4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
The primary component of the 2012-13 Parental/Family Support Programme involved the delivery of an on-site, Parenting Workshop at each of the targeted schools involved in the programme. The delivery of this component was underpinned by the management of a multitude of logistical components, the least of which involved the deployment of approximately 500 facilitators on a weekly basis to over 130 schools over 9 weeks. The selection of the facilitators for the workshop programme mirrored the language and contextual needs of the 3 regions (Tshwaga, Ekudibeng and Johannesburg) that constitute the full education service delivery environment in the Gauteng province. Facilitators were recruited through a formal recruitment process and were representative of the diverse demographic range in the province in terms of race, gender, age, spoken language. In addition, facilitators were also recruited and deployed in terms of their place of residence and had to show some evidence of having provided some level of community service that may have included voluntary or formal service in a School Governing Body. This level of priority recruitment based on the targeted demographic status of the beneficiaries ensured that the interaction between the parent and facilitator was enhanced. The development of appropriate content for the workshop programme also contributed to the overall effectiveness of the exercise.
The materials development component involved the development and circulation of all training materials in 5 local languages English, Afrikaans, IsiZulu, Sesotho and Sepedi. The materials took full cognisance of the language proficiency levels of the parent cohort and were developed in a graphical, easy-to-read poster format that was accompanied by a resource parenting handbook for each participant to utilise as a take-home resource following the training. The materials also attempted to reflect the material reality of Gauteng-based families with pictorial illustrations of family-life in socially disadvantaged contexts. The teaching and learning methodology adopted for the delivery of the parenting workshops deviated from the mass-based lecture styled delivery to the more inclusive small class approach. Mediation of the material was undertaken through the creation of small, manageable class groupings no larger than 40 led by a fully oriented and experienced facilitator. This enabled and encouraged increased parental engagement on core issues that required greater interrogation and discussion.
The intention of the onsite programme was to provide additional, focused support over 12 months to participating schools experiencing specific social challenges. The focus of this additional support was based on a Whole-School approach incorporating the combined contributions of parents, learners, educators, community organisations and structures, School Governing Bodies and School Management Teams. The onsite support intervention to address the key challenges listed above was undertaken with the support of nine experienced specialist service providers.
The specialist support offered to each of the participating schools over a 12-month period enabled them to identify key operational and social challenges, prioritise and plan interventions to address those challenges that resided within their competence range and begin the task of introducing effective monitoring and evaluation processes to independently manage their schools. The year-long on-site intervention that the targeted schools were taken through empowered them to develop and begin utilising the necessary tools, templates, systems and processes to ensure continued school effectiveness. At the conclusion of the on-site support programme the performance of the targeted schools revealed significant improvements on key school governance indicators. Furthermore, concrete sustainable approaches in response to the major social challenges experienced by the individual schools as highlighted above were introduced. In this regard participating schools reported that interaction and cooperation between and amongst School Management Teams and School Governing Body Members had improved and this has created the necessary platform for addressing the much deeper teaching and learning and social challenges impacting the school.
|
|
5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
The GDE Parental/Family Support Programme was led and managed at two discrete levels.
At the strategic management level the project was led by an officially appointed and mandated Project Manager in collaboration with senior line functionaries and specialists from both the GDE and the agencies attached to the department. Thus the Project Management Team (PMT) that developed, endorsed and approved the overall Project Plan and maintained continued oversight and strategic reporting for the project was composed of key education, finance, communications and seasoned programme and project managers from both the GDE and MGSLG. This team met fortnightly to measure progress and review implementation so that issues of cost and quality were perfectly aligned with overall programme objectives and outcomes. The Project Management Team comprising of 15 officials were ably led by a strong Project Manager (Chief Director: Districts) and assisted by the CEO of MGSLG provided the necessary direction to deliver this project.
At the operational level the implementation of the project was led and overseen by officially mandated district parenting teams led by senior Policy & Planning District officials accompanied by a district transversal team involving school governance, monitoring and support officials all under the guidance of their respective District Directors. From a coordination perspective, the implementation team aggregated into a Provincial Implementation Team comprising of all 15 districts that make up the GDE. This broad implementation team led by the relevant Programme head represented at the PMT, convened after each PMT meeting to engage on matters of key operational concern, consolidate all operational gains, incorporate district and school-based best practices and align all projects activities for the activities ahead.
The smooth running of the project in a seamless manner also relied on the district implementation team that mobilised all available resources including school principals to ensure that delivery continued in an uninterrupted manner. It should become clear that while key strategic and operational structures have been listed as fundamental to the delivery of the programme, the leadership shown not only by the heads of these structures but the active engagement by representatives at all levels of the value chain contributed to the inculcation of a culture of excellence in the Parenting Programme.
