Upload
education-moving-up-cc
View
149
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presenter:DrMuaviaGallie(PhD)
School Turnaround
Allourlearnerscanandshouldbesuccessfulinourschools.
SAPA-WCExcellentSchools
byDesign
www.slideshare.netRegistertodownload– itisfreeSearch– SAPAWCExcellence
Website:www.schoolturnaroundfoundation.org.za
FacebookPage:SchoolTurnaroundFoundation
Website:www.movingup.co.za
WHY?Theneedtoshiftfrom
DYSFUNCTIONALITYBYDESIGN(Apartheid/ColonialEducation)
toEXCELLENCEBYDESIGN
TIMSS 2003 - Applying Maths
2003
The
Incl
usiv
e G
row
th
and
Dev
elop
men
t Rep
ort
2017
Insi
ght R
epor
t
Janu
ary
2017
Part 1. Rising to the Challenge of Inclusive Growth and Development
14 | The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2017
Part 1. Rising to the Challenge of Inclusive Growth and Development
The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2017 | 15
robust legal and competition frameworks. They help channel
savings efficiently to employment-generating and productivity-
enhancing investment opportunities in the real economy
as well as support consumer demand and small-scale
entrepreneurship through widespread access to financial
services.
Core labor standards, worker protections, and benefits enable
wages and household income to rise roughly in line with labor
productivity, supporting domestic consumption and aggregate
demand. They can also reinforce growth by supporting labor
mobility, adjustment, and skills acquisition. Policies that support
broad access to small business loans, housing finance,
pension savings, and employee ownership help to democratize
the generation of wealth and share the gains in national income
from the economy’s technical progress and its accumulating
capital stock. The accompanying wealth effect similarly
stimulates domestic consumption and demand.
to operate in a self-reinforcing cycle in which rising economic
output and social inclusion feed each other.
Fair and efficient taxation and basic social protections feature
at the beginning and end of a continuing cycle within the
development process. They are important not only for addressing
excess inequality resulting from market outcomes but also for
mobilizing resources to support crucial public services such
as education and physical infrastructure, which are vital to
the creation of economic opportunity, functioning of markets,
and thus inception and ongoing stimulation of the growth
process itself.
Sound legal and competition institutions support efficient
resource allocation and equal opportunity by preventing
corruption, unduly high barriers to entry, and concentration
of rents due to regulatory capture. Investment climate rules,
incentives, and institutional capacity are important for enabling
investors to capitalize on the level playing field created by
Building blocks of human
potential and opportunity
Equitable taxation and
social protection
Sound institutions, business and political ethics
Productive allocation of
financial resources
Good jobs, wages and livelihoods
Pillar 5Asset Building
and Entrepreneurship
Pillar 6Employment and
Labor Compensation
Pillar 7Fiscal
Transfers
Pillar 1Education and
Skills DevelopmentPillar 2Basic Services and Digital Infrastructure
Pillar 3Corruption and Rents
Pillar 4Financial Intermediation
of Real Economy Investment
Rethinking the Nature and Role of Structural Reform
This Framework represents an alternative way of thinking about
structural economic reform and its role in the development
process. Structural reform usually refers to measures aimed at
boosting economic efficiency and macroeconomic stability by
sharpening market signals and improving the health of public
finances, often in response to a recent or looming fiscal or
balance-of-payments crisis. In such circumstances, they tend
to have the effect of squeezing living standards in the short
term. But a systematic, sustained effort to strengthen
institutions and policy incentives across the Framework’s
15 sub-domains – or to address particular weaknesses
identified therein – also constitutes an exercise in structural
reform, albeit one that mixes demand- and supply-side
measures for the express purpose of boosting broad living
standards while reinforcing the rate and resilience of growth.
This rebalanced and enlarged notion of structural reform is
best pursued as a long-term strategy forming an integral part
of the development process rather than as a crash effort to
preempt or recover from a crisis.53 If a society is seeking a
more inclusive model of economic growth, then the deliberate
and progressive cultivation of institutional strength in these
areas must be placed at the heart of its growth strategy,
because these are the frameworks and mechanisms that
constitute its economy’s implicit income distribution system
– the mechanism by which the social benefits of economic
growth are diffused widely in the form of broad-based
progress in living standards (employment, income, security,
and quality of life).
