INEE Minimum Standards Peer Facilitation Process


Goal: The goal of the facilitation process was to review, categorize, and synthesize the consultations' standards, indicators, and guidance notes into a global set of minimum standards for education in emergencies.

INEE Minimum Standards Analysis Protocol:

The MSEE protocol outlined the data analysis procedure and ways to ensure quality (validity and reliability) of the standards, indicators, and guidance notes development.

  1. Data analysis: The mixed-method approach - Triangulation - was used to seek convergence among the multiple data points. Triangulation refers to the use of "multiple methods, with offsetting or counteracting biases, in investigations of the same phenomenon in order to strengthen the validity of the inquiry results. The core premise of triangulation is that all methods have inherent biases and limitations, so use of only one method to assess a given phenomenon will inevitably yield biased and limited results."[1]
  2. The minimum standards data was triangulated through the use of multiple data sources, multiple researchers and reviewers, and multiple analysis methods.

    • Multiple sources included data from the four regional consultations with the mini consultations (US and UK) and listserv consultations providing additional background information;
    • Multiple researchers and reviewers included the Working Group and global peer reviewers; and,
    • Multiple analysis methods included: 1) a deductive coding process and 2) an analytic induction process (i.e., an iterative cycle of questions). The first phase of the data analysis consisted of a deductive coding process that identified related words and phrases; this was used to establish the standards and indicators sub-categories and key elements. The second phase of the analysis was a qualitative reflective process that identified key patterns and relationships, i.e., the essence of the standards and their supporting indicators. The final phase involved assembling the common words/phrases and key analytical frames and fusing them to custom-build the standards and indicators. These two methods were chosen to process (deductive coding) as well as analyze (analytic induction process) the data to understand the essence of the standard and corresponding indicators.

     

  3. Data quality: External validity and reliability were established through the consistent use of the same consultation format, i.e., Facilitator's Guide for Developing Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crisis, and Early Reconstruction, and the same (main) settings, i.e., grassroots and regional consultations. Internal validity is established through the use of a recognized mixed-method analysis approach - the Triangulation Approach.
  4. MSEE standard, indicators, and guidance note criteria: The following criteria for standard, indicator, and guidance note analysis was employed:

    5.  

       

    • Standards appeared in a minimum of two regional consultations; the findings from the consultations conducted in the United States (New York and Washington D.C.) and the United Kingdom were used to support the findings across the regional standards.
    • Standard, indicator, and guidance note terminology used by the SPHERE Project has been applied at all levels of the MSEE consultation process.
    • When the consultation participants were uncertain about the terminology (standard or indicator) a note indicating the discrepancy was included in the regional consultation findings. During the global analysis and synthesis process, gaps in the indicator and guidance note information have been identified. A justification has been given whenever an indicator or guidance note has been added, or an indicator has been developed out of a guidance note (or visa versa).

Facilitation Phases

  1. Drafting of MSEE (Phase 1): The Working Group on Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies (Drafting Group) and the Peer Facilitator developed the draft MSEE categories, which were distributed to the peer reviewers for their comments and suggested edits. (Timeframe: May to mid-June)

     

    Output: Draft MSEE categories for peer review. Refer to Draft MSEE Analysis Protocol - Phase 1 for additional information.

     

  2. Peer Review of MSEE (Phase 2): Peer reviewers analyzed the draft standards, indicators and guidance notes for standardized terminology and analytic frameworks, and refined or modified the categories' content accordingly. (Timeframe: mid-June to mid-July) The Peer Facilitator and INEE Intern analyzed reviewer data, which the Peer Facilitator used to develop a revised draft version. It was agreed that that an additional layer of analysis was needed to gather more substantive comments. Each Working Group member reviewed two MSEE categories to provide an additional layer of review. Output: Revised draft MSEE categories (version #2).

    3.  

  3. WGMSEE Review of MSEE (Phase 3): Working Group members, following a protocol similar to the Phase 2 Peer Review Protocol, reviewed the draft standards, indicators, and guidance notes. The Peer Facilitator analyzed WG feedback and revised the draft categories, the INEE Focal Point revised the Introduction Chapter and developed introductions for each MSEE category, and the INEE Intern collated suggestions for the Terminology Appendix. Each DG representative reviewed his/her MSEE category (final draft version # 3) and made all final recommendations on content and wording.

    4.  

  4. WGMSEE Review of MSEE (Phase 4): Working Group members conducted a final cross review of the standards to edit for clarity: 1) were the standards, indicators, and guidance notes grammatically correct and 2) were the standards, indicators, and guidance notes framed in a direct and concise manner?

MSEE Analysis Protocols:

For additional information, please refer to the INEE website for protocol information

  • MSEE Working Group Review Protocol - Phase 1
  • Peer Review Protocol - Phase 2
  • Peer Review Analysis Protocol - Phase 3
  • MSEE Working Group Review Protocol - Phase 4

Evolution of Minimum Standard

Following is an outline which lays out the steps involved in analyzing, reviewing, and revising the global minimum standards; the community participation standard 1 (decision-making) is provided as an example.

Phase 1: Drafting of Minimum Standards

 

Step 1: Standards from the 4 regional consultations were complied into one document. When two or more standard which were similar in nature appeared, they were listed in the standard category (with regional consultation identified.)

