Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

78811

2013 The Interna onal Bank for Reconstruc on and Development / The World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433Telephone: 202-473-1000Internet: www.worldbank.orgEmail: educa onresilience@worldbank.org

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contribu ons. The findings, interpreta ons, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Execu ve Directors, or the government they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomina ons, and other informa on shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any terri-tory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and PermissionThe material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemi-na on of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full a ribu on to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office or the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.

5

About the SeriesBuilding strong educa on systems that pro-mote learning, life skills and social cohesion is essen al in any country. However, contexts of adversity (including natural disasters, poli cal crisis, health epidemics, pervasive violence and armed conflict) can nega vely impact the ability of educa on systems to deliver such services. At the same me, paradoxically, educa on can help mi gate the risks of such adversity, and enhance the capabili es of children and youth to succeed in spite of the adversi es they face. It is precisely this which is captured by the concept of “resilience”: the ability of human beings (and their communi-

es and the ins tu ons that serve them) to recover, succeed, and undergo posi ve trans-forma ons in the face of adversity.

Forty years of research on human resilience has shown that children, adolescents, youth and adults can recover from crises and per-form in spite of adverse situa ons and con-texts. In the field of educa on, evidence on resilience and school effec veness has iden -fied several factors that correlate with learning and school success even when learners are exposed to risks. Emerging empirical evidence points to the opportuni es for change that contexts of adversity can facilitate: improving educa on systems, (re)-building back be er, and finding a space to introduce reforms that can improve the relevance of an educa on system as per the needs of some of the most vulnerable learners.

In 2011, the World Bank Group launched its Educa on Sector Strategy 2020: Learning for All. The strategy defines the Bank’s collabo-ra ve agenda with developing countries for the next decade, notably through suppor ng learning and strengthening educa on systems. To support the implementa on of the strategy,

The World Bank commenced a mul -year pro-gram to support countries in systema cally ex-amining and strengthening the performance of their educa on systems. This evidence-based ini a ve, called SABER (Systems Approach for Be er Educa on Results), is building a tool kit of diagnos cs for examining educa on systems and their component policy domains against global standards and best prac ces around the world. By leveraging this global knowledge, SABER fills a gap in the availability of data and evidence on what ma ers most to improve the quality of educa on and achieve-ment of be er results. The SABER tools are being developed across educa on levels (Early Childhood Development, Workforce Develop-ment, Ter ary Educa on) and with a focus on important quality resources and system sup-port (Teachers, Learning Standards, Student Assessment, Educa on Technology/ICT and School Health and Nutri on) and governance and finance elements (School Autonomy and Accountability, School Finance, Informa on Systems/EMIS and Engaging the Private Sec-tor). Also, other quality educa on system support issues in schools and broader societal contexts are addressed by SABER, mainly Eq-uity and Inclusion and Resilience in the face of fragility, conflict and violence.

For educa on systems and se ngs in contexts of extreme adversity, The World Bank has developed a complementary set of tools to SABER, the Educa on Resilience Approaches (ERA) program. ERA complements SABER’s evidence-based diagnos cs through strategies and instruments to iden fy the risks faced by students, teachers, and educa onal ins -tu ons opera ng in difficult circumstances. Moreover, ERA also helps educa on systems iden fy the assets and posi ve engagement among the educa on communi es (students,

6

parents, teachers and school administrators) that if supported systema cally can harness a more effec ve response towards the safety, socioemo onal well-being and learning of children, adolescents and youth. ERA opens an opportunity to conceive and develop ap-propriate ways in which educa on systems can encourage and support their posi ve perfor-mance and transforma on beyond the adver-sity they face.

Through a set of tools that a empt to cap-ture the complexity in fragile, conflict, and/or violence affected situa ons, the ERA Program seeks, as SABER, to provide a systema c pro-cess to collect evidence that can support local efforts to improve academic and non-academ-ic services in contexts of adversity. In this way, the ERA model is founded on the premise that individuals, organiza ons and socie es pos-sess inherent assets and engagement capac-i es that—if recognized and fostered—can not only support the recovery of educa on systems a er crisis, but can also contribute to posi ve student performance and learning outcomes.

7

About the AuthorJoel Reyes is Senior Ins tu onal Development Specialist (Educa on Sector) in the Human Development Network of the World Bank (HDNED). He leads the World Bank’s work on Educa on Resilience, including the provision of technical assistance to developing countries in situa ons of adversity, conflict and / or vio-lence. With over 20 years of experience in the development of educa on systems in difficult se ngs, he has supported and led World Bank teams in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Afghanistan, and South Sudan and advised and evaluated educa on programs in many other conflict and fragile contexts around the world.

Prior to his current role focused on research and the development of analy cal tools, he was an educa on team leader in the La n America and South Asian departments within the World Bank Educa on Sector. Joel Reyes is also a doctoral candidate in Interna onal Educa on from the University of Sussex (UK) and has been awarded Masters in Interna-

onal Development from Columbia Univer-sity (New York) in 1993, and Organiza onal Development from Johns Hopkins University (Bal more) in 2000. In addi on to his du es at the World Bank, he also co-chairs the Steering Commi ee of the Interna onal Network for Educa on in Emergencies (INEE).

8

AckowledgmentsMany people have provided inputs and sug-ges ons for this framework paper. Par cular thanks is extended to the Educa on Resil-ience Approaches team: Richard Arden, Dean Brooks, Elise Egoume-Bossogo, Ingrid Guer-ra-Lopez, Jo Kelcey, Andrea Diaz Varela, Mar-tha Laverde, Linda Liebenberg, Darlyn Meza and Veronica Minaya. The HDNED internal review team led by Elizabeth King and Robin Horn comprised of Halsey Rogers, Emiliana Vegas, Harry Patrinos and María José Ramírez also provided valuable comments and sugges-

ons. Thanks also to colleagues from other departments and agencies both inside and outside of the World Bank. This includes Mi-chel Welmond, Chris Modi and Deirdre Wat-son as well as the World Bank’s Educa on and

Social Protec on team, donor representa-ves, civil society groups and government offi-

cials in Central America, South Sudan, Colom-bia (An oquia), and the UNRWA par cipants of the educa on resilience study undertaken in Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. Finally the consulta ons, research and development of ERA related instruments would not have been possible without the financial support of the Bri sh Department for Interna onal Develop-ment (DFID) through its partnership with the World Bank, Partnership for Educa on Devel-opment (PFED) and the Rapid Social Response Fund for crisis contexts (RSR) which receives generous support from the Russian Federa-

on, Norway, the UK and Australia.

9

AbstractThis document presents the conceptual back-ground and opera onal tools of the World Bank’s Educa on Resilience Approaches (ERA) Program. It begins by grounding the program in its theore cal evidence base before dis-cussing the guiding principles and tools that opera onalize this.1 Building strong educa on systems that promote learning, life skills and social cohesion is essen al in any country. However, contexts of adversity (including nat-ural disasters, poli cal crises, health epidem-ics, pervasive violence and armed conflict) can nega vely impact on the ability of educa on systems to deliver such relevant services. At the same me, paradoxically, educa on can help mi gate the risks of such adversity and enhance the capabili es of children and youth to succeed in spite of the adversi es they face. It is precisely this which is captured by the concept of “resilience”: the ability of human beings (and their communi es and the ins tu-

ons that serve them) to recover, succeed and undergo posi ve transforma ons.

The theore cal founda ons of ERA recognize the human capacity to create meaning from

adversity, define a posi ve future purpose, develop skills and competencies, connect with others and manifest personal and social accountability. In addi on, ERA stresses the central role of educa on systems to under-stand the risks faced by children and youth, to protect the assets and opportuni es inherent in educa on communi es, and to provide the school and educa onal supports to help students navigate the difficult environments in which they live.

This paper presents the tools developed under the ERA Program and several key principles that guide the applica on of a resilience process. The tools offer a systema c process to improve educa on system alignment to a resilience-based approach and ensure relevant quality educa on services for learners affected by difficult contexts, especially conflict and violence. The annexes provide more detail on how the tools can help align educa on strate-gies, plans and services in the areas of access, learning quality, equity, capacity building and par cipa on, amongst other educa on sector goals.

1 For further discussion of the resilience-based evidence, please refer to the “Educa on Resilience Literature Review” (forthcoming).

10

11

ContentsWhat is educa on resilience and why does it ma er? 13

The Educa on Resilience Approaches (ERA) framework 17

The ERA process and tools 23

ERA and SABER 26

The founda onal pillars of ERA 28

Conclusion 30

Annex 1: Resilience in educa on system criteria 31

Annex 2: Examples of resilience alignment 36

Annex 3: Evidence from the ERA pilots 46

Annex 4: ERA contribu ons to risk and resilience M&E 51

Extended bibliography 53

12

13

What is educa on resilience and why does it ma er?Educa on in contexts of violence, conflict and fragilityWith tens of millions of children out of school

-

-

-

World Bank Educa on Strategy 2020

-

-

The World Bank, World Development Report 20112

Violence, conflict and other contexts of ad-versity present a significant challenge to the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Moreover, as highlighted in the World Development Report 2011, countries affect-ed by violence and conflict o en face severe development challenges and many are char-acterized by weak ins tu onal capacity and poli cal instability. The impacts of pervasive violence and conflict are especially felt by the poor and tradi onally excluded communi es

not least because such contexts o en exacer-bate exis ng inequity in social service delivery, including educa on services (World Develop-ment Report, World Bank 2011).

However, research and prac ce in situa ons of adversity have also highlighted how educa on can protect children and youth at-risk by pro-viding them with an appropriate environment within which to nurture their learning and psychosocial well-being.2

The case for educa on resilience: Theore cal evidence

--

3

Studies on resilience show that human beings can foster strengths and coping abili es that allow them to transform crisis situa ons into opportuni es. Educa on resilience research provides evidence that many students succeed academically in spite of adverse economic condi ons (Gamerzy, Masten and Tellegen 1984; Gizir and Aydin 2009), homelessness and transitory situa ons (Masten et al. 2008), conflict-affected se ngs (Boyden 2003), social exclusion (Borman and Overman 2004) and

2 See for example, Nicolai and Triplehorn (2003); INEE Minimum Standards for Educa on (2010).3 Bonnie Benard, “Fostering Resilience in Children” (1995).

14

other overwhelming risks.3

Although the social and economic environ-ment of a learner is an important predictor of academic results, resilience evidence—espe-cially from longitudinal studies—has iden fied addi onal success factors that strongly correlate with posi ve school and life out-comes of children and youth living in

5 Individuals facing adversity seek to make sense of the situa on they are experiencing and find a purpose that in turn will allow them to make meaningful and posi ve decisions.

6 Adversity engages ones’ emo-ons and feelings (e.g., anger, pain, sadness, hope, empathy, humor, etc.), providing an

opportunity to manage and regulate them, as well as to develop a concept of ‘self’ through self-awareness, self-esteem and self-confidence.

7 When faced with adversity, individuals seek to take some control over their situa on through the development of new competencies and skills. In this way individuals aim to sa sfy basic material needs, such as clothing, food and shelter, but also long-term life purposes.

8 Individuals seek support from others during mes of adversity. Within a group, individuals find protec on, iden ty and com-fort—and o en a connec on to something larger than oneself such as social jus ce or spirituality.

9 Individuals during mes of adversity move toward adap ve outcomes through perseverance, a sense of accountability, and responsibility to themselves and others.

adverse contexts.4 These include individual factors (e.g., hope, purpose, social compe-tence, problem solving, and autonomy) and environmental ones (e.g., care, support, high expecta ons and opportuni es for meaningful par cipa on in school, family and the commu-nity). Table 1 below presents some synthesized resilience processes that can be extracted from the available literature.

4 See for example, Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith, (1992).5 This engagement process—between one and one’s environment—is grounded in cogni ve psychology; see for exam-ple Neenan (2009) on cogni ve-behavioral principles applied to resilience. 6 Masten and Obradović (2006) call this adap ve process “internal integra on”.7 Masten and Obradovic (see preceding note) refer to this adap ve process as “external adapta on”.8 Spirituality, religion, social jus ce or other larger forums for connec on that transcend the individual and the group have been documented as protec ve factors in studies of individuals in contexts of overwhelming adversity. See for example Ungar (2011; 2012).

15

In addi on to the above individual level resilience processes, more recent research emphasizes the role of community, culture and available and accessible social services in fostering resilience in children and youth.10 Indeed, research shows that when confronted with overwhelming adversity, students inher-ently engage in a dynamic process with their environment that, if supported by educa onal ins tu ons, can help them find meaning and purpose in educa on, develop new skills and knowledge, build posi ve and suppor ve rela onships and embrace accountability and jus ce.114

Educa on systems can support resilienceA er families, schools are most influen al in a child’s development, values forma on, learning and skills acquisi on. Thus, educa on systems can play an important role suppor ng both the well-being and educa on outcomes of students in contexts of adversity. To do so, educa on policies programs and schools are called upon to consider the strengths and assets of educa on actors and to support students to make sense of the adversity they experience, find purpose in educa on and develop needed competencies and skills. Providing resilience-relevant services may not require designing new educa on programs. Exis ng formal and non-formal educa on pro-grams can be framed, adapted and integrated to foster the cogni ve, social and emo onal strengths of students.

Exis ng strategies—for access, learning and school management—can be made relevant to adverse contexts and can contribute to improving educa on quality and provide resilience-building opportuni es. For example, teaching and learning strategies such as peer-to-peer learning, community-based projects, teacher learning circles, student led clubs and other cultural and extracurricular ac vi es can foster both learning and socioemo onal well-being. Moreover, the way educa onal success is assessed and measured can also take into account academics, behaviors and values of students and contribute to mi gat-ing the impact of risk exposure. In par cular, school management approaches can pro-mote the meaningful par cipa on of parents, students and teachers to support the school success and well-being of students at-risk. For example, educa on programs are increasingly making use of community-based approaches to school management during emergency response, recovery and development in situa-

ons of acute and chronic crisis. During these mes, schools and communi es can provide

the structures for connec on, mutual support and commitment to learning, protec on and well-being among students, school staff and families.

Over forty years of research on human resil-ience has shown that children, adolescents, youth and adults can recover from crises and perform in spite of adverse situa ons and contexts. However, fostering such resilience also requires ins tu onal support and social services. In the field of educa on, emerging

9 Researchers and prac oners who work in programs for youth in adverse contexts both iden fy the needs for struc-ture and boundaries, opportuni es for responsibility and accountability, and restora ve discipline and jus ce. These are all processes grouped into what the ERA Program calls the “commitment dimension.” See for example, Krovetz (2008); Cefai (2008); Wachtel and Mirsky (2003). 10 Ungar (2008; 2011; 2012). 11 Ungar (2008; 2011; 2012). See for example, Benard, (2004); Borma and Overman,

(2004); Cefai (2008); Comer et.al., (1996); Gizir and Aydin,

(2009); Krovets, (2008); and Masten et.al. children (2008).

