View
33
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Enhancing the impact of DFID and DCSF global education programmes in schools Final Report 28 th October 2009. on behalf of …. Contents. Page Executive Summary3 Issues to address 4 Vision Delivery System Priority Action Governance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Enhancing the impact of DFID and DCSF global education programmes in schools
Final Report
28th October 2009
on behalf of …
Contents
2
Page
1. Executive Summary 3
2. Issues to address4
i. Vision
ii. Delivery System
iii. Priority Action
iv. Governance
3. Actions to tackle the issues9
i. Vision
ii. Delivery System
iii. Priority Actions
iv. Governance
4. Annexes 17
Executive summary
3
DCSF and DFID have common and overlapping aims for equipping children and young people for life in a global society. Central to achieving these aims is ensuring that global issues are properly represented in the school curriculum and that teachers have the tools, skills and confidence to teach these well.
Important progress has been made to strengthen the teaching of global issues. But the departments have separate and distinct programmes to support their aims and have separate and distinct delivery systems. The programmes appear fragmented and incoherent and the delivery systems are overlapping.
This causes confusion amongst delivery partners and front line staff and generates inefficiency in the system.
A more aligned approach could both strengthen individual programmes and also provide greater overall impact for the resources invested.
There are four areas of opportunity to enhance and strengthen the impact of these overlapping programmes:
• Clarify a joint vision and strategy
• Better alignment across delivery systems
• Prioritise high impact actions
• Strengthen evaluation and governance
There are four sets of issues to address in order to enhance the impact of DFID and DCSF programmes
4
Clarify a joint vision and strategy
Issues to address
• Agree a clear compelling joint vision based on the ‘common ground’• Up-date aims and objectives which have accrued incoherently• Clarify terminology especially ‘global’ vs. ‘international’• Clarify the link between objectives and measurable outcomes• Ensure overall leadership provided to multiple delivery partners
Prioritise high impact actions
• Use main ‘influencers’ in the mainstream delivery system effectively• Focus on impact and outcomes not process and outputs• Rationalise a very wide range of small scale projects• Remove excessive reliance on linking and visits programmes
Desired Outcomes
Better alignment across delivery
systems
• Clarify role of Local Authorities and ensure consistent contribution• Rationalise multiple regional delivery and support structures• Streamline collection of projects led by a range of delivery partners
Strengthen evaluation and
governance
• Improve evidence of impact and quality of key actions• Share widely ‘what works’• Hold contractors to account• Improve overarching governance across and within departments• Draw up clear indicators that measure progress against objectives
Stronger buy-in from school
leaders
Better and consistent
provision in schools
More consistent and higher
quality pupil experience
More consistent engagement
with parents/carers
1
2
3
4
Issue 1 - clarifying a joint DFID and DCSF vision based on the common ground and interests between the two departments
5
“21st Century Schools” White Paper:• DCSF’s ambition for every child is an education that
prepares them for the challenges of the 21st century.• To create a world class system that is responsive to the
challenges of a changing global economy, a changing society, rapid technological innovation and a changing planet.
• To create a system which progressively breaks the link between disadvantage and low educational attainment.
• To tackle profound global challenges, including climate change and the challenge of learning to live sustainably on our planet, which can only be met through great creativity and international co-operation.
• To create a system with every school working in partnerships: because no school can do it alone
• To realise the benefits and creative opportunities presented by an increasingly globalised world and secure a cohesive and successful society that celebrates diversity.
DCSF
“Building our common future” White Paper:• DIFD is committed to building support for global development issues in the UK. Wants British people to know that their taxes are being used to tackle global poverty, to deal with issues that will affect us all – such as climate change, and help some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.•Want British people to be proud of our development programme, with the ultimate objective of Britain meeting its international obligations to provide development aid being seen as central to Britain’s sense of identity - part of who we want to be as a nation in the 21st century.•Want to encourage young people to think about development issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions.•Want to promote learning about development through the UK education system, seeking to deepen our collaboration with the education departments and institutions that influence schools and teachers in the UK.
