Content uploaded by Daniel Gilhooly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Gilhooly on Apr 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Southeast Asian
American Education and
Advancement
%52;3+ Volume 10 (2015) 8:/)2+
Lessons Learned: Insights into One Teacher’s
Experience Working with Karen Refugee Students
in the United States
Daniel J. Gilhooly
!e University of Georgia*'40-/2.552?-3'/2)53
5225=:./9'4*'**/:/54'2=5819': .B6*5)92/(6;8*;++*;09''+'
'8:5,:.+ 662/+*/4-;/9:/)95335499/'4":;*/+9533549/89:'4*"+)54*'4-;'-+
)7;/9/:/54533549;4/58/-.4:+83+*/':+/**2+").552*;)':/54'4*#+')./4-
533549'4*:.+ "+)54*'8?*;)':/54'4*#+')./4-533549
A/9*5);3+4:.'9(++43'*+'<'/2'(2+:.85;-. ;8*;++ ;(9'9+8</)+5,:.+ ;8*;+$4/<+89/:?/(8'8/+9 2+'9+)54:'):+6;(96;8*;++*;,58
'**/:/54'2/4,583':/54
!+)533+4*+*/:':/54
/2.552?'4/+2+99549+'84+*49/-.:9/4:54+#+').+8@9>6+8/+4)+&581/4-=/:.'8+4!+,;-++":;*+4:9/4:.+
$4/:+*":':+9 Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement%528:/)2+
.B6*>*5/58-
Volume 10 (2015) www.JSAAEA.org
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s)
and the Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, it is distributed for non-commercial purposes only,
and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or JSAAEA.
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Lessons Learned: Insights into One Teacher’s Experience Working with
Karen Refugee Students in the United States
Daniel Gilhooly
University of Georgia
Abstract
This study is informed by funds of knowledge and culturally responsive teaching
studies that aim to explore and legitimize the cultural knowledge immigrant
children bring to their communities and schools. Consequently, this paper
specifically addresses issues related to the educational experiences of Karen
children and their parents from one American teacher/researcher who has worked
with the Karen for the past four years. In aggregate, this paper addresses issues
germane to Karen education including; (1) background information on Karen
educational experiences prior to resettlement, including a review of their journey
from Thailand to the U.S.; (2) important characteristics of Karen culture; (3)
Karen names; (4) Sgaw Karen language characteristics; (5) the language divide
between parents and children; (6) parental involvement in their children’s
schooling; (7) American teacher perceptions of Karen students; (8) issues over
grading and, finally; (9) gender issues.
KEYWORDS: Refugee education; ESL; Sgaw Karen; funds of knowledge;
culturally responsive teaching
I want people to know that I am not Mexican and I am not Chinese or Burma people! I
was born Thailand but I am Karen! Why it is so difficult? (Julie Htoo (pseudonym), age
13, 2013, Georgia)
This excerpt from an exasperated Karen girl was one of the motivations behind this paper. Her
frustrations and pride in her Karen identity speak to the experiences of many immigrant children
who face similar challenges of living in the bifurcated worlds of home and school. Moreover, it
speaks to the ambivalence of many Americans toward Asians in their neighborhoods and
1
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
classrooms. The following pages represent my story and the lessons learned from teaching and
assisting a Sgaw Karen community in rural Georgia, USA.
Background
From May 2010 to June 2014, I worked as a language tutor in a nearby rural Karen community
while pursuing my doctoral degree in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL) at a
large public university. This particular paper is also informed by a larger qualitative study on
Karen resettlement. In 2011, I conducted a participatory action research (PAR) project alongside
three Karen brothers who were my students in the small rural community of Sandville
(pseudonym), Georgia.
That PAR study looked at a wide variety of issues related to Karen resettlement in four
different Karen communities, two in the Midwest and two in the southeastern part of the United
States where we conducted interviews, distributed questionnaires, and video recorded our
research experiences. That study and an earlier research project based on my participant
observations on the schooling experiences of those three Karen brothers, both received
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and are the primary sources of data for this paper.
The primary research questions that guided this paper are:
(1) What important cultural and historical considerations can help inform those working with
the Karen?
(2) What are the primary issues and concerns of Karen students, parents and their teachers as
Karen families navigate the U.S education system?
(3) How might teachers integrate Karen students’ funds of knowledge into their classrooms?
Theoretical Framework
This paper intends to follow in the tradition of the ethnographic work of teachers/researchers like
Donald Hones. Like Hones (2002), I believe that teachers can be more effective in addressing
immigrant students if they become knowledgeable about their cultural, historical, and linguistic
backgrounds.
Like Hones, I contend that teachers need to apprise themselves of the unique cultural and
historical backgrounds of their students. Therefore, I first draw on culturally responsive teaching
as presented by Geneva Gay (2010, 2002). According to Gay (2010), teachers need to become
aware of their students’ cultures and lived experiences in order to address their needs as well as
to legitimize their cultural heritage. More importantly, as Gay contends, such awareness can
improve instruction for those children who are currently falling through the educational cracks.
For transnational students like the Karen, I believe it is important that teachers become aware of
students’ immigration (transnational, diasporic, immigration and secondary migration)
experiences so as to better address their emotional, psychological, social, and academic needs.
This paper is also informed by funds of knowledge as presented by Norma Gonzalez and
Luis Moll (1993, 1995, 2005). According to Moll et al. (1992), funds of knowledge refers to the
“knowledge and skills found in local households” (p. 132). The goal is for teachers to recognize
their students’ diverse home cultures in order to integrate the students’ home knowledge and
skills into their classroom teaching. I specifically address ways teachers can utilize students
various funds of knowledge in the final implications section of this paper.
Both culturally responsive teaching and funds of knowledge offer an alternative to the
deficit model (Gonzalez & Moll, 1993) or cultural deprivation paradigm (Gay, 2010) that often
2
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
view immigrant children as inherently lacking in cultural/social capital and the skills needed to
succeed academically and socially in the classroom. Rather, both funds of knowledge and
culturally responsive teaching consider the many ways students bring valuable cultural,
linguistic, and social practices with them into their American classes. Towards this aim, I present
a brief background of the Burmese students entering American classrooms.
Burmese Refugees
The Karen (pronounced kuh-REN, sometimes referred to as Kayin) people and their resettlement
to the U.S. has garnered little public attention over the seven years since they began resettling to
the U.S. Therefore, I have elected to provide a short history of the people and offer a description
of their journey from Burma to Thailand and, ultimately, to the United States. Firstly, some
clarification is warranted regarding who is resettling from the refugee camps along the Thai-
Burma border.
Although refugees originating from Burma1 are designated as Burmese by the U.S.
government, the designation Burmese2 is somewhat misleading. In fact, the United States has
been resettling multiple ethnic groups under the designation Burmese: Burman (3.81%), Chin
(33%), Karenni (8%), and the largest group, Karen (47%) (Refugee Processing Center, 2014).
Moreover, the Karen are not a homogenous ethnic group; they consist of multiple language
groups; namely Sgaw, Pwo, and Bwe. This study looks at the largest Karen sub-group coming to
the United States, Sgaw (also spelled Sgau or Skaw) Karen. Importantly, much of the confusion
surrounding the ethnicity of students arriving from Burma originates in the children. For
instance, in all my interactions with Karen in the U.S., respondents invariably answered
“Thailand” when asked, “Where are you from?” This response often leads teachers and those
working with the community to misidentify these students as Thai.
The Karen: From Missionaries to Main Street
The people known as Karen come from various regions throughout Burma and the eastern hills
of Thailand. Most originate in the Karen state, which lies on Burma’s eastern border with central
Thailand. Historical animosity between Karen and Burman3 intensified with the near
simultaneous arrival of American missionaries and the British colonial enterprises in the early
nineteenth century (Harriden, 2002; Smith, 1999; Thawnghmung, 2008).
The Karen people remain relatively anonymous in the United States despite a vast
amount of anthropological and ethnographic literature dedicated to them and their current
presence in all 50 U.S states. Surprisingly, despite this anonymity the Karen have a long history
with Americans as Adoniram and Anne Judson established the first American mission abroad in
Burma in 18134. The Karen represent the Judson’s and later missionaries’ greatest success.
Many Karen supported the American missionaries and the British colonial enterprise. Karen
served in the colonial police, civil service, and military forces under the British (Thawnghmung,
2012). These alliances played a critical role in the development of Karen culture, education,
identity, nationalism, and religion over the ensuing 200 years (Cusano, 2001; DeLang, 2000;
Harriden, 2002).