16

empirical evidence points to the opportuni es that contexts of adversity also bring to trans-form educa on systems, build back be er, and find a space to introduce reforms that can improve the relevance of educa on as per the needs of some of the most vulnerable learn-ers.

Educa on systems’ “own” resilienceFrom an ins tu onal perspec ve, empirical evidence from research on organiza ons in contexts of crises and chronic adversi es also points to the opportunity of fostering ins tu-

onal resilience within educa on systems. Ed-uca on systems require: (i) understanding of the cri cal and latent risks affec ng educa on actors and ins tu ons; (ii) strengths-based goals within their strategic plans, objec ves and indicators; (iii) programs that aim to mi -gate risks and build resilience assets in educa-

on ins tu ons and communi es; (iv) oppor-tuni es for innova on, flexibility and constant learning; and (v) par cipatory management to mo vate staff and hold management account-able for results (Valikangas 2010; Masten 2008; Weick and Sutcliffe 2007). Ins tu onal resilience in educa on systems also requires forging external links among agencies, across sectors and with clients and beneficiaries (Gu-

la 2009). Studies on service delivery in con-flict and fragile contexts also stress the follow-ing determinants of ins tu onal resilience: the State’s capacity and willingness (Baird 2010; OECD 2008); public, private and civil society partnerships (EFA 2008; Brinkerhoff 2007); and crisis preparedness (including conflict and disaster risk reduc on; INEE 2012).

Based on the exis ng and growing evidence on resilience, the ERA model is founded on the premise that individuals, organiza ons and so-cie es possess inherent capaci es that—if rec-ognized and fostered—can not only support the recovery of educa on systems a er crisis, but can also contribute to posi ve student performance and learning outcomes. Although resilience processes can be applied across all types of difficult situa ons and risky environ-ments, the ERA Program has made it a priority to understand resilience in contexts of perva-sive violence and conflict. This may manifest in a variety of forms including armed conflict, genocide, displacement, crime, delinquency, social tension, school and family violence, and psychological oppression (e.g., bullying, dis-crimina on and social or group-based hate). In these contexts, quality and relevant edu-ca on—guided by a resilience lens—can also enhance the opportuni es for broader social transforma on.

--

17

The Educa on Resilience Approaches (ERA) frameworkThe empirical evidence baseThe previously discussed theories of individu-al, group and ins tu onal resilience provided the founda ons of a framework to guide the collec on of contextualized evidence, in-coun-try policy dialogue, and the design of pro-grams that are relevant to students and edu-ca on ins tu ons striving to recover, perform and even transform in contexts of adversi es. The empirical evidence base comes from cor-rela onal and randomized studies, as well as case studies, and permi ed the iden fica on of four integrated and overlapping compo-nents as discussed below: (i) understanding and managing adversi es; (ii) iden fying and fostering the assets and posi ve engage-ment of individuals and groups in educa on communi es; (iii) providing relevant school services with community partnerships; and (iv) in general aligning the educa on system policies, programs and resources to support a resilience approach in contexts of adversity. A summary of the evidence follows.

Adversi es—and especially conflict and vio-lence— affect children and youth cogni vely, emo onally and behaviorally across all stages of their development (Clemens 2006). For example, a study of 791 children and youth aged 6-16 in Sarajevo in 1994, found that 41 percent experienced significant Post Trauma c Stress Syndrome (PTSD) symptoms (Allwood, Bell-Dolan and Husain 2002). In Afghanistan, a er the ous ng of the Taliban, a study on mental health found that 75 percent of wom-en and children in the sample also suffered

from PTSD (Azimi 2004). Children and youth can experience trauma differently. Although the emo on of fear in small children is a nor-mal manifesta on (fear of darkness or of being alone), in contexts of conflict and violence, various studies have iden fied that even small children verbalize fear of social violence, mur-ders, nuclear a acks and terrorism (Pearson 2003).

Regarding adolescents and youth, adversi-es affect their sense of iden ty; of capaci-

ty, performance and future purpose; and of group belonging (Burham and Hooper 2008). Although girls tend to express their feelings of vulnerability more than boys, boys can also be deeply affected (Burham and Hooper 2008) and externalize trauma through dangerous, self-destruc ve and risky behaviors (Pat-Horenczyk et al. 2007). Adolescents and youth seek answers to ethical, social and existen al ques ons regarding the adversi es they expe-rience which, if they remain unanswered and misunderstood, could contribute to detrimen-tal cogni ve, emo onal and social capaci es and skills (Carlson 2003). Understanding and making meaning of the adversi es that affect them—through expressing emo ons, find-ing a purpose for the future, and having an opportunity to cri cally understand the risks they are exposed to—is o en mes the first empowering step in vulnerable and uncertain situa ons (Clemens 2006; Jackson 2006).

Contexts of adversity—acute, chronic or cumula ve—also deter learning. Cogni ve and emo onal func ons are deeply affected by trauma c experience, including the men-tal execu ve func ons which are crucial for higher-level learning and a en on (Green-berg, Kusche and Riggs 2004). Stress studies have linked adversity to a shrinkage of the hippocampus in the limbic system which consolidates short- to long-term memory (a cri cal part of learning), and to hyperac vity in the amygdala (also in the limbic system),

18

which processes informa on ed to nega ve and posi ve emo onal reac ons. Pathways between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex, where cogni ve execu ve func ons, a en on and working memory are processed, are also affected by chronic stress (McEwen 2012).

Evaluated programs, such the Promo ng Alterna ve Thinking Strategies (PATHS) pro-gram in the United States, seek to address and reverse the rela on between detrimen-tal socioemo onal trauma and learning. For example, PATHS aims to help elementary students verbalize, process and understand their feelings; to foster posi ve rela ons with others, and; to plan and improve their prob-lem solving, learning and accountability skills. A randomized study of the program included control and treatment groups of students from regular classrooms, from at-risk groups, and deaf children (Greenberg, Kusche and Riggs 2004). For both regular and at-risk students, the study found improvement in social prob-lem solving, emo onal regula on, as well as in academic founda onal areas (non-verbal reasoning, planning skills, and the ability to analyze, synthesize and reproduce abstract figures). For the at-risk students’ treatment group, it also found a strong trend for math-ema cs achievement. For the deaf children treatment group, in addi on to enhanced socio-emo onal skills, the study found signif-icant improvements in the Reading sec on of the Stanford Achievement Test (Greenberg, Kusche and Riggs 2004).

The importance of posi ve cogni ve, emo-onal and behavioral skills in spite of con-

texts of adversity has also been supported by resilience research. The seminal longitudinal study by Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith (1982,

1991, and 2001) followed for more than 30 years a group of more than 500 children born in extreme poverty and exposed to other risks, such as parental alcoholism and other pa-thologies. Although 1 out of every 5 children grew to become adults with serious behav-ioral and learning problems, many more lived successful, produc ve lives even when some of them also experienced ini al behavioral and emo onal problems. The determinants of resilience in these par cipants found by the study included individual assets such as op -mism, tolerance, problem solving, sociability, flexibility, etc. Also, resilience was fostered by external sources of support such as an intact family unit (in spite of adversi es), role models and guidance (eg. a suppor ve adult, partner or spouse, and even military service), caring and suppor ve social networks (eg. friends, religious groups), and educa on opportuni es and significant experiences in school (eg. a suppor ve teacher, a favorite course, a turning point). This and many other studies on resil-ience (see for example, Benard 2004; Ungar 2012) demonstrate the need to iden fy, use and protect the assets of children and youth in contexts of adversity, and promote suppor ve engagement with others.

Given the central posi on of educa on ins tu-ons to both mi gate risks and foster resil-

ience in children, adolescents, youth and even adults, it is important to iden fy the research and evidence that point to such relevant school and educa on community support. Zins et al. (2007) stress that schools have a central role to play in suppor ng the emo on-al, social and cogni ve learning of children and youth in an integrated way. They show that the social-emo onal components can no longer be an “add-on” or “complement” to academic learning, but are an inherent and

19

enabling component to academic and school success—for all students but especially for those in contexts of adversity, risk and stress. The Collabora ve for Academic, Social and Emo onal Learning (CASEL) has done much research in this area. For example, a review of 80 na onally available school-based programs in the United States (34 percent of which formally integrate socioemo onal skills in the school curricula) found that 83 percent of the programs produced academic gains (CASEL 2003). Another landmark study assessed 213 social and emo onal support programs for 270,034 students. These psychosocial ac vi-

es were integrated into the core instruc onal and management ac vi es of schools such as classroom instruc on, school management, extra-curricular ac vi es, parental and com-munity par cipa on. It found improved social and emo onal skills and posi ve engagement among educa on actors, and also reflected an 11 percen le-point gain in achievement (Durlak, et al. 2011). An earlier meta-analysis (Payton, et al. 2007) of 317 socioemo onal programs involving a sample of 324,3003 students found improvement in achievement scores by 11 percen le points in children without pre-defined behavioral problems and 17 percen le points in at-risk children. The programs that correlated with the most posi-

ve effects across academic, social and emo-onal skills were those that had been directly

implemented by school staff within their core instruc onal and management ac vi es (not implemented by outside actors—researchers, university students, counselors—and not out-side the regular classroom and school prac c-es).

Lastly, at the school level, educa on resilience evidence calls for engagement from a broader educa on community composed not only of students, teachers and school managers, but

also of parents and other community actors (Benard 2004). Family support and involve-ment in schools has been correlated with high student academic performance, along with high educa onal aspira ons and study materials (Rumberger 1999). Community and parental par cipa on has been iden fied as an important determinant of students’ school success, along with school policies and prac ces, caring classrooms and school environments, and posi ve rela onships between students (Christenson and Havsy 2004). Family support and involvement is even more important in contexts of adversity, conflict and violence. In Afghanistan, where more than 8,000 schools have communi-ty-based management commi ees (called Shuras), Glad and Hakim (2009) found that the par cipa on of mothers and fathers—and other community members—not only created a posi ve school climate but also protected schools from a acks. A study of 10 community driven development programs in seven Sub-Saharan countries found posi ve contribu ons to social cohesion, although posi ve and nega ve impacts depended on the context of each case study (King, Samii, and Snilsveit 2010). Also, school-community par cipa on can contribute to school success through relevant learning expecta ons and support (Bryan and Henry 2008; Barrera-Os-orio etal. 2009). In post-civil war El Salvador and Nicaragua parental involvement in school management proved to support improvement in standardized test scores (Barrera-Osorio, et al. 2009). Finally, school-community support in contexts of adversity can not only promote student resilience but can contribute to trans-form educa on prac ces and even educa on systems. For example, a mul ple case study of an educa on program in several at-risk or marginalized communi es in the United States found that community-based capacity build-ing, group empowerment, rela onal commu-nity building and cultural change can lead to

20

transforming social rela ons and ins tu ons (Maton, 2005/2008).

A mass of evidence has been generated to support the no on that educa on systems in contexts of adversity would do well to support the iden fica on and mi ga on of risks faced by students; the iden fica on, use and pro-tec on of assets in educa on communi es; and the relevant school-community supports for children and youth in contexts of adversi-ty. These supports must come in the form of resilience-relevant policies, programs, and hu-man, financial and material resources. A case study of the educa on system in Rwanda a er the 1994 genocide found explicit reference to the role of the educa on system in “creat-ing a culture of peace, emphasizing posi ve non-violent na onal values, and promo ng the universal values of jus ce, peace, toler-ance, respect for other, solidarity and democ-racy” (Arden and Claver 2011: 7). Equally, in post-conflict countries around the world (e.g. Guatemala, El Salvador, Nepal, Afghanistan, Central Africa Republic and Madagascar), educa on systems proac vely provided the structures to sustain the par cipa on of par-ents and communi es in schools through legal status of community schools, financial support to pay teachers and school maintenance, and through systema c procedures for crea ng community-based school commi ees, school improvement plans, and per-capita based grants (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). These are only example of the different ways educa on system structures and services can align to ele-ments that have been iden fied by different research studies as contribu ng to resilience in educa on se ngs.

The above sample of research evidence con-tributed to the design of the ERA framework. Given the overlap and dynamic rela ons be-

tween each of the areas discussed above, the ERA framework integrated them across four components, which are presented next.

A four-level integrated process for fostering educa on resilienceThe ERA Program is based on the previously discussed human, ins tu onal and social resil-ience premises that have been opera onalized for educa on systems. It seeks to con nue to fill the evidence gaps in order to improve the quality and relevance of educa on ser-vices in crisis situa ons, post-conflict contexts and chronic adversi es, as well as to prevent or prepare for overwhelming difficul es. Its ul mate goal is to contribute to an informed in-country dialogue on how to align exis ng educa on policies, goals and programs for a resilience approach to educa on service delivery. ERA’s systemic framework is divided into four educa on resilience components and their corresponding associated policy goals. The first two components aim at be er un-derstanding the adversi es experienced by educa on communi es (students, parents, teachers and educa on administra ons), but also grasp their assets and engagement pro-cesses. It is precisely these individual assets and opportuni es for group engagement that can foster recovery, competence and social cohesion. The third and fourth components consider how schools and educa on systems can mi gate the previously iden fied risks and support educa on communi es by fostering their resilience assets and engagement pro-cesses. In order to provide strategic guidance to educa on systems, ERA is grounded in an induc ve and context-based approach by providing a set of tools for collec on of local resilience evidence that can inform in-country

21

dialogue and decision-making on how schools and communi es can foster resilience and how educa on systems can deliver relevant services for contexts of adversity. Therefore, the levers within each ERA resilience compo-nent propose general ques ons that can guide the collec on of resilience-relevant evidence. These levers can be specified further or even adapted to each par cular context of adversity and needed response: emergency, reconstruc-

on or on-going development.

The four general resilience-based policy goals (managing and minimizing risks; using and protec ng local assets; fostering school-com-munity support; and aligning educa on ser-vices) can guide the review of the local evi-dence and an in-country stakeholder dialogue to specify the best approach for these policies in each context. It can also provide policy mak-ers a lens to learn from approaches in other contries with similar challenges.

Mindful of resilience as a complex process, the ERA framework iden fied the above four poli-cy goals as the strategic guidance and concom-itant evidence to be collected if systems are to be er support at-risk children and youth. The next sec on will discuss how the ERA tools can support policy makers and educa on stake-holders to take well-informed decisions, all the while maintaining the experience of adversity and associated needs of the learner as a cen-tral considera on.

Figure 1, on the next page, depicts the compo-nents and levers within the ERA framework.