DFID
Issues to address
•Balance of focus on northern vs. southern hemisphere countries •Exploring potential links between DFID White Paper and the Children's Plan, community cohesion and sustainable schools•Ensuring school partnerships are sustainable•Start with the school/local priorities and outcomes for pupils•Clarify language around ‘global’ and ‘international’
1
Issue 2 – ensuring an effective and coherent delivery system that is aligned behind the vision
6
DFID British Council DEA
SchoolLocal
Authority
DECs
GO
RNIL
EES Regional
Network
Ofsted
TDA
QCDA
DCSF JIUDERC
Range of NGOs/voluntary sector organisations
SSAT
BECTA
HTI
CfBT/LECT
ECOTEC
PFS
National • No mechanism for
joining up organisations
• No overall leadership• Not maximising
impact of DCSF NDPBs
• Limited leverage over organisations delivering provision
Regional• Three overlapping
structures - variable quality
• Failing to maximise influence of GO on LAs and DCSF policy
Local• Not all LAs have
dedicated capacity• Some LA children’s
plans capture as a priority but patchy
Local interface• Numerous organisations outside the mainstream
education system delivering small scale projects – difficult to determine impact and manage delivery
School• Some schools cite
international work in their SEFs
• Only about 33% of schools with award display ISA logo on website
2
* Please see Annex A for a full list of abbreviations used here and Annexes B and C for delivery system maps
Issue 3 – maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system
7
Professional voice•Winning the moral argument•Support from professional associations and NDPBs
• Messages on global education are often delivered via separate communications channels – not positioned alongside or as part of education priorities
• Effective links to well established education NDPBs are not being made – missed opportunities to align with influential delivery programmes
• Insufficient and variable engagement with the Government Offices as a vehicle for developing strategy and priorities with Local Authorities
• Not making strong enough links to closely associated policies that already have strong influence via the children's plan and guidance (e.g. sustainable schools) and statutory duties (e.g. community cohesion)
• Limited direct ‘levers’ and accountability – need to find a ‘hook’ into the existing accountability framework (e.g. community cohesion duty)
• Limited use of surveys of children's views such as ‘Tell Us’ (which are used as part of Ofsted inspections) to raise global issues
Structures•NDPBs – Running big delivery programmes and supporting schools*•Government Offices – influence Local Authorities•Ofsted – inspect schools and children's services
Curriculum and statutory duties•Requirements on community cohesion •DCSF guidance on sustainability •Curriculum guidance from the QCDA
Accountability•Performance tables •Ofsted inspection and SIPs •Awards and recognition
Customer and community pressure •Parents , children and young people•Governors•Local Authority
Key influences in the system Current issues with ‘mainstreaming’
3
* Key DCSF NDPBs include: National College, Partnership for Schools, Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, Training and Development Agency for Schools,
* Combined DCSF, DFID, British Council and European Commission spend in 2009-10. Individual sums are approximate.
Issue 4 – ensuring impact and value for taxpayers’ money from the way programmes are structured and governed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DFID EC DCSF BC
09-10 (£m)
• DFID spends nearly £13m on school linking programmes, development awareness, support for teaching and learning, websites, events and awareness raising
• The European Commission spends nearly £12m on multi-lateral, bi-lateral and regional partnership programmes, INSET and Assistantships
• DCSF spends nearly £12m on school linking programmes, websites, teacher exchanges and study visits, programmes for young people, support for teaching and learning, school accreditation, and programme promotion
• The British Council spend approximately £8.5m of its grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on “Connecting Classrooms” in support of Intercultural Dialogue.
4
[£4 m]
Issue 4 – ensuring impact and value for taxpayers’ money from the way programmes are structured and governed
• There are currently in excess of 20 government funded school linking programmes
• There are currently 5 government funded websites devoted to global education for schools
• There are multiple (sometimes overlapping) support networks that schools can turn to if they want to engage in global education
• There are 3 different government funded exchange programmes for school staff
BUT …• There is no overall governance structure to take forward global education in
schools
4
[£4 m]
Action is needed in four main areas to tackle the issues
10
Clarify a joint vision and strategy
Prioritise high impact actions
Better alignment across delivery
systems
Strengthen evaluation and
governance
1
2
3
4
• A joint overarching vision based on the common ground with a specific focus for each department
• Objectives, outcomes and benefits that underpin the vision
• Strengthening the regional layer by bringing together existing roles and responsibilities under new arrangements
• Closely aligning new arrangements with the Government Office to better ‘mainstream’ support and challenge
• Maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system• Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of linking/visits programmes
• Considering how the main strands and mechanisms of funding could bring about efficiencies
• A new joint board to govern all programmes, ensure maximum impact and value for money
Our overarching joint vision is that all children and young people are prepared for life in an interdependent world and become models of global citizenship. We aim to do this by promoting global learning and sustainable international partnerships between schools. This work will enhance understanding of the key global challenges we face, including:
•Tackling poverty and deprivation•Sustainable development•Climate change•Community cohesion•Citizenship•Social justice•Conflict resolution •Human rights
We want school leaders, teachers, pupils and their parents to be engaged in this work to ensure we achieve maximum impact
A joint overarching vision can be achieved by setting out the common ground with a specific focus for each department
11
DFID specific focus •Specific focus on developing countries in the southern hemisphere
•And on particular themes of sustainable development, interdependence, conflict resolution, and human rights
•Driven by an overarching commitment to substantially increase support for the reduction of poverty and increase support for development
DCSF specific focus •Developed and developing countries are important
•Specific focus on countries/regions of key strategic importance, e.g. India, China, USA, EU.
