The role of home learning environments and socioeconomic status in children’s learning in Tanzania: A comparison study of naturalized refugee,rural majority,and urban majority population groups

Abstract

This study investigated the role of home learning environments and family socioeconomic status in children’s learning in Tanzania. A total of 303 participants from the naturalized refugees, rural, and urban majority groups were recruited. Data were collected using parents’ questionnaires, interviews, Bracken’s Basic Concept Scale–Receptive, Early Grades Reading Assessment, and Early Grades Mathematics Assessment. The results indicate that although naturalized refugees’ home learning environments were comparable to those of the rural majority, and had lower socioeconomic status than the urban majority, their learning attainments were as good as those of the more-advantaged urban majority. Parental beliefs and expectations were the possible reasons for their demonstrating better learning attainments. These findings broaden our understandings of various protective and supportive factors which have implications on children’s development and learning across contexts.

Keywords

early childhood education learning attainments naturalized refugees parental beliefs school readiness Tanzania

Introduction

A growing body of research has consistently indicated that a low-quality home learning environment (HLE) and poor family socioeconomic status (SES) adversely affect children’s preparedness for school and other learning outcomes (Bradshaw, 2002; Ip et al., 2016; Melhuish et al., 2008). The resulting inequality is said to persist from early childhood to adulthood (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). The impacts are reported to be more deleterious to children who live in rural communities and who experience persisting poverty during the early years of their life (Bradshaw, 2002; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). Children who live in rural communities from immigrant and naturalized refugee groups are likely to be double-disadvantaged, compared with their local counterparts (Koury and Votriba-Drzal, 2014; Kuch, 2017; Ndijuye and Rao, 2018, 2019).

While the existing empirical evidence indicates that cognitive skills play a dominant role in research on educational and social inequality (Jones et al., 2015; Koury and Votriba-Drzal, 2014; Lahaie, 2008), early academic skills are said to provide a foundation to support ongoing engagement in learning throughout schooling. Cognitive skills at preprimary and Grade 1 entry are strong and consistent predictors of later academic achievement (Duncan et al., 2007) and have been found to predict earnings later in life.

Consistent with the existing literature (Duncan et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2015), the current study conceptualizes school preparedness as the goodness of fit between children aged between 5 and 8 years and their surrounding environments which support their optimal development and learning. Specifically, the focus is on development of literacy and numeracy skills which align with primary school curriculum. As such, school preparedness is expected to broadly promote children’s development while simultaneously supporting their respective families (Kagan, 2006; Reardon and Portilla, 2016).

Home Learning Environments

In the context of limited school-related resources, quality of HLE and sound family SES is perhaps the single most important factor influencing children’s learning outcomes (Kiernan and Mensah, 2011; Lau and Rao, 2013; Melhuish et al., 2008). These environments complement the role that should have been fulfilled by well-equipped schools in facilitating children’s learning (Black et al., 2016; Dearing et al., 2005). Higher learning attainments have been associated with richer HLEs (Kalia and Reese, 2009; Uwezo, 2015), and the influence of HLEs is more evident among rural and immigrant children attending schools with limited educational resources (Han, 2008; Lahaie, 2008; Sumra and Katabaro, 2014; Uwezo, 2015).

Family Socio Economic Status

Family SES has been associated with children’s cognitive and language development (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Malmberg et al., 2011). Children from families with lower SES have been found to demonstrate poor cognitive and language developments, resulting in disparities in their holistic developments (Malmberg et al., 2011; Weiland and Yoshikawa, 2013). Empirical evidence indicates that every increase in family SES leads to increased resources and opportunities for child development (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Kafle and Jolliffe, 2015; Lee and Al Otaiba, 2015).

Achievement gap in learning attainment

The academic and non-academic achievement gap between children from rich majority and poor immigrant households has been well researched (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Duncan and Magnuson, 2005; Ip et al., 2016; Lahaie, 2008; Ndijuye and Rao, 2019). The achievement gap is said to start even before children begin preprimary education, and to persist throughout their academic lifetime (Duncan and Magnuson, 2005; Han et al., 2012). In sub-Saharan Africa, the gap widens as children progress to upper grades, even after interventions (Mwaura et al., 2008). The most disadvantaged group in this region is said to be an immigrant rural girl, from a poor family (Kuch, 2017; Mwaura et al., 2008).

The contexts and civil status of naturalized refugees in Tanzania

For the past 50 years, Tanzania has been a safe haven for and home to almost 2 million refugees from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), Rwanda, and Somalia. The first wave of refugees, commonly known as “the first case-load,” came to Tanzania in 1972 (CSFM 2008; UNHCR, 2010). This group was initially settled in different parts of the Kigoma region, especially in border villages along Kigoma and Kasulu towns. About two-thirds of them were later moved to Ulyankulu, Mishamo, and Katumba settlement areas in the Tabora and Katavi regions, while the rest remained in villages among the local majority, as “self-settled refugees” (CSFM, 2008; Ndijuye and Rao, 2018)

In 2007, Tanzania announced its readiness to naturalize those who wanted to stay (CSFM, 2008). However, the 1972 self-settled refugees were not included in this program until 2010, when the government sorted out their civil status by naturalizing them (Chaulia, 2003; MoH, 2014; UNHCR, 2012). This study focuses on how the current educational policy in Tanzania addresses the educational needs of children from the first case-load self-settled naturalized refugees.

