This report finds that education can have both negative and positive impacts on fragility. Education planning needs to consider these potential impacts. Education programming can mitigate fragility by; strengthening the education system itself; improving the capacity of individuals and groups to cope with fragility; and targeting the context of fragility (such as by promoting nation-building and good citizenship).
The relationship between education and fragility is dynamic and often mutually reinforcing. The numerous ways in which fragility can impact aspects of education, including access, quality, relevance, equity, and management, are well documented. There is also a deepening understanding of the impacts of education on fragility in terms of exacerbation or mitigation.
The impacts of education on the five domains of fragility – governance, security, the economy, the social domain, and the environment – can be summarised as follows:
- Education continues to contribute negatively to fragility, both actively and deliberately, by politicising and manipulating access, structures, curricula, and textbooks.
- It incidentally contributes by reproducing and failing to challenge existing patterns of division, inequality, violence, corruption, and inefficiency.
- Conversely, education strategies can enable people to live and operate in the existent fragile context by enhancing their capabilities in areas such as livelihoods, health, and conflict resolution.
- They can also change the drivers of fragility by challenging and replacing existing patterns, structures, and attitudes.
Education policy, planning, and programming in a fragile context cannot afford to ignore possible negative and positive impacts on different domains and drivers of fragility. Mapping the connections between education and fragility should therefore be seen as critical in thinking about education policy and programming, and should serve as a basis for determining needs and risks, setting targets and evaluating progress. Such analysis involves asking three questions:
- Can this policy/project/intervention have a negative impact on conditions of fragility?
- What evidence exists that it will have a positive impact on fragility?
- What factors and dynamics might influence the course and impacts of the intervention?
The main targets and goals of educational programming in relation to fragility mitigation are to:
- Target the fragility of the education system itself by building and/or strengthening its functionality. This involves focusing on national planning; legal and regulatory frameworks; community involvement and local ownership; and teacher capacity development.
- Target individuals and groups by building and/or strengthening their capacity to cope with fragility. One entry-point here could be programmes aimed at physical protection. These include mine-risk education, HIV and AIDS education, and the introduction of disaster-preparedness programmes, as well as the construction of safe schools.
- Target the context of fragility by building and/or strengthening peace, the state, and the nation. This involves focusing on: equal, generalised, and safe access to education; nation-building and good citizenship; preparation for livelihoods and entrepreneurship; gender sensitivity; awareness of environmental issues; and child-friendly schools and informal education initiatives (such as radio voter education and forums for youth voices).
