Standard 9: Protection and Wellbeing

Wellbeing is a significant precursor to learners’ improved developmental outcomes. Therefore, supporting wellbeing is an essential part of an EiE response. To promote a safe, secure, and nurturing learning environment, stakeholders should support the wellbeing of learners and of teachers and other education personnel.

A person’s wellbeing is affected by many factors and systems. Any MHPSS activities should be informed by the socio-ecological model (see Figure 7). When designing MHPSS interventions, education stakeholders should keep in mind how risk and support factors at one level interact with factors at another level to influence a child’s wellbeing. Actors across the education system and other sectors should do their best to ensure that MHPSS interventions are complemented and synchronized at other levels of the social ecology. For example, a new policy intended to promote holistic and sustainable changes in corporal punishment may be accompanied by or aligned with school-level initiatives to promote nonviolent classroom-management techniques and establish protection referral systems and complaint mechanisms.

The provision of MHPSS is multi-layered and multi-sectoral and should be delivered in close coordination with other sectors. Humanitarian actors can ensure good coordination by connecting to a cross-sectoral MHPSS technical working group, if already established. If none exists, stakeholders can advocate with the education and health clusters, World Health Organization, or government organizations.

The IASC pyramid is widely used to demonstrate the multi-layered nature of the MHPSS response (see Figure 8). MHPSS, which includes SEL, can take place in a learning environment across layers 1–3 of the pyramid. By teaching children a range of social and emotional competencies, SEL programs can reduce risky behaviors and support positive development, greater attachment to school, and academic success.

Support at each layer of the MHPSS pyramid should target all learners and teachers. Activities at layer 1 can include:

• Ensuring that learning environments are physically safe, secure, and gender-responsive
• Setting up referral mechanisms with other sectors, including child protection and health
• Creating and maintaining inclusive and caring learning environments through the integration of SEL
• Advocating for the minimum conditions and standards of health, safety, and learners’ and teachers’ dignity

Activities for learners at layer 2 should be provided by skilled teachers or facilitators and can include:

• Providing recreational, play-based, or extracurricular activities (arts, sports, music, drama) that promote relationship building, emotional regulation, and communication
• Providing structured SEL activities that help learners develop social skills, problem-solving, and coping mechanisms
• Encouraging and supporting parents and caregivers to get involved in their children’s educational activities by helping them with homework, reading to them, or joining school governance bodies

Activities at layer 3 include interventions for high-risk individuals who do not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but have detectable symptoms of a mental, emotional, or behavioral condition. These interventions should be undertaken only by highly trained and qualified staff members, such as clinical social workers, psychologists, psychosocial workers, nurses, or school-based MHPSS providers. Activities they may offer include:

• Family-based interventions
• Structured group sessions
• School-based clinical interventions

Activities at layer 4 include interventions that can only be provided by mental health clinicians and social service professionals. Teachers and other education personnel should be trained to understand the referral mechanisms and to recognize when a learner needs support from other sectors.

There can be stigma around mental health and psychosocial wellbeing in some cultures and contexts. MHPSS professionals should ensure that any services provided are contextually and culturally relevant and build on existing structures and supports (for more guidance, see INEE Guidance Note on Psychosocial Support; INEE Guidance Note for Teacher Wellbeing in Emergency Settings).

Protective learning environments promote the wellbeing of learners and of teachers and other education personnel and enable learners to engage fully in the learning process. A safe learning environment protects against threats, danger, injury, or loss, and is free from physical or psychosocial harm. It is important that learners and teachers and other education personnel are aware of potential dangers, and that they have the knowledge needed to protect themselves and their surroundings. Potential dangers for learners and teachers and other education personnel in and around the learning environment may include the following:

• Violence and bullying
• Gender-based violence, including sexual exploitation and abuse
• Arms, ammunition, landmines, and unexploded ordnance
• Armed personnel, crossfire, and other military threats, including abduction and recruitment into armed forces or armed groups
• Attacks on schools and other learning environments, learners, and teachers and other education personnel at or on the way to school
• Natural and environmental hazards
• Political insecurity
• Xenophobia, racism

During an emergency, children face additional risks because of their age. They may be more vulnerable to abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence. Learners who are facing social exclusion and discrimination can be at even greater risk of abuse and violence. The child protection and education sectors should work together to strengthen the protection of children and young people and put in place policies and practices that reduce harm and risks.

Risk assessments help education actors understand the potential hazards and protection risks that should inform programming. Community members, learners, young people, parents and caregivers, and teachers and other education personnel can play a leading role in such assessments. The risk assessment findings should inform the development of protective policies and practices. Specialized organizations can help identify people who are at particular risk and give advice about how to mitigate those risks. Education stakeholders should conduct these assessments regularly and include an analysis of relevant cultural and political factors.

Teachers and other education personnel can and should help promote a tolerant and respectful school culture in which diverse perspectives are respected. Communities should provide oversight and engage with schools to create holistic, protective learning environments (for more guidance, see Supporting Integrated Child Protection and Education Programming in Humanitarian Action; Education in Emergencies – Child Protection Collaboration Framework; Minimum Standards for Child Protection, Standard 23).

Any actors working with children and young people must have safeguarding mechanisms and referral pathways in place to address child protection concerns or MHPSS needs. If protection violations occur in and around the learning environment, or if learners show signs of experiencing neglect, abuse, or violence in the home, teachers must be able to report, follow up, and safely refer children to other specialized services. Children who are facing immediate risk should be referred immediately. Relevant actions to address child protection concerns in the learning environment may include the following:

• Establishing referral pathways to specialized services
• Training teachers, other education personnel, caregivers, and community leaders how to recognize signs of physical or psychosocial distress and other protection concerns
• Training teachers and other education personnel how to use the correct channels to report suspected child protection cases
• Clarifying where teachers and other education personnel can refer children who are facing imminent risks
• Making learners aware of their rights and how they can report violations of those rights
• Displaying reporting mechanisms openly in the classroom and community

Education and child protection actors should collaborate on training teachers. They also should promote awareness in the community and among learners about how to report safety violations. Learners who have experienced or are at risk of protection violations must be given support, and any response should be documented. This may include referral to health, protection, or psychosocial service providers. Education and child protection actors must maintain confidentiality in all cases. Education actors and teachers should be aware of situations where children and young people are at heightened risk of violence or psychological and social difficulties. This may occur in the home or in digital spaces, or when education is disrupted (for more guidance, see Supporting Integrated Child Protection and Education Programming in Humanitarian Action).

SDG 4 addresses quality education and sets the goal of everyone having access to a safe and nonviolent learning environment. The teacher is responsible for creating a supportive atmosphere in the learning environment so that children can thrive and learn, and they should encourage mutual understanding, peace, and tolerance. Teachers should use positive reinforcement and positive discipline strategies and never corporal punishment, verbal abuse, humiliation, or intimidation. Intimidation includes mental stress, violence, abuse, and discrimination. Education stakeholders and school leaders should make sure that teachers are trained in positive classroom management and the prevention of bullying. This will enable them to teach learners how to prevent violence and conflict. Teacher codes of conduct can establish the importance of positive discipline, which can be addressed in teacher training, mentoring, and supervision activities. Breaches of the code of conduct, such as corporal punishment or abuse, should be reported and followed up on. Teachers also should receive support to include MHPSS and SEL activities in their teaching practices.

SRGBV, particularly sexual violence, is a serious, life-threatening protection issue. Women, girls, gender diverse people, and people who are LGBTQIA+ are at greatest risk of experiencing SRGBV, but it can also be a threat to men and boys. Children with intersecting vulnerabilities are at heightened risk, especially those with disabilities.

Learners and teachers and other education personnel can be both perpetrators and victims of SRGBV, including sexual exploitation and abuse. Education stakeholders and school leaders should make sure that teachers and other education personnel and any volunteers in the classroom are trained to know what SRGBV is, how to prevent it, and, if it happens, how to respond and report it. They in turn should teach learners about gender equality and rights. Teacher training should include how to manage an SRGBV disclosure from a learner in a compassionate way. Education programs should monitor and respond to harassment and sexual exploitation. Parents and caregivers, learners, and teachers and other education personnel should agree on ways to reduce risks to children and young people within the learning environment, and while going to and from school. This can include:

• Jointly developing and publicly posting clear rules against sexual harassment, exploitation, abuse, and other types of gender-based violence
• Consistently enforcing consequences when those rules are violated
• Including these rules in the code of conduct for teachers and other education personnel, and training all parties in the code of conduct
• Increasing the number of adult women in the learning environment to help protect and reassure female learners; if this is not possible, women from the community can be asked to help in the classroom and offered training on protective measures
• Teaching evidence-based and age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health and rights education for all genders so that learners have appropriate knowledge about their rights, giving consent, and healthy relationships