Research questions

In Tanzania, documented achievement gaps have been identified between children who live in rural and urban communities (EQUIP-Tanzania, 2014; RTI International, 2014), between genders (Mwaura et al., 2008; Uwezo, 2015), and selected poor districts, within the mainstream education system (EQUIP-Tanzania, 2014; Mwaura et al., 2008). However, the achievement gap for naturalized refugees in the sub-Saharan context has been under-studied. Against this background, this study intends to answer the following questions:

What are the differences, if any, in HLEs and family SES between naturalized refugees and the urban and rural majorities in Tanzania?

How does the difference in HLEs of children from the three groups affect their learning attainments?

Method

Sample selection and recruitment

Kigoma region, which is home to the highest number of self-settled naturalized refugees, was purposively selected as the site for this study (Table 1). Preprimary schools with comparable quality of services were selected. Parents from each of the three groups (naturalized refugees, rural majority, and urban majority) were visited at home to gauge their SES, expectations, and beliefs toward their children’s education. The study recruited 303 participants, categorized as follows: 150 parents (75 fathers and 75 mothers), 150 children aged between 60 and 84 months (75 in preprimary, 40 in Grade 1, and 35 in Grade 2), and three principals from each of the participating schools.

Table 1.

Population and location of settled naturalized and camped refugees.

Region	District	Camp/settlement	Nationality	Refugee population	Natives population in regions with refugees
Kigoma	Kasulu	Nyarugusu Camp	Congolese	63,728	2,127,930
		Nyarugusu Camp	Burundian	4153
		Nyarugusu Camp	Mixed Nationality	212
	Spontaneously settled in villages		Burundian	90,227
Tabora	Urambo	Ulyankulu	Burundians	77,239	2,291,623
Tanga	Handeni	Chogo	Somalis	2117	2,045,205
Katavi	Mpanda	Katumba	Burundian	88,733	564,604
Katavi	Mpanda	Mishamo	Burundian	77,791	564,604
Total population				404,200	7,029,362

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs (2014); NBS, (2012).

Data collection instruments

Home and parents’ questionnaire

The study used a modified version of Rao et al. (2013) Parents’ Questionnaire, to collect information related to families’ SES and HLE. Information about SES focused on such dimensions as parents’ education, occupation, and family wealth. Family HLE focused on the frequency of parent–child interactions, children’s health, and regular habits, and demographic information such as gender, citizenship status, and languages spoken at home. New items such as length of time the family had been in Tanzania, civil status, and whether the child had had malaria—a common tropical disease among children in Tanzania, were added. At the end, the calculated Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency was 0.88.

Follow-up interviews

Given the necessity of collecting rich data, the interview protocol was set to be flexible to allow for the asking of follow-up questions. These open-ended questions focused on specific issues of interest, such as language of instruction, family wealth, and parent–child interactions. However, in some instances, the author had to ask specific questions about issues that emerged in the interviews. To create a more comfortable and relaxed environment, parents were visited at home and individually interviewed.

Instruments for learning attainments

School readiness

The School Readiness Composite (SRC) subtests were modified to reflect Tanzanian contexts and mental schema of a typical rural/urban sub-Saharan child. For example, shapes, colors, pictures of animals, flowers, and physical features such as rivers and buildings. The blobs of yellow, brown, and orange were replaced with drawings of a ripe yellow banana, cup of brown coffee, and a half an orange. Since the Tanzanian preprimary curriculum requires that vowels and consonants be taught separately, the researcher had to redraw them on separate pieces of paper, before administering the test. The X and Q consonants do not exist in Kiswahili alphabets, and were replaced in the original list with C and V, respectively. The limitations of using Bracken’s Basic Concept Scale–Receptive (BBCS-R) include the adaptation of the tool to fit into the context of the current study. Specifically, BBCS–R was developed to serve the context of the developed country. Contextualization of the tool developed in other contexts may have implications on its reliability.

Early grades reading assessment test

Given that the study involved pupils from Grade 1 and Grade 2, double consonants sounds (e.g. dh, gh and ny) and double-lettered sounds (e.g. nzi-ki, ngi-so, and ndi-se) were dropped. Consonants and words are taught in the last term of Grade 2; data were collected around the middle of the academic year. X and Q alphabets were also dropped, because they do not exist in Kiswahili alphabets. The maximum possible Early grades reading assessment (EGRA) raw score was 60.

Early grades mathematic assessment test

Addition and subtraction items were changed to proceed from simple to complex, while multiplication items were dropped, as multiplication and division exercises are not taught until the end of the last term of Grade 2. Furthermore, word problems were changed to reflect a typical rural Tanzanian context. For example, the picture of children sitting in a mini-bus (something hardly ever seen in rural Tanzania) was replaced with one of children sitting in a church. The maximum raw score possible on Early grades mathematic assessment (EGMA) was 60.

While EGRA and EGMA have been developed to fit into and serve the developing countries’ context, their adaptations to fit into specific country’s and study contexts have implications on the validity and reliability of the collected data. For example, while the international standard for the number of words a child should be able to read within 1 minute is 70, in Tanzania it is between 30 and 50 (U4RT, 2014). However, this study chose to use 50 words per minute. Contextualizing a global measure to meet the needs of a study conducted in a specific sociocultural context is a common practice among early years education scholars (Mwaura et al., 2008; Ndijuye and Rao, 2018). The standard instructions for administration and scoring were translated into Kiswahili, and independently back-translated by two local experts with experience in both preprimary education and English–Kiswahili linguistics. There were no major discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions.

