In the process of implementing any educational programme with and for refugees, it is likely that the learners and tutors will come up against many structural and contingent barriers to refugees’ engagement with and access to higher education. It may be important as a team to discuss your capacity and will to respond to these, including whether or not it is politically appropriate to get involved in various advocacy efforts and what resources and capacity members will wish to commit to this. Advocacy is a time intensive and mostly unquantifiable activity, which in the context of much more time-bound commitments and deliverables can get materially deprioritised even as it remains ideologically central to a project. 

As Strydom (1997) notes in recommendations for the South African context, rather than focus on bridging the gap, we should perhaps instead focus on closing it. This might take the form, for example, of the option of a two year ‘first year’ course, whereby students are supported through increased tutoring and key skill development, unlike peers who might participate in an ‘accelerated’ first year. One advantage of this is that in being integrated within existing University systems, it would not necessarily require a separate funding source. 

There may be a need to influence the progression routes for students graduating from bridging programmes into higher education to ensure that the need for particular approaches (e.g. towards psychosocial support) are recognised within universities. Are the traumas experienced by refugee learners and their impacts on educational experiences understood by partner universities, for example? Is further training needed for universities to increase sensitivity towards learner-centred needs? As Hay and Marais (2004: 61) state, ‘effective access is not so much at the entry to the higher education system, but in the throughput’. 

There is also a hope that through showing Universities how successful bridging candidates can be within their institutions, that this can be used to leverage for greater recognition of these programmes as meeting key entry requirements. In Lebanon, where the Syrian baccalaureate is not accepted by Lebanon Universities as a relevant qualification to enable admission to University, various bridging programmes hope that over time, they will be able to prove the track record of their programmes in assisting students to access and succeed in higher education, which will also pave the way for possible accreditation. 

Turning first to the need for policy and institutional change in Uganda, Lebanon and beyond, we note that refugee education was hugely impacted by Covid-19. Even though schools and universities in Uganda and Lebanon have reopened following closures earlier in 2020, many refugee learners have still not been able to access education because their livelihoods were heavily affected. This has highlighted further the importance of an accessible, flexible and blended learning approach for refugees in resource constrained settings. For example, in Lebanon where educational institutions have adopted online learning during the pandemic, many refugees’ ability to engage has been limited due to limited digital skills, lack of appropriate devices, and the high cost of internet access. High level advocacy with policymakers and practitioners is needed to ensure that higher education for refugees is provided for in national structures in Uganda and Lebanon, since policies and practice on higher education do not ensure equitable access for refugees nor has either country fully recognized blended and online higher education programs. Above all, there is a need for resources to be allocated towards higher education within the current refugee responses in settings hosting refugees, and for the prioritisation of creative approaches to the attainment of higher education for refugees. We see this clearly in Uganda and Lebanon but also consider that policy changes to support refugee education are relevant beyond this context.

Enhancing Refugees’ Access to Tertiary Education through University Admissions Reform  Through supporting students to sit the Makerere Mature Entry Exam, it became clear that these regularly disadvantage refugee applicants, including through: admissions tests that are biased towards Ugandan nationals; the need to register for admissions exams in person when refugees cannot travel freely; and a lack of understanding amongst University staff about barriers to refugees’ entry.The refugee learners’ eventual ability to register for and sit the mature entry exam at Makerere was contingent on a series of administrative exceptions being made, following sustained lobbying and support from RLP colleagues. Refugee applicants outside of FFA would not have similarly benefited from these efforts in 2021, and there is no evidence that these exceptions have translated into structural change to enable refugees’ applications in the future. We have thus established a project in 2022 to work with institutions of higher education in Uganda to adapt admissions pathways to refugees’ needs.

Hay, H. R., & Morals, F. (2004). Bridging programmes: gain, pain or all in vain: perspectives on higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(2), 59-75.