APPENDIX 1.
Details of
Organizations Involved
The
Aga Khan Education Service,
AKES,I
manages 7 schools in
Personnel involved in the School Improvement Programme : Throughout the text a reference has been made to the Project personnel. The members of the team changed over the programme period. In the 1st Phase the external evaluator of the schools Sr. Ambuja was made the Project Director. It was essentially her vision together with AKES,I's directive and support that was translated. Appointed by AKES,I Sr. Ambuja had an external consultant to aid her in pedagogical considerations. Her role grew enormously over time. Running a programme that spanned two schools that are not geographically close enough for facile working was not easy. At AKES,I support came in the form of the Director for Schools (a member of the Board of Directors), the Executive Officer, the Education Officer and the Programme Officer for Schools being actively involved in the management of these schools. While the first three were present at meetings to support and provide guidance, the Programme Officer was involved in the daily functioning of the schools and worked closely with the Project Director.
In Phase II it was recognized that with all three sections of the schools (Pre-school, Primary and Secondary) coming under the purview of the programme it would be advantageous to divide the workload between new members each appointed specifically for one section of the school. Each school thus had their own Academic Advisory Assistants at each level who would assist the school Principals in their work and were accountable to the Project Director. In this Phase the Education Officer of AKES,I was appointed as Project Director and a Deputy Executive Officer’s post was created. In effect the project moved closer to AKES,I as one member was both part of the management as well as part of the project. The Programme Officer for schools was made the Documentation Specialist in 1995 when the need arose to document the programme. Towards the middle of the second Phase a consultant was appointed for Dissemination to other schools. As the members grew within the team the project appointed its own staff for clerical work (referred to the text as SIP employees).
All members within the team were required to have skills in multiple areas --academics, facilitation skills, Teacher TTraining, managerial and perhaps, most importantly interpersonal skills. The key qualities exhibited were willingness to take risks, initiate dialogues and openness to change.
Over the programme period the designation of these posts changed for instance prior to the project the person incharge of schools at AKES,I was called the Curriculum Development Officer subsequently this post was referred to as Education Officer.
APPENDIX 3.
OBJECTIVES
OF THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME
IN
PHASE
I, II & III
Phase
I
1) Work from grass roots level in the schools through the management to identify/clarify goals and build structures which are assimilated and owned by the organization.
2) Upgrade teachers in the knowledge of their subject matter, English in particular, in the methodology and in the use of teaching aids.
3) Find concrete and immediate ways of addressing the problem of learning difficulties of the children in remedial programmes especially designed to cater to their needs through a programme of curriculum redesign.
4) Make serious efforts to establish community contact in order to enlist the understanding, support and positive interest of the community in the progress of the schools.
Phase
II
1) To build an institutional climate and structure that is facilitative to change, upgradation and sustenance.
2) To provide opportunities for personal and professional upgradation of staff.
3) Curriculum consolidation and redesign at various levels.
4) To improve language teaching at all levels.
5) To upgrade the student support unit to include a programme of academic, emotional, social and financial support to all students.
6) To encourage community and parental involvement.
7) Networking with other institutions for mutual benefit.
Phase
III
1) The facilitation of the growth of reflective processes in schools.
2) The stimulation of the growth of joint problem solving in schools.
3) The broadening and strengthening of the leadership base for the schools to create an enabling environment.
4) The sharing of the SDP technology with others for mutual benefit.
It is interesting to see the gradual growth of the programme from these changing objectives. While the broad overall aim has been to provide quality education in a conducive environment, the changing nature and scope of the objectives over time reveals a growing understanding of the operational aspects of implementing that aim.
While originally setting forth a proposal for school improvement, the
Phase I project planners had focused on the above 4 components. However, a
review of the quarterly reports even within the first phase reveals that as the
project took, shape seven areas were identified for concerted action. On the
one hand there was a recognition that staff development, if it was to be
holistic, had to look at a growth in self awareness of the teachers involved.
So teachers development took place at two levels the intra and the inter personal level
and at the professional level.
Similarly in the second phase with increasing media attention and interest shown by other educational institutions a need arose to devise a comprehensive programme for dissemination. The latter part of Phase II witnessed a concerted channelization of energies and resources in the context of this new dimension. This development has had its impact on the planning for Phase III which is focusing on networking and cross fertilization of experiences.
The objectives of phase III also demonstrate a broader perspective. In the first two phases, the objectives are focused in rectifying problem areas viz. ‘improve language teaching’ or ‘upgrade teachers in the knowledge of their subject matter’. Phase III objectives emphasize the need for reflective processes, problem solving, networking etc. which are the outcomes of learnings based on experience garnered over the two previous phases.
The very fact that the programme has held itself open to take in any new dimensions mid course speaks favorably for its flexibility. It is also a reminder that any change process is in itself a learning experience and corrections set in motion reflect the flexibility for feeding in reflections as the programme makes headway.
APPENDIX 4.
Over the last decade of change at D.J. schools observers have often asked the question “Are the D.J. children really learning?” If so are they performing better than their peers in other schools? Or are they at least as competent? Other questions follow suit. Can we consider that SIP has helped improve the learning levels of the children? Are the children achieving better than what they used to before SIP?
These questions assail not just the implementers at the grass roots viz. the teachers or the project personnel but also the higher echelons of management who are accountable.
Prior to the introduction of SIP, a detailed external evaluation had been undertaken in 1988. With change proving to be a constantly evolving process, implementers have had to consciously stand back and objectively take stock of learning outcomes. Since 1989 there have been 3 evaluations of the programme. The first in 1992 was a formal external evaluation while the latter two have been in-house evaluations undertaken with a view to obtaining feedback and building in corrective measures. One of these involved a longitudinal study over time of 36 children from both schools, undertaken over a 3 year period (1992 - 95). The other more recent study (March 1997) had the objective of investigating the impact of the SIP since its inception in 1989.
The key issues
raised by the external evaluation in 1988 are :
1) The quality of teaching was generally poor due to various factors including a didactic approach, poor command of English, lack of teaching skills and lack of understanding of the children's needs.
2) Children had learning difficulties mainly due to poor understanding of English and an unstimulating environment.
3) The curriculum was rigid and lacked enrichment and creativity.
4) There was a lack of unity, trust and commitment between the staff and management.
5) There was insufficient interaction between the schools, parents and the community.
The subsequent three studies primarily looked at competencies in language and Mathematics as these were the key thrust areas of curriculum redesign.
The Post Phase I external evaluation in 1992 was undertaken by Dr. R. Govinda and NIEPA on behalf of the Aga Khan Foundation. It was undertaken as part of a larger effort to evaluate other AKF sponsored school improvement ventures on a worldwide basis.
The objective of this study was to “examine the extent to which the project objectives and components have been pursued during the life of the project”. The underlying objective was to identify the strengths and weaknesses indicate possible lines of action for strengthening the SIP. Data collection was undertaken through questionnaires, interviews, direct observation and administration of achievement tests from the two D.J. schools as well as a comparable non project school.
The following
observations were made :
¶ In language and Mathematics on selected cognitive skills in both project schools a higher proportion of students showed a high mastery level performance over lower order skills. The same however, cannot be said about the higher order skills.
There is not much difference in the pattern between project and non project schools in the mastery levels of English. With respect to Maths the project school children had mastery over mechanical skills. The performance in the non project schools is no different on problems involving ‘subtraction’. On addition problems they show greater mastery than the D.J. schools. On problems involving application skills the pattern of mastery shown by non project schools is quite similar to that in the project schools.
¶ Learning in non cognitive areas : The Pre-schools provide ample opportunities in non cognitive areas. Classroom observations indicate that a sizable proportion of children in the Pre-school sections are involved in creative activites, take independent initiative, think independently and express their opinions confidently. Children in the Primary sections also seem to be doing well in acquiring non cognitive skills. While “interacting freely with the teachers”, “expressing opinions freely”, are strong areas. Certain areas such as “developing leadership skills”, etc. need strengthening.
