1 | P a g e

INEE Working Group on Education and Fragility 2014-2016 Biannual Meeting

1-2 October 2014 in Doha

Key agreements, proposals and discussions with follow-up actions

Agreement on:

Working Group Goal and Focus Areas:

The group agreed on the following goal and focus areas:

Goal: To influence education policies, planning and practices to address crisis and conflict

through analysis of research and contextualization of appropriate materials.

Focus areas: 1) Critical debates on EiE professionalization, 2) Evidence-base and research,

and 3) Conflict /Crisis Sensitive Education

The proposed goal and focus areas as well as the group’s name (Education and Fragility)

will be further shaped and adjusted in line with the finalization process of the INEE

Strategic Plan (a workshop on 7th November and its launch on 2nd February 2015.)

Further clarification of terms, especially around research (e.g. “empirical research”,

“evidence-base”) will be also made.

Three sub-groups with focal persons for the next 6 months were formed based on the

focus areas. Ideas for activities were discussed. The sub-group facilitators and the INEE

coordinator will further discuss activities to draft a one-year work plan. (The Steering

Group meeting decided any new activities would not be implemented until we have the

draft Strategic Plan in place. This work plan drafting process will be on hold until we have

clearer INEE Strategic Plan in November.)

Focal persons for the next 6 months

Group 1: Professionalization

Mieke Lopes Cardozo (University of Amsterdam) & Giovanni Scotto and Sabbiana Cunsolo

(University of Florence)

Group 2: Evidence-base and Research

Taro Komatsu (Sophia University), Vanessa Corlazzoli (Search for Common Ground)

Group 3: Conflict / Crisis Sensitive Education

Brenda Haiplik (UNICEF), Lyndsay Bird and Morten Sigsgaard (UENSCO-IIEP)

Expected co-chairs:

Véronique Ringot from Save the Children and Garnett Russell from Teachers College Columbia University were elected as co-chairs to serve for the next 18 months. The expected co-chairs will consult within their organizations if they take the roles. An official announcement will be made after that process.

2 | P a g e

Day 1

1. Joint INEE Working Group Session 1: Coordination and Governance

(1) Purpose of the Session The purpose of this session was to jointly identify and bring clarity issues related to vertical and horizontal coordination within INEE in order to improve efficiency within the network and across the various functional bodies (i.e. Working Groups, Steering Group and Secretariat).

(2) Feedback from Group and Plenary discussion

WG members were invited to provide inputs into the ongoing discussions about INEE’s

structural and governance issues. Please see Annex 2 for the discussion questions and

comments from the group work and plenary.

Proposals on:

Working Group Mandate: The current two-year mandate of the working group should

be extended to three years in order to align with the Strategic Plan as well as the USAID

three-year funding cycle till September 2017.

Joint Working Group Sessions: WGs need a joint session to enhance coordination.

Future meetings can be organized at the same time and venue.

Future Composition of the WGs: Based on the draft ideas of the Strategic Plan at the

Global Consultation, WGEF proposed that a future composition of the WGs can fall into

the following three functional areas: 1) Advocacy, 2) Tools & Capacity Building, 3)

Evidence-base and Research. WGEF’s contributions to the INEE Strategic Plan and

comparative advantages of the group would be evidence-base and research. The group

expects that clear roles and responsibilities of the each WG will be made under the new

strategic plan and establish clear structures to avoid any overlap.

Key discussions:

Shared each member agency’s programmes and activities (reports to be uploaded here)

Reviewed major achievements made by the previous working group

Shared recommendations from the previous working group

Shared key expectations for the new group (pre-meeting survey results)

Presented and discussed key focus areas: 1) conflict-sensitive education, 2) crisis-

sensitive planning and curriculum, 3) EiE professionalization, 4) education and resilience,

5) bridging the humanitarian-development divide and 6) research and innovation.

INEE’s vertical and horizontal coordination and programme updates (2 joint WG

sessions)

Next Meeting Schedule: Late April (Venue to be decided – University of Florence, Swisspeace,

EDC had offered to be a host.)

3 | P a g e

(3) Next Steps

INEE Secretariat to synthesize the inputs and feedback from this session

New INEE Director and WG co-chairs develop a set of recommendations from the synthesized inputs and share with the SG

Recommendations to be integrated into the INEE governance documents that will be developed in the coming months

2. Welcome and Introduction

(1) Welcome from PEIC and INEE

Margaret Sinclair from the PEIC welcomed the group and hoped to have fruitful discussions. Kerstin Tebbe, INEE Deputy Coordinator, welcomed the group and highlighted that the group had the highest applications for membership.

(2) Introduction of members

All the participants shared their expectations and interests to the group and personal interesting facts. Please also see Annex 1 Attendance List.

3. Major Achievement of the Previous Group (including the last 6 months updates) Previous working group members (Yolande, Lyndsay, Ruth, Sarah) and Naoko presented functions of the working group and key achievements. Please also see PowerPoint Presentation 1 on Major Achievements and the 6 months update report.

Key Achievements of the previous Working Group

Objective 1: Facilitate a learning space for dialogue & info sharing on education’s roles in peace-building

• A roundtable on “Health and Education in CAFCs - Bridging the Development Gap

and Enhancing Collaborations” (Please see the report and website.)

• Paper on “Private Sector Engagement in Education: Conflict-affected and Fragile

Contexts” (Please see the report)

• Paper on “Training Programs for Teachers and Education Workers in the Field of

Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation” (Please see the report)

• Concept note on “Resilience and Education”

• Learning forums at the bi-annual meetings (e.g. Alan Smith, University of Ulster in

May 2014, Rebecca Winthrop, Brookings in October 2013).

• Information sharing through INEE websites on fragility, conflict-sensitive education,

blogs and newsletters.

Objective 2: Promote Conflict Sensitive Approaches in E&F contexts

• Development of the Conflict Sensitive Education Pack with WGMS (Please see here)

• High-level launch event in Paris with stakeholders including MoEs (Please see the

report and website.)