The primary external stakeholders in the context of the parental programme involved the general parent community in the targeted schools, the school management team, the school governing body and the Quality Learning & Teaching Committees located within each schooling community. The external stakeholders were fundamentally engaged at two different levels, namely, within the organised parent (SGB Associations) and QLTC formations and through regional and district-based roadshows where each participating school (principal and SGB Chairperson) were engaged around the objectives, roll-out and requirements of the Programme. In addition, these engagements were backed by a signed memorandum from the relevant executive head within the GDE to each targeted school and district around the nature of the programme and the expectations of the GDE.
In terms of the internal stakeholders that required information, the inclusive nature of the PMT and PIT structures proved adequate to inform the GDE and all relevant district officials about the rollout of the programme its core objectives and expected outcomes. A broad-based communication strategy was adopted and approved by the PMT that involved the use of print media, local community radio stations, the use of flyers and loud hailing, engagements with Faith-Based Organisations, targeted proforma invitations to all parents in targeted schools and posters and bill boards to advocate the programme. Further communication initiatives involving the effective use of social media and chat groups enabled and facilitate effective communication
In sum therefore, the implementation strategy emphasised the central authority of the GDE Head Office and the primacy of the Curriculum Management and Education Support Directorates. District directors constituted the next level of leadership given their responsibility for directing all delivery-related activities at the district level. The Education Operations Support (EOS) and the Circuit Managers were next in line to manage delivery within the newly devised circuit and clusterstructures. On a complementary basis, MGSLG directed all its training and support services to manage the in-class and out-of-class logistical and financial management components of the strategy.
|
6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
The Parental Programme has been wholly funded by the GDE and over the three cycles of delivery the total cost investment by the GDE has amounted to R70 million.
The Parental Programme was managed by a cross-cutting Project Management Team (PMT) comprising of both GDE and MGSLG executive line managers, communication and advocacy specialists, school governance and stakeholder management experts, finance, curriculum and programme managers. This specialist PMT took overall management responsibility for the strategic and operational elements of the project. At the strategic level, the PMT ensured that the programme responded directly to the GDE strategic goals and objectives and yielded the anticipated outcomes established for the programme at the outset. On the operational front, the PMT tracked project progress across the time, cost and quality variables and met regularly to ensure that project not only remained within budget but was delivered comprehensively and to the required quality.
On the time and cost scale, the project was scheduled in a sequenced manner that accommodated all the targeted schools over a compressed period that ensured that key school milestones viz. examinations were not interfered with. Furthermore, schools were also allowed to select their preferred workshop dates so that localised school level buy-in was sought to prevent the unnecessary wastage of resources.
All school financial allotments for catering provision was norm-based so that schools were pre-funded and could claim back additional sums where the attendance norm was exceeded. These transfers were tracked and attendance registers scrutinised to ensure that only legitimate claims were processed and settled. Thus cost containment and budget control was exercised at both a strategic (PMT) level as well as the operational (school and district level). Management of the budget at the centralised level allowed for increased efficiencies and for maximising economies of scale gains in respect of facilitation, catering and the production of printed materials.
In terms of quality, all elements of the programme were carefully quality assured. All workshop materials were developed following wide consultation and through the inclusion of key specialists to vet and confirm the appropriateness and relevance thereof. All facilitators deployed in the programme were carefully screened, interviewed and tested before being sent into the field. Where doubts were expressed about the quality of a facilitator was raised, they were paired with an experience facilitator. All schools were invited to assume a primary role in securing catering services for the participants or undertaking the exercise independently. This gave the schools ownership of a key component of any workshop programme and limited the number of concerns about inappropriate catering. Summaries of evaluation/feedback reports aggregated at the participant and monitor level were utilised to measure the quality of the programme. The highlights or major concerns emanating from this exercise are reported upon at the PMT and PIT level so that key concerns are addressed in process as opposed to the end of the programme through an evaluation.
|
|
7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
a) Wide scope of coverage of the programme - Over the 2011-13 period of delivery, a total of 190 562 parents were engaged in the parenting workshops. The 2012-13 Parenting programme reached 1107 of the 1183 targeted schools and 100228 parents from the 1107 schools attended the training. Over the 2013-14 period a total of 1400 schools and 140000 were targeted for the programme. Of this total, 1284 schools successfully hosted the programme. While the formal programme will only conclude in March 2014, at the current time, a total 106543 parents(76% of the target) have attended the face to face workshops. To this end, the scope of coverage of the programme has been considerable in that on average 100000 parents per annum have been taken through an onsite workshop on a pertinent parenting issue.
b) Development of a pool of experiencedMGSLG parenting facilitators – given the three year delivery cycle MGSLG has developed a diverse group of over 500 experienced facilitators that are readily deployable to deliver a parenting programme throughout the province on an ongoing basis.
