlighting the acquisition of “useful knowledge and skills for their future role in
society,” the Princess promoted the advantages education would bring to both non-Thai
children and Thai society. “Socially,” she said,

the danger lies in the alienation of an entire class of people, albeit a minority,

within our society. Without the job skills necessary to secure a reasonable quality

of life for them and their dependents, refugees face hard times and are forced into
circumstances that might cause trouble for others. . . . Economically, the question
of post-primary education is not a question of “Can we afford to do it?” but rather

a question of “Can we afford not to do it?” (Maha Chakri Sirindhon, 2004)

In reality, migrant children have been able to access public schools for more than
a decade albeit with limitations. Prior to 2005, children registered with government
ofﬁcials could attend schools, but only those in the same geographic area in which they
were documented (Huguet & Punpuing, 2005b). In addition, graduating migrant students
received documents stamped to indicate that they did not have Thai nationality, which
may limit access to subsequent educational institutions. Statistics from the Ministry of
Education indicate that in the 2004 school year, there were 13,459 students from
Cambodia, Laos, and Burma attending secondary school or lower in Thailand. These

modest enrolment rates of between 15 and 20% of registered migrant children reﬂect, in

51

part, high ﬁnancial costs to schooling, families’ uncertainty about the cultural relevance
of the implemented curriculum, and a lack awareness—on the part of both families and
schools—of migrants’ rights to enroll (Proctor, Sanee, & Taffesse, 2009). Experiences in
Tak and Surat Thani Provinces also indicated that some schools were unwilling to accept
migrant children (FTUB, 2006). In such cases, families may be hesitant to publicly assert
their rights with local ofﬁcials where fears of arrest and deportation are well-founded and
their acceptance in the Thai community is tenuous (Bryant, 2005; Huguet & Punpuing,
2005a)

The 2005 Cabinet Resolution. Adjustments to the Ministry of Education’s
regulations on the provision of education to six categories of disadvantaged children were
proposed to the Thai Government in 2004. The following year, on July 5, 2005, the
Cabinet approved a Resolution (hereafter referred to as the 2005 Resolution) to provide
education to children who lack evidence of civil registration or Thai nationality.
According to this regulation, schools no longer stamp academic records in red ink to
indicate the bearer’s non-Thai identity. Further, the 2005 Resolution lifts restrictions on
place and duration of education for migrant children (but not refugees), eliminates the
need for identiﬁcation documents for enrolment, and provides equal funding to schools
for all students regardless of nationality, or lack thereof (OEC, 2008).

Since the introduction of the 2005 Resolution, migrant access to Thai schools has
been gradually increasing. Sciortino and Punpuing (2009) reported 41,099 GMS migrant
children enrolled in primary schools in Thailand, including more than 33,000 from
Burma. However, taking into consideration ofﬁcial registration data from 2004 and

likely increases in the numbers of migrant children in the country since that time, the

52

authors concluded that “a large portion of migrant children is not enrolled in Thai
schools” (p. 72). In the years following approval of the Resolution, the Ofﬁce of the
Education Council (2008) has observed limited implementation of the policy and delayed
enforcement nationwide. Many schools continue to turn away migrant and stateless
children, especially those without proper documentation. Some schools are unaware of
the 2005 Resolution but in other cases refusal is linked to lack of clarity of policy
implementation, insufﬁcient numbers of teachers, and difﬁculties of schools in obtaining
per head subsidies.
Migrant Learning Centers

Migrant schools, also known as migrant learning centers (MLCs), can be found in
provinces with signiﬁcant migrant populations. These include Chiang Mai in the north,
Samut Sakhon in central Thailand, Tak in the west, and Ranong in southern peninsular
region. MLCs represent an effort by local migrant communities and various NGOs to
provide a relevant, low-cost alternative to attending Thai schools—or to not attending
any school—for migrant children. Many constraints that restrict migrant families’
participation in the Thai education system—lack of awareness of rights to enroll, schools’
lack of willingness to accept migrant children, unfamiliar language of instruction,
concerns about the curriculum’s cultural relevance, ﬁnancial costs to schooling, families’
itinerant lifestyles—do not apply equally to MLCs (Proctor, Sanee, & Taffesse, 2009).
Although not formally recognized by the Thai government, a report of 12 ESAs identiﬁed
more than 80 MLCs, with an estimated 15,800 students and 980 teachers, throughout the

country (OEC, 2008). The vast majority of the schools are in western Tak Province, with

53

at least 62 MLCs serving 9,200 students. It is likely that a signiﬁcant number of MLCs
are as yet unknown to education authorities.

That the MLCs are formally unrecognized brings a unique set of challenges to
their continued operation and the educational and working future of participating
children. These include: 1) graduating students do not receive ofﬁcial certiﬁcation of
their qualiﬁcations; 2) security concerns for the schools themselves and for the majority
of the staff who are often undocumented migrants; 3) a wide range of curricula and
variable teaching and school management standards; 4) a lack of accountability
mechanisms to ensure good quality education is provided; and 5) limited and precarious
resources to build and maintain infrastructure, to provide teaching resources, and to pay
teachers’ salaries (Proctor, Sanee, & Taffesse, 2009).

Some of these challenges, especially the high degree of variability between MLCs
and their lack of accountability, have also been identiﬁed as a cause for concern by Thai
authorities. Citing “a chaos [of] diversiﬁcation,” the Ofﬁce of the Education Council
(2008) ﬁnds that a continued absence of ofﬁcial regulations to govern the MLCs “will be
harmﬁrl to Thailand’s national security” (p. 28).

Currently, MLCs are neither ofﬁcially “schools” nor “learning centers” (though
are commonly referred to as both). However, gaining ofﬁcial status as learning centers
would address many of the challenges associated with being unrecognized. Though this
possibility has been under discussion for several years, ongoing political turmoil in
Thailand has delayed development of practical proposals to implement such a policy.
Other obstacles also exist. The MLCs, for example, are autonomous entities with loose,

or sometimes no afﬁliations between them. Setting a coordinated course of action can be

54

very challenging. Second, ofﬁcial documents about registration plans and policies are in
Thai, which few migrant school staff can read or speak. Thus the sharing of information
is labor intensive and subject to misrepresentation/interpretation. In addition, resistance
from the migrant community is likely given that, if implemented, registration policies
would require closure of smaller school in a process of consolidation. Further,
registration would mean changes to curricula and language of instruction, and signiﬁcant
expenses to meet requirements for additional human and physical resources (Proctor,
Sanee, & Taffesse, 2009).
Conclusion

We have seen that large numbers of GMS migrants and their children currently
reside in Thailand. As adults and working children, they are subject to exploitation and
discrimination in their working and social lives. These conditions extend to families’
attempts to engage in public education for their children where, traditionally, enrolment
in Thai schools was limited and access to legitimate certiﬁcates was unavailable.
Recently, policy initiatives from the central government have focused on supporting all
children in their quest for education. We will see in future chapters how various actors
along the border and points more distant navigate the many challenges described here

such that migrant families can successfully participate in public education.

55

Chapter Three
Methods

In this chapter I describe and explain the research methods used in the study,
starting with the research design. Following that, I discuss instrument construction,
sampling, and data collection methods. I then describe the analysis techniques used for
interview data and observational data. I conclude with a discussion of several challenges
I faced, the study’s limitations, and my position as researcher.

Research Design

In this study, I hoped to describe and explain the participation of migrant families
in a state education system. In particular, I looked for the activation of social capital as
resources became available through various social relationships. I concentrated on one
particular case, Burmese families in Thailand, in an attempt to get a more nuanced
understanding of the actors, their roles, and the processes involved. Within the case,
there is one site. The boundaries of this site are deﬁned by the administrative
responsibilities of Educational Service Area 2 in Tak Province (Tak ESA2). As
described in Chapter 2, ESAs are the local representatives of the central Ministry of
Education. Tak Province has two ESAs, each responsible for several hundred schools
(Figure 3.1 presents the location of Tak Province in Thailand and identiﬁes the
administrative region of Tak ESA2). The use of a single site deﬁned in this manner
afforded several advantages relative to the purpose of this study. First, it provided a set
of actors—migrant families, school staff, and MOE staff—who were, to some degree,
already linked together through their common association with public schools. This

facilitated identiﬁcation and exploration of the social network in which families were

56

 

  
    

(see inset)

   
  
 

THAILAND

 

 

 

. \TlfAILAND
\r‘

 

 

Figure 3.1. Map of the Thai-Burmese border and key cities. Tak province was the single
site for this study. Politically, Tak Province is divided into nine districts (see inset).
Schools in the ﬁve numbered districts are under the supervision of Tak ESA2. The
districts are: 1. Tha Song Yang; 2. Mac Rarnat; 3. Mac Sot; 4. Phop Phra; and 5.
Umphang. The Tak ESA2 ofﬁce is located in Mae Sot District. Participating schools are
located in Mae Sot and Phop Phra Districts.

embedded. Second, the single site provides a probable measure of consistency in terms
of network structure and function. That is, because all schools were under the
responsibility of the same ESA, I could more conﬁdently assume uniformity in the way
relationships were established and maintained, and in the way that resources might be
made available between these actors.

A study concerned with personal histories requires methodological tools that can

explore subjective realities and the social life worlds of migrants. A ﬁeld study focusing

57

on interviews and careful observation allowed me to foreground the words and
testimonies of a small number of families as strongly as possible. Rather than attempt
generalizability of results from a large sample size, this design was also consistent with
my aim to develop an improved understanding of a single, complex issue (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). In enacting this interpretive approach, I developed categories and
theories inductively from the data and reformulated interpretive schemes and various
hypotheses during the course of the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

The study largely draws on data collected during a ﬁve-month trip to Thailand in
2008. This was the second, and longest, of three visits over three years. A brief,
preliminary trip was made in 2007 to assist in developing an initial network of contacts
and in reﬁnement of the research proposal. In 2009, a follow-up visit was made to the
border area where additional data were collected. By this time, a new academic year had
begun and it was possible to conﬁrm the trajectory of some of the students I had met the
previous visit. Unless otherwise indicated, all interview and observational data refer to
the context in Thailand as of 2008. I also used document analysis, reviewing published
data made available in hard copy and electronic form through a multiplicity of Websites,
and government and nongovemment agencies.

Selecting a Research Site

Though I had lived in Thailand for four years before this study began, I had never
knowingly or purposefully interacted with the country’s migrant population. Thus, I had
no prior knowledge I could activate in selecting an appropriate research site. Instead, I
relied on scholarly and mainstream information gleaned from the Internet prior to my

preliminary visit in 2007. Such searches invariably led me to Mac Sot in Thailand’s

58

western Tak Province. Though not a large city, the relatively high numbers of
documented and undocumented Burmese in the region, along with a vibrant exchange of
goods across the Moei River, have given the area a particular notoriety.

I began with the name of one person before my trip in 2007, a senior staff
member of the organization World Education who was working in Mae Sot. Electronic
communication led to an invitation to the monthly meeting of the Committee for the
Coordination of Services for Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT), a
communications network for NGOs who meet on a regular basis to exchange information
and to discuss various aspects of their humanitarian work with refugees, asylum seekers,
and migrants. From these modest beginnings, my own social network began to expand in
volume.

Drawing on information these ﬁrst informants provided, a list of prospective sites
began to develop. At the time my research proposal was defended the next year, the
study had evolved to include the possibility of a multi-site investigation across three
provinces. When I returned to Thailand in 2008, I spent the ﬁrst month visiting each of
the sites for a few days—Mae Sot in the west, Chiang Mai in the north, and Samut
Sakhon, a mid-size city in central Thailand near Bangkok. I arrived at each location with
a short list of people to see and things to do. It quickly became apparent that Mac Sot
stood apart from the other sites in that it was the only location where I was able to
quickly meet staff from the local MOE ofﬁce. This was a vital link, not only in terms data
sources for my study, but also as those staff also acted as gatekeepers, the sources of
legitimate authorization to visit schools. It was in this way that I decided to begin in Mae

Sot. Over time, I realized that there was more than enough going on in this one site for

59

me to attempt to describe and explain, and so, acting on the advice of my committee, I
chose to dig deeper into the one site rather than expand—and risk spreading myself too
thin—to two sites.

It was during my ﬁrst few hours in Mae Sot that I made many of the connections
that would inﬂuence the direction of my investigation. Before leaving the US, I had
been given the contact information of Mr. P, the outgoing Executive Director of Tak
ESA2. Through a brief series of electronic exchanges, he invited me to visit Mae Sot the
same morning that the International Labor Organization (ILO) was holding a special
event about child labor. I had been in Bangkok for another of the CCSDPT monthly
meetings and my overnight bus arrived in Mac Sot at 5 am. Four hours later, Mr. P had
arranged for Ms. G, a senior staff member of the ILO’s Bangkok ofﬁce, to pick me up at
my guest house. Over the coming months I would attend several of the same events as
Ms. G and she would also consent to an interview.

In attendance at the ILO event were numerous actors with whom I would interact
in the coming months. Of particular note was the presence of a woman from the Tak
ESA2 ofﬁce who supervised English language instruction at schools throughout western
Tak Province. The importance of her knowledge of people and institutions in the area
was equaled by her ability to communicate in English. She eventually proactively
facilitated my contact with several teachers and administrators in Thai schools.

Interview Protocol Development

A primary method of data collection was through interviews following a semi-

structured format. Guiding lists of questions and prompts were developed in order to

increase the likelihood that that the same cluster of topics would be covered in each

60

interview in a similar way (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002, p. 122). A separate list of questions
was prepared for three main subgroups of actors: (a) migrant families (adults and
children), (b) personnel from various local and international organizations, and (c) MOE
and Thai school staff.

Conversations with families attempted to reveal their perspectives on education,
their access to it, and the reasons behind their participation. Topics of conversation with
parents and students focused on their personal migration and education histories, initial
and ongoing school experiences, relationships with school staff and the local community,
and views of education for the future. Semi-structured interviews with organization staff
attempted to understand why these organizations work with migrant populations, how
they do this work, and the challenges they encounter. Similarly, conversations with
teachers and school administrators centered on how these actors understood their roles in
providing education to migrant children, what resources are made available to support
them in this, and what challenges have arisen. The Appendix further elaborates the
categories for interviews.

In total, 44 participants were interviewed for this study. The distribution of
participants within categories is presented in Table 3.1. Of the 14 migrant families
interviewed, 12 were participating in schools in Mac Sot District and two had children
attending schools in the more rural Phop Phra District. Eleven staff from
nongovernmental organizations of various scope and size were interviewed. The
majority of these organizations work directly with Thai schools in
some capacity but among them were four people working in the system of migrant

learning centers. One lawyer with expertise in immigration was also interviewed. In

61

Table 3.1

 

 

Interview participants
Interview hours
Characteristic Number (approximate)
Migrant family 14 20
Nongovernmental organization staff 11 14
State employee
Tak ESA2 ofﬁce staff 3 5
School administrator 4 5
Teacher 9 10
Other 3 2
n=44 n=56

 

addition to Tak ESA2 staff, school administrators, and school teachers, three other state
actors participated in this study. Two were local phooyaibaan (village leaders) and one
was an ofﬁcial from the administrative ofﬁces of Mae Sot District.
Interview Sampling

Interview participants were identiﬁed and recruited into the study by a
combination of sampling methods. I discuss each group of participants separately here
and identify the methods of identiﬁcation and invitation.
Nongovernmental Organization Staff

Some participants from nongovernmental organizations were recruited through
judgment sampling (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). In such cases, the information I had
available indicated that
including certain organizations in the Mae Sot area would add value to the study.
Contact was then made with the organization, in person or by email.

Equally effective were referrals by participants to other organizations or a speciﬁc

person within an organization. In such cases, an actor I had interviewed would

62

recommend that I talk to another person, either within or outside of the same
organization, who they deemed particularly relevant and/or knowledgeable. Such “key
informant” or “snowball” sampling (Heckathom, 1997) increased as time went by and
people became more familiar with my study and the kinds of information I was seeking.
(The irony that this was proof positive of the role that social networks and capital can
play in one’s life did not escape me.)
State Employees

As previously mentioned, my initial hours in Mac Sot in 2008 provided me with
access to Mr. P and one other key informant from the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce. Through the two
of them, I was introduced to other Tak ESA2 staff and various teachers and
administrators. Ultimately, a number of state employees were included through judgment
sampling, with most of them having met me several months before a request for an
interview was made. (In general, I attempted to observe ﬁrst, and only ask for interviews
much later in the research. This allowed me time to make sure that the questions I asked
in the interview were well suited for the place of the informant in the general scheme of
things.) Only in the case of other state actors were interviews conducted the ﬁrst time I
met them. In these instances, the opportunities for a chance encounter were rare and I
had asked to be introduced to them with the speciﬁc intent of inviting the person for an
interview.
Migrant Families

For the purposes of this study, I consider a family to be a unit of cohabitating kin
of whom one or more were migrant adult caregivers and one or more others were migrant

children, of an arbitrary minimum age of 10, enrolled at a Thai public school. More

63

speciﬁcally, I was interested in families where the adult caregivers or parents had been
born in Burma. I did not include families where one parent was from Thailand and one
was from Burma. Birthplace of the children was not as restrictive in that I considered as
migrant children both those born in Burma and those born to migrant parents in Thailand.
This is consistent with Thai government usage of the term (IOM, 2008a). All
participating families had more than one child, though not always more than one child at
a Thai school. Where a family had more than one child currently enrolled at a school, the
eldest child was chosen as focus.

Within my case, I had ﬁrst envisioned limiting my sampling to middle and high
school students since older children may have been better able to articulate their
experiences with migration and also with the Thai school system. In the end, this did not
work out as planned for several reasons. The ﬁrst was that were very few high schools
within a reasonable commuting distance of Mac Sot. In addition, enrolment data
provided by the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce indicated very few non-Thai students participated at the
upper secondary level at any schools in the region. Further, without talking to each
student individually, it could not be determined whether he or she would meet the criteria
of having both parents born in Burma, as many “hill tribe” families also live in the Tak
ESA2 administrative area. Many of these families have been in Thailand for multiple
generations but have not applied, or have not been able to apply for Thai citizenship. To
increase the chances of successfully recruiting migrant families, I visited only primary
and lower secondary schools that appeared to have at least 20 non-Thai students enrolled.

Heckathom (1997) characterizes “hidden populations” as groups “with strong

privacy concerns, because membership involves stigmatized or illegal behavior, leading

64

individuals to refuse to cooperate, or give unreliable answers to protect their privacy” (p.
174). I anticipated that these same protective behaviors may be demonstrated by
particular migrant individuals or communities as a whole given that some members had
undocumented status in Thailand. In addition, the literature demonstrated that Burmese
adults were often detained and deported by Thai police when out in public (Grumiau,
2003). Heckathom reports that effective studies of hidden populations have usually been
found to use one of three methods of sampling: (a) key informant sampling, (b) targeted
sampling, and (c) snowball or other chain-referral sampling.

Families were identiﬁed in each of these ways. In visiting some schools, teachers
pre-selected a small number of students for me to meet based on the description of my
study and the participant criteria I had given them. After a brief conversation, I was able
to decide which families I was most interested in interviewing. I used targeted sampling
to invite two families into the study. This method was used with students in a grade one
class who appeared signiﬁcantly older than some of the other children. One family was
identiﬁed through snowball sampling based on the referral of another family who I had
already interviewed. After completing an interview with the ﬁrst family, the student led
us to the house of her friend nearby. Finally, two families were invited into the study
through opportunistic sampling. In these cases, I had been driven out to visit somewhat
remote rural, migrant communities in Phop Phra District. As people gathered around to
investigate what I was doing there, my interpreter asked which of them had children in
school and if any of them would be willing to talk to me. These were also the only times I

did not meet the children in advance of meeting parents.

65

My “interest” in particular families ﬂuctuated somewhat in an attempt to provide
diversity and representativeness (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002) within the overall group of
participants. Invitations for interviews were inﬂuenced by the gender and grade level of
the focus sibling in the family, as well as ethnicity and any unique family characteristics
revealed during a brief, initial questioning process. Of the 14 families that participated,
there were equal numbers of female and male focal children. Focal child grade levels
varied from ﬁrst grade through ninth grade, and ages from 10 to 20. Though the eldest
participating student was indeed in the highest grade, the converse was not true, in that
the 10 year old student was in grade two, not grade one. Parents represented a total of
four political areas within Burma. Additional characteristics I attempted to account for
were working children, siblings of school age not currently enrolled, and date of families’
ﬁrst participation in schooling (before or after the 2005 Resolution was introduced).
Only some of these characteristics were revealed during the initial screening process,
with most details being ﬁlled in upon actual visits to the homes and interviews with the
family. Although I aimed for contrasts within the sample of interviewees, I did not do so
presuming that the end sample would be representative of the full population of migrant
families. I simply presumed that these contrasts would allow me to understand more
nuance and complexity that a narrower range of informants.

Data Collection
Observation and Participant Observation

Data were collected through observation in essentially every waking moment of

every day, during events that varied from the routine to the rare, from the happenstance to

the scripted. I had rented a room in a guest house in central Mae Sot whose owner was

66

an English teacher at a local high school. Though about ﬁve kilometers from the schools
I later became most interested in, I was able to observe the daily rhythm of life for
migrant families living in town. Burmese men were identiﬁable by their use of a longyi,
a sarong-like garment wrapped around the legs and waist. The Burmese women—and
children—applied yellowish thanaka powder to their cheeks, foreheads, and noses.
Burmese women also often kept their hair longer than Thai women did, pulled back and
held in a single, ﬂowing pony-tail. During a visit to a new post-secondary science and
technology school, one young Burmese woman told me she had decided to blend in by
dressing Thai style—wearing jeans instead of a skirt and cutting her hair shoulder length.

After deciding to make Mae Sot my research site, I visited the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce
every few days to keep my face familiar and to talk with some of the English-speaking
staff. The ofﬁce was temporarily hosting two academics from the Philippines. A man
was helping the ofﬁce with their special needs programs and a woman was assisting the
office work cooperatively with many of the migrant learning centers in the area.

After visiting regularly for over a month, the woman from the Philippines helped
me establish a more permanent presence in the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce by securing an unused
desk for me. With a place of my own to sit whenever I wanted, I began to visit the ofﬁce
even more often. In this way, I kept better informed of various education activities and
continued to expand my list of area contacts. I was literally in the midst of things, and
this helped me increase the serendipitous—as well as planned—opportunities for data
collection. Over the months that I was in Mae Sot, I received several invitations for
active participant observation. Speciﬁcally, I helped lead a weekend professional

development workshop for Thai teachers of English and to assist in the organization and

67

delivery of a three-day training event for the head teachers and directors of more than 40
migrant learning centers. I also was invited to Thai schools on three occasions,
evaluating speech contests in English at the primary and secondary levels.

Once permission was secured from Tak ESA2 to conduct visits to local schools
and talk to staff, I began to go to one school or another two to three times a week for
several months. The schools I chose were based on the recommendations of Tak ESA2
staff and travel distance. Renting a motorbike increased my level of independence and
allowed me to arrive at schools and leave as I wished and, over time, I witnessed the
range of school curricular and co-curricular activities from morning assembly to mid-day
meditation to afternoon dismissal. Almost always, visits began with the classrooms of
teachers I knew to speak the best English in the school. Several times, my intentions to
observe became opportunities for participant observation when teachers whose
classrooms I was visiting asked me to teach a spontaneous lesson in English to their
students. Most times, my presence in a classroom landed somewhere between extremes
of full participation and full observation. Regardless of the particular circumstances, I
realize that my presence inﬂuenced how classroom events played out and, therefore, what
I was able to observe or not observe (Hatch, 2002).

During visits in both 2008 and 2009, I went to several events organized by NGOs
in cooperation with local education ofﬁcials speciﬁc to the education of migrant children
in Thai schools. One of these was in Bangkok, two were in Samut Sakhon, and two were
in Mac Sot. All meetings were in Thai. Although I was able to raise my visibility within
each community by attending, I was never able to arrange for a dedicated interpreter on

the day of these events and was only able to get the gist of talks, discussions, and

68

assemblies. Generally, the intent of the events were similar: to increase awareness of
Thai education policies and ongoing obstacles to education for migrant children. Invited
guests included NGO staff, school and learning center administration, and, on two
occasions, representatives of local police. Records of events were either hand written or
voice-recorded when time became available.

Interviews

As already mentioned, interviews were intended to be semi-structured and open-
ended and most followed this design. The majority of interviews were recorded during
the second half of my ﬁve-month visit to Thailand in 2008 as, by then, I had met most
participants multiple times and often in multiple contexts before asking permission for a
more formal interview. In all but two occasions, the participant allowed the interview to
be voice recorded. Interviews ranged in length from a brief 15-minute question and
answer session with a Mae Sot District official as he conducted his work in a busy ofﬁce,
to a three hour conversation with Mr. P in his home in Chiang Mai. The majority
participants agreed to “formal” follow-up conversations in addition to talking with me in
more casual, nonrecorded interactions.

Interviews with school teachers, administrators, and NGO staff generally occurred
in quiet ofﬁces or classrooms away from prying eyes and ears. In contrast, interviews
with families almost always occurred with curious neighbors or relatives present for all or
part of the conversation. Some houses were peaceful, but others absorbed the sounds of
the outside world, including the noise of machinery from worksites nearby—or literally,
next door. Family interviews were almost always scheduled for Sundays when the adults

were least likely to be working. Initially, appointments were set up with children at

69

school during the week for later visits. Later on, I would stop by at a house with my
interpreter if we happened to be in the area to inquire if and when we might schedule a
future visit. On occasion, our intentions were only to pass by certain homes but families
insisted we stop for a visit.

The migrant families were generous people, hospitable and kind. As guests,
families offered snacks and refreshments during visits as my interpreter and I sat on a mat
that had been unrolled for the occasion. On follow-up visits to families, we often stopped
by a convenience store and brought food and drink for everyone we could then estimate
would be there. On one occasion, we were invited to stay and talk over dinner, eating by
candlelight after the father had gotten home from work. If families had concerns about
the questions they were being asked, it never showed in overt actions or tone that I could
detect. Although my interpreter did not indicate to me that questions about family
histories or personal ﬁnances were overly intrusive, we took care to present them at a
moment that seemed most appropriate (if at all). Only on rare occasions did families
indicate they wanted to ask speciﬁc questions of me, but I do remember that at the end of
my third visit to a particular home, the mother asked to be reminded why I was interested
in talking to her and her family.

Documents

Print and electronic documents were collected continuously. Of particular interest
were documents that were likely to be most-readily available or only available locally.
This included brochures produced in limited numbers and , and other documents offered
at some of the meetings I was able to attend. While I was provided with some examples

of the latter, they were usually written in Thai and only the briefest have been translated

70

into English for analysis. Documents collected online include scholarly articles in peer-
reviewed journals, reports by various domestic and international NGOs, policy-relevant
documents, and daily news articles.

Logs and Head Notes

Two additional forms of data were collected while in Thailand. The ﬁrst was an
electronic log, or calendar, of each day’s events. The log began as a forward-looking
planner so that I could keep track of appointments scheduled in the coming days and
weeks. After each day was completed, I recorded an overview of how I had spent that
day, with whom, and where.

Some thoughts about a particular event occurred when I was not in a position to
record them on paper or electronically. They would come in bits and pieces but these
head notes (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002) were important enough to capture in some form at
the time. In these moments, laying in bed or out at a restaurant, I voice recorded my own
ideas and queries taking into account my tenuous memory so as to not lose track of them
forever. I also wrote emails to my advisor on a regular basis, and these stories too
became part of the written record of what I was seeing and learning.

