Systemic Education &
Extra-Mural
Development and
Support (SEEDS)
Initiative 2009-2013,
Western Cape Province,
South Africa -
Mid-Term Review
A project of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands
Outsourced Insight
November 2011
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………p.4
Chapter 1: Background, Methodology, Structure……………………………………………………………….p.23
Chapter 2: Focus Area 1: Maths and Science……………………………………………………………………….p.30
Section 1: Management Survey: Maths and Science
ECD/Foundation phase
EARLY LEARNING PROJECT FOR RURAL AND POOR SCHOOLS IN THE WESTERN CAPE – EARLY
LEARNING RESOURCE UNIT (ELRU)
Intermediate, Senior Phase, and FET
MATHS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROJECT (MSEP): UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
MATHS AND SCIENCE FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS: UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH,
INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING (IMSTUS)
a. The Sciences and Mathematics Initiative for Learners and Educators project (IMSTUS
SMILES)
b. The Science and Mathematics Bridging Programme (IMSTUS SciMathUS)
c. The University of Stellenbosch ACE in Mathematics (IMSTUS ACE)
TEACHING BIOLOGY PROJECT: AFRICA GENOME EDUCATION INSTITUTE AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE (TBP)
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE (SAILI)
SCIFEST AFRICA
Section 2: Beneficiary Survey: Maths and Science
Chapter 3: Focus Area 2: Rural Education…………………………………………………………………………..p.65
CENTRE FOR MULTIGRADE EDUCATION, CAPE PENNINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
(CMGE)
Section 1: Management Survey
Section 2: Beneficiary Survey
Chapter 4: Focus Area 3: Schools as Hubs of Lifelong Learning…………………………………………..p.74
SCHOOLS AS HUBS OF LEARNING, RECREATION, AND SUPPORT: THE EXTRA-MURAL
EDUCATION PROJECT
Section 1: Management Survey
Section 2: Beneficiary Survey
Chapter 5: Focus Area 4: HIV/AIDS Preventative and Support……………………………………………p.85
WESTERN CAPE GENERATION OF LEADERS DISCOVERED (GOLD) PEER EDUCATION ROLL-OUT
PROJECT: GOLD PEER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Section 1: Management Survey
Section 2: Beneficiary Survey
Chapter 6: Focus Area 5: Collaboration and Innovation…………………………………………………….p.94
Chapter 7: Focus Area 6: Towards a Systemic Multi-Disciplinary Model……………………………p.100
Chapter 8: Sharing Lessons…………………………………………………………………………………………..……p.105
Appendices
A – MTR TOR
B – Outsourced Insight - Proposal Document and Budget
C – Management Surveys – List of Interviews Conducted
D – Beneficiary Survey – Survey Instrument Template
3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A mid-term review of The Royal Netherlands Embassy (EKN) Education Initiative: Systemic
Education and Extra-Mural Development and Support (SEEDS), Western Cape, South Africa was
conducted between July and September 2011.
The initiative comprises nine projects of six non-profit organisations and four higher education
institutions in the Western Cape Province. The SEEDS Initiative (hereafter SEEDS) began on the
1st of January 2009; it will terminate on the 31st December 2012, with funding for a further
three months to wind-down.
The overall programme is to the amount of R149.446.92, payable bi-annually over the four year
period. Project expenditure is in line with the annual budgets submitted; annual review of
budgets has taken place and opportunities for revisiting adequately provided for; and issues of
concern – such as initial project under-spending – taken in hand.
The SEEDS Steering Committee holds meetings throughout the year as per the project
agreement and minutes are signed and circulated; quarterly reports by organisations on projects
are submitted to the SEEDS project manager; various sub-committees/forums have been
established and meetings held; the fund holder has submitted accurate and timely financials.
The MTR identifies specific challenges/issues faced by particular projects which have been or are
being addressed with the assistance of the SEEDS project manager. With the exception of three
instances specified in the body of the report which have been brought to the attention of the
SEEDS manager, such challenges are or have been adequately addressed and appear not to have
impacted the achievement of project goals.
A combination of quantitative and qualitative review methodologies were utilised for the
purposes of the MTR. In-depth management interviews were conducted with the management
of each implementing agency to determine their perspectives on the programmes and a
representative quantitative survey of project teachers, students, learners and schools conducted
using a generic questionnaire developed and customised for each implementing agency. The
questions explored participants’ opinions on the value and effectiveness of the programme,
allowing for open-ended comments both positive and negative. Fieldworkers were trained and
deployed to collect responses to the questionnaires from participants by one of three methods:
face-to-face interviews; guided self-completion of questionnaires; or telephonic interviews,
resulting in the collation of 740 responses, 204 from educators/project facilitators and 536
learners or students
The goals of the SEEDS programme are to:
 Benefit education in the Western Cape with particular emphasis on mathematics and
science education, the development of a multigrade rural education centre, the
development of schools as hubs of lifelong learning and HIV/AIDS peer education for youth
(SEEDS focus areas 1 through 4)
 Generate creative and innovative solutions to current obstacles and challenges in the
abovementioned focus areas through collaboration (focus area 5)
 Develop a systemic, multi-disciplinary and sustainable model for the abovementioned
context (focus area 6)
 Share lessons learnt about collaborating processes, best practices and other relevant results
with colleagues in South Africa, selected countries in Africa and the Netherlands (focus area
7)
The participating organisations and institutions specify further that the SEEDS initiative will
result in:
 Raised levels of awareness about various opportunities and possibilities within the focus
areas for the direct and indirect target audiences, the project institutions/ organisations and
partners
 Changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities and actions of the direct and indirect
target audience, the project institutions/organisations and its partners
4

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Realised aspirations amongst the direct and indirect target audiences that link education,
career and work opportunities and possibilities
There is little doubt that, at this mid-point, significant progress been registered towards meeting
the agreed-upon broader project goals and longer-term outcomes.
SEEDS’s first goal of benefiting education in the Western Cape is addressed through the projects
focussing on:
 The need for effective Mathematics and Science learning: Focus Area 1
 The need to offer rural, multigrade education: Focus Area 2
 The need to improve the usage of existing school infrastructures: Focus Area 3, and
 The need for a preventative HIV/AIDS programme and leadership development: Focus Area
4:
The further three SEEDS goals are addressed as follows:
 The need for a collaborative, innovative intervention: Focus Area 5:
 The need to develop systemic, multi-disciplinary models: Focus Area 6
 The need to share lessons with audiences within and outside South Africa: Focus Area 7
Discussions held between the EKN and the SEEDS consortium members clarified in respect of
focus areas 5 through 7 that, whilst collaboration(s), particularly those arising spontaneously and
promising to naturally enhance innovations and outcomes, development of a SEEDS model or
approach to reform(s), and knowledge sharing (focus areas 5, 6 and 7) were to be encouraged
and pursued, the consortium would not require any formal proposals to be tabled nor any
formal indicators as such to be developed or incorporated in the M&E framework. Nevertheless
progress towards their achievement remains an important consideration in assessing the overall
success of the SEEDS initiative in its entirety.
Of the R150 million made available, Focus Area 1 – Maths and Science received 56.7% of the
funds; Focus Area 2 – Rural Education, 14.7%, Focus Area 3 School Development, 12% and Focus
Area 4 HIV and AIDS prevention, 10%. The fund holder (University of Stellenbosch) was allocated
6.7%.
These seven priority or focus areas together comprise the SEEDS programme: the MTR
addresses progress made towards achieving the programme goals of each of the focus areas.
Focus Area 1: Maths and Science
15. Focus Area 1 addresses the need for more effective mathematics and science learning and
teaching and participation, particularly amongst previously disadvantaged black, African learners
within rural and urban areas, by targeting learners, teachers, school managers, parents, higher
education institutions, teacher training and development, and public awareness of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.
16. Funds allocated to this focus area amount to R85m, nearly 56.7% of the total project funds.
Seven of the ten consortium members have projects in this focus area
17. Given the wide spectrum of organisations engaged in focus 1, and their quite often distinct
activities in various phases of formal schooling as well as across the education sector, in the MTR
a full narrative for each organisation is provided, beginning with the ECD/Foundation phase
(ELRU) and proceeding to organisations with projects in the Intermediate and Senior Phase, and
the Further Education and Training Sectors.
18. The outline which follows described only the most basic project elements and participant
perceptions.
ELRU
19. In the ECD/Foundation phase, the EARLY LEARNING PROJECT FOR RURAL AND POOR SCHOOLS
IN THE WESTERN CAPE, run by ELRU has developed an “appropriate to context and culturally
appropriate strategy for ECD teacher development and support in rural poor schools”. The
project has identified replicable elements (materials; enrichment programme; teacher training
5
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
and on-site support) which could be taken-up by institutions responsible for ECD teacher
development in the future.
ELRU’s focus has been on building the fundamentals of thinking, language acquisition and
counting into the Early Childhood Development (ECD)/Grade R phases. The programme has
contextualised its products for use in rural and poor schools and a range of cultural and natural
environments.
The ELRU project vision under the SEEDS initiative is to “inspire confident, equipped and
innovative teachers and parents, promoting young children’s curiosity and sense of wonder as a
foundation for acquiring the fundamental building blocks of thinking, numeracy and language
acquisition.” This vision is actively pursued in project activities to: develop and distribute
innovative materials; delivering an inspiration and awareness programme for teachers, learners
and caregivers; and training for teachers (workshops), incorporating exposure to new places and
ideas as well as on-site support with implementation.
The project works with 60 ECD/Grade R teachers in predominantly Afrikaans-language schools
and community centres in West Coast and Overberg districts. In addition to participating
teachers, ELRU estimates (2010) that its programme has reached 1222 families (880 in Overberg
and 342 in West Coast) and benefitted 1440 children (Overberg 836; West Coast 604).
New approaches and innovations have emerged in the teaching of numeracy, literacy, and life
skills at ECD level. The project addresses the availability of mother-tongue instructional material
in these learning areas. It has also innovated with the use of audio-visuals in teacher
development and multimedia platforms, and developed the concept of a supportive cluster
centred on an experienced lead or peer teacher.
The project has faced and overcome numerous challenges such as: stakeholder liaison issues;
the WCED moratorium on activities of NGOs in schools; poor ‘enabling’ school environments;
rising levels of competition from WCED and other ECD training providers; and poor teacher
classroom implementation of key elements of ELRU’s programme including its ‘threatening’ (to
teachers and parents) child-centred, mediated, rights-based approach. Failing significant
improvement in the operating environment of the Western Cape, ELRU fears that the obstacles
to 'scale-up' might make the programme both unaffordable and impracticable – such factors are
less of an issue in other provinces where ELRU is working. SEEDS’ project elements are
nevertheless already been usefully incorporated into ELRU’s own programmes, and
opportunities also exist in other provinces where ECD provision by NPO’s is receiving strong
support.
Collaboration and co-operation/partnerships with other SEEDS members on project activities
has been limited to ‘sharing’ of experiences (not working with) with CMGE, EMEP and GOLD.
SCIFEST AFRICA has provided services to ELRU’s enrichment programme. ELRU has garnered
significant learning from the project including a “deeper feel” for what it means to be an ECD
teacher in the changing education environment; new skills in assisting ECD teachers to deal with
workplace changes and the cultural impact of implementing the new ECD curriculum; improved
understanding of the impact of government initiatives for professional development; research
and development of innovative ECD resource material; and wide engagement with ECD
stakeholders.
There are seven Intermediate and Senior Phase SEEDS projects in the focus area directed at
quality mathematics and science learning and teaching in the intermediate and senior phases
(GET), pre- and in-service training at FET level in the four universities, and public awareness of
STEM (seven projects to the sum of R72m, 87% of the available funds in the focus area).
MSEP
The MATHS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROJECT (MSEP) run by the University of Cape Town’s
Schools Development supports development of ‘better quality’ mathematics and science
education in five traditionally disadvantaged schools, where the majority of learners who are
Black. From this base of schools, MSEP is busy developing a range of “research-informed
6
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
interventions that will not only make a significant difference to individual schools, but also
advanced the knowledge and understanding of the complexities of creating a more effective
education system".
The project aim is to improve the quality of teaching and learning in HG maths and science in
these five secondary schools in the Cape Town Metro where significant numbers of black
students are enrolled. In addition to classroom-based teacher support in maths and science,
MSEP has also been drawn into languages, school leadership, ICT, and life skills. MSEP provides
bursaries for teachers in maths in addition to its educational research into various aspects of
teachers’ practice. MSEP’s learner support in the five schools is limited, mainly focussed on
extra-tuition. Staff of the SDU and the School of Education at UCT undertakes all the MSEP work.
MSEP also provides support for learners from other schools in working class communities who
have not traditionally gained access to the university, primarily through the Holiday School
Programme (three four-day Mathematics and Science Holiday Schools for 500 learners held in
April, July and September).
MSEPs project methodology is to research the impact of learning and teaching interventions
aimed at teachers so as to grasp what works in schools and what doesn’t and to publish and
disseminate these results. Each project component has a different way of working, is reasonably
independent from the other, sets its own detailed research agenda, and is led by a different
team leader under the MSEP project manager.
MSEP’s follows a case studies methodology: case studies are the main vehicle for “developing
more nuanced understandings of key elements of the complex dynamics play between school,
staff, students and self (i.e. the teacher)’ evident in each school.” As such, MSEP anticipates that
the project’s research findings will make a significant contribution to the literature.
MSEP’s starting point has been to avoid doing what schools want, which is to immediately
address learner needs, and rather working with the teachers in the classroom for longer term,
sustainable change: this emerges as a key tension in the project.
MSEP achievements have been quite severely blunted by circumstances on the ground, despite
using schools with high relative levels of functionality, including Dinaledi schools. Challenges in
schools have been greater than MSEP initially imagined. MSEP has come to realise the uniquely
difficult conditions prevailing in Western Cape schools which have been “completely
underestimated” given the province’s performance in national rankings.
With its unique research-based approach, MSEP seems to be emerging with elements of a new
innovative approach to teacher development in maths and science which is increasingly inclusive
of the concept of ‘whole school change’ as well as the importance of getting alongside teachers
in the classroom: “you can't get to the learning except through the teacher, if you can't get to
the teachers unless you get through the doors.“
The project faces many challenges including: the difficulty of obtaining buy-in from teachers;
achieving meaningful and lasting changes in a relatively short time frame; ingrained attitudes
amongst teachers; roles of District officials; importance of language in maths and science
teaching and learning; willingness of teachers to open up their classroom practice; and varied
levels of school participation in project activities. Nonetheless, mid-way into the project, there
are some encouraging signs of participating teachers, with MSEPs support, broadening their
repertoire of instructional maths and science classroom practices.
Collaboration and co-operation/partnerships with other SEEDS members on project activities
has been limited. MSEP reasons that lack of collaboration with other SEEDS parties can partly be
attributed to the academic nature of the project.
IMSTUS
The MATHS AND SCIENCE FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS project run by the Institute for
Mathematics and Science Teaching (IMSTUS) at Stellenbosch University, advances equal
participation and improved performance in mathematics and science in previously
7
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
disadvantaged communities through three programmes. The project is the largest in the SEEDS
consortium (a total of R25m, 16.7% of SEEDS funding, and 30% in the focus area).
SMILES
The Sciences and Mathematics Initiative for Learners and Educators project (SMILES), is an
Intermediate and Senior Phase teacher in-service classroom-based intervention in five subjects
across the GET and FET levels – in Physical Science, Life Science, Natural Science, Mathematics
and Maths Literacy. It runs in five secondary schools in the Kraaifontein, Paarl and Stellenbosch
areas and ten of their primary feeder schools involving 88 teachers to date.
The initiative includes content training of the curriculum (teachers register for US Short courses),
classroom visits where facilitators co-teach with the educator, science club facilitation and
parent evening input. Work that is covered during the training sessions is followed up by the
facilitators during the classroom visits. SEEDS funds were also directed into building up the
science infrastructure and purchasing FET science kits for schools classrooms. SEEDS funding also
helps fund SMILES’s exposure programme to life sciences for example to the Tygerberg medical
facility, Iziko Museum, Kirstenbosch and Sutherland SALT array.
Practical classroom-based support to teachers faced with large classes where classroom
management and discipline are key concerns is a central focus of the SMILES programme.
Relationship building is critical, something SMILES feels it is succeeding with because of their
approach.
In addition to classroom-based support for teachers, SMILES facilitators also model lessons in
any subject to the top forty learners in each grade in every participating school so that learners
“have a direct experience of the programme”; this is also seen as an opportunity for SMILES to
“understand the way in which the learners respond”. Staff members are publishing and sharing
their results. One of the projects major challenges is how to monitor success. Participating
teachers are not evaluated in any formal way but they do take a SMILES self-assessment test.
Learners are not assessed.
The school context is emerging as a critical factor to success, irrespective of whether schools are
Dinaledi schools. Other challenges to be overcome include: teacher animosity, fear and anxiety
on classroom visits/observations; teachers challenges/fears in implementing the new
curriculum; building positive trusting relationships; teachers’ lack of focus on practical work in
the classroom; gaps in coverage of subjects between the GET and FET phases; teachers other inschool on-going commitments; lack of use of school laboratories; teacher turn-over in subjects
science and maths; teacher availability for after-school training and impact of schools’ extramural activities on this in-service programme; educator’s curriculum knowledge and didactic
skills in large classes, particularly Mathematical skills; language issues in teaching of maths and
science; gaps between pre-service and in-service training; resistance of unions and attitudes of
District Officials.
SMILES experience is that it is ineffective working in schools where there is not a wellestablished management structure because it is a waste in literal terms. However, following
selection, SMILES still sees a need to work with teachers and the school managers to try and
change the school culture – a whole school approach.
SMILES is expanding its involvement with whole school development and, post-SEEDS, plans to
include in its programme a foundation phase intervention, language and school leadership and
management elements.
Given an improved enabling environment, SMILES is confident that its model can usefully be
used by under-performing school districts to raise the standard of maths and science learning
and teaching.
SciMathUS
The Science and Mathematics Bridging Programme (SciMathUS) is a post-matric programme at
the University of Stellenbosch (US). It affords 100 talented learners every year the opportunity
of qualifying for mainstream higher education. It is a Flagship programme of the US, and
8
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
IMSTUS’s largest programme, (40% of total budget). It was started in 2001 in response to the
university’s need for black student undergraduates, particularly in STEM degree programmes.
The year-long school-to-university bridging programme offers talented disadvantaged black
students an opportunity to improve their Mathematics, Physical Sciences and Accounting marks.
SciMathUS overcomes learning gaps in students Grade 12 learning in these subjects by applying
a hybrid collaborative-learning and problem-based method in which both the students and the
educators to explore and find solutions to the concepts in a negotiated and collaborative way.
The programme was nominated for the Impumelelo Award in 2009. Student selection is
considered the most important aspect of the programme. The minimum requirement is 30% in
NSC Mathematics and Science. Students with Maths Literacy are also accepted but must
complete the subject Mathematics.
SEEDS funding helped to increase student numbers to 100 students. Food, accommodation,
transport, textbooks, and registration and course fees are all paid for by the programme.
Students write the National Senior Certificate examination (in Mathematics and Physical
Science) at the end of the academic year. Accounting examinations are set within the Faculty of
Economic and Management Sciences.
Students NSC mathematics and science examination marks increased by an average of 15
percentage points and some by as much as 30 points. In terms of completion rates, success
varies year-on-year: there was a 25% drop out rate in 2009/2010 intake with 75 of the 100
students graduating which was attributed to the new NCS curriculum (75% success completion
rate). In terms of students longitudinal performance at university level there is a drop-out rate of
30% amongst SciMathUS students, a slightly better rate than non-participating students at the
university.
The programme faces a number of challenges including: lack of government subsidies for preprogramme initiatives; language of instruction [Afrikaans] is often a consideration limiting
student intake; lack of integration with the broader faculty of the University; too few and
inappropriately located venues within the University.
SciMathUS has evolved a successful problem-based approach to bridging that combines didactic
and collaborative elements to effectively address gaps in students’ formal skills and content
knowledge, in addition to their confidence and abilities to work and function collaboratively and
socially irrespective of background. Its track record is not disputed; however, the programme’s
most serious challenge to sustainability lies in its financial aspects and convincing the Ministry of
Higher Education and perhaps the private sector of the desirability of funding bridging
programmes.
ACE in Mathematics
The Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) in Mathematics is IMSTUS’s 2-year in-service
distance training programme for Mathematics teachers. The ACE in Mathematics provides
qualified rural teachers with a non-residence programme in the subjects Mathematics or
Physical Science and meets an existing need.
The programme makes use of a blended learning approach which combines face-to-face contact,
self study and e-learning (interactive telematics sessions and discussions on a web-based
programme management system - Moodle). The ACE was started in 2009. In 2010 new student
numbers climbed to 42 before dropping back to 29 in 2011, primarily because of lack of subsidy
funding. The ACE is offered in four provinces where US has distance learning facilities.
This ACE in Mathematics according to IMSTUS introduces a national in-service model for
teachers in rural schools combining contact/face-to-face sessions with e-learning and telematics
to create a vital and virtual community of practice using the internet and mobile phones
essential to sustained impact on classroom practice in a blended learning format. The model has
been presented to national and international (African) audiences at conferences in South Africa
and Zambia.
9
53. The major challenge facing the IMSTUS ACE in Mathematics is financial. It has proved difficult to
secure funding for 2012 within the Western Cape since the WCED has decided it will no longer
provide student bursaries for ACE’s. IMSTUS offers the programme in other provinces that
provide ACE funding and where US has satellite campuses. The WCED’s alternative proposal to
fund teachers taking Short Courses – essentially the ACE offered in compact packages - has also
not yet come to fruition, posing a very real threat to the programmes continued financial and
longer term viability. Further, there is both a two-year delay in payment of the government
subsidy to the university and some dispute as to on-payment of this subsidy payment to IMSTUS
by US.
54. The ACE’s major challenge is thus one of addressing and removing these challenges to its
sustainability.
TBP
55. The Teaching Biology Project (TBP) is an initiative of AEGI and UWC (initially the Education
Faculty and School of Science and Mathematics Education, now the Centre for Natural Science
for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and Conservation
Biology Department) to develop appropriate content for the teaching of new scientific material
in schools (GET and FET) as well as provide training opportunities to science educators
responsible for teaching this material. SEEDS funds TBP to the sum of R16m, 18.8% of Focus Area
1 funds: it is the third largest project in maths and science.
56. The TBP’s goal is to support the professional development of pre- and in-service teachers at the
General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) phases, with
expertise being drawn from the Western Cape Education Department, Western Cape universities
and various senior Science and Education consultants in order to improve the teaching and
learning of Natural Sciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences.
57. AGEI and UWC agreed to run the TBP’s training programmes respectively for in-service and preservice educators, with participation of senior science experts and science educators and
development of new materials, in order to propagate the appropriate pedagogical skills to teach
competently and confidently. Between 350 and 400 in-service teachers have benefitted from the
TBP, as have 300 undergraduate life-sciences and ten pre-service life sciences students at UWC.
58. The in-service Training in Evolutionary Biology at the GET and FET levels focuses on: professional
development through thrice-yearly conferences (AEGI) complemented with ongoing lesson plan
and material development support (AEGI/UWC). The four-day conferences integrate appropriate
phase content knowledge in the science of genomes and evolution with discussion on scientific
method. The use of ICT is integral to the learning and teaching methodology of the TBP.
59. TBPs pre-service programme in life sciences and ecology is run by UWC’s Centre for Natural
Science for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology Department and embraces curriculum and materials development
specifically around the new curriculum (including in UWC’s undergraduate life sciences),
development of a framework for training of pre-service life sciences teachers, holding of annual
conferences and public promotion of life sciences, and running of Short Courses and Biology
Colloquium/workshops in specific topics for teachers in the field.
60. Amongst the activities prescribed in TBP’s original proposal to SEEDS is a partnership with
tertiary institutions in the province to “develop an appropriate framework and series of
interventions that will ultimately enhance and improve pre-service learning” involving visitation
and sharing with Dutch colleagues to learn from their curriculum and practices. Run by UWC,
this component of the TBP will be implemented over the next year.
61. The pre-service component of the TBP to ‘reshape and revitalise professional practice amongst
new life sciences teachers enrolled in the Western Cape’s higher education faculties’ is being
implemented by both AEGI and UWC. AEGI’s contribution is through participation of CPUT preservice life sciences students in its conferences. UWC’s involves working with their life sciences
students as well as with their mentor teachers in the schools. Conceptual, pedagogic and skills
10
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
training are available for students during the academic year, with special workshops provided in
new learning areas as well as addressing curricula changes. During their three-month practice
teaching in schools, UWC offers support, help with lesson plans, books, worksheets and props
for lessons, and school visitations. Learning support materials have been produced, core
practical lessons at Grades 10-12 work shopped, and a website for on-line access by students
developed.
The TBP pre-service component has been downscaled due to the limited funding available to
UWC. Nonetheless the project has ensured that life sciences pre-service teachers at UWC are
more fully exposed to biology and, to an extent, earth sciences and ecology. Their project work
has further addressed, through development of a ‘misconceptions in life sciences’ tool, which
supports their pedagogical content-knowledge life sciences teaching approach.
UWC is adamant that their impact factor on per-service in other tertiary institutions could be
significantly improved with more adequate funding being made available from project funds,
pointing to positive project benefits including improved 2011 student pass rates from support
provided to undergraduate life sciences courses at UWC (UWC has been allocated a total of
R1.7m of TBP funds, 10.6% of funds available).
Some of key challenges TBP faces in respect of quality biology teaching in the classroom relates
to factors intrinsic to the schools and how teachers approach their classroom practice, which in
turn is leading to changes in emphasis in the programme for example through enhanced
classroom-based support methodologies (AEGI), incorporation of more practical skills into preservice training programmes (UWC), and increased use of ICT in the classroom (AEGI).
TBP’s third area of activities seeks very broadly to promote academic and learning support
materials development for teaching about evolution, biology, and the nature of science,
developing online support, promoting public understanding through annual conferences such as
that on Human Evolution run at UWC in October 2009, as well as major workshops to improve
access to scientific information and teaching. Academics and other individuals involved in TBP at
AEGI and UWC respectively continue to contribute substantively in their own right to the
deepening of knowledge and wider understanding of evolution, genetics and the biological
sciences and the teaching thereof in the country, and internationally, through their engagement
in this SEEDS project.
SAILLI
The goal of the SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE (SAILLI), with the Cape
Higher Education Consortium, is to “equip disadvantaged youth with strong capabilities in maths
and science so that they can participate fully in the disciplines that make up the knowledge
economy.”
The 2008 SEEDS proposal proposed a shift away from their interventions which emphasised
support of systemic institutional improvement towards selection of promising individuals in
disadvantaged schools and placing them in high-quality learning environments at the start of
their secondary school careers, supported by an array of learner-directed programmes. The
numbers of SALLI learners benefitting from the Learner Placement Programme from Grades 9 to
12 is 65, with 45 supported from SEEDS funding.
In 2009, based on a review of the programme which questioned the results obtained from the
initiatives above, SAILI initiated far-ranging discussions as to the direction of the programme and
support for the enrichment programme “to see that everyone was getting the best benefits for
resources spent”. The results were sobering, with learner results not in line with SAILLI’s array of
learner-directed programmes. With rising school fees and increased competition for placement
in such schools the Learner Placement Programme was also becoming unaffordable. The
evaluation recognised that the Learner Placement Programme reliance on placing talent in
excellent – but expensive - ‘high-end’ schools was not sustainable, nor necessary. A new
approach and model was needed.
11
69. The problem according to SAILI was that they were overlooking opportunities in “moderately
priced, quality local schools”. The challenge lay in linking such poor but talented learners to a
locally high-performing high school – if such schools could be identified or existed in the
neighbourhood – where their talent could be nurtured. SAILLI’s challenge therefore was in
selection of talent and identification of well-priced local, high-performing high schools with
whom it can partner and find places for talented, genuinely needy students graduating from
nearby primary schools who under normal circumstances would not afford (or be offered) a
place in such schools.
70. This action-research based approach, supplemented by thorough evaluation, has led to a new
focus in 2010: “We have evolved from an education intervention into a scholarship programme.”
SAILI continues to provide bursaries to learners already on the programme; in 2010 in response
to the debate outlined above SAILLI suspended recruitment of new students pending the launch
of the new programme in 2012. Recruitment of this cohort has now resumed.
71. SAILI has made significant progress in identifying key analytical elements and data necessary in
identifying high performing schools beyond Grade 12 performance data which would benefit
other SEEDS partners and could be developed into a major resource with additional input and
discussion.
72. SAILI’s new scholarship programme offers potential systemic impact on the schooling system on
behalf of its student constituency – black, African, poor, township, vernacular-speaking senior
phase learners - in ways not initially anticipated by SAILI or partners including the opening-up of
formerly Coloured schools for black African-language speaking students and, potentially,
effective cross-subsidisation of additional teaching staff in participating schools.
SCIFESTAFRICA
73. SCIFESTAFRICA is the only partner in the initiative specialising in the promotion of Science
awareness.
74. SciFest Africa’s project activities include “the biggest science festival in sub-Saharan Africa”, the
flagship seven-day National Festival of Science held each March in Grahamstown. This year’s
conference, under the ‘Science across cultures’ theme, “highlighted what makes us human,
what makes us different, the contribution of different cultures to science and science education,
and science practiced across cultures.” The festival offered over 600 events and activities and
attracted 65,000 visitors.
75. SciFest Africa also presents a range of outreach programmes, including SciFest Africa-on-theRoad an annual 14-day tour with a top scientist or educational theatre production through one
or more provinces reaching some 6 000 learners; SciFest Africa Deep Rural Programme which
takes interactive Science programmes to historically disadvantaged schools; SciFest Africa
Science Shows; National Science Week in the Eastern Cape annually has as a major component
hands-on workshops and Science shows presented by a SciFest Africa team; and SciFest Africa
Regional Festivals: three-day tours of workshops for primary school learners in the Eastern
Province, Limpopo, Western Cape and the Northern Cape, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.
76. With the SEEDS project, SciFest Africa’s programmes are available in the Western Cape to the
specialist Science and Mathematics partners. Annual activities are with audiences ranging from
primary and secondary school learners to university students and adults and include twelve
week-long tours of lectures, educational theatre, workshops and Science shows.
77. Through involvement in the SEEDS’ maths and science education projects, the SciFest Africa
approach has become much more demand-driven and targeted. These elements have
contributed to SciFest’s repositioning from a science awareness and science engagement public
interest organisation, to supporting educators and learners in the classroom.
78. In 2010 SciFest Africa faced a challenge to 'the core business' – the national festival itself - which
“almost didn’t happen” as no funder was available. Amongst other actions, SciFest Africa
contacted the SEEDS management who saw the value of the festival to both science education
and the consortium itself, and through the EKN, approved the use of SciFest’s unutilised funds of
12
this purpose and agreed to approach the DST on its behalf. In the event, both SciFest Africa and
SEEDS were able to leverage a distinctly challenging circumstance into an opportunity to
promote science education and work more closely with the DST to extend its involvement in the
Science Festival and public awareness of science more generally. The DST has provided
‘unprecedented support’ to SciFest from this point, including extensively utilising SciFest Africa’s
services.
79. For SciFest this incident demonstrates one of the key advantages of working in a large
consortium with significant resources and a large network.
Focus Area 1: Programme Assessment
80. The results of the MTR quantitative programme assessment for focus area 1 projects overall,
reveal high levels of project satisfaction on the part of beneficiaries, whether learners or
educators (exceptions were MSEP Educators (13%) and SCIMATHUS Learners (12%)). Educator
and learners subject knowledge increased as did their confidence in teaching and studying.
Levels of management support for SEEDS programmes were high. With the exception of MSEP
participants, for most educators, the workshop and interaction times had been most suitable; as
were workshop venues. Most expressed the view that they enjoy teaching more since
participating in the programme. Similarly, the vast majority of learners enjoy their learning more
since joining their different programmes. The most positive consequences of participation in the
various programmes for educators were seen to be the workshop sessions, networking with
other teachers, the wealth of new knowledge gained and the skills developed. Asked about what
could be changed to make the various programmes more helpful, large proportions of both
educators and learners said that nothing needed to be changed. In cases where respondents
made comments, their desire for more contact with the programme emerged strongly.
Focus Area 2: Rural Education
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
CMGE
The Centre for Multigrade Education (CMGE) was established in the Faculty of Education and
Social Sciences at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in South Africa in 2009 with a
SEEDS grant of R22m as “the only centre in Africa addressing the dire situation of rural education
using multigrade education as a pedagogical solution and one which hopes to develop as a
solution-based resource centre for Africa on multigrade (MG) education.”
The philosophy, methodologies and practices of multigrade education lie at CMGE’s core and
drive the Centre and all its activities. CMGE faces a tough task convincing education policy
makers, politicians, the teaching profession, and education researchers that MGE as phrased in
this unique and innovative manner is the 21st century pedagogic panacea to the quality ‘learning
and teaching’ challenges of rural schools particularly in early learning and Foundation phases.
The central place afforded ICT in CMGE’s approach – and its unique take on MG pedagogy in ICT
in learning –is likewise innovative and critical to the wider debates on technology and innovation
in education in which CMGE’s participation and research is increasingly recognised.
CMGE’s 2011 Vision Statement – “to combat poverty in the world by means of the establishment
of an expert centre which will improve and distribute the knowledge of MGE” - reflects the
Centre’s growing confidence and belief in MGE, the emerging MG ‘community of practice’ in
which the Centre is playing a not-insubstantial role, CMGE’s growing research expertise in MGE
and pedagogical practice, and to an extent its leadership role nationally, in sub-Saharan Africa,
and internationally.
CMGE’s 2011 ‘Mission Statement’ is bold and ambitious: to strategically position the Centre as a
credible, authoritative, MGE policy-making and standards-setting body. This emerging priority
has sharpened and focussed the activities of CMGE. CMGE has four core aims: Effective
capturing and collecting of relevant data on the domains of MGE (Classroom management
techniques; Instructional strategies; Planning the curriculum; Instructional materials; School and
community); Design, compare and develop the multigrade curriculum through research;
13
Production and creation of material, training and support of teachers and curriculum and
didactical management; The development and creation of curriculum policies, models and
frameworks.
86. CMGE is a picture of an active and dynamic Centre effectively promoting MG education on a
number of fronts. The Project on Multigrade Pedagogy Development has currently circulated a
discussion document to stakeholders to kick-start development of a framework of standards for
a pedagogy for multigrade education for quality education and learning “as a basis for a
discussion about how the community will look like in future and how children can help to create
such a community and how to live in it.” The research programme of the CMGE focuses on:
multigrade pedagogy; Multigrade curriculum; Multigrade teaching and learning materials; and
Teacher training. There are 7 MG Demo Schools in the Wellington/Paarl area. In ICT, CMGE is
working with Moraka Institute (DST) to develop learning materials for use with the new
technology of smart phones, laptops, hand-held readers etc so that learners have/can access in a
MG context to a wealthy of resources that can be accessed through a sound pedagogical
framework. CMGE is concerned that ICT, as with other innovations, will bypass rural schools, so
CMGE wants rural schools to lead in piloting ICT in education in the country. CMGE believes too
that the pedagogy of MG especially supports ICT innovation and can accelerate its uptake and
impact. Three CMGE facilitators – all with Doctorates in MG - do training in areas of ECD: they
work with 13 rural MG ECD schools to establish a workable solution to the problems in obtaining
ECD training and qualifications. CMGE develops learning material for in-classroom use in maths,
language and world orientation, ‘repackaging’ or “‘unwrapping the curriculum’ and identifying
the relevant parts so that everyone can understand it.”: CMGE is planning to hold an African
Conference on Multigrade Education in December 2012, to follow-up on its highly successful
2010 international conference on MGE.
Focus Area 2: Programme Assessment
87. Almost two-thirds of participants in the CMGE ACE programme strongly agreed that they had
enjoyed participation; 97% were of the view that their participation in the CMGE ACE
programme had increased their subject content knowledge; 94% had become more confident in
their teaching; and 97% that the syllabus content covered by ACE is relevant to the curriculum.
Most indicated that they had used the teaching materials supplied by the programme in their
teaching since participating in the ACE (92%); and that the teaching methodologies
demonstrated had been extremely helpful (97%). A high proportion had had contact with
teachers at other schools in the project (81%); and almost all were of the view that multigrade
education is helpful to their teaching (95%). More than four-fifths (81%) said that the
management at their school is fully supportive of the CMGE ACE programme. More than twofifths (42%) said that teachers at their school who are not in the programme feel marginalised.
For most participants, the workshop and interaction times had been most suitable (82%); as had
been the workshop venue (78%). A heartening 87% expressed the view that they enjoy teaching
more since participating in the ACE programme. CMGE has developed good relations with
District Officials, both in the local area where the Centre is based, and more widely with
provincial officials where the bulk of the Centre’s training is taking place, and with the National
Departments of Basic Education and the DST. Challenges facing the project at this juncture
include: need for HEI’s to include MG and more rural components in pre-service courses and in
education faculties; use of ITC in the classroom as part of pre-service training; numbers of preservice teachers with training in MG; teachers morale and quality in small rural schools;
psychosocial and physical health of rural children (many kids in the Western Cape suffer from
foetal alcohol syndrome); Drop-out rates in small rural MG schools; teaching of reading skills in
rural schools; curriculum changes especially in ECD; provincial policies on closure of small
schools
Focus Area 3: Schools as Hubs of Lifelong Learning
14
EMEP
88. The overall goal of the SCHOOLS AS HUBS OF LEARNING, RECREATION, AND SUPPORT: THE
EXTRA-MURAL EDUCATION PROJECT (EMEP) is “growing a seedbed of demonstration schools in
the most challenged districts as effective and dynamic developmental hubs by means of an
effective, extended programme of extra-murals.” Funds allocated to this focus area amount to
R18m, 12% of the total project funds.
89. EMEP adopts and showcases a ‘Whole School’ approach, effectively supporting systemic
educational reforms, and bottom-up school-based innovation. EMEP understanding of Whole
School/Community School international best practice is that there are four or five critical success
factors for whole school change, including embedded teacher time and planning; support time in
the classroom; academic support; extended learning blocks but the most important factor are
extra-murals, what the project refers to as ‘expanded opportunities’ .
90. EMEPs action-learning methodology, combined with rigorous and regular external evaluations,
brings a dynamic element to the project which is shaping EMEP’s programme model and
approach in the pilot.
91. Critical element in EMEP is the partnership with government. At the time of receiving SEEDS
funding EMEP had an agreement with NDE (now NDBE) for piloting and testing a five-phase
‘training and support approach’ to Whole School Development with a large group of schools in
the province. District Offices – “the real power in the province’s schools” – have been solidly
supportive of EMEP’s work.
92. ‘Beyond the School Wall- Developing Extra-Mural Opportunities’ programme’, is EMEPs entrylevel, whole-school training-and-support programme for two extra-mural development
practitioners (EMDP’s) from each participating school “ready, willing, and able to take on
(envisage, plan, and deliver) an extra-mural strategy for curricular and child development and
towards parent and community involvement, and to use their resources (people, time, facilities,
services) maximally to do so.” Not just EMDPs though: with the School Management Team
(principal and vice-principal), the entire staffroom, the School Governing Body (SGB), and a fivemember EM Management Team. With two intakes in total (2008, 2009), 38 schools have
participated in the programme. With the co-operation of District Offices, these EMEP schools are
drawn primarily from disadvantaged school districts in Cape Town’s South and East Metropoles
and rural education districts of Overberg, Cape Winelands, and West Coast.
93. ‘The Network Programme’ is the second ‘leg’ of EMEP’s partnership with SEEDS. It supports a
growing network of practicing schools and practitioners (38 schools now in the Network
Programme) to apply their training on-site and share practice with each other. Work has
comprised a range of learning forums, workshops, short courses, cluster visits, and most
recently, as part of the new 'consolidation phase', on-site support visits. Broadly, these
processes continue to support the schools to gain further traction for the EMEP Programme,
within each of its four legs - play, games, and sport, arts and crafts, academic support, like
homework, reading, maths, and science clubs, and health and well-being, They provide forums
and facilitation for the schools to share, build, and spread good practice (around growing their
schools extra-murally as community hubs) both within their district clusters and in the wider
network and support schools to collaborate in joint projects/activities within and across their
various groups.
94. Consolidation phase activities involve a new level of scale for school-based support by EMEP, in
each of 38 schools, with multiple and multi-varied activities including school organisational
analyses and interactive on-site training, group work, and discussion-based support by EMEP
practitioners delivered in each of 38 schools to the SMT, entire staff, EMDPs and the EMMT, the
SGB and community organisations, in each. Key components including working with
practitioners, on-going discussions with schools, and school situational analyses, described in the
full report
15
95. Out of this phase of consolidation, designed to further embed change in schools through OD,
EMEP will identify a small number of ‘demonstration schools’ (“Continuous Development
Programme Schools”) which EMEP will support to serve as case studies of ‘model schools’ to the
WCED and the DBE of Whole School Development, of schools with their own agency and skills
who have successfully initiated and run their own training and development initiatives.
96. Evaluating the impact of EMEP’s programme overall on participating schools would reveal a very
mixed, perhaps disappointing, picture, and to be truthful so would the data on student’s
performance. However, EMEP’s project is about demonstrating something new or, rather, what
can happen given a certain set of circumstances, as opposed to trying to show what will work or
not because of the conditions, a more appropriate success indicator for EMEP are the small
number of performing schools in underprivileged areas that have demonstrated the will and the
motivation to change their practice despite their obvious disadvantages and challenges, hence
the importance of the pilot case study demonstration schools – EMEP’s ‘seed-bed’.
97. Even the best performing EMEP schools continue to experience challenges and constraints even
as they participate in the programme, including: appointment of new principals; expanded
grades on offer; infrastructural and other system changes; unexpectedly poor results at matric
level; teacher turnover and the like. Poor selection processes for participating schools, including
inclusion of non-performing Dinaledi schools by District Officials also has resulted in sometimes
severe in-school management and organisation dysfunction. EMEPs impressive network of
supportive public and private service providers requires substantial and skilful handling. A
further point is that principals are often unaware of the dangers of working with external
partners without having addressed the issue of organisational – extra-mural – support.
Focus Area 3: Programme Assessment
98. Almost all learners who participated in EMEP strongly agreed (69%) or agreed (24%) that they
had enjoyed this participation, as did all educators (71% and 29% respectively). The vast majority
(97%) of learners indicated that their participation had motivated them to go to school and 97%
of the educators said it had made them more aware of the importance of extra-mural education.
More than three-quarters (77%) of learners said that since participating in EMEP, they had
become more confident in their studies; and that the extra-mural programme was relevant to
their lives (78%). Similarly, 93% of teachers had become more confident in their extra-mural
teaching and mentoring; and 97% felt that the material covered in EMEP is relevant to
promoting extra-mural activities at their schools. More than four-fifths of EMEP learners said
that the programme had helped them to become a better person (82%); and that they liked the
way that extra-mural activities are run at their school (85%). Similarly, 85% of learners and 87%
of teachers thought that visits to their school by EMEP people are helpful to them and to the
school; and most (teachers 72%; learners 82%) were of the view that that the principal and
teachers at their school were fully supportive of EMEP. Almost three-quarters (71%) of the EMEP
teachers have used the support materials frequently since participating in EMEP and 97% are of
the view that the methodologies demonstrated are extremely helpful. Forty percent of EMEP
teachers have regular contact with EMEP teachers at other schools. Most (90%) of teachers say
the training session times are suitable as do 97% in respect of the training session venues. More
than three-quarters (77%) of the EMEP teachers enjoy teaching more since attending the
training sessions. More than three-quarters (77%) of learners would not like to leave their school
because the extra-murals are so good; and almost three-quarters (74%) enjoy extra-murals more
since their school started EMEP.
Focus Area 4: HIV/AIDS Preventative and Risk Reduction Support
99. The SEEDS programme rolls-out the WESTERN CAPE GENERATION OF LEADERS DISCOVERED
PEER EDUCATION ROLL-OUT PROJECT of the GOLD PEER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(GOLD) in underprivileged communities in the Western Cape. Funds allocated to this focus area
amount to R15m, 10% of the total project funds.
16
100. The primary objective is to reduce youth risk behaviour, thereby bringing about a decrease
in the rate of new HIV infections among youth aged ten to twenty four years in the Western
Cape. GOLD follows a behaviour-change cascade methodology: identifying youth leaders in peer
groups recruited and their talents channelled positively on strategic tasks
101. This WC GOLD project is part of a larger GOLD initiative begun in 2004. In December 2006
the implementation of GOLD Peer Education in South Africa and Botswana was awarded the
Commonwealth Education Good Practice Award for helping education in difficult circumstances.
The Western Cape GOLD Programme played a significant role in contributing to the winning of
the award and should receive much of the credit for this achievement
102. With SEEDS support, the GOLD Agency Head Office provides training materials, strategy,
funding, resource mobilisation etc. to the new WC Field Office. With the WC, there are now
three GOLD Field Offices in the Southern African region, with an International Field Manager
straddling HO and the field offices. There is a five-year Peer Educator Programme for youths, and
a one-year Master Peer Educator Programme (accreditation has been applied for).
103. The project’s target audiences are staff from implementing organisations, school educators
if working in schools, and youth, both those attending or not attending school. Staff of
implementing organisations include community leaders that are adult programme managers and
out of school facilitators that work with adolescents in areas with: high incidence of HIV, high
prevalence of HIV and AIDS, high numbers of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), lack of
adult role models, and high incidence of youth risky behaviour. Youth beneficiaries are
adolescent leaders and their peers between the ages of ten and twenty four in and out of
schools in these target communities.
104. In the GOLD project, trained GOLD peer facilitator’s work in schools or community
institutions implementing the GOLD programme on behalf of recruited local community
development organisations (Implementing Organisations –IOs) or schools - both critical
‘gateways’ to the local community/neighbourhood and important sites of learning.
105. Within schools, educators are important to the success of GOLD’s programmes: “their roles
in supporting peer educators in the school system are key to peer educators reaching peers at
schools.” However, educators, or for that matter, school participation for the GOLD programme
it has emerged through the SEEDS experience, is not absolutely critical to success since peer
influence, not formal peer training, is core to the programme and this can occur as much within
as beyond a formal institutional setting.
106. In the project under review, IO-employed peer facilitators, themselves former peer
educators in the age range 20 to 30 years, target and work with young people in and out of
school to realise their responsibilities as Africa’s “future pioneers” or next generation leaders.
Through a regular structured programme youth are encouraged to “speak out” on issues of
HIV/AIDS, provide social support to peers in the context of poor and marginal communities,
develop life vision and purpose in the face of drugs, alcohol, gangs, early pregnancy, gender
violence, family violence etc, focus on completing schooling, study, make positive career
decisions and enhance opportunities for future life-long learning. These outcomes are regularly
(and impressively) assessed by the GOLD HO. The GOLD programme is a wide-ranging and longterm intervention looking to develop strategic changes in reduction of youth risk behaviours/HIV
infections, communities supporting families and youth (caring behaviour, access to social
support, health and security), and developing social capital for social development. This means
that the GOLD model is neither simple nor cheap – however the programme’s rigorous M&E
provides a demonstrable public record of positive results which few, if any peer review
programmes in the country can match.
107. From the outset GOLD’s assumptions for the success of the project in the WC were two-fold,
namely ‘that viable community organisations working with youth exist and are able to
implement the GOLD programme in the identified priority geographic locations’, and ‘that the
WCED and WCDOH continue to endorse the GOLD programme as a needed HIV/AIDS
17
intervention in schools and their communities.’ Unfortunately neither of these assumptions have
turned out to be true and as a result the numbers of IO’s and PE’s involved with the WC GOLD
programme have dropped considerably since SEEDS project inception: in 2009 GOLD in WC had
14 IOs and 4845 PEs; in 2010 8 with 3,700 PEs; and in 2011, there were 5 IOs (two in Somerset
West, two in Gugulethu/Khayelitsha, 1 in Kraaifontein) with 1337 PE’s.
108. The rapid loss of traction by GOLD in ‘certain (but not all) priority geographic locations’ is in
most respects traceable, according to GOLD, to the political shift in the province: within weeks of
the new Democratic Alliance-led government taking control of the provincial administration, the
WCED announced a major shake-up of school-based programmes in the provincial schools, with
schools being instructed not to allow NGOs access to schools. This had a major impact on the
GOLD programme as schools (through which GOLD WC delivered its programme) were forced to
withdraw from the Programme and PF’s were refused access to learners, formal MoU’s with
GOLD notwithstanding.
109. GOLD was also excluded from the 2010 DSD and DoH’s HIV/AIDS Global Fund Application. In
addition, with the new Global Fund money, the province appointed a new service provider to
enter the peer education space, with funds to spare. Only an advance on SEEDS funds has
allowed GOLD to continue to roll-out its SEEDS project in the WC. For GOLD’s IO’s, the
experience has been a sobering one; some have dropped out of programme; others have not.
The experience ironically resulted in positive reflection on the programme’s many relative
strengths and a growing sense of collective responsibility and buy-in from IO’s
110. The negative impact of the DoH Global Fund tender process and the subsequent need to
shift programmes from School to Community based has meant that the first 6 months of 2011
have presented both GOLD and their IO’s with many challenges.
111. Whilst the scale of the project impact in the WC has undoubtedly being significantly
diminished for reasons just discussed, the GOLD Programme and the administration thereof
appears not to have suffered. For one, GOLD’s rigorous approach to quality continues to be
“widely acknowledged” by local community and school project stakeholders. GOLD derived
benefit from the flexibility shown by the SEEDS management in supporting the organisation
through the period of provincial restructuring and with on-going SEEDS funding in line with the
present budget the project can continue until 2012, albeit on a diminished scale.
Focus Area 4: Programme Assessment
112. Although the majority of learners and educators who had participated in the GOLD
programme strongly agreed that they had enjoyed their participation, the proportion of strong
agreement was higher amongst educators (91%) than learners (77%). The vast majority of
learners (94%), and all of the facilitators, who participated said that the programme had made
them more aware of the importance of peer education. Similarly, 91% of learners and 100% of
facilitators had become more confident in peer education since their participation in the GPEP.
Most learners (83%) and all facilitators said that the material covered in the GPEP is relevant to
promoting their skills as a peer educator or facilitator of peer educators, respectively. Almost
two-thirds (65%) of learners and 100% of facilitators indicated that they had made use of the
support materials frequently since participating in the GPEP. Most (learners 86%; facilitators
100%) also said that the methods demonstrated are extremely helpful in their work with their
peers. The majority (91%) of facilitators and more than three-quarters (77%) of learners have
regular contact with other peer facilitators or peer educators respectively. Visits to the school or
centre by GOLD facilitators are seen to be helpful by 89% of learners and all educators. Although
all facilitators perceive that the management at their schools is fully supportive of the GPEP, this
is the perception of only two-thirds (67%) of learner peer educators. Sizeable proportions of
both learners (33%) and facilitators (44%) are of the view that people at their schools who are
not involved in the GOLD programme feel “left out”. Training session times have been most
suitable to 85% of learners and all facilitators; as have training session venues to 73% of learners
18
and all facilitators. All facilitators (100%) and most learners (90%) say that they enjoy peer
education more since attending the GPEP training sessions.
Focus Area 5: Collaboration and Innovation
113. A nascent ‘community of practice’ is taking form, with a number of opportunities are noted
for ‘sharing’ of ‘knowledge, methods and practice’ between members. The SEEDS management
structure, with some input from the chair and the project manager, has given rise to what one
might call ‘structured blanket sharing’, through participation in Project Forums largely
characterised by inputs that take the form of project report-backs and presentation of research.
Further clarification, discussion and distillation of these latter elements into an overarching set
of learnings that can be shared across the SEEDS consortium, and more widely with specific
communities of practice, is not yet evident but promises to be a rich area of future activity for
the SEEDS consortium as a whole.
114. The MTR reveals a set of common core/central issues confronting participating organisations
as they seek to complement, support or fill gaps in formal government programmes. In addition
there is growing clarity with respect to emerging ‘bottom-line’ priorities that are required for
successful programming, product innovation, and piloting and take-up of systemic whole school
development support – including minimum norms and standards that are required to sustain
sustainable and effective professional development, curriculum materials and learning and
teaching support and whole school organisational reform. Further discussion and development
of these issues within the consortium, as well as with the wider communities of practice in the
province and nationally (including with the major education stakeholder in the province, the
PDE), through enhanced engagement and debate will further promote the adoption of ‘best
practice reform’ both within SEEDS as well as across the wider communities of practice.
115. There are still challenges to overcome in partners voluntarily talking responsibility for
ensuring that their activities and their on-going learnings are regularly communicated with the
SEEDS management, and hence fully reflected in SEEDS newsletters and on the project website.
There is a scope to expand this flow of information between and across the projects through
development of a more integrated and interactive website for improved data management and
an enhanced platform for communication.
116. Obstacles to formal collaboration aside, the overwhelmingly impression we gained in the
MTR was that partners generally remain optimistic and positive in their attitudes towards the
SEEDS programme and their consortium colleagues.
117. A more fully developed SEEDS communication strategy, which includes in its ambit
consideration of a set of defined, new activities (with or without a budget), as well as agreement
on the key actions to be taken on the part of SEEDS partners in the various practice or actionareas together with additional support to be provided by the SEEDS management would be a
critical intervention to advance the cause of collaboration without necessitating budget
revisions. Such a strategy could reshape existing spontaneous collaboration amongst SEEDS
partners into a more structured, formal and output-centred programme of engagement and
clarify elements critical to a common multi-disciplinary whole-school ‘SEEDS’ approach’ in the
key Focus Areas or in the new areas of interest and importance (for example in the use of ICT in
learning and teaching, or holistic whole-school based approaches to in-service professional
development and support and so on).
118. Linking a new communication strategy to an interactive web-presence would also
‘encourage integration of knowledge, method and practice that will lead to a community of
practice within the consortium and thus influence project implementation and permeate the
individual institutions/organisations in order for them to respond to the transformational policy
imperatives.’
119. In furthering collaboration in the future, some partners support the wording and spirit of the
original Project Proposal calling for a single collaborative SEEDS intervention in a specific number
19
of schools, or across schools in various phases in a geographic area, a proposal which was
exhaustively discussed at the programme outset but then rejected as impractical for a number
of reasons already discussed.
120. Others however focus on promoting collaboration such that the strategic lessons, norms and
standards, and actions that are emerging as critical success factors in enhancing reforms in the
future, are identified and drawn out and then embedded, together with other innovative
practices and strategies for effective implementation, more deeply in the methodology of the
consortium partners.
121. These latter suggestions amount to a series of powerful and potentially transformative
proposals that could kick-start the development of a collaborative SEEDS ‘model’ (not
collaborative project) which by definition would address the multi-sectoral, developmental and
systemic outcomes envisaged in the SEEDS programme document.
Focus Area 6: Western Cape Model of Whole-School and Community Development
122. There is some confusion amongst the partners as to whether the aim of Focus area 6 is to
take the form of modelling (i.e. developing and refining) an overarching ‘SEEDS approach’, or if
the partners are still required to develop a collaborative project. In this, we are guided by the
outcome of the initial discussion early in the project which resolved not to pursue or require a
collaborative project as an outcome but rather to work towards development of a set of
systemically inclined, multidisciplinary informed guidelines or approaches which if followed
would strengthen the movement for whole school and community based development in the
province, and be applicable across the various areas of practice as the major programme
outcome.
123. In part, the concern/frustration expressed by some consortium members as to whether a
SEEDS model can be developed can be seen as anticipatory of the consortium as a collective
being unable ultimately to surmount the various challenges to collaborative work, thus
challenging a key value and motivation underpinning the SEEDS initiative.
124. Nonetheless there is little doubt that such fears can be overcome – and are already being
overcome – and that with greater attention and focus on dialogue, sharing and engagement in
and across areas of practice, the SEEDS partners– NPOs and higher education institutions– are
fully capable developing a “multi-disciplinary partnership to achieve widespread change through
emerging synergies in the knowledge economy and culture of learning.”
125. The consortium will need to pay some attention however to evolving some specific end-term
goals which could:
 embrace activities that will actively promote the production (publication) of a common
SEEDS model within a practical and time-bound framework
 enhance development of more pervasive and sustained relationships amongst the SEEDS
members particularly in identified priority practice areas,
 renew commitment to this common (as opposed to individual project or organisational)
programme outcome and more collaborative and mutually supportive leadership in this
respect,
 pay greater attention to planning for specific opportunities and occasions to engage, direct
and perhaps, moderate, discussions in areas of practice around systemic and
multidisciplinary elements with other practitioners within the province, nationally and
internationally,
 develop and implement a more open, ongoing communication platform for data sharing,
interactive engagement and networking at all levels.
126. In formal organisational terms these challenges involve the shift from a co-operative mode
of operation – where relations are informal, goals are not defined jointly, there is no joint
planning, and information is shared as needed (which we would argue where SEEDS’s operative
logic is at present) - towards a collaborative mode with its utilitarian promise of jointly working
20
together, sharing commitment and goals, shared leadership resources, risk, control and results,
and undoubted higher intensity.
127. An alternative reading of the contemporary concept of ‘collaboration’ lies in its very
questioning of the concept’s component elements and the sentiments which sustain
collaborative effort: in this reading, “collaboration does not take place for sentimental reasons…
it arises out of pure self interest… [as] a performative and transformative process”; individuals
“will rely on one another the more they chase their own interests [with] mutual dependence
arising through the pursuit of their own agenda’s. Exchange between them then becomes an
effect of necessity rather than one of mutuality, identification or desire.”
128. These insights are introduced here to provide some initial critical grist to the task that awaits
the consortium in its own critical reflection on its collaborative effort in education which will
inform its own ‘model making’, particularly in its relation to what critical theorists call “the
absolutistic power of organisation”, that is, to the institutional stakeholders in education whose
‘interests’ the consortium is committed to work jointly towards even as it addresses the
emancipatory and democratising dimensions of education.
129. This self-reflective process invites organisations and institutions to turn the critical gaze on
their own practices and ask what light their answers throw on the current debates in education
in the province, the country or elsewhere, where all is fluidity and change at this juncture.
130. This challenge asks whether and how and if the consortium, in the time remaining, can
successfully bring together the elements of both an evolving, transformative and
developmentally effective and sustainable pedagogy, curriculum and practice for schools,
education institutions and communities, with the set of (emerging) organisational practices and
policies embedded in the educational system, bringing with it (or illuminating possibilities for)
the effective promotion of sustainable and widespread systemic change?
131. These are open ended questions at this point, and challenging ones indeed, which the
consortium can begin to address beginning by initiating discussion and input from a range of
experts and practitioners locally and abroad on this very issue.
132. Elements of this transformative multi-disciplinary ‘model’ would appear at this stage to
consist not in refining existing SEEDS interventions, singly in or combination (though this should
not be ruled out) but rather in beginning to delineating and distil best practice principles in and
across the areas of focus that support and promote innovative, dynamic and transformational
collaborative practices – and reflecting on the most effective platforms for leveraging and
sharing such principles and practices across a growing community of practice – the project’s
injunction is to be systemically focussed and impact driven.
133. How it can do this, the tools and techniques that are available, including the opportunities
provided through ICT, social media and other online innovations, and the most appropriate
methodologies will all need to be a part of this discussion.
134. It seems useful at this point where partners are beginning to experience and raise some of
these emerging issues and challenges in their own professional practice and projects, to reflect
once again on the dimensions and urgency of the educational challenges that the consortium
saw as critical in December 2008 in developing such a best practice model when SEEDS was
launched.
135. Clearly no single SEEDS project, or combination of projects, can and will address or respond
to any one or all of these challenges in such a way as to make a measurable mark on any one of
these provincial, indeed national challenges. However, in developing an effective dynamic model
of whole school and community development which self-consciously promotes a culture of open
and full communication, dedication to service and mobilisation of volunteerism and other forms
of resource mobilisation, more open sharing of innovative applications and programmes for
wider distribution and duplication, development of common data resources accessible to all,
promotion of ‘cooperative competition’ in drawing in potential service providers to address
pervasive service gaps and other shocking anomalies which existing projects cannot themselves
21
address, together with widespread attribution for good ideas and other best practices which
support sharing of ideas, some substantive progress can be achieved.
136. The consortium will have to apply its mind as to the most appropriate model to leveraging
the SEEDS programme to a position where the partners, with assistance and guidance from the
SEEDS management are able to collectively play this dynamic role, deploy resources that will be
required to take the programme to the next level and, most critically, assist in finding the
expertise and experience that will required for this final phase of the programme.
Focus Area 7: Communication, Advocacy and building the Western Cape Knowledge Economy
137. Sharing with audiences within and outside South Africa by SEEDS partners is already taking
place as an activity, explicit or otherwise, in each organisation and institution: there is no lack of
organisations ‘sharing’, but there is a lack of collective impact in sharing which as we understand
is one of the primary goals of this Focus Area.
138. Likewise, exploring research opportunities to build the knowledge economy through SEEDS –
an activity actively being pursued by the project manager – would be much enhanced, and given
greater credibility if packaged more coherently within the emerging priorities and outlines of a
distinctive ‘SEEDS model’ as we discussed in the previous chapter.
139. The same observation above applies with respect to a more effective SEEDS collaboration
with provincial and national role players, stakeholders in other African countries and
internationally.
140. The consortium’s aims and outcomes, according to the M&E Framework, are greater than
the sum of the projects: the vision is for the projects to have a joint impact on the education and
learning landscape of the Western Cape beyond individual efforts. Positive programme impacts
beyond those anticipated (and specified) in the individual project documents include supporting
government education and human resource policies and programmes, specifically the national
curriculum, schooling and related (e.g. HIV/AIDS) polices and legislation, and stimulating and
enabling lifelong learning in disadvantaged and marginalised contexts.
141. These constitute pressing and dynamics issues which necessitate a much higher level of
engagement at the level of policy and practice from the consortium partners through SEEDS
than is now evident.
142. The budget makes provision for further staff in the SEEDS office as a first step towards
opening this space for greater collaboration along the lines proposed– consideration should be
given to the options available for incentivising the consortium partners themselves to devote
high-level management time and resources to addressing the framework requirements, strategy
and practical inputs that will be needed to transform this nine project cooperative initiative into
a truly collaborative and dynamic joint venture.
143. Attention to opportunities for initiating sharing of project findings in respect of their impact
on and challenges faced in implementing new and innovative approaches and programmes
within the primary domain or areas of practice in which the projects are located is a critical area.
The primary purpose should not be seen necessarily as enhanced accountability or transparency
(though these elements are obviously extremely important) but rather as a requirement for a far
greater level of critical engagement with the wider body of practice, with stakeholders, experts,
communities, parents, the private sector, NGOs and other interests than is presently evident. It
is anticipated that, following agreement on a series of activities including roundtables,
conferences, workshops, seminars etc, opportunities will arise to develop publications based on
inputs and research arising from the projects, ongoing programme research, and inputs from
non-SEEDS practitioners should arise which in addition to populating a revamped interactive
SEEDS website, will drive and shape the contribution of the SEEDS’s programme in key domains
and new areas of practice, perhaps resulting in publication of a final programme report.
22
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, STRUCTURE
1. This mid-term review of The Royal Netherlands Embassy (EKN) Education Initiative: Systemic
Education and Extra-Mural Development and Support (SEEDS), Western Cape, South Africa
was conducted between July and September 2011.
2. The initiative comprises nine projects of six non-profit organisations and four higher
education institutions in the Western Cape Province. The programme began on the 1st of
January 2009 and will end on the 31st December 2012 with funding for a further three
months to wind-down.
3. The implementing organisations and institutions are all (with the exception of SciFest) based
in the province inclusive of the following:

Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT): initially the Rural Education
Centre, now the Centre for Multigrade Education – CMGE;

Stellenbosch University (US): Institute for Mathematics and Science Teaching
(IMSTUS) [US is also the SEEDS managing agent, fund holder and pay master];

University of Cape Town (UCT): Maths and Science Education Project (MSEP): a
project of the School Development Unit, School of Education;

Africa Genome Education Institute (AGEI), a non-profit public benefit Section 21
organisation in partnership with the University of the Western Cape (UWC)*;

Cape Higher Education Consortium in association with the Science and Industrial
Leadership Initiative (SAILI) , a non-profit organisation;

Early Learning Resource Unit (ELRU): ): a non-profit organisation;

Extra-Mural Education Project (EMEP): ): a non-profit organisation;

GOLD Peer Education Development Agency (GOLD): a non-profit organisation;

SCIFEST AFRICA: a project of the Grahamstown Foundation, a non-profit
organisation.
4. The overall programme is to the amount of R149.446.92, payable bi-annually over the four
year period. After the first 2 years, partners were some R10m under spent (including 10%
inflation and contingency funds). The EKN agreed that all partners could revise project plans
and budgets for 2011 &2012 and include the previously unspent funds. All revised budgets
that were submitted were accepted by the EKN.
5. The Consolidated Budget breakdown by consortium membership is as follows:
CPUT
MSEP-UCT
IMSTUS
AGEI-UWC
ELRU
EMEP
GOLD
SAILI
R22,000,000
R18,500,000
R25,000,000
R16,000,000
R13,000,000
R18,000,000
R15,000,000
R6,500,000
23
SCIFEST AFRICA
FUNDHOLDING
TOTAL
R6,000,000
R10,000,000
R150,000,000
6. US are the SEEDS programme signatory to the EKN of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
on behalf of the consortium members, who are designated as implementing agencies.
7. The programme manager, Mike Erskine, oversees the entire initiative, and is employed
by and acts on behalf of US in its legal capacity as the fund holder and pay master in the
interest, spirit and letter of the consortium proposal.
8. The ten consortium members submitted a consolidated proposal (appended to the
MoU) in application for the grant. The SEEDS initiative in a legal sense does not
constitute a ‘Partnership’ or a ‘Joint Venture’. Each party acts as an ‘independent
contractor’ and not as an agent for, or partner with, the other parties.1 Nevertheless the
parties are bound by their agreements in the programme document.
9. The Steering Committee (SC) is mandated to supervise and control the relationships
between the parties and take all decisions relating to the implementation of the project,
including considering and approving changes in projects budgets and, where necessary,
intervening to resolve disputes with binding effect.2
10. Meetings of the SC are held quarterly to oversee coordination and management of the
programme.3 The SC nominates and elects from its membership a chairperson to guide
the SC deliberations and work with the Project Manager and the fund holder on a dayto-day basis: Dr. Wilmot James was first SEEDS chairperson; on giving up the position, he
has been replaced by Dr. Kosie Smit.
11. A Programme Co-ordination Forum facilitates practical steps and actions that enhance
co-operation and improve co-ordination amongst the parties. Learning and Research
Forums as well as a finance forum have also been established to share learnings,
research results and practice. The finance forum has met on three occasions, while the
learning and research forums meet at least twice per year. A Directors meeting was also
held in 2010 to discuss areas of possible synergy and cooperation.
12. The overarching goals of the SEEDS programme are to:

Benefit education in the Western Cape with particular emphasis on mathematics
and science education, the development of a multigrade rural education centre,
the development of schools as hubs of lifelong learning and HIV/AIDS peer
education for youth
1
“Each party undertakes to each of the other parties that it will fulfil its scope of work under the programme
and this agreement with reasonable skill, care and diligence; Each party conducts itself in good faith and utilise
its best endeavours to ensure that SU is able to fulfil its obligations under the donor agreement.” (MoU)
2
By written notice, the Steering Committee can determine breach or withdrawal on part of any partner (a
simple majority required), or refer parties in dispute to arbitration.
3
The first Steering Committee Meeting was held on 5 December 2008. Meetings were subsequently held on 3
March 2009, 26 June 2009, 7 September 2009, 27 November 2009, 16 April 2010, 30 July 2010, 26 November
2010, 25 March 2011 and 24 June 2011.
24

Generate creative and innovative solutions to current obstacles and challenges
in the abovementioned focus areas through collaboration
 Develop a systemic, multi-disciplinary and sustainable model for the
abovementioned context
 Share lessons learnt about collaborating processes, best practices and other
relevant results with colleagues in South Africa, selected countries in Africa and
the Netherlands
13. The participating organisations and institutions specify further that the SEEDS initiative
will result in:

Raised levels of awareness about various opportunities and possibilities within
the focus areas for the direct and indirect target audiences, the project
institutions/ organisations and partners
 Changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities and actions of the direct and
indirect target audience, the project institutions/organisations and its partners
 Realised aspirations amongst the direct and indirect target audiences that link
education, career and work opportunities and possibilities
14. The SEEDS project document effectively reviews and analyses the educational context
and background of public schooling, learning and teaching, numeracy and literacy,
performance and participation in mathematics and science, as well as the challenges of
sustaining and promoting innovative and educational reforms in the province.
15. Issues that underpin the general consortium aims and which are identified for particular
attention include:

Growing population numbers, high in-migration, with sustained increased
demand for basic services in the Western Cape

Rapid changes in the province’s racial, age and poverty numbers and
proportions

Highly inequitable (inter-racial) distribution of opportunity in the province with
respect to education and work opportunities disadvantaging especially young
and black, particularly African, individuals and communities

Massive levels of school drop-out (Grades 1 – 12) of between 45% and 52%;
marked levels of drop out in the senior phase, especially from Grade 7 and
Grade 10

Sharp decline in pass rate in the school leaving exam (Grade 12 – Senior
Certificate, now National Senior Certificate) from 2004 to 2007 (since levelling
off)

Insufficiently competent numbers of black school graduates with mathematics
and science in STEM fields to meet the needs of the economy provincially and
nationally

Insufficient numbers of qualified (with mathematics (not Maths literacy) and
science) black school graduates to study in disciplines that are mathematically
based, such as Engineering and Economic and Management Sciences
25

Early childhood development sector severely neglected and under-provisioned
with the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy sorely lacking at the Early
Childhood Development and Foundation phase

Pedagogically challenged teachers corps in the ECD and Foundation phase in
predominantly poor, one classroom, rural schools unable to prepare early
learners of varying abilities and grades in one classroom (differentiated learning)
for entering school for the first time (at age 6) notably in the field of
mathematics

Neglect of rural small schools by government administrators and in educational
research and formal professional teacher training by FET institutions

Hugely challenging recent transformations within education including the shift
towards the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) (now CAPS) which demand a
higher level of competency of educators and managers, effective use of learner
centred pedagogies, a new focus on learner competencies and results

Urgent need for promotion of values in education very different to those that
underpinned apartheid education including respect for democracy, equality,
human dignity, life and social justice

Toxic debilitating combined impact on schools of poverty, the South African
HIV/AIDS pandemic and incomplete education reform resulting in schools
challenged to shift from traditional modes of operation to more profoundly
creative means but in conditions of low morale, incompetence, staff shortage,
trauma and pressure to meet higher standards and better performance results.

Lifelong learning, which starts within the home and extends to the school, has
been eroded by a combination of factors including low levels of education of
parents/caregivers and the challenging socio-economic conditions

Plethora of socio-economic challenges that hinder development broadly in
combination with substance abuse, child abuse, crime, violence and gangsterism
crippling learning and teaching in the classroom, debilitating school staff and
destroying the physical infrastructure.

Communities with the highest HIV incidence rates amongst adolescents in the
country (while the Western Cape has the lowest average HIV infection rates in
South Africa) increasingly impacting local schools, placing more pressure on the
education system to deal with prevention

Schools, which are the largest developmental infrastructure in communities, are
extremely under-utilised, under-developed and unsafe whilst children and youth
are without access to any or varied forms of recreation or amenities without any
adult supervision or direction.