22

•Wha

t adv

ersit

ies s

tude

nts f

ace

•How

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

is a

ddre

ssin

g ris

ks in

scho

ols

Educ

atio

n in

ad

vers

ity

•How

stud

ents

seek

resil

ienc

e th

roug

h co

ntro

l, co

mpe

tenc

e an

d be

ing

acco

unta

ble

•How

stud

ents

seek

resil

ienc

e th

roug

h th

eir s

ocio

-em

otio

nal w

ell-b

eing

via

eng

agem

ent w

ith o

ther

s (p

eers

, tea

cher

s, fa

mili

es, e

tc.)

and

iden

tity

form

atio

n

Asse

ts a

nd

enga

gem

ent

•How

scho

ols p

rovi

de su

ppor

t and

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

stud

ents

thro

ugh

actio

ns o

r app

roac

hes r

egar

ding

ac

cess

, per

man

ence

, tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng

•How

scho

ol a

nd c

omm

unity

par

tner

ship

s sup

port

st

uden

t out

com

es in

con

text

s of a

dver

sity

Rele

vant

sc

hool

&

com

mun

ity

supp

ort

•How

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

pro

vide

s a st

rate

gic

dire

ctio

n fo

r rel

evan

t edu

catio

n in

adv

ersit

y co

ntex

ts

•How

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

ms i

nteg

rate

lear

ning

, so

cioe

mot

iona

l wel

l-bei

ng a

nd p

rote

ctio

n

•Wha

t hum

an, m

ater

ial a

nd fi

nanc

ial r

esou

rces

are

ac

cess

ible

to su

ppor

t at-

risk

educ

atio

n co

mm

uniti

es

Alig

ned

educ

atio

n sy

stem

su

ppor

t

Positive learning outcomes in spite of adversity

RESI

LIEN

CE

COM

PON

ENTS

RE

SILI

ENCE

LEV

ERS

Education resilience process

POLI

CY G

OAL

S

Man

age

and

min

imize

risk

s

Use

and

pr

otec

t ass

ets

Fost

er sc

hool

-co

mm

unity

su

ppor

t

Deliv

er re

silie

nce

alig

ned

serv

ices

23

The ERA process and toolsA systema c process for collec ng contextualized evidence to foster educa on resilienceThe main development objec ve of the ERA Program is to provide a systema c evi-dence-based process to improve the capacity of educa on systems in fragile, conflict and violence-affected situa ons (FCS) to deliver relevant, high-quality educa on services. Each of the diagnos c and research tools is aligned to a specific resilience component and related resilience lever, which guides the collec on of resilience relevant evidence. The evidence of

resilience relevant evidence. The evidence can contribute to an in-country stakeholder dialogue to: (i) develop academic and non-aca-demic services that support both learning and students’ well-being in contexts of adversity, and; (ii) iden fy educa on sector contribu-

ons—as part of a mul -sector effort—to mit-igate the social determinants of conflict and violence, and other crises. The ERA Program’s three inter-related evidence collec on tools are presented in figure 2 below.

The ERA Program will contribute to closing the significant gaps on studies and evidence on educa on resilience in developing coun-tries—especially within countries affected by conflict, violence and other fragili es. With added knowledge on the incen ves, pro-cesses and effects of educa on resilience, an evidence-based rubric on educa on system approaches that contribute to learning in the face of adversity will be developed (forthcom-ing).

RES-School Assessment Map opportunities in the

classroom, school and community that can

contribute to learning in spite of difficult contexts

RES-Research Capacity Building Research tools and capacity building

for local higher education institutions and researchers to conduct longer term education resilience studies,

evaluations and context-based theory development

RES-360° Rapid Assessments

Map risks, assets and existing protection efforts in education systems as opportunities to foster resilience

In-Country Stakeholder

Dialogue ERA tools

contribute to an informed dialogue

on education in adversity

priorities, policy advice, and education program

alignment.

24

Resilience in Educa on Systems: 360° Rapid Assessment (RES-360°)The ERA Program’s RES-360° tool is a process to ascertain the risks, educa on communi-ty assets and poten ally relevant educa on programs in a country (resilience component 1 and 2). The applica on of the tool is de-signed for short (4-6 weeks) to medium (2-6 months) term diagnosis. It is intended to support in-country educa on dialogue and planning with more systema c and systemic resilience-based evidence. The RES-360° pro-vides flexible approaches to use informa on gathered from exis ng databases, interviews, focus groups and a locally developed survey (the RES-360° ques onnaire). This informa-

on is collected and analyzed locally and can respond, for example, to the following needs:

1. Planning in situa ons that require a quick response

2. Planning in situa ons that seek to empow-er stakeholders to iden fy the key risks they are facing and the available resources and coping strategies

3. Aligning current educa on services with local efforts in schools and communi es for more effec ve responses in adverse situa ons

4. Providing evidence to Ministries of Educa-on to foster their commitment to support

long-term educa on strategies oriented towards resilience, risk mi ga on and preven on

Implementa on of the RES-360° involves the collec on of data at the na onal and school levels and provides examples of how exis ng educa on policies and programs (for access, quality, equity and educa on management) can be aligned to achieve both their original educa on goals and foster the resilience of

students. Its ul mate goal is to contribute to na onal educa on program relevance and effec veness in contexts of adversity.

Resilience in Educa on Systems: School Assessment (RES-School)The ERA Program’s RES-School tool comple-ments the RES-360° ‘s na onal-level focus by developing in-depth understanding of relevant school-based interven ons to foster resilience among students, at the school-level (resilience component 3). It does so through the imple-menta on of a ques onnaire to assess how resilience can be fostered through the core school func ons (access and permanence, teaching and learning, school management, and school-community rela ons). The focus is on resilience-building opportuni es through school policies and management, classroom instruc on and parental/community par cipa-

on.

Implementa on of the RES-School is also in the form of a rapid assessment approach, but it emphasizes the interac ons of school actors to promote: (i) educa on purpose in adversity; (ii) student guidance—especially from teach-ers—on how to understand adversity; (iii) rel-evant teaching and learning prac ces, and; (iv) collabora ve parent-teacher efforts focused on learning, socioemo onal well-being and protec on of students.

Resilience in Educa on Systems: Research (RES-Research)The RES-Research is an educa on resilience research training module for higher educa-

on ins tu ons, local researchers and agen-cies working in fragile, conflict and violence

25

affected contexts. It is designed to support researchers, program designers and evalua-tors in fragile and conflict- affected situa ons (FCS) to harness the benefits of collec ng educa on resilience evidence in their own countries through mixed-method approaches (across resilience components 1 to 4). It is also a resource to support the design of resilience research training in higher educa on ins tu-

ons and other research centers in contexts of adversity.

The RES-Research guides the formula on of resilience-focused research ques ons, the defini on of relevant samples, and the selec-

on of appropriate data collec on and analy-sis tools, among others steps in the research design process. The RES-Research manual takes par cipants through the various steps required for a rigorous mixed methods re-search on resilience in educa onal se ngs. These steps provide prac cal and theore cal informa on regarding resilience and how to study it. It also stresses the prepara on of policy oriented studies rathen than studies for only academic audiences.

In general, all three ERA tools can provide a valuable contribu on to an informed discus-sion among educa on stakeholders on how educa on systems and schools can help stu-

dents to understand adversi es in their lives, how educa on can provide relevant meaning and purpose for students at-risk, and how to address the dual learning and socioemo onal needs of these students. While each ERA tool can be applied separately, they have been designed to work together. For example, while the RES-360° maps the priority risks and assets of educa on communi es to align the sup-port of educa on programs, the RES-School can help collect informa on on how students, parents, teachers and school administrators provide opportuni es to foster resilience in schools. The RES-Research provides a process to introduce local researchers and higher educa on ins tu ons to a resilience approach, so they themselves can sustain the on-go-ing evidence needs in their countries. This comprehensive approach to build on exis ng analy cal capaci es in countries affected by acute or chronic adversi es seeks to sustain the research, evidence building, advocacy, policy feedback and program design required in these contexts.

-

-

26

ERA and SABERThe ERA Program forms part of the wider Systems Approach for Be er Educa on Results (or SABER), albeit with broader methodologi-cal approaches to be er assess the challeng-es and relevance of educa on systems and service delivery in contexts of fragility, con-flict and violence. These are explained here. First, is the need to capture the complexity and heterogeneity of the drivers of fragility and conflict in each context (economic, po-li cal, ecological or social). To capture these demands, ERA works across mul ple levels of analysis – the student, the school, the commu-nity and the ins tu onal environment. Each of these levels, or combina on, may require separate case studies. Therefore ERA does not produce only one country report, but it sup-ports various case studies on educa on resil-ience that can be integrated into one country report.

Second, ERA’s policy goals are defined in each context through an induc ve analysis, which seeks to answer guiding ques ons within each of the four ERA components and their levers. These levers will guide a broader set of con-textualized evidence—supported by available resilience theory and prac ce—regarding locally experienced risks, community educa-

on assets, relevant educa on services and alignment of educa on systems to a resil-ience-based approach. The evidence collected by each lever contributes to an informed coun-try dialogue to align educa on systems to a re-silience approach (see Annex 2 for examples).

Third, fragile, conflict and violence-affected contexts present challenges of a more opera-

onal nature to conduct assessment and data collec on; these include ques ons of what is logis cally possible, ethics and principles of ”do no harm” when working with vulnerable popula ons. Also, there is a need to capture

mul ple percep ons of risks, assets and edu-ca onal relevance across actors and contexts within a country. Thus the ERA tools do not define ex-ante a set of risk, resilience and ed-uca on relevance indicators to impose across contexts.

Lastly, informa on collected by the Case Re-ports and RES-Research studies will inform the development of a Resilience in Educa on Sys-tems SABER rubric (SABER-RES, forthcoming as a fourth ERA tool) to support cross-coun-try learning on the four educa on resilience policy goals: (i) managing and minimizing risks, (ii) using and protec ng assets, (iii) fostering school-community support, and (iv) aligning educa on services to a resilience approach. This is not a global benchmarking of “fragili-ty” or “resilience”, but a lens through which to learn from the genera on of mul ple case studies in contexts of adversity, especially outside of the tradi onal studies in Western socie es (as the US and Europe). A SABER rubric will complement the present ERA tool set (RES-360°, RES-School and RES-Research) and guide policy makers to learn from global experiences.

In summary, ERA represents an interac ve model that seeks to guide the alignment of exis ng educa on policies, programs and school prac ce to other assets within edu-ca on communi es. In so doing the focus is not on crea ng parallel new programs, but on making exis ng educa on services and school prac ces more relevant to contexts of adver-sity through mechanisms that, we know from resilience theory, help learners and educa on systems respond and transform in the face of adversity. While ERA iden fies overarching policy goals, they are intended to guide the collec on of context-based evidence to inform a locally led dialogue on the specific policy di-rec ons to mi gate risks, use and protect edu-ca on community assets, foster relevant sup-

27

port in schools, and align educa on systems to a resilience approach. However, regardless of the varia ons in its genesis and reach ERA sits firmly within the SABER approach to under-stand educa on systems in their integrity and it can complement the applica on of other SA-BER domains in difficult contexts. ERA, and the other SABER domains (presented in figure 3 below) share the common purpose of working towards achieving posi ve learning outcomes for all learners.

28

The founda onal pillars of ERA 5

This paper concludes with further explana-on of the four founda onal pillars for the

development and applica on of ERA: a resil-ient worldview, building on local capaci es, mixed-methods for evidence building, and ed-uca on system alignment with interven ons that foster resilience.

Adop ng a resilience-based human, social and worldviewThe worldview that ERA proposes is that individuals, groups and communi es can recover, perform and even transform posi-

vely in the face of adversity. These agency, empowerment and transforma ve premises do not preclude or negate the challenges faced, nor the responsibility of society and its public ins tu ons to promote the welfare of its popula ons, especially the most disadvan-taged. Adop ng a resilience approach provides a means for educa on systems to understand both the risks and assets in educa on com-muni es in order to align their ins tu onal policies, programs and available resources to be er address the needs of at-risk learners.

Building on exis ng local intel-lectual leadership and research capacityUnderstanding educa on resilience in a spe-cific se ng requires taking into considera on the par cular cultural, community, poli cal and economic factors in that context that influence the learning environment of chil-dren, youth and adults. Therefore, mobilizing the local intellectual leadership and research

capacity of countries in adversity not only provides an insider advantage to data collec-

on, but also sustains research findings, their dissemina on and their input into in-country educa on policy dialogue. The importance of working with local actors and indigenous ca-paci es and skills is well recognized in interna-

onal development work. It is also especially relevant to resilience-based research, policies and ac on. This is because a cri cal focus of resilience is on local assets, opportuni es and actors that can support fostering it. Therefore, ERA makes it a priority to build on local analyt-ical and policy advice capaci es, at whatever level they may exist in FCS.

Mixed-methods for more com-prehensive and contextualized educa on resilience evidence A key premise of resilience research is the need to understand resilience as a broader process that reflects not only on individuals but also their wider social dynamics, their interac ons within it and the implica ons for State and social services. To effec vely capture this broader complexity ERA relies on the col-lec on of mixed-method data. A well designed and well implemented mixed-method ap-proach offers the advantages of combining the strengths of qualita ve and quan ta ve data approaches while offse ng their associated limita ons, thereby providing more compre-hensive and contextualized evidence. Notably, qualita ve elements can help to understand the context and se ng where the research takes place; probe into the complexity of fac-tors, processes and inter-rela ons; and, give voice to the par cipants. Quan ta ve compo-nents can allow for larger generalizable sam-ples and iden fying, isola ng and correla ng factors and determinants related to a par cu-lar phenomenon.12

12 See for example, Creswell and Clark (2006); Cresswell (2005).

29

Ownership and alignment of resilience approaches by edu-ca on systemsFor educa on systems to align their exis ng educa on goals, programs and services to foster resilience, they first should be willing to adopt a resilience approach and own its impli-ca ons. This willingness may be characterized by the following three core commitments, or premises:

THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM EX-PECTS ALL STUDENTS TO SUCCEED IN SPITE OF ADVERSITY

• Even in contexts of adversity, educa on systems must support the quality of stu-dent learning, teaching and the needs of educa on ins tu ons. This is achieved by recognizing and suppor ng the inherent capabili es of educa on actors.

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM SEEKS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETAL GOALS THROUGH THE EDUCATION SERVICES DELIVERED

• In contexts of adversity (protracted and chronic crises, such as conflict and vi-olence), educa on systems need to be sensi ve to community and social needs and to place an explicit value on the ability and efforts of the system to mi gate risks

and promote social cohesion and equitable opportuni es for all.

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM STRENGTHENS ITS EVIDENCE BASE THROUGH ASSESSMENTS AND RESEARCH

• Educa on systems view evidence on educa on resilience provides as useful informa on to inform planning, design, availability, accessibility and relevance of educa onal services in contexts of adver-sity. Educa onal research and evalua on also includes a focus on social and ins tu-

onal transforma ons, especially in highly vulnerable areas and in support of margin-alized popula ons.

In conclusion, an educa on resilience ap-proach is sustained by a worldview that posi-

ve change is possible; that different methods are needed to understand the complexity of recovery, performance and posi ve trans-forma on in the face of adversity; and that any posi ve change must be led from within. ERA does not replace the strategic planning processes of educa on sectors, nor does it propose designing and implemen ng parallel “projects” for educa on resilience. Rather, the emphasis is to iden fy local opportuni es and align them with exis ng educa onal services in order to make them more relevant to learn-ers in difficult contexts.