Data Analysis

Given that I had opportunities for multiple visits with families and other actors, an
initial process of data analysis was begun while still in Thailand. Recorded interviews
and ﬁeld notes were reviewed and summarized to highlight emerging patterns in the data
as well as gaps, and to identify further avenues of inquiry (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Upon return to the US, interviews were transcribed and coded. As further transcripts

were prepared and analyzed, they were compared with themes already identiﬁed to look

71

for ways new data further conﬁrmed, refuted, or simply did not support my emerging
conceptual matrix. Themes that arose from these data included concerns for personal
security, social ties to similar and diverse others, and the centrality of ﬁnancial support
for schooling among others.

One unanticipated effort that was arose involved the re-translation of various
transcripts of conversations in Thai and English. In listening to the interviews I
sometimes became concerned about the ﬁdelity of interpretation that occurred in the
moment with the person I had hired for that work. At times, answers I was given seemed
unconnected to the original question I had asked. Other times, lengthy, animated
exchanges between my interpreter and a participant became a single phrase in English.
My wife, who is Thai, was able to help me re-examine these data sources.

Analysis of the data and identiﬁcation of coding themes led to drafting of analytic
memos. These early attempts to develop a sense of coherence around data collected from
different sources or at various points in time served as the basis for meetings with my
dissertation director. Setting aside time for writing—and sharing—provided
opportunities for extending, elaborating, and integrating coding categories (Emerson,
Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Comments and queries arising from these discussions were used
to inform future coding and analysis of existing data. In addition, these conversations
were used to guide collection of a limited amount of additional data during a visit to
Thailand in 2009.

The next step of analysis involved taking these descriptions and examining them
through the lens of the conceptual framework for the study. I developed charts for each

form of capital and listed ways these were operationalized in the literature. I reviewed my

72

descriptions and sorted what I had seen and heard to identify where parallels and
mismatches occurred. With respect to the families, for example, I coded for their
economic capital (wages, material goods in and around the home). Drawing on Bourdieu
(1986), I sorted evidence of families’ cultural capital (overt mannerisms, state-issued
documents), human capital (years of schooling, work skills, knowledge of Thai
language), and social capital.

To code for social capital, I found it helpﬁrl to distinguish what social capital is
from what it does (Edwards & Foley, 1997) or sources of social capital from outcomes of
activation (Woolcock, 2002). To think about what social capital is, I used Bourdieu’s
(1986) conception of networks and resources. Family visits (who was in and around the
homes) and interview recordings (who did families say they talked to/spent time with)
helped construct families social networks. To code for resources, I looked the ways
families described what they gained from their networks especially in terms of access to
information (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999), ﬁnancial support, and small, daily exchanges
(Briggs, 1998). Other times, it was more helpﬁrl to work backwards, identifying an
outcome (i.e., access to housing or schools) and then coding and sorting the means (the
resource and the tie) by which the outcome appeared to have been achieved.

Description, coding, and sorting of the capital of non-Burmese actors occurred in
a similar manner. In addition to formal interviews, I gathered evidence during visits to
worksites, homes, and informal social encounters. For economic, cultural, and human
capital, data of these actors was usually coded and categorized less vigorously. That is, I
often relied on more general memories of their homes and mannerisms and used these as

points of contrast when coding and sorting migrant family data. Analysis social capital

73

for these actors was more explicit. In the interview data, I looked for where actors
mentioned individual or collective social contacts, or described ways in which they
received information about policies or more general news.

Additional information about an emerging social network became available
through various formal and informal encounters. That is, I recorded who was in
attendance at various meetings and workshops. I also learned about the composition of
the network by making note of who socialized together at particular restaurants and bars
in Mae Sot.

Challenges and Limitations

There were numerous challenges associated with the design and execution of this
study. One signiﬁcant challenge had to do with language and the resulting biases,
uncertainties, and (assumed) miscommunications this produced.

A severe limitation is that my own skills with Thai language are minimal. This
had numerous effects on the way I was able to interact with participants and the direction
the study took. First, it limited the data I could collect. I often visited schools
unaccompanied by someone who could interpret and translate for me. Thus, my
descriptions of what schools are like for migrant students often rely heavily on the visual.
What teachers said to students and how they said it largely went undocumented.

I had a key informant who spoke English well at the two schools I visited most.
Time spent with other teachers was extremely limited except when formal interviews
were being conducted. At one school, the key informant was a Burmese man. This
provided great advantages for communicating with migrant children at the school.

However, this did not assist me in communicating with Thai teachers who spoke little to

74

no English and with whom I developed little of a personal relationship. This was
personally disappointing and made my learning about their lives less robust.

The majority of the interviews, and all those with families, were conducted with
the aid of an interpreter. A review of some recorded interviews conducted in Thai with
teachers revealed that errors through misinterpreted questions and answers occurred
occasionally. I currently have no way to verify the quality of interpretation that was done
with Burmese families. Further, each interpreter I hired conducted their work according
to the vocabulary they were most familiar with and preferred to use. In using social
capital as an interpretive frame, I have attached signiﬁcance to particular terms that
describe relationships such as “friend” or “neighbor.” Thus, the way I understand these
words to have been used by participants may be different from the way they actually
intended them.

Additionally, I chose schools to visit largely based on geographic convenience
and the number of migrant students enrolled. As the reader will see later, one school was
exceptional in the high proportion of Burmese children who study there. While the
school does provide a sense of spectrum of possibility in Thailand, this school may be so
unique as to provide little insight into what happens at the vast majority of other schools.

“It is only us that must worryl”:
Positioning Myself as Researcher

In part, I chose to investigate migrant families’ access to education in Thailand
because it offered both the familiar and the new to me. On the one hand, I was familiar
in the country having lived in Thailand for four years. I knew something of the culture

and how firings “worked.” Though I couldn’t speak the language well, let alone those of

75

the migrant families along the border, that hadn’t stopped me before in navigating my
way through each day and I was conﬁdent enough that I could ﬁnd a way to manage at
least most of the challenges that might arise. But while doing the study, I also
encountered much that was new, especially as the lives of the migrants were abrupt
contrasts with my own life and prior experiences. I knew little of the Burmese when I
started and this newness represented refreshing spaces for me to learn, to teach myself
and be taught.

In an attempt to “dismantle the traditional hierarchy that puts researchers in
positions of power” (Kirsch, 1999, p. 26), I also wanted to establish a sense of the
familiar with interview participants. That is, I tried to ﬁnd ways to reveal some of myself
to them, especially in a sense of having something in common. It was my hope that
ﬁnding parallels might facilitate a more personal connection with the people I met. The
goal was to not only make us both/all more comfortable, but perhaps reveal additional or
even better data in the process. In interviewing Thai school teachers, I always presented
myself as a teacher as well. My business cards, printed in Thai and English, indicated I
was a science teacher and I asked my interpreter to speciﬁcally mention this early in each
interview. I knew enough Thai to recognize when this had been done and it was usually
accompanied by a knowing smile or perhaps a nod from the teacher. I mentioned that we
also shared the experience of teaching students whose ﬁrst language was often not the
same as our own. Again, there was usually an overt sign of conﬁrmation, an indication
that the point had been made and received.

Beyond this, however, I often didn’t get a sense that teachers felt we had much in

common. Relationships with Thai teachers were severely inhibited by language and I

76

ﬁnished the study largely unsatisﬁed with my lack of a good rapport with many of them.
It seemed to me that at least some likely saw me as someone who came in to mine data
from their lives and nothing more.

I also tried to establish a connection at some level with the migrant families. I
couldn’t talk about my own kids in school, but I did have a lot of experience myself as a
mobile person. I wasn’t just a researcher who came to investigate their lives, I was a
migrant myself. It has been almost two decades now since I left my own “home” in
Ontario. I have learned some of the constraints to living abroad as a foreigner. I
understand what it is like to be unfamiliar with local customs and language, to not
understand or be understood. I thought that this sharing these stories might be an
opportunity to enhance my rapport with families so I often asked that my interpreter
present an abbreviated version of my travels to the families.

I could never be sure of how the families saw me or interpreted my presence.
Later I imagined that perhaps they only saw the privilege of my travels, having led a
glamorous live of adventure and exploration. 1 did get a glimpse of what at least one
participant was thinking one day. Near the end of my visit to Thailand in 2008, I was
having a conversation with one family about travelling between Thailand and Burma and
within Thailand itself. It was at least the fourth time I had been to their home and, as part
of the conversation, we discussed the military checkpoint nearby that controlled access to
the nearest town. I mentioned that I was (truthfully) concerned that I might be stopped
for questioning, noting that I usually did not carry my passport nor could I likely answer
any questions that might be asked of me. Though these apprehensions were very real to

me, one woman was skeptical and very dismissive. Looking at me with some disbelief,

77

she said, “They will never stop you. You are a Westemer. We are Asian. It is only us
that must worry!”

Issues of trust and vulnerability were particularly important with the families
because, unlike the teachers, discussions revolved around their personal lives and not just
their work. I asked about their legal status in Thailand, about their salaries, and about
their relationship with the host society, any or all of which they might have found
particularly intrusive. Further, living as migrants with undocumented status in Thailand,
they were a vulnerable “hidden population” (Heckathom, 1997) and a sense of trust
seemed particularly important in delving into how they had arrived, what they did in
Thailand, and how long they planned to stay. Despite being committed to being
trustworthy with them, I violated my own sense of trust with families one day. In a
conversation about my experiences in Bangkok teaching at a school there, we began to
discuss the cost of living and salaries. I had been asking families about their earnings
(with appropriate sensitivity I had hoped), but when it came time for me to answer their
questions, I became uncomfortable at the level of our differences. I knew that my daily
salary in Bangkok was equal to or greater than their monthly salary here on the border.
Thinking it was best to make a downward adjustment, I underreported my earnings to
them. So much for trust! After asking them dozens of questions, I was disappointed I
felt the need to massage my own answer on only the third question they had for me. In
moments such as these, I was reminded of our differences that I had sought to downplay
most times. I was reminded as well of the undercurrents in interviews that lead both the

interviewee and the interviewer to constantly be adjusting one’s answers, and the

78

implications that has for how much faith a researcher can ever have in the data that he so

carefully collects and interprets.

79

Chapter Four

Migrant Education in Tak Province: Introducing the Actors and Their Roles

This chapter presents various actors living and/or working in Thailand’s Tak
Province and illustrates the manner by which they have responded to an evolving policy
context with respect to the education of non-Thai students. I begin by describing the
activities of Tak Educational Service Area 2 (Tak ESA2), the local government ofﬁce
responsible for education in Tak Province’s most western regions. There is an extended
history of accepting migrant students into area schools which, given their proximity to the
border, is perhaps not surprising. I draw attention to the work of former and current staff
in supporting both state schools and, through a nascent cooperative arrangement, migrant
learning centers.

I next turn to three government schools to see how each has responded to recent
education policy. Much of the data around Thai schools focuses on a recent policy
instrument, the 2005 Resolution. Recall that the Resolution extends the rights of non-
Thai students to enroll in, and receive certiﬁcates from, state schools as well as providing
for equal ﬁnancial support to schools for both Thai and non-Thai students. We will see
that the schools sometimes engage differently with the Resolution choosing to manage
the challenges and opportunities provided in their own way.

Following this, I introduce readers to four children who were among the 14
families who participated in this research. All of the children were enrolled in
government schools in Mae Sot District overseen by the Tak ESA2 office. Two of the
children began attending prior to the 2005 Cabinet Resolution and two after the

Resolution was implemented. In addition to their experiences with local schools, the

80

children and their families describe their lives more broadly, revealing details of their
cross-border travel into Thailand and the ways in which work and housing were secured.
In doing so, their stories introduce us to additional actors—individual and collective—
with whom the families are associated and from whom they receive assistance to achieve
their goals.

Finally, I describe the work of three NGOs—of different size and scope—whose
efforts focus to varying degrees on migrant education, and more speciﬁcally, the
education of migrant children in Thai schools. Each organization was chosen because of
their familiarity with the context of Tak Province, though only one works exclusively in
this region. The two smallest organizations work “on the ground,” making direct contact
with migrant families. The largest describes its location more distally, a position it ﬁnds
advantageous to providing oversight and coordination of services.

Tak ESA2

The Tak ESA2 ofﬁce is located in the town of Mac Sot. At the time of my
arrival, Tak ESA2 was going through a period of transition with respect to its
management. After a brief tenure of 13 months, the former Executive Director of the
office, Mr. P, had been transferred to an BSA in another province and staff were making
adjustments to meet the demands of his replacement. The former director was well
known throughout the district for his overt and creative support of educational
opportunities for migrant children. In contrast, the new director was described by a
number of ofﬁce staff as being sterner in demeanor and more cautious in his actions with
respect to migrant education. I didn’t ﬁnd the latter totally unexpected given the

undocumented status of migrant workers and their families and the extra-legal status of

81

dozens of migrant learning centers in the area. Still, the loss of the former director was
lamented by many.

According to Mr. P, the 2005 Resolution was a signiﬁcant legal instrument in
efforts to improve the quality of formal schooling opportunities to migrant families. One
reason is that students can now receive legitimate educational credentials upon
completing various levels of study. Mr. P explained that, before this time, national policy
did allow for migrant and hill-tribe students who had registered with local authorities to
attend schools near their. homes. However, upon successful graduation, documents would
be stamped with provisional comments in red ink indicating the document “was not
ofﬁcial.” The remarks were added to all students who were not listed in the civil registry
of Thai nationals. These remarks may prevent students’ previous coursework from being
recognized by institutions offering higher levels of education (Vital Voices Global
Partnership, 2007).

Equally important to legitimate academic records was a simpliﬁcation of the
enrolment process. Schools are no longer required or even allowed to ask for any kind of
birth or identify documents for new students. F or children lacking such documents,
registration can be facilitated through an interview with a local administrator who can
validate the child’s identity and vouch for her ongoing residency status in the community.
One such person is the village leader, or phooyaiban, who is the person of highest
authority likely to know all the inhabitants of a particular area. As part of the registration
process, the child’s date of birth, the place of birth, and other details are recorded and
kept on ﬁle. The school keeps the interview paper and issues the certiﬁcate when the

student graduates.

82

Apart from policy development, Mr. P found that ofﬁcials at the central MOE
ofﬁce knew little of the realities of providing education to migrant families. In fact, there
was nobody in Bangkok whose work focused exclusively on education for migrant
children. Describing his contact with one division of the Bangkok MOE ofﬁce, Mr. P
said that staff had traveled to Mac Sot several times in recent weeks. Each time, they
relied on his expertise to guide and advise them. “Anyone who comes here, they know
nothing about migrant or refugee education,” he said chuckling slightly. “They just
invite me to talk to them about it.”

Policy Dissemination

Local ESAs distribute information to individual schools about national
regulations and directives through social ties that link the two levels together. During
Mr. P’s tenure at Tak ESA2, the ofﬁce worked hard to make sure that school
administrators were well aware of all policies, including the 2005 Resolution. “Every
month we have a meeting for school directors at our ofﬁce. And sometimes we have a
letter from the MOE in Bangkok that we send to them.” Tak ESA2 also followed up:
“We try to do monitoring and supervising,” Mr. P said. “We visit the school and ask for
the progress for the policy, if they have migrant students in their schools.” The proof of
their success, he felt, was seen in the increasing numbers of migrant students in area
schools. As of early 2008, migrant children made up 3% of the student population in Tak
ESA2 schools.

Though he couldn’t be sure, Mr. P was doubtful that other ESA ofﬁces were as
aggressive in their efforts to promote the policy and to attract migrant students to their

schools. “We try to tell the school administrators many, many times about the policy and

83

the regulations from the MOE,” he told me. “I don’t know for other areas or other
provinces. Maybe they do like this too. But I think most of the school directors other
than Tak Province don’t know about the policy or the regulations.”

As awareness of the 2005 Resolution increased, so too did the potential for
resistance on the part of various stakeholders to implement it. Mr. P recounted a story of
another province where the school director was keen to accept migrant students in her
school. However, other stakeholders were not interested in extending educational
opportunities to migrant students and so the director faced considerable opposition. Mr.
P was sympathetic, as he had faced similar challenges in the past. Still, he remained
determined to offer migrant students the same opportunities as Thai children. “I can say
that I have met problems like this,” he explained. The solution was to “work step-by-step
to make sure everyone understands about human rights and the declaration for Education
for All and students’ rights. Although they are migrant students, they have a spirit and a
soul like the Thai students.” Similarly, the Director of one of Tak ESA2’s primary
schools said: “I tell my teachers, ‘You must love the migrant students like the Thai
students because she is human. She has lost the opportunity to go to school and we give
the opportunity to them. You ought to love them.”’

Support to Thai Schools

As well as informing the schools of their responsibilities to enroll migrant
children, the ofﬁce supported schools in teaching these students. In particular, ofﬁce
staff provided strategies for migrant student integration into the school community and
resources to implement these strategies. In part this was supported through social links to

nonstate actors. For example, in cooperation with World Education, a US. based NGO,

84

Tak ESA2 had planned to offer training to teachers at Thai schools that would help them
adjust to increasing ethnic and linguistic diversity in their classrooms. Unfortunately,
budgeting cuts meant that this plan was not being enacted as of 2008. However, the
program was up and running through the 2009-2010 Thai school year.

AnOther initiative unique to Tak ESA2 was the development of bilingual curricula
at schools with especially high proportions of migrant students. In addition to migrant
students learning the Thai language, Thai students also learn the Burmese language. This
proposal is meant to promote cross-cultural learning and to prepare students for the
realities of life in Tak Province where the two languages, in addition to others, are
spoken. To support the curriculum, Tak ESA2 staff encouraged schools to employ
teaching assistants who are native speakers of Burmese and/or Karen. In the lowest
grades, the teachers assist newly-arrived migrant students who cannot speak Thai. In the
upper elementary grades, Burmese is introduced to Thai students as a foreign language
for study. One challenge involved ﬁnding the necessary ﬁnancial resources to hire
additional personnel (even though non-Thai staff can be hired at much lower wages than
certiﬁed Thai teachers). Where MOE funding is insufﬁcient, Tak ESA2 staff suggests
that schools ﬁnd support from various community-based or nongovernmental
organizations.

In 2008, Tha Chai School (TC) had begun to implement a multi-language
curriculum and others were encouraged to adopt a similar model. Using funds from local
businesses and organizations, TC offered two parallel education programs. Each
program operated in a separate classroom at the grade one level. The “regular” program

was taught to a mix of Thai and migrant children using Thai as a medium of instruction.

85

Next door, a wholly migrant classroom followed TC’s “international” program. The
intent was to build on each program year-by-year, such that a students’ primary education
occurred entirely in one or the other. This was clearly not the vision Mr. P had in mind:
“We intended to have the bilingual education for both students, Thai and Burmese, to
come together and study together and not to separate one room for Thai and another for
migrants. We didn’t want that.” Further details of the two programs are described in the
section on schools later in this chapter.
Work with Migrant Learning Centers

Tak ESA2 recognized that both schools and students needed support. For migrant
students, language was a signiﬁcant obstacle. To enter at a grade level higher than grade
one, students needed to be tested for their ﬂuency with Thai language. Mr. P felt some
learning centers did not understand the depth of the problem and did not do enough to
develop this particular aspect of human capital among migrant children. Thai language
skills were especially critical where students had completed the migrant system (which,
until recently, ended at grade 10) and then wanted to continue on in the Thai secondary
system (which offered up to grade 12). Given the limited attention to Thai language in
most learning centers, the assessment was likely to prevent migrant children from being
placed at the appropriate level for their age. One foreign volunteer at a learning center
indicated that language made it nearly impossible for migrant children to enroll in a Thai
school at the secondary level if they hadn’t ﬁrst studied at the primary level.

That is not to say that Mr. P was unsupportive of families who were truly
interested in sending their children to the schools. When a student was ready, that is,

when a student could pass the Thai language test, Mr. P encouraged him or her to move.

86

The number of students ready to make the shift was not high. There was, however, a
possibility that a student could be advanced to a higher grade part way through the
academic year.

Tak ESA2 acknowledged that migrant learning centers were important players in
the local education landscape and worked to develop social links between the ofﬁce and
the centers. The MLCs’ total student population of 6,766 in 2008 was more than four
times the number (1,588) of migrant students in Thai schools. Though Mr. P felt that
Thai schools offered a better quality education than the learning centers could, it was not
lost on him that government schools were unprepared to accept the number of children
currently in learning centers, not to mention those not participating in any formal
education system (it was estimated that 50-70% of migrant children in western Tak
Province were not attending any school at all). “I think that it is a big problem if one day
most of the migrant students transfer to our government schools,” he said. “We don’t
have enough buildings or teachers. We talk about this issue and we will try to maintain
the learning centers because of this idea. We cannot accept or transfer or permit most of
the migrant students to go to government schools because of the lack of facilities and
teachers.”

Though Tak ESA2 needs the centers to continue teaching migrant children, it
recognizes that most MLCs are severely underresourced. The “teachers” themselves
often have little education, buildings are basic, and supplies are scarce. Rote learning is
the norm, with choruses of chanting often heard at a distance from any of the centers.
Further, classrooms are sometimes separated by a curtain, or nothing at all, with the result

being dozens of students and teachers trying to out-shout one another. Teachers are ill-

87

prepared and have often completed minimal schooling themselves; at one center, I
mistook three teachers—aged 13 to 15—for students. School administrators are also
undertrained and few had prior experience in managing such an institution.

Given the MLCs’ lack of recognition as ofﬁcial institutions of education, Tak
ESA2 traditionally has had neither the legal mandate to offer support nor the power to
make the centers accept help in order to improve. Still, Mr. P was hopeful; there were
“many things we can do for them and not break the laws in Thailand.” Among the efforts
undertaken was the provision of identity cards to learning center staff to reduce the
likelihood of harassment by police or other Thai authorities. Though the cards held no
official currency (Burmese migrants are not legally eligible to be employed as
“teachers”), there was an implicit agreement to honor them in the Mac Sot area. When
the new director arrived to replace Mr. P, one of the ﬁrst actions he took was to stop
issuing the identity cards. Anecdotal evidence indicates he saw the cards as overstepping
the mandate of the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce.

Additionally, Tak ESA2 created the Thai-Myanmar-Karen Educational
Coordination Center (the TMK Center). With a limited budget of 50,000 baht
(US$1,500) in 2008, the TMK Center was designed to co-ordinate the ﬂow of
information and other resources between Tak ESA2, migrant learning centers, and
various organizations supporting education for migrant children. In this way, it was an
investment in the local social network. At the time of my visit in 2008, there were 54
learning centers in a cooperative, voluntary partnership with the TMK Center. The TMK

Center itself had two staff—an academic from the Philippines provided through

88

Voluntary Services Overseas5 and a Thai woman who was acting Deputy Director of
Migrant Education in the ofﬁce. Unfortunately, the efﬁciency of the TMK Center’s work
was often compromised by language baniers. The foreign academic spoke Tagalog and
English, but neither Thai, nor Burmese, nor Karen, the three most common languages
along this part of the border. The Deputy Director spoke some Burmese but fairly little
English. By 2009, the TMK Center had hired an interpreter quite ﬂuent in Thai,
Burmese, and English, and this was seen by the academic to be immensely helpﬁrl in
facilitating her work.

Mr. P saw the ultimate goal of collaboration as raising the standard of education
in the learning centers to a level where children could make a lateral move into the Thai
school system relatively easily. However, the Deputy Director felt that there was
resistance from within the migrant community to transfer students. In part, opposition
came from MLC teachers whose livelihood depended on families’ continued preference
for the centers over Thai schools. If enrolment at the centers fell, some teachers might
ﬁnd themselves out of a job. Further, working at an MLC was seen as a much more
enticing option than other, more labor-intensive jobs. “I think the Burmese or Karen,
they want to work like that, to be a teacher, because they don’t want to be a day laborer,”
she said. “It is like those centers are just for unemployed Burmese.”

Other resistance came from the migrant families themselves. This was not

surprising given that the MLCs used Burmese and Karen as the media of instruction and

 

5 Voluntary Service Overseas, or VSO (http://www.vso.org.uk_/), is an independent
international development organization that works through volunteers to ﬁght poverty in
developing countries. In 2008, V80 was providing expertise to assist with various
aspects of education along the border. Some worked within the Tak ESA2 office, while
others were placed in CBO and NGO organizations in Mac Sot district.

89

that the schooling was often completely without cost. The more formal and restrictive
educational environment of Thai schools was also a likely disincentive for families,
especially the requirement for regular attendance. “Some days the children go to school
and some days they don’t” the Deputy Director told me. “In the Thai school, they can’t
do that. In the learning center, maybe they can.”

Tak ESA2 Schools

Tak ESA2 is responsible for disseminating education policy to more than 120
schools along the Thai-Burma border, and there is—not surprisingly—considerable
variability in how the policy is enacted. Here I describe how three of these schools work
with migrant families and negotiate schooling for their children. The schools—Tha Chai
(TC), Wan Hin (WH), and Huay Nat (HN)—are each located less than one kilometer
from the border, although the actual numbers of migrant children they enroll vary. These
schools are the same ones attended by the four students presented in Chapter 5.

In describing the schools, I begin with brief portraits of the schools themselves. I
then summarize several themes that arose in my discussions with various actors in the
system. These include how the Resolution of 2005 beneﬁts the schools, how the schools
disseminate word of the policy to its relevant communities, and how the schools respond
to several challenges that arise in relation to the policy. These challenges range from
issues of language to teacher preparation to student attendance.

Overviews of Three Schools

TC, ﬁrst opened in 1940, offers primary level education from kindergarten to

grade six. Entering through the school’s main gate, the campus is dominated by large,

often unkempt, soccer ﬁeld. Along one side of the ﬁeld is a low, concrete structure

90

housing four kindergarten classrooms. At the far end of the ﬁeld is a small wooden
building raised on stilts where there are four more classrooms—two for grade one, one
for each of grades two and three. This building separates the soccer ﬁeld from another
play area that has a basketball court. Across the court is a larger wooden structure
housing additional classrooms for grades four through six. There is also a room with a
half dozen desktop computers, although there were never students in it and only twice did
I see teachers using the computers. The playground is bounded on a third side by a small
concrete building with the ofﬁce for the school administrator and a small multi-purpose
room. It is the only air-conditioned space on the school’s campus. Opposite this
building, on the other side of the basketball court, is a large covered structure serving as
the school cafeteria and a smaller adjoining room where staff eat. Beside this are a series
of smaller concrete buildings housing the student bathrooms (rather unfortunately placed
right beside the windows of the staff lunch room), a school barbershop (where boys with
hair deemed too long immediately got it trimmed), and a modest library (which I never
saw in use during numerous visits).

In 2008, TC staff included a director, Mr. S, ﬁve certiﬁed Thai teachers, and
seven non-credentialed support staff. Most of the latter were Burmese working in the
kindergarten and grade one classrooms where their multiple language skills were most
beneﬁcial. When Mr. S ﬁrst arrived at TC ten years ago, there were less than 100
students in its 12 classrooms, of whom half were migrant children; now more than 80%
of the school’s 321 students are migrants. According to Mr. S, the current proportion of
Thai and migrant students reﬂected recent changes in the populations of both groups in

the surrounding village. The number of Thai children had gone down over the past few

91

decades due to more effective family planning, while the number of migrant families
moving to the area was increasing.