4 | P a g e

• Roundtable and panels at international conferences & meetings (CIES, UKFIET,

Education Cluster, UNESCO etc) to promote CSE approaches

• Wide disseminations and references on CSE within WG member organizations and

partners (e.g. EDC’s retroactive application of the conflict sensitive education

approach to the initial program design of the teacher education project in South

Sudan.)

• Collaboration with GPE: the ESP Guidelines revision and side events at the

replenishment event.

• Collaboration with the PEIC-IIEP-IBE programme on crisis-sensitive planning and

curriculum

Budget

Since the USAID grant ended in September 2013, INEE has been funding expenses for

the WGEF from a grant for general operating funds. Recruitment of the Deputy

Coordinator position has been on hold since last August. We also do not have any

activity cost to recruit a consultant.

4. Pre-Meeting Survey Result

Prior to the meeting, an online survey was conducted to identify key areas of expectation and interests of the working group members. 16 out of 27 organizations, mainly newly joined organizations, responded to the 9 questionnaires. Naoko presented key findings in the area of: 1) expectation for the new group, 2) anticipated contributions from the member organizations, 3) focus areas of the member organizations, 4) focus areas of the working group, 5) proposed objectives, 6) suggestions for the working group structure, and 7) expectations for co-chairs. For further details, please see the PowerPoint Presentation 2 Pre-Meeting Survey Result. Discussions and Proposal A proposal was made that the current two-year mandate of the working group be extended to three years in order to align with the Strategic Plan as well as the USAID three-year funding cycle till September 2017. This will be discussed with the INEE management team and the Steering Group. In addition, the members, especially those who did not participate in the meeting, would need organizational consultation and agreement. The group anticipates the third year extension for planning purpose and will also align with the finalization process of of the Strategic Plan and INEE’s future organizational structure. 5. Discussion on Working Group Co-chairs (1) Sharing experience and advice from co-chairs

Joel (steering group co-chair), Lyndsay (the first WG chair) and Yolande (previous WG co-chair) shared experiences and advice for being a chair:

5 | P a g e

Actively listen to ideas from different agencies and people who have diverse background and amplify voices

“Making use of others” to maximize all the expertise of the group

Require hard work but increase organizational visibility and can give direction to the sector to make a difference

Tackle issues that an individual organization cannot solve

Respond to emerging issues among membership using connections of the group

Support INEE secretariat in managing resources and fundraising; mobilise in-kind resources and contributions

Protect a coordinator so they are not overloaded by maintaining oversight and providing strategic direction but with a tight focus. This implies helping to ensure members’ commitments to implement a work plan

Lead vertical and horizontal coordination in line with the new Strategic Plan

(2) Agreement on selection criteria and process

There should be a good combination of co-chairs to represent different types of organizations.

Co-chairs serve minimum 18 months and can be renewed after the period with the group’s agreement.

Members nominate the co-chairs in the second day morning (self-nomination and nominating others) and vote to have a ranking.

(3) Another suggestion

WGs need a joint session to enhance coordination. Future meetings can be organized at the same time and venue.

6. Discussion and Agreement on WG Goal, Objectives and Focus Areas (1) USAID Funding Requirements

The grant will be provided through IRC. USAID issued a Request for Application (RfA)

for IRC/INEE as a single source and this process took a year. INEE/IRC proposal was

submitted last week. It has not been awarded yet but the green flag should be

provided soon.

The amount is US$ 230.000 per year, for three years. This figure is based on initial

2008 DFID funding.

There are requirements within the grant: a work plan, a symposium or policy round table each year, reports (each year, mid-term and final) to show impacts.

IRC is receiving the funding because INEE does not have any legal status.

The grant covers basically operational costs (staff salaries and trips) which means there are considerable funding gaps if additional activities are to be undertaken.

The funding has been uneven over the years across INEE. We need unrestricted funding as well as support for specific projects and activities for the sustainable management of the working group.

6 | P a g e

(2) Recommendations from the 2nd WG Members Naoko presented summary recommendations and proposals made by the previous group in the London meeting in May 2014. Major recommendations were made in the following areas. Please see the PowerPoint Presentation 3 Proposals from the Previous Working Group and the last meeting minutes for details. 1) Three Proposed Objectives:

Serve as community of practice,

Building evidence-base, and

Provide thought leadership 2) Thematic Focus:

Conflict Sensitive Education as a main focus,

Humanitarian-development divide issue,

Innovation,

Supporting crisis in middle income countries,

Exploring linkages of CSE with other field (but need to keep a focus tight),

Resilience as a topic to bridge DRR and humanitarian aid.

Expanding the scope from CSE to include crisis and resilience - left it flexible to the new group to define.

3) Type of work:

Limiting INEE stand-alone events and plan only one global and one regional

event in Africa or Asia.

Regarding the tool development, role of the WGEF would be consolidating and

reviewing tools among many and proposing useful tools or identifying area of

needs and gaps.

4) WG structure:

Having two Co-chairs and sub-working group facilitators generally worked well. 5) Coordination and Collaboration

Need to enhance coordination among WGs and strengthen partnership with the global south and other partners (e.g. Education Cluster)

6) Funding

Need to enhance INEE’s overall fundraising strategy

(3) Discussion

Why the previous group proposed to organized regional events only in Asia and Africa? - This can be organized in other regions.

Before developing any more tools, there should be evaluations of tools already

developed to identify any additional gaps. It has been only a year to implement the

CSE pack and thus assessment should be done a few years after completion. The

WGEF also has a tracking sheet for activities implemented by the working group and

a feedback form. The previous working group planned to conduct case studies but

application of the CSE Pack was very limited at this early stage.

7 | P a g e

The group needs to keep in mind what is the comparative advantage of the working

group in relation to the INEE’s overall Strategic Plan and identify 2-3 key focus areas.

We need to focus on a few activities since the previous group had an enormous work

plan which was not manageable.

The group also needs to discuss if we broaden the conflict sensitive education to

crisis sensitive and resilience. We need to broaden our scope if the “education

continuum” is a key of the next Strategic Plan.

The group’s goal/objectives and name will be reviewed over the next 6 months along

with the INEE strategic planning finalization process.

