Fourth Annual Regional Child Friendly Schools Capacity ... · Child Friendly Schools for Africa...

Child Friendly Schools for Africa Capacity Building Workshop

Fourth Annual Regional Fourth Annual Regional Child Friendly Schools Child Friendly Schools

Capacity Building Workshop 2008 Capacity Building Workshop 2008

Gisenyi, Rwanda Gisenyi, Rwanda

FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT


Kivu Serena Hotel, Gisenyi, Rwanda, 25-29 August 2008 of 46

Kivu Serena Hotel, Gisenyi, Rwanda, 25-29 August 2008 Page 1 of 46


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS 3

INTRODUCTION 4

CONTEXT 5 ‘LEARNING BY DOING’ 5 MARKET STALL 5 THE CAPACITY BUILDING WORKSHOP 6

DAY 1: OPENING 7

1.1 WELCOMES 7 1.2 COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS 8 CONCLUSIONS 11

DAY 2: STRATEGIC APPROACHES 12

2.1 WORKING TOGETHER 12 2.2 TOOLS WE CAN ALL USE 16 2.3 CFS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND M&E SYSTEM 17 CONCLUSIONS 19

DAY 3: FIELD VISITS 20

DAY 4: HARDWARE AND SOFT COMPONENTS 21

4.1 FEEDBACK ON FIELD VISITS 21 4.2 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE AND LESSONS ON CONSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS – UNICEF SUPPLY DIVISION IN COPENHAGEN 23 4.3 MAKING A LEARNER FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT – COUNTRY EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS 23 4.4 INCLUDING THE EXCLUDED CHILDREN 28 CONCLUSIONS 32

DAY 5: RECAP AND CLOSING 33

5.1 CFS Q&A 33 5.2 M&E WORKSHOP 33 5.3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT 34 5.4 COUNTRY PLANNING 35 CLOSING COMMENTS 36

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION 37

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA 39

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 44



Acronyms CFS = Child Friendly School CHH = Child Headed Household CO = Country Office ECD = Early Childhood Development EFA = Education for All EMIS = Education Management and Information System ESARO = Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office FPE = Free Primary Education FTI = Fast Track Initiative (EFA) LLL = Life Long Learning LRC = Learning Resource Centre M&E = Monitoring and Evaluation MINEDUC = Ministry of Education (Rwanda) MoE = Ministry of Education MoU = Memorandum of Understanding MQS = Minimum Quality Standards NFE = Non Formal Education NGO = Non-Governmental Organisation OVC = Orphans and Vulnerable Children SFA = Schools for Africa SWAp = Sector Wide Approach TLM = Teaching and Learning Materials ToT = Training of Trainers TRC = Teacher Resource Centre TT = Teacher Training TTC = Teacher Training College UNDP = United Nations Development Programme UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNFPA = United Nations Population Fund WASH = Water and Sanitation WFP = World Food Programme (UN)



Introduction The fourth annual regional Child Friendly Schools / Schools for Africa Capacity Building workshop was held from Monday 25th August to Friday 29th August 2008 at the Kivu Serena hotel in Gisenyi, in the north west of Rwanda. The SFA multi-country initiative was established by UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) in partnership with the Nelson Mandela Foundation and the Hamburg Society in 2004, with the aim of supporting several countries in Africa to improve quality and outcomes of basic education through the CFS approach.

Purpose and Outcome of the workshop Purpose: Mainstreaming the CFS principles as a framework for quality basic education with an aim to provide participants with the opportunity to strengthen capacity and knowledge Outcome: Knowledge, skills and capacity of participants are enhanced on a variety of strategic approaches (and entry points) for scaling up CFS principles, frameworks and quality interventions for excluded groups

Participants from 10 countries in the Eastern and Southern Africa Region (ESAR) attended the workshop, including representatives from the 6 current Schools for Africa programme countries (Rwanda, Malawi, South Africa, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique) and 4 other countries from the region (Kenya, Madagascar, Ethiopia and Burundi). There was a total of some 53 workshop participants with an even spread of UNICEF programme staff and government counterparts. Most participating countries came to Rwanda with at least one staff member from the respective Ministry of Education. In addition to these colleagues, the following participants were present: Yumiko Yokozeki and Akihiro Fushimi from ESARO, Claudia Melani from UNICEF Supply Division in Copenhagen, and Karen Munce, a consultant specialising in Child Friendly Schools and Monitoring and Evaluation.

Objectives of the workshop 1) Exchange experiences (including

challenges, initiatives, good practices and lessons learned)

2) Share key materials, tools and

documents 3) Discuss key issues and strategies 4) Conduct field visits to observe practical

implications of CFS in Rwanda 5) Facilitate networking among colleagues

from ministries of education and UNICEF COs, as well as other partners involved in the implementation of CFS in ESAR



Context This is the fourth annual capacity building workshop and was held in Rwanda at the behest of the Government of Rwanda and its UNICEF counterparts. Previous years’ workshops have been held in Malawi (05), Mozambique (06), and last year, exceptionally, in Thailand, where participants were able to undertake a 7 day organised training in Child Friendly Schools hosted by the Thai Ministry of Education in a country which can lay claim to one of the longest standing and most comprehensively developed Child Friendly Schools initiatives in the world. This meeting in Thailand was largely viewed as a success, but it was nonetheless considered significant that, only one year on, a capacity building workshop should be held within ESAR, with the large majority of ESAR-based expertise doing the capacity building. 16 out of the 18 presentations heard in the course of the workshop were from experts working in ESAR, which is an encouraging sign of a large and growing foundation of expertise in the region. The fact that an ESAR-based manual for construction was one outcome of this meeting is another testament to the capacity which the region is now able to call on. ‘Learning by Doing’ The main conference hall at Kivu Serena hotel had been set up to resemble a Child Friendly classroom: square tables with seats all around facilitated group work and active participation; 2 presentation screens at either side of the ‘classroom’ allowed movement and attentiveness, the microphones were wireless for those who wished to move around while presenting, and the walls were decorated with posters and other learning materials – “talking walls”. The aim of this venture was to facilitate and encourage group work and discussion, and to practice (and therefore gain understanding of and embed) what we preach. Market Stall Participants were asked to contribute to a country-specific ‘market stall’ which would remain in place in the main conference room for the duration of the workshop, with the aim of providing documentary support for country activities and policies, an introduction to communications strategies and an insight to the strategic approach of ESAR countries. Participants would be free to browse the ‘stall’ at their leisure, take and read document, and request their own copies. This initiative proved popular and facilitated, in addition to the workshop sessions, the sharing of materials and knowledge.



The Capacity Building Workshop Each of the 5 days had a broad theme, as follows: Day 1: Opening, welcome and sharing country experience Day 2: Strategic Approaches for Mainstreaming and Scaling Up CFS Day 3: Voices from the Field, Learning from Practical Lessons Day 4: Hardware and Soft Components Day 5: Looking Back and Forward – what was learned and what to take home The theory behind this structure was to use the field visit to split the week in two, and to study more strategic elements of CFS (in particular tools for scale up) before the field visit and ‘harder’ elements (such as best practice in construction and specific interventions) after the visits, once the participants had seen some schools for themselves. While there were some comments to the contrary, generally this strategy paid off and found favour with the majority of participants, who were in particular pleased to discuss aspects of construction while the memory of the 6 schools visited in Rwanda was still very fresh in their minds.



Day 1: Opening In order, to a certain extent, to mitigate against the late arrival of some participants on a delayed flight, but mainly as a striking and motivating way to begin the workshop, all participants arrived in the main hall after lunch to watch a short film made by UNICEF Rwanda on Child Friendly Schools and the impact that they can and should have on the lives of children. The movie, “Transforming Tomorrow”, set the scene for participants and gave an alternative introduction to our common challenge. 1.1 Welcomes Jane Muita, acting Representative of UNICEF Rwanda, opened the workshop, underscoring the importance of the opportunity to work together, and thanking such a large number of delegates for travelling great distances to be present in this workshop. Jane advanced three areas where she felt Rwanda could contribute to the workshop: the Delivering as One UN pilot in Rwanda which was setting good practice in terms of working closely with government and other UN agencies to achieve common goals; Rwanda’s enthusiasm for and impressive work in the Child Friendly School programme; and the strength and success of the SWAp (Sector Wide Approach) process in Rwanda. Jane closed by encouraging everyone to take advantage of this opportunity to learn, and welcoming them to the fascinating and beautiful country of Rwanda. Yumiko Yokozeki, Regional Advisor for Basic Education and Gender Equality in the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office, spoke next, and in addition to extending her own and ESARO’s welcome to participants, stressed the importance of the Child Friendly Schools programme to the success of UNICEF’s outcomes and of partnerships and sharing information. Claver Yisa, Director of Planning, Policy and Capacity Building at the Ministry of Education in Rwanda (MINEDUC) welcomed participants on behalf of the host government. Having participated in the previous year’s workshop in Thailand, Yisa spoke of the challenges which ESAR countries now faced in scaling up the CFS programme in a way which would bring significant benefits to a wider spectrum of schools, children, teachers, and communities. Yumiko once again took the floor and spoke briefly of the purpose and objectives of the CFS workshop, outlined in the boxes above. With Rwanda and Charles Nabongo, chief of education at UNICEF, as chairperson of this session, we moved quickly on to a regional update from ESARO. This presentation was made by Akihiro Fushimi, Education Specialist in the Regional Office, and consisted of a global overview of CFS and a regional update. The first part underlined that CFS is not just another UNICEF project, but a strategic framework for improving the quality of education in schools. It is not a quick win but rather a process with many entry points and multiple layers. Aki said that, on the global level, a CFS manual and E-learning package were in development and hopefully, after some delay, would be launched before the end of the year (both were the subject of a presentation in