Procedure

Two research assistants with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degrees in early years education were trained to administer the tests for over a 10-day period. Practical training was done in a nearby primary school with urban non-refugee children. Children’s assessments were independently conducted by the author and the enumerators. Interrater reliabilities assessed before starting data collection between the first author (0.88) and each of the two enumerators were (0.90) and (0.89). The calculated internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha value) for BBCS-R was α = 0.91, for EGRA α = 0.86, and for EGMA α = 0.87.

The instruments were administered to children in individual sessions. The order of the assessments was counter-balanced. Each pupil was given a question booklet, while the assessor kept the scoring booklet. The assessor read the item out loud and gave the child sufficient time to respond. To observe HLEs, families were visited for several hours and parents were individually interviewed. The interviewing process involved face-to-face conversations where information was noted down in the field notebook complemented by a tape recorder.

Ethical issues and parental consent

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Dodoma. Furthermore, an introductory letter from Tanzania’s Ministry of Education, and permission from districts, wards, and village executive officers were obtained. Finally, the school authorities were consulted to obtain parents’ consent to include their children in the study. Information about the current study was given to targeted children. Then, they were asked for their willingness to participate in the study. Confidentiality was observed by assigning respondents with codes and pseudonyms, and unauthorized persons had no access to the collected data. Interviewing parents at their respective homes gave them ample time and relaxation and they confidently participated in the study.

Method of analyses

Preliminary tests related to demographic information (gender, grade, and age) and learning attainments were conducted to determine differences among the groups of pupils from naturalized refugee, urban majority, and rural majority. Group frequencies, means, and correlations among variables were used to identify covariates for the final analyses. Major analyses examined the differences in school readiness, EGRA, and EGMA mean scores among naturalized refugees, in comparison with urban and rural majorities, using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Furthermore, it included a separate regression analysis for a subgroup of 90 children whose parents were interviewed to grasp their home environments.

Hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted, with controls for age, gender, and home environment (family wealth and parental education), to determine the relationships between pupils’ social group and their mean SRC, literacy, and numeracy scores. Analyses of interview data followed the Miles and Huberman (1994) qualitative data analysis approach, in which data were reduced, coded, and described to develop themes and sub-themes.

Results

HLEs

Children’s health and habits

Given that in sub-Saharan Africa, one of the hurdles for children’s learning and development is their health and general wellbeing (Matafwali and Nunsaka, 2011; UNESCO, 2007), and that about 10 percent of children below the age of 5 die from preventable causes (UNICEF, 2015), it was necessary to include the component related to children’s health and habits. Parents were asked to identify issues related to children’s health such as vaccinations, regular medical check-ups, and teeth-brushing. They were asked how they respond when their children had malaria or diarrhea. These are common tropical diseases that kill millions of children in sub-Saharan countries (UNICEF, 2015). The findings are as shown in Table 2. More than one-third (35%) of children who live in rural communities did not regularly brush their teeth, while all of children living in urban communities and 86 percent of rural refugees were reported to brush their teeth. Given that teeth-brushing does not require any financial cost, the reason for this is still unknown

Table 2.

Children’s health practices across social groups.

	Naturalized refugees (%)	Rural majority (%)	Urban majority (%)
Immunization	67	53	87
Regular checkup	13	07	13
Vision h/checkup	07	00	33
Hearing checkup	07	07	27
Speech checkup	07	07	33
Chronic illness	13	00	07
Known allergies	07	20	00
Brush teeth everyday	87	60	93

Source: Field data.

Family support of children’s learning

Parents were asked whether any adult (mother, father, other family member above 15 years of age) had been involved in learning activities with either or both of the participating school children in the past 7 days. The selected learning activities were those considered culturally relevant and essential for learning in a rural context. These activities included storytelling, singing, reading children’s books, playing games, taking the child outside the home, naming, drawing, and counting.

As indicated in Table 3, the findings showed that naturalized refugee parents, especially mothers, were more involved in supervising their children’s learning than rural majority parents. Among rural majority, children were supervised mostly by “other family members.” However, given the nature of the relationship among extended families where this study was conducted, these findings were not unexpected (Ip et al., 2016; Kafle and Jolliffe, 2015; Mtahabwa, 2010). Among urban families, both parents were almost always involved in supervision of their children’s learning. In Tanzania, Kiswahili is a medium of instruction in all public preprimary and primary schools. Although widely spoken, not every Tanzanian speaks Kiswahili as a first language. The observed findings are presented in Figure 1.

Table 3.

Family support across social groups.

	Naturalized refugees	Rural majority	Urban majority
Father
M	3.20	2.53	2.87
SD	0.86	0.92	1.38
Median	3.00	3.00	3.00
Range	3.5–4.2	2.2–3.0	2.6–3.1
Mother
M	4.87	2.62	3.67
SD	0.56	0.63	0.72
Median	4.00	2.00	3.00
Range	3.7–4.4	2.3–3.0	2.3–3.0
Other
M	2.11	3.43	2.99
SD	0.23	0.67	0.53
Median	2.00	2.00	2.00
Range	2.8–3.2	2.6–3.0	2.8–3.0

M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Figure 1.

Languages spoken at home across social groups.

Family SES

Parental education across social groups

While about 20 percent of naturalized refugee parents had no formal education, about a quarter (24%) of rural majority parents did not have formal education. However, 80 percent of naturalized refugee parents had basic to secondary education levels. Urban majority mothers were as educated as naturalized refugees. However, urban majority fathers had higher educational qualifications with about 94 percent of them having education between secondary and graduate levels. On average across groups, fathers had higher educational qualifications than mothers. Furthermore, parents were asked about attending any kind of parenting class, seminar, training, or workshop before the children involved in the study were born. The current study considered traditional in-residence maternal health helpers as training providers.

