Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

MGSLG-GDE Turning Around Under Performing Schools

861
views

Published on

Published in: Education

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
861
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. 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
  • 3. 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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. 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
  • 7. 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
  • 8. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % School Readiness HFS Components 30% LFS DFS 8
  • 9. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.2 Previous Year Current Academic Year 30% 20% 10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % School Readiness HFS Teaching Components 40% 30% LFS DFS 9
  • 10. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 11. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.4 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 12. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 2.5 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 13. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 14. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.2 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 15. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 16. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.4 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 17. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.5 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Teaching Assessment Components tions 20% 30% 30% 10% DFS 17
  • 18. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.6 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Teaching Learning Assessment Components tions 20% 30% 20% 30% 10% DFS 18
  • 19. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 3.7 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% Time-on-Task DFS 19
  • 20. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% DFS 20
  • 21. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.2 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness DFS Components 30% 21
  • 22. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness DFS Learning for Components Assessment 30% 20% 22
  • 23. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.4 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness Disruptions DFS Learning for Components & Chaos Assessment 30% 20% 23 20%
  • 24. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.5 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 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
  • 25. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.6 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness Learn- Disruptions DFS Teaching Learning for Components ing & Chaos Assessment 20% 20% 30% 10% 20% 25
  • 26. Logistics of Teaching and Learning 4.7 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness Learn- Disruptions DFS Teaching Learning for Components 30% 20% 30% ing 10% & Chaos 20% 26 Assessment 20% Time-on-Task
  • 27. 8 School Readiness Components Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 28. School Readiness Components 1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 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
  • 29. School Readiness Components 2 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 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. School Readiness Components 3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere 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
  • 31. School Readiness Components 4 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information LFS Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners 30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning violence School Readiness DFS Components 30% 31
  • 32. School Readiness Components 5 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information LFS Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners 30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning violence 5. Unclear academic standards 5. Implementable and flexible timetable School Readiness DFS Components 30% 32
  • 33. School Readiness Components 6 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information LFS Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners 30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning violence 5. Unclear academic standards 5. Implementable and flexible timetable 6. Quarterly Teaching School Readiness schedules DFS Components 30% 33
  • 34. School Readiness Components 7 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information LFS Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners 30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning violence 5. Unclear academic standards 5. Implementable and flexible timetable 6. Quarterly Teaching School Readiness schedules DFS Components 7. Organogram 30% 34
  • 35. School Readiness Components 8 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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% 1.1 High rate of staff absenteeism 1. Teacher and Learner 1.2 High rate of learner absenteeism Attendance 2.1 High rate of staff turnover 2. Teacher Information 2.2 Negative school atmosphere School Readiness 3.1 Low learner performance 3. Learner Information LFS Components 3.2 High dropout rates of learners 30% 4. High level of disruption and 4. Annual Planning violence 5. Unclear academic standards 5. Implementable and flexible timetable 6. Quarterly Teaching School Readiness schedules DFS Components 7. Organogram 30% 35 8. Learner and Teacher support materials
  • 36. Research - High Poverty Schools 9 Conditions Change: Outside-the-system approaches, applied inside the system 36
  • 37. 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)
  • 38. 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
  • 39. Career stages and CPTD 1 39
  • 40. Career stages and CPTD 2 40
  • 41. Time-on-Task 1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 42. Time-on-Task 2.1 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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%
  • 43. Time-on-Task 2.2 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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%
  • 44. Time-on-Task 2.3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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.
  • 45. Time-on-Task 3 Previous Year Current Academic Year 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
  • 46. 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
  • 47. Anti-Traditional Approach (Innovative) Previous Year Current Academic Year 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 Components 30% Teaching 30% 50% Learning 20% tions 10% Assessment 20% School Readiness Learn- Disruptions DFS Teaching Learning for Components 30% 20% 30% ing 10% & Chaos 20% 47 Assessment 20% Time-on-Task
  • 48. 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%
  • 49. 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%
  • 50. 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%
  • 51. 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%
  • 52. 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
  • 53. 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
  • 54. 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
  • 55. Program People System  Human Capacity - Rules and regulations - Operational  Conditions - Capacity Conditions  Resources - Networking - Management - Service delivery - Systems 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
  • 56. Program People System  Human Capacity - Rules and regulations - Operational  Conditions - Capacity Conditions  Resources - Networking - Management - Service delivery - Systems 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
  • 57. 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
  • 58. 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
  • 59. 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
  • 60. 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
  • 61. 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
  • 62. Progress and Status Report • Grade 12 reports for 2009 bi- weekly; • Progress reports bi-monthly; • Project quarterly reports; • Urgent matters reported immediately. 62
  • 63. Monitoring and Evaluation 63
  • 64. 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
  • 65. Close-Out and Sustainability • Alignment and empowering of district officials for handover and maintenance. 65