INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LEARNING EVENT

LEARNING EVENT SUMMARY REPORT

From Theoretical Concept to Effective Practice

Organized by: Save the Children Sweden (SCS)

6-8 DECEMBER, 2016

Photo Copyright: Kaung Htet – Save the Children

1 | P a g e

Report compiled by

Els Heijnen-Maathuis Regional Advisor Education –Asia, Save the Children Sweden

Maliha Asif Kabani Thematic Advisor Education – Head Office, Save the Children Sweden

Malin Hansson Thematic Advisor Education- Head Office, Save the Children Sweden

Special Thanks for report documentation:

Livia Meirsman, Support Services & PDQ Volunteer, Save the Children International, Thailand

Report design

Maliha Asif Kabani

2 | P a g e

Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Workshop objectives and introduction .................................................................................................... 5

Key Note- Setting the scene and getting inspired .................................................................................... 6

Market Place ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Theme 1: Strategies for inclusive teaching and learning: how to support teachers .................................. 12

Classroom Realities- Country Example through video presentation ...................................................... 13

Participants’ Reflection of Day 1 ................................................................................................................. 15

Theme 2: Measuring effects/impact of inclusive education: how & what do we measure? Do we measure

what we value or value what we measure? ............................................................................................... 17

Quality Learning Environment (QLE) frame-work. What have we learned and how will this inform our

future programming work?..................................................................................................................... 19

Theme 3: Partnering with communities & civil society organizations. How to improve involvement of

communities and CSOs in projects, while taking an integrated approach? ............................................... 22

Participants’ reflections of day 2 ............................................................................................................. 26

Theme 4: Research, Communication & Advocacy ...................................................................................... 28

Inclusive Education Community of Practice (CoP) ...................................................................................... 32

The vision, mission and new program strategy of IKEA Foundation .......................................................... 33

Workshop Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 35

Participants’ learning & committed follow-up: ...................................................................................... 35

ANNEX 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38

What do we take away from the workshop?.......................................................................................... 38

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Inclusion is one of the major challenges

faced by education systems around the

world. The question of how schools can

include all children from the

communities, they serve and enable

them both to effectively participate and

achieve to their full potential is a

pressing issue for anyone concerned

with issues of equity and social justice in

contemporary and future societies.

Countries in Asia and (eastern) Europe

have made steady and visible progress towards achieving universal primary

education. However, the progress has

not been equitable or inclusive, and

disparities continue to exist within

countries and amongst population

groups. Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable amongst those who are not being able to exercise their right to inclusive quality education. The World Disability Report of 2010 states that children with disabilities are less likely to enroll, survive and complete a full cycle of basic education. The report

estimates that the number of children (0–14 years) living with disabilities range between 93 million and 150

million globally. Governments are committed to international conventions such as the Convention on the

Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the

Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action.

In most countries, there is low capacity to identify and characterize disability1 on which to base appropriate

policies, prepare relevant action plans and strategies, train teachers, adjust curricula, monitor effectively

and create an enabling environment in communities and schools for these children, together with their

peers without disabilities. The regional study on out-of-school children in Asia2 also mentions that the

needs of children with disabilities require urgent attention, taking the new global SDG4 seriously from a

non-discrimination and equity perspective.

Save the Children Sweden (SCS) implements projects, funded by IKEA Foundation and HnM Foundation,

in Asia and Europe focusing on inclusive education as a response to discrimination and exclusion of

disadvantaged children. The projects are at different stages and use a variety of approaches, but they all

aim to address discrimination of some of the most deprived children’s right to education. Inadequate data3

and information about appropriate interventions, including in schools, are significant barriers that prevent

commitments from translating into effective actions. The projects provide technical support to help

1 SC uses the CRPD definition of “disability”: persons with disability include those who have long-term physical, mental,

intellectual, or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in

society on an equal basis with others (CRPD Art. 1) 2 UNESCO/UIS (2015) 3 Save the Children developed and is piloting an inclusive Quality Learning Environment (QLE) frame-work for monitoring and

evaluation and program development.

4 | P a g e

countries demonstrate effective cross-sectoral4 implementation in

their project intervention areas. No program has the ultimate answer

– also because circumstances differ – but sharing and learning between

countries is critical for quality and impact of policy and programs for the realization of children’s rights in these project countries.

The Inclusive Education Learning Event has built upon the 2014

workshop and in addition to creating opportunities for peer to peer

learning, this 2016 workshop had a special focus5 on translating the

theory of inclusive education into classroom reality and positive learning outcomes.

4 Child protection, Child rights governance and health 5 Based on needs/interest assessment survey with all participating projects

Inclusive education is

one dimension of a rights-

based quality education

which emphasizes equity in

access and participation, and

responds positively to the

individual learning needs and

competencies of all children.

Inclusive education is child

centered and places the

responsibility of adaptation

on the education system

rather than the individual

child.

Together with other

sectors and the wider

community, it actively

works to ensure that every

child, irrespective of gender,

language, ability, religion,

nationality or other

characteristics, is supported

to meaningfully participate

and learn alongside his/her

peers, and develop to

his/her full potential.

Source: Save the Children (2014) Save the children

stands for inclusive education

WHAT IS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Programme, list of participants and presentations have been

posted on SCS Resource Centre (online portal for global

audience) at following link:

https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document-

collections/inclusive-education-learning-event-iele

5 | P a g e

Workshop objectives and introduction

Presenter: Malin Hansson

Highlights

Despite massive progress in increasing enrolment of children into primary education since 2000, global education data shows that: a) still more than 60 million are out of school at primary level; c)

250 million children cannot read, write or count well, whether they have been to school and; and

b) there are huge inequities in education both within and between national education systems.6

This learning event provides an opportunity to improve our work for all children’s right to

education, the right to non-discrimination and to contribute to strengthen education systems and

schools to reach out to, welcome and respect ALL children. It is also another step forward by

Save the Children’s work towards supporting countries to achieve the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development and specifically SDG 4 - to ensure inclusive equitable and quality

education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. This goal will steer all countries’

focus on education for the coming years.

