Introduction to INEE Minimum Standards for Education Workshop

Chatrium Hotel ~ 1-2 November 2011

Workshop Report

Workshop Aims and Objectives

Workshop Aim:To introduce the INEE Minimum Standards for Education (MSE) and raise awareness that education is part of an emergency response and that the MSE provide guidance for preparedness, response and recovery.

Workshop Objectives:

At the end of workshop participants will be able to:

  • explain the MSE under five domains and how they can be applied during preparedness, response, and recovery phases;
  • identify the MSE which are most relevant to the Myanmar context;
  • describe other important factors that need to be taken into account in preparedness, response and recovery, such as contingency planning, IRA (Initial Rapid Assessment), the Education Cluster, monitoring and evaluation;
  • formulate a draft contingency plan for school/township education department

Agenda

Day 1

Time / Duration / Session Description
8:30 am- 9:00 am / 30 minutes / Registration & Welcome Coffee
9:00am –9:30 am / 30 minutes / Opening Session
  • Opening remarks by Deputy Director-General (Department of Educational Planning and Training)
  • Facilitator welcome and introductions
  • Introductory activity for participants
  • Workshop objectives

9:30am -10:30am / 60 minutes / Session 1: Introduction to INEE Minimum Standards for Education (MSE): Rationale & Framework
  • Short lecture and discussion on the types of emergencies
  • Short presentation on the rationale for education in emergencies
  • Debate Activity: Advocating for education as a priority in emergency response

10:30am – 10:35am / 5 minute / Break
10:45am – 12:15pm / 90 minutes / Session 2: Familiarizing with the MSE: Domains and Standards
  • Facilitator presentation on What is INEE? and the development, organization, and content of the Minimum Standards Handbook
  • Group exercise “teaching” the MS domains & standards
  • Group exercise using the Minimum Standards to help implement solutions to possible education problems

12:15pm – 1:15pm / 60 minutes / Lunch
1:15pm – 2:45pm / 90 minutes / Session 3: Contextualizing the MSE
  • Group exercise using the Minimum Standards to help implement solutions to possible education problems(continued)
  • Presentation on the need for contextualization and the process for adapting the standards for a specific context
  • Small groups exercise contextualizing 4 standards for the Myanmar context, using the provided template

2:45pm – 3:00pm / 15 minutes / Break (Tea/Coffee)
3:00pm – 4:30pm / 90 minutes / Session 4: Group Presentations & Summary of Day 1
  • Groups present their contextualized standards, followed by discussion
  • Summary of Day 1 with “Questions & Answers”
  • Day 1 feedback: participants write down 1-2 things they learned during the day and put in box 1, provided. On another card, they write down 1-2 questions they still have, or suggestions for improvement, and put in box 2.

Day 2

Time / Duration / Session Description
8:30 am- 9:00 am / 30 minutes / Welcome Coffee
9:00am –10:45 am / 105 minutes / Session 5:Recap, DRR & Contingency Planning+ Group Work
  • Recap (based on the questions and feedback received from Day 1
  • Short presentations on DRR, the Hyogo Framework, DRR in Education, Contingency Planning
  • Break 5 minutes
  • Exercise 1: Contingency planning at the township level, using the township level disaster profile worksheet
  • Group presents their findings, followed by discussion

10:45 am - 11:00 am / 10 or 15 minutes / Break
11:00 am – 12:30 pm / 90 minutes / Session 6: Contingency Planning+ Group Work
  • Exercise 2: Contingency planning at the township level, using the activities worksheet
  • Groups present their findings, followed by discussion

12:30 pm – 1:30 pm / 60 minutes / Lunch
1:30 pm – 2:45 pm / 75 minutes / Session 7: Coordination of Education in Emergencies
  • Discussion on existing education coordination mechanisms
  • Group exercise on the benefits and challenges of coordination
  • Group discussion to review existing country coordination mechanisms
  • Discussion on the lessons learned from coordination experiences and application of the INEE Minimum Standards

2:45 pm – 3:00 pm / 15 minutes / Break (Tea/Coffee)
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm / 60 minutes / Wrap-up session

Session Overviews

Thirty-six participants gathered at the Chatrium Hotel, Yangon, on 1-2 November for a workshop on the INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery. Participants represented a variety of Ministry of Education (MoE) departments as well as INGO/NGOs, including the Department of Educational Planning and Training (DEPT); Department of Basic Education 1, 2, 3 (DBE); Department of Myanmar Education Research Bureau (DMERB); Education Colleges; UNICEF; UNDP; World Vision; Save the Children; Plan International; and TDH Italia.

Facilitated by Ms. Myint Myint San and Ms. Jamie Vinson, the workshop launched the Myanmar language translation of the INEE Minimum Standards Handbook and provided an introduction to the Standards’ usage in program planning and implementation, capacity building, and DRR activities.

Opening Session

U Tun Hla, the Advisor and Deputy-Director General of the Department of Educational Planning and Training (DEPT), welcomed participants and opened the workshop with remarks on the importance of DRR and a quality education in emergencies response. After facilitator and participant introductions, the workshop aims and objectives were presented.

Session 1: Introduction to INEE Minimum Standards for Education (MSE): Rationale & Framework

This session began with facilitator presentations on the types and impact of emergencies and the rationale for education in emergencies. Participants then took part in a debate where they practiced advocating for education to be prioritized in emergency response. At the end of the session, participants concluded that all sectors, education included, are critical in humanitarian response (see Annex A).

Session 2: Familiarizing with the MSE: Domains and Standards

After a presentation on INEE and the organization and key terminology of the Minimum Standards Handbook, participants took a closer look at the five domains by choosing 1 standard, 1-2 key actions, and 1-2 guidance notes to “teach” back to their colleagues (Annex A).

Participants then completed a problem-solving activity where they applied the Minimum Standards to a variety of typical educational problems (Annex A-1). They created flip charts highlighting the possible causes of the problem, suggestions for solutions, and the corresponding MSE, which were then presented via a Gallery Walk.

Session 3: Contextualizing the MSE

This session reinforced the importance of contextualizing the universal MSE for the local context in order to make them as relevant and applicable as possible. After a facilitator presentation on the what, who and when of contextualization, participants gathered in small groups to contextualize selected MSE for the Myanmar context. In completing the contextualization template, they discussed the challenges for Myanmar of meeting each MSE and possible steps around these barriers (Annex A-2).

Session 4: Group Presentations & Summary of Day 1

As time for full group presentations was limited, the results of the contextualization process were again recorded on flip charts and displayed around the room for participants to read at their own pace. Following this Gallery Walk, facilitators summarized the key points of Day 1 and responded to participant questions.

As participants left for the day, they recorded one thing they had learned / one suggestion and one unanswered question on slips of paper and left them in the corresponding labeled box for facilitator consideration.

Session 5:Recap, DRR & Contingency Planning

Day 2 began with a recap and responses to the questions participants had left after the previous day. The most asked question involved requests for future INEE workshops at various levels – township, school/teacher, and Community Learning Centers.

A facilitator presentation on the basics of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) immediately followed the recap. The participants discussed the importance of DRR and various types of school level DRR activities. After taking a short break, the presentation moved on to Contingency Planning as an important DRR initiative. Participants were walked through the suggested content of a Contingency Plan before completing, in groups, a Township Disaster Profile as a risk/hazard analysis exercise (Annex B).

Session 6: Contingency Planning (con’t)

In a continuation of the Contingency Planning session, participants now worked with their groups to complete a Contingency Planning Activity worksheet. For this worksheet, they were asked to think about a number of suggested activities before, during, and after a disaster and to identify who should be responsible, when the activity should take place, and what Minimum Standards would be helpful in implementing the activity.

After the work session, one group volunteered to present their plan, with other participants asking questions and adding additional suggestions (Annex C).

Session 7: Coordination of Education in Emergencies

This final session stressed the importance, as well as the benefits and challenges, of coordination in education in emergencies. Participants began by reflecting, through cartoon drawings, their positive and negative experiences with coordination. After a brief discussion on why coordination is so vital, the facilitators presented information on the Education Thematic Working Group, which is the coordination mechanism currently in place in Myanmar. Participants then discussed what was needed to make such coordination mechanisms more effective.

Wrap-up session

In the wrap-up session, participants were encouraged to reflect on ways to move forward with the knowledge they had learned over the two-day workshop. Many MoE departments committed to drafting contingency plans in the upcoming weeks; several of the NGOs, such as World Vision, Save the Children, and UNICEF, also set goals to work with schools in their project areas on disaster preparedness plans. Facilitators closed the workshop with many thanks to all for their hard work, and participants completed a workshop evaluation form before leaving the venue.

Participant Evaluations

In interviews conducted during the afternoon of Day 2, many participants expressed their appreciation for the workshop. “I have learned many, many things,” remarked Daw Kyu Kyu Shwe of DBE 3, “such as what are the Minimum Standards, why they are so important, and how we can use this knowledge in the field of education.” U Kyaw Naing Win of TDH Italia echoed these sentiments: “Before I didn’t know anything about INEE,” he said. “Now I will try my best to put these Standards into practice.”

According to Daw Htet Htet Soe Naing of DMERB, “The exposure to the workshop topics is very new to us, and the information is very applicable.” Daw Su Su Tin, also of DMERB, added, “The workshop was very detailed and gave us some measurable things that we can practically do in our communities.”

Daw Khin Myoe Myint Kyu of DMERB also enjoyed the workshop and commented, “The many exercises made it very interesting. We all learned about the INEE Minimum Standards and how education can be a key factor in rehabilitating communities after disaster.”

The following table presents a further summary of the participant workshop evaluations:

1
Strongly Disagree / 2
Disagree / 3
Agree / 4
Strongly
Agree / Total / Mean Score
I know how to use the INEE Minimum Standards and apply them to my work. / 84.8%
(28) / 15.2%
(5) / 100%
(33) / 3.15
The content of the workshop was relevant to my work. / 3.0%
(1) / 66.7%
(22) / 30.3%
(10) / 100%
(33) / 3.27
The methodology used in the workshop helped me to understand INEE Minimum Standards. / 57.6%
(19) / 42.4%
(14) / 100%
(33) / 3.42
The learning materials and aids used in the workshop helped me learn. / 63.6%
(21) / 36.4%
(12) / 100%
(33) / 3.36
The facilitation of the workshop encouraged questions and conversation and helped me learn. / 66.7%
(22) / 33.3%
(11) / 100%
(33) / 3.33
The venue and accommodation were appropriate. / 37.5%
(12) / 62.5%
(20) / 100%
(32) / 3.63
Total / 0.5% / 62.8% / 36.7% / 100% / 3.36

Participant responses to the qualitative portion of the evaluation are summarized below, with n = the number of participants:

Q 1. What parts of the workshop were most useful to you?

  • Presentations, group work, and discussions on MSE (n=15)
  • Contingency planning activities (n=9)

Q 2. What improvements or changes would you suggest for similar workshops?

  • Train educational authorities from every department, teachers, school cluster head teachers, township education officers, teacher educators of teacher education institutions. (n=11)
  • Take more 1-2 additional days for theworkshop. (n=5)

Q 3. Do you think you will use the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in your work? If so, how?

  • Based on the MSE, I will prepare a draft departmental contingency/ disaster preparedness plan. (n=11)
  • I will use the MSE in multiplier/roll-out training workshops. (n=4)
  • It would be good if we could incorporate the MSE in the Education College Curriculum. (n=1)
  • I will use it when coordinating with the Minister’s Office, education departments, state/region and township education offices to solve problems education in emergency problems. (n=1)
  • When I visit schools for inspection, I can give advice to them based on the MSE. (n=1)

Workshop Analysis

Participants were quick to pick up on the usages of the INEE Minimum Standards Handbook. They did an excellent job analyzing educational problems for their causes and possible solutions. Many participants seemed to readily grasp the importance of DRR and the types of activities that would be useful to undertake prior to an emergency situation in order to ensure the most effective response. Participants responded best to structured activities where the expectations and instructions were clearly stated. Accordingly, the templates used, including the contextualization template (Annex A-2) and both contingency planning worksheets (Annex B and C), seemed to be especially effective teaching tools. The group work output included in Annex A, B, and C illustrates a sound understanding of both the education context in Myanmar and potential usages of the 3INEE MSE.

Active participation during the question and answer sessions seemed to be a weak point in the workshop, with participants somewhat reticent to express their opinions or any confusion over the concepts being covered. Large group discussion also lacked some momentum, perhaps in part because of the translation process required between facilitator and participants.

The evaluation feedback makes it readily apparent that participants feel the INEE MSE will be useful to them in their work. Moreover, a number of participants requested that longer, more in-depth trainings be offered and that the introductory workshop be rolled-out to a variety of education stakeholders throughout Myanmar (including all departments, teachers, school cluster head teachers, township education officers, and teacher educators).

Recommendations

The following recommendations for next steps to further introduce and institutionalize the INEE MSE in Myanmar are based on participant feedback, conversations with UNESCO personnel, and best practices for sustainable development.

Incorporate the INEE MSE into the curriculum of the Education Colleges.The Education Colleges could provide an effective platform for training future teachers and other educational personnel in the INEE MSE. Housing such training within Education Colleges would also ensure that workshops are not one-off events, but are instead mainstreamed into the national education training system.

Conduct additional, targeted TOT trainings with the goal of rolling out INEE workshops to the township level. Many participants expressed the desire to see future INEE workshops at various levels. In order to roll out these workshops, a number of trainers would need to be identified and specifically trained to conduct future workshops throughout Myanmar.

Invest in the translation and printing of additional INEE tools and resources. INEE has a wealth of tools to aid in the implementation of the MSE. However, in order to be useful to the majority of Myanmar stakeholders, translation into the Myanmar language would be required. Although a time-intensive and expensive undertaking, if the goal is to further incorporate INEE into education practices, further investment in additional INEE materials is worth consideration.

Annex A: Group Activities and Training Outputs (Day1)

No. / Group Activity / Training Output
1. / Session 1: The facilitator elicited ‘different types of disasters’ from the participants, who were divided into 3 groups by geographical regions: Upper Myanmar, Lower Myanmar and Yangon. / The groups identified the following types of disasters as most likely to occur in their region:
Upper Myanmar: fire, earthquake, landslide, flood, drought, armed conflict (e.g.Kachin & Kayin States),
Lower Myanmar: landslide, storm, flood, earthquake, tornado, earthquake, fire, armed conflict
Yangon: landslide, storm, flood (e.g. Hlaingtharyar, Shwe Pyi Thar, Kyauktan, Dala township, etc.), earthquake, tornado
2. / Session 1: During the presentation, the participants were asked to identify some of the impacts of emergencies on education. / Participant list of the impact of emergencies on education:
-Damage to school buildings
-Closure of schools
-Injury/ loss of lives to teachers and schools
-Evacuation/ displacement
-Children are exploited (Child soldiers, child workers)
3. / Session 1: Debate Activity / At the end of debate activity, all participants agreed to work together instead of fighting to get their sector prioritized because they came to realize that all sectors are important, inter-related and complement one another.
4. / Session 2: A Closer Look at 5 Domains: teaching selected Standards, Key Actions and Guidance Notes (Group Work) / Selected Standards, Key Actions and Guidance Notes
Group 1-Domain 1 (Community Participation): Standard 1- Participation, Key Actions- 1 & 5, Guidance Notes- 3 & 4
Challenges:
-Finance, budget and resources
-Authority to make decisions / Solutions:
-Funds to be raised in advance
-Try to obtain authority in advance to make decisions in an emergency
Group 2- Domain 1(Analysis): Standard 2- Response Strategies, Key Actions- 3, Guidance Notes- 3 and 7;
Standard 3- Monitoring (another selected Standard)
Challenges:
-Qualified teachers, volunteers and technicians urgently needed during emergencies.
-When providing assistance to the affected area after emergencies, conflict with local groups can arise. / Solutions:
-Organize these resources in advance.
-When forming the DRR committee, the rules should be neither too strict nor too loose.
-Pay attention to collaborative work.
Group 3- Domain 2 (Access and Learning Environment): Standard 1- Equal Access, Key Action 6 and 7, Guidance Note 8 and 9; Standard 3- Facilities and Services (another selected Standard)
Challenges:
Providing equal opportunity to every learner. / Solutions:
-After disaster, children must be organized at school.
-Plan for resources such as place (school or temporary building) and human (teachers & volunteers) in advance.
-In this case, policymakers should be there to decide where to evacuate the children or how to provide the resources.
Group 4- Domain 3 (Teaching and Learning): Standard 2- Training, Professional Development and Support, Guidance Notes 4 and 6, Key Action 3 and 6;
Standard 4- Assessment of Learning Outcomes (another selected Standard)
Challenges (G. Notes 4)
-Financial assistance
-Trainer/ teachers / Solutions:
-Get assistance from the social welfare groups.
-Get help from the government school teachers.
Challenges (G. Notes 6)
-Permission
-Remote Places
-Corporation
-Different Beliefs/ Cultures / Solutions:
-Advocacy
-Use the Standards for advocacy
Group 5- Domain 4 (Teachers and Other Educational Personnel): Standard 1-, Recruitment and Selection, Key Action 2: Guidance Note 1 and 2; Key Action 2: Guidance Note 5 & 6
Challenges:
-Recruiting adequate number of teachers, volunteers and trainers / Solutions:
-Provide trainings to the teachers or volunteers.
-Recruit those who know the local situation well.
Group 6- Domain 5 (Educational Policy): Standard 1-, Law and Policy Formulation, Key Action 5: Guidance Notes 1 and 2; Key Action 2: Guidance Notes 5 & 6
Challenges:
-Gaps between policies and practical needs / Solutions:
-Formulate practical as well as user-friendly policies.
-Raise awareness of the policies in community.
-Pass the messages and information through media (TV, radio).
-Share DRR education with people from different regions, levels and sectors.
-Encourage children to lead DRR programs.
-Involve all from different backgrounds in DRR education, including the ECs.
5. / Session 2:Problem Solving Using the MSE, followed by a Gallery Walk / (See Annex A-1 for the results of group work)
6. / Session 3:Contextualizing the INEE MSE / Participant examples of contextualization:
- Materials for school construction (UNICEF)
- Curriculum adaptation (DEPT)
(See Annex A-2 for the results of group work)
7. / Summary of Day 1
Participants were asked to raise questions on the INEE MSE. / World Vision
Question: Are there any plans to revise and publish the Handbook for the local community?
Answer: Many countries have translated the INEE MSE into local languages. However, instead of revising and publishing a whole other version of the handbook, the MSE are adapted to different local situations in the country.
Save the Children
Question: Why is psychosocial support not mentioned in the INEE MSE Handbook?
Answer: It is included throughout all domains in the MSE handbook as one of the 11 cross-cutting issues.
DMERB
Question: How can this INEE MSE be introduced at the school level?
Answer: It depends on resource availability. If the situation permits, there will be more workshops conducted at different levels.

1