•Contribute to DSO3 (world class standards in education), DSO4 (Close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged backgrounds) and DSO5 (young people participating and achieving their potential)
•Strong link to the Children's Plan through sustainable schools and community cohesion
Common ground
1
And, defining objectives, outcomes and the benefits that underpin the vision
12
Objectives
Equipping children and young people for life in a global society:
•Giving experiences of global issues
•Increasing understanding of global issues
•Changing attitudes towards global issues
Outcomes Benefits
Children and young people who
feel aware of global issues that affect their lives
Teachers who feel confident about teaching global
issues
School leadership which sees school in global context
Parents engaging with school
• Increased motivation: children eager to learn about the things they care about
• An engaging curriculum can lead to better achievement at school across a range of subjects
• The school achieves its broader duties around community cohesion, sustainable schools and Children's Plan objectives
The argument
• Children and young people care about global issues*
• International work can engage school pupils with a real audience – e.g. their peers in other schools
• Mapping programmes to DSOs can demonstrate congruence with domestic and international agendas
* e.g. a survey of over 4,000 children (aged 11-16 years) from 179 middle and secondary schools in England and Wales revealed that 81 per cent of schoolchildren believed that it was important to learn about global issues at school and that they needed to understand global matters in order to make choices about how they want to lead their lives (MORI 1998). A follow up survey in 2008 reported 78% in favour.
1
The regional layer of the delivery system can be strengthened by bringing together existing roles and responsibilities under new arrangements
13
2
Option Opportunities Risks
A. Leave EES and RNIL as they are
• Minimise turmoil in the system• Delay decision until next financial year
• DFID does not have capacity to manage EES under current arrangements
• Does not tackle effectiveness, impact and alignment issues
B. Bring EES under one funding mechanism for all the regions
• Better standardisation across regions• Easier to manage centrally• Specify new objectives for alignment• Service provider to manage the network, ensure
effectiveness and be accountable
• Separate ‘field force’ which DCSF and CLG are trying to reduce
• Remains outside the mainstream and separate to RNIL (in places)
C. Pool EES and RNIL resource and fund positions in Government Offices
• Helps alignment and mainstreaming• Different funding methods – e.g. transfer running costs or
contract through external service provider• Potential to reach full range of LAs• Potential to better join-up and align associated national
policy within regions
• Not a core priority for Children’s Services and Learner Advisors (CSLAs)
• Getting bogged down in joining-up and losing focus on global objectives
D. Pool EES and RNIL resource and strengthen under one funding mechanism. Within this, consider options - a) single organisation to manage network; b) channel funding to GOs (as Community Cohesion & Sustainable Development Units do; c) combination of the two.
• Greater coherence and alignment of option a) could attract established, credible education service delivery organisations
• Options a) & c) - give degree of continuity with 3rd sector whilst improving effectiveness and accountability
• Could co-locate the provider in the GO – option c) -or specify close working with GO and DECs
• Option b) would follow existing approaches and there is a variety of flexible working options that can be tailored to the needs of each region.