6 UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children Report 2016 states that in low income countries children from the richest 10 % of the population receive around 46 % of the benefits from public spending on education

Day 1

Objectives of the Learning Event

I) Learning about new methods, best practices, lessons learnt and key advocacy messages

Identify opportunities for collaboration and more in-depth experience- sharing between and

among inclusive education projects

II) Obtaining feedback on SCS’s management of inclusive education projects to date and

recommendations to improve the process in the future

III) 9 countries represented (Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Kosovo, Myanmar,

Philippines, Romania and Vietnam

6 | P a g e

Key Note- Setting the scene and getting inspired Presenter: Dr. Sheldon Shaeffer

Highlights:

Discrimination can be based on gender, disability, social, urban/rural/migrant, ethnic related

considerations. Often ministries don’t grasp these disparities (also within countries between

different regions) and the exclusions derived from them. Hence incomplete or useless data.

Most people are not aware that exclusion exists. Mostly it is hidden or non-recognized exclusion.

Shift in mind-set is needed: Drop out implies that is it the child’s fault, rather children are ‘pushed

out’ of schools. It is not the child’s or parent’s fault but other factors for example school being

too far located push away children from realization of their right to education. Responding to

diversity must be seen as an opportunity not as a problem. Diversity can promote new ways of

learning and must not be considered as barrier to ensure quality education.

Shift in language is needed: labels on children reinforces the idea of subgroups and leads to lower

expectations and segregated education. Giving children labels – including “Special Needs” – does

not help resolving educational difficulties and is a barrier to the development of real inclusive

thinking. Labels are often negatively perceived as a lack of abilities or as “less than normal”.

Furthermore, it encourages educators to attribute difficulties in education to deficits in children

without critically reflecting on education systems and/or teaching-learning methods used.

IE relies on teachers so IE strategies should start by appealing to the teachers’ mind and soul.

Teachers need more support (and not necessarily more training). The example of Philippines who

has institutionalized teachers’ meetings/sharing of experience is very eloquent. We already know

what works to accommodate most children. There is no evidence to support separate pedagogy

for children with disabilities. These children are better off in “regular” schools with support.

Children mostly learn from other children. Education which is inclusive and responsive also

addresses reducing repetition and dropout rates, because it considers the whole child and the

whole school (and system)!

Cost factor is one of the key barrier hindering promotion of inclusive education and advocacy for

inclusive budgeting is important (financing for equity)7.

IE is definitely pivotal for the operationalization of the right to non-discrimination (UNCRC Art. 2) and needs a supporting policy framework (hence the importance of advocacy). The more

flexible the curriculum/assessment system is (assessment which recognizes and values diversity),

the easier it is to include.

7 See also a great new initiative in pilot phase, the National Education Accounts: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/technical-notes/national-education-accounts/

7 | P a g e

Learning points:

IE is a reform process of the mainstream education system and all aspects of the system need to

be reformed toward inclusion:8

Data collection: rather than celebrating 95% NER, reach out to the last 5% and make them visible

Start early (inclusive ECCD/pre-primary)

National education guidelines, standards and policies that are inclusive rather than parallel inclusive

guidelines, standards and policies

Teacher education to mainstream diversity inclusive/responsive strategies (child-centered)

Curricula & textbooks need to reflect diversity issues equally (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability,

urban-rural populations, etc.)

Student assessment to become more diversified, not only assessment of learning, but also

assessment as learning and assessment for learning.

To achieve SDG4, governments must budget for inclusion to reach those that have still not been

reached and who are likely to be the most disadvantaged, difficult and costly to reach.

Map excluded groups and households

Whole school approach where everyone (students, teachers, principals, other school staff and

parents) in the school are involved and a school self-assessment processes that include and

represent diversity

Questions & Answers: Question: How we can strike balance in standardization vs flexibility of teachers to exercise? What level

of decentralization is required?

Response: basic standards of child-centred quality teaching, classroom behavior, meaningful

participation, (assessment of) learning outcomes etc. should apply to every child, while

recognizing individual characteristic and responding to individual development and learning

needs. There may not be children with “special” needs (all children are special and have special

needs or more individualized learning needs at some point of time during their schooling years).

That the needs of different children are not the same is normal.

Question: How to convince parents of benefits of including all children?

Response: in fact the real issue is not just convincing parents of children with disabilities but

other parents who don’t want to include children with disabilities with their children who have

no disabilities. Role-model and success-stories of children with and without disabilities who have

done well in inclusive schools.

8 See PPT on Resource Centre link. PPT explains the issues well, e.g. push out vs drop out, IE history, how to promote IE at different levels, see for instance level slide 20 and slide 22

8 | P a g e

Question: Teachers are pushing out CWDs as they have no incentives and it is becoming harder to

work with them they are not willing to take extra load.

Response: Provide gradual and consistent support and publicly recognize teachers taking in and

addressing the needs of children with disabilities.

Question: What are your best arguments and evidence that inclusion of all children benefits all children?

Response: The financial argument: Demonstrate to ministries of finance how they could save

money to have all children in mainstream schools. Important, however, to use savings for

improving teacher support in mainstream schools benefitting ALL children. Find studies and

develop own studies on both dimensions for advocacy purposes.

Participants’ reflections:

Participants’ feedback indicated that it was commonly assumed that children dropped out of

schools. This session brought forward the many factors that push children out of school because

education systems tend to lack flexibility. These factors are to be directly addressed in our projects

and are pivotal to convince counterparts that the educational system is failing these children.

9 | P a g e

Market Place

Highlights:

China: at times our programs become too focused on only

education, we need to think about how to make our

programs more integrated.

Kosovo: learnt from China about the link between regular

teachers and resource room teachers

Philippines: learnt from Bangladesh about how to reach

out to rural areas

Bangladesh: learnt from China how teachers identify

children with different needs and plans to use this in the

Bangladesh project. Bangladesh is working more in rural

areas to implement IE which has additional challenges.

Cambodia: Learnt from China about teacher lesson

planning (individual education plans as additional column), however not sure that this will be accepted by government.

Learnt from Kosovo to set up budget based per child formula. This can also be used in Cambodia.

