-
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.
-
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
|
|
R (m's)
|
R (m's) to Dec 2010
|
% of Total
|
R’s to date/R’s total
|
EMEP
|
18
|
7.74
|
12.0
|
43
|
Table: SEEDS Consortium Focus Area 311
-
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
-
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 in-depth 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Clarifications on key themes were drawn from extracts and data from EMEP’s annual and quarterly reports, published and unpublished documents shared with us, and some on-line resources etc.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
-
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 and grow innovative development practices that trigger positive, whole school, whole child, whole teacher, and whole community change. Essentially, ‘extra-murals’ 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 child-friendly 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 ‘extra-mural’, even in Afrikaans, ‘buite muurse’. Our experience shows it is a uniquely positioned space that, if used well, can trigger whole school development."
-
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.
-
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 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 teacher-friendly 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?”
-
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.”
-
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 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 re-evaluated 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 recognising the role that extra-murals play in academic achievements and include academics and culture into extra-mural programmes.
-
‘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.
-
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.”
-
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:
“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, school-specific 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 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 extra-murally 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.
-
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 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:
“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 extra-mural 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.”
-
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.”
-
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
-
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
|
Learners
|
Total
|
Extra-mural Programme
|
EMEP
|
31
|
180
|
211
|
Total
|
31
|
180
|
211
|
Table : Number of respondents from each of the SEEDS component projects
-
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.
|
Educators
|
Learners
|
Number of respondents
|
31
|
180
|
Male : Female ratio
|
55:45
|
36:64
|
Age range
|
23-60
|
8-20
|
Plays Sport
|
75%
|
85%
|
Music/cultural activity
|
75%
|
63%
|
Religious group
|
64%
|
56%
|
Other club
|
63%
|
55%
|
Very satisfied or satisfied with study progress
|
73%
|
89%
|
Very satisfied or satisfied with life as a whole
|
87%
|
91%
| -
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).
Programme
|
Strongly agree
|
Agree
|
Not sure or Disagree
|
EMEP Learners
|
69
|
24
|
7
|
EMEP Educators
|
71
|
29
|
0
|
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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”.
-
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”.
-
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”.
-
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”.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