It needs to be clear who is responsible for the membership expansion under the

strategic plan. WG has external resource persons systems and made efforts to link

with external organizations such as ADEA.

Coordination across WGs needs to be strengthened with each group’s clear roles and

responsibilities.

Follow-up Action: The WG’s name (Education and Fragility) and goal/objectives will be

reviewed over the next 6 months along with the INEE Strategic Planning finalization

process.

7. Ideas for Focus Areas The following series of presentations were made as proposals for the focus areas. (1) Crisis-sensitive planning and curriculum (joint session with ECW, Lyndsay/IIEP and

Margaret/PEIC)

Lyndsay made a brief introduction on the Education Cannot Wait WG’s establishment and 3Ps. To know more about the ECW, please see here.

PEIC is a programme of the Education Above All which has three strands: 1) legal programme with 12 publications on the international humanitarian law, 2) reporting on attacks on education in collaboration with the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA), and 3) education programmes on conflicts. (Please visit PEIC’s website for details.)

The Programme entitled “Promoting safety, resilience and social cohesion through and in education: a capacity development process in support of ministries of education aims to ensure education policies, plans and curricula that contribute to social cohesion/peace and to students’ safety and resilience. The programme was initiated by PEIC, UNESCO-IIEP and UNESCO-IBE but this is for all WG members to buy into if they wish. WGEF members participated in the process of development of a consolidated set of resources (that use tools from INEE and the members) as the advisory group. The term “social cohesion” is considered less political than conflict prevention or even peacbuilding.

8 | P a g e

The planning cycle includes: context analyses, policy analysis, programme design, cost & financing and M&E. Some good examples for using specific indicators on conflicts (e.g. the number of attacks) exist but are still very limited.

Conflict and vulnerability analyses were conducted in Chad and DRC with partnership with UNICEF and Ministries of Education. UNICEF ESARO (Uganda) and WCARO (Mali) are on board with programme and will be rolling it out in different ways over the coming months.

Comment from the ECW Working Group: The Group will write a short note to explore issues of the 4% target.

(2) CSE quick review of the key activities (Naoko/INEE)

Due to the lack of time, a presentation was not made. The following resources were referred to:

WGEF 6 months activity update

PowerPoint Presentation 4 on CSE activities (others were covered in the morning session)

WGMS’s report on the activities implemented by with UNICEF support

Showed video on CSE

(3) EiE Professionalization (Sabbiana/Uni of Florence & Mieke/Uni of Amsterdam)

The idea was to create a concept of a joint Master’s degree programme. It would be difficult to establish the same curriculum, but will need to explore standard principles and common topics.

University of Florence will propose an advanced training course on EiE in May 2015, introducing conflict sensitive education approaches (using CSE pack). This will be linked with the University of Piza which has peace study centre and an undergraduate peace course.

A concept note for organizing a workshop on EiE professionalization has been drafted by the Institute of Education University of London (IOE London) with an input from UNESCO-IIEP. Key ideas are:

o Organize a 3-day workshop at the IOE London in Spring 2015, inviting donors, academia, INGOs, UN agencies, practitioners (IOE is looking for funding sources.)

o Have active discussions on joint common theoretical conceptual underpinnings of the field

o Discuss jointly what a professional would need and how courses would deliver that by elaborating questions - what professionalization in this field means; what types of skills and expertise should graduates have in order to enter the field of practice, policy or research?

o Need to map all the initiatives and courses on EiE and conflict, and share them with the community.

o Aim to create a better bridge between academia, policy and practice; possibly set up a network or mechanism through which students can be put in touch with organizations (e.g. UNHCR and the Harvard Graduate collaboration)

9 | P a g e

o Further consider a question on the possibility that a joint masters course should be one of the first objectives of the workshop or if it is a later target.

o Need to stay in touch with the WGMS to decide how to process and where this initiative fits within the INEE Strategic Plan (WGMS is also thinking in these directions of professionalization)

Questions and comments:

How can we ensure access for students in developing countries to be accepted in this course? Can we set criteria for acceptance? Is there any potential for distance learning? How to include field staff from our organizations who have strong expertise?

To what extent can we involve global south universities? Consider how universities from the global south can also be involved in the workshop. The International Development Studies Masters of the University of Amsterdam has at least half of its enrolled students from outside of the Netherlands (EU, non-EU + the global south) and collaborates closely with universities and organisations from the global south for teaching and fieldwork based thesis projects. The University of Amsterdam is also involved in the launch a new European-funded joint master’s program in 2015 on global policies for education in development: http://globed.eu, coordinated by the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. GLOBED included a specialization option on education in conflict. The World Bank has been already working with universities in Afghanistan and Nepal.

(4) Education and Resilience (Brenda/UNICEF)

After internal discussions over the last 18 months on the idea of resilience, UNICEF has almost agreed on a paper which addresses what resilience means and how to disseminate it.

What is new to the paper is that resilience means “good programming plus three”. The plus three are: 1) mainstreaming risk informed programming, 2) strengthening development-humanitarian nexus, 3) building up new partnerships or include resilience in existing partnerships.

4 core areas for resilience for UNICEF are: 1) climate change adaptation, 2) social protection, 3) DRR, and 4) peacebuilding.

70% UNICEF programming goes into emergencies and disaster prone contexts.

Theory of Change: If we invest in social services like education that address root

causes of conflict and contribute to peacebuilding, then we will contribute to

preventing the loss of present and future generations of children to conflict and

contribute to social cohesion and resilience.

The UNICEF Education Section has drafted a two-page brief on education for

resilience which captures key concepts. Education has an integral role to play for

facilitating resilience for learning as well as learning for resilience in

emergencies/humanitarian and long-term development contexts.

10 | P a g e

UNICEF develops partnerships beyond traditional partnerships (eg Search for

Common Ground; International Centre for Traditional Justice, GCPEA etc.).

Under the Learning for Peace Program, experts are looking at peacebuilding

indicators linked to resilience.

“The No Lost Generation Initiative” across countries affected by the Syrian is all

about resilience for children - create innovating learning spaces beyond traditional

learning, no matter what space they are in.