Philippines (BEST project): learnt from Cambodia

piloting with few schools and then spreading results. Starting small and test and then expand.

Indonesia: Visited three countries and explored child participation. Learnt from Kosovo how

they include children. Vietnam involving children to fight against violence. Child participation is

wide. I have noticed that these are adult initiatives and children are involved, rather than child-led

initiatives.

10 | P a g e

Participants’ reflections:

How to ensure more integrated projects? (on parking lot)

Child Participation (adult led vs child led) to be discussed in civil society and community

participation session.

11 | P a g e

THEME 1

Strategies for inclusive teaching and

learning: how to support teachers

Photo Copyright: Jetmir Idrizi – Save the Children

12 | P a g e

Theme 1: Strategies for inclusive teaching and learning: how to support teachers

Presenter: Dr. Peter Grimes

Highlights:

Video promoting inclusion of all children with key message to say ‘Yes’ to children and let them

participate, see video link about Tina https://youtu.be/DZdIiEhjJkw and video link about Sarah

https://youtu.be/qx2gWjEVcnM

All children are “special” and all have equal rights to have their individual and unique needs

responded to.

Children with disabilities as a group are as diverse as any other group of children, thus inclusive

education does not mean considering that all children have same abilities.

In your work to support teacher always ask the questions “What could this look like in the

classroom” – Let teachers discuss and support teach other around this questions.

Inclusive education is about (inclusive) values and changing mind-sets and attitudes.

Outcomes-based curriculum is more flexible than a competency-based curriculum and thus more

inclusive

Supportive policy framework (and how for instance is the CRPD reflected in a country’s policies) is crucial to ensure that the inclusive approach is rolled out systematically.

Quality indicators must move beyond inputs governments provide in terms of infrastructure, teachers

and materials. Greater attention must be given to what happens in the classroom. An inclusive, active

learning environment shows different children doing different things, using different senses. IE

highlights that diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome by trying to separate children into

groups and labelling them, but diversity is a cause for celebration and a rich resource for teaching and

learning for all children.

Group-work: A Classroom Strategies Chart for inclusive practices9 was used to identify the most

useful strategies while describing what such strategies would look like in a classroom / country

context.

Participants’ reflections:

Supporting small steps that teachers can control themselves is more critical than more teacher

training manuals and teacher training workshops.

Assessment should not become a label or stigma.

9 Adapted from original UNESCO Resource Pack (1991): http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000966/096636eo.pdf

13 | P a g e

Classroom Realities- Country Example through video presentation

China: Before sharing clips the China team raised following question to be observed in the video and share

feedback: Are all children in the class engaged? (Visual impairment, speech disorder, intellectual

disabilities)

Audience feedback: Participants appreciated the way teachers are managing large classroom. Had

some observation on the teaching arrangement. Did not allow time to engage children in groups.

Philippines: Showed 5 videos of early grade teaching. How does teacher actively engage children? Are there any good

ideas to be replicated? Suggestion for improvement.

Audience feedback: interesting classroom but teacher is not sitting in right position, teache’s

expressions are not very friendly. It would have been more appropriate if the teacher would sit

at the same level. Teacher had good materials to show children but she wanted to finish task not

including everyone and more worried to get classroom quiet. If possible to have an assistant

teacher to follow both groups. With kindergarten a lot of learning and activity and you cannot

expect children to sit down. What was purpose? What she was trying to teach? Children were

not understanding the concept? Teacher seemed to be trying to use too many methodologies in

one lesson. Romania:

Audience feedback: participants liked the way teacher engaged children in activity, fun class and

high five, active, teacher centered, well planned and engaging, may be find way to engage boys

more. There was a girl that needed more support and was provided with extra support but not

isolated and had separate activities. Participants liked the classroom size and sitting arrangement. Teacher can go around and reach out to every child. At the end of video the song was traditional

Romanian song and usually in Romania girls and women are keener to dance thus boys shy away

and were not participating out of their choice.

How can we make sure that teaching leads to learning?

14 | P a g e

Taare Zameen Par – an inspirational movie

An 8-year old boy is considered a trouble-maker and lazy, until a new art teacher has the patience and

compassion to discover the real problem. See below links to short clips from the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMD2ue5JfMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdo_A1Bj67w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHBGSIwLgg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P4xjdBWRKY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIaUYKLg5S4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ1NIIdHhXs

15 | P a g e

Participants’ Reflection of Day 1

What we have learned that is useful for our project based of how we used to think and how our thinking

is now changing resulting from Day 1 presentations and discussions. Some examples are reflected below:

I used to think: I now think:

1 Children drop out because they want to and

are not interested in school

1. Many children are pushed out by the system

which is not flexible to diversity of learning

needs

2 Teachers need more training 2. Teachers need support to implement small

changes at a time

3 Children must all be treated the same 3. Children should not be treated the same

because they are different

4 Assessment needs to be done first 4. Assessment may not be so important, we

need to focus on different barriers to

participation & learning

5 IE is difficult to implement 5. By establishing partnerships it becomes less

difficult to implement

Day 2

16 | P a g e

THEME II

Measuring effects/impact of inclusive

education: how & what do we measure?

Photo Copyright: Jetmir Idrizi – Save the Children

17 | P a g e

Theme 2: Measuring effects/impact of inclusive education: how & what do we measure? Do we

measure what we value or value what we measure?

Presenter: Peter Grimes and Melisa Borela

Highlights:

Video clip of Sarah Jane Dela Rosa (who is 22 years old, with Cerebral Palsy, studying in grade 5 of primary

school) who dropped out of school earlier because of (negative) attitudes and behaviors of teachers and

students, but is now doing well in school and taking up leadership roles. The video demonstrated that

negative attitudes towards learners with disabilities are more critical than specific teaching skills. The

inclusion process starts with the school-culture and negative attitudes/behaviors/expectations needs to be

addressed first. A Theory of Change needs to have the components to address a negative school culture,

and thus focus on inclusive values and practices. This includes (more) respectful use of language and

terminology. 10

Serious lack of credible data on children with disability (estimates WHO 10 to 17%). Situation with more

poverty or inequality increases the number of potential disability).11 Are data on number of children with

disabilities important to have, or can we use our existing knowledge regarding child-centered teaching &

learning, flexible curriculum and assessment methods (Alison Croft, 2014). Children with disabilities need responsive quality education, just like any other child!

