Protecting Education Systems in Conflict: Teachers, Technology and Community Models

In conflict-affected contexts, education is often one of the first public services to collapse and one of the hardest to rebuild, due to physical supply issues such as infrastructure-loss, as well as intersectional barriers relating to poverty, gender and geographic location. Yet it remains one of the most powerful tools for protection, stability, and psychosocial recovery for children living through crisis. 

Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine present vastly different crisis-modes, cultural contexts and thus present very different challenges, but the underlying pressures on education systems share common themes and similarities.

Drawing on recent research conducted as part of my Masters of Arts at SOAS, University of London this blog highlights three interconnected insights that emerged consistently across all three contexts:

1. the centrality of teacher retention to system resilience,
2. the growing importance of community-based delivery models, and
3. the critical role of locally legitimate actors in ensuring access where international or state-linked interventions face constraints.

The study combined qualitative analysis of policy frameworks, UN and NGO strategies, and academic literature with limited quantitative review of funding and programme data, covering developments from approximately 2014 to 2024 across the three settings. This mixed‑methods approach enabled a cross‑context examination of how different conflicts disrupt education systems and the types of interventions that have proved most effective in sustaining access and continuity.

These lessons may offer practical reflections for education practitioners working in crisis settings around the world.

Teachers are the backbone of crisis-affected systems

Across all three case studies, it emerged that without qualified teachers distributed with the population, there is no education system to protect. “Brain drain” emerged as a major barrier to education in the early stages of conflict and crisis, referring to the rapid loss or displacement of qualified teachers. This can include teachers leaving the country for safety or economic reasons, migrating from rural to urban areas in search of stability, or exiting the profession entirely as opportunities diminish. Once this skilled workforce disperses, it becomes extremely difficult to rebuild or re‑attract them, leaving long‑term gaps in system capacity.

In Afghanistan, years of insecurity, unpaid salaries, and gender restrictions have driven thousands of teachers, especially women, out of the workforce. In Yemen, prolonged economic collapse and irregular payrolls have forced teachers to seek alternative livelihoods simply to survive. In Ukraine, displacement, trauma, and the repurposing of schools for military or humanitarian use left many teachers unable to continue working.

What this illustrates is that teacher attrition acts as both a labour shortage, and a system-level risk as learning stops, gender imbalances grow, and rebuilding becomes structurally drawn out and more expensive. In contexts where cultural norms require gender‑segregated learning environments, the teacher workforce must reflect this demographic balance to ensure that all learners, particularly girls, are able to attend.

Stabilising teacher income, through salary top‑ups or other compensation mechanisms appears to be one of the most effective ways to protect education systems during conflict. Research shows that maintaining a functioning teaching workforce is essential to prevent system collapse, which is far more costly to rebuild. It preserves a skilled workforce to maintain continuity, and protects one of the most important determinants of learning outcomes.

However, this is not always possible, due to fiscal constraints, but more commonly due to teachers no longer physically being around to pay. This is where community-based and hybrid models emerge to fill a crucial gap.

Community-based and hybrid models provide novel opportunities to address multiple barriers

In all three countries, formal school infrastructure was damaged, unsafe, inaccessible, or repurposed for other urgent needs. In these conditions, community-based and hybrid models were often the only way to sustain meaningful access.

These models took different forms across contexts:

• Community-based education (CBE) in rural Afghanistan, where travel restrictions and insecurity prevent children, especially girls, from reaching formal schools.
• Temporary learning spaces in Yemen, providing short-distance access in displacement settings or areas where schools had been destroyed.
• Digital Learning Centres in Ukraine, offering connectivity, devices, and safe spaces for students when schools were not functional and home-based online learning was not feasible.

Although the formats vary, the strengths are consistent, offering lower operating costs, options for gender-sensitive arrangements, access for displaced or marginalised learners, ability to function during movement restrictions, and easier integration into community structures.

Community-based approaches were particularly effective when they were linked to the formal system, ensuring continuity of learning and recognition of progress, while allowing institutions and authorities to monitor quality and learning outcomes. Furthermore, incentivisation for families, such as cash or nutritional support, supported enrolment and attainment in community-based models. 

However, these models also require investment in trained facilitators, learning materials and safeguarding pathways.

The research suggests that community-led approaches can act as a critical component of emergency-resilient systems.

Local legitimacy should not be overlooked

A third cross-cutting finding relates to the role of local legitimacy. In conflict settings where national actors are fragmented, contested, or viewed with suspicion, the ability to deliver education safely often depends on who the community trusts.

In several contexts examined, interventions associated with external actors, central governments, or certain political groups faced resistance or access barriers. By contrast, community-endorsed or regionally aligned actors were able to influence positive change, because they were familiar with local norms, embedded in community decision-making and trusted to operate safely. Furthermore, local actors are often better positioned to negotiate access due to existing connections and cultural alignment. 

This does not diminish the role of international actors. Rather, it highlights the importance of working through networks of actors who carry legitimacy in each specific context. Effective programming in conflict settings requires careful political-economy analysis to identify:

• who communities trust
• who authorities trust
• who can move safely
• who can reach different demographics
• who can maintain continuity during instability

Partnerships built around these dynamics tend to last longer and achieve more meaningful access.

Technology can support learning but should not replace safe spaces or teachers

Across all three contexts, technology-enabled learning played an important role, particularly in Ukraine. But the research shows that ed-tech solutions cannot compensate for deeper system weaknesses, and they risk widening inequality when used as a primary modality.

Across cases, barriers included lack of electricity and connectivity issues, limited devices and the need for qualified adult supervision to monitor progress and outcomes.

Ed-tech works best when embedded within a broader ecosystem of support including safe spaces, facilitators, and clear pathways for monitoring learning. There are opportunities to link ed‑tech with community‑based delivery models, which can lead to positive outcomes in contexts with limited numbers of qualified teachers and for hard‑to‑reach groups such as girls and learners in rural areas.

As education systems increasingly turn to digital tools, it is important to foreground questions of equity, access, and quality, and to avoid inadvertent exclusion. Particularly when working in fragile and rapidly changing settings.

Digital Learning Centres (DLCs) provide the potential for the output of limited qualified teachers to reach a higher number of children, in a safe and controlled setting. The setting also allows for more centralised monitoring and evaluation of participation and learning quality and outcomes. DLCs can be funded by agencies and NGOs, but operated locally based on a repeatable model, supplemented by local supply chains and monitoring staff (incentivised with needs-based cash-based assistance and/or nutritional support) reducing strain on limited qualified workforces, and allowing for geographical and cultural factors such as language provision, gender segregation and tailored curricula.

What these findings mean for practitioners

Across these diverse contexts, there are common practical implications:

• Protect the teacher workforce. Stabilising teacher income and wellbeing is the most effective way to maintain continuity of learning and avoid long-term system collapse.
• Invest in community-based models. Community Based Education, temporary learning spaces, and hybrid digital hubs can deliver safe, gender-sensitive, and locally acceptable access at relatively low cost. They can also mitigate personnel shortages while not completely depriving the students of support and oversight.
• Work with legitimate local actors. Partnering with actors who carry community trust improves acceptability, security, and sustainability.
• Use technology carefully and equitably. Technology should seek to complement, not replace, teachers, safe spaces, and community structures. It can provide opportunities when combined with community-based learning to facilitate access to rural and gender segregated learning spaces where there is a lack of qualified teachers.
• Integrate education with social-protection support. Cash assistance, nutrition programmes, and school-related subsidies reduce economic barriers and improve retention.

Education in conflict settings demands protecting, or rebuilding, the people and community structures that hold systems together. Teachers, local legitimacy, and flexible, community-based  could form the backbone of sustainable access during crisis and investing in them may be one of the most effective ways to protect children’s right to learn.

About the Author

Ollie Organ is a practitioner in governance, defence and stabilisation programming whose work spans conflict‑affected and fragile environments. He currently contributes to strategic initiatives at Palladium International, focussing on systems strengthening, inclusive governance, and localised approaches that support security environments and crisis‑affected populations. He holds a Masters degree in Global Security & Strategy (Distinction) from SOAS University of London, where his research examined structural barriers to education in conflict‑affected regions and their implications for long‑term development and security.