(5) Bridging the Humanitarian and Development Divide (Ruth/CfBT)

Examples from South Sudan and Syrian refugee crisis were shared.

Many agencies represented from both humanitarian and development sides have made remarkable progress in the last decade. (e.g. UNHCR supports to education integrated in host communities, major donors like DFID shifted to assistance towards fragile states.) INEE has been a key player in these changes.

Please see the PowerPoint Presentation 5 for details.

(6) Research and innovation (Ita/UNHCR)

Dynamic and innovative models already in existence in EiE professionalization

(UNHCR’s case studies conducted by students in the Harvard Graduate School of

Education, UHNCR’s agreement with universities for higher education for the

refugees in Kenya).

INEE has engaged to a minor extent with the innovation of DFID (please also see

Amplify). UNHCR and UNICEF are looking at innovations and more can be shared

when it is fully developed. There is a potential role for INEE to bring in a partnership

of donors, UNs, NGOs for innovations in very difficult situations.

The Building Evidence in Education (BEE) was set up by DFID, World Bank and USAID,

aiming to bring together organizations working on research to reduce duplication

and share knowledge. A sub-group on EiE was established and DFID is funding a desk

review on what works in EiE. The next meeting will be held in Dubai in November

with a full-day session on issues around education in conflict including a

presentation of DFID’s desk review, language issues and complexity of data

collection in conflict situations. There will be roles for INEE to influence on research

agenda and identify priorities through these forums.

(7) Other proposed ideas for focus areas

Quality of teaching and learning in conflict and fragile spaces as a possible research topic: how to measure learning in these contexts; what components of other models can be adapted for fragile contexts.

Technical work to feed into the ECW advocacy activities (such as establishing baseline of crisis sensitive plans and policies)

(8) Discussion:

The process is not clear how these areas are selected and prioritised. These are areas of focus came from the mapping from the previous group as well as global

11 | P a g e

consultation process but there is still a room for discussion and nothing is closed down.

The group need to narrow down to 2-3 areas, considering the strength of this group and the main issues that came out from the discussions of the Strategic Plan, such as education continuity.

Day 2

1. Recap of Day 1

The group went through agreements and key discussion items from Day 1. The draft

goal and objectives of the Strategic Plan were also reviewed.

The group was asked to nominate volunteers for participating in the Strategic Planning

finalization process as a member of the advisory group. Expected work of the advisory

group includes participating in one-day workshop to be organized in D.C on 7th

November and reviewing feedback and revision process in order to launch the plan by

2 February.

Each participant nominated two names for co-chair election.

USAID showed expected outputs for the funding proposal.

2. Group Work for Focus Areas

(1) Three breakout groups discussed the following questions on the ideas proposed as

focus areas in the first day.

Are there any areas missing? How will we consolidate to framework these ideas?

Main gaps in research & evidence? What are our comparative advantages?

What 2-3 focus areas (maximum 3) would you choose for the next 2-3 years?

What would be the expected major achievements in the 2-3 years and 6-month

activities in the work plan

(2) Ideas for WG’s focus areas were brought to the table:

CSE and its expansion to the crisis-sensitive education

Education and Resilience

EiE Professionalization (conference and establishment of the Master’s

programme)

Humanitarian - development continuum

INEE’s opportunity for research (DFID Amplify and BEE)

Quality teaching and learning

ECW request – provide technical work on analysis of crisis-sensitive education

sector plans

12 | P a g e

3. Proposed Goal and Focus Areas

During the plenary session, the group agreed on the following goal and focus areas. The

group had extensive discussion on its comparative advantages and added values to the

INEE. The group felt that the lack of clarity in the bigger picture of INEE’s strategies as

well as blurred roles and responsibilities of each working group makes it difficult to

identify this group’s roles. Therefore, the proposed goal and focus areas need to be

further shaped and adjusted in line with the finalization process of the INEE Strategic

Plan and organizational structure change. The next 6 months will be considered as a

transition period under the new Strategic Plan.

Proposal on Future Function of WGs

Based on the draft ideas of the Strategic Plan at the Global Consultation, WGEF discussed

and proposed that a future composition of the WGs can fall into the following three

fictional areas: 1) Advocacy, 2) Tools & Capacity Building, 3) Evidence-base and Research.

WGEF’s contributions to the INEE Strategic Plan and comparative advantages of the

group would be evidence-base and research. The group expects that clear roles and

responsibilities of the WGs will be made under the new strategic plan and establish clear

structures to avoid any overlap.

4. CSE Related Activities Implemented by WGMS

Cynthia briefed about work streams under the Partner Cooperative Agreement with

UNICEF: 1) CSE training and capacity development in Uganda, South Sudan, Myanmar

and Pakistan, 2) translations of the CSE Training of 90-minute and 2-day, 3) whiteboard

films and info-graphics, and 4) knowledge sharing such as webinars and feedback form.

(Please see Conflict Sensitive Education Capacity Development Progress Summary for

Goal:

To influence on education policies, planning and practices to address crisis and conflict

through analysis of research and contextualization.

Focus areas:

1) Critical debates on EiE professionalization,

2) Evidence-based and research

3) Conflict/Crisis Sensitive Education

The proposed goal and focus areas will be further shaped and adjusted in line with

the finalization process of the INEE Strategic Plan (a workshop on 7th November and

its launch on 2nd February 2015.)

Further clarification of terms, especially around research (e.g. “empirical research”,

“evidence-base”) will be also made.

13 | P a g e

details.)

There is no strategy for moving forward after the fund ends at the end of the year in

the WGMS. There would be information sharing and promotion activities without

funding based on the existing system next year. Demand for trainings is always very

high in the field.

The proposed ideas of case studies and contextualization of the tools from the WGEF

are good, but the biggest challenge is institutional adaptation of the CSE approaches

and support with resources before asking to apply it at the field level.

Discussion on Case studies:

Previous Working Group planned to conduct a case study with the Ministry of

Education in Kenya but it has been on hold due to the funding issue. Initial call for

application and scope is available here.

