The Role of ‘Home School’ in Improving Sustainability for Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most education providers could not offer face-to-face educational support to Rohingya children in the camp at Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh; however, some sector partners provided education online, and ‘Home School’ was one of them. This article intends to examine and learn to what extent and how home school education produced new knowledge for Rohingya children and promoted the sustainability of Rohingyas in the camp during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative research approach was used to discern the impact of online education on the sustainable livelihood of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Using purposive sampling, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with Rohingya refugee children, key informant interviews with education providers, and teachers who worked in the camp during COVID-19. The conversation analysis technique was applied to analyse data. The findings of this study uncover that, regardless of some downsides, including the lack of endowment for formal education, the shortage of community mobilisers, the limited subjects offered, the limited duration of class time, and weak internet connection, home school education contributed enormously to ensuring the sustainable livelihood of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh by ensuring a safe and securing learning space and upholding the equal participation of boys and girls, and contributed to recovery from trauma and fear of violence in the camp.

1. Introduction

The global education system faced enormous historical disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 1.6 billion students from more than 190 nations have already been disturbed by such interruptions [1]. Due to the closure of educational institutions and other learning centres, including universities and technical and vocational training institutions, approximately 94 per cent of students worldwide, who are 99 per cent from lower and lower-middle-income countries, have been affected [2,3]. Many countries have reopened their schools completely; however, over 200 million students are still at risk of being out-of-school [4]. Such a long break could create a high possibility of students dropping out, particularly those from poor economic backgrounds. While online learning became common during the pandemic, the digital divide in education is also a concern. Developed countries perform online learning programs; however, in many countries this is less possible due to the lack of technical infrastructure and other challenges, including the availability of radio sets, mobile phones, laptops, tablets, mobile connectivity, and affordable data. These resources are often not freely obtainable to displaced groups [5,6,7]. In such a challenging time, disadvantaged children, including refugee students, are in a high-risk position in continuing their education, and regular enrolment might be a new challenge for them [7]. Refugee children face different barriers to accessing education; as a result, they have the lowest enrolment rate worldwide [8]. While the gross enrolment rate for primary education is 102% in low-income and middle-income countries, this rate is only 77% for refugee children [9]. With a significant difference between boys and girls (36% boys and 27% girls), only one-third of refugees received a secondary education, and only 3% attended higher educational institutions [9]. Almost half of the world’s refugee children, 48%, are in out-of-school and out-of-education situations [6].

Various educational practices are observed during crises, and students have the right to receive an education during such an emergency. Quality, inclusive education and long-term progress are necessary for the growth and development of refugees. Refugee people, therefore, consider quality education one of their highest priorities [9]. Resourcefulness, innovation, invention, and collaboration were necessary to continue refugee children’s education during the pandemic. For instance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCER) and the United Nations (UN) Refugee Agency provided education through radio broadcasting to refugee children who had already left school in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic [10]. Similarly, refugee and migrant children in Venezuela were involved in education through the ‘Classroom on Wheels in Bolivia’ project. These children did not have access to formal or distance-learning activities from the beginning of the lockdown. With the help of partner organisations, the UNHCR helped them continue their learning activities with the help of a group of Venezuelan volunteers who directly taught the refugee children [11]. Socially distanced learning opportunities in Congo provided hope for the refugee children at a refugee camp, where teachers organised learning sessions for a maximum of six students in order to meet certain physical distancing conditions [6].

As with other refugees, Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh were in an out-of-school education situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rohingya refers to the ethnic, linguistic, and religious group of people who inhabited the erstwhile Arakan State of Myanmar. The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) has not included education as a crucial factor of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Hence, the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner (RRRC) (based in Cox’s Bazar) provided a declaration outlining the crucial and critical actions in all camps located in Cox’s Bazar for this pandemic on 24 March 2020 [12]. The declaration outlined education as a non-essential act, which resulted in severely limited access for the staff of the UN and non-government organisations and the resultant end of learning opportunities. As a result, nearly 6000 educational opportunities across camps were closed, and almost 325,000 children were deprived of access to education [13]. The COVID-19 outbreak significantly impacted the Rohingya community, especially refugee children, in the camp. The significant impacts of COVID-19 on Rohingya children were learning loss, a high dropout rate, decreased language facilitators or community mobilisers, and decreased mental health and safety. To reduce learning loss and develop the mental health of Rohingya refugees, BRAC, an international non-governmental organisation (INGO), initiated a comprehensive plan and introduced a distance- and technology-based and home-based teaching–learning mechanism called ‘Home School’ to ensure the continuation of learning to the refugee learners. Against this backdrop, this article examines to what extent and how home school produced new knowledge for Rohingya children’s education and improved the sustainability of Rohingyas in the camp during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Education and Sustainability for Refugee Communities

According to an estimation, more than seven million children living in conflict-affected zones are in out-of-school situations [7]. While the enrolment rate for refugee children was 77% for primary education and 31% for secondary education, this rate was only 3% for tertiary education [7]. The right to education for refugee children is recognised in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, which declares “inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” [14]. Therefore, refugee children should receive education for their holistic development with regard to their quality of lives. Advocates developed two main policy papers related to SDG 4: (1) the Incheon Declaration, which is a policy commitment document for SDG4, and (2) the Education 2030: Framework for Action, which offers direction to implement the agenda of Education 2030 [14].

