Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
STIR Education: A Case Study in 21st Century Teacher Professional Development
McKay Roozen Jenna Ross
Samira Vachani Harvard Graduate School of Education
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
Introduction
Teachers have great capacity to influence the quality of education worldwide.
Investing in opportunities that effectively build teacher competencies can be an important
tool for the advancement of equity in education. UNICEF Officer Simon Molendijk
acknowledges the powerful relationship between quality teachers and equity in
opportunity for students, and is committed to improving the effectiveness of teachers in
Vanuatu (Molendijk, personal communication, September 24, 2014). Molendijk has
proposed a two pronged approach to teacher professional development: paper based self-
learning modules to improve content knowledge, and the promotion of exemplary
teachers to leadership positions to facilitate implementation of new practices— both
solutions endorsed for cost effectiveness and functionality in the remote, low resource
context of Vanuatu (Molendijk, personal communication, September 24, 2014).
Embedded in this model are 21st century values. Molendijk envisions schools where
teachers are encouraged to learn, collaborate, and innovate and where there is a shared
culture for support, communication, and understanding (Molendijk, personal
communication, September 24, 2014). As such, successful implementation of his strategy
should strengthen cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, the 21st century
domains defined by Hilton and Pellegrino (2012).
Building a community of 21st century teachers is a massive undertaking, and a
shared ambition for STIR Education, a non-profit organization established by Ashoka
fellow Sharath Jeevan. Founded in New Delhi, India, STIR Education is grounded in the
notion that within every school there are innovative and motivated teachers, dedicated to
the advancement of students and of the profession in equal measure (STIR Education,
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
n.d., a). STIR Education aims to cultivate and nurture a network of committed teachers,
whose collaboration can ultimately influence large-scale policy change (STIR Education,
n.d., a). Through innovative programming, responsive support networks, and adaptive
leadership practices, 21st century skills are actively practiced by the entire STIR
community, building capacity and confidence in teachers and proving success across 8
states in India (STIR Education, n.d., b; Behl, Divya, personal communication,
November 27, 2014).
In this paper, we will analyze STIR Education as a model for 21st century teacher
professional development. We will first review the events that lead to the foundation of
STIR, appraising the diagnosis of the problem and the logic behind the solution.
Secondly, we will examine the pilot program, drawing close connections between
activities and twenty first-century skills, and reporting on key factors for early success.
Next, we will analyze STIR’s model for scale, noting its strengths and areas for further
development. We will conclude by suggesting opportunities for greater impact and long
term sustainability of the organization as a whole, and draw preliminary links between its
model and UNICEF’s education strategy in Vanuatu. Our analysis has been informed
through interviews with Delhi Programme Director, Nikita Khosla, Delhi Education
Leader Divya Behl, and former Delhi Education Leader, Suvidhi Khurana.
Educational Challenges in the Indian Context. In the last decade, international
organizations, NGOs and local governments have united in an effort to achieve
Millennium Development Goal 2: access to universal primary education (United Nations,
n.d.). There has been significant progress worldwide in increasing both access to
education and enrollment in schools. Demonstrating their commitment to education and
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
the realization of MDG 2, India passed the Right to Education (RTE) act in 2009— a
landmark piece of legislation that ensures social inclusion of disadvantaged children,
quality teaching and learning and improved school infrastructure across India (UNICEF,
n.d.). As a result, enrollment rates have risen significantly, reaching net enrollment rates
of 99.8% and 61.8% (a 20% increase since 2007) for lower primary and upper primary
grades respectively (Sarkar, 2012). By 2012, nearly 1.4 million new classrooms were
constructed, 333,458 schools opened, 1.22 million teachers appointed, and nearly 2
million teachers trained through government-sponsored professional development
(Sarkar, 2012).
Despite increased enrollment, improved infrastructure and investment in teachers,
quality of learning remained low. On international measures, India was 72nd out of 74 in
PISA’s 2009 testing cycle (Ashoka, n.d.). Pratham (2013) specifies in its ASER 2013
report that 78% of Standard III children and 50% of Standard V were unable to read at a
Standard III level. From these statistics Pratham (2013) drew the conclusion that grade
level teaching was not supporting student-learning outcomes. Compounding issues of
underperformance are those of teacher commitment and motivation. Kremer, Chaudhury,
Rogers, Muralidharan, and Hammer (2004) found that on average one in four teachers in
India were absent from government primary schools daily, and when present, only 45%
of those teachers were found teaching.
