Domain 1 – Foundational Standards

This chapter details standards for:

Community participation: participation and resources
Coordination
Analysis: assessment, response strategies, monitoring, and evaluation.

The standards described here are critical for an effective education response. They are the basis for the application of the standards for Access and Learning Environment, Teaching and Learning, Teachers and Other Education Personnel, and Education Policy.

Effective emergency education response is based on active community participation – processes and activities that empower people to take part in decision-making processes and take action on education issues. Community involvement and ownership enhance accountability, strengthen the mobilisation of local resources and support the maintenance of education services in the long term. Participation facilitates the identification of education issues particular to the local context and ways to address them. In this way, community participation in assessment, planning, implementation, management, and monitoring helps to ensure that education responses are appropriate and effective.

Community participation should include capacity building for community members and build upon education activities already being carried out. The participation of children and youth, who can contribute to community resilience and recovery, is very important.

There are various degrees and forms of participation. Symbolic participation ranges from use of services to acceptance of decisions made by others. Full participation refers to the active contribution of time and direct involvement in decision-making, planning, and implementation of education activities. Experience has shown that symbolic participation alone is not effective in providing quality and lasting education responses. Full and inclusive participation is often difficult to achieve in emergency situations, but it is important to work towards it.

Education authorities, which are responsible for ensuring the right to education for all, should lead the coordination of the education response. International humanitarian stakeholders should offer support and capacity building to education authorities, civil society organisations and local actors, taking care not to infringe on their legitimate roles. Where education authorities lack capacity or legitimacy, leadership may be assigned by agreement to an inter-agency coordination committee, such as the Education Cluster or another sectoral coordination group. Coordination of the education response should be timely, transparent, results-oriented, and accountable to the affected community.

The local context and the evolving nature of the emergency need to be properly analysed and understood in order to respond effectively and to ensure that education responses ‘do no harm’. Analysis of the education sector should take place alongside that of other humanitarian sectors. The aim is to determine the nature of the emergency, its causes and effects on the population, and the national authority’s ability to fulfil its legal and humanitarian duties. Analysis should consider economic conditions, religious and local beliefs, social practices and gender relations, political and security factors, coping mechanisms, and anticipated future developments. The vulnerabilities, needs, rights, and capacities of affected people and institutions, including available local resources for and gaps in education services for all learners, should be identified. An understanding of the community’s knowledge of local hazards and the skills they possess or need to develop to take both preventive and response actions is also essential.

The collection and analysis of information should produce transparent, publicly available, and disaggregated educational data necessary for all stages of an emergency through to recovery. Collection and analysis of information can inadvertently contribute to conflict and instability, and care should be taken to avoid this. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the education response and of evolving education needs should be inclusive and transparent. Monitoring and evaluation reports, including lessons learned, should be shared to improve future education responses.

Community Participation Standard 1:
Participation

Community members participate actively, transparently and without discrimination in analysis, planning, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of education responses.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

A range of community members participate actively in prioritising and planning education activities to ensure safe, effective, and equitable delivery of education (see guidance notes 1-4).
Community education committees include representatives of all vulnerable groups (see guidance notes 1-4).
Children and youth participate actively in the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of education activities (see guidance note 5).
A wide range of community members participate in assessments, context analyses, social audits of education activities, joint budget reviews, disaster risk reduction, and conflict mitigation activities (see guidance note 6).
Training and capacity building opportunities are available to community members (see guidance note 7).

Guidance notes

Inclusive community participation: Education authorities and other education stakeholders should ensure community participation in the analysis, planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of education responses. Any member of the affected community should be able to participate, regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, HIV status, or other factor.
Education authorities and other education stakeholders should engage the community in identifying:
- -
  the education needs of all learners;
- -
  the locally available financial, material and human resources;
- -
  existing and changing relations between male and female children, youth and adults;
- -
  power dynamics within the community, including relations between language groups, and any groups that may be excluded;
- -
  security issues, concerns and threats;
- -
  ways of protecting education institutions, staff and learners from possible attack, including gender-based violence;
- -
  local hazards, safe and accessible locations for schools and other learning spaces, and local approaches to disaster risk reduction;
- -
  ways of integrating relevant life-saving and conflict-sensitive education messages into all aspects of education response, including messages that address the major health threats in the community.
Structures to support stronger links between family, community and schools or other learning spaces should be developed in a participatory, inclusive and consultative manner (see also guidance notes 2-3 below, Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3, Analysis standard 2, guidance note 5, Analysis standard 3, guidance notes 1-3, Analysis standard 4, guidance notes 3-4).
‘Community education committee’ refers to a group which identifies and addresses the educational needs and rights of all learners in a community. Alternative names may include ‘parent-teacher association’ or ‘school management committee’. It can assist a community through training and capacity building activities or by engaging with education authorities and other education stakeholders to support education programmes. If a community education committee does not already exist, its formation should be encouraged (see guidance notes 3 and 7 below).
The community education committee should be representative of all the groups in the community and may include:
- -
  school administrators, teachers and staff;
- -
  parents or care-givers;
- -
  children and youth;
- -
  staff from civil society organisations;
- -
  representatives from local NGOs and religious organisations;
- -
  traditional leaders;
- -
  health workers.
The inclusion of representatives of vulnerable groups is essential. Community education committee members should be selected through a locally relevant participatory process that is appropriate to the context and that allows women and men and girls and boys to participate equitably.

In complex emergencies, where social distinctions such as ethnicity, tribe, religion and race can be exploited, the community education committee should work with all parties. While inclusion is the goal, the safety of individuals and groups comes first. Committees should aim to provide education safely, impartially and appropriately for everyone in the community. They should have first-hand knowledge of the changing socio-economic and political context and communicate with decision-makers at all levels (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3).
Roles and responsibilities of community education committee members should be clearly defined and may include:
- -
  meeting regularly to address issues of concern;
- -
  keeping records of meetings and decisions;
- -
  mobilising community financial and in-kind contributions;
- -
  determining appropriate approaches sensitive to age and culture to ensure that educational programmes respect the needs and rights of learners. Examples include flexible school calendars and age-appropriate curricula that reflect the community context;
- -
  communicating with the community and local and national education authorities to promote good relationships between community members and decision-makers outside the community;
- -
  ensuring that those responsible for ensuring access and quality of education are accountable;
- -
  monitoring education provision to help ensure quality of teaching and learning;
- -
  collecting and monitoring disaggregated information on who is and who is not participating in learning opportunities;
- -
  promoting security from attack and strengthening the security of staff and students going to and from school;
- -
  ensuring that disaster risk reduction is included in education provision;
- -
  ensuring appropriate psychosocial support.
See also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3).
Local education action plan: Local education authorities, the community, and the community education committee should prioritise and plan education activities through a participatory planning process that will result in a community-based education action plan. A community-based education plan should build upon a national education plan, if one exists, and provide a framework for improving the quality of formal and non-formal education programmes. It should reflect the needs, rights, concerns, and values of the emergency-affected community, particularly those belonging to vulnerable groups.
An education action plan focuses on ensuring educational continuity. It may have several objectives, including:
- -
  developing a shared vision of what the teaching and learning
- -
  environment might become, described in terms of activities,
- -
  indicators and targets, and a timeline;
- -
  the adaptation of curricula to the particular context, including conflict sensitivity and disaster risk reduction as appropriate;
- -
  agreeing on procedures for the recruitment, supervision and training of staff, and teacher compensation and support;
- -
  prioritising a human rights-based approach to reduce discrimination and create a shared understanding that education must be available, accessible, adaptable, and acceptable;
- -
  gaining agreement and shared commitment on priorities for developing a safe and supportive learning environment, including protecting education from attack;
- -
  describing specific tasks and responsibilities of education authorities, which are legally responsible for protecting the right to education, and other education stakeholders. This may include resource mobilisation, maintenance and development of infrastructure, and coordination with external agencies and other sectors including food security, health, hygiene, nutrition, water supply and sanitation responses.
Action plans should incorporate regular community monitoring and assessment to help maintain broad community participation (see also Coordination standard 1, Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3, Teachers and other education personnel standard 2, Education policy standard 1, guidance note 6, Education policy standard 2, guidance note 3, and Sphere Standards on Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion, Food Security and Nutrition, and Health Action.
Participation of children and youth in education activities: Children and youth have a right to be heard in matters that affect their lives, including the development and management of the education system. They should be invited to participate in discussions in safe, secure and welcoming environments that reinforce respect for constructive dialogue. Culturally appropriate ways of helping children and youth express themselves can be used, such as art, music, and drama (see also Education policy standard 1, guidance notes 1 and 6).
Children and youth should be trained to help them protect and support their emotional and social well-being and that of their family members and peers. Children and youth are often very valuable in identifying who is not in school after an emergency and helping them to attend. They can also help peers who are injured or those with disabilities access educational opportunities. Capacity building should emphasise their abilities to initiate positive change, including peace-building and addressing the root causes of conflicts and disasters. For example, training can support children and youth to report and prevent abuse within the learning environment and to take part in peer mediation or conflict resolution (see guidance note 7 below; Access and learning environment standard 2; Teachers and other education personnel standard 3, guidance notes 5-6).

Tasks such as distributing supplies or constructing shelters can provide opportunities for youth to participate in the planning and implementation of activities that are important for their communities. Such participation can offer positive alternatives to becoming involved in crime or armed groups, has strong psychosocial benefits, and helps the wider community to appreciate the contributions of youth. The participation of youth in planning, monitoring, and evaluating education programmes, particularly skills and livelihoods training, helps ensure that these programmes meet their current and future needs. Special efforts should be made to encourage girls and young women to participate to ensure that their voices are heard because their access to education and educational needs may differ from those of their male peers (see also SEEP Network Minimum Economic Recovery Standards Enterprise & Market Systems Development standards).
Social audits are community-based evaluations of an education programme. They are used to:
- -
  determine the people, funding and materials that are available for the programme;
- -
  identify gaps;
- -
  monitor the effectiveness of the programme.
It may not always be possible to conduct social audits at the beginning or in the mid-term stages of an emergency. However, in long-term chronic crises or early recovery contexts, social audits provide communities with an opportunity to improve their ability to more effectively monitor education programmes and to document violations of their rights. Participation in social audits is particularly relevant for young people, especially those who are not in formal or non-formal education. It is important that the results of social audits are shared with all community members and relevant authorities (see also Analysis standard 4).
Capacity building strengthens knowledge, ability, skills, and behaviour to help people and organisations achieve their goals. Every effort should be made to identify education experts, including teachers, other education personnel, and developers of curricula, within the affected population to be involved in programme planning and implementation. If enough local expertise cannot be identified, or if people are unable or unwilling to assist with (re-)establishing the education system, then capacity building activities for community members may be appropriate. Assessments should examine the different capacities, needs, and responses of male and female children, youth, and adults in the community, including vulnerable groups. Training programmes should assess community capacity to identify training and other capacity building needs and ways to address them. Such activities should promote ownership and maintenance of the education programme by the community and coordination with other sectors.

Community Participation Standard 2:
Resources

Community resources are identified, mobilized, and used to implement age-appropriate learning opportunities.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

Communities, education personnel, and learners identify and mobilise local resources to strengthen access to quality education (see guidance notes 1-3).
Education authorities, the local community, and humanitarian stakeholders recognise existing skills and knowledge and design education programmes to maximise the use of these capacities (see guidance notes 4-5).
National authorities, the local community, and humanitarian stakeholders use community resources to develop, adapt, and deliver education that incorporates disaster risk reduction and conflict mitigation (see guidance note 5).

Guidance notes

Community resources include human, intellectual, linguistic, monetary, and material resources existing in the community. When designing and planning education responses, locally available resources should be identified and analysed to determine how they may contribute to education.
Community resources do not replace the legal responsibilities of national authorities. Community resources can improve the safety, access, and quality of the teaching and learning. Contributions to the physical environment include material and labour support for the construction, maintenance, and repair of early childhood development centres, schools, and other learning spaces. Contributions to promoting protection and emotional, physical and social well-being may include psychosocial support for learners and teachers, facilitators, and care- givers. Teacher motivation may be improved through resources mobilised for salaries and other forms of compensation. Records of resource mobilisation should be kept for purposes of transparency and accountability. Monitoring must ensure than children are not exploited by carrying out physical labour beyond their capacities (see also Access and learning environment standard 2, Access and learning environment standard 3, guidance notes 1-4 and Education policy standard 2, guidance note 4).
Promoting access and security: Education authorities, the local community, and humanitarian stakeholders should encourage community members to identify and help vulnerable children and youth to attend school and access other learning activities regularly. Examples may include women’s and youth groups providing appropriate clothing for children from the poorest families or food to child-headed families. Community members should work with education authorities to ensure that schools, early childhood centres, and other learning spaces are safe and secure places for children and youth. They can organise safe access and transportation and support outreach to isolated and remote areas. Physical barriers should be removed to promote accessibility for learners with disabilities. Women can serve as classroom assistants or provide security from harassment to encourage the attendance of girls and learners with disabilities. When youth cannot attend classes with younger children for cultural or protection reasons, the community can advocate for and design non- formal education programmes such as peer education, technical and vocational education and training, and small business development training. Community resources should be used to develop, adapt, and share information on disaster risk reduction education and community response preparedness (see also guidance note 5 below, Access and learning environment standard 2, Access and learning environment standard 3, and SEEP Network Minimum Economic Recovery Standards Enterprise & Market Systems Development standards).
Building for the long term: Education personnel and communities should participate in trainings on roles and responsibilities for the long term. These may include trainings on resource mobilisation and management, the maintenance of facilities, disability awareness, and special measures to ensure the participation of children and youth.
Recognition of community contributions: All planning, programming, and reporting should incorporate information on the contribution of communities. Community contributions to educational (re)construction can be physical, such as building materials. They may be qualitative, meaning they cannot be measured with numbers, such as local skills. A strong community contribution indicates ownership and helps to ensure long-term support. However, continued external support should not be dependent upon such community contributions. Legal responsibility for education lies with the national authorities.
The participation and contribution of youth in peer education, community mobilisation, and community development initiatives should be encouraged and recognised. The participation of young people is particularly important in the design and needs assessment stages.
Local capacity: The development, adaptation, and delivery of education for disaster risk reduction and conflict mitigation should draw upon and strengthen positive local coping strategies and capacities.
Unequal access to resources and participation by different groups within the community may affect education interventions and increase exclusion or division. Individual or group contributors should not be favoured in education plans or programmes to the detriment of those who cannot contribute. Those who choose not to contribute should not be discriminated against (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3 and Education policy standard 1, guidance note 6).

Coordination Standard 1:
Coordination

Coordination mechanisms for education are in place and support stakeholders working to ensure access to and continuity of quality education.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

Education authorities, which are responsible for fulfilling the right to education, assume a leadership role for education response, including convening and participating in coordination mechanisms with other education stakeholders (see guidance note 1).
An inter-agency coordination committee coordinates assessment, planning, information management, resource mobilisation, capacity development, and advocacy (see guidance note 1).
A range of levels and types of education are considered in coordination activities (see guidance note 1).
Education authorities, donors, UN agencies, NGOs, communities, and other stakeholders use timely, transparent, equitable, and coordinated financing structures to support education activities (see guidance note 2).
Transparent mechanisms for sharing information on the planning and coordination of responses exist within the coordination committee and across coordination groups (see guidance notes 3-4).
Joint assessments are carried out to identify capacities and gaps in education response (see guidance note 4).
All stakeholders adhere to the principles of equality, transparency, responsibility, and accountability to achieve results (see guidance notes 5–6).

Guidance notes

An inter-agency coordination committee, which coordinates the education response, should have wide representation. The national education authority should provide leadership, but local authorities and groups should be appropriately represented. Where education authorities lack capacity or legitimacy, leadership may be assigned by agreement to different agencies. An existing education coordination group should take on these responsibilities or, if the IASC’s cluster system is activated, an Education Cluster should be established. However, a representative of the relevant education authority should always be involved in decision-making. Coordination groups may be needed at national and local levels, depending on the nature of the crisis. Roles and responsibilities of members should be set out in Terms of Reference for the committee (see also Education policy standard 2, guidance notes 3-4).
All levels and types of education should be considered in coordination activities, including early childhood development and primary, secondary, non-formal, technical, vocational, higher, and adult education.
Resource mobilisation: Significant funds are required for successful and timely implementation of quality education programmes in emergencies through to recovery. Every effort should be made to ensure inclusive, transparent and coordinated approaches to financing, including through UN Flash Appeals and Consolidated Appeals Processes. In acute emergencies, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund and other emergency response funds may provide funding for education. Local partners’ access to resources should be facilitated.
Emergency financing arrangements should consider national and regional labour market conditions and traditions and avoid setting precedents that cannot be maintained. Resource allocation should be informed by political analysis, particularly in conflict situations, to avoid fuelling division. A coordinated policy for the compensation of teachers and other education personnel and other education payments and fees is essential. Emergency financing arrangements should be harmonised with longer-term arrangements (e.g. multi- donor trust funds or development financing modalities such as pooled funding or national financing) to support sustainable interventions. Private sector funding should also be explored, particularly for technical and vocational education and training (see also Access and learning environment standard 2, guidance note 8, Teachers and other education personnel standard 2, guidance note 2, Education policy standard 2, guidance note 4, INEE Guidance Notes on Teacher Compensation, INEE Reference Guide to External Education Financing, and SEEP Network Minimum Economic Recovery Standards, Financial Services standards).
Information management and knowledge management includes:
- •
  assessment of needs, capacities, and coverage;
- •
  collection, storage, analysis, and sharing of information;
- •
  monitoring and evaluation;
- •
  lessons learned to inform future practice.
Effective information and knowledge management systems build on and enhance, rather than duplicate, national systems. The involvement of national and local partners, such as those working on child protection, psychosocial support, shelter, water and sanitation, health and early recovery, is essential. Information and knowledge management systems should be designed and owned by national and local authorities in the long term (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 6, Analysis standard 2, guidance note 6, Analysis standard 3, guidance note 3, Education policy standard 1, guidance note 5, and SEEP Network Minimum Economic Recovery Standards Core Standard 2).
Joint assessments to identify capacity and gaps in the education response should use and adapt the Global Education Cluster’s Joint Education Needs Assessment Toolkit or other needs assessment tools agreed upon in advance. Training on the use of these tools should be included in preparedness and contingency planning activities. If individual stakeholders conduct education assessments, they should share findings and data with the education authorities and the wider coordination group to support the coordinated response. In some countries, a multi-sectoral rapid assessment, which includes education questions, takes places within 48 hours of an emergency. If this happens, it requires coordination with other sectors such as health, water and sanitation, and shelter (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance notes 1-8).
Accountability: While individual stakeholders have their own mandates, all should agree to accountability in coordination and information sharing. This means being transparent about information collection, and its use to inform work planning. Where there are critical gaps in education response, the IASC Education Cluster or another coordination mechanism is responsible for ensuring that relevant stakeholders address the gaps in order to cover priority needs. Coordinated monitoring and evaluation can facilitate accountability to affected people by openly sharing information about the results of education work. It can also support the application of the INEE Minimum Standards and underlying humanitarian principles by highlighting where more work needs to be done. National human rights institutions should facilitate and monitor their national authorities’ obligations in fulfilling the affected population’s right to education (see also Education policy standard 2, guidance note 5).
A results-oriented approach means that all stakeholders work to ensure that the education response is well coordinated and produces the desired results. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the coordination of education responses allow gaps in coordination to be quickly identified and addressed (see also Analysis standard 3 and standard 4).

Analysis Standard 1:
Assessment

Timely education assessments of the emergency situation are conducted in a holistic, transparent and participatory manner.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

An initial rapid education assessment is undertaken as soon as possible, taking into account security and safety (see guidance note 1).
The assessment collects disaggregated data that identify local perceptions of the purpose and relevance of education, barriers to access to education, and priority educational needs and activities (see guidance note 2).
Local capacities, resources, and strategies for learning and education are identified, prior to and during the emergency (see guidance notes 2-5).
Context analysis is conducted to ensure that education responses are appropriate, relevant, and sensitive to the potential for risks and conflict (see guidance note 3).
Representatives of the affected population participate in the design and implementation of data collection (see guidance notes 2, 3, 5, 7, 8).
A comprehensive assessment of education needs and resources for the different levels and types of education is undertaken with the participation of key stakeholders (see guidance notes 2-7).
An inter-agency coordination committee coordinates assessments with other sectors and relevant stakeholders, to avoid duplication of efforts (see guidance notes 6 and 8).

Guidance notes

The timing of initial assessments should take into consideration the security and safety of the assessment team and the affected population. The assessment should take place as soon as possible after an emergency and should assess all types of education at all affected locations, if feasible. Following the initial assessment, the data should be updated regularly through monitoring and evaluation. This includes a review of programme achievements, constraints, and unmet needs. When overall assessments cannot be conducted immediately, partial initial assessments can gather information to inform immediate action.
Assessments should collect disaggregated data to inform the education response and assess continuing risk from conflict or disaster. ‘Disaggregated’ means that the information is separated into its component parts, and in this case analysed by sex and age group. Data identify educational capacities, resources, vulnerabilities, gaps, and challenges to upholding the right to education for all affected groups. Assessments and field visits by education and other emergency response providers should be coordinated to avoid the inefficient use of resources and over-assessment of certain affected populations or issues (see also Community participation standard 2; and Coordination standard 1).
Assessments should make maximum use of existing sources of information. Primary data collection should be limited to what is required to fill gaps in knowledge and inform education stakeholders’ critical decisions. Where access is restricted, alternative strategies for collecting information can be explored. These may include contacting local leaders and community networks, and gathering secondary data from other sectors or pre-crisis databases. Pre-crisis data will also provide a measure against which to compare the emergency situation.

Data collection tools should be standardised in-country to facilitate the coordination of projects and to minimise the demands on people providing information. Where possible, assessment tools should be developed and agreed upon by all stakeholders prior to an emergency as part of preparedness planning. The tools should provide space for additional information deemed important by local respondents.

Assessment teams should include members of the affected community. They should be gender-balanced in order to capture more effectively the experiences, needs, concerns, and capacities of male and female learners, teachers and other educational personnel, and parents and guardians. Appropriate authorities should be consulted.

Ethical considerations, including the basic principles of respect and non-discrimination, should underpin assessment. Collecting information can put people at risk because of the sensitivity of the information or simply because they have participated in the process (see also guidance note 5 below). Those collecting information have a responsibility to protect participants and must inform them of the following:
- -
  the purpose of collecting the data;
- -
  the right not to participate in the data collection process, or to withdraw at any time without negative effects;
- -
  the right to confidentiality and anonymity.
(See also Analysis standard 4, guidance note 2).
Analysis of the context, including disaster risk and conflict analysis, helps to ensure that education responses are appropriate, relevant, and sensitive to the potential for conflict and disaster.
Risk analysis considers all aspects of the context that affect the health, security, and safety of learners. This helps to ensure that education is a protective measure rather than a risk factor. Risk analysis assesses risks to education, which may include:
- -
  insecurity, poor governance, and corruption;
- -
  public health issues such as the prevalence of communicable diseases;
- -
  other social, economic, physical, and environmental factors, including industrial hazards such as toxic gas releases and chemical spills;
- -
  risks specific to sex, age, disability, ethnic background, and other factors relevant in the context.
Conflict analysis assesses the presence or risk of violent conflict to try to ensure that education interventions do not exacerbate underlying inequalities or conflict. This is necessary in both conflict and disaster situations. Conflict analysis asks questions about:
- -
  the actors who are directly or indirectly engaged in conflict, are
- -
  affected by conflict or at risk of being affected;
- -
  the causes of actual or potential conflict and the factors that contribute to grievances;
- -
  the interactions between the actors, including education stakeholders, and causes of conflict.
Conflict analyses of specific regions or countries are often available from research organisations. They may need to be reconsidered from the perspective of education. If existing analyses are not available or applicable, a conflict analysis may be carried out by means of a workshop in the affected area or a desk study. Education stakeholders should advocate for appropriate agencies to undertake comprehensive conflict analyses, including education-specific information, and to share the findings with all interested parties.

A risk analysis report proposes strategies for risk management of natural and human-made hazards, including conflict. Strategies may include prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. For example, schools or learning spaces may be required to have contingency and security plans to prevent, mitigate, and respond to emergencies. They could also prepare a risk map showing potential threats and highlighting factors that affect learners’ vulnerability and resilience.

Risk analysis is complemented by assessment of community resilience and local coping efforts, including resources and capacities. Knowledge, skills and capacities for disaster mitigation, preparedness and recovery are assessed and strengthened before as well as after an emergency, if possible, through preparedness and mitigation activities (see also Community participation standard 1, guidance notes 1-4; Community participation standard 2, guidance note 5; Access and learning environment standard 2, guidance note 11; Teaching and learning standard 2, guidance note 6; Education policy standard 1, guidance notes 2 and 4; and Education policy standard 2, guidance notes 3 and 5).
Data validity and methods of data analysis: Data analyses should clearly state:
- -
  the indicators;
- -
  data sources;
- -
  methods of collection;
- -
  data collectors;
- -
  data analysis procedures.
Where there are security risks for data collectors, the types of organisations involved in data collection and not the names of individual data collectors should be referenced. Limitations of the data collection or analysis that may affect the reliability of the findings, or their relevance to other situations, should be noted. For example, data may be made unreliable by respondents who inflate enrolment or attendance figures to maximise resource allocations or to avoid blame. It should also be noted if certain groups or issues are not addressed by programmes and monitoring systems.

In order to minimise bias, data should be drawn from several sources and compared. This technique strengthens the validity of data. The most affected groups, including male and female children and youth, should be consulted before conclusions are drawn. Local perceptions and knowledge should be central to the analysis to avoid a humanitarian response based on the perceptions and priorities of people from outside (see also Education policy standard 1, guidance note 4).
Participants in assessments should include education authorities and representatives of the affected population, including vulnerable groups. The participation of these groups in data and information collection, analysis, management, and dissemination may be limited by difficult circumstances during the initial assessment. It should increase as the context becomes more stable. Assessments should facilitate communication in all languages of the community, including the use of sign language and Braille, where applicable (see also Education policy standard 1, guidance note 4).
Collaboration within the education sector and with other sectors is crucial in maximising the quality, comprehensiveness, and usefulness of assessments. Education stakeholders should harmonise needs assessments by conducting joint assessments or by coordinating assessments to avoid duplication by different agencies. Coordinated assessments produce stronger evidence of the impact of emergencies and facilitate coherent responses. They improve the accountability of humanitarian stakeholders by encouraging the sharing of information (see also Coordination standard 1, guidance note 4).
The education sector should work with other sectors to inform the education response regarding threats, risks, and availability of services. This may include work with:
- -
  the health sector to obtain epidemiology data and information about threats of epidemics and to learn about available basic health services, including services for sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support;
- -
  the protection sector to learn about the risks related to gender- based and sexual violence, orphans and other vulnerable populations within the community; the barriers to education; and the available social and psychosocial support services;
- -
  the nutrition sector to learn about school-based, community-based, and other nutrition services;
- -
  the shelter and camp management sectors to coordinate safe and appropriate location, construction/re-construction of and access to learning and recreation facilities; and the provision of non-food items necessary for school facilities;
- -
  the water and sanitation sector to ensure that reliable water supply and appropriate sanitation are available at learning sites;
- -
  the logistics sector to organise procurement and delivery of books and other supplies.
(See also Coordination standard 1, guidance notes 1, 3, and 4; and Education policy standard 2, guidance note 2).
Education and psychosocial needs: Disaggregated data on education and psychosocial needs and resources should be collected in general needs assessments. Assessment team members with local knowledge can support these aspects of assessments. Agencies should commit resources, staff and organisational capacity to carry them out.
Assessment findings should be made available as soon as possible so that education activities can be planned. Pre-crisis data and post-crisis assessments that identify resource and education needs and/or violations or fulfilment of education rights by education authorities, NGOs, humanitarian agencies, and the local community should also be shared.
Education authorities at the local or national level should coordinate the sharing of assessment findings. If such authorities lack capacity to do this, an international lead actor, such as the education sector coordination committee or the Education Cluster, can manage this process. The presentation of data in assessment findings should be standardised if possible so that the information can be used easily (see also Coordination standard 1).

Analysis Standard 2:
Response Strategies

Inclusive education response strategies include a clear description of the context, barriers to the right to education and strategies to overcome those barriers.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

Response strategies accurately reflect assessment findings (see guidance notes 1-2).
Education responses progressively meet the needs of affected populations for inclusive and quality education (see guidance notes 1, 5, and 8).
Response strategies are designed and implemented in ways that do not harm the community or providers and do not worsen the impact of the emergency (see guidance notes 3 and 7).
Information collected from the initial assessment and context analysis is regularly updated with new data to inform ongoing education responses (see guidance note 4).
Response strategies include capacity building to support education authorities and community members to carry out assessments and implement response activities (see guidance note 2).
Education responses complement and are harmonised with national education programmes (see guidance notes 6 and 8).
Baseline data are collected systematically at the start of a programme (see guidance note 9).

Guidance notes

Response strategies: Education stakeholders must invest in a thorough analysis and interpretation of assessment data to ensure that their response strategies are based on the key findings and major priorities revealed by assessment. This avoids the risk of assessment findings confirming already formed ideas for programme responses.
The response strategies should demonstrate the leading role of education authorities and collaboration with other stakeholders. For example, the levels of education expenditure for items such as teacher remuneration and equipment should be harmonised across organisations, considering long-term sustainability of expenditure levels.

The response strategies should be based on appropriate contingency plans where they exist and should be developed with active community participation. They should indicate different levels and types of education, awareness of risks and hazards, and whether other agencies are supporting education activities. Budgets should provide for essential education activities, including baseline data collection and evaluations (see also Community participation standard 1, guidance note 1).

There should be an analysis of the barriers, including gender barriers, to accessing all levels and types of education and activities for addressing these barriers. There should be as much flexibility as possible to provide inclusive education and to respond to increasing demand for education.
Capacity building for data collection and analysis: Response strategies should include capacity building, including for education authority staff and community members. Youth community members in particular may be involved in data collection and analysis, monitoring and evaluation. It is important that staffing is gender-balanced to ensure comprehensive and effective collection and analysis of assessment data (see also Analysis standard 3, guidance note 2; and Analysis standard 4, guidance note 3).
‘Do No Harm’: Emergency education responses involve the transfer of resources such as training, jobs, supplies, and food into frequently resource-scarce environments. These resources often represent power and wealth. They can become an element of the conflict or exacerbate marginalisation or discrimination within communities. In a conflict situation, some people may attempt to control and use such resources to support their side, to weaken the other side or to gain personally. If this happens, education responses may cause harm. Efforts should be made to avoid this, based on an understanding of risk and conflict analysis (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 3).
The transfer of resources and the process of conducting emergency education responses can also strengthen local capacities for peace. Activities can reduce divisions and sources of tension that lead to destructive conflict by building on or creating ties that bring communities together. For example, teacher training programmes can unite teachers in their professional interest across ethnic divides. More equitable community relations can be promoted through the incorporation of previously marginalised groups.
Updating response strategies: Education stakeholders should regularly review and update their response strategies during emergencies through to recovery and development. They should demonstrate achievements to date, changes in the emergency and security situation, and concurrent changes in strategy. There should be current estimates of unmet needs and rights and appropriate changes in strategy to meet those needs. Interventions should promote progressive improvements in quality, inclusion, coverage, sustainability, and shared ownership.
Donor response: Donors should regularly review both the quality and coverage of emergency education response to ensure that the minimum level of educational quality and access is met. Special attention should be paid to the enrolment and retention of learners from vulnerable groups, aiming for equal access to a range of educational opportunities in emergency-affected locations. ‘Equal access’ refers to equality of opportunity for male and female children, youth, and adult learners, particularly those who are marginalised due to ethnicity, language, or disability. Funding for education response should be given equal priority with water, food, shelter, and health responses to ensure education provision for affected populations. This includes communities that host refugees or internally displaced populations. Adequate funding is critical to upholding the right to education for all. Programmes should not be limited by short-term funding cycles and should continue well into the recovery period (see also guidance note 7 below; Access and learning environment standard 1, guidance notes 1-2; and INEE Reference Guide to External Education Financing, available in the INEE Toolkit).
Strengthening national programmes: Emergency education responses should be harmonised with and should strengthen national education programmes, including early childhood development and vocational and livelihood programmes. This includes national and local education planning, administration, and management as well as physical infrastructure and in-service teacher training and support. Emergency education responses should work with education authorities to build a better system for the future, strengthening an inclusive education system for all children, such as those with disabilities and from minority groups (see also Education Policy standard 1; and Education Policy standard 2, guidance note 4).
Emergency response preparedness and disaster risk reduction: Development agencies and donors should promote and support activities for disaster risk reduction and preparedness for emergency response as prevention measures and during recovery after crisis. Investment in disaster risk reduction and preparedness can be cost- effective and efficient because it can contribute to better planning, coordination, and response by education authorities and partners. Investment in disaster risk reduction and preparedness may also mean that less investment may be required during emergencies.
Overcoming constraints of organisational mandates: Humanitarian organisations with limited mandates – such as for children, primary education or refugees – should ensure that their education responses complement those of the education authorities and other education stakeholders. Overall education strategies should cover:
- -
  early childhood development;
- -
  inclusive primary education;
- -
  the needs of youth, including secondary, higher and vocational education;
- -
  adult education;
- -
  pre-service and in-service teacher training.
Strategies for adult learners should include non-formal education programmes for literacy and numeracy, life skills development and awareness-raising for safety and security, such as landmine awareness. Educational development in areas receiving returnees should include provisions for longer-term support such as catch-up classes and vocational training (see also Coordination standard 1; and Teaching and learning standards 1-2).
Collecting baseline data: ‘Baseline data’ refers to information collected from the targeted population before new education activities begin. It helps programme staff understand the education situation and is used to form a basis for comparison with information collected later, during monitoring and evaluation. Baseline data should be collected systematically. Examples include disaggregated population data, school attendance rates and teacher-student ratios. Data may be specific to an intervention. For example, if a programme is intended to improve girls’ school attendance, the attendance rates of girls before the programme begins will be needed as a baseline.

Analysis Standard 3:
Monitoring

Regular monitoring of education response activities and the evolving learning needs of the affected population is carried out.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

There are effective systems for regular monitoring of education response activities in emergency situations through to recovery (see guidance note 1).
Education response activities are monitored to ensure the safety and security of all learners, teachers, and other education personnel (see guidance note 1).
Vulnerable people are regularly consulted, trained in data collection methodologies and involved in monitoring activities (see guidance note 2).
Disaggregated education data are systematically and regularly collected and inform education responses (see guidance notes 3-4).
Education data are analysed and shared at regular intervals with all relevant stakeholders, especially affected communities and vulnerable groups (see guidance notes 3-4).

Guidance notes

Monitoring measures whether programmes are meeting the changing educational needs of the population and how they are responding to the evolving context. It:
- -
  ensures that interventions are relevant and responsive;
- -
  identifies possibilities for improvement;
- -
  contributes to conflict mitigation and disaster risk reduction;
- -
  promotes accountability.
The planned and unplanned impacts of education programmes should be monitored to ensure that they do not unintentionally increase marginalisation, discrimination, conflict or natural hazards. Unannounced monitoring visits can improve the validity of monitoring data.

The design of monitoring will determine how often different types of data are collected, according to need, and the resources required for data collection and processing. Many types of information can be collected from schools and other education programmes on a sample basis, giving quick indications of needs and problems. Such information may include:
- -
  disaggregated data on enrolment and drop-out;
- -
  whether students eat before attending school;
- -
  availability of textbooks and teaching and learning materials.
Monitoring of out-of-school children and youth and their reasons for not enrolling or attending can be done through visits to a small random sample of households. During monitoring, it is important to listen directly to the voices of women and vulnerable groups. If data on ethnicity or other social groupings are too sensitive or difficult to gather on a comprehensive basis, sample surveys, and qualitative feedback, such as informal conversations, may indicate problems specific to particular groups.

Monitoring and reporting systems are needed for violations of the safety and well-being of learners, teachers and other education personnel, and for the state of education infrastructure. This is particularly important where there is risk of armed attack, abduction, child recruitment to armed forces and armed groups, gender-based violence, or natural disasters. For this aspect of monitoring, education stakeholders may need to liaise with local and national authorities or UN and non-government agencies for security, justice, protection, and human rights. It is important to take into account the sensitivity of the reported information.

Ongoing education response activities should be modified if necessary, according to the results of monitoring.
People involved in monitoring need to be able to collect information from all groups in the affected population in a culturally sensitive manner. It is important that the team is gender-balanced, fluent in local language(s), and trained in data collection. Local practices may require that women or minority groups be consulted separately by individuals who are trusted. Representatives of the affected community, including young people, should be involved as early as possible in monitoring the effectiveness of education programmes that directly affect their lives. This is particularly important in non-formal education programmes for specific groups, such as adolescent girls or learners with disabilities (see also Analysis standard 2, guidance note 2 and Analysis standard 4, guidance note 3).
An education management information system, normally managed by national authorities, compiles and analyses education data. If an education management information system exists for the context, it may have been disrupted by the emergency or may need to be upgraded. The development or rehabilitation of a national education management information system or equivalent may require capacity building at national, regional, and local levels. Capacity building supports relevant people to collect, manage, interpret, use, and share available information. It should start as early as possible, with the aim of having a functioning system, ideally housed with a government body, by the recovery phase (see also Coordination standard 1, guidance notes 3; Education policy standard 1, guidance note 5; and Education policy standard 2, guidance note 4).
Compatible software and hardware for an education management information system are essential. National and local education offices and other education sub-sectors, such as national training institutes, should have compatible equipment to facilitate the exchange of information. Mobile phones equipped with special software can improve data collection, but lack of technology should not prevent data collection from under-resourced areas.
Monitoring of learners should take place whenever possible during their learning and after they complete or leave a course. Monitoring through quantitative and qualitative assessments can cover, for example:
- -
  gross and fine motor development, cognitive and socio-emotional
- -
  development in very young children;
- -
  the retention of literacy and numeracy skills;
- -
  awareness and application of key life skills;
- -
  access to post-literacy reading materials.
For vocational education, monitoring should keep track of employment opportunities for learners. Post-programme monitoring of learners provides valuable feedback for programme design (see also Teaching and learning standard 4; and SEEP Network Minimum Economic Recovery Standards Employment standards and Enterprise and Market Systems Development standards).

Analysis standard 4:
Evaluation

Systematic and impartial evaluations improve education response activities and enhance accountability.

Key actions

(to be read in conjunction with the guidance notes)

Regular evaluations of education response activities produce credible and transparent data and inform future education activities (see guidance notes 1-2).
All stakeholders, including representatives of the affected community and education authorities, are involved in evaluation activities (see guidance note 3).
Lessons and good practices are widely shared and inform future advocacy, programmes and policies (see guidance note 4).

Guidance notes

Distinction between monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation are key to achieving the goals and objectives of education programmes. Monitoring is an ongoing process that regularly measures progress towards goals and objectives of education programmes. It allows education programme staff to make changes during the programme or project cycle to ensure that they stay on track for achieving their goals and objectives.
Evaluation is less frequent, usually conducted in the middle of or at the end of a programme or project cycle and carried out by external or independent actors. It measures outcomes and evaluates whether expected results have been achieved. Evaluations can also address whether activities were relevant to stated priorities, policies and legal instruments and whether programmes were implemented in an efficient manner.
Evaluations of education response activities should use approaches and methods that produce timely and credible evidence of programme outcomes and impacts that can inform future action. ‘Impact’ is the measurable change that the programme has caused in people’s lives. Both qualitative and quantitative data disaggregated by sex and age are important. Quantitative data are about things that can be counted. They measure outcomes such as enrolment, attendance, drop-out, and achievement. Qualitative data are about things that cannot be measured with numbers. They help to understand processes and explain results. Examples of qualitative data include information on what happens in schools or other learning spaces, and the reasons behind enrolment, attendance, and drop-out rates (see also Analysis standard 1, guidance note 2 and Coordination standard 1, guidance note 3).
Capacity building through evaluation: The evaluation budget should cover capacity-building workshops for relevant stakeholders, including education authorities, community representatives and learners. These can introduce and explain the evaluation, develop evaluation plans in a participatory and transparent way, and allow stakeholders to review and interpret findings together. Learners, teachers, and other education personnel should be involved in the evaluation process to improve the accuracy of data collection and support the development of recommendations that can realistically be implemented. For example, teachers and other education personnel may add insights into practical difficulties resulting from proposed recommendations (see also Analysis standard 2, guidance note 2; Analysis standard 3, guidance note 2; and Education policy standard 2, guidance note 4).
Sharing evaluation findings and lessons learned: Key findings in evaluation reports, particularly recommendations and lessons learned, should be shared in a form understandable to all, including community members. They should inform future work. Sensitive data need to be handled carefully to avoid contributing to the emergency or conflict and/or to avoid putting informants who contributed anonymous or sensitive information at risk (see also Coordination standard 1, guidance notes 3 and 5 and Education policy standard 2, guidance note 4).

For tools to help you with the implementation of these standards, go to the INEE Toolkit

INEE Toolkit

↳
INEE Minimum Standards
- ↳
  Implementation Tools
  - ↳
    Foundational Standards

Change Your Password