UNESCO-IIEP conducted case studies in Nepal, Burkina Faso (more focus on DRR) and

South Sudan.

A research Consortium of the University of Amsterdam, in partnership with the

University of Sussex, University of Ulster and UNICEF (PBEA), are conducting five

country studies in Myanmar, Pakistan, Uganda (and most likely South Sudan and South

Africa). The study focuses on 1) the integration of education and peacebuilding, 2) the

role of teachers in peace building, and 3) the role of (non-)formal peace

building education for youth.

Plan International is working on capacity building and implementing conflict sensitive

education in a number of countries – Mali, Niger, Burkina, South Sudan, Central African

Republic and Myanmar.

The group can establish a common framework from the ongoing work. The scope of

the case studies should go beyond the application and use of the tool itself and should

look into broader situation in conflict and fragile context.

5. Electing Co-chairs

Ten names were nominated and the participants voted top two candidates. As a result,

the following individuals were elected as expected co-chairs to serve for the next 18

months:

Véronique Ringot, Save the Children,

Garnett Russell, Teachers College, Columbia University

Follow-up action: The expected co-chairs will consult within their organizations if they

take the roles. An official announce will be made after that process.

6. Joint WG Session 2: Programme Updates The three working group co-chairs shared past and future programme updates and discussed linkages and opportunities for cross-working group programme area for

14 | P a g e

coordination. The co-chairs of the Steering Group also shared next steps for finalizing the Strategic Plan. This process will be clarified in the coming weeks and further information will be shared with all WG members. Please see Annex 2 for details.

7. Discussion for Drafting Work Plan

The three sub-groups brainstormed ideas for the activities to draft a work plan. Focal

persons for the next 6 months and the sub-group members were also nominated. It was

also proposed to develop a one-year work plan instead of 6 months.

(1) Group 1: Professionalization

Focal persons for the next 6 months: Mieke Lopes Cardozo (University of Amsterdam)

& Giovanni Scotto and Sabbiana Cunsolo (University of Florence)

Members: Júlio Santos (University of Minho), Taro Komatsu (Sophia University), Lucy Strickland (WVI), Lyndsay Bird (UNESCO-IIEP), Bianca Nadine Rohrbach (GIZ), Peter Hyll-Larsen (ActionAid), Garnett Russell (Teachers College)

Ideas for future activities and comments: o Organize a workshop to address broader issues on the EiE professionalization in

Spring 2015 (with IOE London), invite WGEF and WGMS members working in the area. (Funding remains an issue for organizing the workshop. The USAID funding can cover only an event cost of $10,000 per year. Check if IoE London can provide venue.)

o Conducting (or updating) a mapping exercise on master’s level EiE programmes and any other trainings by building on what had been done before – i.e. the University of Florence Study, the WGMS data collection, UNESCO-IIEP’s collection of training packages etc.

o Conduct a critical review based on the mapping (as a concrete activity and a discussion topic at the workshop)

o Learn more about WGMS’s idea on INEE research exchanges for coordinated process.

o Suggestion and agreement for engaging broader stakeholders and including broader scope of mapping beyond university programmes.

Follow-up action: Naoko will share past studies and activities to the group members. Members send any research available to Naoko. (2) Group 2: Evidence-base and Research

Focal persons for the next 6 months: Taro Komatsu (Sophia University), Vanessa Corlazzoli (Search for Common Ground)

Members: Margaret Sinclair (PEIC), Katrina Stringer (DFID), Sabbiana Cunsolo (University of Florence), Sarah Nogueira Sanca (EDC), Yolande Miller-Grandvaux (USAID), Garnett Russell (Teachers College), Véronique Ringot (Save the Children), Ruth Naylor (CfBT Education Trust), Peter Simms (Children in Crisis)

15 | P a g e

Ideas for future activities and comments: o Assess the progress in using distance learning and come up with solid professional

justifications to spend more budgets in the right way; propose methodologies to

identify existing capacity and systems for open distance and e-learning (e.g.

security issues for girls to go to the secondary education for Nigeria and the Ebola

crisis).

o Elaborate and identify problems in the area of humanitarian and development

divide to propose future research areas; come up with five problem statements,

research questions and a framework.

o Map key issues where and why children cannot continue education as a result of

crisis and conflicts; look at alternative delivery mechanisms for the problems.

o Organize a workshop to bring diverse cross-sectorial experts, and address issues

and propose rapid solutions (Search for Common Ground will consult within the

organization and its partners).

o Need to focus on “education continuity” to inform decision-making but not

broader issue of “access”.

o Propose three types of activities: 1) traditional longer-term research, 2)

immediate solutions such as sharing good practices and lessons learned by

conducting desk reviews, 3) innovation and new approaches (engaging field

practitioners by organizing workshops)

o Propose WGMS to have a special issue of humanitarian and education continuity

in the INEE EiE Journal.

(3) Group 3: Conflict / Crisis Sensitive Education

Focal persons for the next 6 months: Brenda Haiplik (UNICEF), Lyndsay Bird and Morten Sigsgaard (UENSCO-IIEP)

Members: Margaret Sinclair(EAA), Lucy Strickland (WVI), Vanessa Corlazzoli (Search for Common Ground), Sarah Nogueira Sanca (EDC), Clémentine Cholat (AVSI Foundation), Peter Hyll-Larsen (ActionAid)

Ideas for future activities and comments:

o Conduct case studies on use of the CSE tool (at later stage)

o Conduct case studies on contextualization and evaluation how it works in practice

(not impact research) linking with GPE work and on-going work by members.

- Plan International’s field implementation

- Case studies from University of Amsterdam on integrating education in

peace-building and peace related policies

- UNESCO-IIEP & INEE on peace education policy in Kenya

o Explore how to expand the concept of CSE to encompass resilience, social

cohesion and DRR.

16 | P a g e

Follow-up action: Sub-group facilitators and Naoko will further discuss activities to draft a

one-year work plan. (The Steering Group meeting decided any new activities would not be

implemented until we have the draft Strategic Plan in place. This work plan drafting process

will be on hold until we have clearer INEE Strategic Plan in November.)

