Minutes of the Third WGMSEE Meeting

Meeting Minutes, December 5, 2004, Cape Town, South Africa

Present: Pilar Aguilar (UNICEF), Allison Anderson (WGMSEE focal point), Ann Avery (RET), Helge Brochmann (NRC), Tim Brown (RET - observer), Nancy Drost (CARE Canada), Christine Knudsen (Save the Children US), Fred Ligon (the Consortium), Ann McLaughlin (Catholic Relief Services), Hassan Mohamed (CARE USA), Susan Nicolai (Save the Children UK), Christopher Talbot (UNESCO IIEP - Chair), Nemia Temporal, UNHCR), Carl Triplehorn (Save the Children US - observer), Birgit Villumstad (Norwegian Church Aid), Rebecca Winthrop (International Rescue Committee)

1. Approval of the agenda
2. Approval of the minutes from March 2004 WGMSEE meeting
3. Operations Group update - Christopher Talbot, UNESCO IIEP

 

Focal Point administration

Allison will continue in the focal point role through the end of 2005. The WG expressed appreciation for the work that Allison has been doing on behalf of the process and Allison and the WG expressed appreciation for the positive working relationship fostered through IRC and Rebecca Winthrop in particular.

Expenditure report for 2003 - 2004

Review of the funds from Sida, CIDA, IRC and US contributions to UNESCO for the reconstruction of education systems in post-conflict countries spent by focal point from June 2003 - November 2004. WG requested the focal point to produce an overall expenditure report, including WG member and partner funds. The focal point will send this to WG members in January.

 

4. Reflections on MSEE process and lessons learned (based on evaluation feedback)

    

   • Advocacy and communication with INEE members, including the focal point's advocacy updates on the website and listserve and liaising with the Paris-based INEE Secretariat, have been outstanding. Advocacy for the process, and through it, INEE and education in emergencies, has been very strong, thanks to the teamwork from all WG members and the focal point.

    

    

   • Communication within WG was positive; the process of having the focal point check in and get feedback as needed as well as to follow-up with WG members, update them on the process and remind about deadlines has been critical. Within the Operations Group, the focal point liaised with members on fundraising, advocacy, communication, etc.

    

    

   • Fundraising has been relatively successful, although not an easy process and should be made more systematic moving forward. The initial grants from CIDA and Sida were positive, but insufficient. The US funds for UNESCO and INEE and the forthcoming World Bank Development Grant Facility funding, to be channeled through UNESCO IIEP, have made WG plans more stable for next phase.

    

    

   • Lesson learned: Keeping the Operations Group small but consultative is critical, so that decisions can be made quickly. Agency representatives had a high level of trust regarding the other agencies, which enable the process to move forward quickly, such that if only one or two persons could be consulted, others felt comfortable with that. The group built a level of trust institutionally and personally that helped this body to work well together.

    

 

Operations (advocacy, fundraising, communication within the WG and with INEE members) - Christopher Talbot

 

Consultations (on-line consultations, local consultations, regional consultations) - Nancy Drost, CARE Canada

 

• The Consultations Group finished work in Nairobi with the first consultation (see March meeting notes for detailed lessons learned). The high levels of participation are a real achievement. WG members expressed their appreciation to the Consultations Group, and Nancy and Birgit in particular, for pulling together the facilitator's guide.

 

 

• The simplicity and standardization of the consultations process that was put into place (facilitator's guide) was very effective and made the process more transparent

 

 

• INEE members and the wider humanitarian and education communities value the consultative process as well as the product.

 

 

• Process: local, national, regional - the amount of ownership is enormous. WG needs to build on this ownership in the next phase.

 

 

• WG members expressed differing opinions on the use of the listserve: some felt it could have been used more extensively (more on-line consultation questions) but others felt that it was the right amount of information or even too much - there is a danger that too much information/too many updates overload INEE members and then no one pays attention to messages.

 

 

• WG member hosting responsibility as well as participation and support to focal point at regional consultations were important.

 

 

• Backstopping, responsibility and participation of the focal point in each regional consultation were critical. This was a learning process, and the focal point's participation at each regional consultation allowed for consistency as well as for the lessons learned from Nairobi to be applied to Kathmandu (and so on), so that each regional consultation went more smoothly

 

 

• Amount of background information sent to participants by the focal point was very good for preparation.