The role of Christianity on Sgaw Karen culture, history, and language cannot be
underestimated. Karen conversion to Christianity introduced not only religion but provided the
Karen access to Western education, medicine, and protection from their historical adversaries,
the Burmans. Today, between 20% and 30% of Karen are Christian and most resettling to the
U.S. are either Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist.5
3
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
After independence from the British in 1948, many Karen political organizations
competed for representation of all Karen people (Falla, 1991; Thawnghmung, 2008). This
division led to disparate goals regarding a path forward post-independence. One route was an
armed insurgency instituted by various paramilitary organizations. The Karen National Union
(KNU), the largest Karen political group, has continually called for an independent Karen state
and their military wing, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), has fought subsequent
Burmese governments using guerilla style tactics for over six decades. This insurgency and its
suppression by the Burmese military has led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of
Karen and other ethnic minorities.
Ethnic minorities, including the Karen, have faced persecution in the form of forced
labor, rape as a weapon of war, forced conscriptions into the military6, burning and looting of
villages, mass killings, and forced relocation of villages (Malseed, 2008; Milbrandt, 2012;
TBBC, 2008). The civil war has led to both internal and external displacement. The Karen
students arriving in U.S. classrooms are part of this diaspora.
Drawing on Bauböck and Faist (2010), I view diaspora as having three distinct
characteristics. The first relates to the “forced dispersal” of a particular group. Second, the term
relates to the “cross-border experiences of homeland and destination” (p. 13). Third, diaspora
relates to the integration of these groups into the countries of settlement. The Karen fulfill each
of these characteristics. First, most Karen fled Burma because of persecution or the threat of
persecution but were able to maintain varying degrees of connection with family and co-ethnics
in Burma. In the U.S., many Karen are able to maintain ties with family and friends in the camps
as well as back in Burma. Finally, many Karen have been able to integrate into Thai society with
varying degrees of success and are currently transitioning into life in the U.S. and other third
country host nations. Resettlement to the USA
The United States government began resettling Burmese, namely Karen, refugees in earnest in
2006. To date, an estimated 50,000 Karen have been resettled in states across the U.S. with the
majority settling in Minnesota, New York, Texas and California (Refugee Processing Center,
2014). Although registration for group resettlement ended in January 2014, Karen and other
Burmese refugees are expected to continue resettling into 2015.
Methods
This longitudinal ethnography is informed primarily by my ongoing participant observation as a
tutor in the Sandville (pseudonym) community in rural Georgia from 2010 to June 2014.
Qualitative methods such as field notes, interviews, and multiple informal conversations with
teachers, students, neighbors (American neighbors of Karen families), and Karen parents were
the primary data sources. In addition, this study is formed by the corpus of studies I have read on
Karen culture, history, religion, Diaspora, and resettlement to the United States and Australia.
This study focuses on those findings related to the students’ overall education experiences.
Participants
In May of 2010 I was initially hired by the Georgia Migrant Consortium, a branch of the state’s
Department of Education, to tutor twelve Karen students (see Table 1.1) from four families at
their homes for 12 weeks, 16 hours per week. At the end of the summer I continued to
4
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
tutor/research three of the original four families over the next three years, with periodical
funding, until June, 2014. However, regardless of funding I worked with the children
consistently (minimum of once a week for 4 hours) over the four-year period. Over time I
worked with other children visiting the area and in 2012 a fifth family became a part of my
weekly tutoring routine (see Table 1.1). My teaching primarily focused on age and level
appropriate English activities, helping with homework, preparing for state and national exams,
and much informal conversation.
Table 1.1 Student Demographics of Five Families upon First Meeting, May 2010
Family
Student
Age
Grade
Family One
Male
Male
Male
Male
19
17
14
10
11
11
9
4
Family Two
(Cousins of
Family One)
Female
9
1
Family Three
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
15
12
9
7
5
9
5
3
K
Pre-K
Family Four*
(Cousins of
Family One)
Female
Male
7
5
1
Pre-K
Family Five**
Female
Female
Male
12
9
6
7
4
K
* I only taught the two children in Family Four during the summers of 2010 and 2012. I stopped teaching
them because they were both excelling in school and moved three miles from other families.
** I began teaching Family Five in 2012 and worked with them continuously to June, 2014.
Although the families resettled to the U.S. separately, each family resettled in 2007 or
early 2008. Therefore, each of the children (excluding the two pre-k boys) had been attending
school in the U.S. between two and three years before working with me. Their English language
ability varied greatly. As expected, the younger children demonstrated strong native-like
pronunciation in English compared to their older siblings. They also demonstrated more
awareness of American idiomatic expressions and were much more language confident than the
older students. However, the younger children had less proficiency in spoken Karen and no
Karen reading or writing skills. Two boys who resettled at ages 10 and 12 struggled with
reading, speaking, and writing English and demonstrated very low language confidence and
willingness to communicate.
Similarly, the four adolescent students demonstrated the lowest English language
speaking proficiency and were reluctant to speak in English. Therefore, most of our time
together was spent helping improve their English, while also helping them prepare for the state’s
mandatory graduation tests. In October 2011, I received institutional review board approval
5
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
(IRB) for a pilot study that focused on these children’s educational experiences from the
perspective of my role as teacher/researcher.
At the time of our first meeting I was 39 years old and a doctoral student in a Language
and Literacy Department program at a large public university. I had taught English to students of
other languages for twelve years before returning to pursue a Ph.D. Significantly, I had also
experienced a transnational “uprooting” when my parents decided to move abroad when I was 13
years old. I lived abroad for over four years and believe that my own transnational experiences
influenced my sense of compassion and concern for these children, especially those who
resettled during adolescence.
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of four years of participant observation. Field notes, photographs,
video recordings, and both structured and unstructured interviews were used during these
observations. As a participant observer I was able to observe the children primarily as their tutor.
However, throughout the study I varied my routine in order to better capture a more complete
and nuanced picture of their lived experiences (Glesne, 2011). I would often vary our teaching
schedule, and over the duration of the study we met at different times, on different days, and in
different capacities. This variance in meeting times and places was coupled with a variety of
different contexts from which I could observe the students. Observing them at the homes of
friends and neighbors, the library, church, sports functions, the mall, restaurants, museums,
summer camps, weddings, graduations, and at regional and national Karen festivals afforded me
a more complete picture of each of the children.
I most often worked with students in small groups or one-on-one in their homes for one
or two hours two times each week for, on average, 45 weeks each year. In total, I visited the
community as a tutor over 350 times and became well known throughout the community as
Thera Dan (Teacher Dan).
Artifacts
Over the duration of my work with the Karen I have been able to collect a variety of artifacts
such as schoolwork, report cards, teacher and school notifications, as well as artwork and other
written, photographic, and digital music and video creations. In aggregate, I collected over 87
hours of video recordings of my tutoring sessions, interviews with the children and their parents,
Karen festivals, weddings, and sports competitions. In addition, I collected over 1,000
photographs taken by the children of their family, friends, and Karen functions.
Interviews
Over the four years I have formally interviewed students, their parents, teachers working with
Karen, American neighbors, and American friends of the children (see Appendix for sample
interview questions for each group). On average, formal interviews lasted between 45 minutes
and one hour. I conducted formal interviews with my four adolescent students five times over the
four years, and had multiple informal conversations with them. Other times I was able to conduct
semistructured group interviews with the children and one or both their parents. All formal
interviews were video and audio recorded and then transcribed. Most of the informal
6
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
conversations were video and/or audio recorded and also transcribed. In aggregate, I conducted
structured interviews with three sets of parents three times over the duration of my work.
Parental consent was attained before all interviews with younger children (under age 18). These
forms were written in both English and Sgaw Karen to ensure participant understanding.
Unstructured or informal interviews varied between families based on availability but
multiple impromptu interviews were recorded periodically. Finally, over time I was able to
interview teachers working with the Karen as well as school friends and neighbors. These
relationships snowballed and I began correspondences with other tutors and teachers working
with the Karen in other cities and states. In total, I conducted one structured interview with five
teachers (5 interviews in total) and one tutor as well as single semi-structured interviews with
four neighbors and two friends of my adolescent students.
Field Notes
After each lesson I wrote two separate field notes. One set of notes reflected the day’s activities
and the students’ overall work on assignments and activities. These notes reflected my
observations pertaining to individual student’s progress. Another set of field notes related to my
overall impressions of the visit.
This second set of notes documented my overall impressions regarding the children and
their families. I often made notes based on observations of unique Karen cultural characteristics
or practices. These notes also documented concerns expressed by parents and students in relation
to school, health, mail, and other issues germane to resettlement. Both sets of notes were made
into Microsoft Word files using Dragon 10.0 voice recognition software (I often read my
handwritten notes and they were converted into Microsoft Word documents) or directly
transcribed into Microsoft Word files. These notes were then placed in chronological order in
separate folders. These folders were printed and kept in binders for analysis. Finally, I also kept
separate folders for each student. These folders consisted of assignments, artwork, awards,
teacher notices, and all school records.