The Incheon declaration of SDG4 focuses on the need for education of children and youths who are refugees and residing in conflict regions:

Furthermore, we note with serious concern that, today, a large proportion of the world’s out-of-school population lives in conflict-affected areas, and that crises, violence and attacks on education institutions, natural disasters and pandemics continue to disrupt education and development globally. We commit to developing more inclusive, responsive and resilient education systems to meet the needs of children, youth and adults in these contexts, including internally displaced persons and refugees. We highlight the need for education to be delivered in safe, supportive and secure learning environments free from violence. We recommend a sufficient crisis response, from emergency response through to recovery and rebuilding; better coordinated national, regional and global responses; and capacity development for comprehensive risk reduction and mitigation to ensure that education is maintained during situations of conflict, emergency, post-conflict, and early recovery

[14].

The Education 2030: Framework for Action provides operating regulations and approaches and a specific plan of action for each target to meet implementation activities for SDG4 [14]. It is evident that all the targets of SDG4 are directly related to refugee children, and Target 4.5 deals with the equity and safeguard issues for the ‘vulnerable groups.’ The target 4.5 highlights the following:

By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

[14].

Therefore, Target 4.5 can be considered mainly to apply to refugee youth and children, and this target can be beneficial for them to ensure access to education for stateless children [14]. It is evident that the targets of SDGs emphasise in ensuring an education system which is “inclusive, responsive and resilient”. Educational opportunities, therefore, should be equal for all, irrespective of children’s socio-economic, legal or political circumstances and nationality [15].

To ensure educational sustainability and quality education, which is the main focus of SDG 4, previous studies suggested that providing education to all regardless of nationality, society, politics or any other background could reduce discrimination significantly. Such a strategy may also ensure a smooth and speedy recovery from the humanitarian crisis. It may ensure long-term development, which dynamically could trigger the educational rights of children and youth. The demand for education for refugee children could be ensured if they were included in educational activities, and for this, strategic actions and long-term planning are necessary. The declarations mentioned above emphasise refugee children’s safety issues and ensure a proper learning environment for their mental well-being. Without this, it might not be possible to ensure the development capacity of refugee children, in terms of sustainability, to rebuild their future life.

2.2. An Overview of Rohingyas in Bangladesh

The Government of Myanmar has officially refused to acknowledge Rohingyas as its citizens and has made them stateless; they argue that Rohingyas are originally from Bangladesh [16,17]. Rohingyas are mostly Muslim because of their interaction with Islamic leaders from the 9th to 14th centuries. Around 1 million Rohingya lived in Myanmar in early 2017 [18,19,20]. Most of them were located in the countryside and worked as fishermen, paddy or rice farmers, and small traders alongside the Buddhists [21].

Over 1.3 million Rohingya have faced aggression in Myanmar in three continual waves of dislocation since 1978 [6,22]. Bangladesh witnessed the first forced displacement of Rohingya in 1978, and again in 1991–1992 [23]. Bangladesh received around 250,000 forcibly migrated Rohingya in each wave of 1978 and 1991–1992 [24]. The Myanmar state’s persecutions, military land grabs, and violence, mainly in 1978, 1991–1992, 2001, and 2009, resulted in about 300,000 Rohingyas fleeing to Bangladesh [17,19,21,24,25,26]. Rohingyas were accommodated in muddy makeshift settlements with limited or no access to education or health care [27,28]. Bangladesh primarily provided sheltered to Rohingyas in 21 camps in the south-eastern region in Cox’s Bazar during the wave of 1991–1992 [26].

Bangladesh constantly denied receiving any ‘new arrivals’ of Rohingyas as refugees since 1992, while the process of repatriation was commenced under the patronage of the UNHCR [29]. Bangladesh successfully sent back 236,000 Rohingyas to Myanmar through mutual negotiations between 1992 and 2005 [30]. From 2005 until 2017, Myanmar did not permit Rohingya repatriation despite the agreements [21,26]. In 2012, approximately 90,000 Rohingyas sought shelter across the nearby Bangladesh border due to communal conflicts between the Muslim and Buddhist communities [22,30,31,32]. For the first time, however, Rohingyas were denied accommodation by the GoB, who argued that they had already arranged accommodation for more than 400,000 Rohingyas [24]. However, Bangladesh still witnessed an increase in Rohingyas’ entrance from 2013 to 2016 [26]. Almost 90,000 Rohingyas came to Bangladesh in October 2016 [33].

The latest influx of Rohingyas was seen at the end of 2017. The Myanmar military started counterinsurgency when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSR) invaded 30 police stations in Buthidaung, Rathedaung, and Maungdaw villages in northern Rakhine State (formerly Arakan) on 25 August 2017 [34]. Consequently, around 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh to escape persecution by the Myanmar military [21]. Many walked through forests for days to arrive in Bangladesh safely, including young children, pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly. They immediately settled around two main camps, Kutupalong and Nayapara, with limited opportunities and resources. Rohingyas dwell in the barren hills of Cox’s Bazar, positioned near the edging with the Rakhine state in Myanmar and bordered by the Naf River [35]. The GoB accommodated the majority of Rohingyas in the new Balukhali makeshift settlement in Ukhia Upazila after the recent influx in September 2017 [36]. As Bangladesh has no legal obligation to offer essentials for the refugees, the status and treatment of Rohingya became a disputed issue [37,38]. Yet, more than 32,000 Rohingya who received official refugee status live in two registered camps, and many Rohingya dwell in several makeshift settlements [8]. The GoB did not allow Rohingyas to provide labour outside of camps. However, Rohingya often go to different places to search for work. Primary basic health care is also offered for Rohingya in the camp. In the case of emergency treatment, they can be admitted to local hospitals [17]. In recent years, Bangladesh and Myanmar initiated the repatriation of around 3000 Rohingyas. The repatriation process has been unsuccessful, as none of the Rohingya agreed to return to Myanmar without citizenship rights and security.