Terminology: disabled children (UK language use / meaning disabled by society) versus children with

disabilities (first a person, second having a disability as only one of many other characteristics). Use

respectful language) and think about the possible effect of certain language/terminology.12

Important: school improvement is a GRADUAL process (takes years) and must be more carefully looked

at using a non-discrimination (and participation/protection) lens.

Approaches for debate: a model school approach often ends up with schools with too many learners with

disabilities in one classroom, which then becomes more like a special classroom with typical students. A

cluster school approach may be a more appropriate and sustainable approach.

Education data, especially related to inclusiveness and equity may not be useful just as numbers. The stories

behind the numbers are as critical and should tell others: this is what we do, why we do it and what we

are achieving.

10 Do not use acronyms for real people (PWD; CWD; OVC; CP; SPED), do not use labels like “slow learners” or “mental

retardation”, or comparisons between “children with disabilities” and “normal” children. Such labels are often perceived in a

negative way as a ‘lack of abilities’ or as ‘less than normal’, while it does not help in resolving educational difficulties. Children with disabilities are unique just as other children. 11 See also: http://www.inclusive-education.org/sites/default/files/uploads/booklets/IE_Webinar_Booklet_4.pdf 12 See foot note 12

18 | P a g e

Group-work:

Identify barriers (at community; school; policy level)

Develop your project response

Discuss and agree on indicators to monitor the response

Provide/define meaningful evidence (what data; how to be collected; how to communicate)

19 | P a g e

Quality Learning Environment (QLE) frame-work. What have we learned and how will this

inform our future programming work? Presenter: Sine Christensen

Highlights

We all have heard about the global learning crisis

years. This is an issue at the heart of education

everywhere– we are all struggling with the

problem that too many children are still excluded

from basic education and that too many children

are in school but not learning.

There are multiple well-tested tools for

measuring WHETHER children are learning, such

as Literacy Boost or EGRA, but there are very few

that focus on HOW and WHY children are

learning. Understanding the complex factors of

HOW and WHY children are learning can help us

improve the quality of education programmes and

supporting countries to achieve this goal.

At Save the Children, we knew that some of our

projects were contributing to improvements in

children’s learning and some were not. What we didn’t know was whether the specific activities we were

delivering were contributing to this or the extent of such a contribution.

Save the Children’s Quality Learning Environment (QLE) framework is an attempt to define a quality

learning environment so that it can be measured and to guide our programming towards improved quality.

While developing the framework, SC recognized that the reasons behind children’s learning progress are

complex! They are interdependent and context specific. The QLE framework pulls together a broad

collection of key factors contributing to children’s learning within one framework that can be used to

assess the degree to which a learning site is supportive of quality learning to take place. The framework

has been used in different ways in countries, ranging from using it as a programming framework or a

School Self-Assessment (SSA) tool to a tool for programme monitoring or for impact assessment.

Save the Children’s work with QLE has been a structured innovation process. The review which followed

four years of implementation helps us refine the product so that it meets the needs of its users. These are

some of our lessons learnt:

1. What was originally developed as a qualitative approach to develop a common understanding of

educational quality became a global measurement tool with a quantitative rating scale, using a

complicated mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

2. Because it was not originally intended to be used to examine statistical relationships and did not

undergo the full validity testing, cross-national statistical assessments of validity were difficult. The

data is complex and messy, the sample sizes differ from country to country and data is collected

using diverse locally-developed tools. It has therefore been difficult to fully utilize the data –

especially at global level

3. Although the QLE framework was initially designed as a global, mandatory outcome indicator, it

has been found more useful as a framework to guide and structure programming. We have

20 | P a g e

therefore decided to abandon QLE as a global indicator and refine QLE as a conceptual

programming framework

4. The QLE has mostly been used as a form of needs assessment, to systematically identify gaps and

to develop strategies to address those. Data is used to guide prioritizing in the programme. Tools

and methodology will be further improved for use of process/ progress monitoring at school level.

5. The importance of contextualization of data collection tools to ensure local relevance and

ownership has proven to be crucial, however the global review also pointed at the need for

consistent and coherent guidance to countries in their adaptation.

6. One great added value of the QLE framework has been that is has provided Save the Children

with a common language (concepts and standards) to use in conversations about quality education

internally and externally with governments, partners, schools, teachers, parents and children.

7. QLE is proving to also be a useful framework to be used for EiE programmes.

Group-work

Consider the revised (draft) QLE framework with its standards and indicators and identify gaps

and the need for rephrased language using an inclusion lens. Participants suggested amongst

others: children as partners in monitoring what happens in schools (representing different

children in terms of gender, age, diverse backgrounds, disability); facilities needed to be

accessible to children with different disabilities; health education should include education on

nutrition; school-based DRR should have a disability inclusive lens; materials should cater also

for learners with different disabilities.

QLE experiences from Romania and Indonesia

Indonesia lessons learnt: 23 additional inclusive indicators is too many; tools and methods are

difficult to understand the same way for all data collectors; overlapping description between

two scores; depending who are used as data collectors there may be a potential bias in scoring

(e.g. in favour of known schools, principals or teachers); analysis of data: it is difficult to quantify

a qualitative framework; no school achieved any of the inclusive indicators, while the typical QLE

standards or Guiding Principles were achieved by several schools. The QLE as a rather technical

framework is best administered by Save the Children in collaboration with MEAL personnel and

PDQ.

Romania lessons learnt: at times emotional reactions from respondents in schools regarding

being “assessed” or “evaluated”, sometimes leading to resistance; emotional protection proved to

be a “red flag” in many schools; need for improving school-community relationship/partnership.

QLE has given us a language to speak with schools and authorities about what good quality education is about. There was a general tendency in assessed schools to blame others (parents and authorities) for negative results and to claim internal attribution for positive results.

21 | P a g e

THEME III

Partnering with communities and civil

society organizations

How to improve involvement of communities

and CSOs in integrated projects?

