Attachment_2.RARA_-_Review_of_Education_Sector_Support_Programme_in_Nigeria.pdf

Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity Review of Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria’s Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy

June 2014

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development Nigeria (USAID|Nigeria). It was prepared by RTI International.

ATTACHMENT 2: SOL-620-14-000012

Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA) Review of Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria’s Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy

Contract EHC-E-00-04-00004-00

EdData II Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task Number 26

Task Order Number AID-620-BC-14-00002

February 14, 2014 to November 13, 2015

June 2014

Prepared for Tim Curtin, COR USAID|Nigeria

Prepared by Lilian Breakell Tel: +234 08130651371 Email: lilian.breakell@esspin.org

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 3,700 provides research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 75 countries in the areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment, and laboratory testing and chemical analysis. For more information, visit www.rti.org.

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

http://www.rti.org/

Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA) Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy iii

Table of Contents

Page

Annexes ........................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi

Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... vii

The Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria

Summary of ESSPIN Experiences and Approaches

Background

ESSPIN’s Theory of Change

Principles That Underpin the Training and Support Programme

Outline of the Training and Support Program

The Development of State School Improvement Teams

The Role of the SSIT

Relationship of the SSITs to the States

The Training of the SSIT and Competencies

The Evolving Role of the SSITs and Their Work with the SSOs

The Reoriented Role of the SSOs

The Changing Role of the SSO

Training

Future Directions for SSO Development

The Head Teacher Training and Support Program

The Challenge: Head Teacher Performance as Identified by the Initial Baselines

The Changing Role of the Head Teacher and Standards for an Effective Head Teacher 18

The Training and Support Program

Evaluation of Impact to Date

Future Directions for Head Teacher Development

The Training and Support Program for Teachers

The Challenge: Teacher Performance as Identified by the Initial Baselines

Standards for the Delivery of an Effective Lesson

The Training and Support Program iv Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA) Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy

Evaluation of Impact to Date

Future Directions for Teacher Development

Summary of Recommendations for Establishing and Operationalizing the School Support

Team Model for Bauchi and Sokoto States

Shared Vision

Relationships

Implementing Systems

Detailed Program, and Materials, Development

Annexes

Annex 1. Standards and Criteria for an Effective School, for Kano State’s TSP

Annex 2. School Report for Kano State TSP

Annex 3. Outline of Training for HeadTeachers (TSP: Kano State)

Annex 4. SSIT Competency Framework

Annex 5. Sample Session from Leadership 2 of the Kano TSP (Head Teachers)

Annex 6. Focus Group Discussions with Lagos SSIT Members

Annex 7. Discussion Paper on Continuous School Improvement

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy v

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. P4 Pupils Tested on P4 Literacy Questions, Jigawa State

Figure 2. Outline of the Training and Support Program

Figure 3. Areas Requiring Attention for the Establishment and Operationalizing of a

School Support Team Model vi Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Training and Support Framework

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy vii

Abbreviations

COE College of Education

DFID UK Department for International Development

ESSPIN Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria

LGEA Local Government Education Area

MLA Monitoring of Learning Achievement

MOE Ministry of Education

P Primary, or Grade

RARA Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity

SBMC school-based management committee

SOME state ministry of education

SSIT State School Improvement Team

SSO School Support Officer

SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Board

TPD teacher professional development

TSP Teaching Skills Program

UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 1

The Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria This report summarizes the Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria’s

(ESSPIN’s) approach to strengthening teacher capacity, specifically capacity to teach basic literacy in English. It will:

Describe ESSPIN’s theory of change, which identifies the nature of the relationship between ESSPIN and the ESSPIN-supported states, and the structures, systems, and processes through which the teacher development work is implemented;

Outline the training and support program as it has evolved; what has worked well and what could still be improved;

Be informed by ESSPIN’s extensive evidence base, including position and evidence papers, Annual Review reports, and the existing evidence on the impact of the program to date from the Composite Survey 1 (2012); and

Attempt to draw on ESSPIN’s experiences to identify best practices for the development of a program for Bauchi and Sokoto states. In order to do this, the report will focus in particular on the program developed by ESSPIN and

Kano State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) for use in Kano schools, the Teaching Skills Program (TSP), as in its objectives and content it most closely matches with the objectives of the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity

(RARA).

Summary of ESSPIN Experiences and Approaches

Background

ESSPIN is an ambitious UK Department for International Development- (DFID-) funded sector wide program that began work in six states (Jigawa, Kano, Kaduna, Kwara, Enugu, and Lagos) and at the federal level in mid-2008.