Once students graduate from sixth grade at TC, many ﬁnd their way to WH and
HN nearby, which offer grades kindergarten through ninth grade, or all of primary school
(prathomsuksa) and the ﬁrst three grades of secondary school (matthayomsuksa).
Comprised of several multi-story concrete buildings, each has larger, more modern
classroom and administrative facilities than TC’s mostly low, wooden structures. In
particular, WH recently added both a new concrete library and covered gymnasium to the
campus. Unlike TC, WH also has an instrumental music program (students play the
national anthem each morning) and a computer room that is actively in use. A multi-
purpose room displays awards the school has won for several co-curricular programs
including agriculture, animal husbandry, and youth groups. These programs are
supported by a small rice paddy behind the school’s administration ofﬁces, as well as a
large pond stocked with ﬁsh, enclosures for pigs, chickens, and, oddly enough, a pen with
one adult ostrich.

WH had 370 students in 2008, of whom 119 (32%) were considered to be from
migrant families. Mr. Y, WH’s Director, said that when he ﬁrst started working at the
school 10 years earlier, there were less than half the current number of migrant children
at the school. This was difﬁcult to conﬁrm, however, because at that time the school did
not keep accurate records of their enrolment and students were more transient.

HN has the smallest proportion of Burmese children of the three schools.
According to Ms. H, a teacher with a decade of experience at the school, 32 of 270 (11%)

HN students have two parents from Burma. An approximately equal number have one

92

Thai and one Burmese parent. Unlike TC, neither WH nor HN had any Burmese staff
working in classrooms.

Each of the three schools has a history of accepting migrant students going back
at least a decade. This was conﬁrmed by veteran school staff and, in the case of TC, by a
recent university graduate who herself had been a migrant student at TC and had recently
returned to work in one of the TC kindergarten classrooms. In addition, several migrant
families indicated they had sent their ﬁrst children to the schools ten or more years
earlier.
The Benefits of Recent Policy

All three schools indicated that current education policy, and in particular the
2005 Resolution, provided a number of beneﬁts to both migrant families and the schools
themselves. One beneﬁt is a more ﬂexible and streamlined registration procedure that
eliminates the requirement for families to provide govemment-issued documents.
Though no school spoke speciﬁcally to the enrolment process as it now stands, mention
was made of prior restrictions mandated by the Thai government. TC, for example, only
accepted children whose parents had “registered” with local authorities. Though it is
unclear exactly what was meant by the term, several sources have acknowledged that just
those migrant children whose parents had been documented by Thailand’s Ministry of
Interior could attend school in the past. In addition, children could only enroll in the
district where documentation had been completed.

Mr. Y’s interpretation of previous policy was that schools had no obligation to
accept migrant children, whether their parents were registered or not. As a result,

participation depended more on the generosity of individual schools than a policy

93

mandate. “The migrant children only came because we were being kind to them,” he
said.

The provision of academic records and graduation documents that are identical to
those of Thai children is another beneﬁt of current policy. Mr. Y said that in the past,
schools like WH would admit migrant students but not offer them any ofﬁcial graduation
certiﬁcates. Later, migrant students could receive a certiﬁcate but the school, as Mr. P
commented, was to comment at the top in red ink that the student had non-Thai status.

Mr. S continued to worry about students who received the stamped certiﬁcate in
the past, wondering how many of them had been able to continue their education after
ﬁnishing grade six at TC. The legitimacy of the current certiﬁcates, he explained, were
one of the reasons that Thai schools provided a better education to students than MLCs.
Some learning centers recognize this and have transferred children into schools.
However, other MLCs were resisting, for reasons that eluded Mr. S. “Other centers
should go to talk to the Thai school that is close to them and then the children won’t have
any problems about the certiﬁcate,” he explained. “But how should we tell them to take
those migrant children to a school like this school? I don’t know what those directors’
thoughts are.”

Though the red stamp was no longer required, there remained a potential problem
with respect to many migrant students’ ofﬁcial academic records: a lack of surname.
When asked to identify non-Thai children from class lists or other school records,
teachers and administration would invariably begin by sorting those with last names from
those without. On one visit to TC, a teacher was in the school office organizing

documents. “This one is migrant, no last name,” she said, skimming the papers. “This

94

one is Thai with a last name. This one is a migrant student but they just added the last
name recently.”

In addition to the yearly grade reports prepared at TC, staff at WH needed to
submit student information as part of the graduation process from lower secondary
school. This requires that a family name be put in the appropriate space on the
documents sent to the Ministry of Education. For migrant children, the usual procedure
is for the school to make something up so that the forms are not rejected as incomplete.
Though this satisﬁes the needs of the administrative system, Mr. Y was not sure what the
longer-term implications were for the graduating student for whom the name was only
meant to be temporary. “For the school, it’s not a problem,” he told me. “We can write
‘Mr. A’ or student ‘A.’ But we are not sure if in the future it is a problem for the
student.”

Current policy provides schools with funding from the Ministry of Education to
support the education of migrant students. Administrators at TC and WH stated that,
prior to 2005, schools did not regularly receive any money toward the extra costs
incurred by institutions that enrolled migrant children (other anecdotal data indicates the
schools got 40—50% of the amount for Thais). Insufficient ﬁnancial support was cited as
one reason that TC had not accepted more migrant students in the past. Schools now
receive equal funding for both Thai and non-Thai students: 700 baht (US$20) per year
per student in kindergarten and 1,700 Baht (US$50) for each student in grades one
through six.

Mr. Y was able to recall only one time when WH got extra money for migrant

students, albeit indirectly through a unique government initiative to assist children from

95

very poor families. When WH drew up their list of those who needed support, the school
included migrant children in the total number.

Despite increases in support, both TC and WH indicated that they did not always
have enough money to meet their basic needs. One place where WH cut costs when the
budget is low is in the school canteen. “Sometimes when we don’t have enough money,”
Mr. Y explained, “we will just cook curry sauce and ask the students to bring their own
rice.” Both schools also look to the community for ﬁnancial donations. Shaking her
head with embarrassment, a WH teacher told me how she would sometimes be asked to
walk down the main streets of Mac Sot with her hands out asking businesses for money.
Schools also organize special events to raise funds. Students at TC raised 10,000 baht
(US$300) by selling jasmine garlands as part of their Mother’s Day celebration.

For TC, funding also came through Good Friends Center (GFC), a local
organization that had transferred more than 100 students to the school from a nearby
MLC in 2006. GFC contributed to the salaries of teachers, as well as supporting the costs
of the mid—day meal for the migrant students. However, a senior GFC staff member
accused Mr. S of being deceitful in his practice of accepting government funding and
asking her organization to meet some of the costs of educating the migrant students. By
2009, GF C had dropped most of its ﬁnancial support to TC. GFC is one of the
nongovernmental organizations that I describe in greater depth in the third part of this
chapter.

In addition to the routine operating expenses of the school, TC’s rapidly
expanding enrolment made it necessary to consider adding more classroom space. Mr. S

said that construction of additional classrooms would be very difﬁcult to ﬁnance since

96

there were no resources: “the government has no money.” To seek additional funding,
Mr. S planned to create a website in English, adding “We can’t wait for the government.”
Communicating Policy to the Migrant Community

Each school described ways in which the surrounding community was informed
about current education policies and of imminent enrolment opportunities. All three
schools used staff and students to propagate policy through various forms of social ties.
When children took such details back home with them, the information spread, as Mr. S
explained in his limited English, “mouth-to-mouth,” as migrant families communicated
with each other. Mr. S sometimes went to businesses that employed migrant workers to
talk with parents. In addition, teachers from the school occasionally went out to “survey”
the village to see if families have school-age children who are not in school.

The three schools also leveraged social capital through ties to community leaders,
such as the phooyaibaan, to support school participation. Ms. H, a teacher at HN, said
the school provides details to the phooyaibaan near the start of a new academic calendar
so that families are advised of the appropriate age range for enrolment. This is done
through a mobile loudspeaker driven through HN village. Given the phooyaibaan’s
familiarity with who the migrant families are and where they live, HN also uses this
person as an initial screening mechanism for one criteria of enrolment: residence on the
Thai side of the Moei River. With signiﬁcant cross-border travel in the area, it is
important to the school that they prioritize education for those families who actually
reside in the local community. “Sometimes the families just walk into our school and

want to send their kids here,” Ms. H said. “We have never known or seen them before.

We can’t admit them because we are not sure who they are and where they are from. So,

97

mostly the phooyaibaan will send them to us.” In contrast, neither TC nor WH were as
strict about place of residence, openly acknowledging that they had students who crossed
the river each day to attend classes in Thailand and returned home to Burma in the
afternoon.

TC was most aggressive in recruiting migrant students. Beginning in 2006, Mr. S
decided to take advantage of the broad mandate the 2005 Resolution offered and invited
children studying at various nearby MLCs to transfer to TC. This was done on his own
initiative without the knowledge of Tak ESA2. The effort was promoted as a “win-win”
situation for the school and the families. TC could address its problem of declining
enrolment—it had fewer than 80 students at the time—and migrant children could beneﬁt
from a Thai education. Though GF C did send the school around 150 students, other
learning centers decided to pass on the opportunity. “Some centers appreciated the help
we offered,” said Mr. S, “but some didn’t.” One reason the school might have not been
as successful as hoped was because of a mistaken belief among the migrant community
that TC does not teach Burmese language as part of its curriculum.

Though each school is active in publicizing policy, these efforts are not attempts
to enforce compulsory education mandates with respect to migrant families. Though
some informants in this study believe compulsory schooling policy applies equally to
migrant families, Mr. S saw it otherwise. “We go talk to the migrant parents about
school although there is no law that says we have to,” he explained. “Because their
children are here now they should learn the Thai language. So we need to talk to the
families, to make them understand” that they should send their children to school.

However, families couldn’t be forced to comply. As an example, one family in this study

98

lives just one kilometer from WH and is well known to school staff, yet their 18 year-old
daughter has never received a formal education.
Challenges Arising from Integrating Migrant Children into Thai Schools

Successful promotion of education policy and the beneﬁts of a govemment-
sponsored education had attracted migrant families to TC, WH, and HN. However, the
children they send to the schools are of a broad age range with widely varying prior
educational experiences. Prior acquisition of skills and knowledge—or human capital—
is also a particular concern, especially students’ facility with Thai language. Taken
together, these create a signiﬁcant obstacle for the schools as they attempt to provide
children with a relevant and effective education. Interviewees mentioned four
challenges: student age and language capacity, creating bilingual programs, teacher
preparation, and family poverty and absenteeism. I discuss each brieﬂy.

Student age and language capacity. Primary schooling in Thailand begins at
grade one when children are usually six to seven years old. Students who are younger
than this when they enroll are placed in kindergarten. In general, each of the three
schools believed that migrant students older than six should be placed no higher than a
grade one classroom for two reasons, both related to human capital development. First,
the Thai education system is designed to build on students’ knowledge over time.
Placing students higher than grade one meant that they would be unprepared as a result of
missing out on the content and skills delivered in prior grades. Second, being put at the
lowest grades allowed migrant children to develop Thai language skills at a more natural

pace alongside Thai classmates who were also learning.

99

Ms. H acknowledged that some migrant parents wished to enroll children at HN
who were 10 years-old or more. The school, however, was ﬁrm in its admission routines
and does not accept these children because, placed in grade one, they would be much
older than other children in the class. This would make it difficult for HN staff who had
no experience teaching multi-aged classrooms. “We can’t take older students into school
because we don’t know how to teach them,” Ms. H said quite ﬁrmly.

HN’s grade placement practices were recognized as likely discouraging some
families from enrolling older children. Positioning herself as second language learner,
Ms. H explained how uncomfortable, yet necessary, it would be to be placed below her
expected grade level. “For example, if I am not good at English, I need to start learning
A-B-C with little children. I feel that I’m too old for that. I could not do that. It’s too
embarrassing.” As a result, these students may choose to not attend HN. School staff
sympathized with these families, but Ms. H made clear that there was a difference
between HN adhering to its admission criteria and actively turning families away. When
families lost interest in registering older children at the school, “we understand what they
feel,” she said, “but it is not that we don’t accept them.”

Ms. H explained that families are advised of the appropriate age range for
enrolment at the start of each new academic year. Even so, the school could not be sure
of the actual age of the students who come from Burma without ofﬁcial documentation.
The school often suspects parents make up an age for the children in order to align with
school regulations:

When they bring us their children, they won’t tell the truth. If we say we accept

six-year-old children, they will say their children are six though we believe that

100

they are older or younger than that. But we can’t get any paper or document from

them as proof because they don’t have any.

Ms. H made no mention of HN using a testing program to assist with grade
placement as the Tak ESA2 office had described. Such a tool is used on occasion by
WH. Though newly-enrolled migrant children are placed in kindergarten or the lowest
primary grades by default, older students who can pass a proﬁciency test in Thai are
considered for a higher grade level.

Among the schools, TC was the most ﬂexible in terms of accepting students of
varying ages and placing them at levels higher than grade one. “If the student’s age is in
grade four, we will give a test of grade three,” Mr. S explained. “The school will test the
students from the Thai curriculum in the main subjects like English and Mathematics.”
Thai language skills were especially critical to the grade placement process. For children
older than seven who don’t understand Thai language very well, the norm was to place
them in grade one.

Mr. S said that TC staff retests students at the end of their ﬁrst year at the school
to see if they are eligible for advancement by more than one grade level. Although
several students at TC indicated that their initial placement grade had been adjusted
upwards, this was done within the ﬁrst few days or weeks of them starting school rather
than at the end of the year and not clearly tied to any assessment results.

The practice of assessing students to assist with grade placement was less of a
mandate than a suggestion of the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce. Each school was free to design,
administer, and interpret tests as they saw ﬁt or not use them at all. Though HN was ﬁrm

in directing all new students to grade one or kindergarten, this practice was never

101

criticized by Tak ESA2 staff. In fact, Mr. S had speciﬁcally recommended inclusion of
the HN in this research due to its high quality. On the other hand, TC regularly
administers assessments to new students.

TC’s more generous approach to accepting and placing migrant students is
common knowledge among staff other schools in the district and personnel from various
organizations. Some praise the school’s receptiveness and creativity, while others ﬁnd its
system to be overly informal and primarily driven by a need to bolster enrolment.
Speaking of his school’s registration process, one director made it clear that TC was a
place for migrant children who couldn’t get in anywhere else:

I tell the parents, “If you want to transfer to my school you send the little

children—four years old, ﬁve years, seven years, but not fourteen.” And

sometimes I ask for insurance, for the health. But if they say they don’t have it, I

tell them, “I invite you to go to TC.”

Creating “bilingual” programs. Recall that Tak ESA2 promotes the
development of bilingual curricula at schools with especially high proportions of migrant
students. The previous Director’s vision for these programs was that students would be
integrated in classrooms and that language instruction would go both ways: Thai would
learn Burmese, Burmese Thai. These efforts were a new endeavor for the school and it
was apparent that the program was undergoing numerous adjustments “on the ﬂy” as it
was being implemented.

In 2008, TC had one class of each of grades two through six. There were two
classes of the lower levels—kindergarten 1, kindergarten 2, and grade l—to

accommodate larger numbers of students at these grades. The two classes of grade 1,

102

however, used two different curricula. One classroom was part of the school’s regular
“Thai program” and the other represented the school’s new “international program.”
This was Mr. S’s interpretation of the bilingual educational program as described by Mr.
P.

The Thai class had 37 Thai and migrant students, aged seven through 12 and
followed the school’s usual course of study including mathematics, science, English,
Thai, art, health, and physical education. The class had one teacher who used Thai as the
medium of instruction. The 26 students in the international program were all from
migrant families, ranging in age from seven to 13. Teaching in the international program
was divided between two teachers. Of the two, only a Thai woman named Mrs. J, had
her teaching credentials. The other teacher was a Burmese man with no formal teacher
training nor was he legally entitled to work in Thailand as a teacher. In contrast to the
classroom next door, the posted schedule for the international program included only
English, mathematics, science, and three hours of review time weekly. Mrs. J
occasionally taught social studies and Buddhism.

Initial visits to TC found both teachers attempting to use English as the medium
of instruction for all classes, although it was not a language either the teachers or the
students were particularly strong in. To alleviate confusion and move the instructional
process along, the Burmese teacher often communicated in Burmese to students and Mrs.
J spoke in Thai, relying on a few knowledgeable students to translate her words into
Burmese for the rest of the class.

Absent from the initial routine of the international program was any attention to

Thai language. Given the importance of destination-language skills as a form of human

103

capital and that, more speciﬁcally, Mr. S had stressed learning Thai as a signiﬁcant
beneﬁt of studying in a government school, this was especially curious. It wasn’t until
several months after the school year began that Mrs. I began to teach the children Thai.
Initially, she reported, Mr. S thought that students in the international program didn’t
need to learn Thai language. However, the students were eager to study Thai: “Those
Burmese students want to learn Thai so that they can get a job here in the factories.”
Over the course of a few weeks, Mr. S came to her to change the languages she was
teaching, ﬁrst telling her to add Thai in addition to teaching students English. Then he
told her to stop teaching English and only teach Thai. For Mrs. J, uncertainty was a
constant feature of the international program. To describe how she determined what to
teach the class next, she laughed as she admitted, “I don’t know!”

In addition to confusion surrounding what material should be covered in the
international program, it was unclear how students were selected for one or the other.
Mr. S explained that it depended on both parents’ and students’ interests. However,
interviews with families indicated they were unsure of how their children got into the
class they were in and some were unaware that TC even had two programs.

A return visit in 2009 found the parallel bilingual system still in effect, and had
been expanded to another grade level. There were now two separate classrooms at both
the ﬁrst and second grade levels. The second grade classroom with the migrant students
included all the children I had seen in grade one the year before, with an additional
student who was new to the school.

Teacher preparation. A third challenge faced by the schools was the

preparation of teachers to work with the mixed population of students. Teachers at TC

104

reacted differently to the challenges presented by their work and the particular context of
the school. Mrs. J, for one, seemed ﬂustered neither by the apparent lack of direction the
international program had nor by the difficulties of teaching a large group of students
who had few Thai language skills. She seemed impervious, or oblivious, to the
complexity of her daily work, and never failed to smile at me or the children.
Commenting on the differences between teaching English to grades two through six as
she used to do and her current responsibilities, Mrs. J said, “It’s sabai sabai. I can teach
it.”6

Similarly, Mrs. N said her job as a Thai language teacher for grades four through
six was not particularly difﬁcult. She admitted it probably was more challenging in the
lower grades but, by the time the children reached upper elementary, most of them had a
decent grasp of Thai. This was only partly true. Family interviews revealed that some
students in grades ﬁve and six had only a weak command of Thai language and admitted
to understanding very little in class.

In describing her classroom routines, Mrs. N said that she usually assigned one
page of Thai language homework every day. However, she was cautious not to
overburden students who were still learning the language and always asked ﬁrst about
their homework assignments in other subject areas. Though students did not always
complete their work before returning to school, Mrs. N did not want to scold them for
fear that it might discourage them from even coming:

Sometimes the students do not do their homework at home but bring it back and

do it at school, and sometimes in the class. But I understand and we go very

 

6 Sabai is a common element of Thai language and is used to indicate that someone is
relaxed or well. Sabai sabai emphasizes a sense of everything being ﬁne.

105

slowly. So I do not punish them about not doing homework because they still

coming to school. It is better than them doing something else that is not good for

them or going to work in the ﬁeld instead of coming to school.

While these teachers found little to trouble them about their work, it was different
for Mr. M who arrived at TC in 2009. Mr. M taught the grade two classroom of the
international program, alongside the Burmese man who had partnered with Mrs. J the
year before. A fairly recent graduate of the Thai teacher training program, Mr. M
ﬁnished his preparation in 2004. After graduation, Mr. M had taught in Phop Phra, a
district of Tak Province with a high proportion of migrant students. Despite that
experience, he lacked important human capital to be successful in his current job.
“Starting to work at Phop Phra was a big problem for me because I didn’t understand the
students,” he explained. “The students were Mon and spoke Mon language and some
spoke Karen. So this year, I teach here and it’s a new problem: the students speak
Burmese.”

Given their language differences, the students and Mr. M were often not able to
understand each other. He often relied on his teaching partner to mediate: “Sometimes I
say to him, ‘Help me please!”’ Mr. M had expected it to be challenging for him for the
ﬁrst term or perhaps the whole ﬁrst year at TC. Though he wasn’t aware of any
professional development that might help him in his work, the mere suggestion got him
excited: “Yes, I want! I want!” None of the other teachers at the school indicated a need
or desire for such training.

Family poverty and attendance. A fourth problem that all of the schools faced.

was that many of their students—both Thai and migrant—came from poor families. The

106

poverty and nature of the families’ work sometimes made it challenging for students
attend school, as they also needed to contribute to the household income. Recall that
Sarai did not attend classes at TC on days that she performed paid work with her mother.
Of the three schools, TC and WH were the most lenient towards the families, recognizing
the unstable ﬁnancial situation that many are in and excusing their short absences when
necessary. “We understand the children and the families,” Mr. S told me. “Sometimes,”
he said,

the boy goes out to work or the girl needs to stay and take care of their younger

sisters or brothers because the parents go out for their work. We understand this

kind of situation because all the families who live around here are poor.

Still, when there was a lot of harvesting or planting to be done, TC found that
migrant students were more likely to go to work in the ﬁelds and miss school. In
comparing out-of-school responsibilities for the two groups of children, Mrs. N said that
migrant students were often required to work at times when Thai students would be able
relax, especially during holidays. “After a school break,” she explained, “we will ask the
students what they did while the school was closed. Thai students will normally take a
family vacation but the migrant children will say they had gone to work.”

At WH, one migrant student had missed several months of classes to work. The
student, 20 years old and in grade nine, came from an extremely poor background and the
school was doing all it could to at least make sure he graduated with a lower secondary
certiﬁcate. Teachers told him that it was acceptable to miss some school, but encouraged
him to come back as soon as possible so as not to fall too far behind. While the teachers

wished to be compassionate, they also feared that leniency towards his multiple absences

107

set a bad example for other students. One teacher admitted that the student was
sometimes marked present even when he wasn’t at school so as to meet the minimum
requirements of 80% attendance. It was unclear if the school’s director was aware the
teaching staff was doing this.

Schools’ accountability to the MOE for migrant children’s attendance has
traditionally been less than that for Thai children. Before 2005, non-Thai students did not
appear on official school lists. At HN, the school recently began refusing to enroll
children when parents indicated that they might not insist on regular attendance. In part,
this was an effort to protect the school’s image. Where students enrolled in the school
and then had substantial absences or dropped out early, the MOE became suspicious,
reﬂecting poorly on school staff: “If too many students quit in our school then the
Ministry would ask why that happens too often and consider that our school is not good
enough or does not take care of them, didn’t support them enough,” Ms. H said seeming a
little annoyed. “Though the truth is, we do help them with free food and free milk.” The
school now made parents understand that by enrolling their children at HN, they were
making a commitment to keep them in classes. Ms. H explained further:

If they are students here, they must have discipline. When they arrive at school,

they must stay in school until the school is over. This is one of our rules. 80 they

can’t go out of school whenever they want and also must attend the class
regularly. They can’t come three days, then miss ﬁve days. If they miss class so
many days, we will follow up on them to come back. Sometimes the parents will
come to talk to us and say that they need their children to help them work.

Sometimes they miss class for 10 to 20 days to help their parents work. When

108

they come back, they cannot follow or catch up to what their friends have learned

or what teachers are teaching. And that makes them not want to come back after

they missed class for many days. We have rules. They can’t come or stop

whenever they want.
If the parents wanted a more lenient environment, they were encouraged to seek out one
of the learning centers.

Getting Students into Schools

In this section of the chapter I introduce readers to four children—Annan, Mae,
Sarai, and Kanok—and their families. In 2008, the children were enrolled in the
government schools just described: two were attending TC and one studied at each of
WH and HN. At the time of the interviews, all of the children were 14 or 15 years old,
and all had studied at the primary or lower secondary level in their respective schools.
Annan

Annan came to Thailand with his family about 10 years ago when he was ﬁve
years old. Prior to that, the family had been living in an ethnic Shan village in Karen
State in Burma, about 20 kilometers from the Thai-Burmese border. Annan’s father had
attended school until the fourth grade, his mother just until kindergarten. In Burma, the
parents were day laborers, collecting bamboo and ﬁrewood to bring in nearby forests to
sell in their village: “At that time, we working making about 60 baht (US$2) a day,
though we worked very hard,” Annan’s father explained. With a large family—1 0
children were born in Burma (four died as infants)——the family didn’t always have

enough food.

109

The family had social ties to people who had already traveled to Thailand. Many
from their own village had made the trip. Annan’s father also had an “auntie” who had
come 10 years earlier. She urged him to bring the family across the border: “Please come
to ﬁnd a job in Thailand. You will have a better situation for your family if you live
here.”

The family lives in Huay Nat Village in a small house raised up on stilts to avoid
ﬂooding in the rainy season. The walls are a mixture of woven bamboo and small sheets
of corrugated metal. The roof is mostly made from layers of palm leaves except over the
cooking area, which is covered with a few sheets of rusting metal. The family bought the
materials to build the house and only have to pay to rent the land at 200 baht (US$6.50)
each month. There is no running water, but there is electricity. I saw a DVD player
inside the home, but no television to connect it to. Neighbors on either side of the home
are also from Burma, but one doesn’t have to travel far up the street to ﬁnd Thai families.

After arriving in Thailand, Annan’s father found a variety of odd jobs, from
planting rice to basic carpentry. Currently, he is a security guard at a nearby factory, a
job he heard about through another Burmese man. “I got this job through a friend, but at
ﬁrst I didn’t like it,” Annan’s father said. “I have to sit or stand the whole night with
nothing to do. But my ﬁiend said, ‘Just try it for one month or two months and if you are
not happy, you can quit from this job.”’ He works 12 hour shifts, starting or ﬁnishing at
7 o’clock, 15 days and 15 nights each month. There are no scheduled holidays though if
he is sick, he can ask for permission not to go to work. His salary is about 3,000 baht

(US$100) per month.

110

The family came to Thailand with six children. The four eldest had attended
some primary school in Burma but had dropped out several years before. Not being
familiar with education options in Thailand, the children were not enrolled in schools
immediately after arriving. Instead, the four eldest, between 12 and 19 years old at the
time, began doing “light work” near the home. Annan, then ﬁve, and a brother, who was
seven, spent a year playing in and around the family’s home.

One day, a Thai woman who lived in the neighborhood, noticed the two of them
playing. “She was a teacher at a school near here and she came to the house to talk to
us,” Annan’s father said. “When the teacher saw that our children were playing, she
asked us, ‘Why don’t you let your children go to school?’ And she told us we could take
them to the school.” The woman asked the parents if they had Thai birth certiﬁcates for
Annan and his brother. Since the two boys were born in Burma, the parents did not have
the birth certiﬁcates, but the teacher insisted that wouldn’t be a problem: “Even though
you don’t have the birth certiﬁcate, you can still take your children to the school.” Annan
was subsequently enrolled in the ﬁrst year of kindergarten, his brother in grade one, both
of which were the usual grade levels for their ages.

