Article #3: Schools survey of SSRP implementation

Our readers know that for 2 years we have been critical of the content of the School Sector Reform Plan with it's over-emphasis on outputs and measurement, especially having taken a "rights based approach" to quality education. What this means essentially is that the policies focus on the rights of children to having an education and therefore increasing the means of access to every child. This is fine, we have never said otherwise, BUT what is missing is specific direction about what happens to those children once they begin attending school. By all means measure enrolment rates but the real measure is one of completion rates (the children who STAY in school to the end of each year) and ensuring that teaching practices and the environment are designed to enhance completion rates.

In our opinion, it is the lack of guidance and training for teachers on child centred methodologies that is most contributing to a reduction in completion rates, but we have recently been intrigued by claims from a variety of sources about the positive implementation of the SSRP and the provision of teacher training. So, since we are currently providing teacher training to 50 schools in the Kathmandu valley we decided to conduct a very simple survey amongst the Heads/Principals with questions that could be answered either "Yes or No". The questions and answers are shown below:

1. Have you heard of the SSRP? (4% NO)

2. Do you have a copy of the SSRP? (76% NO)

3. Have you had a briefing on it? (80% NO)

4. Have you had any management training in past 2 years? (72% NO)

5. Have your teachers had any official training in past 2 years? (4% NO)

6. Has your school been given any funding to purchase teacher training? (100% NO)

7. Has your school been given any funding to purchase classroom materials? (100% NO)

Now, these are very simple and direct questions and relate to some obvious issues. 

First, you cannot implement the requirements of the SSRP unless you have heard of it, have a copy, have had some briefing/training in it. Only 20 % meet this essential requirement.

Second, the SSRP clearly promises management training for Principals with many of the SSRP processes being dependent on managerial activities and skills. Only 28% meet this requirement.

Third, the SSRP stipulated that funding would be available for schools to purchase "on demand" teacher training and essential classroom materials. Precisely 0% have received any!

Remember, this is Kathmandu, the capital city, with a sample of 50 schools close to the nations resources and policy makers. These schools were not in the remote region of Humla to the West or Jhapa to the East!

I have just run out of things to write, form your own judgement in the light of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent so far on "implementing" this ..... document. Did I say "implementing"?

Article #2: Quality of education drops even further!

Although not strictly related directly to our focus on primary education, the SLC (school leaving certificate) results announced today in Kathmandu offer further evidence of an education system failing it's youth. 

The results show that only 47% of students taking the SLC actually passed! In numerical terms this means that out of the 419,047 students sitting the exams at the end of Year 10, that 221,419 have emerged from 10 years at school without the necessary certificate. Take a bow all you officials in the Ministry of Education, all you teachers, and all you politicians in the Constituent Assembly. 

Unbelievably however a statement from Mahasharm Sharma the Director General of the Department of Education tells us "this may have been caused by a lack of a send-up test (mock exam) prior to the actual exam which can be used to filter out students".

Mr Sharma, with the greatest respect here is a list of the factors which are probably causing the declining trend since the School Sector Reform Plan was launched in 2010 (68% pass rate in 2009, 64% pass rate in 2010, 55% pass rate in 2011, 47% pass rate in 2012):

1. Poorly trained teachers
2. Unmotivated teachers
3. Inappropriate pedagogies (teaching methods)
4. Inappropriate student assessment process
5. Inadequate classroom resources
6. No clear understanding of the meaning of or inputs required for "quality education"

If you want to read the full depressing story click here SLC Results 2012

Article #1: Universal Primary Education? Where's the quality?

This is the first in a short series of articles about the development of primary education in Nepal. The subsequent articles will include the results of a survey conducted amongst 50 primary schools in Kathmandu followed by some evaluation results of our Foundation programme of teacher training.

(And the reason for the photo will become clearer)

In August 2009 Nepal's government published their School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP), " ....... a long term strategic plan to achieve the goals and objectives of {Nepal} envisioned for the years 2009 to 2013/14. The plan contains the strategic interventions and estimated financial resources required for implementation".

The plan highlighted a number of Key Indicators and targets such as Pupil-Teacher ratios reducing from 41 to 34, Repetition Rates in Grade 1 reducing from 18% to 1%, Survival Rate at Grade 5 rising from 58% to 90%, Learning Achievement Rate (exam scores) at Grade 5 rising from53% to 80%, and a Literacy Rate rising from 69% to 90% in the age group 6-14 years.

The plan was then divided into specific sectors of education such as early childhood development, basic (primary) education, secondary education etc, as well as chapters on teacher professional development, financing, aid management, and a large appendix with a section entitled Quality Education.