ESSPIN’s aim is to have a sustainable impact upon the way in which government in

Nigeria delivers education services.It centers on enabling institutions to bring about systemic change in the education system. To do this, ESSPIN leverages Nigerian resources in support of state and federal education sector plans and builds capacity for sustainability. This involves building systemic capacity, as well, to manage education systems that can ensure quality education at scale, including information systems, budgeting, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. More importantly here, it has included developing school improvement teams of local personnel within the education service as well as capable school staff and support officers who can effect change at the school level and work toward the ultimate goal of improving pupil learning outcomes.

2 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

ESSPIN has had considerable success in this, as demonstrated in Figure 1 taken from the Monitoring Learning Achievement (MLA) part of the first composite survey.

Figure 1. P4 Pupils Tested on P4 Literacy Questions, Jigawa State

This tornado diagram compares assessment results for randomly selected Primary (P)

4 pupils from intervention schools and control schools.

It shows that 96% of pupils in schools that had not been part of the ESSPIN program scored less than 50% on the

Primary 4 literacy assessment, compared to 61% of pupils scoring less than 50% in the ESSPIN supported schools. Although this is still low, the teachers in the ESSPIN supported schools had had little direct work on literacy by the time of the assessment, and the pupils in Primary 4 had not had the benefit of working through the foundations (in P1–3).

Without a doubt, the main challenge that continues to face ESSPIN is that learning outcomes in Nigeria remain very low and access to basic education remains limited

(ESSPIN Extension Business Case, p1)

10.5 million children are out of school in Nigeria—the highest number of any country in the world. Most of these children are in Northern Nigeria and the majority are girls.

Overall findings and technical report of ESSPIN composite survey 1 (2012) ESSPIN, March 2013

Schools that had been part of the initial pilot, and had had some leadership and generic teacher skills interventions, but at this point had had little direct support in the teaching of literacy.

Schools that have had no ESSPIN interventions.

ESSPIN Extension Business Case, DFID: 2013 (iati.dfid.gov.uk/ata_documents

/4281199.docx)

75%

21%

2.3%

1.8%

38%

23%

17%

22%

0 - 24%

25 - 49%

50 - 74%

75 - 100%

Phase 1

Control

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 3

23.1 million children are in school but learning little. Pupils lack the foundational skills they require by the end of Primary 2 and so cannot cope with the demands of curricula at Primary 4 and beyond, or access other curriculum areas, such as science. The percentages of pupils reaching the required standard in Primary 2 literacy in English ranged from only 38% in

Lagos to just 8% in Kano.

Teaching standards are extremely low. Out of 20,000 teachers in Kwara State, only 75 teachers had sufficient working knowledge to enable them to teach the

Primary 4–6 curriculum for 9–11 year olds. Only 17 teachers in Lagos were capable, and there were no teachers at all reaching this standard in Jigawa and

Kano states.

Over the past six years (its original lifespan) ESSPIN has proven to be highly successful and has gained the widespread support of the six state governments. It will shortly be entering into a 2.5 year, £35 million, extension period, the expected impact of which is “better learning outcomes for children of basic education school age in six states.”ESSPIN’s teacher development work makes a major contribution towards fulfilling one of the extension’s four outputs; “strengthened capability of primary schools to provide improved learning outcomes,” as well as forming a focus for the work of the remaining three outputs.

The scope of the extension is to deepen support to the existing 10,117 schools participating in ESSPIN in six states, and extend support to a further 1,191 schools, reaching 11,308 schools in total by 2016 (ESSPIN Extension Business Case, p1)

ESSPIN’s Theory of Change

The theory of change that underpins ESSPIN’s work describes what has to be in place at different levels of the education system if ESSPIN and the states are to reach their goalwhich is:

Pupils should achieve learning outcome benchmarks in literacy and numeracy

For this to happen, class teachers need to teach literacy and numeracy competently

For this to happen, head teachers must lead teaching in their schools, and schools must spend an hour each day on literacy and numeracy

For this to happen, School Support Officers (SSOs) need to train and support head teachers and teachers, and to monitor progress with school improvement

For this to happen, the State School Improvement Teams

(SSITs) need to train and support SSOs

DFID 2013; ESSPIN Extension Business Case, (iati.dfid.gov.uk/ata_documents

/4281199.docx)

4 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

The framework for building capacity of school level and school support staff is outlined in Table 1 below.

Success in delivering this framework depends in turn on substantial work with

SUBEBs and the Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs). For all of the above to happen:

LGEA staff must understand, manage, and value the concept of education quality and their role in promoting it;

SUBEB must provide committed leadership and strategic management; and

State governments, including SUBEBs and the state ministries of education

(SMOEs), need to commit their resources, based on evidence that the program is effective.