 

 

• Regional focus brought on board colleagues who focus on regional activities (regional education advisors) - this shared ownership has been great and should be built upon moving forward

 

 

• Diversity and balance in delegate representation was important; the WG members appreciated the focal point's vigilance in ensuring UN, government, affected population balance

 

 

• The focal point will keep electronic files of all documentation from the process. This is grey literature, and may be very useful in the future. INEE will hold off on sharing of those documents for one year.

Lessons learned for moving forward:

 

• Balance flexibility and standardization. WG needs to explore how to standardize the process moving forward.

 

 

• Hosting organizations/organizing committees need to be able to follow-through - institutionally, must have commitment.

 

 

• Despite the attempts to make the facilitator's guide simple, there were still some struggles to facilitate with it. In retrospect, it would have been good to have a facilitators' training. Likewise, will need a training of trainers to facilitate training.

 

 

• WG should go back to original regional organizing committees and networks developed out of the consultations process and use and expand them during the roll out, training and piloting.

 

 

Drafting (drafting process, peer review process) - Helge Brochmann, NRC

 

• While DG members experienced periods of frustration and uncertainty at times, the process went more smoothly than what was expected and the product is sound. Some of the frustrations and uncertainty stemmed from the short-time frame of the drafting process and travel of DG members, which made communication difficult and meant that decisions that were taken didn't have the input of all members. There was an underestimation of the timeframe for the drafting process and of DG time required to commit to the process - need to have institutional commitment.

 

 

• Peer review wasn't taken seriously enough by some reviewers who didn't respond or didn't give substantive responses. This left the WG with more work than possible in the short time frame.

 

 

• Because of short time frame, the product is based more on the consultation process than the peer review. Some felt that there should have been more flexibility for content changes within the drafting and peer review process. That being said, there was a great deal of change made by DG, WG and peer reviewers from the regional consultation reports to the final product and sticking to a timeline is important.

 

 

• The drafting process would have benefited from a face-to-face meeting after the Geneva WG meeting to allow for DG members to be clear about the process, compare categories and work, etc. (if could have coordinated travel schedules, which didn't work).

 

 

• The WG acknowledged the enormous contributions of Mike Pozniak, Joan Sullivan-Omowoyela and Margaret Sinclair to the accomplishment of the editing task. As a consultant facilitating the process, Joan took on a central role in making decisions along with Mike Pozniak, whose dedication and commitment was key in moving the process forward.

 

Lessons learned for moving forward:

 

• Given lack of time of WG members and peer reviewers to give to the drafting and peer review process, the role of the peer facilitator was very important.

 

 

• Meeting in person should have been required to work out the details of the drafting process (and of other processes moving forward). Consultations group met in person and had monthly calls with the group and the focal point, not just communication via e-mail.

 

 

Overall comments - Rebecca Winthrop, IRC

 

• There is a very positive sense of the process among humanitarian and education community.

 

 

• Inter-agency spirit was strong in the development of the MSEE - the process was owned by many and is seen as a positive collaborative effort.

 

 

• Trust that WG members felt with each other was key in moving forward quickly, and it was helped out by the fact that every agency did what it could to move the process and product.

 

 

• Light management structure of the WGMSEE ensured that the process was not too bureaucratic.

 

 

• Essential role of focal point and peer facilitator consultant in moving things forward.

 

Discussion, debate and consensus on next steps for MSEE - Allison Anderson

The focal point summarized key questions and recommendations raised by WG members in the MSEE 'next steps scenario compilation' document (10/04), suggestions/feedback sent in from INEE members and recommendations from the breakout sessions on MSEE at the INEE Global Consultation (12/02) on:

 

• Roll out, Distribution and Promotion

 

 

• Training

 

 

• Field Testing and Piloting

 

 

• Monitoring, Evaluation and Revision

 

Overall, INEE members urged WG members to develop a strategy that ensures that all four of the components above are integrated in a manner that allows for a dynamic process rather than bureaucracy and fossilization.

Roll out, Distribution and Promotion

 

• WG members have submitted promotion plans to the focal point, including handbook and CD-Rom distribution, presentations and workshops and media work/website posting.