30

ConclusionIn today’s constantly changing contexts of risks and uncertain es there is both a clear ra onale and great interest from educa on systems to understand and build the resil-ience of students, teachers and schools. Yet interven ons to promote resilience cannot be defined globally; they require localized, con-textualized and culturally situated approaches if they are to meaningfully define adversity, reveal educa on community assets and offer effec ve policy op ons and interven ons for each context. Although educa on resilience is a complex concept, the ERA Program helps to li the lid on this by proposing principles and processes that can guide educa on systems to foster protec on, recovery and performance opportuni es for learners and their commu-ni es in spite of adversity. (See Annex 1 for some resilience in educa on systems criteria, Annex 2 for country examples of an educa on resilience alignment process, and Annex 3 for the ini al learning from four country case studies where the ERA framework and/or tools were piloted.)

ERA also plays an important role in bridging educa on systems’ response to crisis within their longer-term development and planning ac vi es. In this way, while ERA supports educa on ins tu ons to develop longer-term contextualized responses to adversity, it also lends itself to immediate applicability during a crisis. Over the longer term, ERA’s support to iden fy risks and the resources and educa on strategies to address them can contribute to preparedness and preven on ac vi es for the educa on sector. Crea ng a smoother bridge between emergency and longer-term respons-es is essen al to sustain any early gains and educa on innova ons by ins tu onalizing them within educa on systems over me.

Finally, ERA tools can also cons tute a “sen -

nel” (or signals) of peaks in fragility and ad-versity that may spur proac ve interven ons. By having a be er understanding of risks and assets in educa on communi es today and con nueing to monitor them over me, educa on systems can be er prepare their response to latent or pervasive risks. This is all the more per nent given the protracted and complex nature of many crises today. To do so, ERA provides a framework for cross-sector and cross-agency coordina on focused on foster-ing local capaci es for sustainable in-country response and mi ga on of crisis—supported by interna onal partners.

Of course interna onal coopera on has much to contribute to a resilience approach in frag-ile, conflict and violence-affected countries and situa ons, including resources, knowledge and convening opportuni es for na onal and interna onal dialogue. ERA is in line with the broad goals of interna onal coopera on for fragile, conflict and violence-affected situa-

ons. Of note here is “The New Deal”, devel-oped in Busan, Korea, to support the achieve-ment of the Millennium Development Goals in such contexts. The New Deal priori zes finding resilience pathways away from the sources of violence and conflict, by crea ng trus ng rela onships and focusing on results across countries and providing aid in FCS. The Educa-

on Resilience Approaches Program (ERA) is a highly appropriate contribu on to this end.

31

Annex 1: Resilience in educa on system criteriaThe ERA Program is focused on providing evidence-based criteria on how best to build on exis ng educa on services and be er align them within a resilience approach that addresses the learning, socioemo on-al well-being and protec on of students in contexts of adversity. This annex presents a sample of such general criteria to guide a re-silience-based alignment of educa on access, quality and management strategies. These criteria are extracted from global evidence and the work of agencies and networks opera ng in fragile, conflict and violence-affected situ-a ons (FCS). As used here, “criteria” should not imply a global standard or rule, but rather some tangible guidance through which an informed dialogue on educa on systems rel-evance to situa ons of adversity can be held, and decisions made. Moreover, as presented earlier, the founda on of ERA and its tools rests on contextualized evidence and relevant meaning by local actors in each situa on. While the criteria is listed separately, it should be noted that addressing challenges related to access, quality and management o en requires an integrated approach that touches upon good prac ce components related to more than one of the criteria.

ACCESS STRATEGIES136 Ensuring universal access to educa on and re-moving barriers for at-risk children and youth to access learning spaces is a requirement for successful educa on resilience interven ons.

In the first instance, it can support the protec-on of these students by physically removing

them from sources of adversity on the streets. It is also a pre-requisite if students are to benefit from resilience interven ons that then support their cogni ve skills and socioemo-

onal well-being within a nurturing peer envi-ronment. The equitable access that removes barriers for tradi onally excluded groups supports system level educa on resilience by sending a clear message from the na onal level that all students are valued and included. Here, ERA evidence points to available criteria associated with promo ng universal access at the na onal level and with adop ng equitable interven ons to reduce par cular dispari es in educa on access.

Educa on policies stress that the system is to include all students. As-sociated plans make adequate resources available to realize this across not only primary, but also secondary and higher educa on levels to avoid drop out in tran-si onal phases.

Enough schools and class-rooms are constructed to host students and avoid lack of enrollment or drop out owing to overcrowding. Schools have ade-quate complementary infrastructure such as water and sanita on facili es to support the a endance of female students.

An adequate number of teachers have been trained to support the provision of educa on deliv-ery. Educa on policies include accurate projec ons of student popula on to pro-vide enough me to adjust teacher supply to meet changing needs.

13 The INEE Minimum Standards handbook defines access as “an opportunity to enrol in, a end and complete a formal or non-formal educa on programme. When access is unrestricted, it means that there are no prac cal, financial, physical, security-related, structural, ins tu onal or socio-cultural obstacles to prevent learners from par cipa ng in and comple ng an educa on programme”.

32

Schools are well located to mit-igate for low a endance or drop out due to unsafe access routes or inappropriate travel distances (a par cular barrier for girls and young women). In cases where schools are located at a distance, transpor-ta on is provided to support the safe and

mely passage of students.

7

Educa on policies stress equity principles to promote access among mar-ginalized groups that could include ex-child combatants, over-age learners, children from indigenous communi es, children liv-ing on the street, and children with special needs, among others based on the par cu-lar social dynamics in each context.

The educa on system addresses barriers that may be posed by direct and indirect school costs, including opportunity costs of schooling, notably regarding child labor and foregone family incomes associated with a ending school. This may include strategies to provide free uniforms, transporta on and learning ma-terials for students who may otherwise be financially excluded, and the use of flexible and alternate school schedules to avoid immediate drop outs and low a endance. This is complemented by na onal policies and objec ves, for example to diminish and eliminate the occurrence of child labor over the medium and longer term.

Interven ons

to support physical access to educa on for marginalized groups exist at the school level. Examples include the removal of administra ve and bureaucra c barriers to access educa on / paperwork re-quirements for displaced persons, or the adop ng of flexible educa on provision modali es such as distance or radio-based schooling for seasonally migra ng pasto-ralist communi es, the provision of trans-porta on for rural children to access far away schools, or state security presence to protect school campuses in otherwise unsafe to access areas. Finding alterna ve disciplinary prac ces to expelling students as first response to behavioral and oth-er infrac ons are also in place to avoid processes that con nue to exclude some students even when educa on services are available.

Ex-panding access at the primary level is not be at the expense of secondary and higher educa on availability. A diverse represen-ta on of students (not only from tradi-

onally elite groups) should be supported to con nue educa on into secondary and higher levels. This can be done through scholarships and strategies such as the provision of satellite campuses for higher educa on in less accessible communi es or distance learning.

Educa on resilience interven ons are pre-mised on the need for a quality learning ex-perience. Quality educa on requires students benefit from responsive and relevant learning

14 The INEE Minimum Standards handbook defines quality educa on as “affordable, accessible, gender-sensi ve and re-sponds to diversity. It includes 1) a safe and inclusive learner friendly environment; 2) competent and well-trained teachers who are knowledgeable in the subject ma er and pedagogy; 3) an appropriate context-specific curriculum that is comprehensible and culturally, linguis cally and socially relevant for the learners; 4) adequate and relevant materials for teaching and learning; 5) par cipatory methods of instruc on and learning processes that respect the dignity of the learner; 6) appropriate class sizes and teacher-student ra os; and 7) an emphasis on recrea on, play, sport and crea ve ac vi es in addi on to areas such as literacy, numeracy and life skills” (2010, 122).

33

opportuni es that allow them to develop those aspects of human resilience that ma er most. While quality educa on in its broadest form also encompasses certain aspects (and thus strategies) concerned with accessibili-ty, the focus here is on those so intangible components that define the experience of at-risk children and youth once they are in the classroom, which can promote resilience processes.

Curriculum and teacher training includes elements of peace-building, rec-oncilia on, care and developing empathic rela onships (valuing and respec ng diver-sity, conflict resolu on, etc.).

Teaching meth-ods are learner-centered and support the transfer of non-cogni ve or socioemo-

onal skills (especially relevant life skills) as well as cogni ve ones, such as peer-to-peer learning, community projects, stu-dent-led commi ees to support classroom management, etc.

Programs of formal and non-formal learning strategies that exist currently or used to exist can be framed and adapted with resilience approaches to be er pro-mote the cogni ve strengths and socio-emo onal needs of students and teachers.

This may include the provision of classroom management support or the strengthening of school administra ons to be er promote peaceful and socially cohesive values and to care for students, allowing them to construct meaning and purpose within their educa onal experi-ence.

In contexts of acute, chronic and compounded risks, psychoso-cial services are needed for students and teachers. Psychosocial support may be provided through the school itself (where school counselors are available) or through the community, NGO or higher educa on ins tu on service programs.

Schools that provide physically and emo onally safe spaces contribute to both learning and socioemo onal well-being of all students. This may include policies and ac vi es to monitor in-school behavior and rela ons, to eliminate corporal punishment and abusive behavior by teachers (and con-comitant training for teachers on struc-tured and posi ve classroom management approaches), and in making schools zones free of violence, conflict, guns, drugs, etc.

Understand-ing that the basic needs of teachers are founda onal to resilience. This includes accountable, transparent and suppor ve recruitment processes, incen ves, and on-

me payment.

Teacher prepara on and devel-opment systems and ins tu ons address teaching and learning in contexts of ad-versity, including the role of teachers and educa on communi es (students, parents, community members) to support both learning and socioemo onal well-being of students.

Educa on systems and schools provide incen ves to encourage teachers to inno-vate in their pedagogical strategies leading

34

to learning outcomes and responding to the psychosocial needs of at-risk students. This may include the integra on of stu-dent-centered methods; the use of culture, music and art-inspired ac vi es; combin-ing extracurricular ac vi es with academic remedial support, etc.

The psychosocial needs of teachers (e.g., self-esteem, cop-ing with trauma or other vulnerabili es) are founda onal to them being able to support, in turn, students, families and communi es.

GOVERNANCE AND EDUCATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIESSuccessful access and quality interven ons require good management strategies and effec ve governance for their implementa on. Here resilience evidence points to elements of educa on system planning and strategic direc on for relevant educa on services in ad-versity prone contexts. At the level of schools, evidence points to par cipatory approaches (school staff, parents and community) as the primary criteria for a resilience approach to school management. An important man-agement element to emphasize is effec ve monitoring and evalua on of resilience-based interven ons that are implemented.

Educa on systems ensure that strategic plans (comprising goals, objec-

ves and indicators) incorporate an un-derstanding of adversity and its impact on students (such as cogni ve impairment) as well as the local assets and opportuni es to be supported by the educa on system

to foster school success and the well-being of students.

Systems, incen ves and opportuni es for innova on, flexibility and constant learning builds resilience in educa onal systems. Organiza onal strategies that support technology-based connec vity, commit-ment and responsibility are useful for any organiza on, but especially so for those in situa ons of adversity, conflict, violence. Connec vity also involves forging external linkages between agencies, across sectors and with clients and beneficiaries.

On- me strategies and adequate resources to meet the basic material needs of popula ons in emergencies and to mi gate the impacts of conflict are in place. Preven on plans and response readiness to manage and reduce future risks have been developed.

Opportuni es are provided for engagement between stu-dents, teachers, parents and community to make educa onal decisions and ensure a suppor ve and safe environment for children and youth that is conducive to learning and staying in school.

Principals are the primary leaders in a school resilience approach that promotes understanding of the risks students face and iden fies the assets that each member of the educa on community contributes (students, parents, teachers and other community members). Head teachers also promote relevant use of the curriculum, teaching methods and

35

school management that supports aca-demic, cogni ve and non-cogni ve (socio-emo onal) skills, and encourage a commu-nity approach (especially parent-teacher interac ons).

To sustain the par cipa on of parents and other commu-nity members in school management and decision-making, policies and structures are put in place by Ministries of Educa on. This formal educa on system guidance includes parental par cipa on in school boards, prepara on of school plans and public financial support. The emphasis is not on administra ve func ons but rath-er on shared accountability for student learning, socioemo onal well-being and protec on.

Equitable access opportuni es for all is tracked, especially access for groups living in conflict or subject to discrimina-

on or exclusion (on the basis of gender, ethnicity, na onality, religion, sexual orien-ta on, poli cal affilia on, poverty, etc.).

Safety is monitored including safety in schools and beyond the school fence perimeters (e.g., routes to and from school), as well as any support needed is received from the security and jus ce sectors. Drop out rates and absen-teeism owing to fear of going to school is also monitored so they can eventually be mi gated.

Monitor-ing indicators have been developed include

for monitoring of posi ve rela ons among parents, other community members and school staff. Monitoring data on risks and educa on community interac ons can include tracking of the opportuni es provided to students to make meaning of adversi es, to formulate meaningful goals and plans for the future, and to develop new relevant skills.

36

Annex 2: Examples of resilience alignment The following tables provide some concrete examples in hypothe cal contexts of adver-sity of the ways educa on systems may align themselves to a resilience approach. These hypothe cal samples have been determined by global criteria and lessons learned. In prac ce, the educa on resilience alignment op ons should be considered based on the ERA evidence collected in each country and an informed in-country dialogue on educa on in contexts of adversi es.

The alignment process starts by recognizing the key objec ves in exis ng strategic plans or those to be developed (interim strategies, guiding goals in educa on in emergencies, etc.). Secondly, it compares the view of risks as expressed by central educa on system actors (e.g., Ministries of Educa on) with that of local educa on communi es (students, parents, teachers, and school administrators). Thirdly, it makes explicit the assets available to foster resilience, both in terms of relevant educa on programs and local assets iden -fied in educa on communi es. Lastly, the ERA process invites a dialogue among stakeholders to iden fy how exis ng programs or educa-

on system ac vi es can be be er aligned to address the priori zed risks (by both local and na onal actors) making use of the local edu-ca on community assets iden fied through the ERA qualita ve and quan ta ve evidence collec on in the country. 8

Simply put, the resilience-based proposal is that exis ng educa on programs (or those to

be developed), when aligned to the strengths of educa on communi es exposed to adversi-

es, are founda onal to be er address adver-si es and risks priori zed by local and na onal educa on stakeholders.15

 

15 A wealth of global resources exist that can complement the local resilience evidence to collected in each context. These include, but are not limited to, the World Bank’s SABER policy goals and levers, the INEE Minimum Standards for Edu-ca on and the UNESCO-IIEP Guidebook for Planning Educa on in Emergencies and Reconstruc on. Using these resources in conjunc on with the ERA assessments, educa on actors can be er align ac vi es, interven ons and policies to the specific needs of learners in contexts of adversity. For addi onal resources in this regard, see the references cited in the ERA Program’s RES-Research Manual.

