1

INEE WORKING GROUP ON MINIMUM STANDARDS AND NETWORK TOOLS MEETING

1-2 October 2014 ~ Doha, Qatar

Hosted by Reach Out To Asia (ROTA) and Protect Education in Insecurity and Conflict (PEIC)

Meeting Outcomes

● INEE-wide efforts to develop the INEE Strategic Plan (2015-2017) and to improve Working

Group (WG), Steering Group (SG) and Secretariat coordination and governance were

contributed to

● WG progress strengthened towards achieving the focus for 2014-2015: Objective #2 of the

WG Strategic Plan, “Facilitate research, evaluation and knowledge-sharing on good practices

in education in emergencies informed by the INEE Minimum Standards and network tools.”

● Progress WG Strategic Plan activities from the past 6 months reviewed and WG priorities for

the following 6 months identified

INEE Working Group on Minimum Standards and Network Tools Meeting

In Attendance:

1. Howard Williams (AIR) Co-Chair

2. Ken Rhodes (FHI360) Acting Co-Chair

3. Essa Ali Al-Mannai (ROTA)

4. April Coetzee (WarChild)

5. Andrea Naletto (NRC)

6. Zeynep Turkmen (MaviKalem)

7. Mary Mendenhall (Columbia U)

8. Bente Sandal Aasen (Save Norway)

9. Gabriel El Khili (UNRWA)

10. Francesca Matarazzi (INTERSOS)

11. Wendy Smith (WVI)

12. Caroline Keenan (UNICEF)

13. Aninia Nadiq (Sphere) observer

14. Tzvetomira Laub (INEE)

15. Arianna Sloat (INEE)

16. Cynthia Koons (INEE)

Apologies: Sweta Shah (Plan International), Shakir Ishaq (BEFARe), Carine Allaf (independent) Co-

Chair , Khalil Al-Hussaini (MOE-Yemen)

Next WG Meeting: The next WG meeting will take place Spring, 2015, location TBD.

2

Day 1, October 1, 2014

0. Joint INEE WG Session on Coordination and Governance (Kerstin)

The purpose of this session was to jointly identify and bring clarity to issues related to vertical and

horizontal coordination within the network in order to make our structures and processes more

efficient. In so doing, Working Group (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 (SG), Secretariat) in the areas of:

o Vertical coordination, i.e. across SG and WGs The relationship and accountability between the WGs and SG 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.

3

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. 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.

4

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

I. Welcome to WG-MS Meeting and Remarks (Howard)

The WG co-chair, Howard Williams, and acting co-chair Ken Rhodes, thanked our generous hosts ROTA

and PEIC, all the WG members for their contributions to all the work that has taken place since the last

WG meeting and the INEE Secretariat.

WG members for whom this was their first WG meeting were welcomed:

● April Coetzee, the new representative from WarChild Holland replacing Jonathan Penson

● Gabriel El Khili, the new UNRWA representative

● Francesca Matarazzi, the new INTERSOS representative

● Wendy Smith, our main WVI representative

● Aninia Nadiq, Sphere Project, an observer for this meeting

Ken Rhodes is filling in for Carine Allaf as co-chair for this meeting.

Apologies from Sweta Shah (Plan International), Shakir Ishaq (BEFARe), Carine Allaf (independent) Co-

Chair , Khalil Al-Hussaini (MOE-Yemen), and Caroline Keenan (UNICEF)

The 2014 New York, NY WG meeting minutes were approved.

The goals and agenda for the current WG meeting were approved.

Overview of key accomplishments from past 6 months:

Activities to be discussed in depth in later sessions (CSE Capacity Building, EiE Journal, etc. were not

shared)

EiE Terminology Bank: INEE is carrying out a highly consultative and collaborative process to develop a

list of EiE terms and their definitions. The EiE Terminology Bank will be made available on the INEE

website by December 2014. It will include a sorting mechanism to make the content searchable and

easily accessible for users. The goal of this initiative is to support common understanding and

correct/universal usage of key EiE Terms to aid coordination and communication in the field of EiE.

INEE Minimum Standards Contextualization: The Lebanon Minimum Standards for Education in

Emergencies has been finalized and made available on the INEE Toolkit and INEE website. The final

document is available in both English and Arabic. Based on the INEE Minimum Standards, this tool has

been developed for and by the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE), school

5

principals, teachers, and UN and NGO representatives working in Lebanon. INEE also provided support

to partners organizing INEE Minimum Standards training and contextualization processes in Jordan and

Iran. INEE will continue to focus on supporting the follow-up to the contextualization exercises in Sri

Lanka, OPT, Lebanon and Ethiopia.