Family wealth

Ownership of assets essential for survival in sub-Saharan Africa were considered to be indicators of family SES, as indicated in Table 4. However, most of the home appliances such as refrigerator and television depended on the availability of electricity. Across rural Tanzania where this study took place, about 30 percent had access to electricity (NBS, 2012). Without degrading the importance of electricity and television in influencing children’s learning, in the absence of such assets alone, cannot be considered as an indicator of poverty. Similarly, all parents in rural areas—both naturalized refugees and rural majority, reported to own a farm. In this context, farming is not primarily for wealth generation, rather a means of survival.

Table 4.

Family assets across social groups.

	Naturalized refugees (15) (%)	Rural majority (15)	Urban majority (15)
1. Electricity	6.7	6.7	80
2. Radio	100	60	100
3. Television	6.7	0	80
4. Mobile phone	100	93.3	100
5. Refrigerator	0	0	53
6. Watch	93.3	60	100
7. Bicycle	86.7	73.3	86.7
8. Motorcycle	46.7	26.7	66.7
9. Animal-drawn cart	86.7	60	100
10. A car	6.7	0	40
11. Own a farm	100	100	60
12. Own livestock	100	73.3	80
13. Own bank account	60	20	66.7
14. Own a house	93.3	86.7	73

Source: Field data.

Learning attainment

School readiness

Given that this study included three groups, two-way ANOVA was deemed appropriate. A two-way ANOVA, with groups (naturalized refugees, rural, and urban majority) and gender (male and female) as between-subject variables, indicated the significant main effects of gender (F (1, 45) = 25.04, p = 0.032). Follow-up tests indicated that naturalized refugees (M = 32.86, SD = 8.4) performed significantly better than rural majority pupils (M = 17.60, SD = 8.62) in SRC. Boys from the urban majority group (M = 36.50, SD = 7.94) demonstrated significantly higher school readiness than all other gender groups; girls from the urban majority group (M = 33.85, SD = 13.88) outperformed girls from other groups. The detailed findings are indicated in Table 5.

Table 5.

SRC, EGRA, and EGMA raw scores.

Tool	Naturalized refugees			Rural majority		Urban majority
	Gender	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys	Girls
SRC	M	33.75	29.00	23.38	21.28	36.50	33.85
SRC	SD	8.38	9.17	4.59	4.22	7.94	13.88
EGRA	M	32.28	33.88	11.86	12.28	20.31	21.88
EGRA	SD	10.30	6.56	6.46	4.33	4.20	4.74
EGMA	M	33.25	31.21	13.35	12.59	37.44	35.49
EGMA	SD	8.48	6.34	4.81	3.91	8.97	7.07

M: mean; SD: standard deviation; EGRA: early grades reading assessment; EGMA: early grades mathematic assessment; SRC: school readiness composite.

Children’s social group and school readiness

A three-block hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine the factors that would predict children’s school preparedness across the three social groups. Age and gender were entered at block one as control variables. Variables related to SES (parental education and family wealth) were entered at block 2. Social group was entered in the final block of the regression model.

The results as tabulated in Table 6, show that, at block one, age and gender contributed significantly to the regression model (F (2, 43) = 170.735, p = 0.000), accounting for 51 percent of the variance. At block two, family SES variables were quite significant as they explained an additional 26.3 percent of the variance F (4, 41) = 163.405, p = 0.000. Finally, at block three the addition of social group explained an additional 0.02 percent of the variance F (5, 40) = 132.352, p = 0.000, and this change in R² was not significant. The most important predictors of children’s school readiness were age (ß 0.08, p = 0.013), gender (ß 0.052, p = 0.033), and parental education (ß 0.348, p = 0.025), followed by family wealth (ß 0.313, p = 0.016). Social group (being of refugee or non-refugee background) was note found to be a significant predictor of school preparedness. The five predictors together accounted for 78 percent of the variance in school readiness.

Table 6.

Regression analyses predicting children’s learning outcomes across social groups.

Predictor	Predictor data			Model data
	B	ß	R ²	∆R²	∆F	t
BBCS-R: Block 1: Demographic variables
Age	3.807	0.572*	0.510	0.510	10.314	4.513
Gender	2.458	0.106*				0.838
Block 2: Family SES
Parental edu	3.759	0.401**	0.773	0.263	21.019	3.240
Family wealth	1.115	0.424**				3.137
Block 3: Final model
Social group	0.647	0.046*	0.775	0.002	0.111	0.333
EGRA predictive scores
Block 1: Demographic variables
Age	2.68	0.39**	0.274	0.274	7.79	2.76
Gender	0.525	0.02**				0.16
Block 2: Family SES
Parental edu	−4.20	20.43*	60.5	0.331	14.58	−2.97
Family wealth	2.388	0.88**	5.40			5.40
Block 3: Final model
Social group	9.471	0.649**	0.706	0.101	25.13	4.89
EGMA predictive scores
Block 1: Demographic variables
Age	4.142	0.538**	0.289	0.289	8.54	4.12
Gender	−0.039	−0.001**				−0.01
Block 2: Family SES
Parental edu	2.597	0.239*	0.583	0.294	11.08	1.64
Family wealth	1.429	0.47**				2.94
Block 3: Final model
Social group	1.33	0.081**	0.586	0.003	0.261	0.53

BBCS-R: Bracken’s Basic Concept Scale–Receptive; SES: socioeconomic status; EGRA: early grades reading assessment; EGMA: early grades mathematic assessment.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

Literacy attainment

A two-way ANOVA, with social groups (naturalized refugees, rural majority, urban majority) and Gender (male and female) as between-subject variables, indicated the significant main effects of gender (F (1, 39) = 6.22, p = 0.041). Follow-up tests indicated that the mean literacy scores for naturalized refugee children (M = 33.13, SD = 8.23) were significantly higher than those from both urban local majority group pupils (M = 21.04, SD = 4.37) and rural majority M = 12.08, SD = 5.38. Naturalized refugee girls demonstrated the highest literacy attainment (M = 33.88, SD = 6.56).