Data Analysis
I used grounded theory as my data analysis tool. In total, I analyzed field notes, interviews, and
informal conversations that were video and audio recorded with Karen adolescents, adults, and
American teachers. Grounded theory takes the approach that a researcher generates a theory by
interacting with the collected data and highlighting emerging themes and patterns from the data
(Charmaz, 2006). The grounded theoretical approach is particularly useful when well-established
theories of the research topic are not available and will allow the researcher to be informed by
the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The grounded theoretical process began with lower level
coding and concluded with higher level theorizing (Charmaz, 2006). Thematic analysis through
the constant comparison as well as open coding, categorizing, memo writing were used in order
to identify key themes and patterns from the collected data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As a result,
I developed conceptual clustered matrices to organize themes (categories), codes, and supporting
excerpts. This paper draws specifically on those themes related to Karen educational
experiences.
I reviewed all interview transcriptions and field notes and began coding based on those
themes related to the students’ education experiences. For example, the children talked at length
about their teachers in the camps and at school in the U.S. I looked through all transcript
incidences of such comments and coded IT (Impression of Teachers) in the margins. Other
7
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
themes related to students’ impressions of teachers would then be added. For example, when
students spoke about corporal punishment (CP) a new theme emerged and was coded
accordingly under the broader heading (IT).
Certain protocols were followed to substantiate my interpretations, choices of
representation, and claims. These procedures evolved over time, as I became a more
sophisticated researcher. Following Richardson (2000), I have opted for the metaphor of
crystallization rather than the more commonly used term triangulation to describe the procedures
I used to better understand or validate the multiple perspectives under consideration in this study.
Richardson (2000) writes of crystallization:
I propose that the central image for “validity” for postmodern texts is not the triangle—a,
rigid, fixed, two-dimensional object. Rather, the central imagery is the crystal, which
combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances,
transmutations, multidimensionalities, and angles of approach. (p. 934 as quoted in
Glesne, 2011, p. 47)
Despite the messiness implied in such an understanding of the research process and the inherent
difficulties in attaining any validation, certain strategies were employed to contribute to the
trustworthiness of the claims made in this study.
Firstly, my prolonged engagement with the primary participants contributed to our
building relationships of confianza or mutual trust, a term borrowed from Moll and Gonzales
(1993). A longitudinal approach, four years (and counting), enabled me the requisite time to
build such rapport. A protracted study also allowed us the time to bridge our personal worlds and
for data saturation.
Over the duration of the study multiple colleagues, friends, and family members were
able to “hang-out” with my primary participants. Such meetings not only strengthened our
relationship but also provided new insights and “alternative interpretations” (Stake, 1995, p.
113). Since I was working with an ethnic group that was foreign to me, the insights of other
ethnicities, genders, and ages proved invaluable in challenging my own assumptions and biases.
I am especially indebted to my Asian friends and colleagues who offered me invaluable
interpretations of cultural behaviors and mores that often demystified some of my own
interpretations.
The findings addressed in this particular study were also informed by my larger study on
Karen resettlement described earlier. In the larger study we—three brothers from one Sandville
family and myself—were able to visit and interview many Karen adolescents (n=28) and adults
(n=42) from other Karen communities. We also distributed and collected questionnaires for both
adolescents (n=37) and adults (n=50) that helped give us basic demographic information on
Karen communities in the communities visited. The opinions and concerns of these participants
also helped support the validity of the claims made in this paper.
The Karen of Sandville, Georgia
The Karen began arriving in Sandville, GA in 2006. A non-profit Christian service community
that offers assistance to sponsoring agencies to resettle refugee families, resettled the initial
family in the area in late 2006. The community grew from that first family (five members) to 12
families (54 members) by October, 2013. The members of two extended families account for 45
of the 54 Karen residents in the area. Each of the families is employed at a nearby chicken
8
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
processing plant. The burgeoning Karen community now has an active Karen church (they rent a
vacant church) and a Karen grocery store that sells Thai and Karen products.
Each of the Sandville-Karen families resettled to the United States from Mae La Refugee
camp, the largest camp serving Karen and other ethnic minorities along the Thai-Burma border.
Each of the families spent between ten and twenty years in Mae La and/or other camps. The
education levels of all the Karen adults with school-aged children in Sandville vary; eight adults
reported no formal education while six attended primary school and a one attended high school.
All of the adults can read, speak, and write Sgaw Karen and four adults can speak, read, and
write in English with varying degrees of proficiency.
According to the U.S. Census, the county, at 3.7%, is well below the state average of
12.9% non-English speaking population. The county of approximately 14,000 is predominantly
white (80%) and 17% Black. The Karen community in Sandville represent the entire Asian
population in the county. Although the elementary and high schools each had an ESL teacher
prior to the arrival of Karen students, the district was unprepared for the arrival of such a unique
population as the Karen. One ESL teacher explained the arrival of Karen students in her school
this way when asked about her preparedness for their arrival:
I didn’t hear about it. All of a sudden, one day, this man in a Karen outfit with no shoes
met me in the high school office and told me what happened. I’m so glad he did that. I
had never heard of the Karen before that morning. (Anonymous teacher, personal
correspondence, 2011, Georgia)
Such lack of awareness was a common theme expressed by teachers and a primary motivation
for this paper.
Findings
In order to better contextualize the Karen story in the U.S., I begin my findings section with
background information on the process of resettlement from Thailand. The following section
pertains to Karen educational experiences in the camps and resettlement to the U.S. based on the
experiences of my focal Karen community.
Karen Educational Experiences in the Camps
One of the major reasons cited by Karen adults when asked why they chose to resettle to the U.S.
was education for their children. One Karen father of three children expressed a common
sentiment expressed by parents in regard to their motivations to resettle:
Karen people they go to U.S. and Australia, somebody go Norway for kid. In camp they
no have chance to go school, college, and learning. I want my kid go to school and
learning. Here [U.S.] they can do. (Wah Htoo, 2012, Georgia)
Interestingly, the Sgaw Karen in particular have a long history with formal, westernized,
education as evidenced by the establishment of the Karen Education Society in 1860 (Mason &
Reynard, 1862). Most early missionary descriptions of the Karen offer some account of the
Karen commitment to education with the emergence of mission schools (Mason & Reynard,
1862; McMahon, 1876; Po, 1928; Smeaton, 1887). Such high regard for education is also found
in more contemporary accounts (Baron et al., 2007; Moonieinda, 2010; Thawnghmung, 2012).
9
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Importantly, both boys and girls benefited from schooling as missionary schools were
established for both.
In Mae La Camp, the largest of all refugee camps along the Thai-Burmese border, the
Karen Education Department (KED) and the Karen Teachers Group (KTG) have created a
relatively “good and diverse” education system according to Karen scholar Ardeth
Thawnghmung (2012). She writes, “Mae La Camp supports 18 nursery schools, 13 elementary
schools, three middle schools, four high schools, two Bible schools, and a continuing education
program” (p. 81). Other camps have less education opportunities (Baron et al., 2007). For a
glimpse into a typical camp classroom visit http://youtu.be/wAih5HTPpRE and for a look into
the ad hoc Karen education efforts back in Karen State, Burma visit http://youtu.be/L96-F6ln22s.
Schooling in the camps is very much unlike American-style teaching and learning.
Teacher is Boss
The teaching methods in the camps are based on what Moonieinda (2010) describes as “rote
learning” (p. 42). One Karen adolescent’s, Eh Htoo, account of his education in the camp school
was indicative of many descriptions:
Not like here. Everyone must say and copy teacher, like that. Here [the U.S.] teacher
want you talk but in camp, never. You talk, you maybe get hit. They say like Bible with
stick parent can do, it okay to hit. Teacher hit for many thing like be quiet, no listen, like
that … to me teacher is boss. (Eh Htoo (pseudonym), Age 19, Georgia, 2011)
As Eh Htoo suggests, schooling and classroom management are very different from their
American classroom experiences. I have found Karen students to be highly respectful toward
their teachers and unaccustomed to speaking in class. Importantly, many Karen attend Bible
classes or Karen language classes conducted by Karen teachers in the evenings and weekends in
the U.S. where similar teaching methods reinforce cultural preference for strict discipline and
silence. Finally, as McBrien (2005) suggested such silence may be compounded by student’s fear
of ridicule and harassment for their non-native English accents (p. 343).
The Silent Karen
Those working with the Karen need to recognize Karen attitudes and cultural norms when it
comes to self-expression, especially between youth and adults. The Karen I have worked with
are not accustomed to expressing concerns, fears, or frustrations to those in authority. In my
experience I have found the Karen to be very reticent and unwilling to question or express
themselves and, as one Karen adolescent put it, “They stay quiet, they want no trouble!”
(personal correspondence, 19-year-old Karen male, Georgia, 2011). Their reticence is not
surprising when we consider their historical oppression, flight from Burma, and protracted stay
in refugee camps.
