Skip to main content

Education Needs Assessment Brief - Camp 22 - Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, February 2019

Countries
Bangladesh
+ 1 more
Sources
Education Cluster
+ 2 more
Publication date
Origin
View original

Background and Methodology

Since August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya refugees have arrived in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar District from Myanmar. As of February 28, 2019, approximately 460,000 Rohingya children remain heavily reliant on international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as providers of informal education under the coordination of the Cox’s Bazar Education Sector. Within the camps, access to learning environments is generally limited to NGO-run learning centres (LCs), mainly providing educational services for children age 6 to 14 (with many also offering early childhood development opportunities to children aged 3 to 5). These have been complemented more recently by the roll-out of other alternative learning modalities (ALMs) such as home-based learning or non-religious learning at madrassas.

At the start of 2019, REACH implemented a Joint Education Needs Assessment on behalf of and in collaboration with the Cox’s Bazar Education Sector, with financial support from UNICEF. The assessment consisted of a household survey with primary caregivers in households with at least one member between the ages of 3-24 years, in addition to facility assessments at LCs, and focus groups with parents and staff.

The study’s survey component was conducted throughout 33 refugee sites from 3 February to 14 March, 2019, covering a total of 4,397 households.

Results of this assessment are generalizable to the camp level with 95% confidence level and 10% margin of error. This factsheet presents an analysis of data collected in Camp 22, where 206 households were assessed.

Data on individual attendance at learning spaces is reported overall for all age groups, and by gender only for the 6-14 age group; the number of children and youth in other age groups covered by assessment within each camp was too small to meet a minimum acceptable threshold of statistical significance to display data by gender. More in-depth findings are presented in the study’s final report