Mismatch between national Pri Educ curriculum and local classroom reality in Uganda
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•456 views
During my research master Human Geography [international developmen], I conducted a three-month research in Uganda. The research focused on the preconditions and barriers that are needed for curriculum implementation to take place. It basically comes down to finding out why schools are in bad condition in Amolatar District and why the kids are not learning. The results as seen in the presentation are preliminary, because I am still working on the research.
![Utrecht University
Research Master Human Geography
[International Development]
Mid-term Presentation
5 February 2013](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/renevermeuleneducationinugandaedited-130206030546-phpapp02/85/Mismatch-between-national-Pri-Educ-curriculum-and-local-classroom-reality-in-Uganda-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Mismatch between national Pri Educ curriculum and local classroom reality in Uganda
Similar to Mismatch between national Pri Educ curriculum and local classroom reality in Uganda (20)
More from René Vermeulen
Mismatch between national Pri Educ curriculum and local classroom reality in Uganda
- 1. Utrecht University Research Master Human Geography [International Development] Mid-term Presentation 5 February 2013
- 2. The mismatch between the national curriculum and the ‘classroom reality’ in government primary schools in Namasale Sub-County, Amolatar District, Northern Uganda Which factors are likely to support or hinder rural education?
- 3. Content • Background • Theoretical Framework • Research Methods • Preliminary Results • Conclusion + Discussion But first…
- 4. …Think of your time in primary school What made your school good? Which factors are important to make education possible? [basic requirements, preconditions and capabilities] Now think of these factors in a rural primary school in Northern Uganda…
- 6. Geography
- 7. Aim of this research Aim: This research tries to explain the failure of a curriculum reform to improve the quality of education in rural government primary schools on the basis of unmet preconditions for implementation in rural areas Themes: • General progress in the quality of education • Whether or not basic requirements, preconditions and other capabilities for successful curriculum implementation are present (e.g.: presence of clean water, food, sanitation facilities, shelter, teacher training, remuneration) • Additional factors which are likely to support or hinder teaching and learning, specifically in rural schools
- 8. Curriculum Implementation The analytical framework Source: Altinyelken 2010: 153 (based on Rogan and Grayson 2003)
- 9. Capability Approach Capability Approach towards school improvement interventions: School Development Index (Tao 2010) Capabilities School Development Indicators 1) Basic survival capabilities Clean water Sanitation Shelter (teachers housing) 2) Mental well-being, bodily integrity, Fear of violence social networks, respect and Discrimination recognition, Harassment by (head)teachers voice, freedom to act and freedom to Able to work without feeling hungry, tired and ill? aspire Respect and recognition 3) Having a well-managed school with School Management adequate resources School infrastructure Learning materials 4) Teacher capability to manage a class Teacher workload 5) Teacher capability of accessing in- Enrolment ratios of teachers for in-service service training training sessions 6) Teacher capability of being Teacher salary relative to cost of living adequately remunerated 7) Student capability of parental Completion rates support Parental support 8) Student capability of accessing Pedagogical methods used in classroom appropriate pedagogies
- 10. Why combination of theories? CA gives deeper insight in performance on school level vs. national level curriculum development “The critical link between ‘the big idea’ and changing actual classroom practice must be acknowledged, ” (Chisholm and Leyendecker 2008) “Bottom-up changes are most important: deep and enduring” (Sergiovanni 1998)
- 11. Research Methods • 3 months in Uganda • 10-day fieldwork in Namasale sub-county – 4 government primary schools • 33 Semi-structured interviews • 5 Group talks with (head-)teachers/students • 8 Observation reports • Additional: DevEd participatory assessment in July 2012.
- 12. Results [1] Capabilities School Development Indicators Result 1) Basic survival capabilities Clean water Borehole present at schools, serves entire community Sanitation Not enough and in very bad condition Shelter (teachers housing) Not enough and in bad condition 2) Mental well-being, bodily integrity, Fear of violence Corporal punishment present social networks, respect and Discrimination Not observed recognition, Harassment by (head)teachers Not observed voice, freedom to act and freedom to Able to work without feeling hungry, tired and ill? Often no food provided by school and parents. aspire Respect and recognition Child labour present + domestic chores Little respect for profession 3) Having a well-managed school with School Management SMC active, but need training adequate resources School infrastructure Not enough and in bad condition Learning materials Very low Book-Pupil Ratio 4) Teacher capability to manage a class Teacher workload Very high Pupil-Teacher Ratio 5) Teacher capability of accessing in- Enrolment ratios of teachers for in-service Not much training provided (in schools) or service training training sessions distance to the tutor center is too far 6) Teacher capability of being Teacher salary relative to cost of living Salary has been increased, but still too little to adequately remunerated support family. No other remuneration 7) Student capability of parental Completion rates Low. Very high drop-out rate support Parental support Drop-out increases in higher classes 8) Student capability of accessing Child Center Pedagogy: new teaching and learning Some new teaching methods are used appropriate pedagogies methods introduced
- 13. Results [2] Analytical Framework of Curriculum Implementation: • Profile of implementation: – Coverage of learning areas > focus on literacy, numeracy & life skills – Language of instruction > PROBLEM! – Classroom interactions > still a lot of rote teaching – Assessment practices > Continuous assessment misunderstood & exam-oriented teaching • Capacity factors: – Physical resources > lacking and in bad condition – School ethos and management > SMCs, but still in development – Teacher factors > low motivation, underpaid, little training – Student factors > low motivation, little parental support, NO FOOD! • Support from outside agencies: – Teacher professional development > little to none. CCTs not able to provide in-service training. – Provision of physical resources > Problem!! Buildings are in bad condition and learning materials absent. – Monitoring > monitoring and inspection is failing
- 14. Conclusion • In general: very poor situation – Parents: not supportive of education – Teachers: absent, not motivated, underpaid, little training – Children: high drop-out rate [boys fishing, girls domestic chores and married off] – Other stakeholders not doing what is needed • Quality of education is under pressure and decreasing • Preconditions for successful implementation of curriculum not met – In theory: good curriculum – In practice: not working – Capacity too small for implementation • All capabilities under pressure – Even basic survival capability is not met completely
- 15. Discussion “Survival is about fishing here and you don’t need to go to school to learn fishing” Deputy-Chief Administration Officer, Amolatar District
- 16. Thank you
Editor's Notes
- Cattle raids by Karimojong warriors (also the well-known story of the LRA of Kony) made it a safe haven for hundreds of people from different areas such as the Langi, Acholi, Alur and the Iteso took refuge in Amolatar because, unlike their home areas, it enjoyed relative peace owing to its location.
- This research tries to explain the failure of a curriculum reform to improve the quality of education in rural schools on the basis of unmet preconditions for implementation in rural areas and the discrepancy between values underlying the curriculum reform and values that dominate rural classroom realities.
- The theory of implementation, as proposed by Rogan and Grayson (2003), consists of three main constructs: 1.the level of support from outside agencies, 2. the capacity to support innovation and 3. the profile of implementation. These constructs share three important characteristics: first, they can be measured by means of indicators, second, they are broad enough to encompass a number of related factors and, third, they are narrow enough to include one main idea. The nature of these constructs is outlined as follows. The support from outside agencies can be explained as the kinds of actions undertaken by outside organizations, such as departments of education, to influence practices, either by support or sanction. In many developing countries, outside agencies may also involve international development agencies and local or international NGOs. This support can be both material and non-material support. Second, the capacity to support innovation is concerned with factors that are likely to support or hinder the implementation of new ideas and practices in the new curriculum. Examples of this capacity are: physical resources, school ethos and management, teacher factors, and student factors. Finally, the profile of implementation assists in understanding, analyzing and expressing the extent to which the objectives of the reform programme are put into practice (Rogan and Grayson 2003). Altinyelken:Rogan and Grayson (2003) base their theory of implementation on three main constructs: support from outside agencies, capacity to support innovation, and profile of implementation. The ‘support from outside agencies’ describes the kinds of actions undertaken by outside organizations, such as departments of education, to influence practices, either by support or sanction. In many developing countries, outside agencies may also involve international development agencies and local or international NGOs. The sub-constructs are divided into two: material support and nonmaterial support. Material support may include provision of physical resources such as buildings, books, or apparatus, and