In 2008, when we met, Annan was in grade eight at Huay Nat School (HN), a
mid-size, local school offering education from kindergarten through to grade nine,
although the family wasn’t sure how much longer they could afford it. His parents
thought he would likely ﬁnish grade nine, but going further would mean transferring to a
school further from home and likely greater expenses. The family had faced a similar
dilemma the year before when Annan’s brother had ﬁnished grade nine. Given the

family’s ﬁnancial predicament, the brother had left for Samut Sakhon Province to join his

111

four elder siblings who all worked in a plastics factory. Becoming disenchanted with
factory work, he eventually returned to his parents’ home.

A few years after they arrived in Thailand, Annan’s parents had a baby girl. Six
years old, she was not attending HN: “For the Thai school, if you have more than one
child, you have to pay a lot of money,” Annan’s father explained. A neighbor living
nearby has some children studying at the learning center, which entailed no costs for
families. The neighbor spoke to some staff at the learning center on behalf of the family;
later, a teacher came by the house. “The teacher,” Annan’s father said, “he told us, ‘If
you cannot take your daughter to that Thai school, please bring her to our school.’” The
teacher even brought out the registration documents. For the time being, the family was
satisﬁed with the education at the learning center, noting especially that the daughter was
learning to speak Karen, Burmese, Thai, and English.

Mae

In 2008, Mae was a new student in grade ﬁve at Tha Chai School (TC), a small
primary school in the village of the same name. Along with another Burmese boy in the
same grade, Mae had just transferred from a migrant learning center a few months before.
Mae’s parents live about two kilometers from the center of Mae Sot, just off the highway
that leads north to Mae Pa Village. Her house sits behind a run-down automotive repair
shop and is part of a small cluster of homes that are impossible to see from the main road.
A small pack of mangy dogs watched me the ﬁrst day I arrived.

The family lives in one half of a duplex-style wood building that they rent for 800
baht (US$24) each month. Water and electricity cost the family another 300 baht

monthly. When asked how they found the house, Mae’s father explained that they drew

112

on their social capital: another migrant family (who had lived there) told them about it.
The house, built on stilts, has walls entirely made of snugly ﬁtting wood planks rather
than the split bamboo I had grown used to seeing. A pathway of partially sunken cement
blocks leads to the front porch and saves one from having to walk on the barren ground
between the front of the house and the lane. Close to the house, a half dozen croton
plants ﬂank the pathway. Two appear to have been newly planted, with dirt packed into a
small mound around the stem. The house was the most solid structure of all the migrant
families I visited. The newish looking roof is made of corrugated tin rather than the
leaves or plastic sheeting other homes had.

When my interpreter and I arrived for our ﬁrst conversation, the mother and father
followed the routine of Burmese hospitality, laying out a small bamboo mat for us to sit
on. I settled at one end and two glasses of cold water are placed in the center. Mae’s
parents sat on the verandah ﬂoor, just off the opposite end of the mat. Mae’s mother did
most of the talking. The family is from Mon State in Burma. While living there, the
mother was a schoolteacher; the father was a caretaker of the school grounds. Mae’s
mother completed two university Bachelors degrees in Burma, one in science and one in
education. Her father ﬁnished 10th standard.

There are four children in the family, three are girls. A 27 year-old daughter (who
stayed in school until 10th grade in Burma) works in a tea shop in Mac Sot. A son, two
years her junior, works in Bangkok, and a 22 year-old daughter has a job in a clothing
factory near the home. Both attended university in Burma. At 14, Mac is the youngest.

The eldest daughter was the ﬁrst to come to Thailand, arriving around 2001 . Over

the next few years, the daughter went back and forth several times between the two

113

countries and the mother also came to Thailand to visit her. In 2004, Mae’s mother came
to Mae Sot, but could not return to Burma because her personal security was at risk as she
was active in the National League for Democracy (N LD), participating in various
political demonstrations and helping other NLD members travel from Burma into
Thailand. Local authorities in her hometown got wind of these activities and had plans to
arrest her. “My family called me,” she said. “They told me, ‘Please don’t come back to

9”

the village anymore. Mae’s mother decided to stay in Thailand. Bringing along the
rest of the family, her father arrived a year later.

After arriving in Thailand, Mae’s mother easily found work through social ties to
local NLD workers and began teaching in a local learning center where she stayed for
about three years before becoming too ill to work. When she took leave for three months,
her position at the school was given to someone else. In the spring of 2008, she got a
new job at a different learning center. Mae’s father explained that he had not been
working for about six months due to health problems. He had been working in a quarry
outside of Mae Sot, although when he ﬁrst came to Thailand he worked in the ﬁelds
planting and harvesting crops. Currently, he makes four round trips on his bicycle every
day, delivering and picking up both his eldest daughter and his wife at the tea shop and
learning center respectively.

Mae’s father is the only adult in the family not to have any proper identiﬁcation
or work permit. The police usually don’t bother him because he is quite old. Still, he
admits to a tenuous sense of security: “Every time I take my daughter or wife on the

bicycle, I pray.” In the evenings the family generally stays at home, preferring not to

take the chance that they could have trouble with young Thais in the surrounding

114

community. In contrast, Mae’s mother has a legal work permit. Although teaching is not
one of the sectors available to migrants to work in, when she ﬁrst arrived, the government
in Mac Sot had opened a registration process whereby migrant adults could get the
necessary documents to allow them to work there legally. Aware that she would not be
eligible for the permit as a teacher, Mae’s mother applied to be a housekeeper. She had
never been a housekeeper, but she knew that by working the system she could get the
proper documentation to allow her to travel around Mae Sot freely.

Mae attended school in Burma until she completed the ﬁfth standard early on, the
end of primary school years in the country. When she arrived in Thailand, Mae began at
the sixth standard in the same learning center where her mother used to teach. She
studied there for three years, ﬁnishing the eighth standard at the top of her class.
However, the family was becoming concerned that Mae was fast approaching tenth
standard. This is the highest level of upper secondary education inside Burma and the
last grade offered by the migrant education system in Mac Sot. “After that we were
thinking for the future,” Mae’s mother explained. “If Mae stayed and studied in the
migrant school, after ﬁnishing she wouldn’t get any certiﬁcate. That’s why we moved
her to the Thai school. So one day she can ﬁnish university and get a degree.”

The family believes that with official Thai education credentials, Mae might
either ﬁnd a job more easily or ﬁnd an easier job. Not all migrant parents see beneﬁts in
an extended education for their children. “They think if they have their children ﬁnish
the fourth standard then they can ask their children to work. But we don’t think like
that.” Mae’s mother added, “For Mac to ﬁnish her studies and then graduate is better for

her life, for her ﬁxture.”

115

There were other reasons the family was interested in the Thai school. Although
some migrant students received scholarships to attend post-secondary schooling in third
countries such as India, Mae’s mother wasn’t sure that Mae’s English would make her
competitive. Her parents were also concerned about Mae’s rather precarious health and
felt she would get better care in Thailand should it become necessary. Thus the family
decided to stay in Thailand where, if they remained long enough, the children might
become eligible for Thai nationality.

Though the Thai government drastically reduced barriers to public school
education for non-Thai students in 2005, it was only in 2008 that Mae’s mother found out
about the new Resolution. She learned about the policy through her relationship with Ms.
E, a Thai woman (who speaks Burmese) working at a local NGO, Good Friends Center
(GF C). In the past few years, GF C had transferred more than 100 migrant children from
learning centers to Thai schools in the Mae Sot area with most going to Tha Chai School
(TC), the school Mae ended up attending. When Ms. E visited the learning center where
Mae’s mother was teaching, the two began talking about the details of the transfer
process. “After that I was very interested,” Mae’s mother remarked. “I was asking,
‘How did those students go there?’ and ‘How did they to that?”’ According to Mae’s
mother, discussions of migrant students enrolling in Thai schools did not occur often at
the learning center.

Though her parents were very interested in moving Mae to a Thai school, there
were several challenges to overcome along the way. One was that Ms. E was only able to
facilitate the transfer of students from GFC-managed learning centers and the learning

center where Mac was currently studying wasn’t one of them. If Mae wanted to transfer

116

to TC, she would ﬁrst need to change learning centers. “Other migrant centers cannot go
to that Thai school,” Mae’s mother explained. “The children who would like to study at
the Thai school have to go and register with Good Friends Center ﬁrst and after that they
can go to the school.” To facilitate Mae’s transfer, Ms. E “created” the documents
necessary to make it appear that Mae had been attending one of GFC’s learning centers in
Mac Sot.

Another obstacle was that Mae’s home is about 10 kilometers from TC, making it
difficult for her to get to and from-classes each day. The solution offered to the family
was to have Mae stay at a boarding house managed by GFC and located close to TC.
Commonly referred to as “the orphanage,” the boarding house had previously operated as
one of GF C’s learning centers. When all its students were sent to TC several years
earlier, the orphanage stopped offering daytime classes but continued to provide several
dozen migrant children with a place to live. Since GF C pays for the living and schooling
expenses of all the students who sleep there, some families send their children to stay at
the orphanage as a way to save money. For Mac and her family, the move to the
orphanage was more a matter of geographic convenience. “Ms. B said that Mac can stay
here at home and go to TC but the school is very far from here,” Mae’s mother recounted.
“It was better to live in the orphanage. We also agreed and we went and looked at the
orphanage. And we agreed that Mac will live there.”

Mae’s parents were generally happy with the process. Academically, they feel
that Mae’s Thai language skills are improving but, in other subject areas like mathematics

and English, she is not advancing very quickly. “If she were studying in the learning

117

center, she would be the ninth standard already. So maybe she would know more. But at
TC she is in ﬁfth. grade, so the level of the subjects is not high.”

In fact, grade placement at the Thai school had been a main initial concern for the
family given that Mac is a teenager already and quite tall. “At ﬁrst, we only wonied if
she would have a problem with the grade placement,” Mae’s father admitted. “If she will
start at a very low grade, grade one, then it would be very difﬁcult for us. That is the
only thing that we worried about.” Fortunately, Mae had studied Thai language at her
learning center twice a week and had some background knowledge to prepare her for the
entrance test to TC.

Initially, Mae was placed in the fourth grade. However, she felt uncomfortable in
the classroom because the other students seemed “very small” and also because they were
mostly Thai, so a week later, she moved up to the ﬁfth grade on a trial basis. One teacher
later told her that she could even spend just the ﬁrst semester in ﬁfth grade and move up
the sixth a few months later. However, Mae resisted, deciding that it would be better to
get two years of Thai language practice before moving onto lower secondary at a new
school. Also, Mae felt comfortable in ﬁfth grade where other students were also older
looking and most spoke Burmese. “I just have one problem. It is Thai language,” she
explained. “But for mathematics and for the other subjects it is not difﬁcult. So that’s
why I stayed in grade ﬁve.”

Mae’s mother has visited TC once, during registration. The family has plans to
keep Mae in school for another ten years, until she is 25 years old and has ﬁnished
university. They are, not surprisingly, concerned about the costs they might incur when

Mae graduates from grade six. The best secondary school in town is the most expensive,

118

and they are not sure about future support from GF C. Nonetheless, they are busy making
plans. Mae’s mother has a friend who teaches at that same secondary school. The friend
might be able to list Mae as a relative and then the family could possibly get a discount
on fees.

Mae’s mother showed me a small tin can with a slot on the top. On the side is a
winter holiday scene though the cartoonish snowman seems out of place in the tropical
heat. As often as possible, the family puts money in the can for Mae’s education. “Our
daughter working in the factory will give 500 baht (US$15) a month. And the other
daughter, maybe 200 baht. And we have another relative who gives 200 baht one time
and 100 baht another time.” The parents feel they have an advantage in that the two
eldest daughters are still single. “They don’t have their own families yet. The biggest
sisters can help support their younger sister,” Mae’s father adds, picking up the can and
holding it in his hands.

Sarai

Though I wasn’t to visit her home for several months, I likely saw Sarai for the
ﬁrst time when I attended a World Day Against Child Labor event sponsored by the
International Labor Organization (ILO). It was my ﬁrst day in Mae Sot in mid-June,
2008. Sarai was one of about a dozen students who had agreed to read the “life story”
she had written to those in attendance. Her story, also featured in a recent ILO
publication, told of how her family’s poverty had forced her to miss school in order to
work and help provide for her family. “There is nothing exciting or interesting in my

life,” she wrote, “only hardship.”

119

 

I “officially” met Sarai when I took the ILO magazine to TC and asked the school
director, Mr. S, if I could speak with any of the children featured. He directed me to the
playground where I quickly found Sarai. 1 arranged to visit Sarai’s family a few days
later. Sarai’s family lives in a simple stilted house set 50 meters back from a dirt path on
the edge of Wan Hin Village. The path winds up a hill from a paved road that, if one
continues on, passes by the GFC orphanage that sent all its students to TC. The home’s
lower exterior walls are made of split bamboo. An assortment of salvaged planks make
up the upper walls that support a roof of nipa palm leaves. Spaces between the wood
pieces on the walls and ﬂoor make the inside of the house bright and airy. Additional
light seeps into house through the numerous holes in the roof. The fragility of the house
is not lost on Sarai who wrote in her ILO story, “Every time it rains or a storm comes, the
house seems as if it is about to be destroyed.”

The interior has essentially one open living space. Though there is little
decoration adorning the walls, the house has the typical small alcove on one side with
several Buddha images and a photo of an elderly monk. In front of these are three small
vases with fresh ﬂowers, each spaced to divide the width of the alcove into four equal
sections. A small cooking area extends from the back comer. On one side is a shelf with
a few pots and pans. A pile of ﬁrewood lies on the ﬂoor ready to be burned and the palm
leaves above are blackened from smoke.

Sarai’s father was working most of the days I visited the house and so we usually
interviewed Sarai’s mother who is from Karen State in Burma. Sarai’s mother never
went to school; her family was too poor. She speaks Burmese and Po Karen and

understands a little Thai, but cannot read nor write in any language. Sarai’s mother came

120

to Thailand to ﬁnd work when she was 16 years old. She had an elder sister living in
Mae Sot district and so she moved in with her. Now she has four siblings living and
working in Bangkok, 500 kilometers away. She has never been there to see them, nor
have they returned to Mac Sot.

Sarai’s father went to grade four in Burma and later worked as a restaurant cook.
He can speak Thai, Burmese, Po Karen, and Sgaw Karen, though he can only read and
write Burmese. He came to Thailand more than 20 years ago when he was 25 years old:
“I didn’t know about working here. I left from my village with no goal. I left from my
home to go somewhere and then I arrived here without intentions.” After travelling
around the Mac Sot area for a while, he eventually met up with a friend from his younger
days in Burma. It was through this social connection that he found a job in Thailand. He
has lived in about 20 different houses in Thailand: “If I want to change from one house to
another,” he explained, “it might not be owned by the same boss. So I not only change
the house, but change the boss.” To meet the new boss, he usually relied on his friends to
provide introductions. Sarai’s father is now working as a carpenter and has a work
permit that allows him to travel freely to and from the nearest town (he makes the ten
kilometer roundtrip by bicycle). He and his employer each paid half of the 4,500 baht
(US$130) cost of the permit.

Sarai’s mother and father met in Thailand. They lived in a variety of villages near
Mae Sot, as well as in the town itself before settling in their current home. A Thai man
that Sarai’s father knows owns the land and gave them permission to build there. The
family had to ﬁnd the building materials, but the land is rent-free and there is no

electricity to pay for. The water for drinking and bathing is drawn from a well nearby.

121

When I asked her mother how to describe the area where they live now, she calls it
“sitagon.” Sita, I am told, means army post in Burmese and it’s true that the Thai Army’s
Black Rangers man a checkpoint less than a kilometer down the road, which Sarai’s
father passes each day on his way into town.

Sarai’s mother is afraid of the police (she does not have a work permit) and
describes how she has been detained four times in Mac Sot. The ﬁrst time it happened,
the police picked her up with some friends in a house where they were playing the
lottery. If you pay a ﬁne on the spot, you can bypass the detention. Sarai’s mother was
told she had to pay a ﬁne of 3,000 baht (US$100) or go to jail for six months. The family
drew on social ties to neighboring families to borrow enough money to pay the ﬁnes.
Another time she was picked up by the police in Mae Sot, she spent one night in the
detention center and the next at the immigration center. The following day, she was
among a group deported across the Moei River from a pier a few kilometers from their
home. On the other side, they were received by the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army
(DKBA), who maintains an outpost there. The DKBA soldiers asked for 20 baht from
each person, but Sarai’s mother didn’t have any money. “They will ﬁrst let the people go
who have money,” she said, describing what happens on the Burmese side of the river.
“They tell you if you don’t have money to ‘Sit! Sit! Sit!’ Then, later, they let you go
anyway.” Though it all sounded quite serious to me, Sarai’s mother and another woman
at the house laughed as she ﬁnished the story. Still, Sarai’s mother admitted that she is
afraid to travel the ﬁve kilometers back to Mac Sot and hasn’t been there for four years.

Sarai is the eldest of four daughters. She is currently in prathomsuksa 6, or grade

six, the last year of primary school. At 15, Sarai is about three years older than the norm

122

 

for her grade. She began her education at a migrant learning center in Mac Sot when she
was eight. Other migrant families told the family about the learning center and her
parents went to meet a teacher there prior to formally enrolling Sarai. She started in
kindergarten and studied for three years, completing the second grade. At that time, the
family moved to their current house and the parents had to look for a new school. When
the family ﬁrst arrived at their new home, they didn’t know where they could send her to
study. “So we just asked and found out that a new school would open close to here,” she
added, referring to the orphanage learning center run by Good Friends Center a half
kilometer away. “It wasn’t here when we arrived. They had set up the building, but it
hadn’t opened yet.”

At that time, the orphanage learning center went to primary grade two, and
although she had just ﬁnished grade two, Sarai repeated it again. She continued to study
at the learning center for four years until she completed grade six. It was then that TC
partnered with GF C to admit all the students who had been studying at the orphanage
learning center. At TC, Sarai was again demoted, ﬁrst placed in prathomsuksa 3
(primary grade three) after being assessed for her Thai language skills. However, she
only stayed there for two days and then moved to grade four. Having to repeat grades at
both the learning center and Thai school made the family feel that it was taking a long
time for Sarai to go through school. On the other hand, her mother acknowledged that
Sarai was getting used to starting over again and that she was also learning new
information each time. “This is a good thing,” her mother said.

Sarai has two other sisters at TC. When each began, they were given a Thai

name. “The teacher told us, ‘Now you study at a Thai school, so you have to have a Thai

123

 

name,’” Sarai said. One sister is nine years old and in grade one, the only grade level
where TC runs a bilingual program that divides students into classrooms using either
Thai or English as media of instruction. The sister is in the regular Thai program.
Sarai’s mother was not aware the school separated students in this way and no one in the
family is sure how that daughter got placed in the class she did.

Sarai’s other sister is 12 and in grade ﬁve, one year below the usual grade level
for her age. Much like Sarai, she initially spent a few days in grade two, but was quickly
moved her to grade three. When asked what they think about the quick moves, Sarai said
that she and her sister looked a little older than the other students at that grade level.
“That’s the ﬁrst reason,” she explained. “And also we were tested for Thai language.
Even if you are older and bigger, if you cannot read Thai, you cannot move to a higher
grade.”

All three girls continue to attend evening classes in Burmese, English, and math at
the orphanage as well. As dusk approaches, GFC sends a pick-up truck out (free of 7
charge) to migrant communities in Wan Hin and Tha Chai, ringing a bell as it passes by.
The route passes directly in front of Sarai’s home and by the last stop, the truck is ﬁlled
to the brim with dozens of children. A few hours later, the children are brought back
home. In the morning, Sarai and her sisters can get a ride in the same truck to or from
school, although at these times it only travels a direct route between the orphanage and
TC. Sarai admits the girls don’t always get up early enough to take advantage of this.

When her father is sick or between jobs, Sarai has to work for her family. A For
about three weeks during the year of this study and then again during school breaks, Sarai

worked in the ﬁelds planting and harvesting crops. Sarai and her mother often go out to

124

work together with each earning about 80 baht (US$2.40) per day. Even combined, this
is less than the 200 baht per day Sarai’s father makes as a carpenter. The pay is always
below minimum wage (151 baht per day): “If the Thai people do it, they have to pay
more. So they ask the migrant people and they can pay just 80 or 90 baht,” Sarai’s mother
explained. Though Sarai wrote and spoke about her 12 year-old sister working as well,
her mother said that the younger daughter didn’t look old enough to be allowed to work
in the ﬁelds7

When she can’t go to school, Sarai asks a friend to tell her teachers why she is
absent. She also checks with a neighbor about the lessons she missed. The teachers were
very understanding, Sarai said, expressing their concern about her absences and asking
that she come back to school soon. Sarai’s mother didn’t want her daughter to miss
school, as she felt Sarai’s studies were very important, and she worries about the working
conditions in the ﬁelds. “I have to ask,” she says, “We are faced with a family problem,
to get food to eat.”

Being in grade six, Sarai would have to change schools to continue her education
at the secondary level the following year. The closest school with lower secondary
grades is Wan Hin School (WH), which is actually closer to her home than TC. Sarai’s
mother hoped to send her to secondary school. “We would like our children to learn
English and Thai because it will be useful for the future. If they can read and write

English and Thai, maybe they can have an easier life.” She later added, “We have some

 

7 In 2008, the legal minimum wage in Thailand varied by geographic location from 148
baht (US$4.50) per day to 203 baht (US$6.00) per day as set by the Ministry of Labor.
Of the 24 levels of minimum wage, Bangkok and ﬁve other provinces had the highest
rate. Tak was tied for having the fourth-lowest minimum wage rate
(httgﬂwwwboigoth/english/how/demographic.asp).

125

friends who are educated people and they have a good job. We would like our daughters
to be like that.”

The biggest question concerned paying for Sarai’s education. Without outside
help, it was doubtful she would continue in school. “We don’t have enough money and
we have a lot of children,” her mother explained. The only chance they saw to keep Sarai
in school was “if the teachers and the school continue to help us, to give us support.”
Kanok

When I ﬁrst met Kanok, she was studying mattayomsuksa 3, or grade nine, the
highest grade level at (WH). At 15, she was the usual age for her grade. When I arrived
(with my interpreter in tow) at her home, Kanok waved at us shyly from her house. The
family lives in a modest wooden home, raised off the ground by short stilts. The walls
are made of woven split bamboo except for those surrounding the cooking area at the rear
corner of the home where corrugated metal is used. The overhang of the roof provides a
place for the family to hang drying clothes and keeps the rain off the family’s motorcycle
and bicycles.

To the right of the house is an open-sided, thatch-roofed but used for storing a
variety of small gardening tools. Beside that is a small ﬁeld for growing crops, including
com and sugar cane. Behind the house is a collection of plastic tubs of various sizes for
doing laundry. Just beyond is the family’s latrine with a ceramic toilet bowl embedded
into the hard-packed ground. Though simple, the structure is walled and roofed. A piece
of corrugated metal has been framed with wood to act as moveable door for added

privacy.

126

A short wooden ramp at the front comer of the house leads to its interior. The
ﬁrst space one enters, about two meters by four meters, sits a short step below the rest of
the living space. In the comer are several 50 kilogram bags of rice and beside them a
small bunch of bananas that look like they were just cut off a tree in the yard. A picture
of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit hangs above them. Bamboo
walls are used to divide most of the remaining space into two sleeping areas on the left
and a cooking area on the right. A mid-size Samsung TV sits on a small table and there
is a small electric rice cooker beside it. Two women are seated at the front of the house
on the wood plank ﬂoor, busying preparing vegetables for sale. I am told her mother is
one with thanaka on her face, a pale yellow-colored cosmetic paste made from ground
tree bark. The other is a neighbor. Neither seems to pay us much attention at ﬁrst,
preferring to let Kanok and her father do the talking.

As guests, my interpreter and I sit cross-legged on the plastic mat that has been set
on the floor. Two kittens immediately jump on my lap. Kanok chuckles; “Just push
them away,” her father tells me, smiling but obviously somewhat annoyed. At the same
time, I can see a half dozen chicks scurrying and chirping underneath the ﬂoorboards.
The family dogs run towards the road to bark at a passing motorcycle.

Kanok’s two older brothers, 18 and 17 years old, live at home as well. Kanok
also has a younger sister who is ten years old and in grade ﬁve at TC, the primary school
closest to the family home where the other children had begun their studies. Though the
younger sister oﬁen visits, she spends most of her time at her grandparents’ home down
the road. The family’s diverse collection of linguistic abilities represents a signiﬁcant

reserve of human capital. Both parents speak Po Karen, Burmese and some Thai,

127

although only her mother can read Burmese. Kanok’s mother also speaks the Pa—O
language (as does her younger sister, having picked it up at the grandparents’ house).
Kanok herself, like her brothers, speaks Po Karen and speaks, reads, and writes Thai
ﬂuently. This creates a brief moment of confusion for my interpreter who speaks Sgaw
Karen but not Po Karen. He decides to speak Burmese with Kanok’s parents, Thai with
the children, and English with me.

Kanok’s parents arrived in Thailand more than 20 years ago when they were in
their late teens. Her father came ﬁrst, using assistance provided by an in-law. “My sister
was married to a Burmese man who was working here,” he explained. “When I went to
visit them one time, he told me about Mae Sot and brought me here.” Kanok’s mother
joined him later and the two were married in Thailand. Then the couple moved in with a
Burmese friend who lived near their present home. All the children were born in
Thailand: Kanok and one brother at home, the two other children in a nearby hospital.

The family rents the land where they live from a Thai-Chinese businessman; the
rent is 5,000 baht (US$150) per year, a price Kanok’s father insists can no longer be
found. They met the owner through a Burmese friend with whom they were staying soon
after they arrived in Mae Sot. The current home is about one year old; its roof, made of
dried palm leaves, needs replacing every two to three years. “The time depends on how
much the leaves overlap,” he adds pointing upwards. “This one is not woven so tightly.”

The family is allowed to grow whatever they choose for personal use and proﬁt.
What they don’t need, the family sells both in their immediate neighborhood and in
Myawaddy. To get into Burma, they travel to an unofficial crossing point on the Moei

River less than a kilometer from their home. Though their produce could fetch higher

128

prices in Mae Sot, the parents don’t dare to venture there. “We cannot go to Mac Sot,”
Kanok’s mother said. “We are afraid of the police.”

The parents arrived in Thailand without Burmese identity documents and admit to
not being very interested in following any registration procedures. They have, however,
received a temporary “stay permit,” which, as its name implies, allows migrants with
work permits to temporarily remain in Thailand. They have applied for lO-year identity
cards through the local phooyaibaan, or village leader. The three eldest children have
their cards already, issued by the Ministry of Interior with a unique l3-digit card
identiﬁer. When I asked if I could see what the card looks like, one of Kanok’s brothers
disappeared to go look for his card. He came back quickly with the card in his hand,
white on one side and pink on the other, and gave it to me. Since the family has no last
name, a small dash ( — ) has been printed on the card where a surname would otherwise
appear.

Kanok and her brother explained that WH staff assisted them in ﬁlling out the
necessary paperwork. Kanok’s brothers keep their original cards at home adding that,
except when applying for work, no one usually asks to see it. Kanok’s original is kept at
her school; when she graduates from WH, it will be given back to her. The card
identiﬁes the children as non-Thai citizens. Even with these cards, the family’s
movement is restricted to within the political district in which the card was issued. “We
cannot travel outside of Mae Sot,” Kanok explained. “But if there is a special program or
an exhibition in another province, then we can go with the school.”