Early Child Development Module: INEE has begun the development of a 90-minute module on early

childhood development (ECD) in emergencies for the INEE–Education Cluster Training package. This

module will be developed through a widely consultative inter-agency process and include an open call

for organizations interested in piloting the draft module during the month of November. The module

will be finalized an available publically by January 2015.

INEE Essay Contest: As part of the 10 Year MS Anniversary Celebration, INEE has launched a global EiE

Essay Contest in collaboration with Working Group member organizations, UNICEF and WarChild

Holland. Aimed at children, youth and young professionals, the contest is designed to elevate the profile

of INEE, develop and promote knowledge surrounding EiE, improve INEE member engagement, provide

voice to youth living in conflict or natural disaster affected areas, and support advocacy efforts around

INEE and EiE. Thanks to Caroline Keenan and Jonathan Penson for their guidance on this project.

Teacher Professional Development in Crisis: INEE is in the final stages of finalizing a compilation on

Teacher Professional Development in Crisis, due to be published in late 2014. This manuscript,

developed by Mary Burns (EDC) and James Lawrie (Save the Children, is based around the “Teacher

Professional Development in Crisis” discussion forum. Along with the series, an annotated bibliography

of related resources was created.

Working Group Member Interviews: As part of the 10 Year Anniversary Celebration of the INEE

Minimum Standards, INEE conducted and shared a series of interviews with INEE WG members and

other EiE experts. All interviews have been featured on the INEE Blog, social media, and the INEE

listserv. Twenty-one interviews have been shared to-date. All interviews are available on the INEE

website, here.

INEE Minimum Standards Arabic Update: INEE has updated the 2010 translation of the Minimum

Standards in collaboration with the Arabic Language Community and other experts in the field. The

revised translation aims to improve the accuracy and clarity of the language and technical EiE terms in a

broader effort to enhance the applicability and use of the INEE MS in the Arab region.

Bangladesh Partner-led Initiative: The goal of this project, led by Save the Children and UNICEF on

behalf of the Education Cluster in Bangladesh, is to develop a set of Bangladesh Standards through 40+

consultations in disaster-prone districts around the country. The Bangladesh Standards will be used to

inform policy development around EiE and DRR and support quality education programming and policy

implementation.

6

ACTION:

All: Support the EiE Essay contest by promoting through your organizations and networks. For

more information and to volunteer to serve as judge please contact essaycontest@ineesite.org.

The final deadline for essay submissions is 24 October. For more information visit:

http://www.ineesite.org/essay-contest/

Noted that UNRWA is interested in contextualizing the INEE MS to be used for UNRWA to be used

throughout the organization and instritutionalized in a later phase.

II. Journal on EiE (Tzvetomira)

The Journal on Education in Emergencies seeks to publish groundbreaking and outstanding scholarly and

practitioner work on education in emergencies (EiE). Under the leadership of Dana Burde, Editor in Chief

of the Journal on EiE, the first Editorial Board Meeting of the Journal took place at NYU in New York. The

Journal put two Calls for Papers (July 15, Oct 15) began receiving manuscript submissions . Manuscripts

that and meet the Journal technical criteria have been assigned manuscript editors and are in the process

of moving through a double-blind peer review. The Editor and Editorial Board aim to issue the first

edition of the Journal in Spring 2015. For more information, see the Journal Update or visit the Journal

web page: http://www.ineesite.org/journal.

Noted it is important to give space for intellectual freedom and academic space. As community, we must

respect that space. It is important that we separate Advocacy from Research objectives in INEE Strategic

Plan.

A number of challenges were shared: EiE is a new field, some submissions are very promising but not

ready for publishing; It is an unpredictable process in terms of timeline for revisions of manuscripts it is

critical the fitst editions of both practitioner and academic work are of the highest caliber.

ACTION:

ALL- Request for help getting word out worldwide and with institutional learning, and research

colleagues.

Q: Will each edition have limited number of articles? A: Yes, 6-8 papers total per edition, more slanted

towards academic papers and some field notes. Papers will complement each other in each issue.

Q: Great initiative! EiE is a South-South issue, but board is predominantly global North. How can we bring

in other actors to enrich this board? A: The Journal leadership has discussed and debated this.

