Education for non-citizen children in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

Tharani Loganathan; Zhie X. Chan; Fikri Hassan; Watinee Kunpeuk; Rapeepong Suphanchaimat; Huso Yi; Hazreen Abdul Majid

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259546

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 23, 2021
21 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Maryam Farooqui, Editor PONE-D-21-23915Education for non-citizen children in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Loganathan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 17/10/2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Maryam Farooqui, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "Funding was from National Science Foundation under Grant Number 2051510 to Carlos F Martino" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Funding was from National Science Foundation under Grant Number 2051510 to Carlos F Martino" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please check the comments made by both reveiwers and submit you rebuttal not later than 17/10/2021. You are advice to disregard the comments left by Reviewer 1 in your revision wherever you find appropriate. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I will appreciate authors for choosing an important topic and been able to collect significant information. However, I am concerned regarding the writing style which is not what we call the 'academic style of writing'. Methods are not written in a structured way. How is design iterative? Why definition of terms are given in methods? how come 32 interviews were conducted from 33 participants. The way thematic analysis reported also requires reconsideration. Categorize similar codes into one theme or sub-theme. Too many overlapping sub-themes can be seen. Discussion is good in sense of co-relating findings with other studies however, lacks message/solution from author on the issues highlighted. Conclusion is too general to establish the significance of the current study. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, This paper is well written. Kindly check 'Children drop out from school to help financially support the family', perhaps the word 'help' can be dropped. Please check all the references so that they are consistent with the journal's format. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259546.r001
Revision 1
27 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers Reviewer #1: 1. Methods are not written in a structured way. The methods section has been restructured with subsections for clarity. The sections are (1) Overview (2) Recruitment, (3) Data collection, (4) Data analysis and (3) Ethics. We also have reorganised and edited the Methods section to improve the flow. 2. How is design iterative? We have rewritten this section removing the term ‘iterative’. Line 93-97 in the methods section: We used qualitative methods to explore experiences and challenges faced by marginalised non-citizen children in Malaysia and those supporting them, in accessing education during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study focuses on refugee and asylum seeker, migrant, stateless and undocumented children in Malaysia. International students and children of expatriates were excluded from this study. (Refer to S1 Text for the definition of terms) 3. Why are definition of terms given in methods? We acknowledge that the definition of key populations need not be included in the Methods section, since they have been sufficiently described in the Introduction section. Instead, we moved the definition of terms to the appendix (S1 Text) We also moved the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the initial introduction of the Methods. See Line 93-97 above. 4. How come 32 interviews were conducted from 33 participants. Of these 32 in-depth interviews, we had 2 sessions where 2 participants from the same organisation were interviewed, while the rest were interviews had one participant only. We also conducted a second interview with one participant. So, in total 33 participants were interviewed. We aimed to conduct individual interviews for this study. However, two organisations sent two representatives to participate in interviews. One participant was interviewed twice. Line 107 - 110 in the methods section: Data collection was conducted from June 2020 to March 2021. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews, interviewing 33 individuals. Most interviews were conducted on an individual basis; however, two interviews were conducted with 2 participants from the same organisation. One participant was interviewed twice. 5. The way thematic analysis reported also requires reconsideration. Categorize similar codes into one theme or sub-theme. Too many overlapping sub-themes can be seen We have carefully read the results section and have agreed that organisation of main themes and subthemes should remain. However, we have substantially edited overlapping quotes and repetitious points. We hope that this would be able to convey the complexity of the situation with more clarity. We itemise changes made here: Page 13 – deleted Point Parents were unable to afford to buy digital devices or mobile top-ups for data connectivity to support online learning during the pandemic. Page 15 – deleted quote “Students who did not have that support, they sort of disappeared. Although we registered them online. And we got them to make the connection, but they did not continue. Or they would do things like, you know, not [submit homework] on time. Maybe after two weeks, they will submit something.” EP-03 (August 2020) Page 16 – deleted point …to the lack of support and isolation forced by quarantine measures,… … while being confined at home especially if the home environment was negative … Page 16 – rewritten paragraph for clarity Refugees living in