Scope
Pedagogy
Status
In progress
Subject
The international scenario presents an alarming situation regarding the conditions of children in contexts of humanitarian emergencies, caused by natural disasters, wars and pandemics. Between 2013 and 2017, there were more than 12.700 attacks affecting more than approximately 21.000 students and educators in at least 70 countries. The military use of schools and universities in 29 countries, in addition to hindering the right to education, turns these places into military targets. About half of the world's refugees are children: 3,7 million of these minors are out of school, five times the number found in conflict-free areas. With the pandemic, 1,6 million minors are excluded from the school system (UNESCO, 2020). In these situations, the right to education is often violated for indefinite periods of time, depriving children and adolescents not only of the opportunity to learn but also to share and socialize their discomfort, fears, and loneliness. For a long time, international cooperation agencies focused on providing psychosocial interventions and immediate assistance in humanitarian crises, distributing essential goods and materials, while excluding educational interventions intended for development projects rather than emergency response. Within the framework of cooperation in humanitarian crisis contexts, the dimensions of emergency, education and inclusion therefore appeared irreconcilable in terms of priorities, objectives and sustainability, until international cooperation policies began to adopt an approach that uses education and inclusion as essential tools and dimensions in crisis contexts for the protection of children's rights and therefore their well-being (AICS & RIDS, 2015; EU, 2018). From this new perspective, education, in its unpredictable implementations influenced by the peculiarities of emergency situations, is recognized as a significant contribution in several respects, including: the continuity of the school routine, which aims to establish a "normal" life despite sudden and traumatic changes; socialization and psychological support in safe spaces through educational experiences geared toward the future, with a project-based and intentional approach, which constitutes the beating heart of educational action wherever possible. The challenges inherent in this type of intervention are numerous and diverse, raising some essential questions: What is the pedagogical significance of an educational intervention during a humanitarian crisis in relation to the primary needs of children? Is it possible to identify key pedagogical axes to adopt and adapt based on the social, cultural, and political context? Why is it always essential to ensure an inclusive and community-based approach that questions the context and its actors?
The topic of education in emergency situations and its inclusive declination has been the subject of reflection and debate in international cooperation contexts for about twenty years, starting from the Education For All movement (2000) and the establishment of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies which, through the development of a broad partnership of international agencies and organisations, has managed to focus on a theme that has been neglected for years despite the spread of crises at an international level. The term Education in Emergencies (EiE) refers to opportunities for quality and inclusive lifelong learning in crisis situations (INEE, 2018). An important contribution of INEE concerns the development of the Mini-mum International Standard for Education in Emergencies (2010) which includes 19 standards, each accompanied by key actions and guidance indications. The manual aims to improve the quality of the response and increase access to safe and relevant learning opportunities as well as ensure the provision of services during evolving crises of various nature. In the academic field, EiE has become over the years a field of interest for research and experimentation of practices. Some authors (Burde, Guven, Kelcey, Lahmann, & Al-Abbadi, 2015; Lerch 2017; Lopes Cardozo & Novelli 2018; Novelli, Higgins, Ugur, & Valiente, 2014) highlight how the confluence of several factors between the 90s and 2000s – including the consensus on the Education for All agenda and the growing attention to the need to protect children during armed conflicts – brought together humanitarian, international development, and disaster risk reduction programs. An interesting state of the art by Burde et al. (2015) through a literature review identified the research trajectories followed up to 2015, those in progress and finally the directions still to be pursued in the EiE sector. Scholars say there has been an increase in research over time into the education of vulnerable groups, socio-emotional learning, and higher education for conflict-affected populations. New trends are emerging in research on inclusive education for children with disabilities and during early childhood. From the results of the literature review, the lack of research on education for natural disaster risk reduction is surprising, despite the effects of climate change exceeding those of armed conflict (ibid.). Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the EiE issue has suddenly affected all countries in the world, even the so-called developed ones. Speed and the ability to respond to the needs of the majority of the population in the shortest possible time under safe conditions are some of the fundamental cross-cutting characteristics of the EiE. Ensuring these three prerogatives during a humanitarian crisis exposes any aid intervention to face enormous challenges and critical issues, especially in relation to the inclusive dimension (Shah, Paulson, & Couch, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). The foundations of Inclusive Education have guided the policies and practices of the international pedagogical debate for several years, through documents that have become international "manifestos" on the theme of inclusion, such as the well-known Salamanca Declaration (1994) and Madrid Declaration (2002), as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). The documents cited have marked a process of evolution of education towards inclusion, overcoming the confines of "special" learning places for the most vulnerable groups, culturally and normatively affirming a concept of inclusive education that embraces the differences of all children, recognizing everyone's right to learning and participation in ordinary school contexts (UN, 2006). The tension towards the principles of Inclusive Education that animated the international movement Education for All (2000) was interpreted by objective 4 of the 8 Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000) and subsequently found a new voice in the United Nations 2030 Agenda (2015) in Sustainable Development Goal 4 “Quality Education” as well as in the perspective of the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) which rewrites school inclusion in terms of breaking down barriers to participation and learning and which fully recognises the social function of school. As has been explored in other works (Taddei, 2010; Taddei, 2017; Taddei & Pacetti, 2018), Inclusive Education represents a difficult challenge in cooperation contexts, both due to the significant and numerous contextual differences and because acting from an Inclusive Education perspective involves working simultaneously on several dimensions: accessibility, capacity building of local actors, individualization and personalization of interventions and a networking approach in the territories.
To critically reflect on the issue, it will be necessary to place the theoretical and international policy framework within the context of reality. We will take as a case study what has happened and continues to happen in the Gaza Strip from 2023 to the present. It is more urgent than ever to develop and share with the international education community a critical and profound reflection on the reasons and methods of intervention adopted during humanitarian crises, in the supreme interest of children's rights worldwide.
Learning outcomes
1. Critically analyze the evolution and state of the art of emergency education in humanitarian aid contexts.
2. Critically reflect on the processes of supporting inclusive education in crisis contexts.
3. Design intervention perspectives starting from dialogue and cooperation with local stakeholders: the agency of communities, from victims to protagonists.
Methods
The study aims to critically examine the specific case of the Gaza Strip from 2023 to the present within the framework of the international debate on Education in Emergency. The perspective of pedagogical research will be intertwined with the perspective of an educator and humanitarian worker from the Gaza Strip. The socio-cultural, political, and pedagogical intersections will be explored through field testimonies regarding the functions of the Temporary Learning Spaces created by international agencies.
This is a qualitative research project that will use interviews, conducted primarily remotely, with local stakeholders as its primary investigative tool.
Concurrently with the formulation of the state of the art, the remote interviews will be collected and analyzed. The final phase will be dedicated to drafting the editorial product.
References
AICS & RIDS (2015). Humanitarian Aid and Disability. Vademecum 2015. Rome, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation.
Besozzi, E. (2006). Sociology, Culture, Education: Theories, Contexts, and Processes. Rome: Carocci Editore.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: CSIE.
Burde, D., Guven, O., Kelcey, J., Lahmann, H., & Al-Abbadi, K. (2015). What Works to Promote Children's Educational Access, Quality of Learning, and Wellbeing in Crisis-Affected Contexts. London: DfID.
Canevaro, A. (2006). The Logic of Borders and Paths. A Pedagogy of Inclusion (for Everyone, Including the Disabled). Trento: Erickson.
Clarke, G., Desay, R.M., Hallward-Driemeier M.C., Irwin T.C., Messick R.E., Scarpetta S., Smith W.P., Tata G.M. & Vostroknutova E. (2005). World development-opment report 2005: a better investment climate for everyone. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
d'Alonzo, L. (2018). Special pedagogy for inclusion. Brescia: Scholé. de Anna, L., Gardou, C., & Covelli, A. (eds.) (2018). Inclusion, cultures and disabilities. Trent: Erickson.
Dewee, J. (1974). Democracy and Education. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
EducAid (2016). The Diamond Kite Projects. I-KIT. The Active Education Approach for Full Inclusion in the Social Educational Field. Rimini: EducAid.
Enderlin, C. (2003). The History of the Failure of Peace between Israel and Palestine. The Shattered Dream. Rome: Newton & Compton Editori.
European Union (2002). Madrid Declaration. Madrid: European Union.
European Commission (2018). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises. Brussels: European Commission. Freinet, C. (1977). The school of doing. The principles. Milan: Emme Editions.
Status of works
The project is part of the 2025-2026 DSU annual research plan and was approved by the Department Council in session no. 7/2025 of December 5, 2025. It is currently in the data collection phase.