8. Next Meeting Schedule

Date: Late April

(Proposal to jointly organize a meeting with other WGs at the same time and venue)

Hosting offer made from: University for Florence, EDC, Swisspeace

Follow-up action: Please contact Naoko if your organization is able to host any future

meetings

17 | P a g e

Annex1: Meeting Agenda and Attendance List

Meeting Objectives:

1. To get to know each other and share the agency’s priorities and expertise in the area of education and fragility.

2. To share major achievements and key recommendations made by the previous group. 3. To agree on new working group’s goal, objectives focus areas and co-chairs from October

2014 to September 2016. 4. To draft work plan for the next 6 months under the agreed goal and objectives. 5. To discuss coordination and collaboration of the three INEE groups and with the Steering

Group for enhanced coordination.

Attendees:

1. ActionAid, Peter Hyll-Larsen 2. AVSI Foundation, Clémentine Cholat (Alternate) 3. CfBT Education Trust, Ruth Naylor 4. Children in Crisis, Peter Simms 5. Concern Worldwide, Lincoln Ajoku 6. DFID, Katrina Stringer 7. Education Development Center, Sarah Nogueira Sanca 8. GIZ, Bianca Nadine Rohrbach 9. Global Partnership for Education, Natalie Poulson (GPE representative for GC) 10. PEIC, Margaret Sinclair 11. Save the Children, Véronique Ringot 12. Search for Common Ground, Vanessa Corlazzoli (Alternate) 13. Sophia University, Taro Komatsu 14. Teachers College, Columbia University, Susan Garnett Russell 15. UNESCO-IIEP, Lyndsay Bird (ECW member) 16. UNHCR, Ita Sheehy (SG member) 17. UNICEF, Brenda Haiplik (SG member) 18. University of Amsterdam, Mieke Lopes Cardoso 19. University of Florence, Sabbiana Cunsolo (Alternate) 20. University of Minho (Institute of Education), Júlio Santos 21. USAID, Yolande Miller-Grandvaux 22. World Bank, Joel E. Reyes (SG member) 23. World Vision International, Lucy Strickland

Apologies:

1. Berghof Foundation, Uli Jäger 2. European Commission, Graça Sousa 3. Swisspeace, Sabina Handschin 4. Plan International, Lena Thiam 5. (Global Partnership for Education, Jesper Andersen)

18 | P a g e

Meeting Agenda

1 October (Day 1)

Time Session Topic Presenter/Facilitator

8:00-8:30 Arrival & Coffee

8:30 – 10:30

Joint WG session 1: Role of WGs in INEE

- Relationships between the WGs and other bodies within INEE including the SG

- Roles and responsibilities for funding and fundraising

Kerstin Tebbe (Deputy Director,

INEE)

10:30-11:00 Coffee Break

11:00-12:15

Welcome and Introduction Room : Conference 1

Welcome from PEIC (5mins)

Welcome from INEE (5mins)

Introduction of members (30minuts)

Introduction of agenda, housekeeping information (5mins)

Major achievement of the previous group including last 6 month updates (30mins)

Margaret Sinclair, PEIC

Kerstin Tebbe, INEE

All participants

Naoko Arakawa, INEE

Naoko Arakawa with sub-group facilitators

12:15-12:30 Pre-Meeting Survey Result Naoko Arakawa, INEE

12:30-13:30 LUNCH (60mins)

13:30-13:45 Discussion on Working Group chair(s) - Sharing experience of co-chairs, USAID (5mins) - Having new co-chairs (10mins)

Joel E. Reyes (facilitator)

Yolande Miller-Grandvaux (former co-chair)

13:45-14:35

Discussion and Agreement on WG Goal, Objectives and Focus Areas - Introduction (5mins) - USAID Funding Requirements (10mis) - Recommendations from the 2nd WG members (10mis) - Discussion Agreement on Goal & Objectives (25mins)

Lyndsay Bird (facilitator & introduction) Mieke Lopes Cardozo (Note taker)

Yolande Miller-Grandvaux

Naoko Arakawa

All members

14:35-15:00 Coffee Break: Gallery walk of Agency Updates All participants

15:00-17:30

Discussion and Agreement on WG Goals, Objectives and Focus

(Continued)

Ideas for focus areas: 100 mins

Crisis-sensitive planning and curriculum (Margaret/EAA) 20mins – joint with ECW

CSE quick review of the key activities (Naoko/INEE) – 10mins

EiE Professionalization (Sabbiana/Uni of Florence & Mieke/Uni of Amsterdam) 15mins

Education and Resilience (Brenda/UNICEF) 10mins

Humanitarian and Development Gap, financing & implementation modality (Ruth/CfBT) 15 mins

Research and innovation (Ita/UNHCR) 10mins

Others – TBC Discussion and agreement on focus areas of the WG: 50mins

Lyndsay Bird (facilitator continued) Lucy Strickland and Sarah Nogueira Sanca (Note taker)

Mai/INEE (timekeeper)

18:30-19:30 Consultative Workshop - Liberia’s Education Response to the Ebola

Crisis (Venue: TBD)

19 | P a g e

2 October (Day 2)

Time Session Topic Presenter/Facilitator

8:00-8:30 Arrival & Coffee

8:30-8:45 Recap of Day 1 Peter Hyll-Lansen

8:45-8:50 Nominating Co-chairs

8:50-9:50

Discussion and agreement on focus areas of the WG

Group Work - 30 minutes

Report Back and Discussion – 30minutes

Group Work

Note taker of each group:

Peter Simms (Facilitator)

Véronique Ringot (Note

taker)

9:50-10:20 Coffee Break

10:20-10:50 Electing Co-Chairs Yolande Miller-

Grandvaux (facilitator)

10:50-12:30 Drafting Working Group Work Plan

Brainstorming in small groups for activities in the next 6 months

12:30-13:30 LUNCH (60min)

13:30-14:30

Report Back

Finalization of the WGEF Work Plan

Ruth Naylor (facilitator)

Lincoln Ajoku (Note taker)

14:30-15:00 Coffee Break

15:00-16:30

Joint WG session 2: Programme (Coordination and Collaboration)