Maputo 2006 workshop). As for the regional update, Aki looked first at the challenge of responding to the more than 11 million out of school children in the region’s 20 countries. However, the number of ESAR countries adopting CFS or similar measures had risen from 7 to 14 between 2005 and 2008, which was a good sign. Aki finished by outlining 10 positive trends in CFS in ESARO (such as adoption of minimum quality standard packages, effective SWAps, and improved partnerships) and some challenges common to every participating country, such as effective scaling up of CFS standards, better monitoring and evaluation, and the ongoing challenge of assessing learning achievement. This was followed by 10 country presentations – 10 minute overviews of each country’s education sector in general and response to the Child Friendly Schools initiative in particular. Presenters were also asked what they thought they could offer other participant countries as best practice, and what they hoped they could improve upon with the benefit of others’ experiences and knowledge. 1.2 Country Presentations Rwanda: Claver Yisa spoke of Rwanda’s rapid rise from emergency to development, and the priorities of the government to work towards a knowledge economy by 2020. Rwanda’s plan will be to work on scaling up the CFS programme from 54 to all schools in Rwanda. As an example of good practice in Rwanda, Yisa pointed to the success of the capitation grant, a sum of money per child given by the Ministry to the school, which has recently been more than doubled with tangible results at school level. He also said that Rwanda would be looking during the week for solutions and suggestions on how to solve the problem of excessive class sizes, and poor M&E mechanisms. Angola: Joao Cafuquena from the Ministry of Education in Luanda explained how 27 years of civil war had severely depleted the infrastructure in Angola and only since peace in 2002 has development been possible. Following education reforms since 2004 the numbers of children in primary school has risen dramatically but a raft of challenges remain: 1.1million out of school children; insufficient classrooms, water and sanitation facilities, and schoolbooks; drop out and retention; attracting girls; trained teachers; lack of data. The CFS concept has been introduced and adopted in Angola with a number of entry points, including construction, WASH facilities and promotion activities, teacher training and centralised minimum standards on construction with regard to WASH. Burundi: Victoire Nahimana of the Ministry of Education introduced the education overview in Burundi, a country which is in the early stages of introducing CFS concepts into schools. Like Angola, civil conflict and displacement have taken a stark toll on the infrastructure and capacity of Burundian schools. As such, the Burundian government is taking steps to address these issues, with the support of UNICEF with regard to introducing CFS elements into a new policy for education. A CFS pilot will be launched and monitored and government is offering its support for the initiative. Burundi is at



the workshop to learn from the experiences of others, and in particular take home some suggestions on how to ensure quality in teaching. Ethiopia: Eleni Mamo of UNICEF Ethiopia presented an overview of education in Ethiopia, a country where discussions have been able to progress onto issues of quality in education, despite the fact that many of the problems common to the region remain. Ethiopia is not a SFA country but has quite strongly entrenched CFS ideologies in education, and government has developed a programme to address issues of quality in education – GEQUIP (General Education Quality Improvement Programme). Kenya: Onesmus Kiminza from the Ministry of Education in Nairobi explained how Kenya has had to deal with a number of challenges since free primary education (FPE) was introduced in 2003, largely based on a diminished capacity in relation to an increased enrolment. In Kenya, according to Kiminza, CFS initiatives have focussed on teacher development and training (a useful learning point for other participants), and in particular the school cluster system, the subject of a day 2 presentation. CFS has also been successful in Kenya in addressing the needs of vulnerable children and girls. Whilst it may be fair to say that Kenya could be considered a rich learning resource for other country participants, the delegation from Nairobi nevertheless expressed a desire to learn from colleagues about documenting processes and scaling up. Madagascar: After a short break, Adrien Ranarison from the Ministry of Education gave the update on Madagascar, not a SFA country but one where significant developments in crucial CFS pillars, such as eco-friendly construction and inclusion, are being made. Fee free since 03, primary enrolment is improving, gender parity is being successfully addressed, teachers are being trained in increasing numbers and government is giving significant priority to primary education. However dropout and repetition rates are still high, completion is low, many teachers have insufficient qualifications (having been recruited by communities), and regional disparities are enormous. A useful diagram illustrated how, of 100 children entering primary, only 5 go on to complete secondary education. Madagascar finished with some important reforms at national level to address these issues, and a word on lessons learned from the process. In terms of bringing their experience to the workshop, Madagascar hoped to be able to disseminate their good practice in achieving gender equity and in particular a successful “Girl to Girl” programme. Malawi: Fee free since 1994, primary education in Malawi nonetheless suffers from typical problems such as access, completion, shortages of classrooms and teachers, according to Catherine Chirwa from UNICEF Malawi. The CFS programme, active in Malawi since 2005, has worked to train teachers, rehabilitate and construct school blocks, provide furniture and sensitise communities. A handbook and training manual are the tools Malawi has developed and used to improve CFS implementation. Mozambique: Mozambique’s multi sectoral approach fits nicely with the large delegation it brought to Rwanda and the country presentation demonstrated a wide range of CFS activities, as described by Cristina Tomo from the Ministry of Education. Interventions include training of directors, teachers and school



council members, provision of Teaching and Learning Materials, rehabilitation of classrooms, and support to Life Skills education and HIV prevention. Child protection measures are also well developed. M&E practices are an area of strength for Mozambique, as was demonstrated over the course of the workshop. As lessons Mozambique stressed the importance of good planning, knowledge of local context, partnership with government, and mainstreamed M&E practices South Africa: Due to the last minute absence of UNICEF South Africa’s Chief of Education, Themba Gwamanda nobly stepped up to deliver a country outline without the benefit of powerpoint. Among other points of interest, Themba underlined the importance in South Africa of Life Skills, and in particular sports (and other physical activity) for development, in Child Friendly Schools. Issues which need addressing in South Africa (as many other countries in the region) include ways of obtaining more accurate and useful data and using it more effectively, addressing regional disparities and issues to do with isolation. South Africa is geographically the region’s largest country and access can be problematic. Zimbabwe: Country presentations finished on a high with Gift Kawaju from UNICEF Zimbabwe giving a compassionate insight into currently one of the region’s most troubled countries. With the current political crisis, the education system is suffering from a depletion of resources, but CFS activities are continuing in spite of the difficulties of implementation. One area where Zimbabwe can be said to be excelling is in the planning and provision of Early Childhood Development (ECD) facilities, of which more on day 4. Activities are underway in school construction, WASH assessment, textbook distribution and teacher training. The challenges faced have a lot to do with the current situation, in terms of dealing with economic issues such as hyperinflation, political ones such as relationships with government and centralised delays, and social ones which need no explanation. However, Gift was able to provide some inspiration by pointing to efforts made to address problems and deliver quality services even under these difficult circumstances. By instigating strong community involvement in schools, social unrest and a lack of resources has not been able to destroy a sense of ownership nor dent enrolment and equity in primary schools. Gift said that Zimbabwe could perhaps take from some other countries in the region suggestions on how best to handle a post-crisis situation, as that is what he hopes Zimbabwe will shortly be facing.



Conclusions These country presentations provided the participants with no more than an insight into each country’s achievements and issues, but it was important to note that many countries shared similar problems and interests and were all looking for ways to address them. Specifically, several countries were in a position to look at scaling up after a first phase of CFS activities; many made reference to an interest in learning from the documentation and programmatic style of others; many also expressed an interest in improving, or even establishing their monitoring and evaluation frameworks.



Day 2: Strategic Approaches The theme of day 2 was “Strategic Approaches for Mainstreaming and Scaling Up CFS” and involved a series of presentations on relevant topics followed by discussion groups in the morning, and an M&E workshop after lunch. 2.1 Working Together 2.1.1 Establishment of National Minimum Quality Standards – Rwanda Narcisse Musabeyezu, Inspector General in the Rwanda Inspectorate General for Education (IGE) spoke of how Rwanda had in the last decade moved from a situation of emergency and a focus on access (as defined by Education For All) to a situation of development and a focus on quality. Already this was a crucial lesson for all. Minimum Quality Standards (MQS) have been developed for Rwanda and are now awaiting governmental approval before being written into law. This is a significant step on the road to scaling up CFS. These MQS consist of a series of ‘aspects’ referring to different areas of education management (such as ‘buildings and equipment’, ‘teachers’ ‘curriculum’ etc), which in turn have their own standards (“a school must have…”) and indicators which describe these standards. According to the Inspector General, MQS permits several important features: firstly, it makes a school a centre for change; secondly, it facilitates a level of participation which denies a purely “top down” approach to education planning; thirdly, it makes education accountable to all, from the Minister herself to the parents who are playing an active role in the day to day management of their children’s school. 2.1.2 National School Improvement Plan – Ethiopia Eleni Mamo described how UNICEF, using Child Friendly Schools principles, was attempting to promote the development of quality in schools in Ethiopia. The essence of this initiative involves ‘upstream’ support to policy development using CFS principles and case studies from ‘model’ CFS schools as a means to guide the formulation of school improvement strategies at the national level. At the same time work on the ground allows monitoring of the effectiveness of the initiative. Important in this initiative has been the role of and successful collaboration with partners, notably other UN agencies who contribute to a holistic school package (WFP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNDP etc). A positive by-product of this is the impact provided through joint programming and the progress towards UN reform outcomes. UNICEF contributed through guidelines, training on the guidelines, School Improvement Committees and Development Plans, policy level

Ethiopia Innovations! • CFS as a model for

surrounding schools • Photos of best achievers • Mirrors in school for students

to check appearance • School libraries increase

habit of reading • CFS model serves as a mini

teacher development centre



research on cluster approach, establishment of 3000+ Cluster Resource Centres and training of core teachers on child centred approaches. There are over 50 model CFS in Ethiopia. 2.1.3 Multisectoral Coordination – Mozambique Cristina Tomo from MoE Mozambique and Barbara Atherly from UNICEF jointly explained how CFS programming has been integrated into a broad framework for cooperation which encompasses centralised government and provincial and district level. Through an understanding both of how country coordination mechanisms work and of the separate components of a CFS package, CFS can be woven into existing structures for maximised impact with minimal disruption or repetition. For instance, the health and nutrition component of the CFS package involves cooperation between UNICEF Health and Nutrition, MoE School Health and the Ministry of Health. Relevant provincial and district officials also participate. District plans, the level where CFS activities are implemented, are monitored by UNICEF and by ministry focal points. 2.1.4 CFS Through the School Cluster / Holistic Approach – Kenya

Elias Noor of UNICEF Kenya introduced the concept of scaling up through clusters, a methodology which could provide many of the participants with inspiration for their own plans to broaden their CFS reach. A cluster model consists of 4 -7 schools to include ECD and NFE (Non-Formal Education) provision. An agreed ‘central school’ in the cluster acts as a support system to the surrounding institutions and teachers, promoting CFS principles. The original rationale

was to cope with the increase in numbers following abolition of primary fees, but added advantages can be found in the creation of support networks for teachers and of channels for transfer of expertise and resources. Clusters also work as a peer mentoring support system, recognising that teachers are an untapped resource, and they also create a unit of decentralisation beyond existing structures, which affects education at a grassroots level. Selection of clusters is an important stage and depends on a number of factors and a participatory process, and in Kenya a pilot was tested in 3 areas. The results have been impressive, more than 15 times as many teachers have been trained as before the advent of clusters. Elias talked about the challenges to this system, many of which demand that the system is monitored and managed effectively, and funded well. As such, plans for the way forward involve an institutionalisation of the cluster system, putting activities on (national) budget, document, monitor and eventually showcase this effective innovation. The presentation finished with the exhortation: “Keep the Clusters going and growing!”