The essential measure of the inclusiveness of a society’s
growth model is the extent to which it produces broad gains
in living standards before fiscal transfers. For this reason, six of
the Framework’s seven main pillars relate to structural policy
and institutional factors that influence the composition of
private-sector activity and the distribution of outcomes within
the market itself. In particular, because wages and returns to
self-employment and small-business ownership constitute
a very high percentage of the income of all but the wealthiest
households, factors that shape these elements of national
income figure prominently in the indicators that have been
assembled.
At the same time, since the focus of this exercise is inclusive
growth and development rather than social inclusion per se,
the set of policies and institutions it highlights and the specific
benchmarking indicators it chooses must be consistent with
the promotion of economic dynamism and growth. An inclusive
If these key enabling factors are in place, a strong entrepreneurial
and investment culture takes hold, fostering competitive
industries and quality employment opportunities that in turn
support domestic demand. Coming full circle, robust domestic
demand spurs further investment and stimulates increases in
growth via an efficient and fair tax system that generates the
additional public resources needed to increase investment in
the quality of the country’s basic services, infrastructure, and
social safety net – widening economic opportunity and output
still further.
To help governments and stakeholders understand the extent
to which this policy and institutional ecosystem has been
optimized in their country, a database of cross-country statistical
indicators has been compiled in each sub-pillar, permitting
comparison at the pillar, sub-pillar, and individual indicator level
within peer groups. These Policy and Institutional Indicators
(PIIs) yield a distinct profile of each country’s institutional
strength and utilization of policy space relative to its peers.
These country profiles of benchmarking data are like diagnostic
scans of each country’s structural policy and institutional
enabling environment as it relates to their capacity to capture
the synergies between growth and social inclusion. They
illustrate the distance from best practice in their peer group in
areas that particularly matter for driving broad-based progress
in living standards. The results are presented in four groups of
countries based on level of economic development as
measured by national income.
Tables 13-16 display the four groups of countries, comparing
the pillar and sub-pillar scores of each country via a traffic-light
shading scheme that ranks countries relative to their group.
Red corresponds to the lowest relative performance within the
group, yellow to the median, and dark green to the best
performance. Since this color scheme ranks countries only
within each comparator group, colors are not comparable
across income groups. However, the absolute numerical score
values (on a scale of 1 to 7) that are displayed in each data
field are largely comparable across the entire sample of 109
countries. When countries are missing data, this is indicated by
white shading and a numerical value of N/A. If data is missing
for more than 30% of indicators, the sub-pillar score is also left
blank. See Part 3 for a full description of the methodology. In
addition to the cross-country sub-pillar tables presented in this
Report, the version of the Report available online includes full
individual country data profiles (wef.ch/igd17). These Country
Profiles list the score for every indicator within every sub-pillar
for each country covered by the Report. An example of a full
country profile is included below in Part 2.
Figure 5: Virtuous Circle of Inclusive Growth and Development
WEF
Fig.6: Varying Role of redistribution in Reducing Inequality
Current‘through-put’inEducationComparing Grades 1-12 from 1999 to 2016 Gap Now %Learner Gap Trace %Learner
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Gr1 & 12 Retained Years Years