Social group and literacy attainment

A three-block hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine the factors that would predict children’s literacy attainment across the three social groups. Demographic variables (age and gender) were entered at block one as control variables. Family SES variables (parental education and family wealth) were entered at block 2. The literature suggests that parental education, especially maternal education, is the most potent predictor of family SES in the early years (Malmberg et al., 2011; Melhuish et al., 2008). Social group was entered in the final block of the regression model.

The hierarchical multiple regression found that age and gender significantly contributed to prediction (F (2, 43) = 81.56, p = 0.0013) and accounted for 27.4 percent of the variance in literacy attainment. Family SES explained an additional 33.1 percent of the variance (F (4, 41) = 74.501, p = 0.0011). Finally, social group explained an additional 10.1 percent of the variance, F (5, 40) = 70.641, p = 0.0014, and the change in R² was also significant. The most important predictors of children literacy attainment were age (ß 0.085, p < 0.05), gender (ß 0.137, p = 0.026), and parental education (ß 0.191, p = 0.023), followed by family wealth (ß 0.225, p = 0.036). Social group (being of refugee or non-refugee background) was found to be a significant predictor (ß 0.072, p = 0.018). In the final model the five variables together accounted for 71 percent of the variance in literacy attainment.

Numeracy attainment

A two-way ANOVA, with social groups (naturalized refugees, rural majority, and urban majority) and gender (male and female) as between-subject variables, which indicated the main effects of gender (F (1, 39) = 10.272, p = 0.032, d = 0.17) were significant. Follow-up tests indicated the mean score for children from naturalized refugees background (M = 32.26, SD = 7.37) was comparable to that of children from that of urban majority group (M = 36.53, SD = 7.92), and significantly higher than that of rural majority children (M = 12.94, SD = 4.21). Boys (M = 29.43, SD = 8.31) outperformed girls (M = 22.35, SD = 7.18) across groups, and boys from the urban local majority (M = 37.44, SD = 8.97) had the highest mean scores than boys across other social groups.

Predictors of numeracy attainment across social groups

As shown in Table 3, a three-block hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with EGMA mean raw score as the dependent variable to examine the factors that would predict children’s numeracy attainment across the three social groups. Age and gender were entered at block one as control variables. The determining family SES variables (parental education and family wealth) were entered at block 2. Social group was entered in the final block of the regression model.

The results indicated that age and gender significantly contributed to the regression model (F (2, 43) = 111.113, p = 0.0013) and accounted for 28.9 percent of the variance. At block two, introducing family SES variables was quite significant as it explained an additional 29.4 percent of the variance F (4, 41) = 81.325, p = 0.000. Finally, at block three the addition of social group explained an additional 0.3 percent of the variance, F (5, 40) = 66.694, p = 0.0012, and this change in R² was also significant. The most important predictors of children’s numeracy attainments were age (ß 0.053, p = 0.037), gender (ß 0.081, p = 0.044), and parental education (ß 0.113, p = 0.034), followed by family wealth (ß 0.133, p = 0.021). Social group (being of refugee or non-refugee background) was found to be an insignificant predictor (ß 0.0002, p = 0.0087). In the final model the five variables together accounted for 59 percent of the variance in numeracy attainment.

Follow-up interviews

Language of instruction

Parents from naturalized refugee and rural majority groups reported that one obstacle to their children’s learning was knowledge and command of spoken and written Kiswahili. This is the official medium of instructions in all public preprimary and primary schools in Tanzania. However, among naturalized refugees, parents reported progressive improvements in children’s command of Kiswahili as they moved to upper grades. They revealed use of specific strategies to improve children’s mastery of language of instruction (LoI). For example, some parents sent their children to listen to church sermons conducted in Kiswahili. Other parents reported to limit the use of vernacular languages at home on selected days.

Position and role of women in the family

Women (mothers) had different positions and roles within the family, across social groups. Women from the majority urban group were more independent and educated, and some were professionals as teachers, nurses, engineers, medical doctors, and accountants. However, women from this group reported not to control much of the family resources. In the majority rural group, mothers were predominantly peasants, and played traditional roles as housewives—staying home to care for their children.

In contrast, naturalized refugee mothers were co-breadwinners, and had a great deal of say in the family wealth and assets management. As shared, dual-income households, the roles of mothers and fathers in this social group converged. The position/role of women had implications for how family resources were managed and allocated, and directly impacted children’s learning attainments.

Parents beliefs and practices toward children’s education

Parents from the three groups indicated different beliefs toward education, which shaped their expectations and practices. Among the urban majority, education for their children, though highly regarded, was considered a child’s right, and practically a new way of living. Among naturalized refugees, education was regarded as a path to upward social mobility, protection from recruitment as child soldiers, and integration into the host society. Among rural majority, education was regarded as “another government initiative.” Literally, this means parents were not supportive of their children’s education.