Bangladesh is neither a signatory party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, nor a party to the 1954 and 1961 Stateless Persons Conventions. However, Bangladesh is a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). These conventions secure “children’s rights to free primary education, available and accessible secondary education, and higher education on the basis of capacity, regardless of their immigration or refugee status” [39]. Besides, it is specified in the CRC that, “education should develop respect for a child’s cultural identity, language and values, the national values of the country in which the child is living, [and] the country from which he or she may originate” [39].

2.3. The Scenario of Education for Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: Pre and after COVID-19

At the end of 2019, around 683,000 refugee children were in the camps [21]. Almost 280,000 children aged 4 to 14 received education from the providers working in Cox’s Bazar. Besides, around 97 per cent of refugee children aged 15–18 did not receive any formal education. Education provided by the INGOs and NGOs in the camps supported psychosocial health for the Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh [21].

Rohingya refugee children in registered camps did not enjoy educational opportunities until 1996 [40]. The GoB approved non-formal educational facilities for Rohingya children after 1997, and permitted them to admit to the primary and Kindergarten levels [21]. Later in 2007, they were allowed to study at grade 8 at the secondary level [41]. Education providers utilised an English version of the national curriculum of Bangladesh, but could not adopt this curriculum officially in the camp’s schools [39]. In response to the recent influx in 2017, some INGOs and NGOs established Temporary Learning Centres (TLCs) to offer non-formal basic education for Rohingya children up to age 14 [42]. Education for newly arrived Rohingya refugee children was divided into three types: early learning (5–6 years), basic learning (7–10 years), and life-skill learning (11–14 years). Each module lasted two hours within the curriculum [43,44]. As of June 2021, education providers established 6252 TLCs for targeting Rohingya children in makeshift settlements [43]. However, most Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh were out-of-school due to the scarcity of learning space, lack of trained teachers and teaching staff, limited resources, language dilemmas, and socio-cultural, psychological, and political issues [45].

The INGOs and NGOs used the handbook titled “Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies”, applied by the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), to offer basic learning to Rohingya refugee students in the camps in Cox’ Bazar and improvised living conditions [46]. Locally developed materials were used in learning centres that aligned with the standards of the INEE. In 2008, some INGOs and NGOs prepared a local guidance note titled ‘Education Sector Standards for Rohingya Response’ to provide education to refugee children. The central focus of emergency education for the Rohingya refugee children was to provide basic literacy and numeracy for ages 5 to 14, as well as necessary psychosocial and several support actions [47]. Initially, 14 implementing partners established around 1200 safe and protective learning spaces, and it is recorded that approximately 141,000 Rohingya refugee children (around a third) had access to these spaces [21].

According to the report of BBC News, Rohingya children could admit and continue their studies in the school in host communities. Many Rohingya children could study in schools in Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong by hiding their identities and providing false birth registrations [41]. However, this situation changed when the GoB sent a notice on ‘Prime Minister’s Office Concerns’ to the seven secondary schools’ directors in Teknaf and a government official in Ukhiya. Consequently, the authorities expelled 197 Rohingya students from secondary schools. A report by Reuters said that the authorities debarred 64 students from one school wherein 470 students (enrolled in local schools from one registered camp) were at risk [39].

The GoB allowed education providers to apply the Myanmar National curriculum for 10,000 Rohingya refugee children in grades 6 to 9 for a pilot scheme in March 2020 [9]. With the spread of COVID-19, however, all TLCs were shut down in the camps in March. As a result, more than 300,000 Rohingya children who previously attended TLCs were out-of-school for nearly one year [9]. The GoB imposed restrictions on mobile data and other technologies within camps since September 2019. Thus, online education has challenged Rohingya refugee education in the camps. On the other hand, reopening education for Rohingya children in the camps was closely related to the reopening of schools nationwide, which was not scheduled as of the time of writing. Despite the camp’s TLCs being temporarily closed due to COVID-19, some home-based learning was offered to Rohingya refugee children [9]. UNHCR is the principal partner of the GoB that looks after overall educational activities in the registered camps with other implementing partners [48].

2.4. Home School for Rohingya Refugees

In response to the COVID-19 situation, BRAC introduced a home-based learning opportunity through tele-learning for the Rohingya refugee children in the camps of Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. BRAC initially established 50 learning centres (LCs) in 29 centres. Host teachers were appointed to deliver class lectures using cell phones of parents and community mobilisers. In some of the LCs, host teachers called parents’ cell phones, and a peer learners’ group consisting of 6–8 learners joined physically, while maintaining social distance. Host teachers used loudspeakers on their cell phones to establish a smooth connection between host teachers and Rohingya children. BRAC primarily offered Mathematics and English subjects to Rohingya children. Teachers conducted one subject weekly per group, and the learning session lasted for 20 min. Before starting the class, learning materials were provided to learners in advance. During the learning session, community mobilisers helped in setting the mobile phone, ensuring the loudspeaker mode is on, and keeping the environment calm and quiet. Teachers continued to follow up on the lessons taught via tele-learning while they visited learners’ homes [49]. The modality of Home School is shown in Figure 1.