c) Adapted, focused and customised training material – Each year of delivery has resulted in major improvements to the training materials. The materials have become issue-specific but have retained their core parenting skills focus. To this end, the materials have served a dual purpose to enlightened parents on the major social issues of the day but equally to empower them to become better parents of school-going children. Given the wide translation of the materials, they now serve as a useful resource for parents form diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
d) The establishment of programme management structures for the delivery of the parenting programme. These are described elsewhere but have become institutionalised to the extent that a Project Management Team (PMT) and Provincial Implementation Team (PIT) are now defined structures in the manner in which MGSLG manages programmes in partnership with the GDE.
|
|
8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
The monitoring and evaluation of the Parental Programme was located at a number of different levels. Given the strategic management and oversight role played by the PMT, the overall monitoring of the project at a macro level was undertaken by the PMT. This monitoring was reinforced at an operational level by the Provincial Implementation Team (PIT) and the District Parenting Teams at the more localised School level.
A primary institutional monitoring strategy adopted by the PMT and operationalised within MGSLG involved the appointment of onsite monitors to support each site and provide details in respect of attendance, comments around logistical arrangements and inputs in respect of the quality of the materials and facilitation. This site level monitoring provided the project with sufficient information to rapidly respond to immediate issues as they emerged on the ground. A further innovation introduced within the project to support the immediate feedback of potential constraints was the creation of a centralised Call Centre that supported the efforts of the onsite monitors and enabled them to deploy resources to areas of need expeditiously. The onsite monitors presented weekly reports over the duration of the roll-out and this strengthened the capacity of the PMT to shift course strategically in light of feedback provided from the ground.
The evaluation of the programme from a participant perspective was obtained through the completion of a post-training evaluation form by each participant on a voluntary basis. Feedback from the participants in the 2011 roll-out facilitated the extension of the workshop programme in 2012 to include 75 High Priority schools that required dedicated support to enhance their performance status. In addition, facilitator reports were scrutinised on a weekly basis to inform all project interventions to improve the quality of the facilitation to parents. These reports were validated against PIT reports from district based monitors so that the perspectives of a significant number of stakeholders were accommodated into the wider monitoring and evaluation framework adopted for the programme.
At the concrete project management level, an in-house MGSLG project team comprising of the School Governance staff compiled bi-weekly project reports in advance of any PMT and PIT meetings. These reports consolidated the inputs of the Call Centre and Project Administrators utilised to deliver this programme effectively. All localised MGSLG project staff developed issue logs that focussed on all project anomalies across the operational spectrum so that these could be attended to effectively.
|
|
9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
a) Programme Advocacy - In previous rounds of the programme it was prevalent that advocacy for the parenting programme appeared ineffective. During the final round of delivery wide spanning road shows incorporating all relevant school and district stakeholders were convened. These road shows brought MGSLG and GDE into direct contact with principals, School Governing Body Chairpersons and district support officials around a common table to meet and engage around the roll-out of the programme. While not particularly successful in raising parental attendance at the workshops the engagements strengthened project coordination.
b) Project Coordination – the success of the parenting programme relied heavily on the participation of district parenting team members in the Provincial Implementation Team (PIT). However, participation in the PIT was impacted by the realignment strategy adopted by the GDE to improve its support to schools. The GDE realignment programme tended to shift the functional roles of district staff and resulted in the irregular attendance of district members to the PIT meetings. While formal meetings were impacted, communication channels were reinforced through regular email and mobile contact. Thus the absence of the PIT members was suitably mitigated by strengthening all communication with targeted recipients.
c) Workshop Over and Under-subscription – Workshop attendance per school by parents proved difficult to predict. To facilitate the more efficient delivery of the programme each school was prefunded up to an expected norm of 100 parents per school. Parental attendance was dependent on the relative effectiveness of principals in advocating for the programme. This meant a reliance on estimated figures and contributed to project management challenges. All schools that exceeded the 100 parent norm needed to be recompensed for their catering expenses. These payments could only be made subject to the presentation of a verifiable register submitted by the facilitator. While no serious challenges were experienced in the recording and verification of the attendance at the workshops, timeous transfers to schools was often compromised.
d) Workshop postponements tended to prove quite a disruptive feature of the roll-out. Schools were prescheduled to deliver the workshops. However, opportunities were opened to them to select a more convenient date to host the workshops. Schools often postponed at the eleventh hour. Despite these late notice postponements, it became incumbent on schools to reschedule once a transfer for catering was made. In some ways, such postponements assisted in that timeous transfers were made to schools to prepare for the workshops and it was certain that a workshop would be held to account for the transfer already made.
e) Allocating sufficient time for material development to accommodate the school calendar and MGSLG internal procurement processes. The timing of the parenting workshops need to coincide more comfortably with the planning and budgeting cycle of government. The transfer of expected funds timeously supports effective delivery.
|