Advantages of the Cluster System • Cost effective way of upscaling • Huge number of teachers trained • Teachers learn innovative

techniques • Empower grassroots level • Allows for continuous staff

development • Good model to introduce cross

cutting themes



2.1.5 Teacher Training – Zimbabwe Faith Mkabeta from UNICEF Zimbabwe stressed the importance of well-trained teachers to Child Friendly Schools. Central to Zimbabwe’s teacher training strategy is the role of the University of Zimbabwe – its involvement ensures that qualifications are recognised universally. Importantly, teacher education is not limited to conventional ‘college-based’ training but also includes Life Long Learning (LLL) or in-service training, and an ‘alternative needs’ method which includes distance learning. Teacher education has a number of elements which are central to the principles of Child Friendliness, including promoting gender parity, not discriminating against pregnant students, introducing life skills education into the TT curriculum as well as ECD and environmental training, all in a participatory fashion, teachers mentor students (for which they have received a training). Within the Life Skills component is training on disaster preparedness. Furthermore, communities have an active role in teacher training, and exchange visits between schools have promoted the sharing of skills and knowledge. Faith finished with some photos which demonstrated how far some schools have come by integrating peer learning mechanisms and mutual study visits. Following these presentations, participants broke into 3 groups under the following topics: 1) Minimum Quality Standards and School Improvement 2) Multisectoral Coordination 3) Teacher Training Each group went to a different room and continued the discussion under the chairpersonship of the presenter(s) on that topic. Groups reported back with key learning points and recommendations. Breakout Group 1: Minimum Quality Standards and School Improvement The important themes from this discussion were as follows: MQS, or the consideration of quality in education, has developed in Rwanda and in Ethiopia as a fundamental and unavoidable requirement, largely because with stabilisation and development, and therefore increasing access to education, quality introduces itself as the next logical challenge. Why have all these children in schools if the delivery of services is of poor quality? Education quality needs to be considered as crucial from the outset of education planning, and one way of ensuring this is implementing a comprehensive consultation process which must include communities, parents, local authorities, and, of course, children. A parliament of children has been set up in Rwanda which meets every year and garners children’s opinions on their own education and

Recommendations: Quality • Recognition of MQS as a continual

process • Importance of model schools • Importance of institutionalising

CFS principles through MQS • Importance of bringing in partners

into consultation process • Recognition that quality does not

have to be dependent on large scale financing



on issues which affect them. Effective SWAps can be crucial to a participatory process. Related to this, the issue of monitoring MQS is important – who does it and how? According to Rwanda, the same actors who come together in the consultative process must also be responsible for effective monitoring of the MQS i.e. schools, districts, sectors, parents, partners. Rwanda also stressed the importance of citizens exercising their democratic rights to put questions and challenges to government. One final comment alluded to the inclusion of marginal groups in MQS: SEN, OVC, etc. Both Rwanda and Ethiopia concluded that any effective MQS package must be fully inclusive and indeed these issues should be institutionalised wherever possible. Breakout Group 2: Multisectoral Coordination The important issues discussed in this group focussed on the importance of promoting CFS through a multisectoral approach. One important benefit of this concerns the idea of ‘ownership’, how stakeholders can contribute to quality by feeling that their input and opinion is heard and valued within the framework of effective education planning and management. For this to happen, and to be effective, roles and responsibilities need to be more clearly defined and understood. Another suggestion would be for sectoral plans to be commonly discussed and agreed, thus establishing some measure of alignment and harmonisation of approach. Among the recommendations put forward by the group were variations on the theme of common understanding: plans are agreed comprehensively before implementation, each partner receives and approves their Terms of Reference (ToR), common tools are used at grassroots level, a common financing mechanism is put in place to avoid duplication and confusion. Two final important themes were the development and use of a M&E framework and the promotion of ownership of processes by having the Ministry of Education as the lead partner. Breakout Group 3: Teacher Training From this discussion group emerged the importance of peer learning in the process of teacher education – it is better to learn from a colleague than an expert. In addition, the importance of resources was emphasised: for effective teacher development, materials and a resource centre are crucial. Recommendations concerned the structure of training courses and the need to agree on a streamlined method which limits the strain on teachers and does not add to their workload. As such, the development of for instance a district level training manual could be an effective means of alleviating this burden. There also needs to be an agreement on Minimum Quality Standards in teacher training, standards which are child friendly, teacher friendly, and go some way to ensuring that teacher training is relevant, effective, and inclusive.



2.2 Tools We Can All Use 2.2.1 Development of CFS Manual in Emerging SWAp – Malawi Malawi’s approach to integrating CFS into education planning is a lesson on preparation, planning, foreknowledge and awareness. Essentially it was an exercise in breaking down elements of CFS into manageable and understandable pieces which could be fitted into pre-existing frameworks and policies, on a national level as well as a UNICEF one. So explained Chikondano Mussa from the Ministry of Education in Lilongwe. In its manageable form, the CFS framework can be linked to the existing SWAp and harmonised into the main education policy document – the National Education Sector Plan. As such, CFS principles ‘fit’ with 3 main pillars in NESP: equitable access; relevance and quality; and governance and management. Further moves to institutionalise the CFS framework came with the development of the CFS Handbook which drew on consultations with a range of partners (including South Africa’s CFS Guidelines). A follow on Training Manual appeared, and throughout a key factor was the ownership which government possessed over the documents and procedures. Three lessons can be drawn from this experience: partnership is important, national ownership is important, good planning and coordination reaps many rewards. Note: Implementation Guidelines and Accreditation System from South Africa was cancelled due to the non-arrival of the presenter, but participants received in their welcome packs an abridged copy of the SA Accreditation document as a reference tool for the school visits. They were made aware of this. 2.2.2 CFS Monitoring Tool and Quality Assurance – Kenya This presentation was made by Samuel Gichuhi of the Ministry of Education and essentially explained how a broad plan for training on CFS and monitoring impact across the country has been able to mainstream CFS concepts in a wide range of educationalists and institutions. The training of trainers took place using pre-existing structures – national (35 people), district (50) and cluster (440) level. As a result more than 8000 teachers were trained on the CFS concept. This was primarily done through the Learning Resource Centres (LRCs), which we found earlier to be fundamental to the success of the Kenyan Cluster model. The important outputs from this initiative have been the Teacher’s Manual on Developing Teaching and Learning Materials, and a CFS Monitoring tool. The monitoring tool marks schools according to CFS criteria and a set of indicators. The indicators all refer back to the central CFS criteria, which are common to and known in all ESARO countries. A copy of the monitoring tool was presented (and is available on all workshop CDs). Owing to time constraints and the lack of a third presentation, it was decided to hold a Q&A plenary as opposed to breakout groups. Among the topics discussed here were how the cluster system worked at ECD and Primary level – an effective cluster incorporates ECD and primary as well as NFE – and the Kenyan Inspection Handbook, which is a guide for school inspectors with



elements of CFS written into it, and was available for viewing in the market stall. 2.3 CFS Conceptual Framework and M&E System The purpose of this session was to address a weakness which several participating countries had alluded to previously, namely insufficient and/or ineffective Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks in CFS with which to aid the definition and achievement of stated goals and facilitate more comprehensive programme and activity planning. Karen Munce, a CFS consultant with myriad experience in M&E activities in several countries, delivered the presentations.

Best Practice in ESAR Karen also pledged to work with individual countries, during short meetings throughout the week, in order to put together a Best Practice document based on information provided by ESAR countries, which will act as a guide and a showcasing tool both inside and outside ESAR

The first presentation gave an introduction to M&E within a conceptual framework. Karen began by making the quintessential observation that, if we understand CFS to be an ongoing process and not a goal which can be achieved overnight – which unanimously we do – then the role of effective planning in the long term (clearly) and the short term (crucially) is key. Furthermore, good planning relies on a solid M&E framework. Put simply, if we want to achieve results in the long term, our first preoccupation must be in the details of the short term. Karen presented a very interesting way of looking at results, which should give us food for thought when we come to write our own locally specific conceptual frameworks. Her method involved a hierarchical matrix of results and expectations: Firstly, we expect results for children – this is clearly at the forefront of our thinking because we consider children to be the ultimate beneficiaries of CFS interventions. But those results for children will not be achieved if results in the schools, which permit benefits for children, are not also achieved. Again, a school itself will not achieve these results if the ‘enabling conditions’ or ‘stakeholder capacity’ are not improved so as to facilitate results in schools. In a nutshell, enabling conditions are the circumstances which allow interventions in schools to take place and refer to knowledge, skills, attitudes, resources and processes, on a national level, on a

Limitations of Traditional M&E Approaches

• Considered a ‘one-off’ exercise

rather than a continuous process • Often an activity of “outsiders” e.g.

a consultant and not locally owned • No capacity built for M&E • Refers more to donor

requirements than local needs • Does not consider sufficiently the

local context and stakeholders • Quality of M&E not sufficiently

monitored



local level and concerning implementing partners, not least UNICEF. Finally, these enabling conditions rarely come for free, and so one last result level concerns the building of capacity at a strategic level in order that all the results levels underneath have a framework of acceptance, and operational context – for proof, think of the processes Malawi CO went through in order to mainstream CFS ideas into education planning (presentation 2.2.1). Concretely, increased enrolment in primary, to use one example of a possible result, needs to be addressed on four levels of activity for fuller effectiveness. From an M&E perspective, it follows that monitoring these activities must be done on 4 levels, even if traditionally this has not been the case (monitoring has focussed on the bottom level for results i.e. enrolment of children has increased, but multiple activities which permitted this increase have not been studied, only assumed) and even if these activities are harder to measure objectively.