This supporting SUBEB and LGEA activity has its own evolving capacity building framework. Strengthening the capacity particularly of school service directorates

(SUBEB) and sections (LGEAs) helps ensure that capacity exists for the state to manage the successful rollout of the programs and to build long term sustainability.

“Strong and accountable education systems matter.... (as) investing at system level enables education reforms to build on pockets of good practice and ensure irreversible gains in learning” (DFID Education position paper; Improving learning, expanding opportunities, pp4-5) . ESSPIN provides an important example of this through the opportunity it offers to enhance evidence-based planning at LGEA and state level by involving officers in the analysis and subsequent use of information obtained through the school reporting system.

DFID 2013: Education Position Paper, Improving Learning, Expanding Opportunities:

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 5

Table 1 Training and Support Framework

Major Issues Key Strategies

Summary of Professional Relationships Summary of Inputs

Teachers

Ineffective lesson delivery caused by

Poor subject knowledge

Weak generic teaching skills

Poor teacher attendance and punctuality

Agree with states on a standard for the delivery of an effective lesson

Locate teacher capacity development activities within the school itself or as close to it as possible, encouraging appropriateness of content and delivery, collegiality and peer support

Provide and support the use of structured materials (lesson plans) that ensure teachers can deliver two hours of quality instruction daily, while strengthening teachers’ own understanding of key basic literacy (and numeracy) concepts

Trained/supported by SSOs (lesson plans),head teachers (generic teaching skills)

Monitored by head teachers through classroom observations

Direct workshop training on the teaching of literacy (and numeracy); two days per term for a group of teachers from each school, with structured follow-up within school

School based professional development meetings led by the head teacher supported by the SSO (three per term)

Head teachers

Stagnating schools caused by weak school leadership, with head teachers spending little time on purposeful activity

Agree with states on a standard for effective school leadership

Strengthen two key aspects of the role of the head teacher, through training and support

Academic leadership strengthens own understanding of pedagogy and lesson plans, to enable them to encourage good practice supports head teachers to introduce two key school level systems to improve the effectiveness of lesson delivery supports head teachers to lead school processes to increase learning time

School improvement planning

Trained/supported by SSOs through workshops and visits

Monitored by SSOs through the school reporting system and school visits

As above, plus:

Direct workshop training on school leadership; three to four days per term over a two year period

Structured follow-up and support within school (3 oneday visits per term)

6 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

Major Issues Key Strategies

Summary of Professional Relationships Summary of Inputs

SSOs

Large cadres of supervisory officers exist, but they have an “inspectorial” orientation and lack the direction and skills to improve schools.

Their management is uncoordinated and asystematic.

Agree with the states on a reoriented role for the SSOs towards improving schools, and strengthen their skills in

Training (on leadership and using the lesson plans)

Delivering school based support

Reporting on progress with school improvement

Support LGEAs and SUBEB to reconceptualizethe relationship between support staff and “their” schools, ensuring that each officer is responsible for the improvement of between five and eight schools

Strengthen the quality of school visits

Trained/supported by SSITs through workshops, and by support/ supervision visits to SSO-led training and school visits by SSIT

Monitored by supervision visits to SSO training and school visits by the SSIT; by SUBEB monitoring groups;

the school reporting system

Managed by LGEA school service sections

All workshop training as received by head teachers and teachers, plus

Induction program covering their reoriented role, school improvement, and the teaching of literacy and numeracy (two weeks)

Additional training attached to the leadership workshops (1–2 days per term over a two-year period) on their training, support, and reporting role

Additional visits from SSIT (1 day each, support for their training and school visit roles)

On-the-job support for completion of cluster reports

SSIT

Exist extensively, but uncoordinated, ad hoc, and often inappropriate workshop programs are failing to impact teacher performance

They are delivered by College of Educations (COEs) who have little engagement with state staff responsible for schools /teachers and whose staff are divorced from the reality of teaching.

Develop full time dedicated teams of respected practitioner-educators to lead school improvement;

delivering training and support as well as needs assessment, monitoring, and impact evaluation

Ensure these teams become a state resource, appropriately located within school service directorates and are managed and funded by SUBEB

Trained by ESSPIN TA (and by more experienced SSITs)

Supported through peer mentoring

Monitored though State Monitoring Teams

Managed by SUBEB (usually through directorate of school services)

All workshop training as above plus;

Induction program covering their role, school improvement, and the teaching of literacy and numeracy (at least two weeks) and ongoing mentoring program

Additional training and professional updating to lead continuing school improvement

Additional professional opportunities

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 7

Principles That Underpin the Training and Support Programme

Helping people to do their own jobs better

From the very beginning of the initial pilot phase, ESSPIN has planned to ensure that results are replicable, scalable, and sustainable long after the end of the program. To achieve this, all activities must become embedded as integral, routine parts of the systems and processes (including budgetary allocations) within the education sector.