3. Literature Gap

3.1. Education for Rohingya

In a seminal work on the condition of education and health of refugees in Bangladesh, it was explored that, even though gender discrimination existed in education, the condition of education for Rohingya children was upgraded in makeshift settlements in Bangladesh in comparison to the education that they had received in Myanmar [17]. The reason for this was that the government of Myanmar did not uphold the right to education for Rohingya children. They, nonetheless, obtained basic education free of cost offered by the government of Bangladesh and the UNHCR. After investigating the policies, practices, and limitations of education in emergencies for Rohingya children, academics debated that education was considered an aid rather than a development perspective for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh [21]. Although the government of Bangladesh did not have a policy to guarantee quality education for refugees, education stakeholders provided safe, secure and child-friendly learning spaces and psychosocial support for many Rohingya children who went through extreme traumas. A recent study on the art education of Rohingya refugees argued that artolution was an exclusive and active model which shaped a long-lasting technique for reacting to emergencies, and cultivated a durable future in which Rohingya children could substantiate their identities and roles worldwide [50]. In addition, by examining the religious education of Rohingya refugee children, another study argued that education is neither viewed as relief nor observed as a development facet [40]. Both education stakeholders and receivers recognise religious education as a matter of eternal peace [40]. It is found that the host nation, along with other local and global actors, granted inadequate procedures, such as formal education, to guarantee education for Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh. This study further claimed that the GoB should have introduced and implemented a formal education system for Rohingyas, with the help of international stakeholders, to improve citizenship education [51]. In examining the situation concerning access to education for documented and undocumented Rohingya children, it was found that instead of being involved in educational programs, Rohingya refugee children engaged in different labour and income-related activities due to some factors including limited access to the formal labour market, lack of formal identity, lack of aspirations, household composition, absence of social sanctions on child employment, and substandard living conditions [52]. Academics also examined the institutional obstacles to offering basic education to Rohingya refugees in registered camps in Bangladesh, and found that the medium of instruction in classrooms created problems for the Rohingya refugee children in understanding the learning instructions. They also found that lower teaching quality and competencies, inappropriate curriculum, insufficient funding, lack of logistical support and unsuitable time allocations are other factors that impeded the learning activities of Rohingya refugee children [53]. There is an argument that the integration of Rohingya refugees through education is not possible, as refugee management and education policies do not permit the integration of Rohingya refugees into mainstream society in Bangladesh; although Rohingya refugees claimed education as their right to advance their self-respect and dignity, the GoB viewed education as a relief program rather than one of development and integration [34].

Educational activities, such as literacy and language programs, for Rohingya children and youth are considered the core of their child development. Research has shown that the Rohingya refugee youths have language learning difficulties, affecting their overall educational outcomes due to the lack of formal schooling or educational activities [54]. Therefore, to improve the quality of learning for refugee children, equal and adequate access to educational and schooling activities and ensuring parental and teacher’s support have been suggested in a policy brief which will eventually improve the quality of education of refugee children [14,55]. Implementing these measures is significant, as several challenges including limited learning opportunities, learning discrimination, language problems and a lack of quality education, are evident for the refugee children when they obtain their first asylum [56].

Despite the challenges mentioned above, the Rohingya refugee youths showed their eagerness and substantial activities to maintain their identity and cultural factors in line with the centrality of their religion, Islam, in the Kutupalong camp, Bangladesh [57]. Similar activities were observed in Canada, where Rohingya youths struggled for their identity and culture [58]. The community can significantly address these problems and help refugee youths by investing in community efforts [59]. The above scenario provides an understanding that Rohingya refugee youths face several challenges in terms of their educational development; however, they have shown resistance and resilience. The Rohingya youth’s experiences during the pandemic are yet to be understood, particularly as they pertain to sustainability.

3.2. Refugee Education during COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, negative effects on refugee children and youth were observed in host countries, particularly in their digital and language learning, An ethnographic study of refugee youth, teachers, and social workers in Germany revealed structural difficulties, namely under reparation of educational compensations, problems in sustaining interaction [60], individual disparities of lower-quality youth involvement, and digital learning in a population already endeavouring to obtain and utilise vital language skills [61,62]. In a COVID-19 policy brief, it was found that due to language barriers, refugee children and youths faced challenges regarding access to devices and equipment, internet connections, and physical facilities in Germany and Turkey [63]. It was also evident that refugee youths started to learn independently, and their family members faced challenges in communicating in a foreign language (which was essential for their jobs during this pandemic). However, Rohingya children and youths were eager to return to the learning centre to overcome the learning difficulties that they faced during this pandemic [64]. Progressively, refugee youths demonstrated enthusiasm and resilience in their aspiration to obtain an education despite ongoing institutional blockades.

Our discussion of the above literature indicates that very few or almost no studies have explored the impact of online education on ensuring the sustainability of refugees from an empirical perspective. Against this backdrop, this article aims to understand the impact of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic in improving the sustainability of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. The specific research questions are as follows:

• To what extent and how has online education during the COVID-19 pandemic promoted the sustainability of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh?
• What were the challenges that obstructed education online for ensuring the sustainability of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh?

4. Materials and Methods

To answer our specific research questions, this study used a qualitative research strategy and the concepts of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, particularly two main policy papers related to SDG4: (1) the Incheon Declaration, which is a policy commitment document for SDG4, and (2) the Education 2030: Framework for Action, which offers directions to implement the agenda of Education 2030 [14].

4.1. Participants

Based on purposive sampling, the researchers selected Balukhali Camp 2, an extension of the Kutupalong Refugee Camp, Bangladesh, for data collection. There were three reasons for choosing this camp: (1) more than 30,000 Rohingya have dwelled in this camp since 2017, (2) some NGOs and INGOs have been providing educational facilities to the Rohingya children in the camp with the permission of the GoB, and (3) compared to other camps, the researchers have had easy access to this camp for collecting data. The researchers primarily communicated with BRAC, one of the INGOs who has been working with refugee education, and established 64 learning centres in this camp; with the help of BRAC, the researchers collected data from this camp. For the semi-structured interview sessions, ten Rohingya boys and ten Rohingya girls who participated in home activities took part in interviews. The head of the BRAC Education Program, the education manager, and four teachers (two Bengali and two Rohingya) from the camp participated in the key informant interview sessions. All the selected teachers also actively participated in home school learning activities from the beginning of the home school initiative. Therefore, the total number of participants was 26.

