Decagonal Approach: A
vehicle for School Improvement
By
Muhammad Yusuf, Muhammad Ibrahim, Tanveerul Islam, Aziza Sultana
In recent years, school-reforms has been a catch-phrase for policymakers,
administrators, NGOs, researchers, parents, and teachers in
School Improvement in MIED’s Prospective
‘School
Improvement’ is another phrase that is frequently being used in the educational
reform processes in
But
among those who demonstrate an understanding that schools are complex
interdependent social systems can move their schools forward. Unfortunately,
many educational leaders are not able to make interconnectedness of the
institutional components. As such, well-planned reform activities often address
symptoms, not the underlying root causes of the problems, and therefore,
significant school improvements do not occur. So, we need to know about
organizational communication systems, power structures, and change processes,
which can help us to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the school systems.
As
Margaret Mead said, “At clear understanding of a problem prefigures its lines
of solution.” Efforts or adjustments to address weaknesses do not bring
systematic change. Considerable educational change requires effective
communication, coordination, time management, optimum use of resources, and
expertise of all involved. In short, “school improvement program (SIP) is a
systematic, sustained effort aimed to change the learning condition in a school
with the ultimate aim of accomplishing education goals more effectively.” (Van
Velzen et al., 1985).
Based
on the above discussion, Mountain Institute for Educational Development (MIED)
developed the following model for school improvement and implemented it in her
project school and named it as Decagonal
Approach for school improvement.
It
is well known that teacher’s capacity building is central to school improvement
and change. Within SIP, teacher capacity building is the main concern, and
teachers are encouraged to learn from their day-to-day practices by reflecting
upon what they say, do or observe in their schools. For the capacity building
of teachers, MIED has developed a four-phase model. In the first phase, the
emphases are mostly on the re-conceptualization of generic notions like
education, curriculum, teaching, and learning. The participants are provided
with opportunities to bring in knowledge by reflecting critically on their
existing perceptions and practices. Moreover, they are made familiar with the
modern techniques of teaching and learning through activity-based,
child-centered based, and resources based teaching and learning approaches.
Keeping in view the high student-teacher ratio in schools, multi-grade teaching
technique is offered for application and experimentation in their classroom
situations. However, the main focus during training is on active
“participation” and “voice” of children in a school context with the accepted
wisdom of “teacher as a facilitator.”
After
completion of the first phase, the learned theories and practices are
implemented, integrated, and tested by teachers by the contextual realities of
their schools. Then during on job support educators observe classes of the
course participants and provide proper feedback for further development. Educators
discuss with the Course Participants to be aware of their needs making grounds
for the next training.
In
the third phase, based on field observations, actions are taken to address the
dire needs of the teachers according to their contextual realities. The main
focus is on subject matters, content, and innovative teaching techniques.
In
the fourth phase, with refined perceptions, pedagogical techniques, and
methodologies the participants are observed again in classroom and school
situations. Mentors provide support according to the upcoming concerns through
ongoing on-job -support.
Leadership and Management
SIP develops leadership at the levels of
teachers, headteachers, students, and system line supporters to bring about
permanent and everlasting change inside the schools. School heads guide teachers
inside the classrooms and prepare teachers, parents, and students for the
process of change as well. Any change effort initiated by the school leaders
brings good results because they know their problems better than anyone else.
Community Participation
Schools are based
in communities comprising different people. These people have different beliefs
and priorities, which influence a school’s learning environment. But a school
in its place hardly leaves its impact on the community norms, as the studies
reveal. MIED wants a balance between these rates of influence. So a school
should be a place where everyone from the community can learn. A school’s
learning zone should include students, their parents, and the grand-partners
within itself.
Children Participation
Children’s
learning is the end product of an effective school improvement program. So
children must participate actively in their learning process. Children learn
best when they are exposed to situations where they act as leaders. In a school,
they can play their role in issues related to cleanliness, homework, classwork,
absenteeism, and relationship building. They play their roles not haphazardly
but in an organized and systematic way at the forum of Students Representative
Councils (SRCs)
Developing Physical Environment in Schools
In a country like
Pakistan, schools do not have suitable learning environments. School buildings
in some rural areas are turned into stores to keep the broken furniture. At
places, they are turned into the bedroom of the school’s watchman. In some
cases, local influential use them as their guest houses. School improvement
efforts aim to improve such physical environments so that they could be used as
conducive learning environments.
Curriculum Enrichment
Nowadays almost
all teachers and education officers take textbooks as a curriculum document.
Therefore, the teachers strictly follow the textbooks thinking it their
professional obligation. They do not change, modify, or improve any material
given in the books. Such stereotype teaching has caused great damage to
students, who have different needs and styles of learning. School improvement
program aims to enrich the curriculum in a way where it suits the different
needs and learning styles of the students.
Research, Documentation & Dissemination
Almost all schools
are passing through a change process. The process may be slow or drastic.
Somewhere the change may be well managed, but at places teachers and school,
leaders are still thinking about how to find ways to improve their children’s
learning. These achievements and efforts need to be documented and disseminated
among the schools and communities.
School Governance, Ownership and Advocacy
Although parents,
teachers, and system line leaders all play their roles they do not own their
schools. They do not know how to manage even small issues. They hardly discuss
their problems with one another. The result is that the problems do not only
persist but continues to be complicated. MIED involves all stakeholders in the
process of school improvement so that schools’ governance can be made effective
along with improving ownership and advocacy.
