PSI and CFSI: emerging effects on access, student learning and efficiency

This section presents a cross-case analysis of the effects on access to schooling and participation, student learning and efficiency in resource use.

6.2.3.1 PSI and CFSI: emerging effects on access to schooling and participation

Even though serious issues of access and participation are not prevalent in any of the case-study schools, the schools have made attempts to improve attendance, prevent drop-outs, identify any OOSC and re-enrol them, and improve retention. As influenced by CFSI, the teachers of these schools undertake CFSI criteria-based analysis which help them reveal problems such as irregular attendees and students with health and performance issues. In addition to the timely delivery of subsidies (e.g. textbooks, uniforms, mid-morning meal) which are demand-side national measures, schools conduct literacy programmes, health and nutrition programmes, parental awareness on children’s right to schooling, and provision of water and sanitary facilities as measures to improve

access and participation. Added to these, as guided by the CFSI, teachers increasingly use child-centred teaching methodologies. The case-study schools are doing their best to improve the learning environment with child-friendly characteristics and they are helping to promote learning, as well as the moral and personality development and safety of children. These changes are more prominent in Type3 (primary) schools than in others. For example, the rural, mountainous Type3/rural school has an attractive school garden with reading areas and a play park, all of which stimulate learning.

The status of access and participation is being considerably improved as a result of these measures. SDCs (of PSI) lead, organise and coordinate such measures planned under CFSI which help in meeting child-friendly criteria. It appears that as CFSI principles (cf. 4.6) and its models (cf. 2.3.1.2: Table 2.2) emphasises, it has made a considerable influence over children's attendance and participation. Therefore, as a result of collaboration between PSI and CFSI, the knowledge and attention of the school community towards students’ access to and participation in education is being increased in the case-study schools.

6.2.3.2 PSI and CFSI: emerging effects on student learning

All the case-study schools are generally paying attention to improving students’ cognitive, attitudinal and value-based competencies. Since the introduction of PSI, in many schools SDCs have stimulated these efforts by directing teachers to undertake special programmes with the help of the parents, and by encouraging parents to support children in their learning at home (Type2/urban; Type2/rural; Type3/rural schools). The SDCs provide a forum for parents to inquire about student performance (Type1C; Type3/urban schools) and to demand teachers increase their attention to children’s learning, and the schools’ response to these inquiries and demands has considerably strengthened service delivery and accountability of schools.

CFSI has influenced schools to integrate child-friendly concepts, dimensions and characteristics into the teaching and learning process and the school environment. For example, CFSI in the case-study schools has motivated teachers to work with empathy for children, pay individual attention and use child-centred methodologies, implement

special projects (e.g. reading projects), conduct remedial sessions for low-performing students and maintain a continuous dialogue with parents on the children’s learning (cf. Type1C; Type2 schools). Some schools (e.g. Type 2/urban, Type3 schools) have taken significant steps to improve ventilation, light, water and sanitation facilities, and safe, clean and orderly school gardens in order to ensure child-friendliness and thereby presumably improve the environment for children’s learning, health and moral development. CFSI has encouraged a joint vision between teachers and parents on children’s learning. However, the effects of CFSI are restrained to primary education.

The effects of PSI and CFSI could not be distinctly demarcated, since most of the efforts in improving student learning are guided by the competitive examinations driving teaching and parents’ aspirations. Especially, CFSI’s objectives are challenged, since teachers and parents pay extraordinary attention to G5SE results (see 4.4.2). Therefore, both PSI and CFSI need to be strengthened to improve student learning further. In this connection, teachers' learning communities (Fullan & Watson, 2000) (cf. 2.2.3.2), a welcoming and promising learning environment (Briggs & Wohlstetter, 2003) (cf. 2.2.3.2) and prerequisites to practise full child friendly environment (UNICEF, 2009b) (cf. 2.3.3) need to be established. Moreover, it could be noted that, as international literature reveals, SBM initiatives need time to produce positive changes in terms of student learning outcomes (WB, 2008) (cf. 2.2.3.2) and hence, the impact of PSI and CFSI need to be studied in the future.

6.2.3.3 Emerging effects of PSI and CFSI on efficiency in resource use

Both PSI and CFSI have largely contributed to increasing the schools’ physical resources through parents’ contributions. Therefore these initiatives have contributed to reduce maintenance budgets of the government and as it was stated by Caldwell (2004) (cf. 2.2.1). All projects were implemented through the government or UNICEF grants and parents’ support with funds, in-kind resources, labour and expertise (in carpentry/masonry/technical supervision). The said grants were remitted to the SDS or PSI accounts. Noticeably, the SDCs have coordinated and monitored all these projects. Therefore, both PSI and CFSI have enabled the schools to yield a higher monetary value than the actual cost incurred. Therefore, when the benefits gained by the students is

compared with the government’s investments, these low-cost-projects undeniably help to achieve a high rate of cost-efficiency.

6.3 Integration of PSI and CFSI

PSI and CFSI encompass two different policy and conceptual frameworks introduced at two different times by two different groups of policy officials with the assistance of different development partners. Apparently, a policy-level dialogue on the similarities and differences of these two initiatives was never held. However, as the case-study schools show, in practice their similarities and differences have had positive implications for organisational practices and also created duplications and issues when they co-exist in the same school. For example, PSI and CFSI similarly encourage collaborative decision-making, increase transparency in decisions, and raise awareness among parents on children’s education. Moreover, both initiatives promote school-based planning; however, this results in the creation of parallel planning processes, two separate plans and separate reporting mechanisms. Planning under CFSI is driven by the need to link UNICEF funding to the schools, while the SDC (under PSI) prepares the school Annual Plan. Moreover, despite the fact that both initiatives promote SBTD, it was not successfully implemented under any of these initiatives in the case-study schools.

All the case-study schools have established the decision-making structures of PSI and CFSI. The links between these structures have not been guided and purposive, but they complement each other in the case-study schools in several ways. For example, addressing a gap in CFSI, in all the case-study schools, the SDCs manage, coordinate and monitor all the projects initiated under CFSI. There are parallel planning processes under these two initiatives, while the planning process of CFSI (SSA) is more participatory and analytical than that of PSI. Moreover, CFSI insists on analysing school attendance data through the SAC. The information base created by CFSI through the SSA, the SAC and CFSI indicator-based analysis of teachers is used by the committees of PSI (i.e. SDCs and SMCs) for planning and decision-making (i.e. Type1C/urban; Type2/rural schools). However, the SSA was confined to a one-off exercise, and it was suggested that the SMCs could be strengthened to undertake the SSA annually (see 5.8.3). Officially, the principals chair the committees under PSI and CFSI. In some of

the case-study schools, the principals provide an active leadership in integrating the concepts, principles and practices of these initiatives, and the same teachers hold responsibilities under both initiatives (cf. Table 3.3: Type1C/rural, Type 2 and Type3/rural schools). Moreover, the SDCs consider the principles of CFSI in their decision-making process, especially in Type3 schools, resulting in the establishing of child-friendly environment in the schools (see 5.6.3) and an improvement in the overall quality of SDC decisions (see 5.7.3). Moreover, filling a gap in PSI, the SDS serves as a body to validate SDC decisions. It was also revealed that SMCs and SACs are not active in some of the case-study schools.

Considering these examples, it was found that the SDS and the committees of PSI and CFSI could be combined to strengthen school-based decision-making, ensure transparency and accountability, and to avoid complex and parallel decision-making structures. In this approach, it is essential to raise awareness of school professionals and parents about the rights-based approach of CFSI and the democratic management approach of PSI.

6.4 Conclusion

This chapter presented a cross-case analysis based on the analysis of six school case-studies along with the similarities and differences between PSI and CFSI. Regarding the conceptualisation of the initiatives, the study found that those who are active in the implementation and those who have taken part in on-site awareness sessions have better conceptualised the initiative on which each participant was interviewed. The principals are generally aware of the objectives, while the teacher-participants have a substantial understanding. The parent-participants’ level of understanding depends on their level of engagement in the initiative.

A permanent, legitimised decision-making structure has been established under PSI to make overall school management and financial decisions (i.e. SDC) while the structures under CFSI are aimed at developing plans through an analytical exercise (i.e. CFSC/SSA) and improving access and participation (i.e. SAC). These structures function independently, resulting in duplications, although in some case-study schools they somehow complement each other.

Both PSI and CFSI have promoted community involvement in the core-decision- making process and parents’ participation in school activities has resulted in increased attention to student learning and cost-efficiency. The dual planning processes created by these two initiatives have resulted in the formulation of two plans. Despite the fact that it was a mandatory requirement of PSI, medium-term planning was not commonly practised, while CFS plans were purposively prepared with the intention of seeking UNICEF funding. Both these initiatives have influenced the roles of principals and teachers at various levels of intensity and both initiatives are promoting the SBTD culture, but it was not fully and formally practised in any case-study school.

More than PSI, CFSI has initiated a dialogue on the equal rights of children to education, gender sensitivity, child-centred learning, and issues of attendance, access and participation. Both these initiatives have increasingly been promoting student learning and performance enhancement projects, thus indicating positive effects in participation in learning. Notably, CFSI is highly focused on primary education.

The similarities and differences between PSI and CFSI bring strength on the one hand and duplications and even chaos on the other. The case-study schools have practically amalgamated these two initiatives structurally as well as conceptually, providing sporadically but effectively integrated child-centred decision-making practices which could be used in developing a synchronised decision-making modality.

Chapter 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Introduction

This Chapter presents the main findings on the following: (i) the reasons for initiation and the expected implications of the Programme for School Improvement (PSI) and the Child-Friendly Schools Initiative (CFSI) for policy; (ii) the implications of these initiatives for organisational practices; (ii) the effects of these initiatives on access, participation, student learning and efficiency; (iii) the similarities, differences and the means by which the initiatives are integrated when they co-exist in the same school. The chapter consolidates the findings from the data-based chapters and presents recommendations for improving the policy process through which an integrated learner- friendly SBM Model can be developed to improve educational outcomes, building on the experience and insights of this research on PSI and CFSI.