4.2. Instruments and Data Collection

The researchers prepared three separate open-ended questionnaires for semi-structured and key informant interviews. All the instruments covered the central theme of investigation, such as the impact of home school and challenges; however, the researchers asked additional and follow-up questions to understand the nature of the impact and challenges better. For instance, a teacher participant discussed that he tried to ensure a safe and secure learning environment for children, the researchers asked for an example of how he did this and what changes he observed regarding his claim. The core questions of the instruments were the same; however, the researchers tried to gather their responses from their own perspectives (see Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C).

The researchers collected data from August to September 2021. For key interview sessions, the participants were from two groups of education providers: teachers of learning centres and NGO officials. On the other hand, for semi-structured interview sessions, a group of education receivers, such as Rohingya boys and girls, were interviewed. Based on prior consultation with the participants, interview sessions were conducted at their convenience. To ensure smooth language communication, the researchers had help from a local person (who understands their language) during the interview sessions with the Rohingya children and teachers. The interview sessions with the Rohingya children took 35 min, on average, and 45 min was taken for the key interview sessions.

All the participants were selected after a rigorous discussion with the BRAC management, which provided sufficient information in line with this study. The research objectives were described to them, and ethical considerations were explained. Informed consent was obtained from them, and no one denied being a participant. The researchers maintained privacy and anonymity during and after data collection. Secondary data were collected from academics and grey literature, including journal articles, book or book chapters, government and NGO reports, and contemporary newspapers.

4.3. Data Analysis

A six-stage thematic analysis method was used to establish the themes, including data familiarisation, initial coding, generating themes, the validity and reliability of themes, defining themes, and interpretation and reporting [65]. The researchers carefully read all the raw data several times and then created some codes separately. The initial codes for a similar group of responses were created separately, and then both authors jointly matched the two sets of codes. The researchers then finalised the codes together after several rounds of discussions [65]. The next steps, such as collating codes into potential codes, identifying potential themes, developing a theme list by establishing a relationship between codes, defining and naming themes, and generating final themes, were carried out jointly. The researchers used conversation analysis to analyse data [66]. This analytical approach allows the researchers to establish common interactions from the participant’s opinions [67]. The study’s main limitation is that the researchers did not find any respondents who had refugee status in the registered camp; therefore, the findings of this paper are from the forcedly displaced Myanmar citizens living in the makeshift settlements.

4.4. Ethical Considerations

Throughout the study, we followed the academic ethical guidelines with regard to taking consent, and ensuring anonymity, confidentiality, the right to withdraw from the study, and data management [68,69,70]. Before data collection, we explained the research details, such as study objectives and ethical considerations, and took consent from the participants. During the data processing and analysis, we removed the identification items from the data sets and provided an identification number for each participant to ensure anonymity. No personal information was reported in this article. The entire data was stored securely, and only the researchers have access to these data.

5. Results

The findings of this study are presented in two broad categories, including the positive aspects of the home school in ensuring sustainability, and the challenges of ensuring sustainability through home education.

5.1. Positive Aspects of Home School in Ensuring Sustainability

5.1.1. Ensuring Safe and Secure Learning Environments

It is necessary to offer safe schools and spaces to create a sense of normality and security for Rohingya refugee children. Education providers have established a safe and secure educational environment to offer an emergency education to Rohingya refugee children [21]. This study finds that Rohingya refugee children in the camp are still traumatised by a fear of violence in Myanmar, as they faced several harrowing experiences, such as mothers and children being shot or being thrown into the river, and household fire attacks from the Myanmar military. Education providers tried to provide a safe and secure learning environment for Rohingya refugee children during the COVID-19 period [21]. An interview with the head of BRAC education explained the situation:

Prior to COVID-19, we set up some specific standards for the learning centres according to the guidelines of INEE which are safe, secure and joyful for children. For instance, we kept at least 40 per cent of space for recreation for the Rohingya refugee children. After COVID-19, however, this situation changed as we had to close all learning centres immediately. When we launched the home education programme through online, our teachers worked hard to ensure a joyful class for them. Before the class, our community mobilisers also worked to ensure keeping the learning centre safe and secure for children (Participant, Head of BRAC Education, Cox’s Bazar).

A teacher who was working in the camp also echoed that he tried to ensure a safe and secure learning environment for the Rohingya refugee children as he believed that ensuring such an environment could help refugee children to be free from trauma. He shared his experience of how they tried to ensure safe and secure learning activities during COVID-19:

At this moment, around 65,000 Rohingya refugee children get learning support through home school activities. During these activities, we tried to encourage them to use masks, hand sanitizer and maintain social distancing at home and school. In addition, our community mobilisers are also helping us with these activities. In this way, we are trying to ensure safe and secure learning activities for them (Participant, Teacher of Home Education).

The participants also reported that they observed the happy faces of children regarding the COVID awareness programme. A participating teacher said, “When I see the happy faces, I feel our initiative is successful”. Both community mobilisers, teachers, and other stakeholders were working together with BRAC to make home education successful. An interview with a Rohingya boy revealed the following:

We are really happy for home learning activities during COVID-19. During the first days of the pandemic, we were unsure what to do as we could not go outside, but our teachers and community mobilisers created the scope to attend learning online Our teachers always encourage us to use masks and sanitiser, and we feel safe and enjoy learning during online classes (Participant, Rohingya boy, Balukhali Camp 2).

