Minutes of the Second WGMSEE Meeting

Meeting Minutes, March 1-2, 2004, Geneva, Switzerland

Present: Pilar Aguilar (UNICEF), Allison Anderson Pillsbury, Pamela Baxter (for Nemia Temporal, UNHCR), Helge Brochmann (NRC), Tim Brown (RET), Nancy Drost (CARE Canada), Christine Knudsen (Save the Children US), Fred Ligon (the Consortium), Eldrid Midttun (INEE Steering Group), Michael Pozniak (Catholic Relief Services), Beverly Roberts (INEE), Rebecca Winthrop (International Rescue Committee), Christopher Talbot and Erika Boak (UNESCO IIEP), Birgit Villumstad (Norwegian Church Aid), and Katey Webly (for Susan Nicolai, Save the Children UK)

CARE USA's new representative on the WGMSEE, Hassan Mohamed, was not able to attend.

WGMSEE Member Updates

Each WGMSEE member gave an update of organizational activities on education in emergencies and the minimum standards process. WGMSEE members agreed that there were many opportunities and institutional commitments within their organizations that, in moving forward, we must build upon.

WGMSEE Chair

Following the formal election process, Chris Talbot, UNESCO IIEP, accepted the nomination and was named Chair of the WGMSEE. Chris commended the excellent work Christine had carried out as Chair over the past two years. WGMSEE members recognized that INEE is UNESCO heavy, with the Network Coordinator also based at UNESCO, and agreed that this is a strength, as the MS consultation process is NGO heavy, and that it is also an opportunity to help ensure UN commitment during the next phase of MS implementation and institutionalizations. All agreed to continue efforts to maintain wide participation throughout the process.

Consultations Update 
(Consultations Group members: Nancy (focal point), Birgit, Nemia and Hassan)
Consultations Group update on revised consultations documents and Africa Collective Consultation outcomes

  • The Consultations Group has updated the Consultations Guide, Recommendations and Facilitator's Guide to reflect the lessons learned from the Africa Collective Consultation. These documents are tools for moving forward transparently and effectively in the next three regional consultations.
  • Nancy gave an overview of the Africa Collective Consultation. The vast majority of delegates had organized local consultations prior to the regional consultation, which helped to ensure that the process went smoothly. Consensus was found on the standards, though there was a shortage of time. The consultation was postponed until 21 - 23 January, largely due to funding issues. In the end, the hosts raised US$21,000 from CIDA for participants and $5,000 was transferred from the focal point's Sida grant (for logistical costs).
  • Birgit gave an overview of the lessons learned from the Nairobi consultation:
    • The number of participants in each small group should be no less than five.
    • In order to allow delegates to fully participate, small group facilitators should be members of the Working Group or Organizing Committee.
    • At the outset, participants should discuss the characteristics of a "minimum standard" for the emergency phase. Minimum standards for chronic crises and early reconstruction can be described in guidance notes.
    • The differences between minimum standards, indicators and guidance notes are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Clearer definitions and tips for distinguishing between the levels should be given at the beginning of the consultation and repeated periodically.
    • If the consultation is being conducted in more than one language, simultaneous translation is needed for plenary sessions.
    • In order to ensure commitment on the part of governments, more efforts should be taken to identify government officials who are amenable to the process of identifying and implementing minimum standards. The effort to identify government officials must begin immediately during the nomination process and sustained follow-up is needed to ensure they are able to attend regional consultations.
    • The schedule should be planned so that participants have enough time for their small group work, as well as sufficient time to come to consensus on standards and indicators in plenary.
    • The travel and accommodation arrangements for participants should be streamlined, and organized by the host organization(s) at the site of the consultation, preferably with a logistic person present at the site throughout the consultation.
    • Microphones should be well distributed among participants, and the projection of PowerPoint presentations should be easily visible to those furthest away from the screen.