This in turn requires changing the behavior, and improving the performance, of the people who work within those systems, largely through including staff who will be affected by change in the development of the new strategies.

ESSPIN made a conscious decision not to work through a Project Implementation

Unit, the desk officers, or similar existing entities. Instead, time was taken to analyze the structure of SUBEBs and LGEAs, identifying the appropriate place within the system where responsibility for the decisions and activities that make up school improvement should lie, and then to build the capacity of the staff. Functional reviews of the structure of SUBEBs and LGEAs were supported, and roles and responsibilities were debated and realigned.

One such example is the reoriented role of the SSOs, the large number of field office staff who are located at LGEA level. Previous programs have identified and utilized these officers as trainers or mentors. But possibly because these responsibilities have been seen (by the staff themselves and their LGEA supervisors and SUBEB managers) as additional to their “real” state job, and with their activities being funded by the programs, once the program has withdrawn the additional activities cease.

ESSPIN’s approach has been a long-term one, building on existing systems and processes to work with SUBEB and LGEA management to redefine their roles, agree upon performance standards, and secure state funding allocations to enable this changed role to become established.

Getting everyone on the same page: working to create a shared understanding of what learner-centered education is

ESSPIN’s approach to professional development has been to recognize the importance of the social dimension of teacher development. The approach is concerned with what goes on inside the school; the school’s leadership and management, teaching and learning, and with the school’s relationships with the community it serves and the LGEA officers who should support it. The approach is grounded in a sound understanding of the situation in schools based on evidence from the suite of baseline, and subsequent, studies and on lengthy discussions with key actors within the SUBEBs. ESSPIN invested considerable time (and continues to do

so) in what could be called “reculturing, not reorganizing ,” according to Michael

Fullan in his book Leading in a Culture of Change, or helping:

States rethink the vision they have for their schools, and how they can plan to achieve this vision;

Fullan, M. (2001).Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

8 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

LGEAs, including the SSOs, reorient their priorities and practices towards support for schools;

Head teachers understand that they are responsible for raising standards in their schools and ensuring they know how to do this through better leadership;

and

Teachers understand that they are responsible for teaching children, not for teaching the curriculum, and for making some improvements to their teaching.

ESSPIN’s development, together with state partners, of agreed upon sets of standards has helped strengthen states’ understanding of school and quality issues. It has helped to draw a shared picture of what success in the venture of improving schools and classrooms might look like. States’ responsibility for monitoring progress against these standards (the school reporting system) and their involvement in the evaluation process (the composite surveys) have increased their ownership of the program. These agreed upon standards include a set of competencies for effective lesson delivery, and for teacher and head teacher effectiveness, plus an agreed upon overall standard for school quality (Appendix 1). These standards inform the content framework of the training and support program. In addition, states have established a set of learning outcome benchmarks for literacy and numeracy, which clarify what pupils should be able to achieve in each of the primary grades.

An explicit change agenda

Understanding and applying change theory forms a part of the training of SSITs, SSOs, and head teachers, giving these groups a simple theoretical model to underpin the actions required to improve their schools. Staff are introduced to the model and work through the processes involved in introducing what might appear to be straight forward pieces of school level reform, such as introducing systems for lesson observations. Fullan, in “Change Theory: A force for school improvement, pp 5-6” criticizes as seriously incomplete theories of change and action that “do not get close to what happens in classrooms and school cultures.” ESSPIN locates the activities of its training and support package as close to the school as possible, much of it within the school itself. “Learning in the setting in which you work . . .changes the individual and the context simultaneously” (Fullan M: Change Theory: A force for school improvement; p7).

However ESSPIN is not just attempting to improve what happens in individual classrooms or schools, but to change what happens in school systems. This is described in “Review of the DFID supported English language materials”, a companion report to this one, written for RARA:

Fullan, M (2006) Change Theory: A force for school improvement. Victoria: Centre for Strategic Education http://www.michaelfullan.ca/media/13396072630.pdf

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 9

Essential for improving classroom practice has been the linking of training with support at school level. This includes training around school leadership for head teachers and school-based support from SUBEB and LGEA teams.