 

 

• Based on the distribution lists submitted by WG members as well as requests by INEE members and organizations for MSEE handbooks, the focal point is sending boxes of the MSEE to each WG organization, and the focal point, WG and SG members and key partners are responsible for distribution around the world.

 

 

• WG and SG members are expected to promote the MSEE and increase advocacy within their own organizations and networks, especially targeted donor outreach. At a minimum, promotion includes sending a copy of the cover letter and handbook, but can also include more strategic advocacy actions, such as individual follow-up meetings.

 

 

• The focal point is liaising with WG and SG members individually to track WG and SG member promotion in order to coordinate the promotion efforts, ensure non-duplication and identify and fill gaps.

 

 

• The focal point will share best advocacy practices and follow-up where needed.

 

User friendly sharable process document: the upcoming articles on the MSEE process in the Humanitarian Practice Network Journal and the Forced Migration Review will be shared with all INEE members over the listserve In addition, the focal point is compiling a more in-depth draft report on the process, including lessons learned, for WG and SG reference.

MSEE handbook cover letter: The focal point will draft a cover letter, using press release info. as well as ideas that came out of Global Consultation break out groups, and send this to the WG by January 3rd with edits expected by January 7th and a final cover letter by January 10th for WG members to use. All distribution should include this INEE letter, to be signed by the INEE Chair; WG and SG members can add a second cover letter that is specific to their organization. WG members will send the handbook to working level donor contacts and the focal point will send the handbook to heads of donor agencies, liaising with WG and SG members as needed.

Promotional package: The focal point will work with the Promotion Reference Group (see members below) in January 2005 to develop and post a PowerPoint presentation, speaking notes/talking points and FAQ. The group will draft a message encouraging INEE members to use these materials in their promotion efforts and to vet promotion plans and feedback through the focal point. The INEE Coordinator and Focal Point will liaise with Tom March, INEE webmaster, on possible web-based structures for members to use (such as a web-based calendar of advocacy to avoid duplication, a blog or listserve discussion group) to share what is being done by whom. The focal point will use this feedback to map and track what has been done, where promotion gaps are, etc. This group will also consider a web-based interactive CD Rom training for distance learning purposes.

This promotional package could, at a later stage, include a child- and family-friendly handout and/or poster with popular language explaining the MSEE. The targets are teachers, educators, parents, etc and the objective is use in schools, communities and with MoEs for awareness raising and application. Another possibility to explore is a brochure listing out the standards - consider laminating the brochure. The Promotion Reference Group should help identify teachers' colleges, school projects, and communications departments (Pilar will follow-up at UNICEF and Susan will follow-up with Save the Children) to work on this pro-bono. The Promotion Reference Group should look to CRC models for examples. This could serve to reenergize the process in 6 months.

 

Promotion Reference Group: NRC (Helge) Save the Children UK (Susan) UNICEF (Pilar) In addition, the focal point will follow-up with the INEE Coordinator on other INEE members who might be interested in giving feedback on the promotional package.

Translation (Spanish, French, Arabic) must be certified, professional translations, which are verified. Priorities:

 

• Spanish: Pilar will liaise with UNICEF TACRO and Latin America consultation participants about this. Target date for starting translation: January 2005

 

 

• French: Focal Point and INEE Coordinator and Chris will liaise with Martine Storti, French MoE and Francophone Association. Target date for starting translation: January 2005

 

 

• Arabic: Focal Point will liaise with Nemia about UNHCR translation; Nemia will also follow-up with Asghar. The Focal Point will liaise with INEE Coordinator and Carl about ISECO (UNESCO counterpart in Islamic States) and look to regional organizations, foundations, or other strategic partner to bring into the process (Saudi Relief Association). Target date for starting translation: January 2005

 

 

• Russian - not a first priority, but all WG members should explore possibilities of identifying external agency to take on cost.

 

Spontaneous translation will occur and since the standards are a GLOBAL product, we will need to have guidelines for this. For example, Ms Livia Iskandar-Dharmawan, who attended the Global Consultation, has offered to have the standards translated into Indonesian. There was a suggestion that spontaneous translation offered an opportunity to localize the standards, but the group decided that, since these are global, INEE must encourage the integrity of the product. The Promotion Reference Group will look at Sphere guidelines to develop an approach.