    Issues for consideration for future consultations
    The group discussed the Africa regional consultation process and product, and feedback received thus far on it, including:

    • Whether there will be a clear difference between these Minimum Standards and those for good quality education in difficult circumstances and development contexts
    • There are too many standard categories and too many standards developed in each category. It has been suggested by many involved in the process that there should be fewer than 9 categories of standards in the final product. The focal point reminded the group about an e-mail sent in August on 'key issues to consider before the consultation' that was developed after talking with Sphere focal points, editors and staff (see attached copy of the e-mail). The e-mail reported the recommendation to limit the standard categories to three or four and the standards developed within each category at three. WGMSEE members who replied at the time were in agreement about not limiting the categories before the consultations (any limiting or consolidating can be done during the final peer review and editing process). At that time it was suggested that the issue of phases and how we use and apply standards within each phase could be discussed during the "Analysis" section and/or in guidance notes. For example, each guidance note could describe the various scenarios.
    • Lessons learned on Government involvement: it is crucial to identify a government representative at the right level and experience; someone who will have time to follow-up afterwards and with the necessary technical experience. Invitations to government officials are needed for their attendance and are best if issued by UN agencies.
    • Concern was expressed that some of the standards are lower than major international documents such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child - relativisation of rights.
    • Is security and safety a standard in itself or cross-cutting?
    • Should breadth be sought over depth?
    • What is the function of the resource/background material, such as results from other regional consultations? The basis of the regional consultations' deliberations should be the material from the local consultations within the region; the standards product developed from other regional consultations should be part of the background material for the regional consultation, but should not be the primary document to shape deliberations. Should these background documents be sent in advance and if so, how do we advise the delegates to ensure that these materials do not narrow the field of discussion during the regional consultations? This will be discussed and resolved by the Consultations' Group (see also notes from On-line consultations section of minutes).
    • Is an educational background/degree a compulsory requirement for nominees? While the 'call for nominations' asks for nominees to demonstrate their 'significant experience in the region providing leadership to education in emergencies, crisis and early reconstruction and for 'special knowledge and experience related to one or more of the categories specified in a draft framework for standards', the nomination adjudication process allows for organizing committee members to select delegates who do not meet this criteria. If this is the case, the organizing committee members must give an explanation as to why, based on knowledge of the delegates experience and work, they would make a strong contribution to the consultation and should be invited.
    • Some of the standards developed at the Africa consultation are more of a 'wish list' than 'minimum.' The group discussed the need to focus on 'minimum' within the emergency phase while also addressing the chronic crisis and early reconstruction:
      • Moving forward, we need to make sure that at each regional consultation, hosts, facilitators and WGMSEE members ensure that the watchword is MINIMUM and challenge the groups on all of their outputs in this respect. The facilitator's guide has been revised by the consultations group to reflect this, and the consultation hosts and focal point will make sure that this is continually emphasized by facilitators at the regional consultations moving forward. In addition, the peer facilitator will emphasize this during the peer review process.
      • What happens to the useful and important information that is paired down from the four sets of regional standards into the final set of global standards? The peer facilitator, drafting group and INEE focal point will work with the INEE Coordinator to ensure that this information is not lost, and will look into its use in the future.
      • There is a tension between rights (aspiration minimum standards) and reality- you can't have standards that are lower than international law and we also don't want to lower the right to education for those in difficult circumstances.

      Discussion on minimum standards with progressive indicators. This was a subject of repeated discussion during the meeting, and it was decided to incorporate priority issues into guidance notes rather than adopt progressive indicators.


      • The group agreed that a phased approach (emergency, chronic crisis and early reconstruction) is not appropriate, as different actors define situations differently and 'phases' are too fluid. It was also agreed not to limit the focus of each consultation to one phase (i.e. emergency in Asia, chronic crisis in the Middle East and early reconstruction in Latin America) because participants at each consultation have a rich combination of experiences from multiple phases. Christine suggested that we look at North Carolina's progressive educational standards and consider this for our process, with an understanding that you can't achieve indicators all at once.
      • Based on this discussion, Nancy and Birgit worked to produce the following examples of a standard with progressive indicators (adapted from standards developed at the Africa regional consultation):
      Standard: Access

      The learners' access to the learning site is by a means that is safe and secure

      Indicators:

      Phase I /Base / Priority I

      • Specific measures are taken to ensure protection of learners along the route to the learning site.

      Phase II / Progression / Priority II

      • Measures for protection of learners along the route to the learning site are gender- and age-sensitive.

