MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools

Presentation to GDE
Turning around Under-Performing
Secondary schools
(less than 30% in Matric results)

Presenter: Dr Muavia Gallie (PhD)
On behalf of Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance (MGSLG)
22 May 2009 1

Content
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Rationale
• 3. Conceptual Framework of the
Intervention
• 4. School Readiness Components
• 5. Research on Turn-around strategies
• 6. Planning, PD & Time-on-Task
• 7. Project Plan
• 8. Conclusion 2

Introduction
• To ensure that all 32 schools
within this project,
• That are currently having learner
achievement (matric) results
below 30%,
• Should improve by 30% over the
next three years [5%, 10%, 15%].

3

Rationale (1)
• MEC for Education project (first term
2009);
• 32 schools to undergo Focused
Evaluation;
- factors that have impacted for the poor
performance;
- ways to support these schools to
improve.

4

Rationale (2)
• Poor leadership - poor communication,
conflicts, disruptions, no management
processes, no monitoring and support, etc.;
• Poor governance – lack of consultation, abuse
of power, undermining of education laws and
policies;
• Poor curriculum delivery – no functional
timetable, disputed teaching allocation, no
monitoring and evaluation, lack of operational
procedures, underutilisation of resources, no
learning and teaching support material
management system.
5

Rationale (3)
• Improve the effectiveness of curriculum planning;
• Improve the quality of teachers;
• Improve the implementation process of policies;
• Improve the management capacity in assessment;
• Improve the management of the curriculum process;
• Improve the management of all resources;
• Improve the assessment structures and the quality of
their work;
• Improve the quality of assessment for learning;
• Improve the management of external examination
processes and;
• Improve the management of learner and learning
support. 6

Logistics of Teaching and Learning 1
Previous Year Current Academic Year
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS
LFS
DFS

7

Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.1
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Components
30%
LFS
DFS

8

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Teaching
Components
40%
30%
LFS
DFS

9

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Teaching Learning
Components
40% 50%
30%
LFS
DFS

10

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Teaching Learning Assess-
Components ment
40% 50% 10%
30%
LFS
DFS

11

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%
Time-on-Task
LFS
DFS

12

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%
LFS
DFS

13

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

School Readiness
LFS

Components
30%
DFS

14

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

School Readiness
LFS

Assessment
Components 20%
30%
DFS

15

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

School Readiness Disrup-
LFS

Assessment
Components tions 20%
30% 10%
DFS

16

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Teaching Assessment
30%
30% 10%
DFS

17

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Teaching Learning Assessment
30% 20%
30% 10%
DFS

18

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

Time-on-Task
DFS

19

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%
DFS

20

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 21

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

School Readiness
DFS

Learning for
Components Assessment
30% 20%
22

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

School Readiness Disruptions
DFS

Learning for
Components & Chaos Assessment
30% 20% 23 20%

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

School Readiness Disruptions
DFS

Teaching Learning for
Components & Chaos Assessment
20% 20%
30% 20% 24

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

School Readiness Learn- Disruptions
DFS

Components ing & Chaos Assessment
20% 20%
30% 10% 20% 25

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

DFS

Components
30%
20% 30% ing
10%
& Chaos
20% 26
Assessment
20%

Time-on-Task

8 School Readiness Components
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness 8 School Readiness Components
HFS

Components Indicators of DFS SRC Component
30%

School Readiness
LFS

Components
30%

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 27

School Readiness Components 1
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner
1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance

School Readiness
LFS

Components
30%

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 28

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information
2.2 Negative school atmosphere
School Readiness
LFS

Components
30%

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 29

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information
LFS

Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners
30%

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 30

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
LFS

30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning
violence

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 31

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
LFS

violence
5. Unclear academic standards 5. Implementable and
flexible timetable

School Readiness
DFS

Components
30% 32

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
LFS

violence
flexible timetable
6. Quarterly Teaching
School Readiness schedules
DFS

Components
30% 33

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
LFS

violence
flexible timetable
DFS

Components 7. Organogram
30% 34

30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

30%
LFS

violence
flexible timetable
DFS

Components 7. Organogram
30% 35
8. Learner and Teacher
support materials

Research - High Poverty Schools 9

Conditions Change:
Outside-the-system
approaches, applied
inside the system

36

Capacity-building/external:
Differences between the traditional school/provider
Research - High Poverty Schools 16
model and lead turnaround partners & managers
Function/ Role Traditional Model Lead Turnaround Lead Turnaround
Partner Manager
Authority None or advisory Shared with district Full authority
and/or state
Accountability None (except to Shared with district Full accountability
extend contract) and/or state
Intensity Varies, but often 1 2 to 5 days in school Fully embedded:
day in school per per week managing the school
month
Relationship None (usually) Integrator, with Full authority over all
to Other school, of all other partner/subcontractors
Partners providers
Services Single service All academic services All academic services
Provided (except for and oversight of all and oversight of all
Comprehensive others others
School Reform 37
models)

