Transcript Slide 1

Enhancing the impact of DFID and DCSF global education
programmes in schools
Final Report
28th October 2009
on behalf of …
Contents
Page
1. Executive Summary
3
2. Issues to address
4
i. Vision
ii. Delivery System
iii. Priority Action
iv. Governance
3. Actions to tackle the issues
9
i. Vision
ii. Delivery System
iii. Priority Actions
iv. Governance
4. Annexes
17
2
Executive summary
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
3
There are four sets of issues to address in order to enhance the impact of DFID and
DCSF programmes
Issues to address
1
Clarify a joint
vision and strategy
• 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
2
Better alignment
across delivery
systems
3
Prioritise high
impact actions
4
Strengthen
evaluation and
governance
• 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
• 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
• 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
Desired Outcomes
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
4
Issue 1 - clarifying a joint DFID and DCSF vision based on the common ground and
interests between the two departments
1
DCSF
“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 cooperation.
• 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.
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’
“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.
5
Issue 2 – ensuring an effective and coherent delivery system that is aligned
behind the vision
2
National
• No mechanism for
joining up
organisations
• No overall leadership
• Not maximising
impact of DCSF
NDPBs
• Limited leverage over
organisations
delivering provision
DEA
DFID
British
Council
DCSF JIU
DERC
QCDA
EES
Regional
Network
Ofsted
GO
TDA
RNIL
Range of NGOs/voluntary sector
organisations
DECs
School
PFS
Regional
• Three overlapping
structures - variable
quality
• Failing to maximise
influence of GO on
LAs and DCSF policy
SSAT
* Please see Annex A for a full
list of abbreviations used here
and Annexes B and C for
delivery system maps
HTI
Local
Authority
CfBT/LECT
ECOTEC
School
• Some schools cite
international work in
their SEFs
• Only about 33% of
schools with award
display ISA logo on
website
BECTA
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
6
Issue 3 – maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’
delivery system
3
Key influences in the system
Professional voice
• Winning the moral argument
• Support from professional associations and NDPBs
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
Current issues with ‘mainstreaming’
• 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
* Key DCSF NDPBs include: National College, Partnership for
Schools, Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency,
Training and Development Agency for Schools,
7
4
Issue 4 – ensuring impact and value for taxpayers’ money from the way
programmes are structured and governed
•
14
12
[£4 m]
•
10
8
•
09-10 (£m)
6
4
•
2
0
DFID
EC
DCSF
BC
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.
* Combined DCSF, DFID, British Council
and European Commission spend in
2009-10. Individual sums are
approximate.
4
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
[£4 m]
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
Action is needed in four main areas to tackle the issues
1
Clarify a joint
vision and strategy
2
Better alignment
across delivery
systems
• 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
3
Prioritise high
impact actions
• Maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system
• Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of linking/visits programmes
Strengthen
evaluation and
governance
• 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
4
10
A joint overarching vision can be achieved by setting out the common ground
with a specific focus for each department
1
Common ground
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
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
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 11
1
And, defining objectives, outcomes and the benefits that underpin the vision
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
Benefits
Objectives
Outcomes
Equipping children
and young people
for life in a global
society:
Children and
young people who
feel aware of
global issues that
affect their lives
• Increased motivation:
children eager to learn
about the things they
care about
Teachers who feel
confident about
teaching global
issues
• An engaging
curriculum can lead to
better achievement at
school across a range
of subjects
•Giving
experiences of
global issues
•Increasing
understanding of
global issues
•Changing
attitudes towards
global issues
School leadership
which sees school
in global context
Parents engaging
with school
• The school achieves its
broader duties around
community cohesion,
sustainable schools
and Children's Plan
objectives
* 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.
12
The regional layer of the delivery system can be strengthened by bringing together
existing roles and responsibilities under new arrangements
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
13
And, any new delivery arrangements must ensure close alignment with the
Government Office to better ‘mainstream’ support and challenge
2
Example GO Structure (London)
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
Community Cohesion
• Dedicated community
cohesion and faith team
• Focused on delivering
broad CLG community
cohesion agenda
• 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
Regional
Director
Deputy Director
Support 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
14
Existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system need to be
maximised
3
Three sets of action
Professional voice
and NDPBs
Statutory Duties
Accountability and
Awards
• 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
• 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
• 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
* 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
15
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
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
Consider larger investment(s) in fewer more
substantial delivery programmes?
Given the patchy evidence, consider reducing/reprioritising 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?
16
All programmes should be governed effectively by a new joint board to ensure
maximum impact and value for money
4
Ministerial Bilateral
[DCSF and DFID]
• Receives issues escalated from the Officials Strategy Group
• Invite other Minsters (e.g. FCO ) if and when necessary
• Meet quarterly
Officials Strategy Group
[JIU, DCSF (sustainable schools,
community cohesion,
curriculum) and DFID]
• 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
Operational Delivery Group
[JIU, DCSF (sustainable
schools, community cohesion,
curriculum), DFID, BC, DEA,
and large major programmes]
• 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
17
Annex A – Abbreviations
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
PFS
Partnership 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
HTI
Head teachers into Industry (charity focussed
on developing school leaders and links to
business)
IAESTE
International Association for the Exchange of
Students for Technical Experience
18
Annex B - present main DFID delivery system for BSDS
DFID
• Establish initial policy and strategy
• Fund organisations and initiatives
• Monitor progress
DEA
• Manage the Global Dimension Website
• Policy research and advocacy
• Support networks
British
Council
DERC
• Manage the DFID Global
School Partnerships
programme
• Provides research evidence
EES
Regional
Network
DECs
• Build capacity to ensure global
issues are taught
• Equip teachers with tools and skills
• Build links between schools NGO
and LA
• 45 DECs work with
schools to support
global dimension
delivery
Local
Authority
• Advisory support for schools and
whole of children services
• Form cross sector partnerships
School
Vol Sect
Plan
• Resources for schools ; support and training
for teachers
GTF
• Manage the DAF
Damaris
• Manage the Global Student
Forum
19
Annex C - DCSF delivery system for related international objectives for schools
DCSF JIU
British
Council
SSAT
HTI
CfBT/LECT
ECOTEC
Gemini
• Establish initial policy and strategy
• Fund organisations and initiatives, monitor progress
• Curriculum design, Sustainable schools and community cohesion
• Promotes partnerships, CPD and curriculum projects through Connecting Classrooms
• manages the Global Gateway, TIPD, International School Award, bilateral and
multilateral linking programmes
Local
Authority
• Advisory support for schools
colleges and children's services
• Form cross sector partnerships
• TIPD visits, linking programme with France
• TIPD visit s
RNIL
• Promote the international
dimension
• Training for teachers
GO
• Support for sustainable
development, Community
Cohesion
School
• TIPD visits, Commonwealth Teacher exchange
• Delivers EU funded programmes
• Tool for international partnerships - Rafi-ki
VCS
BECTA
PFS
OFSTED
• Inspects against 4 levels of community cohesion
NCSL
• International Learning Leadership Programme
QCA
• Provides curriculum guidance
20
Annex D – a guide to developing indicators for tracking overall progress and the
Overview
contribution of key delivery agents
Effective indicators have four key characteristics
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
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
Stronger leadership
focus
• E.g. through sample of
school Self Evaluation
Forms (SEFs)
Better curriculum
Better teaching
materials
More confident
teachers
• E.g. through school
surveys
• E.g. through surveys of
• E.g. through survey of
teachers
teachers or independent
evaluation
Impact
• Experiences
• Understanding
• Attitudes
• Children feel more aware
of global issues - e.g. Tell Us survey
21