37

1) E

xam

ples

of E

duca

on

Str

ateg

ies A

ligne

d to

a R

esili

ence

App

roac

h-

Expand universal access to educaon beyond the primary cycle (increase en-rollment rates at secondary level from 65% to 95% over the three year plan-

ning cycle).

Viol

ent a

nd

crim

inal

you

th g

angs

cha

lleng

e st

ate

auth

ority

and

rule

of l

aw

such

that

you

th v

iole

nce

is cl

assifi

ed a

s an

epid

emic

at t

he

naon

al le

vel.

is an

impo

rt-

ant a

nd in

crea

sing

sour

ce o

f em

ploy

men

t and

inco

me

for

youn

g pe

ople

who

are

dro

p-pi

ng o

ut fr

om g

rade

s 7-1

2.

ar

e oc

curr

ing

both

with

in a

nd

outs

ide

educ

aon

ins

tuon

s an

d in

par

cula

r on

acce

ss

rout

es to

and

from

scho

ols.

Th

ey in

clud

e ki

dnap

ping

s and

de

man

ds fo

r pay

men

t of ‘

war

ta

xes’

resu

lng

in a

wid

espr

ead

Incr

ease

aen

-da

nce

rate

s for

bas

ic e

duca

on

cycl

e an

d in

crea

se th

e nu

mbe

r of

stud

ents

con

nuin

g ed

uca-

on to

the

seco

ndar

y le

vel.

Tech

nica

l and

fina

ncia

l sup

port

is

bein

g pr

ovid

ed to

cen

tral

-ize

d na

onal

teac

her t

rain

ing

ins

tuon

in th

e ca

pita

l whi

ch

desig

ns a

nd im

plem

ents

all

pre-

and

in-s

ervi

ce te

ache

r tr

aini

ng.

Poli

cian

s are

di

scus

sing

the

intr

oduc

on o

f a

naon

al in

ter-s

ecto

ral c

rime

prev

enon

stra

tegy

.

Com

mun

ity In

stu

ons S

uppo

rt

Scho

ol M

anag

emen

t: En

cour

age

UN

ag

enci

es, N

GOs,

relig

ious

gro

ups

and

othe

r civ

il so

ciet

y or

gani

zaon

s to

stre

ngth

en th

e ca

paci

ty o

f the

ex

isng

scho

ol c

omm

iee

s to

trai

n an

d m

onito

r edu

caon

pro

visio

n at

th

e sc

hool

leve

l in

both

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s (in

clud

ing

the

new

flex

ible

edu

caon

pro

gram

s).

Scho

ol c

omm

iee

s can

then

hel

p en

sure

that

rele

vant

and

up-

to-d

ate

info

rma

on o

n co

mm

unity

per

cep-

ons o

f int

erve

non

s is c

olle

cted

.

Invo

lve

scho

ols i

n w

ider

effo

rts t

o pr

omot

e no

n-vi

olen

ce th

roug

h eff

ecve

use

of

spac

e an

d de

sign

by c

ondu

cng

CP

TED

trai

ning

s at t

he c

omm

unity

le

vel.

Sch

ools

prov

ided

with

a sm

all

budg

et to

impr

ove

the

scho

ol

Flex

ible

Sec

onda

ry E

duca

on P

ro-

gram

s in

Viol

ence

Affe

cted

Nei

gh-

borh

oods

:The

edu

caon

syst

em ta

r-ge

ts n

eigh

borh

oods

pro

ne to

gan

g vi

olen

ce a

s prim

ary

sites

for fl

exib

le

seco

ndar

y ed

uca

on p

rogr

ams a

nd

rem

edia

l sup

port

for s

tude

nts a

t ba

sic e

duca

on le

vels.

Enc

oura

ge te

ache

r tra

inin

g in

stu

ons t

o m

anda

te m

ore

nonv

i-ol

ent c

lass

room

man

agem

ent s

kills

an

d co

nflic

t res

olu

on tr

aini

ng in

pr

e- a

nd in

-ser

vice

trai

ning

cur

ric-

ula.

Joel

Rey

es38

Expand universal access to educaon beyond the primary cycle (increase enrollment rates at secondary level from 65% to 95% over the three year planning cycle).

perc

epon

that

bei

ng o

utsid

e of

the

imm

edia

te h

ome

and

scho

ol c

ampu

s is d

ange

rous

.

: Stu

dent

s rep

ort

high

leve

ls of

cor

pora

l pun

ish-

men

t bei

ng u

sed

at th

e sc

hool

le

vel.

Puni

ve a

ppro

ache

s to

trua

ncy

and

othe

r sch

ool b

ased

m

isdem

eano

rs in

clud

e su

spen

-sio

n fr

om c

lass

es a

nd e

xclu

sion

from

the

scho

ol c

ampu

s.

Ther

e ar

e w

ell-

esta

b-lis

hed

scho

ol-b

ased

man

age-

men

t fun

con

s tha

t ope

rate

th

roug

h th

e pa

rci

paon

of

pare

nts a

nd c

omm

uni

es.

Resp

ecte

d re

li-gi

ous i

nstu

ons a

nd N

GOs

con

nue

to offe

r ext

racu

rric

u-la

r ac

vies

(inc

ludi

ng d

ance

, sp

orts

and

art

s) in

som

e of

the

mos

t vio

lenc

e pr

one

area

s.

Seve

ral a

lso w

ork

on p

rovi

ding

in

form

aon

on

per

nent

soci

al

issue

s suc

h as

sexu

al re

pro-

duc

ve h

ealth

and

dom

esc

viol

ence

.

Desp

ite p

robl

ems o

f lat

ent

viol

ence

on

scho

ol c

ampu

ses,

st

uden

ts re

port

that

acc

ess

to e

duca

on a

nd th

e ph

ysic

al

fact

of b

eing

in sc

hool

mak

es it

am

ong

the

safe

st p

lace

to b

e in

th

eir c

omm

unity

.

Scho

ols i

mpl

emen

t a

naon

al d

isast

er ri

sk re

duc-

on st

rate

gy w

hich

is a

ppre

ci-

ated

by

stud

ents

and

com

mu-

nies

.

clim

ate

(ado

png

prin

cipl

es o

f cr

ime

prev

enon

thro

ugh

envi

ron-

men

tal d

esig

n).

Invo

lve

the

scho

ol-b

ased

man

-ag

emen

t com

mi

ees i

n de

signi

ng

stra

tegi

es to

supp

ort t

each

ers t

o us

e no

nvio

lent

disc

iplin

ary

thro

ugh

acon

s suc

h as

par

enta

l cla

ssro

om

mon

itors

. Whe

re re

sour

ces a

llow

tr

ain

pare

nts o

n ch

ild p

rote

con

pr

inci

ples

and

repo

rng

stan

dard

s (t

here

by in

trod

ucin

g sc

hool

/ co

mm

unity

bas

ed c

apac

ity d

evel

op-

men

t)

Wor

k w

ith th

e lo

cal m

u-ni

cipa

lies

to a

ssig

n a

com

mun

ity

base

d po

licin

g te

am to

eac

h sc

hool

to

bui

ld p

osi

ve ra

ppor

t bet

wee

n sc

hool

s and

stat

e se

curit

y. DR

R

Intr

oduc

e lif

e sk

ills m

essa

ges

rega

rdin

g dr

ugs,

vio

lenc

e an

d cr

imi-

nal r

isk a

void

ance

and

man

agem

ent

(whe

reby

com

mun

ity p

riori

es a

re

dete

rmin

ed b

y sc

hool

com

mi

ees,

te

ache

rs a

nd st

uden

ts) t

o su

pple

-m

ent t

he e

xis

ng sc

hool

leve

l

Min

istry

of

Educ

aon

may

con

sider

pol

icie

s ag

ains

t phy

sical

pun

ishm

ent i

n sc

hool

s and

supp

ort m

ore

rest

or-

ave

disc

iplin

e st

rate

gies

.

Coor

dina

te w

ith th

e M

in-

istry

of I

nter

ior t

o in

crea

se p

res-

ence

of s

tate

secu

rity

on e

spec

ially

vu

lner

able

urb

an sc

hool

acc

ess

rout

es. C

oord

inat

e w

ith th

e M

inist

ry

of T

rans

port

aon

to su

bsid

ize o

r pr

ovid

e fr

ee tr

ansp

orta

on in

rura

l ar

eas w

here

dist

ance

s are

long

er

but r

emai

n un

safe

, and

to e

stab

lish

beer

ligh

ng o

n m

ain

scho

ol a

c-ce

ss th

orou

ghfa

res.

Incl

ude

pare

nts

and

com

mun

ies

in th

e im

plem

en-

taon

of t

his s

trat

egy.

Cons

ider

intr

oduc

ing

a “s

choo

ls as

sa

fe sp

aces

” ca

mpa

ign

to m

obili

ze

civi

l soc

iety

at n

aon

al a

nd g

rass

-ro

ots l

evel

to c

ondu

ct a

dvoc

acy

and

awar

enes

s cam

paig

ns o

n th

e ne

ed

for v

iole

nce-

free

scho

ols.

Lin

k th

is to

the

scho

ol b

ased

CPT

ED p

rinci

-pl

es.

39

Expand universal access to educaon beyond the primary cycle (increase enrollment rates at secondary level from 65% to 95% over the three year planning cycle).

to su

pple

men

t the

exi

sng

scho

ol

leve

l disa

ster

risk

redu

con

mes

sag-

es a

t the

scho

ol le

vel.

Enga

ge e

xper

-se

from

loca

l civ

il so

ciet

y gr

oups

to

impl

emen

t the

se le

sson

s and

en

cour

age

the

loca

l app

lica

on su

ch

that

com

mun

ies

are

con

sulte

d to

he

lp d

eter

min

e th

e co

nten

t of t

hese

m

essa

ges a

s per

loca

l rel

evan

ce.

40

2) E

xam

ples

of E

duca

on

Str

ateg

ies A

ligne

d to

a R

esili

ence

App

roac

h Establish a new curriculum for the

new naon to improve primary educaon cycle learning outcomes and support the vision of an inclusive naon.

In

part

of t

he c

ount

ry m

ost a

ffect

-ed

by

the

civi

l war

edu

caon

se

rvic

es c

ould

not

be

deliv

ered

by

the

Stat

e. C

onse

quen

tly p

ar-

alle

l edu

caon

syst

ems h

ave

been

in o

pera

on.

The

Min

istry

is to

cre

ate

a un

ified

ed

uca

on sy

stem

but

ther

e is

conc

ern

abou

t com

mun

ity

acce

ptan

ce o

f cha

nge

give

n er

oded

trus

t due

to th

e ci

vil

war

.

High

leve

ls of

pa

rent

al il

liter

acy

mea

n ac

a-de

mic

supp

ort s

truc

ture

s for

st

uden

ts o

utsid

e th

e cl

assr

oom

ar

e w

eak.

The

co

untr

y is

curr

ently

wor

king

w

ith in

tern

aon

al d

onor

s to

revi

ew re

gion

al c

urric

ulum

m

odel

s and

refo

rm p

roce

sses

th

at c

ould

be

adap

ted

to th

e co

untr

y co

ntex

t.

The

coun

try

is in

the

proc

ess o

f dra

ing

a ne

w

naon

al c

hild

law

. Thi

s law

st

ress

es th

e im

port

ance

of

child

par

cipa

on in

serv

ice

deliv

ery.

Man

y ch

ildre

n a

end

educ

aon

pro

vide

d by

relig

ious

in

stu

ons,

and

enr

ollm

ent i

n

Coor

dina

on w

ith R

elig

ious

Lea

ders

to

Pro

mot

e Ed

uca

on: C

ondu

ct

com

mun

ity le

vel o

utre

ach

and

sens

iza

on w

ith k

ey p

erso

ns a

nd

“gat

ekee

pers

” to

pro

mot

e th

e im

port

ance

of a

cces

s to

educ

aon

an

d its

alig

nmen

t with

cul

tura

l and

re

ligio

us v

alue

s in

orde

r to

incr

ease

co

mm

unity

acc

epta

nce.

In c

omm

uni

es w

here

sc

hool

faci

lies

are

inad

equa

te, t

ake

adva

ntag

e of

the

stro

ng in

tern

aon

-al

com

mun

ity p

rese

nce

and

wor

k w

ith re

leva

nt p

artn

ers t

o es

tabl

ish

child

frie

ndly

spac

es—

in th

e sp

irit o

f th

e na

onal

chi

ld la

w—

that

incl

ude

basic

edu

caon

al m

ater

ials.

The

se

Seek

coo

rdin

aon

an

d co

llabo

raon

with

faith

-bas

ed

orga

niza

ons p

rovi

ding

edu

caon

se

rvic

es in

ord

er to

incl

ude

com

-po

nent

s of n

umer

acy

and

enric

hed

liter

acy

in th

e cu

rric

ula,

incl

udin

g w

ithin

thei

r rel

igio

n co

urse

s. S

uch

an a

llian

ce c

an a

lso h

elp

stre

ngth

en

the

trus

t of s

ome

com

mun

ies

in

the

publ

ic e

duca

on sy

stem

.

En-

cour

age

and

enga

ge lo

cal a

nd in

ter-

naon

al N

GOs p

rese

nt in

com

mun

i-es

to su

ppor

t the

dev

elop

men

t of

the

new

cur

ricul

a by

shar

ing

thei

r le

sson

s lea

rned

with

the

deve

lop-

men

t com

mi

ees.

Whe

re d

onor

fu

ndin

g pe

rmits

, prio

rize

the

prov

i-sio

n of

lear

ning

mat

eria

ls es

peci

ally

in

und

erse

rved

are

as.

41

Establish a new curriculum for the new naon to improve primary educaon cycle learning outcomes and support the vision of an inclusive

naon.

In fo

cus g

roup

s par

ents

id

enfie

d lo

w le

vels

of tr

ust i

n th

e pu

blic

syst

em w

hich

clos

ed e

arly

on

in th

e w

ar

whe

n m

any

teac

hers

fled

.

Man

y st

uden

ts (e

spe-

cial

ly th

ose

lear

ners

who

may

ha

ve sp

ent l

ong

perio

ds o

ut o

f sc

hool

dur

ing

the

wor

st p

eri-

ods o

f the

war

) com

plai

n ab

out

bein

g ex

pelle

d fr

om sc

hool

or

not b

eing

allo

wed

acc

ess f

or

a va

riety

of r

easo

ns in

clud

ing

lack

of u

nifo

rm, l

ack

of sc

hool

m

ater

ials

and

beha

vior

al p

rob-

lem

s.

thes

e sc

hool

s is a

t hig

her l

evel

s th

an fo

r pub

lic sc

hool

s.

Stro

ng c

omm

unity

-bas

ed st

ruc-

ture

s inc

ludi

ng so

me

com

mun

i-ty

edu

caon

com

mi

ees e

xist

, es

peci

ally

in a

reas

whe

re S

tate

ed

uca

on se

rvic

es w

ere

not

deliv

ered

dur

ing

the

civi

l war

.

Edu

ca-

on c

omm

uni

es c

omm

ent o

n st

rong

inte

rna

onal

com

-m

unity

ass

istan

ce (f

ood

aid,

no

n-fo

rmal

edu

caon

serv

ices

, m

icro

-gra

nt sc

hem

es fo

r wom

-en

). Se

cond

ary

fund

ing

tren

ds

data

sugg

ests

that

the

curr

ent

perio

d (t

his y

ear a

nd n

ext)

is

likel

y to

con

stu

te a

pea

k in

te

rms o

f don

or fu

nds r

ecei

ved

in th

e ed

uca

on se

ctor

.

CFS

shou

ld b

e es

tabl

ished

to c

over

th

e in

terim

per

iod

durin

g w

hich

sc

hool

con

stru

con

is e

xpan

ded

and

unifi

ed w

ithin

scho

ol c

onst

ruc

on

stan

dard

s tha

t are

und

er d

evel

op-

men

t. En

sure

com

mun

ity in

volv

e-m

ent i

n th

e co

nstr

ucon

(inc

ludi

ng

any

labo

r nee

ded

to se

t up

and

then

ru

n) th

ese

CFS.

To a

ddre

ss th

e is-

sues

of l

itera

cy in

com

mun

ies

mos

t aff

ecte

d by

the

civi

l war

, dev

elop

lit-

erac

y pr

ogra

ms f

or p

aren

ts a

ache

d to

new

pub

lic sc

hool

s. F

aith

-bas

ed

and

inte

rna

onal

org

aniza

ons c

an

supp

ort t

he p

rovi

sion

of th

ese

ser-

vice

s. In

add

ion

to li

tera

cy c

ours

es,

pare

ntal

scho

ols c

an a

lso a

ddre

ss

issue

s rel

ated

to th

eir c

hild

rens

’ le

arni

ng, s

ocio

emo

onal

wel

l-bei

ng

and

prot

econ

from

risk

s.

Part

ner w

ith c

hild

pro

tec

on

orga

niza

ons w

orki

ng o

n th

e ch

ild

law

dra

to id

enfy

rele

vant

chi

ld

par

cipa

on st

rate

gies

that

can

also

be

alig

ned

to th

e ne

w c

urric

ulum

an

d te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng st

rate

gies

be

ing

deve

lope

d.

Joel

Rey

es42

Reform process for a unified language of in-strucon policy (system is shiing from a mul-lingual system to English).

The

re is

su

spic

ion

and

hos

lity

with

in

com

mun

ies

that

rem

aine

d du

ring

the

confl

ict t

owar

ds

thos

e th

at w

ere

disp

lace

d an

d ar

e re

turn

ing.

Viol

ence

pe

rsist

s in

bord

er a

reas

and

th

ere

are

very

low

leve

ls of

ed-

uca

on in

frast

ruct

ure

outs

ide

the

capi

tal.

Form

er

refu

gees

are

retu

rnin

g w

ith th

e on

set o

f a p

eace

ful t

rans

ion

. M

any fle

d to

a n

eigh

borin

g co

untr

y bu

t wer

e ed

ucat

ed

in F

renc

h an

d ca

nnot

pur

sue

emer

ging

edu

caon

opp

ortu

ni-

es offe

red

in E

nglis

h. T

his h

as

crea

ted

a se

nse

of is

ola

on a

nd

diffe

renc

e.

Cre

aon

of a

unifie

d na

onal

cur

ricul

um is

und

er-

way

beg

inni

ng a

t the

prim

ary

educ

aon

leve

l.

The

only

hi

gher

edu

caon

ins

tuon

in

the

capi

tal i

s dev

elop

ing

a te

ache

r tra

inin

g pr

ogra

m a

nd

the

gove

rnm

ent i

s wor

king

w

ith th

e hi

gher

edu

caon

in

stu

on to

alig

n th

e co

urse

an

d its

visi

on fo

r pre

-ser

vice

te

ache

r req

uire

men

ts.

Retu

rnee

s hav

e be

en o

vera

ll w

ell e

duca

ted

thou

gh th

e la

ngua

ge o

f ins

truc

on a

nd

peda

gogi

cal a

ppro

ache

s use

d diffe

red

from

the

curr

ent

Cond

uct c

omm

uni-

ty-b

ased

teac

her r

ecru

itmen

t and

ou

trea

ch c

ampa

igns

in c

omm

uni-

es w

here

sign

ifica

nt n

umbe

rs o

f re

turn

ees l

ive

in o

rder

to e

ncou

rage

th

eir a

cve

par

cipa

on a

nd re

pre-

sent

aon

in th

e ed

uca

on sy

stem

.

Ens

ure

that

any

com

mun

ity-b

ased

supp

ort

for r

etur

nees

is e

xten

ded

to th

e ho

st p

opul

aon

s as w

ell (

in o

rder

to

diff

use

any

inte

rgro

up te

nsio

ns).

Stre

ss th

e ov

erar

chin

g na

onal

go

als o

f inc

lusio

n an

d le

arni

ng fo

r al

l at t

he c

omm

unity

leve

l so

that

te

nsio

ns re

gard

ing

pref

eren

al

trea

tmen

t or d

iscrim

ina

on a

gain

st

cert

ain

grou

ps a

re d

iffus

ed a

t the

sc

hool

leve

l.

Prio

rize

N

GO a

nd U

N c

omm

unity

Incl

ude

stre

ams f

ocus

ed o

n ac

adem

ic a

s wel

l as m

ore

prac

cal

fore

ign

lang

uage

skill

s—Fr

ench

be-

ing

one

of th

em. C

onsid

er th

e in

tro-

duc

on o

f ESL

cla

sses

at t

he p

rimar

y le

vel f

or y

oung

er le

arne

rs re

inte

-gr

ated

into

Eng

lish-

base

d sc

hool

s.

Scal

e up

exi

sng

ESL

pro

gram

s at

the

seco

ndar

y an

d te

rar

y le

vel

but i

ncre

ase

the

focu

s on

wri

ng

and

read

ing

com

preh

ensio

n. O

pen

up th

e ES

L cl

asse

s to

adul

t lea

rner

s w

ho o

ther

wise

hav

e no

acc

ess t

o le

arni

ng E

nglis

h.

Enco

urag

e te

ache

r tra

inin

g in

stu

ons t

o m

an-

date

cou

rses

on

the

role

of s

choo

ls an

d cl

assr

oom

s to

supp

ort i

nclu

sive

and

equi

ty v

alue

s. In

clud

e co

urse

s on

ESL

and

fore

ign

lang

uage

in th

e te

ache

r tra

inin

g cu

rric

ulum

,

43

: Reform process for a unified language of instrucon policy (system is shiing from a mul-lingual system to English).

Re

turn

ees e

xper

ienc

e sp

orad

-ic

inci

dent

s of v

iole

nce

and

disc

rimin

aon

from

thei

r hos

t co

mm

uni

es (i

nclu

ding

in a

c-ce

ss to

serv

ices

and

jobs

).

visio

n.

The

syst

em c

urre

ntly

ope

rate

s ESL

ca

tch

up c

lass

es a

t sec

onda

ry

and

ter

ary

leve

ls w

hile

pri-

mar

y ed

uca

on re

tain

s par

alle

l sc

hool

ing

in F

renc

h fo

r the

siz

eabl

e re

turn

ee p

opul

aon

. ES

L ca

tch

up c

lass

es c

urre

ntly

fo

cus o

n th

e ac

quisi

on o

f ora

l la

ngua

ge sk

ills.

Ret

urne

es

who

spea

k Fr

ench

tend

to b

e fin

anci

ally

be

er off

and

mai

n-ta

in tr

adin

g lin

ks a

nd st

rong

cu

ltura

l es

with

com

mun

ies

an

d fa

mily

mem

bers

that

re-

mai

n ac

ross

the

bord

er.

inte

rven

on p

rogr

amm

ing

that

in

clud

es “s

ocia

l coh

esio

n co

mpo

-ne

nts”

in th

e an

nual

Con

solid

ated

Ap

peal

s Pro

cess

for w

hich

the

MoE

is

a ve

ng p

artn

er a

long

with

the

UN

cou

ntry

team

.

supp

orte

d by

dia

spor

a w

ho st

udie

d in

fore

ign

high

er e

duca

on in

stu

-on

s.

Joel

Rey

es44

3) E

xam

ple

of E

duca

on

Str

ateg

ies A

ligne

d to

a R

esili

ence

App

roac

h

-

A revised operaonal plan to move towards decentralizaon by promong higher levels of community

parcipaon in educaon service delivery in parcular with regards to administrave and personnel components.

The

re is

ver

y li

le c

ultu

re

of c

omm

unity

par

cipa

on a

s it

was

sign

ifica

ntly

repr

esse

d du

ring

the

prev

ious

dec

ades

.

The

qual

ity o

f edu

caon

is lo

w a

nd

ther

e is

signific

ant b

rain

-dra

in

out o

f the

cou

ntry

.

Te

ache

r str

ikes

occ

urr(

invo

lvin

g so

me

viol

ence

with

stat

e se

cu-

rity)

ow

ing

to th

e in

trod

ucon

of

the

teac

her q

ualit

y in

ia

ve

whi

ch u

nion

s fea

r will

resu

lt in

job

loss

es a

nd in

crea

ses i

n irr

egul

ar a

nd te

rm c

ontr

acts

.

The

Min

istry

of E

duca

on

is ip

repa

ring

a pr

opos

al fo

r de

cent

raliz

ed e

duca

on m

an-

agem

ent,

whi

ch w

ill in

clud

e a

proc

ess t

o pr

ovid

e gr

ants

for

scho

ol im

prov

emen

t to

loca

l co

mm

unity

edu

caon

com

mit-

tees

.

W

ith h

igh

enro

llmen

t rat

es

the

coun

try

is no

w fo

cuse

d on

qu

ality

and

teac

her r

efor

m b

y in

trod

ucng

a qu

ality

teac

hers

in

ia

ve th

at a

ims t

o in

crea

se

teac

her s

tand

ards

at t

he

pre-

serv

ice

leve

l and

pro

vide

in

-ser

vice

trai

ning

for e

xis

ng

teac

hers

to im

prov

e th

eir s

kills

an

d pr

acce

.

Spec

ializ

ed a

nd tr

uste

d or

gani

za-

ons (

NGO

s, fa

ith-b

ased

, fou

nda-

ons,

etc

.) su

ppor

t the

cre

aon

of

CECs

mad

e up

of a

wid

e sp

ectr

um

of c

omm

unity

mem

bers

—in

clud

-in

g pe

ople

who

hav

e affi

liaon

s to

the

form

er re

gim

e—an

d st

rive

to in

clud

e hi

gh n

umbe

rs o

f wom

-en

. Co

nsid

er e

ngag

ing

the

youn

g ed

ucat

ed u

nem

ploy

ed a

s cla

ssro

om

assis

tant

s to

supp

ort t

each

ers a

nd

prov

ide

an a

ddi

onal

pro

fess

iona

l op

on o

r in

the

impl

emen

taon

of

the

scho

ol fe

edin

g pr

ogra

m.

CEC

s sup

port

lo

cal l

evel

mon

itorin

g of

the

corp

o-ra

l pun

ishm

ent l

aw a

nd in

crea

sed

Wor

k w

ith c

ivil

soci

ety

to su

ppor

t th

e cr

eaon

of c

omm

unity

edu

ca-

on c

omm

iee

s (CE

Cs),

focu

sed

on

stud

ent l

earn

ing,

soci

oem

oon

al

supp

ort a

nd p

rote

con

.

Use

resil

ienc

e cr

iteria

co

llect

ed th

roug

h ER

A to

trai

n te

ache

rs o

n th

e be

nefit

s of p

ro-

mo

ng n

on-c

ogni

ve sk

ills,

non

vi-

olen

t cla

ssro

om m

anag

emen

t and

le

arni

ng. U

se th

e ex

isng

psy

chos

o-ci

al p

rogr

ams a

nd te

ache

r lea

rnin

g ci

rcle

s to

info

rm th

e m

odel

and

as

an

entr

y po

int f

or a

ny e

vent

ual

wid

er re

form

s.

45

A revised operaonal plan to move towards decentral-izaon by promong higher levels of community parcipaon in educaon service delivery in

parcular with regards to administrave and personnel components. T

he p

oli

cal

inst

abili

ty th

at h

as d

omin

at-

ed th

e na

onal

scen

e sin

ce

the

revo

luon

has

cre

ated

sig

nific

ant s

ocio

econ

omic

in

secu

rity

at th

e lo

cal l

evel

. St

uden

ts sp

eak

of h

ighe

r foo

d pr

ices

affe

cng

food

secu

rity

as a

par

cula

r con

cern

at t

he

hous

ehol

d le

vel.

High

un

empl

oym

ent r

ates

and

man

y yo

ung

peop

le la

ck h

ope

for t

he

futu

re.

Stu

dent

s w

hose

fath

ers w

orke

d fo

r the

siz

eabl

e st

ate

appa

ratu

s prio

r to

the

revo

luon

feel

esp

ecia

l-ly

vul

nera

ble

to b

ully

ing

and

recr

imin

aon

aac

ks w

ithin

sc

hool

and

tow

ards

thei

r fa

mili

es.

The

gov

ernm

ent

is ac

vely

seek

ing

to in

crea

se

the

num

ber o

f wom

en in

the

wor

kfor

ce. A

zero

-tole

ranc

e on

co

rpor

al p

unish

men

t law

was

pa

ssed

rece

ntly.

The

se

wer

e pr

ovid

ed d

urin

g th

e in

ial

unr

est a

nd v

iole

nce

that

pr

eced

ed a

nd im

med

iate

ly

follo

wed

the

revo

luon

. Som

e em

erge

ncy

inte

rven

ons i

ntro

-du

ced

teac

her l

earn

ing

circ

les

and

a fe

w li

mite

d no

n-cl

inic

al

scho

ol-b

ased

psy

chos

ocia

l in

terv

enon

s.

A

popu

lar s

choo

l fee

ding

pr

ogra

m e

xist

s at t

he p

rimar

y ed

uca

on le

vel s

uppo

rted

by

NGO

s in

diffe

rent

par

ts o

f the

co

untr

y.

par

cipa

on o

f fem

ale

teac

hers

and

m

othe

rs in

scho

ol d

ecisi

on-m

ak-

ing.

Com

mun

ity le

vel t

rain

ing

on

mon

itorin

g an

d re

por

ng c

an h

elp

empo

wer

CEC

invo

lvem

ent i

n sc

hool

m

anag

emen

t pro

cess

es th

ereb

y he

lpin

g to

pro

mot

e th

e de

sign

of

info

rmed

loca

lly re

leva

nt in

terv

en-

ons a

nd re

spon

ses.

With

in th

e te

ache

r ref

orm

ini-

ave

incl

ude

a st

rong

adv

ocac

y co

mpo

nent

to st

ress

the

valu

e of

te

ache

rs a

nd p

rom

ote

the

teac

hing

pr

ofes

sion

amon

g yo

ung

peop

le.