• Working within GO structure – options b) & c) - maximise opportunity for linking with DECC, DCLG, DEFRA and others on related areas
• Existing contractual arrangements may make transition difficult
• Still perceived as separate ‘field force’ if an external organisation is used
• Ending of the large ‘National Strategies’ ‘field force’ has signalled a move away from centrally managed support for schools/LAs
14
And, any new delivery arrangements must ensure close alignment with the Government Office to better ‘mainstream’ support and challenge2
The argument
• GO’s work on behalf of 12 Government Departments – a number of which are closely associated with global issues
• They help tailor and ‘package’ national policy towards individual areas – they also oversee some large grants funds
• They have established relationships with LAs and are an effective means for reaching out to them
• Lead on the negotiation of Local Area Agreements
• The children and learners divisions will take on new responsibilities for negotiating school priorities with LAs in the future
• There are opportunities to co-locate people (without having to transfer resource) – Department of Health have done this on Public Health
Example GO Structure (London)
Regional DirectorDeputy DirectorSupport Office
Environment, empowerment and performance [14 posts][Includes e.g. Cohesion, food and sustainable development, climate change and energy, environment and waste]
Economic Development [14 posts][Includes e.g. Economic development and child poverty]
Planning and Housing [8 posts]London Resilience and Europe [5 posts]Business Support [4 posts]Strategy, Ministerial Business and Communications [4 posts]
Children and Learners [21 posts] Community Safety [20 posts]
Sustainable Schools•A dedicated sustainable schools officer post•GO leads the London Sustainable Schools Forum as the mechanism for supporting delivery•Runs e.g. workshops and produces support materials
Community Cohesion•Dedicated community cohesion and faith team•Focused on delivering broad CLG community cohesion agenda
Existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system need to be maximised
15
3
Accountability and Awards
Three sets of action
• Review criteria to ensure that ISA criteria adequately reflect DCSF and DFID objectives• Ensure criteria are effectively monitored through a suitably light-touch approach to accreditation in
keeping with aim of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.• Develop coherent strategy for on-going engagement with schools that looks beyond 3 year
accreditation period
Professional voice and NDPBs
• More regular and systematic engagement with key DCSF NDPBs (see slide 6) and professional associations* to explore opportunities for policy and programme alignment
• Use existing conferences and communication channels run by the above to communicate the vision, promote programmes and run workshops – e.g. SSAT annual conference
Statutory Duties
• Meet with Ofsted to explore how the ‘global community’ will be inspected and any support they need
• Develop materials to show how the global education objectives will support delivery of priorities around community cohesion and sustainable schools
• Work with DCSF colleagues to embed key global education messages in communications and guidance about community cohesion and sustainable schools
• Work with DCSF to see if Ofsted can carry out a survey on global education/community in schools as part of the next annual survey programme
• Investigate whether questions about children's feelings about global issues can be captured as part of the ‘Tell Us’ survey
* Example associations include: Association of Science Education, Association for Citizenship Teaching, General Teaching Council for England, Association for Directors of Children's Services and Association for the Study of Primary Education
16
The main strands and mechanisms of funding should be reviewed in four areas where there are potential efficiencies to be gained 4
Competitive grants - highly valued by, and an important funding stream for, many small organisations but:•Limited evidence of impact•Potentially more costly procurement and management overhead•Difficult to evaluate and manage effectively
Consider larger investment(s) in fewer more substantial delivery programmes?
Teacher exchanges - valued professional development opportunities but:•Overlapping programmes (e.g. LECT and TIPD)•Mixed/patchy evidence of impact beyond personal benefits•In current financial climate may be difficult to justify against other priorities
Given the patchy evidence, consider reducing/re-prioritising current levels of resource?
Linking and partnerships : Against a backdrop of the British Council Connecting Classrooms programme ...•Multiple programmes with slightly different country focus, objectives or operational mechanisms•Potentially more costly procurement and management overhead•Both departments commissioning the same partner to deliver a similar programme
Consider a more streamlined joint programme?
Capacity to support UK teaching and learning: •Relatively small amount of investment going into ‘hands-on’ practical support with schools•Multiple and overlapping websites heavily used as the mechanism for support•Clarify how existing resources (e.g. those provided by DEA) would fit with any new delivery arrangements/opportunities to align DECs
Consider whether the balance of resource should be adjusted towards a greater proportion on practical teaching support and rationalise websites?
