Crisis-sensitive planning in education: lessons learned
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
4 likes•1,733 views
By Leonora MacEwen, Education programme specialist, IIEP-UNESCO, at CIES 2017, Atlanta. Presentation for the panel "Lessons from Fiels Pilots in Multi-Risk and Education Analysis for crisis and conflict-affected evironments" organised by USAID ECCN. More information: http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/how-should-we-plan-education-settings-conflict-and-instability-cies2017-3890
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (15)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Crisis-sensitive planning in education: lessons learned
Similar to Crisis-sensitive planning in education: lessons learned (20)
More from IIEP-UNESCO
More from IIEP-UNESCO (12)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Crisis-sensitive planning in education: lessons learned
- 1. CRISIS-SENSITIVE PLANNING IN EDUCATION: LESSONS LEARNED CIES, March 2017 Leonora MacEwen IIEP-UNESCO
- 2. The crisis-sensitive planning process
- 3. Three case studies ■ Burkina Faso Addressing risks through the 10-year Programme for the Strategic Development of Basic Education (PDSEB) ■ Uganda Strengthening education sector capacities for conflict and disaster risk management (CDRM) ■ South Sudan Developing a crisis-sensitive Education Sector Analysis (ESA) and Education Sector Plan (ESP)
- 4. Characteristics for planning for crises in education sector plans Institutional capacities: Political will, MoE leadership, int. and nat. frameworks and mechanisms Organizational capacities: e.g. EiE Cluster, technical and financial WGs, partners Individual capacities: Technical skill in data analysis, ‘crisis-sensitive planning champions’ • Government-led • Participatory • Well-organized • Capacity development process →
- 5. 1: A country-led process Lesson: Government engagement and leadership in the planning process reinforces ownership and facilitates development and implementation of a country’s education plan, policy, or programme Lesson: Conflict-sensitive and risk-informed measures are more relevant and effective when national and sub-national authorities, and humanitarian partners participate in their planning and implementation 2: A participatory process
- 6. South Sudan’s ESA: a country-led and participatory process Highest risk High risk Low risk Lowest risk • Risk index based on: • conflict affected civilians • death, injury and disease • food insecurity and livelihoods • widespread malnutrition Source: OCHA composite risk index 2014 and 2015
- 7. 1. Access: enrolment, school ownership, reasons for non-enrolment 2. Quality: school classroom type, school facilities, curriculum 3. Management: teacher type, PTR, textbook distribution South Sudan’s ESA: a country- led and participatory process cont.
- 8. MANAGEMENT: Primary pupils per English textbook, by State and level of risk, 2015 Nb of pupils per Engl textbook CEQ 2.3 EEQ 2.2 JON* 5.8 LAK 2.3 NBG 2.4 UNI* 7.1 UPN* 3.1 WAR 3.1 WBG 2.6 WEQ 2.3 South Sudan 2.7 WO GUN 2.5 2 3 3 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lowest risk Low High Highest
- 9. Challenges and opportunities for ownership and participation ■ Balancing government ownership vs. stakeholder participation ■ Multiple, often competing priorities in education sector planning ■ Need for continued advocacy, evidence and financial support ■ Funding mechanisms still not very flexible ■ Education still not priority in humanitarian funding ■ Considerable momentum (Education CannotWait fund, multi/bilateral donors, transcendence of humanitarian-development divide)
- 10. 3: A well-organized and coordinated process Lesson:Coordination mechanisms can ensure appropriate follow up and alignment with government priorities on crisis-sensitive education and sustain long-term commitment 4: Incorporates capacity development at all levels Lesson:The need for capacity development is particularly strong in contexts of crisis, as the crisis may have depleted capacities, and weak capacities may have contributed to the crisis
- 11. South Sudan’s ESP: a coordinated process focused on capacity development • a series of 8 technical workshops focused on skills (data analysis, objectives and programme formulation) • structured in a manner to contribute to organizational capacities and reinforce existing structures
- 12. Challenges and opportunities for coordination – Silo’ed approach (humanitarian vs. development) in most agencies – Push for increase in collaboration between humanitarian and development partners: ■ At country-level - ex.Transitional Education Plan guidelines → ■ At global level - ex.World Humanitarian Summit – Cross-sectoral collaboration: Education and peacebuilding, Education as basis for achieving SDGs