Photo Copyright: Save the Children

22 | P a g e

Theme 3: Partnering with communities & civil society organizations. How to improve involvement

of communities and CSOs in projects, while taking an integrated approach?

Presenter: Britta Ӧstrӧm and Maliha Kabani

Highlights:

To achieve lasting results, Save the Children theory of change clearly outlines significance of

working with partners and children.

Interesting example shared from the news about LEGO children's toys introducing the first ever

LEGO wheelchair figurine as part of LEGO's new City collection.

Right based approach (RBA) clearly pin point significance of engagement of communities, civil

society and to reach out diverse groups from the society to engage them as strong partners.

A civil society RBA program should work with the whole chain: Empowering citizens; Mobilizing

citizens; Strengthen civil society; Advocate for rights and enable citizen participation in public

decision making. (If the citizen link is broken it becomes ‘rights work’ rather than a ‘rights based’

work)

RBA recognizes that policy change is not enough for realization of rights. Continuous demand of

empowered citizens that monitor implementation and shifts in attitudes in government and society

are also required.

23 | P a g e

To create conducive environment for realization of children’s civil rights it is pivotal that our

communities and civil society at large understands and have aability to ensure that duty bearers

must deliver children’s rights in accordance to CRC.

Amongst all rights Art 2: Non-discrimination, Art 3: in the best interest of the child, Art 6: Right

to life, Art 12: Child participation, Art 7: name and nationality, Art 8: preservation of identity, Art

13: freedom of expression, Art 14: freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Art 15: Freedom

of association and peaceful assembly, Art: 16 Protection of Privacy , Art 17: access to appropriate

information and Art 37: (a) the right not to be subjected to torture, or other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment were highlighted during the discussion.

Community Based Rehabilitation Model (CBR) was being presented and discussed in detail that

which elements of the model can be linked with the programs that are focusing on Inclusive

Education. Project in Bangladesh is focusing on CBR model as one key aspect of entire program

design and trying to engage local government to provide services that can result in reducing

barriers for CWDs inclusion in schools and communities.

Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) was initiated by WHO following the Declaration of Alma-

Ata in 1978 in an effort to enhance the quality of life for people with disabilities and their families;

meet their basic needs; and ensure their inclusion and participation. While initially a strategy to

increase access to rehabilitation services in resource-constrained settings, CBR is now a multi-

sectoral approach working to improve the equalization of opportunities and social inclusion of

people with disabilities while combating the perpetual cycle of poverty and disability. CBR is

implemented through the combined efforts of people with disabilities, their families and

communities, and relevant government and non-government health, education, vocational, social

and other services.

24 | P a g e

Plenary Discussion ‘Why partnering with civil society organizations and community is important?’ Participants

gave input that following results can be achieved through effective community participation:

a) Sustainability

b) Accountability of duty bearers

c) Scalability

d) They know key problems and practical solutions that can fit their context

e) Ownership

f) Child Participation

g) Empowerment

Country Experience

Bangladesh reflections: Team from Bangladesh presented examples of community

engagement and CBR model for their project Holistic

approach towards Promotion of Inclusive Education

(HOPE). The project is focusing on strengthen local

government capacity to provide quality education in

schools and rehabilitation services are Union Purshad (UP)

level. SCI is partnering with two local civil society partner

organizations. Key components being discussed during the

presentation were Community Based Rehabilitation

(CBR)13, School readiness, Community readiness and Local

government strengthening, using partnership, networking

and advocacy as key strategies?

Myanmar reflections: successful community engagement

in ECCD projects because strong sense of volunteering in

the community, e.g. for library management; now also

focusing at community awareness raising regarding

inclusive education. The 800 ECCD centres SC phased out

from, are still functioning! Challenges: 1. projects in conflict affected locations, 2. reaching the most marginalized in a community, 3. creating

a voice for women.

Do not use acronyms for real people (CWD; OVC; CP; SPED), do not use labels like “slow learners” or “mental retardation”, or

comparisons between “children with disabilities” and “normal” children. Such labels are often perceived in

a negative way as a ‘lack of abilities’ or as ‘less than normal’, while it does not help in resolving educational difficulties.

Children with disabilities are unique just as other children. Rights based organization may need to play its role to push for

improved terminology

25 | P a g e

Kosovo reflections: working in partnership with 12

CSOs; focus is both at children with disability and children

from ethnic minorities (Roma children); Resource

Centres (special schools) play an important role especially

for learners with disabilities. CSOs in Kosovo are highly

dependent on international donors, they lack knowledge

on child rights as well as adequate organizational capacity. CSO partners have been selected based on 1. (shared) visions and values, 2. potential to be the voice of

marginalized children, and 3. opportunities for scaling up. SC Kosovo uses two approaches: (1) organizational

capacity building and (2) thematic knowledge building on

inclusive education, to ultimately address inequality and

discrimination of poor children, Roma children and

children with disabilities.

Everyone is a

genius. But if you

judge a fish on its

ability to climb a

tree, it will live its

whole life believing

that it is stupid.

Albert Einstein

Photo Copyright: Kriter Borja

26 | P a g e

Participants’ reflections of day 2

Participants were asked two questions: (1) What have you learnt? and (2) What new practice can you use

in your project?

Responses to question 1 ranged from (inclusive) QLE, Theory of Change to measuring effects and impact.

Responses to question 2 ranged from possibly using CBR, more advocacy and explore how to work more

with CSO partners.

Day 3

27 | P a g e

THEME IV

Research, Communication & Advocacy

Photo Copyright: Save the Children

28 | P a g e

Theme 4: Research, Communication & Advocacy

Presenter: Michel Anglade and Malin Hansson

Highlights:

Presentation of advocacy and campaigning examples from Cambodia (Disability-inclusive education costing

case-study), China (“Every Last Child” campaign) and Indonesia (IE standards development)

The main presentation by Michel Anglade and Malin Hansson highlighted Save the Children’s definition of

advocacy and campaigning, the advocacy cycle and the key steps to develop an advocacy strategy. It also

briefly presented the “Every Last Child” campaign, Save the Children’s flagship to ensure all children

survive, learn and are protected. The presentation outlined how to develop advocacy objectives, how to

identify key targets and how to develop a campaign plan.