Cond

uct n

aon

al le

vel c

ampa

igns

to

enco

urag

e yo

ung

grad

uate

s to

join

th

e te

achi

ng p

rofe

ssio

n. E

nsur

e th

at

mes

sage

s reg

ardi

ng e

duca

on d

e-liv

ery

are

non-

par

san

and

prom

ote

an in

clus

ive

mod

el fo

r all

child

ren.

Food

Saf

ety

Net

s: W

hile

food

in

secu

rity

pers

ists,

CEC

s sup

port

ex

tend

ing

the

mea

ls pr

ovid

ed b

y sc

hool

feed

ing

prog

ram

s in

scho

ols,

es

peci

ally

to th

e m

ost m

argi

naliz

ed

scho

ols.

46

Annex 3: Evidence from the ERA pilotsIn addi on to conduc ng an extensive liter-ature review (see, “Extended Bibliography”), the development of the ERA program bene-fited from a series of pilots resul ng in final prototypes of the three ERA tools previously presented. This permi ed the collec on of rich and varied evidence regarding educa on resilience in different contexts of violence and conflict. The five ini al pilot country case stud-ies and their primary contribu ons to the ERA design are presented in the table 6 below.

A synthesis of the key findings of this pilot collec on of evidence within the ERA frame-work is presented next, which confirms the importance of understanding risks and assets, the broader school and community contexts that can foster resilience, and the central role of educa on systems.

Rwanda Development of the Educa on Resilience framework (ins tu onal resil-ience component)

South Sudan Ini al prototype of an educa on resilience research approach with a uni-versity based in a fragile context (RES-Research)

(UNRWA)Further development of the ERA framework and pilo ng of the qualita ve educa on resilience training module (RES-Research). Findings guided the ini al design of the resilience in schools ques onnaire (RES-School)

Development and pilo ng of the mixed-methods (qualita ve and quan ta-ve) educa on resilience research training module (RES-Research)

Development and pilo ng of the RES-3600 tool

Dynamic Process

In line with the latest resilience research, the ERA pilots also provided evidence of the mul ple dynamic levels for resilience. At the individual and group level, the ERA pilot with Pales ne Refugees presented clearly the voic-es of adolescents and youth as they expressed not only the proximate adversi es in their lives (such as extreme poverty, unemployed parents and incarcerated or killed family members, neighbors and friends) but also how educa on provided purpose to their lives and how their teachers, peers, parents and neighbors sup-ported their learning, socioemo onal well-be-ing and protec on. It also became clear that educa on resilience entailed much more than individual assets. Both in the Pales ne Refu-gee study and Honduran cri cal school pilot,

47

students revealed how they interacted with community and ins tu onal (school) oppor-tuni es to manage the adversi es they were exposed to. The ERA pilot in Rwanda provided examples of educa on system level resilience by detailing how educa on policies provid-ed meaningful and relevant guidance in the post-genocide period, especially focused on issues of unity, equity and social reconcilia on. The first ERA pilot in South Sudan was crucial in defining from the outset the complex inter-ac ons between individual and country level resilience approaches. For example, many of the risk factors iden fied by workshop par c-ipants in their own lives (migra ng from rural to urban communi es, studying as southern-ers in Sudan (Khartoum), and the obstacles for females in higher educa on) provided a proximal parallel to some of the conflict issues between Sudan and today’s South Sudan: the territorial and ethnic conflict, the differences in language and culture, systema c exclusion, etc. However, also present were the individ-ual and na onal assets of university students a ending the ERA workshop and of a post-In-dependence South Sudan as it entered a more pronounced state building phase.

Risks and Assets

For educa on system policies, programs and services to be relevant in adversity, they need to reflect a collec ve understanding of the risks students face. Failure to do so can result, at best, in educa on services that are deemed irrelevant by students and their families and, at worst, that collude or ignite the risks al-ready faced by students. Also, addressing explicitly the risks educa on communi es face provides an opportunity to also address the poten al posi ve meaning and purpose

that educa on can provide in such difficult situa ons. This was clearly expressed by the students in the Pales ne Refugee, Honduran and South Sudan studies (this la er from uni-versity students). A collec ve understanding (at na onal and local levels) of the risks they faced—and as understood by the students themselves—was a important first step in fostering their resilience. Although the focus of resilience is on the assets and opportuni es for posi ve change, these opportuni es must be understood within overwhelming individu-al and social difficul es. Precisely because of this, the State and other services providers are called to make social services available and eq-uitable to support a resilience process. These services are made relevant by addressing local risks and engaging with the assets of educa-

on communi es.

Early research on resilience focused on the protec ve factors—first internally and then in their environment—of popula ons in differ-ent contexts of adversity (extreme poverty, homelessness, armed conflict, etc.). However, it isnow known that resilience is a much more complex process, focused not only on individ-ual strengths, but also on available opportu-ni es and services. Honoring local assets and then providing empowering opportuni es is founda onal to a resilience approach. The study of post-genocide Rwanda highlighted the important role that exis ng community approaches to educa on delivery and manage-ment played in suppor ng the reform process. In par cular, during the decentraliza on pro-cess— which included the educa on system—policy makers honored grassroots and home grown solu ons by formalizing and system-a zing them. Of note were the IMIHIGO-per-formance contracts where district mayors sign

48

performance contract with the President of the Republic, indica ng districts targets and indicators that all mayors have to publically report on every year to the President. Other locally developed solu ons included UBUDE-HE-Communal support; UMUGANDA-Com-munity service; UMWIHERERO-Government Retreat; UMUSHYIKIRANO-Na onal dialogue. Home grown solu ons are already locally ap-propriate, benefi ng from greater buy in and acceptance, and easier and more impac ul to scale up. At the individual level, the almost 100 at-risk Pales nian students provided deep insights into their own strengths, assets and posi ve opportuni es to succeed in school, at the same me that they relatedthe many adversi es in their daily lives.

The importance of iden fying indigenous assets is also associated to the need to work through local actors. This has been apparent across the ERA pilots that were conducted; even in contexts where capacity is deemed weak. By working with students from the University of Juba, in South Sudan, and with local researchers from West Bank, Gaza and Pales nian Refugee communi es in Jordan, important topics for resilience were iden fied that would not otherwise have been obvious to external resilience researchers. This has also been the case working with researchers across Central America and Colombia who were bet-ter able to navigate the complexi es of local power rela ons and poli cs in violence-af-fected contexts. However, focusing on assets does not preclude or undermine the need to address the roots of poverty, violence, injus-

ce and many other social and ins tu onally created adversi es. Iden fying local assets serves to make relevant the social services to be rendered, as shown by the examples.

Schools and Communi es

Exis ng evidence from 40 years of resilience research shows that a er parents (and other primary caretakers), teachers are the most influen al adults for children and youth in contexts of adversity. Similarly, data collected at the school level in both UNRWA schools and Honduras pointed to the crucial role that parents and teachers have to play in providing care, helping students develop competence and make meaning of adversity and of educa-

on, all determinants of resilience. Pales ne refugee students were especially explicit in ex-pressing their need for teachers and principals to understand the contexts they lived in, as these adversi es followed them into the class-room. They also pointed to how their skills, leadership, knowledge, and desire to work in groups can be used in the teaching and learn-ing process. For example, the interviewed Pales nian students referred explicitly to the importance of peer-to-peer learning, healthy compe on and encouragement among stu-dents, and mutual support in mes of crisis.

These findings were reiterated in Honduras where the cri cal school case evidence that was collected pointed to the need for school staff to be able to relate to the lives and ad-versi es felt by students, and crucially to make explicit efforts to connect with them around these issues. Thus extra efforts to support learning, such as remedial classes and out-of-hours-support were recognized and greatly appreciated by students who gained an added impetus and mo va on for their studies as a result. The Honduras pilot also pointed to the importance of schools and parents keep-ing a watchful eye on latent and non-explicit risks that they faced but that formed part of

49

the con nuum of adversity they experienced. These included non-construc ve disciplinary methods, expulsion of students to the dangers of the streets, and lack of posi ve rela ons among the community of adults who influence the learning environment of youth. This was especially expressed in students’ concerns for teacher-parental rela ons which they sawas assets (when they were posi ve) and as risks (when they were poor or lacking).

Both school effec veness and resilience studies have highlighted the importance of school-community partnerships to support students to succeed in school (especially when living in situa ons of risks). In the ERA pilot studies, for example, the Honduras crucial case school found that mothers played a very suppor ve role in schools through supervision of students and the provision of socioemo-

onal guidance. From the larger community, students’ feedback regarding what helps them points to faith-based organiza ons, university pyschology interns and sport clubs. Howev-er, students par cipa ng in the ERA pilot in Honduras also indicate specific services that they deem relevant to perceived risks: these include sex educa on, youth violence preven-

on, and disaster preparedness. (Honduras is a country exposed to many natural disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes). In the Rwandan case study, the Ministry of Educa on was keenly aware of the value of mobilizing the community to create ownership and build support for reforms, as exemplified by orga-nizing ministry officials to visit many villages of the country to rally support for equitable educa on reforms under a unified country. The Pales ne Refugee pilot provided evidence of close community-school rela ons that fostered collec ve educa on and learning purpose for Pales nian children, adolescents

and youth. Honduras exemplified the explicit call of students, teachers and parents for more community par cipa on in school—not based on school administra ve func ons but rather focused on shared efforts and accountability for the learning, well-being and protec on of students.

Explicit Plans: Goals, Strategies and Interven ons

The examples of educa on resilience found in the ERA literature review, as well as in its pilot studies, were all embedded within the daily ac vi es of students—in the rela onships between teachers and peers in the classroom, during recess and extracurricular ac vi es, and in the daily interac ons between school staff and parents. Thus, ERA does not promote independent resilience projects, but rather advocates aligning exis ng educa on services to a resilience approach. In Rwanda, the edu-ca on sector policies and strategic plans made explicit a clear vision and dedicated strategy to overcome the roots that had led to the geno-cide. The early, mely interven ons followed by sequen al reforms were also important. In the a ermath of the genocide, the new regime made it a priority to get children back into schools immediately, put them togeth-er, recruit teachers and return to classroom ‘normalcy’.This was seen as a crucial way of crea ng stability, improving morale, healing emo onal wounds and star ng a reconcilia-

on process. In Pales ne refugee schools of the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan, interna on-al guiding policies such as girls’ educa on, Educa on for All and human rights, provided a posi ve founda on to posi on educa on as a shared goal of the educa on community, and

50

schools as central ins tu ons.

In general, the ini al ERA pilots tested not only the relevance of this approach for educa-

on systems in contexts of adversity, but also provided addi onal evidence regarding the importance of understanding both risks and assets, the broader and complex social ecology of resilience, and the explicit role that educa-

on systems can play in fostering, suppor ng and scaling up the resilience in their educa on communi es.

The general lessons learned from the pilot ERA case studies corroborated the four compo-nents of the program, previously presented, and are summarized in the following table.

RESILIENCE COMPONENTS1. Manage and Minimize Adversity in Educa on• Iden fica on of adversi es faced by students• Iden fica on of current responses to risks in schools

2. Use and Protect Posi ve Engagement and Assets in Educa on Communi es

• Resilience through control, competence and being accountable• Resilience through socioemo onal well-being, engagement with others and

iden ty forma on

3. Foster Relevant School & Community Support• Relevant approaches to access and permanence• Relevant approaches to learning and teaching• Relevant approaches to school management, school climate and community

rela ons

4. Align Educa on System Services to the Resilience Assets• Meaningful and relevant strategic direc on for educa on in contexts of adversity• Innova ve educa on programs for learning, socioemo onal well-being and

protec on• Available and equitable human, material and financial resources

51

Annex 4: ERA contribu ons to risk and resilience M&EThe ERA conceptual framework, tools and data can inform the development of indicators to measure elements of educa on resilience in the delivery of services at both local and na onal levels. For example, the RES-360o tool can help educa onal ins tu ons measure the

prevalence of local risks and coping mechani-ms at the school and community level. mech-anisms at the school and community level. The RES-School can help assess and measure changes over me in the type and prevalence of ac vi es in schools that foster resilience

in students and the par cipa on of students, parents, teachers and school administrators. RES-Research has provided a framework useful not only for general research, but which also can be adapted to program evalua on.The ta-ble below presents examples of how ERA can provide elements to improve the relevance of M&E for schools in fragile, conflict and vio-lence-affected contexts.

52

• ERA can guide the development of non-tradi onal monitoring tools (case studies, ques-onnaires, scales, etc.) to complement other performance evalua ons of the educa on

system (access, learning, equity, reten on and gradua on).• ERA can supplement annual performance reviews, monitoring and impact assessments

of programs and educa onal services.

• For vulnerable popula ons (young people out of school, demobilized child soldiers, etc.), ERA instruments can be used alongside other indicators to assess student welfare, hope and a tudes.

• In partnership with other sectors, ERA instruments may include risk indicators that are not necessarily collected by the school system or school and therefore provide a new perspec ve on the factors impac ng the learning process.

• ERA instruments can discover “hidden” resilience factors and processes such as posi ve interpersonal rela onships, be erment a tudes and proac ve behaviors among school and community actors.

• ERA instruments also iden fy variables and indicators related to processes for mean-ing-making in adversity, future purpose and planning and other posi ve facets related to the role of educa on in the well-being of students and teachers.

• The variables and indicators can also be useful for monitoring social cohesion com-mitment at the school level and gauging posi ve interac ons between the school and community to be er measure school climate and par cipa on.

53

Extended bibliographyAllwood, M.A., D. Bell-Dolan, and S.A. Husain. 2002. “Children’s trauma and adjustment reac ons to violent and non-violent war experiences.”

41: 450-457.

Arden, R., and Y. Claver. Forthcoming. . Washington, DC: World Bank.

Armstrong, F., and M. Moore. (eds.) 2004. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Azimi, A. 2004. “The Mental Health Crisis in Afghanistan.” (March 1), h p:// www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/OCHA-64C37Z?OpenDocument.

Baird, M. 2010. Background paper for the World Development Report 2011.

Bajaj, M. (ed.). 2008. . Teachers College Columbia University. Charlo e, North Carolina: Informa on Age Publishing.

Barrera-Osorio, F., T. Fasih, H.A. Patrinos, and L. San bañez. 2009. . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Benard, B. 1995. “Fostering resilience in children”. : EDO-PS-95-9, h p://resilnet.uiuc.edu/library/benard95.html.

Benard, B. 2004. . San Francisco: WestEnd.

Bird, L. 2003. . Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Bird, L. 2007. Save the Children UK. Background paper prepared for the Educa on for All Global

Monitoring Report 2008, Educa on for All by 2015: will we make it?

Bonanno, G. A., and A. D. Mancini. 2011. “Toward a lifespan approach to resilience and poten al trauma.” In S. M. Southwick, B.T. Litz, D. Charney, and M. J. Freedman. (eds.), R . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borman, G., and I. Overman. 2004. “Academic Resilience in Mathema cs among Poor and Minority Students.” 104(3): 177-195.

Boyden, J. 2003. “Children under fire: Challenging assump ons about children’s resilience.” 13(1): 1-29.