Operation of the NCS in schools
• Working week
Macro • Timetable time
level School • Staffing numbers
• Rooming
issues • Class-size-ratio
• Timetabling
• Assessment - Recording - Reporting
• Continuous Teacher Professional Development
• Governance involvement

Meso
level Departments Learning Areas/Subjects
issues

Micro
level Teacher * Planning * Time * Delivery * Testing
issues
38

Career stages and CPTD 1

39

Career stages and CPTD 2

40

Time-on-Task 1
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
LFS

Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%

Learn-
NFS

Teaching
20% 30% ing
10% 41

Time-on-Task 2.1
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
•4.5 days p.w.
•176 days p.a.
LFS

Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%

Learn-
NFS

Teaching

42
20% 30% ing
10%

Time-on-Task 2.2
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
•4.5 days p.w.
•176 days p.a.
LFS

Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
•2.5 days p.w.
•98 days p.a.

Learn-
NFS

Teaching

43
20% 30% ing
10%

Time-on-Task 2.3
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
•4.5 days p.w.
•176 days p.a.
LFS

Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
•2.5 days p.w.
•98 days p.a.

Learn-
NFS

Teaching

•1.67 days p.w. 44
20% 30% ing
10%
•65 days p.a.

Time-on-Task 3
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
HFS

Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
4.5 days p.w.
LFS

Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
2.5 days p.w.

Learn-
NFS

Teaching
20% 30% ing
10%
1.67 days p.w. 45

5 Levels of Learning
Level Teaching Type of
Days Teaching
1 35 Facts
2 70 Information
3 105 Know-How
4 140 Comprehension
5 175 Wisdom
46

Anti-Traditional Approach (Innovative)
30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
School Readiness
HFS

Assess-
Components
30%
Teaching
40% 90% Learning
50%
ment
10%

LFS

Components
30%
Teaching
30% 50% Learning
20%
tions
10%
Assessment
20%

DFS

Components
30%
20% 30% ing
10%
& Chaos
20% 47
Assessment
20%

Time-on-Task

HFS LFS DFS
Teaching
Teaching 20%
Teaching 30%
40%
Learning 10%

Learning
Assessment 20%
20%

Assessment
Learning Disruptions 20%
20%
50%

Disruptions 10% School
Readiness
School Components
Readiness 30%
Assessment 10% Comp. - 20%
48
SRC - 30% SRC - 10% SRC - 0%

HFS LFS DFS
Teaching
Teaching 20%
Teaching 30%
40%
Learning 10%

Learning
Assessment 20%
20%

Assessment
Learning Disruptions 20%
20%
50%

Disruptions 10%

Assessment 10%
49
SRC - 30% SRC - 10% SRC - 0%

HFS LFS DFS
Teaching
Teaching 20%
Teaching 30%
40%
Learning 10%

Learning
Assessment 20%
20%

Assessment
Learning 20%
50%

Assessment 10%
50
SRC - 30% SRC - 10% SRC - 0%

HFS LFS DFS
Teaching
Teaching 20%
Teaching 30%
40%
Learning 10%

Learning Assessment 20%
20%

ing d
Assessment
Learning

arn an
20%
50%

Le hing
d
an
g

ac
in ing
h n
ac ear

Te
Assessment 10%
Te L
51
SRC - 30% SRC - 30% SRC - 0%

Project Plan
• It must be acknowledged that these schools
are extremely dysfunctional and will require
an extra-ordinary strategy to assist them out
of the quagmire.
• The approach will be both collective and
individual in order to respond to common
issues while dealing with school specific
issues.
• These schools may need to be removed
from the mainstream and the strategy may
require a high pressured, prescriptive
approach.
52

4.1 Project Scope Linked to strategic imperatives of the Department
In order to respond to the brief of the department it will be necessary to
scope some immediate interventions which may bring about ‘quick wins’
and set the stage for a more sustained approach.
4.1.1 Immediate intervention
- Urgent Intervention for grade 12 to improve learner results in 2009;
- A baseline analysis of each school using existing reports and
further exploration where needed;
a. Planning with and contracting schools into a turnaround strategy;
53

