Introduction
Option 1: The Aga Khan Education Service (AKES) Model in Kenya
Option 2: The TRC as a Model School
Option 3: TRCs as Resource Centres of Textbooks and School Supplies
Option 4: Textbooks, Learning Materials and Time on the Task of Learning
Concluding Remarks
In light of our findings, the task we set ourselves in this final chapter is to try to lay out options for how TRCs might become more effective in helping to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools and classrooms. We have particularly in mind alternatives to the model which has the TRC as a separate physical structure, with one adviser and whose programme relies principally on teachers coming to the centre, to '...study, refer to reference material, develop their own materials and seek counsel from the centre adviser' (Malawi School Support Systems Project 1996-2001, December, 1995). In our experience such things just do not happen to any significant degree. As discussed in the preceding chapter and in our case study reports, we feel that this model produces little change in the quality of teaching and learning in schools and classrooms, and indeed has a significant impact on the problem of teacher absenteeism.
The options we explore do not carry the responsibility and burden of trying to sustain themselves. We have come to accept that TRCs for the foreseeable future have little chance of becoming self-sustaining.
Of the TRC programmes we observed that operated by the AKES in Kenya offers the best model. This is because it allows maximum advisory support time in schools and a minimum amount of time for teachers to be absent. The Programme Officer works in only 3 or 4 schools for a whole academic year. S/he frequently works alongside a Teacher Advisory Centre tutor assigned to the cluster. This level of support in school is what is attractive; and not only because advice is more ready to hand. The presence of advisory staff in schools also encourages better teacher attendance at school and in classrooms. Khatete and Welford reported that they never saw a SIP classroom in Mombasa without a teacher.
The role of the TAC functions more as a resource centre than as a training and advisory centre where teachers come. It is used as a venue for courses, but these are relatively few in number across each year.
Another attractive feature of the Mombasa SIP is that there is a team of PO advisers (10 POs in the Mombasa project) all with their own schools. They are able to meet regularly to share ideas, to plan and to support one another. Also, the funders recognise the need for the POs to develop professionally and provide a higher degree programme for this purpose.
There are three basic conditions for the AKES model to work. The first is that the programme operates in a high density population area where advisers can easily get to schools and teachers to centres frequently. Where populations and schools are more scattered other options have to be considered.
The second condition is that the level of staffing of the support and advisory service provided needs to be high. In SIP there is one adviser working with no more than 4 schools over an extended period of time; in addition to the TAC-Tutor supporting all 10 -15 schools in the Zone. Such a 'high support' programme obviously requires more staff and training for them, i.e. it costs more money than the other TRC projects we have seen.
The third condition is that the community should be heavily involved to the extent that it has a significant financial investment in the programme. This extends to ensuring that members of the community function as chairs and treasurers of management committees.
Most TRCs are located in a school. Few of these schools in any of our case studies seemed to be touched by its TRC: on the whole schools did not use the physical facilities; only marginally the resources; and no more than any other schools the pedagogical content of the in-service courses. Indeed, in Nepal it was staggering to see how unaffected a school was by the presence of its TRC. Other case studies report this problem as well.
However, having said this, we believe that a priority in TRC programmes would be to bring TRCs into host schools. Gibbs and Kazilimani offer several practical ideas to do this: from establishing the centre as the school staff-room, to having classes regularly timetabled in the centre; to having the centre coordinator taking some classes on a scheduled basis in the school, to developing the centre as a school library.
We would like to give particular emphasis to their idea that the TRC merge with the school to become a 'model school'. We have repeatedly emphasized in this study the need for TRCs to become more operational in schools and how difficult it is for them to do so. Without appearing to be caught up in our own rhetoric, one could envision a 'touchstone school' that is resourced with no more materials than other schools in a cluster. The difference would be that the teachers here are employing such materials together with the new skills that are being put forward by the project; serving as a model for their use elsewhere.
Scaling up the practice to other schools in the cluster is, of course, the major problem. There would have to be a system for other schools to come to see what is possible and to provide support for developing similar ways of working back at their schools. Working on the principle that a model school could be one way of increasing the pool of teacher advisers available to a cluster, perhaps a model school teacher (or a team of two) could exchange schools and classes with other teachers in the cluster for a period of time. This would allow 'untrained' teachers to work side-by side with 'model' teachers. And, it would allow the teacher advisers from the model school to set up 'model' classrooms in a cluster school. In such a system classes would be not be left untaught while their teacher was away attending courses. There are many possible permutations and many constraints which we will not pursue further here. The idea of a TRC as a whole school is worth serious consideration.
Another option is to drop the idea of the TRC as an advisory, in-service centre in favour of it being a resource centre. It could become a book and school supply depot in those countries where these are provided by governments. Alternatively it could become a commercial enterprise in countries where the production and supply of textbooks and learning materials is increasingly being taken over by commercial publishers. Gibbs and Kazilimani suggest that '... resource centres could play a vital link role in spreading the opportunity for book buying throughout the whole of Zambia. ' They continue, 'The sales manager of one leading publisher in Lusaka (Macmillan, Zambia)... spoke of this interest in using the resource centres as outlets and allowing them a 25% price share.'