Kanok’s mother and father had lived in the immediate area for about ﬁve years by

the time that her brothers reached school age. Thai neighbors they had social ties to

129

encouraged the parents to enroll the boys at TC. At that time, there were few migrant
students attending classes and Kanok’s parents were skeptical that their children would
be accepted. “We asked our neighbors, ‘Is that really true?’” Kanok’s father said. “Then
we went to the school to talk with the teacher.” The two boys, though one year apart in
age, were placed into the same kindergarten. While the boys were still in lower
elementary, Kanok started at the same school. All three grew up speaking Po Karen at
home and began to learn Thai in school. Like many migrant students, Kanok is a Thai I

name given to her by a TC teacher. Neither parent found anything unusual in that.

 

“Because they are teachers,” Kanok’s mother said, “it is no problem for them to give the
name.”

At the end of prathomsuksa 6, or primary grade six, Kanok’s brothers moved
from TC to WH where they continued their education from mattayomsuksa 1 through 3
(lower secondary grades seven through nine). After ﬁnishing their compulsory
education, the boys leﬁ formal schooling and began looking for work. Though the family
would have liked to keep the boys in school, it was too costly. “We cannot afford for all
of the children because there are four,” Kanok’s mother said. “If they all go, then it will
be very expensive. Our sons are very interested to study but we have a problem with
money.”

Currently the family is paying about 1,000 baht (US$30) per year for Kanok’s
school supplies and about 800 baht for her sister’s. School uniforms—of which there are
four kinds (regular, girl scout, sport, and mauhom, a sort of denim pullover representing
traditional Thai village dress)——account for much of the cost. Asked about whether

Kanok will continue in school on to grade 10, her parents admit they are not well

130

acquainted with the upper secondary schools. Before she graduates from WH, they
expect the teachers to recommend the students should go next. Usually the children
complete their high school in Mac Sot or another town nearby. “We will choose a school
that is not the most expensive,” said Kanok’s father. However, when asked what her ﬁrst
choice would be, Kanok named the area’s most prestigious and costly secondary school.

Unlike a number of migrant families in Tha Chai and Wan Hin , Kanok’s family
has no direct connection with Good Friends Center, having arrived in the area well before
the orphanage was established. The parents say they didn’t learn that TC was going to
accept migrant students from the orphanage until after the fact. By this time, Kanok and
her brothers had already moved on to WH for their lower secondary classes. Kanok’s
younger sister was in grade three when enrolment at TC surged by around 150 students.
When asked if she has made ﬁ'iends with the new students, she shook her head “No,
usually I will play with Thai children.”

Nongovernmental Organizations

We have seen previously that at both the district and school level, educators work
hard to attract and keep migrant children such as Annon, Mae, Sarai, and Kanok in their
schools. Their work is not without substantial challenges that involve communication
across cultures and communities, building teacher and curricular capacity to meet the
needs of the migrant students, and offering a range of services that extend far beyond
teaching in order to support a clientele that lives in often dire straits. In addition to the
formal education system, a range of nongovernmental organizations are active in
providing migrant with access to adequate education services as well as labor protection

and health care.

131

In this ﬁnal section, I highlight the work of three organizations that vary in size,
geographic reach, and range of overall activity. Although each is based in a different part
of Thailand, they converge around education for migrant children in Tak Province and
serve as representatives of the kind of extra-educational organizations that partner with
schools to meet the needs of migrant families. I begin with Good Friends Center, the
organization referenced in the stories of Mae and Sarai. In addition to being the smallest
of the three NGOs described here, GFC focuses most exclusively on education. I then
discuss the two other organizations which have increasingly broader mandates and are
more removed from the day-to-day experiences of migrant children in the schools.

Good Friends Center

More than 80 MLCs in Tak Province provide education to upwards of 9,000
children (Proctor, Sanee, & Taffesse, 2009). Good Friends Center (GF C), a Thailand-
based organization that supports education for disadvantaged migrant and hill-tribe
children in Mae Sot and Phop Phra districts of Tak Province, manages ﬁve of these. Fr.
0,8 a Catholic priest from France, oversees GFC from Phop Phra. Ms. E, a Thai woman
introduced previously, supervises the daily operations of GFC’s learning centers in the

Mae Sot area.

 

8 Fr. O’s work was originally under the auspices of the National Catholic Commission on
Migration (N CCM), a charity organization established more than 20 years ago with a
primary objective of improving the living standards of undocumented and migrant
children in Thailand. During the course of this study, NCCM’s activities shifted toward
health- and HIV-related issues in Bangkok. Though the organization’s website
(http://wwwnccmthailandcomh indicates NCCM continues to support migrant education
in some areas of Thailand, the degree to which GFC’s work is independent of NCCM
remains unclear. GFC does not maintain its own website nor, to my knowledge, publish
documents that describe its work.

132

Connecting families and schools. While other organizations also manage
learning centers, OF C is one of the few that actively tries to link learning centers and
Thai schools. OF C believes that, while children were better off in a learning center than
in no school at all, attending Thai schools is the best choice for them and their future. For
one, Thai schools can provide students with a higher quality education than can the
MLCs. Additionally, government schools offer access to important forms of capital:
intensive Thai language instruction (human) and the potential for ofﬁcial certiﬁcates
upon graduation (cultural). These are important for continuing in the Thai education
system and for ﬁnding decent work. A more immediate beneﬁt related to personal
security; children were less likely to be harassed by police if they said they were students
at a Thai school.

GFC often informs parents about the beneﬁts of having their children enroll in a
Thai school and, in Ms. E’s experience, are the ﬁrst to do so. For interested families,

OF C offers extra Thai lessons to better prepare students for the transition. Many parents,
however, prefer migrant schools because their children can learn in the Burmese
language (many families plan to return to Burma one day); some are also worried about
the costs. Migrant families know that the learning centers provide an education that is
either nearly free or completely free, including a midday meal.-

OF C had arranged to send migrant children from three of its learning centers to
Thai schools in and around Mae Sot. At two centers, only a small number of interested
families were found. At the third, known locally as “the orphanage,” the entire student

body was transferred to TC. As previously discussed, TC had historically struggled with

133

 

low student enrolment and the arrangement between GFC and TC was thought, at least
initially, to provide beneﬁts to all involved.

Until 2006, the orphanage operated as both a day school, with a Burmese-
language curriculum, and a boarding house, where 35 students received food and lodging.
Despite its name, most students living there had parents either in Thailand or in Burma.
In fact, some children were separated from their families by as little as a kilometer. After
being approached about a possible transfer by Mr. S, TC’s director, GFC held meetings
with the parents of both the day and boarding students to explain the move. When
parents agreed to the transfer, GFC staff completed the necessary paperwork on the
parents’ behalf. In total, about 150 migrant children studying at the orphanage learning
center enrolled at TC in this way being placed from kindergarten through to grade three.
Forcing the children to study at grade one or lower had not been an option: “No, no, no!
If they do that, then no one will want to go,” Ms. E declared.

Concerns with education at TC. At ﬁrst, GF C suspended all instruction at the
orphanage when the children started attending TC. - Ms. E felt it would be “too much
school” to ask students to study in Burmese in the evening after they had completed a full
day of lessons at TC in Thai. However, through school visits and talking with children,
Ms. E became concerned about the quantity and quality of instruction at TC, especially in
mathematics, English, and Burmese language. A year after the transfer, GFC began to
offer extra support for these subjects ﬁve evenings a week for two hours. The classes are
attended by the 35 children living at the orphanage, as well as another 50 children living

in villages nearby. GFC provides transportation to and from the evening classes.

134

GF C takes children living at the orphanage to and from TC in a truck and covers
the incidental costs of schooling, including stationary, pens and pencils, and some school
uniforms. Ms. E reported that teachers at TC had sometimes scolded and hit students
because they were not properly dressed. She had explained to Mr. S early on that the
migrant children were very poor and that OF C was not able to provide all of them with
acceptable uniforms (she also emphasized to me that students were able to study
successfully at the orphanage without shoes or socksl). Mr. S had agreed to let the
students study at the school without the full uniform, but later some were mistreated;
subsequently, they temporarily refused to go to classes.

As had 1, Ms. E noted that children in the international program at TC were
receiving minimal exposure to Thai despite it being the medium of instruction throughout
the school and a crucial form of human capital. Ms. E felt that being denied access to
Thai language in a Thai school was simply unthinkable. She was also concerned about
the work ethic of TC’s teachers: “If you go, you will see that every day the teachers are
sitting down and talking with each other. They don’t want to teach the students.” My
own observations were similar. During many visits to TC, I regularly saw students left
unattended in their classrooms. Sometimes I came across this quite accidentally, popping
my head in a doorway as I passed a class with the intention of saying hello to the
teacher—only to ﬁnd she wasn’t there. When I asked where the teacher was, the students
almost always said that they didn’t know. A few times, I entered the room to talk with
individual students. On occasion, I picked up some chalk and attempted a short English
lesson to the whole class. It was not uncommon for me to leave 10 or more minutes later

with no sign of the teacher still. However, more than once I did notice the class teacher

135

 

pause outside the door at some point and, seemingly content that things were under
control, continue on her way. Although I didn’t have many other schools to compare
these experiences to, it seemed that education at TC had a particularly casual nature to it.
GFC also developed concerns about the economic partnership it had established
with TC. Although the school received funding for all its students from the government,
it had asked GFC to cover some of the expenses of educating the migrant children. In the
beginning, GFC provided funds to pay for student lunches and school supplies as well as
the salaries of three Thai teachers and one Burmese teacher TC had needed to hire. Over

time, GFC renegotiated its ﬁnancial commitments to TC and withdrew much of this extra

 

support.

In addition to the views that OF C developed about TC, Ms. E believed the school
also had a poor reputation within the surrounding community. As a result, only about
half of the primary age Thai children living near the school were actually enrolled there;
the rest were sent to more distant schools. This was supported by the comments of one
member of Tha Chai Village who was concerned that migrant students with weak Thai
language skills compromised instruction and learning at TC. He had chosen to send his
son into Mae Sot for school.

TC staff themselves provided conﬂicting information about the school’s
relationship with the immediate community. Mr. S explicitly denied that Thai families
had sent their children to other schools rather than attend TC; Ms. J was well aware (and
unfazed) that some families preferred to send their children into town (if they could
afford to do so): “The students can choose what school they go to. The teachers here

don’t worry about that. If they want to come it’s ok, if not, it’s ok.”

136

In retrospect, Ms. E said if she had known more about TC in advance, OF C would
not have sent students there. She now believed that the transfer ﬁ'om the orphanage had
not been in the best interests of either GFC or the migrant children. It was merely a
vehicle by which TC was provided with a steady stream of migrant children to ensure job
security for the school’s teachers.

Migrant Assistance Programme

A second nongovernmental organization, the Migrant Assistance Programme

(MAP),9 whose Thai name translates into the “Foundation for the Health and Knowledge

of Ethnic Labor,” was formed in 1996 to assist migrant workers in accessing medical

 

services in Thailand’s northern Chiang Mai Province. Since this time, MAP’s mandate
has broadened to include a range of critical health and welfare issues and the organization
currently had a presence in two additional provinces: Tak and, following the 2004
regional tsunami, Phang Nga in the south.

To reach its target populations, MAP broadcasts radio programs in all three
provinces using the dominant migrant languages, including Shan, Karen, Akha, and
Burmese. It produces audio tapes, CDs, and various print materials in a number of
languages. News archives, translations of worker registration materials, national and
international worker policies, and reports from original research are available through the
MAP website.

Harassment of MAP staff. MAP works out of a small, nondescript house in
Mae Sot. Unlike the work MAP does, the ofﬁce draws little attention to itself. Mr. A, a
staff member who was born in Thailand and has worked with MAP since 2001, attends to

‘

9 ywwmapfoundationcmorg/
137

legal issues that migrant laborers encounter in their work, such as problems with pay and
safety conditions. He and other MAP staff are faced with chronic concerns for their own
personal security, in part because several MAP staff are migrants themselves who lack
proper identity cards and work permits. Thus, they can be detained by police if they have
to pass through a checkpoint to and from work. In addition, the police are usually
suspicious when migrants congregate; hence when MAP is preparing for a meeting or
making announcements, they are often under some sort of police surveillance.

MAP staff have also faced harassment from Thai factory owners as a result of
their work on labor rights for migrant workers. Pictures of MAP staff have been posted
on the entrance wall of some worksites, along with a warning to factory security not to let
them enter and talk to workers. In such cases, MAP ﬁnds other places to talk to workers,
perhaps a local tea shop. One of MAP’s brochures quotes an external evaluator who
reported: “Feedback suggests that MAP is well respected by the target group and by allies
[and] in Tak Province it is loathed by abusive employers” (Migrant Assistance
Programme, 2006, p. 25)

The interplay of health, knowledge, and education. As mentioned previously,
the Thai name for MAP is the “Foundation for the Health and Knowledge of Ethnic
Labor,” a name that recognizes the interdependence of various services. Much of MAP’s
work entails developing ties to local communities and migrant families and engaging
with them on a number of fronts. For example, Mr. A described one project where MAP
was helping a small number of rural, agricultural communities in Phop Phra district
access legal, health, and education services. After ﬁnding isolated clusters of migrant

families, MAP set up a health program for adults working in the ﬁelds. This work then

138

 

led staff to have questions about education, as staff realized that there were many school-
aged children living with their parents, only one of whom was actually involved in formal
schooling.

MAP found many of these families were interested in having their children attend
school but there were no learning centers nearby. Thai schools were closer, but families
were worried about the direct costs to such an education. A number of parents also saw
children in school as a lost opportunity for additional income. Once their children could
read and write, there seemed to be little necessity for further schooling. MAP also found
that parents were reluctant to send their children to school where their own formal
education had done little to provide them with decent work or an adequate salary. “Many
of the parents speak like that,” Mr. A conﬁrmed. “Some of the parents ask us, ‘Do you
know my background?’ because they have graduated from university in Burma. But
when they arrive here, they have to harvest crops or something like that. So they feel
hopeless about education.”

Connecting families and schools. Much of the work MAP does around
education involves proactively mediating the relationships between migrant families and
schools. Ms. K, a young Akha woman, works out of MAP’s Chiang Mai ofﬁce. Born in
Burma, Ms. K had crossed the border from Shan State into northern Thailand when she
was nine years old, joining an aunt and her parents who had come earlier. Over time,
she, along with the rest of her family, was eventually able to get Thai citizenship. Ms. K
regularly explains to migrant families that Thai policy provides them with legal access to
local public schools. Access to reliable information about rights and obligations is a

major challenge that migrant families face. When the Cabinet Resolution of 2005 was

139

 

passed, MAP made brochures explaining the new policy and distributed them to migrant
communities. Without such assistance, families don’t know that they can send their
children to Thai schools or are unsure of the details of the transfer process, including
costs. Though expenses for uniforms, stationary, and other school supplies can be
signiﬁcant for families, it was usually less than the families imagined.

In reviewing available data, MAP found that Bangkok has a high number of
migrant workers but relatively few migrant children in schools, largely because few
organizations work in Bangkok for children’s education. Ms. K explained: “They have

many organizations working for advocacy, working on the laws,” she said, “but not

 

working on the ground.” In comparison, Mae Sot had many more non-Thai children in
the Thai school system. This was due to the “good connections” that various
organizations had with Tak ESA2.

Familiar with a variety of migrant communities, Ms. K knows of the educational
opportunities available near their homes. She answers questions that parents have and
volunteers to go to the schools with families as both a facilitator and interpreter. In this
way, she enhances the density of ties in local social networks. Families often ask whether
a migrant learning center or a Thai school is a better place to send children. Though the
ﬁnal decision is left up to the families, MAP’s stance is that Thai schools are the
preferred choice: they usually offer a better quality education and students can earn a
legitimate certiﬁcate upon graduation. In addition, the future of many migrant schools is
quite precarious since they remain dependent both on funding from external sources and

permission from Thai authorities to operate.

140

Providing ﬁnancial support. Helping families make connections is not enough.
Over time, MAP determined that economic support was essential if families were to
agree to send their children into nearby Thai schools. Before 2005, MAP did not extend
their assistance to include ﬁnancial support, only intervening to negotiate initial access.
At that time, the government did not provide funds for educating migrant students. Any
additional costs incurred by enrolling extra children were passed on from schools to
migrant families. “Collect the water fee, the electricity fee, the teachers’ salary,” Mr. A
elaborated. “They collected all that from the children and so the families would have to
pay a lot.” MAP found could not afford to absorb those costs. Current policies make the
direct costs of schooling much lower, better positioning MAP to offer ﬁnancial support.
Recently, MAP set aside enough money to provide around 30 children with 700 baht
(US$23) each for the upcoming school term, with plans to help children from other
families in subsequent years. To assist in meeting future ﬁnancial obligations at the
school, MAP arranged for expenses in subsequent years to be paid by families in
installments if necessary.

Families’ varying interest in education. When MAP staff went back to the
migrant communities to ﬁnalize the list of children wanting to go to school, they didn’t
ﬁnd as much interest as they had anticipated. “We mentioned to the villages, ‘How many
children and how many parents would like to go to the school?’ They came and give us
their names,” Mr. A explained. “But when we announced this information, we received
only 16 children.” Six children were eventually sent from one community and 10 from

another.

141

 

The children were enrolled in kindergarten and grade one at two different Thai
schools despite their ages varying by more than one year. Mr. A explained that lack of
Thai language skills prevented some students from being place at a level matching their
age. Interviews with two families indicated that they were quite happy and appreciative
that their children were attending a Thai school. However, follow-up communication
with MAP staff a few months later indicated that the number of students who were still in
school had been cut by half. Mr. A said that the families of the eight students who had
dropped out preferred that the children work rather than go to school.

Where parents don’t want to participate in formal schooling, MAP tries to
encourage their children to study with others who are in school whenever they have a
chance. In this way, working children might still learn some basic literacy skills.
Ultimately it is the parents who choose how children spent their time and MAP “cannot
push” them into sending their children to school instead of working.

A “Bird’s Eye View”: International Labor Organization

In addition to local NGOs, there are also national and international organizations
that poured resources into helping migrant families. One of these is the International
Labor Organization (ILO),'0 whose regional office for Asia and the Paciﬁc is located in
Bangkok. In fact, the date of my arrival to Mae Sot district of Tak Province in 2008 was
timed to coordinate with an ILO-sponsored public event designed to raise awareness of
formal schooling as an alternative to child labor in Thailand. The meeting began with a
parade of children from local Thai schools and learning centers. Within a few minutes,

the festive mood was interrupted by a police van carrying migrant workers who were

 

'0 http://www.ilo.or2

142

 

being deported across the river back to Burma. Shaking her head, Ms. G—an ILO staff
member—said she wished the children didn’t have to see such a thing.

The ILO is a self-described tripartite agency of the United Nations “that brings
together governments, employers and workers of its member states in common action to
promote decent work throughout the world.” The work of the ILO is based on the
premise that the decent treatment of working people is necessary for the development of a
peaceful society. The activities of the regional ofﬁce in Bangkok include attention to a
broad array of issues: skills and employability, labor migration, safety and health at work,
labor market governance, international labor standards, and child labor. In 2008, the ILO
had recently begun a ﬁve-year project focused on combating child labor in six provinces
in Thailand, including Tak. As part of this project, Ms. G had been involved with a
recent ILO publication which included the life stories of students ﬁom TC and other
schools, including Sarai, who sometimes missed school to perform paid work.

Challenges to enforcing compulsory education in Thailand. Thailand’s
compulsory education policy requires that all children attend school until they complete
grade nine, or reach 16 years of age. The policy is purposefully integrated with the Labor
Protection Act which sets the minimum age for employment at 15 years. Those
attempting to implement compulsory education policy face several challenges. For one,
the literal meaning of “all children” is taken differently by different actors. The ILO’s

work in Thailand is grounded in an understanding that this regulation apply equally to

143

migrants and others with undocumented status. Others believe the policy is reserved only
for Thai nationals.ll

Another challenge is that getting an education for their children is not a primary
motivation of the migrant families: “They come here to ﬁnd money and they need all
their children to work,” Ms. G explained. “And this is something that we have to educate
them about, that it is illegal to do that.” Part of the education process was to make
parents realize that their already tenuous existence in the country could be jeopardized
further by not sending their young children to school. Families who had entered Thailand
without authorization or overstayed their permits were essentially committing a “double
illegal” when they did not ensure their children were receiving an education.

In addition, Thai authorities themselves were not implementing policies
appropriately. Labor inspections were ineffective and the system of referring working
children to appropriate agencies was weak. Further, the Ministry of Interior (MOI),
responsible for the Royal Thai Police and national security, viewed migrant families as a
security threat. As such, the ﬁrst response of the M01 was not to send working children
to school, but instead to remove them from the country. Speaking of the M01, Ms. G
declared,

They always say, “Oh, we support education. They say “Yes, I will go with that.

We will not prevent anyone from education” But if they ﬁnd any immigrant

children or immigrant families, they can arrest them because they will take it that

they ﬁrst entered illegally into the country.

 

” A lawyer interviewed for this study, who specializes in migrant rights, said he believed
compulsory education applied to every child in the country. He also recognized that
many other legal experts translate the policy to refer only to “Thai children” or “Thai
citizens.”

144

 

Even though the ILO touted education as the proper alternative to work, it wasn’t
always true that local schools would even accept migrant children who had been taken
out of the workplace, creating a fourth challenge. The solution, Ms. G declared, was “to
rebuild the whole system” whereby child labor was better monitored and children had
improved access to, and retention in, the education system.

Increasing communication between stakeholders. Drawing on existing social
ties and forging new ones where needed, the ILO seeks to increase the capacity of
individuals and organizations so that they are clear about their responsibilities towards
migrant families. The organization works at various levels—from the regional ofﬁces of
the MOE to the classroom teachers to do this. Ms. G was well acquainted with the staff
of Tak ESA2 and aware of their active promotion of educational opportunities for
migrant children, but she was concerned about what was happening in other parts of the
country. “In some educational service areas,” she explained, “the director doesn’t even
know about the Education For All policy. I have to tell them ‘This is your mandate. This
is a challenge in Thailand. This is your job.’” Similarly, Ms. G found that teachers
needed to be informed of children’s rights, child labor laws, and education policies.

Communication between actors on the ground throughout the country was also
lacking. Staff in disparate organizations sometimes knew little of the work that others
did. In Mae Sot alone there were dozens of NGOs and CBOs working on education. As
noted by Ms. K at MAP, Tak ESA2 had worked to effectively link some of them
together. The efforts of the TMK Center included partnering with organizations such as
World Education, Burmese Migrant Workers Education Committee, Voluntary Service

Overseas, Child’s Dream, Help Without Frontiers, Youth Connect, and Peoples Partner

145

for Development and Democracy, among others. However, there were likely to be as
many or more actors disconnected from the local ﬂow of information. In turn, this had a
negative effect on the breadth and effectiveness of services that could be offered to those
in need. Ms. G saw one of the roles of the ILO as a coordinating body that enhanced the
social capital of all connected through the network. In having a broad perspective on
education and child labor, the ILO could better ensure that various actors were aware;
both of their own responsibilities and of available resources. Speaking of the variety of
organizations working with Burmese migrant families, Ms. G said:

Right now I think it’s a matter of information, to give them enough information to

 

help them: where to go, what kind of assistance you can have. So we are bridging

a lot of people together. I think it’s a problem when you sit on the ground and

you work with the people. You don’t see anything else. For us, it’s good that we

are up here. We can see from a bird’s eye view.

TC as a potential model school. The ILO was familiar with some of the schools
in Mae Sot, however, it had not been involved with the integration of migrant students
into any of them. Speaking speciﬁcally of Tha Chai School, Ms. G indicated that TC had
been quietly accepting Burmese children well before the ILO found out about it. Once
word got out, the ILO became an enthusiastic supporter of the school’s efforts and
positive stance toward migrant children. In fact, Ms. G thought TC should serve as a
“real showcase” for the whole country, perhaps even a learning tool for others concerning
integrating Thai and migrant students within a school. “When we found out about it, I
said ‘That’s it! This is the model!’” Ms. G explained. “The school was hiding it but I

said, ‘No, this is a good thing. You’ve got to promote it and show it is possible to do

146

this.”’ That others working closer to the ground—GFC and Tak ESA2 staff—have
concerns about what TC is doing by way of educating migrant children (separate
classrooms for Thai and migrant children; lack of Thai language preparation in the
international program) is to be expected. The downside of having a big picture view is
that an organization might be so distant from the ground as to not have an understanding
of the local nuances and complexities.

Further challenges. It was not lost on Ms. G, however, that signiﬁcant I
challenges remained to providing migrant children with quality educational opportunities.

For example, she found it “quite depressing” that migrant children were often placed

 

signiﬁcantly below the grade level appropriate to their age. This problem was likely to
become especially acute when the children reached puberty long before their classmates.
In addition, Ms. G described how families with children attending TC would require
ongoing support if the children were to continue with secondary-level education. Besides
ﬁnding a receptive and understanding learning community, solutions to pragmatic
concerns such as meeting the costs of transportation and uniforms were needed. “The
thing is, now the families are looking for resources in terms of who is going to pay if they
have to move to those schools,” she explained, “[and wondering] how far they have to go,
and what types of funds will be available.” Ms. G was unsure of the long-term solution
to either challenge.
Conclusion

This chapter has described the efforts of various governmental and

nongovernmental actors toward to the education of migrant children. Each agent has a

particular set of resources at his or her disposal with which to do the work. The most

147

prominent is a set of national education policies formulated by the central government
and, in particular, the 2005 Cabinet Resolution speciﬁc to education of non-Thai
children. These policies are distributed through a network of state and non-state actors,
ultimately becoming available to migrant families. Although reputedly there were staff
in many provinces who were unaware of these policies, in this study, all participants had
some level of awareness.

The policies had serious implications for instructional, human, and material
resources. Efforts by Tak ESA2 and schools to respond to the 2005 Resolution have

highlighted other resources necessary to support effective implementation. These include

 

adequate classroom space and properly skilled school staff. Where supply was
constrained, such as at HN, schools restricted enrolment of new students. TC was unique
in accepting large numbers of migrant children. This can be traced to an initial
availability of classroom space at the school. With a burgeoning migrant student
population, the school recognized the need for further resources including Burmese
support staff and a bilingual curriculum.

This chapter has also described the experiences of four Burmese families who live
in Mae Sot District in western Thailand and have at least one child attending a Thai
public school. The families interviewed largely left Burma to seek better economic
opportunities. Mae’s mother’s political involvement was unique among participants.
Though one or both of the parents have found work in Thailand, their ﬁnancial security
remains tenuous and, for Sarai, is a reason for her to miss school on occasion.

For Kanok and Annon, other Burmese actors are implicated in the families’ cross-

border travel, speciﬁcally those having prior migration experience. These agents

148

provided the families with information about the destination site that facilitated their
migration. Searches for housing and work were also supported by various social
contacts, almost exclusively Burmese: relatives and old friends. Only Sarai’s parents
mentioned getting permission to build their current house through direct contact with a
Thai person. Where families enrolled children in a learning center, they identiﬁed other
Burmese families as sources of information of how and where to do this.

In contrast, access to government schools was mediated solely through Thai
individuals (for Annon and Kanok) and a Thai nongovernmental organization named

GFC (for Mae and Sarai). These agents provided assistance by making the families

 

aware that the possibility for participation existed. In the case of GFC, support is even
more substantial, including direct intervention with TC on behalf of the families and
transport to and from the school. Two other NGOs—MAP and ILO—have been
identiﬁed with each working to support migrant education in a number of important
ways. By mediating contact between families and schools, or, in the case of ILO,
between other organizations, these NGOs (and others) facilitate access to existing
resources among different actors in the network. These organizations also introduce
additional resources into the network that families can leverage, such as ﬁnancial support
and transportation to and from schools. In the following chapter, I consider further the
emerging network of actors and embedded resources described thus far. We will see how
these can be explained by reference to the literature around social networks and social

capital.

149

Chapter Five
Accessing and Activating Social Capital

In this chapter, we consider the helpfulness of the framework presented in
Chapter 1 for understanding the stories told by migrant children and their parents, as well
as those of government and nongovemment actors. Recall that the framework deﬁnes
social capital as resources accessed through a network of social relations where the
amount of each—ties and embedded resources—determines the volume of social capital
one has (Bourdieu, 1986). Accounts of migrant families reveal that they were embedded
in networks of social connections that made information and other resources available to
them. The network is constituted by a variety of collective and individual actors residing
on both sides of the Moei River. We will see that both the quantity and qualities of ties
are important determinants of the assistance made available to migrant families and the
outcomes these resources make possible.

Volume of Social Capital

Bourdieu (1986) states that “the volume of the social capital possessed by a given
agent depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize
and on the volume of the capital possessed in his own right by each of those to whom
he is connected” (p. 249). Network size, in turn, can be deﬁned in terms of number of
social ties to other actors (V alenta, 2008). Here we consider various factors that
inﬂuence the number of social ties that migrant families are able to establish and, thus,

the amount of social capital they have available to activate.

150

 

I‘m

The Effect of Migration

Migration necessarily breaks social ties in any existing network. This reduces the
quantity of social capital available to those who move (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000).
When families leave Burma, they leave behind at least some family, friends, and
neighbors. Families, at times, sustained preexisting ties through cellular phones (though
this was not common due to the obvious expense and the lack of electricity in families’
homes). Return visits to Burma also maintained relationships though families exhibited

varying patterns of such travel depending on need and distance. Some had not returned

 

in several years: others crossed the river weekly. Relatives and friends living in Burma
also came to Thailand. Though I never saw temporary visitors at the homes of the four
families featured in Chapter 4, it was the norm at other homes that one or more people
from Burma were there, often having crossed the border to seek medical care at a clinic
in Mae Sot.

While not disputing the potentially negative effects of migration on social capital,
Woolcock and Narayan (2000) also highlight how migration offers possibilities for
developing new relationships at destination sites, especially to others unlike oneself.
However, as we will see below, the particular contexts of migrant families were seen to
severely constrain development of these ties. Thus, families appeared to more readily
maintain preexisting ties or establish new ties to other Burmese actors than to develop
relationships with non-Burmese agents.

Families’ Sense of Security
The irregular presence of family members in Thailand created fears for personal

security, which inhibited travel. Lacking appropriate documents to live and/or work in

151

Thailand limited the range of migrants’ movement beyond their home and place of work,
reducing the possibility they might meet new people and have access to novel forms of
information and support. In particular, Thai police and military invoked fears of
insecurity, rather than safety. Mae’s father prayed that the police would not detain him
every time he took his wife or daughter to work by bicycle. Mae’s mother emphasized
how the family feels safe where they live because there weren ’t a lot of police in the area.
Sarai’s mother had not left her home for four years since her last encounter with the

police.

' . t nﬂ-f‘Jl‘ u'.

Four families participating in this study lived in the same migrant compound at

 

the edge of the Moei River. The compound consisted of a dirt pathway about 500 meters
long with several dozen homes on either side. Those who lived in the compound had at
least one family member working there either preparing cinder blocks or transporting
various goods across the river on small barges. Families felt safe inside the compound
with some rarely traveling much deeper into Thailand. Though Tha Chai and Wan Hin
were close by, few Thai people ventured past the compound entrance, seemingly just as
reluctant to enter as the Burmese were to leave. The only Thais to go into the compound
regularly were the owner of the land and military personnel. On rare occasions, police
would come to check the documents of the compound’s residents. When this was about
to happen, the Thai landowner would warn to those lacking proper documentation. The
mother of one student at TC explained:

Our boss will tell us, “Today or tomorrow the Thai police will come and catch

you so you must go to Myawaddy.” When that happens we will cross the river

152

very near to here. We will stay on the other side but just for 1 hour or 3 hours.

The boss will tell us when to come back.

Similarly, the mother of two students in Phop Phra said that the migrant people in
her agricultural community did not travel far from their homes. “We go to work and we
come back home,” she explained. “There is a temple near here but we are not brave

enough to go. We are afraid the police will arrest us.” Where families are limited in their

" ' ""'"_'!

geographic mobility, it is not surprising that their capacity to establish ties, even with

actors nearby, is severely constrained.

a ‘ '- ‘.\_w .-.

The Inﬂuence of Language

 

A lack of appropriate language skills limited the size of families’ social networks.
Families from Burma arrived in Thailand with various levels of competency in a range of
languages including Pwo Karen, Sgaw Karen, Pa’O, Shan, Karenni, and Burmese among
others. Despite skills with spoken language, it was not uncommon that individuals could
not read or write any language. One mother had “signed” a Burmese identity document
with her thumbprint because she could not write her name. Burmese and ethnic minority
languages were used within migrant homes and to communicate with other families from
Burma (though among migrant families, there were many who did not share the same
language). However, few children, and even fewer adults, had the necessary skills in
Thai to converse with members of the local population. Thus, migrants’ low stock of
human capital restricted social capital development.

Parents indicated that when they visited the schools they relied either on Burmese

support staff or on students who were competent in multiple languages. Sarai’s mother

153

explained that, though her husband had never been to TC, she had gone many times.
However, she never spoke to teachers when she went.
I go for Mother’s Day and Children’s Day and other special events. I don’t talk to
the teachers when I go, I just visit the school. The parents and the teachers don’t

know each other. I don’t speak Thai, so I am afraid to talk to the teachers.

“‘1

Thus, it was not common for migrant families to establish social relationships
with non-Burmese. Families often stayed close to their homes and where Burmese and
other agents occupied the same social space, communication was often impaired due to

language barriers. As Briggs (1998) has noted, “proximity alone does not a neighbor

 

make” (p. 187), and actors sharing a physical community may inhabit quite distinct social
worlds.

While quantity of social ties is a key determinant of available resources, so too is
the nature of the social tie. Briggs (1998) states that “the type and contents of each social
tie, and not just the absolute number of ties, are important predictors of the social
resources, or social capital, that networks provide” (p. 188). In deﬁning the type of tie, I
focus attention on the personal characteristics of the actors involved. In doing so, several
categories of social capital — bonding and bridging -- are deﬁned and explored for their
power to illuminate these stories.

Forms of Social Capital
Bonding Social Capital

In undertaking cross-border migration, families drew on support from an array of

agents. Further assistance became available when they arrived in Thailand and began to

settle. Almost exclusively, families accessed resources for travel and initial adjustment

154

through ties to other Burmese actors. Where actors share demographic, spatial, and
relational characteristics, they belong to the same group (Woolcock, 2002). Numerous
scholars (Narayan, 1999; Warren, Thompson, & Saegart, 2001; Woolcock, 2002) argue
that “bonding social capital” is present when resources become available through
relationships established within a single group.

In this study, I take nation of origin to deﬁne an agent’s group membership status.
Thus, bonding social capital exists whenever migrant families leverage relationships with
other Burmese actors—family, friends, employers—to access resources. At times, social
ties within the group crossed national borders allowing families like Annan’s to connect
with actors in Thailand though the family was still in Burma. Family members also met
other Burmese after arriving in Thailand. When Mae’s mother learned about a teaching
job by through exiled Burmese NLD members, the family activated their bonding social
capital.

Activation patterns. Bonding capital supported four important outcomes: travel
from Burma to Thailand, locating housing, securing work, and gaining access to migrant
learning centers. Table 5.1 presents patterns of bonding capital for these outcomes.
Checkmarks indicate where families received support through ties to other Burmese
actors. Empty boxes show where insufﬁcient evidence was collected to determine the
origin of resources. Four families have been omitted due to incomplete data (the origins
of support for fewer than two outcomes were identiﬁable). Of the four outcomes,
bonding capital most consistently provided resources to support cross-border travel.
Seven of eight families who participated in migrant learning centers (MLCs) drew on

bonding social capital to do so. Given the target population of these institutions, it is not

155

 

Table 5.1

Bonding Social Capital Among Migrant Families

 

 

 

esource accessed in Cross- Work Housing Learning

support of: border center

Family travel access

1 (Arman) \1 \l \l

2 (Kanok) .1 «I \I *

3 (Mae) \/ \/ \I

4 (Sarai) x/ \/ \/ \l

5 \J v \/ .1

6 v

7 v v \I v

8 \j \j

9 x] \j

10 \l «I *

 

 

 

 

* Family did not participate in the system of migrant learning centers.

surprising that information and other forms of support can be found in ties between
Burmese actors.
Resources for travel appeared in two main forms: shared information and escorted
travel. The former is described here by the father of a boy at Tha Chai School.
I was working on a farm in Mon State, but the land was lost because of the
erosion. My boss from the farm went to Bangkok to work in a ﬁsh factory.
When he came back, I met with him and my boss told me I should come to
Thailand to work.
Unlike Annan’s family whose father’s “auntie” provided them with a preexisting
stock of bonding social capital upon arrival in Thailand, other participants emphasized
that they had no established social ties to those they encountered at the destination site.

A woman who had traveled to Phop Phra from Rangoon said:

156

I knew someone who was already living here. A friend told me that here the
economics are a better than in Burma and, because of that, we came. But the
people here did not know each other until they arrived. We do not come from the
same place.

In addition to using information to support independent travel into Thailand, more
direct support was provided when a social contact accompanied one or more family
members on the journey. Kanok’s father described how his brother-in-law “brought” him
to Mae Sot. This kind of assistance was also available for hire. One mother used the
services of a “carrier,” a person paid to facilitate the (usually undocumented) transit of
people or goods across the border. She told the following story:

The ﬁrst time I came to Mae Sot, I lost everything [money and jewelry] at the

border because of the police. The second time I went to Bangkok, I went with a

carrier. There were so many steps. First from my hometown to Myawaddy

[Burma], then Myawaddy to Mae Sot, then Mae Sot to Bangkok. The ﬁrst carrier

took me from Pa’an to Myawaddy. I knew him because he was known as a

carrier in my hometown. I was not very friendly with him, but some people

suggested to me that if I wanted to have a good job, I should join with a carrier.

In the example above, bonding social capital provided resources for travel and for
ﬁnding work simultaneously. Other participants described leveraging bonding social
capital to secure work and housing in combination. This is not surprising given that six
of 14 families lived on some sort of “compound” where speciﬁc accommodations for
workers were already established or space was provided with the intent that they would

build their own house. Thus, ﬁnding a job meant that the family had secured housing as

157

'u' ~.“.IL

 

well. Sanda’s family, presented at the beginning of Chapter 1 was one such family where
Sanda’s elder sister and her husband acted as the adult caretakers. The elder sister
described how her husband found work and, in doing so, a place for the family to live
beside the worksite:
At ﬁrst when my husband arrived to Myawaddy, he was working in a factory
where they were bottling puriﬁed water. The boss planned to build a plastics I“
factory here in Mac Sot. So my husband was ﬁrst working in Myawaddy, and I
then his boss built a new factory and he came together with his boss. And my

husband is the security guard for this plastics factory and so we can have this

 

house.

Others, such as Mae’s family, found housing independently of work or travel resources.
They had found their home, hidden from view from the nearest road, through a Burmese
friend.

Bridgeheads. The families’ stories exemplify the concept of “chain migration,”
whereby assistance for travel, work, and housing are fed back to prospective migrants as
a result of social relationships with prior migrants (MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964).
Boyd (1989) suggests that prior migrants are “bridgeheads,” actors who provide linkages
between sending and receiving sites, in this case between Burma and Thailand.
Bridgeheads act as “conduits of information and social and ﬁnancial assistance” (p. 689)
for other migrants and potential migrants. The resources they provide to others may
shape future migration outcomes by mediating risks and uncertainties associated with

travel from one site to another.

158

Consider Arman’s father’s aunt. As a migrant with 10 years experience, she is
positioned to inform the family of improved opportunities across the border. The mother
of a boy at TC provides another example. She described how her husband received help
from friends who had prior migration experience. “Until he met his friends, my husband
didn’t know how to come here,” she explained. “But some of the other workers have
already come to Thailand. When they go to visit to Burma, they tell their friends how to
come here.” By returning to their native villages with ﬁrst-hand knowledge of
destination site, these actors became a resource—a bridgehead—for her husband and
others who had yet to migrate.

Mapping bonding social capital. Figure 5.1 maps out Burmese actors along the
border area. The nodes represent families who are indicated by circles on both sides of
the border. Study participants are labeled with the ﬁrst letter of the focus child; “A”nnan,
“K”anok, “M”ae, and “S”arai. “F” represents a family living in Phop Phra district.
Straight lines indicate social ties. Current or potential migrants not presently associated
with participant families are shown by circles that are not connected to other nodes. The
ﬁgure includes one outcome of social capital activation: a curved line indicates current
enrolment in a learning center. As shown previously in Table 5.1, most families had at
least one child in a learning center at some point in their stay in Thailand. However, only
Annan’s family had a child in a learning center in 2008. Her enrolment was facilitated
through information provided by a Burmese neighbor.

Bridging Social Capital
Bonding social capital—resources made available through intra-group ties—~provided

families with assistance for travel, work, housing, and access to migrant learning centers.

159

 

 

. 1|.019
0 ..........-'..’ . j o

. THAILAND

. BURMA
. , 0

 

/ Social tie "we” Enrollment o Burmese family 0 Learning center zBorder

 

 

 

Figure 5.1. Network map of Burmese actors along the Thai-Burmese border.

But the story changes when we examine how families gained access to the Thai
educational system. In those cases, it was “bridging capital”—resources made available
through ties that connect people between groups, who have “different demographic
characteristics, irrespective of how well they know each other” (Woolcock, 2002, p.
23)—that made the difference. Families in rural Phop Phra gained access to schools
through MAP, a registered Thai NGO. Annan’s family was invited to the local school by
a Thai woman living in their community. Kanok and her brothers enrolled in TC through
information provided by Thai neighbors. GFC assisted Sarai and Mac in attending TC.
These are examples of bridging social capital in action.

Participant families whose stories are not highlighted in Chapter 4 provide
additional evidence for bridging social capital. For example, the family of sixth grade

student explained that the manager of the father’s worksite informed them that they could

enroll at the local Thai primary school. The vast majority of management in Mae Sot are

160

 

Thais who oversee Burmese workers. For many families, such as Sarai’s and Mae’s, it
was through their association with GFC that they enrolled in TC. These ties made the
2005 Resolution available to the families as a resource that they could potentially
leverage for their child’s education.

Consider a story related by a father of two students at TC. The children
transferred there from the orphanage learning center near the sitagon (Thai army post).

The father had learned about the policy providing families with legal access to Thai

‘ a .1 1. All-" . H‘L —-P

schools. He also learned that, should the families agree to the transfer, GFC would

facilitate the process and continue to offer various other supports to families as they had

 

previously. The GF C staff had
told the children to study at the Thai school because the sitagon school is not
registered with the Thai Ministry of Education. It is illegal. So it’s not right for
the law. At the same time, the headmaster of the school went to the sitagon and
talked to the teachers and said, “If your students are interested to come and study
in this school, you have the right to do that.” In this school they didn’t have a lot
of students. They have room to study. And the teacher at the sitagon school also
told us, “If your children study here at the sitagon or at the Thai school don’t
worry about anything. Everything is the same.”
Similarly, the mother of one ﬁfth-grade student explained how she found out her
daughter could enroll at TC. Though the daughter was not studying at the orphanage
learning center, the mother was there frequently selling baked goods to the other children

and staff. Through these visits the mother learned of the upcoming transfer of students

161

by GP C staff. The mother drew upon her ties to GP C, including to Fr. 0, to learn it was
possible to send her daughter to TC:

I was selling cookies at the orphanage and I knew about it fairly well, that it

taught Thai, English, and Burmese. The school is very near our home. The

teachers told the parents “If you have children you can send them to the school.”

Then the Father and the school director came to the orphanage and explained that

TC might have to close if they did not get more students. The parents went to a

meeting about that at the orphanage.

In total, 13 of the 14 families referred to bridging social capital in their
descriptions of Thai school access by describing ties to non-Burmese actors. The only
family not included here had sent their son to WH nine years earlier and could not recall
the details of his enrolment.

Mapping the Network. Figure 5.2 presents a summative map of the network of migrant
families and other actors along the Thai border and further aﬁeld. The bottom half, as
described in Figure 5.1, shows Burmese actors (circles) with whom migrant families have
bonding social capital. Recall that study participants are labeled with the ﬁrst letter of the
focus child; “A”nnan, “K”anok, “M”ae, and “S”aria, and that “F” represents a family
living in Phop Phra district. Intergroup ties link migrant families with the new actors
represented by shaded nodes. These ties to non-Burmese actors highlight bridging social
capital. Square indicate state actors: the Royal Thai Government (RTG), Tak ESA2
education ofﬁce, and Thai schools. PP represents government schools in Phop Phra
district. Nongovemment actors are represented by triangular nodes. The two unlabeled

triangles are the individuals not associated with larger NGOs. These are the neighbors

162

 

 

 

 

:

':

. O
.nwx9
O

o
THAILAND

  

 

BURMA
(D

I Government actor

/ Social tie

 

A Nongovemment actor

 

o Burmese family OLeaming center
.'. Tie with policy resource ..... r” Enrollment

~

1» Border

 

 

Figure 5. 2. Bonding and bridging social capital in a network.

who provided Annan’s and Kanok’s families with access to schools. Straight lines

indicate social ties within the network. A curved arrow again shows school enrolment;

an outcome of social capital activation.

Notice there are two types of social ties: those that facilitate access to the 2005
Resolution and other Thai education policies, and those that do not. Dotted straight lines
indicate the former and solid straight lines represent the latter. Following the dotted

straight lines from the RTG allows one to trace policy dissemination from the central

163

 

Im‘i

government to regional education ofﬁces like Tak ESA2 and from Tak ESA2 to
individual schools. Dotted straight lines also connect migrant families to non-state
actors. That is, the dotted straight lines emphasize that the ﬁve migrant families shown
here—and, in fact, all 14 participant families—leveraged ties to non-Burmese actors to
access education policy. More speciﬁcally, dotted lines connect migrant families to non-
Burmese, nongovemment actors. This has important implications for this study and will
be explored in the coming pages.

Brokers. We saw in Chapter 4 that schools described their attempts to inform
migrant families of current policy in various ways, including through school staff.
However, when families related how they learned about enrolment opportunities for their
children, they did not speak of direct contact with schools. The one possible exception
was the woman who spoke to Annan’s parents was a teacher, but she also lived nearby
and was not acting as an ofﬁcial recruiter for the school when she talked to the parents.
Thus, we see an initial social disconnect separating the Thai schools and migrant
families. This is indicated by an absence of social ties between the sets of nodes in
Figure 5.2. That is, there are no straight lines—solid or broken—joining the open circles
of migrant families with the shaded squares of schools. Instead, the relationship between
the two is indicated by the curved line of enrolment. Of course, once children were
enrolled at the school, families necessarily developed social ties to those institutions
through the child. However, the emphasis here is on identifying the social tie through
which families ﬁrst gained access to education policy. These were clearly ties between
families and nongovernmental organizations and not ties between families and state

actors or families and other Burmese actors.

164

 

The disconnect existing between families and schools is overcome by individual
and collective nongovemment actors who link these two groups together (shaded
triangles). In the network, nongovemment actors are “brokers” (Burt, 1997; 2001), actors
who span disconnects, or holes in social structures. Holes are created by clusters of
actors with weak or non-existent connections with the result being that “people on either

side of the hole circulate in different ﬂows of information” (1997, p. 341). As Burt

".\Ll‘\’ “I“

emphasizes, it is not that the clusters are unaware of one other. The schools recognize

1'; MW

that migrant families live in the surrounding villages and, likewise, families know that

Thai schools exist (if only in theory—families may not know exactly where the schools

 

are located but certainly know that Thailand has schools). However, as individual
institutions and families, they do not directly attend to each other and no direct ties link
the two together. As a result, the schools do not have access to resources of families, and
families do not have access to education policy or other school-based resources.
Nongovemment actors facilitate the connection between these actors and provide them
with potential access to the others’ collection of resources.

Similarly, the TMK Center at Tak ESA2 and the ILO are brokers. Recall that Ms.
G saw the organization as “bridging a lot of people together.” By connecting agents that
may or may not have previously been aware of each other, both organizations help to
connect different clusters of actors and make a wider range of resources available within
and across groups.

It is important to note that GFC and MAP have ties to migrant families that do not
participate in Thai schools. The triangles of these organizations are each connected to

nodes not linked to schools through a curved line of enrolment. This emphasizes that

165

some families have access to bridging capital, both the tie and the resource, but choose
not to activate it, for whatever reason. Few families in Phop Phra eventually agreed to
enroll their children even though MAP had provided information about local schools,
offered to assist with registration, and provided ﬁnancial support. Similarly, GFC
informed all the families at their learning centers of the beneﬁts of the 2005 Resolution
and yet, notwithstanding the bulk transfer of children from the orphanage center, few F"
families chose to leverage available social capital. 1
Getting By and Getting Ahead

To summarize, the discussion of bonding and bridging social capital above

 

highlights the availability of particular resources through speciﬁc kinds of social ties.
Similarly, Briggs (1998) ﬁnds that the characteristics of actors linked by social ties are
important predictors of the kinds of resources made accessible. The author describes two
forms of social capital—“social support” and “social leverage”—-which assist actors in
“getting by” and “getting ahead,” respectively (p. 17 8). In getting by, actors cope with
the challenges of daily life by accessing resources such as small cash loans, free child
care, and emotional support. These resources are largely available through ties to other
members within the same community—Briggs’ “socially similar others” (p. 189). We
see social support when friends of Sarai’s family lent money to get Sarai’s mother out of
the Mac Sot detention center. Similarly, a family living in Phop Phra said that police in
the area collected monthly fees of 30 to 50 baht (U S$1-2) from migrant workers. Though
this did not enable travel beyond the ﬁelds where their community had been established,
it gave them security in the immediate area. “If we don’t have the money to pay,”

explained one woman, “we will borrow from our friends—but we need to give interest!”

166

she added with a smile. Additional evidence of social support to “get by” came during a
follow-up trip to the border area in 2009. In revisiting a family living in a migrant
housing compound next to the Moei River, a mother informed me that she had recently
separated from her husband. She had no job and was unsure how she would provide for
her three children. She had contemplated asking her son in the ﬁfth grade to drop out of
school to look for work. He hadn’t needed to work yet, as other workers at the factory
were donating rice and other food staples to help sustain the family.

While social support is helpful, social leverage through ties to those with different
racial and ethnic identities is also important, especially for the poor. Ties across groups
allow one to. cast a “wider and deeper” social net, making available a larger and more
diverse set of resources (Briggs, 1998, p. 189). Rather than maintaining the status quo,
these resources facilitate actors getting ahead by changing their opportunity in life. On
the one hand, this study provides evidence to support getting ahead through bridging ties
in that migrant families access Thai schools through their relationships with non-Burmese
actors. I consider successful migration as well as securing housing, work, and access to
learning centers to represent changes in their life opportunities as well. These outcomes
are secured through ties to other Burmese or through bonding capital. However,
opportunities to get ahead that are accessed through ties within a group appear to be less
signiﬁcant, or to have a lower quality than those provided through contact across groups.
For example, access to learning centers and enrolment in Thai schools are both outcomes
of leveraging social capital. However, the former likely presents children with fewer
advantages in life than the latter given that only education in Thai schools provides

students with ofﬁcial graduation documents. Similarly, information about jobs

167

 

circulating in the Burmese community may disproportionately direct migrants to work
with low pay and/or demanding conditions. As Edwards and Foley (1997) point out, not
all social capital is created equal with the socioeconomic location of the activated capital
determining its value. Similarly, Briggs notes, for the poor, social ties to similar others is
often “a quick route to bad jobs” (p. 188).
Social Ties and Resources Leveraged by Migrant Families

Social capital is deﬁned as resources made available through social ties or

relationships between agents. Figure 5.3 indicates the aggregate nature of social capital

and identiﬁes how the two components appear in this study among the participating

 

 

 

migrant families.

 

 

Resources Embedded in Relationships

0 Information and escorted travel to support
migration among migrant families
0 Assistance in identifying potential housing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Ties to and work in Thailand
Other Actors 0 Small ﬁnancial favors and other forms of
Social . lntra-group bonding (tie) regular “social support” among families
Capital = . Inter-group bridging (tie) + 0 Access to Thar national education polrcres
. Bridgehead (actor) 0 Information about local Thar schools and
. Broker (actor) enrolment procedures

 

a Transportation and ﬁnancial support for
schooling consumables

0 Support for Thai teacher and migrant student
language training

0 Assistance with development of bilingual
curricula at Thai schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.3 The aggregate nature of migrant families’ social capital

The general patterns of social capital activation by migrant families in this study
are more clearly illustrated by reconsidering two of the families. Presented below are

summaries of the social ties and resources Annan’s and Mae’s families drew upon from

168

 

their position within the larger social network represented in Figure 5.2 above and restate
the roles of some of the actors previously described in Chapter 4.

Annan’s family

Annan’s family had been struggling to eke out an existence in an ethnic Shan

village near the Thai-Burmese border, a village from which many others had migrated to
Thailand according to Annan’s father. From these other villagers and their kin, the r-
family was aware of economic opportunities that lie across the border. However, it was
the urging of a relative of Annan’s father, a bridgehead who had already spent a decade

in Thailand, which ﬁnally compelled the family to move. Bonding social ties also

 

! u: .’..‘v

provided access to opportunities for work upon arrival in Mac Sot. Annan’s father works
as a security guard, a job he learned about through a Burmese man. In a similar manner,
the family drew upon social ties to another Burmese migrant to facilitate access to a
nearby learning center for their daughter who was born in Thailand after their arrival in
the country.

Huay Nat school lies within walking distance to the family home. Access for
Annan and his older brother, who enrolled there prior to the 2005 Resolution, was
facilitated through bridging social capital. The Thai woman who lived in the
neighborhood and noticed the two children playing represents a broker in the family’s
social network. It was through this woman that the family accessed information about
the enrolment practices of HN school that led them to take their sons there.
Mae’s family

Though Mae’s elder sister was the ﬁrst to come to Thailand for work in 2001, it

her mother’s visit in 2004 that led the rest of the family to move as a unit. Mae’s

169

 

mother’s political activities with the NLD had caught the attention of local authorities in
Burma and the family warned the mother not to come back to their hometown. Bonding
social ties to other NLD members living in Thailand provided Mae’s mother with an
opportunity for employment as a teacher in a migrant learning center near Mae Sot.
Similarly, the family learned about the availability of their current house through
Burmese friends who had lived there previously.

In addition to bonding social capital being leveraged for housing and work,
bridging social capital was activated for Mae’s education. Despite working in the
migrant education system, Mae’s mother did not learn of the 2005 Resolution until it had
been in effect for several years and even then, only alter speaking with Ms. E, a Thai
woman working for the Thai organization, Good Friends Center. Ties to GFC also
provide the family resources beyond the access to the policy. Through GFC, the family
is provided food and lodging for Mae near Tha Chai school, transportation to and from
classes, and material support such as uniforms and consumable school supplies. Mae’s
family is also preparing to contribute their own ﬁnancial resources in the future should it
become necessary. The extended family network is currently setting aside money in a
small tin can to support Mac as she changes schools in order to progress through the
secondary grades and beyond of Thailand’s education system.