Tool Frequency Example of data

CFS Tracking tool Biannual # teacher kits distributed # teachers trained

Field Evaluation Annual Knowledge levels, attitude and behaviour change

EMIS Annual NER, dropout, completion

Household survey on child survival

Start and End of programme

Disaggregated school attendance data

UNICEF field visits Ad hoc - frequent Extent of programme implementation

A second presentation provided a theoretical overview of M&E concepts. Barbara Atherly from UNICEF Mozambique then provided a case study on M&E for other participants – Mozambique has one of the more developed M&E frameworks in ESAR, and they have made active efforts to internalise M&E as opposed to regarding it as an ‘add-on’. Barbara introduced the rationale for an effective M&E system, in which the two major components are accountability and planning; features which every country in the region can relate to very closely. Mozambique CO uses 5 tools for data collection (see box). An important lesson from these exercises relates to coordination with partners and capacity building: M&E as an isolated activity is useless and needs to be coordinated with multiple local partners and stakeholders, both to contribute to effectiveness and to ownership. This is one area where Mozambique’s successful multi-sectoral approach has tangible benefits. One important outcome from these discussions was the need for the concept and principles of Child Friendly Schools to move away from the idea of them being UNICEF-owned but rather a framework or global model for improving



quality in education, in which UNICEF is one of a variety of partners but which essentially must be adopted and understood by governments and institutions. Another important point raised was that one of the most effective ways of planning what a CFS should look like is to consult the children who will use it. Many participants enthusiastically endorsed the idea that children are key stakeholders in this process and their opinion is crucial – after all, who better to answer the question, “What kind of school would children like to attend?”? Conclusions With a large number of presentations covering a range of themes, this was a long day. However presentations were generally concise and related to topics which have direct relevance to ESAR countries and their programmes, and a number of very key learning points were underscored and hopefully taken away by participants. In particular, a significant area of CFS is quality, and the morning’s discussions on Minimum Quality Standards and School Improvement presented real suggestions on how to make quality a central theme in CFS. Another area of concern is coordination and the Sector Wide Approach (SWAp); again this was the subject of presentations by Malawi and Mozambique. Finally, scaling up CFS was cited on day 1 as a crucial learning point, and the presentation by Kenya on clusters and the discussion on M&E for quality planning sought – and to a large extent managed – to address this concern.



Day 3: Field Visits Three different field visits were proposed for day 3, each with a different main theme: Group 1 – Teacher Support Group 2 – Construction Group 3 – OVC care, SNE, clubs, school management Participants had been encouraged to read the documentation on these visits contained in their welcome packs and choose a group based on their interests, professional and personal. The documentation included ToRs for each group, factsheets on each of the schools to be visited, and an abridged version of the South African Accreditation Checklist, which is the document used there to “mark” CFS schools against a long list of indicators, for the purpose of awarding prizes to the achieving schools. The use of this checklist was twofold – firstly to give participants an idea of what to look out for in each school, and secondly to embed the idea of the interchangeability of our documentation and the recognition that, to produce CFS materials, we need not always ‘reinvent the wheel’, but call on the good work and best practice of our ESAR peers. They were also encouraged to split their country groups in order to make sure at least one person from each country went on all three visits in order to maximise learning experiences. We asked groups to compile some learning points and some recommendations from their visit collectively and then to present them to the plenary on Thursday morning. The visits were widely regarded as a success even if the distances involved were somewhat excessive, and participants returned with lots of new ideas and inspiration.



Day 4: Hardware and Soft Components The morning began with the feedback from the field visits before settling into the main content of the day, which was to look at the hard components of CFS (construction of buildings and latrines and guidelines for best practice) in the morning and softer components in the afternoon (OVC care, SEN, Life Skills etc). Again, a structure of presentations followed by breakout groups for discussion was proposed, time permitting. 4.1 Feedback on Field Visits 4.1.1 Group 1 – Teacher Support in Umubano II PS, Gachuba Teacher Training College (TTC) and Kigeyo PS A powerpoint presentation provided some photos and observations from this visit. Strengths included high girls’ enrolment, the active participation of students in school affairs, well organised schools, and a wide use of didactic materials (photos in the presentation supplement this observation), relevant clubs promoting social issues (such as peace & reconciliation, HIV/AIDS, environment, OVC, girls’ education, helping each other), good awareness of OVC and children with SEN, a functional in-service training mechanism for teachers, good “talking walls” (i.e. use of didactic materials on the walls), and students who looked clean, healthy and happy. As for areas of improvement, the group noted a tendency during group work sessions for children to work on their own, and therefore more participatory teaching and learning methods would need to be internalised; similarly it was felt that students could benefit from being more spontaneous, enigmatic, and not simply following what teacher said and practicing rote learning; a question was raised about the schools being ‘child-seeking’, because some children of school age were seen outside of school; another point concerned the behaviour of teachers, and a seeming reluctance to engage fully, personified by the refusal to call the child by their name; another comment pointed to a traditional organisation of the classroom. In the TTC a lack of resources and materials was brought up, specifically a laboratory and locally available materials for making TLMs. 4.1.2 Group 2 – Construction in Kanyinya PS and Buramira PS Again on powerpoint, group 2 presented a list of findings and recommendations. The first observation referred to a good sign – the excitement of learners about their new school (Kanyinya has a recently constructed new block of classrooms in a child friendly style); on the other hand, the existing (i.e. old) classrooms were dark inside with small windows which made visibility poor; high ceilings in the new classrooms means a feeling of space, big windows, and a cool climate; aspects of construction and



materials used mean that maintenance will be cost-effective and reduced; and the water harvesting mechanism – 2 roofs collecting water for one 10,000l tank and a number of taps – was good. As for recommendations, more CFS schools were needed in order to reduce the large distance that learners had to travel each morning and evening; the existing structures also needed work to make them more child friendly, specifically light and ventilation; more latrines were also needed in school 2 (Buramira) despite an ongoing programme to build there.

A lesson for Rwanda – observations from the school visits

• Enhance teaching and learning methods • Improve ‘child-seeking’ aspect for greater

inclusion of vulnerables • Teacher training to include giving a

greater sense of freedom of expression • Less ‘traditional’ classroom setup • Equip more fully the TTCs • Don’t forget that old classrooms need

work too • Add more colour and walls that talk!

4.1.3 Group 3 – OVC, SEN, Clubs, Active Learning and School Management in Busasamana PS and Rubingo PS Without powerpoint, group 3 presented 3 observations and 3 recommendations. The first category of observations was on ‘resources’ in the school, which included a lack of TLM and didactic materials, a very good Teacher Resource Centre (TRC) in Rubingo, and commendable water harvesting mechanisms. Rubingo PS has an effective system of water-boiling which provides drinking water for each child every day, and there are hand washing facilities in every classroom. Under the category ‘Teaching and Learning’, participants pointed to the traditional form of teacher-centred teaching at the front of the classroom, but were impressed by the clubs and how they develop self-esteem in the children. The final category, ‘Child Friendliness’, mentioned the following observations: good involvement of partners and stakeholders, in particular parents and communities; good inclusiveness in schools and participation in classrooms, good emphasis on girls and gender equality, in particular the 2 headteachers were women, every club had a girl and a boy captain. For recommendations, there were also 3 categories. Firstly, ‘Teaching and Learning’ suggested that methods were improved, such as mutual teaching and learning, more group work, peer learning mechanisms, closer pastoral care, particularly of vulnerable children, perhaps all included in a package on child-centred teaching and learning methods which could be rolled out in CFS. Secondly, ‘Child Friendliness’ suggested that more colour was added to the schools, inside and out, more wall displays (talking walls) were needed as well as a perimeter fence to keep the school grounds free from intrusion. Finally, the category ‘Scale up’ suggested more training of trainers, visits from non-CFS schools in the area to the CFS school for training and information (very much like the Kenyan Cluster System), more involvement of parents, leadership



training for Child Headed Households (CHH), and a locally specific definition of a CFS school from which gaps could be identified and addressed. 4.2 Global Perspective and Lessons on Construction in Schools – UNICEF Supply Division in Copenhagen This presentation was designed to open and frame the discussion on construction which was to follow, and was made by Claudia Melani. It was composed of two main parts; firstly to provide an overview of UNICEF’s activities in construction worldwide, and secondly to raise awareness on how the Supply Division Construction Unit (in Copenhagen, Denmark) can support ESAR countries. Many of the recommendations which Claudia produced from her experiences of UNICEF construction responses at the global level serve also as examples at the country level: choose one’s partners wisely, cooperate and align with government at every level, the importance of good project planning and monitoring, and of knowledge of the local context, the requirement for clearly defined roles and responsibilities and contracts which are unambiguous. The second part of the presentation involved the role of the Supply Division and how it could provide support to Country Offices, specifically on two levels: policy and strategy; and technical and operational. COs can look to the Supply Division for advice on Construction Guidelines (via Book G), construction management including support on financial issues, procurement processes, lessons learned, CFS implementation strategies, contract management and cooperation modalities, technical support and advice on internal UNICEF financial mechanisms. 4.3 Making a Learner Friendly Environment – Country Experiences and Lessons 4.3.1 Construction and Quality Control – Malawi Moving on to country experiences and lessons in CFS construction, Malawi and Catherine Chirwa provided an insight into the construction challenges and attempts to control quality in Malawi. This presentation took the form of two lists – firstly to highlight some of the main challenges facing construction activities, and secondly some suggestions as to how these challenges might be overcome, as laid out in the box. Challenges are as follows: process

Ensuring Quality: • Recruit a dedicated Construction

Officer • Recruit technical expert (architect

or surveyor) • Importance of Pre-Qualification • Harmonise procedures in SWAp • Create Technical Working Group

composed of development partners in construction

• Good time management



takes too long (which does not please donors); lack of qualified labour e.g. foremen, site surveyors; work does not meet requested standards; some areas suffer from significant skills shortages which do not meet prequalifying standards; cost control, because material prices fluctuate and are often not available locally. 4.3.2 School Design and Guidelines – Rwanda This presentation was by two architects: Eudès Kayumba, Director of Construction at MINEDUC and Luca Ginoulhiac of UNICEF, and focused on technical elements of school construction in Rwanda as well as administrative structures for streamlining processes and maximising efficiency. Speaking first, Eudès Kayumba explained how, in order to reach the target of 45 students per teacher in Primary by 2015, 1500 classrooms need to be built per year. He then outlined mechanisms for implementing construction projects jointly with MINEDUC and UNICEF, the point of which is to foster mutual accountability and a harmonised approach. Splitting activities into two ‘components’ – hard (building things) and soft (guidelines and capacity building) – MINEDUC and UNICEF work with and through the local districts (creating ownership of projects) with locally hired consultant engineers to supervise the activities of the construction companies (building local capacity). On the ‘soft’ side, standards and guidelines produced with the support of internationally recruited architects build capacity in institutions, align donor structures with government institutions, and create a sustainable foundation for future construction. Expanding, in a fashion, on Malawi’s introduction, Eudès went on to describe the construction process from tender to final product, a process which essentially involves the constant supervision of UNICEF and MINEDUC experts while ensuring the ownership of the process at a local level. A contract is signed with the construction company, a site supervisor, the school director, the district representative, UNICEF and the Ministry. The key to these activities is the collaboration between Ministry and UNICEF and the local ownership of processes. This represents very good practice in this area.