School-Based Interventions
Treating all
schools alike would be misleading. Each school has its reality; a successful
intervention in one school might be a disaster in another school. Therefore,
MIED takes each school as a unit of change. Besides, teachers development MIED
provides follow up support to suit it to the varying needs of different
schools, teachers, and students inside them.
Local Resource Generation
Human potential is
fundamental to the process of teaching and learning but it is the resources
that also make the achievements sustainable. Resources are found everywhere.
Schools should be able to identify both material and human resources present
all around. Like village mason along with volunteers can render useful services
to the building improvements. Local resources generation leads the communities
to own their schools.
Lesson learned
During the
implementation of the decagonal approach for school improvement, MIED has learned
the following lessons.
SIP… Whose responsibility?
Theoretically,
MIED started SIP implementation in consonance with Fullan (2001, pp 1-2)),
“deep and sustained reform [SIP] depends upon many of us, not just the very few
who are destined to be extraordinary.” From the initial days of SIP
implementation, MIED tried to assure mobilizing and involving every stakeholder,
from the Executive District Officer (EDO) Education down to one grader, in the
process of school improvement. Through awareness sessions, MIED was able to
communicate to them their roles and responsibilities in the school and by
involving them in SIP activities. MIED provided an opportunity for them to practice
those roles in SIP. With time, became teams comprising UC councilors, teachers,
parents, and students. For example, in Thatti Jammun, the community was encouraged
by the rehabilitation work, Teachers’ Development Courses (TDCs) and formation
of Students’ Representative Councils (SRCs) by MIED and they structured two
classrooms on a self-help basis. They have also taken the responsibility of paying
the electricity bill for the school. Similarly, in Natural community members
and school council has taken the responsibility of rehabilitation work and requested
MIED to focus on academic excellence in their school.
Change is a Process, Not an Event
During the period
of SIP, MIED educators conceptually have understood that school improvement is a
process and not an event. Activities take time and require continuous effort to
move from intervention to Institutionalization.
Individuals Need to Change
It
is necessary for change to happen, and desires to occur in individuals. MIED
learned in two years of SIP implementation that initially, understanding the
need for change was a critical part of the whole process of school improvement.
One has to change oneself before trying to challenge others. MIED also found
that in their moving schools it is the teacher who plays a major role in
institutionalizing SIP intervention in their schools.
Change Needs Team Effort
For a positive
change in schools, all stakeholders need to work together for positive change. Without
creating the spirit of a team the process of change cannot take root in the
schools.
Shared understanding
Shared
understanding among all partners is necessary to implement a project like a school
improvement. Hence, MIED considers it a blessing that the project partners
(Plan-Pakistan and SSO) continuously support SIP activities either it is in the
project proposal or not, either it is budgeted or not. For the time being MIED
developed understanding through presentations and monthly coordination meetings
that school improvement is a process, not a product and every school is unique
and requires a separate action plan to move from a sinking school to a moving school (Stoll and Find 1998).
Change in Teacher Attitude – a Process
During
the field support program, teacher and student-friendly attitudes are some of the
keys for MIED. MIED believes that learning can be accelerated when teachers
become friendly with students and engage them in meaningful activities rather
than explaining the concept by sitting on their chairs. In the first visit,
after the formal introduction, MIED’s educators first meet with children where
they are sitting either on mud or under the tree. They discuss with them their
learning and the challenges they face. Then they try to fulfill their immediate
needs and then move to the teachers and discuss several ways to implement their
learning during face to face teacher development component. Due to this
attitude to sitting with students, discussing and questioning in a friendly manner,
MIED finds that teachers have started teaching sitting with students rather than
standing in front of a whiteboard or sitting on their chairs. Moving teachers from
their chairs to children's mat, MIED succeeded to create a friendly environment
among teachers and students, where students can learn freely and able to share
their difficulties and success with their teachers and colleagues. In short,
active learning strategies and child-friendly behaviors help children to
strengthen their coping mechanisms.
Conducive Environment Contributes to Learning.
When
MIED started to implement SIP in Chakwal, they found empty walls of the schools.
First MIED started to decorate them with students drawing works. With the
passage of time filled the classroom walls with students writing, time table,
content-based charts. It shows that students have an opportunity to share their
work and creativity with their classmates rather than teachers only. They
interact with different learning units whenever they see them in the classroom.
Coordination with Communities Provide better
MIED
provides a platform through joint meeting sessions with the community, school
council, and teachers to discuss school-related issues. They come up with a lot
of ideas and local solutions to problems. In such situations, MIED works as a facilitator
and uses the expertise in SIP such as managing and monitoring of rehabilitation
of the school. MIED developed their linkages with the Education Department and
other development organizations in Chakwal, from where the community can get a benefit
for their schools through this linkage. For instance, in Miani GGPS’s School
Council got approval for the use of the classroom which is the part of GBPS.
For use of maximum human resources academic excellence, Dhokh Bair community got
the approval of merging two primary schools and now the school is running as a
unit under one management.
Conclusion
Implementers need to act as role
models first of all. Whatever the level, be it classroom, school councils, or
education department change processes need to be not only shared and
disseminated but demonstrated differently and patiently according to the
context of the stakeholders.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading
in a culture of change.
Sindh Education
Foundation (2007). Educational for All: A
Critical Review. Sindh Education Foundation:
Stoll, L. and
Find, D. (1998) The cruising school: the unidentified ineffective school, in L.
Stoll and K. Myers (Eds) No Quick Fixes: Perspectives on schools in Difficulty.
Van Velzen, W.,
Miles, M., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U. & Robin, D. (1985).
Nice work.
ReplyDelete