¶ Positive changes in the school climate with increased representation to teachers in the school management committee. The overall climate is one optimism and mutual interdependence.
¶ Positive impact on the attitude of the parents and the community towards the D.J. schools.
¶ Overall attitude of teachers is quite favorable towards the action initiated through SIP. However, conviction and commitment about the appropriateness of the strategies seem to be only partial. It was noted that the teachers are an uneven set in terms of their exposure in training as well as their level of participation which may be affecting their attitude as well. The level of intellectual internalization of the basic principles and strategies of SIP among the teachers is a strong point of SIP.
Longitudinal impact study : 1992
The Project Director of SIP Phase I undertook a small study in D.J.
schools with the objective of obtaining insights on class room management,
teacher training, ongoing academic development in the curricular areas of
English and Mathematics. In April 1992, 18 students from Std II in each
school six gifted, six average and
six with special needs were tested in English language and Mathematics.
The study made the
following observations :
[ In Mathematics the Gifted and Average children have done well at the end of their Primary years, with D.J. Boys on the whole showing a slightly greater growth and grasping power in this subject than the girls.
[ A big gap between the Gifted, Average and the Slow Learners exists. The last group seems seems to require a far stronger support system to make progress in Mathematics.
[ In English it is D.J. Girls of the Gifted and Average groups who are slightly ahead of the Boys in terms of development of expression both oral and written. The Slow Learners of both schools require a stronger support system right through Secondary school.
[ The comparison of the final results of the academic year 1994 - 95 in both subjects with a group of children of a similar background from another private school indicates that the percentages scored by the D.J. children are on the whole higher. The study notes that a possible reason for this could be that in trying to choose appropriate children with a similar vernacular background, the teachers had to tap the weaker section of the class.
Study conducted in March 1997
The last study was undertaken with Std. VI students in the curriculum areas of the English language, Mathematics and Creative Thinking. This group was selected as it had been exposed to SIP since its commencement in 1989.
The language and Mathematics tests were developed in-house from various standardized tests. This study was an in-house exercise conducted by SIP personnel and some D.J. Teachers.
The following observations are made :
µ Overall, age levels in D.J. Schools are more stable with few overage students and repeaters.
µ Overall in Mathematics D.J. Boys school students scored better.
µ The D.J. Girls school will need to concentrate on Mathematics conceptional understanding.
µ The average score in English language and written expression were better in D.J. Girls school.
µ The D.J. Boys will need to concentrate on increasing the student’s vocabulary and on improving reading comprehension.
µ The students of both schools appeared confident and creative in their oral responses.
µ In the D.J. Boys ground rules for acceptable classroom behavior need to be laid down. Students did not follow instructions during the test.
µ In the Creative Thinking tests, the students of both the schools appeared much more confident and creative as compared to the others.
These tests were also conducted on other students outside the D.J. Schools system. This was the first time that D.J. teachers were involved in such an evaluation and could be considered part of the SIP training for developing skills in this area.
Other general observations made were that the students of DJB and DJG were able, enthusiastic and confident about seeking clarifications of their doubts in more or less correct English. The students outside the D.J. system asked for very few clarifications in the Creative Thinking tests, the girls appeared shy to respond. They maintained discipline, and followed instructions. Their responses were more stereotyped while those of the D.J. schools were more original.
Overall, these attempts at examining progress intermittently have provided valuable insights to the Project team on areas requiring strengthening. It is being increasingly recognized that with change as new methodology is introduced, tangible results are slow to emerge. The greater the understanding and delivery of that methodology among the implementers the better the chances are of its success with children. Will the results at the end of the academic cycle really merit the effort put in? Or have we risked in vain? Perhaps we must ask the recipients of this exercise -- has schooling become less burden some, more joyful? If it has, we have made a beginning.