urban areas often live in cramped environments that pose a challenge to remote learning. Forced eviction further exacerbate the issue of the lack of space and privacy for effective learning. Page 17 – deleted point … or help set up remote learning… Page 21- rewritten paragraph for clarity Study participants informed that home classes were only conducted when case numbers were relatively low before October 2020. Educationists interviewed in early 2021, described physical visits to students' home as not possible at that time because of increased risk of COVID-19 transmission and the legal repercussions of not complying with movement restrictions. Page 22 – deleted quote “In terms of education, the migrant communities, of course, are in a dire situation simply because there are a lot of organisations that are pulling out funding as well, right? So, there’s so much that needs to be done. You know you need to provide at least iPads or something for the children to learn online. But at the same time, there’s no funding for it. So, kids who are going to school and the school are being funded by the NGO school or faith-based schools…. I don’t think they are able to sustain because they are all going online [and] not all kids are able to go online. And the NGOs and do not have the capacity to provide for all these children.” RES-04 (Oct 2020) Page 23 – rewritten paragraph Interviewees shared that even though school fees were low, they were still a hurdle for marginalised populations. Non-citizen families were faced with financial difficulties due to job loss and immigration crackdowns against undocumented migrants. Educationists shared that some learning centres discounted tuition fees, as their main aim was to enable children to continue their education and not to generate profit. 6. Discussion is good in sense of co-relating findings with other studies, however, lacks message/solution from author on the issues highlighted. Thank you for your comment. We feel that this paper highlights problems faced by children from marginalised communities in accessing education during the COVID-19 pandemic. These students have been excluded from mainstream education and are only able to access informal education through community and NGO run learning centers. This paper illustrates the struggles the community face and the efforts made by stakeholders to support the community and ensure educational access. There is no easy solution to this situation. In this paper, we suggest that the lack of government oversight is in alternative learning centres and non-citizen children is an issue. We suggest that we should look at the example of neighboring Thailand that provides free education to non-citizen children, even though those schools have issues. Page 26 – additional paragraph for clarity Though there is no straightforward solution to ensuring rights to education access for vulnerable population, this study can serve as a useful input for future policy design to protect education rights for vulnerable children in the time of crisis. First, policy makers should be aware that the one-size-fit-all measure does not always lead to favourable outcomes. The education system for vulnerable children, particularly the non-citizens, in many places differ greatly from the mainstream education for the citizens. The abrupt change in policies (such as implanting an on-line learning or school closure), if done without supporting systems in place (in terms of budget, technology, finance and know-how), may cause longterm damage on the children (as a result of school dropout or poor learning outcomes) than the shortterm health damage caused by COVID-19. Preparedness plan for the education system for any future crises should seriously account for the diverse nature of education system for non-citizen children. 7. Conclusion is too general to establish the significance of the current study. Thank you for your comment. We feel that the conclusion highlights that the pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing vulnerabilities faced by non-citizen communities. Non-citizen children are unable to enter government schools in Malaysia, thus are their welfare and education is looked after by NGOs, community, faith-based and international organisations. In the conclusion, we urge the government to use the pandemic as an opportunity to be inclusive in provision of education and recommend that the government take an active role in ensuring non-citizen children are ensured the right to education. Reviewer #2: 1. Kindly check 'Children drop out from school to help financially support the family', perhaps the word 'help' can be dropped. We made the necessary change to Table 2 dropping the word ‘help’ 2. Please check all the references so that they are consistent with the journal's format. We have changed the style on citation manager to the PLOS style and have checked the citations to ensure quality. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259546.r002
21 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Maryam Farooqui, Editor Education for non-citizen children in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study PONE-D-21-23915R1 Dear Dr. Loganathan, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Maryam Farooqui, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Author. Thank you very much for considering my suggestions. Your manuscript is pretty much clear now and flows well. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259546.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Maryam Farooqui, Editor PONE-D-21-23915R1 Education for non-citizen children in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study Dear Dr. Loganathan: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Maryam Farooqui Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259546.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .