Unicef Inee East Africa Regional

UNICEF-ESARO // INEE

AFRICA REGIONAL

EMERGENCY EDUCATION TRAINING WORKSHOP

September 12-15, 2006

Kabira Country Club, Kampala, Uganda

Workshop report

Michael Gibbons, Lead Trainer

UNICEF-ESARO // INEE AFRICA REGIONAL

EMERGENCY EDUCATION TRAINING WORKSHOP

September 12-15, 2006

Kabira Country Club, Kampala, Uganda

Workshop report

OVERVIEW

The following report serves as a record of the background and results of the September workshop. The report contains five sections:

I Introduction (context, purpose, stakeholders, participants, trainers),

II Training Plan (INEE training package, training challenges, workshop design),

III Session Topics and Key Findings,

IV Conclusions (workshop evaluation findings, lessons learned, recommendations, next steps), and

Appendix (Participants contact list, workshop plan, introduction activity outline, evaluation results).

The UNICEF-ESARO has copies of the CD ROM produced at the workshop containing the INEE workshop training materials, workshop agenda, additional emergency education reports/resources compiled by UNICEF, the findings for each session, and the participants contact information.

I. INTRODUCTION

Context: The workshop was conceived as a vehicle for pursuing UNICEF’s “core commitments to children”, especially the EFA goal of the right to basic education, within the context of East and southern Africa region, wherethe vulnerabilityof a large number of low-income children and a persistent pattern of ‘emergencies’ threaten their right to education. ‘Emergencies’ in the region include for example the conflicts in northern Uganda, Sudan and Somalia; refugee camps in Kenya and Tanzania; flood/drought cycles in fragile lands in each country; and the long-term crisis of the HIV/AIDS epidemic across the region. The inter-agency Network on Emergency Education (INEE) also saw the workshop as a unique opportunity with UNICEF to disseminate the INEE “minimum standards on emergency education” throughout the region as a tool for education preparedness planning and emergency response.

Stakeholders: This workshop drew together several of the stakeholders who see themselves as duty-bearers regarding the right of education for children affected by emergencies in the region, namely Ministries of Education for each participating country, UNICEF country offices, UNICEF ESARO regional office, INEE, and the World Food Program in the region.

Purpose: Therefore, the purpose of the workshop was to improve education resiliency in the region by introducing/sharing the INEE minimum standards framework as a stimulus of preparedness planning and a guide to sharing and developing effective education emergency responses/approaches. The learning objectives of the workshop (from the INEE manual) were to:

• Increase familiarity with all the INEE minimum standards and how they were developed
• Increase knowledge of the specific content of the standards and ways they are interrelated and interdependent
• Demonstrate an ability to use the standards to plan emergency education activities
• Increase commitment to implementing the minimum standards within home country education policies and plans.
  

Learning in the workshop is intended to lead to use or ‘transfer’ of that learning by participants in improved Ministry and UNICEF emergency education preparedness and response plans. These plans are anticipated to result in greater education resiliency in the region. The logic of longer-term impact of the workshop is envisioned in this way:

InputOutput

INEE MS workshopAwareness, knowledge, commitment to

use EE Minimum Standards (learning)

MS learningImproved Ministry and UNICEF

Emergency Education preparedness

and response strategies (transfer)

MS transfer/applicationImproved education resiliency (impact

This logic model suggests that monitoring and follow-up support (including additional country-level training) for transfer of workshop outputs at country level will be essential to eventual impact.

Participant/Learners: The participants in the workshop were 40 UNICEF education officers and MOE officials from 12 countries – Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Djibouti*, Rwanda*, Angola**, Malawi, Mozambique**, Eritrea, Sudan. (*/** Two French and two Portuguese-speaking country teams were included.) UNICEF-ESARO education staff participated in and supported the workshop as well. Most of the participants weresenior education officialsfor whom emergency/humanitarian work was new or not an area of core expertise, awareness of the INEE minimum standards was limited, and direct experience of emergency education programming was varied among the group. The workshop therefore adopted an “introduction to” approach which could lead to further in-depth training or planning within each country context. A list of participants is included in the appendix.

Training team:A core training team was assembled to plan and lead the workshop. The members were: Sharon Wright, an Australian trainer whoparticipated in the East Africa INEE TOT and helped develop the preliminary workshop plan. (She was unable to join the workshop itself due to a family situation.)Michael Gibbons, an experienced American trainer, INEE member and TOT participant, joined the team to fill in Sharon’s role as lead trainer. Kukoba Barasa is a Kenyan adult education lecturer and experienced trainer, also trained in the INEE TOT in East Africa in January 2006. Mualid Aden Warfais aSomali Kenyan WFP staff member, an experienced trainer, trained in the INEE TOT. Daniel Wesongais a Kenyan professor of educational planning, an expert in the INEE minimum standards content, trained in the INEE TOT. Together, this team brought significant training, East Africa, education and INEE training experience to the workshop.

The workshop benefited in many ways from the leadership and support of the UNICEF ESARO-education team (Aster Haregot, Sue Godt, TeijaValladingham, Akihiro Fushimi) and Pilar Aguilar, Education Advisor from UNICEF-New York Education Cluster. They and the UNICEF administrative staffJael Olang and Berna Babuguraserved as content experts, liaison with the country teams, logistical coordinators and links to the hotel venue. Trainers alternatedtaking the lead of different sessions and serving as support for each other. Pilar led the follow-up session. Sue and Maulid took the lead in documenting discussion points and findings for every session. Aster served as the overall coordinator and leader.

II. TRAINING PLAN

INEE Training package: During the last three years, INEE network members and associates worldwide developed the Emergency Education Minimum Standards and then developed, tested and released the INEE MS training package through a regional Training-of-Trainers process. The package is a 3 day course design including trainer manual, participant workbook, MS handbook, Powerpoint slides for sessions, etc. The sessions in the package combine content on the Minimum Standards with interactive learning. The Uganda workshop plan was based on the INEE MS Training Package.

Preliminary planning: In January 2006, UNICEF-ESARO co-sponsored the INEE East AfricaMS TOT. UNICEF-ESARO included a follow-up workshop on the minimum standards in the 2006 regional capacity-building plan/budget and coordinated this with UNICEF-HQ-education and INEE. UNICEF country teams selected the officers and Ministry of Education counterparts to attend the Uganda workshop. UNICEF-ESARO set the dates and duration of the workshop, identified the trainers and translators, selected with UNICEF-Uganda the site/venue, secured the core materials from INEE, and coordinated the logistics of the event. The idea of an emergency education site visit was seriously considered but was deemed not feasible.Kabira Country Club, a new resort/conference center on the outskirts of Kampala, was selected as the workshop site. A guest room was set up as administrative base with UNICEF equipment. A large rectangular meeting space and break-out rooms were identified. Meals-breaks-guest facilities-hook-ups for equipment were worked out. Most participants spoke English, but several only spoke Portuguese or French, so a simultaneous interpretation system led by Dr. Nzunga was engaged.

Process considerations: Key challenges to the learning process were managing interpretation, working with the large group of 60 in a long narrow room, ‘breaking the ice’ with mixed UNICEF/MOE participants, and focusing the generic sessions on real situations in the countries. We organized the workshop space around rectangular tables in a ‘herring-bone’ pattern focused on a central point in the long narrow meeting room. Each table was named for an African animal and hosted 6-8 participants. French and Portuguese speaking participants were grouped at tables together. This configuration allowed work groups to deliberate in each language, while plenary communication was supported by simultaneous interpretation. These animal groups became the ‘home base groups’ for the workshop, so in our big ‘wired’ room we were able to engage the participants in small group tasks without having to reconfigure. At times, we did switch to country teams for specific tasks. We had to be inventive about “report-back” from group work, because of the large number of groups and the pace of presentation with interpretation. We used for example “gallery walks” and “shout-outs”.

The formal role of the UgandaMinister of Education had to be factored into the opening and closing sessions. The lead trainer for each session used OHP slides to define objectives and issues and set learning tasks. Support trainers tended OHP, flip charts, set up break-out spaces, distributed materials. The trainer team huddled together before and between sessions to coordinate transitions, check time, and clarify support tasks needed to be done. A larger open break-out room was used often for m ore interactive activities. The trainer/UNICEF team met daily to review progress, issues arising and to plan adjustments for the next day.

Workshop design: We followed the basic sequence of the 3 day INEE training program. (See the appendix for the actual workshop schedule.) Because the INEE design builds a sequence of activities around the extended role-play of the Zamborra refugee education scenario, learning links made good sense once the sessions entered that phase. The training design was adapted in several ways:

-opened and closed with a formal ceremony led by the Minister of Education of Uganda to lend legitimacy to the training event

-began with an extended “stand-in-place” exercise to help trainers and participants clarify their collective experiences, backgrounds and interests (see appendix for an outline of the exercise)

-combined the monitoring and evaluation exercises from the INEE manual into one session using a common M&E format to limit time and reduce confusion about which framework to use

-adapted the sessions on disaster preparedness, ed policy, and responses to emergencies to regional realities

-extended the application/synthesis session into a series of application activities to help participants map out next steps within the UNICEF and MOE planning systems and frameworks.

The INEE MS workshop sessions concluded with the “quiz” to review basic concepts and a next-steps planning activity. These final sessions were then followed by two additional “application” sessions led by UNICEF technical advisors on (1) avian flu preparedness and (2) UNICEF Emergency Education policy and planning framework. These helped fold the workshop findings back into the UNICEF program framework in order to feed these findings directly into 07 planning and budget exercises. Trainers and UNICEF-E staff helped document findings of group work and plenary discussions during each session on laptops. A CD was burned for each participant with the INEE book, manual, learning materials and workshop findings. This was a significant help to participants achieved by the trainers and admin staff working together.

III. TOPICS and FINDINGS

Note: see the accompanying CD Rom for details of session findings.

1. Introductions, Expectations and Course Plan – Participants were welcomed by Uganda’s Minister of Education and the UNICEF Representative, introduced themselves, reviewed their levels of experience, identified the types of disasters relevant in their countries, and generated questions about emergency education of importance to them. This helped orient the trainers to specific training interests and needs of the group and where these needs could be addressed in the training plan.
   
2. Introduction to and Review of the Minimum Standards – After an initial review of the origins, structure and content of the minimum standards, participants compared the standards as a benchmark to components of their current education programs. Each group reported that (1) the standards serve as a useful map of the elements of basic education program quality, and (2) all of their education programs have strengths and limitations in comparison to the minimum standards benchmark. In reviewing the standards and indicators in detail, participants became aware of the interrelated nature of the standards, and how they also intersect with other sectoral issues such as health, water&sanitation, child protection, etc. It was noted as the workshop progressed that starting the workshop with an introduction to humanitarian concepts, issues and potential threats (such as the activity in the intro section of the session on disaster perpraredness) would be helpful to this type of group experienced in education but limited in humanitarian expertise.
   
3. Foundation of the Standards: Rights-Based Education–In this exercise, the participants reviewed the human rights instruments on which the minimum standards are based, generated a common list of shared East African human values and articulated ways these values are expressed in each area of minimum standards. This affirmed the normative human values/human rights perspective central to the minimum standards framework, and reminded participants how the standards can be used as an instrument of rights-based planning and program design. Participants then used the standards to devise rights-based responses to emergency education scenarios, deepening their understanding of what is in the minimum standards.
   
4. Working with Communities and Education Authorities –This first complex role-play of the interactions between the different actors in an emergency education situation raised many questions and issues that are addressed in the Community Participation and Education Policy and Coordination standards. Playing specific realistic but unfamiliar roles in the situation helped remind all participants of the varied legitimate interests and perspectives present. Participants found this activity ‘difficult’ for a number of reasons - insufficient information and time were available to adequately prepare for the community meeting and meeting with education authorities; interests were varied and often at odds; the situation was fast-paced, unstructured and it was unclear who was in charge. There was general agreement that these ‘difficulties’ reflected the reality of an emergency situation. It became clear that the guidance in the Community Participation and Education Policy and Coordination standards was a useful quick reference when education teams enter and engage in emergency situations, with special emphasis on the importance of systematic consultation at an early stage of planning and action.More emphasis on power dynamics and perhaps guidance in the standards on Community Participation on this issue is suggested.
   
5. Emergency in Zamborra – assessing needs and planning an emergency education response – The participants engaged in and responded to this multi-step simulation with enthusiasm. In the first information-gathering/assessment step, several insights surfaced. Those assigned refugee community roles came to grips with the variety of interests and needs within their own community, the ‘imagined’ effects of being displaced, the challenges of sharing leadership and voicing viewpoints in a community, and the strange experience of being the target of outsiders’ intrusive information gathering efforts. For many, these were new experiences. Participants in the education assessment team gained experience using the Analysis standard 1: initial assessment and related appendices as a reference for planning the assessment exercise, and grappled with the difficulty of balancing respectful community engagement with urgent information-gathering needs for rapid planning. The planners and refugee community members then exchanged needs assessment findings and feedback on the assessment process. Here again the ‘difficulty’ of the task accurately reflected emergency education reality, and the usefulness of the guidance in the standards was affirmed.
   During step two, participants worked in mixed country groups using the assessment findings from step one and the Standards to develop plansfor education programs for the Zamborra refugees. Groups posted these plans like a gallery in the break-out room with a spokesperson from each group at each plan, and participants then circulated around, reviewing each refugee education plan, asking questions, comparing notes. Several key insights surfaced: