Attachments
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
This case study presents the strengths and weaknesses of two INEE Conflict Sensitive Education (CSE) workshops held in November 2018 (Training 1) and June 2019 (Training 2) in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as part of the Never too Late to Learn consortium in DRC. Given the work provided to tailor the content of the training pack to the participants’ needs and abilities, this case study looks at the extent to which training adaptation, contextualization, and co-creation, ensured concrete and improved, positive impact on trainees’ work and institutionalization.
The indisputable strength of the INEE CSE training materials is that content is constantly adapted; the context, the local situation, the profile of participants, their needs and priorities are always taken into account, and the experience from local actors adds to shape content more accurately.
Participants from both trainings praised the content quality, good facilitation, consistent and interesting materials, and active participation from participants.
The workshop’s objectives remained the same for both of the 3-day trainings: to increase participants’ knowledge of the INEE Minimum Standards, build skills on the topic of conflict-sensitive education to increase use of the INEE CSE Pack, and strengthen its institutionalization.
The specific objectives were unchanged for both trainings, as participants all shared similar profiles; education or protection International Non-governmental Organizations (INGO)/ local Non-governmental Organizations (NGO), local education authorities,
Education in Emergencies (EiE) and protection colleagues. The first cohort (Training 1) had 30 participants, including 7 women, and the second cohort (Training 2) had 29 participants, including 5 women.
The trainings aimed to improve participants’ knowledge of CSE, its tools and guidance to support the integration of CSE into education programs and policies, as well as increase their technical skills to include CSE in all phases of the program cycle: assessment, development, implementation/management, monitoring and evaluation. The overall training content met 84% (Training 1) and 100% (Training 2) of participants’ expectations, which indicate successful content design and training material development for those cohorts of trainees.