All programmes should be governed effectively by a new joint board to ensure maximum impact and value for money
•Receives issues escalated from the Officials Strategy Group•Invite other Minsters (e.g. FCO ) if and when necessary•Meet quarterly
•Key focus is the common ground between the two departments, ensuring coherence in the design and delivery of policy•Meets quarterly and reports to the Ministerial bilateral and escalates issues that need resolving•Monitors progress against the delivery plan
•Key focus is on performance and tight accountability in order to hold delivery partners to account – challenge delivery and impact of programmes, especially linking programmes•Develops a delivery plan from this report and regularly reviews progress/refines it•Uses agreed metrics to evaluate impact and monitor contract delivery (see Annex D)•Meets at least quarterly and reports to the Officials Strategy Group•Rapid feedback on progress, clarity of message, sounding board for strategy change and help secure buy-in and act as champions•From time-to-time engage a wider group of stakeholders in workshops where broader views are needed
4
Ministerial Bilateral[DCSF and DFID]
Officials Strategy Group[JIU, DCSF (sustainable schools,
community cohesion, curriculum) and DFID]
Operational Delivery Group[JIU, DCSF (sustainable
schools, community cohesion, curriculum), DFID, BC, DEA,
and large major programmes]
17
Annex A – Abbreviations
18
Abbreviation Organisation (or descriptor) Abbreviation Organisation (or descriptor)
DEA Development Education Association GO Government Office
SSAT Specialist Schools and Academy Trust RNIL Regional Network for International Learning
QCDA Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency BC British Council
TDA Training and Development Agency for schools rafi.ki an online learning community for schools partnerships
Ofsted Inspectorate (The office for standards in education, children's services and skills) ISA International School Award
Becta British Educational Communications and Technology Agency DERC Development Education Research Centre
EES Enabling Effective Support (DFID funded initiative) DEC Development Education Centre
PFSPartnership for Schools (NDPB supporting
delivering of Building Schools for the Future Programme)
ECOTECH Centre providing educational experiences on sustainability and environmental issues
CfBT Centre for British Teachers (educational consultancy and service organisation) LECT League for the Exchange of Commonwealth
Teachers
HTIHead teachers into Industry (charity focussed
on developing school leaders and links to business)
IAESTE International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience
School
DFID
British Council
EES Regional Network
Local Authority
DEA
• Manage the DFID Global School Partnerships programme
• Manage the Global Dimension Website• Policy research and advocacy • Support networks
• Build capacity to ensure global issues are taught
• Equip teachers with tools and skills • Build links between schools NGO
and LA
DERC
• Establish initial policy and strategy • Fund organisations and initiatives • Monitor progress
• Provides research evidence
GTF • Manage the DAF
Damaris
• Manage the Global Student Forum
DECs
Vol Sect
• Advisory support for schools and whole of children services
• Form cross sector partnerships
• 45 DECs work with schools to support global dimension delivery
Plan • Resources for schools ; support and training for teachers
Annex B - present main DFID delivery system for BSDS
19
School
DCSF JIULocal
Authority
British Council
• Promotes partnerships, CPD and curriculum projects through Connecting Classrooms• manages the Global Gateway, TIPD, International School Award, bilateral and
multilateral linking programmes
SSAT • TIPD visits, linking programme with France
HTI • TIPD visit s
CfBT/LECT • TIPD visits, Commonwealth Teacher exchange
• Establish initial policy and strategy • Fund organisations and initiatives, monitor progress • Curriculum design, Sustainable schools and community cohesion
• Provides curriculum guidance
Gemini • Tool for international partnerships - Rafi-ki
GO
• Advisory support for schools colleges and children's services
• Form cross sector partnerships
• Support for sustainable development, Community Cohesion
RNIL • Promote the international
dimension • Training for teachers
ECOTEC • Delivers EU funded programmes
OFSTED
PFS
VCS
• International Learning Leadership Programme NCSL
BECTA
QCA
• Inspects against 4 levels of community cohesion
Annex C - DCSF delivery system for related international objectives for schools
20
Overview
21
Annex D – a guide to developing indicators for tracking overall progress and the contribution of key delivery agents
More confident teachers
Impact •Experiences•Understanding•Attitudes
Better curriculum Better teaching materials
Stronger leadership focus
Impact indicators may have long time lags and will be challenging to produce. Proxy indicators in these aspects would give confidence that the system is on the way to achieving objectives
• Children feel more aware of global issues - e.g. - Tell Us survey
• E.g. through surveys of teachers
• E.g. through survey of teachers or independent evaluation
• E.g. through school surveys
• E.g. through sample of school Self Evaluation Forms (SEFs)
Meaningful Easy for people to understand Doesn’t drive perverse incentives
Measurable
• Captures the outcome that we are seeking to achieve
• Provides a moral imperative
Ensures that all people in the delivery system can engage and support
• Avoids undesirable behaviour
• Avoids inhibiting innovation
Data is timely, reliable and enables comparison over time
Effective indicators have four key characteristics
Recommended