Non-profit organisations and Higher Education institutions in the province with
significantly reduced funding, a more individualistic, less co-operative approach,
competitive, highly specialised operational models undermining multidisciplinary, synergistic educational partnerships.
16. This background analysis reflects many if not most of the key dynamics and contextual
factors impacting the education landscape in the province. Understandably the analysis
26
is fuller in areas where the parties have specific knowledge or experience. It is to be
expected that a more complete, detailed and up-to-date analysis will emerge towards
the conclusion of the project, which ought to incorporate the many new policy and
political developments that have since occurred in the province and nationally with
significant impact on the educational domain and beyond, inclusive of the following:
a. New political leadership in the Western Cape Provincial Government
b. Policy and organisational changes with the Western Cape Provincial
Government, including Education, Social Development, and Health
c.
The Presidency of His Excellency, President Zuma and prioritisation of education
and health reform, and the New Growth Path
d. Creation of two national ministries for education (Basic and Higher Education)
e. National Department of Basic Education’s reform programme inclusive of
Quality of Learning and Teaching Campaign, Report of the Task Team for the
Review of the Implementation of the National Curriculum Statement (October
2009), Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and
Development in South Africa, 2011-2025, the Teacher Development Summit etc
17. On the basis of this background analysis, and in response to the opportunity presented
by the EKN initiative inviting submissions for funding from the Western Cape, the ten
consortium members came to the conclusion that they could contribute to alleviating
this situation by joining hands in a collaborative approach even as they pointed out ‘the
extent to which they envisage the co-operation, as well as what may be required by the
interwoven issues, will lead them into uncharted waters’.4
18. Accordingly, the consortium proposed a full programme focussed on addressing the
following priority or focus areas:

Focus Area 1: The need for effective Mathematics and Science learning

Focus Area 2: The need to offer rural, multigrade education

Focus Area 3: The need to improve the usage of existing school
infrastructures

Focus Area 4: The need for a preventative HIV/AIDS programme and
leadership development

Focus Area 5: The need for a collaborative, innovative intervention5

Focus Area 6: The need to develop systemic, multi-disciplinary models
4
Proposal Document, p.7
This phrase is used in the original Proposal Document. Subsequent discussions held between the RNI and the
SEEDS consortium members clarified that, whilst collaboration(s), particularly those arising spontaneously and
promising to naturally enhance innovations and outcomes, were to be encouraged and pursued, the
consortium would not require any formal collaboration(s) to be tabled nor any formal indicators as such to be
developed or incorporated. The then EKN representative requested that focus areas 5 & 6 not be included in
the M&E framework.
5
27

Focus Area 7: The need to share lessons with audiences within and outside
South Africa
19. The EKN approved the programme budget on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
on 12 December 2008. Of the R150 million made available, Focus Area 1 – Maths and
Science received 56.6% of the funds; Focus Area 2 – Rural Education, 14.7%, Focus Area
3 School Development, 12% and Focus Area 4 HIV and AIDS prevention, 10%. No budget
was allocated to Focus Areas 5 and 6. The fund holder was allocated 6.7%.
20. The following table details the actual budget allocations by member organisation and
focus area:
2
FOCUS AREA (% of Total)
3
4
14.7
Member
R(m's) % of Total
1
2
CMGE
22
14.7
MSEP
18.5
12.3
12.3
IMSTUS
25
16.7
16.7
AEGI-UWC
16
10.7
10.7
ELRU
13
8.7
8.7
EMEP
18
12.0
12.0
GOLD
15
10.0
SAILI
6.5
4.3
4.3
SCIFEST AFRICA
6
4.0
4.0
Fund holder
10
6.7
56.7
14.7
12.0
TOTAL
150
100.0
Table: SEEDS Consortium 4-year Allocations, Totals and by Focus Areas6
5
6
7
0 21. The seven priority or focus areas together comprise the SEEDS programme.7 The MTR TOR is
explicit in its embrace of all seven elements of the programme and accordingly this MTR will
address progress made towards achieving the programme goals in each.
-
10.0
10.0
22. In order to capture an overview of the diversity of the SEEDS component programmes and
their implementing agencies and beneficiaries, a combination of quantitative and qualitative
review methodologies were utilised for the purposes of the MTR.
23. Initially, in-depth interviews were conducted with one or more members of the
management of each implementing agency to determine their perspectives on the
programmes.
24. With a view to quantitative surveys, each implementing agency was requested to provide a
database of the teachers, students, learners and schools with which they were involved in
respect of the SEEDS programmes.
25. In instances where the databases were small, all participating teachers, students or learners
were included. Where databases were larger, systematic representative samples of these
6
US, Consortium MoU, 18 December 2008
Focus Areas one to four in the list are referred to in the consortium documents as ‘the’ four focus areas of
the project –the meaning appears to be that they constitute the consortium’s sector or sub-sector specific
interventions. The latter three focus areas comprise activities anticipated in all the programme documents but
not all of the appended individual project documents (a number of project documents however do make
reference to this e.g. ELRU). Footnote 6 makes reference.
7
28
participants were selected for the surveys. In the case of SCIFEST, owing to the nature of the
programme, the MTR was limited to qualitative interviews with management.
26. A generic questionnaire was developed and customised for each implementing agency, to
capture the perceptions of participants. The questions explored participants’ opinions on the
value and effectiveness of the programme, allowing for open-ended comments both positive
and negative.
27. An experienced team of fieldworkers was trained and deployed to collect responses to the
questionnaires from participants by one of three methods: face-to-face interviews; guided
self-completion of questionnaires; or telephonic interviews.
28. The total numbers of realised responses for each agency are listed in the table that follows.
The analysis that follows draws on both quantitative and qualitative responses received.
ELRU
29.
MSEP
SAILI
SCIMATHUS
SMILES
TBP
CMGE
EMEP
GOLD
TOTAL
Educators/Facilitators
39
16
--48
21
38
31
11
204
Learners/Students
-49
17
109
---180
181
536
29
Total
39
65
17
109
48
21
38
211
192
740
Chapter 2: Focus Area 1: Maths and Science
1. Focus Area 1 addresses the need for more effective mathematics and science learning and
teaching and participation, particularly amongst previously disadvantaged black, African
learners within rural and urban areas, by targeting learners, teachers, school managers,
parents, higher education institutions, teacher training and development, and public
awareness of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
2. Funds allocated to this focus area amount to R85m, nearly 56.7% of the total project funds.
Seven of the ten consortium members have projects in this focus area. Funds are distributed
in the following proportions and amounts:
Focus Area 1: Maths and Science
R
R (m's) to Dec
R’s to date/R’s
(m's)
2010
% of Total
available (%)
MSEP
18.5
8.94
21.8
IMSTUS
25
10.89
29.4
AEGI-UWC
16
7.71
18.8
ELRU
13
6.03
15.3
SAILI
6.5
4.05
7.6
SCIFEST
6
1.69
7.1
TOTAL
85
39.31
100.0
Table: SEEDS Consortium Focus Area 1: Maths and Science8
48.3
43.6
48.2
46.4
62.3
28.2
46.2
3. The review of activities and performance of the seven SEEDS organisations and institutions
in the focus area of mathematics and science follows a two-fold method as outlined in
Outsourced Insight’s MTR proposal document.
4. In the first section of the review, we present the results of our Management Survey; section
2 presents the results of the Survey of Beneficiaries.
SECTION ONE: FOCUS AREA 1
5. Section 1, Management Survey, presents a narrative review of the seven participating
organisations, compiled from interview extracts/direct speech garnered from eight semistructured in-depth interviews conducted with fifteen directors/project managers. Where
necessary, and for further clarification on key themes raised in the interviews, and with
respect to outcomes, interviews were complemented with extracts and data from SEEDS
annual and quarterly reports, published documents, and on-line resources etc. to enrich the
text and further highlight/probe project and programme issues and challenges.
6. Given the wide spectrum of organisations engaged in focus 1, and their quite often distinct
activities in various phases of formal schooling as well as across the education sector, we
provide a full narrative for each organisation beginning with the ECD/Foundation phase
(ELRU) and then proceeding to organisations with projects in the Intermediate and Senior
Phase, and the Further Education and Training Sectors.
8
US, EKN EIWC: Financial Reporting for the period ended Dec 2009, Dec 2010 Annexure A
30
ECD/Foundation phase
7. In the ECD/Foundation phase, the SEEDS programme has one project to the amount of R13m
(15.3% of activities in Focus Area 1), run by ELRU.
EARLY LEARNING PROJECT FOR RURAL AND POOR SCHOOLS IN THE WESTERN CAPE –
EARLY LEARNING RESOURCE UNIT
8. Under the project title EARLY LEARNING PROJECT FOR RURAL AND POOR SCHOOLS IN THE
WESTERN CAPE, ELRU aims to “Develop appropriate to context and culturally appropriate
strategy for ECD teacher development and support in rural poor schools”. The project seeks
to identify replicable elements (materials; enrichment programme; teacher training and onsite support) for future integration into institutions responsible for teacher development.
The strategy will enable the fundamentals of thinking, language acquisition and counting in
the foundation for maths and science to be built within the Early Childhood Development
(ECD)/Grade R phases. It is part of the programme to contextualise products for use in rural
and poor schools in the Western Cape appropriate for a range of cultural and natural
environments.
9. The ELRU project vision under the SEEDS initiative is to “inspire confident, equipped and
innovative teachers and parents, promoting young children’s curiosity and sense of wonder
as a foundation for acquiring the fundamental building blocks of thinking, numeracy and
language acquisition.”
10. Project activities are threefold: develop and distribute innovative materials; an inspiration
and awareness programme for teachers, learners and caregivers; and training for teachers
(workshops), incorporating exposure to new places and ideas as well as on-site support with
implementation.
11. The project works with 60 ECD/Grade R teachers in predominantly Afrikaans-language
schools and community centres in West Coast and Overberg districts. In addition to
participating teachers, ELRU estimates (2010) that its programme has reached 1222 families
(880 in Overberg and 342 in West Coast) and benefitted 1440 children (Overberg 836; West
Coast 604). A follow-up evaluation is underway to complement the project’s 2009 baseline
study.
12. New approaches and innovations have emerged in the teaching of numeracy, literacy, and
life skills at ECD level. The project has addressed the availability of mother-tongue
instructional material in these learning areas. It has also innovated with the use of audiovisuals in teacher development and multimedia platforms, and developed the concept of a
supportive cluster centred on an experienced lead or peer teacher.
13. The project has faced numerous challenges including:
Increased complexity and costs in liaising with stakeholders particularly local,
provincial and national public institutions, companies and non-profits :“We
didn’t budget for stakeholder engagement [but] this is being done by us now in
the course of the work but it’s not funded – but it’s vital to develop an enabling
environment, and a more integrated way of working”
Changed WCED policies on NGOs in schools consequent on the change in
provincial government:
 “It was one of the biggest changes. The government imposed a
moratorium on accessing government schools by NGOs. It was a shock
but we survived by beginning to target community-based ECD sites as we
31
were doing a lot of support that the districts did not have the capacity to
provide, and we had a track record, and the trust of teachers”
 “The role of NGOs [post-1994] has been to largely assist the government,
to supplement and complement the national policies. We haven’t been in
a situation when that lifeblood has been cut off. But the PDE has closed
its doors... and politics is getting in the way of development... struck me
how the GPDE is still really passionate about retaining NGOs relations; in
WC it’s the opposite... they seem to be saying, ‘go away’! But is this sign
of future developments?”
Workshop timetabling clashes with the WCED, resulting in adoption of a new,
more flexible, but more expensive training model: “We have tried to keep on
providing the same time as the [original] holiday block training, the same
number of total hours. We looked at ways of fitting in more contact time with
teachers which means more site support visits”
Budget issues: “You can’t change your activities which actually were envisaged
18 months ago even though things on the ground have changed dramatically.
We are squeezed into something thought of 3 years ago. University [of
Stellenbosch] oversees our budgets. There are no means or opportunity of
making formal changes formally; informally we operate under the broad
descriptions/activities [of the original budget] to accommodate our changed
dynamics: this is a negative dynamic; we would like to have an opportunity for
significant reallocation of the budget elements”
Lack of an effective ‘enabling’ environment in schools consequent, resulting in a
‘poorly integrated approach which is becoming an issue for the teacher groups’.
Competition/clashes with WCED and other ECD training opportunities:
 “Along the way a lots of teachers dropped out because they participated
in other courses that paid them learnerships that paid incentives for
participation – we could not compete.”
 “Our training is not accredited – which has led to teacher de-enrolment”
Uneven impact on long-term learning and teaching: “Whilst teachers have
expressed appreciation for the new things learnt and the supporting resources
however the challenges for them to implement their learning experiences
remain. I can’t see us working in these areas again. Some of these teachers have
years and years of training and you can’t believe they ever were trained at all!”
The child-centred, rights-based, mediated approach of the ECD curriculum is
experienced by parents and teachers from these rural small town schools and
communities as “very threatening”: “They experience the approach as a very
heavily, westernised mediation kind of thing. We have been battling and
battling. We seem to be getting there but certain people have that ability and
are able to identity with the values attached to speaking to the child in a certain
way and allow the child to explore and experiment ... adding value to the child
and the community. It takes other teachers and parents a much longer time.”
14. Failing significant improvement in the operating environment in the Western Cape, ELRU
feels that the pilot would not be capable of being 'scaled- up': “As things currently stand, we
don’t believe we will be able to replicate it as it’s a very expensive model [for us].”
15. ELRU would however take what they have developed and use these resources and the
approach in their other programmes. Opportunities exist also in other provinces where ECD
provision by NPO’s receives strong support.
32
16. Collaboration and co-operation/partnerships with other SEEDS members on project activities
has been limited to ‘sharing’ of experiences (not working with) with CMGE, EMEP and GOLD.
SCIFEST AFRICA has provided services to ELRU’s enrichment programme.
17. One explanation for this lack of collaboration is that ELRU is the only SEEDS partner working
in the ECD sector: “We are the only one in early learning and then there's a big gap till Grade
Seven. ... There’s very little collaboration because there are no dots to join together in the
first place”.
18. ELRU was more optimistic of the value – and potential – of developing a common model at
the outset of the project and made some proposals, viz.:
“Plan an exchange of knowledge and ideas within specific activities (e.g. invite
feedback and input from partners as the materials are being conceptualised and
developed; adding an ECD component to, or supplementing partners’
programmes (adding resources and workshops on the use of the materials with
young children - “using waste to educate” - a vehicle for learning about child
development, for engaging parents, teachers and children’s creativity, for
learning about the environment as well as for introducing Science and
Technology.); working with SCIFEST AFRICA on teacher excursions, materials and
festivals/exhibitions; a conference or seminar on modern challenges, bringing in
some of the approaches to learning we all use as a starting point for discussion,
as a joint activity; commission a documentary jointly to disseminate the
information on good practice as well as key messages about improving learning
in the province, as well as learning about partnerships and collaboration; offer
diversity workshops where the consortium partners may identify needs in
particular situations”
19. Now, however, ELRU has a more nuanced view of the collaborative challenge: “The
consortium’s common goals/objectives, and actual collaboration is really quite tricky. We
pulled together [in the beginning] not because of what we had in common but because the
funder thought we could each make an impact, each of us, so it was trying to find points of
intersection with the others, rather than developing a single SEED’s 'model' or ‘approach’ for
nine projects.”
20. ELRU has garnered significant learning from the project, including:
“... deepening our own feel for what it means to be a teacher in this kind of
changing education environment”
“... understanding the impact on the system of new pressures for professional
development - training, FET colleges, learnerships, where to go and what to do”
“... helping [teachers] dealing with change…. There’s a lot of stuff they have to
cope with, apart from managing in the workplace and working for the best
interests of the child”
“... developed a deeper understanding of the complexities and difficulties of (inservice) teacher training in ECD”
“... we see the pressures on ECD teachers of working in a context with something
imposed from western models .. like OBE… and we are thinking: ‘But we hadn’t
really thought of that before... and a lot of what we see [with teachers] we need
to challenge.”
“We have had an opportunity to develop these learning [numeracy workbook]
resources etc which has been a big learning”
“… Another equally big learning has been ‘stakeholder engagement’: ‘in the
future… would not work just with teachers but work with local resources and
33
institutions such as libraries and the [National] Parks etc that have become
important”
“Project has pushed us into the gaps where we actually work best: we provide a
very inspirational workshop, for people who have not had the time and space to
exercise their curiosity… Like seeing the sea… taking the people by bus trips has
been wonderful - to the SALT Observatory etc added to the experience… Inspiring
curiosity and a sense of wonder. I know funders are allergic to this but we have
learnt a way of making these [workshops] work. Yes, these are ‘talk shops’ but
they can also become an opportunity for training, very specific, not a marketing
exercise for the organisation; they enthuse teachers for their environment,
widening their horizons which is an essential part of this programme.”
21. In addition to working more closely with provinces other than the Western Cape where the
enabling environment is more conducive and receptive to the project model, ELRU also
expressed the feeling that the project results attained so far could be built on in other ways:
-
-
“Perhaps we need to stop producing new materials, put our training/materials
together and roll this out so we can show actual results?”
“We have our programme set for next year and a half; many books to complete
[and support]; it’s what the teachers require and that’s the best way we can
respond to those who are ready to run; But there are those who won’t ever be
there so what do you do? Do you include them in a kind of peer support group?
These are the sorts of exit issues we are dealing with now.”
“The department is not all that involved but if it does become so we could be a
resource to them. “
Intermediate and Senior Phase
22. Seven SEEDS projects in the focus area are directed at quality mathematics and science
learning and teaching in the intermediate and senior phases (GET), pre- and in-service
training at FET level in the four universities, and public awareness of STEM (seven projects to
the sum of R72m, 87% of the available funds in the focus area).
23. The overall aim is to improve mathematics and science education, performance and
participation through improved school-based learning and teaching methods, bursaries for
talented learners, more effective mathematics and science pre- and in-service teacher
training, and support for school-to-university bridging programme for especially
disadvantaged learners:



Support the development of ‘better quality’ mathematics and science education
in traditionally disadvantaged schools, where the majority of learners who are
Black (University of Cape Town –MSEP)
Advance equal participation and improved performance in mathematics and
science in previously disadvantaged communities through effective school-based
teaching and learning, a mathematics and science bridging programme for
talented but disadvantaged learners to gain university entrance, and providing
rural maths teachers with the opportunity to gain a distance qualification in the
subject of mathematics (IMSTUS – 3 projects)
Develop and implement professional development training programmes for preservice and in-service teachers in natural sciences, life sciences and social
sciences (AGEI with UWC)
34