- Presentation of key achievements and next 6 month plan of the WGs

(co-chairs)

- Discussion to coordinate the activities

All members

16:30– 17:20 Finalization of WGEF Work Plan Facilitator: Co-chairs

All members

17:20-17:30 Wrap-up & next meeting schedule Facilitator: Co-chairs &

Naoko

19:00- Group Drinks and Dinner

at Damasca Restaurant located in Souq Waqif

20 | P a g e

Annex 2: Minutes for the Two Joint Sessions

Joint INEE WG Session 1 : Coordination and Governance

The purpose of this session was to jointly identify and bring clarity issues related to vertical and horizontal coordination within the network in order to make our structures and processes more efficient. In so doing, WG members were invited to provide inputs into the ongoing discussions about INEE’s structural and governance issues. Objectives:

Jointly identify and begin to develop solutions to key structural and governance issues for INEE in order to improve efficiency within the network and across the various functional bodies (i.e. Working Groups, Steering Group, Secretariat) in the areas of:

o Vertical coordination, i.e. across SG and WGs (9) The relationship and accountability between the WGs and SG (10) Roles and responsibilities for fundraising

o Horizontal coordination, i.e. across WGs Cross-WG coordination and operations Policies for WGs

Feedback from Group 1: Horizontal Coordination

There is a need stronger inter-WG communication between the meetings. Perhaps a call between meetings with Coordinators and co-chairs? Or a joint monthly brief updates? CSE Pack is the case study of coordination across WGs. Proposal to hold meetings in similar venue at same time.

Concern becoming overly structured could limited flexibility.

Concern around funding driving WG efforts. EFWG single grant from USAID, MS had multiple grants. How can we ensure substantive and coherent funding?

Need more information on roles and responsibilities regarding roles of co-chairs vs. coordinators.

How can we have more engaged membership? There is also a responsibility on WG members to read emails and documents sent.

Need stronger involvement of Director and Steering Group across WGs. Director should attend both WG meetings.

Feedback from Group 2: Vertical Coordination

Need clarification on what current roles are and how information is channeled. Does the communication flow need to be changed?

There needs to be a balance between core funding and project specific funding, and clarity on how these are administered.

Should WGs be involved in staffing decisions?

Need to be clearly communicated criteria for SG and WG selection. Inability to pay USD 10K SG contribution should not be a reason for exclusion.

If relationship becomes too hierarchical we may lose the advantage and spirit of volunteerism.

Recommendation that Steering Group members do not sit on WGs.

21 | P a g e

Feedback from Group 3: Vertical Coordination

There is a need for more clarity on core priorities, core funding, and work plans.

Steering Group should decide what WG(s) are needed and identify the mandates based on the new strategic plan. Steering Group members should approve WG work plans. Each WG would be mandated to move the strategy forward. The WG Work plan could include the key priorities and the secondary priorities, with budget.

These decisions should be shared clearly so all network members have clarity on working group roles and priorities

Coordinators and Co-chairs should present work plans with budgets

Need to identify priorities but stay flexible to respond to opportunities that arise

SG participation in the WGs could ensure continued communication between the groups.

The SG, co-chairs, and coordinators could work together between meetings to help solve problems.

Need to improve the program country participation in the meetings like this. Feedback from Group 4: Horizontal Coordination

Suggestions to improve communication between WGs and SGs: o Co-chairs of WGs directly participate in SG meetings, although this may be

burdensome in terms of time and funds o If SG members are on WGs it should be equitable across all WGs

How to balance autonomy with coordination? o Participation on WGs is motivated by: a) voice shaping the mission b) moving

INEE forward. How do we make sure we allow for the diverse voices but move forward together on same path?

o How to decide what is effective representation on the SG?

Fundraising roles need to be clarified o Clear and transparent decision making on fundraising and allocation of

resources Plenary discussion:

o There will be core activities for each WG going forward. It is difficult to get funding for everything. Would be useful to have plan with budget, including staff of Secretariat necessary to move forward. Ask donors to contribute to that entire strategy/operational budget. Priority would be the overarching strategy contributions.

o Regarding autonomy of WGs, proposal to have each WG have a mandate to lead on various strategies. Agree that WGs could take a functional lead (advocacy, research/evidence, tools). Strategic content activities could be pursued, after discussion with the lead WG regarding how to move forward.

o In the last few years we have been focused on pursuing money for activities. Going forward INEE should think about how members should support fundraising, e.g. an appeal to get basic unrestricted funding. The preference should be for unrestricted funds so activities are not donor driven.

o How can we ensure Language Communities and Task Teams are integrated? o Good to remember all that has been achieved to frame this discussion, in order to

realize how much more can be done if we improve governance.

22 | P a g e

o It would be helpful to reach out to other networks who have answered some of these questions.

o Proposal to have an all INEE meeting same next time year. Some agreement from other participants.

NEXT STEPS:

INEE Secretariat to synthesize the inputs and feedback from this session

New INEE Director and WG co-chairs develop a set of recommendations from the synthesized inputs and share with the SG

Recommendations to be integrated into the INEE governance documents that will be developed in the coming months

Joint WG Session 2 : Programme Updates

The objectives of this session were:

1. To share past and future program updates across the three INEE Working Groups. 2. To identify linkages and opportunities for cross-working group programme area

coordination. 3. To emphasize to Working Group Chairs and Coordinators the program areas that will

require close coordination in the next 6 months. INEE Minimum Standards Working Group Presentation: Select Overview of program results of the past 6 months and future priorities were shared, organized by WG Strategic Plan Priority. 1. Support Education policy and programming in prevention, preparedness and

development at the national level through the sustainable use of the INEE MS and network tools

CSE capacity building (South Sudan, Uganda, Myanmar, Cote d’Ivoire, Pakistan)

INEE Minimum Standards Contextualization (Lebanon, Jordan, DRC, Iran, Bangladesh)

Support for INEE Minimum Standards translation, capacity building, promotion and application

Priorities for next 6 months: Support usage and application of the INEE Tools and Minimum Standards and the development and implementation of contextualized standards