direct support to students (such as school-lunch programmes). Non-material support is mostly provided in the form of professional development. It is probably one of the most visible and obvious ways in which outside agencies attempt to bring about change in schools. As the literature on ‘learning organization’ suggests teacher professional development can also be promoted through co-operation and support among teachers (Karsten et al.,2000). Therefore, it can also be regarded as a sub-construct of school capacity. To bring about change, outside organizations can also exert pressure, such as by way of monitoring.The construct ‘capacity to support innovation’ is concerned with factors that are likely to support or hinder the implementation of new ideas and practices in the new curriculum. This construct recognizes that schools differ in terms of their capacity to implement innovations. Possible indicators fall into four categories: physical resources, school ethos and management, teacher factors, and student factors. Physical resources are crucial as poor conditions and limited resources can limit the performance of even the best teachers and students. The school ethos and management are not the same, yet they are considered together as they are closely intertwined, particularly in schools in developing countries.If the school is in disarray and not functioning well, innovation cannot or will not be implemented. Research has also shown that the leadership role of the principal is critical in reform implementation (Fullan, 1991). Teachers play a pivotal role in reform processes, and factors such as their background, training, subject matter knowledge, motivation, commitment to teaching, and attitudes towards proposed innovation influence theircapacity and willingness to implement change. Likewise, the background of students, and the kind of strengths and constraints they might bring to the school are crucial. A range of issues influence student attitudes to learning and responses to change, such as their home environments, parental commitment to education, health and nutrition, and proficiency level in the language of instruction. The contribution of these four factors to the capacity of school to support innovation is likely to be dynamic and changing over time.The third construct, ‘profile of implementation’ assists in understanding, analysing and expressing the extent to which the objectives of the reform programme are put into practice. It recognizes the fact that there can be multiple ways of putting a curriculum into action. However, it assumes that some broad commonalities of what constitutes excellence will emerge. In addition, the profile recognizes that there can be different levels atwhich implementation might be said to occur. Therefore, implementation of a new curriculum is not an all-or-nothingproposition (Fig. 1).
- Suggestions for quantifiable indicators1) Water, sanitation and shelter can be observed and ranked on a normative scale2) These capabilities can be gauged (=gemeten) using Alkire’s (2002) focus group methodology to rank impactful qualitative functionings3) Resource availability can be observed and ranked on a normative scale, or reflected in spending per pupil4) Teacher workload can be extrapolated from pupil/teacher ratios and number of classes per day5) Enrolment ratios of teachers for in-service training sessions6) Teacher salary relative to cost of living7) Attendance and completion rates up to grade five8)Alkire’s (2002) focus group methodology to rank gender bias and other qualitative dataAanloopnaar SDI:Descriptive situation analysisIdentify capabilitiesMonitor and compare schoolsFirst, it can be used as a tool for descriptive situational analysis in order to examine and evaluate current processes in primary schools. By using the CA as a descriptive tool, behavior that might appear irrational according to traditional economic analysis or layers of complexities that a quantitative analysis can rarely capture can be revealed (Robeyns 2005a). Second, CA can be operationalized as a framework for improvement by utilizing participatory measures to identify capabilities to be subsequently expanded. In other words, a list of capabilities, which can be identified as important through the situation analysis, can be used to stimulate improvement in several of the capabilities that are found to be important. Finally, CA can be used as a measurement device to monitor and compare how well different schools are faring in their overall expansion of capabilities. This means that the framework of capabilities can be used to monitor the improvement of capabilities over time (Tao 2009).
- Although the critical link between ‘the big idea’ and changing actual classroom practice must be acknowledged, curriculum changes probably workbest when curriculum developers acknowledge existing realities, classroom cultures and implementation requirements. Thisrequiresunderstandingand sharing the meaning of the educational change, providing for adaptations to cultural circumstances,local context, and capacity building throughout the system. For learner-centred education to take root in local African contexts, teachers need to understand the underlying idea, be motivated to change practice, adapt and apply appropriate pedagogies, and have the capacity to do it.
- Government officialsCentral government Autonomous institutions Local governmentEducation experts(Head-) Teachers
- School management committee = headteacher + parents: story of SMC that has sold school property to bail out a member.Niettelang op ingaan! Soort van samengevat in implementation theory-results!
- Which problems are recognized with regards to teachers behavior?Absenteeism (or being extremely late for class)Withholding content or teaching very little during classRote Teaching methodsCorporal punishmentGender bias in treatment of students Which problems are recognized with regards to students behavior?IrregularattendanceLack of engagement during classPoor Performance on testsLow completion rates (dropping out)