Link Community Development: Achievable Education for All

Long term district level programme working in Ethiopia, Ghana,

Malawi, South Africa and Uganda

Kampala Conference

Kampala AEFA conference 18-22 June 2012 in partnership with CCFE

Supported by the Commonwealth Foundation, DFID Ethiopia, EU and the Open Society Foundation

MoE and district representatives from Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa and Uganda

Kampala 18-22 June 2012

Link Community Development in Sub Saharan Africa

Education NGO working in Ethiopia Ghana Malawi South Africa and Uganda

In partnership with MoE Focus on District education office impact on

learner outcomes Programme design is a 'two district' model,

engaging every school within two+ districts in each country

Districts

Wolaita Zone in SNPPR in Ethiopia Bolgatanga, Talensi Nabdaam (UER) and BAK

(Ashanti) in Ghana Dedza and Mulanje in Malawi E Cape and Limpopo in South Africa Buiisa, Kamwenge, Katakwi and Masindi in

Uganda

LCD Interventions

1993-1996 Whole school development (South Africa)

1997 – 2003 Whole district development (S Africa, Ghana, Uganda)

2003 – 2012 School performance review (Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa and Uganda)

Common Factors

Each country is trying to deliver universal primary education

Each country has introduced a version of decentralisation which requires district education offices or their equivalent to take responsibility for school performance

Each country is engaged with district level school monitoring and support activities

Each country has developed their version of 'school performance review'

School Performance Review

SPR identifies an achievable standard of school performance

SPR measures school performance in all schools against that standard

SPR provides diagnostics for school and district planning to improve school performance

SPR reports are shared with parents who discuss school performance at the School Performance Appraisal Meeting

SPR cycle

Data analysis

& Circuit

Planning

Data analysis

& Circuit

Planning

SPR School Visits

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

CircuitSchool

Conference

CircuitSchool

Conference

TERM 1 TERM 2

School Performance

AppraisalMeetings

School Performance

AppraisalMeetings

Delivery , School based support, Monitoring, reflection...

2007 June July Aug Sep Oct - Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

REVIEW & INTEGRATED PLANNING

SCHOOL SUPPORT & MONITORING

10 weeks

TERM 3 TERM 4

The planning Phase The delivery phase

SPR school visit

2007 June July Aug Sep Oct - Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

School Performance

Review school visits10 – 15 days

Every school visited and performance measured against SPR indicators

3 officials visit the school for one day to collect data

Open source database

Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 40

2

4

6

8

10

12

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

District analysis of data

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

Data analysis5 days

All data from any source can be analysed – not just SPR. Include

WSE, Systemic evaluation etc

School Performance Review reports

District Planning

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

District & Circuit

Planning workshop

5 days

Outputs: 1. District & Circuit SPR Report 2. District & Circuit Intervention plans 3. Draft school intervention plans 4. Timeframe for implementation

Provincial policy interventions feed into the

District workshop e.g. Literacy strategy

Provincial policy interventions feed into the

District workshop e.g. Literacy strategy

Including unions, selected

Principals

District Education Conference

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

District / Circuit Schools

ConferenceSPR Reports & draft intervention plans presented to all schools for discussion

All National & Provincial policy changes and

planned interventions are also presented to all

schools

Example: Vhembedzi Circuit Conference

Developing plans which are delivered

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

Interventions are only Planned in Terms 1 & 2

At the end of each

term, we meet to

reflect on delivery and revisit plans

At the end of each

term, we meet to

reflect on delivery and revisit plans

SPR also informs the need for Centre based training to be

delivered at the start of terms 1 & 2

SPR also informs the need for Centre based training to be

delivered at the start of terms 1 & 2

School Performance Appraisal Meetings

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

TERM 1 TERM 2

School performance

appraisal meetings

Appraisal meeting has 2 parts:

1.School engages with District/Circuit Official re planned interventions and agree SIP2.School presents the SPR report and agreed SIP to SGB and community in the presence of the District/Circuit Official

Ensuring that schools have really

understood SPR and have agreed

plans

SPAM: Ethiopia

Reality

Pupils are arriving at schools hungry Attending classes with 100+ learners Teaching in a language that teachers themselves are

not competent in Drop out results especially after P1, P2 and P3 Focus on managing examination results masks the

true rate of failure in our schools Even in SA, MoE states that 80% of schools are

dysfunctional

But what about policy makers

SPR was always going to have success with the reporting phase and the engagement between school and community.

The key phase is the engagement with district planning and at the macro level with MoE planning and budgeting.

So how did SPR information inform discussion between district and MoE teams in Kampala?

Key issues – from Kampala participants during Simulation training:

Eth A Eth B

Gh Mal Ug S Afr

What is your 'effective' pupil teacher ratio? 70 60 58 108 100 40

What % of teachers have sufficient language competence?

20% 40% 45% 60% 80% 20%

How many children arrive at school having eaten 'breakfast'?

20% 80% 40% 40% 20% 100%

Impact of engagement with District/Woreda 100% 75% 40% 75% 25% 85%

What % of school age children are in school at P4 age?

99% 98% 75% 80% 60% 98%

So we can collect data, we can share it, but what does the data tell us?

In short, the majority of schools are failing to deliver anything more than day care

If we can't place educated teachers in our classrooms in rural schools, the current model of schooling is unlikely to succeed.

If we don't improve quality and transition to secondary education, we won't produce enough educated students who could become teachers.

If we can't produce enough Maths educated students, countries won't have the educated workforce to enable economic growth.

Any parents who can afford to, send their children to private schools

So what have we achieved with SPR?

So far we've:

Designed a process which enables district level staff to collect and analyse data at school level and inform school and district planning

Demonstrated that this can be delivered by existing staffing

Demonstrated that this can be taken to scale

Next steps – School Report Cards

That 'school monitoring and support' processes are now a key part of MoE and district delivery

All MoE teams wanted to learn more about the effective use of school report cards and the potential of web access to school report cards.

Ghana MoE has promised to invite MoE teams to a workshop in Accra to learn more about their approach to school report cards.

So what next with SPR?

Most of the focus to date has been on producing SPR reports.

Current emphasis (School Report Cards) is on access to that information by MoE

Key is: facing up to our reality regarding 'quality':

What macro and micro decisions need to be made to enable 'quality' to enable quality education to be achieved.

Kampala 'regional SPAM' was a demonstration of what a 'national SPAM' could represent.

Next Steps to develop SPR

1) Invest in web based school report card demonstration

2) Invest in improved database to enable more flexible application in each country

3) Invest in district and circuit performance report cards

4) Review of Parent Participation and ‘rights and responsibilities’ posters / training to enable ‘demand pressure’ on school performance.

SPR and PERI

• MoE is normally responsible for monitoring State and Private schools. This rarely happens .

• Parents have very poor school performance data to inform their decisions about school choice.

• Parents have a lack of information about their entitlements and responsibilities.

National SPR to measure performance of all schools

• So our proposal is that the MoE should invest in school performance review of every school, every year, State or Private.

• That this information is used for national, district and school planning

• That this information is available for every parent

• That this information is discussed at a school ‘SPAM’ enabling parents to ask questions and hold the school accountable for performance.

Some questions for MoE

• What is the unit cost of delivering State education compared with Private Schools?

• In many cases, the unit cost in Private schools is lower.

• Is this a case for more private schools or is it a challenge to improve the efficiency of the State sector?

Ghana – quick reflection

• Growing Private School sector

• MoE/GES supply not responding to population shifts and urban development

• Actual/Transaction cost of attending private schools can be lower than actual/transaction cost of attending State schools

• Few MoE/GES/District officials place their kids in State schools

• But education may become an election issue…