Evidence in Conversation: How can we support the most disadvantaged learners in conflict and crisis settings?

With global crises on the rise and traditional donor funding shrinking, it is more important than ever to draw on existing evidence about what works, for whom, where, and how in Education in Emergencies (EiE). In response to this need, the latest Special Issue of Education and Conflict Review brings together 13 rigorous evidence reviews spanning a broad range of topics across diverse conflict and protracted crisis settings, offering a valuable resource on promising interventions in Education in Emergencies (EiE).

As we mark Disability Pride Month, we invited two researchers, Tejendra Pherali and Gray Rinehart, featured in the Special Issue to share insights from their evidence review on the most disadvantaged learners in conflict and crisis settings. In this conversation, we reflect together on what the evidence tells us about promising approaches, persistent challenges, and lessons learned for supporting education for three particularly marginalised groups in EiE: children with disabilities, language-minority children, and internally displaced children.

Introducing the Research

INEE: Hi Tejendra and Gray, we are pleased to have this important conversation with you. To start with, please introduce your work: what questions did you set out to answer, and what are some of your most important findings?

Tejendra: Thank you for inviting us to talk about our recently published work. The key question we are interested in this review is: what interventions have shown potential to support the learning and holistic outcomes of the most disadvantaged children in crisis and conflict-affected settings? We focused on three groups of children: (1) children with disabilities; (2) language-minority children; (3) internally displaced children. These children face many barriers and are more likely to be left behind in conflict and protracted crisis settings; therefore, we were keen to look at the existing body of evidence on promising educational initiatives that improved their learning. 

Gray: We found evidence of some impactful interventions – for example, supporting foundational skills acquisition in the official language supports learning outcomes for language-minority children. Similarly, psychosocial support targeted towards internally-displaced children appears to have positive effects on their wellbeing. In general, the key ingredients among these promising interventions are contextual relevance and an explicit focus on the specific vulnerability of the target group. But, importantly, we also found that many interventions actually fail to reduce equity gaps between more and less disadvantaged groups, and often do not report on these gaps at all.

Deep Dive into the Findings

INEE: Let’s talk about the findings related to children with disabilities. What are some interventions that appear to support learning for children with disabilities in conflict and crisis settings? 

Tejendra: This is an interesting one: the evidence base here is alarmingly thin, despite over 22 million children with disabilities living in protracted crisis settings, and none of the studies explicitly mentioned reducing the equity gap between learners with and without disabilities. Still, we found that targeted interventions providing structured learning environments, specialised resources and teacher or caregiver training showed greater potential for advancing inclusion. A promising example is from Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya, where the Jesuit Refugee Services’ special-needs centres implemented a twin-track approach combining disability-specific supports with pathways into mainstream classrooms, which led to reductions in behavioural and emotional difficulties among children who participated. 

INEE: When it comes to language-minority learners, what interventions have been shown to improve their academic and wider wellbeing outcomes? 

Gray: This area has a lot more evidence available. Most interventions for language-minority learners focus on proficiency in the official language with a larger goal of mainstreaming children into formal education. We found many promising programmes for this group of children, including remedial literacy programmes with evidence of impact in Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar, and ed-tech interventions in Turkey.

INEE: And to support internally displaced learners, who are often overlooked in crisis settings, what does the evidence say about promising approaches or effective interventions?

Tejendra:  Evidence shows that accelerated and remedial learning programmes generally support internally displaced children’s academic progress, although many showed limited evidence of reducing equity gaps. Examples include the IRC’s Non-Formal Learning Centres in Northeast Nigeria and Healing Classrooms in Niger. Studies suggest that when children have access to a mix of play, learning, and emotional support in a structured manner, it can make a difference to their mental health and wellbeing in the short term. Activities like child-friendly spaces and teacher-led narrative therapy have been shown to help children process difficult experiences and build resilience.

Using the Evidence in Practice

INEE: From the research, what are the key takeaways for making EiE interventions more inclusive in design and implementation?

Gray: One important takeaway is that interventions designed in culturally meaningful ways often drive positive change. Two, it is important to be intentional about which particular vulnerability (say, disability or displacement) is being addressed by the intervention. Three, and this touches upon an evidence gap we observed, it is important to engage at the systems level to build inclusive institutional cultures alongside interventions supporting individual learners.

INEE: Are there any lessons on data and research practices in EiE that can help make our current research approaches more inclusive?

Tejendra: We identified some critical evidence gaps that we would urge researchers to focus on, particularly in data disaggregation by disability, language and displacement status; costing analyses to evaluate feasibility and scalability of interventions; and engagement with the political economy of education and conflict, among others. More generally, using qualitative methods alongside rigorous impact evaluations can help us better understand how disadvantaged groups experience interventions, and the extent to which these interventions actually address their challenges – since this may be difficult to capture through quantitative data alone.

INEE: Thank you, Tejendra and Gray, for this rich and important conversation. It is so important to ensure that equity and inclusion underpin everything that we do. 

We encourage our readers to read the full report here, policy brief here, and watch our recent webinar with GPE-KIX to explore these findings in more depth. Please do not hesitate to reach out directly to the researchers at [email protected] or [email protected]  if you would like to discuss this work further!

About the Authors

Tejendra Pherali is a Professor of Education, Conflict and Peace at the University College London, IOE - Education, Practice & Society. He is currently the Co-Research Director of Education Research in Conflict and Crisis (ERICC), the former Chair of British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE) and the Editorial Board of Compare Journal.

Gray Rinehart is an education researcher working with the Education Research in Conflict and Protracted Crisis (ERICC) Programme, with a focus on Myanmar. He has worked as an educator, technical adviser, project manager, and researcher, with extensive experience in teacher education and curriculum design.