This support enables teachers to bridge the gap between the training room and implementation. It also allows the SSOs to identify areas where teachers need more support and think of different ways to find that support. (Nigeria

Reading and Access Research Activity: 2014).

Outline of the Training and Support Program

Structure of the training and support program

ESSPIN’s overall school improvement program (of which the Kano Teaching Skills

Program is a version developed at the request of the Kano SUBEB, and from which examples given in this report are largely drawn) begins with a standardized two-year modular program of workshops and structured school visits, designed to kick-start improvements in leadership and classroom practice as well as introduce the use of the lesson plans, which are discussed below. After two years schools move into the

Continuing School Improvement phase. During this phase, support to schools is largely supplied through structured school visits by SSOs (with some cluster meetings). These visits are a primary routine duty for SSOs, with funding for them included in the states’ budgets, so this part of the program can be open-ended.

ESSPIN anticipates that by the end of the two-year program, most schools, teachers, and head teachers will have attained the basic competencies. During the Continuing

School Improvement phase, SSOs begin to differentiate the support that schools receive so that schools that have not yet reached the quality standard are given further help to reach this standard, while schools that have already attained the standard are encouraged to reach increasingly higher levels of competence.

At the beginning of the Continuing School Improvement phase, SSOs themselves are given considerable support and guidance when planning their visits and meetings. It is not really until the second year of this phase that school support begins to be tailored to meet specific school needs.

Content of the programs

This paper has already described the set of agreed upon competencies, the standards and criteria for effective lessons, leadership, and overall school quality.

The content of the training and support program targets the development of these fundamental skills and behaviors, together with the knowledge and understanding that underpins them. This includes a considerable emphasis at all levels of the program on examining attitudes, to encourage a move away from the dominant fault-finding mindset. For example, as part of their program, SSOs are encouraged to see themselves as critical

One year in the Kano TSP

Most of the states fund these visits through the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Teacher

Professional Development Fund, although some states supplement this from state’s own funding sources.

The standards for Enugu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kwara, and Lagos states include two further standards; for school development planning and functional school-based management committees (SBMCs).

10 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA) friends of the school, offering support as well as a measure of “challenge”, taking responsibility for the success or failure of the schools that they work with as a measure of their own success or failure.

The program is iterative in design (Figure 1). Over the duration of the program content is revisited, deepening understanding and strengthening professional practice.

Content outlines for the first three years appear as Appendix 3.

Figure 2. Outline of the Training and Support Program

Lesson plans

At all stages of the leadership program (which includes a segment on improving generic teaching skills), there are linkages to better use of the lesson plans. For example, sessions on pupil assessment demonstrate and give opportunities to practice assessing whether pupils have attained the learning outcomes for specific lessons from the plans.

Lesson activities were written with the close involvement of Nigerian teachers themselves, and at least some of the activities were within reach of their current capabilities. This gives teachers the confidence to try something less familiar within the plan, and incrementally builds their generic teaching skills. Thus the lesson plans

Ongoing engagement by ESSPIN with UBEC has resulted in UBEC beginning to adopt a much improved cluster-based model for training, which attempts to address some of the weaknesses of the prevalent model.

ESSPIN-supported states have been encouraged by UBEC to use their Teacher Professional Development

(TPD) Intervention funds to implement the school improvement program.

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 11 illustrate a major element of ESSPIN training: everyone, from all levels in the system, is encouraged to understand his or her existing practice and to try to improve upon it, step by achievable step.

A summary of the mechanisms for the delivery of training and support

There is no shortage of in-service training for teachers in most states, and considerable funding is available for this. However, states understood the system was simply not working effectively, and there was an agreement that doing more of the same was unlikely to bring about a more positive result. The most common training model in place across Nigeria comprised:

Short, one-off workshops that were not matched to the needs of the teachers or schools;

An ad hoc selection process for participating teachers; and

Little or no follow-up.

The usual reason given for the design of this model is the conditions then imposed by the federal Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). Taken together, these features militated against teachers’ trying to implement any new learning in their schools, and little improvement in their performance could result. ESSPIN therefore needed to change perceptions about effective training.

As a result, the model that was developed in ESSPIN-supported states sought to combine the benefits of face-to-face training with ongoing support for teachers that met agreed upon criteria and included coaching and mentoring as well as providing opportunities for collaborative professional development.

To ensure this approach was sustainable and replicable, ESSPIN supported states to develop School Improvement Teams from among SUBEB’s officer and teaching staff, who have become highly skilled practitioner educators. These teams were in turn responsible for the training and mentoring of local authority advisers, the SSOs, who in turn have a training role for head teachers and teachers. More importantly

SSOs work closely with a small group of schools to deliver school-based support to a small number of schools, largely through their routine school visits.

The head teacher role as academic leader has, in its turn, been developed through training and support from the SSOs. Head teachers can now lead formal and informal professional development meetings within their school for their teachers, as well as establish systems to encourage teachers to use their new skills in their practice.

Team building and strengthening professional relationships was central to ensuring that the ESSPIN training model was stronger and deeper than a conventional cascade model.

Not in Kaduna, where the SSIT were chosen from within the staff of GidanWaya COE. This has had several advantages, not least in terms of ease of access to the UBEC TDP fund and also indirectly as the SSITs have been used by the Provost to strengthen the work of the rest of her staff. However the SUBEB Chair has requested support to develop a SSIT that is “under SUBEB’s control.” Steps are underway to develop mini-

SSITs in each of Kaduna’s 23 LGEAs with the original SSIT providing them with technical assistance.

12 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

Materials

ESSPIN's view is that workshops/training are only one element of the capacity building process, and arguably are of less importance than the systems of support

(including school visits). Our training materials have evolved over time in response to a number of factors, most notably the increasing buy-in by the states and our own steadily more nuanced understanding of the varied contexts. As a result of this, unlike the lesson plans themselves, which are completely print ready and will not change in the medium-term future (five years), the training materials represent the latest iteration and have been produced as copiable rather than printable. ESSPIN is currently moving towards finalizing versions.

The Development of State School Improvement Teams

The Role of the SSIT

SSITs have been developed in each of the states. SSIT members are:

Developed as skilled practitioner-educators, receiving intensive personal and professional development. This has given them fresh perspectives on school and teacher development and is enabling them to overcome entrenched barriers to improvement;

Proven to be effective. Documented feedback from schools, LGEAs, and communities is providing evidence of impact; and

Respected and acknowledged as professional leaders. Each SSIT has a clear sense of purpose, works as a team, and supports each other SSIT’s achievements. In each state the SSITs have gained the respect of senior staff in the SUBEB and MOE and are seen as an essential resource for future school and teacher development.

The first SSIT was established in Kwara (2008) to implement the then Honourable

Commissioner for Education’s Every Child Counts agenda. It was tasked with developing and implementing the literacy and numeracy lesson plans, which are now being used in all ESSPIN-supported states. This process has been fully documented elsewhere (RTI 2014).

In other states the SSITs were not responsible for developing lesson plans. In all states their main role has evolved over time, but is focused on acting as master trainers, coaches, and mentors for the SSOs. However, their role goes beyond that of delivering a training program, and has included the following.

Being trained by ESSPIN to undertake the composite survey, a complex research exercise under the auspices of ESSPIN’s task specialist and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) team, massively enhancing their capacity and understanding. In addition, this meant that the investment in research capacity building was not lost to the education system after the exercise.

Rather, this capacity will remain available to ESSPIN for successive rounds of the study, and to the states.

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 13

Being used by their own states to introduce or support other professional development initiatives (Jigawa and Lagos), to strengthen capacity within the colleges of education (Kaduna and Jigawa) or quality assurance directorates

(Enugu).

Working in their own, or other states, as peer trainers and mentors to develop new SSIT members, or in the case of Kwara, to introduce lesson plan training.

Their high caliber is reflected in that SSIT members have presented papers at international teacher education conferences. Several individual SSIT members have been ready to take the step into consultancy, succeeding in open, competitive interviews either to become ESSPIN State Quality Specialists or with other new

DFID-funded programs.

Relationship of the SSITs to the States

Although they have been trained and supported by ESSPIN, the SSITs are state entities.

The modalities that existed at the beginning of the ESSPIN program for delivering in-service training gave the states only limited control over managing training; it was regarded as a purely administrative function, with the training officer being a relatively low-placed officer, usually within the Directorate of Human Resources.

The professional decisions were made by tertiary education institutions to which training was outsourced. These institutions—and their staff—had (and still have) variable understandings of the needs of state primary schools and may have made decisions with the operational needs of the institution, rather than the state, uppermost.

Developing the SSITs has given control to the state. They can ensure that training:

Addresses state needs and is responsive to the situation in schools; and

Is delivered by a skilled team of practitioner-educators who “belong” to the state, and who are trained in interventions that are likely to make a difference;

There are a few minor differences between different SSITs, but overall their selection and conditions of work send key messages about the changes ESSPIN hoped to see.

SSIT members are:

Selected on merit against transparent criteria, rather than being appointed.

