Coordination Standard 1: Coordination
Coordination mechanisms for education are in place and support stakeholders working to ensure access to and continuity of quality education.
On this page
Education authorities, which are responsible for fulfilling the right to education, assume a leadership role for education response, including convening and participating in coordination mechanisms with other education stakeholders
An inter-agency coordination committee coordinates assessment, planning, information management, resource mobilisation, capacity development and advocacy
A range of levels and types of education are considered in coordination activities
Education authorities, donors, UN agencies, NGOs, communities and other stakeholders use timely, transparent, equitable and coordinated financing structures to support education activities
See Guidance Notes:
Joint assessments are carried out to identify capacities and gaps in education response
See Guidance Notes:
An inter-agency coordination committee, which coordinates the education response, should have wide representation. The national education authority should provide leadership, but local authorities and groups should be appropriately represented. Where education authorities lack capacity or legitimacy, leadership may be assigned by agreement to different agencies. An existing education coordination group should take on these responsibilities or, if the IASC’s cluster system is activated, an Education Cluster should be established. However, a representative of the relevant education authority should always be involved in decision-making. Coordination groups may be needed at national and local levels, depending on the nature of the crisis. Roles and responsibilities of members should be set out in Terms of Reference for the committee.
All levels and types of education should be considered in coordination activities, including early childhood development and primary, secondary, non-formal, technical, vocational, higher and adult education.
Significant funds are required for successful and timely implementation of quality education programmes in emergencies through to recovery. Every effort should be made to ensure inclusive, transparent and coordinated approaches to financing, including through UN Flash Appeals and Consolidated Appeals Processes. In acute emergencies, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund and other emergency response funds may provide funding for education. Local partners’ access to resources should be facilitated.
Emergency financing arrangements should consider national and regional labour market conditions and traditions and avoid setting precedents that cannot be maintained. Resource allocation should be informed by political analysis, particularly in conflict situations, to avoid fuelling division. A coordinated policy for the compensation of teachers and other education personnel and other education payments and fees is essential. Emergency financing arrangements should be harmonised with longer-term arrangements (e.g. multi- donor trust funds or development financing modalities such as pooled funding or national financing) to support sustainable interventions. Private sector funding should also be explored, particularly for technical and vocational education and training.
Information management and knowledge management include:
- assessment of needs, capacities and coverage;
- collection, storage, analysis and sharing of information;
- monitoring and evaluation;
- lessons learned to inform future practice.
Effective information and knowledge management systems build on and enhance, rather than duplicate, national systems. The involvement of national and local partners, such as those working on child protection, psychosocial support, shelter, water and sanitation, health and early recovery, is essential. Information and knowledge management systems should be designed and owned by national and local authorities in the long term.
Joint assessments to identify capacity and gaps in the education response should use and adapt the Global Education Cluster’s Joint Education Needs Assessment Toolkit or other needs assessment tools agreed upon in advance. Training on the use of these tools should be included in preparedness and contingency planning activities. If individual stakeholders conduct education assessments, they should share findings and data with the education authorities and the wider coordination group to support the coordinated response. In some countries, a multi-sectoral rapid assessment, which includes education questions, takes places within 48 hours of an emergency. If this happens, it requires coordination with other sectors such as health, water and sanitation, and shelter.
While individual stakeholders have their own mandates, all should agree to accountability in coordination and information sharing. This means being transparent about information collection, and its use to inform work planning. Where there are critical gaps in education response, the IASC Education Cluster or another coordination mechanism is responsible for ensuring that relevant stakeholders address the gaps in order to cover priority needs. Coordinated monitoring and evaluation can facilitate accountability to affected people by openly sharing information about the results of education work. It can also support the application of the INEE Minimum Standards and underlying humanitarian principles by highlighting where more work needs to be done. National human rights institutions should facilitate and monitor their national authorities’ obligations in fulfilling the affected population’s right to education.
A results-oriented approach means that all stakeholders work to ensure that the education response is well coordinated and produces the desired results. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the coordination of education responses allow gaps in coordination to be quickly identified and addressed.
|INEE Domain||INEE Standard||Indicator/Program Requirements||Clarification||Numerator||Denominator||Target||Disaggregation||Source of Indicator||Source of Data||Available Tool||Crisis Phase|
|Foundational Standards||Community Participation||Participation (FDN/Community Participation Std 1)
Community members participate actively, transparently, and without discrimination in analysis, planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of education responses.
|1.1 Percentage of parents actively participating in the conception and implementation of education in emergencies services||Number of parents consulted||Number of parents||To be defined by program||Gender||Based on OCHA Indicator Registry||Program documentation||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||All stages|
|1.2 Percentage of parents satisfied with the quality and appropriateness of response at the end of the project||Number of parents satisfied with the quality and appropriateness of response at the end of the project||Number of parents||100%||NA||Based on OCHA Indicator Registry||Program documentation||Tool required||All stages|
|Resources (FDN/Community Participation Std 2)
Community resources are identified, mobilized and used to implement age-appropriate learning opportunities.
|1.3 Analysis of opportunity to use local resources is carried out and acted on||Scale 1-5 (1 = low, 5 = high)||5||NA||New||Program/procurement documentation||Tool required||All stages|
|Coordination||Coordination (FDN/Coordination Std 1)
Coordination mechanisms for education are in place to support stakeholders working to ensure access to and continuity of quality education.
|1.4 Percentage of regular relevant coordination mechanism (i.e., Education Cluster, EiEWG, LEGs) meetings attended by program team||Number of regular relevant coordination mechanism (i.e.; Education Cluster, EiE Working Group (WG), Local Education Group (LEG) meetings attended by program team||Number of regular relevant coordination mechanism (i.e. Education Cluster, EiEWG, LEGs) meetings held during organizational presence||100%||NA||New||Meeting records||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||All stages|
|Analysis||Assessment (FDN/Analysis Std 1)
Timely education assessments of the emergency situation are conducted in a holistic, transparent, and participatory manner.
|1.5 Percentage of education needs assessments, carried out by the relevant coordinating body the program has participated in||These include initial rapid and ongoing/rolling assessments||Number of assessments organization contributed to||Number of possible assessments organization could have contributed to||100%||NA||New||Assessment records||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||All stages|
|Response Strategies (FDN/Analysis Std 2)
Inclusive education response strategies include a clear description of the context, barriers to the right to education, and strategies to overcome those barriers.
|1.6 Strength of analysis of context, of barriers to the right to education, and of strategies to overcome those barriers||Scale 1-5 (1 = low, 5 = high)||5||NA||New||Program documentation||Tool required||All stages|
|Monitoring (FDN/Analysis Std 3)
Regular monitoring of education response activities and the evolving learning needs of the affected population is carried out.
|1.7 Percentage of education needs assessments carried out in defined time period||Frequency to be defined by organization. Monitoring measures should be relevant to the desired program outcomes||Number of education needs assessments carried out per year||Number of education needs assessments required per year||100%||NA||New||M&E plans and results||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||During program implementation|
|Evaluation (FDN/Analysis Std 4)
Systematic and impartial evaluations improve education response
activities and enhance accountability.
|1.8 Number of evaluations carried out||Number of evaluations carried out||NA||NA||New||M&E plans and results||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||Program completion|
|1.9 Percentage of evaluations shared with parents||Number of evaluations shared with parents||Number of evaluations||100%||NA||New||M&E plans and results||No tool required; INEE MS and indicator definitions sufficient||Program completion|