As a minority hill tribe in Burma long subjected to oppression, the Karen have long
maintained distance and preferred to remain in relative isolation. This was further reinforced in
the refugee camps where they were also taught the importance of avoiding Thai officials. Karen
cultural mores also make communication an issue.
The Karen Communities Foundation (KCF), a Karen organization in the U.S. promoting
Karen causes, offers a telling account of Karen cultural norms when it comes to asking for
assistance:
10
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Karen people are extremely polite, considerate and deferential; this is even more
important to those we perceive to have higher status. By virtue of being older, male,
American, white, etc. you are of higher status. A Karen person does not want you to lose
face by complaining about your help or to be seen as ungrateful for the aid they are
getting by complaining. We also worry about burdening you with requests. The word to
describe the cultural norm is “annade.” “Annade” is best described as “I feel bad that you
have to go out of the way to do something for me … Not understanding our rights, not
coming from a culture where individual rights are central, many Karen arrivals are
unlikely to tell you if something is wrong unless it is extremely serious.” (Karen
Communities Foundation, 2011)
Consequently, Karen parents and students may avoid contacting or communicating with
teachers, administrators, and other government officials. Interestingly, many Karen youth related
stories to me told to them by their parents or grandparents about the dangers of drawing attention
to oneself. In short, for the Karen, staying under the radar was a means of survival. However,
such reluctance to ask for assistance or to question their child’s teacher can lead to more Karen
students falling through the cracks of the U.S education system.
The Language Divide
Most Karen children in U.S. schools speak Karen at home and most seem to prefer speaking
Karen with siblings and Karen peers. However, many younger Karen will not be able to read and
write any of the forms of Karen. Many parents complained about this loss of Karen literacy and a
few communities have responded by offering Karen language classes for school-aged children.
Children, namely 1.5 and 1.257 generationers (those who resettled at earlier ages), also
have limited speaking ability in Karen. Parents often rated their younger children’s speaking
proficiency with a score of five or lower (on a scale of ten)8 and expressed frustration over
communication issues such as the loss of spoken Karen and the inability of their children to read
and write Karen. Moreover, it was not uncommon for younger Karen children to have very
limited Karen vocabularies, compromising parent-child communication.
Studies suggest that this discrepancy in language ability between generations can further
the gap between parents and children (Lee et al., 2010; Nguyen & Williams, 1989; Smith-
Hefner, 1993). This cultural dissonance, where youth acquire language and understanding of the
host culture faster than their parents, has been well documented in other immigrant communities.
Like other Southeast Asian refugee groups before them (i.e. Hmong, Khmer, Laotian, and
Vietnamese), Karen youth are acculturating faster than their parents. As younger children
become socialized in schools, they are losing some of their heritage language. Studies on other
Southeast Asian groups contend that such heritage language loss can be detrimental to academic
achievement and healthy adaptation (Bankston & Zhou, 1995; Rumbaut & Ima, 1988).
Furthermore, there is widespread evidence that bilingualism has a positive effect on
educational outcomes (Portes & Schauffler, 1994; White & Glick, 2000), regardless of
immigration status, and that bilingualism may buffer the effect of coming from a lower
socioeconomic background (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). More studies are warranted on the role
heritage language loss is playing in Karen and other refugee communities9.
11
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Parent Involvement in Schooling
One of the major concerns of new immigrants and the schools attempting to accommodate them
is the lack of parental involvement in their children’s schooling. A large corpus of studies
suggest that parental involvement is a key factor in immigrant student graduation rates
(Anguiano, 2004), psychological well-being (Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007), and overall academic
achievement (Blakely, 1983; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Rumbaut & Ima, 1988; Siu & Feldman,
1996; Zhou & Bankston, 2000). Lack of parental involvement has been a major concern
witnessed with Karen families in Sandville.
The disconnect between immigrant parents and schools has been well documented
(Blakely, 1983; Hones, 2002; Siu & Feldman, 1996). Karen parents repeatedly expressed to me
the desire for their child to do well in school and attend college. However, none of the parents in
my focal community had ever attended a teacher-parent conference, and only one teacher had
visited any of the children’s homes. Parents cited lack of English speaking ability, knowledge
about American style education, and transportation as the as primary reasons for their lack of
involvement. A corollary of this disconnect was that Karen students became solely responsible
for their and their younger siblings’ education.
The lack of parental involvement led to two troubling outcomes. First, students were
found unprepared to navigate the school system on their own. Second, teachers and counselors
were also unprepared to meet their unique needs. For example, students often missed important
announcements or were unaware of school policies, course offerings, and the possibilities of
participating in extracurricular activities. Students often signed their and their younger siblings
report cards and other school documents.
The lack of parental involvement may be a cultural norm (see Blakely, 1983 on Southeast
Asian parental attitudes towards school) as many Southeast Asian parents view schools as solely
responsible for their children’s education. Such a belief is exemplified when considering one
American teacher’s description of Karen parents. “Some parents [Karen] will discipline their
children if we call, but for the most part they expect us to take care of everything” (High school
teacher, personal correspondence, June, 2012). It is clear that Karen parents are marginalized
from their children’s education and that Karen children are often responsible for navigating the
American education bureaucratic system alone.
Teacher Perceptions
Sgaw Karen students were reported to be well behaved and respectful by teachers interviewed. I
found my Karen students to be respectful and deferential but unaccustomed to dialoguing with
their teacher. They also spoke of saying little in their American classes. Although teachers
expressed frustration with their lack of requisite skills, initially the Sgaw Karen students seemed
well received in schools. Teachers reported only isolated instances concerning disciplinary
issues.
As with Kenny and Kenny-Lockwood’s (2011) study of Karen in the northeastern U.S., I
found Karen academic performances to be very mixed. One community in Tennessee10 with over
130 Sgaw Karen families is finding some encouragement from Sgaw Karen graduation rates.
One teacher writes:
We currently have a 100 percent Sgaw Karen graduation rate, with 16 students
graduating last year. One of our students was in the top 10 percent of the graduating
12
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
class, and we've been able to hire her as an assistant at the school. (Anonymous teacher,
personal communication, July 3, 2012)
Such high graduation rates were not indicative of other communities. Again, like Kenny and
Kenny-Lockwood’s (2011) study, I found very mixed results related to graduation and dropout
rates. Although this one community boasts excellent academic outcomes, I witnessed a great
discrepancy between Karen students’ grades and their actual academic abilities.
What is an A?
Many of the Karen children I worked with received high grades on report cards despite their lack
of ability in the various disciplines. The case of one Sandville High School student best
exemplifies this phenomenon. Ler Say (pseudonym) was a 19-year-old Karen adolescent who
moved to the United States when he was 13 years old. Since arriving he has advanced to the
succeeding grade every year. However, it was clear to me as his tutor that Ler Say was well
below his grade level in reading and writing and that he struggled with spoken English. One
study session demonstrated the discrepancy between his grade level and skill level.
One study session I had Ler Say and each of his siblings take practice exams. Whereas
his brothers and sister were preparing for the Criterion Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT)11
in advance of their scheduled state mandated tests, he was preparing to take the Georgia High
School Graduation Test. Accidently, Ler Say took a copy of his brother’s first grade reading test
rather than his tenth grade test. It wasn’t until he completed the practice test that I realized the
mistake. I didn’t inform him of the error and decided to see how he did, he missed four out of the
ten questions. When we reviewed the test together I realized two important things.
First, Ler Say struggled with reading at a first grade level. Second, much of his confusion
surrounded the title of the reading passage, “Setting the Table.” As a young man coming from a
culture that does not use utensils (the Karen eat with their fingers) and whose home language
was not English, he had never been exposed to the expression “setting the table.” Therefore,
from the outset he was at a disadvantage, as he could not contextualize the reading passage the
way an American child might. As an American child I was never formally taught to set the table;
rather, I learned in context by watching my parents and siblings arrange the utensils, cups, and
plates. The more I considered this example, the more I began to see similar cases with his
siblings. It was clear that he and his siblings were unaware of the many idioms, phrasal verbs,
and colloquialisms of “home.”
At the time Ler Say was in the tenth grade, and each of his report cards indicated he was
not only passing but excelling in school. However, his report card belied the reality that he
struggled with basic skills. Whether his grades reflected his effort, the sympathy of teachers, his
shy and deferential demeanor, or an unwillingness to retain him, Ler Say was not served by his
high grades. He, like other older Karen in his community, ended up failing repeated attempts at
mandatory state graduation exams and was unable to graduate from high school.
Ler Say’s story is not unique to this community or to the many immigrant students’
school experiences (Blakely, 1983; Rumbaut & Ima, 1988). One can empathize with teachers as
well. Ler Say was a model student in many ways. He was well behaved, maintained perfect
attendance, and worked hard. For me, the issue is less about teachers assigning unrealistically
high grades and more about the system they are trying to work within. At some level, Ler Say
was passed on because no one knew what to do with him. This issue will be taken up later in the
implication section of the paper.