54

Brinkerhoff, D.W. 2007. “Capacity Development in Fragile States.” Discussion Paper No. 58D, May 2007. A theme paper prepared for the project “Capacity, Change and Performance”. European Center for Development Policy Management.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brown, J.H., M. D’Emidio-Caston, and B. Benard. 2001. . Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Bryan, J., and L. Henry. 2008. “Strengths-based partnerships: a school-family-community partnership approach to empowering students.”

(December 1), h p://www.thefreelibrary.com/Strengths-based partner ships: a school-family-community partnership...-a0191213599.

Buckland, P., and M. Sommers. 2004. . Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Burnham, J.J. 2009. “Contemporary fear of children and adolescents: Coping and resiliency in the 21st century.” 87: 28-35.

Burnham, J. J., and L.M. Hooper. 2008. “The influence of the war in Iraq on American youth’s fears: implica ons for professional school counselors.”

(August 1), h p://www.thefreelibrary.com/The influence of the war in Iraq on American youth’s fears:...-a0184131461.

Bush, K.D., and D. Saltarelli. 2000. Florence: UNICEF Innocen Research Center.

Caralli, R.A., J.H. Allen, and D.W. White. 2011. Upper Saddle River:

Addison-Wesley.

Carlson, L.A. 2003. “Existen al theory: helping school counselors a end to youth at risk for violence.” (June 1), h p://www. thefreelibrary.com/Existen al theory: helping school counselors a end to youth at risk...-a0106913865.

Cefai, C. 2008. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Checchi and Company Consul ng Inc. 2009. “Mid-term evalua on of partnership in Advancing Community Educa on in Afghanistan (PACE-A) by USAID in the Islamic republic of Afghanistan.” Checchi and Company Consul ng Inc. Afghanistan Support Project, Washington DC, USA.

55

Christenson, S., and L. Havsy. 2004. “Family-School-Peer Rela onships: Significance for Social Emo onal and Academic Support.” In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, and H. Walberg.

New York: Teachers College Press Columbia University.

Chrobok, V., and S. Akutu. 2008.

London: Coali on to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

Clemens, E.V. 2006. “Counseling adolescent students affected by the war in Iraq: using history as a guide.” (April 1), h p://www.thefreelibrary.com/Counseling adolescent students affected by the war in Iraq: using...-a0144762549.

Clemens, E.V., and A. Shipp. 2005. . Session presented at the annual conference of the American

Counseling Associa on, Atlanta, GA.

Cohen, L., V. Chavez, V., and S. Chehimi. 2010. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collabora ve for Academic Social and Emo onal Learning. 2003.

Chicago: CASEL.

Comer, J., N. Haynes, E. Joyner, and M. Ben-Avie. (eds.). 1996. New York: Teacher College Press.

Creswell, J. W. 2005.(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Educa on.

Creswell, J. W., and V. Plano Clark. 2006. Washington, DC: Sage Publishers.

Daud, A., B. af Klinteberg, and P.A. Rydelius. 2008. “Resilience and vulnerability among refugee children of trauma zed and non-trauma zed parents.”

(2)7.

Doll, B., S. Zucker, and K. Brehm. 2004. “Resilient Classroom: Crea ng Healthy Environments for Learning.” . New York: The Guilford Press.

Dowdney, L. (ed.). 2007. London: Coali on to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

Durlak, J., R. Weissberg, A. Dymnicki, R.D. Taylor, and K.B. Schellinger. 2011. “The Impact of Enhancing Student’s Social and Emo onal Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interven ons.” 82 (1): 405-432.

56

Econometria Consultants. 2001. Final report of the evalua on. For The

World Bank, Colombia.

Educa on for All (EFA). 2008. Educa on for All Fast Track Ini a ve (EFA).

Emmons, E., and Hagopian. 1998. “A school transformed: the Case of Norman S. Weir.” Journal 3(1): 39-51.

Fitz-Gibon, A. (ed.). 2008. “Posi ve Peace: Reflec ons on Peace, Educa on, Nonviolence and Social Change.” Essays evolved from the Twenty-First Annual Conference of Concerned Philosophers for Peace, State University of New York, College of Cortland.

Garmezy, N. 1985. “Stress resistant children: the search for protec ve factors.” Recent Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Garmezy, N., A.S. Masten, and A. Tellegen. 1984. “The study of stress and competence in children: a building block for developmental psychopathology.” 55(1): 97-111.

Gizir, C.A., and G. Aydin. 2009. “Protec ve factors contribu ng to the academic resilience of students living in poverty in Turkey.” 13(1): 38-49.

Glad, M., and W. Hakim. 2009. “Knowledge on Fire: A acks on educa on in Afghanistan (dra ).” Study conducted by Care on Behalf of the World Bank with the assistance of CoAR.

Greenberg, M., C. Kusche, and N. Riggs. 2004. “The PATH Curriculum: Theory and Research on Neurocogni ve Development and School Success.” In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, and H. Walberg,

New York: Teachers College Press Columbia University.

Gula , R. 2009. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Hawkings, J.D., R.F. Katalano, R. Kosterman, R Abbot, and K.G. Hill. 1999. “Preven ng adolescents health risk behavior by protec ng behavior during childhood.” Archives of

153:22-234.

Henderson, N., and M. Milstein. 2003. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

INEE. 2010. Interna onal Network for Educa on in Emergencies.

INEE. 2011. “The Mul ple Faces of Educa on in Conflict Affected and Fragile Contexts.”

57

INEE. 2012. “Disaster Risk Reduc on Tools and Resources.” Ac ve webpage of the Interna onal Network for Educa on in Emergencies with various disaster risk reduc on studies and tools, h p://www.ineesite.org/index.php/post/disaster_risk_reduc on_tools/.

Jackson, C.M. 2006. “Helping students cope in an age of terrorism: strategies for school counselors”. (April 1), h p:// www.thefreelibrary.com/Helping students cope in an age of terrorism: strategies for school...-a0144762548.

Jenson, J.M., and M.W. Fraser. 2006. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publica ons.

Kaufman, R. A. 2000. . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publica ons.

Kaufman, R., R. Watkins, and I. Guerra. 2001. “Ge ng Valid and Useful Educa onal Results and Payoffs: We are what do, say, and deliver.” 10 (4).

King, E., Samii, C. and Snilsveit, B. 2010. “Interven ons to Promote Social Cohesion in Sub-Saharan Africa”. 2(3): 336-370 .

Kirk, J., and Winthrop, R. 2007. “Promo ng Quality Educa on in Refugee Contexts, Suppor ng teacher development in Northern Ethiopia.” (Special Issue on Quality Educa on Africa: Challenges and Prospects).

Klasen, F., G. Oe ngen, J. Daniels, M. Post, C. Hoyer, and H. Adam. 2010. “Post-trauma c resilience in Former Ugandan Child Soldiers.” 81(4): 1096–1113.

Kostelny, K., and M. Wessells. 2008. “The protec on and psychosocial well-being of young children following Armed Conflict: Outcome Research on Child-Centered Spaces in Northern Uganda.” (3)2: 13-25.

Kostelny, K., and M. Wessells. 2010. UNESCO.

Krovetz, M.L. 2008. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Leach, F., and M. Dunne, M. (eds.). 2007. New York: Peter Lang AG Interna onal Academic Publishers.

Liebenberg, L., and M. Ungar. (eds.). 2008. . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Luthar, S. 1991. “Vulnerability and Resilience: A Study of High Risk Adolescents.” 62(3): 600-616.

58

Luthar, S.S., D. Cicche , and B. Becker. 2000. “The construct of resilience: A cri cal evalua on and guidelines for future work.” 71(3): 543-562.

Masten, A.S. 2001. “Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.” American 56: 227-238.

Masten A.S., and J.D. Coatsworth. 1998. “The development of competence in favorable and un favorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children.” American

53:205–220.

Masten, A.S., D. Heistad, DJ.J. Cutuli, J. Herbers, J. Obradović, C. Chan, E. Hinz, and J. Long. 2008. “School Success in Mo on: Protec ve Factors for Academic Achievement in Homeless and Highly Mobile Children in Minneapolis.” 38(2): 3-12.

Masten, A.S., and J. Obradović. 2006. “Competence and resilience in development.” Annals of 1094:13-27.

Ma a, N., and P. Morgan. 2011. “Local Empowerment Through Rapid Results.”

Maton, K.I. 2005. “The Social Transforma on of Environments and the Promo on of Resilience in Children”. In R. DeV. Peters, B. Leadbeater, and R.J. McMahon (eds). Resilience in

New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Maton, K.I. 2008. “Empowering community se ngs: agents of individual development, community be erment, and posi ve social change.”

41:4–21.

McEwen, B. 2012. “Brain on Stress: How the social environment gets under the skin”. . Volume 109, supplement 2.

McGinty, S. 1999. . New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Myn , C., R. Zurayk, and M. Mabsout. 2009. “Beyond the Walls, The American University of Beirut Engages its communi es.” Paper prepared for the Arab regional conference in Higher Educa on (ARCHE +10), Cairo, Egypt, May 31– June 2 2009.

Neenan, M. 2009. New York: Routledge.

New Deal. 2011. “A NEW DEAL for engagement in fragile states.” h p://www.pbsbdialogue. org//documentupload/49151944.pdf.

New York City Global Partners. “Best Prac ce: Providing Safe and Engaging Schools for Low- Income Drug Affected Neighborhoods.” www.nyc.gov/globalpartners/innova onex change.

59

Nicolai, S. 2004. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Nicolai, S. 2007. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP and Save the Children UK.

Nicolai, S., and C. Triplehorn. 2003. “The role of educa on in protec ng children in conflict.” 42.

Obura, A. 2003. . Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

OECD. 2007. “Principles for Good Interna onal Engagement in Fragile States and Situa ons.” Organiza on for Economic Coopera on and Development, Principles formally endorsed by ministers and heads of agencies at the Development Assistance Commi ee’s High Level Forum on 3-4 April 2007.

OECD. 2008. “Service Delivery in Fragile Situa ons: Key Concepts, Findings and Lessons.” Off- print of the t 9(3).

OPM/IDL. 2008. “Evalua on of the Implementa on of the Paris Declara on: Thema c Study – The applicability of the Paris Declara on in fragile and conflict-affected situa ons.” h p://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/evalua on.asp and h p://www.oecd. org/dac/evalua onnetwork.

Pat-Horenczyk, R., O. Peled, T. Miron, D. Brom, Y. Villa, and C. Chemtob. 2007. “Risk Taking Behaviors Among Israeli Adolescents Exposed to Recurrent Terrorism: Provoking Danger Under Con nuous Threat?” 164(1):66-72.

Paton, J., R.P. Weissberg, J. Durlak, R. Taylor, K. Schellinger, and M. Pachan. 2008..

Chicago: Collabora ve for Academic, Social and Emo onal Learning (CASEL).

Pearson, Q.M. 2003. “Helping children cope with fears: using children’s literature in classroom guidance.” (October 1), h p://www. the freelibrary.com/Helping children cope with fears: using children’s literature in ...-a0110962186.

Penson, J., and K. Tomlinson. 2009. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Pigozzi, M. 1999. “Educa on in Emergencies and for Reconstruc on: A developmental approach.” Working Paper Series, Educa on Sec on, Programme Division. New York: UNICEF.

Reddy, T. 2004. South Africa: University of Cape Town.

Reich, J, A. Zaura, and J.S. Hall. (eds.). 2010. New York: The Guilford Press.

60

Rose, P., and M. Greeley. 2006. “Educa on in Fragile States: Capturing Lessons and Iden fying Good Prac ce.” Study for the DAC Fragile Group, Service Delivery Workstream, Sub-Team for Educa on Services. h p://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Educa on_ and_Fragile_States.pdf.

RRI. 2012. . h p://www.rapidresults.org/

Rumberger, R.W. 1995. “Dropping out or middle school: A mul level analysis of students and schools.” 32(3): 583-625.

Ru er, M. 1979. “Protec ve factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage.” In M. Kent and J. Rolf. (eds.) in children. Hanover: University Press of England.

Ru er, M. 1987. “Psychosocial Resilience and Protec ve Mechanisms.” American Journal of 57(3): 316-331.

Sakarya, S., M. Bodur, O. Yildririm-Oktem, and N. Selekier-Goksen. 2012. “Social Alliances: Business and social enterprise collabora on for social transforma on.” Journal of Business Research doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.012.

Schelble, J.L., B.A. Franks, and M.D. Miller. 2010. “Emo on Dysregula on and Academic Resilience in Maltreated Children.” .

Sinclair, M. 2002. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Soroor, S., and A. Popal. 2005. “Bridging the gap: understanding the mental health needs of Afghan youth.” Report commissioned by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Afghanistan. h p://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/EResources/SoroorPo pal2005.

Staub, E. 1989. . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Staub, E. 2011. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stemberg, R.J., and R.F. Subotnik. (eds.). 2006. Greenwich: AIP-Informa on

Age Publishing.

Stolker, R. J. M., D.M. Karydas, and J.L.Rouvroye. 2009. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology

h p://www.resilience-engineering.org/RE3/papers/Stolker_Karydas_Rouvroye_ text.pdf

Theron, L. 2009. “Resilience as Process: a group interven on program for adolescents with learning difficul es.” In L. Liebenberg and M. Ungar. (eds.) . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

61

Todd, P., and K. Wolpin. 2003. “On the Specifica on and Es ma on of the Produc on Func on for Cogni ve Achievement.” Economic Journal F3-F33.

UNESCO-IIEP. 2011. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

UNESCO-IIEP. 2010 Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.

Ungar, M. 2004. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

Ungar, M. (ed.) 2005. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publica ons.

Ungar, M. 2007. Toronto: McClelland & Steward.

Ungar, M. 2011. “Social Ecology of Resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity in a nascent construct.” 81(1): 1-17.

Ungar, M. (ed.). 2012. New York: Springer.

Valikangas, L. 2010. fails. New York: McGraw Hill.

Veale, A. 2010 London: Coali on to Stop the Use of Child

soldiers.

Wachtel, T., and L. Misky. (eds.). 2008. Pennsylvania: Interna onal Ins tute for Restora ve Prac ces.

Wehlage, G.G., R.A. Ru er, G.A. Smith, N. Lesko, and R. Fernandez. 1989. London: Palmer Press.

Weick, K.E., and K.M. Sutcliffe. 2007. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Werner, E. 1990. “Protec ve Factors and Individual Resilience.” In S.J.S. Meisels. (ed.) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Werner, E., and R. Smith. 2001. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

World Bank, The. 2001. . Colombia: The World Bank.

62

World Bank, The. 2005. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

World Bank, The. 2011. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

World Bank, The. 2011. Washington, DC: The World Bank

Zins, J., M. Bloodworth, R. Weissberg, and J. Walberg. 2007. “The Scien fic Base Linking Social and Emo onal Learning to School Success.”

17(2-3):191-210.

Zins, J., R. Weissberg, M. Wang, and H. Walberg. (eds.). 2004. New York: Teachers College

Press Columbia University.