Another way that resource centres might act as book suppliers is as mobile book banks, loaning boxes of books and learning resources to schools on a rotational schedule. The TRCs in Kenya, as mentioned above, are doing this and achieving great popularity with schools within a certain distance of the centre for their efforts.
In a resource centre the coordinator could be trained to accumulate, prepare and package resources for schools. For instance s/he could:
· Make textbooks and readers more available to more users by breaking them into chapter sections and packaging them in pamphlet form· Collect comic books and children's magazines (environment agencies in some countries publish these), similarly break them into sections and package them into pamphlet form
· Set up story and non-fiction writing competitions for teachers and children in the cluster. Offer prizes, copy the best and package them for schools
· Collect and package health, agriculture, environmental and many other such materials available free from government agencies and NGOs in most countries and package them for schools.
In this option we suggest that textbooks and associated learning materials should have a greater priority than a focus on the training of teachers. Much of the literature about how to improve the quality of education, particularly basic primary education, consistently puts textbooks and learning materials for pupils and time on the task of learning at the top of the list. The education and training of teachers is some way down that list. This begs the question of why aid programmes so frequently focus on teacher training. Or, where new text materials (and indeed examination reform) are included in development projects, why is training started before the materials are completed and ready for distribution to teachers, as we have found for example in Andhra Pradesh and Nepal?
Of course it is difficult to coordinate the phasing in of new textbooks in relation to educating teachers in their use. Nevertheless, the more general point about priorities of textbooks over in-service teacher training remains. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that aid projects are relatively short lived, and given the time and money available projects laudably go for what they think will be most sustainable. As Welford and Khatete suggest in their case study of Kenya, 'expertise endures, books decay'.
In an attempt to help teachers become a more 'enduring' resource, projects since Jomtein have for the most part based their in-service training on the view that a teacher should become an autonomous, reflective, flexible professional, capable of identifying and solving problems, creating teaching and learning materials and contextualizing instruction and learning within the locality for the children and community they serve. This, we feel, is a wonderful but unrealistic goal. Given masses of children, poor facilities and resources, the numbers of undereducated and undertrained teachers and the sheer size of the education business to be run by personnel with little corporate experience and training, such a professional goal for training seems romantic, naive almost.
We would suggest a more modest and immediate goal for training be given serious consideration, namely that the teacher should become a competent technician capable of following prescribed procedures in support of children's use of learning materials.
Obviously both textbooks and teachers are important to improving the quality of education. What we are suggesting is by no means a new idea - that is develop textbooks-cum-workbooks with which children can engage with a degree of independence. The role of the teacher is not to teach the content, but to support the children in their use of texts (and other learning materials). Our suggestion acknowledges that teachers most commonly teach from the textbook and use it as their curriculum guide. Why not, then, focus on producing textbooks that engage children actively? In-service training would then be straightforward and principally for orientating teachers to the new texts. Such training is immediately relevant and does not require a great deal of restructuring into lessons in the way that 6 pedagogical principles, 12 teaching skills and how to do hands on investigations in science and mathematics does. If teacher reflection is a goal, the text and its accompanying teachers notes provide a concrete focus. An additional attribute of such learning material is that children can get on with learning when their teacher is absent. This, we feel, is the current state of affairs and where initiatives aimed at improving teaching and learning could usefully begin.
The idea of providing learning materials for children is predicated on being able to develop good text material, not an easy or short task. Basing such material on extensive field work and trialing, which few projects currently do, is essential. However, use of text materials as the principal instructional tool is obviously best for children who have some reading and writing skills. This is not to say that materials can not be written for younger children who are just learning to read and write; of course they can. This may suggest, however, that teachers working in infant classes should be targeted specifically for in-service training.
In summary this study has raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of TRC strategy to have an impact on the quality of teaching and learning in schools and classrooms. Like all other in-service training that takes place away from schools little gets taken back from the TRC. The adoption of a TRC based strategy has not been able to bridge this gap. The problem is the inability of TRC strategy to penetrate schools to the degree necessary to improve the learning environment and the classroom performance of teachers. To have a chance of doing so would require more advisers capable of working intimately with teachers and their children in classrooms over extended periods of time. The average ratio we observed of one adviser to 12 to 15 schools, and all their teachers, is simply unrealistic.
With this in mind we have put forward options other than the use of the TRC as a training and advisory centre. The emphasis, we feel, should shift to a focus on producing learning resources for children. Existing TRCs would act principally as resource centres. Trying to get more textbook-cum-workbooks and other learning materials into the hands of pupils in classrooms with teachers in support of the materials, appears to us to be a promising venture to pursue.