Training

WG members discussed the ways in which the process may look different depending on the goal:

 

• effectiveness of impact (long-term)

 

 

• adaptability (how to apply in different contexts)

 

 

• ownership and opportunity for participating in a meaningful initiative

 

Who is to be trained?: Policy makers in government, NGOs, UN, field workers, communities and local authorities

 

Training Materials: PowerPoint with talking points, modular training materials, distance learning materials. These training materials need to take into account different:

 

• local contexts

 

 

• types of emergencies (conflict, natural disaster)

 

 

• phases of emergencies (emergency, chronic crisis, early reconstruction)

 

 

• target groups (not just for education workers - also emergency, humanitarian, other sectors).

 

In moving forward to develop a training strategy, the WG must form a Training subcommittee, which should prioritize Sphere and ARC ToT involvement and look at both for examples in promotion and training (training is a powerful promotional tool).

Main training of trainers and training options identified by WG and INEE members at the Global Consultation:

1. Carried out within agencies

 

2. Core group of INEE trainers with a controlled or 'supervised' training of trainers (like Sphere), so there is a pool of trainers who work within regional networks. INEE member organizations could contribute their trainers, especially those from regional consultations. This option requires follow-up training and/or on-going support for trainers - the WG will need to keep a global database.

    

   • Need standardized process of training roll out

    

   • Training fatigue: need to link MSEE trainings with other existing trainings

    

   • How to finance?

    

   • While developing training materials, keep in mind that this is an orientation to the handbook. Need to identify who needs what kind of training, given diverse target groups.

    

   • How to capitalize upon regional consultation networks in developing the training materials and resource person/core group of trainers. This could be done by contacting regional consultation participants and training them in a regional meeting.

 

After discussion of these options, the WG felt that something closer to #2 should be developed by the Training subcommittee within a new WGMSEE. This subcommittee will need to look into who/what organization could manage this process, as the focal point cannot handle coordination, promotion, distribution, follow-up and training.

Other key points raised for the Training subcommittee to consider while developing the training strategy:

Piloting, Field Testing, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E;), Revision:

Various goals: to test the effectiveness of MSEE; to learn how to operationalize/regionalize; promote ownership

The following field testing strategies were discussed by WG members (strategies are not mutually exclusive):

 

1. Open INEE member field testing with feedback requests for good practice and lessons learned

 

2. Controlled field testing (piloting committees), with baseline evaluation, M&E;

    

   • WG members discussed how to enable/prepare people for field testing. One suggestion that emerged from the break out groups at the Global Consultation is developing a field testing guide. UNICEF volunteered to develop a companion tool, refining indicators, as an addendum to the standards, which will be shared with INEE members. The focal point will liaise with Pilar on this.

    

   • WG members agreed to look to academic partner involvement to help design piloting, M&E;, especially baseline evaluation. The latter would require developing 3-5 key indicators (to measure impact re: quality, community participation, coordination, access), at a small number of sites.

    

   • WG will need to develop a standardized feedback form, reporting form or checklist for those who are using the MS for implementation. This is different from the feedback on the minimum standards themselves, which is in the back of the handbook.

    

   • WG and focal point should keep careful track of piloting sites to ensure that the MSEE are piloted in different local contexts, different emergencies and different phases of those emergencies.

    

 

Revision into Sphere is preferred by INEE members. INEE SG and WG should continue to liaise with Sphere on this possibility in the future.

After this discussion, the WG concluded that the details of these strategies should be developed by a Field Testing subcommittee within a new WGMSEE.

Structure of WGMSEE:

WG members discussed the form of group that should take forward these activities. Before the Global Consultation and the WGMSEE meeting, the two main structure options preferred by WG members were:

 

1. WG continues, transiting into a WG with new membership and TOR.

 

 

2. WG is mainstreamed into the INEE SG with a MSEE Advisory group.

 

WG members agreed that given the tasks identified for the new WGMSEE, option 1 is preferable. A Transition Team was constituted to develop a terms of reference (ToR) for this new WGMSEE and a strategy for recruiting new members, based on next phases of MSEE promotion, training, piloting, monitoring and evaluation. The transition team is made up of:

• CARE USA (Hassan Mohammad)
• IRC (Rebecca Winthrop)
• Norwegian Church Aid (Birgit Villumstad)
• Save the Children US (Carl Triplehorn)
• UNESCO IIEP (Christopher Talbot) - chair
• World Education /The Consortium (Fred Ligon)