Developing the board was challenging, some applicants just didn’t have experience. We hope going

forward we will be able to bring on a more diverse group. It can also be a capacity building experience

for board members and those that submit.

7

In terms of accessibility, all abstracts will be translated. In the future, given funding issues may be able to

consider accepting manuscripts in multiple languages.

Q: Is there a validation system that could provide a ranking or some sort of external validation for the

Journal? A: There is ranking/external validation system that may help with funding issues. The ranking

system is based on how many essays are re-sited in other peer-reviewed articles. It a number of editions

out and some time to be able to compete in this type of ranking.

ACTION:

ALL- It is critical that the Journal does not contribute to academic/practitioner divide, so any

ideas on this please share with Mary.

III. Global Standards Network/CHS (Tzvetomira & Aninia)

The purpose of this session was to present and discuss the Global Humanitarian Standards Network

(GSN) proposal.

NB: The Concept Note has been in development for a year. This initiative has been held at the concept note level in anticipation of Dean Brook’s onboarding and leadership to review and decide on way to take forward. Similarly the GSN Concept Note has not been presented in the SPHERE structure yet, this will likely occur in November. The new SPHERE Director Christine Knutzen will begin on 1 November.

Background: There has been a longstanding relationship between INEE and SPHERE. INEE became a companion in 2008. We have had an excellent track record of coordination for last 2.5 years. There are 4 sectors included in the SPHERE handbook and four sectors, referred to as “standard setting initiatives,” that are not currently part of SPHERE (INEE, MERS, LEGS, and Child Protection Minimum Standards).

Problem: One of the challenges of SPHERE and companion guides has been to formalize our relationship so that education has a consistent seat at the table? The GSN will speak with one voice on key issues and will carry out joint promotion, learning and support for users. This is expected to contribute to much greater visibility and uptake of the standards beyond the audiences of each individual standards initiative.

Proposal: The GSN formalization formalizes the “standard-setting initiatives” (SSI) coordination. The proposal is for a coordinator to represent all 4 SSIs.

Functions for the GSN: o Internal facing activities would be learning from each other, e.g. the country focal point

that SPHERE uses. Additional functions would be to promote use of standards and possibly develop tools for training on the standards.

o External facing would be to build collective voice through collaboration. This collective voice can be raised at strategic events, e.g. for example in the summit for standards for humanitarian practice 2016 in Istanbul.

Approach to GSN: demand-driven, slow, needs-based, start small.

For more information on the GSN please see Global Humanitarian Standards Network Concept Note.

8

Open discussion on the HSN proposal: Excellent way to reach out to the humanitarian colleagues. Also way for education to have

creative competition with other standards setting initiatives. The coordination of the child protection and education standards has funding opportunities.

Thrilled to see this initiative taking place because certain agencies have yet to recognize that education has a place at the table. This can strengthen the advocacy voice.

What Sphere lessons learned can inform this process? How can we capitalize on this to make the relationship better? Response: Originally the focus of the Sphere Companionship was on branding and design. Going forward the overall aim is to change the community of practice to improve our collective ability to advocate for the integration of education into humanitarian aid.

Q: How will this initiative be funded? A: Regarding funding, the assumption is that the idea would appeal to donors (e.g. OFDA or DFID), specifically funding for the GHS coordinator and some activities. Also suggested is a secondee of NRC. Regarding advocacy there will need to be a balance across the sectors. There is a need to consider ways to keep organic but keep small and manageable so that it is not entirely dependent on a single donor, for example using secondments. Many details remain to be discussed, e.g. governance.

Proposal to use the name: Global Humanitarian Standards Name. Be bold and specific. Q: To what problem does this idea respond? A: the companionship idea grew from other sectors

wanting to be associated with Sphere. The usefulness of working together is to share learning and increase reach.

The problem statement needs to clarify where the gaps are (who, where, what level). The more crucial problem statement is the need to improve the quality and accountability of humanitarian planning and response. If we don’t do this, what is the risk? Consider the Rwanda response example and indicate what we have learned. The problem statement should also illustrate examples of how the collective voice strengthens efforts.

Update on Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS)

Steering Committee for Aid Humanitarian Response (SCHR), 8 big NGOs that convene in Geneva. Their conclusion is that there are too many standards. The JSI did a consultation on the need for joint core standards. A group gathered to draft the CHS. This has now been abandoned and SPHERE board is reviewing the mandate and process. A summary document is in development. On 12 December, this will be presented in Copenhagen at a high level meeting as well as the CHS. There is nothing education related, it is pure process, e.g. HR, financing, humanitarian approach.

Sphere Focal Point Approach

Brief was shared in the last meeting regarding lessons learned from the SPHERE focal point approach to inform an INEE approach at the country level.

Aninia (Sphere) offered to set up a briefing call on the topic. The Session closed by thanking Anina Nadiq (Sphere) for participation and welcoming Brenda Haiplik (UNICEF). ACTION:

Zeynep and Andrea - MSWG members volunteered to join the advisory group for review of concept note to ensure process is inclusive. Tzvetomira will follow up with a request to Brenda for Caroline Keenan and Sweta Shah.

All- If interested in learning more on CHS contact to Zeynep or Anina.

9

IV. CSE Capacity Development (Cynthia)

Cynthia Koon’s, the INEE CSE Capacity Building Coordinator, is leading all INEE CSE work until December

2014. She shared a brief update on the progress to-date:

To build capacity on CSE and support distribution of the INEE CSE Pack, in early 2014, INEE Members developed and piloted the INEE Conflict Sensitive Education Training, a set of 8 modules, each with a presentation, facilitator’s guide and activity. Additional materials such as Frequently Asked Questions document, template invitation letter, certificate and evaluation form were also developed.

In partnership with the UNICEF Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy Program (PBEA)—funded by the

Government of Netherlands—INEE is following up on the CSE capacity development work. The primary

activities are summarized below.

1. Translation of the INEE CSE Training, 90-minute and 2-day versions

2. Training and capacity development on CSE

3. Whiteboard films on CSE

4. Knowledge sharing on CSE

Brief Update: The INEE 90-minute and 2-day modules on CSE have been finalized and shared on the INEE

Toolkit in English, French and Arabic. These modules draw from the INEE CSE Pack. CSE Trainings have

been rolled out with Education Cluster Partners in South Sudan and Uganda, with trainings planned for

2014 in Pakistan and Myanmar. Adapted training packages from the trainings held have been made

available on the INEE Toolkit, in addition to webinar recordings that share content from the CSE Training

Package. INEE is currently developing 5 infographics and 5 whiteboard videos to share key content from

the Training Packages.

For a complete update see the CSE Capacity Development Progress Summary.

Q: Who is the target of the INEE CSE trainings? A: All trainings are demand driven as per inter-agency

applications submitted to INEE. Each application indicated who the group wanted to train, so trainees

were all chosen at the country level. All materials are contextualized to particular situation and shared

on the INEE website so that trainings can be replicated. From informal feedback on trainings they have

been replicated in S. Sudan and Uganda

Carrying CSE work forward into 2015

Trainings are not the best way you create behavioral change in these contexts. Example shared

from Myanmar, Rakin State, where education provision by large organizations is serving the

population if examined through a humanitarian lens. However, the education practices are

reinforcing conflict due to inequitable education service provision. So from a humanitarian

perspective they are serving population by providing quality education but it is NOT CSE and the

response strategy is actually reducing long-term peace and ability for groups to reintegrate.

There is a recognized need, but we need to be more strategic in how we fill this need. Related to

how we develop capacity building strategies

10

How do we keep CSE capacity development going? CSE Champions? TOT?

o Q: We discussed at last WG meeting the Sphere focal points model for a sustainable

impact at the country level. Is this strategy being explored? A: At end of each training,

Cynthia has been asking if any org would like to be CSE focal point for country. The

common response is there is too much content for anyone to feel confident replicating

training, however the will is there, how can we best employ and support this?

o Need to strengthen capacity of key actors to be able to replicate trainings within our

own organizations.

o Noted that different approaches are needed in protracted contexts vs. acute emergency

o People know what quality training INEE delivers, we haven’t had sustainable TOT model.

The cascade model does not work in terms of quality, retention, etc. We have tried there

was a concerted effort. Maybe there is a more hands on role for INEE in capacity

building, but what would this look like?

o Perhaps what is needed is better model for Cap development mentoring relationship,

over time?

o Notion of Sphere model- does not get into institutional commitment, can org be

committed to being master trainers to provide ongoing support to field? Blended

learning.

Q: Why were there no trainings in the Middle East? A: Started with 14 UNICEF-PBEA countries,

mapped in which of 14 had greatest # of INEE members, in which countries it was OK in the

conflict cycle to discuss CSE. In Yemen, security was the issue.

What if CSE was a requirement from donor? In what sense is CSE becoming a standard?

What is your recommendation of how we set up process to promote behavior change?

INEE has good track record to set up institutional/policy change. How can we capitalize on

network knowledge?

This discussion was cut short due to time constraints, to be continued, time TBD.

V. Global Consultation Debrief (Wendy)

The purpose of this session was to share reactions on the Global Consultation and joint WG sessions and to discuss what the sessions mean for the WG-MS going forward. Summary and Recommendations:

1. Process of last two days was difficult and the results not satisfactory. Recommendation to: a) analyze what broke down in the strategy consultation and drafting process; b) make a work plan to address the issues.

2. There is an issue regarding identity of WG and INEE. What is that identity? Do we feel that the process of the last two days reflected the broad group?

3. Need to protect the work of the Minimum Standards, mandate has not been fulfilled. This needs to be balanced with donor and thematic trends.

4. Can we link research and advocacy around the standards? Tension between humanitarian development continuum, and how the MS fit within this?

11

5. Field colleagues are requesting training and tools, our work in these areas has not been completed.

Additions from group:

Separate research from policy and advocacy Must retain our collaborative nature We will resolve this, we are open to adapt on how to best support the new mandate.

ACTION REQUESTED

Co-chairs should raise the key reflections at the Steering Group meeting on Friday. Need to address the issue of capacity building, what it means to “facilitate” capacity building

Day 2, October 2, 2014

The agenda for this day was restructured to allow for more time to consolidate feedback on the Global

Consultation and INEE Strategic Planning. The following sessions were not held due to time constraints

and will be followed up on virtually: Research Exchange, Teacher Professional Development (TPD) in

Crisis, and EiE Term Bank.

VI. Liberia Crisis- Support to MOE (Howard)

Introduction to session (Howard Williams):

The purpose of the session was to share ideas and experiences related to the Ebola crisis in West Africa and develop inputs to share with the MOE on their draft response plan as per the request. Feedback from this session and a virtual consultation will be shared with the MOE Liberia via Howard.

One challenge has been that the Ebola outbreak was initially treated only as a health issue, however there are many social and cultural drivers for increased spreading.

Schools in Liberia have been closed to protect children. How do we not lose learning gains? How do we prepare for re-engaging communities after traumatic experience? How do we handle facilities issues? Education is largest network of civil service in the country- how can this cadre be best engaged? What can be done to protect the staff and help people become more aware?

We are not health experts, and even though Liberia has a huge teacher force, the do no harm principle is essential for the teachers and the people who they are trying to disseminate info to.

The WG divided into groups to review and share feedback on the following Strategic Objectives of the Liberia Draft Response Plan:

o Strategic Objective One: Streamline Institutional arrangements and strengthen capacity of MOE staff and system to collaborate with the health sector and local authorities to help halt EVD at community level.

o Strategic Objective Two: Train teachers and EOs to participate and lead social mobilization and behavior change communication (BCC) to halt the transmission of EVD in communities

o Strategic Objective Three: Prepare and Broadcast via Radio Education Programs for Children Grade 1-6

12

o Strategic Objective Four: Train teachers to develop skills that will help to mitigate the psychosocial and emotional impact of Ebola epidemic on children through appropriate child and adolescent developmental activities

The complete feedback provided to the MOE is available upon request.

ACTION:

Howard: Organize feedback from this session to share with the MOE Liberia

VII. Feedback on WGMSNT on Strategic Planning Process (Mary)

The purpose of this session was to refine reactions and ideas from the Global Consultation Debrief

Session.

Suggestion to map accomplishments of the last four years vis-à-vis INEE Strategic Plan. Cost

effectiveness should be taken into consideration

INEE has enduring principles and values that are permanent to the network. The INEE MS is part of this.

Our work should not be only donor driven, but balanced on INEE member demand and from the field.

The Working Group reflections on the INEE Strategic Planning process and recommendations on

strengthening INEE’s governance structures is available upon request.

X. Joint WG Session: Programmatic Meeting (Cynthia)

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)

13

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

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 Working 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

14

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

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.

15

Capacity development activities

Evidence building and research

Professionalization

Conflict sensitive education

Contextualization of tools

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.

16

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?

XI. Wrap up and announcements (Howard and Ken)

The co-chairs thanked the WG members for their participation and work in creating a successful WG

meeting and thanked our hosts ROTA and PEIC for their hosting and support.