Finally the Introduction section was quite specific about implementation of the plan with these words, " ...... the SSRP will be implemented in a phased manner ........ from 2009/10 onwards it will be implemented throughout the country focusing on the integration and consolidation of basic education (grades 1-8) and completing the process by 2012."

Obviously the sections of most interest to us are those concerned with Basic Education (grades 1-8, Teacher Professional Development, and Quality Education and our review and critique will amalgamate facts, opinions and suggestions across these three sections.

A great deal of the SSRP, quite rightly, is seeking to achieve Goal 2 of the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, Universal Primary Education by 2015, and the SSRP takes a "rights based approach" strategically and tactically in it's content and process. For example much is written about the rights of all children, whether male or female, whether Bahun or Dalit, whether in Humla or Kathmandu, to receiving an education. Many key indicators are focused on measuring enrolment rates and survival rates, priority funding is targeted on females, Dalit's and other indigenous groups, and some emphasis is given to education in "mother tongue" across the curriculum and geographically. However we believe that taking a rights based approach exclusively will detract greatly from the whole issue of the QUALITY of education which could become overly focused on getting more children into school rather than by giving a focus to "what actually happens in the school"! In fact a somewhat bold prediction might be that the initial effort in increasing enrolment will be matched by a corresponding FALL in completion rates unless more attention is paid to pedagogies, classroom resources, teacher performance, and the curriculum. It has always been our assertion that you can provide a brilliant education under a tree, with no building, provided the teacher is well trained, enthusiastic, and caring, and there is a good curriculum!

Some of the key points written within and relevant to the SSRP sections we have mentioned are as follows:

1. Flexible learning approaches will be employed (p13)

2. Continuous assessment and remedial support systems will be implemented (p13)

3. The SSRP will make sure that all schools are equipped with minimum enabling conditions .....to include the learning environment ... involving availability of qualified and trained teachers, curriculum and textbook materials, teachers time on task and extra curricular activities. (p16)

4. The goal of teacher professional development is to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and skills required to effectively facilitate students learning processes.( p37)

5. 4050 Head Teachers will have completed a certified training course (p40)

6. Demand driven and refresher teacher training will be developed and delivered for all teachers over a five year period. (p40)

7. School Management Committees will be provided with funding to buy training for teachers on a need basis. 50,000 teachers will be targeted. (p40)

8. 1-3 months School Management & Leadership training will be developed and implemented for 4050 head Teachers (p41)

Now, admittedly we have been selective with emphasising these points, but they are all actionable items and therefore one would think that after 2.5 years there would be evidence of implementation and of trending improvements. Well think again! In the last 6 months our teacher training programmes have brought us into contact with about 200 teachers in the capital city and most of them have never even heard of the SSRP, have no idea of the planned interventions and the possible effects on their careers, and have had little or no retraining other than the odd half day here and there from District Education Offices. Where training HAD occurred their view of it is unprintable!

In addition to these points for critique and any evaluation of their implementation, the whole of the SSRP section on Quality Education concerns us. We have lost count of how many times over the past 3 years we have asked various stakeholders to define EXACTLY what is meant by Quality Education, and most times we get either a waffled set of statements about results/outcomes such as passing grades and exams, or an embarrassed silence. Imagine yourself as a Head Teacher wanting to improve the quality of education in your school; how would you go about it? Well first, you would have to define it, you know the sort of questions such as where are we now, where do we want to get to? Only then can you follow up with "how are we going to get there?". In our desperation we have started to use the analogy of a Kukra ko masu curry (chicken curry) in our courses and meetings by asking people "what is involved in making a QUALITY chicken curry?", and the best answer we have heard from one Head Teacher was "How do I know, I know what it should taste like but I've no idea how to cook one!". And therein lies the crux of the matter; you can define OUTCOMES as much as you like, (the taste of a quality chicken curry), but if you don't know the inputs or process (ingredients and method) you have got NO chance of making one. There was a bit of laughter on that course as you can imagine, but then there was a dawning realisation that without knowing the ingredients for and method of attaining quality education then the school was doomed to failure. Needless to say, the 20 delegates were very focused for the next hour as we enlightened them on the simple ingredients and methods for developing Quality Education in their schools!

We realise that it is easy to criticise things like this, there are many hard working people who have developed the SSRP and who are undoubtedly doing their best to implement it and the last thing they need is criticism from outsiders. So, with this belief we tried to engage with Asian Development Bank (ADB) and with ActionAid! Nepal in early April. (ADB hold the international donor's financial aid and ActionAid! are this year's coordinators of all the INGO's involved in SSRP implementation).We had one meeting with ADB, particularly the new in-country director and a number of project staff to discuss our perceptions, our teacher training work, and to offer our team and programmes to widen SSRP implementation around Kathmandu. We had another meeting with the Education Coordinator of ActionAid! to also outline our work and to offer our services for training.

The outcome from ADB was their requesting us to approach and convince the Ministry Of Education to allow us to conduct an evaluation of their Continuous Assessment Programme, and the outcome from ActionAid! was no reply to my offer of further meetings to agree actions before our departure from Nepal in early May. Neither responses are especially helpful, the former because it is not our place (nor focus) to convince the MoE to let us run or manage an evaluation project, and the latter for obvious reasons. It seems bizarre to us that as an organisation providing what we believe to be the best teacher training at the very least ActionAid! would want to assess our worth by observing and evaluating our programmes. We must be missing something?

So where do we go from here?

The answer to that will be in the next article when I have the survey results.

Strategic Plan finalised

Since beginning our transformation into an academy for teacher training at the end of 2011 we have had a "murky view" of our direction and process, something that needed more meat on the skeleton, something created by all our stakeholders who wanted inclusion, something to be agreed.

Well, now we have it in 6 stages over 5 years, a linear sequence but with natural overlaps. Some stages can commence before others have finished, but there is a natural order to the journey.

Stage 1 can only be "Develop The Service" and this will continue for 4 years. Key training elements are our Foundation programme which is currently up and running as a 5 days course with 180 teachers already trained, and an Advanced programme of short workshops with English Literacy, Phonics, Values 4 Children already up and running, with Assessment 4 Learning, Accelerated Maths, Magical Spelling to be developed in the next 8-12 months. Next is the Consultancy service operating at 3 levels, an inspection of school's implementation of our methods, demonstrations of our techniques with teacher observations, and an advisory "visit" over 2-3 days working with the Principal and groups of teachers to develop a range of quality education practices. We are also developing an on-line resources service too.

Stage 2 is "Establish A Presence" to as wide a community as possible, mostly via referral marketing and using our influential network in Kathmandu. For example through simple marketing we have now got 50 schools registered with us for teacher training with enough teachers to fill our Foundation programme across 2012. Our presence is also enhanced because of our follow up work in schools which is supporting and helpful rather than inspecting and judgemental. 

Stage 3 is "Build A Team" of trainers and consultants who are productive and approachable as well as having a high level of expertise. We currently have a team of three but expecting them to meet all of our high standards from day 1 is totally unrealistic and we know it could take a full 12 months before we reach a level of satisfaction. But this is not a problem, they are all learning together, working hard and ........ doing their best. The feedback from the 50 Principals and 180 teachers trained so far tells us just that, and they are our most important stakeholders! Also a part of this stage is to build a team of UK experts and we are very fortunate to have Janice Brockbank as our educational advisor and John Cullen as our UK Consultant for Assessment Strategies, Resources Creation, and Accelerated Maths Teaching.

Half way through our first year and all three stages 1-3 are now running with an intensive period of team learning taking place to deliver the Foundation programme brilliantly and to fully establish our presence in Kathmandu as a first class teacher training organisation.

Stage 4 is "Build A Reputation" and you might be thinking "why isn't this sooner?". Well, we only have one goal with this stage ...... and that is to have the reputation of being the best teacher training organisation in Nepal. This will not occur just because we run good courses, it will only happen if we can demonstrate that the quality of education increases in schools who have been trained by us, that we are respectful and approachable by all, and that the methods and techniques we use are being absorbed into the Nepalese education system. We expect to see this occurring from late year 2 onwards and we will launch a RAISE process and programme to help schools "Raise Achievement and Implementation in Schools Evaluation".

Stage 5 is "Build A Business" and this does NOT mean that we are trying to create a profit making organisation in Nepal. Far from it, we are trying to achieve the ultimate in sustainability by running down the dependence on UK funding and UK expertise. In essence we want to create an organisation in Nepal which is "not for profit" in which private schools pay for the training and consulting, with businesses and government funding development projects, and where all income arises in Nepal and is spent in Nepal to pay for the development of government and community schools. A big task, and one frequently misunderstood by our larger donors who see it as "walking away without developing an infrastructure of management etc". But this is a gross assumption and an incorrect one too!

Stage 6 is "Strategic Withdrawal" and should be a stage that calms the nerves of those who think that NSA gets dumped in 2016! This is a full year of ensuring service stability, ensuring a steady income stream, developing and underpinning a management structure etc. However this is a long way off and it would be impossible at this time to say where the income will come from, who will be part of the management structure, what premises will we have, what UK support will be needed! Plenty of time for that to be developed by our Trustees, UK advisors and Kathmandu team.