      Phase III / Minimum Satisfactory / Priority III

      • Measures for protection of learners along the route to the learning site are user-friendly

      Feedback and discussion:

      • Feedback on content: Wouldn't priority II in this need to be in priority I re: the need to protect the most vulnerable immediately?
      • Adopting a progressive standard approach would require a great deal of criteria spelled out /details (i.e. "user-friendly")
      • Phase vs. stage vs. progressive: Phase is time-bound? Progressive is stage/attainment bound? The term 'priority' was favored over phase.
      • Alison Joyner from Sphere told the group that Sphere had a 'phased' approach with toilets in 1st edition, but took out in new revision.
      • What about regional differences/contexts - what is satisfactory for Iraq is not for DRC?
      • It was suggested that the group look at the CAP assessment workshop, where participants discussed how to assess risk and vulnerability and the scale/level to which you are reaching a standard and the level of risk involved.

      Learning content and methodology
      Standard 3
      The education program is based upon methods that are sensitive and responsive to the issues of gender and learners in crisis.

      Indicator - Priority 1:
      • Teaching methods promote comprehension of learning content without corporal punishment
      Indicator - Priority 2:
      • Teaching methods vary and stimulate active learning
      Indicator - Priority 3:
      • Teaching methods promote interactive participation, and independent, critical thinking.

      Feedback and discussion:

      • Feedback on content: Do these indicators respond to the standard? What about psychosocial? Add back in: 'participatory, learner-centered'. In an emergency, one must deal with teachers that you have, and start with these phases. One would need to introduce participatory methodology ASAP. When possible, reach priority 3; if you can't, here is guidance on how to reach 1, 2, 3...
      • These indicators are applicable everywhere
      • Re-term these as priorities and add them as guidance notes?

      Through this exercise and discussion, the group decided that progressive indicators are too difficult for the regional consultation delegates to tackle and agreed that the guidance notes must deal with priorities issues, so that indicators don't get caught up in 'steps and stairs'.
      Status of regional consultations:

      Asia and the Pacific consultation (April 21-23, Kathmandu, Nepal)

      • Host: International Save the Children Alliance
      • Delegates: The group discussed the delegate list, which was announced over the INEE listserve on 2.28.04. Given the participation of delegates from diverse cultures, special attention will be paid to the facilitation in order to maximize participation.
      • Local consultations: Delegates have been reminded of their responsibility to host a local consultation in preparation for the regional consultation and a call has also gone out for members over the INEE listserve. Delegate local consultation plans are shaping up well, with many local and national consultations already scheduled. Deadline for local consultation results is April 9.
      • Funding: The overall budget for this consultation is $21,478, excluding costs assumed by WGMSEE members. Save the Children Alliance has secured $5,000 in funding; the hosts are seeking an additional $16,478 to cover the cost of airfare, per diem and transit costs for 15 participants coming from conflict- or disaster-affected communities as well as officials from government ministries. The hosts have submitted proposals to USAID, AusAid, UNICEF Regional Office and JICA. If the US funding for INEE through UNESCO comes through in time, the hosts can take the money from that. If it does not come through in time, Allison can use the Sida grant funding and have the US contribution to UNESCO for the reconstruction of education systems in post-conflict countries transferred back to her afterwards.
      • WGMSEE member attendance: Fred, Christine, Susan, Mike, Helge, Allison and possibly Beverly (awaiting Steering Group confirmation)

      Latin America and Caribbean consultation (May 5-7, Panama City)

      • Host: UNICEF
      • Delegates: The group discussed the nominee list, which was being adjudicated by the organizing committee members at that time, and noted that nominations were still needed from Ministry officials and will likely need to be sought after the list is announced. The list was announced over the INEE listserve on 3.16.04.
      • Local consultations: Deadline for local consultation results is April 29. As soon as the delegate list is announced, delegates will be reminded of their responsibility to host a local consultation in preparation for the regional consultation. A call for INEE members to hold local consultations across the region has gone out over the INEE listserve.
      • Logistics: simultaneous translation has been budgeted for, as the consultation itself will be conducted in Spanish with the possibility of an English-speaking breakout group. The group also discussed possible Spanish-speaking facilitators (UNICEF TACRO has since hired a facilitator for the consultation, who will have a one month contract and take on follow-up to the consultation across the region after the consultation). French translation has not been budgeted for, which Allison will bring up with USAID Haiti regarding the delegates that are identified from Haiti.
      • Funding: The overall budget for this consultation is estimated at $30,000, excluding costs assumed by WGMSEE members. UNICEF TACRO has contributed $10,000 and Allison met with USAID Haiti, which has committed to giving $4-5,000 for the participation of 4 participants from Haiti. US$15,000 still needs to be raised. Pilar said that she is almost certain that UNICEF NY could contribute the remaining $15,000, and she will follow-up on this when she returns to NY.
      • WGMSEE member attendance: Concern was expressed at the small number of Spanish-speaking WGMSEE members available for this consultation, which may complicate communication and small group facilitation. Only Rebecca Winthrop is committed to attending. Pilar is working with UNICEF so that she will hopefully be there, and Marina from RET has been nominated (and asked to serve on the organizing committee) as a delegate.

      Middle East, North Africa and Europe consultation (May 19-21, Amman)

      • Co-hosts: UNESCO and UNHCR
      • Delegates: More nominations are needed, specifically from Iraq, Iran, Chechnya, Algeria and government officials. It was agreed that the focal point will resend the 'call for nominations' to WGMSEE members with a request that they forward it onto their networks in the region, and encourage nominations, especially from Ministry of Education officials. Nominations should be forwarded to Allison by March 10th (one week from now).
      • Local consultations: As soon as the delegate list is announced, delegates will be reminded of their responsibility to host a local consultation in preparation for the regional consultation. A call for INEE members to hold local consultations across the region has gone out over the INEE listserve. Deadline for local consultation results is May 10.
      • Funding: The overall budget for this consultation is estimated at $29,000, excluding costs assumed by WGMSEE members. UNHCR has secured $14,500 in funding; the hosts are seeking an additional $14,500 to cover the cost of airfare for 20 participants coming from conflict- or disaster- affected communities as well as officials from government ministries. It is expected that the other half of the funds will be made up by US contributions to UNESCO for the reconstruction of education systems in post-conflict countries. Allison has also submitted proposals to USAID and USBPRM.
      • WGMSEE member attendance: Nemia, Chris, Eldrid, Carl, Allison and possibly Beverly (awaiting Steering Group confirmation).

      Upcoming national and sub-regional consultations

      The standards developed at the first three consultations listed below will feed into the next three regional consultations as background documents:

      • London: March 12th, co-hosted by Save the Children UK and the University of London, Institute of Education, and attended by academics, GoUK and NGO staff
      • New York: April 5th, hosted by IRC and attended by UN and NGO staff and academics
      • Washington, DC: Date TBA, hosted by InterAction and attended by academics, GoUS and NGO staff
      • Thailand: April 2nd and 9th, hosted by local and international NGOs, including Fred
      • Islamabad consultation: this sub-regional consultation has been cancelled; however NRC will hold a consultation in Peshawar, and will contact other WGMSEE organizations in the region to participate

      On-line Consultations over the INEE listserve

      • The Consultations Group developed questions to send out over the INEE listserve to stimulate discussion about the minimum standards process last March and added two additional questions at the June 2003 meeting. This is not a definitive list and additional questions can be developed, for example, out of issues discussed at or unresolved from the regional consultations. If a question is suggested that was not originally agreed to by the Consultations Group, it must be sent to the Consultations Group members (Nancy, Birgit and Nemia), the Network Coordinator and the MS Focal Point, and given a timeframe of 48 hours for comments, edits and revision to the question. The INEE Network Coordinator, as the coordinator and moderator of the listserve, has ultimate authority over what is sent out to the listserve and when.
      • Five of the questions have gone out over the listserve, and the INEE Coordinator has compiled the results and shared them on the listserve. The MS focal point has also posted the compilation of responses on the INEE website (MS page). This compilation was also shared as background material with delegates at the Africa consultation, and will be updated by the MS focal point in advance of the three upcoming regional consultations and distributed to delegates a week before and at the consultation. The four remaining questions developed by the consultations group should be sent out by the INEE Network Coordinator in advance of the Asia consultation.
      • Individual feedback on the questions cannot be handled through the INEE listserve, though it should be incorporated into the background materials to be sent to delegates in advance of the Regional Consultations
      • The background resource material for regional consultations will be sent to delegates via e-mail by the focal point a week before the regional consultations (and they will have copies in their packets at the regional consultations) so that delegates can read through it beforehand, but it will not be used as the basis for deliberation at local or regional consultations. The standards, indicators and guidance notes developed out of the local consultations in the region are the priority materials/raw data to be discussed at the regional consultations, and delegates should be instructed to draw mainly from this raw data as well as their experiences during the regional consultations. However, they should read the background material (such as the on-line consultation results and results from previous national (non-region based) and regional consultations, which can help them conceptualise format and brainstorm ideas if they are stuck).