Step 2: Next similar/related words and phrases identified (deductive coding process).

Step 3: Next a series of questions (analytic induction) identified key themes. Examples of questions included:

  • Is there information in the DC, NY, or UK consultations or literature review that would be valuable to draw upon and add to the MSEE Working Draft Document?
  • Are there indicators or standards which need to be re-assigned to other categories?
  • Are there commonalities between the MSEE consultation standards and indicators and the literature review standards and indicators?

Step 4: In the final step, words, phrases and themes are 'fused' into a custom-build standard which reflected the essence of the elements identified.

Sub-Category: Decision-Making

Consultation Standard Language/Themes
Asia Communities have adequate capacity to strengthen local education services, manage education resources and promote community ownership. Exact words (bolded):
- Community
- Participates
- Promote
- Education
- Members
- Needs, concerns, values

Similar words:

Representation
Community members and children and adolescents and sub-groups of the community

Organizations/programs
- Decision-making [process]

- Bodies, organizations and structures for education provision,

- Education programs

- [Program] assessment, planning, evaluation, management, curriculum development

Ownership
- Local Concerns, needs, values

- Community capacity, knowledge to manage resources, ownership
Asia A representative education committee exists that recognizes community concerns, takes decisions on their behalf and is conscious of local values.
Africa Community members participate in bodies, organizations, and structures for education provision, reflecting their needs, concerns, and values.
Latin America Members of the community participate in committees to guarantee the continuation of education taking into account their needs, concerns, values, and cultural diversity.
Latin America Children and adolescents are organized and participate actively in the promotion, strengthening, and implementation of the education programme in emergencies.
Middle East Community participates actively and effectively in promoting quality education.
Middle East Children actively participate in the assessment, planning, and evaluation of education management, curriculum development and all other decision-making processes.
UK The community participation process is immediate, ongoing and empowering, involves all significant sub-groups of the community and is respected by all governmental and non-governmental bodies.
Suggested standard wording: (Version 1): All community members are guaranteed the right to participate in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the local education program. (Version 2): A representative community committee participates in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the local education program

 

Note: In version 1, the phrase "all community members are guaranteed the right to participate" is rights-based and emphasis inclusiveness; however it is not realistic or practical to expect that all community members can come together and participate all the time. In version 2, alternative wording reflects the current practice at the field but lacks the emphasis on 'rights.'


Phase 2: Peer Review of MSEE

 

     

  • Version 1 (All community members have the right to participate in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the education program) was preferred by 3 reviewers;

    •  

  • Version 2 (A representative community committee participates in the assessing, planning, implementation, management, and monitoring of the local education program.) was preferred by 1 reviewer.

    •  

  • Another reviewer suggested a combination of the two standards.

    •  

It was recommended that Version 1 be the accepted standard for the following reasons:

  • Version 1 sets the stage that allows Version 2 (community committee) to evolve. If all community members have the right to participate a more democratic and inclusive committee can be formed. Indicator 1 (The community, or its representatives, is involved in prioritizing education activities and developing, implementing, and monitoring plans to ensure the effective delivery of education services) provides a mechanism for implementing the standard.

    •  

  • Version 1 is compatible with SPHERE 2004 common standard 1 (participation), and if the minimum standards are accepted into the revised SPHERE this version interfaces in a complementary manner.

    •  

  • The reviewer who preferred version 2 indicated a concern that all community members would be involved in all aspects. However, setting a standard to give all community members the right to participate in the education program does not necessarily mean that all have to or will participate. It only gives them the right to participate if chose to.

    •  

Suggested new wording: Standard 1: Decision-making

All community members have the right to participate in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the local education program.

Comment: This revised version 1 sets the stage for the development and selection of a representative community committee. All community members do not have to participate, however, they have the right to participate (in some form) if they wish. This standard follows Access standard 1 - All individuals have effective access to quality and relevant education opportunities - and allows for active participation by the 'community' to develop their education program.

Phase 3: Working Group Review of MSEE

Wording of Standard 1: There has been extensive debate if this standard should focus on all community members having the right to participate in the education program development, etc. or if the focus should be on a community education committee (reflective of the affected population group) having the right to participate in the education program development, etc. During this phase, 1 reviewer indicated the word 'all' should be dropped as the implication may be that everyone would be participating in every step, etc. Two other reviewers indicated that a version similar to SPHERE might be an acceptable variation. The essence of the standard is retained and is compatible with Sphere Common Standard 1 (Participation)

Suggested revision: Standard 1: Participation

Disaster affected community members participate in the decisions that affect the phases of the education programme: assessment, planning, implementation, management, and monitoring.


Phase 4: WG Final Review of MSEE and Phase 5: Global listserv review of MSEE


Original suggested wording emerging from consultations:

     

  • (Version 1) All community members are guaranteed the right to participate in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the local education programme.
  • (Version 2) A representative community committee participates in assessing, planning, implementing, managing, and monitoring of the local education program.

Final revised wording:

Emergency-affected community members actively participate in assessing, planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the education programme.

 

Indicator 1: The emergency-affected community, through its chosen representatives, is involved in prioritizing and planning education activities to ensure effective delivery of the education programme.

[1] Greene, Jennifer, et.al. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989. (Vol. 11) # 3. (p. 256).