Have a safe reporting, complaint, and response system in place to deal with gender-based violence if it does occur. The school may get assistance from the relevant national authorities or from a suitable independent organization to set up this system. Survivors of gender-based violence need health support, MHPSS, and protection from a well-organized referral system. In some cases this may also include referrals to law enforcement. The Child Protection Area of Responsibility under the Protection Cluster, protection working groups, United Nations Population Fund, and other specialized organizations may also be able to advise (for more guidance, see INEE Guidance Note on Gender).

Communities should play a leading role in creating, protecting, and overseeing the learning environment. In environments where violence and other threats are common, it is important to involve families and communities in promoting safety in the home, school, and community, which can include:

• Involving the community in mapping protection risks and developing school safety plans or policies
• Raising awareness among parents and caregivers about positive methods of raising children and young people, including positive discipline
• Raising awareness of protection concerns in the community with recognized security forces
• Working with communities and authorities to manage protection concerns by, for example, organizing walking groups with safety escorts or providing transportation for learners going to and from school
• Training community members to assess and respond to protection issues
• Raising community awareness about harmful practices, such as forced marriage, honor killings, and female genital cutting, and about the risks of SRGBV

Representatives of all marginalized groups should be involved in designing protection programs in the learning environment, including girls, women, persons with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. They should be involved in ways that are culturally appropriate, such as providing women-only consultations. A community education committee can be a useful forum to strengthen the community’s ownership of protecting the learning environment (for more guidance, see Minimum Standards for Child Protection, Standard 17).

During a crisis, being at or traveling to and from school might expose learners and teachers and other education personnel to a number of risks. As the primary duty bearer, the government is responsible for putting in place systems and plans to ensure that schools are safe. Education actors, protection actors, and communities should collaborate with the authorities to identify and reduce risks.

In insecure situations, the community should decide if they want learners to attend school in person. If the usual learning sites are not safe or available, alternative safe sites or alternative methods of delivery can be arranged to limit any disruption of learning. This may include home schooling or distance education. Education actors should plan distance education carefully so that all learners are able to access it. This may require providing both digital and non-digital options. When distance education is used, it is important to ensure that learners’ protection and wellbeing needs continue to be addressed. This may include self-care MHPSS interventions to help learners deal with the stressors related to the crisis or the disruption to their learning. Learners need protection from the unauthorized use of their personal data, and from online harassment, bullying, and abuse.

All learners and teachers and other education personnel must have safe and secure routes to and from school. Communities, including girls, boys, gender diverse children and young people, and children with disabilities, should find out if there are threats and agree on how to manage them. When learners must walk to the learning environment along poorly lit roads, providing adult escorts or using reflectors or reflective tape on clothing and bags can improve safety. Walking groups supervised by adults or a learner buddy system can enable learners to walk together safely to and from school. Mobility aids or transportation can help learners with disabilities travel between home and learning sites. Working with other sectors, such as protection, shelter, and camp management, can help determine which schools and school routes are safe.

The maximum distance between learners and learning sites should be in line with local and national standards and should take the learners’ ages and abilities into consideration. It also is important to consider any nearby security, safety, and accessibility concerns, like soldiers’ quarters, landmines, and dense bush. Curfews may restrict access to education, especially when imposed on young people. In such situations, education actors should ask learners, parents and caregivers, and other community members to help find alternative learning spaces and to identify possible dangers in those areas. If the distance some learners must travel to school makes it difficult to reach, it can be helpful to hold satellite or “feeder” classes in learning spaces nearer to their homes. Schools that offer boarding must manage protection risks carefully, including gender-based violence. Education actors and the community must create mechanisms to protect learners of all genders.

During conflict, military attacks may occur frequently and soldiers often will occupy education sites. Attacks on education include violence against education facilities, learners, and teachers and other education personnel. Attacks on education can cause injury, death, and severe distress, and often lead to school closures. Armed forces and non-state armed groups also may use schools for military purposes, such as barracks or detention centers. Armed forces also may attack education institutions during environmental crises.

Military use of schools can put learners and teachers and other education personnel at serious risk of forced recruitment, as well as sexual exploitation and abuse. It also undermines children’s and young people’s right to education and makes attacks on education more likely. Attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including schools, is generally considered a violation of international humanitarian law.

Attacks on schools and hospitals are one of the six grave violations monitored and reported on under UN Security Council Resolution 1612 (2005). This resolution established the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on children in armed conflict and is the subject of an annual report by the UN Secretary General. When an attack occurs, it should be reported through the UN Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism. Governments that endorse the Safe Schools Declaration, which is “an intergovernmental political commitment to protect learners, teachers, schools, and universities from the worst effects of armed conflict,” commit to ensuring that education will continue during violent conflict. They also agree to collect data on attacks on education, to help all victims in a non-discriminatory way, and to follow the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict, issued in 2014 by the Global Coalition to Protection Education from Attack.

Collaboration between child protection, human rights, and education actors can strengthen the advocacy, analysis, and implementation of interventions to prevent and reduce attacks on education. Depending on the context, actions to prevent and reduce risks may include:

• Encouraging negotiations with the parties involved in the conflict to protect education institutions
• Campaigning for governments to endorse and adhere to the Safe Schools Declaration
• Advocating and coordinating with the military to discourage military use of schools, including, when appropriate, using the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict as practical guidance for armed actors
• Working with governments and military judicial systems, armed forces, and armed groups to increase their awareness of the rules of international humanitarian law and strengthening their capacity to apply them to the protection of education
• Encouraging armed forces and armed groups to refrain from locating military objectives (e.g., combatants, weapons depots) near education facilities to reduce the risk of damaging them
• Adding safety messages, MHPSS, education on human rights, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, social cohesion, humanitarian law, and/or the fundamental principles of humanitarian action to the curriculum as appropriate for the learning level and context
• Providing landmine awareness programs and demining where relevant
• Raising public awareness of the meaning and use of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, and of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which prohibit attacks against civilians (including learners and teachers) and education buildings in times of war
• Reinforcing school buildings or perimeter walls and using security guards, either paid or community volunteers
• Providing alternative ways to deliver education, such as home- and community-based schools and distance education
• Moving endangered learners and teachers and other education personnel to safe locations

Depending on the security situation, the community may be able to help protect education (for more guidance, see Supporting Integrated Child Protection and Education Programming in Humanitarian Action; The Role of Communities in Protecting Education from Attack: Lessons Learned).

Education authorities and other education actors should empower learners, teachers and other education personnel, and communities to support disaster prevention and risk management activities. These can include:

• Assessing risks using existing data from national authorities and early warning systems
• Mapping risks in and around schools
• Conducting annual school safety self-assessments including identifying relevant hazards, assessing the conditions of buildings and infrastructure, implementing school-based risk reduction activities, learning skills for disaster response, and maintaining response provisions
• Reducing risks with measures such as maintaining buildings in good repair and keeping exit pathways and evacuation routes clear
• Learning and practicing Standard Operating Procedures for safe building evacuation and safe assembly, evacuation to a safe haven, shelter-in-place, lockdown, and safe family reunification, and when to use each one
• Learning and practicing hazard specific protective actions such as Drop, Cover, and Hold during earthquakes, Drop, Cover, Hold and Count in tsunami-prone zones, and Stop, Drop, and Roll if on fire
• Developing and using emergency preparedness and DRR plans at the school level
• Teaching about landmine awareness in school surroundings and agricultural areas
• Including DRR awareness in the curriculum

Community members or school safety committees may need help integrating school safety into their school-based management or improvement plans. Education and disaster risk management stakeholders should help communities or school committees to assess and prioritize risks, carry out physical and environmental protection strategies, and develop response preparedness procedures and skills. Community and indigenous knowledge should be used in developing or adapting DRR and resilience plans and response preparedness strategies.

School-based disaster and climate risk management plans should be linked to the national and community-based disaster management system. School-level preparedness plans also should be connected with local and national contingency plans developed as part of the ESP or TEP.

Education authorities at the national, sub-national, and local level should review their risk assessment, risk reduction, and emergency response preparedness annually. These stakeholders should ensure that persons with disabilities participate in the planning process. They should communicate plans to the whole school community in ways that are accessible to all, including people with low levels of literacy and learners with disabilities (for more guidance see Comprehensive School Safety Framework).