• All classrooms wheelchair accessible

• All classrooms well lit and ventilated

• Structures are easy to build and durable, able to resist shock

• Local context: no wood used • Adapted to site constraints (e.g.

cut out of a hill) • Tank has up to 6 taps from it • Toilet block design is flexible

and durable • Construction is gender

sensitive, hygienic and inclusive • Refurbishment is measured and

planned sensibly – optimise learning not expenditure!

• Be flexible and innovative!

An overview of part 2 of the presentation, on the key features of CFS architecture in Rwanda as explained by UNICEF architect Luca Ginoulhiac, can be found in the accompanying box.



4.3.3 Technical Support and Guidelines – South Africa UNICEF South Africa has drawn up a programme of construction and rehabilitation for 27 schools in 2 provinces in partnership with the Department of Education, so explained Themba Gwamanda, School Construction Project Manager for UNICEF SA. Themba showcased one of the province’s (Eastern Cape) guideline documents which defines and shapes the construction of schools according to advanced designs and conceptual frameworks. This document also acts as a guide to procurement and architectural preparation. The document also incorporates themes central to Child Friendliness, such as the need for community involvement, sports facilities, and also goes further in some cases by introducing, for instance, elements of environmental concern. There is also useful advice on concerns relating to cost and ways to save. The document also sets some minimum standards for school building, such as the amount of space on average per child (1.5m2 at primary, the same as in Rwanda), the minimum amount of chalkboard space per classroom (5.5m2) and is therefore a very useful reference for construction purposes for every country in the region. 4.3.4 Child and Eco Friendly Schools – Madagascar This presentation, perhaps more than any other during the week, really captured the imagination of the participants because it drew attention to something which concerns us all, and on which we all will need to act regardless of our job title or our place of work – the effect of a changing climate on our lives. More specifically, given an undeniable need to be more ecologically aware and careful with our resources, how can we adapt this thinking to the pressing need to build schools for our children? This was the question that Mario Bacigalupo from UNICEF Madagascar put to the participants.

Eco Friendly Schools

• CEB – Compressed Earth Block doesn’t need burned

• IHCEB – the ‘Interlocking Hollow’ version (avoids cement and mortar and save time)

• Using local materials for construction, such as bamboo reinforcements

• Semi-metal tables reduces the need for wood

• Use old infrastructure where possible

Given the realities of climate change, and given the reality of school construction on a local level – 8 tonnes of wood (or 2 hectares of trees) is needed to make 4 classrooms, at a “cost” of 400 tonnes of carbon dioxide – UNICEF in Madagascar has made a range of interventions aimed at lessening the environmental load while at the same time achieving national targets on classroom construction. Some institutional measures include quality standards on construction, cost-reducing measures which do not impinge on quality, training of contractors and partners and community members, setting trends for innovative techniques and using the clout of UNICEF to introduce new issues into the discussion, which have as a central theme Child and Eco Friendliness.



Some more innovations can be found in the box. In his conclusions, Mario stated the important point that a school can and must be an “innovation space”, and with certain universal features – such as the agreement and participation of local communities and a sense of ownership of the technology and building – one is able to strike a more appropriate balance between environmental protection and large-scale construction. Following these four presentations, participants broke into 3 groups under the following topics: 1) School Design, Guidelines and Quality Control 2) CFS Guidelines and Eco-Friendly Schools 3) CFS in Emergencies and Crises Each group went to a different room and continued the discussion under the chairpersonship of the presenter(s) on that topic. Groups reported back with key learning points and recommendations. Breakout Group 1: School Design, Guidelines and Quality Control Chaired by Rwanda and Co-chaired by Malawi, this group took a holistic approach to the constituent elements which shape each country’s idea of school construction. In other words, they looked at individual features of a school – classrooms, grounds, toilets, etc – and at the essential elements of construction in each one. The thrust of the questions put to the chairs of this session involved the adaptability of norms and standards in construction to individual country contexts – a valid point from Angola (and doubtless true for almost every ESAR country) was that even within the same country, the environment was so different that a single set of guidelines would be insufficient, for instance constructing child friendly schools in rural and urban settings. The answer to this was that, of course, terrains and environments and climates and a host of other factors differed across the region, but the focus should be on what is common among countries, in essence a minimum package. Furthermore, we all depart from the same starting point, which is a child-centred design promoting safety and protection. In some cases, countries in the region share more minute details, such as the space per child in primary being 1.5m2 in Rwanda and South Africa. Therefore if we focus on what is common instead of what is not, we can arrive at a minimum package which is transferable between countries, between regions in countries, even globally, and leaves space for adaptation to individual cases. Here is a concrete example: Rwanda says that a CFS must have the following: a Teacher Resource Centre (TRC), a SEN room, separate latrines for boys and girls, SEN latrines, a watertank, handwashing facilities, a perimeter fence, playgrounds, amongst other things. Zimbabwe adds that the water does not have to be collected from rainwater, but can come from boreholes, and that latrines may be separated between age groups. To this, Malawi adds that boys and girls latrines should face different directions. ESARO suggests that separate blocks can be nominated for different sexes. All these are valid points, but only variations on the original need for separated latrines / drinking water etc, which proves the viability of a minimum package adaptable to each country.



The rest of the discussion focussed on problem-solving, as various issues were brought up and solved collectively, for instance ridding school construction of asbestos (replace with clay or corrugated iron – Rwanda), or the need for lockers (design buffer space between classrooms – Zimbabwe), or the need to sensitise children on why there was a second (emergency) exit door in a classroom (ESARO). Breakout Group 2: CFS Guidelines and Eco-Friendly Schools Essentially not different in content from breakout group 1 but hosted by a different set of chairs and therefore hoping to produce some different discussions, the main points of discussion were as follows: Pursuit of the topic introduced by Madagascar on interlocking hollow blocks and in particular costing and a cost comparison between CEB and normal (baked) bricks; funding, and UNICEF’s involvement in finding funding for construction; how to prioritise construction (and rehabilitation) activities when presented with an ultimately limited budget; and how quality assurance can be enhanced through involvement of the local communities, and most effectively when the majority of the work itself is undertaken by these same communities. Breakout Group 3: CFS in Emergencies and Crises This group discussion did not reference previous presentations, but was felt to be an important aspect of the overall CFS package and needed to be represented in this workshop. Particularly in light of Mario’s presentation from the previous session, Gift’s country presentation on day 1, and a number of recent incidents, such as the earthquake on the Rwanda/Burundi border and cyclone Ivan hitting Madagascar, this is a facet of CFS which ESAR can hardly afford to ignore. A short presentation summed up the salient points for discussion, arguing that Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) should be an integral part of CFS. Children, teachers and communities should all be trained and sensitised on DRR (as per the Hyogo Framework). From the construction side, design needs to account for any possible eventuality – structurally sound, quake-resistant buildings with reinforced roofing where cyclones are a threat, site selection which takes into account susceptibility to disaster, the cost-effectiveness of investing more in the short term in solid structures (this can also save lives) and a recognition that, if one has to rebuild, one should rebuild better.

MADA: manual and teacher training on emergency preparedness (EP) and cyclone response KEN: capacity building of districts on EP ETH: training for teachers on how to deal with trauma ZIM: has a National Civil Protection Unit MOZ: Emergency workshop held for education officials BUR: Government created a emergency committee and curriculum has module for manmade disasters only SAF: Teachers were trained but they have not yet had to practice what they learned



Following this, countries spoke of their existing mechanisms for dealing with disasters, a résumé of which can be found in the box. Clearly from this information, no common regional strategy exists and it may be worthwhile to give time to this in the future. 6 recommendation were put forward from this discussion group: establish an education cluster group/mechanism (led by MoE and including all partners) which operates continuously and not just during emergencies; make linkages with child protection and WASH at UNICEF and cluster level; include Emergency Response in regular programme; create regional best practice documentation (share materials, tools); supply division and regional office to be a resource for urgent information gathering (i.e. tents, cost, durability, local context etc); creation of standby MoUs with NGOs and service providers. After these breakout groups it was decided that a smaller team would separate off and continue the discussion on construction issues. 4.4 Including the Excluded Children 4.4.1 Inclusive Education – Madagascar This presentation, delivered by Margarita Focas Licht from UNICEF in Madagascar opened the session on Including Excluded Children and provided a conceptual introduction to afternoon’s topics. Inclusive education is central to child friendly schools as it addresses concerns which all ESAR countries have to some extent or another: issues of access, of participation, of quality, of achievement, of human rights. Our interventions with regard to increasing inclusion in schools can occur on many levels, and this offered a useful framework for the more specific areas of activity to follow: policy level, curriculum, teacher training and pedagogical support, student assessment, educational management and

education financing. Margarita finished with some suggestions on school level reform, and a crucial learning point from the week, which was that interventions do not always need to be cost-heavy or elaborate – there are a range of low cost or no cost interventions which can be implemented in schools to create meaningful change – Child Friendly Schools is a concept not a project. To emphasise this point Margarita finished with two case studies, one from Madagascar illustrating how an ‘upstream’ or support to policy level approach can be