      Drafting Group Update(Drafting Group: Helge (focal point), Fred, Mike, Tim and Susan)

      See timeline for activities immediately following these summaries
      Drafting of Introductions
      • While introductions for the categories of equity, teacher and other education personnel, analysis, access, learning content and methodology, and human resources, capacity and training were developed in the fall of last year, the introduction process has stalled. It was decided by WGMSEE members that the introductions should be developed once we have a better idea of the priorities within each category that emerge from the regional consultations. Drafting Group members will develop the introductions, which will set the overall tone, vision, direction and structure for the standards. While absent from the meeting, it was suggested that Susan draft the first section on process, background, principles

      Deadlines:

      • By 17 March: Allison shares format / outlines for introductions for SPHERE
      • Start ASAP and by May 31: Susan drafts first section (process, background, principles) and sends to Working Group
      • June 1-14 and after final version: Drafting group members finalize introduction to each category.

      Peer review process, including peer facilitation

      • It was agreed that the Drafting Group would take over the responsibilities for the peer review process from the Consultations' Group. The Drafting Group will revise its ToR to reflect this as well as create a ToR for the peer reviewers and the peer review facilitator.
      • The peer review facilitator will be hired as a full-time consultant over three months for approximately 40 days work from 31 May - 31 August 2004 ($15,000 lump sum for completed product). He/she should be familiar with the process. The Drafting Group will recruit, hire and manage the facilitator and act as technical advisors to the facilitator. The facilitator can be hired as a consultant and paid by IRC, since that is where the CIDA funding for the position sits. Drafting Group members will work prior to the facilitator's coming on board and with the facilitator to identify key issues of contention across the four sets of standards and literature review. The facilitator will provide direction and analysis to the process, and engage the reviewers in discussions about commonalities and differences across the regional standards and the literature review (this will be fleshed out in the ToR).
      • The Drafting Group will need to develop a methodology to standardize the peer review process - it must be a transparent and there must be a written record of the process.
      • It is imperative that the peer review process respect the integrity of the voices that emerge from the regional consultations, so as not to annul the efforts made in the consultation process to involve a wide cross section of people
      • The peer reviewers must represent a diverse group, not just experts from the 'West'/'North'. Allison has received positive responses by almost 3/4 of the peer reviews engaged thus far. Allison will forward WGMSEE members the peer review list by March 17 with a request for WGMSEE members to send back information on their specializations.

      Deadlines

      Peer Review Facilitator
      • Next week: Mike drafts ToR for facilitator for X days of work (over 3 months 31 May - 31 August) USD $15,000
      • 9 March: Circulates ToR to Drafting Group. Feedback to Mike ASAP.
      • 11 March: Circulates ToR to WGMSEE.
      • By 15 March: Working Group Members feedback on ToR and make recommendations of potential candidates to Mike
      • 15 - 19 March: Allison contacts candidates and invites for telephone interview
      • 22 - 30 March: Telephone conference interviews with applicants and available drafting group members
      • By March 31: Facilitator appointed
      • By May 31: Facilitator begins work; Facilitator spends time reading etc

      Analysis and consolidation of regional consultation standards

      • June 1-14: Facilitator and Drafting Group analyze and consolidate data from regional consultations

      NB: Each member of drafting group supports facilitator on one (or more) category (according to a set format and set of questions). Facilitator and drafting group analyze to address areas of overlap, contention, gaps etc, and related key questions feed into the peer review process

      • By June 14: Each drafting group member sends to facilitator
      • By June 21: Facilitator synthesizes analysis across all standards and drafts guidelines/specific questions for peer reviewers

      NB: Reach agreement on number of categories

      Peer Review Process

      NB: Ensure broad selection of peer reviewers

      • March 17: Allison sends out list of peer reviewers and requests working group members to recommend peer reviewers' areas of expertise as related to standards (or through discussion with peer reviewers)
      • By June 21: Facilitator sends consolidated version of Standards to peer reviewers (with introduction) with specific questions (attach all 4 versions as background info)
      • By July 9: Peer Reviewers give feedback to facilitator (3 weeks unless exceptional circumstances)
      • By July 26: Facilitator sends consolidated version to WGMSEE
      • By August 13: Working group members feedback to Facilitator
      • By August 30: Facilitator incorporates feedback into final draft

      Final product discussion

      • After the facilitator has incorporated WGMSEE feedback into the final draft, Allison will liaise with the INEE Network Coordinator to send a message over the listserve and post it on the website for INEE members to provide points of clarification and fine-tuning of words but not additions or changes to the text itself (for a period of three weeks). The Focal Point will be responsible for incorporating this feedback, in consultation with the Drafting Group. On the 27th, the focal point will send the Working Group and editor the final product.
      • The Drafting Group will decide what qualities are required in the editor, write the ToR for the job and recruit, hire and manage the editor; they will consult the Working Group if they have particular questions
      • The final product should be laid out and ready for printing by 15 October 2004 and must be ready for launch at the INEE Global Consultation at the end of 2004 (date TBA- November or December). It will available in hard copy, online and in CD ROM; while the WGMSEE cannot predetermine the length, it will hopefully be around 40 pages, including introductions, in A5 form, using the same style as the Sphere Guidelines. The focal point will follow-up with Sphere on copyright issues. Priority languages for translation are French, Arabic and Spanish. The need for quality translation was emphasized; this will cost around 26 US cents per word.

      Deadlines: INEE list serve Process

      • September 1: Final draft goes on INEE website and letter sent to listserve (Allison requests points of clarification only)
      • September 20: Final date for feedback through listserve
      • September 27: Allison sends final draft to working group (including listserve input) and to editor

      Editing and Designing Process($3,000)

      • March 17: Allison asks SPHERE about format copyrights etc.
      • By August 30: Identify Designer
      • By September 6: Allison and Drafting group assess what is required from editor: Fresh eyes? Educational background? SPHERE experience and same format/design elements? Stylistic editing? Experience of editing, design, layout? Discuss with working group if appropriate.
      • September 7: Drafting group to design ToR for editing process
      • By September 14: Select editor
      • September 27: Send to Editor
      • 1 October: Editor finished
      • 4 October: Send to designer
      • 15 October: Design and layout finished

      Translation(have $5,000 from CIDA, need to raise $10,000 per translation, so need to raise $25,000 more for 3 translations)
      Priority Languages: French, Spanish, Arabic 26¢ per word;


      • By:Select translators and send
      • By:Translations completed
      • Printing($14,000)
      • By:Select printers and send
      • By:Printing completed

      Operations Group update(Members: Chris, Christine, Pilar and Rebecca)
      Focal Point administration

      Allison's position has been extended through the end of December 2004, in order to facilitate this process and to ensure that the standards are not only developed through the consultations and peer review, but that ownership is extended to all those who have contributed through this extremely participatory process by introducing the standards broadly.

      Update on advocacy
      • Christine updated the group on US government (USAID, OFDA and USBPRM) and InterAction advocacy
      • Allison updated the group on sustained advocacy and outreach on education in emergencies and the MS process with key targets as outlined in the WGMSEE advocacy strategy (most already detailed in the focal point updates), including WGMSEE members, donors, key networks (VOICE, ICVA, InterAction), UN agencies and IASC Working Group members, the Sphere project, and other key NGOs such as CCF, WV, JRS and LWF. One important ally is Maysa Jalbout from CIDA, who has been very positive about the process and shares advocacy updates on the process with fellow donors.
      • Beverly told the group that MS advocacy has opened many doors for increased attention to education in emergencies and greater INEE membership, and talked briefly about presentations to the IASC, at UNHCR's pre-Excom, the US mission to UNESCO and the Norwegian mission to UNESCO.
      • Lynne Bethke's Global Survey on Education in Emergencies will prove to be an excellent advocacy tool

      Phase III: Promotion, Implementation and Institutionalisation of the Standards
      Phase I: conceptualization of the need for standards
      Phase II: consultative development of standards
      Phase III: promotion, implementation and institutionalization

      Lessons Learned from the Sphere Project
      • Alison complimented the WGMSEE process, saying that Sphere has learned from our consultative process. In particular, she remarked that it is very positive that the WGMSEE is involving UN, government, local practitioners and affected community representatives in the consultation process from the beginning.
      • Implementation and institutionalization (especially the latter) take years, and it is difficult to show the extent to which the standards have positively affected policy and practice. How is INEE going to measure the impact of the MS? The WGMSEE should develop indicators for success in using the MS.
      • There must be a detailed game plan for how to follow-up on and maintain the standards once they are developed- this does not happen by itself. It would be a shame to lose the momentum once the standards are developed.
      • It is imperative to budget well for good translation; failure to do this in the short-term will create many problems in the long-term.

      NOW: Consultation process to inform the future of Sphere: this is an opportunity for INEE to advocate to Sphere for it to open up to an education chapter. The INEE Network Coordinator will send a message to the listserve about this opportunity, giving the link for the website where they can voice their opinion.


      WGMSEE discussion and debate on Phase III using the draft proposal as a basis for discussion
      • In terms of the launch of the standards (outreach and promotion in late 2004 and continued into 2005), the MS focal point will work with the Operations Group to revise the advocacy and fundraising strategies for Phase III. The MS focal point will explore opportunities with UNICEF, UNESCO and UNCHR for assistance in distribution of the final product (as well other WGMSEE member distribution) within their networks.
      • What is the exit strategy for WGMSEE members? In Phase III, will the WGMSEE stay as it is, turn into an INEE task team or dissolve?
      • The group commented that the MS focal point has done an excellent job thus far in driving the process forward. In Phase III, the question was raised as to whether a focal point is needed for 2005. Alison Joyner commented that the experience of Sphere indicates that the implementation and institutionalization phase cannot be accomplished without a focal point. Questions were then raised as to what kind of focal point profile would be needed and what would his/her role in the training, promotion, implementation and institutionalisation of the standards would be?
      • Implementation- what would this look like? This would include training and piloting: Alison Joyner shared the Sphere lesson learned that training is extremely important in establishing a lasting legacy for the standards. What kind of training /learning approaches are most appropriate? It was suggested that a training tool should be developed from the final document, following the Sphere training module model, in the form of a standardised power point presentation and talking points, at a minimum, which could be used for awareness raising. But what about training on the ground? Sphere has learned that training focused on 'awareness raising' is not enough- for implementation (and institutionalization) you also need supported practice in the field. What about locally based trainer of trainers in the field? All of these training needs have financial implications that must be looked into.
      • From the Sphere lessons learned, institutionalization of the standards can take several years. How will the WGMSEE and/or INEE tackle this? What kind of institutionalization does the WGMSEE prioritize? High-level policy commitments? Country-level commitment? And how to get this buy-in once priorities are set?

      INEE Conference 2-4 November 2004, South Africa

      Date to be finalized by the INEE Steering Group - will possibly be moved to the beginning of December 2004.

      • The consultation will engage INEE membership (and others from government, NGO, UN) in discussing INEE priorities, including the structure of INEE/alternative structures to allow involvement of new organisations
      • The minimum standards will be launched at the consultation - therefore we have to have the final copy of the minimum standards document to distribute to participants at this time!
      • It was proposed that, pending final decision of the Steering Group as to the Global Consultation date, the next WGMSEE meeting be set for the day after the Global Consultation (if 2-4 November, then 5 November)