4.1.2 Medium to long-term strategy
Program People System
 Human Capacity - Rules and regulations - Operational
 Conditions - Capacity Conditions
 Resources - Networking - Management
- Service delivery - Systems
1. School - Rules, - Internal and External - Teacher & Learner
culture and regulations, community Attendance
climate policy, - SGB - Teacher & Learner
accountability, - Negotiating school Info
- Prescriptive culture change in - Punctuality
processes order to save the - Commitment to
school from closure. operational systems
and procedures.

54

2. Time on task - NCS - Teachers & SMT - Organogram
- Barriers to - Content focus - Timetabling
learning - Context focus - Quarterly Schedules
- Mentoring - Conceptual focus - Teacher &Learner
- Coaching - Methodology Information
- Curriculum - Didactics - Teacher &Learner
provision - Deployment Support Material
- Learner - Increasing learning
achievement time
55

3. Instructional - Leadership and - Principal and SMTs - Annual planning
Leadership management for - Quarterly Schedule
curriculum - T&L Info
delivery: - T&L Support
- High pressure, Material
accountability, - Assessment
- Service delivery management
based on learner
results.

56

4.2 Project goals or objectives
4.2.1 Improve grade 12 results 2009 (all grades:
2010, 2011, 2012);
4.2.2 Improve school culture and climate to
support teaching and learning:
a. Improve time on task through
organizational and programme readiness
to facilitate a high level teaching and
learning;
b. Improve instructional leadership that
enhances and facilitate high level
teaching and learning.
4.2.3 To achieve basic functionality in all schools
57

Milestones
Phase one:
Urgent Interventions June to December 2009
Phase two:
Planning and baseline evaluation June to December 2009
Phase three:
Programme implementation November 2009 to 2011
Phase four:
Exit and sustainability strategy 2012 ---

58

4.4 Key project deliverables
4.4.1 Baseline assessment on results of the past three
years;
4.4.2 Expert intervention to improve compliance, syllabi
coverage and exam readiness of matrics 2009;
4.4.3 Increase result and functionality for 2009 with 5%;
4.4.4 Increase results and functionality for 2010 with 10%;
4.4.5 Increase results and functionality for 2011 with 15%;
(All school will be improve in functionality with
30% over three years.)
4.4.6 Getting schools ready to teach learning;
4.4.7 Respect, committed and honour instructional delivery,
time on tasks and school culture and climate;
4.4.8 To institutionalize changes and improvements, and;
4.4.9 Handover of schools and ensure sustainability. 59

Project Budget
Phase one and two  R 7 000 000.0 0  
- Learner interven t i o n    
- Baseline evaluation  
- Planning 
Phase three  R 25 000 per person 
- Implementation:  
A menu of multi pronged programmes for
individual and collective delivery;
institutional and person  
Phase four  R 10 000 000.00 
- Institutionalisation, exit and development of  
officials for sustainability and return to
mainstream 
60

Risk/Limitation Management
The following possible risks/limitations will need to be managed:
• External provider lacks positional power and authority;
• Need employer commitment to enforce compliance/impose
extraordinary decisions that may require fast-tracking bureaucratic
processes eg: disciplinary;
• Processes for redeployment - individuals and groups not
responding to the project- and other challenges;
• A dedicated champion and project manager within the department;
• Stakeholder commitment to holidays and weekends where needed;
• Implementers need authority and space to enter schools;
• Need to follow a more radical model, rather than the traditional
model of school improvement;
• Need political and public will at all levels, and;
• Starting with the project in the middle of an academic year.
61

Progress and Status Report

• Grade 12 reports for 2009 bi-
weekly;
• Progress reports bi-monthly;
• Project quarterly reports;
• Urgent matters reported
immediately.

62

Monitoring and Evaluation

63

Quality Assurance
100%

90%
80%

70%

60%
2011

50% 2010
40% 2009
2008
30% • • ••
• •• • •• •
20% • •
• • • •• • • •• •
10% • • • •
• •
•• •
0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
64

Close-Out and Sustainability

• Alignment and
empowering of district
officials for handover
and maintenance.

65

MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (7)

Similar a MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools

Similar a MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools (7)

Más de Education Moving Up Cc.

Más de Education Moving Up Cc. (20)

Último

Último (20)

MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools