Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Promoting Social Cohesion and Equitable Learning in Refugee Contexts: Evidence from Uganda

Sun, March 29, 2:45 to 4:00pm, Hilton, Floor: Fourth Floor - Tower 3, Union Square 23

Proposal

Uganda is one of the largest refugee-hosting countries in the world, with nearly 2 million refugees within its borders, a situation rife for exacerbating divisions and reducing social cohesion. However, Uganda's refugee laws are some of the most progressive in the world. Under the Uganda Refugees Act (2016) and the Education Response Plan for Refugees and Host communities (ERP 2018), refugees are entitled to work, have freedom of movement, and can access the Ugandan education system (World Bank 2016). To ensure that this freedom of movement and access to services, including education, does not disadvantage host communities, the government adopted a policy of providing the host community with 30% of the services designated for refugees and the refugee community with 70%. These policies are aimed at promoting social cohesion and inter-group harmony by ensuring contact and equitable access between refugee and non-refugee communities (Uwezo 2017).

The relationship between inter-group contact and social cohesion is well documented in both theoretical and empirical studies. Gordon Allport's intergroup contact hypothesis (1954) argued that intergroup contact can reduce intergroup prejudice. Paluck et al (2019) argue that a context that encourages interaction strengthens social cohesion, and more recent empirical research on contact theory has shown the elements of contact theory do indeed facilitate positive group relations (Paolini at al, 2021; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2005).

In this paper, we present data from an assessment of refugee and non-refugee literacy and numeracy skills in Uganda to understand how the government’s policies–aimed at producing equitable outcomes for both refugee and non-refugee communities in order to promote social cohesion–have influenced learning outcomes. We find that, while refugee children perform more poorly in literacy and numeracy when compared to same aged non-refugee children, they perform similarly when compared to same grade non-refugee children. This suggests that, while the government’s policies may not solve the challenge of over- or under-aged learners in refugee communities, refugee children are able to learn to read and do math in Ugandan schools. Further, refugee children who have been in Uganda for 1-3 years perform better than those who have been in country for less than one year and those who have been in country for three years or more, suggesting that refugee children may be benefitting from participation in the Ugandan educational system to a point, until they become subject to the same barriers to learning–including huge class sizes, limited classroom materials/facilities and absenteeism among others–as non-refugee children.

These findings present a case for the success of the Ugandan government’s policies of integrating refugee children into the education system in order to achieve equitable access for both groups.

References:

Allport, Gordon (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Paluck, E.L., Green, S.A., & Green, D.P. (2019) The Contact Hypothesis Re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3 (2), 129-158.

Paolini, S., White, F.A., Tropp, L.R., Turner, R.N., Page-Gould, E. Barlow, F.K., & Gomez, A. (2021). Intergroup Contact Research in the 21st Century: Lessons Learned and Forward Progress if We Remain Open. Journal of Social Issues, 77 (1), 11-37.

Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2005). Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence. In J.F. Dovidio, P.GLick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport (pp. 262-277). Blackwell Publishing.

Uwezo (2018). Are Our Children Learning? Uwezo Learning Assessment of Refugee Contexts in Uganda. Kampala: Twaweza East Africa.

World Bank (2016). An Assessment of Uganda's Progressive Approach to Refugee Management. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Authors