Discussion

In general, migrant families in western Thailand have social relationships with a
variety of other actors on both sides of the border. Families derived various beneﬁts from
these relationships, enabling them to be more successful in their endeavors. Intragroup

ties to other Burmese assisted families in traveling to and settling in Thailand. This

170

 

bonding capital was also activated to ﬁnd housing, work, and gain entry into migrant
learning centers. Access to Thai schools was provided exclusively through ties to non-
Burmese agents. Prior to 2005, families’ bridging social capital made available
information about local schools who were amenable to accepting migrant students. Since
this time, intergroup ties have provided families with access to a set of national education

policies that make Thai schools legally accessible to non-Thai students. '5'—

J‘m- a.

In addition to highlighting the social capital that families in this study required for
access to state schools, additional ties and resources that support school enrolment and

extended participation, either unavailable or in short supply, have also been identiﬁed.

 

Before moving to a general summary and conclusion for the study, here I brieﬂy consider
a few challenges to improving the education of migrant children already participating in
the system and expanding access to additional families not yet enrolled in Thai schools.
These challenges are informed by both what I did and did not see or hear in my research.
Thus, these observations are less empirically validated.
Establishing More Effective Ties

The 2005 Resolution and other education policies originate with the central Thai
government. From here, they are disseminated to local education ofﬁces and then further
to individual schools. In the beginning, the policies are largely available within a group of
Thai state actors but families are not aware of them—Burt’s (1997) “different ﬂows of
information” (p. 341). The challenge is to facilitate migrant families’ access to the
policies so they can make use of them. When this happens, at least for the families
interviewed here, it requires bridging ties, where the resource passes from Thai actors to

migrant families. Foley and Edwards (1999) broadly describe the situation in this way:

171

In order for resources, the “raw materials” of social capital, to be converted

into social capital, individual or collective actors must perceive that some speciﬁc

resource is present within their social ﬁeld and have some form of social

relationship that provides access to those resources. Social networks provide

direct access to both resources and information. They also constitute the most
proximate spheres of interaction in which individuals come to perceive resources

to be both available and valuable. (pp. 166-167)

We have already seen that developing bridging social capital is difﬁcult for
families. Linguistic and geographic barriers often prevent adults and children from
meeting and communicating with others outside their national group. Expanding the
social network through active outreach into migrant communities may be another
effective tool in increasing the range of actors who might beneﬁt from these policies.

While it may be ideal to expand the network broadly, that is, improve ties
between migrant families and all non-Burmese agents, a more strategic approach would
focus on the ties most likely to be helpful for school access. “More ties are better,” as
Foley and Edwards (1999) recognize, “but one tie might be sufﬁcient to gain access to a
crucial resource” (p. 166). The ILO, MAP, GF C, and the Thai-Myanmar-Karen
Education Center (TMK Center) at Tak ESA2 are engaged in this brokering activity.
However, the effectiveness of the ILO is in some ways limited by its distance from “the
ground,” and education is only one area of focus for MAP. Having more organizations
that are in direct contact with migrant families and focused largely or exclusively on

education may be an effective means to more efﬁcient dissemination of resources.

172

¢(.‘1 9.

 

 

Ties between organizations could also be improved. As Ms. G noted, the ILO’s
“bird’s eye view” enabled them to see disconnects in the system that impeded access to
resources. Tak ESA2 was particularly active and effective in promoting awareness of
education policy to stakeholders in its area but other parts of the country are less
informed. Thus, in addition to organizations active at the micro-level of individual
families and schools, actors who work to identify and connect actors at a broader level ﬁ
are also critical.

Providing Additional Resources

Financial support. The work of MAP and GF C highlight that brokering

 

relationships between schools and families is important but often insufﬁcient. Recall that
both organizations also offer ﬁnancial assistance to families to help offset the direct costs
to schooling. Conversations with families consistently indicated that meeting these costs
was a primary concern. This was especially true for students that GF C had sent to TC
and whose families had begun to worry whether support would continue past primary
level education. It was not clear to these families—and perhaps not even to the
organization itself—how long assistance would be available. As an interview with one
family was concluding, a look of concern passed over the father’s face. “I would like to

ask you one thing,” he said

 

I would like to know after our son ﬁnishes the 6th standard, if he goes to middle
school or high school, for the expenses Is there any help from any school, of
how to go, how to pay? If we have to do it by ourselves, we don’t have enough

money. This is a big problem for us.

173

In addition, as children moved from the primary to secondary level, schools
generally became more expensive with additional fees levied on families to support an
expanded range of co- and extra-curricular activities. As well, secondary schools were
fewer in number, increasing travel distances and costs. Some were far enough away that
students would not be able to return home daily. Ms. E explained that GF C was
considering the costs associated with sending children they were currently supporting to
various secondary schools:

It is very expensive to send students to [the main high school in Mae Sot]. I think

we should start by sending students to WH for lower secondary because it is

cheaper and then maybe to Mae Pa high school for grades 10 to 12. If we send
them there, then we should take care of their lodging as well.

In the spring of 2009, the Thai government began expanding its ﬁnancial support
to schools and families with a 15-year free education policy for schooling from pre-
primary through to grade 12.12 The program is designed to cover fees for books,
education tools, student uniforms, and recreational activities. During my follow-up visit
to Thailand in the summer of 2009, I learned that the program had been implemented

along the border. On her ﬁrst day of grade 10 at a new school (the same school her father

 

'2 The Thai Government set aside 18 billion baht (US$600 million) to ﬁnance the project
in 2009. The fund was designed to cover the costs of tuition fees, textbooks, uniforms,
education tools and materials, and school activities. Money was to be distributed to all
schools nationwide who would then manage the funds themselves. Parents would only
receive money directly from schools to buy uniforms for their children. See “The
Govemment’s lS-Year Free Education Policy” (published March 17, 2009 at
http://thailand.prd.go.th/view insidemhp?id=4128) and “lSyrs of free education
programme launched” (published March 18, 2009 at
httg/lwww.bangkokpost.com/news/local/ l 37805/free-education-for-all).

174

 

 

 

had identiﬁed as being too expensive a year earlier), Kanok received a cash payment of
700 Baht (U S$23) to put towards her school uniforms.

Student preparation. Many migrant children have few Thai language skills. For
some, this barrier is enough to discourage any participation in state schools. For those
who do enroll, two main effects on their educational experience were seen: 1) initial
placement below the appropriate grade level for their age and 2) reduced understanding
of the instruction offered in the classroom. For older students intending to transfer from
learning centers to state schools, prior exposure to Thai language would better prepare
them for social and academic success at school.

Many stakeholders expressed concerns about the long—term consequences of
placing children below grade level. Compulsory education laws apply to students until
they are 16 years of age. Some students participating in this study will not have
completed their primary education by this time and it is unclear if they would continue
past this age. One family who participated in this study had a son who began grade one
at 11 years old. He was 20 years old and in grade nine at WH in 2008. Although he
often did not attend classes for weeks at a time in order to work, the school was
particularly lenient with respect to attendance policies enabling him to complete his
studies. Few schools may be willing or able to do the same.

Traditionally, little attention has been paid to Thai language at the MLCs, largely
because the centers do not consider it part of their mandate (the emphasis is on
maintaining students’ primary languages) or do not have the resources to effectively
teach Thai. With the support of the TMK Center at Tak ESA2, progress was being made

with respect to the latter. Beginning in 2009, arrangements were formalized to share

175

 

 

expertise between MLCs and Thai schools. Speciﬁcally, some learning centers and
schools had a written “Memorandum of Understanding” whereby teachers and facilities
were shared between the two. The goal was to improve English and Burmese instruction
in Thai schools, as well as Thai instruction, computer training, and science in the learning
centers. Available data indicates that learning centers in other areas of the country are
also increasing Thai language preparation of migrant students.l3

Teacher preparation. HN was reluctant to accept children who were older than
the appropriate age for lower primary school. As Ms. H made clear, the school did not
believe in advancing students past grade one upon initial enrolment. As a result, students
of varying ages would necessarily be grouped together, a situation for which school staff
were unprepared. Attempts to address this issue appear to be in place. Cooperation
between Tak ESA2 and World Education has resulted in a nascent program designed to
improve teachers’ skills with the new complexities resulting from the admission of
migrant students into their classrooms.

In addition to support for practicing teachers, improvements in the preparation of
preservice teachers seem to be warranted. It would be particularly beneﬁcial to expose
developing teachers to a greater diversity of students, especially at universities in border
areas. Speaking of his own training a few years earlier at a university just 50 kilometers
from the Thai border with Burma, Mr. N at TC said:

When I studied at university I taught Thai students. I didn’t teach Burmese

students. I didn’t teach Mon students. So I didn’t learn about them. The

 

'3 See, for example, stories about learning centers in southern Ranong Province
(“Reaching out to migrant children,” published May 20, 2009 at
http://www.thailabour.org/node/68) and in central Samut Sakhon Province (ILO, OEC, &
MOE, 2006).

176

 

 

university teaches about Thai language and Japanese language. If the student if

Japanese, ok, I can teach them a little bit.

According to Mr. N, the university now teaches Burmese language as a course of study
but it is unclear whether preservice teachers are exposed to non-Thai students as part of
their preparation.

Classroom space and teachers. Perhaps the resources in shortest supply are
classroom space and available teachers. With tens of thousands of migrant children not
yet in Thai schools, it remains unclear how they might be accommodated within the state
school system. One alternative being pursued is to certify at least some of the learning
centers as legitimate education providers. While the facilities of most are inadequate, a
few centers in Mae Sot have buildings that rival those of Thai schools. Plans have been
underway for several years—though often interrupted due to political instability in the
country—to allow select migrant schools to register as private education institutions.
H0wever, the criteria for certiﬁcation are extensive and include requirements for teaching
staff (must be graduates of Thai universities), course work (teaching the Thai language),
and school facilities (a large open recreation area as well as a health clinic). Further, the
Thai government has yet to offer ﬁnancial support to interested learning centers.
Notwithstanding these obstacles, GFC did achieve private school status for one of its
learning centers in 2009.

Given social capital’s two components of ties and resources, we can see that
increasing one or the other or both will provide greater quantities of social capital for all
actors in the network. Adding more ties is likely to be most beneﬁcial where additional

actors are not uniquely clustered around inferior socioeconomic positions. A greater

177

.15‘

‘ ‘JnCL '

 

 

diversity of ties connecting a wider range of individual and collective actors is likely to
be most helpful. That is, the greatest advantages to the existing network are to be gleaned
through the inclusion of a wider variety of individual and collective actors who offer a

more beneﬁcial pool of nonredundant resources.

‘51.“

 

 

178

 

Chapter 6
Implications and Future Directions

This study has introduced a few of the 33,000—of an estimated total population
of 200,000 (CPPCR, 2009)—Burmese children in Thailand who are enrolled in state
public schools. Analysis of their experiences reveals how they and their families
successfully navigate signiﬁcant barriers in order to gain access to schools. These l—
barriers—including but not limited to unfamiliar language of instruction, lack of
awareness of policy, direct and opportunity costs to schooling, and travel distances to

school—are not unique to migrants in Thailand but can be found worldwide (Bicocchi &

 

LeVoy, 2008; UNDP, 2009). Thus, this ﬁndings of this study have potentially broad
application to mobile populations and their host communities and nations around the
world.
Implications

The study has shown that social capital and capital theory more generally have
explanatory power with respect to Burmese families’ experiences in Thailand.
Speciﬁcally, the study shows that Bourdieu’s (1986) disaggregation of social capital into
resources and social ties helps us understand such discrete phenomena as cross-border
travel, searches for employment and housing, and school access. In analyzing particular
outcomes, the study invites us to think of the nature of required resources and also their
location.

Recall Sanda and her family who were introduced in Chapter 1. As with most
families in this study, the family moved to Thailand to seek better living, essentially

economic, conditions. This move was facilitated by activating bonding social capital,

179

that is, drawing on information available through a relationship with a former boss. We
see that social capital provides access to economic resources in the form of information
about work opportunities in Thailand. For actors who migrate, the ability to secure such
knowledge can be an important way to lower risks and uncertainties associated with
movement within or across borders.

The study shows that families exclusively activate bridging social capital for
access into Thai schools. Activation involves accessing details of national policies and
local registration procedures through relationships to non-Burmese agents. For migrants
unfamiliar or unsure of local bureaucracy, or who do not speak the language of local
institutions, these bridging relationships can be essential to successful school
participation. Not all families could readily deﬁne their goals with respect to school
participation. A few explained that they wanted their children to become “educated” in
general terms. More speciﬁc outcomes were access to Thai language (human capital) or
the academic credentials (cultural capital) that learning centers could not provide. Only
in the case of Mae, whose mother and two siblings had attended university in Burma,
were the credentials explicitly deﬁned as important for participation in higher education.
Other families described investments in education as providing opportunities for work
that paid better or was less physically demanding than the labor which the parents did or
were otherwise familiar with.

For many families, accessing policy through relationships was not enough to
secure long-term participation in schools. Relationships with organizations such as MAP
and GFC were also sources of economic capital used to supplement the families’ own

limited reserves. Support for school supplies, uniforms, meals, and transportation were

180

 

 

all key to realizing the potential held in the social ties that connected families to schools
by way of brokers.

Schools also drew on ties in the networks to access vital resources. The 2005
Resolution that enabled them to accept non-Thai children was made available through a
professional relationship with the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce. However, here again, the policy is
not seen to be a completely sufﬁcient resource. Schools sometimes also sought out
additional ﬁnancial capital to support the education of students. TC and WH were most
explicit about this with donations being sought through ties to the local community and
its businesses.

Schools required more than money to educate migrant students. They also lacked
resources in terms of professional training that allow them to effectively teach multi-age
classrooms and students who were not adequately ﬂuent in Thai. These resources are
commonly deﬁcient in schools around the world trying to meet the challenges of
educating migrant children and youth. The question in Thailand is where are these
resources available? Which social relationships can schools draw on to enable access to
this expertise? The answer remains unclear. Even Tak ESA2, which is generally seen as
highly proactive in meeting the needs of the migrant community, has no one in their
ofﬁce who might assist schools in developing this capacity. The ofﬁce has, however,
found support within the network from World Education, an NGO with an ofﬁce in Mae
Sot having Thai, Burmese, and Western staff. World Education is assisting teachers in
working with non-Thai speakers and schools more generally, in developing more

appropriate curricula. Tak ESA2 has also leveraged its social capital through ties to

181

 

‘-

 

MLCs to draw on expertise there for instruction in Burmese and English. It seems it
really does take a village, and a well-connected one at that, to raise a child!

It seems most likely that it is the teachers and school administrators working most
closely with students who are able to identify the resources they most need. Tak ESA2
seems to have been content to let schools admit children based on the schools’
perceptions of their abilities to access the necessary resources. Where schools like HN
felt they lacked the expertise to teach over-age children, the school was free to discourage
them from attending. Though the Tak ESA2 ofﬁce appears to have been successful in
identifying the sources of needed support for schools in its area, organizations operating
at a national level, such as the ILO, may have a more effective, broader social reach. As
Ms. G described, their more distal position in the network affords them a broader
perspective which may facilitate connecting schools in a particular locale with actors
nearby that they are not aware of.

In sum, individual actors are not likely to possess all the resources they need to
facilitate a range of desired outcomes. However, establishing (investing in) social
relationships with other actors is likely to broaden the range of resources that become
available. Where actors connect to others they are similar to, the additional resources
made available are likely to be redundant. By reaching out to those who are different, a
broader range of resources may be available. For migrants isolated by language, culture,
and lack of legal residence in Thailand or elsewhere, it seems likely that their ability to
reach out is compromised. Thus, a more effective strategy would be for others to reach
toward migrant and other marginalized populations to assist them in achieving their

various goals.

182

 

 

For Further Study

This interpretive case study described and explained the participation of Burmese
migrant families in the Thai state education system. My focus on one particular case was
an attempt to obtain a deep appreciation for the actors, their roles, and the processes
involved rather than attempt generalizability. In doing so, I have endeavored to address
the knowledge gap that exists around the lives of foreign nationals in Thailand in general,
and about the speciﬁc educational situation of migrant children (Huguet & Punpuing,
20053; Skeldon, 2001). While past research priorities focusing predominantly on
marginalized and at-risk subgroups have increased our understandings of what prevents
migrant children from attending school, this study helps us understand the conditions
under which they can and do participate.

The particular interpretation presented here represents a personal choice to
foreground the experiences and stories of the migrant families themselves. Thus, in using
the frame of social capital, I described school participation as an outcome of the families’
social capital investments and activation processes. In the remaining sections I describe
other studies that would complement the ﬁndings and further our understanding of the
education of migrant children in Thailand.

Retention Patterns

Despite successful enrolment in Thai schools, many of the migrant children
presented here have uncertain educational futures. They face a number of ongoing
challenges to continued participation from various fronts. In part, uncertainty stems from
ﬁnancial concerns. Families who were receiving organizational support (from GF C, for

example) worried that current levels of ﬁnancial assistance may not continue. Other

183

 

 

 

families relying on their own means also expressed concern that they would not be able
to meet future ﬁnancial obligations. Concerns were accentuated for children who would
need to change schools to continue with the next level of education due to increased
school fees for uniforms and supplies as well as greater transportation costs where new
schools were signiﬁcantly further from their homes.

In addition, it seems reasonable to wonder about the long-term effects of placing 1"“
students several years below grade level. In the coming years, psychological and
physical changes in these children may exaggerate feelings of not belonging in the class

where they are placed or in the school more generally. Though families did not directly ?

 

address this issue, Ms. G of the ILO raised the same concerns and the impact of being
overage for grade during adolescence is linked with school dropout in the literature
(Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999; Roderick, 1994). Further, as children get older, internal or
external pressures to contribute to family income are likely to increase. Sarai had missed
several weeks of school at TC to be able to contribute to her family’s income when her
father was not working. It is known that for many poor families, success in managing to
send their children to school is ﬂeeting and may last only until a crisis intervenes, such as
the death or departure of the main bread-winner. When this happens, their coping
mechanisms are no longer adequate and one or more children may be compelled to
contribute to family income (Bourdillon, 2005).

To evaluate the effectiveness of government policy and local implementation
efforts more holistically, it is important to consider the longer-terrn participation of
families rather than just initial enrolment. In 2009 the highest grade level of children

whose participation was facilitated through the 2005 Resolution was grade nine. Liang,

184

 

 

Guo, and Duan (2008), who investigated the participation of internal migrants in the
Chinese education system, found that migrant children increasingly dropped out of school
as they got to the age of middle school. It would therefore be useful to analyze
participation patterns in several years by which time some of the students in this study
should have ﬁnished grade nine.
Variations in Space and Time 5"“
The Tak ESA2 administrative area was chosen as the site for this study because it
provided many features that though to be helpful in the execution of this study: (a) a

signiﬁcant local Burmese population, both with documented and undocumented status;

 

(b) a researcher- and migrant-friendly ESA staff; (c) a variety of nongovernment
organizations operating in the area providing health, labor, and education support to
families; and (d) an extensive system of MLCs with associated support staff. At the same
time, these same features made the site exceptional and difficult to compare with other
locations, even within Thailand.

Though all research contexts are unique, the application of the conceptual frame
used in Mae Sot may provide quite different results elsewhere. For example, families
from Burma entering Thailand represent a variety of ethnic languages, religions, and

cultures. To some extent, the diversity on the Burmese side of the border is mirrored as

 

one travels in a north-south direction in western Thailand. For example, research on
migrant workers has revealed that in the northwestern city of Chiang Mai, there is a
predominance of ethnic Shan, while in Mae Sot further to the south, Karen was the most
common ethnic group (Panarn, Kyaw Zaw, Caouette, & Punpuing, 2004). The Shan are

considered to be “ethnic cousins” of the Thai, in part because they practice the same

185

religion but also because their languages are related (Su & Muenning, 2005). Thus, the
ability of these families to invest in and activate bonding social capital may be quite
different than the families in this study. Further, the concentration of NGOs in Mae Sot
is particularly dense. At sites with fewer actors to broker information ﬂows between
migrant and Thai communities, the aggregate social network and educational outcomes
may look quite different.

In addition, this study is contextualized by a sense of time. Since the bulk of data
collection was completed in 2008, signiﬁcant changes have occurred in Thailand. These
include speciﬁc policy initiatives such as the lS-year funding program previously
mentioned. Another is the Thai Cabinet’s decision to allow migrant schools to register as
private schools in Thailand upon meeting certain criteria (Weng, 2009). A third is an
ongoing migrant worker registration program that has thus far, received little support
from Burmese workers (Pollock, 2009). This program is important in that Burmese
parents’ choice of participation in either MLCs or Thai schools has been linked to
perceptions about the length of time they will be permitted to stay in Thailand (ILO,
OEC, MOE, 2006).

Despite noncompliance with registration procedures, the passage of time will
likely lead to greater inﬂows of migrant families into Thailand, many of whom will pass
through or perhaps stay in Mac Sot. Thus, a follow-up study, in Mac Sot or elsewhere,
may ﬁnd denser connections in the social networks among Burmese and possibly more
extensive bridging connections across migrant and Thai communities as existing
networks mature and extend themselves further. These are likely to inﬂuence school

access positively.

186

L !( Shad-vaunnrl-n

 

 

 

 

Foregrounding the Background

The interviews with Mr. P, the former Executive Director of Tak ESA2, give a
sense of variations across the country with respect to active dissemination and
implementation of the 2005 Resolution. Tak ESA2 appears to have been particularly
active with respect to migrant education in a time when some schools didn’t even know
about the Resolution. Similarly, interviews with a number of actors, along with my own «-
observations, indicate that individual schools interpret and take up policy—especially the
2005 Resolution—quite differently. TC, for example, actively recruited students while

HN was much less receptive. In part, differences in schools’ responses can be explained

 

IE- .1. .1211 .

by ambiguity in the policy itself which indicates the outcome, but little about how to get
there. Responses are also tied to available resources. TC had more space available than
HN and thus could afford to enroll greater numbers of new students.

In response to the policy and available resources, TC staff, and Mr. S especially,
made particular decisions around funding, bilingual programs, and Burmese support staff
that were unique to the school. The motivations behind these decisions are less clear than
the actions taken. Ms. E from GF C thought Mr. S was being greedy in seeking money
from her organization as well as the government. She also thought saving jobs for the
school staff was a prime motivator of the school’s apparent generosity toward migrant

students, not a true desire to help them.

 

The attitudes and motivations behind the actions of Mr. S, and the TC teaching
staff more broadly, may never be determined for certain but deserves further
investigation for their explanatory power. Such a study seems especially relevant given

that negative attitudes have been documented among the Thai public and state education

187

providers. A joint report by the ILO, Ofﬁce of the Education Council, and the Ministry
of Education (2006) investigating the education of migrant children near Bangkok
suggested that a “campaign” was needed “to make all concerned agencies and staff,
especially provincial educational agencies and heads of the agencies, to have positive
attitudes towards migrant children and [to recognize] the beneﬁts to Thai society and
national security in providing them education” (p. 130).

This recommendation reminds us that the ways in which Thailand’s educational
policies are enacted at the local level depend on more than whether or not schools can
ﬁnd the resources available to make education for migrant students a reality. It also
depends on the motivations of actors that interact with the migrant families. Of course,
this is not an issue unique to Thailand or even to educational policy in Thailand. It is
well recognized that individuals bring personal as well as professional stances and
abilities to their work. As Milbrey McLaughlin (1987) states, policy success is
dependent on two factors:

local capacity and will. Capacity, admittedly a difﬁcult issue, is something that

policy can address. Training can be offered. Dollars can be provided. Consultants

can be engaged to furnish missing expertise. But will, or the attitudes,
motivation, and beliefs that underlie an implementor's response to a policy's goals

or strategies, is less amenable to policy intervention. (p. 172)

Thus, a helpful future study would explore the link not only between policy enactment
and resource availability, but also between enactment and the motivations of essential

actors as a way of explaining variations across locations and institutions.

188

 

 

Appendix

 

la. Migrant Children/Students

 

Areas of Inquiry

Interview questions

 

Personal and
educational history

1. Where did you live in Burma? How long have you been in
Thailand?

2. What other schools have you attended before this one? Why
did you choose this school?

 

Everyday school
experiences

3. What is your favorite subject? Least favorite?

4. What challenges have you had to overcome in order reach
the grade you are now in? How did you overcome these
challenges?

5. What are the most important things you are learning at this
school?

6. What kind of activities are you involved in during and after
the regular school day?

 

School, home and

7. How much time do you spend doing schoolwork at home?

 

community When you need help with homework, where can you go to get
it?
8. What other things do you do when you are not at school?
9. How many of your brothers and sisters go to school? When
do they do when they are not in school?
Views on 10. Do you think you will go to this school next year? Why or
future/life after why not? How long do you think you will stay in school?

public school

 

11. What do you think going to this school will allow you to do
that you wouldn’t be able to do if you didn’t go to this school?

12. What do you think are the most important things you have
learned from going to a Thai school?

13. Where do you think you will live when you ﬁnish school?

13. What do you think you will be doing ﬁve years from now?

 

1b. Migrant Adults/Parents

 

 

 

 

Areas of Inquiry Interview questions
Personal and 1. How long have you lived in Thailand? From which part of
family history Burma did you come from?

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

2. How many children do you have? Tell me about them.

3. How many years of school did you complete? Tell me about
your school experiences.

 

Daily family
experiences

4. What types of work does your family engage in?
5. Tell me about the daily activities of your family.

6. What do your children do when they are not in school?

 

Family resources

7. Do you have other relatives living in this community?

8. Are you a member of any organizations/ groups in this
community? In what ways is this group beneﬁcial/meaningful
to you?

9. What do you do when you have a problem in your family
that is difficult to deal with? How do you go about solving this
problem?

 

School-home
relationships

10. What kinds of schoolwork do your children do at home?
Does anyone help them with their work?

11. How many times have you gone to the school this year?
For what?

12. Do you get information about how your child is doing in
school? How do you get this information?

13. Do other members of the Burmese community participate in
the school? In what kinds of activities do they participate?

 

Educational
decisions of the
family

14. What are the different kinds of opportunities that you have
to send your children to school?

15. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each
of these opportunities?

16. Many parents do not send their children to Thai schools.
How do you think they decide whether to send their children to
a Thai school?

17. How many of your children do you think will go to school
next year? Tell me about why or why not they will go to
school.

 

 

Views on
education for the
future

 

18. Where do you think your children will live when they are
older?

19. What kind of work do you hope that they will do?

 

 

190

 

m. _ . any.
1
1
l

 

 

 

20. What opportunities do you think there are for children who
graduate from elementary school? From high school? From
university?

 

2. Nongovernmental Organization Personnel

 

Areas of Inquiry

Interview questions

 

Personal/work
experiences

1. How many years have you worked at this organization?
What is your current position?

2. What are your responsibilities in this position? Why did you
choose this line of work?

3. How long have you lived in this area?

 

Aims/goals of the
organization

4. What are the central purposes of the work of this
organization in general, and of your work in particular?

5. What programs is this organization currently involved in
with respect to education for migrant populations?

6. What are some of the challenges that you, and the
organization more generally, face in attempting to complete
your work?