- 13. Challenges and opportunities for capacity development ■ HR turnover & tight deadlines challenges sustainability of CD efforts ■ Critical mass of capacity, at all levels, takes years to emerge Particular needs include: – Implement, monitor and evaluate crisis- sensitive planning, – Data collection & analysis, EMIS & monitoring tools must include risks & use innovative collection methods in hard-to- reach areas ■ Increased awareness and materials available, – ex. UNICEF materials, GPE-IIEPTEP guidelines, IIEP-PEIC guidance on resilience and social cohesion
Editor's Notes
- Conflict and disaster risk analysis (conflict and disaster impacts on education, role of education in fueling conflict, capacities for C/DRR) Policies e.g.: Schools as safe and child-friendly spaces, equity policies, curriculum policy, … Priority programmes: Curriculum review, teacher training; school-based emergency preparedness plans; relocate, retrofit schools Ensuring adequate financing, including from humanitarian sources and government budgets Crisis indicators integrated into data collection, maps, EMIS review (e.g. data on attacks on schools)
- 1) In Burkina Faso frequent floods and other natural hazards (droughts, violent winds, and storms), as well as socio-political tensions and conflicts, often interrupt education. After major floods in 2009 and 2010, the Ministry of National Education and Literacy (MENA) developed its 10-year Programme for the Strategic Development of Basic Education (PDSEB), which addressed these risks. 2) In 2015/2016, South Sudan developed its second general education strategic plan (GESP), within the context of a national economic crisis, extreme poverty, lack of infrastructure, and political instability. The need to plan and manage an education system that could mitigate and respond to the risk of conflict was evident. As a result, the Ministry of General Education and Instruction (MoGEI) developed an education sector analysis (ESA) and education sector plan (ESP) that addressed the country’s humanitarian needs and economic challenges, along with its long-term development objectives. 3) In Uganda, inter-ethnic conflicts, refugee influxes, and natural hazards (including floods, earthquakes, landslides, and droughts) have a considerable effect on the provision of education. In 2015, the Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Sports (MoESTS) endorsed a policy framework – the Conflict and Disaster Risk Management Guidelines for Educational Institutions (CDRM Guidelines) – to develop conflict and disaster prevention and mitigation strategies in and through education. The MoESTS also worked to strengthen education sector capacities for conflict and disaster risk management (CDRM) at central, district, and school levels, has integrated CDRM into primary and lower-secondary curricula, and has developed child-friendly CDRM booklets and a teachers’ guide to be operationalized at school level.
- Planning is an opportunity in and of itself, given its very nature, to bring together different actors and integrate approaches. IIEP and GPE have defined essential characteristics of the planning process. First and foremost, developing an ESP must be a country-led process. Since an ESP is a national policy instrument, it is first the responsibility of the national government, which ultimately decides on priorities and is responsible for the plan’s implementation. Secondly, developing an ESP is a participatory process. Engaging political leaders and technical experts will allow you to strike a balance between ambitions and constraints. It will also help raise awareness and gain the commitment of a wide range of education stakeholders. This is really the opportunity to engage humanitarian actors. To efficiently manage this participation, developing an ESP must be a well-organized process. Ensuring clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different actors is essential. Finally, the development of an ESP is a capacity development process. The process of ESP preparation is as important as the final product. CAPACITIES needed at all levels: Finally, the planning process should be viewed as a capacity-development process. Because plan implementation depends on a wide range of actors within te administration, from central to school levels, and it is important that capacity at all these levels be addressed. Actual work on drafting a plan and involvement in consultations are of great value to developing capacities and strengthening motivation. Based on the technical cooperation we’ve undertaken in Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and South Sudan, we find the following pre-conditions necessary for effective crisis-sensitive planning. 