Advocacy is a set of organised activities to

influence the policies and practices of

governments and other institutions to

achieve positive and lasting changes for

children’s lives based on the experience and

knowledge of working directly with

children, their families and their

communities

Campaigning: is a set of organised

activities to influence government and

institutional policies and practices, social

norms and behaviour to achieve positive

and lasting changes for children’s livesbased

on the experience and knowledge of

working directly with children, their

families and communities. It uses a wide set of tools to create and mobilize pressure to build a broad

movement for social change.

Group-work: Each country team developed / refined its

advocacy plan on inclusive education, based

on the following 3 basic questions:

1. WHAT changes do we want to bring

about?

2. WHO can make change happen? (key

individuals with the power to change)

3. HOW can we bring about these

changes? (use evidence from

research/case-studies; policy analysis;

budget tracking; organize meetings/panel discussions, lobby letters; media; social media; events during

international days; concerts; sports events)

29 | P a g e

Action Points: SCS’s Education

Thematic Advisors will follow up on

the draft advocacy plans and support

project teams to develop these

further and implement them.

Country examples

Cambodia (Presentation by Sarang Out – education program manager) Disability inclusive education costing case-study

Sarang presented this case-study to be implemented in

Pursat Province / Bakan District region. The case-

study aims to analyze the education situation for

children with disabilities and will track children with

(different) disabilities in inclusive government schools

(project intervention schools) linked to following

(additional) costs of including these children in regular

schools and who pays for what. The children and

financing system/structures (for – if need be – extra

classroom support, special materials, assistive devices,

teacher training, etc.) will be followed and described

over the remaining 2 years of the project and

documented in a case-study report to be used for

advocacy with the government for more education

financial investment to improve inclusive quality

education for all. Cambodia project video link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7fk9zluuy9thwku/Iwitness%20Cambodia%20Finalized%20captioned.mp4?dl=0

Indonesia (presentation by Yanti Kusumawardhani – education & protection specialist)

Inclusive Education (IE) standards development

Inclusive education standards have been developed in close collaboration with a core-team of specialists

from e.g. the Education University in Bandung (UPI) and with the Government of West Java and the

national Ministry of Education. These standards have been based on the existing 8 national education

standards.

Inputs for the standards were also invited from teachers, school principals and children (with and without

disabilities) and from the director of special education and special services.

The IE standards are adapted from the Index for Inclusion, focusing on three areas: practice, policy and

culture/environment of inclusion. The standards are meant to provide guidance to schools and teachers

in the process of becoming an inclusive school, responding to a variety of different learning needs, one of

them resulting from a disability.

We can also use role-models such as successful adults with

disabilities (teachers, actors, leaders) to change negative

attitudes. See below link to short video-clip of Kindergarten

teacher with Down Syndrome in Argentina.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XVBn-1bpjA

30 | P a g e

China (presented by Xingxing, Advocacy Advisor and He Dan, Communication and Campaigns Senior

Officer) Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in China with highlights from”Every Last Child” campaign Team for China SCI office presented the

situation with key highlight that there was

394,900 CWD in Special Education

School, and 209,100 CWD in regular

primary schools and secondary schools

by the end of 2014, which means more

than 50% of children with disabilities go

to special education school, and no

chance to get inclusive education.

Interesting blog to read:

https://campaigns.savethechildren.net/blogs/wangchao/inclusive-society-starts-inclusive-

education#page-content

31 | P a g e

Questions & Answers

The presentation on IE standards raised a lot of interest amongst participants, especially as these

are developed in close collaboration with the ministry of education in West-Java as well as at the

national level. A question though may be asked whether we should develop inclusive education

standards as parallel standards added to existing national education standards. Would it not be

better to just make the existing national standards inclusive?

It was being pointed out by one of the presenter Peter Grimes that one funding solution commonly used in developing countries applying a decentralized approach to school management:

a small additional funding is allocated to schools based on the number of children with disabilities.

But schools must be ready to administer properly this additional funding. In his view, creating

Resources Centers that can channel the support of the community – with resource people

volunteering or working in schools – is a very efficient way of supporting IE. He also challenged

idea of Model Schools. He mentioned that model schools attract children with disabilities and ultimately become “de facto” specialized schools. All schools should be trained to include all sorts

of children.

The question of parent engagement was also debated. SC’s approach includes all stakeholders

including parents and the general public. The example of the SC Myanmar project that brought

teachers with disabilities in “regular” schools was also discussed.

Photo Copyright: Kriter Borja

32 | P a g e

Inclusive Education Community of Practice (CoP) Presenter: Els Heijnen-Maathuis

Highlights:

Knowledge management, resources and links:

Inclusive School Networks http://inclusiveschools.org is useful for inspiration

Encouraged all country teams to be involved in the national coordination and monitoring of SDG4

at national level

SC staff please sign up to SCI Global Education community and/or to IE Community of Practice.

The benefit of the SC Resource Centre (http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se) is that it can

be accessed also by partners and the public. In the Resource Centre we have created a particular

space for the Bangkok IE Learning Event (http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/document-

collections/inclusive-education-learning-event-iele)

IE CoP (IE is covering both ECCD and BE)-

SCS and SCUS are co-leading the IE CoP

The IE CoP has a core team of members

Main purpose is sharing information and to lobby for making education programmes worldwide

more rights based and focus on the principle of non-discrimination a common approach for SC

Common approach – currently only Literacy Boost, but we hope that IE or non-discrimination in

education will also become a common approach. Discussions on making IE a common approach

in SC has started with the Education Global Theme

IE CoP will organize webinars on IE and invite country teams to participate in that process.

Action Points:

Suggestion to use social media and create a page or similar to share learning and good practice.

It was highlighted by some participants that we need to look into platform for partners but also we need to develop ourselves in finding solutions. We need both forum – closed and inclusive

groups.

Another suggestion being presented was to create ‘Bangkok Google-group for inclusion’

Should we set up a moderated network to continue our discussion about inclusion?

