Educational Integration from the Perspective of Refugee Parents and Children

This article is based on a research project executed by the authors in 2021. It revolves around the experiences of refugee children and parents within the Slovenian educational system. Data was acquired from twelve families. Interviewees spoke about the positive and negative aspects of educational integration. Those mainly consisted of language difficulties, learning difficulties, and discrimination. The presented research aims to shift the perspective from the “easy integration” read about in laws and strategies to the more complex perspective held by the “subjects” of integration. They mostly perceive it as a long-lasting, nuanced, and troublesome process.
Keywords: education, migrant children, refugee children, integration, primary school, secondary school, kindergarten

The article is based on a research project (2021) involving twelve families. Researchers and a cultural mediator conducted interviews (eleven audiotaped and transcribed, one noted during execution) with five mothers, five fathers, and two children (an 11-year-old boy and a 20-year-old female). At the time of the interview, all family members had refugee status. Nonetheless, it had various migratory and bureaucratical trajectories. They reached Slovenia together or separately, illegally or legally, rapidly or gradually. Researchers accounted for the complex situations defining the families’ lives following migration—these vastly co-define children’s educational integration. The most critical factors are precarious legal status, numerous school changes, low socioeconomic status, and housing insecurity.
The interviewed families have resided in Slovenia for no longer than ten years. They all had experiences with primary schools, some also with preschools (4) and secondary schools (3).
The analysis gave an insight into experiences with educational integration. Families generally emphasized schools as the primary spaces enabling language learning and education. However, they also pointed out some issues with the efficiency of integration. Forced migration is commonly associated with abrupt departures, stoppages in transit countries, and returns due to the Dublin Regulation. Consequently, children’s education is complex and full of temporary “educational inputs.” In five cases, children were included in the formal/informal education “on the route”: 1) in Turkey, preceding resettlement; 2) in Sweden, preceding a voluntary return to Slovenia; 3) in the Netherlands, preceding a return orchestrated by the Dublin Regulation; 4) in Greece, during transit; and 5) in Serbia, during transit.
Designating children into classes upon arrival to Slovenia seemed arbitrary: children were appointed a year (8) or two years lower (1) than their age or had a knowledge assessment (2). In eight cases, children had a Slovenian language course upon entering the school; in four cases, they did not. Interviewees spoke about learning difficulties, including failed classes (3), low grades (11), and a lack of understanding. Interviewees mentioned racist comments from classmates about skin color (2), smell (3), origin (2), and religion (2). Interviewees talked openly about emotional distress caused or amplified by educational institutions—mostly about children crying (5), frequent sicknesses (2), anger (1), enclosing (3), and fear and reluctance toward school (4).
Even though “integration” might read as a simple, unified procedure in the policy documents, it appears to be a much more nuanced process in the children’s and parents’ narratives. Integration, essentially a process of “two-sided convergence” (between migrants and national sub-systems), can only be thoroughly evaluated through the perspectives of foreigners. Being “subjects of integration”, their views, remarks, and opinions strongly weigh into the (un)success of the educational system as a whole.