According to the in-service providers, lesson study was supported at school level through timetabling within the school plan. ISP2 stated that timetabling lesson study was a typical mechanism her department had implemented to support lesson study in schools. She added that timetabling lesson study on the school plan helped the school administrators to budget for lesson study:
Because it is timetabled … it is included in the budget, to say. During that day, at least they will be refreshments and any other logistical support. Paper will be available, the forms which will be used by observers will be able to be printed. (ISP2)
ISP4 stated that lesson Study activities were now part of the school timetable. She said timetabling lesson study helped the teachers to plan the class activities their student would do when teachers are attending lesson study. She stated, “They shouldn’t leave students without work to be done. They leave them with work to be done. Like the period when the students are gone to the library, then the teacher also attends to the CPD activities”.
Similarly, ISP6 stated that timetabling of lesson study should ensure that the classes whose teachers were attending lesson study were left with student activities. He stated that:
There is also a problem of timing on the timetable because we are also strict that learners must have their time to learn. But this should also be structured such that when it happens, it gives less destruction or less distortion to the learning of the students. So sometimes, it is really a challenge to find out what is the appropriate
169 | P a g e
time. You know that is a challenge on its own. And sometimes you have to do that, conduct lesson study [emphasis added], outside teaching time you know. (ISP6)
Challenges in supporting lesson study
Among the challenges faced by in-service providers in supporting lesson study were insufficient funds, the late release of funds for monitoring lesson study activities, an inadequate workforce, and not being directly responsible for monitoring lesson study at the school level.
MOE1 stated that insufficient funds and delays in the release of funds were one of the challenges officers faced. He said that the delays in the disbursement of funds affected the timely support of lesson study activities and sometimes led to the postponement of lesson study monitoring activities for a month or two.
The funding mechanisms of the provincial and district resource centres also posed a challenge. They did not have funds readily available because of the bureaucracy involved in accessing funds from the office of the District Education Board Secretary or the Provincial Education Officer.
If the Ministry could place, maybe, an accountant at this place [resource centre] because they are stand-alone structures which the government has built. If may be an accountant could be attached to those institutions and then they are funded directly… Currently, they rely on the accounting staff at District Education Board Secretary's Office or at Provincial Education Officer's office. And sometimes delays in the release of funds or funds to the co-ordinators to go in the schools and support the teachers. (MOE1)
ISP4 said the funds and transport were not sufficient to allow officers to monitor lesson study activities in all schools. Insufficient funds, according to ISP3, resulted in non- procurement of the essential teaching materials. He added that the Parent Teachers Association had been supporting officers with transport. He further added that the Ministry had invited the public to participate and help with the needed resources. Since officers could not monitor lesson study in all schools, ISP6 explained officers relied on reports from schools.
Concerning the inadequate workforce, ISP1 said there were few Standard Officers to inspect lesson study in all schools. In addition, ISP5 stated that it was difficult replacing retired CPD Co-ordinators, and re-training was needed. Concerning funding and teaching materials,
170 | P a g e
ISP6 said improved funding and provision of teaching materials should have been promoted. Another challenge Ministry officers faced in supporting lesson study was that it was difficult to establish if the lesson study groups were investigating the materials provided by the Ministry.
We are not directly responsible for lesson study. Sometimes you can take these materials to the teachers, and depending on the supervision at local level, they may not be used. So, meaning the impact will not be felt, as we would want it to be. (MOE2)
Because the Ministry Officers did not directly supervise lesson study implementation, ISP6 was worried that “sometimes you can take these materials to the teachers and depending on the supervision at the local level they may not be used”.
According to ISP2, facilitators and not Ministry Officers should have been monitoring the lesson study. She said that instead of having one officer from the Ministry struggle to monitor lesson study in all schools, facilitators should monitor. She added that schools rarely invited Ministry Officers to help them with lesson study, and that all the school calendars should be synchronized with the Ministry calendars to allow Ministry Officers to attend lesson study more frequently.
5.2.2 In-service providers versus Ministry documents
The role of the in-service providers was to ensure that what was written was implemented. Therefore, most of the views they expressed were based on the Ministry documents.
The in-service providers viewed their role of monitoring lesson study implementation as a support mechanism. For example, MOE1 stated that monitoring was a support mechanism, which required more resources. He said, “Sometimes we are not able to monitor and particularly give support to our provinces and districts because we don’t have resources for us to procure fuel and travel those provinces”. Similarly, MOE2 stated that the Ministry had appointed Standards Officers to monitor lesson study among other activities. He said, “We have our Standard Officers, and these Standard Officers are our link”. However, this did not come through clearly from the documents.
171 | P a g e
The Implementation Guidelines had provided the timetable for lesson study cycles that schools should conduct. The in-service providers stated that lesson study was supported at school level through timetabling within the school plan, stating that timetabling helped school administrators to budget for lesson study.
The Implementation Guidelines stated that the CPD activities were included in the annual work plan and budgets. It also stated that those planning lesson study related workshops (that is, the Facilitators’ and Stakeholders’ Workshops) should plan the budget and procurement of materials. The in-services providers stated that the budgetary allocation was necessary for supporting lesson study. They were of the view that budgets for lesson study should stand alone instead of being embedded in the CPD budget. They also stated that adequate funds should be allocated for supporting lesson study, and that such funds should be disbursed on time.
5.3
School administrators’ views on lesson study support
At each of the three case schools, interviews were conducted with the head teacher (referred to here as HTA, HTB, HTC), and the CPD co-ordinator (referred to here as CA and CC). School B had no CPD co-ordinator during the data collection period of this study. The CPD co-co-ordinator was on leave and there was no-one appointed to replace him, with the Deputy Headteacher standing in for him from time to time.
5.3.1 School administrators’ interview responses
This section focusses on views of the school administrators regarding the mechanisms put in place to support the implementation of lesson study.