Connect, share and consult and make it accessible to all

33 | P a g e

The vision, mission and new program strategy of IKEA Foundation

Presenter: Patrick Obonyo

Highlights:

Core values of IKEA Foundation (IF) are scalability, impactful, simplicity, innovation and sustainability. IKEA

Foundation wants to be pro-active in helping children to fight climate change and build resilience.

Innovation stands at the core of everything IF does: we leave it to partners to define what it is.

Simplicity: it is about making

complex things simple. IF is looking

for simple solutions for complex problems. This may require us to

think like a kid when you are adult.

Equality, speed, cost and efficiency: these are other values

which IF looks out for in our partnerships and programmes.

Cost efficiency – value for our

money. What is the best

investment of our resources?

Cost effectiveness – is this going

to produce the best results for us.

Sustainability: how do partner

organization make programmes

sustainably?

Scalability: how to scale up. We want governments to be involved in the scale up.

Impact – what is the change you are achieving with the programmes for the target group.

Mission statement: create substantial and lasting change by funding holistic, long-terms programmes in some of the world’s poorest communities that address

children’s fundamental needs, home, health, education and a sustainable family

income while helping communities fight and cope with climate change.

34 | P a g e

Philanthropic investments in 5 strategic portfolios: 1) Reshaping humanitarian response

2) Innovations for healthy homes

3) Space to be a child

4) Building self-reliance

5) Special initiatives

Space to be a child (where Save the Children’s IE projects fit) involves the following circles of prosperity:

a place to call home, health, education and income, as these are 4 key things that children need.

Reshaping humanitarian response – build self-reliance – sector wide improvements to modernize the sector

– matching fund for climate change.

Innovations for healthy homes: safe water and sanitation – renewable and low carbon cooking, lighting

water and sanitation technologies – access to affordable credit – consumer awareness and protection. Planet

friendly product rating system for developing countries.

Space to be a child: help children to achieve their developmental potentials. 0-14 years of age. Lots of time

at home, in school or in communities. Let children grow, develop and thrive. Start early – 1. ECCD, 2. Free

from child labour, 3. Access to quality and safe schools, and 4 Green and disaster resilient schools.

Questions & Answers:

Question: How is IKEA Foundation promoting non-discrimination and inclusivity among its staff and in

recruitments? Response: IKEA Foundation has staff of varied background and nationalities (unclear from his reply

if they have persons with disabilities among their staff)

Questions: Are there any opportunities for joint campaigning (IF and SC)?

Response: Yes, there opportunities to develop partnership on campaigning and knowledge sharing e.g. on design and logistics. Regarding advocacy IF believes that the partners are in the best

situation to carry out advocacy as they have much more detailed knowledge and experience and IF cannot use its brand for pushing the agenda.

Question: Who is the IKEA Foundation accountable to?

Response: We are accountable to our board, IKEA customers and staff.

35 | P a g e

Workshop Evaluation

Participants’ learning & committed follow-up:

The Inclusive Education (IE) Learning Event has brought about individual learning and opportunities for

cross-project fertilization. Compared to 2014, projects were at a stage where in-depth issues were

questioned and explained to each other. It has become more clear that IE as a long-term change process,

both in terms of policies and practices and that teachers are key. Participants learned that more manuals

and training is not necessarily the answer to successful inclusive education and how small steps in

improving teaching-learning practices that can be controlled by teachers themselves may be more effective,

helping teachers to become more reflective practitioners by asking “What would this look like in my

classroom?” and “How do I think this child learns best?”. Participants learned how to use a social disability

model approach and refrain from using labels and more carefully look at systemic barriers to inclusion.

Practical country action plans and advocacy frameworks will be further developed and finalized during the

first quarter of next year, and specific links between countries established and moderated with the support

from relevant TAs.

Highlights:

Respondents want to keep in contact with other countries/projects and would like more time for

more in-depth discussions, by for instance adding an extra day to a workshop like this. Bringing in

resource persons from outside the organization has been perceived as enriching!

Participants were especially inspired by: video clips (of resource person & participants); key note

by Sheldon; experience sharing between countries (for new ideas); CBR presentation; QLE

session; advocacy practical; focusing on small steps to create lasting change for children; Taare

Zameen Par; moving from medical to social disability model; practice examples from different countries; from dropout to push-out (looking more critically at the system); teachers need more

support rather than more training; experts from outside the organization, especially Peter Grimes; since 2014 projects/countries have moved to a higher level of IE implementation; how others deal

with their challenges; the commitment and enthusiasm of participants and resource persons.

Participants felt sometimes frustrated by: lack of time for more discussion;; time too short for

theme 2 (classroom strategies) and theme 3 (IE impact measuring); holistic programming is maybe

too difficult/not feasible; PPT slides that are too full of text; great specific activities, but not enough

time; understanding the speakers, as English is not the 1st language for most participants; group-

work results not presented due to lack of time

Individual participants contributed to the workshop with/by: sharing toolkit; experience; country

/ thematic presentation; active participant in discussions (e.g. related to barriers and response);

shared project design ideas; despite negative attitudes in society, disability IE cannot wait; Market Place information sharing; children with disabilities to become self-advocates; importance of fully

incorporating child protection in IE projects; being part of the previous day reflection group; diversity issues beyond disability; ideas around multi-sectoral partnership (within/among

Governments, CSOs, DPOs); sharing unique/contextual experiences and expertise

Suggestions for change in a future workshop: more time for more discussion; add one day to the

total workshop; more IE project interaction between countries; less topics with more time to go

in-depth; involve more partners; arrange for field-visit; sufficient time for group-work

presentations; spend more time on problem solving (e.g. of challenges).