13
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
What’s in a Name?
Gunn, Brice, and Peterson (2014) contend that by learning students’ names teachers can
demonstrate respect for the student’s home culture and help children “fit in.” I have witnessed
much confusion regarding Karen names and believe it is an important element in respecting
home culture but also respecting individual students’ identities.
Karen children may have a variety of names, some of which defy their ethnic origin.
They may be given Burman, English, and Karen names, or a combination of them. For example,
a Karen female may be named Julie Paw (Julie Flower) and her brother Bright Htoo (Bright
Gold), while a third may simply be named Wonderful. Many of the Karen children born in the
United States are given such mixed names.
According to Ananda Rajah (2002), many Karen have what are called “event names.”
These names describe “events” at the time of the baby’s birth. For example, a boy born June 2
may be called June Two; while another boy, who was born while preparing to flee oncoming
Burmese troops, might be simply named Ready. Other names may reflect favorable qualities,
like Law Eh (handsome). Many Sgaw Karen names are taken from the Bible. Names likes
Grace, Esther, Sara, Mo Say (Moses), Pol Lu (Paul) and Christ are common. Other Karen names
depict natural objects such as flowers, stars, money, and love (see Table 1.2).
Karen also use honorifics (Moonieinda, 2010) and most Karen children will be
accustomed to referring to adults, especially teachers, with an appropriate honorific. The female
honorific Naw prefaces a female name, such as Naw Kayo Paw (Ms. Cherry Flower). And the
male honorific Saw is used with adult males, for example, Saw Htoo Wah (Mr. Gold White).
Importantly, Karen students are accustomed to using the honorific Thera when addressing
teachers and may be uncomfortable with less formal appellations such as Mr. Daniel or Ms.
Maya. Nevertheless, most Karen refer to each other with a nickname or pet name usually
designated by parents, grandparents, or a family friend. Such nicknames usually reflect special
qualities or characteristics. For example, a common nickname for a diminutive Karen boy is Chit
Poe (Little One). Other Karen may be nicknamed according to their complexion, weight, or
character. Table 1.2 provides some sense of the variety and beauty of Karen names.
Table 1.2 Sgaw Karen Names
Sgaw Karen (Gender)
English
Kayo Paw (Female)
Cherry Flower
Sa Ra (Female)
Sarah Threa
Eh Ser Paw (Female)
Love Sweet Flower
Christ Mu Htoo (Female)
Christ Life Gold
Grace Taw
True Grace
Hser Gay Htoo (Female)
Sweet Good Gold
Ler Moo (Male)
True Life
Htoo Wah (Male)
White Gold
Sher Tah Taw (Male)
Sweet True Heart
Eh Taw (Male)
June Two (Male/Female)
Lucky Moon (Male/Female)
True Love
June Second
14
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Significantly, the Karen do not have surnames. Their names are neither patronymic nor
matronymic. When they arrive in the United States, the final syllable of their name becomes a
surrogate surname on all official documents. Thus, someone named Moo Tha Wah becomes Moo
Wah on all official documentation (Tha becomes a middle name). His brother, Moo Say Wah
might have the same official name, Moo Wah. This can cause confusion and misidentification.
Moreover, teachers and school officials need to recognize that students might be biologic
siblings despite not sharing a common surname.12 Those who work with the Karen should ask
their students what they prefer to be called; usually the nickname is preferred as it is what they
identify with at home and with friends.
Sgaw Karen Language
The Sgaw Karen writing system is relatively new. Prior to the introduction of a Karen script,
devised by American missionary Dr. Wade in 1834, the Karen had no written orthography
(Marshall, 1992; South, 2011; Thawnghmung, 2012). The American missionary enterprise was
extremely efficient in educating the Karen in this new script and made literacy an early
missionary goal (Falla, 1991; Lewis, 1924). Later, other Christian missionaries and Buddhist
scholars divided the Karen along religious and linguistic lines by creating competing Karen
writing systems (Delang, 2000; South, 2011; Smith, 1999). There are over 12 non-mutually
intelligible but related Karen dialects with at least nine different scripts (Cheesman, 2002; South,
2007). Sgaw Karen has become the Karen lingua franca in the refugee camps (Baron et al.,
2007; Brees, 2010) and post resettlement communities with Pwo and Sgaw Karen often
interacting in Sgaw Karen (field notes, Karen New Year celebration, January 2012). The
majority of Karen children entering U.S. schools will speak Sgaw Karen at home. The
characteristics of the Sgaw Karen language are singular in the region and deserve a brief
description. Despite the paucity of studies that address teacher awareness of language
characteristics of their students’ L1 (first language) in English as a second language classrooms,
the author argues that teacher awareness of certain linguistic features of their students may help
address grammar and phonemic issues from the outset.
Harry Marshall’s (1922) ethnographic work on the Karen provides some of the key
linguistic features of Sgaw Karen that may help inform teachers working with Karen students.
The Sgaw Karen alphabet contains 25 consonants and 10 vowels and has 6 different tones
(Marshall, 1992). Unlike more recently created orthographies that use Roman script, the most
commonly used Sgaw Karen script uses Burmese letters (Hayami, 2004). As such, the Sgaw
Karen alphabet is “a perfect phonetic alphabet” according to Marshall (1922, p. 31).
Consequently, Karen students struggle with the notion that English letters have various
pronunciations.
Sgaw Karen orders sentences much like English with subject-predicate-object ordering.
Accordingly, English syntax has not been found to be a major obstacle for Karen students.
However, there are a few linguistic differences between English and Sgaw Karen that may
apprise teachers.
First, in Sgaw Karen, there is an absence of final consonant sounds (Marshall, 1992).
This absence of a final sound has been evidenced frequently during my work as a tutor with
Karen students who often do not pronounce the final consonant of English words, adversely
affecting their pronunciation. For example, the words little, liter, and litter will often be
confused. For the fist few months I thought my students were simply mumbling, until I realized
they were simply not pronouncing final consonants because they did not exist in their first
language.
15
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Second, Sgaw Karen verbs are “almost always transitive” (Marshall, 1992, p. 33) and,
more importantly, there is no tense system. All of my older Karen students struggled with verb
tenses (e.g., I eat yesterday. and; I doing homework every day.). Third, in Sgaw Karen there are
no sounds compatible to the English letters g, j, v or z and therefore are frequently problematic
sounds for Sgaw Karen students to pronounce. The Center for Applied Linguistics also notes that
Sgaw Karen is monosyllabic and tonal and therefore difficult to Romanize accurately (Baron et
al., 2007). Therefore, transliteration is not always possible or advisable.
Fourth, Karen script does not differentiate between lower case and upper case letters. I
have found that the English rules for capitalizing to be a major obstacle for older Karen students.
Invariably, Karen children will write their names in lower case letters. For example, hser mu
htoo and Hser eh taw are common ways I have found my students writing their names. Such
issues pertaining to writing were evidenced more with older (1.75 generation) Karen who read
and wrote in Sgaw Karen and had limited expose to English.
Acknowledgement of these linguistic differences between Sgaw Karen and English may
have implications for classroom teachers, curriculum designers, speech pathologists, ESL
teachers, and tutors.
Gender
Women have traditionally played a very active role in Sgaw Karen village life and are important
actors in Sgaw Karen social life (Falla, 1991; Zan, 2008). Since the arrival of American
missionaries, Karen women have held important positions within Karen society. Many Karen
girls were provided the same education as boys and have served important roles in the
insurgency (Zan, 2008). Louisa Benson Craig, a former Miss Burma, was one of the many Sgaw
Karen women who held important military positions within the insurgency and later in the Karen
Diaspora community in the U.S. Today, Karen women, such as the award-winning author, Zoya
Phan (see Phan, 2010), are important spokespeople in the Karen Diaspora community. However,
like Watkins, Razee, and Richters’ (2012) study of Karen women in Australia, I found some
troubling trends related to Karen women and girls in the U.S.
First, I have found that Sgaw Karen adolescent girls are dropping out of high school at
higher rates than boys. Four out of the five adolescent girls related to the community dropped out
of high school before finishing grade 10. The sister and sister-in-law of one family, and two
cousins all dropped out school in order to marry. This is not surprising in light of similar
accounts at the camps related by Su-Ann Oh and Marc Van der Stouwe (2008). Their research on
Karen education in the camps reveals high dropout rates amongst girls in camp schools. They
write of Karen girls in the camps: “The threat of exclusion from education does not, however,
discourage youths from marrying. … Of the 28 young women in our sample, all but two women
had dropped out of school because of pregnancy” (p. 601). Male dropouts were also documented,
but in each of these cases, employment was cited as the primary reason for quitting school.