5.1.2. Recovering Trauma and Fear of Violence

This study found that home school helps Rohingya children to overcome the trauma and fear of violence witnessed in Myanmar in 2017 [14]. BRAC provided emergency education to reduce the trauma and anxiety of violence of Rohingya refugee children in learning centres [14,21]. In relation to this issue, home school teachers continue providing lessons that help Rohingya children to forget their terrible past in 2017 in Myanmar. A Rohingya boy explained how home school continued the activities during COVID-19 that were offered before the COVID-19 pandemic:

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, I enjoyed a lot in the learning centre. I actively participated in dancing, singing, painting, and reciting rhymes and poems, which helped me recovering from my traumatic situation. This is because at the time of migrating (forced) to Bangladesh, I was seven years old, and I witnessed the brutal violence of Myanmar forces. When I came to Bangladesh, I could not forget this scene of torture for the first couple of months. However, I got a relief from this situation once I was admitted to the emergency education learning process provided by BRAC. During this COVID-19, the home school also continues some activities that help Rohingya children to improve their mental condition to recover from trauma and fear of violence (participant, Rohingya boy, age 14, Balukhali Camp 2).

An interview with a Rohingya girl revealed the following:

I have my brothers and sisters to play at home, but sometimes I am bored staying at home. Our learning centre always gives me happiness, and the classroom has more fun with our teachers. This helps me forget the violence that I saw in Myanmar (participant, Rohingya refugee girl, age 14, Balukhali Camp 2).

A teacher revealed that:

We are continuously working to help children to be free from all kinds of fear and trauma they faced. Fear and trauma are something that could not be removed from a direct discussion, rather, we introduced joyful learning so that students could understand that they are living in a good place where such problems will not arise again. Besides, by attending these learning activities, students can divert their minds from fear to joy (participant, teacher of home education).

5.1.3. Ensuring the Equal Participation of Boys and Girls

This study finds that education providers were conscious of ensuring equitable participation of boys and girls in the home school in camps. It found that more than 50 per cent of students who enrolled in learning centres before COVID-19 were girls. Due to the effect of COVID-19, many girls (more than 51 per cent, and aged between 3–14 years) were denied access to education This is why education providers, especially host teachers, encouraged parents to send their girls to the home school. The education manager mentioned that they wanted to ensure the equal participation of boys and girls, as gender equality is one of the priorities of their organisation. In an interview, the education manager of the home school said the following:

When we started the home school learning in the camp, we observed that more boys joined mobile learning in LCs. Initially, parents did not want to send their girls to LCs. Thus, we have motivated them continuously to allow their daughters to attend the home school. Now, the proportion of boys and girls in the home school is the same (participant, Education Manager, BRAC Home School).

The head of BRAC refugee education explained why host teachers emphasised ensuring girls’ participation in the home school. He explained:

Before COVID-19, we ensured an equal participation of boys and girls in learning centres. Girls’ education is necessary to ensure the sustainability of refugee communities. This is also strongly related to SDG 4. Thus, we have given maximum effort to ensure an equal participation of boys and girls in the home school (Participant, Head of BRAC Refugee Education, Cox’s Bazar).

Refugee children (boys and girls) also feel bored staying at home for a long time. They also want to go to learning centres to learn and have fun. An interview with a Rohingya refugee boy revealed the following:

I was not feeling good, as LCs remained closed for a long time. I did not have any work to do at home. I would always miss going to class and studying together with our teachers. Sometimes, I would read books by myself. However, I am very happy now as I can go to home school regularly. I can talk to my teachers and friends and read my favourite books. I found more fun at home school instead of staying at home (participant, Rohingya refugee boy, age 14, Balukhali Camp 2).

A Rohingya refugee girl said:

It was boring to stay at home during COVID-19. We could not visit each other due to COVID-19 restriction imposed by the Bangladesh government. Even we do not have any scope to go to the learning centre. Our teachers explained that COVID-19 could be easily transferred from one to another. However, the home school has given us a new life. Our teachers have given us information on awareness and preventive messages about COVID-19. We can also meet some friends maintaining social distance at learning centres. I believe that home school has offered me a better life in the camp during COVID-19 (participant, Rohingya refugee girl, age 13, Balukhali Camp 2).

5.2. Challenges of Home School in Ensuring Sustainability

5.2.1. Lack of Provision for Formal School

This study found that the lack of provision for formal schools in the camp for Rohingya refugee children is one of the significant obstacles to ensuring the sustainability of Rohingya refugees through providing home school learning [51]. The GoB does not have any policy that will allow the establishment of formal schools for Rohingya refugees. Thus, most Rohingyas, especially parents of Rohingya children, are not interested in sending their children to the home school. In some cases, Rohingya refugee children were not enthusiastic about attending home school during COVID-19. The head of the BRAC education for Rohingya refugees explained:

During COVID-19, we tried to continue the educational activities online. We believe that COVID-19 would negatively affect Rohingya children’s minds if we could not offer education. Now they can come to learning centres and interact with their friends and teachers in the home school. However, sometimes, Rohingya refugee children do not want to go to the home school. This is because their parents do not encourage them to continue studying due to a lack of formal recognition of the study. Their parents think that education without formal recognition is meaningless. I observed this mentality during emergency education, which persists now (participant, Head of BRAC Education, Balukhali Camp 2).

A teacher also stated:

In my view, without formal education for Rohingya refugees, ensuring a sustainable livelihood for them is not easy. We are trying to keep calm and quiet Rohingya refugee children during the learning session. This learning session helps to reduce the trauma of COVID-19 and the fear of violence they saw in Myanmar. But, we are unable to provide them with formal recognition. Thus, sometimes, it becomes hard for us to bring more groups to the learning activities (participant, Rohingya teacher 1, Home School, Balukhali Camp 2).

5.2.2. Offering Limited Subjects

Before COVID-19, the education provider followed the INEE standards to run education activities for the Rohingya refugee children. Three types of learning activities, such as early learning, basic learning and life-skill learning, were provided to the refugee children. In addition, some physical activities, drawing and crafts, songs and storytelling, life-skills activities, mathematics, science, and Burmese language activities were also provided to them. During COVID-19, the education provider provided only two subject-related lessons to the refugee children through home school. One education provider illustrated how they offered limited activities to increase sustainability in the learning camp:

We tried to provide adequate learning opportunities to the refugee children as we did before COVID-19; however, we had to limit these activities due to some problems. During COVID-10, we provided only Math and English-related learning activities through home school, which is insufficient to offer an inclusive education (Education Provider 2, BRAC, Cox’s Bazar).

A Rohingya child of 14 years old said:

During COVID-19, I learned Math and English through home school; however, these learning activities were not attractive to me as we performed activities in the learning centres. In the centre, I did so many activities by hand, which was enjoyable to me, but I did not enjoy the home school and online learning as I did not have the chance to do activities in person. The online sessions are monotonous to me (Rohingya refugee child 1).

The other participants echoed the same sentiment. They were not responsive to home schooling, and the children did not enjoy the home school activities. A teacher said:

Children are not attentive to the online session. I observed they were busy with other activities instead of listening to me. I tried to make the online session enjoyable, but sometimes I failed. Some students did not respond to my questions, and thus, online activities were occasionally unsuccessful (Participant, Rohingya teacher 2, Home School, Balukhali Camp 2).

5.2.3. Limited Duration of Lessons

This study found that offering home school for a limited duration is another obstacle to ensuring a sustainable livelihood for Rohingya refugee children in the camps. The home school follows the tele-learning approach, wherein teachers teach one subject for a group of 4–5 students per week for 20 min only. After completing the class, teachers assign home tasks to keep the learners involved in the teaching–learning process until the next class. An interview with the BRAC education manager revealed the following:

Before starting the class, our community mobilisers and teachers communicate with parents and make them understand what will be taught in the learning centres. They prepare their child according to our directions. However, the issue the parents and children raised is the limited duration of home school in the learning centres. We had many students in the learning centres before COVID-19. Due to the risk of spreading COVID-19, it is not easy to accommodate more students in home school learning. Thus, each student group needs to stay at home six days a week. Managing home school learning for each group of students for more days would help them develop their mental strength (participant, Education manager, BRAC, Home School).

It was found that Rohingya students also felt that the limited duration of the home school created problems for them. An interview with a Rohingya boy disclosed the following:

I am happy to attend home school once a week during COVID-19. However, I can only enjoy going to home school for 20 min per week. I have to stay home when I feel bored the rest of the day. I understand that the authority of the home school has some limitations and restrictions in running this programme during the current situation. Yet, I urge you to extend the class time during COVID-19 (participant, Rohingya refugee boy, Age 13, Balukhali Camp 2).

5.2.4. Lack of Community Mobilisers

The participants reported that the language used by the education providers and the receivers differed; therefore, they proposed to appoint adequate community mobilisers to run home school activities smoothly. While the education providers hired some educated Rohingya youths to help them minimise the language barrier, this was insufficient. Besides, due to COVID-19, the education providers reported that they could not manage adequate community mobilisers for effective communication [59]. A participant of the education provider said:

We faced several challenges in arranging online education in the refugee camp. We tried to maintain smooth communication with the refugee children and appointed some educated people from the camp. Before COVID-19, we found many Rohingya people to work with us, but we faced difficulty managing such people during this pandemic. According to our estimation, we need at least 100 community mobilisers, but we found only 40. As a result, we could not maintain the planned activities sometimes (participant, Head of BRAC Education, Home School)

The participants, particularly the education manager and teachers, also expressed that home schooling could be better if adequate community mobilisers could be appointed [59]. As language was an issue for smooth communication and learning, teachers mentioned that having more community mobilisers from educated Rohingya youths could make this initiative more successful. A teacher participant said:

It is important to communicate with the students properly, particularly during giving instructions. I feel it would be better for me if I got more help from the Rohingya-educated people. Sometimes, it is difficult for me to minimise this language barrier (participant, teacher of Home School, Balukhali Camp 2)

5.2.5. Weak Mobile Network and Call Drop

This study finds that although using the internet and mobile is not officially allowed in the refugee camp, education providers can use mobile and internet to offer online education to Rohingya refugee children. The GoB imposed restrictions on using mobile phones inside the camps. Yet, government officials are reluctant to implement regulations on mobile phone use in the camp. Education providers used this opportunity to offer online education to Rohingya refugee children in the camp. However, the mobile network was not strong enough to ensure sustainable online education in the camp [5]. All the participants reported that they faced enormous problems in ensuring a good online education because of poor mobile networks and call drop problems. The BRAC education manager said:

A mobile network is not always available throughout the camp. To organise students, our teachers contact parents through community mobilisers using the mobile phone. Sometimes, it is tough to talk to parents as they face mobile call drops. Moreover, teachers also face call drop issues during online lectures. Thus, the home school learning hampers sometimes due to a lack of a strong mobile network (participant, Education Manager, BRAC, Balukhali Camp 2).

Rohingya refugee children also acknowledge this issue, as one of the Rohingya boys said:

Sometimes, our teachers cannot start our online class on time. We also experienced a call drop during the class period. I understand that our teachers are not responsible for this issue. I appreciate our teachers’ effort that they have given us to make the session lively and joyful (participant, Rohingya boy, age 14, Balukhali Camp 2).

6. Discussion

During COVID-19, like others, Rohingya refugee children in the camps faced enormous problems in accessing education. To continue their learning, education providers such as BRAC offered technology-based and home-based teaching-learning activities called ‘home school’. This study attempts to understand the impact of the home school on Rohingya refugee children as it pertains to sustainability. The right to education for refugee children is recognised in SDG4, which declares “inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” [14]. The results indicate that while this initiative has some specific positive aspects, there are challenges too. In line with sustainable education, this ‘home school’ initiative ensured a safe and secure learning environment, helped the refugee children recover from trauma and fear of violence, and ensured the equal participation of boys and girls in the camps [14]. In contrast, lack of formal schooling [51], studying limited subjects [51], limited contact hours [51], a lack of community mobilisers [59], and mobile phone network problems [5] are the key factors that could hamper this initiative’s sustainability.