36 | P a g e

Participants promise to use new knowledge & skills to: improve/increase teacher support; will re-

visit presentations (on resource center);

will share with colleagues; change language

& terminology (including acronyms); start to

think what project activities will look like in

a classroom before we start

implementation; improve measuring impact

of interventions; share with communication

team (change key messages); lobby for inclusion elements in other Save the Children sectors;

adapt IE framework based on workshop discussions (e.g. QLE aspects; CSO participation; child

participation); explore to work using a cluster approach rather than model schools; share/discuss

with local government partners child dropout versus system pushing out the child; advocacy with

commune councils for more resources for disability IE; reflect on and possibly consider use of QLE frame-work; more focus on advocacy; keep in touch with other countries; lobby for QLE

use with government partners; finalize advocacy strategy; develop advocacy plan; brief trip report

will be shared; action plan finalizing & implementation; share Handbook with colleagues; improve

inclusive programming; learning from the workshop will contribute to the IE Policy Framework (in development) in the

Philippines; discuss with

team 6 learning points

resulting from the

workshop.

Other ideas & comments:

Develop/pilot role-models of resource center teachers supporting mainstream schools (cluster)

in becoming diversity inclusive and responsive.

Need for increased advocacy to change disability perceptions/attitudes.

Focus more on support for parents.

Use video analysis as a method for improved teacher capacity building and practice.

Explore/find opportunities for additional training for project implementers (concept & practice).

IE should be integrated in all mainstream ECCD, Basic Education and EiE.

Non-discrimination (and thus inclusion) should apply to all Save the Children sectors; improve

cross-thematic linkages with other programs/projects; IE process requires long-term commitment

(beyond short projects) and should be/become Save the Children’s organizational approach.

Create IE TWG/collaborative meetings & consultations; improve project-to-project distance

support & establish learning groups.

Explore whether/where we can develop a research piece around inclusive education for our

region.

Meet more often (also through webinars/conference calls); have yearly meetings like this, but

shifting host-country & focus on maybe just one or two topics such as IE classroom strategies and

measuring IE results; provide distance support to each other & establish learning groups.

“This was one of the most engaging workshops I ever attended!”

Participant’s quote

“I learned each day at many different levels!”

Participant’s quote

37 | P a g e

Share methodologies/approaches/challenges & more practice examples to learn about/try out,

especially in areas that most countries are not (yet) performing well; present/share/discuss and

learn from innovative approaches/materials/ideas from each country.

Document lessons learned across all countries into one document.

Photo Copyright: Save the Children Philippines

38 | P a g e

ANNEX 1

What do we take away from the workshop? Key action points captured from each country team around the questions: What will you improve? How

can we support further collaboration? And How can SCS strengthen its TA support to project teams

and COs? Further planning will happen during upcoming TA in-country support visits

The Philippines

1) The need and commitment to strengthen multi-sectoral collaboration at the national level within

the organisation

2) Proactively collaborate with other strategic actors

3) Happy with TA support technical expertise.

Kosovo

1) Work with cluster schools instead of model schools – we will discuss this with partners on how

to do this. 2) Discuss with other thematic areas. In the same model schools, we are also working on CP and

Health

3) Show document with good examples of CWD in schools and use them as evidence in order to

influence teachers and generate support

4) Consider the terminology drop-out versus push-out, special needs education (SNE), etc.

5) Start to think how to we can switch from training teachers to support teachers. 6) TA support: collaboration across projects and countries; use google/Facebook and other media to

share learning and to organize webinars. Do not wait for the next workshop.

Vietnam

1) QLE – visualize QLE assessment to make it more user-friendly for students, teachers and

government. officials. 2) We will do a quick survey to get info in project schools about disability. We can totally integrate

disability in our project

3) Support with mapping of CSO in HCMC

Indonesia

1) Collaborative actions across projects to embed inclusion or inclusive education spirit in all teams

- Share handbook on IE to all projects in Indonesia, also Gov. and other stakeholders

- Looking for better approach to reach out to scattered beneficiaries, rather than merely

depending on model approach

- Ensuring the availability of data on children with disabilities and other learning barriers to

conduct cost benefit study on implementing IE. - Develop strategies to change people’s perceptions/attitudes/expectations on IE which is

not only disability

2) Collaboration across countries: - Share ideas, experience, document on IE through google group, skype or others

39 | P a g e

- Synchronize paradigm on different terminologies such as safe school, child friendly

inclusive school. 3) TA support: TA support to projects

Cambodia: 1) Develop unit cost per child with disability; guidelines on data collection and calculation of unit

cost; tool for data collection

2) QLE based on school self-assessment

- Using existing tool and guidelines

- (Annual) school improvement plans

3) Support target communities

Bangladesh: 1) Explore exposure visits

2) Engage different community groups at community level

Myanmar

1) Using personal disability stories (e.g. Sarah’s video) to facilitate dialogue and change of mind-sets

2) Develop and share key research pieces

3) Find and show-case successful adults with disabilities, including teachers

Romania

1) Improvements: - Integrate IE into the national standards of education

- Organize periodical meetings with school management for direct support to parents

- Anti-bullying intervention for schools

- Local support in municipalities for children who are at risk of dropping out

- Better showcase examples

2) Collaboration with all countries. Index for inclusion (Kosovo) and in standards for inclusion and

campaigning (Indonesia and China). 3) SCS TA: We are happy to receive support to finalize the advocacy plan. TA has a good

understanding of the context and the QLE training and field testing was very useful.

China

1) Develop teacher training manual / scale-up training for teachers

2) Extend IE to pre-school phase

3) IE integrated with BE and CP

4) Revise and refine quality indicators for use by principals. 5) Social workers to be linked to IE to complement resource room teachers

SCS TA team: 1) Further explore how to use video clips (classroom teaching and learning) – posted on resource

centre (access for al) 2) Follow up on country advocacy plans in all next TA missions

3) Set up a simple and accessible way for continued networking between countries (issue based) 4) Bring learning and knowledge from IE in development to EiE

40 | P a g e

PARKING LOT (to be followed up by SCS TAs):

How to support countries/projects to create more integrated projects and influence other sectors

in becoming more inclusive

Increase/improve child participation in inclusive education (and other sectors)

What learning outcomes should we measure and how to do this inclusively, respecting that

meaningful learning outcomes may be different for different children

Increase/improve protection in Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR)

Should we change from a model school approach to a cluster approach, and if so, how?

How to assess the quality and level of non-discrimination and inclusion? Gender markers exist,

but why no non-discrimination markers (which should include gender)?

Photo Copyright: Save the Children