Usa tel fax email benbow kacem bensalah position title chief

REPORT
Education in Emergencies:
Experts’ Workshop on Appropriate Humanitarian Response Paris 20th -22nd March 2002

Standards for Education in Emergencies: Moving Forward
Background
The issue of standards for education in emergencies has been a going concern on the part of various humanitarian actors who perceive of education as a life-saving intervention in situations of crises and disasters. The key issues for this group are:•The desire and commitment to ensure quality education for some of the most vulnerable people in the world;
•The frustrations of being “outside” the mainstream humanitarian debate because education is not seen as a priority humanitarian response.

Defining standards will address both of these issues. However, standards cannot be defined by a few, or in isolation. There is the potential for a powerful constituency to be built, particularly at this time in history when there is a global interest in reaching Education For All.

This group planned the meeting, and sponsored the majority of costs, including expenses incurred for the facilitator, and for the participants from Tanzania and Afghanistan. The meeting was held from March 20-22, 2002 at UNESCO’s Headquarters in Paris. UNESCO’s Unit in Support of Countries in Crisis and Reconstruction and the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) hosted the meeting.

1www.hapgeneva.org is the site for the Humanitarian Accountability Project, previously called the "Humanitarian Ombudsman".

Moreover, several exercises were accomplished so that the participants could simulate the experience of coming to agreement on commonalities and best practices in programming (see Appendix 3), drafting headings for an outline of a publication on standards for education in emergencies (see Appendix 4); and finally defining standards and indicators (see Appendix 5). This was a tremendous amount of work, which could form the basis for the next steps in the process.

Key Decisions and Results
The decision by the participants was an unequivocal “YES” to designing standards for education in emergencies. It was decided to learn from and build on SPHERE formats and processes as models. As well, support would be sought from a wide range of networks and actors, with INEE as the major vehicle for information
dissemination. A number of suggestions about the process were offered (see
Appendix 1). At the end of the meeting, the Planning Team was appointed as the Transitional Team (names above) to take decisions related to the start-up of the process toward defining standards in education in emergencies. The first task of the Transitional Team is to set the Terms of Reference for the Advisory Team on
Standards, as well as set guidelines for the participation in this team. The timeline set for this task is three months—until the end of June 2002.

A transition group could provide interim leadership to help define the process, and identify a working group.

One suggestion is that a group of 3 would identify a core group of experts with field and consensus building experience, and who are also familiar with the SPHERE process. Other criteria: professional competence, technical expertise, and a
willingness to commit time and accomplish work. They would set in motion the process of developing draft standards and indicators. The group of 3 would grow larger and act as a steering committee that would work on drawing in a wider constituency (UN for support and advocacy, links with SPHERE, political and donor network, other NGOs). 1-3 months for this phase.

General concerns about defining minimum standards:
•How to overcome the life-saving argument? Is education life saving?

•How do we go from “minimum” to “maximum” standards?

Risks – mainly over time scale:
•Can be used as a bureaucratic tool
•Application of “rule” rather than “principle”
•Dulls creativity
•There are too many fundamental differences between educators that need to be addressed and bridged
•Not inclusive enough
•Unable to measure impact effectively – complex programmes, including psycho- social and protection issues
•Trade-offs may occur which may be counterproductive in the end, such as concentrating funds on one aspect while others suffer
•Could cause “one-up-manship” between educationists and psychosocial specialists•Standards do not necessarily ensure quality or positive changes
•Focus on children and schooling rather than education
•Causes tension between the rapid impact approach desired by donors, and the long-term impact goals of NGOs
•Will standards reflect the aims of long-term sustainability?

•Could bring about conflict with host government
•Creates a situation in which the target population and the local population have unequal services
•Standards may be too low – some saying “hey this is easy”
•A reductionist approach, with an over-emphasis on materials provision.

•Politicization of intervention…eg complexities of language of tuition
•Confusion over “education” and “schooling”
•Politics and finance issues are too complicated—everyone has different agendas•No success for “political” reasons and a waste of resources
•Danger of only building the capacity of NGOs and creating parallel systems

Opportunities:
•We have a relatively blank sheet – defining standards for education in
emergencies is a new and interesting idea
•We can make it a living document – we are unbound by bureaucracies
•Helpful DME tool
•May increase coordination and coverage, both in process and in practice
•Articulates “quality”
•Standards may promote sound practices, push reflection and sharpen focus•It’s a learning process for the education community in creating new models•Emergencies offer opportunity for innovation in education
•New ways for parents, families and communities to be involved
•Community involvement in achieving standards may lead to increased community action and ownership
•Standards and indicators help us answer the question, “What is a good school?”•Flexible standards could relate well to community needs in emergencies. We can use different types and levels of indicators for different phases of emergencies•A 3-6 month standards approach can help link to development-oriented models•Defining educational relevance in new ways
•Allows us to identify appropriate indicators to address quality and relevance; increased time on task, and number of teachers using lesson plans
•Helps us advocate for increased resources, both in and outside of our own
organizations
•We can focus our messages, and engage in a dialogue of best practices
•Developing and implementing standards can further “good process” and not just outcomes.

PARTNERSHIPS
•We manage a range of levels of partnership
Government--we all work with the authorities:
•As a means of transition, turnover/capacity building
•For their coordination mechanisms
•For legitimacy
Inter-Agency:
•Challenges of operational/implementing partnerships and divesting responsibility•Gap in academic standards, courses, published materials, teacher training•Challenges in mandates/assumptions, humanitarian imperative, impartiality

TEACHER TRAINING
Approach to teacher training is contextual and designed to assure that minimal learning outcomes can be achieved with the available pool of teachers and teacher training
In-service, on-the-job, on-going support for teachers

Five groups attempted to develop standards and indicators to determine whether educational programming lent itself to the same delineation of standards as the other sectors in SPHERE Handbook.

1. ACCESS TO EDUCATION (TARGETING)
Standard 1: Population has access to appropriate educational services
Indicators:
•Needs assessment (including protection problems and needs of targeted
populations) to identify barriers to access to education is carried out
•Educational activities take place within reasonable walking distance
•Educational activities take place in a secure environment, and the way to the education facility is also safe
•A pre-determined percentage of the population is able to obtain services
•Awareness campaigns promoting education opportunities are held in the
communities
•Appropriate learning opportunities are available for all age groups to promote life long learning
•Specific barriers are addressed: fees, uniforms, supplies, food, hygiene
•Language of instruction is that of target population’s

Standard 1: A process of discernment has been undertaken to determine learning activities that reflect the best interests of the child and takes into consideration best practices and the will of the community

Standard 2: Learning activities are of high quality, and respond to the specific needs of learners in crisis.

Quality should be evident in the teaching/learning content, methodology and environment, and reflected in the rates of attainment.

3. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES

Standard 1: A sufficient number of female and male teachers are recruited and trained, who are able to facilitate learning for the target groups
Indicators:
•There is a gender balance (at least 30 % male and female trained) within the teacher population
•Class size allows for a pupil/teacher ratio which is known to be effective for optimal teaching/learning.

Guidance Notes: Strategies to improve teaching/learning effectiveness with large class sizes

Standard 1: Communities participates meaningfully in design and management of educational activities in support of learning
Indicators:
•Community Education Committees (PTAs, SMCs) exist and are active
•Community Education Committees are inclusive, equitable and representative•Actions of Community Education Committees are consistent with HR and humanitarian principles
•Committees activities include planning and support for learning objectives

Standard 2: Educational activities are developed and coordinated by all stake-holders within institutional frameworks and operational guidelines
Indicators:
•Coordination mechanisms exist and function at appropriate levels
•Relevant stake-holders regularly participate in coordination mechanisms
•Students’ education is recognized, or at least documented, as meeting accepted standards
•Teachers’ training is recognized, or at least documented, as meeting accepted standards in countries concerned
•Institutions meet accepted standards for management, reporting and accountability

Session One objective: To give participants the opportunity to introduce themselves, table expectations, and learn about the origins of this process

Session Two objective: To introduce participants to the concepts and processes behind the SPHERE project

10.45-12.30 Presentation
The history of the project and process
How and why it came about, who was involved The concept of minimum standards
Questions and discussion on issues arising

Session Three & Four objective: To give participants the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in crafting standards for education work

Discussion on findings from process

Appendix 7: PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING THE EMERGENCY EDUCATION EXPERTS MEETING, March 20-22, 2002

Name : Pamela Baxter
Position Title: Peace Education coordinator
Organisation affiliation : INEE
Address: Case Postale 2500
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: 73998245
Fax:
Email: baxter@unhcr

Name : Nan Buzard
Position Title : Project Manager, The Sphere Project Organisation affiliation : IFRC
Address : PO Box 372
1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 730 4501
Fax: 41 22 730 4905
Email: buzard@ifrc.org

Name : Nicole Dagnino
Position Title : Director
Organisation affiliation : Enfants Réfugiés du Monde Address : 34, Rue Gaston Lauriau
93512 Montreuil Cedex, France
Tel: (33) 01 48 59 60 29
Fax: (33) 01 48 59 64 88
Email: erm@club-internet.fr

Name : Fred Ligon
Position Title : Project Director, Burma Border Project
Organisation affiliation : World Education and World Learning (Consortium-Thailand)
Address : P.O. Box 27
Amphur Mae Sot, Tak Province 63110, Thailand
Tel: 055.534.791
Fax: 055.546.659
Email: fligon@ksc.th.com or consorth@loxinfo.co.th

Name : Leslie Limage
Position Title: Programme Specialist, Support to Countries in Crisis and Reconstruction
Organisation affiliation : UNESCO
Address: 7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP, France
Tel: (33).1.45.68.09.52
Fax: (33).1.45.68.56.31
Email: l.limage@unesco.org

Name : Eldrid Midttun
Position Title : Education Adviser, Department for International Operations Organisation affiliation : Norwegian Refugee Council
Address : Grensen 17, P.O. Box 6758 St. Olavs plass
N-0130 Oslo, Norway
Tel: 47.23.10.98.00
Fax: 47.23.10.98.01
Email: eldrid.midttun@nrc.no

Name: Arlene Mitchell
Position Title: Chief, School Feeding Support Unit, Strategy and Policy Division Organisation affiliation : World Food Programme
Address: via Cesare Guilio Viola 68-70
Parco de’ Medici
00148 Rome, Italy
Tel : (39).06.6513.2534
Fax: (39).06.6513.2854
Email: arlene.mitchell@wfp.org