Obstacles to Children’s Education

• Inappropriate curriculum

and/or materials • Unequipped teachers • Inaccessible

infrastructures • Attitudes and values that

exclude • Structural inadaptability • Cultural, economic,

geographic, political and linguistic obstacles

The Ongoing Process of Inclusive Education

• Identify and remove

obstacles to access and learning

• Continued attention to access, participation and achievement

• Special attention to those most at risk of exclusion



effective, and the second from Ethiopia, where seemingly incremental school-level activities to empower local teachers on SEN had disproportionately fecund returns for inclusion. To finish we were reminded that the Millennium Development Goals, to which we have all subscribed, depend on us including all children in the learning process. 4.4.2 Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) Care and Support – Mozambique Mozambique has up to 1.6 million orphaned children under the age of 18, and statistically these children are much less likely to attend school (46% of orphans compared to 71% non-orphans aged 6-12 attend primary), so explained Cristina Tomo and Maria Azalia of the Ministry of Education. In addition to access to education, OVC also face problems of violence, particularly domestic violence, abuse and trafficking. A possible complication, both for UNICEF in particular but also within the broader framework of working with OVC is how issues related to care and support for OVCs can frequently be multi-sectoral, multi-departmental, and therefore requiring advanced levels of coordination for an effective response. UNICEF for instance will need to engage the education , HIV/AIDS and child protection sections amongst others, while getting OVCs into schools may be the concern of the national Ministry of Education, protecting OVCs against abuse and violence might fall under the remit of the Ministry of Youth, or Women and Children, or Health etc. Therefore a planned and coordinated response is needed. A key intervention in Mozambique is the rehabilitation of the ‘Gabinete de Atendimento’, a support centre within police stations specifically for victims of violence. As highlighted on a more conceptual level in the previous presentation, key challenges involve making changes on a central, policy, even behavioural level, as well as interventions on the ground, such as providing materials for OVCs to use at school, and monitoring them once they are there to prevent dropout and poor performance. 4.4.3 Sport for Development – South Africa This presentation provided an introduction to Life Skills and their importance for changing behaviour in schools and mitigating against the development of social problems in high risk areas. Delivered by Nokuthula Prusent from the UNICEF South Africa office, this presentation focussed on an ambitious collaboration which UNICEF entered into with, among a raft of other partners, television service provider SuperSport to distribute 1 million footballs before that country hosts the football World Cup in 2010. This project is a lesson in solid partnerships and the benefits that can be derived from effective collaboration. The project aims as providing life skills – including sport, entrepreneurship development – as a means of fighting social problems such as HIV/AIDS, teenage pregnancy, violence, drug abuse and gangs, among other issues.



Through this campaign, UNICEF and partners are able to work directly in child friendly schools promoting activities which fall under not only its objectives but those of the government and those of partners. 4.4.4 Special Education Needs – Rwanda This presentation on SEN in CFS was made by Esther Nandudu from NGO ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency). ADRA is UNICEF Rwanda’s implementing partner for SEN training in 20 pilot child friendly schools in the east of the country. ADRA’s approach to promoting inclusion of SEN children takes place mainly at school level, by improving capacity in key educators to address SEN issues, transform primary schools into centres of care and support, enhance production of pedagogical materials at a low cost, and monitor and evaluate SNE children to ensure they remain in school. Beyond that, this work will go towards a wider attempt to increase awareness of SNE and change attitudes. Eventually there can be feedback into national policy making. There are a number of challenges associated with integrating SNE into primary schools: Attitudes, and the belief of parents that physically or mentally disabled children shouldn’t go to school; the perennial problem of turnover – after having trained educators one finds that they often use this as a foot-up to a better paid job; already high teacher-learner ratio is further complicated by inclusion of SNE pupils which makes classroom management even harder for teachers; lack of material aid for children with physical disability; the development of educational materials has been seen as pointless or increasing the burden on teachers; as yet there is no provision above primary 1. 4.4.5 Early Childhood Development – Zimbabwe This presentation was given by Erison Huruba of the Zimbabwean Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture (MoESC) and gave an overview of the advanced development of ECD education in Zimbabwe. In 2004 a 2 phase programme was proposed which would develop in the first instance one year of ECD in 6000 primary classes, and in the second phase that one year would be increased to two, so that 3-4 year olds would be able to go to school too. The proposed curriculum for ECD is a holistic approach to developing children’s skills, creativity and aptitudes. With the rollout of the programme (Phase I is 2005-10) additional elements have been incorporated, such as creating model centres as centres of training and expertise in a given region, and a Mother-Baby-Toddler Programme in one school as a forum for discussion and training. ECD in Zimbabwe is inclusive and encourages the involvement of children with SEN. Indeed ECD classes are child friendly on several levels, including involving the community and providing psychosocial support to children and teachers. The benefits are very clear in terms of the advantages of ECD for



children and communities, and Zimbabwe is lucky to have a government which prioritises this so highly. Following these five presentations, participants broke into 3 groups under the following topics: 1) OVC and SEN 2) Life Skills 3) Early Childhood Development Each group went to a different room and continued the discussion under the chairpersonship of the presenter(s) on that topic. Groups reported back with key learnings and recommendations. Breakout Group 1: OVC and SEN Major issues discussed in this session were statistics, scale up, and sustainability. These three issues interdepend on each other, for instance, effective scale up can only be done with sufficient knowledge of who the OVC are, how many they are, where they are and what their circumstances and needs are. A sustained support to OVC can, similarly, only be assured with dynamic tracking of the same information. In addition any response needs to consider the exponential costings – if information gathering systems become more effective, more OVC are identified and supported, and in order for them to remain, as it were, on the radar of schools, authorities and support groups, the commitment to each individual needs to be ongoing and monitored. As such the group provided 4 recommendations for plenary: firstly, a need for more effective high-level advocacy to push policy making at government to include OVC in formal systems; secondly, there was a need for better information gathering systems, which not only improved access to OVC, but also the data that they collected needs to be more specific and detailed, and constantly monitored; thirdly there was a need – as formerly mentioned in Mozambique’s presentation – for better coordination in terms of an effective response for OVCs, and that this involved more effective work between UN, government and NGOs; finally, the group brought up the requirement for increased social mobilisation, including the participation of and sensitisation in local communities. These were all excellent points and well considered and it’s hoped that participants will have ideas from this session to take back to their countries. Breakout Group 2: Life Skills An initial discussion, perhaps somewhat predictable, focussed on a definition, and came to no other conclusion than that Life Skills constituted something different for different countries and should be respected as such. For instance, Kenya has a separate Life Skills subject whereas every other country wants to integrate Life Skills into the existing curriculum. However, these varying approaches were said to work. Therefore, a common definition is not required, but on the other hand the sharing of good practice across the region on life skills, and on curriculum integration, could be a very useful activity. Similarly, participants were able to agree on the need for a mechanism for assessing Life



Skills, regardless of the form they took in schools. ESARO was able to intervene here and propose the sharing of a document which would hopefully serve this purpose. Breakout Group 3: ECD A small group discussed how other countries might be able to arrive at a level of service provision of ECD similar to that of Zimbabwe. In Malawi, for instance, ECD is accessed by only 26% of children. Without a policy or legal framework, ECD provision is left to chance, and so participants were able to state that ECD policies were in progress in a number of countries. Therefore, the first recommendation that was proposed was that ECD needs to be recognised as a fundamental pillar of education and as such, steps should be taken to formalise this. Secondly, similarly to the discussion on OVC, it was suggested that roles and responsibilities need to be very clearly defined because there is a variety of actors and stakeholders involved in the provision of ECD – from a government perspective, the Ministries of Education, Women and Children, Health, even Water may all want to lead on a ECD process, and from a development partner perspective, sections working on education, child protection, mother and child health etc may all want to lead on this process. The consensus from this discussion was very firm on the point that the Ministry of Education must take the lead role in a SWAp. A final important point involved the ECD teachers themselves, and how they need to be trained, but more importantly paid, by government. This is one crucial way of ensuring retention and quality in ECD. Conclusions Participants felt refreshed after what most felt to be an instructive day in the field on Wednesday, and were keen to share learning experiences and observations. Thursday’s schedule was in hindsight probably too ambitious, with too many topics over a range of themes, but happily there was enough flexibility in the agenda and discipline in the participants to ensure that people did have the opportunity to focus on their particular area of interest. The evening’s entertainment was a banquet dinner, which, in-keeping with the informal tone of the workshop, did not involve any speeches but rather encouraged a convivial atmosphere and introduced participants to some traditional Rwandan dance courtesy of the Twizerane troupe, based locally and who have received support from UNICEF.



Day 5: Recap and Closing The agenda for the final day was completely re-designed, to reflect the interests of participants, and to press home on a few important ideas which had been raised over the course of the week – namely, M&E, further progress on construction issues and some proactive group work and country planning. There was also a feeling that a less heavy schedule allowing some free time to enjoy the lakeside town of Gisenyi would be a better way to end the workshop. Therefore, a new agenda was proposed which began with a recap of the week’s observations and key discussion points. This was followed by a monitoring and evaluation workshop, which would allow countries to build on the conceptual framework of Tuesday and put together their own basic M&E framework to take home. There was to be a brief report back from the construction subgroup, who had since Thursday morning worked separately of the rest of the participants, and finally a short country group session to follow up on what had been learned and what where the ways forward. 5.1 CFS Q&A This session was designed simply to get people thinking about what they had learned and recognising actively what resources were available from their colleagues and counterparts. In essence it was a recap of some major issues which had appeared in the course of the week, thrown to the floor so that ideas could be bounced around for everyone’s benefit. Skilfully conducted by Maniza Ntekim of UNICEF Rwanda, some 11 questions were asked and the general level of participation was good, and enthusiastic. The questions were not difficult (“How to improve community involvement with CFS?”) but the fact of recognising our common aims while at the same time our individual innovations which can make a difference meant that this was a worthwhile exercise and served to remind participants, on the final day, that their colleagues represented a valuable resource. 5.2 M&E Workshop Karen Munce, who had talked about M&E on Tuesday, again took the floor and delivered a small presentation on building a M&E framework, with the help of an existing template from Nepal, and then broke into groups in order to explore in countries a way forward on effective M&E practices. This session was felt to be very helpful for all, because most participants managed to get something concrete from it, and in addition this addressed a specific need, as many participants had voiced, at the beginning of the week, concerns over the quality (or sometimes even non-existence) of a functional M&E framework for their country.



Of particular relevance to many was a diagram (explained in more detail in 2.3) which focussed on defining results for children and schools, enabling conditions and capacity building. 5.3 Construction Report After the useful session on the morning of day 4, a group of some 6 construction experts from various countries had felt that they could use more time to profit from the opportunity of collaboration at the workshop, and formed an additional breakout group which sat together for all Thursday and Friday morning, and reported back to the plenary on Friday morning to give an overview of what they had discussed. Their major decision was to work together to produce a manual on construction specific to the ESAR countries. This was borne of the fact that the global manual, in progress for more than 2 years, had still not been released despite numerous requests, and also of the fact that the workshop – as well as previous collaboration – had uncovered a knowledge and expertise resource which was worth exploiting. Therefore the group pledged to put together a manual by the end of the year which would incorporate best practice and design ideas seen in the region and act as a guide for construction experts, architects, even non-technical UNICEF and government staff, and possibly development partners. Technical experts who had not been able to attend the workshop would be brought on board, and results would be shared with wider networks if they wished. In any case, the workshop had provided an important forum for the region’s technical experts to discuss and plan, and concrete proposals for working across national borders had been agreed upon.



5.4 Country Planning Wanting to close the workshop early and aware of the fact that this session would be more symbolic than revelatory, the final group session was limited to some 30 minutes, ten minutes for country groups discuss together, then 20 to suggest at least one action point that they would take from the week, and to ask any questions that still remained. The response was positive and suggested that participants would be leaving with a lot to think about and to get their teeth into upon return.

Action Points • Rwanda: Take M&E Framework forward, excited about working within the newly

formed construction network • South Africa: M&E framework has helped to identify gaps which can be

addressed with appropriate tools, future training will pay more attention to issues of gender, helped to formulate a suitable roll out of life skills training and education, a redesign for latrines will be taken away and used

• Mozambique: the findings from the workshop will be shared within the multi-sectoral network, ‘talking walls’ will be promoted in CFS, a recommendation will be put forward for revising teacher training methodologies, manuals and minimum quality standards will be developed

• Angola: a survey to identify baselines, needs in schools and ways forward needs to be carried out, based on information gathered during the workshop, minimum quality standards need to be investigated and incorporated into planning

• Kenya: after the evaluation report of the workshop is disseminated, CFS initiative to be rolled out further, sensitisation of senior ministry officials on the benefits of CFS – on that note an important point: an activity does not need to be branded “CFS” in order to be an effective CFS activity, and we need to recognise the importance of quality interventions which are not called CFS but are effective – Kenya also plans to develop further CFS training manual, and will work on plans to rehabilitate infrastructure in schools

• Malawi: development of MQS package, develop and implement M&E tools, refine existing tools

• Burundi: implement the planned CFS pilot project using the ideas and tools which have been collected during the workshop

• Madagascar: reflect and work on elements of quality in schools, devise and adopt a focus which works better with, and for the Madagascan regions in all their diversity, and work on ways to gather and use data in a more efficient and effective and ultimately more productive way

• Ethiopia: consolidate existing work plans, disseminate the findings of the workshop, and develop a M&E plan which is holistic

• Zimbabwe: update current evaluation plan, work on improving the cluster system in order to scale up CFS effectiveness, work on building capacity



Among the questions which were asked (and answered) were the following: Q: Is there/will there be a forum for sharing good practice? A: (ESARO) There is an ESAR intranet which is operational (though under-utilised) and will allow practitioners to access documents including best practice. The important thing for UNICEF staff is to send the materials to ESARO so that they can be put in the intranet and shared by other countries. Q: When will the best practice document be available? A: End September Q: Where is the NYCHQ construction manual? And will the new one be circulated? A: Global manual’s release is now scheduled for end of 2008, but before that the regional manual – discussed at this workshop – may appear Q: Where is the NYCHQ E-Learning package? A: After a 3 year wait, this is also due to be launched shortly. ESARO will update on all this when further information is made available by NYHQ Closing Comments Akihiro Fushimi of UNICEF ESARO first gave his thanks to the hard work of translators and the support staff at the workshop and to the participants who had tried to make the workshop as useful as possible. Charles Nabongo of UNICEF Rwanda then gave a number of thanks, in particular to the participants for having been so enthusiastic and trying to get the most out of the workshop. Finally, Eudès Kayumba, representing the Government of Rwanda, closed the workshop with thanks to the participants, and with the wish that they would take what they had learned back to their home countries and use it to make meaningful and lasting improvements to the lives, wellbeing and education of children.



Feedback and Evaluation Feedback at the end of the workshop was generally positive, and an evaluation form which was circulated and collected on the last morning seems to testify to that. Two general areas of concern involved the content of the agenda, where some felt that too much had been squeezed with not enough time, and the physical location of the workshop, being alternatively in a remote location far from the airport and/or the field visit sites, or too expensive for participants. More specifically, some participants rallied against the theoretical nature of some presentations (particularly the country presentations and the M&E workshop), saying that more practical presentations were needed in a workshop. On the other hand, concrete proposals being made by the construction breakout suggests that this was one major area where participants at the workshop were able to gain significant added value. Additionally, the large number of requested documents at the end of the workshop demonstrates that knowledge sharing has been able to progress several strides over the course of the week. These are both activities which will need work and follow up and it is hoped that participants will be able to grasp this opportunity. According to the evaluation forms, it was generally felt that the 5 objectives of the workshop (exchange / share / discuss / field visit / network) had largely been met, although there was some clear signs that the field visit had been the most successful, followed by exchange of experiences, while on the other hand the networking aspect was felt to have been least successful, followed by the sharing of materials. As for the sessions and presentations themselves, one important observation would be that, in general terms, presentation scored higher for their interest factor than for their usefulness factor. Put another way, participants found the presentations more interesting than they did applicable to their jobs, which will give food for thought to the next workshop organisers. Presentations which scored very highly on a usefulness and interest rating included, on day 2, Minimum Quality Standards (Rwanda), Multi-Sectoral Coordination (Mozambique), and School Cluster System (Kenya – although this presentation scored less on ‘useful’ than it did on

“Less theoretical, more applicable to current situations in ESAR” “tiring schedule – some variance between days would be good” “I don’t see the value of such short and hurried country presentations, rather have none and instead a session visiting the market stalls” “make the workshop shorter and concentrate on one theme under CFS” “Have the workshop somewhere where access is easier” “M&E conceptualisation is not easy and needs to be taken slowly” “Breakout groups were a good idea but not all sessions needed to follow this method” “Plan practical exercises instead of theoretical parts” “We need fewer presentations and more time for group work” “Materials should be translated before the workshop” “Too much travelling!”



‘interesting’, which perhaps is indicative of the advanced progress of clusters in Kenya); on day 4, Construction Guidelines (Rwanda) and Child and Eco Friendly Schools (Madagascar) were found to be most interesting, and indeed this last presentation by Mario Bacigalupo was marked the most interesting of the whole week. It hardly requires pointing out that these presentations above are not only in very key areas of CFS, but they were also presented by best practice practitioners in that field – a sure incentive for having experts make the presentations. The breakout sessions were generally a success but in the future more guidance could be given so that the discussion pursued within can be more tailored to participants’ needs. Presentations which did not find favour with participants included Tuesday afternoon’s M&E workshop – forms suggested that the workshop was useful but less interesting, and comments confirmed that it had been too theoretical and not attached to ESAR priorities or activities. This can be seen as somewhat symbolic of the whole workshop, where one solid recommendation which could be made for next year’s workshop would be to focus presentations and content more closely on practical activities and leave conceptual sessions out altogether. Last Thanks: To Elias Noor and Barbara Atherly for the energisers, but please don’t leave your day jobs; to Flavia Mutamutega for a wonderful performance on Thursday night (!); to the staff and management of the Kivu Serena Hotel, Gisenyi, for putting up with us.



Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda

ANNUAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON ‘CHILD FRIENDLY SCHOOLS’ (CFS) IN EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA REGION (ESAR)

AGENDA

Theme:

Mainstreaming CFS Principles as a Framework for Quality Basic Education

Date: 25 (Mon) – 29 (Fri) August 2008 Venue: Lake Kivu Serena Hotel, Gisenyi, Rwanda Participating Countries (10): Rwanda (host), Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe

PURPOSE: The theme of this year’s regional capacity development workshop on Child Friendly Schools is “Mainstreaming the CFS Principles as a Framework for Quality Basic Education”. The workshop will provide government counterparts, UNICEF Officers and other partners with the opportunity to strengthen further their capacity and knowledge base encouraging more effective planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of a rights-based, inclusive and gender-sensitive quality basic education programme in each participating country. EXPECTED OUTCOME: Our major expected outcome is that knowledge, skills and capacity of the participants will be enhanced on a variety of strategic approaches (and entry points) for scaling up Child Friendly School principles and frameworks and quality interventions for excluded groups. This will be achieved through a combination of presentations, field visits, and peer learning among the participants from different countries in the region and elsewhere. A strong emphasis will be on the active participation of all delegates, to foster critical dialogue and tailored solutions. OBJECTIVES: Specific objectives of the workshop include the following:

Exchange experiences (including key challenges, initiatives, good practices and lessons learned) for promoting and mainstreaming CFS approach/framework in each country.

Share key materials/tools and documents (incl. studies, policy guidelines) on CFS and/or holistic quality improvement interventions.

Discuss key issues and strategies to tackle the challenge of child friendly environment from infrastructure development perspective (school construction/rehabilitation, design, quality assurance and monitoring, procurement, maintenance of hardware etc.)

Conduct field visits to schools/communities to observe and consider the practical challenges and achievements of Child Friendly Schools



Facilitate networking among Ministries of Education, UNICEF colleagues and other partners who are involved in quality improvement of basic education in ESAR.