Adolescent girls were also more burdened with housework compared to brothers
(Watkins et al., 2008). As in other Southeast Asian communities (see Zhou & Bankston, 2001 on
the role of adolescent girls in the Vietnamese community), girls were responsible for caring for
younger siblings, cleaning the house, and cooking, often at the expense of doing schoolwork.
Again, more studies are warranted on Karen girls’ education in the United States.
16
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Conclusions and Implications
Josef Joffe, the publisher-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, suggests in his new book, “The
Myth of America’s Decline,” that the United States will continue to be a world leader because, in
part, of its immigrants. It is clear to this author that the U.S. has benefitted from its diversity but
that too often the first and second generations (and those in-between) are left behind because
teachers, schools, and state education policies are not meeting their needs. The following offers
suggestions for ways that schools and teachers can begin to address this latest immigrant
population and concludes with ways in which teachers can begin to use these children’s’ funds of
knowledge in their instruction.
First, schools must first recognize which ethnic groups under the label Burmese are being
resettled in their schools. Teachers and school administrators need to acknowledge the unique
history and culture of their Karen students. In urban schools, students from each of the Burmese
ethnic groups (Chin, Karen, Kachin, and Karenni) may be arriving. Each of these groups is
singular and Karen and other minority groups may be offended if referred to as Burmese because
of the historical animosity and 60-year civil war. Schools need to acknowledge their differences
and make a concerted effort to educate their staff, students, and community about their new
neighbors, students, and classmates. Moreover, such cultural training should include
stakeholders from the community.
By facilitating more interaction with parents, schools will help mitigate the negative
consequences associated with parental marginalization, misunderstandings about school
regulations and policies, and the lack of minority student involvement in extracurricular
programs. Schools can begin by offering information sessions for parents about American-style
grading, discipline, homework, report cards, state and national exams, and educational options
post-high school. Parents must also be informed about ways in which they can supports their
children’s learning. Such programs can help parents regain some autonomy over their children’s
education.
Parents must also recognize their rights and responsibilities in their children’s education
and be shown ways they can participate and keep track of their child’s progress. Too often, non-
English speaking parents falsely assume their child is managing well because of their apparent
English proficiency. Bridges must be built between immigrant communities and schools. News
travels fast and I have witnessed how quickly information is shared within one Karen
community. In every community visited, I was able to find at least one Karen adult who spoke
English proficiently. These adults must be identified and utilized by schools.
Teachers must also recognize the burden these children face as they attempt to navigate
their and their younger sibling’s education without support. Awareness of their students’ home
life (i.e., parental education, employment status, housing conditions, etc.) can help teachers
better understand and address their students’ emotional, psycho-social needs (Bronstein &
Montgomery, 2011).
Furthermore, schools need to address the mismatch between students’ grades and their
actual skill levels. As was demonstrated with the case of Ler Say, high grades and promotion to
the next grade level only provided him and his parents with a false sense of success. His eventual
inability to graduate led to feelings of hopelessness and limited employment prospects. Sadly,
Ler Say’s case has become the norm for many resettled refugee children who resettle in their
early teens (Blakely, 1983). Ler Say is currently unemployed and reports that he “sleep all day
and very sad with nothing to do” (personal correspondence, November, 2013). Schools need to
17
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
acknowledge this phenomenon and find alternative methods to meet the needs of such students.
The first step is awareness.
It was clear to me as the children’s tutor that each of the children had few authentic
language speaking opportunities outside of school. I contend that this, too, is a community wide
issue, and that willing members of the community (American) should be utilized. Partnerships
might be made between refugee communities and the surrounding community. The support of
local churches, retirement homes, and universities may help build bridges. States and schools
need to recognize the importance of healthy acculturation for the future of their children and
communities.
Next, state departments of education must reconsider policies regarding universal
graduation tests and recuse second language students from these tests. Such tests are inherently
unfair and culturally biased (Wong, 2006). Alternative means of graduation should be made
available (i.e., waivers) and, most importantly, explained to Karen students and their parents.
Schools should also consider ways to provide a blend of both sheltered and mainstream
classes to English language learners. My opinion matches the findings of Kenny and Lockwood-
Kenny (2011) who suggests that Karen students are often treated with “benign neglect” in
schools after the novelty of their arrival dissipates. Overall, teachers and school officials need to
recognize the manifold realities refugee families face as they cope with resettlement and to
acknowledge and incorporate their funds of knowledge. Teachers are encouraged to view
students’ homes not only in terms of their physical condition but must recognize the funds of
knowledge that are present in these homes. These funds of knowledge may be utilized to foster
lessons or assignments that can draw on students’ home life while valuing the student’s home
culture and immigration experience.
Ideas for Teachers: Utilizing Karen Funds of Knowledge
Teachers can use the students’ cultural background or funds of knowledge in their curriculum.
For example, with younger students teachers can use students names as a means to work on
pronunciation, cross-cultural understanding, and, most importantly, to address the elephant in the
room. Karen students continually reported being made fun of because of the uniqueness of their
names. This is often the case with immigrant students and can heighten feelings of loneliness and
isolation (Gunn, Brice, & Peterson, 2014). However, such ridicule can be eliminated if the name
issue is addressed.
By addressing students’ names teachers can “foster early literacy learning, and nurture
children’s sense of personal cultural identity through intentional planning of instructional
activities that highlight children’s names” (Gunn, Brice, & Peterson, 2014, p. 175). Such
nurturing is also crucial for other ages and can be accomplished simply by asking and observing
students. Teachers can have students draw or paint artistic representations of their names and/or
Karen students can help other students choose a Karen name based on their preferences. Also,
teachers can use a naming jar (see Choi, 2013) as a means of acknowledging all students’ names.
Teachers can also capitalize on the many strengths Karen students bring to class. In my
time with the Karen, I have become aware of their appreciation for and ability in the arts,
namely, drawing and music. Every home visited had at least one guitar and all males
demonstrated some degree of skill. In each case, they were self-taught or taught informally by
their father or a male relative. Although I only witnessed one Karen woman playing guitar,
Karen girls and women are renowned for their singing.
Every Karen church visited had an active youth and adult choir. Surprisingly, the Karen
often lose their shyness when singing or playing on stage. I have been amazed to witness some
18
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
of my most reticent Karen students singing in front of an audience of many hundreds. Teachers
and communities should try and incorporate music into their lessons and curricula. Singable
books can be an excellent tool for incorporating songs as part of the reading curriculum for
young children (see Haynes & Smallwood, 2008, for more information).
Moreover, Karen youth have become savvy in creating and disseminating their own
music via the web (Gilhooly & Lee, 2014). Christian, pop, rock, hip-hop and heavy metal songs
are all favorites of Karen youth. YouTube is replete with Karen-made music videos attesting to
their musicality and adeptness at using new technologies. The children and adolescents I worked
with also demonstrated great interest in drawing and painting. Art classes may provide Karen
students another avenue to succeed in courses or after school programs that are not language
focused. It may allow them opportunities to build affinity groups as well. Most importantly, they
will have opportunities to socialize as well as demonstrate their abilities.
Sports may be another means of better integrating Karen youth in schools and
communities. The Karen have a passion for soccer, volleyball, and cane ball and are learning to
play basketball and baseball. Karen students would relish the opportunity to demonstrate cane
ball to their classmates. Like music, such activities may entice Karen students to participate in
extracurricular activities. In my focal community none of the children participate in sports or
music programs despite their expressed interest. Schools can use the lure of musical instruments
or musical production, art classes, choir, or band to entice Karen students to participate in
extracurricular activities and socialize with American peers.
Agriculture or technology classes can also draw from Karen knowledge with farming and
mechanics. As an agrarian people, the Karen are skilled at farming, hunting and fishing, and
animal husbandry. Schools with agriculture programs can work on initiatives that draw on these
traditional skills. Because of their protracted confinement in refugee camps the Karen have
become very resourceful and demonstrate ability in small motor repair, appliance repair, as well
as making and fixing an assortment of tools. These students would benefit from classes that help
promote skills that can lead to direct employment.
No discussion of the Karen is complete without some recognition of the role of church
within the family and community. The Sgaw Karen are very devout and the church is the center
of many Karen villages in Burma, the camps, and communities in the U.S. They are also sites for
multiple forms of knowledge. At church, Karen children not only learn doctrine but are
encouraged to be involved in youth choir, Bible study, and community outreach where they help
organize and conduct Karen functions. They also learn academic skills such as memorization,
recitation, and public speaking that can help them in their school studies. I have found Karen
students to be very capable in memorizing and reciting poems and songs. There rich oral culture
may be integrated into English language arts classes or in public speaking.
Immigrant families like the Karen bring many abilities, knowledge, and stories to our
classrooms and communities. They each come from rich cultural backgrounds that can enrich the
school and wider community. This can only be achieved when educators gain awareness into the
students’ individual and collective stories. Therefore, culturally responsive teaching includes
awareness of the complex cultural, historical, linguistic, personal, psychological, and social
aspects that each student bring with them into our schools and classes.