This has given them enormous credibility. In Kwara, this reform set a precedent for the appointment of other key education staff;

Redeployed on a full-time basis to the SSIT (initially for a two-year period) and continue to receive their normal salary. The message is that they are carrying out state work in a professional manner rather than fitting in additional tasks at the behest of a transient project. When they speak of school improvement matters, they speak with the authority of the state; and

14 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

Managed by SUBEB; initially by the State Quality Management Teams drawn from across the education system tasked with leading the developing school improvement programs. Management of SUBEBs has now been institutionalized within advisory service units, usually led by a deputy director and sitting within the Directorate of School Services, SUBEB.

The Training of the SSIT and Competencies

In order to become a skilled cadre of practitioner-educators the SSITs themselves receiveda considerable amount of ongoing training and support. This training has grown and developed over time as the SSITs’ roles have evolved. The SSITs were originally trained by ESSPIN. However, all states have, over time, increased the numbers of members of their SSITs, or in some cases developed an additional SSIT.

A package has been developed that can be used to develop an SSIT “from scratch,” largely delivered by existing SSITs working either in their own state or in other states.

This package includes:

Guidance for states on the selection and interview process;

A competency framework (Appendix 4), which the training and mentoring material supports;

An initial induction program,which in its ideal form comprises 12 days of workshop training plus six additional days in school; and

An induction booklet, which forms a record of learning throughout the induction period, encourages the new SSIT members to reflect on their progress towards meeting the initial competencies, and forms a focus for structured discussions with their mentors (more experienced SSIT members).

After their induction, SSIT members continue to receive professional development and support, as identified in Table 1. For the first two years this is quite extensive (15 days of workshop training per year) and is mainly oriented towards enabling them to deliver workshops to the SSOs. FromYear 3 onwards the number of days reduces considerably and their training focuses on strengthening their understanding as education practitioners. This enables them both to act as a general resource for the state, as well ashelp SSOs target the differing types of support different schools need.

Although SSITs do not receive any additional payment for working in other states, SSIT membership is a very sought after opportunity and a responsibility that is discharged with considerable pride. State SUBEB permission has to be obtained, but this has never been refused.

The baseline level of competency from the SSIT competency framework forms the selection criteria to be investigated at interview.

Both this and the timetable for the induction program for the SSIT are available if required.

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 15

The Evolving Role of the SSITs and Their Work with the SSOs

During the pilot phase—the first two years when ESSPIN was developing its model, establishing proof of concept with the states,and funding work in a limited number of schools per state

—the role of the SSIT was to work directly with head teachers and teachers. One result of this was that the SSITs developed a sound practical understanding of what was happening in schools and what worked in terms of school improvement. They were able to improve their training skills and established their credibility both with schools and with the state.

As the program began to scale up, the role of the SSIT of necessity changed. SSITs now largely work through the SSOs, whose role began to come into clearer focus.

Ratios of SSITs to SSOs (approximately 1:5) and SSOs to schools (1: 5–8) began to be established. In order to avoid some of the well documented problems of cascade models, ESSPIN introduced mentoring of SSOs by SSIT members. SSIT membersare expected to observe each of their SSOs as they deliver training (using the same principles and documentation that have been introduced for lesson observations) and as they conduct a school visit once each term. Monitoring of SSIT performance should be the responsibility of the Advisory Service Unit, Directorate of School

Services. However this unit has neither the staffing nor the technical understanding to fulfill this role well; this is an area that needs further work.

A focus group discussion held in Lagos with SSIT members (Appendix 6) showed they had a clear understanding of their role and its value to the state, as they discussed the question “What difference has having a SSIT made to schools in your state?”.

The Reoriented Role of the SSOs

The Changing Role of the SSO

It was clear from the very beginning of the program that schools had to improve, but equally clear that they needed considerable and regular support in order to do so. An early study of staffing in LGEAs showed that a large cadre of supervisory officers existed in generously staffed school service directorates and sections (at LGEA level) who could provide this support, but they were not doing so. The most frequently cited reason for this was a lack of resources that kept officers deskbound.

There were however additional issues—notably the lack of a clear role definition so officers regarded themselves as “Inspectors,” pointing out shortcomings in school performance rather than helping to improve it. There were no standards for ratios of schools to support staff, and no job descriptions, person specifications or selection criteria for these jobs, which did not appear to form part of a rational career progression for education staff.

317 in Kano, 168 in Kaduna, 100 in Lagos, 121 in Enugu, 198 in Jigawa. (All primary schools in Kwara followed the literacy and numeracy oriented program fully funded by the state).