2. Facilitate research, evaluation and knowledge sharing on good practices in education in emergencies informed by the INEE MS and network tools

Journal on EiE

Teacher Professional Development in Crisis, IASC Guidelines on GBV in Emergency

Priorities for next 6 months: Journal on EiE, INEE Research Exchange, EIE Term Bank, Training Module on Early Childhood Development, INEE Toolkit, Tools promotion (TPD) and knowledge management

3. Advocate for the recognition, provision and resource mobilization for EiE through the INEE MS and network tools

23 | P a g e

INEE Minimum Standards 10- Year Anniversary Celebration (interview series, INEE Essay Contest, Norwegian Government White Paper on Education and Development)

Priorities for next 6 months: Continue advocating for the use of the INEE Minimum Standards and their inclusion in key advocacy messages and continue partnership and collaboration Sphere, Child Protection Standards partnerships

For more information see the WG on Minimum Standards 6-Month Update. Education Cannot Wait Advocacy Group presentation: Key achievements

• Created the recognized brand “Education Cannot Wait” • Mobilized high level champions • Leveraged relationships between members and influential stakeholders to move

the agenda forward 1. Prioritize: 4 % target raised the issue of funding for EIE. GPE and Norway's

White Paper 2. Plan: Increased awareness of importance of conflict and disaster responsive

sector plans (MFA Belgium, GPE Guidelines) 3. Protect: Lucens Guidelines (Norway and South Sudan)

Focus for the next 6 months

• Advocate to ensure that EIE is prioritized in humanitarian action through the World Humanitarian Summit 2016

• Pursue opportunities for incorporating EIE into the GMR reports • Identify strategic champions and provide them with support in their advocacy

on EIE • Develop a short paper clarify the 4 % target of humanitarian financing for EIE • Develop a scoping paper on EIE financing building on forthcoming research from

NRC and SC • Prepare a baseline on education sector plans and how they deal with protecting

education against attack (GCPEA/IIEP). Second phase contingent on funding • Support GCPEA in advocating with states to implement the Lucens Guidelines

The way forward

• Current group: Education Cannot Wait • Advocacy is a core priority for the new strategic plan so a WG on advocacy will

be needed • This will require a different TOR and membership of the group • Important to continue ECW as part of this • Ideally increased capacity within the Secretariat • Likely, increased engagement of the SG in advocacy

24 | P a g e

Education and Fragility Working Group Presentation 1. Key Achievements of the previous Working Group

(1) Objective 1: Facilitate a learning space for dialogue & info sharing on education’s roles in peace-building • A roundtable on “Health and Education in CAFCs - Bridging the Development Gap

and Enhancing Collaborations” • Paper on “Private Sector Engagement in Education: Conflict-affected and Fragile

Contexts” • Paper on “Training Programs for Teachers and Education Workers in the Field of

Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation” • Concept note on “Resilience and Education”

(2) Objective 2: Promote Conflict Sensitive Approaches in E&F contexts • Development of the CSE Pack with WGMS • High-level launch event in Paris with stakeholders including MoEs • Roundtable and panels at international conferences & meetings (CIES, UKFIET,

Education Cluster, UNESCO etc) to promote CSE approaches • Wide disseminations and references on CSE within WG member organizations and

partners • Collaboration with GPE - the ESP Guidelines revision and side events • Collaboration with the PEIC-IIEP-IBE programme of crisis-sensitive planning and

curriculum 2. Goal, Focus Areas and Co-chairs of the new Working Group The following working group’s goal and three focus areas were identified during the meeting.The group will further discuss and finalize these after the INEE Strategic Plan is in place. Activities and a work plan will be also developed along with the Strategic Plan process.

(1) Goal: To influence on education policies, planning and practices to respond to crisis and conflict through analysis of research and contextualization.

(2) Focus areas: 1) Critical Debates on EiE Professionalization, 2) Evidence-based and Research and 3) Conflict /Crisis Sensitive Education

(3) Expected co-chairs for the next 18 months (to be consulted within the organizations to confirm) • Véronique Ringot, Save the Children • Garnett Russell, Teachers College, Columbia University

Plenary Discussion: Where are the opportunities for coordination across the working groups?

Opening up “advocacy” of Education Cannot Wait to include other topics and support work of other Working Groups.

Capacity development activities

Evidence building and research

Professionalization

Conflict sensitive education

Contextualization of tools

25 | P a g e

What is missing across the Working Group plans?

Resilience

DRR

Voices of members

Current functions of working groups

United INEE: mission, vision, objectives, structures and governance

Role of TTs with WGs

Presentation from SG on Next Steps for INEE Strategic Planning

In order to have a strong consensus-based INEE Strategic Plan the SG laid out the following steps to be achieved by Feb 2015:

Key products to be developed: 1. Consultative report (light touch). This document will provide feedback to all

INEE members on their inputs throughout the Global Consultation and member priorities.

2. Analytical piece, based on data gathered from Global Consultation Process (longer term)

3. 1 Page INEE Vision 4. INEE Strategic Plan

Suggested Process: 1. Move forward from this meeting. Integrate what was gathered in Doha

meeting in Synthesis Note to inform updated Strategic Plan. 2. Technical workshop in Washington DC, early Nov, to prepare integrated draft

Strategic Plan. 3. Call for feedback on draft plan from Steering Group and Advisory Group

(made up of SG, WG members, and INEE Secretariat) 4. Finalize and share draft for endorsement to membership and WGs

This process will be clarified in the coming weeks and further information will be shared with all WG members. Plenary Comments on Strategic Plan suggested process:

From discussion in WG Minimum Standards: (1) As the advisory group is an opportunity for to feed into this important process make sure targeted approach: All Sec, 2 reps, INGOs, UN, etc. (2) Knowing how important it is to move this project forward, we feel that is important to get endorsement from membership- feedback from base.

Noted that the endorsement from the members is not to do more data collection, but an effort to increase engagement and support.

Suggestion to do more comprehensive review of previous strategic plan. To be more informed by evidence and data and hold us accountable to our own work. What objectives have been achieved? What objectives have not been addressed and why?