References
Anguiano, R. P. V. (2004). Families and schools: The effect of parental involvement on high
school completion. Journal of Family Issues, 25(1), 61-85.
19
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Bankston, C. L. I., & Zhou, M. (1995). Effects of minority-language literacy on the academic
achievement of Vietnamese youths in New Orleans. Sociology of Education, 68(1), 1-17.
Baron, S., Okell, J., Myat Yin, S., Vanbik, K., & Swain, A. (2007). Refugees from Burma: Their
backgrounds and refugee experience. (No. 21). Washington DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Bauböck, R., & Faist, T. (2010). Diaspora and transnationalism: Concepts, theories and
methods. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Blakely, M. M. (1983). Southeast Asian refugee parents: An inquiry into home-school
communication and understanding. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 14(1), 43-68.
Brees, I. (2010). Burden or boon: The impact of Burmese refugees on Thailand. Whitehead
Journal of Diplomacy & International Relations, 11(1), 35-47.
Bronstein, I., & Montgomery, P. (2011). Psychological distress in refugee children: A systematic
review. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 14(1), 44-56.
doi:10.1007/s10567010-0081-0
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London, UK: Sage.
Cheesman, N. (2002). Seeing 'Karen' in the union of Myanmar. Asian Ethnicity, 3(2), 199-222.
doi:10.1080/14631360220132736
Choi, Y. (2013). The name jar. New York, NY: Random House LLC.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cusano, C. (2001). Burma: Displaced Karens like water on the khu leaf. London, UK: Luto
Press.
Delang, C. (Ed.). (2000). Suffering in silence: The human rights nightmare of the Karen people
of Burma (1st ed.). Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers.
Falla, J. (1991). True love and Bartholomew. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gilhooly, D., & Lee, E. (2014). The role of digital literacy on refugee resettlement: The case of
three Karen brothers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 387-396.
doi:10.1002/JAAL.254.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, R. M., Rendon, A., Gonzalez P., Amanti, C. (1995). Funds of
knowledge for teachers in Latino households. Urban Education, 29(4), 443-470.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C.
(1993). Teacher research on funds of knowledge: Learning from households. Washington,
DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Gunn, A. A., Brice, A. E., & Peterson, B. J. (2014). Ideas for the classroom: Culturally
responsive teaching: Exploring children's names and cultural identities. Childhood
Education, 90(2), 174-176. doi:10.1080/00094056.2014.894836
Harriden, J. (2002). “Making a name for themselves”: Karen identity and the politicization of
ethnicity in Burma. Journal of Burma Studies, 7, 84-144.
20
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Hayami, Y. (2004). Between hills and plains: Power and practice in socio-religious dynamics
among Karen. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Press.
Haynes, E., & Smallwood, B. (2008). Singable books: Sing and read your way to English
proficiency. CAL Digest, 34, 1-4.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hones, D. F. (1999). Crises, continuity, and the refugee. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
28(2), 166-198.
Hones, D. F. (2002). American dreams, global visions: Dialogic teacher research with refugee
and immigrant families. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Karen Communities Foundation. (2012). Considerations for individuals and agencies working
with the Karen people in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.karensusa.org/index_files/Page762.html
Kia-Keating, M., & Ellis, B. H. (2007). Belonging and connection to school in resettlement:
Young refugees, school belonging, and psychosocial adjustment. Clinical Child
Psychology & Psychiatry, 12(1), 29-43.
Kenny, P., & Lockwood-Kenny, K. (2011). A mixed blessing: Karen resettlement to the United
States. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(2), 217-238. doi:10.1093/jrs/fer009
Lee, R. M., Choe, J., Kim, G., Ngo, V., Park, Y. S., Kim, B. S. K., & Ju, C. M. (2010). Asian
American family conflicts scale. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 67-79.
Lewis, J. (1924). The Burmanization of the Karen people: A study in racial adaptability.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Malseed, K. (2008). Networks of noncompliance: Grassroots resistance and sovereignty in
militarized Burma. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(2), 365.
Marshall, H. I. (1922). The Karen people of Burma: A study in anthropology and ethnology.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Mason, E. H. B., & Raynard, E. H. (1862). Civilizing mountain men: Or, Sketches of mission
work among the Karens. London: James Nisbet.
McBrien, J. L. (2005). Educational needs and barriers for refugee students in the United States:
A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 329-364.
doi:10.2307/3515985
McMahon, A. (1876). The Karen of the golden chersonese. London, UK: Harrison and Sons.
Milbrandt, J. (2012). Tracking genocide: Persecution of the Karen in Burma. Texas International
Law Journal, 48, 63-101.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132-141.
Nguyen, N. A., & Williams, H. L. (1989). Transition from east to west: Vietnamese adolescents
and their parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
28(4), 505-515.
Oh, S. A., & Van der Stouwe, M. (2008). Education, diversity, and inclusion in Burmese refugee
camps in Thailand. Comparative Education Review, 52(4), 589-617.
Phan, Z., Lewis, D., & Phan, Z. (2010). Undaunted: My struggle for freedom and survival in
Burma. New York, NY: Free Press.
Po, S. C. (1928). Burma and the Karens. London, UK: Elliot Stock.
Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday
and today. International Migration Review, 28(4), 640-661. doi:10.2307/2547152
21
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Rajah, A. (2002). A 'nation of intent' in Burma: Karen ethno-nationalism, nationalism and
narrations of nation. Pacific Review, 15(4), 517-537.
Refugee Processing Center (RPC). (2014). Refugee arrivals by region and country of nationality:
Fiscal years 2001 to 2013. Retrieved from
www.wrapsnet.org/Reports/InteractiveReporting/tabid/393/EnumType/Report/Default.as
px?ItemPath=/rpt_WebArrivalsReports/MX%20-
%20Arrivals%20for%20a%20Demographic%20Profile
Richardson, L. (2000) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2nd ed., pp. 923-946). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). The adaption of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A
comparative study. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational
achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of
Education, 71(1), 68-92. doi:10.2307/2673222
Siu, S. F., & Feldman, J. A. (1996). Patterns of Chinese American family involvement in young
children education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399346. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED399346.pdf
Smeaton, D. M. (1887). The loyal Karens of Burma. London, UK: K. Paul, Trench & Co..
Smith, M. (1999). Burma: Insurgency and the politics of ethnicity. New York, NY: St. Martin's
Press.
Smith-Hefner, N. (1993). Education, gender, and generational conflict among Khmer refugees.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(2), 135-158. doi:10.2307/3195722
South, A. (2007). Karen nationalist communities: The "problem" of diversity. Contemporary
Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs, 29(1), 55-76.
South, A. (2011). Burma's longest war: Anatomy of the Karen conflict. Netherlands:
Transnational Institute Burma Center Netherlands.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TBBC. (2008). Scale and distribution of internal displacement.
Retrieved from www.tbbc.org/idps.htm#distribution
Thawnghmung, A. M. (2012). The "other" Karen in Myanmar: Ethnic minorities and the
struggle without arms. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Thawnghmung, A. M. (2008). The Karen revolution in Burma: Diverse voices, uncertain ends.
Washington, DC: East-West Center.
Watkins, P., G., Razee, H., & Richters, J. (2012). 'I'm telling you … the language barrier is the
most, the biggest challenge': Barriers to education among Karen refugee women in
Australia. Australian Journal of Education (ACER Press), 56(2), 126-141.
White, M. J., & Glick, J. E. (2000). Generation status, social capital, and the routes out of high
school. Sociological Forum, 15(4), 671-691. doi:10.1023/A:1007515100190
Wong, S. (2006). Dialogic approaches to TESOL: Where the ginkgo tree grows. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing Services (WRAPS). (2014). Refugee arrivals by
region and country of nationality: Fiscal years 2001 to 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/YrBk10RA.shtm
Zan, S. (2008). Life's journey in faith: Burma, from rags to riches. Bloomington, IN: Author
House.
22
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Zhou, M., & Bankston III, C. L. (2000). Straddling two social worlds: The experience of
Vietnamese refugee children in the United States. (Evaluative Report No. 111). New
York: ERIC.
Zhou, M., & Bankston III, C. L. (2001). Family pressure and the educational experience of the
daughters of Vietnamese refugees. International Migration, 39(4). 133-151.
Notes
1Burma or Myanmar? The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) military junta officially
renamed the country “Myanmar Naing-ngan” in 1989 (South, 2008). However, ethnic minority groups and some
governments, such as the United States, still use the old designation “Burma.” This study follows the traditional
usage of “Burma” as it was the only designation used by the Karen contributors to this paper.
2Burmese refers to all minority groups in Burma whereas Burman refers to the majority ethnic group in
Burma. Burmese is also the appellation for the Burman language, the official language of Burma
3Burman refers to the majority ethnic group in Burma whereas Burmese refers to all ethnicities from
Burma.
4The first Karen student, Theodore Thanbyah, graduated from an American university, the University of
Rochester (New York) in 1871 (Martin, 2012).
5Some Karen Buddhists and Karen Muslims are also arriving.
6It is important to note that Karen armed groups, including the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA)
and Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), have been accused on human rights violations, including forced
conscriptions as a means to continue their insurgency (South, 2011, p.15)
7Drawing on Rumbaut’s (1997) “decimal generations,” 1.25 generation refers to those resettling from ages
13-17 and 1.5 as resettling between the ages of 6-12, and 1.75 refers to those who resettling 0-5.
8This was an informal scale where I would ask parents to assess their children’s language ability according
to the following; 10=excellent Karen, 5=fair Karen, 0= no Karen. I did not attribute any weight to the other
numbers.
9As of May 2014, my focal community has begun a summer Karen school where students of all ages are
being taught Karen reading and writing.
10I made the acquaintance of a teacher working with Karen students and we corresponded frequently
exchanged information about the respective Karen communities from 2011 to 2012.
11All Georgia students from grades 1-8 took the CRCT until 2010-2011. From 2011-2012 the test is only
given from grades 3-8. A passing score on the GHGT was mandatory for all Georgia students who entered high
school before July 2011.
12To complicate matters more, I have recently heard reports of how some families bought new identities
from the camps in order to resettle. It seems that as fewer and fewer Karen and other minorities are eligible for
resettlement, registration for resettlement has premium value to those looking to resettle. Therefore, some children
may be entering the United States with names acquired by the illegal procurement of papers in the camps.
Appendix
Sample Interview Questions
Interviews with Students
1. Did you attend school in Burma?
2. Did you study English before coming to the USA?
3. Are in ESL classes?
4. Do you attend any regular (non-ESL) classes?
5. Do you have special English classes after school or tutoring at home?
6. Do you like school?
7. Do you have any American friends?
8. Do you ever get bullied? What does Bullying mean to you?
9. What classes are most difficult for you?
10. Do you plan on graduating?
23
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
11. What will you do after you graduate/ quit school?
12. Do you participate in school sports or activities?
13. What do you like/dislike about your school in US and Camps?
14. Did your teachers hit you in school?
15. What are the biggest differences between school in the USA and in the refugee camp?
16. What are your future goals?
Interviews with Karen Parents
1. What languages can you read and write?
2. Why did you choose to resettle?
3. What are you hopes and fears for your children?
4. What do you think of your children's' education?
5. Would you resettle knowing what you know now? Might you resettle in another country?
6. What has been the toughest part of resettlement?
7. Have you ever visited your child’ school? Why or why not?
8. How do you know if your kids are doing well in school? Do you check homework? Reports cards?
9. Do you ever study English? Why, or why not?
10. Do you think it is acceptable for a teacher to hit a student?
Interviews with American Neighbors
1. How did you first meet the Karen people?
2. What was your first impression of the Karen?
3. In what capacity do you know or work with the Karen?
4. What do you think of as characteristics of the Karen people?
5. What problems do you see the Karen facing in the United States?
6. In what ways do you see the Karen successfully adapting to American culture?
7. In what way do you see Karen culture and American culture at odds?
8. Do you think that services for refugee populations like the Karen are working?
Interviews with American teachers working with Karen
1. What grade do/did you teach Karen students?
2. How many Karen students have you taught?
3. Did your school or district provide you any information about the Karen people prior to their arrival in your
classroom/school?
4. Do you think you would have benefitted from some cultural training?
5. Have you searched for information on the Karen on your own?
6. Have you ever had contact with any of your Karen student’s parents? If so, how often and in what capacity?
7. Have you ever visited any of your area family’s homes?
8. What adjectives do you find yourself using when you describe your Karen students?
9. Do you think your Karen students are performing at grade level?
10. Do you find the addition of Karen students to your school and class a benefit or distraction?
11. Have you tried to incorporate any Karen related themes into your classes?
12. Have you acknowledged, in any way, to your classes the presence of Karen students? If so, how?
13. Do you feel the Karen are well integrated in your school?
14. Do you feel Karen students are integrated in your community?
15. Do you see the Karen students in your school being bullied? Please explain.
16. Have you ever retained a Karen student even though they did not meet grade requirements?
24
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
About the Author
Daniel Gilhooly has taught ESL/EFL for over 17 years in the
U.S. and South Korea. For the past four years he has worked
extensively with Karen students as a collaborator, language
tutor and mentor. He completed his Ph.D. from the University
of Georgia’s Language and Literacy Education Department in
May 2014.
25
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Volume 10 (2015) www.JSAAEA.org
Editor
Dr. Wayne E. Wright
Purdue University
Associate Editors
Dr. Chhany Sak-Humphry
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Dr. Phitsamay Sychitkokhong Uy
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Book Review Editor
Dr. Vichet Chhuon
University of Minnesota
Creative Works Editor
Bryan Thao Worra
Lao Assistance Center
Journal Manager
Marshall Klassen
Purdue University
Editorial Review Board
Dr. Steve Arounsack
California State University, Stanislaus
Dr. Carl L. Bankston III
Tulane University
Dr. Sovicheth Boun
The State University of New York at Fredonia
Dr. Phala Chea
Lowell Public Schools
Dr. George Chigas
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Dr. Loan Dao
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Dr. Hien Duc Do
San Jose State University
Dr. Changming Duan
University of Missouri, Kansas City
Dr. Sophal Ear
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Dr. Sothy Eng
Lehigh University
Dr. Jeremy Hein
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
Dr. Vincent K. Her
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
26
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Dr. Nancy H. Hornberger
University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Samlong Inthaly
Minneapolis Public Schools
Dr. Peter Nien-Chu Kiang
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Dr. Ketmani Kouanchao
Mt. San Jacinto College
Dr. Kevin K. Kumashiro
University of Illinois, Chicago
Dr. Ha Lam
Arizona State University
Dr. Ravy Lao
California State University, Los Angeles
Dr. Jonathan H. X. Lee
San Francisco State University
Dr. Stacey Lee
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Dr. Monirith Ly
Royal University of Phnom Penh
Dr. Sue Needham
California State University, Dominguez Hills
Dr. Bic Ngo
University of Minnesota
Dr. Max Niedzwiecki
Daylight Consulting Group
Dr. Leakhena Nou
California State University, Long Beach
Dr. Clara Park
California State University, Northridge
Dr. Isabelle Thuy Pelaud
San Francisco State University
Dr. Mark Pfeifer
SUNY Institute of Technology
Dr. Giang Pham
University of Massachusetts
Dr. Loan T. Phan
University of New Hampshire
Dr. Bounlieng Phommasouvanh
Minnesota Department of Education
Dr. Karen Quintiliani
California State University, Long Beach
Dr. Kalyani Rai
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Dr. Angela Reyes
Hunter College, The City University of New York
Dr. Soveacha Ros
Royal University of Phnom Penh
Dr. Fay Shin
California State University, Long Beach
Dr. Nancy J. Smith-Hefner
Boston University
Dr. Cathy J. Schlund-Vials
University of Connecticut, Storrs
Dr. Christine Su
Ohio University
Dr. Yer J. Thao
Portland State University
Dr. Loan Tran
University of California, Riverside
Dr. Myluong Tran
San Diego State University
Dr. Tinou Tran
Alief Independent School District
Dr. Monica M. Trieu
Purdue University
Dr. Khatharya Um
University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Silvy Un
Frost Lake Elementary School
Dr. Linda Trinh Vo
University of California, Irvine
Dr. Terrence G. Wiley
Center for Applied Linguistics
Dr. Yang Sao Xiong
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dr. Zha Blong Xiong
University of Minnesota
Dr. Kou Yang
California State University, Stanislaus
Doctoral Student Editorial Review Board
Virak Chan
University of Texas at San Antonio
Keo Chea-Young
University of Pennsylvania
Annie BichLoan Duong
San Joaquin County Office of Education
Peter Tan Keo
Columbia University
Keo Chea-Young
University of Pennsylvania
27
Gilhooly: Lessons Learned
Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2015
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, Vol. 10 (2015) ISSN: 2153-8999
Minh Mai
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dung Minh Mao
University of Minnesota
Hoa Nha Nguyen
Boston College
Thien-Huong Ninh
University of Southern California
Malaphone Phommasa
University of California, Santa Barbara
Alisia Tran
University of Minnesota
Krissyvan Truong
Claremont Graduate University
Molly Wiebie
The University of Texas at Austin
Soua Xiong
San Diego State University & Claremont
Graduate University
Anna H. Yang
University of Georgia
Lesley Yang
University of Minnesota
28
Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, Vol. 10 [2015], Art. 2
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jsaaea/vol10/iss1/2
DOI: 10.7771/2153-8999.1121