STIR Education
Sharath Jeevan’s Approach. With these statistics Sharath Jeevan, a former business
leader at Booz Allen and Ebay, advocate for education quality in the UK, and expert
fundraiser at Global Giving UK, found compelling evidence of both need and opportunity
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
(Guttenplan, 2013). Because access had been achieved, infrastructure in progress, and
teachers in place, Javeen surmised the underlying problem in student achievement as one
of teacher effectiveness (Guttenplan, 2013). The hierarchical structures in place were
ineffective and for Jeevan, counterintuitive. Through experiences as founding CEO at
Teaching Leaders, Javeen understood that teachers can make a significant difference if
they are valued, motivated and adequately prepared (Draper Richards Kaplan). Javeen’s
intuition, was that teachers who were motivated and believed in their ability to affect
student change, and education by proxy, would commit, both in action and in mindset, to
the continuous improvement of their practice (Ashoka, n.d.).
Recent research corroborates this notion. In the evaluation of interventions
designed to increase motivation, Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) found that a learner who
views intelligence as changeable through effort is more likely to exert effort in practice
(Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
Thus, just two years after the initiation of RTE, Sharath Javeen founded STIR
Education. STIR was established under the core belief that “The biggest determinant of a
child’s success in school…is the quality and commitment of his or her teacher” (STIR
Education, n.d., a). This notion guides their work to build a “movement of teacher change
makers” (STIR Education, n.d., a). Recognizing the problem of teacher quality as an
adaptive one, STIR created an intervention geared toward changing teacher attitudes and
behaviors (rather than introducing products) to fulfill the intended impact. The solution
was therefore designed to reverse the top-down traditional structures for change. STIR
aims pass the power to teachers, facilitating ownership for change in practice and
promoting overall sustainability of outcomes.
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
STIR’s Model. STIR’s model is based on its ultimate intended impact of affecting
teaching practice, student learning outcomes, and Indian education policy (STIR
Education, n.d., b). The program’s theory of change contends that, if exemplary teachers
are recognized for innovative practice and offered opportunity to create, collaborate and
reflect, then they will be empowered to improve their own practice, invest in student
learning outcomes and to affect larger scale structural reform.
The STIR model begins with identifying such teacher leaders for innovative
practice in the classroom, convenes these teachers together to share micro-innovations
across schools, and then encourages teachers to adapt and implement these solutions
upon returning to their own schools. Upon successful implementation, teachers and
school leaders are encouraged to re-enter the cycle for continuous improvement. The
model is iterative, continuous and self-reflective in nature, and STIR’s success relies not
only upon the commitment of teachers, but also of well-trained program facilitators
dedicated to the mission and vision of STIR (Behl, Divya, personal communication,
November 27, 2014).
Directly embedded within STIR’s model are opportunities for teachers to develop,
practice, and then model 21st century skills. Indeed, STIR demonstrates the value of
deeper learning, as defined by Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) in that it offers a series of
activities that work to mutually reinforce competencies in all three 21st century skill
domains. First, in the search for micro-innovation— which involves parsing out the
details of the program or activity, defining which elements are critical for success, and
developing a succinct innovation pitch for fellow practitioners — teachers develop
cognitive skills of critical thinking, reasoning and argumentation (Pellegrino & Hilton,
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
2012). Once STIR has successfully identified teacher-innovators, they are organized into
a collaborative network, convened to share and reflect upon best practices and determine
which micro-innovations posed by fellow practitioners can be adapted to resolve
problems within own-school context. Skills developed in this step include collaboration,
responsibility and metacognition (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). This stage actively
promotes deeper learning, emphasizing thoughtful consideration of context, resources
and capacity in transferring successful micro-innovations to solve new problems
(Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
Once best practices have been chosen, and an appropriate and contextualized plan
of action devised, teacher innovators (often in coordination with administration) lead
implementation—not only within their individual classrooms, but also within the school
community writ large. Individual teachers choose to accomplish this in different ways—
leading in-house professional development seminars, collaborating on lesson plans, and
soliciting community involvement among them (Khurana, Suvidhi, personal
communication, November 21, 2014). Each of these activities requires exercise of
effective communication, appreciation for diverse perspective, and are often
complemented with metacognitive practice. As STIR’s model unfolds and a solution-
based mindset surfaces, teachers are encouraged to explore opportunities with “next-step”
partners who can provide resources, trainings, and other support in implementing school-
based change, further reinforcing competencies of initiative and leadership. With the
successful and intentional implementation of theses collective actions, teachers become
21st century agents of change capable of leading “more ambitious structural reform”
(STIR Education, n.d., b).
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
It is worthwhile to note the role of the STIR team in the promotion and
acquisition of participating teachers and principals’ 21st century skills. Program staff
initially establishes participant networks’ innovation-sharing processes, but later
intentionally step back from leadership roles to allow participants to develop these
capacities (Khurana, Suvidhi, personal communication, November 21, 2014). In this
sense program staff become members and participants of the collaborative STIR
networks just like the teachers and principals they initially trained, giving opportunity for
participants themselves to realize their potential and promoting effective locally-owned
reform. Further, program staff support participants’ selection of micro-innovations
relevant to their own-school contexts, and facilitate the practice of those newly developed
skills through leading group discussions, modeling skills for teachers, and conducting
class observations and feedback cycles once teachers have begun implementing the
innovations. This ensures that participating teachers and principals deeply learn the skills
they are being exposed to through STIR trainings. The team offers ample opportunity to
not only aggregate competencies, but also seamlessly and independently transfer these
skills to other contexts.
The Pilot. STIR Education’s theory of change relies equally on the participation of
willing and invested teachers and a body of schools both receptive to change and
structurally capable of supporting it. Though the STIR model was attractive to many
school leaders for its low-cost, asset-based approach to professional development, other
mechanisms were put in place to secure buy-in of both teachers and administrators. These
included a specialized certification from the University of Roehampton upon successful
completion of the STIR cycle (certification is available to all teachers, regardless of prior
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
education), the focus on simple solutions that required little effort to implement, and the
opportunity to meet like-minded educators in a collaborative and social environment
(Khurana, Suvidhi, personal communication, November 21, 2014).
STIR had successfully created local demand; to bring their program to fruition,
STIR had to drum up funding to meet this local demand. In its first year of operation,
STIR successfully raised 1.5 million dollars, receiving backing from reputable
organizations like Department for International Development (DFID), the Mulago
Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Optimus Foundation, Peery Foundation, Segal
Family Foundation, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation and ARK (Guttenplan, 2013;
STIR Education, n.d., c). With these details in place and adequate funding secured, STIR
attracted the attention of 300 schools and received submissions of micro innovations from
nearly 3,000 teachers during their inaugural search. In February 2012, after careful
consideration of teacher attitude and quality of product, STIR inducted a network of
committed and motivated teachers across 18 schools to participate in their pilot study
(STIR Education, n.d., c).
Analyzing Success. Multiple stakeholders contributed to the success of the pilot
program. The India Board of Advisors was likely instrumental to the advancement of
STIR’s mission. STIR carefully selected a board of advisors representative of the
diversity of the country and fluent in the needs and operations of India’s education
sector. STIR convened leaders in education entrepreneurship, thought leaders in the field
of special education and literacy, experienced principals and even skilled teachers to
collectively guide strategy of the pilot and ground the program in the contextual
knowledge necessary to function effectively and responsibly within the country and
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
within the field of education. Furthermore, one can also infer the value of the board in
establishing connections with reputable service providers within the sector. Because
STIR’s model also depends on the contributions of “next-step” partners like Pratham,
The Curriculum Foundation and Design for Change, STIR has been able to complement
micro-innovation with resources or opportunities to enhance teaching practice (STIR
Education, n.d., f).
Khosla cites the strength in staff as a key factor for the pilot’s success (Khosla,
Nikita, personal communication, November 27, 2014). STIR is intentional in hiring
personnel who are committed to the work because they believe in the organization’s
mission and theory of change (Khurana, Suvidhi, personal communication, November 21,
2014). Beyond traditional academic qualifications, staff are hired for motivation, critical
thinking, and capacity for effective communication (Khosla, Nikita, personal
communication, November 27, 2014). Khurana, suggests that these 21st century skills
such as flexibility, critical thinking, and self reflection were critical to the success of the
pilot (Personal communication, November 21, 2014).
In addition to the board and STIR staff, the support of other teachers within their
change maker network proved important in attracting, motivating and retaining teachers
in the program. It is in joining the network that the work to shift teacher orientation and
shape a growth mindset actually begins. The micro-innovations serve as an effective
“hook” as they generate interest in the program; what’s more, the micro innovations
provide examples of successful and engaging practices that are easily replicated and
simple in nature. In recognizing the innovative accomplishments of other teacher change
makers, educators are able to see a change maker within themselves, too. Opportunities to
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
collaborate to build solutions within a motivated and dedicated network can further
reinforce the evolution of a teachers’ self-concept. While STIR has developed a
partnership with the University of Roehampton to certify participating teachers who meet
all the requirements of its rubric as innovators, it is actually the collaborative networks
that keep teachers motivated to stay involved with STIR rather than this certification,
according to Behl (Behl, Divya, personal communication, November 27, 2014). As STIR
has few extrinsic motivators to keep teachers involved in the network, it is the peer
pressure within the teacher network which keeps teachers working and, according to
Behl, the single largest contributor to STIR’s impact (Behl, Divya, personal
communication, November 27, 2014).
Measures and Evaluations
The STIR pilot was designed to impact three important areas of growth:
improvement to teaching practice and commitment to student learning, increase in
student learning outcomes, and advancement of education policy. STIR also expects
impact in the area of its program’s reach (STIR Education, n.d. d). In August 2013, the
organization released their first annual report, outlining the activities, achievements and
projected outcomes of the program. The report highlights program reach, evaluating
impact using an internal scorecard with goals for numbers of teachers and students
connected with their program well as number of partnerships established. In it’s first
year, STIR reports that 264 out of a projected 300 schools participated, about 3,000
teachers and/or school leaders contributed to the search for micro-innovations, and 25
final micro-innovations were selected for dissemination across a small network of 18
teachers, and 9 “next step” expert partners were signed (STIR Education, 2013, e).
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
Using surveys created by Columbia University, the report examines the
advancements in teacher motivation, mind-set and teaching practice (STIR Education,
n.d., d). One STIR educator, Astha Sa, remarks, “Earlier I was limited to my class
only…I used to think that I only do everything best, but that’s not true. After getting
associated with STIR I saw that there are so many other teachers who are doing so many
brilliant things even better than me,” (STIR Education, n.d., f). Indeed, from a sample of
256 teachers and principals surveys reveal that 83% of teachers rated their own
confidence to handle difficult classroom situations as high (labeled as self-efficacy),
while judging the efficacy of other teachers’ to handle the same situations as low (STIR
Education, 2013, e).
These positive results prompted STIR to conduct more rigorous research,
employing a battery of surveys, classroom observations, and focus groups with a very
small sample of 22 teachers from their pilot network to enrich their understanding of
improved teacher mindsets. Of this sample, 80% reported increased confidence levels and
33% reported improved preparedness, feeling better equipped to provide a positive
learning environment for students after joining the STIR network (STIR Education, 2013,
e). Says one teacher, Zahid Raza, “There is a change in the way I approach things
now. Earlier I would focus on the negative, i.e. nothing can change, it’s too much. Now,
with critical thinking sessions and problem solving inputs, I can understand, analyze, and
see negative things but also positive aspects,” (STIR Education, 2013, e, p. 11) In an
interview with Divya Behl, Education Leader for STIR India, she reports that principals
have seen a decrease in teacher absenteeism, improved attendance rates, and a noticeable
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
shift in teacher mindset as a result of their involvement within the STIR network (Behl,
Divya, personal communication, November 27, 2014).
Student Outcomes. Overall, the 2013 STIR Annual Report offers little data in student
learning outcomes or educational policy change, two of the three projected impacts
earlier outlined. Delhi Programme Director Nikita Khosla offers an explanation for the
lack of student-outcome or policy-level impact data. In a personal interview, she
comments that over STIR’s three years of operation, the model has shifted from being
activity-centered to mindset-centered (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication,
November 27, 2014). STIR’s desired impact is now to move teachers from a fixed-
mindset to a growth-mindset and improve motivation and self-efficacy levels (Khosla,
Nikita, personal communication, November 27, 2014). In testing their model, Khosla
reasons, the STIR team learned that disseminating micro innovations did not always lead
to implementation; they realized that, in order to see the successful spread of best-
practices in teaching, STIR would first need to condition teacher mindset to accept these
practices (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication, November 27, 2014). This,
according to Behl, has induced a shift in programmatic goals, from student achievement
to teacher mindset (Behl, Divya, personal communication, November 27, 2014). She
furthers that STIR, in fact, doesn’t expect to see drastic changes in outcomes, as
improved teaching requires growth-mindset, a process, they have learned, takes several
years to crystalize (Behl, Divya, personal communication, November 27, 2014).
This information and updated theory of change has not deterred STIR’s intuition
about the correlation between student outcomes and its teachers’ changed mindsets. It
has, however reframed student achievement as a long-term, longitudinal measure rather
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
than a short term goal. As such, STIR is actively exploring collaborations with Pratham
to conduct long-term studies (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication, November 27,
2014).
21st century skills
As earlier described, STIR’s simplified theory of change is that if micro-
innovations can be identified and teachers can be placed into networks to innovate,
implement, and influence, then their mindsets, motivation, and practice will change for
the better. Within those areas of work, STIR has opportunity to evaluate the impact of
twenty-first century skill development on the mindsets, motivations, and practice of its
participating teachers and principals, as well as those interact with these teachers and
principals.
However, current techniques within monitoring and evaluation practices are
limited by elements of self-reporting. As Weiss (1998) cautions, program staff “tend
toward optimism” and have a self-interest in demonstrating program success (p. 6). In
this sense, internal evaluation can simply be a form of confirmation bias, as staff searches
for the data which support their scaling of a successful program. Weiss (1998) names this
form of evaluation “window-dressing” where the program administrators intend to move
forward regardless of an evaluation but use evaluation data as “legitimacy” for their
current plan (p. 22). Further, the pilot evaluation of 22 teachers and principals is limited
in scope and sample size to warrant scale across the country and internationally. As
Weiss (1998) cautions, a small handful of testimonials cannot provide enough
information to measure a program’s impact. As such, in order to effectively monitor the
development and acquisition of 21st century skills, STIR must develop a robust set of
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
evaluation tools and invoke the participation multiple stakeholders, including insight
from parents, students, school administrators and community members.
This impact can be evaluated across Hilton and Pellegrino’s (2012) three domains
for twenty-first century skills of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal competencies.
In terms of cognitive skill development, Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) define the clusters
of cognitive processes and strategies, knowledge, and creativity. Within the clusters of
cognitive processes and strategies as well as knowledge STIR should evaluate whether its
teacher and principal participants have gained lasting knowledge through its professional
development opportunities offered by “next step” expert partners. This could look like
pre and post tests on the content matter of a professional development, led by Muktangan,
for example to analyze what critical thinking, problem solving, or decision making skills
have been developed (all cognitive competencies outlined by Hilton and Pellegrino
(2012). Testing procedural knowledge and understanding of intended outcomes the micro
innovations presented in the final booklet would further develop cognitive skill.
Until now, teacher problem-solving capacity has largely been teacher self-
evaluated using Columbia’s survey. Observation of deeper learning and proxies to assess
the successful transfer of skill through interactive assessments would enable STIR to
establish whether teachers truly have increased their problem-solving and critical
thinking capacities. For instance, STIR could develop a series of role-play or problem-
solving scenarios, where teachers demonstrate, on the spot, what types of innovations
they would use to deal with a problem presented in the role-play, scoring their
innovations using a well-crafted rubric.
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
Within the cluster of creativity, STIR could track the number of innovations an
individual teachers submits to the search, and whether this number increases or decreases
over time and program participation. STIR could also do classroom and school
observations pre and post program to see if there is discernible difference in classroom
arrangement, resources used, and other visible signs of creativity at work.
In the domain of intrapersonal competencies, Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) define three
clusters: intellectual openness, work ethic/conscientiousness, and positive core self-
evaluation. Within intellectual openness, Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) define continuous
learning and intellectual curiosity as key elements. STIR could work into their teacher
surveys questions about whether teachers independently seek out resources to enrich their
content and practical knowledge before and after program participation. They could also
consider tracking frequency in which teachers borrow micro-innovations or ideas from
other colleagues outside of the STIR network. This would effectively demonstrate
whether STIR teachers are seeking out new forms of learning past what they gain through
STIR.
In the cluster of work ethic and conscientiousness, STIR might charge principals
to objectively evaluate progress of teacher change makers instead of relying on self-
reflective surveys currently in use. Principals could give provide information on
attendance, arrival time, preparedness to work, effort in appearance, and adherence to
rules and regulations as a measure of work ethic and conscientiousness. Further, to
evaluate Hilton and Pellegrino’s (2012) element of self-regulation and metacognition,
STIR could complete written exercise or conduct interviews with teachers to have them
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
reflect on their own areas of growth and weakness to evaluate both capacity for and depth
of self-reflection.
In the interpersonal domain, Hilton and Pellegrino (2012) define the clusters of
teamwork and collaboration as well as leadership. While STIR already gathers data on
the number of teachers involved in its programs and the number of networks developed,
this data does not reflect the actual skills those participants develop. Hilton and
Pellegrino (2012) identify skills communication, cooperation, and collaboration as
important within the interpersonal domain. To evaluate the skilled communication, STIR
could track how often teachers from different schools communicate outside network
meanings. STIR might also consider examining the evolving nature of teacher dynamics
within the school over time. Because many of the micro innovations invoke parental
involvement, STIR might also track the change in relationship between parents and
teachers. This communication data could also demonstrate Hilton and Pellegrino’s (2012)
leadership skill of “social influence with others” (p. 34).
It is clear that there is great opportunity continuously evaluate the development
and acquisition of 21st century skills across all three domains. There is great opportunity
to develop a more robust set of evaluation tools and techniques to monitor this progress,
and refine program activities to align with its 21st century mission. In doing so, STIR
might be able to capture “the reality of the program rather than its illusion” (Weiss, 1998,
p. 49).
Plans for Scale. True to its mission to catalyze a movement of education leaders, STIR
was built for greater impact. Indeed, scale was planned from the organization’s
inception (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication, November 27, 2014). Eager to
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
extend reach beyond the New Delhi pilot network of schools (collectively referred to as
the ‘STIR Lab’), the STIR team began to explore opportunities through like-minded
partners in its first year of operation. Organizations like Room to Read, Pratham and the
Akshara foundation were selected for their reputations of excellence and existing
presence within schools. STIR trains these partners to implement the STIR model of
identifying micro-innovations, setting up a network of teachers, and supporting their
implementation of innovations as well as influencing of others beyond their network to
design solutions to school-based problems. In just two years, STIR has embedded their
innovative model in 8 states, mobilizing 2,772 teachers in 39 teacher change maker
networks throughout India. In year three STIR moves forward with the support of ten
local NGOs, the government of the largest state in India, and a foundation for global
scale.
With a proof of concept, success and accolades in low resource areas of India, the
STIR team searched for international opportunities. Upon preliminary landscape analysis,
East Africa was identified for similarities in conditions, barriers and attitudes toward
teaching and education (Khurana, Suvidhi, personal communication, November 21,
2014). Further analysis revealed a number of eager partners (both Government and
NGOs) in Uganda with strong connections to school networks and organizational
capacity necessary to sustain the STIR model (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication,
November 27, 2014).
By training local partners in all aspects of the program, STIR is able to leverage
the knowledge and capacity of local partners, and thus contextualize and expand the
model at a low cost (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication, November 27,
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
2014). After securing adequate funds from the Mastercard Foundation and the Segal
Family Foundation, STIR began operations of the Uganda pilot program in February
2014 (STIR Education, 2013, g). Given the success of the partnership model in
expanding impact throughout the culturally diverse states in India thus far, outcomes
seem favorable for Uganda.
Past these partnerships, STIR’s large governance board, global advisory board,
India advisory board, and Uganda advisory board, must support their work and guide the
model for scale. The governance board, for instance, is chaired by Jonathan Robert
Owen, who is also one of the founders of Teach First, and the global advisory board
includes members like Elizabeth King, the Director of Education for the World Bank.
These advisors’ and leaders’ connections seemingly support STIR’s ability to cultivate
strategic partnerships and will undoubtedly aid in creating value for teacher change
makers worldwide.
Challenges
Partnerships, Mission Drift, Control. STIR Education is recognized across India and the
UK as an innovative model for teacher professional development and the advancement of
educational equity. However, challenges in implementation, evaluation and maintenance
might compromise the overall program impact.
Along side the factors which support implementation of STIR’s activities are
several factors which constrain implementation. Delhi Programme Director Nikita Khosla
identifies the pilot program in Delhi the strongest. She contests that, because STIR was
able to control for selection of implementation staff, quality of staff support, and
continuity of programming, positive results in mindset and motivation were more
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
consistent across the change maker networks (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication,
November 27, 2014). Khosla confirms that program facilitation by implementation
partners resulted in a diluted impact. As STIR continues to grow and move toward third
party implementation, this could have negative implications for future sustainability, not
only affecting organizational integrity (putting STIR in jeopardy of mission drift), but
also potentially compromising buy in from critical stakeholders and investment funders.
Furthermore, STIR’s original theory of change was predicated on three prongs: teacher
mindset-shift, student learning outcomes, and larger level policy change. With limited
government partnerships, (only one government partnership in development according to
Khosla), the initiation of the policy-level work remains to be seen, and depends on
partnerships which have yet to be developed (Khosla, Nikita, personal communication,
November 27, 2014). If policy change is truly at the forefront of their mission, STIR must
invest energy into creating relationships with policy makers and government officials, not
only in individual states in India, but also in the strategic scale of their program.
Evaluation. As previously mentioned, one of the largest deficits in evaluation is the lack
of metrics for student learning outcomes. STIR’s original program model underscores
student impact as the one of three major areas of impact (STIR website, program model
section). Yet the model has continued to scale up absent causal evidence and robust data
of student achievement. In a context where governments and donors expect results in
order to scale a project across the country, change policy on the large scale, or continue to
contribute, excluding student data in the evaluation metrics of an education-based
intervention is a risky decision. While changes in learning outcomes do take time to be
demonstrated on a large scale, small, it is in STIR’s best interest to conduct internal
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
student assessment to demonstrate shorter-term growth (or lack thereof) beyond self-
reported observed changes classroom trends. It might also be valuable to leverage the
knowledge of international partner organizations to ensure that the evaluations, and even
the outcomes they intend to see are appropriate based on country culture and context.
Incentives and Continuity. Program maintenance may also be problematic for the long-
term sustainability of the organization and the continuity of impact. According to
Khurana, attrition of program staff responsible for implementing the STIR model is high
in the Delhi office, as the work of education field manager is time consuming and
exhausting (Personal communication, November 21, 2014). Because, as Khosla describes
above, the Delhi program relies on committed and qualified staff to carry out its mission
and achieve intended impact, creating mechanisms to reduce turnover is necessary to
ensure longevity of the program (2014).
In addition to staff implementers, the continued participation of teachers is called
into question. It is not uncommon for STIR teachers to drop out of STIR’s three-year
program when family of life circumstances, like marriage or pregnancy, arise (Khurana,
Suvidhi, personal communication, November 21, 2014). An additional challenge to
program implementation and a barrier to achieving impact, Behl cites, is the lack of a
well-scaffolded incentive structure for participating teachers and principals (Behl, Divya,
personal communication, November 27, 2014). As previously articulated, Certification
in Innovation, Implementation and Influence from the University of Roehampton is
awarded to teachers upon the successful completion of the first STIR cycle. However,
once this milestone is achieved, there are few external motivators for continued
participation in the program. The hope, of course, is that motivation becomes intrinsic in
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
nature as mindset changes and locus of control shifts to the individual. At present,
however, there is no mechanism to guarantee to future initiative-taking behaviors, and no
insurance from STIR, partners or school leaders to stimulate continued practice. Adding
further complexity, Behl suggests that, at present, it is largely due to peer pressure and
social nature of the network that teachers sustain their commitment to STIR’s program
and continue implementing the micro-innovations to which they have been exposed
(Behl, Divya, personal communication, November 27, 2014). In this way, the
sustainability of teacher influence and feasibility for large-scale change is left vulnerable,
at best.
Conclusion
The STIR Education model offers a low-cost, asset-based approach to teacher
professional development. Through participation in its innovative programming, teachers
are able to develop 21st century skills that crosscut all three of Hilton and Pellegrino’s
domains. Teachers build capacity, while expanding their interpersonal competencies and
reflect on their role in a larger education movement. Furthermore, activities are
accomplished through a process of deeper learning, and with the support of individuals
who are not only committed to the advancement of education, but also believe in the
inherent strengths of teachers. Through investment in relationships with teachers, school
leaders, implementation partners and policy makers, STIR is able to cultivate a
community of activists, working equally in collaboration for the advancement of
children. However, while the organization does capitalize on its strength by focusing on
teachers, the true impact of the organization will become more clear as it gathers more
data on student growth, achievement and outcomes.
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
Though two years old, it is encouraging to see STIR already scaling and expanding to
other contexts. The fact that it has already been adopted in Uganda can be interpreted as
an indication of a strong model. Consequently, education leaders and organizations like
UNICEF should take note of how the principles of the model can be adapted to achieve
their own goals.
Due to its focus on teacher development and educational quality, STIR could be
an invaluable option for Vanuatu, as UNICEF iterates and innovates teacher professional
development. Beyond teacher capacity-building and grassroots change in the classroom,
STIR’s scaling through government and NGO partners mirrors UNICEF’s strategic
framework for impacting change through policy and partnerships. Because of its
alignment, UNICEF in Vanuatu and beyond could incorporate frameworks like STIR to
increase effectiveness and education for all.
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
References
Ashoka. (n.d.). Fellows. Retrieved November 2014, from Ashoka: Innovators for the
Public: https://www.ashoka.org/fellow/sharath-jeevan
Draper Richards Kaplan. (n.d.). Funded Ventures: STIR Education. Retrieved
November 2014, from Draper Richards Kaplan:
http://www.drkfoundation.org/stir-education.html
Kremer, M., Chaudhury, N., Rogers, F. H., Muralidharan, K., & Hammer, J. (2009,
September 15). Teacher Absence in India: A Snapshot. ournal of the European
Economic Association .
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing
Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Academies,
National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Sarkar, C. C. (2012). Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
and its Implementation . India Infrastructure Report .
STIR Education. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved November 2014, from STIR Education:
http://www.stireducation.org
STIR Education. (n.d.). M&E. Retrieved November 2014, from STIR Education:
http://www.stireducation.org/me
STIR Education. (n.d.). Program Model. Retrieved November 27, 2014, from STIR
Education: http://www.stireducation.org/program-model
STIR Education. (2013). STIR Impact Report. Retrieved November 2014, from STIR
Education:
http://www.stireducation.org/sites/default/files/STIR_Impact_Report.pdf
Running Head: STIR EDUCATION
STIR Education. (n.d.). STIR Profile . Retrieved November 2014, from STIR
Education: www.stireducation.org/sites/default/files/STIR%20Profile.pdf
STIR Education. (2013). STIR Uganda Finalist Micro-Innovations. Retrieved
November 2014, from STIR Education:
http://www.stireducation.org/sites/default/files/mi-
reports/STIR%20Uganda%20Finalist%20Micro-Innovations%202014.pdf
STIR Education. (n.d.). Vision. Retrieved November 27, 2014, from STIR Education:
http://www.stireducation.org/vision
UNICEF. (n.d.). India: Our Work. Retrieved November 2014, from UNICEF:
http://www.unicef.org/india/education_6145.htm
Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation. Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.