One of the positive aspects of this initiative is that the ‘home school’ program created a safe and secure learning environment for refugee children [21]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring a suitable environment for learning was a countrywide challenge; however, this program overcame this challenge. Learning can be sustainable when children can access a safe and secure environment, and the ‘home school’ program firmly established the feeling that children had access to such an environment in which they could learn. These learning practices also helped them recover from their trauma and fear of violence [14,21], which could be a key factor in sustaining their learning. Children learn better when free from fears, anxiety and other mental conditions deviating from a stable situation [71]. While a previous study has argued that gender discrimination existed in education in refugee camps in Bangladesh [17], this study found that education providers ensured the equal participation of boys and girls during this pandemic [14]. On the one hand, the ‘home school’ program ensured their safe and joyful learning environment [21]; on the other hand, it freed them from negative influences. During an emergency, particularly when several regular facilities are limited in settings such as camps, it is important to simultaneously increase positive aspects and decrease negative factors to confirm the successful and sustainable program’s effect, and the ‘home school’ program succeeded in this regard. Therefore, it could be argued that the ‘home school’ initiative helped in achieving SDG4 through ensuring the Incheon Declaration and the Education 2030: Framework for Action. In relation to the Incheon Declaration, the home school initiative showed a proactive approach to offering education during COVID-19 pandemic, and created a resilient education system by ensuring a safe and secure learning environment; it also aided in refugee children’s recovery from trauma and freedom from violence [14,21]. Besides, through this initiative, the education provider ensured the equal participation of both sexes, directly contributing to target 4.5 of the Education 2030: Framework for Action [14].

Refugee children and youths were confronted with several structural and other barriers, including devices and equipment, internet connections, and physical facilities, with regard to their access to quality education during the pandemic [60,61,62,63]. Likewise, this study also found that Rohingya children’s sustainability through online education has seriously been hampered due to the lack of formal education [21]. This is because the current policy of the Bangladesh government toward refugee education does not permit refugees to have access to formal schooling [21,51]. Apart from this barrier, some other new issues such as studying limited subjects, limited contact hours, lack of community mobilisers, and mobile phone network problems are key factors that have created obstacles to this initiative to improve sustainability for Rohingya refugees in refugee camps in Bangladesh.

While the ‘home school’ program has the potential to be effective, particularly in an emergency and in a low-resource environment, reducing its challenges could ensure more sustainability by contributing towards several SDGs at a time. The results indicated that this technology- and home-based learning program created a sense of inclusion in formal education among Rohingya refugee children. The participants wanted to make the learning journey meaningful, and they believed that ensuring formal education could make these learning activities more sustainable [51]. Children’s learning activities should not be treated as part of aid programs; rather, to make their learning sustainable, a developmental approach needs to be considered [72]. In a formal learning setting, Rohingya refugee children could access more opportunities to learn from diverse subjects, whereas in emergencies, they are limited to this program. This compresses their learning scope and reduces their expected activities. In a learning centre, along with studying difficult subjects such as mathematics and English, some other joyful activities such as physical activities, songs, and storytelling could trigger children’s learning stimulation, eventually ensuring learning sustainability. Because of the limited range of subjects, the contact hours between the Rohingya children and education providers were reduced; this could be considered a key challenge in terms of sustainability. These challenges extended when education providers and children faced difficulties using mobile phones and the internet for learning. High internet costs, limited internet speed, and poor mobile networks are seen as one of the major challenges during COVID-19 learning environment throughout the country. The Rohingya refugee children and their education provider faced a similar problem which hampered learning activities proceeding as planned. As the ‘home school’ program is based on the technology, limited use of the internet and weak mobile network hampered these sustainability initiatives. The overall impact of the home schooling in terms of sustainability is shown in Figure 2.

7. Conclusions

This study focuses on the sustainability of Rohingya refugees through online education during COVID-19 pandemic. It is evident that, despite some drawbacks, the intervention of the ‘Home School’ helped Rohingya refugee children to access a sustainable education and maintain their livelihoods during this pandemic. Home school education helps to ensure a responsive and resilient education system for them, directly contributing to the Incheon Declaration and the Education 2030: Framework for Action. The positive aspects of the ‘Home School’ intervention are as follows:

• Promoting a safe and secure learning environment for refugee children [21];
• Supporting refugee children to recover from trauma and fear of violence [14];
• Ensuring equal participation of boys and girls [14].

The challenges of the ‘Home School’ intervention include the following:

• A lack of formal schooling [51];
• Studying limited subjects and limited contact hours [51];
• A lack of community mobilisers [59];
• Problems in smooth communication due to mobile phone network problems [5].

Providing sustainable learning experiences through online education could help achieve sustainable and durable solutions for Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh.

8. Research Implications, Study Limitations and Further Need for Research

The findings of this study can contribute to the literature on sustainable education and refugees’ livelihoods from a broader perspective. Academics, scholars, researchers, students, development practitioners, and policymakers can benefit from it in terms of carrying out further research and bringing policy reform to sustain refugee education and livelihood worldwide.

This study deals with a small number of stakeholders, as the opportunity for data collection was limited during COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies could include all the stakeholders, including community members and government representatives, to understand how sustainable education can be ensured in an environment with such limited resources. Besides, to gain a holistic understanding of this issue, we recommend future studies which deal with the issues directly related to children’s rights, developmental learning in a formal setting, and sustainability.