Access, Enrollment and Retention: The Case of Secondary Female Refugee Education in Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei Settlement in Northwestern Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflict, crisis, and displacement cause more than 100 million people (UNHCR 2022a) to flee their countries and seek refuge or (re)settlement in a third country.This can cause refugee and displaced children to miss out on many years of education.The situation is even more worrisome for female learners.Years of prolonged conflict and displacement result in considerable variation in access, enrollment, and retention rates of male and female learners because women and girls are more proportionately disadvantaged and pushed out of educational spheres as they progress through primary and secondary school.Using the comparative case study of Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei Settlement located in Northwestern Kenya, this study aims to understand the factors that affect the access, enrollment, and retention of female refugee students at four different schools and examine the differences in educational outcomes between the two locations.A review of the literature suggests that there is a positive relationship between parental employment status and education level and the educational outcome of girls.From this, the research hypothesized and investigated the significance of paid parental (especially that of the mothers) activity on the educational outcomes observed through the fieldwork.Through individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, this thesis challenges the existing literature by illustrating that within the context of Kakuma and Kalobeyei, the impact of parental employment and education level on the education outcomes for girls with regards to access, enrollment, and retention is not nearly as significant as the literature suggests.This study concludes by highlighting the importance of conducting research for the female refugee students themselves and working with them to find bottom-up solutions that are gender-informed rather than top-down solutions that might not necessarily work with the realities in which they live.Correlation between parental education and employment and that of the child ...............
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".