7. Does your work involve collaboration with other agencies or
organizations? What kinds of collaborative work do you
conduct?

 

 

Speciﬁc policies

8. Are there some particular policies or regulations that guide
your work? What are they?

9. How do they affect what you do? How do they affect the
lives of migrant families?

 

Education for
Burmese families

10. What kinds of educational opportunities are available to
migrant families in this community?

11. Which kinds of opportunities are chosen most often by
families? Why do you think this is so?

12. What are some of the challenges that migrant families face
in ﬁnding education for their children? How do you think they
attempt to overcome these challenges?

 

 

Perspectives on the
future of education

 

13. What changes do you think will occur in the next ﬁve year
with respect to Burmese migrants in Thailand? What effects do
you think these changes will have?

14. How do you see the future of education for Burmese
students in Thailand?

 

 

191

 

 

 

15. How do you see the future of students from Burma in Thai
schools? What advantages or disadvantages do you think their
education will provide for them?

 

3. Ministry of Education and School Staff

 

Areas of Inquiry

Interview questions

 

Past experiences
and present
responsibilities

1. How long have you worked at this particular school/ofﬁce?
What are your daily responsibilities in this position?

2. What kind of training did you receive in order to work at this
school?

 

Views on students

3. How many of your students do you think will continue their
education after they complete this grade?

4. What do you think causes so many/so few students to
continue their schooling?

5. How do you view the future of the children you teach in this
community?

 

Views of Burmese
students

6. What do you see as your role with respect to the education of
migrant students? What policies or regulations guide your
role?

7. What resources do you have available to you to support you
in carrying out this role? What are some other resources that
would help you carry out your role?

8. What are some of the challenges that you face in carrying out
your role?

 

 

Views on the
relationship
between school
and community

 

9. What do you expect parents to do to help their children in
school?

10. In what ways do you interact with the parents of migrant
students in this school?

11. How does the participation of migrant parents compare with
that of Thai parents? In what ways is it similar or different?

12. What are some of the challenges migrant families and
children in this community face? How do you think they deal
with these challenges? Does the school play a role in helping
deal with these challenges?

 

192

 

 

 

References

Aphijanyatham, R. (2009). Perceptions of borders and human migration: The human
(in)security of Shan migrant workers in Thailand (Report No. 01). Bangkok:
Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia (IRASEC). Retrieved from
IRASEC http://www.irasec.com/components/com irasec/media/upload/OPOO l -
Perceptions of Borders and Human Mi grationpdf

Arnold, D. (2004). The situation of Burmese migrant workers in Mac Sot, Thailand
(Report No. 71). Hong Kong: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of
Hong Kong. Retrieved from Burma Library F—
http://burmalibrarv.org/docs3/WP71 04 Arnold%20pdf.pdf

Asian Development Bank. (2008a). Greater Mekong Subregion. Manila: Asian
Development Bank. Retrieved from Asian Development Bank
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others/GMS/GMS-Brochure.pdf

 

Asian Development Bank. (2008b). Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2008. t. _
Manila: Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from Asian Development Bank
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2008/

Becker, G. S. (1975). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with
Special Reference to Education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

Belak, B. (2002). Gathering strength: Women ﬁom Burma on their rights. Chiang Mai:
Images Asia. Retrieved from Online Burma Library
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/Gathering Strengthhtm

Bicocchi, L., & LeVoy, M. (2008). Undocumented children in Europe: Invisible victims
of immigration restrictions. Brussels: Platform for International Cooperation on
Undocumented Migrants (PICUM). Retrieved from PICUM
http://www.picum.org/sites/default/ﬁles/data/Undocumented%20Children%20in
%20Europe%20EN.pdf

Bocker, A. (1995). Migration networks: Turkish migration to Western Europe. In R. van
der Erf & L. Heering (Eds.), Causes of international migration. Proceedings of a
workshop, Luxembourg, 14-16 December, 1994 (pp. 151-172).

Boonpala, P., & Kane, J. (2002). Unbearable to the human heart: Child traﬁicking and
action to eliminate it. London: International Labour Ofﬁce/Intemational
Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (ILO/IPEC). Retrieved from
UNICEF
httrx//www.childtrafﬁcking.org/pdf/user/ilo_ipec childj trafﬁcking and action
%20to_eliminate it.pdf

 

193

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H.
Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 487-511). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bourdillon, M. (2005). Violence against working children: A report on recent research
relating to work that is harmful to children: Save the Children (UK). Retrieved

from Child Trafficking
http://www.childtrafﬁcking.com/Docs/savetsweden 06 vawca reportpdf

Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international migration: Recent
developments and new agendas. International Migration Review, 23, 63 8-670.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2546433

 

Briggs, X. (1. S. (1998). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many
faces of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 177-221. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd 0901 briggspdf

Bryant, J. (2005). Children of international migrants in Indonesia, Thailand and the
Philippines: A review of evidence and policies (Report No. 2005-05). Florence,
Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from UNICEF-IRC
www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp2005 05.pdf

Burke, A., & Ducci, S. (2005). T raﬂicking in minors for commercial sexual exploitation:
Thailand. Turin, Italy: United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research

Institute (UN ICRI). Retrieved ﬁ'om
http://wwwunicri.it/emerging_crimes/human_trafﬁcking/minors/docs/dr_thailand

serif

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 339-365. Retrieved from URL:
http://www.istor.org/stable/2393923

Caouette, T. M., Sciortino, R., Guest, P., & Feinstein, A. (2006). Labor Migration in the
Greater Mekong Sub-region. Bangkok: Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved from
http://apmm.anu.edu.au/regional_members/LaborMigration%20in%20GMS.rﬁf

Cheesman, N. (2003). School, state and Sangha in Burma. Comparative Education,
39(1), 45-63. doi: 10.1080/03050060302565

Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2001). A model of destination-language acquisition:
Application to male immigrants in Canada. Demography, 38, 391-409.

194

 

 

Clemens, M. A., Montenegro, C. E., & Pritchett, L. (2008). The place premium: Wage
differences for identical workers across the US. border (Report No. WPS 4671).
Washington: World Bank and Center for Global Development. Retrieved from
The World Bank http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/extemal/default/WDSContentServer/ 1W3 P/ IB/2008/ 07/ 1 7/00
0158349 20080717164643/Rendered/PDF/WPS467l .pdf

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 895-8120. Retrieved from http://linksjstororg/sici?sici=0002-
9602%28 l 988%2994%3CS95%3ASCITCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Committee for the Promotion and Protection of Child Rights. (2009). Feeling small in
another person 's country: The situation of Burmese migrant children in Mae Sot,
Thailand. Retrieved from Burma Library
http://www.bunnalibrarvorg/docsOS/Feeling Smallpdf

Cropley, E. (2007, June 4). In a Thai border town, Burmese workers toil in penury. The
New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-
sweat.1.5985289.html? _rj-1

Crush, J ., & Ramachandran, S. (2009). Xenophobia, international migration, and human
development (Report No. 2009/47). New York: United Nations Development

Program. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/globalfhdr2009/papers/HDRP 2009 47mdf

DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant Observation: A Guide for
F ieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Dustmann, C. (1996). The social assimilation of immigrants. Journal of Population
Economics, 9, 37-54. Retrieved from http://www.istor.org/stable/20007489

Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (1997). Social capital and the political economy of our
discontent. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 669-678.
doi: 10.1 177/0002764297040005012

Ekachai, S. (2003, July 3). Welcome to horror. The Bangkok Post. Retrieved from
http://www.statelessperson.com/www/?q:node/6074

Emerson, R. E., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic F ieldnotes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fink, C. (2001). Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule. New York: Zed Books.

195

 

 

Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1999). Is it time to disinvest in social capital? Journal of
Public Policy, 19, 141-173. Retrieved from http://www.istor.org/stable/4007586

Fowle, A. (2008, August 6). Challenging prejudice: Thai attitudes to Burmese migrants.
Democratic Voice of Burma. Retrieved from
http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=1603

 

Friedberg, R. M. (2000). You can't take it with you? Immigrant assimilation and the
portability of human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 18, 221-251. Retrieved -
from httjx//www.istor.org/stable/2660608

 

Fry, R. (2007). Are immigrant youth faring better in US. schools? International
Migration Review, 41, 579-601. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00086.x

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM). (2005). Migration in an
interconnected world: New directions for action. Geneva: GCIM. Retrieved from
www.gcim.org www.gcim.org/attachements/gcim—complete-report-2005.pdf

Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A
longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36,

715-738. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1 163518

Grumiau, S. (2003). Growing up under the Burmese dictatorship: The situation facing
children after 41 years of military rule in Burma. Retrieved from International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions
www.icftu.org/www/PDF/report_burmachildren 2003.pdf

 

Hannum, E., & Buchmann, C. (2005). Global educational expansion and socio-economic
development: An assessment of ﬁndings from the social sciences. World
Development, 33, 333-354. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.001

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: SUNY
Press.

Heckathom, D. B. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of
hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2), 174-199. Retrieved from
http://www.istor.org/stable/309694l

Htaw, L. (2008, October 14). Ethnic Mon migrants apprehensive to participate in national

day in Thailand. Independent Mon News Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.monnews-imrra.com/2008/ febupdate.php?lD=901

196

 

 

Hugo, G. J. (2006). Immigration responses to global change in Asia: A review.
Geographical Research, 44, 155-172. doi: 10.1 1 1 l/j. 1 745-5871 2006.003 82.x

Huguet, J. W. (2008). Do international migration policies in Thailand achieve their
objectives? (Report No. 13). Bangkok: International Labour Organization.
Retrieved from
http://pstalker.com/ilo/resources/ILO%20MGREU%20WP l 3%20-
%201ntemational%20Migration%20Policies%20in%20Thailand.pdf

Huguet, J. W., & Punpuing, S. (2005a). Child migrants and children of migrants in
Thailand. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 20, 123-142. Retrieved from
http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/ioumal/Articles/2005/V20N3A6.pdf

Huguet, J. W., & Punpuing, S. (2005b). International migration in Thailand. Bangkok:
International Organization for Migration. Retrieved from Child Trafficking
http://www.childtrafﬁcking.com/Docs/iom_2005 intemational_migration in thai

land 15.pdf

Human Rights Watch. (2002). My gun was as tall as me: Child soldiers in Burma. New
York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from
http://www.hrw.orgﬁ/reports/2002/burma/

 

Human Rights Watch. (2010). From the tiger to the crocodile: Abuse of migrant workers
in Thailand. New York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from
www.hrw.org[node/ 8 86 l 9

 

International Development Committee. (2007). DF ID assistance to Burmese internally
displaced people and refugees on the Thai-Burma border. London: House of
Commons. Retrieved from
http://wwwpublications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmintdev.htm

 

International Labor Organization, Ofﬁce of the Education Council, & Ministry of
Education. (2006). Research study on educational opportunity of migrant and

stateless children in Samut Sakhon. Bangkok: ILO and MOE. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/apec/download/th_study e

dupdf

International Organization for Migration. (2004). Glossary on migration. Geneva: IOM.
Retrieved from
http://www.iom.int/iahia/webdav/site/myiahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/publishe
d docs/serial_J_)ublications/Glossary_eng.pdf

International Organization for Migration. (2008a). Situation report on international
migration in East and South-East Asia. Bangkok: Regional Thematic Working
Group on International Migration including Human Trafﬁcking. Retrieved from
http://www.iom-seasia.org/resource/pdf/iomsituationreport.pdf

197

 

 

International Organization for Migration. (2008b). World migration 2008: Managing
labour mobility in the evolving global economy. Geneva: IOM. Retrieved from
http://www.iom.int/i ahia/J ahia/op/edit/cache/offonce/pid/ l 674?entrvld=202 75

J umpatong, D. (2009). Basic education policy responses to the challenges of rural-urban
migration: Thailand. Paper presented at the UNESCO International Research and
Training Center for Rural Education, January 15-16, 2009, Beijing, China.
Retrieved from Ofﬁce of the Basic Education Commission
http://wwwobecgoth/UserFiles/File/Policv_Responses_to the_Challenges.pdf

Kao, G. (1999). Psychological well-being and educational achievement among immigrant
youth. In D. J. Hernandez (Ed.), Children of immigrants: Health, adjustment, and
public assistance (pp. 410-477). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9592#toc

Kasem, S. (2008, July 7). Third of Burmese fail to return home. The Bangkok Post.
Retrieved
from http://www.burmanet.org/news/2008/07/07/bangkok-post-third-of—burmese-
fail-to-retum—home-%E2%80%93-supamart-kasem/

 

Kheunkaew, S. (2009, April 5). Migrant inﬂux sets off alarms. The Bangkok Post.
Retrieved from http://www.bangkolgpost.com/news/local/1 61 26/migrant-inﬂux-
sets-off—alarms

 

Kirsch, G. E. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Landau, L. B., & Segatti, A. W. K. (2009). Human development impacts of migration:
South Africa case study (N 0. 2009/5): United Nations Development Programme.
Retrieved from
http:/mdr.undp.oLg/emrepons/global/hdr2009/papers/HDRP 2009 OSdef

 

Liang, Z., & Chen, Y. P. (2007). The educational consequences of migration for children
in China. Social Science Research, 3 6, 28-47.
doi: 10. 1016/j.ssresearch.2005.09.003

Liang, Z., Guo, L., & Duan, C. C. (2008). Migration and the well-being of children in
China. Yale China Health Journal, 5, 25-46. Retrieved from
http://csda.albany.edu/imc/migration and the well-
being_of_fchildren_in_china.pdf

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.
Retrieved from hm)://www.insna.org/PDF/Connections/v22/l99LI-1-4.pdf

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785-795.
Retrieved from hgpj/www.istor.og[stable/2654086

198

 

{nun-AHL .—

 

Lisborg, A., & Buckley, P. (2006). Child labour in Thailand. ILO AP Issues, December,
6-7. Retrieved from PHAMIT
http://www.phamit.org/download/Pages%20from%201LOasiaissueOS 03.pdf

MacDonald, J. S., & MacDonald, L. D. (1964). Chain migration, ethnic neighborhood
formation and social networks. The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 42, 82-
97. Retrieved from http://www.istor.org/stable/334858l

Maha Chakri Sirindhon. (2004). Education of the disadvantaged: A lecture. Bangkok:
UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001346/134604e.pdf 5;...-

Malikaew, S. (2007, August 17). Restrictions make life tough for migrant workers. Inter-
Press Service. Retrieved from http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3 8929

 

Martin, P. (2004). Thailand: Improving the management of foreign workers. Bangkok:
International Labour Organization and International Organization for Migration.
Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org,/public/english/protection/migrant/download/thai2-02.pdf

 

Martin, P. (2007). The economic contribution of migrant workers to Thailand: Towards
policy development. Bangkok: International Labour Organization. Retrieved from
http://wwwilo.org/asia/whatwedo/publications/lang--en/docName--

WC MS 098230/index.htm

Massey, D. S., Alarc6n, R., Durand, J ., & Gonzélez, H. (1987). Return To Aztlan: The
social process of international migration ﬁom western Mexico. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993).
Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and
Development Review, 19, 431-466. Retrieved from
mad/WWW.istor.org/stable/2938462

Massey, D. S., & Garcia-Espafia, F. (1987). The social process of international migration.
Science, 23 7, 733-738. Retrieved from http://www.istororg/stable/ 1699201

McCarten, B. (2010, April 1). Migrant warning for Malaysia, Thailand. Asian Times.
Retrieved from lﬂpJ/wwwatimescom/atimes/Southeast Asia/LDOl Ae02.htm|

 

 

McGraener, K. L., & Saenz, L. (2009, September). Preparing teachers of English
Language learners. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
teacher Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.tqsource.org/publications/issueﬁpaperjreparingELLteachers.pdf

199

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
Retrieved from hﬁpz//www.istor.org/stable/l 163728

Migrant Assistance Programme. (2006). No human being is illegal, no migrant worker is
illegal: [996-2006. Chiang Mai: MAP Foundation.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of
new methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Towards a learning society in Thailand: An introduction
to education in T hailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.bic.moe.go.th/ﬁleadmin/BIC Document/book/intro-ed08.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2009). Implementation of the I 5-year free education with quality

policy. Retrieved from UNESCO
http://planipolis.iigrunesco.org/upload/Thailand/Thailand_free educationpdf

Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty (Report No. 2167).
Washington, DC: World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management
Network. Retrieved from
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/librarv/9747/narayan.pdf

National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. (2007). Burma: Human rights
yearbook 2006. Retrieved from
hmrxﬂwwwncgubnet/NCGUB/BHRY/2006/index.html

National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. (2009). Burma: Human rights
yearbook 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.ngub.neUNCGUB/mediagallery/downloach l 6.pdf?mid=2009l 1231
92152709

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound
policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United
States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nagedu/catalog.php?record_id= 1 2882

Ofﬁce of the Education Council. (2007). Education in Thailand 200 7. Bangkok: Ministry
of Education. Retrieved from
http://wwwonecgo.th/cms/admin/admin book/Content/uploaded/url/947—ﬁle.pdf

Ofﬁce of the Education Council. (2008). Educational provision for stateless and cross

national migrant children in Thailand (Report No. 86/2008). Bangkok: Ministry
of Education.

200

 

 

Ortega, D. (2009). The human development of peoples (Report No. 2009/49). New York:
United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from
httrx//hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/papers/HDRP 2009 49.pdf

Panam, A., Kyaw Zaw, K. M., Caouette, T. M., & Punpuing, S. (2004). Migrant domestic
workers: From Burma to Thailand. Nakhonpathom, Thailand: Institute for
Population and Social Research, Mahidol University.

Pearson, E. (2002). Human traﬂicking, human rights: Redefining victim protection.
London: Anti-Slavery International. Retrieved from
http://www.antislavery.org/includes/documents/cm docs/2009/h/hum_traff_hum_
rights_redef vic protec ﬁnalifullpdf

Pearson, E., Punpuing, S., Jampaklay, A., Kittisuksathit, S., & Prohmmo, A. (2006).
Underpaid, overworked and overlooked: The realities of young migrant workers.
Bangkok: International Labour Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/_public/english/region/asro/banng/child/trafﬁcking/download
s/underpaid-eng-volumel .pdf

 

Perreira, K. M., Mullan Harris, K., & Lee, D. (2006). Making it in America: High school
completion by immigrant and native youth. Demography, 43(3), 511-536.
doi:10.1353/dem.2006.0026

Pollock, J. (2009, November 21). Illegal Burmese migrants: Caught between hiding or
becoming legal. The Nation. Retrieved from
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/ l l/21/opinion/opinion_301 17065th

 

Portes, A., & Borocz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theoretical pespectives on
its determinants and modes of incorporation. International Migration Review, 23 ,
606-630. Retrieved from http://wwwj stor.cg/stable/254643l

Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (2000). Social capital: Promise and pitfalls of its role in
development. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32, 529-547. Retrieved from
http://linksjstor.org/sici?sici=0022-
216X%28200005%2932%3A2%3C529%3ASCPAPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

 

Proctor, P., Sanee, S., & Taffesse, W. (2009). Migrant schools: A human rights
perspective. Bangkok: Voluntary Services Overseas. Retrieved from
http://www.vsointernational.org/about/resourcesasp

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.

Robison, L. J ., Schmid, A. A., & Siles, M., E. (2002). Is social capital really capital?
Review of Social Economy, LX, 1-21. doi:10.1080/00346760110127074

201

 

Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association.
American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759. Retrieved from
htm://www.istor.org/stable/ 1 163393

Ruiz-de-Velasco, J ., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students
in US. secondary schools: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from
mJ/wwwurbanogg/publications/ 3 10022.html

Rukumnuaykit, P. (2009). A synthesis report on labour migration policies, management
and immigration pressure in Thailand. Bangkok: ILO. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/asia/whatwedo/publications/lang--en/docName--

WCMS 103923/index.htm

Rumberger, R. (2002). Student mobility and academic achievement. Chicago, IL: ERIC
(EDO-PS-OZ- l ). Retrieved from
http://www.education.ucsb.edu/rumbeger/intemet%20pages/Papers/Rumberger--
ERIC%20Digest%200n%208tudent%20Mobilitvpdf

Save the Children (UK). (2001). Breaking Through the Clouds: A Participatory Action
Research (PAR) Project with Migrant Children and Youth Along the Borders of
China, Myanmar and Thailand. Retrieved from Child Migration
http://www.childmigrationnet/ﬁles/breakingthroughclouds.pdf

Schiff, M. (1996). South-North migration and trade: A survey, Volume I (Report No.
1696). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ WDSContentServer/ 1W3 P/ IB/ 1996/ 12/01/00
0009265_397062509l 344/ Rendered/ PDF /multi0page.pdf

 

Sciortino, R., & Punpuing, S. (2009). International migration in Thailand 2009.
Bangkok: International Organization. Retrieved from Relief Web
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9OOSID/JBRN-7ONFY5?OpenDocument

Scott, J. (1988). Social network analysis. Sociology, 22(1), 109-127. doi:
10.1 177/003 8038588022001007

Sjaanstad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. The Journal of
Political Economy, 70(85), 80-93. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829105

Skeldon, R. (2001). Labour migration and trafficking within the Greater Mekong Sub-
region: Proceedings of Mekong sub-regional experts meeting and exploratory
policy paper. Bangkok: International Labour Organization, Mekong Subregional
Project to Combat Trafﬁcking in Children and Women (ILO ITCW-Project) and
UN Interagency Project to Combat Trafﬁcking in Children and Women (UN-
IAP). Retrieved from

202

 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/child/trafﬁcking/download
s/tia- 1 -revised-2004.pdf

 

 

Smithson, C. W. (1982). Capital: A factor of production. In D. Greenwald (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Economics (pp. 111-112). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stahl, C. W. (1991). South-North migration in the Asia-Paciﬁc region. International
Migration, 29, 163-193.

Steinberg, D. I. (2010). Burma/Myanmar: What everyone needs to know. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Su, C., & Muenning, P. (2005). The politics of social entrepreneurs in access to
education: A case study of Shan Burmese refugees in northwestern Thailand.
Current Issues in Comparative Education, 8, 31-40. Retrieved from
http://wwwtc.edu/cice/Issues/08.01/8 l su_muenning.pdf

Thailand Burma Border Consortium. (2009a). Programme report: January to June, 2009.
Bangkok: TBBC. Retrieved from
http://www.tbbc.org/resources/resources.htm#reports

 

Thailand Burma Border Consortium. (2009b). Protracted displacement and militarisation
in Eastern Burma. Bangkok: TBBC. Retrieved from
http://www.tbbc.org/resources/resources.htm

 

Thawnghmung, A. M., & Sarno, P. (2006). Myanmar impasses: Alternatives to isolation
and engagement? Asian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 40-63. doi:
10.1080/02185370600832497

The Federation of Trade Unions - Burma. (2006). Working day and night: The plight of
migrant child workers in Mae Sot, Thailand. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved from
http://www.iloorg/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/child/trafﬁckinJdeownload
s/workingdavandnight-englishpdf

Thornton, P. (2006). Restless souls. Bangkok: Asia Books.

Touzenis, K. (2008). Human rights of migrant children. Geneva: IOM. Retrieved from
http://www.iom.int/iahia/webdav/site/mviahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/publishe
L docs/serial_publications/1MLl 5 Human Rightspdf

US. Department of Labor. (2007). The Department of Labor's 2006 ﬁndings on the worst
forms of child labor. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.comell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1 3 l l&context=
key_worl_<place

203

 

US. Department of State. (2005). Country reports on human rights practices: Thailand.
Retrieved June 12, 2010, from
http://www.stategov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27790.htm

United Nations & World Bank. (2006). Measuring Progress in Least Developed
Countries: A Statistical Profile: United Nations and World Bank. Retrieved from
http://www.unohrlls.org/en/publications/

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2009). Trends in
international migrant stock: The 2008 revision. New York: UN. Retrieved from

http://www.unorg/esa/population/migration/UN MigStock 2008.pdf

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2002). Adult wars, child soldiers: Voices of children
involved in armed conﬂict in the East Asia and Pacific region. Bangkok: UNICEF
East Asia and Paciﬁc Regional Ofﬁce. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/eapro/AdultWarsChildSoldiers.pdf

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2005). Children and young people in Thailand:
UNICEF situational analysis. Bangkok: UNICEF. Retrieved from
www.unicef.org/thailand/

 

United Nations Development Fund for Women. (2006). New poll highlights need for
better understanding among Thais of the importance of migrant workers to their
economy. Bangkok: UNIF EM. Retrieved from http://unifem-
eseasia.org/newsroom/UNIFEM%2OILO%20DEC%2006%20THAI%20MIGRA
NT.htm

United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Thailand human development report
200 7: Suﬂiciency economy and human development. Bangkok: UNDP. Retrieved
from
1m://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/asiathepaciﬁc/thailand/name,341 8,e
n.html

United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Overcoming barriers: Human mobility
and development. New York: UNDP. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paciﬁc. (2007).
Statistical yearbook for Asia and the Pacific, 200 7. New York: United Nations
ESCAP. Retrieved ﬁ'om http://www.unescap.org/Qublications/detail.asp?id=l275

United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc, and Cultural Organization. (2004). Education for

All: The quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
h_ttp://unesdoc.unesco.orgjimages/OOl 3/001373/137333e.pdf

204

 

United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc, and Cultural Organization. (2010). EFA Global
monitoring report: Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/00l 8/001 866/ 1 86606e.pdf

Valenta, M. (2008). Finding ﬁiends aﬁer resettlement: A study of the social integration
of immigrants and reﬁtgees, their personal networks and self-work in everyday
life. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.
Retrieved from http://ntnu.diva-
portalorg/smash/get/diva2: 123228/FULLTEXT01

Vital Voices Global Partnership. (2007). Stateless and vulnerable to human trafficking in
Thailand. Retrieved from Human Trafﬁcking
http://www.vitalvoices.org/ﬁles/docs/Vital%20Voices%20-
%2OStateless%20and%20Vulnerable%20to%20Human%20Trafﬁcking%20in%2
0Thailand.pdf

 

Warren, M. R., Thompson, J. P., & Saegart, S. (2001). The role of social capital in
combating poverty. In S. Saegart, J. P. Thompson & M. R. Warren (Eds), Social
capital and poor communities (pp. 1-28). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Weng, L. (2008, April). An enduring culture. The Irrawaddy. Retrieved from
http://www.irrawadd'Lorg/article.php?art_id=1 1 184

Weng, L. (2009, November 23). Private schools for migrants: Thai Ministry. The
Irrawaddy. Retrieved from http://www.irrawaddvorg/article.php?art_id=l 7271

 

Woolcock, M. (2002). Social capital in theory and practice: Where do we stand? In J.
Isharn, T. Kelly & S. Ramaswamy (Eds), Social Capital and Economic
Development: Well-being in Developing Countries (pp. 18-39). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development
theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 225-248.
Retrieved from http://wwwjstor.org/stable/3986417

World Bank. (2006a). Labor migration in the Greater Mekong Sub-region: Synthesis
report. Bangkok: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbanl&org/INTTHAILAND/Resources/333200-
1089943634036/475256-115l398858396/LM in GMSs Nov06.pdf

World Bank. (2006b). Thailand social monitor: Improving secondary education.
Bangkok: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.m/INTTHAILAND/Resources/Social-

Monitor/2006oct_social-monitor.pdf

205

 

World Health Organization. (2000). Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva:
WHO. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/

 

Zimmerman, K. F. (1995). European migration: Push and pull Proceedings of the World
Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1994, 313-342. doi:
10.1177/016001769601900211

206