1999 1 318 932 1 223 529 1 194 425 1 167 683 1 087 829 998 705 937 741 1 043 067 917 239 840 803 738 220 571 848 747 084 43%
2000 1 055 397 1 090 765 1 178 712 1 167 949 1 088 836 1 009 782 936 454 1 039 547 922 566 836 962 724 192 549 203 506 194 52%
2001 1 150 637 944 961 1 087 675 1 175 860 1 098 863 1 023 269 932 151 1 068 479 916 280 846 655 709 508 488 352 662 285 42%
2002 1 286 591 1 012 892 949 721 1 076 107 1 142 806 1 038 679 958 932 936 392 1 089 404 876 175 719 952 486 786 799 805 38% 430 453 53%
2003 1 277 499 1 111 858 1 003 331 952 465 1 035 707 1 101 740 987 876 976 750 902 129 1 096 214 736 720 475 069 802 430 37% 567 998 46%
2004 1 303 016 1 109 201 1 081 956 985 139 916 911 997 365 1 050 554 1 010 710 914 729 1 057 935 829 137 505 392 797 624 39% 432 349 54%
2005 1 233 581 1 118 690 1 078 001 1 061 770 951 372 898 493 972 542 1 052 499 930 797 1 069 494 839 009 538 909 694 672 44% 459 796 54%
2006 1 185 198 1 081 652 1 099 319 1 072 780 1 026 031 919 487 872 051 1 020 734 970 946 1 093 297 890 564 568 664 616 534 48% 519 165 52%
2007 1 171 323 1 050 103 1 066 796 1 090 762 1 035 449 1 001 687 896 138 930 019 957 450 1 115 961 920 102 625 809 545 514 53% 462 020 54%
2008 1 122 114 1 031 821 1 017 656 1 050 860 1 043 012 1 001 852 964 345 926 603 902 656 1 076 527 902 752 595 216 526 898 53% 599 209 50%
2009 1 106 827 1 004 311 1 004 585 1 019 886 1 009 370 1 012 619 970 902 991 093 926 531 1 017 341 881 661 602 278 504 549 54% 621 251 49%
2010 1 116 899 994 410 972 668 1 002 645 978 983 978 016 980 747 1 001 180 1 009 327 1 039 762 841 815 579 384 537 515 52% 739 548 44%
2011 1 177 089 1 003 353 957 209 974 860 957 203 946 427 941 291 1 008 110 1 049 904 1 049 189 847 738 534 498 642 591 45% 520 899 51%
2012 1 208 973 1 074 788 967 373 966 349 939 025 935 446 912 528 971 509 1 096 113 1 103 495 874 331 551 837 657 136 46% 598 800 48%
2013 1 222 851 1 116 427 1 025 185 964 630 923 562 909 095 902 099 942 345 1 073 060 1 146 285 834 611 597 196 625 655 49% 689 395 46%
2014 1 235 901 1 149 894 1 073 447 1 036 378 929 735 894 517 875 311 935 624 1 048 823 1 139 872 897 342 571 819 664 082 46% 705 680 45%
2015 1 244 208 1 164 050 1 106 895 1 088 804 979 360 899 799 884 994 931 766 950 512 1 112 604 928 983 687 230 556 978 55% 615 786 53%
2016 1 208 992 1 182 132 1 118 913 1 126 128 1 026 674 947 015 899 622 952 628 905 066 1 104 749 901 697 704 533 504 459 58% 529 048 57%
Ave. 1 201 446 1 081 380 1 054 659 1 054 503 1 009 485 973 000 937 571 985 503 971 307 1 034 629 834 352 568 557 Diff Trace
DifferencebetweenSchoolImprovementandSchoolTurnaround
RedefinitionThecreationofnewapproaches,goals,processesand
tasks,previouslyinconceivable.
ModificationSignificantredesign ofapproaches,goals,processes,and
tasks.
AugmentationSubstitution ofcurrentapproaches,goals,processesand
tasks,withfunctionalimprovement.
SubstitutionSubstitution ofcurrentapproaches,goals,processesand
tasks,withnofunctionalchange.Improvem
ent
TurnaroundDoing
Diffe
rentlyDoing
More&
Better
FromUnderperformancetoExcellence
1.Under-PerformingSchools
2.HighFunctioningSchools
3.SchoolsofExcellence
8SchoolReadinessComponents(Planning)Attendance Teacher Info Learner Info Annual Plan TimeTabling TLASchedule Organogram TLSM
Ownership
50SchoolOperationalSystems
Academic(11) Administration(14) Communication(6) ICT(7) PastoralCare(12)
Planning Planning
CM- MonitoringandEvaluation
CCR- SupportandDevelopment
60SchoolQualitySystems(6x10)Leadership Strategic Planning Human Resources Learning & Teaching Assess & Feedback Monitoring & Evaluate
CCR- SupportandDevelopment
CM- MonitoringandEvaluation
Ownership
Sustain- Institutionalisation Sustain- Institutionalisation
Scho
olTurna
roun
dStrategy(5
Pha
ses)–3-5Years
Sustaina
bility
3–6Mon
ths
Cultu
re,C
limate,
Relatio
nships
6-9
Mon
ths
Curriculum
Man
agem
ent
1.5–2.5Years
Plan
ning
6–9Mon
ths
Owne
rship
3–6Mon
ths
10
15CurriculumManagementAreasTeaching Schedule(5) LearningSchedule(5) AssessmentSchedule(5)
3Years
5Years
TheWHAT,HOWand WHEN of
SchoolTurnaroundMethodology
ExcellentSchoolsby
Design
ZWELETHEMBAHIGHSCHOOL
CHAOSBYDESIGN• AllormostLearners,TeachersandPrincipalsdon’thaveaspecificTargettheyneedtoworktowardseveryyear;
• Ifyoudon’thaveatarget,youdon’tneedtobeAccountable!
EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN1.TARGETSETTING
Everyone intheschoolhasatargetfortheyear:• Learners – uniquelyidentified,andlinkedtotheirownpreviousperformance,ineverysubject;
• Teachers – linkedtotheindividualandcollectivelearnerstheyteach;
• HoDs,Deputies&Principal.
PromotionSchedule
TargetSetting1
TargetSetting2
AdequateYearlyProgress=5%
CONSEQUENCE:• Everyoneisworkingtowardstargets;• Allassessmentsare’compared’withthe’targets’– measuringprogress,ornot;
• Encouraging’growmindset’(improving):– 40%inGrade8:5%x5years=25%à 65%– 40%inGrade8:8%x5years– 40%à 80%
• ’Effort’and’Commitment’oflearners–heutagogy (self-driven/directedlearning);
CHAOSBYDESIGN• Mostschoolsareonlyofferingbetween100to150schooldaysofteachingandlearning,despiteCAPSrequiring170days;
• AverageinSouthAfricais82days(Chisholm,2005)
EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN2.170DAYSOFT&L
Oftheaverage200schooldayspercalendar,weallocate:• 170DaysforTeachingandLearning(includingtheFATsandRevision);
• 27DaysforExaminations;• 3DaysforSports,etc.• Anyother’timeneeded’withbeonSaturdays,holidaysand’afterteachingtime’.
15
DifferentiationduetoLearnerneeds1
3
4
2
5
DifferentiationduetoLearnerneeds
170days
150days
130days
110days
90days
CONSEQUENCE:Teaching&LearningDays
MissingDaysperYear
MissingDaysperPrimary
MissingDaysperSchooling
MissingDaysin
Years(12)
90Days 80 560 960 5,64yrs
110Days 60 420 720 4,23yrs
130Days 40 280 480 2,82yrs
150Days 20 140 160 0,94yrs
160Days 10 70 80 0,47yrs
CHAOSBYDESIGN• The’beginning’and’end’timesofperiodsonthetimetablearethesame;
• No’transitionaltime’intimetable
• Schooldaysendbefore15h00mostdays
EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN
3.TIMETABLETRANSITIONALTIME
• Thereisa5minute’transitiontime’betweenperiods;
• Givelearnersand/orteacherstochangeclasses;
• Orgivenfoundationphaseteachersto’packaway’theirthingsbeforestartingwithanewarea;
• Ensuresthatteachers’get’theirfulltimeasindicatedonthetimetable.
From ToCT 07h30 07h40
60Min1 07h40 08h402 08h45 09h453 09h50 10h50
B1 10h50 11h20 Break1Read 11h20 11h30 Reading
4 11h30 12h305 12h35 13h35
B2 13h35 13h55 Break26 13h55 14h557 15h00 16h00
CW 16h00 17h00 Classwork
From ToAssembly 07h30 08h30
50MinCT 08h30 08h401 08h40 09h302 09h35 10h25
B1 10h25 10h55 Break1Read 10h55 11h05 Reading
3 11h05 11h554 12h00 12h505 12h55 13h45
B2 13h45 14h05 Break26 14h05 14h557 15h00 16h00
CW 16h00 17h00 Classwork
CONSEQUENCE:• Additional45minutesperdaytothe’closingtime;
• Teacherscanfollowtheir50-60minutesdailylessonplans,perminute;
• Learnersgettheirfull5,5hoursperdayor27,5hoursperweek;
• ThepotentialofdecentCLASSWORKcanbestructured,ratherthangivingHOMEWORK,whichIbelieveshouldbebannedfromschools.
Conclusion
ThankYou!