Semi-Annual Report of Institutional Progress
part of the report covers the important section of test administration. Two
Yüklə 0,54 Mb.
|
| part of the report covers the important section of test administration. Two
main themes are presented, namely the number of students tested (quantitative data) and details on the process of administration of tests. 25 Table 1 shows the number of students tested at each of the fully participating institutions for the Year 4 (Version 4) of each test in 2002:
Table 1: Total number of students tested for three areas Regarding the second theme, feedback from institutions indicated that test administration is running smoothly. This is largely the result of clearly identified testing co-ordinators at the various institutions. Better organisation, in terms of logistics (timeous provision of materials, smoother invigilation and a streamlined marking procedure), has led to a more positive experience by participating institutions. The process has not been without its share of challenges. Although minor in nature, it has impacted on the success of the project. These have been identified as:
As the fully participating institutions have attested, the relevant tests were applied to ail the students who were registered and available, on the agreed 26 testing dates, in the targeted programmes where compensatory programmes were available. The participating institutions determined the at-risk students based on SAT's scores in the three areas. The following table represents the total figure for students identified as at risk across these institutions.
There have been a significantly higher number of students placed in bridging and compensatory programmes in Year Four as opposed to Year Three. The following table presents the placement totals for Years Three and Four for the fully participating institutions.
27 Mangosuthu Technikon, Peninsula Technikon and University of the Northwest placed 100% of students identified as at risk in all three areas, namely Language, Mathematics and Science, whilst ML Sultan Technikon placed 100% of students in Language and Mathematics. The University of Western Cape placed 100% of students in Mathematics and Science and over 80% in Language. The University of Fort Hare placed over 90% of students in all three areas. The remaining four fully participating institutions, Technikon North West, University of Transkei, University of Zululand and Vista University, placed the required 65% in many cases exceeding this significantly. The data indicates that the project (Result) has met its placement targets. The ten fuliy participating organisations placed more than 65% of the students tested and identified as at risk (by the institutions) in appropriate bridging programmes. It is important to note that the placement percentage in nearly all the cases significantly exceeded the 65 % criterion. The successful placement of students takes on greater significance when seen against a backdrop of a host of constraints militating against the success of this project (Result). It speaks of the resilience of committed and dedicated staff at the institutions. The support via the National workshop and other interventions is also an essential part of the success equation. Compensatory programmes were operating in all three areas, namely Language, Mathematics and Science. These programmes covered the whole spectrum from add-on to fully integrated, flexible and fundable programmes. This is an area that needs more support and development Institutions need to spend more resources on the research and development of these interventions. This is the following logical focal shift that needs to occur. Achievement of Year Four Result 2: Ten HDIs assessing all first-year students and providing an appropriate compensatory (bridging) program for at least 65 % of those students requiring help in key strategic areas of Math, English, and Science. The placement aspect of the project was successful in that, in the ten fully participating institutions, more than 65% of the students tested and assessed as being at-risk were provided with relevant compensatory Programmes. These institutions include:
28
Recommendations for Year 5
29 members in the institutions, particularly Deans, Heads of Schools and Programme Co-ordinators.
IV. Staff Development Staff development is one of the cross-cutting activities that involve each of the TELP Components. Thus, interventions are discussed throughout the focus areas of the individual progress reports. This section of the Executive Summary, however, will focus on the Institution Specific Activities Component and its objective to build capacity in proposal writing and project implementation. Staff development has also taken place through participation in workshops and overseas study travel, thus, information on the overseas staff development activities will focus on the number of participant trainees that traveled under TELP funds, either through the PIL activities and/or linkage grants. A chart indicating the level of workshop participation under the various TELP components is also provided. During the current reporting period, IS staff development activities focused on receiving the Round 6 PIL proposals. In order to improve the quality of proposal submissions, the Year 4 strategy for capacity building in proposal writing was the same as Year 3, employing a three-phase approach. Phase One involved institution-based project conceptualization workshops. Phase Two involved two regional proposal writing capacity-building workshops and a review of Draft #1 of the proposal. Phase Three involved regional feedback workshops for Draft #2 of the proposals and individual feedback of Draft #3, where necessary. It is also significant that the same facilitator was used again during Year 4, so the continuity and familiarity with individual institutional capacity also contributed greatly to the success of this strategic intervention. Institutions received a thorough briefing and assistance in line with USAID proposal writing guidelines, and HDI's were also provided opportunities to share knowledge and resources around HIV/AIDS interventions. The evaluations from the three November and the one 30 February workshops indicated that the participants were satisfied with the new strategy employed by UNCFSP. Semi-Annual Reporting Reporting back on actual implementation of PILs has increased the level of accountability for implementation practices. UNCFSP in collaboration with USAID, developed guidelines and a standard format in order to increase HDI capacity to develop reporting skills. The Semi-Annual Report is an important monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the Institution Specific Activities Component. Institutions are required to submit semi-annual reports by 30 April for the period 1 October to 31 March and 30 October for the period 1 April to 30 September of each year. During the current reporting period, UNCFSP noted some improvements in semi-annual reporting. This improvement can be traced to the special feedback mechanism that has been developed that provides a more detailed report that specifically indicates the problems with the reporting mechanism used by the institution. A comparison between the feedback provided for the October 2001 submission and the April 2002 submissions indicates that the greatest need was in the reporting of financial data and providing details concerning success stories. In Year Four, two milestones provided training in all aspects of the PIL process, program management and semi-annual reporting. A two-day PIL Implementation Workshop was held in September 2001 and was attended by project leaders and financial managers of new PILs and Special PILS. The purpose of the workshop was to ensure that the project directors and financial managers are fully conversant with UNCFSP/ USAID requirements with regard to the PIL process, including semi-annual reporting. Participants evaluated the workshop indicating that they had gained the knowledge to write the necessary financial, monitoring and evaluation (semi-annual) reports. Also, a one-day training and re-tooiing workshop was held in November 2001 for TELP Co-ordinators in aspects of PILs and programme management. This workshop addressed many aspects of the PIL process including the financial standing of the institutions as related to the claiming of expenditures from USAID and continued the discussion relative to the reasons institutions failed to claim in a timely manner. The importance of claiming was emphasized and the correlation between claiming and qualifying for Round 6 PIL competition was shown. Most the TCs agreed that the day had been very informative, with 53.3 per cent strongly agreed that the workshop assisted and motivated them to carry Year Four activities, 46.7 per cent agreed, with no one disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. 31 Implementation and Monitoring Plans UNCFSP developed a set of guidelines on how to develop implementation and monitoring plans in 1999. This was done in order to improve upon practices associated with submitting claims, purchasing materials and equipment, and generally adhering to host country contracting requirements. Problems associated with the successful implementation and monitoring of PIL activities were addressed during the November 2001 TELP Coordinators Workshop. Dr. Khehla Ndolvu of USAID solicited from the TELP Coordinators those issues that explained why a large sum of funds remain in the pipeline. TELP Coordinators provided thirteen points that were reported on in the December 2001 Progress Report. Most HDIs have made marked improvements in the implementation and monitoring of PILs. As the figures indicate below, these discussions paid off in high improvements of actual claims during the first half of 2002. During the period January 25, 2002 to July 30, 2002 the exchange rate used to calculate the rand value of PILs were changed for the purpose of freeing up funds and shortening USAID's pipeline. During this period, most HDIs spent their time minimizing amounts that would have been lost with these PILs, increasing the percentage claimed of the minimum required claims on expired PILs from 78% to 81%. This is above the average claims made on all PILs by all HDIs to date being 78%, which in itself is a huge improvement over the 67% of the previous period. The HDIs in general showed a mammoth improvement in the actual claims, claiming on average 27% better on active PILs in this period than that of the previous. All HDIs who have been working so hard to attain this good rating should be commended. PIL DISBURSEMENTS AT 30/07/02
  The differences between the percentage disbursed of retired per US$'and ZAR are because of the
Depreciation of the ZAR against the US$ since the signing of PILs to the payment of disbursements. The effect is that the US$ amounts disbursed becomes smaller in relation to the ZAR amounts disbursed.
  
Yüklə 0,54 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||