Equip disadvantaged youth with strong capabilities in maths and science so that
they can participate fully in the disciplines that make up the knowledge economy
(SAILI)
Promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) awareness
amongst learners (SCIFEST Africa)
MATHS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROJECT (MSEP): UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
24. MSEP is a collaboration of the University of Cape Town and the Western Cape Education
Department. The project is also a Flagship Programme of UCT’s Transformation Strategy to
broaden and extend undergraduate admissions into programmes in science, engineering,
commerce and health sciences. MSEP is run as an outreach project through the School of
Education School Development Unit (SDU).
25. MSEP’s long term strategy is: "Engaging in research-informed interventions that will not only
make a significant difference to individual schools, but also advanced the knowledge and
understanding of the complexities of creating a more effective education system"- that is, to
establish an effective role that the university can play in schooling.
26. The project objectives are to improve the quality of teaching and learning in five secondary
schools in the Cape Town Metro. In short, to develop systemic interventions in schools that
improve the numbers of black students from the Western Cape black, African schools with
sufficient grades and necessary subjects in the NSC (HG mathematics/now mathematics and
science) to apply to higher education institutions like UCT.
27. All five schools are participants in the national Dinaledi project, and the focus of MSEP is on
mathematics and the sciences. In addition to classroom-based teacher support in maths and
science, MSEP has also been drawn into languages, school leadership, ICT, and life skills.
MSEP provides bursaries for teachers in maths in addition to its educational research into
various aspects of teachers’ practice. MSEP’s learner support in the five schools is limited,
mainly focussed on extra-tuition. Staff of the SDU and the School of Education at UCT
undertakes all the MSEP work. MSEP also provides support for learners from other schools in
working class communities who have not traditionally gained access to the university,
primarily through the Holiday School Programme (three four-day Mathematics and Science
Holiday Schools for 500 learners held in April, July and September) – again, this intervention
with learners is not a core project activity.
28. MSEPs project methodology is to research the impact of learning and teaching interventions
aimed at teachers so as to grasp what works in schools and what doesn’t. Each project
component has a different way of working, is reasonably independent from the other, sets
its own detailed research agenda, and is led by a different team leader under the MSEP
project manager.
29. The maths and science components (interventions also target English, Life Skills etc)
adopted very different approaches:
-
“The maths component has chosen to the route of video-taped lessons to produce
academic papers, with very little intervention with teachers…. [Maths] teachers were
not interested in our initial solution which was based on what we saw going on going
on in the classroom, and then working with teachers through seminars workshops
weekend etc. What we found was that the teachers were not interested in coming.
So we had to change strategy. MSEP provided bursaries for teachers to participate
in programmes in the postgraduate diploma in education programme and ACE. We
are luring them that way with 22 teachers participating in our ACE programmes that
included a school management component, so that we can establish a common, co35
ordinated approach with teachers/students involved in school management and
evaluation, and leadership. “
- Science component has adopted a different approach, they say let's try and
understand why teachers are doing what they are doing? They create detailed case
studies of teachers as their key instruments. They are looking for key informants: the
idea is to get closer to the teachers in the classroom for extended periods of time, ask
teachers what they want done.... In both scenario’s Master's students and our field
workers work with the teachers.”
30. MSEP acknowledges the tension/paradox in its approach where it seeks to both understand
what’s going on (observe) and find solutions (implement):
- "The MSEP starting point was to avoid doing what schools want you to do, which is
to help out with the kids rather than working with the teachers, and the knock-on
effect on indicators. This is the major tension in the project."
- "There is a tension between reacting to the short-term needs of the kids as opposed
to the SDU's use of a long-term strategy. By going back to the classroom and
committing ourselves to a lot of classroom-based support, we are realising the extent
to which committing to change teacher performance you realise you are there for
the long-haul. You have committed yourself.”
- “We look for the larger view in schools. We can’t make a claim that we are
contributing to increasing in learner performance at school since we can’t claim that
it’s all due to us. We are contributing.”
31. What became apparent reasonably quickly was the fact that school contexts played a huge
role in the extent to which teachers would participate in the project, and therefore on
improving teaching outputs:
- "The overall task that you want to understand is what teachers are doing in the
classroom and ultimately impact on the performance"
“Our work with management teams and teachers in schools is helping schools
understand that what their own limits are, in terms of their own preferences. The
dynamics are very different in each school. Very careful documenting of these
dynamics. Schools report very different circumstances.”
- “The work of the teachers is still being tempered with the work of the SMT. Schools
are gripped by an 'authority crisis'. Principals can sometimes not initiate anything
and it is sometimes necessary rather to go through subject teams to get into the
classrooms.”
32. Case studies are developed to be able to argue for the complexity of schooling and also
explain the complexity of change, the difficulties of change, and of working at the school
level:
- “Through classroom observation -- in a good month we are able to get 150 class
observations -- we are realising the complexity of classroom practice. We are
developing very nuanced descriptions and interpretations of those factors impacting
classroom practice in science and maths.”
- "In one in four cases MSEP are successful. The issues start when it comes to the gritty
thing of classroom observation. That’s why our classroom case studies are so
exceptionally interesting, as they provide us with [an all too rare] reasoned account
of working with schools."
- “Very revealing, and unique case studies. Unprecedented data. I think we are going
to have accounts of schooling which are quite unique in terms of richness and quality
of the data and how we are able to describe these contexts in going is going to be
unprecedented. I'm not aware of anything else in South Africa that is able to shine a
36
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
light on schools and how they operate in South Africa in quite the same way other
operations in Africa in quite the same way."
According to MSEP, the individual case studies “are the main vehicle for developing more
nuanced understandings of key elements of the complex dynamics play between ‘school,
staff, students and self (i.e. the teacher)’ evident in each school. As such, it is anticipated that
the project’s research findings will make a significant contribution to the literature.” Other
project contributions apart from the research itself include various data gathering
tools/methodologies.
Progress has been difficult: “MSEP achievements have been quite severely blunted by
circumstances on the ground, despite using schools with levels of functionality that should
have allowed us to work with the teachers and learners to bring about positive impact on
student performance. On the ground, in these five majority black, African, Dinalediparticipating schools the challenges have been a lot greater than we thought initially.”
MSEP’s latest quarterly report (June 2011) notes: “As was the case during 2010, at three
schools – Thandokhulu, Spine Road and Sophumelela, there has been in general satisfactory
progress; whilst at the other two (Rhodes and Harry Gwala) the Project has experienced
ongoing difficulties with respect to meeting its objectives”
Through the project MSEP has come to realise the uniquely difficult conditions prevailing in
Western Cape schools which have been “completely underestimated”: “The Western Cape is
particularly complex environment in education. Partly because of the perception that
everything is hunky dory. There are also higher levels of unionisation here than in Gauteng.
The lack of penetration in classrooms is as bad here as anywhere else.”
With its unique research-based approach, MSEP is emerging with the elements of a new
innovative approach to teacher development in maths and science which is inclusive of
whole school development:
"Unless you get alongside teachers in the classroom, you actually cannot really
suggest you could have an impact in practice. Teachers are rhetorical about their
practice as soon as they close their classroom doors. When they are off-site, at
workshops, however well done by expert practitioners if you don’t get this access
how do you know what they are translating any different practice into their
classrooms? The number of teachers willing to let you alongside them is a
modest number. You've need to show how they have made positive shifts and
gains in teaching differently to other colleagues who haven't. This is opposed to
the top-down approach for example in Dinaledi where often only the principal
drives the programme and is on board. The problem is when you try to engage
with teachers, everything is very different on the ground. School-based work is
the hardest to try to do. It's easy to run off-site workshops and do after school
activities. It's when you want to really get at the rub of the problem, which is to
change the nature of teaching and then the real issue, changing the nature of
learning. But you can't get to the learning except through the teacher, if you
can't get to the teachers unless you get through the doors.
The project has faced many challenges including:
"One of the single biggest challenges faced by school-based projects such as
MSEP is the difficulty of obtaining buy-in from teachers.”
“The extent to which meaningful and lasting changes can be affected in a
relatively short time frame needs to be carefully considered. There is a real
danger of underestimating the constraints at play.”
37
-
-
-
“Dinaledi is all smoke and mirrors – school’s participate to obtain funding and
the extra posts but don’t change their practice so other criteria are needed in
choosing which schools to work with in improving maths and science”
"Not one of the MSEP teachers translates or sees the need to translate the need
for teaching into learning by students.”
"District officials are critical to the project impact."
“The role of language in maths and science teaching and learning is critical but
progress is dependent on the willingness of teachers to open up their classroom
practice.”
“There continues to be a relatively low level of participation in project activities
at two schools [of the five]. The reasons for this are various and specific to each
school but include [in the first instance] a broad failure of management to
maintain appropriate levels of organisational coherence [which] has made it very
difficult for project staff to gain any significant purchase at the school. [In the
second instance] “the principal continues to play a somewhat negative ‘gatekeeping’ role”]
39. Useful repeating in full MSEP’s reflexion on the project aims in respect of the challenges to
be overcome:
“A central aim of the project is to bring about constructive shifts in teachers’
pedagogic practices to ensure that more productive teaching and learning takes
place. However, in our school-based work we are continually reminded of the
extent to which in so many of the classes we observe, the focus seems firmly
fixed on teaching as opposed to students’ and their learning. Further evidence
for this lays in the fact that assessment, formal or otherwise, rarely extends
beyond the minimum curriculum requirements (which are in any event quite
modest in most subjects).
From our observations of teachers, we have come to appreciate the extent to
which many of their habituated practices are firmly entrenched, and reinforced
(perhaps quite unintentionally) by the regulatory regimes in the broader school
environment which demand little more than a narrow compliance with
curriculum requirements. Schools are characterised by quite weak accountability
structures, which in effect leave many teachers not having to answer for their
actions. When coupled with underlying shortfalls many teachers content,
pedagogic and classroom management skills, then what goes on in classrooms
seems quite limited indeed.
Be that as it may, two and a half years into the project there are some
encouraging signs starting to emerge of where individual teachers are able, with
support, to broaden their repertoire of productive practices.”
40. Collaboration and co-operation/partnerships with other SEEDS members on project activities
has been limited. MSEP presented to a SEEDS Research Forum. MSEP and IMSTUS’s science
teams met to strategise. MSEP and EMEP met to discuss possible collaboration. MSEP
shared research capacity with SAILI whose students also participated in MSEP’s Winter
School Programme but MSEP does not view this as an example of a planned SEEDS
collaboration: "The kind of cooperation that does happen is completely spontaneous.”
41. MSEP reasons that lack of collaboration with other SEEDS parties can partly be attributed to
the nature of MSEP’s project:
38
-
"Our project is very much academic in orientation and very different to something
being run for example by GOLD. There is a big difference.”
42. For MSEP, additional reasons for the absence of project collaboration and co-operation
include:
-
-
-
"The Consortium was formed to get the money…. We could have done things
more coherently from the beginning. The problem was that this was sprung this
on us. It wasn't set up this way. Working together was a post-hoc imposition.”
“SEEDS was not a carefully crafted strategy that has as its goals a particular set of
outcomes”
“Look at diversity of organisations, even if you explicitly tried to put them
together, how would you? Many of the organisations are service providers, and
when they work together, this is not an example of collaboration, but the
provision of a service.”
“Members have widely diverging interests and expertise…”
"Misunderstanding of partners' motives is rife"
“There's been a failure of collective leadership – from the partners not [the project
manager].
“We need some incentives to work together, to enforce working together."
MATHS AND SCIENCE FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS: UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH,
INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING
43. The MATHS AND SCIENCE FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS project is run by the Institute for
Mathematics and Science Teaching (IMSTUS) at Stellenbosch University.
44. The project is the largest in the SEEDS consortium (a total of R25m, 16.7% of SEEDS funding,
and 30% in the focus area) It comprises three initiatives:
a. The Sciences and Mathematics Initiative for Learners and Educators project
(SMILES), a teacher intervention in primary and secondary schools in the
Kraaifontein, Paarl and Stellenbosch areas
b. The Science and Mathematics Bridging Programme (SciMathUS) – a post-matric
programme at the University of Stellenbosch (US) that affords talented learners
the opportunity of qualifying for mainstream higher education
c. The Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) in Mathematics, a 2-year in-service
training programme for Mathematics teachers
SMILES
45. The SMILES project is an Intermediate and Senior Phase teacher in-service training
classroom-based intervention in five subjects across the GET and FET levels – in Physical
Science, Life Science, Natural Science, Mathematics and Maths Literacy. The intervention
runs in five secondary schools in the Kraaifontein, Paarl and Stellenbosch areas and 10 of
their primary feeder schools and has involved 88 teachers to date.
46. SMILES develops teachers’ understanding as well as their skills in teaching the curriculum.
The initiative includes content training of the curriculum (teachers register for US Short
courses), classroom visits where facilitators co-teach with the educator, science club
39
facilitation and parent evening input. Work that is covered during the training sessions is
followed up by the facilitators during the classroom visits: “Our model is like this ... we get
into the classes, we help them to teach, we co-teach, we watch them teach. We give them
feedback. And then we workshop all the stuff that the teachers are meant to teach the next
term. After the workshops we ask them why they are not doing something that we have
done with them.”
47. The classroom intervention-based approach adopted by SMILES differed fundamentally from
that of MSEP: “MSEP did the research first and then decided what was needed. We believed
we had a good idea what the teachers needed, then collaborated with them, and our
research is based on this. We appointed facilitators for every subject in every school.”
48. Practical classroom-based support to teachers faced with large classes where classroom
management and discipline are often key concerns are a central focus of the SMILES
programme:
“We have a huge focus on classroom-based support. We have had varying
success with our approach. Half of the teachers won't welcome you. You have to
build relationships, and confidence. The facilitators have to be quite a special.
They have an amazing set of skills including in classroom practice. Very often
they are based in the faculties in the schools. There is a competitive element of
the programme that works, built around trust. Our facilitators have very
different sets of skills: there is a lot of co- teaching, development of model
lessons, taking hands and helping with lesson plans in other words, peer support.
Also they provide planning and practical support, assist with setting exam papers
which are common to all the schools. SMILES facilitators try to get teachers to
experience the power of a community of practice.”
49. Relationship building is critical, something SMILES feels it is succeeding with because of their
approach:
“We are not there with a check board”
“We are there to help. Some teachers didn’t want us but they saw we are not
there on a witch hunt”
“No formal lectures”
“Very practical”
“In our first year we just built relationships. After six months there was not an
issue with access”
50. In addition to classroom-based support for teachers, SMILES facilitators also model lessons
in any subject to the top forty learners in each grade in every participating school so that
learners “have a direct experience of the programme”; this is also seen as an opportunity for
SMILES to “understand the way in which the learners respond.”
-
51. The project utilises IMSTUS’s Maths Learning materials which are considered highly effective
and innovative: “We have developed maths learning materials over many years, in so-called
'Realistic Maths Education'; we work with people in the Netherlands. Using practical
problems, in which maths is required to find solutions.”
52. In the physical sciences and life sciences, SMILES uses the available textbooks. In the natural
sciences XX and XX.
53. A lot of SEEDS funding went into building up the science infrastructure and purchasing FET
science kits for schools classrooms. SEEDS funding also helps fund SMILES’s exposure
programme to life sciences for example to the Tygerberg medical facility, Iziko Museum,
40
Kirstenbosch and Sutherland SALT array: “Township kids don't see anything like this during
their school careers: it’s a bit expensive, but SEEDS funding helped us."
54. SMILES have found Systemic Testing to be of benefit in establishing the quality baseline
especially in primary schools: "The problem in primary schools was no baseline to monitor
the quality of teaching, and then they started with this testing. Teachers realised they were
way below standard and this helped our facilitators to gain entry with teachers who realised
that there was a lot of room for improvement. Our facilitators then were able to help
teachers give students an idea of what to expect in the tests and in our schools the student's
performance has increased considerably.”
55. SMILES impact?
“I don’t know. Some teachers have improved. Some haven't. There is a glimmer.
We get good feedback on the workshops. If you wanted a high impact on the
student marks then we would just teach them ourselves.”
“Some schools are more receptive than others. These schools have exceptionally
strong leadership, which makes them makes them good to work with. There is a
different leadership styles in each and issues in each school. One school, the
principle puts student teachers in to attend the classes. In Kayamandi the
poverty is incredible but they have good teachers. In Luckhoff, the worst of the
lot, very little buy-in.”
“We have given each school an FET demo kit. Most schools have a lab, but they
don't use it!”
56. Nonetheless many of the schools have improved significantly in national and provincial
Systemic Testing in subjects related to maths and science and the provincial department has
recognised these achievements.
57. One of the major challenges is how to monitor success. Participating teachers are not
evaluated in any formal way but they do take a SMILES self-assessment test. Learners are
not assessed:
"We don't monitor any of the learners since there are too many extraneous
contributions, for example, because of the interventions the exam papers get
better so we raise the standards. It's very difficult to give a quantitative idea
what's going on in the schools. Improvements in some schools are evident, in
some cases considerable but it’s very dangerous since these improvements might
be related to countrywide changes."
“We have changed attitudes tremendously. We know how things have changed.
But they are still not teaching like we would like them to teach. They still teach
like they were taught.”
58. The school context has emerged as a critical factor to success: “Initially, the WCED and the
District provided SMILES with a list of Dinaledi schools in Khayelitsha to work in. The choices
were so bad. They were not functioning and we couldn’t work in those schools. So now we go
to a number of schools ourselves and ask them to motivate why we should work with them.
Our five secondary schools are a mix of two township schools and three rural coloured and
African schools in the Stellenbosch, Paarl, and Brackenfell area. “
59. Many additional challenges and obstacles to the success of programme were identified,
including:
“Teachers say it's not us, it's the learners.”
“Overcoming teacher’s animosity, fear and anxiety on facilitators’ visiting their
classrooms”
“Teachers challenges/fears in implementing the new curriculum”
41
“Building positive trusting relationships”
“Teachers’ lack of focus on practical work in the classroom”
“Overcoming big gaps in coverage of subject cuts between the GET and FET
phases, especially Grades 8 and 9 in preparation for transition to senior phase in
Grade 10”
“Teachers involvement in other school and department projects”
State of school laboratories for practical science lessons
High teacher turn-over in subjects science and maths
Teacher unavailability for after-school training
Teachers’ involvement/clash with extra-murals, including Saturdays
“Educator’s curriculum knowledge and didactic skills in large classes”
“Most educators teach recipes for doing mathematics without concept
development. Educators need to make a paradigm shift in their approach to the
teaching and learning of Mathematical skills”
“By focussing on five subjects in the schools only, the other teachers are envious”
“These excluded teachers had to take up the burden of our teachers when they
are out of school. This is now disappeared with the WCED ruling on taking
teachers out of school. We now take them from Friday afternoon, and
Saturdays. We also took them over exam time before; that is now also stopping.”
“Timing, that is, teachers won't attend workshops. We had full workshops when
they could come during work hours.”
Language issues: "Enable maths and science teachers to treat the language
issues in the classroom. Our facilitators try to get teachers to teach in English as
well, as required but communication in the class is in Xhosa .You must get
teachers to change this. This is a huge problem. We must now start on the
foundation phase and we must help teachers to do this right through the
intermediate phase.
"There is not enough of a link between pre-service and in-service training at the
University"
Unions: “Unions will say ‘you go do the PRP’... but the teachers say 'we don't
want to have to do further qualifications to keep our jobs'. “
“Our workshops are all short-course, you receive a certificate of competence, if
you hand in the assignments, but this means nothing to the teachers if the
government won’t recognise continuous development points.”
60. SMILES experience is that is ineffective working in schools where there is not a wellestablished management structure because it is a waste in literal terms. However, following
selection, SMILES still sees a need to work with teachers and the school managers to try and
change the school culture – a whole school approach: "We try to maintain very close
relations with the principals and work very closely with the school management. They must
also be the targets of school improvement.”
61. Further, SMILES sees the importance of ensuring early onset and continuity of quality
learning and teaching, especially in maths and science: “All these initiatives should start or
begin in pre-school and intermediate level. The damage would already be done by the time
they get to the senior phase.”
62. SMILES is planning to expand its involvement with whole school development post-SEEDS
and include in its programme a foundation phase intervention, language and school
leadership and management.
-
42
63. District officials are generally positive about the SMILES programme. However particularly
District Curriculum Advisors show little enthusiasm in actually collaborating:
"We tried to collaborate closely with the curriculum advisers. This doesn't
materialise. Curriculum advisers are burdened with administrative work in the
subjects like science and maths. They are not involved in day-to-day teaching,
what takes place in the classroom. So we do what the curriculum advisors are
supposed to do. They are not directly involved [but] they are pleased for us to go
ahead. In terms of sustainability, they should be doing this."
"We are doing what government should be doing. They just welcomed us.
There is no issue. The district welcomed us. They didn't have the time to do this.
One guy has 150 schools. We are filling a small gap."
64. Turning to the future, SMILES is unsure whether the programme may be rolled-out
elsewhere or serve as a model, even given a positive and enabling environment:
"We have been asked about our model? Are you ready for roll-out? Is this is the
correct model? In our research workshops we have debated this. I think there
are certain elements that are essential, like classroom involvement, and that's a
very time-consuming element. Who would consume our model? We think maybe
underperforming school districts, we can approach them and say, we have a
programme, and we can train your facilitators, etc. But the one thing you must
do is instil enthusiasm in the school environment. You cannot assume this. It's
very difficult. But I'm positive that this model can be transferred to other
environments."
65. SMILES and collaboration/partnerships within SEEDS?
"There's not much sharing in the SEEDS Consortium"
"There is some communication or let’s call it interaction with UCT, but not
sharing"; “SCIFEST AFRICA helps mostly in the primary schools and we envisage
some collaboration with EMEP on school Science Clubs but only once we have
got off the ground."
- "There is little work on the Intermediate Phase in SEEDS Consortium - CMGE is
working in the intermediate phase of multigrade but not in maths and science."
SciMathUS
66. SciMathUS is a programme of IMSTUS that targets severe disadvantage amongst African,
black students. It is a Flagship programme of the US, and IMSTUS’s largest programme, (40%
of total budget). It was started in 2001 in response to the university’s need for black student
undergraduates, particularly in STEM degree programmes.
67. It is a year-long school-university bridging programme offering talented disadvantaged black
students an opportunity to improve their Mathematics, Physical Sciences and Accounting
marks. SciMathUS overcomes learning gaps in students Grade 12 learning in these subjects
by applying a hybrid collaborative-learning and problem-based method in which “both the
students and the educators explore and find solutions to the concepts in a negotiated and
collaborative way”. The programme was nominated for the Impumelelo Award in 2009.
68. The project motivation lies in the fact that many more disadvantaged black students are
interested in university studies than are actually accepted, including in STEM-related fields
of study. However, genuinely talented students from underprivileged backgrounds who are
failing to meet the formal university admissions programme could do so once they have
participated in an appropriate and effective bridging programme, such as SciMathUS.
43
SciMathUS does not guarantee university admission to its students: they must still apply and
be formally admitted to the university.
69. The student selection process is considered the most important aspect of the programme:
“We feel that we don't want is to select them only to improve their maths and
science marks. So we select them to be successful at university. You must try
and identify students with potential, motivation, and students severely
disadvantaged by the system. Our selection process will spend a lot of energy to
get the students background, school, home and personal circumstances. We
follow an objective process. Students are invited to apply. We get about 500
applications…. Finding students who might be interested is quite a challenge.
We use the university application process and the 'No' letters and we invite
students to an interview.”
70. The minimum requirement is 30% in NSC Mathematics and Science.
71. Students with Maths Literacy are also accepted but must complete the subject Mathematics:
“Many Western Cape students are streamed by doing maths literacy. These students can
only go into the Arts, but any Science field is closed to them. Even Law and Economic
Management Sciences are closed to them. We take in students who do maths literacy; must
do the whole 3-year Mathematics and Science curriculum, in the one year, and then they
must write the NSC.”
72. Half the cohort of 100 students comes from the Stellenbosch area; student food,
accommodation, transport, textbooks, and registration and course fees are all paid for by
the programme.
73. Programme activities are formally structured and timetabled. Each consists of formal guided
learning in the mornings (from 08h00 until 13h00): in the afternoons (from 13h00 until
17h00) students take ownership of their own learning. “This flexibility allows the facilitators
an opportunity to either have one-on-one sessions with struggling students or to conduct a
problem based exercise that requires more than the hour that is provided for each lesson.”
74. Class attendance is mandatory. Subjects offered include Physical Sciences (20 hrs per cycle),
Accounting (16 hrs per), Introduction to Economics (4 hrs), Computer Literacy (4 hrs), and
Critical Thinking and Language Skills (8 hrs).
75. Students’ academic progress is reported quarterly with marks being accumulated via
continuous assessment marks which are made up of tests, assignments, class projects etc.
Students’ mid-year examination and the mid-year results are a combination of the
examination marks and the continuous assessment marks of the term. The students write
the National Senior Certificate examination (in Mathematics and Physical Science) at the end
of the academic year. Accounting examinations are set within the Faculty of Economic and
Management Sciences.
76. The uniqueness of SciMathUS’s method and its potential for more widespread use and
application in the larger FET sector lies, according to IMSTUS, in its evolution of its Problem
Based Approach/Model which combines didactic and collaborative elements. The SciMathUS
‘model’ effectively addresses gaps in students’ formal skills and content knowledge in
addition to their confidence and abilities to work and function collaboratively and socially
irrespective of their backgrounds:
“In the group of 100 students we have students with different strengths and
weaknesses. We allow the students to present their work in class either as
individuals or as a group. The presenting group then allows time for questions
and debate from other class members. This is a very interesting activity where
44
each learner tries to explain his/her understanding of the method according to
the way he/she was taught at school. The class has to come to an amicable
decision which the facilitator will neither agree nor dispute. S/he has to be
satisfied with the process of explanation they are giving that will allow them to
apply the methods in future.” [Quarterly Report, July 2011]
77. Accordingly, SciMathUS adopts a developmental attitude towards the drive for success in
the programme:
“Success is not 100%: you must understand that the university takes the first
layer. The extended degree programme takes the next layer. We take the third,
lowest layer. In our programme therefore we have a counselling element –
provided by our project manager who is an educational psychologist; we also can
use the university's psychological services.
“We also pay a lot of attention to study and thinking skills and student personal
development and ways of communication to develop the student as a whole
person.”
“Each year is unique; no one year can ever be measured against the other. This
means that even though we learn from each cohort of students, challenges
continue to manifest themselves in different structures. We therefore do not
have any expectation on any group of learners that we take, but we allow
ourselves to be part of the learning process together with the students. Now that
we have explored the research component within the programme it is exciting to
share the literature review and experiences of other bridging programmes. We
are excited because we believe that we are part of a bigger audience that strives
to touch the lives of students who had otherwise lost all hope of academic
excellence as a result of the systems’ inability to reach the student’s level of
understanding.” [Quarterly Report, July 2011]
78. Nevertheless, SciMathUS can point to success in various elements of the programmes stated
outcomes. In the actual one-year bridging programme, participating students increased their
performance in their NSC mathematics and science examination by an average of 15
percentage points and some by as much as 30 points. In terms of programme completion
rates success varies year-on-year: there was a 25% drop out rate in 2009/2010 intake with
75 of the 100 students graduating which was attributed to the new NCS curriculum (75%
success completion rate). In terms of students longitudinal performance at university level
there is a drop-out rate of 30% amongst SciMathUS students. This appears to be a slightly
better rate than that of non-participating students at the university.
79. The programme faces a number of challenges:
-
-
-
“We receive no government subsidy since the government doesn't like preprogramme initiatives, preferring to fund extended degree programmes
instead.”
Shortage of funding for the students on the programme
“SciMathUS students can go to any university, not just US; others go to
technicons or do diploma course. Many others take a gap year or years, however
mainly for financial reasons.”
The language of instruction [Afrikaans] is often a consideration limiting student
intake.
“We are now in conversation with the university to see if we can get rid of the
Grade 12 (NSC) examinations and rather have an internal examination.
Lecturer's feel that they can do a much better job of preparing the students for
university.”
45
-
-
“There is a lot of pressure on us in the programme to raise quality and better
prepare students”
“SciMathUS should interact more with the broader University faculty. We
presented to all faculties but must say their response has not been great... we
have been working too much in isolation in so far as our university is concerned.”
Too few and inappropriately located venues within the University - “As much as
we appreciate this allocation it poses a challenge when we want to have a group
session with problem-based exercises. The lecturers now have to run between
two distant buildings to monitor and evaluate progress made by students at
specific intervals of the process.”
80. SciMathUS programme links with other SEEDS partners is limited. Reasons advanced include:
“Our whole orientation is in SC maths. WE have a very focused programme and
focused target. It’s difficult for us to link to other SEEDS components.”
“There is not another programme in the seeds Consortium on that level of
SciMathUS; you must partner with the closest fit. But bridging in South Africa,
the idea is not very popular. Extended degree programmes are popular with
because of the government funding provided. We feel very strongly that there
should be space for both, because the students we take into our programmes
would otherwise not have had the opportunity to qualify, even to start at
University. This is because they cannot enter university with the marks they had.
So when we have a student going through the programme and obtaining a
degree, this would not have been possible in any other way. So in that way, we
cater for students who would never have got here. We have five doctors, five
engineers, accountants etc who qualified through the programme.”
ACE in Mathematics
81. The IMSTUS ACE in Mathematics is a 2 year in-service training programme for Mathematics
teachers from 3 different phases. The project goal is to improve the content knowledge of
the enrolled teachers, to train them as subject leaders in their field and to establish
networks of support among the teachers in their provinces.
82. The programme makes use of a blended learning approach which combines face-to-face
contact, self study and e-learning (interactive telematic sessions and discussions on a webbased programme management system).
83. The problem that the ACE in Mathematics addresses directly is the difficulty that many INSET
teachers who teach maths face in improving or obtaining their maths qualifications without
having to attend a residential programme at an FET institution.
84. The ACE in Mathematics is a new national SAQA accredited programme which builds on
elements of IMSTUS’s campus-based Diploma in Education that targeted Western Cape
teachers who were qualified to teach but not in the subjects Mathematics or Physical
Science.
85. The ACE was started in 2009 with 49 teachers enrolling; of this group, 21 graduated in 2010,
1 continued in 2011 and 11 are repeating modules at own cost. 16 withdrew due to variety
of reasons, the main one being the workload involved in teaching and studying. In 2010 new
student numbers climbed to 42 dropping back to 29 in 2011. The ACE is now offered in four
provinces. The ACE is also offered to teachers who participate in the programmes offered by
the African Institute for Mathematical Service’s Schools Enrichment Centre based in
Muizenberg, Western Cape with whom IMSTU collaborates.
46
86. This new ACE in Mathematics is clearly an important innovation and according to IMSTUS
introduces an effective new national in-service model for teachers in rural schools with is
combination of contact/face-to-face sessions with e-learning and telematics to create a vital
and virtual community of practice using the internet and mobile phones essential to
sustained impact on classroom practice: "I think that this format that we follow with ACE,
blended learning, is the format of the future. If you want to train teachers in South Africa,
then you must do it this way. Without it is impossible to get to the teachers out there. This
model has been presented to national and international (African) audiences at conferences
in South Africa and Zambia.”
87. The US’s web-based programme management system, Moodle, introduced in 2010, is the
platform from which IMSTUS launched its innovative new programme: "Our experience is
that to learn new learning methods you need to get out of isolation. That’s where Moodle
comes in. The way Moodle is used has developed quite significantly over the past two years
and is the basis of our ongoing efforts to build a functional distance learning in-service
programme with a sound community-of-practice element.”
88. The major challenge facing the IMSTUS ACE in Mathematics is financial - "The problem of
payment of subsidies by both government and University is ongoing."
89. It has proved difficult to secure funding for 2012 as there is much uncertainty around the
future of the ACE qualification. Within the Western Cape the WCED has decided to no longer
provide bursaries for ACE’s. This means other provinces need to be approached for funded
participants.
90. Unfortunately the WCED’s alternative proposal to fund teachers taking Short Courses –
essentially the ACE offered in compact packages - has also not yet come to fruition, posing a
very real threat to the programmes continued financial and longer term viability. Further,
there is both a two-year delay in payment of the government subsidy to the university and
some dispute as to on-payment of this subsidy payment to IMSTUS by US.
91. The entire ACE in Mathematics is in jeopardy in the Western Cape and there are great
concerns for its ongoing survival in the current phase of national reform in teacher
professional development:
“We would love to continue, but without funding we cannot do it. There's no
funding from the University, or the Western Cape Education Department. To do
it, you must go to the other provincial departments. We have tried very hard at
this stage. The Western Cape called a meeting and told us that they would
support short-courses. This is an alternative to the ACE. But we feel that it
doesn't have the same cumulative effect of a two-year continuous programme of
build-up and commitment by the students and so on. They wanted us to add an
evaluative component to the short courses, but you still wouldn't have this
impact. We are looking for the funding of this gap until the new policy is passed.
The other provinces are not so strict and have continued to fund this ACE. It's a
very frustrating situation to have developed this kind of training, blended
learning, it has been a huge amount of input in terms of material development,
creating new structures etc and I am very concerned that this will come to an
end and I will lose my staff. It's been a very risky business. As a result the SEEDS
money is no longer 'seed money', which it was supposed to be.”
92. SEEDS’s ongoing funding linked to a positive resolution of the on-payment by the US of
government subsidies are the only elements standing between the survival of this in-service
innovation and its dissolution.
47
TEACHING BIOLOGY PROJECT: AFRICA GENOME EDUCATION INSTITUTE AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE
93. The Teaching Biology Project (TBP) is an initiative of AEGI and UWC (initially the Education
Faculty and School of Science and Mathematics Education, now the Centre for Natural
Science for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology Department) to develop appropriate content for the teaching of new
scientific material in schools (GET and FET) as well as provide training opportunities to
science educators responsible for teaching this material in schools. The AEGI and UWC
components of the TBP are run separately by each organisation.
94. SEEDS funds TBP to the sum of R16m, 18.8% of Focus Area 1 funds: it is the third largest
project in maths and science. Through AEGI, which is the project fund holder UWC will
receive a total of R1.7m of TBP funds (10.6% of the available funds).
95. The TBP is in line with the national Ministry of Education’s new curriculum statements and
new learning areas included in the CAPS as well as the National Curriculum Statements (NCS)
for science, particularly life science, which are informed by genomic discoveries. The new
curriculum challenges call for re-training and the up-skilling of Science teachers in-service:
the challenge extends to pre-service teachers’ content knowledge which is compromised if
University academics fail to teach at the cutting edge and science textbooks include
information that might be dated.
96. The introduction of new teaching content assumes that educators have the capacity to
design and implement appropriate teaching programmes. While adequate guidelines for
both learning outcomes and assessment standards have been developed, the content is
challenging for educators at all levels. According to the TBP project document, the majority
of teachers of Science lack the most fundamental knowledge in the new learning areas.
Teachers are also challenged to adapt their teaching styles and to approach their teaching
differently; they are challenged to include innovative practices which include teaching to
develop critical thinking skills, adopting a Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) approach in
addition to understanding subject matter knowledge:
- “The problem is that with CAPS we are on to our fourth Biology curriculum since
2006 ... one more than maths. Evolution was introduced in 2008 for the first
time. There was very poor grasp and knowledge amongst existing teachers.”
(AEGI)
97. The TBP’s goal is to support the professional development of pre- and in-service teachers at
the General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) phases
with expertise being drawn from the Western Cape Education Department, Western Cape
universities and various senior Science and Education consultants in order to improve the
teaching and learning of Natural Sciences, Life Sciences and Social Sciences:
“New CAPS document this year (2011) but no departmental support, especially in
practical teaching.” (AEGI)
98. Between 350 and 400 teachers have benefitted from the TBP, as have approximately 300
undergraduate, and a ten pre-service, life science students at UWC.
99. The in-service Training in Evolutionary Biology at the GET and FET levels is run by AEGI and
focuses on: professional development through thrice-yearly conferences, complemented
with ongoing lesson plan and material development support. Pre-service teachers from US
and CPUT are also invited to attend also attend.
100.
The four-day conferences integrate appropriate phase content knowledge in the
science of genomes and evolution with discussion on scientific method. The use of ICT is
integral to the learning and teaching methodology of the AEGI conferences:
“At the conferences the teachers are divided into two groups, Darwin and
Mendel – based on questions they answer on their registration forms about their
ICT skills. This is because of the need to develop the confidence of teachers with
48
regard to their use of ICT in the classroom…. There seems to be a correlation
between LS knowledge and ICT skills and between ICT skills and the schools in
which teachers teach…. It seems that it is lack of knowledge of how to use ICT
and lack of confidence to try is what hinders the teachers rather than lack of
access to ICT and a number of teachers expressed their gratitude at being
exposed to ICT and the opportunity to use a data projector and reflected on the
confidence this gave them to use the resources available to them at school and
how the teaching materials provided by TBP make this a possibility. Out of this
need has grown TBP Goes Social, the rationale behind this is to get teachers to
use a familiar technology, namely cell phones, to access both administrative
information and content and from this to start to use social pages either on cell
phones or computers, allowing teachers to move from an area of comfort with
technology to making greater use of ICT resources”
101.
AEGI also believes that Biology as a subject lends itself to an ICT learning and
teaching platform:
“In most schools the computer labs are set aside for maths not biology but
teaching maths off the Internet is very hard. Biology on the other hand, lends
itself to Internet/ICT, because it is process-based. In our school [Bishops] while
all our boys have laptops our school maths doesn't use these laptops. Maths is
very difficult to use on a computer. But biology is really easy, because so many
resources are available online. Because biology is process-based, it is very
difficult to teach it with static drawings. But if you can show process … the kids
understand it better. It makes more sense for teachers to show the stuff than to
teach it out of the textbook.”
102.
Key elements at each conference are these ICT literacy pre-tests; self-assessment
tests for subject knowledge; and the AEGI ‘small groups’ facilitated by small group leaders:
“We have developed a method which involves first trying it out in small groups.
Then they go away, and redevelop. Then hold a round-robin which is sharing
with a larger group. Then store and find it on the network, and finally present it.”
“We get teachers to develop their own material addressing teachers’ fears in
developing their own materials.
“The kind of thing we do is to show them that practical work doesn't have to be
frightening.”
“We developed the AEGI method to show teachers how to integrate content in a
very user-friendly way.”
103.
Delegates leave with lesson plans developed at the conference together with AEGI
learner materials and other resources loaded onto a flash drive and DVD’s. They are also
logged into the TBP webpage and Facebook group. This implies, as AEGI opines, that
conference lesson plans and material, website development and online support are closely
inter-linked aspects:
”The materials given to teachers and that are developed at the conferences …
include books, magazines, Word documents, Power Points (saved to flash disk)….
The flash disks given to teachers are invaluable learning support materials and
the activities developed by the teachers together with practicals developed by
the TBP staff can easily be used in the classroom. The website is updated
regularly and useful links are posted on the Facebook wall and in response to
requests from teachers. We sms teachers regularly to remind them of these
resources, using SchoolTools which enables us to send regular sms’s at low costs
and we plan to grow our online and cell phone presence through ‘TBP Goes
Social’ Material developed at the TBP resource development week end in 2010
has been added to the flash drive and a number of excellent resources … are
49
included on the flash disk. Online material, useful websites, downloadable
resources and how to use these form part of the programme at the conferences.”
105. AEGI has developed a core of lead teachers and a close association with WCED and these
lead teachers have been used to assist with CAPS training and feedback to WCED curriculum
advisors.
106. TBP set up a school-based network called ‘Critical Friends’ comprising teachers who
participated in the TBP under the mentorship of a lead teacher:
107. “We discovered that production of materials is only a small part of the problem and we
needed to address the lack of understanding of scientific method and also running practicals and
classroom practice. Our growing pedagogical focus grew out … a stress on provision of resources
which however revealed gaps in teaching methods for biology in the classroom. The key blockage
is effective teaching methods. In response, we developed "critical friends group"; began with a
small group of 8 to 10 teachers. Our methodology is to co-develop material and demonstrate
how best to unpack the material in the classroom.”
108. Many of the challenges AEGI faces supporting quality biology teaching in the classroom
relates to factors intrinsic to the schools and how teachers approach their classroom practice,
which in turn is leading to changes in emphasis in the programme for example increased focus
on classroom-based support methodologies and the urgent need to address practical skills into
pre-service training programmes:
Biology is the second-largest subject after languages. There are very few trained
biology teachers in schools. So schools tend to allocate biology at the lower levels
(primary) mainly to teachers without a specialisation and expect – in Grade 12 qualified teachers to get learners through the senior certificate examination
period.”
“We discovered that production of materials is only a small part of the problem
and we underestimated the need to address the lack of understanding of
scientific method and also running practicals and classroom practice.”
Our initial stress on provision of resources has revealed huge gaps in teaching
methods for biology in the classroom.
Pre-service teachers "have very little practical skills to use their content
knowledge in the classroom. CPUT plays a critically important role in the supply
of teachers and is the largest supplier of teachers. But we have found that their
pre-service programmes don’t include practicals.”
109.
The use of ICT in the classroom is a major stumbling block:
“Integration of ICT in classrooms is tricky “
“Teachers are terrified of data projectors”
“There is enormous emphasis on giving hardware, but very little focus on what to
do with it.”
“There have been definite changes since January 2009, when perhaps half our
participating teachers agreed they had interactive white boards, computer labs,
internet access, e-mail etc. By June 2010 all participating teachers indicated they
had these things but now they also indicated that none of them are using them.”
“There are practical barriers impacting the use of ICT in classroom’s including
things like the department’s limit or ‘cap’ on monthly internet usage.”
110. AEGI’s current project challenges include some of the following:
“Most important constraint is reaching the teachers who need it the most [i.e. in
township schools]”
Encouraging sufficient numbers of teachers to participation in the programme:
“We have found that provision of bursaries to teachers is not a sufficient
incentive.”
50
-
-
-
-
-
Responding to the need for large-scale intervention: “WCED asked me if I would
take 300 teachers in September but I declined since the ICT component of the
TBP is a very important component and we don’t have sufficient ICT resources;
also I felt that the main part of the TBP conference is our small group concept.
Working with the small groups over a period is never just about attending
lectures. I don't think that works. So between working in small groups and the
ICT you can't take more than 55 teachers at a time.”
Overcoming schools’ lack of ICT know-how to effectively implement the TBP
programme model
“We don't know how efficient and sustainable our impact is on the classrooms”
“High numbers of repeat attendees” (a ‘positive’ challenge indicative of the
popularity of TBP amongst participating teachers)
“There is a need to link TBP with Dinaledi Schools. Only 26 Dinaledi schools
attended TBP so far – there are 120 schools in the province – life sciences are
being neglected”
Improving life sciences syllabus coverage: “At this point in the year, some schools
are 13 weeks behind in the syllabus. Most schools are 3 to 4 weeks behind in the
syllabus. Halfway through the year they are way behind in the syllabus, because
there is no teaching time in the fourth term.”
Language of L&T: “TBP is offered in English but many of our teachers, especially
those from small-towns are Afrikaans speaking. I don't know whether we are
reaching enough teachers who are Afrikaans-speaking, and it is the smaller
towns where this becomes a problem.” “
The participation in TBP of WCED curriculum advisers for wider impact: “About
four curriculum advisors have attended AEGI conferences. Tommy Botha tried
very hard to get them to attend … but there is a block and he does not know how
to get more of them there. This is why we are setting up a meeting with the
WCED to propose developing resources for them. In this way we can help them
and they can help us. This raises a key question of sustainability. If we develop
materials we want them to reach as many teachers, not just the TBP teachers,
and it seems to us, the only way of getting this to happen is with greater
involvement of the curriculum advisors”
111.
AEGI collaboration with the other SEEDS parties has been extensive:
“We have actively looked for as much cross pollination as we can… because that
was one of the Consortium goals. There is no use in us all acting independently.
We talk a lot of with the other partners. This includes Scifest, MSEP, ELRU, SAILLI
and EMEP. We share a lot with other organisations. IMSTUS Life Sciences
lecturers participate in and give presentations at the AGEI teacher conferences”
112. TBPs pre-service programme in life sciences and ecology is run by UWC’s Centre for Natural
Science for Teaching and Learning in close association with staff from the Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology Department and embraces curriculum and materials development
specifically around the new curriculum (including in UWC’s undergraduate life sciences),
development of a framework for training of pre-service life sciences teachers, holding of annual
conferences and public promotion of life sciences, and running of Short Courses and Biology
Colloquium/workshops in specific topics for teachers in the field.
113. The Centre has developed – but not published due to resources constraints - materials that
teachers can use for each section of the syllabus and for each grade (eventually), with activities
for each topic, which have been trialled in 10 schools. The Centre has developed a
‘misconceptions in life sciences’ tool as a basis of biology students’ needs assessment in the
51
subject in support of a pedagogical content-knowledge approach to life sciences teaching, in
addition to appropriate materials that address these knowledge gaps. Again, inadequate
resources are cited as a key obstacle.
114. Amongst the activities prescribed in UWC’s original proposal to SEEDS is a partnership with
tertiary institutions in the province to ‘develop an appropriate framework and series of
interventions that will ultimately enhance and improve pre-service learning’ involving visitation
and sharing with Dutch colleagues to learn from their curriculum and practices. This component
of the TBP will be implemented over the next year.
115. The pre-service component of the TBP to ‘reshape and revitalise professional practice
amongst new life sciences teachers enrolled in the Western Cape’s higher education faculties’ is
being implemented by both AEGI and UWC. AEGI’s contribution is through participation of CPUT
pre-service life sciences students in its conferences. UWC’s involves working with their life
sciences students as well as with their mentor teachers in the schools. Conceptual, pedagogic
and skills training are available for students during the academic year, with special workshops
provided in new learning areas as well as addressing curricula changes. During their three-month
practice teaching in schools, UWC offers support, help with lesson plans, books, worksheets and
props for lessons, and school visitations. Learning support materials have been produced, core
practical lessons at Grades 10-12 work shopped, and a website for on-line access by students
developed.
116. The TBP pre-service component has been downscaled due to the limited funding available to
UWC. Nonetheless the project has ensured that life sciences pre-service teachers at UWC are
more fully exposed to biology and, to an extent, earth sciences and ecology. Their project work
has further addressed, through development of a ‘misconceptions in life sciences’ tool, which
supports their pedagogical content-knowledge life sciences teaching approach.
117. UWC is adamant that their impact factor on per-service in other tertiary institutions could be
significantly improved with more adequate funding being made available from project funds,
pointing to positive project benefits including improved 2011 student pass rates from support
provided to undergraduate life sciences courses at UWC (UWC has been allocated a total of
R1.7m of TBP funds, 10.6% of funds available).
118. TBP’s third area of activities seeks very broadly to promote academic and learning support
materials development for teaching about evolution, biology, and the nature of science,
developing online support, promoting public understanding through annual conferences such as
that on Human Evolution run at UWC in October 2009, as well as major workshops to improve
access to scientific information and teaching. Academics and other individuals involved in TBP at
AEGI and UWC respectively continue to contribute substantively in their own right to the
deepening of knowledge and wider understanding of evolution, genetics and the biological
sciences and the teaching thereof in the country, and internationally, through their engagement
in this SEEDS project.
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
119. SAILI received R6.5m or 7.6% of SEEDS funding in Focus Area 1.
120. SAILLI’s overarching goal is to “equip disadvantaged youth with strong capabilities in maths
and science so that they can participate fully in the disciplines that make up the knowledge
economy.” SAILI’s unique flexible action-research based approach linked to rigorous
independent programme evaluation has been widely acknowledged for its creative approach to
providing black students with talent opportunities and access to the schools of Cape Town. Its
dynamic approach has resulted in great project innovation since SAILI’s establishment in 1996 as
a project of the Deputy Vice-chancellors of the five tertiary institutions in the Western Cape.
SAILI’s SEEDS project in 2011 is undergoing a similar extended learning process.
52
121. The 2008 SEEDS proposal proposed a shift away from their interventions which
emphasised support of systemic institutional improvement towards selection of promising
individuals in disadvantaged schools and placing them in high-quality learning
environments at the start of their secondary school careers supported by an array of
learner-directed programmes including:
A ‘Catch Up Programme’ in Mathematics for 70 promising Grade 7’s
‘Comet’s Programme’, an interactive Science and Technology intervention run at
the MTN Science Centre for 60 Grades 8 and 9
‘Learner Placement Programme’, a partnership programme placing for 130
achieving Grade 8 to 12 students in participating public schools of excellence
The ‘FET Teaching Programme’ at CPUT, a enrichment programme at CPUT for
110 Grade 10 to 12 students
The ‘Guidance counselling support & Life Orientation Programme
122.
As SAILI explained it:
“Through its Learner Placement Programme, undertaken in partnership with selected
public schools, SAILI unlocks students’ potential and fast-tracks their performance in
Maths and Science. SAILI supports these individuals through counselling, focused
curriculum-based coaching and tuition, Maths and Science enrichment programmes, as
well as other activities such as work shadow opportunities, winter school and holiday
camps. SAILI further facilitates access to tertiary study through appropriate career
placement and helps mobilise financial support.”
123.
The numbers of SALLI learners benefitting from the Learner Placement Programme
between Grades 9 to 12 are 65, with 45 supported from SEEDS funding. The SAILLI model is
based on a cost of about R10,000 per learner, per year in a cohort of 30, over 5 years, that is,
R1,5m per cohort
124.
In 2009, based on a review of the programme which questioned the results obtained
from the initiatives above SAILI initiated far-ranging discussions as to the direction of the
programme and support for the enrichment programme “to see that everyone was getting
the best benefits for resources spent”.
125.
The results were sobering:
“There were big difficulties in identifying and nurturing talent at primary school
level and provide enrichment and support to learners who grapple with moving
between their township neighbourhoods and well-equipped middle-class school
learners who have all the comforts of middle-class households”
“The 'finger in every pie' comprehensive intervention approach wasn’t working;
additional tuition, student camps, teacher training, whole school development,
language support and further study support - all these things failed to add-up.
We were still left with problems in attendance, learner commitment, and parents
who were uninvolved and disinterested”
“We inputted high quality tuition to these 80 kids over 18 weeks. 4 hours per
week, over the year. 80 hours in total, with progressive testing throughout. Our
logic was that for candidates from less capable schools, we control for that with
high quality teaching and testing. This process was considered to be good, kind,
sound. But we found that those 25 to 30 who succeeded tended to match up to
25 to 30 of the initial test anyway. 1 or 2 do benefit but actually, given the input
and the level of input it is not efficient and doesn't actually change the game
sufficiently. It is not an effective use of resources. The allocation would be rather
used to get more places for individuals.”
126.
With rising school fees and increased competition for placement in such schools the
Learner Placement Programme was also becoming unaffordable. The evaluation recognised
53
that the Learner Placement Programme reliance on placing talent in excellent – but
expensive - ‘high-end’ schools was not sustainable – nor necessary.
127.
The problem according to SAILI was that they were overlooking opportunities in
“moderately priced, quality local schools”: “If you go to the Rondebosch High School you pay
R25,000 a head, but if we find adequate, equivalent, academic output at R1000, R10,000,
R15,000, should we not rather use these schools?” There were numbers of locally clustered
primary schools which afforded places to learners who were talented at fees that poorer
parents could pay afford. The challenge lay in linking such poor but talented learners to a
locally performing high school – if such schools could be identified or existed in the
neighbourhood – where their talent could be nurtured. The challenge would be in selection
of talent – which SAILI had years of experience in – and in identification of moderately priced
local, performing high schools which SAILI could partner with and place talented but
genuinely needy students graduating from nearby primary schools in who under normal
circumstances would not afford (or be offered) a place in such schools:
“The challenge is to identify those who had the talent to make that jump, but not
the resources. And we need to look for a geographical clustering of 4 or 5
primary schools under R2000 per year that can act as feeder schools. Couple of
main areas include – Grassy Park, Retreat, Parkwood, Fairview; Bridgetown,
Gatesville, Hanover Park etc.. And we need provide these kids with affordable
scholarships to attend moderately priced but high performing local [high]
schools.”
“It’s not so hard for kids to stay in, when they are in.”
128.
A new approach and model was needed:
“These kids are in primary schools that cost R1500 to R2000 per year: we are asking
where do they go? South Peninsula High costs R5000 to R6000, which is three times the
cost of primary school. For R2000 therefore you can get a very good primary education,
but you can't get a good high school education for that so the kids drop-out, except for
one or two exceptions. We will look for these modestly priced feeder schools and see
which kids we can take off this dysfunctional conveyor belt, what gems we can pick out,
and at what point do we put them into the functioning part of the system in performing
high schools but at the lowest price.”
129.
This action-research based approach, supplemented by thorough evaluation, has led
to a new focus in 2010: “We have evolved from an education intervention into a a
systemically minded scholarship programme. We used to do piano lessons, trips to the
museum etc, but refocusing on what is the intent of the programme … we have arrived at
‘scholarships’ because we found that after all our tutoring and teaching it was not an
effective intervention. So we need to make scholarships more effective.”
130.
SAILI continues to provide bursaries to learners already on the programme but in
2010 in response to the debate outlined above suspended recruitment pending launch of
the new programme in 2012.
131.
SAILI sees its current challenges as establishing a methodology for identifying which
schools are “genuine high performers” and establishing grounds for working with these
schools as a “high value, effective and responsive partner”.
132.
SAILI has made significant progress in identifying key analytical elements and data
necessary in identifying high performing schools beyond Grade 12 performance data which
would benefit other SEEDS partners and could be developed into a major resource with
additional input and discussion.
133.
In terms of evolving partnerships, there is potential for these to become more
successful as a result of SAILI’s learner placement programme. SAILI’s new scholarship
programme offers potential systemic impact on the schooling system on behalf of its
students – black, African, poor, township, vernacular-speaking in ways not initially
54
anticipated by SAILI or school partners. There are also spaces opening up in Coloured schools
which black African students can take advantage of:
-
-
“Coloured kids have more choice now. A school like South Peninsula drew only
from Grassy Park. Now these schools are threatened by an exodus of talent to
Wynberg, Rondebosch etc.”
“If I have two kids in Pinelands High and one in Wynberg what is our effect on
the system? Answer is minimal effect. These schools are grateful for the kids to
give them and for which we will pay to provide coaching, support, monitoring
and generally occupy the parental space. But at South Pen High I can take my
extra-mural budget and can pump it into the school in a more focused way.
Suddenly, I have three or more kids and I can say, look, your 2 hour extramural
programme, can you make a 5 hour programme? I can have a knock-on effect in
that school. This is most profoundly obvious in our Grade 10 class in that school.
We have 10 or 11 kids there, nearly all in the top 20 academically, out of 200 in
that grade. So in that grade we hold the strongest kids. It's an injection of talent
year-on-year into their system. At this scale, the knock-on effect is huge: it can
be transformative and that's good because we put a lot of kids in, and I can put a
lot of kids into that school because it’s cheap. That's where we are heading,
maximising our impact.”
-
“The school administration and SAILLI’s administration also benefits. I pay one
invoice, purchase one uniform, there is one fax number to dial, and one HOD to
make friends with etc”
-
Black kids in coloured schools (like South Pen): “They don’t offer Xhosa First
Additional Language but if I can give you 10 Xhosa first language kids, then that
school may appoint a teacher.”
134.
SAILI continues to provide coaching, mentoring and academic support to parents,
schools, and learners on its present bursaries as well as monitoring learner performance in a
five-step programme together with the school: “Our logic is to have this conversation with
the school if possible… we perform a general kind of parental role, counselling role.. ask kids
what they are thinking about etc... Then we track them and try to link each child with some
kind of academic support.”
135.
SAILI’s new approach is highly pragmatic and involves necessary tradeoffs. For
example the Learner Placement will have little benefit for talented students in Cape Town’s
black township schools until high performing local high schools emerge to partner with. SAILI
explains:
“Our last intake was in 2009; right now we have secured funds to recruit a cohort
of kids for 2011 in areas where we can realistically place them from. We are
saying, if we find kids in Khayelitsha Primary Schools what are we going to do
with them? Let’s look in these other areas, for example, the high concentration in
Grassy Park, feeding to South Peninsula. Lets also look in the northern suburbs
around Bellville, Kuils River, Bishop Lavis, going into Parow and Bellville schools
where there is a concentration of feeder primary schools and good high school].
Another area is Milnerton, Rugby, Brooklyn, Ysterplaats area and Koeberg
Primary but here we have the difficulty in finding schools to put them in. Also we
can look at Bridgetown, Gatesville area: there are some strong schools there, like
Rylands High, Livingstone High. The schools are easily accessible, the fees are
low, and their performance good.”
55
136.
SAILI has experienced many challenges the most pressing of which is financial: “We
need to raise cash to recruit new kids for the new programme.” In turn scholarships are key
to incentivising schools to partner with SAILI: “We need to be able to turn on the pipeline
again as soon as possible. Principals are asking at what point the cash will come in.” An
issue related to finance is SAILI’s responsibilities in the event they are thrown a curved ball
by one of their learners: “How do we respond if the kid goes off the rails and has psychosocial needs? Quite hard to create processes can handle these kind of exceptions. We have
established a relationship with the Institute for Applied Psychology, use interns as life
coaches. Then suddenly, we need psycho/ psychiatric support. At that point, you take out
your wallet. What is our mandate? Where do you draw the line?”
137.
SAILI is acutely aware of the limits to its resources and the positive impact it can
nevertheless have on behalf of talented black students. A fact that continues to urge the
organisation forward is the dysfunctionality of the Cape Town’s township schools:
- “If you are in Khayelitsha, and you attend a previously black school, you have a
less than one in ten chance of achieving more than 50% in maths or physics.
There were 28 higher grade maths passes in black schools in the Western Cape in
2001. There is no historical capacity to teach maths at both the higher or even
standard grade level…. It is not simply a case of saying to standard grade
teachers ‘work harder’, because they were ineffective in the first place.”
SCIFEST AFRICA
138.
SciFest Africa is the only partner in the initiative specialising in the promotion of
Science awareness. SciFest Africa is funded to the amount of R6m (7.1% of Focus Area 1).
139.
Launched in 1997 on the model of the Edinburgh International Science Festival by
the Grahamstown Foundation, SciFest Africa (then Sasol SciFest) was “the first of its kind on
the African continent and today is one of South Africa’s leaders in promoting public
engagement with Science.”
140.
In close co-operation with Department of Science and Technology, Science Centre’s
and like-minded public and private sector partners, SciFest’s goal is “fun-filled, challenging
and stimulating” Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) public
awareness promotion: “more informed mindsets”, “breaking popular misconceptions”,
“debunking myths”, “accessible” scientists and science, “the every-day role of STEM” - in
education, business and the lives of South Africans.
141.
SciFest Africa’s project activities include “the biggest science festival in sub-Saharan
Africa”, the flagship seven-day National Festival of Science held each March in
Grahamstown. This year’s conference, under the “Science across cultures” theme,
“highlighted what makes us human, what makes us different, the contribution of different
cultures to science and science education, and science practiced across cultures. The festival
offered over 600 events and activities and attracted 65,000 visitors.
142.
SciFest Africa also presents a range of outreach programmes, including SciFest
Africa-on-the-Road an annual 14-day tour with a top scientist or educational theatre
production through one or more provinces reaching some 6 000 learners; SciFest Africa
Deep Rural Programme which takes interactive Science programmes to historically
disadvantaged schools; SciFest Africa Science Shows; National Science Week in the Eastern
Cape annually has as a major component hands-on workshops and Science shows presented
by a SciFest Africa team; and SciFest Africa Regional Festivals: three-day tours of workshops
for primary school learners in the Eastern Province, Limpopo, Western Cape and the
Northern Cape, North West and KwaZulu-Natal.
143.
With the SEEDS project SciFest Africa’s programmes are available in the Western
Cape in collaboration with the consortium. Annual activities are with audiences ranging from
56
primary and secondary school learners to university students and adults and include twelve
week-long tours of lectures, educational theatre, workshops and Science shows.
144.
To ensure the sustainability of Science awareness promotion programmes in the
Western Cape per se, i.e. to add to the services provided locally by the South African
Astronomical Observatory, MTN Science Centre, iThemba Labs and other organisations,
SciFest Africa looks to repeat at UCT, UWC, Stellenbosch University and CPUT the special
training programme in Science awareness promotion it presently runs for Science students
at Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
145.
One of SciFest Africa’s primary assumptions with its SEEDS project was that “the
specialist Science and Mathematics partners in the initiative will see the value of using
SciFest Africa in their educational programmes.” This has proven to be the case with the
three organisations that have worked with SciFest Africa:
- “We feel that we can feed into the partners like SAILI, IMSTUS, EMEP”
- “With SAILI, IMSTUS, EMEP we have established real grounds for collaboration in area of
need. What we do is we develop the programme, pull in the partners, and basically
project manage it - like 'science awareness day.'
146.
Through involvement in a specific focussed initiative such as SEEDS’ maths and
science education projects, SciFest Africa has become much more demand-driven and
targeted in its approach:
- “SEEDS partners have been useful in helping SciFest meet a specific need.”
- “We rely on the SEEDS partners in the WC since first, because we not based in WC, we
don’t partner with the schools that SEEDS works in. To SEEDS partners we are saying: ‘OK
this is what we bringing you , if you are in interested in this programme item, tell us
where we must go, where do you need us to go, and that’s how its working with IMSTUS,
SAILLI and EMEP.. “OK we are bringing you an astronaut how can you use him? We have
something on how to use maths in your everyday life, so that’s EMEP … 5 days wherever
EMEP wants us to go.
“Our resource development side has blossomed from our involvement, with the SEEDS
partners asking for and identifying specific needs so for e.g. EMEP, if it’s doing, a maths
thing, they ask and we have these mainstream support resources, and we say ‘use them’.
We have this workshop called Science Debacle - 101 science demonstrations if you don’t
have a lab - where we work with UP and East Anglia on 'kitchen chemistry'. We pull these
things together.”
- “Before SEEDS, SciFest was not in the business of recognising where the needs are. The
SEEDS partners have been useful in identifying what the needs are. EMEP will say: it’s
Maths; IMSTUS will say it’s this part of that curriculum. For example, the SEEDS tour we
did in May 2011 on West Coast was working with IMSTUS. They asked so OK we agreed
to focus on the West Coast. They really need some help to teach chemistry. We brought
Stephen Ashworth from UEA School of Chemistry who does Science Outreach and has this
textbook on it... that was the Science show. Then we brought him out again to show
teachers how to teach that in the classroom, where the teachers needs, learning needs
are. For SAILI we responded to their need for making budgets go further. They say ‘I
really need to take my learners on this holiday programme and my budget is not going to
go far enough. Can you work with me, and take so much from my budget.”
147.
SciFest Africa’s involvement with the SEEDS partners working with schools has
impacted its methodology which has become more focussed and targeted on specific
schools as well as on issues and difficulties of school-based learning of science in specific
districts or areas:
“We decided that if we are to work with all 600 schools in the Western Cape we are not
going to get anywhere so we now use limited number of schools in SEEDS consortium
such as the 15 schools in EMEP or IMSTUS schools…”
57
-
“Before, we had no criteria for targeting: now we very much work with Grade 7 to Grade
9, Grade 10 to 12. We would like to go younger, but the requirements and the curriculum
are very different” [opportunity here for SEEDS]
148.
These elements confirm SciFest’s determination to reposition itself from a science
awareness and science engagement public interest organisation, to supporting educators
and learners in the classroom:
“Needs are changing to supporting educators in their environment because they
just can’t teach science. There are huge needs supporting learners who are
excited about science to take that excitement further. What you will have is all
these people gaining exposure to real science for the first ever, seeing
something like a telescope or meeting an astronaut and getting super excited
and then they get back to Lusikisiki and now what? No education, no math
teacher, no science teacher, no resources, no support... Every time we go out and
do an outreach programme we get hounded by educators saying ‘we really like
that, could really use than in my classroom but we need more ... more resources,
how do we teach, how do we get our learners interested, how do we teach
chemistry’. With an initiative like SEEDS we could begin to link these things up.”
149.
SciFest Africa’s acknowledges that its “core business of ‘science awareness’ is very
different from the others who do education.” Yet SciFest Africa’s services are the most
commonly utilised of all consortium partners’ – SciFest African clearly provides a service that
no other SEEDS organisation offers, or has the expertise to provide.
150.
In 2010 SciFest Africa faced a challenge to 'the core business' – the national festival
itself - which “almost didn’t happen” as no funder was available. Amongst other actions,
SciFest Africa contacted the SEEDS management who saw the value of the festival to both
science education and the consortium itself, and through the EKN, approved the use of
SciFest’s unutilised funds of this purpose and agreed to approach the DST on its behalf. In
the event, both SciFest Africa and SEEDS were able to leverage a distinctly challenging
circumstance into an opportunity to promote science education and work more closely with
the DST to extend its involvement in the Science Festival and public awareness of science
more generally. The DST has provided ‘unprecedented support’ to SciFest from this point,
including extensively utilising SciFest Africa’s services. For SciFest this incident demonstrates
one of the key advantages of working in a large consortium with significant resources and a
large network.
151.
Nonetheless, project co-operation and collaboration within SEEDS has by no means
been extensive or easy. SciFest Africa notes that some of the challenges that have hampered
collaboration from the outset might have been avoided if specific collaborations had been
planned and budgeted for up-front, between partners who could “see a common need,
where there is overlap, or where we complement each other.”
152.
SciFest Africa believes that this can still happen: “We could do that now, all 9
partners sit down and say this is the problem, lets naturally group ourselves, and so on.”
153.
However at this midpoint in the programme and even within specific focus areas,
SciFest Africa believes there are still major if not fundamental issues that would hamper
such an initiative including:
- Lack of a common problem statement: “Problem is we don’t have a common problem
statement! Mine is we don’t have enough scientists so we need more science at schools
and better public awareness of science”
- Duplication of effort: “Do we all need our own maths programme? Or peer programme?
Can’t we come some agreement and work together on this? In SEEDS I now know what
the others do. I know I can really give others a platform for their programme if they can
work with me to deliver the programme but they are not using me. They will say ‘let my
58
-
-
-
154.
consultant contact you’ but what they seem to be saying is: we will get onto it but we
have own needs.”
Lack of urgency in response to need: “Let’s be realistic: what incentives would get
partners to take part? The money in the pot?”
“We don’t talk to each other”
“We don’t even know each other”
“Our project feedback in the Steering Committee is perfunctory: it’s like ‘I don’t need to
consult any of you, this is what we have done.’”
“We need to change the way and spirit in which we give feedback to the SC – what’s
important is that we tell the partners what we think it is that SEEDS requires; not formal
feedback, reporting on accountabilities. That’s just singing for our money and avoiding
exploring what strategic things we can and should be doing to grow SEEDS and make a
big meaningful difference!”
SC needs dynamic and action-oriented sub-committees
“We are really good in our areas but we seem to think that that means we own ‘best
practices’ – but how it be a best practice when it’s limited to what one of us is doing on
our own little patch?” Shouldn’t we be exploring systemic-support best practice?”
“We are all doing our own M&E but nobody doing a 4 year SEEDS M&E”
We need to write papers together with our partners…
“What worries me is that when we are done we will be told: Oh but that’s already been
done! We just don’t interact with those hundreds of NGOs out there – even our partners!
The future?
“I think we have overcome our initial inertia, but we need to look at what do we do now to
go faster and make a real impact. I think if we go on doing the same thing, we can’t make an
impact so we got to take stock and go in a different direction. I think we need to think out the
box and bring in some new resources to assist Mike: like a dynamic project manager
communication type who push us out of our comfort zones and can make things happen over
the next 18 months, a dynamic facilitator type.”
SECTION 2: FOCUS AREA 1
155.
A two-page questionnaire was designed and customised for participants in each
component project of SEEDS (Systemic Innovation for Education Development and Support).
The questionnaire was customised for educators and learners (where relevant) in each
programme. The questions included self-assessments of levels of satisfaction with different
aspects of the specific project, including ways in which it might be enhanced. The instrument
also checked for awareness of each of the various distinct components of SEEDS. A
systematic random sample of participants in each SEEDS project was then selected to
complete the questionnaire. The realised sample size Focus Area 1 was 301, comprising 177
learners and 134 educators. For the MSEP, , both learners and educators were surveyed. For
ELRU, IMSTUS SMILES and TBP, the respondents were all educators. For IMSTUS SCIMATHUS
and SAILI, they were all learners. SCIFEST was excluded owing to the different nature of its
operating methodology. The number of respondents from each component is listed in Table
1.
SEEDS PROGRAMMES
Educators
39
16
ELRU
MSEP
59
Learners
49
Total
39
65
Mathematics & Science Programmes
SAILI
SCIMATHUS
SMILES
TBP
17
109
48
21
134
17
109
48
21
301
177
Table 1: Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
156.
Some interesting variations in the characteristics of participants in the different
maths and science programmes emerged.9 Females are in the majority in each programme,
with the exception of the MSEP educators and the TBP, where the gender ratio is 1:1. SAILI
learners are in the narrowest age range owing to their particular placement in secondary
schools, while TBP educators tend to be, on average, younger than those in other
programmes. Generally, educators are more likely to play sport or be involved in music or
cultural, religious or other activities than are learners. Educators are also much likelier than
are learners to be satisfied with their study progress and with their lives as a whole.
Table 2: Characteristics of participants in the Maths and Science interventions
Number of respondents
Male : Female ratio
Age range
Plays Sport
Music/cultural activity
Religious group
Other club
Very satisfied or satisfied
with study progress
Very satisfied or satisfied
with life as a whole
ELRU
39
0:100
20-69
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
97%
EDUCATORS
MSEP
SMILES
16
48
53:47
42:58
23-57
24-65
71%
89%
58%
68%
77%
74%
44%
64%
100%
92%
93%
85%
TBP
21
50:50
22-52
75%
40%
100%
17%
85%
MSEP
49
47:53
16-20
65%
51%
60%
39%
65%
95%
75%
LEARNERS
SAILI
SCIMATHUS
17
109
41:59
44:56
17-18
17-21
65%
49%
41%
62%
82%
55%
47%
17%
59%
50%
71%
62%
Programme assessments
157.
Very few participants in the various Mathematics and Science interventions did not
agree that they have enjoyed participation in the programmes. Strong agreement about
enjoyment was most frequent amongst participants in TBP (90%), ELRU (85%) and SAILI
(82%). Disagreement or uncertainty about the programmes was highest amongst MSEP
Educators (13%) and SCIMATHUS Learners (12%).
Table 3: “I have enjoyed participation in the programme” (% in each Maths & Science
programme)
Programme
ELRU
MSEP
SAILI
SCIMATHUS
SMILES
TBP
Educators
Educators
Learners
Learners
Learners
Educators
Educators
Strongly
agree
85
31
69
82
35
61
90
9
Agree
15
56
31
18
53
39
5
Not sure or
Disagree
0
13
0
0
12
0
5
. There are difficulties in comparing different partner responses, given the very different forms, duration and intensity of
interaction with the respondents.
60
158.
Similarly, most learners indicated that participation the programme had increased
their subject content knowledge (MSEP 96%; SAILI 100%; SCIMATHUS 95%) as did the
majority of educators (ELRU 87%; MSEP 73%; SMILES 96%; TBP 100%). The lowest
agreement that participation had increased subject content knowledge came from
educators in the MSEP programme, although even this was high at 73%.
159.
Confidence in teaching had also increased in the view of almost all educators who
participated (ELRU 95%; MSEP 73%; SMILES 96%; TBP 90%); as had confidence in their
studies, amongst learner participants in the programmes (MSEP 96%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS
81%). In terms of the syllabus content covered in the programmes, most educators (ELRU
92%; MSEP 93%; SMILES 98%; TBP 100%) said that it was relevant to the curriculum. A
similar view emerged amongst the learner participants (MSEP 88%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS
90%).
160.
Most educators indicated that they had used the teaching materials supplied by the
programme in their teaching since participating in the programme (ELRU 85%; MSEP 80%;
SMILES 100%; TBP 90%). Similarly, most learners (MSEP 92%; SAILI 88%; SCIMATHUS 92%)
said that they had been exposed to better teaching materials since participating in the
programme.
161.
Educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 60%; SMILES 98%; TBP 95%) expressed the view that
the teaching methodologies demonstrated had been extremely useful. Learners (MSEP 88%;
SAILI 83%; SCIMATHUS 92%), in turn said that the way mathematics and science is taught in
their programmes is helpful to them.
162.
Relatively high proportions of educators had had contact with teachers at other
schools in the project (ELRU 90%; MSEP 60%; SMILES 80%; TBP 55%); most learners
indicated that they had regular contact with participants in their programme (MSEP 82%;
SAILI 77%; SCIMATHUS 90%).
163.
Both educators (ELRU 90%; MSEP 67%; SMILES 98%; TBP 50%) and learners (MSEP
92%; SAILI 83%; SCIMATHUS 85%) concurred that visits to their schools by programme
facilitators were helpful.
164.
The vast majority of educator participants in the programmes (ELRU 87%; MSEP
87%; SMILES 96%; TBP 85%) said that management at their school fully supports the
programme. Learner participants generally perceived that the management at their
institution were fully supportive of the programme (MSEP 94%; SAILI 82%).
165.
There was a wide range of sentiment amongst teachers about whether colleagues at
their schools who are not in the programme feel marginalised (ELRU 92%; MSEP 0%; SMILES
72%; TBP 55%). This emerged as an issue amongst less than half of learners (MSEP 45%;
SAILI 6%; SCIMATHUS 19%) in the various programmes.
166.
With the exception of MSEP participants, for most educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 67%;
SMILES 87%; TBP 85%), the workshop and interaction times had been most suitable; as had
been the workshop venues (ELRU 97%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 94%; TBP 85%). Again most (ELRU
95%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 96%; TBP 90%) expressed the view that they enjoy teaching more
since participating in the programme.
167.
Most learners (MSEP 84%; SAILI 94%; SCIMATHUS 85%) said that non-participating
learners at their school treat them fairly and in a friendly way, i.e. there was no form of
discrimination against them for being involved in the programme.
168.
Almost all educators (ELRU 95%; MSEP 53%; SMILES 95%; TBP 90%) enjoy teaching
more since starting with their programmes. Similarly, the vast majority (MSEP 94%; SAILI
100%; SCIMATHUS 87%) of learners enjoy their learning more since joining their different
programmes.
169.
The most positive consequences of participation in the various programmes for
educators were seen to be the workshop sessions, networking with other teachers, the
61
wealth of new knowledge gained and the skills developed. Some of the comments from
ELRU educator participants were:
- “wonderlike opleidingsprogram”;
- “kort en vinning tot die punt”;
- “lesse baie verykend”;
- “baie geleer en ‘n plesier in werkswinkels”;
- “wetenskap wat aangebied was is meer verstaanbaar en kan meer uitrig”.
170.
MSEP educator participants said:
- “helping in how to prepare the practicals for learners”;
- “guided me favourably particularly with the new syllabus”;
- “discussion that we usually have with MSEP representatives getting guidance and also making sure
-
that we receive relevant information or current issues on education”;
“the fact that MSEP people come at our school to help us in our content and making sure we work as
a team, helping us with anything we want”.
171.
SMILES educator participants comments included:
- “more learning visuals & contact with teaches from other schools”;
- “demonstrations / outings”;
- “It broadened content knowledge & interaction with teachers from other schools”;
- “change to the learners because of approach”;
- “the facilitators of SMILES project and the educators of our school work together, give advice, support
-
and encouragement was extremely important having them”;
“since I was a teaching I was struggling teaching Science especially when I'm teaching a lesson with
experiments, but because of SMILES everything is possible I have confidence in my teaching”.
172.
And TBP educator participants said:
- “more confident in teaching evolution”;
- “being surrounded by all these experts has improved my love and understanding for teaching”;
- “empowering”;
- “learning all these new ways of making learning fun & enjoyable for the children”.
173.
Similarly positive perspectives came from the learner participants, notably in respect
of confidence in engaging with new knowledge, support given, and positive learning
environments.
174.
MSEP learners had comments such as:
- the tuition is the most positive because I learn more when I am at MSEP tuition than at school”;
- “the exposure to different styles of teaching which in turn assists in the ability to answer certain
-
questions differently”;
“I feel that this programme has learnt me a lot”;
“my maths and science has improved ever since I joined MSEP”;
“it makes me feel like I am the one & I can achieve everything I want to”;
“to help us to get better education & to qualify to UCT”;
“I feel so good now because I have learnt to be patient and to have passion maths and science”;
“since I joined MSEP I have improved in my studies, also this programme gave me a good reason to
focus on my studies because my future is in my hands”.
175.
SAILI learners said:
- “basically it allowed me to understand my schooling a lot better and to take my studies seriously’;
- “the encouragement provided by the SAILI team is to do well and everything that is offered to us,
-
especially exposing us to different careers and learning techniques that we won’t usually experience
at school”;
“I got the opportunity to attend a good school instead of the schools in my area which helps keep me
away from bad influences”;
“SAILI has given me a sense of achievement just by being a part of the programme and has made me
want to achieve more”;
“being able to learn with different people who have the same background as you”.
62
176.
Comments made by learner participants in SCIMATHUS included:
- “helping me improve my marks”;
- “die leerstyl en tipe wat die dosente gebruik”;
- “die hoeveelheid kennis wat jy op ‘n daaglikse basis opdoen is my persoonlik baie verryklik”;
- “the fact that you learn more with a better teaching method”;
- “improving my learning and thinking skills for next year”;
- “the exposure to student life, getting a better understanding of what university is and what it takes to
-
succeed”;
“die feit dat dit nie net 'n herhaling is van graad 12 nie. Hul help regtig vir jou om vir jou eie te dink
met ander te werk”;
“I not only work harder now, but smarter”;
“it is a vehicle to take me where I want to be”;
“that I get time to manage my time so well and I can see where I lack and learn also that whatever
you put in is what you get”;
“marks increased”.
Suggestions for programme improvements
177.
Asked about what could be changed to make the various programmes more helpful,
large proportions of both educators and learners said that nothing needed to be changed. In
cases where respondents made comments, their desire for more contact with the
programme emerged strongly.
178.
For ELRU, there was near unanimity that no changes to the programme are
required:
- “Hou als net so als fantasties”;
- “Sal als net so los, werk goed”;
- “dis ‘n wonderlike program en sal niks verander nie”.
179.
MSEP educators had comments such as:
- “time spent for participation, because they only come on Tuesdays and I believe that is not enough
-
because I need them more”;
“more guidance and support with reference to subject matter”;
“involve the learners who are really struggling with the subject concerned, they only concentrate on
the ones who are coping”;
“I think there must be time whereby we meet as educators, science and maths to discuss some of the
challenges that we encounter as people who are involved in the programme, not to meet with
presence of educators who are not in the programme”;
“help with creating slides for preparation for lessons”.
180.
The SMILES educators who participated said:
- “time is too short for workshops”;
- “excursions for learners”;
- “to increase the number of visits to schools”;
- “More & more training & lesson presentation”;
- “more workshops”.
181.
Most TBP educators were highly satisfied, with only the wish for more regular
exposure to the programme being expressed by some:
- “must come regularly, not just once”.
182.
MSEP learners focussed on the need for more lessons (and sometimes, food):
- “MSEP must have extra tuitions every day after school, not only the weekends & holidays”;
- I think the time spent on participation could be longer so that we can gain more that day we
-
attending & have regular sessions”;
“more food and longer camp”;
“better food”;
63
-
“I think there should be revisions on Saturdays and lunch must be provided because we get hungry
during Maths paper 3”;
“Saturday classes right now are in demand. As a learner I wish we can have them”;
183.
SAILI learners expressed some similar sentiments:
- “have Saturday regular classes for Science & Maths as they did before”;
- “nothing really, SAILI is about helping us in Maths, Science and they have excellent tutors in both
areas so for me that's what's important, if that hadn't been in place I would have probably
commented for something to change”;
“bring back Saturday classes”;
“bring in Saturday classes for matrics and give classes to help with English as well”.
184.
In the case of SCIMATHUS learners, although many said that no changes were
necessary, a few of the other views expressed included:
- “so we can have less homework and more study time”
- “time spent on participation” (several learners made this comment);
- “cost of participation”;
- “tyd - sommige studente leer stadiger as ander en soms is die tyd te min om aan een spesifieke
-
hoofstuk te spandeer”;
“doing statistics as a separate subject module”;
“minder huiswerk, sodat leerders meer tyd het om te studeer ens”.
64
Chapter 3: Focus Area 2: Rural Education
1. Focus Area 2 aims to help rural multigrade schools – a total of 7000 predominantly
foundation phase schools, with perhaps a total of three million learners nationally, and
where drop-out rates are close to 80 percent - deal with the varying abilities of learners and
different grades in one classroom, as this facility has not evolved in this country, and for that
matter, in sub-Saharan Africa. Multigrade teaching refers to settings where a single teacher
has sole responsibility for two or more grades of learners simultaneously.
2. Funds allocated to this focus area amount to R22m, nearly 15% of the total project funds,
and 100% of funds in this priority area, all of which are directed to Centre for Multigrade
Education.
Focus Area 2: Rural Education
R (m's)
R (m's) to Dec
2010
% of Total
CMGE
22 9.88
14.7
10
Table: SEEDS Consortium Focus Area 2
R’s to date/R’s
total (%)
44.9
3. The review of activities and performance of CMGE in the focus area of rural education
follows a two-fold method as already outlined. In the first section of the review, we present
the results of the Management Survey; section 2 presents the results of the Survey of
Beneficiaries.
SECTION ONE: FOCUS AREA 2
4. Section 1, Management Survey, presents a narrative review of the progress and activities of
CMGE, compiled from interview extracts/direct speech garnered from 4 semi-structured indepth interviews conducted with seven directors/project managers/facilitators.
Clarifications on key themes were drawn from extracts and data from the CMGE’s own
annual and quarterly reports, its growing library of published documents, and on-line
resources etc.
CENTRE FOR MULTIGRADE EDUCATION, CAPE PENNINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
5. The Centre for Multigrade Education (CMGE) was established in the Faculty of Education and
Social Sciences at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in South Africa in 2009 with a
SEEDS grant of R22m as “the only centre in Africa addressing the dire situation of rural
education using multigrade education as a pedagogical solution and one which hopes to
develop as a solution-based resource centre for Africa on multigrade (MG) education.”
11
US, EKN EIWC: Financial Reporting for the period ended Dec 2009, Dec 2010 Annexure A (Income)
65
6. Though institutionally independent of CPUT, the Centre builds on the expertise that has
been growing at the university in the domain of rural and multigrade education since the
late 1990’s when it received provincial and national funding to research rural education and
develop an alternative pedagogy for the training of rural teachers (“In 1999 we began a full
blown intervention in the Western Cape in MG 900 with 900 teachers and 300 schools”).
CMGE directly employs some former CPUT staff from the education faculty who were
engaged in this research; much of the Centre’s training and teacher support revolve around
the CPUT ACE in Multigrade/ Multi-age (amongst others) and various Multigrade Short
Courses offered by the faculty; and many (not all) of CMGE’s facilitators and post-graduate
students and researchers have been recruited from CPUT.
7. In 2011 CPUT had XX ACE students registered and XX SC students in MG – largely as a result
of CPUT’s provincial and national training outreach programmes.
8. The Centre for Multigrade Education is: “Committed to make rural schools ‘centres of
excellence’ which will nurture a generation of well-educated and informed leaders of the
future. The drivers of education policy have the responsibility to prioritise and support these
schools and their learners. Without this support, millions of children will continue in poverty
and deprivation.”
9. The philosophy, methodologies and practices of multigrade education lie at CMGE’s core
and drive the Centre and all its activities. As explained by CMGE’s director:
- “The heart of the CMGE is the PEDAGOGY which is designed to promote active
and collaborative learning. It shifts the conventional paradigm of education and
introduces a vision for a new type of school that is both high quality and cost
effective. The common problems faced by Multigrade schools are how to
manage a roomful of children of different grades and abilities meaningfully. The
focus must shift from teacher attendance and teaching and syllabus completion
to student learning. Focusing on ‘what is learnt’ as opposed to ‘what is taught’
ensures greater accountability and improved learning outcomes by the children.”
- “This means a completely different approach to teaching. A multigrade class
requires teachers to consider the learning cohort as individuals, each with his or
her own continuum of learning and to structure learning as activities to meet the
needs of individuals rather than to teach the middle of the class.”
“The role of technology in our classrooms is to support the new teaching
paradigm. That is, technology’s role – and its only role – should be to support
students teaching themselves (with, of course, their teachers’ guidance.)
Technology does not, and cannot, support the old pedagogy of telling/ lecturing,
except in the most minimal of ways, such as with pictures or videos. In fact, when
teachers are using the old “telling” paradigm, adding technology, more often
than not, gets in the way.”
- “ICT becomes the vehicle which engages students in discovery, transforming the
role of teachers into managers of students’ enquiry.”
10. CMGE faces a tough task convincing education policy makers, politicians, the teaching
profession, and education researchers that MGE as phrased in this unique and innovative
manner is the 21st century pedagogic panacea to the quality ‘learning and teaching’
challenges of rural schools particularly in early learning and Foundation phases: “The
effectiveness of MG environments for learners and educators is in disfavor and the present
paradigm of schooling as encapsulated in the single-grade approach is entirely dominant.
Nothing less than a paradigm change is required if MG is to the bonds of the present system
and be acknowledged as an authentic pedagogy in its own right.”
11. The central place afforded ICT in CMGE’s approach – and its unique take on MG pedagogy in
ICT in learning –is likewise innovative and critical to the wider debates on technology and
innovation in education.
66
12. These are challenges that the Centre plans to rise to and this urgency has infused both
CMGE’s Vision and Mission.
13. CMGE’s 2009 Vision Statement was to “enhance the development of multigrade education
solutions and develop the capacity to make a significant difference in the chances of success
for rural primary school children”. CMGE’s 2011 Vision Statement – “to combat poverty in
the world by means of the establishment of an expert centre which will improve and
distribute the knowledge of MGE” - reflects the Centre’s growing confidence and belief in
MGE, the emerging MG ‘community of practice’ in which the Centre is playing a notinsubstantial role, CMGEs growing research expertise in MGE and pedagogical practice, and
to an extent its leadership role nationally, in sub-Saharan Africa, and internationally.
14. CMGE’s 2011 Mission is now also bold and ambitious: to strategically position the Centre as
a credible, authoritative, MGE policy-making and standards-setting body - “for quality
instruction and learning in MGE, based on research and good practices and distributed and
supported through ICT.”
15. CMGE’s focus is on “Supporting and spreading the gospel of multigrade to Africa” (the
phrase used in one of the interviews).
16. This emerging priority has sharpened and focussed the activities of CMGE from the outset:
“During 2009 we were trying to find our direction in this work, understanding exactly
where to use our money, and what to do. SEEDS people were marvellous, not getting
itchy about it when you start to use your budget and rearrange it. You must not be stuck
with something put down 3 years ago and waste money. Originally, I was going to some
research and do text books. I realised that was the wrong way and rearranged the
budget. In short, I started to network and set about understanding what are the
problems in MG and commissioned a literature review. I collated the best material on
MG here in our library. I then set up a website within 2 or 3 months. Commissioned a
baseline study of multigrade schools and schooling in South Africa as my first publication,
then organised an International Conference on MGE and MG best practice here in
Wellington, got the world experts together and drafted a World Declaration on MGE by
the world’s best MG practitioners; that was my second publication. It became apparent
that there is great interest in researching successful models in a wide range of countries
grappling with the challenges of MGE including us – we began work this, our next
publication…. We now knew what we had to do.”
17. CMGE now has four core aims: Effective capturing and collecting of relevant data on the
domains of MGE (Classroom management techniques; Instructional strategies; Planning the
curriculum; Instructional materials; School and community); Design, compare and develop
the multigrade curriculum through research; Production and creation of material, training
and support of teachers and curriculum and didactical management; The development and
creation of curriculum policies, models and frameworks.
18. The work of the CMGE is based on the fact that it will occur through a specific intervention.
The intervention will be driven by a ‘design research approach’. One of the features of
design research is the collaboration of researchers and practitioners. This collaboration
increases the chance that the intervention will indeed become practical and relevant for the
educational context that increases the probability for a successful implementation.
19. In more prosaic terms, CMGE is a picture of an active and dynamic Centre moving forward
on a number of fronts - which it terms ‘projects - with beachheads secured in some areas,
major breakthroughs in others, and some setbacks:
- Project on Multigrade Pedagogy Development: takes forward the resolutions of
CMGE’s 2010 International Conference and Declaration on MGE. Current activities
include circulation to stakeholders of a discussion document - TOWARDS A
PEDAGOGY FOR MULTIGRADE EDUCATION – SPECIFICALLY FOR SOUTH AFRICA AND
67
-
-
SUB-SAHARAN – DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – which is to kick-start development of a
framework of standards for a pedagogy for multigrade education for quality
education and learning in SA, in alignment with the internationally accepted aims of
EFA and the MDG, with inputs and in conversation with MG stakeholders and a
growing ‘community of practice’. The document will be used “as a basis for a
discussion about how the community will look like in future and how children can
help to create such a community and how to live in it.”
Research Projects on Rural and Multigrade Education: The research programme of
the CMGE focuses on: multigrade pedagogy; Multigrade curriculum; Multigrade
teaching and learning materials; and Teacher training. To do full justice to the
Centre’s approach to research and its method (grounded in design-based research)
would take some time. In essence, CMGE believes with some justification that rural
MGE education has suffered neglect in education research, which is mono-grade
obsessed and in the main conducted in developed, urban schools (and societies).
CMGE also believes that, as in action-research, education research should target
issues to be solved by developing prototypes/actions based on prior research, and
together with practitioners refine such through long-term iterative engagements
and processes. Success lies in finding solutions, and not proving or disproving
theory. In the space of two years since the Centre was founded, CMGE students
have completed two D.Eds and five M.Eds. in aspects of MGE; there are five
research projects in progress; and 15 new D.Eds and M.Eds in the pipeline. Topics
are wide-ranging and a substantial research ‘bank’ has been created with SEEDS
support. “When we set out, there were no South African experts on MG pedagogybut we stopped that, now we are the experts.”
MG Demo Schools: work with 7 MG schools in the Wellington/Paarl area
ICT: CMGE’s project on ICT (undertaken amongst others with the DST) is premised
on belief that “Adding technologies to the classroom while keeping the same old
educational system will result in the same old, ineffective, shallow, rubber-stamp
learning.” CMGE is working with Moraka Institute to develop learning materials for
use with the new technology of smart phones, laptops, hand-held readers etc so
that learners have/can access in a MG context to a wealthy of resources that can be
accessed through a sound pedagogical framework. CMGE is concerned that ICT, as
with other innovations, will bypass rural schools, so CMGE wants rural schools to
lead in piloting ICT in education in the country.
CMGE believes too that the pedagogy of MG especially supports ICT innovation and
can accelerate its uptake and impact:
“MG pedagogy in ICT is ‘paradigm shaking’ in that it is designed to promote and
enhance active and collaborative learning. Successful MG schools need manage
a roomful of children of different grades and abilities meaningfully by shifting
focus from teacher attendance and teaching and syllabus completion to student
learning: focusing on “what is learnt ” as opposed to “what is taught” ensures
greater accountability and improved learning outcomes by the children.”“The
role of technology in our classrooms is to support the new teaching paradigm.”
- “Technology’s role – and its only role – should be to support students teaching
themselves (with, of course, their teachers’ guidance.) Technology does not, and
cannot, support the old pedagogy of telling/ lecturing, except in the most
minimal of ways, such as with pictures or videos. In fact, when teachers are
using the old “telling” paradigm, adding technology, more often than not, gets
in the way.”
- “Today’s technology, though, offers students all kinds of new, highly effective
tools they can use to learn on their own – from the Internet with almost all the
68
-
-
-
information, to search and research tools to sort out what is true and relevant,
to analysis tools to help make sense of it, to creation tools to present one’s
findings in a variety of media, to social tools to network and collaborate with
people around the world. And while the teacher can and should be a guide, most
of these tools are best used by students, not teachers. Many teachers resist
being taught to use technology. This also makes sense – teachers should resist,
because it is not they who should be using the technology to teach students, but
rather their students who should be using it, as tools to teach themselves. The
teacher’s role should not be a technological one, but an intellectual one – to
provide the students with context, quality assurance, and individualised help.”
Sport and Art & Craft Programme: The project is currently running in seven farm
schools in and around Wellington/Paarl in the Western Cape. The aim is to see what
the effect of sport and arts and craft development have on the general well being of
the scholars and academic outcomes in rural farm schools. Facilitators have been
appointed from the area/community that each school is in. All have passed the
highest grade at school and were unemployed. As these facilitators have no formal
teaching training, they are presently receiving training and support as well as
materials and lesson plans. CMGE staff manages the programme and conducts the
research.
ECD: CMGE believes that “the big future for CMGE will be early childhood.” Three
CMGE facilitators – all with Doctorates in MG - do the training in certain areas of
ECD: they work with 13 rural MG ECD schools. The rationale of the training is to
establish a workable solution to the problems in obtaining ECD training and
qualifications. At present ECD practitioners are either untrained, have ECD National
Qualification Framework (NQF) Level 4 or 5 and a need of Continuing Professional
Teaching Development (CPTD). No ECD Level 6 qualification is available as bridging
course to a B.Ed degree (Level 7). Qualifications for Grade R teaching has been
stipulated in the Gazette No. 34467 of 15 July 2011, in the form of a diploma in
Grade R teaching, but no course material exist as yet. The CMGE would like to be
part of this process. Differentiated accredited training takes place to address these
practitioner’s individual professional needs. Those with no training an ECD NQF
Level 4 qualification and those with an ECD NQF Level 4 with an ECD NQF Level 5
qualification. Assessment is done on site and external moderation takes place at the
FET College.
In this project, as in others, CMGE facilitators follow the model of practice
developed by CPUT in the 1990’s for the ACE in MG which is premised on the belief,
sustained by research in the UK, that “if you want to change education you must do
it in the classroom”. This model follows the following processes: “identify teacher’s
needs; change their motivation; take theory and explain how they can use it in their
own work; discuss it and visit them in the classroom and discuss their classroom
practice.”
MG Learning Material: “We are producing material for kids to use on their own and
in a group. The idea is that we have a shortage of teachers 25 to 30 % teachers so if
the teacher is not there the parent can step in. We support the teacher with a
method so the kid can carry on. The subjects are maths, language and world
orientation ((based on European model - the kids world) not specific subjects, from
Grade 1 to 5.. We take CAPS and repackage the curriculum ... use our money to take
teachers to Netherlands to understand this ‘method’. It’s well-known in Europe. We
call it ‘unwrapping the curriculum’ identifying the parts so that everyone can
understand it.”
69
-
African Conference on Multigrade Education: CMGE is planning to hold this
conference at CMGE CPUT Wellington Campus in December 2012.
- There are several special projects running at CMGE:
o The Reading Project: Six rural schools in the Wellington district are part of
CMGE's Reading Project. Teachers from the Intermediate Phase attend
regular workshops about different reading strategies and how to implement
these in a multigrade classroom.
o The Leadership Development Project: To ensure relevance and ownership
of MG as a methodology to be practiced, a selected group of principaleducators are involved in a specific project focused on the role of a PLC in
supporting principal-educators in a multigrade school.
o The Choir Project: For years extra-mural activities were neglected in these
small, rural and farm schools. CMGE believes that contributions to a child's
learning process can be made inside and outside the classroom. Physical,
emotional, social and cognitive skills intervene and overlap and are
developed by all the experiences children go through.
20. CMGE has developed good relations with District Officials, both in the local area where the
Centre is based, and more widely with provincial officials where the bulk of the Centre’s
training is taking place, and with the National Departments of Basic Education and the DST.
Relations with the WCED are not good: “WCED didn’t give me the time of day.”
21. Challenges and Issues:
- “We are located in the WC which has a very specific problem in rural farm schools in MG
but we understand that the big problem in MG is national.”
- “We need HEI’s to include MG and more rural components in pre-service courses and in
education faculties: there is a need to organise workshop and engage university lecturers
on MGE.”
- “There is not one University teaching skills on use of ITC in classroom as part of training
of teachers”
- Pre-service/Education Faculties at HEI’s: “if you want to train Foundation Phase teachers
you need good Foundation Teachers in Faculties to get you into the system… now all you
get is a person with a Doctorate who doesn’t know what’s going on in a Grade One
class”
- We need teachers with MG pedagogic skills: but overall numbers of pre-service teachers
in WC is plummeting; this year, there are 80, next year 100 [sic], but they are not in MG.
Imagine what this problem looks like nationally”
- “Teachers morale in our small rural schools is low and poor quality”
- “We work with poor children, children at risk. Many kids in the Western Cape suffer
foetal alcohol syndrome... 4 of 10 kids with an IQ of about 50… but we only have one
academic stream for them: it’s not enough. ”
- “Drop-out rate in small rural MG schools is near 80%, three times more than in monograde schools.”
- “Children from small MG schools are in need of an extra year when they graduate to [a
mono-grade] Intermediate Phase school – they are not prepared.”
- “The social skills of these kids from our farm schools are 3 or 4 years behind other kids: it
affects their education performance forever.”
- “In effect no teaching of reading exists in the majority of the country’s rural schools …
must constitute the most urgent crisis on the sector, yet it is one the most poorly
researched areas.”
- Curriculum changes: “Look at CAPS maths, it’s a fruit salad, you don’t know where
subtraction is, everything is deurmekaar. CAPS training is useless and a waste of
resources: there is no classroom follow-up or support for teachers.”
70
-
Systemic testing by NDBE and the WCED: “Dangerous situation at the moment as
nobody is focussing on the pedagogy, with what is actually happening in the classroom.”
-
Provincial policies on closing down dysfunctional schools leading to closure of small
schools: “This is a question of human rights! What about the rights of these learners?”
SEEDS/partners
-
-
-
-
-
-
“Difference between us and other SEED partners is that everything is based on research.
You can’t change and support teachers without any real research, and the research is out
there. You don’t have to do everything yourself. Sometimes it can be very irritating for
me in the SEEDS consortium. Partners are flying into a thing without any supporting
work.”
“Difference between us and others is that we don’t want to hand out money, but solve a
problem”
“From the moment we heard the MTR I started to ask the Q I don’t want to be compared
with the other people”
“We don’t have the energy to work together in projects that not really possible to work
in. It’s not that I am against the rest of the Consortium but, if you want to work together
and solve problems, it must be a natural thing to work together.”
The problem with SEEDS from the start is that the Dutch had that money and they made
the decision that we would work together; another way would have been to bundle and
cluster all maths people together: with pleasure would have taken part of that process.
“Big future for CMGE will be early childhood. I have 3 ladies very well qualified Doctorates - to do the training for me: we have a core group of 10 schools and add in all
of the Wellington rural schools and we train them in certain areas of ECD. Sent them to
Netherlands, with ELRU (Ursula), on fact finding study visit, and me and Mike and Frieda
believe that we can work together... Our focus is more of research, theirs is something
else, but I think we work it out in natural way... Idea is that when they come back we will
sit down and work it out”
Other consortium members focus on their specific areas – except SciFest, and GOLD
I still think you will see fantastic results. Some may be wasting money but some
colleagues want to work together… but they must work it out before hand! Or put 50K
each in, or 500K… maybe that will teach us to work together. That’s the way they do it in
the Netherlands.
We [the Consortium] are still trying to find out what the problem [we want to solve] is!
“Most organisations carried on as usual”
SEEDS/project management
-
“During 2009 we were trying to find our direction in this work, understanding exactly
where to use our money, and what to do. SEEDS people are marvellous, not getting itchy
about it when you start to use your budget and rearrange it. You must not be stuck with
something put down 3 years ago and waste money. Originally, I was going to some
research and do text books. I realised that was the wrong way and rearranged the
budget. In short, I started to network and set about understanding what are the
problems in MG and commissioned a literature review. I collated the best material on
MG here in our library. I then set up a website within 2 or 3 months.”
CMGE/international links
71
-
Unlike other SEEDS members, before 2009 we had running partnerships with Dutch
institutions… SLO, CTU, Universities, Parvus and Hoge Skole. That’s why we applied for
the money.
-
[I like the way the Dutch people think about education. They are open thinkers in the
sense you can discuss things with them, very structured in solving problems. Their
education system is very simple. Ministry develops the curriculum, the schools must
implement, and receive money to do so and, at the end, typically Dutch, there is an
independent inspectorate... It’s all results based... You find this all over Europe now. The
way we do OBE ... you are told what to do: but now you are asking principals to sign a
document saying ‘I take responsibility’: how can you do that when you are told what to
do?]
-
“In Africa the Gospel of MG is spreading: Botswana very interested”
Links with Tunis-based, African Association for Education in Africa
-
Commonwealth Education Desk
SECTION 2: FOCUS AREA 2
22. A two-page questionnaire was designed and customised for CMGE. The questionnaire was
customised for the educators taking the ACE in MGE. The questions included selfassessments of levels of satisfaction with different aspects of the specific project, including
ways in which it might be enhanced. The instrument also checked for awareness of other
distinct components of SEEDS. A systematic random sample of participants was selected to
complete the questionnaire. The realised sample size was 38. The number of respondents is
listed in Table 1.
SEEDS PROGRAMMES
Distance Programme
Total
Educators
38
38
CMGE
Learners
Total
38
38
Table 4: Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
23. Participants in the CMGE ACE programme are also mainly women, in the late 30s to late 50s
age group. Most indicate that they participate in sport or other activities and more than
three-quarters are satisfied with the progress they are making in their studies. Almost all
express satisfaction with their lives as a whole.
Table 5: Characteristics of participants in the Distance Education interventions
Number of respondents
Male : Female ratio
Age range
Plays Sport
Music/cultural activity
Religious group
Other club
Very satisfied or satisfied with study progress
Very satisfied or satisfied with life as a whole
38
21:79
37-59
81%
60%
92%
39%
79%
97%
24. Almost two-thirds of participants in the CMGE ACE programme indicated strong agreement
that they had enjoyed this participation, with the rest agreeing.
72
Table 6: “I have enjoyed participation in the programme” (% in distance education
programme)
Programme
Strongly agree
Agree
Not sure or Disagree
65
35
0
CMGE ACE Educators
25. Almost all (97%) were of the view that their participation in the CMGE ACE programme had
increased their subject content knowledge; 94% had become more confident in their
teaching; and 97% that the syllabus content covered by ACE is relevant to the curriculum.
26. Most indicated that they had used the teaching materials supplied by the programme in
their teaching since participating in the ACE (92%); and that the teaching methodologies
demonstrated had been extremely helpful (97%). A high proportion had had contact with
teachers at other schools in the project (81%); and almost all were of the view that
multigrade education is helpful to their teaching (95%). More than four-fifths (81%) said that
the management at their school is fully supportive of the CMGE ACE programme.
27. More than two-fifths (42%) said that teachers at their school who are not in the programme
feel marginalised. For most participants, the workshop and interaction times had been most
suitable (82%); as had been the workshop venue (78%). A heartening 87% expressed the
view that they enjoy teaching more since participating in the ACE programme.
28. The most positive consequences of participation in the CMGE ACE were seen to be:
“the short course of Mental Maths made me more excited about my capabilities”;
- “this course is talking directly to me”;
- “the interaction and teaching methodology”;
- “introducing new aspects / ideas to my teaching e.g. student governing body etc.”;
- “dis baie prakties ek kon terug gaan klas toe en toepas wat ek geleer het”.
29. Many participants said that nothing should be changed. Some of the comments included:
- “Op hierdie stadium voldoen dit aan my verwagting”;
- “Would feel more comfortable if everybody could be taught in their own mother tongue”;
- “The material was copied (translated) from overseas & caused a problem to us Afrikaners”;
- “Cost of course and travelling – high”;
- “ACE programme and short course must be separated, too much work at the same time”;
- “Not having experience in a multigrade class/school, I would have liked to observe such a
class/school”.
73
Chapter 4: Focus Area 3: Schools as Hubs of Lifelong Learning
1. The aim of Focus Area 3 is to develop and pilot a model and a school movement (network) of
extra-mural school hubs. This will assist local schools in the Western Cape, often the only
community resource in underprivileged neighbourhoods, in developing their extra-mural
programmes as child-friendly, stimulating and caring community hubs of lifelong learning,
recreation and support for their children, youth, parents and local communities.
2. Funds allocated to this focus area amount to R18m, 12% of the total project funds, and
100% of funds in this priority area, all of which are directed to EMEP.
Focus Area 3: Schools as Hubs of Lifelong Learning
EMEP
R (m's) to
R (m's)
Dec 2010
18 7.74
R’s to date/R’s
total
43
% of Total
12.0
Table: SEEDS Consortium Focus Area 311
3. The review of activities and performance of EMEP in the focus area of schools as hubs of
lifelong learning follows the method as indicated in previous sections of the MTR. In section
one, we present the results of the Management Survey; section 2 presents the results of the
Survey of Beneficiaries.
SECTION ONE: FOCUS AREA 3
4. Section 1, Management Survey, presents a narrative review of the progress and activities of
EMEP, compiled from interview extracts/direct speech garnered from 2 semi-structured indepth interviews conducted with three directors/project managers/facilitators. Clarifications
on key themes were drawn from extracts and data from EMEP’s annual and quarterly
reports, published and unpublished documents shared with us, and some on-line resources
etc.
SCHOOLS AS HUBS OF LEARNING, RECREATION, AND SUPPORT: THE EXTRA-MURAL
EDUCATION PROJECT
5. Inspired by the example of Whole School Development, and drawing on the best-practice
literature and experience in the rest of the world on effective Community or Full Service
Extended Schools - and its own experiential action-learning engagement with Cape Town’s
township schools since its founding in 1991 - the overall goal of the Extra-Mural Education
Project is to grow a seedbed of demonstration schools in the most challenged districts as
effective and dynamic developmental hubs by means of an effective, extended programme
of extra-murals:
"What EMEP does is relatively simple: we open up developmental space in the
log jammed school system’s under-used after class, or extra-mural, time to test
11
US, EKN EIWC: Financial Reporting for the period ended Dec 2009, Dec 2010 Annexure A (Income)
74
and grow innovative development practices that trigger positive, whole school,
whole child, whole teacher, and whole community change. Essentially, ‘extramurals’ is a strategy to expand school time and services to improve both learning
and development outcomes. It is not just an ‘add on’ for the children, demanding
extra-work from teachers. It is a vital sector that complements the classroom by
providing, firstly, a range of extra-murals and supports for the children when
they’re most vulnerable – play, games, sports; arts and crafts; academic support;
and health and wellbeing services.. these are the four cornerstones of a childfriendly provision – we need to remember that the classroom is only one learning
site amongst many and we cannot expect children to spend their entire school
life, and thus most of their childhoods, on a chair between the four walls of a
classroom!; secondly, for teachers and support staff this after class time enables
hugely important management and development space for curriculum, INSET,
and for the school as a developing organisation, as well as for strategic
partnerships; thirdly, for meaningful parent involvement and support; and,
finally, drawing together the many local child, youth, and family services plus
community organisations into ‘development desks’ that work with the school to
use it as a multi-delivery site for a host of lifelong learning, recreation, and
support services. In short, it’s about schools growing extra-murally as community
hubs. ‘Extra-mural’ for us is an umbrella term for all those key responsibilities
that can’t fit into the ‘walls’ of the besieged classroom and its tight, information
transmission-based timetable. ‘Beyond the wall’ is the literal meaning of ‘extramural’, even in Afrikaans, ‘buite muurse’. Our experience shows it is a uniquely
positioned space that, if used well, can trigger whole school development."
6. EMEP’s pilot is to invoke this seedbed of demonstration schools through training and
support for school personnel and managers, district officials and community organisations to
“grow in each district a ‘development stream’, or nursery, of willing demonstration schools
that are testing and demonstrating useful practices that can embed and spread within and
across districts.” Graduate schools are brought together into peer learning networks to
support each other, share practice, draw learning, and improve. The goal is to grow a
regional movement of schools that are producing well-tested and researched sets of
practices for spreading in their districts and for scaling up by government – and not the
education department alone, but as it’s a system problem, the whole social cluster - and civil
society, along with business and labour.
7. EMEP’s overarching aim is to show that a Whole School ‘OD’ approach effectively supports
systemic educational reforms, and for innovation to occur in schools:
- “We work deeply with the whole school, parent bodies, local community
organisations, and the School District. It’s a ‘whole school and whole district’
model, for the whole social cluster … piecemeal efforts cannot work, have never
worked. We work in partnership with schools willing to make the time and space
to take on their development coherently. First piece is facilitating them to build
their own, long-term vision and strategy. This is a painstakingly collaborative
process that has to draw all role players in, including the naysayers The idea is to
get enough of them to say: 'Look, we’re using what we’ve got maximally, our
time, our people, our facilities, our local resources in the communities. We have
to first go the extra mile ourselves and then there will something strong for
others to support, to come into. Top-down stuff doesn't work, and one size can
never fit all’.
Government misses a trick here: civil society should be enormously valued as a
strategic partner. There are many legitimate role players on the democratic map
who need to be meaningfully involved. We feel that a most strategic role for civil
75
-
-
-
society is to grow nurseries of good practice for adapting and spreading. To take
this on, one has to work with schools that have got their basics more or less right
and are ready to take on their own development out of their own will.
“Very little policy is informed by full, proper, sustained testing on the ground. All
too often it is informed by short term political motives. There is too much poli-cy
and not enough ‘poli-do’. The best way to influence policy is by ‘poli-do’.
Government’s approach is understandably about standardisation but we all
know that ‘one size does not fit all’ and that ‘fast foods’ approaches lack not only
nutrition but any chance of traction. A developmental approach would solve this
because it would enable a ‘trajectory’ of development. For example, the first
phase of such a trajectory would be ‘basic functionality’, a second would be
‘maximal use of existing resources’, and so on, to the ultimate goal of becoming
a developmental school that serves as a community hub of lifelong learning, etc.
Without such differentiation the predictable result is more and more resources
poured into disabled and disabling environments. And even here is a myth that
the more something is wrong, the more you pour into it. If you want change, the
opposite is true: if a situation is disabled, the less you must put into it, so they
can deal with it... it has to be very, very targeted.”
“We think it’s helpful to differentiate between ‘demonstration’, ‘piloting’, and
‘scale up’ levels. Too many things are piloted before they are properly tested and
demonstrated. For a ‘pilot’ to be a real pilot, it must be in exactly the same
conditions as the roll-out… otherwise what’s ‘pilot’ about it? But how can you
expect to test and build and innovate in schools which are systemically disabled
and disabling? You have to distinguish between ‘need’ and ‘will’. This is a key
lesson of developmental work. You can only make change where there is will,
where there is readiness. The point of a demo stage is to show ‘what can happen
if...’ i.e. , if you do ‘a, b, c’ then ‘d, e ,f’ is more likely, and ‘x, y, z’ becomes
possible. Out of the evaluation of these ‘test-&-demo’ efforts comes the learning
of what works and what doesn’t. These are then cohered into models for piloting,
then spreading. Responding only to need, and not supporting proper testing over
time, is pure crisis management, adding more and more traffic to the traffic jam...
I think this is why so many reforms haven’t worked.”
“Despite our many victories as a society since ‘94, our many policy advances, we
have kept the apartheid school timetable, the same organisational container
that’s based almost wholly on the in-class time of teachers, excluding the range
of key functions, responsibilities vital to a learning school, a child- and teacherfriendly school. All based on the in-class time of teachers in short 35 minute
periods, where, with large classes, little more than crowd-control and
information transmission is possible. The system is geared almost exclusively to
covering and administering an academic curriculum. It has little to do with actual
learning and development, with any particular group of young people in a class,
in a collective, their growing lives, developing good character, generating
creative imagination, will, values, reflection, critical thought, learning
experiences, whether as individuals and members of their class community.
That’s where they learn citizenship, good values, service, through creative
activity... or not! That’s why we are working so hard to grow a development
stream in the district, so willing schools that have got their basics right can be
supported to have the freedom to reshape their organisational DNA and grow
more effective teaching and management and support practices. Government
ought to applaud this, support it vigorously. Isn’t it common sense... and a
strategic role for civil society?”
76
8. EMEP understanding of Whole School/Community School international best practice is that
there are four or five critical success factors for whole school change, including embedded
teacher time and planning; support time in the classroom; academic support; extended
learning blocks but the most important factor are extra-murals, what the project refers to as
‘expanded opportunities’:
“If you look at all those Model C schools that are cited as examples of good
practice, of success, without exception each one has alongside their excellent
academic programme an excellent extra-mural programme which provides a
whole range of expanded opportunities. Not only do the kids experience new
opportunities, learn new skills, they learn confidence, the ability to function
socially, social service, exercise choices, etc. Moreover, their middle-class
environments are resource-rich, they have a wealth of choice, of support, both in
and around school, and in their homes. Yet we now have some in government
saying that those schools are fine, to be left alone, but these are luxuries for
working-class schools. Working class children must sit at their desks for 12 years,
in crowded classrooms, with teachers who themselves haven’t experienced a
quality education system and not have the very opportunities that are critical
success factors in middle class schools... that help create an incredibly fertile
enabling environment for learning and development to take place. Learning AND
development – that’s our strength basically. Our mantra is ‘training and support
for schools to expand their time and services for improving BOTH learning AND
development outcomes.' You cannot have learning outcomes without the
psycho-social supports that underpin growth.”
9. EMEPs action-learning methodology, combined with rigorous and regular external
evaluations, brings a dynamic element to the project which is shaping EMEP’s programme
model and approach in the pilot:
“We’ve always known that you've got to work with the whole system. We
thought ‘how can we do this most strategically and pragmatically?’ We thought
‘OK, there has to be entry-level training coupled to sustained support to help
them to apply their training in their unique conditions. Training alone cannot
work. How to do that? We thought, firstly, we’d need 3 intakes of schools: the
first intake would be our first effort, much learning would come from that. We
would then re-design for the second intake. And after the evaluation of that, we
would fine-tune for a third intake after which we’d produce a well-tested
programme for our government and investment partners to help embed and
spread. So we started with Intake 1, the programme developed with our 3
district partners, Metro’s South and East and the rural Overberg. It was based on
our thinking that we must train at least 2 people per school to facilitate the
process with the staff. One of whom would be an active person on the school
management team and the other someone who had proved themselves in an
extra-mural area. Most of the first intake were sports teachers as the schools
hadn’t quite clicked that extra-murals include arts, technology, academic
support, environmental education, health services, etc. The idea was that we
would train them as facilitators who would work with the principals, deputies,
SMTs, and staffs to put together an extra-mural management team to grow
their extra-mural programmes. And once each teacher was doing an extra-mural
once a week, properly managed, then there would be a coherent system for
other external partners to come into. This was a three-year programme because
it took six months for the orientation and induction, two years training, and
another six months to process the plans with their staff. I must say we were
naive! While the results of that first effort for those individuals on the
77
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
programme were personally and professionally, transformational, almost 50%
took up promotion posts elsewhere! So while we had enormous impact in
building up people for the school system, there was little impact on the schools
that joined that first intake. But the huge plus was that it showed how excellent
our facilitation and training programme was! This was confirmed by various
evaluations. But the challenge was to ground it in the whole school. So we reevaluated and turned the programme around. This is the group that graduated
earlier this year. We knew that it had to be an OD approach and we worked
hard with the districts to agree on more effective criteria for selection and
eligibility. The way schools had been chosen before was ‘check-the-box’. Schools
are really good at saying ‘yes’ to new resources and in some cases, we found out
afterwards, principals had gone around to each staffer and asked, ‘Are you for or
against development’... and then came back to us to say they were in. We had to
go in ourselves, and deeply, to check their interest and will, to see what there
was to build on, what was under the surface, what was possible, what leadership
was really willing to do, who would support them and what they and also,
critically, the resisters, would need to do that, to support, to come along...”
A critical element in EMEP is the partnership with government. At the time of receiving
SEEDS funding EMEP had an agreement with the WCED and NDE (now NDBE) for piloting
and testing a five-phase ‘training and support approach’ to Whole School Development with
a large group of schools in the province. District Offices – ‘the real power in the province’s
schools’ – have been solidly supportive of EMEP’s work, and remain so.
SEEDS funding is supporting phases three and four – the so-called ‘entry-level extra-mural
development training and support for schools’ phase and the EMEP Network.
‘Beyond the School Wall - Developing Extra-Mural Opportunities’ programme is EMEP’s
entry-level, whole-school training-and-support programme for two extra-mural
development practitioners (EMDPs), six extra-mural management team (EMMT) members,
and the leadership pairing of principal and deputy, from each participating school “ready,
willing, and able to take on (envisage, plan, and deliver) an extra-mural strategy for
curricular and child development and towards parent and community involvement, and to
use their resources (people, time, facilities, services) maximally to do so.” With two intakes in
total (2008, 2009), 38 schools have participated in the programme. With the co-operation of
District Offices, these EMEP schools are drawn primarily from disadvantaged areas in the
school districts of Cape Town’s South and East Metropoles and rural education districts of
Overberg, Cape Winelands, and West Coast.
Indicative of the Whole School Approach, successful graduation in the programme for any
school is a celebration of hard work and a team effort:
“The graduation ceremony was a celebration of teacher development and
heralded the final process in the entry level training and support for the schools
and trainees. The excitement, the sense of accomplishment and camaraderie
amongst the graduating teachers was indicative of the results of the way we
work. The presence of dignitaries from the National, Western Cape and District
Departments of Education, was encouraging and confirmed the strong
partnership that exists between the two organisations. The ceremony was also
graced by a number of EMEP funders and partners. All schools were represented
by their leadership, SGB members and learners in some cases.”
In the above quote we see EMDPs sharing with the school community how their skills have
developed in: planning and running excellent extra- mural programme; getting buy-in and
active participation of the whole school staff; increasing the range of extra-mural activities
offered and numbers of learners participating; organising an extra-mural programme;
sourcing partners for delivery and the subsequent nurturing of those partnerships; and
78
recognising the role that extra-murals play in academic achievements and include academics
and culture into extra-mural programmes.
15. ‘The Network Programme’ is the second ‘leg’ of EMEP’s partnership with SEEDS. It supports
a growing network of practicing schools and practitioners (38 schools now in the Network
Programme) to apply their training on-site and share practice with each other. Work has
comprised a range of learning forums, workshops, short courses, cluster visits, and most
recently, as part of the new 'consolidation phase', on-site support visits. Broadly, these
processes continue to support the schools to gain further traction for the EMEP Programme,
within each of its four legs - play, games, and sport, arts and crafts, academic support, like
homework, reading, maths, and science clubs, and health and well-being, They provide
forums and facilitation for the schools to share, build, and spread good practice (around
growing their schools extra-murally as community hubs) both within their district clusters
and in the wider network and support schools to collaborate in joint projects/activities
within and across their various groups.
16. EMEP’s action-learning methodology compelled the organisation to evaluate the programme’s
success, with some significant self learning:
“We had an evaluation to look at traction and the sobering reality was that even
though we started off the second intake with a whole school staff approach, building
shared vision and strategy, getting them to express what they were willing to do,
electing a team to take it forward – the extra-mural management team - , training
the team, with the extra-mural development facilitators getting really good quality,
transformational training and support, along with the leadership pairings of
principals and deputies who also got a lot of benefit, what we saw afterwards was
that just as much as you couldn't expect 2 people after training to ‘just go in and
change the system’, the same applies to any other training group. What we realised
was that after the basic training and practise, we should have gone back into the
schools with the trainees as facilitators or co-facilitators to lead their whole staff
processes. Much more support and practice in situ was needed for them not only to
be able to facilitate such processes but to produce those collaborative development
plans and ‘small steps, small wins’ projects, etc. This is an enormous learning about
both the value and limits of training itself, not only for us. Our intention was good,
but we were naive to think that by the end of a training period … there would be a
functioning management team, fully supported by staff and leadership, and an
enabling environment for them to operate in, including standing agenda items, etc,
at SMT, staff meetings, and district officials having it on their checklists, etc. We
needed at least to be alongside them as they built their plans and included them into
their SIPs. With a real SIP produced by their whole staff, targeting carefully
considered priorities, in terms of their real will and interest, they would then have a
SIP of substance to put on the table to the districts … So, the evaluation made it
clear: 'For heaven’s sake, don't do another training intake before you have helped
the schools already trained to apply the training and bring their various role players
on board and doing something key and achievable. This needs to be a two to three
year consolidation period.’ The wisdom of this was obvious. Training can be all too
easy to hide behind. It cannot have traction on its own. And that is why an o.d.
approach is vital for any process of change Such a consolidation phase would be vital
for us to gain the hands-on experience of what really works and what doesn’t, and
what is needed, across schools, for the redesign of the final pilot phase with Intake
3.”
17. What EMEP highlights is a critical shortcoming experienced in many training courses which
are primarily delivered off-site with little attention to on-site dynamics and follow-up and
support:
79
18.
19.
20.
21.
“Training is a very safe place but it has little to do with development, not nothing, it
is an entry point, but you have got to get ‘on-site’ and that means in the schools,
families, communities and the district.”
In light of the review, as indicated above, EMEP “agreed to consolidate work in existing
schools, with less focus on training and much more focus on hands-on, on-site, schoolspecific support by our practitioners, helping them to find and map out their ways to develop
as community hubs.”
To enable consolidation, programmes teams were created for rural and urban schools, with
an embedded researcher in each: this has been a “testing but interesting period for the
organisation as well as for the two Practitioner Teams (Urban and Rural)”:
“We have embarked upon processes that required a shift in the way we have
worked before, less of training and more of on-site support. We have found
support from each other, from EMEP leadership and our partner organisations.
Once again our partner schools have accommodated us as best they can despite
their very tight schedules. We look forward to the next phase with excitement
and a bit of tension as we continue to test this consolidation phase.”
Consolidation phase activities involve a new level of scale for school-based support by EMEP,
in each of 38 schools, with multiple and multi-varied activities including school
organisational analyses and interactive on-site training, group work, and discussion-based
support by EMEP practitioners delivered in each of 38 schools to the SMT, entire staff,
EMDPs and the EMMT, the SGB and community organisations, in each. Space prohibits
analysis of these activities which EMEP considers integral to embedding organisational
changes in schools.
Nonetheless, it is important to draw attention to some key components for a better
understanding of what EMEP is proposing:
Working with Practitioners: “The new way of work posed concerns to many practitioners
who were used to EMEP’s primarily training approach. Practitioners are now expected to
work intensely on-site at schools with a variety of school stakeholders, and facilitate
transformation and development from within.” So, every two months, a ‘homeweek’
facilitated by EMEP for practitioners is held to reflect on and to assess the new way of
working, to give feedback on how they had fared with implementing the first phase of
the consolidation process, to identify further training needs of practitioners and to share
practices, addressing key challenges and review plans for the next period. The
workshops explore useful facilitation techniques, enabling helpful conversations, and
inspiring a vision.
Apart from the homeweeks, learning forums were also conducted for EMEP
practitioners. These “provided most useful and strategic spaces for groups of
practitioners to come together to share and build good practice, of how to support
schools developing extra-murally as community hubs; one was on Consequentiality
Systems for schools, another on vision-building processes, how best to generate will.
Practitioners left feeling equipped and ready to take these learnings and apply them in
their work with the schools.”
Other training for practitioners included ‘Understanding School Improvement
Plans’ since all schools in the Network had been asking for help with their School
Improvement Plans (SIP). The process helped schools to develop a clear understanding
of the purpose and value of the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS), and the
important role of the School Management Teams and School Development Teams in this
regard.
Discussions with schools: with regard to the new direction and way of working, EMEP
practitioners met with all 38 schools, Principals, SMT, the whole staff, to discuss the
findings of the external evaluations and recommendations, EMEP’s revised outcomes
80
and the consolidation programme of the Network. Via learning forums, workshops,
short courses where necessary and cluster visits, these processes help schools to gain
further traction for the Basic Programme, and provide forums and facilitation for the
schools to share, build, and spread good practice(around growing their schools extramurally as community hubs) both within their district clusters and in the wider network.
- Situational Analysis Interviews & Feedback: Practitioners went out to all 38 schools to do
an in depth inventory of the state of each school in terms of each of EMEP's outcome
areas. The situational assessment was conducted with different stakeholders in the
school; these included School principal, School Management Teams, Whole staff,
EMMTs and EMDPs, SGB members, Learners, Parents, Service providers, District officials,
community members and others. “We deliberately included a wide range of
stakeholders so that we could hear from all where the school was at in each outcome.”
Formal presentations of each of the 38 situational analysis findings were
provided to the whole staff in each school, allowing time for discussion and
engagement: “The processes were fairly challenging as often it dealt with sensitive
matters such as poor school leadership, racism or corporal punishment…. Some principals
also felt that they had to defend their school and commented on every topic. These
presentations helped schools to take a deeper look at the functionality of their school,
and identify their needs and priority areas.”
At the end of each feedback session, the EMEP practitioner also provided each
school with recommendations for the schools consideration. These included:
- Drawing attention to poor parent involvement at schools
- The need for teambuilding and organisational development interventions to address
low morale and staff issues
- The need for an expanded House System to include more learners in extra murals
and to be part of a system of belonging and support
- The need to address corporal punishment at schools and replace it with a system of
positive discipline
- The need to improve relationships with community role-players
- The need to address poor parent-teacher relationships
- The need to address diversity issues at schools where it is impacting negatively on
learners and staff
- Strategies to improve and increase the usage of the school as community hub
- The need for serious capacity building of School Governing Bodies
Action Teams in each school worked with EMEP to spearhead the identified priority
at their school, and building workshops held to get the whole staff onboard, inspire and
motivate staff, encourage ownership and see benefits in the school as community hub.
22. Out of this phase of consolidation designed to embed change in schools through OD, EMEP
will identify a small number of ‘demonstration schools’ (“Continuous Development Schools”)
which EMEP will support to serve as case studies of ‘model schools’ to the WCED and the
DBE of Whole School Development, of schools with their own agency and skills who have
successfully initiated and run their own training and development initiatives:
“We want to say to them ... an effective school requires proper management, teacher
development and support, research, parent engagement, team teaching, child
development and support, extra-murals, meeting with the education and support
services, referrals. If you only make time for the in-class time of teachers, then all of
these things, bits of which you already do, but not coherently, are add-on’s, more traffic
in your traffic jam.… For those schools who are willing to change their organisational
DNA, we will take them on a learning journey towards becoming a Developmental School
for the children, the teachers, managers, parents and local communities... and build the
practices they need to create an enabling environment for that. Without ensuring the
81
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
right conditions, we are just setting them up for failure. We want to be able to show
what a good school can be, and what it takes, what the ‘a,b,c’ and the steps to ‘x, y,z’
looks like, and eventually have a clear enough model sufficient to change the job
description of a teacher and attract the best people in society to teaching.”
Evaluating the impact of EMEP’s programme overall on participating schools would reveal a
mixed picture:
“We work in 38 schools. As in all groups, there is a smallish head and tail where about six
or seven are doing really very well and another 10 are doing quite well. Another six to
eight are struggling, often overwhelmed by their conditions, and the majority are doing
well in some areas but struggling in others. Most of the struggling schools come from the
first pilot intake where schools came on board for a host of reasons not necessarily
connected to whole school development and whose teacher trainees were almost all
sports teachers with little management influence. Almost all of the intake 2 schools have
successes. You must remember we are a developmental pilot, growing 3 different types
of programmes, in 5 phases. We’re in phase 3.”
However, since EMEP’s project is about demonstrating something new or, rather, what can
happen given a certain set of circumstances, as opposed to trying to show what will work or
not because of the conditions, a more appropriate success indicator for EMEP are the small
number of performing schools in underprivileged areas that have demonstrated the will and
the motivation to change their practice despite their obvious disadvantages and challenges,
hence the importance of the pilot case study demonstration schools :
“One of the best things we do is give teachers, principals, managers, and deputies a lived
experience of what good learning, teaching, leading, managing actually feels like, smells
like... what an enabling environment is, what is takes, and the benefits of growing both
the good conditions and the good practices. Remember, very few teachers have been to
a good school themselves. That is why long courses of training AND support, with
residential components for proper experiential learning, team formation, practice, and
reflection, are vital. Short courses have worth but they just cannot do this. There has to
be a lived experience sufficient for them to develop new awareness, understanding,
practice, and skills, and then be helped to transfer those, from experience, into their
practice, their classrooms, their extra-murals, staff meetings, parent meetings..”
Even the best performing EMEP schools continue to experience challenges and constraints
even as they participate in the programme, including the appointment of new principals,
taking on new grades, making infrastructural and systemic changes, unexpectedly poor
results at matric level etc. Poor selection processes for participating schools by the Districts
also results in sometimes severe in-school management and organisation dysfunction. New
school leaders have had to be orientated to the programme and time spent on relationship
building. Time constraints are always an issue and each term in school life has its ebb and
flow with new and pressing priorities and issues for schools. District officials are often not
available to assist or participate because of the pressure of their own work. High schools find
it more difficult than primary schools to schedule processes with EMEP largely on grounds of
increased pressure put on them for academic achievement. Few principals are “able to stand
firm in terms of retaining their extra-mural programme in the face of the pressure for
academic achievement, despite the overwhelming evidence that it enhances the child’s
school experience, motivation, and performance. Just homework clubs are transformational,
never mind linking children’s extra-murals to the curriculum.”
EMEP’s impressive network of supportive public and private service providers requires
substantial and skilful handling.
A further point is that principals are often unaware of the dangers of working with external
partners without having addressed the issue of organisational – extra-mural – support:
82
“We say to principals, ‘It’s fatal to bring external partners into chaos, it’s just adding
more traffic in your traffic jams.’ First, get your own house in order, have something
functional, coherent, systemic for others to come into, which means you've got to create
and sustain your own extra-mural sector. Of course, our vision and strategy of an extramural sector is not just for the kids. There are 3 elements: firstly, for the kids a range of
programmes, expanded opportunities, and supports; secondly, systemic management
and development and support time for the teachers, plus o.d. for the school as an
organisation; and finally for the parents and the community, their systemic, meaningful
engagement, support. If you don't create an enabling environment, you are just making
muddy water muddier, adding more logs to your logjam.”
28. Similarly, EMEP is of the view that the consortium is not yet combining its strengths and
drawing from each other’s approaches, experience, and learnings, often focussing wholly on
their speciality areas and rarely on the conditions vital to ‘gain traction’ in the schools:
“Most of our partners report the difficulties of getting traction of their projects in the
schools. Even though their programmes are good, this is not surprising as the
enabling conditions are rarely present... So their good seed, as it were, often hits
barren ground... as has ours, a lot, when schools are not willing to turn their soil, to
make fertile, growthful conditions for better learning and practice. We would love
consortium partners to bring their programmes into those of our schools that are
ready and willing to take them on fully, into their school planning and organising,
making the time and space for them, providing the support, the good partnering.
And we would provide the organisational support, that’s part of our role.”
“With consortium partners we still need to find sites where we can work together
because we each have our ‘own’ school partner commitments. Of course, we all try
to secure these partnerships with proper agreements, clear responsibilities, agreed
standards and boundaries, etc... but I think many of us end up pouring our scarce
resources into schools that are not delivering, or which are just too overwhelmed to
do their bare basics, never mind anything extra. We struggle with this, and have
stayed too long with many schools with whom we fight for meeting space and
follow-through.”
29. As a direct result, the SEEDS consortium has yet to strike a balance between focussing
on their speciality areas and the challenge of Whole School Development:
- “We look forward to our SEEDS partners stepping into the systemic space being
created by the EMEP model. At the beginning we presented this as an option for
collaboration, but individual organisations had their client schools already and also
specific geographical areas. This could still be an option.”
“What could really help us is an embedded OD facilitator working directly with the
directors and programme managers and field staff. It was not set up like that but it’s
an opportunity.”
SECTION 2: FOCUS AREA 3
30. A two-page questionnaire was designed and customised for EMEP. The questionnaire was
customised for the educators and learners in schools on the EMEP programme. The
questions included self-assessments of levels of satisfaction with different aspects of the
project, including ways in which it might be enhanced. The instruments also checked for
awareness of other distinct components of SEEDS. A systematic random sample of
participants was selected to complete the questionnaire. The realised sample size was 211,
consisting of 31 educators and 180 learners. The number of respondents is listed in Table 1.
SEEDS PROGRAMMES
Educators
83
Learners
Total
Extra-mural Programme
Total
EMEP
31
31
180
180
211
211
Table 7: Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
31. A large sample of learners in the EMEP programme completed questionnaires. Females
outnumbered males, well over half indicated participation in sport or other activities and
almost all said that they are very satisfied or satisfied with progress in their studies and with
their lives as a whole. Educators in EMEP were more male than female, also highly likely to
participate in extra-mural activities themselves, and generally satisfied with life and with
their studies.
Table 8: Characteristics of participants in the Extra-Mural interventions
Educators
31
55:45
23-60
75%
75%
64%
63%
73%
87%
Number of respondents
Male : Female ratio
Age range
Plays Sport
Music/cultural activity
Religious group
Other club
Very satisfied or satisfied with study progress
Very satisfied or satisfied with life as a whole
Learners
180
36:64
8-20
85%
63%
56%
55%
89%
91%
32. Almost all learners who participated in EMEP strongly agreed (69%) or agreed (24%) that
they had enjoyed this participation, as did all educators (71% and 29% respectively).
Table 9: “I have enjoyed participation in the programme” (% in extra-mural programme)
Programme
EMEP Learners
EMEP Educators
Strongly agree
69
71
Agree
24
29
Not sure or Disagree
7
0
33. The vast majority (97%) of learners indicated that their participation had motivated them to
go to school and 97% of the educators said it had made them more aware of the importance
of extra-mural education. More than three-quarters (77%) of learners said that since
participating in EMEP, they had become more confident in their studies; and that the extramural programme was relevant to their lives (78%). Similarly, 93% of teachers had become
more confident in their extra-mural teaching and mentoring; and 97% felt that the material
covered in EMEP is relevant to promoting extra-mural activities at their schools.
34. More than four-fifths of EMEP learners said that the programme had helped them to
become a better person (82%); and that they liked the way that extra-mural activities are
run at their school (85%). Similarly, 85% of learners and 87% of teachers thought that visits
to their school by EMEP people are helpful to them and to the school; and most (teachers
72%; learners 82%) were of the view that that the principal and teachers at their school
were fully supportive of EMEP.
35. Almost three-quarters (71%) of the EMEP teachers have used the support materials
frequently since participating in EMEP and 97% are of the view that the methodologies
demonstrated are extremely helpful. Forty percent of EMEP teachers have regular contact
with EMEP teachers at other schools. Most (90%) of teachers say the training session times
are suitable as do 97% in respect of the training session venues. More than three-quarters
(77%) of the EMEP teachers enjoy teaching more since attending the training sessions.
84
36. Additionally, about two-fifths (44% of learners and 37% of teachers) think that their fellow
students or teachers at their schools who do not participate in extra-murals feel “left-out” or
marginalised.
37. Four-fifths (80%) of learners indicated that they treat learners who do not participate in
extra-murals in the same way as they treat those who do participate. More than threequarters (77%) of learners would not like to leave their school because the extra-murals are
so good; and almost three-quarters (74%) enjoy extra-murals more since their school started
EMEP.
38. The most positive consequences of participation by learners in the EMEP were seen to be
the participation in activities and learning of new skills:
- “I can enjoy more time with school friends”;
- “staying after school and having fun”;
- “riding down the ramp”;
- “ek voel dit is lekkerder as alles”;
- “I get to learn different soccer tactics”;
- “ek leer elke day iets nuuts”;
- “I think art and netball is the best, you do lots of art”;
- “Koor is die lekkerste”.
39. EMEP educators comments included:
- “work with small groups and then to make a positive change”;
- “it has really made all stakeholders aware of what is possible if everybody makes a concerted
effort to contribute”;
- “self development & empowering, it was eye opening”;
- “giving me a start-up kit how to organise”;
- “meeting educators and sharing ideas with different perspectives”.
40. Many participants said that no changes to the programme are necessary, typified by the
comment “Nothing, it's lekker just the way it is”. Others made suggestions such as the need
for rugby, drama, soccer, dancing or jewellery-making to be added to the repertoire. A
selection of the written comments by learners are as follows:
- “To make it longer and have more competitions”;
- “extra murals would be better if we would do it twice a week”;
- “to have energy drinks”;
- “to be able to make a choice and not to be forced”;
- “if they could get more better equipment”.
41. Educators in the EMEP programme had the following suggestions:
- “to make more material & equipment available, more projects”;
- “To be realistic, educators are under pressure”;
- “extra-murals should be part of the curriculum (time management)”;
- “negotiate with stakeholders to reduce workload & give time for EMDP's”;
- “more interaction and report backs from both sides”.
85
Chapter 5: Focus Area 4: HIV/AIDS Preventative and Risk Reduction Support
1. Focus Area 4 aims to support schools and viable community organisations in the sustainable
long-term roll-out of quality youth HIV prevention and risk behaviour reduction programmes
targeting youths as a priority population in line with the prevention efforts of the HIV and
AIDS and STI Strategic Plan for South Africa (2007-2011).
2. Funds allocated to this focus area amount to R15m, 10% of the total project funds, and
100% of funds in this priority area, all of which are directed to GOLD.
Focus Area 4: HIV/AIDS
GOLD
R (m's) to Dec
R (m's)
2010
15 9.41
% of Total
10
R’s to date/R’s
total
62.7
Table: SEEDS Consortium Focus Area 412
3. The review of activities and performance of GOLD in the focus area of HIV/AIDS continues
the structure of previous sections of the MTR, with section one presenting a narrative of the
results of the Management Survey and section 2 the results of the Survey of Beneficiaries.
SECTION ONE: FOCUS AREA 4
4. This section presents a review of the progress and activities of GOLD in the WC, compiled
from interview extracts/direct speech garnered from 6 semi-structured in-depth interviews
conducted with four directors/project managers/facilitators from GOLD WC and three GOLD
IO project directors/managers. Clarifications on key themes were drawn from extracts and
data from GOLD annual and quarterly reports, published and unpublished documents shared
with us, including formal evaluations and site reports, and on-line resources etc.
WESTERN CAPE GENERATION OF LEADERS DISCOVERED (GOLD) PEER EDUCATION ROLL-OUT
PROJECT: GOLD PEER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
5. The SEEDS programme rolls-out the GOLD Peer Education (PE) Programme in
underprivileged communities in the Western Cape “encouraging behaviour change and
support amongst the youth, including those in and out of school, and to empower schoolgoing peer-leaders to become positive role models and agents of community change.”
6. Supportive of the National HIV and AIDS Strategic Plan (2007-2011) the project goals are
threefold: building social capital for sustainable community development in South Africa;
mitigating the negative impact of inadequate education and HIV/ AIDS on youth, vulnerable
children, families & communities; and, reducing risk behaviour and the number of new HIV
infections in youth by developing social norms that encourage them to protect their health
and their futures.
7. The programme follows a youth leadership and risk behaviour prevention model:
12
US, EKN EIWC: Financial Reporting for the period ended Dec 2009, Dec 2010 Annexure A (Income)
86
8.
9.
10.
11.
“The GOLD model is playing a pivotal role in building social capital in communities, in
supporting education in difficult circumstances, and in developing a generation of young
emerging leaders and character to contribute to positive changes in their schools and
communities. At the heart of the GOLD model is the belief that the message giver is the
strongest message. Adolescent peer educators, who demonstrate leadership potential,
are equipped and supported by skilled facilitators to fulfil four specific roles at varying
levels of responsibility for both their peers and younger children. These roles are: rolemodelling, education, recognition and referral of youth in need of additional help, and
community upliftment.”
The primary objective is to reduce youth risk behaviour, thereby bringing about a decrease
in the rate of new HIV infections among youth aged ten to twenty four years in the Western
Cape. GOLD follows a behaviour-change cascade methodology: identifying youth leaders in
peer groups recruited and their talents channelled positively on strategic tasks:
- “Behaviour change through exertion of positive peer pressure”
- “We recruit ‘naughty boys’ as ‘peer leaders’ because we can channel their leadership
qualities positively”
- “Peer education harnessing peer pressure and influence over their peers for positive
measurable change”
This WC GOLD project is part of a larger GOLD initiative begun in 2004. In December 2006
the implementation of GOLD Peer Education in South Africa and Botswana was awarded the
Commonwealth Education Good Practice Award for helping education in difficult
circumstances. This award was judged amongst applications from 52 countries. The Western
Cape GOLD Programme played a significant role in contributing to the winning of the award
and should receive much of the credit for this achievement.
GOLD developed its Peer Education (PE) Model “using a participatory process and drew on
best practice global research together with the learnings of several pioneering NGOs who
had been piloting peer education in South Africa for several years.” As a result, the GOLD
Agency and GOLD WC were confident in the SEEDS project of their capabilities in delivering a
“quality, flexible, effective and sustainable peer education programme in the context of the
schools and needy communities we would be working within.”
With SEEDS support, GOLD carefully works hand-in-hand with strong community-based
organisations (implementing organisations) to deliver GOLD peer education programmes in
their communities. GOLD trains and mentors implementing organisations to work intensively
with groups of peer educators over a period of three years. Peer educators also have an
optional two-year post-school opportunity for further skills development and peer education
activities. GOLD provides part funding for these programmes through sub-grants, but
implementing organisations are encouraged to develop their own sustainable funding
streams to contribute to their programme costs. Working with implementing organizations
and facilitators means GOLD can increase the ‘reach’ of GOLD peer education to cover more
and more young people (peers) each year. This is a key advantage of the design of the GOLD
peer education model:
“Peer Educators receive intensive training over three/four years in a range of issues
including self-development, presentation and facilitation, sexual and reproductive health
including HIV/AIDS, leadership, group work, community development, communication
skills, project management, research, advocacy and child rights, and mentoring. Each
peer educator is provided with a lifetime toolkit of skills, leadership development, and a
connection to future opportunities to continue to contribute to taking the province
forward. A character of integrity and strength is formed in each one of these young
leaders who will in turn each measurably impact 9 peers and children to adopt positive
and purpose driven social norms through multiple activities and face to face support.
The emphasis is on practical experiential learning and skills development and each peer
87
12.
13.
14.
15.
educator has specific practical ‘outputs’ that they have to meet each year as they
progress through the relevant programme. This is where large numbers of youth or peers
are effectively reached by the peer educator.”
The project’s target audiences are staff from implementing organisations, school educators
if working in schools, and youth. Staffs of implementing organisations include community
leaders that are adult programme managers and out of school facilitators that work with
adolescents in areas with high incidence of HIV; high prevalence of HIV and AIDS; high
numbers of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC); lack of adult role models; and high
incidence of youth risky behaviour. The intended youth beneficiaries are adolescent leaders
and their peers between the ages of ten and twenty four in and out of schools.
In the GOLD Model, trained GOLD peer facilitator’s work in schools or community
institutions implementing the GOLD programme on behalf of recruited local community
development organisations (Implementing Organisations -IOs) who are critical ‘gateways’ to
the local community/neighbourhood and important sites of learning:
“We collaborate with viable community based organisations in the sustainable roll
out of youth peer education programmes in alignment to GOLD model thereby
empowering youth opinion leaders as positive role models and agents of change”
“Working with communities and CBOs who are the experts in one geographic area”
“Our IO’s, such as Izandla Zethembo in Gugulethu, are very important learning areas
for GOLD. In this case, we documented findings that working with out-of-school
youth is critical to assisting positive impact on school-going youth in the same
communities and that the school cannot be seen in isolation to the community”
Within schools, educators are important to the success of GOLD’s programmes “as their
roles in supporting peer educators in the school system is key to peer educators reaching
peers at schools.’ However, educators, or for that matter, school participation for the GOLD
programme is not critical to success since peer influence, not formal training, is the core of
the programme and this can occur as much within as beyond a formal institution:
“Sometimes after midnight our PE’s are at work when they are out with their peers
and here we really see ‘youth influencing youth’.”
“Sometimes PE’s get calls in the middle of the night from peers in trouble.”
IO-employed peer facilitators (many former peer educators themselves) in the age range 20
to 30 years, target and work with young people in and out of school to realise their
responsibilities as Africa’s “future pioneers” or next generation leaders. They encourage
them to “speak out” on issues of HIV/AIDS, provide social support to peers in the context of
poor and marginal communities, develop life vision and purpose in the face of drugs,
alcohol, gangs, early pregnancy, gender violence, family violence etc, and focus on
completing schooling, study, make positive career decisions and enhance opportunities for
future life-long learning. GOLD is a wide-ranging and long-term intervention looking to
develop strategic changes in reduction of youth risk behaviours/HIV infections, communities
supporting families and youth (caring behaviour, access to social support, health and
security), and developing social capital for social development. This means that the GOLD
model is and its cost-effectiveness shown after many years:
- “Peer education programmes are often criticised for being too intensive or expensive.
But if you want ownership of decisions in the absence of families, it has been shown
that young people listen to young people. We see peer educators as a significant
asset. They are leaders, not chosen because they are good, but because they are
leaders. The ultimate sustainability of GOLD peer education will be measured by the
long term social and economic contribution of the thousands of youth who have
passed through our programme. In the future we look forward to measuring the
increase in employability and linkages to future opportunities of the young people
who are already being developed as leaders and positive role models within their
88
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
schools and communities and will continue to influence every sector of society. We
believe that the return on investment will continue for decades to come. Our strategy
is to go deep with a few individual so that that tipping point in social capital can take
its own form in every sector of society but that kind of impact you are not going to
see in a 4 year project period”
In contrast with other SEEDS organisations “Academic performance is not our main focus but
is one of the many outcomes we measure.”
The numbers of IO’s and PE’s involved with the WC GOLD programme have dropped
considerably since SEEDS project inception: in 2009 GOLD in WC had 14 IOs and 4845 PEs; in
2010 8 IO’s with 3,700 PEs; and in 2011, there were 5 IOs(two in Somerset West, two in
Gugulethu/Khayelitsha, 1 in Kraaifontein) with 1337 PE’s.
From the outset GOLD’s assumptions for the success of the project in the WC were two-fold,
namely “that viable community organisations working with youth exist and are able to
implement the GOLD programme in the identified priority geographic locations’, and ‘that
the WCED and WCDOH continue to endorse the GOLD programme as a needed HIV/AIDS
intervention in schools and their communities.”
As it turns out, the rapid loss of traction by GOLD in ‘certain (but not all) priority geographic
locations’ is in most respects traceable to the ‘lack of viable community organisations to
work with’, not because they are unwilling to implement the GOLD programme which
continues to be seen as the ‘gold standard’ for peer to peer HIV counselling programmes or
even the intrinsic weaknesses of the small community organisations which elected to work
with GOLD. Rather, the lack of IO’s to work with according to GOLD is a consequence of
Government revising its Global Funded Peer Education Programme to exclude GOLD’s
implementing partners.
This had a major impact on the GOLD programme largely due to the fact that GOLD
implementing partners had been funded in part over the long term by the WCED and
WCDOH respectively. When the funding ceased with the revised programme, this meant
reduced sites for GOLD as SEEDS funds became the main source of funding without the
initially assumed cost share from Government to enable “more reach for less”. GOLD IO’s as
well as other NGO’s working in schools were forced to withdraw from schools to make room
for the Government’s revised programme and this led to many GOLD programmes having to
reduce their footprint and convert to being community-based from having been schoolbased.
For GOLD’s IO’s, the experience has been a sobering one; some have dropped out of
programme; others have not. The experience ironically resulted in positive reflection on the
programme’s many relative strengths and a growing sense of collective responsibility and
buy-in from IO’s :
“Our partners no longer have the naïve belief that they can or should rely entirely on
the Government; just as easily they know they can be let down, and out in the cold
but they know that we stood by them.”
“In the meetings which followed our IO’s emerged with improved sense of being part
of f a family – it made us more loyal to each. As some visitor noted 'meetings are
family time for you guys'.”
“Now our IO’s are saying we believe in GOLD – its unified us, IO’s still using us are
reporting on time and are so committed we can say that many things have changed
positively.”
There is little doubt however that the circumstances are still less than ideal for GOLD in the
WC :
- “The stakeholder stuff more tricky: when working with teachers it’s great to have the
Department working with us.”
89
-
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
“When working with youth, school is still the best context to access youth the
majority of the time. NGOs are better positioned, got more time on their hand than
teachers have on their hands to address some of the social issues that are critical to
good learning. Education could be impacted significantly if the relationship between
govt was working well.”
The negative impact of the DoH Global Fund tender process and the subsequent need to
shift programmes from School to Community based has meant that the first 6 months of
2011 have presented both GOLD and their IO’s with many challenges. However in GOLD’s
own words:
- “The WC Community of practice has emerged stronger than ever.”
A further learning is that no matter what happens government is still the key stakeholder
and change in a democracy is inevitable and necessary:
- “What NGOs can do is to think about how to make programmes more and more
robust. Part of this is accreditation, getting programmes and training such as for
curriculum advisors endorsed internally in government.”
Reflecting on the whole experience is painful:
“To be honest the WC has been the hardest, most difficult place to work, honestly. For
political reasons, school based programmes with proven impact have been halted by a
decision by Government to start completely afresh with new leadership, funding and so
on. It broke people’s hearts; principals, teachers were crying.”
GOLD has the sense that the province’s approach is short-sighted since in the WC GOLD
programme the government had a recognised world-class peer education programme that
was the envy of other countries, let alone SA’s own provinces, and with it Government
would be in a position to reach many more youth than with the new school-based model:
‘In WC such a pity, WC has destroyed an amazing community of practice, which
was just beginning to gain some maturity, depth, impact. Department just sat
indoors and weren’t willing to listen [to us]’
“We had an MOU with PDE and PHD and a great relationship. But whole
department’s are no longer there. Organisational memory is now gone.”
A further consideration is that the provincial government failed to appreciate the positive
role that partnership with a best practice organisation can play in developing and trialling
new ways of working and new delivery models:
“If there is genuine collaboration and Government and civil society work
together, government needs innovative best practice organisations that might
not be able to take things to scale but can inform strategies for scale that might
never be best practice but inspired by best practice.”
“What government can come with is actually some guidance for us on where to
streamline, what to focus on, what their actual needs are but not if there is no
partnership and little conversation.”
Turning to considerations of the impact of the project, it is important to acknowledge that
whilst the scale of the project impact in the WC has undoubtedly being significantly
diminished for reasons just discussed, the GOLD Programme and the administration thereof
appears not to have suffered:
- “GOLD’s rigorous approach to quality is widely acknowledged”
- “We’ve had criticism and praise: we’ve been criticised for being too long-term, too
intense, too many assignments, too much reporting; we have been praised for being
futuristic, sustainable, long term approach, and strong M&E – but we have not been
criticised for not being attentive to our performance.”
“Our ME outcomes are built around behaviour change/our curriculum: not around
social capital and potential for scale-ability. We show using proximal distal outcomes
that our programme does increase peer educators knowledge of HIV and AIDS, their
90
ability to access health services, testing etc. We compile Outcomes Reports for sites
annually. These evaluation questions arise all the time and we approach them very
systemically using educator performance on the Programme; we developed the use
of Strategic Charts – that records what peers talked about to each other; we compile
“Most-significant-change” stories from peers to reach other peers.”
- “In many ways our indirect influence is often more important for example ‘Seeing the
changes in peers has brought the change.’ You hear (these stories) all the time.”
- “I don’t believe that we really capture the most important success stories which are
sometimes based on a simple chance conversation.”
- Reduction in HIV/AIDS risk behaviours? “Can’t say it is thus, but there is a decline,
and though our footprint now smaller than it was... we do see changes in young
people.”
29. In the past year, in summary, the key project challenges have been:
PDH tender process and resultant exclusion of very successful GOLD programmes at
certain schools, resulting in the forced exit of PEs from programme.
WCED lack of communication and cooperation
Managing the exit strategy with 2 IO’s, initiated owing to WCDOH declaration that
the GOLD programme cannot be implemented at all in Global Funded schools
Negotiations with all IOs about the way forward
Facilitator retrenchment, attrition and disappointment
PE attrition and disappointment
Financial strain on many IOs and their staff
Tension between GOLD programmatic minimum standards and reality on the ground
in many of the WC IOs in the current changing landscape
Conversion of many sites from School Based to Community Based
30. As a member of the SEEDS consortium, GOLD derived benefit from the flexibility shown by
the SEEDS management in supporting the organisation through the period of provincial
restructuring. However, GOLD has no partnerships or collaboration with any of the SEEDS
partners:
“It’s been good but due to our specific focus, we have complimented the core
education partners but our diversity has meant that our service offerings remain
separate. With ELRU and EMEP we have met formally regarding collaboration and
have plans for structured initiatives of collaboration in the remainder of the project
period. There has been a lot of amazing informal sharing, but at this point we have
not collaborated in a way that you could measure outcomes as yet however on a
macro level all of these initiatives have worked within the WC affecting provincial
issues - I think that was a strategic decision of RNE to bring best practice
organisations together to add strategic value to the major areas of need in the
province’s education system and collaboration at this level has been successful.”
31. There seems to be no lack of opportunity given geographical and programme overlaps for
example with EMEP nor is there an objection in principle on the part of GOLD. In GOLD’s
own words:
“We are looking at how components of the GOLD curriculum can be used within all
aspects of the SEEDS project and SEEDS have supported this to be reworked for this
purpose. We will launch this in 2012 for the consortium and other future organisations
that can benefit. We have presented this to the consortium in early 2011 and feedback
was positive. .”
“We are coming from the informal education sector angle – peer to peer informal
education in HIV and AIDS and life skills, but in the [SEEDS] meetings people coming from
the formal [education sector] angle. We are doing something quite different than the
91
other partners but together we are addressing the ‘whole’. It’s still difficult making
collaboration a priority when we are all busy meeting our agreed objectives.”
32. GOLD suggests however that these difficulties could be overcome with the consortium now
agreeing to jointly draft a budget for joint initiative for 2012:
“The consortium now could budget for some concrete linkages – this could enhance our
outcomes as a whole, our systemic impact.”
“If people could genuinely submit a budget to kick-start collaborative initiatives for
2012, and it gets ratified, and people are held accountable, I think you would be
amazed.”
SECTION 2: FOCUS AREA 4
33. A two-page questionnaire was designed and customised for GOLD. The questionnaire was
customised for the peer facilitators/educators and learners on the GOLD programme. The
questions included self-assessments of levels of satisfaction with different aspects of the
project, including ways in which it might be enhanced. The instruments also checked for
awareness of other distinct components of SEEDS. A systematic random sample of
participants was selected to complete the questionnaire. The realised sample size was 192,
consisting of 11 peer facilitators and 181 peer educators (learners). The number of
respondents is listed in Table 1.
SEEDS PROGRAMMES
Peer Education
Total
Facilitators
11
11
GOLD
Learners
181
181
Total
192
192
Table 10: Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
34. A large number (181) of peer educators responded to the survey. Almost two-thirds are
females; about seven out of ten participate in sport and/or other activities; and almost all
are satisfied with their study progress and lives as a whole. Conversely, most of the GPEP
facilitators are males in their 20s. However, similarly to the learners, most participate in
sport or other extra-mural activities and all are satisfied with their studies and their lives.
Table 11: Characteristics of participants in the Peer Education programme
Facilitators
11
73:27
23-29
75%
88%
75%
50%
100%
100%
Number of respondents
Male : Female ratio
Age range
Plays Sport
Music/cultural activity
Religious group
Other club
Very satisfied or satisfied with study progress
Very satisfied or satisfied with life as a whole
Learners
181
37:63
12-20
71%
75%
68%
54%
96%
89%
35. Although the majority of learners and educators who had participated in the GOLD
programme strongly agreed that they had enjoyed their participation, the proportion of
strong agreement was higher amongst educators (91%) than learners (77%).
Table 12: “I have enjoyed participation in the programme” (% in peer education programme)
Programme
GOLD Learners
Strongly agree
77
Agree
19
Not sure or Disagree
4
92
GOLD Facilitators
91
9
0
36. The vast majority of learners (94%), and all of the facilitators, who participated said that the
programme had made them more aware of the importance of peer education. Similarly, 91%
of learners and 100% of facilitators had become more confident in peer education since
their participation in the GPEP. Most learners (83%) and all facilitators said that the material
covered in the GPEP is relevant to promoting their skills as a peer educator or facilitator of
peer educators, respectively.
37. Almost two-thirds (65%) of learners and 100% of facilitators indicated that they had made
use of the support materials frequently since participating in the GPEP. Most (learners 86%;
facilitators 100%) also said that the methods demonstrated are extremely helpful in their
work with their peers. The majority (91%) of facilitators and more than three-quarters (77%)
of learners have regular contact with other peer facilitators or peer educators respectively.
38. Visits to the school or centre by GOLD facilitators are seen to be helpful by 89% of learners
and all educators. Although all facilitators perceive that the management at their schools is
fully supportive of the GPEP, this is the perception of only two-thirds (67%) of learner peer
educators. Sizeable proportions of both learners (33%) and facilitators (44%) are of the view
that people at their schools who are not involved in the GOLD programme feel “left out”.
Training session times have been most suitable to 85% of learners and all facilitators; as
have training session venues to 73% of learners and all facilitators. All facilitators (100%) and
most learners (90%) say that they enjoy peer education more since attending the GPEP
training sessions.
39. From the perspective of facilitators, some of the most positive consequences of participation
in the GPEP were seen to be:
- “The amount of lives we have helped and touched”;
- “The opportunity to transform lives
40. The views of learners exuded confidence in the skills they had acquired:
- “it feels like I can take over the world and make it great”;
- “it makes me happy”;
- “I feel good”;
- “it is because as young people we stay away from drugs”;
- “getting confidence and getting leadership skills”;
- “I feel more aware of what happens in life around me”;
- “I have become more confident and find it easy to interact with my peers”;
- “I feel that I am able to share my feelings with my peers”;
- “I am aware of many things like peer pressure and I know how to handle those things”;
- “I am very good at communicating with people who need help”.
41. Most facilitators said nothing should be changed, with a few making suggestions like:
- “Provide some refreshments for the kids cause we meet after school”;
- “Make the classes more interactive friendly, projector and power point”.
42. Many learners said that nothing should be changed, with a substantial number indicating the
need for more engagement with the GPRP. A few of the comments included:
- “nothing, I love the programme but we might have to get together more often”;
- “everything still great”;
- “there should be more sessions”;
- “time spent on participation”;
“as daar meer tyd in dit gesit word”;
- “time spent on participation I want more time to be added”;
- “we only have one camp, there were supposed to be two camps“;
- “be more detailed in outside trips for strict parents”;
- “there is nothing I can change because everything that is here helps fully or it’s useful to me”.
93
Chapter 6: Focus Area 5: Collaboration and Innovation
1. The original SEED proposal document described the aims of Focus Area 5 as being to
“Develop a collaborative, innovative intervention and a practice of ‘collegiate learning’,
to encourage integration of knowledge, method and practice that will lead to a
community of practice within the consortium and thus influence project implementation
and permeate the individual institutions/organisations in order for them to respond to
the transformational policy imperatives.”
2. Subsequent discussions held between the RNI and the SEEDS consortium members
clarified that, whilst developing a collaborative, innovative intervention as a specific
outcome would be welcomed, particularly if arising spontaneously and promising to
naturally enhance innovation and improve outcomes, the consortium would not require
any formal collaboration(s) to be tabled nor would SEEDS develop any formal indicators
to measure such.
3. All collaborations that have arisen so far appear to be informal and spontaneous,
emerging from a conjuncture of opportunity with the specific requirements of a
programme element in a project (for e.g. SAILI on MSEPS Holiday Programme).
4. A nascent ‘community of practice’ is nonetheless taking form, with a number of
opportunities are noted for ‘sharing’ of ‘knowledge, methods and practice’ between
members. Other terminology was also employed: members ‘talking to’ one another;
holding ‘discussions’; others ‘strategised’: our survey revealed no incidences of formal
planned collaboration between any of the SEEDS consortium though subsequent
information indicates that some formal collaborations are imminent.
5. The SEEDS management structure, with some input from the chair and the project
manager, has given rise to what one might call ‘structured blanket sharing’, through
participation in Project Forums largely characterised by inputs that take the form of
report-backs such as ‘my programme experience on XX is YY’’, perhaps still in
contradistinction to signals required from within the consortium for ‘growing
integration’ of a distinctive SEEDS’s ‘knowledge, method and practice’ capable of
permeating and informing the programmes of individual SEEDS institutions/
organisations.
6. Further clarification, discussion and distillation of these latter elements into an
overarching set of learnings that can be shared across the SEEDS consortium, and more
widely with specific communities of practice, is not yet evident but promises to be a rich
area of future activity for the SEEDS consortium as a whole.
7. Already in this MTR we can identify across all the SEEDS projects a set of common
core/central issues confronting participating organisations as they seek to complement,
support or fill gaps in formal government programmes. In addition there is growing
clarity with respect to emerging ‘bottom-line’ priorities that are required for successful
programming, product innovation, and piloting and take-up of systemic whole school
development support – including minimum norms and standards that are required to
sustain sustainable and effective professional development, curriculum materials and
learning and teaching support and whole school organisational reform.
8. Further discussion and development of these issues within the consortium, as well as
with the wider communities of practice in the province and nationally (including with
the major education stakeholder in the province, the PDE), through enhanced
engagement and debate will further promote the adoption of ‘best practice reform’
both within SEEDS as well as across the wider communities of practice.
9. The growth of informal, spontaneous sharing amongst the partners is also evidence of
growing maturity and improved cohesion and collaboration within the consortium which
94
10.
11.
12.
13.
also can be seen in instances of collegial communication, one of the goals of Focus Area
5.
There are still challenges to overcome in partners voluntarily talking responsibility for
ensuring that their activities and their on-going learnings are regularly communicated
with the SEEDS management, and hence fully reflected in SEEDS newsletters and on the
project website. There is a scope to expand this flow of information between and across
the projects through development of a more integrated and interactive website for
improved data management and an enhanced platform for communication.
It should be noted that such collaboration as we have found seldom involved
organisations active within the same subject or professional practice domain, such as for
example in intermediate and senior phase maths and science school-based interventions
or Whole School Development in ECD and primary schools. Reasons advanced included
activities in different schooling phases, geographical, and concerns about duplication or
overlaps. The concluding observations for the previous paragraph regarding information
flow, and an improved communication apply here in full.
More common were discussions between partners with specific programmes and the
SEEDS ‘platform’ programmes such as EMEP or ELRU – and to an extent SCIFEST AFRICA - that promised to open up spaces within schools which could potentially be filled by
that programme itself as opposed to any other or in another instance where a service
organisation aspired to evolve the capacities to act as a platform to its own
programmes.
We asked SEEDS organisations what were the obstacles in the path of greater
collaboration and more formal sharing, and what were the factors standing in the way of
greater reciprocity and purposive, critical, mutual learning, which the consortium could
better harness to accelerate beneficial shared purpose. Without repeating much of the
substance of the inputs from organisations and institutions raised in previous sections,
the following issues/challenges to collaboration are in our view critical to understanding
its absence in the consortium today:
- “Mistrust amongst the partners is rife”
- "The Consortium was formed to get the money…. We could have done things
more coherently from the beginning. The problem was that this was sprung on
us. It wasn't set up this way. Working together was a post-hoc imposition.”
- “Most organisations just carried on as usual”
“The Consortium never planned for collaboration”
- “SEEDS was not a carefully crafted strategy that has as its goals a particular set
of outcomes”
- “There is very little collaboration because there are no dots to join together in
the first place”
- “The nine service providers collaborated to get the programme going, but the
funding was made available on nine proposals, it was not integrated. The
common outcomes were never agreed on and so have not been attained. Nor
has there been the development of a common indicator.”
- “Look at the sheer diversity of organisations, even if you explicitly tried to put
them together, how would you?”
- “Many of the organisations are service providers, and when they work together,
this is not an example of collaboration, but the provision of a service.”
- “I don’t want to be compared with the other people”
- “We are very different. We have to do things a certain way and can’t be seen to
be associated with a proposal that is not done in a way, with a partner that has
very different goals that are not fully acceptable to my Board. I am accountable
to my Board … I can’t weaken my standing with my donors.”
95
-
14.
15.
16.
17.
“You partner with the closest fit. We are a very focussed programme with a
focused target. We are the only one in this area. We don’t fit in with anyone.”
- “[We] would not be any worse off without SEEDS. We would develop our own
networks. We actually don’t need our SEEDS partners.”
- “We don’t talk to each other. We don’t even know each other!”
- “There's been a failure of collective leadership – not from the [project manager]
but from the partners.”
- "To expect partners after the fact, in some sort of altruistic way, to work
together is being rather naive. For [the project manager] this has been an uphill
battle, to try and find ways to get us to work together when in fact we had
already decided to work separately. “
- “The problem was with the EKN who sprung this on us. It wasn't set up as
collaboration; the EKN should have defined a clearer set of objectives for us.”
- “We see this as an’ opportunity lost’ for NGOs and higher education institutions
to work together.”
- “I have a sense of frustration with the opaqueness of SEEDS. There may be
possibilities to partner but I'm not going to look for it. I have enough on my plate
already. If it were more readily visible, then I could jump at it.”
- “We don’t have the energy to work together in projects that not really possible
to work in. It’s not that I am against the rest of the Consortium but, if you want
to work together and solve problems, it must be a natural thing to work
together.”
- “I think the other consortium members see us as the ‘black sheep’: we just don’t
seem to fit in.”
- “Our project is very much academic in orientation and very different to
something being run for example by GOLD. There is a big difference.”
- "There is a lack of similar shared theoretical basis for SEEDS."
These wide-ranging comments are useful for tagging some of the obstacles that partners
feel need to be overcome for further and deeper collaboration to occur, and for a
common or core SEEDS approach or methodology to emerge that is shared across the
consortium.
Though a minimal number of these inputs can be interpreted negatively, these are in no
way reflective of pervasive pessimism or ill-will within the consortium: the
overwhelmingly impression we gained in the MTR was that partners generally remain
optimistic and positive in their attitudes towards the SEEDS programme and their
consortium colleagues.
Nonetheless, a more fully developed SEEDS communication strategy, which includes in
its ambit consideration of a set of defined, new activities (with or without a budget), as
well as agreement on the key actions to be taken on the part of SEEDS partners in the
various practice or action-areas together with additional support to be provided by the
SEEDS management could be a critical intervention. Such a strategy could reshape
existing spontaneous collaboration amongst SEEDS partners into a more structured,
formal and output-centred programme of engagement and clarify elements critical to a
common multi-disciplinary whole-school ‘SEEDS’ approach’ in the key Focus Areas or in
the new areas of interest and importance (for example in the use of ICT in learning and
teaching, or holistic whole-school based approaches to in-service professional
development and support and so on).
As suggested before, linking this to a more effective communication strategy aligned to
an interactive web-presence would ‘encourage integration of knowledge, method and
practice that will lead to a community of practice within the consortium and thus
96
influence project implementation and permeate the individual institutions/organisations
in order for them to respond to the transformational policy imperatives.’
18. What is clear is that there are still obstacles to be overcome in presenting the collective
and collaborative dimensions of SEEDS both amongst partners as well project
beneficiaries and more widely.
19. It is worth noting that when we were piloting the beneficiary questionnaires,
respondents found it difficult to identify what SEEDS stood for and we were requested
to remove any reference to the ‘SEEDS Initiative’ or at least explain in full the relation of
the project in question to SEEDS.
20. In the second instance, as a means of determining the extent to which participants in
the various SEEDS projects were aware of the other components of the broader SEEDS
programme, each survey participant was asked whether he/she knew of the purpose of
each of the different organisations collaborating in the SEEDS consortium. A scan down
each column reveals that some of the programmes are better known by nonparticipants than are those in a specific programme. SMILES emerges as the most widely
known programme outside of its own participants.
Table 13: Awareness of programme participants of purpose s of other components of
SEEDS
E
L
R
U
CM
GE
SM
ILE
S
SCIMATH
US
T
B
P
M
S
E
P
S
A
I
L
I
GO
LD
SCIFE
ST
IMST
US
E
M
E
P
9
7
1
3
2
87
79
53
31
25
25
4
9
0
2
4
14
0
10
0
45
36
6
5
SAILI learners
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
6
SCIMATHUS learners
1
1
16
96
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
8
8
1
EMEP learners
3
3
14
2
4
2
GOLD educators
0
0
40
10
GOLD learners
2
2
12
4
2
0
8
1
0
1
2
7
3
8
6
1
1
7
2
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
0
38
25
4
9
1
0
9
0
8
2
51
25
4
3
1
9
2
46
6
CMGE (ACE)
educators
2
4
32
32
14
1
4
8
ELRU educators
MSEP educators
MSEP learners
SMILES educators
TBP educators
0
3
1
6
10
2
0
2
9
23
57
4
25
5
25
5
0
18
0
0
11
15
41
2
8
2
2
0
5
13
8
1
10
0
97
20
20
4
2
8
11
5
21. We followed questions regarding perceptions of obstacles to further working together
and deeper collaboration in the consortium by a request for suggestions of practical
things that could be done at this stage to enhance the aims of Focus Area 5. Amongst
the responses we received were the following:
- “Perhaps we need to identify a number of schools where at least two of us work
together?”
-
“Could we take a district where none of us are installed and roll-out the SEEDS
initiative in that district?
-
“We could present linking threads to each other. This might improve
collaboration between partners who see a common need, where there is overlap,
and where we complement each other. We can do that now, all nine of us, sit
down and naturally group ourselves.”
“We could plan now for specific programmatic linkages between SEEDs work
with particular schools and so work together to establish a reliable ‘pipeline’.”
-
97
2
4
-
“We can bundle and cluster people together where there is more natural fit
between them, such as all the maths people together”
“We can encourage those colleagues who want to work together to do so. Let
them work it out before hand, and let each put in R50K, or R500K, whatever the
SC agrees to. Maybe that will teach us to work together. That’s the way they do
it in the Netherlands.”
-
“We can encourage service providers to come into an existing programme which
acts as a platform for them to enter the schools, or the community.”
-
“We need some incentives to work together, to enforce working together."
-
“We can change dynamics in the SC – from project accountability to SEEDS
accountability – too much of report back in the SC is “perfunctory feedback” – it
says ‘I don’t need to consult any of you; this is what we have done’. Let’s stop
‘singing for our money’ and begin to talk about what we think SEEDS requires…
and provide strategic feedback on our respective domains and how we as a
SEEDS partner are pushing, driving the envelope and whom can help.”
-
“We need more dynamic and action-oriented sub-committees to drive
performance and quality assurance in the various projects”
-
“We should put our ‘best practice’ reputation to the test! Explore whether what
we say is ‘systemic best practice’ actually is and engage with those thousands of
other practitioners and researchers out there!”
-
“What about agreeing on a four-year M&E for the SEEDS programme, with some
mutual accountabilities? Isn’t it about time?”
-
“We could budget for a joint initiative in 2012 – concrete linkages to kick start
collaborative initiatives in 2012 – we could focus on 2 different thrusts: targeting
poorer/under-resourced schools/communities with services and programmes
and ‘doing what it takes to get disadvantaged black students into university’”
-
“Where’s the SEEDS academic and professional practice output: we can
collaborate on producing and disseminating ‘best-practice’ using best-practice
techniques and marketing”
-
22.
23.
24.
25.
“In areas where we have failed – e.g. pre-service – can we go back there, or have
a retrospective?”
Some of these proposals repeat the wording or spirit of the original Project Proposal
calling for a collaborative SEEDS intervention in a specific number of schools, or across
schools in various phases in a geographic area, a proposal which was exhaustively
discussed at the programme outset but then rejected as impractical for a number of
reasons already discussed.
Other proposals however focus on promoting collaboration such that the strategic
lessons, norms and standards, and actions that are emerging as critical success factors in
enhancing reforms in the future, are identified and drawn out and then embedded,
together with other innovative practices and strategies for effective implementation,
more deeply in the methodology of the consortium partners.
These latter suggestions amount to a series of powerful and potentially transformative
proposals that could kick-start the development of a collaborative SEEDS ‘model’ (not
collaborative project) which by definition would address the multi-sectoral,
developmental and systemic outcomes envisaged in the SEEDS programme document.
What needs to be noted further is that the aims of the proposals identified in the
previous paragraph, were elicited spontaneously through a participatory MTR
98
26.
27.
methodology, and accord very closely in spirit to the commitments made in the SEEDS
‘Framework for Partnership and Collaboration’ committing the consortium to jointly
explore “how it can yield long-lasting results that have an impact on the province by
generating creative and innovative strategies within and beyond the consortium.”
Through creative partnerships the SEEDS consortium further “will improve their creative
potential and innovative output through creative products and services; through creative
learners, innovative teaching and learning practice will be embedded in classrooms; and
creative organisations will “develop an environment and culture that encourages
creativity”.
In the first instance consortium members would complement their work across the
themes by:
where possible, and logically, jointly selecting schools and communities
co-creating and/or sharing tools and materials
developing a network infrastructure of communication
opening, creating and maintaining co-operating networks
Optimising practical synergies
sharing promising practices
influencing provincial and national policies and practices
Secondly, consortium members would explore “how they can foster the development of
creativity within their organisations through good practice related to their work, and
contribute to developing and improving the culture of lifelong learning through
creativity”.
99
Chapter 7: Focus Area 6: Western Cape Model of Whole-School and
Community Development
Focus Area 6: The need to develop a systemic, multi-disciplinary model: develop a model of
whole-school and community development based on the experience gained in this initiative.
1. Individual consortium members expressed some concern with the ability of the consortium
to ultimately develop a systemic, multi-disciplinary model of whole-school and community
development – the goals of Focus Area 6.
2. There is some confusion amongst the partners as to whether this ‘model’ will take the form
of modelling (i.e. developing and refining) an overarching ‘SEEDS approach’, or if the
partners are still required to develop a collaborative project. In this, we are guided by the
outcome of the initial discussion early in the project which resolved not to pursue or require
a collaborative project as an outcome of Focus Area 5 (preceding chapter) but rather to work
towards development of a set of systemically inclined, multidisciplinary informed guidelines
or approaches which if followed would strengthen the movement for whole school and
community based development in the province, and be applicable across the various areas
of practice as the major programme outcome.
3. In part, the concern/frustration expressed by some consortium members as to whether a
SEEDS model can be developed can be seen as anticipatory of the consortium as a collective
being unable ultimately to surmount the various challenges to collaborative work, thus
challenging a key value and motivation underpinning the SEEDS initiative.
4. Nonetheless there is little doubt that such fears can be overcome – and are already being
overcome – and that with greater attention and focus on dialogue, sharing and engagement
in and across areas of practice, the SEEDS partners– NPOs and higher education institutions–
are fully capable developing a “multi-disciplinary partnership to achieve widespread change
through emerging synergies in the knowledge economy and culture of learning.”
5. The consortium will need to pay some attention however to evolving some specific end-term
goals which could:
a. embrace activities that will result in the production of a common SEEDS model, with
defined outputs and time frames
b. enhance development of more pervasive and sustained relationships amongst the
SEEDS members particularly in identified priority practice areas,
c. renew commitment to this common (as opposed to individual project or
organisational) programme outcome and more collaborative and mutually
supportive leadership in this respect,
d. pay greater attention to planning for specific opportunities and occasions to engage,
direct and perhaps, moderate, discussions in areas of practice around systemic and
multidisciplinary elements with other practitioners within the province, nationally
and internationally,
e. develop and implement a more open, ongoing communication platform for data
sharing, interactive engagement and networking at all levels.
6. In formal organisational terms these challenges involve the shift from a co-operative mode
of operation – where relations are informal, goals are not defined jointly, there is no joint
planning, and information is shared as needed (which we would argue where SEEDS’s
operative logic is at present) - towards a collaborative mode with its utilitarian promise of
jointly working together, sharing commitment and goals, shared leadership resources, risk,
control and results, and undoubted higher intensity.
7. At the same moment, and without debasing the rhetoric of collaboration as a more organic
form of cooperation, networking and clustering, it is worth reflecting that collaboration
today in the knowledge economy is seen by some as far more than just ‘acting together’:
with the rise of the new economy in the 1990’s and the challenges of digital technologies,
100
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
global communications, and networking environments, as well as the ignorance of
traditional systems towards these, collaboration as a new way of working together has
become “one of the leading terms of an emergent contemporary political sensibility”, one
that is “driven by complex realities rather than romantic notions of common grounds or
commonality.”13
Collaboration in this critical perspective is a profoundly ambivalent process:
“[It is] constituted by a set of paradoxical relationships between co-producers who
affect one another… Unlike cooperation, collaboration does not take place for
sentimental reasons… it arises out of pure self interest… it is a performative and
transformative process.”
In this view, the meaning and content of ‘collaboration’ has been profoundly destabilised as
a synonym for group cooperation and the model and meaning of ‘working together’ has
been inexorably changed into something far more unpredictable and unexpected but less
dynamic and powerful – and destabilising – for that:
“Increasing evidence shows that ‘working together’ actually occurs in rather
unpredictable and unexpected ways. Rather than through the exertion of the alleged
generosity of a group made up of individuals in the pursuit of solidarity, it often
works as a brusque and even ungenerous practice, where individuals rely on one
another the more they chase their own interests, their mutual dependence arising
through the pursuit of their own agendas.”
Collaborations in the networked, highly competitive, multi-centred 21st century, in this view
are “pure possibility” but this comes with an element of risk and danger: collaborations are
what one critical theorist calls “the black holes of knowledge regimes”:
“They produce nothingness, opulence and ill-behaviour… The nets of voluntariness,
enthusiasm, creativity, immense pressure, ever-increasing self-doubt and
desperation are temporary and fluid; they take on multiple forms but always refer to
a permanent state of insecurity and precariousness, the blue print for widespread
forms of occupation and employment within society. They reveal the other side of
immaterial labour, hidden in the rhetoric of ‘working together’.”
The key insight of this alternative reading of the contemporary concept of ‘collaboration’ lies
in its very questioning of the concept’s component elements and the sentiments which
sustain collaborative effort. If indeed “collaboration does not take place for sentimental
reasons… it arises out of pure self interest… [as] a performative and transformative process”,
then individuals “will rely on one another the more they chase their own interests [with]
mutual dependence arising through the pursuit of their own agenda’s. Exchange between
them then becomes an effect of necessity rather than one of mutuality, identification or
desire.”
These insights are introduced here to provide some initial critical grist to the task that awaits
the consortium in its own critical reflection on its collaborative effort in education which will
inform its own ‘model making’, particularly in its relation to what critical theorists call “the
absolutistic power of organisation”, that is, to the institutional stakeholders in education
whose ‘interests’ the consortium is committed to work jointly towards even as it addresses
the emancipatory and democratising dimensions of education.
13
The following discussion is from Florian Schneider, ’Collaboration: the Dark Side of Multitude’, Presentation
to Summit: Non-Aligned Initiatives in Education Culture, http://summit.kein.org/node/190
101
13. This is also a self-reflective process in which organisations and institutions turn the critical
gaze on their own practices and ask what light their answers throw on the current debates in
education in the province, the country or elsewhere, where all is fluidity and change at this
juncture.
14. This brings this review to the nub of the matter: whether and how and if the consortium, in
the time remaining, can still successfully bring together the elements of both an evolving,
transformative and developmentally effective and sustainable pedagogy, curriculum and
practice for schools, education institutions and communities, with the set of (emerging)
organisational practices and policies embedded in the educational system, bringing with it
(or illuminating possibilities for) the achievement of sustainable and widespread systemic
change?
15. These are open ended questions at this point, and challenging ones indeed, which the
consortium can begin to address in good time by initiating discussion and input from a range
of experts and practitioners locally and abroad.
16. This transformative multi-disciplinary ‘model’ would appear at this stage to consist not in
seeking to implement the SEEDS interventions, singly in or combination (though this should
not be ruled out) but rather in delineating best practice principles in and across the areas of
focus that support and promote innovative, dynamic and transformational collaborative
practices – and finding the most effective platform for leveraging and sharing such principles
and practices across a growing community of practice – the project’s injunction is to be
systemically focussed and impact driven.
17. How it can do this, the tools and techniques that are available, including the opportunities
provided through ICT, social media and other online innovations, and the most appropriate
methodologies will all need to be a part of this discussion.
18. The need is too great to be overcome with fear as a factor limiting collaboration and
undermining expansive thinking, broad-minded mission and interconnectedness: fears of
offending the powers that be, fears of loss of control over ‘my’ materials if they are sold or
made available to others, fear of loss of power over ‘my’ tool/plan if others have access to
it, fear of loss of prestige if as an organisation others have my plan, fear that ‘my’
materials/skills are not good enough to withstand scrutiny, and fears that if we help others
my board will accuse me of ignoring "our clients."
19. It seems useful at this point where partners are beginning to experience and raise some of
these emerging issues and challenges in their own professional practice and projects, to
reflect once again on the dimensions and urgency of the educational challenges that the
consortium saw as critical in December 2008 in developing such a best practice model when
SEEDS was launched. The original proposal document listed amongst these elements the
following:
“This programme links education, career opportunities and employability. It intends to
increase the likelihood of improved retention, pass rates and of appropriate further and
higher education choices as a pathway out of poverty and into employability, which
should stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life of all citizens.”
“The programme will target previously disadvantaged people (Black/African, Coloured
and Asian) from both rural and urban areas, and women in particular, since these
groupings experience the worst socio-economic conditions, are plagued by the effects of
HIV/AIDS and do not enjoy the fruits of our fledgling democracy. The subject areas and
theme foci will link global and regional issues to everyday local realities.”
“The consortium will complement provincial and national strategies to increase the
numbers of educators that enrol for an Advanced Certificate in Education and it will
improve the capability of multi-grade teaching in rural areas. Provincial Early Childhood
Development strategies will supplement the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy where
schools with poor performing foundation phase classes receive extra support, such as
102
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
teacher assistants and resources for family learning, and the guidance of parents by
Adult Learning Centres for basic and further education opportunities. Since these
provincial strategies do not cater for home-based centres or all the Grade Rs, where the
fundamentals of learning are embedded, the programme will target these learning
centres.”
“To address the critical shortage of particular technical, maths and science skills, teacher
development programmes (in-service and pre-service) and learner support programmes,
will prepare learners for career pathways in these fields”.
“The schools targeted in this programme focus on schools in disadvantaged and poorer
areas and the programme aims to build competency, capacity, passion and motivation,
as well as effective use of existing resources that will contribute significantly to provincial
and national targets”
“While the programme does not directly impact on the poverty alleviation within the
province, it will open opportunities for employment due to the need for consultants,
volunteers and service providers at various levels of implementation. On another level,
the improvement of the quality of education, as a social service, will contribute
significantly to the improvement of the pool of human capital, which is imperative for
building the development state of the province. The programme will also be removing
barriers (such as illiteracy, access to resources and thin social connections) that imprison
people in the poverty syndrome.”
“… this programme’s holistic and multi-disciplinary approach should improve the quality
of education within the Dinaledi schools, rural and marginalised schools. It will also
enhance the capacity of parents to participate more fully in lifelong learning, and lay a
firm foundation for thinking and language proficiency.”
“The consortium organisations all have relationships with government departments from
district level to provincial and national levels. Ongoing consultative and courtesy
meetings will be held with various government departments to ensure ongoing
communication and reporting about progress, and insights and challenges will be
entrenched so that this partnership is extended and enhanced [in support of the
provincial government’s Human Capital Development Strategy (2006) aim for an
integrated approach by demolishing silos amongst government departments and
forming private/public partnerships].
“…the consortium will offer various points of practical synergies across the partners,
which will yield possible models that the department can roll out.”
“The programme also aligns itself to the national education priorities…. They are:
 The reduction of backlogs in school equipment (National Quality
Development and Upliftment Programme for Public Schools)
 The expansion of early childhood development (Grade R), human resource
systems and teacher development
 The implementation of the Revised National Curriculum Statement for
Grades 7-9 and Grades 10-12 [now CAPS]
 The implementation of Revised Norms and Standards for School Funding
(No-fee schools); Special schools; Education Management Information
System (EMIS); Recapitalisation of the Further Education and Training (FET)
sector; National and provincial health and HIV/AIDS prevention objectives
“Finally, the programme also aligns itself to Macro Development Imperatives:
- Millennium goal 2: Achieve universal primary education to ensure that all boys
and girls complete a full course of primary education.
- Millennium goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women – eliminate
gender disparity in primary and secondary education at all levels by 2015
103
-
National South African imperatives as translated into Provincial objectives of
higher economic growth, higher levels of employment, lower levels of inequality
and a sustainable social safety net.
- Provincial Human Capital Development Strategy (HCDS).”
20. Clearly no single SEEDS project, or combination of projects, can and will address or respond
to any one or all of these challenges in such a way as to make a measurable mark on any one
of these provincial, indeed national challenges. However, in developing an effective dynamic
model of whole school and community development which self-consciously promotes a
culture of open and full communication, dedication to service and mobilisation of
volunteerism and other forms of resource mobilisation, more open sharing of innovative
applications and programmes for wider distribution and duplication, development of
common data resources accessible to all, promotion of ‘cooperative competition’ in drawing
in potential service providers to address pervasive service gaps and other shocking
anomalies which existing projects cannot themselves address, together with widespread
attribution for good ideas and other best practices which support sharing of ideas, some
substantive progress can be achieved.
21. To do achieve this, the consortium will have to apply its mind as to the most appropriate
model to leveraging the SEEDS programme to a position where the partners, with assistance
and guidance from the SEEDS management are able to collectively play this dynamic role,
deploy resources that will be required to take the programme to the next level and, most
critically, assist in finding the expertise and experience that will required for this final phase
of the programme.
104
Chapter 8: Focus Area 7: Communication, Advocacy and building the Western
Cape Knowledge Economy
Focus Area 7: The need to share lessons with audiences within and outside South Africa: optimise
the dividends from the investment in the Western Cape by exploring research opportunities to
build the knowledge economy, collaborate with role players in the province, and where relevant
with stakeholders within Africa and the Netherlands.
1. It is our belief that progress on the goals of Focus Area 6 is essential, indeed formative, for
the achievement of the goals of Focus Area 7.
2. Sharing with audiences within and outside South Africa by SEEDS partners occurs as an
activity, explicit or otherwise, of each consortium member as an individual organisation or
institution: there is no lack of organisations ‘sharing’, but there is a lack of collective impact
in sharing which as we understand is one of the primary goals of this Focus Area.
3. Likewise, exploring research opportunities to build the knowledge economy through SEEDS –
an activity actively being pursued by the project manager – would be much enhanced, and
given greater credibility if packaged more coherently within the emerging priorities and
outlines of a distinctive ‘SEEDS model’ as we discussed in the previous chapter.
4. The same observation above applies with respect to a more effective SEEDS collaboration
with provincial and national role players, stakeholders in other African countries and
internationally.
5. The consortium’s aims and outcomes, according to the M&E Framework, are greater than
the sum of the projects: the vision is for the projects to have a joint impact on the education
and learning landscape of the Western Cape beyond individual efforts. Positive programme
impacts beyond those anticipated (and specified) in the individual project documents
include supporting government education and human resource policies and programmes,
specifically the national curriculum, schooling and related (e.g. HIV/AIDS) polices and
legislation, and stimulating and enabling lifelong learning in disadvantaged and marginalised
contexts.
6. These constitute pressing and dynamics issues which necessitate a much higher level of
engagement at the level of policy and practice from the consortium partners through SEEDS
than is now evident.
7. The budget makes provision for further staff in the SEEDS office as a first step towards
opening this space for greater collaboration along the lines proposed– consideration should
be given to the options available for incentivising the consortium partners themselves to
devote high-level management time and resources to addressing the framework
requirements, strategy and practical inputs that will be needed to transform this nine
project cooperative initiative into a truly collaborative and dynamic joint venture.
8. Attention to opportunities for initiating sharing of project findings in respect of their impact
on and challenges faced in implementing new and innovative approaches and programmes
within the primary domain or areas of practice in which the projects are located is a critical
area. The primary purpose should not be seen necessarily as enhanced accountability or
transparency (though these elements are obviously extremely important) but rather as
necessary critical engagement with a wider body of practice, with stakeholders, experts,
communities, parents, the private sector, NGOs and other interests. It is anticipated that,
following agreement on a series of activities including roundtables, conferences, workshops,
seminars etc, opportunities will arise to develop publications based on inputs and research
arising from the projects, ongoing programme research, and inputs from non-SEEDS
practitioners should arise which in addition to populating a revamped interactive SEEDS
105
website, will drive and shape the contribution of the SEEDS’s programme in key domains and
new areas of practice, perhaps resulting in publication of a final programme report.
106
Appendices
Appendix A – MTR TOR
107
Appendix B – Outsourced Insight - Proposal Document and Budget
CONDUCT MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR) OF A FOUR YEAR COLLABORATIVE EDUCATION INITIATIVE
(SEEDS CONSORTIUM) IN THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA
PURPOSE
The purpose of the MTR is to measure and report on performance to date and to indicate
adjustments that may need to be made to ensure the success of the SEEDS projects, including
consideration of inter-agency collaboration and sustainability.
DELIVERABLES
The MRT addresses the following major themes/issues: consortium accountability for results,
programme delivery and beneficiaries, collaborative and interactive strategies, programme
management structure, organisational learning, and sustainability/finance.
The MTR report will derive findings and recommendations on major themes/issues in each of the
four SEEDS focus areas, namely maths and science, rural education, life-long learning, and HIV and
AIDS.
The review will conclude with a provisional assessment of the SEEDS initiative/method as an
innovative model for collaborative programming in the development and education sector
QUANTITATIVE SURVEYS
The intention is to undertake two distinct surveys providing complementary top-down and bottomup data pertaining to the management and impact of the SEEDS initiative to date:
1. Management Survey of SEEDS consortium organisations and programming; based on:
a. targeted, semi-structured, issue-based interviews with senior management/board
and
b. desk-top analyses of management reports, annual reviews, M&E reporting, finance,
and other relevant programme documentation;
2. Beneficiary Survey; self-administered questionnaire delivered to 1500 programme
beneficiaries (educators, learners, CBOs) of interventions across the four focus areas,
selected randomly from databases supplied by SEEDS consortium to determine levels of
satisfaction with, and suggestions pertaining to, the role and activities of SEEDS supported
programme activities.
Data from the Management Survey Interviews will analysed to develop an organisational profile of
Consortium member, perspective on the SEEDS initiative and programme successes and challenges.
Inter-agency/collaborative issues will be addressed in some depth. The semi-structured interview
format provides an opportunity for directed probing of issues.
108
The Beneficiary Survey is designed to capture data from the full range of initiatives and beneficiaries
of the combined SEEDS initiative arising from the activities of the nine mentioned organisations in
the TOR across the four focus areas. Our proposal is based on the following assumptions:


a total of 9 SEEDS organisations, each with a unique programme benefiting educators, and a
further five programmes benefiting more than one beneficiary, i.e. in addition to educators,
benefitting learners or CBOs – requiring a total of 13 questionnaires customised to the
specific programme objectives of the consortium;
SEEDS initiatives delivered through at least 50 institutions, with each with an average of 30
potential respondents in each (total of 1500). For cost effectiveness, this sample will be
selected in 50 clusters of thirty respondents each, and will be self-administered, taking no
longer than 30 minutes to complete. There will be a few open-ended questions, to allow for
diversity in response that is not constrained by predetermined categorisation.
The questions will be arranged in logical sequence, for example moving from basic
awareness of the aims of the initiative, motivation to participate and assumptions at the
outset, account of key elements of the programme, extent of current knowledge of
programme, personal narrative of exposure to the programme, and account of key learning
and empowerment. Biographical data and questions that are deemed to be sensitive,
pertaining for example to income levels, will be included near the end of the questionnaire.
OVERVIEW OF FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY
We propose to conduct the survey fieldwork following a set of standard operating procedures.
There will be a single overall Survey Manager, to whom the Fieldwork Supervisor will report. Ten
fieldworkers will in turn report to the Fieldwork Supervisor. We envisage the sequencing of the
fieldwork as follows:
1. We will conduct a one to two-day training session for our fieldworkers, comprising thorough
working through the questionnaires, role-playing and piloting.
2. The fieldworkers will be thoroughly instructed on administering the questionnaires. They will
be tested in the role playing of interviews before being given the go-ahead to commence
with the fieldwork.
3. The respondents to be sampled will be selected on a systematic basis, roughly using the
probability of selection proportional to size of population (PPS) in the sampling frame.
4. An appointment will be made with each selected respondent or group of respondents.
5. Interviews will be conducted in-person if possible, or telephonically if this is more
convenient for the respondent.
6. Completed questionnaires will be thoroughly checked and edited by the Fieldwork
Supervisor. Where necessary, incomplete or inaccurate questionnaires will be returned to
the fieldworkers for follow-up visits or calls to their respondents.
7. The project management will conduct random back-checks of respondents, either
telephonically, or by personal visits, where interviews have been completed. Where
inconsistencies occur, the responsible fieldworkers will be required to effect the necessary
changes by means of follow-up visits to the households concerned. Any regular patterns of
inaccuracy will result in the dismissal of the fieldworkers concerned.
8. Once the Survey Manager is satisfied with the quality of returns, the completed
questionnaires will be coded and captured for analysis.
109
DETAILS OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
Interviews
To ensure consistency and comprehensiveness, both senior researchers for the MTR will co-conduct
and administer each of the semi-structured Management Interviews. The interview schedule will be
developed on the basis of a rapid assessment of the organisational and programme profile of the
Consortium member organisation, and in collaboration with the SEEDS project manager.
Interviews will be recorded and transcribed, and together with documentary materials, collated and
analysed thematically in terms of the MTR outputs, and a report produced.
Fieldworkers
The fieldworkers will be recruited from the database of experienced fieldworkers kept by
Outsourced Insight and its partner fieldwork companies. The total number of fieldworkers to be
recruited for this project will be 10. Each one will be responsible for the administration of up to 150
questionnaires.
Training
The training will be done by the Survey Manager and Fieldwork Supervisor. It will be conducted over
two days and will comprise several primary components:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Introduction of the project
Refresher on basic fieldwork procedures
Thorough briefing on each of the questionnaires
Role playing of interviews using the questionnaires
Piloting session with local accessible respondents
Registration of successful trainees
Deployment arrangements
Fieldwork logistics
The deployment of fieldworkers to the sampled respondents will be in accordance with the
residential geography of the fieldworkers where possible. Completed questionnaires will be
collected by the Fieldwork Supervisor from the fieldworkers during the course of moving between
areas where fieldwork is taking place.
Quality control
Several measures will be put into place to ensure that accurate and complete data is collected in the
field. The supervisor will check through each completed questionnaire to ensure that all relevant
questions have been answered. In the event that responses are found to be missing, the relevant
fieldworker will be asked to complete the missing items from recall of the interview or to call the
respondent telephonically if this is possible, or to return to the household, to obtain the missing
information. Fieldworkers will be funded to the tune of up to ten such calls. Once the editing
process is completed for the questionnaires, the Fieldwork Supervisor will conduct a final check
before sending each batch of questionnaires for coding and capturing. Additionally, the Fieldwork
Supervisor will conduct systematic back-checks on respondents that have been visited by
fieldworkers to ensure that quality is maintained. Where errors are found, the necessary corrections
will be made by the fieldworkers concerned. If such errors persist or any form of fraudulence is
discovered, the fieldworkers concerned will be dismissed. There is a low likelihood of this occurring,
given that the fieldworkers to be recruited will be reliable and experienced. The Project Manager
110
will also conduct random telephonic checks on completed questionnaires. The checking will entail
ascertaining that the respondent was actually visited and interviewed. Additionally, the respondent
will be asked whether any particular response “X” was actually given, as recorded in the
questionnaire.
Processing and analysis of data
Once collected and checked, the open-ended questions in each questionnaire will be coded
numerically. The data in the fully coded questionnaires will then be captured electronically into a
separate dataset for each instrument.
The resultant datasets will be converted into SPSS for analysis. A comprehensive report will be
compiled, involving analysis of each variable and the development of indices where appropriate or
relevant.
Report writing phase
The MTR report will be developed in three phases.
In the drafting phase, a report combining top-down and bottom-up perspectives of the SEEDS
initiative will be compiled based on each initial analysis of the Management Interviews and
Beneficiary Surveys. The initial structure of the report will be developed in consultation with the
SEEDS project manager.
The MTR first draft, including preliminary findings and recommendations, will be presented to the
SEEDS management for full discussion and consideration, and a final report submitted within 5 days,
following incorporating detailed comment and specific suggestions.
Budget
The complete budget for the surveys component of the project is R398,809 (including 14% VAT).
The table comprises a detailed disaggregation of each budget item.
111
Appendix C – Management Surveys – List of Interviews Conducted
EARLY LEARNING RESOURCE
UNIT (ELRU)
MATHS AND SCIENCE
EDUCATION PROJECT (MSEP):
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
Freda Brock, Ursula Segers, Kaye Foskewt 06.23.2011
MATHS AND SCIENCE FOR
TEACHERS AND LEARNERS:
UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH,
INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS
AND
SCIENCE
TEACHING
(IMSTUS)
TEACHING BIOLOGY PROJECT:
AFRICA GENOME EDUCATION
INSTITUTE
AND
THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN
CAPE (TBP)
Dr. Kosie Smit 06.27.2011
Prof. Jonathan Clark & Prof. Rudi Langksche 06.24.2011
Andrew Fair 06.27.2011
Prof. Lorna Holtman, Dr. Emmanuel Mushayika, Dr. Rosemary
Raitt, et al 06.29.2011
Cheryl Douglas & Karen Smit 06.15.2011
Dr. Wilmot James 06.28.2011
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL Sam Christie 06.23.2011
LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE (SAILI)
SCIFEST AFRICA
Anya Fourie 06.24.2011
CENTRE FOR MULTIGRADE Prof. Jurie Joubert, Chris Lombard 06.27.2011
EDUCATION, CAPE PENNINSULA
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Adam Rogers, Adrienne Van AS, Rene van der Merwe, Jordaan
(CMGE)
Van As, Cyril Lawless, Sharle Mathews, Priscilla Murugan
07.26.2011
SCHOOLS
AS
HUBS
OF Johnny Gevisser 07.29.2011
LEARNING, RECREATION, AND
SUPPORT: THE EXTRA-MURAL Katendi Kalenji 06.28.2011
EDUCATION PROJECT
Adam Cooper 06.28.2011 10:21a
WESTERN CAPE GENERATION
OF
LEADERS
DISCOVERED
(GOLD) PEER EDUCATION ROLLOUT PROJECT: GOLD PEER
EDUCATION
DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Susannah Farr, Sharon Rumble 06.28.2011
SEEDS Project Management
Mike Erskine 06.27.2011
Ian Walton, Zanele Makombe 06.23.2011
Edwin Brookes, Shane Egypt, Institute of Social Concerns
07.29.2011
112
Appendix D – Beneficiary Survey – Survey Instrument Template
(the example here was used for SAILI learners; the instrument was similarly
customised for each organisation by educator and learner, as applicable)
113
Respondent name
Questionnaire Number
School name
REVIEW OF SEEDS PROGRAMME: SAILI COMPONENT, JULY-AUGUST 2011
Dear Respondent
You have been involved in one of the programmes of the SEEDS initiative (Systemic Innovation for
Education Development & Support). We would appreciate your responses to the statements and
questions in this short questionnaire that we are administering for the Royal Netherlands Embassy.
We will compile a report based on this survey. No individual names will be mentioned in the
report. Please therefore be completely honest in your responses. Please circle the relevant number
corresponding to your answer in each case, or write a brief response if the question is open-ended.
Please complete and return your questionnaire to the fieldworker or other person from whom you
received it.
Best wishes, Dr Stephen Rule & Dr Tim Clynick
CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF YOUR CHOICE FOR EACH ANSWER
Please indicate if you agree or disagree with these statements:
1. I have enjoyed my participation in the SAILI programme
2. SAILI has assisted me to increase my knowledge of math & science
3. Since participation in SAILI, I am more confident in my studies
4. The maths & science covered at my school is relevant & comprehensive
5. I have been exposed to better teaching materials since participating in SAILI
6. The ways that maths & science are taught at my school are helpful to me
7. I have regular contact with other SAILI learners
8. The visits to my school by SAILI facilitators are helpful to me
9. The principal and teachers at my school fully support SAILI
10. Learners at my school who are not in SAILI feel left out
11. Non-SAILI learners at my school treat me fairly and in a friendly way
12. The school where I am now based is most suitable for me
13. I enjoy learning more since joining the SAILI programme
Strongly
agree
Agree
Not
sure
Disagree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Strongly
disagree
14. What do you feel is the most positive consequence of the SAILI programme for you?
15. What could be changed to make the SAILI programme more helpful for you? [PROMPT if necessary: cost of participation,
time spent on participation, quality/relevance of facilitation/materials]
16. Describe briefly a teaching method used at your current school that has enhanced your knowledge and
understanding of a topic in mathematics or science. (Specify subject and topic).
17. What is or was your primary motivation for participating in the SAILI programme?
114
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
18. In addition to SAILI, what support do you receive in your studies?
19. From whom do you receive this support?
20. Gender
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
22. In which area do you live?
Male
1
Female
2
21. Age
23. In which year did you start Grade 1?
24. Which of the following subjects are you studying in Grade 12?
Accounting
History
Geography
Life Orientation
Computer Applications Technology
Home Language, specify………………………………...
First Additional Language, specify ………………….…
Second Additional Language, specify …………………
Mathematical Literacy
Life Sciences
Physical Science
Mathematics
25. Which language do you speak mostly at home?
Sesotho
1
Setswana
2
Sepedi
3
isiXhosa
4
isiZulu
5
Xitsonga
6
Tshivenda
7
Afrikaans
8
English
9
Month
26. In which month and year did you start participating in the SAILI programme?
Do you participate regularly in any of the
Other (specify) …………..
10
Year
Yes, at school
Yes, during my spare time
No, not at all
27. Playing sport
1
2
3
28. Music or other cultural activity
1
2
3
29. Religious group
1
2
3
30. Subject specific club or activity, specify:
………………………………………………….…
31. Other activity, specify: …………………………
1
2
3
1
2
3
following activities? (Circle where relevant)
32. How satisfied are you with progress in your studies?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
33. Thinking about your life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
1
2
3
4
5
34. What is your current occupational status?
Full-time learner (specify course & year)
Full-time employee (specify
Part-time employee (specify
………………………………….....................
occupation & employer)
occupation & employer)
.........................................................................
………………………………
………………………………
........................................................................
………………………………
………………………………
2
3
1
…
Other
Unemployed
(specify)
…..……
…..……
4
5
………
………
35. Do you know the purpose of each of the following organisations? (1=Yes; 2=No)
ELRU
CMGE
SMILES
SCIMATHUS
TBP
MSEP
SAILI
GOLD
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY.
115
SCIFEST
………
IMSTUS
EMEP
….