1. Institutional capacities: Political will to make education crisis-sensitive; MoE leadership, int. and national frameworks and mechanisms 2. Organizational capacities: organizational mechanisms/technical WG – clear mandate/roles and responsibilities 3. Individual capacities: Capacity of key education ministry officials, invested advocates for crisis-sensitive planning. Planning for safety, resilience and social cohesion can be difficult to integrate into the educational planning process due to its sensitive language and limited funds available. The experience of IIEP shows that outspoken advocates for these issues are the key for institutions to collaborate and lead activities to address conflict and disasters in education. In IIEP’s experience, the following elements are essential when preparing an education sector plan. The plan preparation process must led by the government. Yet, it should also be participatory. Political leaders and technical experts discuss to strike a balance between ambitions and constraints. The process can raise awareness and generate commitment from a range of education stakeholders, including humanitarian actors, but also teacher unions, or groups that are marginalized or have a stake in conflicts (the R as Representation that Alan Smith and other researcher colleagues discussed earlier). To manage this participation, the process must be well-organized, with clear on roles and responsibilities. And, quite importantly, sector plan preparation should be a capacity development process. In IIEP’s work with Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and South Sudan, we have noticed a need to develop capacity at three levels. Firstly, institutional capacities, such as political will among the MoE top leadership to prioritize crisis-sensitive education. Or commitments to international or national standards, frameworks and mechanisms, such as, for example, the Safe Schools Declaration. Secondly, organizational capacities, such as setting up technical working groups and formal collaboration mechanisms, and for example working with the Education Cluster or emergency authorities. And thirdly, individual capacities, such as technical planning skills of individual staff, or working with key education ministry officials as crisis-sensitive education “champions”.
- Principle 1: Conflict-sensitive and risk-informed planning and programming should be country-led Lesson: Government engagement and leadership in the planning process reinforces ownership and facilitates the development and implementation of a country’s education plan, policy, or programme. In crisis contexts, government leadership may be weak, and responses may be ad hoc or insufficient to meet immediate education needs. In such situations, a ministry may benefit from enhanced external support, ideally from local experts with context-specific knowledge and technical expertise, paired with international support, if needed. External support with an emphasis on capacity development and learning by doing can help a ministry to strengthen or regain ownership. Example: South Sudan In South Sudan, the ESA and ESP development process was led by MoGEI and brought together education stakeholders from central and state levels, civil society, the Education Cluster, UNICEF, UNESCO, and the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR, to develop a common strategy. Working with national staff in hands-on planning workshops, demystifying technical aspects of the work, and facilitating ministry discussions on priorities contributed to ensuring government ownership of the process. Furthermore, the active involvement of both government and non-government education stakeholders enabled ownership of the outcomes of the process. Principle 2: Conflict-sensitive and risk-informed planning and programming should be participatory Lesson: Conflict-sensitive and risk-informed measures are more relevant and effective when national and sub-national authorities, teachers, and partners participate in their planning and implementation. The principle of ‘participation’ is particularly important in the context of crisis, as those who are most affected by disaster and/or conflict are usually not involved in decision-making processes. However, bringing stakeholders affected by crisis or disparity together to set priorities will help ensure that their needs are addressed, and that relevant strategies are used.
- As you know, the political context in South Sudan has been unstable for many years… and the country is currently coping with a major humanitarian crisis After the 2 major civil wars (1955-1972, 1983-2005), that ended in 2005 with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), that began a 6 year transition period The country became independent on July 9, 2011 However, tensions between Sudan and South Sudan persist (oil revenue, border demarcation, mutual accusations of rebel support) Internal armed conflicts continue in Greater Upper Nile States Outbreak of civil war in December 2013 Peace Agreement signed in August 2015; civil strife persistent and ceasefire weakened Recurrent flooding which makes access difficult, and has lead to cholera outbreaks in Juba and in IDP camps Massive population displacement (approximately 2 million IDPs in the country) Human rights violations High casualties Intensification of other forms of conflict e.g. cattle rustlings among Pastoralist Communities; revenge Economic pressure (inflation, lack of foreign reserves and volatility of the exchange rate UN Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) data from Humanitarian response plan, 2015 has compiled a series of indicators on 1) conflict affected civilians, 2) death, injury and disease, 3) food insecurity and livelihoods and 4) widespread malnutrition They have used these indicators to develop a composite risk index which is available at county level 4 risk level : lowest, low, high and highest for Nov 2014 & June 2015 => average indicators Merged with 2015 EMIS data UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) Peace Building, Education and Advocacy (PBEA), 2015 Inputs from the Education Cluster and UNHCR throughout the ESA process
- Once we’d mapped and localized the risks, we then looked at how the risks affect the education system performance in terms of access, quality and management. Some of the things we looked at related to access include enrolment, school ownership, reasons for non-enrolment. For quality, in terms of the risk analysis, we looked at school classroom type, school facilities, but also the extent to which the curriculum framework addresses risks. Finally for management we looked at teacher distribution, PTRs and textbook distribution. The hypothesis being that in those areas where risk levels are highest, education system performance would be weakest. EMIS data, 2014 Use of OCHA data from Humanitarian Response Plan, 2015 UNICEF ESARO PBEA, 2015 DfID Girls’ Education South Sudan reports
- Here we can see that textbooks are lacking … particularly in high risk areas Textbooks are particularly limited in Upper Nile and Jonglei (more than 6 pupils/textbook), while they relatively more available in the Equatoria States and Lakes (around 2.3) The level of risk greatly affects textbook allocation: when we look at the pupil-textbook ratio from the lowest to the highest level of risk, the number of pupils per English textbook more than triples, from 2.2 to 6.5 Source: EMIS 2015. own computations. * The number of textbooks has been capped to the number of pupils. to account for useful textbooks.
- Politically, there is a fine balance between government ownership and stakeholder participation. For example, when it comes to the education sector analysis, in principle, government officials should lead or co-lead the methodology development, and the data collection, and they should prepare the actual analysis, based on data and data collection tools that belong to the government. In practice, that’s not always feasible. In terms of funding, international as well as domestic funding mechanisms tend to be less flexible than is needed by both Ministries and country-level partners. Further, in overall humanitarian funding, education only gets 2%. In crisis situations, you sometimes wonder how to prioritize when everything is a priority. I think one of our most important challenges is making a convincing case for crisis-sensitive planning, or learning for peace, social transformation or whatever we call it – when this is discussed up against other priorities (such as, say, improving learning outomes). We also need to be clear that crisis-sensitivity is not an add-on or merely a standardized Education in Emergencies component: it should be woven into the fabric of the plan, from diagnostic work to budget lines. However, we are indeed seeing opportunities open up. For example, the new Education Cannot Wait fund, which aims to generate political, operational and financial commitments. We also see that major bilateral donors including DfID, USAID, GPE, Norway, are redirecting their funding towards crisis settings.
- Principle 3: Crisis-sensitive and risk-informed planning and programming should be well organized and coordinated Lesson: Coordination mechanisms can ensure appropriate follow up and alignment with government priorities on crisis-sensitive education and sustain long-term commitment. In crisis situations, many partners often respond quickly, and in parallel to the government. A planning process that is well organized and coordinated can ensure that resources are used in the most efficient and equitable way, create synergies, and avoid duplication of activities or focusing on some areas to the detriment of others. South Sudan’s MoGEI benefited from the technical support of a coordinator based in UNESCO who was tasked with information gathering and sharing, and liaising with development partners. Ministry staff, however, were responsible for discussions that led to the identification of agreed priorities and activities in the plan. The participation of development and humanitarian partners such as the Education Cluster, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, and OCHA was key to ensuring that ongoing humanitarian work was also aligned with government priorities and supported national objectives. Principle 4: Conflict-sensitive and risk-informed planning and programming should incorporate capacity development at all levels Lesson: The need for capacity development is particularly severe in a context of crisis, as the crisis may have depleted capacities, and weak capacities may have contributed to the crisis. Capacity development measures the need to build on indigenous knowledge and local capacities, and should be hands-on. When supporting ministries of education to develop crisis-sensitive ESAs and ESPs, it is important to address individual, organizational, and institutional capacities for planning. Example: South Sudan In South Sudan, regular training (eight workshops over an 11-month period) and the use of a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach ensured that ministry staff gained knowledge and practical skills through directly carrying out planning work. As a result, staff could immediately put their learning to use. Furthermore, the participatory nature of the workshops strengthened relationships between key actors in MoGEI, as well as with civil society, donors, and other partners – providing space for them to develop a shared understanding of the process. Finally, some ministry representatives also participated in an IIEP distance course on planning for safety, resilience, and social cohesion. Linking this type of training with in-country technical support lends itself to improved mastery of new skills and improves the effectiveness of the process.
- The Steering Committee was the high-level decision-making group of the process. It was organized and led by MoEST. Its main functions were to: provide overall guidance for the preparation of the ESP; provide guidance on plan priorities based on the inputs of the ESP working groups in line with available and anticipated resources; serve as a linking mechanism between the Ministry and its major development, humanitarian, and civil society partners. The Steering Committee included the following members: Chair, MoEST; Undersecretary, MoEST; MoEST Directors-General and the Secretary-General for the Examination Secretariat; Representative from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Representative and Head of the UNESCO Office in Juba; EDoG Chair; Education Cluster Coordinator (or other representative of the humanitarian community); Representative of PEG. The Coordinating Committee was primarily responsible for organizing, developing, and drafting the ESP. It also served as a liaison between the working groups and the Steering Committee and provided guidance to the working group. The Coordinating Committee included the following members: Chair, Director for Planning and Budget, MoEST; Director for Partners Coordination, MoEST; Deputy Director for Planning and Budget, MoEST; Education Capacity and Coordination Expert, UNESCO. The ESP working groups were responsible for the design of the priority programmes. The working groups each consisted of approximately seven members. Representatives were primarily MoEST technical experts from the central level in addition to one or two state-level representatives. The Ministry also invited key education partners to participate in the working groups. Step 3: Programming This step consists of identifying priority programmes for preventing and mitigating conflict and disasters. Planners should reflect on possible options for conflict-sensitive and risk-informed programmes, prioritize these options based on desirability, affordability, and feasibility, and define programme targets. Programmes that are sensitive to conflict and disaster risks can be developed in addition to regular education programmes, or can be integrated in regular sub-sectoral programmes. Programming can and should be flexible and respond to unexpected changes, as well as to urgent needs as they arise. Identify priority programmes for preventing and mitigating conflict and disasters Reflect on and prioritize options based on desirability, affordability, and feasibility; define programme targets Can be in addition to regular education programmes, or integrated in regular sub-sectoral programmes Example: South Sudan In South Sudan, issues related to safety and social cohesion were mainstreamed throughout the ESP (e.g., safe learning spaces; learning opportunities for out-of-school children, including IDPs; refugee education; improved coordination between MoGEI and humanitarian partners). The Ministry also developed new curriculum that includes elements of safety, resilience, and social cohesion.
- One of the main operational challenges is that we – the UN but also governments - work in silos. Especially humanitarian vs. development, but also education vs. child protection, education vs. peacebuilding, conflict vs. natural disaster. But there are opportunities to break these silos down. For example, the new Guidelines for Transitional Education Plan Preparation, which explicitly encourage collaboration and coordination among humanitarian and development actors, and the associated GPE funding for transitional education plans. At the global level, and partly as a result of the World Humanitarian Summit, the Global Education Cluster is increasingly working towards ensuring linkages between Cluster strategic planning and countries’ education sector plans. Finally, we are also seeing more and more collaboration across sectors, bringing together areas including education and peacebuilding, education and disaster management…
- Capacity challenges are numerous. We see a lot of Ministry staff turnover (but also rotating agency staff). Tight deadlines in emergency situations makes it harder to develop capacity organically at all levels. We need to strengthen capacities at individual, and organizational, and institutional levels, but this does not happen within 1 program cycle. We also need to strengthen capacities on how to monitor and evaluate impacts of crisis-sensitive planning, especially the impact of prevention-related actions, and of concepts that are sometimes vague or fluid, such as resilience, and social cohesion. Data collection and analysis, EMIS and monitoring tools need to focus better on risks, and we need to use innovative data collection methods in hard-to-reach areas. The good news is that more people are now aware of these capacity issues and that some of the guidance available underscore the need to strengthen capacities at all levels.