Discussion

This study investigated differences in HLEs and family SES between children from naturalized refugee, and urban and rural majority groups in Tanzania. Consistent with other studies (Ciping et al., 2015; Ip et al., 2016), family SES and HLE were found to be critical factors influencing children’s learning outcomes, particularly for children from poor families.

HLEs

The findings indicated that there were still children from all social groups that did not receive all basic immunizations. Furthermore, it was found that there are large segments of children who live in rural communities who do not regularly eat vegetables. Limited access to immunization and consumption of healthy food such as vegetables do badly impact children’s holistic development and learning (Black et al., 2016). The impact is more deleterious in rural developing sub-Saharan Africa with limited interventions and healthcare (Engle et al., 2007; UNESCO, 2015).

The current study found that a typical naturalized refugee family size was not limited to the core nuclear family, but included other family members. As such, it was common to find three generations, sometimes from both sides of the family, living in the same household. While studies have documented that an HLE is influenced by family SES (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Ip et al., 2016), in sub-Saharan Africa, family structure and size can be equally important (Kafle and Jolliffe, 2015).

A large family size has both positive and negative implications for children’s development and learning (Kafle and Jolliffe, 2015; Kapinga, 2014). For instance, it affects already limited family resources, such as income and food (Bradley et al., 2001; Kafle and Jollife, 2015). However, among rural naturalized refugees, large family size meant an increased workforce, which is essential for subsistence agricultural production (Kuch, 2017). Furthermore, having a large number of people in the same household may have aided children to acquire and develop language and social skills, including interpersonal conflict management and resolution (Kiernan and Mensah, 2011). Such skills are more important for children from poor households, with limited exposure to printed materials (Kalia and Reese, 2009).

In supporting children’s learning, adults from all groups spent some time outside the home, storytelling, singing, and to varying extents, used play to facilitate learning. In sub-Saharan Africa, play is a common part of children’s development and learning (Mabagala and Mabagala, 2012). Going outside of the home and playing games are normal ways of interacting in rural areas, where village members know each other, and child-rearing is a shared responsibility (Ejieh, 2006). Although these findings concur with those of Kenney (2012), through such parent-initiated kinds of play, children acquired basic language and cognitive skills since they are taught to name rivers, mountains, birds, animals, and plants found in the nearby environment (Ejieh, 2006; Mabagala and Mabagala, 2012).

However, consistent with other studies (Ejieh, 2006; O’Dwyer, 2012), this study observed that most games played focused more on physical than mental-stimulating activities. The challenge was to enact academic-related activities, such as counting and reading children books. Perhaps this was partly due to limited access to print-related resources (children books) and low parental education levels. However, this is a speculation, and needs to be verified empirically.

Analyses indicated that social group (children’s being of naturalized refugee/non-refugee origin) was associated with literacy learning outcomes, but neither with school readiness nor numeracy. These findings pinpoint the significant role of the language(s) other than the medium of instruction spoken at home (Brock-Utne and Desai, 2005). Available empirical evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (Brock-Utne, 2007; Nikiema, 2011; Qorro, 2013), and other parts of the world (Graham and Van Ginkel, 2014; Lau and Rao, 2013) has emphatically indicated that having a home language that is different from that of instruction may negatively affect learning attainments. This is more critical particularly during the early years of education (Kalia and Reese, 2009).

Role of family SES in learning attainment

This study has examined differences in parental education and family wealth across social groups. Consistent with other studies (Aboud and Hosain, 2010 ; Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Reardon and Portilla, 2016), it has shown that parental education—a proxy for family SES, was strongly related to children’s learning attainments. However, most rural majority mothers had no, or only basic education. Perhaps due to their limited schooling, rural parents had few mentally stimulating interactions with their children as indicated in Table 3. As indicated in the Table 3 about parental educational, most of them were not employed in formal sectors, and hence had no access to maternity leave. Given the importance of maternity leave on children’s early stimulation and development (Baker and Milligan, 2015), lack of it may have negative implications on these children.

Furthermore, analyses indicated that family wealth was one of the major predictors of children’s school readiness. Compared with the rural majority, naturalized refugee children came from slightly richer households, and, despite being from a minority group. They demonstrated learning attainments comparable to those of children in the richer urban majority group. This echoes findings in other studies, that children from lower SES households tend to demonstrate lower learning outcomes than those from higher SES households (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Elliott and Sherraden, 2013; Ip et al., 2016). This suggests that, on top of SES, there are other home-related factors that influence children’s learning attainments (Koury and Votriba-Drzal, 2014).

It was not unexpected to find that parents from urban majority group were the wealthiest, highly educated, and more professional. However, it was surprising that the current study found that rural naturalized refugee parents were richer and more educated than rural majority parents. Extant research has documented strong correlations between family SES and children learning attainments (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002; Coleman, 1966; Melhuish et al., 2008; Raag et al., 2011). However, caution should be taken as in this study, children of the urban majority group demonstrated lower literacy than less-advantaged rural naturalized refugees.

The current study found that most of the young parents were not well prepared to shoulder the responsibilities associated with their new roles and responsibilities. This is not surprising given their existing contexts—rural and former refugees, which required them to settle down first as Tanzanian citizens before focusing on other aspects of their lives. Given the importance of parenting and parental preparedness on children’s learning and development (Heckman, 2011), and parents’ traumatic past experiences as refugees (Murphy et al., 2018; Ndijuye, 2019), it is critically important to prepare these new parents both socially and financially.

Limitations and conclusion

Findings from this study indicated that although naturalized refugees’ HLEs were the same as those of the rural majority, and had lower SES than the urban majority, their learning attainments were comparable to those of the urban majority. Parental beliefs and expectations were the possible reasons for their demonstrating better learning attainment. While Tanzania has many minority and immigrant groups, the participants of the current study were sampled from only one. As such, the results cannot justifiably be generalized for immigrant groups in Tanzania. Second, though this study explored family SES and HLEs, it did not examine other critical aspects of home environment—such as parenting styles.

There is a need to formulate evidence-based early years school and HLEs are equally critical for children’s learning (Bradley et al., 2001; Kafle and Jolliffe, 2015; Melhuish et al., 2008). Supportive HLEs become more critical in Tanzania, where teacher qualifications and school resources are typically limited (UNESCO, 2015) education policies tailored to pro-learning parental beliefs to augment children’s learning. At the practical level, schools should forge sustainable parent–school relationships, so that educational and community needs are better addressed, and should focus on improving such practices as parenting and inclusive school management.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Laurent Gabriel Ndijuye

References

Aboud

Hosain

(2010) The impact of pre-primary school on primary school achievement in Bangladesh. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26: 237–246.

Baker

Milligan

(2015) Maternity leave and children’s cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Population Economics 28(2): 373–391.

Black

Walker

Fernald

, et al. (2016) Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. The Lancet 389: 11–14.

Bradley

Corwyn

(2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 371–399.

Bradley

Corwyn

McAdoo

, et al. (2001) The home environments of children in the United States part 1: variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development 72: 1844–1867.

Bradshaw

(2002) Child poverty and child outcomes. Children and Society 16: 131–140.

Brock-Utne

(2007) Language of instruction and student performance: new insights from research from Tanzania and South Africa. International Review of Education 53: 509–531.

Brock-Utne

Desai

(2005) Expressing oneself through writing – a comparative study of learners-writing skills in Tanzania and South Africa. In: Brock-Utne

Desai

Qorro

(eds) LOITASA Research in Progress. Dar es Salaam: KAD Associates, pp. 224–256.

Ciping

Silinskas

Wei

, et al. (2015) Cross-lagged relationships between home learning environment and academic achievements in Chinese. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 4(33): 12–20.

10.

Chaulia

(2003) The politics of refugee hosting in Tanzania: from open door to unsustainability, insecurity and receding receptivity. Journal of Refugee Studies 16(2): 147–166.

11.

Coleman

(1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

12.

CSFM (2008) Citizenship and forced migration in the Great Lakes region. Working Paper No. 1. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam press.

13.

Dearing

Berry

Zaslow

(2005) Poverty during childhood. In: McCarthey

Phillips

(eds) Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development. Blackwell, pp. 399–423.

14.

Duncan

Magnuson

(2005) Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children 15(1): 35–54.

15.

Duncan

Dowsett

Claessens

, et al. (2007) School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology 43(6): 1428–1446.

16.

Ejieh

MUC

(2006) Pre-primary education in Nigeria: policy implementation and problems. Elementary Education 5(1): 58–64.

17.

Elliott

Sherraden

(2013) Assets and educational achievement: theory and evidence. Economics of Education Review 33(1): 1–7.

18.

EQUIP-Tanzania (2014) Briefing note 2: early grade pupil learning in some of the most disadvantaged districts in Tanzania. Country report, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Oxford Policy Management. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2779240

19.

Engle

Black

Behrman

, et al. (2007) Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet 369: 229–242.

20.

Graham

van Ginkel

(2014) Assessing early grade reading: the value and limits of “words per minute.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 27(3): 244–259.

21.

Han

(2008) The academic trajectories of children of immigrants and their school environments. Developmental Psychology 44: 1572–1590.

22.

Han

Lee

Waldfogel

(2012) School readiness among children of immigrant in the US: evidence from a large national birth cohort study. Children and Youth Services Review 34: 771–782.

23.

Heckman

(2011) The economics of inequality: the value of early childhood education. American Education 35(1): 31–35.

24.

Rao

Bacon-Shone

, et al. (2016) Socioeconomic gradients in school readiness of Chinese preschool children: the mediating role of family processes and kindergarten quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 35: 111–123.

25.

Jones

Greenberg

Crowley

(2015) Early social-emotional functioning and public health: the relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health 105(11): 2283–2290.

26.

Kafle

Jolliffe

(2015) Effects of asset ownership on child health indicators and educational performance in Tanzania. Paper presentation for the agricultural and applied economics association (WAEA) annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, 26–28 July.

27.

Kagan

(2006) School readiness and children’s play: contemporary oxymoron or compatible option? In: Edward

FZ.

Dorothy

Sandra

(eds) Children’s Play: The Roots of Reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press, pp. 59–76

28.

Kalia

Reese

(2009) Relations between Indian children’s home literacy environment and their English oral language and literacy skills. Scientific Studies of Reading 13(2): 122–145.

29.

Kapinga

(2014) The impact of parental socioeconomic status on students’ academic achievement in secondary schools in Tanzania. International Journal of Education 6(4): 120–138.

30.

Kenney

(2012) Child, family, and neighborhood associations with parent and peer interactive play during early childhood. Maternal and Child Health Journal 16(1): 88–101.

31.

Kiernan

Mensah

(2011) Poverty, family resources and children’s early educational attainment: the mediating role of parenting. British Educational Research Journal 37(2): 317–336.

32.

Koury

Votriba-Drzal

(2014) School readiness of children from immigrant families: contribution of region of origin, home, and childcare. Journal of Educational Psychology 106(1): 268–288.

33.

Kuch

(2017) Naturalization of Burundian refugees in Tanzania: the debates on local integration and the meaning of citizenship revisited. Journal of Refugee Studies 30: 468–487.

34.

Lahaie

(2008) School readiness of children of immigrants: does parental involvement play a role? Social Science Quarterly 89(3): 684–705.

35.

Lau

Rao

(2013) English vocabulary instruction in six early childhood classrooms in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care 183(10): 1363–1380.

36.

Lee

JAC

Al Otaiba

(2015) Socioeconomic and gender group differences in early literacy skills: a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis approach. Educational Research and Evaluation 21(1): 40–59.

37.

Mabagala

(2012) The importance of play during childhood: the lesson for care givers, parents and pre-schools in Tanzania. Journal of the Open University of Tanzania 11(1): 46–78.

38.

Malmberg

Mwaura

Sylva

(2011) Effects of pre-school interventions on cognitive development among East African preschool children: a flexible time-coded growth model. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26: 124–133.

39.

Matafwali

Nunsaka

(2011) An evaluation of community-based early childhood centres in Zambia: a case of four selected districts. Journal of Early Childhood Development 5: 109–140.

40.

Melhuish

Phan

Sylva

, et al. (2008) Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues 64: 95–114.

41.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE.

42.

Ministry of Home Affairs (MoH) (2014) Refugees Status and Statistics. Available at: http://www.moha.go.tz/sites/default/files/tanzania%20refugee%20policy%202003.pdf

43.

Mtahabwa

(2010) Provision of pre-primary education as a basic right in Tanzania: reflections from policy documents. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 11(4): 353–364.

44.

Murphy

Yoshikawa

Wuermli

(2018) Implementation research in early childhood development programming in humanitarian contexts. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1419: 90–101.

45.

Mwaura

PAM

Sylva

Malmberg

(2008) Evaluating the Madrasa preschool programme in East Africa: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Early Years Education 16(3): 2337–2550.

46.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2012) Tanzania Basic Demographic and Socio-economic Profile. Dar es Salaam: Government press.

47.

Ndijuye

(2019) Developing conflict resolution skills among pre-primary children: Views and practices of parents and teachers in Tanzania. Global Studies of Childhood. Epub ahead of print 5 March. DOI: 10.1177/2043610619832895.

48.

Ndijuye

Rao

(2018) Early Learning of Children in Tanzania: A Comparison Study of Naturalized Refugee, Rural Majority, and Urban Majority Population Groups. International Journal of Early Childhood 50: 315–333.

49.

Ndijuye

Rao

(2019) Early reading and mathematics attainment of children of recently naturalized refugees in Tanzania. International Journal of Education Development 65: 183–193. Available at: https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0738059317306703

50.

Nikiema

(2011) A first-language-first multilingual model to meet the quality imperative in formal education in three “francophone” West African countries. International Review of Education 57(5-6): 599–616.

51.

O’Dwyer

(2012) Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of children’s active free-play: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 1(2): 1–17.

52.

Qorro

MAS

(2013) Language of instruction in Tanzania: why are research findings not heeded? International Review of Education 59(1): 29–45.

53.

Raag

Kusiak

Tumilty

, et al. (2011) Reconsidering SES and gender divides in literacy achievement: are the gaps across social class and gender necessary? Educational Psychology 31(6): 691–705.

54.

Rao

Sun

SSN

, et al. (2013) The Hong Kong Early Child Development Scale: a validation study. Child Indicators Research 6(1): 115–135.

55.

Reardon

Portilla

(2016) Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school readiness gaps at kindergarten entry. AERA Open 2(3): 1–18.

56.

RTI International (2014) National baseline assessment for the 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) using EGRA, EGMA, and SSME in Tanzania. Study report, Washington, DC, USAID. Available at: https://ierc-publicfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/public/resources/National_Baseline_Assessment_for_the_3Rs_in_Tanzania_Study_Report_%28TO24%29.pdf

57.

Shonkoff

Phillips

(2000) From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science of Early Child Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

58.

Sumra

Katabaro

(2014) Declining quality of education: suggestions for arresting and reversing the trend (THDR 2014). Background paper no. 9, ESRF discussion paper No. 63. Tanzania Ministry of Education.

59.

UNESCO (2007) EFA Global Monitoring Report: Strong Foundations – Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

60.

UNESCO (2015) Education for all global monitoring report 2000-2015: achievements and challenges, 2015. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf

61.

UNHCR (2010) Global Trend Report: Displacement – The New 21st Century Challenge. New York: UNHCR publishing. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/globaltrendsjune2013/UNHCR%20GLOBAL%20TRENDS%202012_V08_web.pdf

62.

UNHCR (2012) Global Trend Report: Displacement – The New 21st Century Challenge. New York: UNHCR publishing. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/globaltrendsjune2013/UNHCR%20GLOBAL%20TRENDS%202012_V08_web.pdf

63.

UNICEF (2015) 70 Years for Every Child (Annual report). Washington, DC: UNICEF.

64.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2014) Education and Training Policy. Dar es Salaam: Government Press.

65.

Uwezo (2015) Are Our Children Learning? (Literacy and Numeracy in Tanzania: Annual Learning Assessment Report). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Twaweza East Africa.

66.

Weiland

Yoshikawa

(2013) Impacts of prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development 84(6): 2112–2130.