16 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA)

A major challenge for ESSPIN was therefore to help states develop functional advisory services at the LGEA level. This advisory unit would be charged with school support duties rather than with administrative compliance, to support schools as they began the daunting process of improvement. The processes emerged over time, but can be summarized as follows (although there is little uniformity across the states).

ESSPIN gained state interest in the idea of school support (not easy as the dominant “Inspectoral” paradigm was a very strong one). Evidence from the baselines was very useful, as was engaging key staff with the situations in their schools through structured school visits.

As part of ESSPIN’s organization development strand, the program discussed with SUBEB, SMoEs and other bodies with an interest, and agreed upon the core responsibilities of the staff. We reached broad agreement on three key responsibilities (training, support, and reporting on progress). This was reflected in a name change for these staff in all states: Area Supervisors became School Support Officers (Kano), or School Improvement Officers

(Lagos).

ESSPIN helped school service directorates (and human resources) identify what structures they have, how many staff are available, and what they are currently doing.

We helped SUBEB agree a plan and budget for its training and support program.

ESSPIN helped school service directorates establish ratios of SSOs to schools.

Most states had too many employees and needed to think through how they would handle this. Changing the number and designation of staff is a very sensitive issue, and any attempt on the part of ESSPIN to play a direct role in this would have proved counter-productive. State or public employment creates an opportunity for political patronage, and there is also a general belief that “more” staff automatically equates with “better.” The training and support of the SSOs is relatively costly, because of the number of training days needed. In addition there is an added expense in sending them into the field, as their daily allowances have traditionally been high. States are encouraged to experiment with the number of staff, number of days, and daily rates to develop a budget that is both acceptable to the staff and sustainable.

As their new roles were being discussed there was a lot of skepticism expressed about the capacity of SSOs; however, there is now widespread faith in their capacity to deliver effectively.

Training

During the pilot phase of the program, SSOs attended workshops along with thehead teachers and teachers, and there was no specific training for them. The increased ownership by the state of the School Improvement Program and its scale-up led to the reorientation of the SSOs’ role. The structure of the training program responded to

Review of ESSPIN Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy 17 meet this changed role. A summary of the training and support now offered to SSOs appears in Table 1.

A key feature of the training is that every term for the first two years of the program

SSOs attend a one-week workshop led by the SSIT. Three days of this are spent on mastering the content of that term’s leadership workshop for head teachers, which they then have to deliver. The remaining days cover specific content for SSOs, including:

Basic training skills;

Their role in the school reporting system;

Ways to make school visits effective;

Specific support they will offer to schools during their three routine school visits for that term; and

Preparation to lead schools into the Continuing School Improvement phase.

From the third year onwards, training focuses on SSOs’ ability to determine the support that schools and teachers need in order to move them through the stages of approaching competence, attaining basic competency, becoming good, and finally being able to develop autonomously.

The number and location of these workshops varies between states, and developing the training plan is the responsibility of the state (usually the Advisory Service Unit with support in the initial years from ESSPIN). Training groups should ideally be 20–

25 participants, to allow the facilitators to model the kind of participatory learning that ESSPIN is trying to foster in classrooms. The number of participants (and facilitators) holds when SSOs in their turn train head teachers and teachers. Three facilitators work as a team to deliver the training, with each session led by one facilitator supported by co-facilitator. There are three sessions per day, each lasting for 90 minutes.

Punctuality is a key issue, stressed from session one, workshop one, for each of the levels of training. Facilitators negotiate start and finish times to suit the local context, agreeing that if the day starts on time they will guarantee to finish on time. This agreement imposes a degree of discipline on the facilitators and participants alike, and is broadly successful.

Allowances paid for participants are determined and met by the states, and are mostly paid electronically directly to participants’ bank accounts. Although this has taken time to set up, it is in line with the way that teachers’ salaries are now paid and is popular with the participants. Participants are paid a travel allowance, and most states monetize the lunch (water is provided). There are no facilitator fees since facilitating training forms part of the responsibilities of SSITs and SSOs (SSITs get a per diem for field work, as few of the trainings are held close to their stations).

All training (apart from some of the training of the SSITs through technical assistance) takes place in schools. Although these sites may have infrastructural shortcomings, this means that training is always grounded in the reality of the school

18 Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA) context and does not rely upon technology or resources that are not available to SSOs or head teachers.

Future Directions for SSO Development

This report has already described the Continuous School Improvement phase, which the SSOs will be largely responsible for leading (with some preparation and oversight support coming from the SSIT). ESSPIN’s team is still in the process of working through how this phase of the program will develop, but a discussion paper included here as Appendix 7focuses on the Team Day

(the mechanism for beginning to differentiate support according to need).

The Head Teacher Training and Support Program

The…