 

Within the WGMSEE Transition Team, there will be the following subcommittees to develop specifics on the next phase activities:

• Operations (Chris and Rebecca)
• Training (Birgit and Hassan)
• Piloting, M&E;(Carl and Fred)

 

Questions and recommendations for the transition team to consider in developing the new WGMSEE ToR:

 

• Membership: How many members are needed for the effective implementation of MSEE promotion, training, piloting, monitoring and evaluation? Likely more than the thirteen that currently constitute the WG. What skills are needed to carry out the objectives of the new WGMSEE? These may be skills that WG members currently don't have (field testing, need implementing partner on the ground), etc.
  If an institution that was part of the WG in first phase is interested in continuing, are they automatically on the new WGMSEE? While the WG will need new members with different skills, it is important to have some continuity of organizations with memory and experience of process. There is a desire to include a broader range of organizations (as appropriate to the new skills called for in the WGMSEE ToR), such as southern NGOs and academics. The transition team should consider, for the former, how to support southern NGOs' participation and travel.

 

• WGMSEE member recruitment and organizational make-up: How will the transition team advertise and recruit new members? Targeted out-reach or a public call to apply on the INEE listserve?

 

• Subcommittees identified: 1) Promotional package, 2) Training, 3) Piloting, field testing, M&E;, 4) Operations Group. How many members should each subcommittee have (maximum of 6?). Should subcommittees involve others not on WG?

 

• Staffing Needs: The transition team must review staff needs and models for this new set of activities, including identifying priorities that we can share with interested donors, networks and NGOs. In particular, it was suggested that the training activities would require additional staff. (consider secondment with caution given temporary status; this can throw a wrench in planning).

 

• Process: How to encourage standardization of the process moving forward? How to most effectively use the regional organizing committees and regional consultation delegate networks to move the process forward?

Transition team process

Once the TOR of the new Working Group, plus the TORs of the constituent sub-committees, has been developed by the transition team, WGMSEE members and INEE Secretariat will comment on them. They will be revised and then formally submitted in mid-February 2005 to the INEE Steering Group for final decisions and recommendations for moving forward. We should prepare with a view toward a two year commitment.

WGMSEE member roles until new WGMSEE is constituted

WGMSEE members are asked to consult with their institutions regarding the following commitments to the new WGMSEE, keeping in mind that involvement in the next phase requires a good deal of work (including on a subcommittee) not just representation, as well as commitment of time, money and travel:

• Individual commitment
• Institutional commitment

It was acknowledged that both individuals and institutions could not give certain commitment on this until they see the ToR that emerges for the new WGMSEE.

Some members of the WG announced that they will no longer be personally be involved in the WGMSEE process moving forward (although their organizations may still be involved): Nancy Drost, Tim Brown and Christine Knudsen. WG members acknowledged the commitment of these three members and thanked them for their good work.

While the new WGMSEE ToR is being developed, all WG members will continue to follow-up with focal point on roll out, promotion, distribution efforts. In addition, members of the Promotion Reference Group will work with the focal point to carry forward the development of the promotional package (ppt, talking points, translation guidelines).

2005 Budget Review

The focal point very briefly discussed the funding that the WG has secured for 2005 through the US contributions to UNESCO for the reconstruction of education systems in post-conflict countries funds for INEE and the:

 

• Focal point salary
• CD Rom production and distribution
• MSEE distribution ($5,000)
• Portion of outreach and promotion efforts ($15,000 for focal point travel, meetings, workshops)

 

In addition, the WGMSEE can submit a proposal to the INEE Steering Group for funds for additional outreach and promotion costs and training, piloting and M&E;costs, as there is approximately $200,000 available for INEE activities (the majority of this available funding comes from US contributions to UNESCO for the reconstruction of education systems in post-conflict countries, World Bank DGF and SG funds).

Other business

Sphere Project Board Expansion: The Sphere Project is entering a new phase and one of its departures is that membership in the management committee is being expanded. Details of the responsibilities of the management committee and of its members, as well as the procedure to apply for membership are on the home page of the Sphere Project web site at www.sphereproject.org. INEE WGMSEE and SG member organizations are encouraged to consider this in terms of a positive linking possibility between INEE and Sphere.