DAY & TIME SESSION PRESENTER(S)

Day 0 – Sunday (24 August): Arrival All Day Arrival of Participants Secretariat (UNICEF

Rwanda) Day 1 – Monday (25 August): Opening and Setting the Scene Chair: ESARO 08:00-11:30 Departure – Travel to Gisenyi Secretariat (UNICEF

Rwanda) 11:30-12:00 Hotel Check-in 12:00-13:00 Lunch

Welcome & Opening Remarks Purpose, Objectives & Agenda

Rwanda UNICEF ESARO

Introductions Facilitator All Participants

13:00-14:00

Logistics & Housekeeping Announcement Facilitator

14:00-14:40 Global Overview and Regional Update on CFS UNICEF ESARO

Chair: Ethiopia

14:40-15:30 Country Presentations - Part 1 (10 min each) General situation of quality education Challenges faced & solutions tried Innovations and lessons learned

5 Countries Rwanda, Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya

15:30-16:00 Tea / Coffee Break 16:00-17:30 Country Presentations - Part 2 (10 min each)

Q & A and Discussions

5 Countries Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe

Market Stall of documentation, information, manuals (to remain in place all week)

All countries

Day 2 – Tuesday (26 August): Strategic Approaches for Mainstreaming and Scaling Up CFS Chair: Zimbabwe 09:00-09:15 Recap of Day 1

Introduction to Day 2 objectives Facilitator

09:15-10:25 Working Together: Presentations 1) Establishment of National Minimum Quality Standards 2) CFS and the National School Improvement Plan 3) Multi-Sectoral Coordination and District Planning

Rwanda Ethiopia Mozambique Kenya & Zimbabwe




4) CFS through School Cluster System & Teacher Training

10:25-10:55 Working Together: Break Out Groups 1) Minimum Quality Standards and School Improvement 2) Multi-Sectoral Coordination 3) Teacher Training

Chair: Rwanda, Co-chair Ethiopia Chair: Mozambique Chair: Kenya, Co-chair: Zimbabwe

Return and keyword report Chairs

11:00-11:30 Tea / Coffee Break 11:30-12:10 Tools we can all use: Presentations

1) Development of CFS Manual in Emerging SWAp 2) Implementation Guidelines, Accreditation System 3) CFS Monitoring Tool and Quality Assurance

Malawi South Africa Kenya

12:10-12:55 Tools we can all use: Break Out Groups 1) Development of CFS Manual in Emerging SWAp 2) Implementation Guidelines, Accreditation System 3) CFS Monitoring Tool, Training and Evaluation

Chair: Malawi Chair: South Africa Chair: Kenya

Return and keyword report Chairs

13:00-14:00 Lunch Chair: Madagascar 14:00-17:00 CFS Conceptual Framework and M&E System

(incl. experiences from Asia-Pacific Region)(and EMIS) with Q & A (and break half way through)

Karen Munce, CFS Consultant

17:00-18:00 UNICEF Internal Meeting on the “Schools for Africa (SFA)” initiative

ESARO, UNICEF Staff from Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Zimbabwe

Day 3 – Wednesday (27 August): Voices from the Field, Learning from Practical Lessons 08:00-08:15 Recap of the Day 2


08:15-17:00 Field Visits 1. Umubano II & Kigeyo Primary Schools and

Gachuba TTC: Teacher Support 2. Kanyinya and Buramira Primary Schools:

CFS Construction (earlier departure at 07h00) 3. Busasamana and Rubingo Primary Schools:

Active Learning, OVC, Special Needs Education and Clubs (earlier departure at 07h00)

All participants Group 1 Group 2 Group 3




Day 4 – Thursday (28 August): Talking about “Hardware” and “Soft Components” Chair: Burundi 09:00-09:15 Recap of the Day 3


09:15-10:00 Child Friendly School Infrastructure – Global Perspective and Lessons

Claudia Melani, UNICEF Supply Division

10:00-11:00 Making a Learner Friendly Environment – Country Experiences and Lessons: Presentations 1) Construction – Quality Control 2) School Design and Guidelines 3) Technical Support, Tools and Guidelines 4) Child and Eco Friendly Schools

1) Malawi 2) Rwanda 3) South Africa 4) Madagascar

11:00-11:15 Tea / Coffee Break 11:00-12:45 Making a Learner Friendly Environment – Country

Experiences and Lessons: Break Out Groups 1) School Design, Guidelines and Quality Control 2) CFS Guidelines and Eco-Friendly Schools 3) CFS in emergencies and crises

1) Chair: Rwanda, Co-chair: Malawi 2) Chair: South Africa, Co-chair: Madagascar 3) Chair: Supply Division, Co-chair: ESARO

12:45-13:00 Return and keyword report Chairs

13:00-14:00 Lunch Chair: South Africa 14:00-15:30 Including the Excluded Children: Presentations

1) Inclusive Education 2) OVC care and support 3) Sports for Development 4) Special Education Needs 5) Early Childhood Development

Madagascar Mozambique South Africa Rwanda Zimbabwe

15:30-15:45 Tea / Coffee Break 15:45-17:00 Including the Excluded Children: Break Out Groups

1) OVC and SEN 2) Life Skills 3) Early Childhood Development

Chair: Mozambique, Co-chair: Rwanda Chair: South Africa Chair: Zimbabwe

15:45-17:00 Return and keyword report

Chairs





19h00 Banquet Dinner

Day 5 – Friday (29 August): Strengthening Advocacy/Communication and Wrapping Up Chair: Rwanda 09:00-09:15 Recap of the Day 4


09:15-10:45 Brainstorming and Discussion of Emerging Issues Facilitator Participants

10:45-12:45 Group Work: CFS Planning and M&E Framework 1) Mapping of Country Interventions 2) Identification of Gaps 3) Future Actions

Karen Munce Country Teams

12:45-13:00 Feedback from the Construction Theme Group Claudia Melani

13:00-14:00 Lunch 14:00-14:30 Country Action Points: presentation All Countries

14:30-15:00 Wrap Up and Closing UNICEF ESARO Rwanda

Day 6 – Saturday (30 August): Going Home and Making Our Schools Child Friendly! 08:30-12:00 Travel to Kigali Secretariat

12:00- Departures Secretariat


Appendix 2: List of Participants

Name Title Organisation Country E-mail address1 Yumiko Yokozeki Regional Advisor, Basic and

Girls Education UNICEF ESARO

(Nairobi) [email protected]

2 Akihiro Fushimi Education Specialist UNICEF ESARO (Nairobi)

[email protected]

3 Dr. Jane Muita Deputy Resident Representative UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Charles Nabongo Chief of Education UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Maniza Ntekim Education Policy Officer UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Luca Ginoulhiac Architect, Child Friendly

Schools UNICEF Rwanda [email protected]

7 Venerande Kabarere Education Officer UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Tulio Mateo Architect UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Emery Gakusi Consultant Engineer, CFS UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Maurice

Munyandamutsa Consultant Engineer, CFS UNICEF Rwanda [email protected]

11 Bernadine Kizima HIV/AIDS Specialist UNICEF Rwanda [email protected] Aloys Hakizimana Programme Communications

Manager UNICEF Rwanda [email protected]

13 Claver Yisa Director of Planning, Policy and Capacity Building

MINEDUC Rwanda [email protected]

14 Eudes Kayumba Director of Construction MINEDUC Rwanda [email protected] Narcisse

Musabeyesu Inspector General IGE MINEDUC Rwanda


mailto:[email protected]















16 Deogratias Nyandekwe

Inspector IGE MINEDUC Rwanda [email protected]

17 Olive Umuteteri School Construction Officer MINEDUC Rwanda [email protected] Mary Kobusingye SNE Officer MINEDUC Rwanda [email protected] Esther Nandudu Project Manager, SNE ADRA Rwanda [email protected] Ana Beatriz da Silva Chief of Department MoE Angola [email protected] Joao Cafuquena Chief of Department MoE Angola [email protected] Takaho Fukami Education Specialist UNICEF Angola [email protected] Serges Kamlo Construction Specialist UNICEF Burundi [email protected] Victoire Nahimana Director General MoE Burundi [email protected] Astere Nduwayo MoE Burundi 26 Rehema Sefu MoE Burundi27 Eleni Mamo Education Officer UNICEF Ethiopia [email protected] Saed Hassen Education Project Officer UNICEF Ethiopia [email protected] Elias Noor Education Specialist UNICEF Kenya [email protected] Onesmus Kiminza Deputy Director of Education MoE Kenya [email protected] Samuel Gichuhi Senior Assistant Director,

Quality Assurance MoE Kenya [email protected]

32 Margarita Focas Licht

Chief of Education UNICEF Madagascar [email protected]

33 Richard Rakotohova Regional Director MoE Madagascar 34 Adrien Jil Ranarison Chief of Construction Services MoE Madagascar [email protected] Mario Bacigalupo Chief of Construction Unit UNICEF Madagascar [email protected] Catherine Chirwa Education Specialist UNICEF Malawi [email protected] Chikondano C.

Mussa Deputy Director, BasicEducation

MoE Malawi [email protected]






















38 Emmi Pakkala Programme Officer UNICEF Malawi [email protected] Barbara Atherly Education Specialist UNICEF Mozambique [email protected] Cristina Tomo Director MoE Mozambique [email protected] Maria Azalia Technical Expert MoE Mozambique [email protected] Catarina Domingos

Mulaicho District Director, Changara MoE Mozambique

43 Carlos dos Santos Education Specialist UNICEF Mozambique [email protected] Nokuthula Prusent Adolescent Development

Project Officer UNICEF South Africa [email protected]

45 Themba Gwamanda School Construction Project Manager

UNICEF South Africa [email protected]

46 Gift Kajawu Education Specialist UNICEF Zimbabwe [email protected] Erison Huruba Deputy Director MoESC Zimbabwe [email protected] Faith Mkabeta Education Project Officer UNICEF Zimbabwe [email protected] Claudia Melani Construction Specialist UNICEF Supply

Division Denmark [email protected]

50 Karen Munce CFS M&E Consultant Consultant - [email protected] Gareth Graham CFS Workshop Facilitator UNICEF Rwanda [email protected]















Fourth Annual Regional Child Friendly Schools Capacity ... · Child Friendly Schools for Africa...

Documents

Transcript of Fourth Annual Regional Child Friendly Schools Capacity ... · Child Friendly Schools for Africa...