GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) · GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) Ministry of...

GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP)

Ministry of Education/DFID

Submitted to: The Ministry of Education, Guyana

and DFID

GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT: STUDY TOUR

PLANNING

Prepared by: Frank Courtney, QAA/Wessex International for CfBT 20th – 26th September 2000

Study Tour Planning 1

CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1 Abbreviations 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction and background 4 Key Learning Elements 6 Study Tour Structure 10 Post-Study Tour Activities 12 CPD through Action Research 12 School linking 13 Conclusions and Recommendations 14 Appendices Appendix I Terms of Reference 16 Appendix II List of Persons Interviewed 18 Appendix III Workplan 19 Appendix IV Application Forms 20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Warm thanks are offered to those Guyanese professional colleagues who gave freely of their time, whilst working under considerable pressure and with many other commitments. This consultancy report, more than most, is the product of much subsequent discussion and contact with the GEAP Team. I would therefore particularly like to thank Stephen Bradley, Ed Denham and Paul Worrall for the time they have taken in developing this work. Myrtle Yansen, Diana Swan and Paul December are thanked for their friendly help in Guyana.


ABBREVIATIONS

ACEO Assistant Chief Education Officer ALP Alternative Learning Pathways CXC Caribbean Examination Council CPCE Cyril Potter College of Education DCEO Deputy Chief Education Officer EOP End of Project ERET Employment related education and training EU European Union GBET Guyana Basic Education Teacher Training GEAP Guyana Education Access Project GITC Guyana Industrial Training Centre GOG Government of Guyana GSCE Guyana Secondary Certificate Examination GTEE Guyana Technical Education Examination GTI Government Technical Institute GUIDE Guyana In-service Distance Education IDCE Institute of Distance and Continuing Education ICT Information and Communication Technology LMI Labour Market Information LTI Linden Technical Institute MoE Ministry of Education NCERD National Centre for Education Resources and Development P3E Public–Private Partnerships in Education PAG GEAP Professional Advisory Group PEIP Primary Education Improvement Project PIC Practical Instruction Centres PoA Principles of Accounts PoB Principles of Business PreVoc Pre-vocational education PTA Parent Teacher Association RED Regional Education Department REdO Regional Education Officer SIAC School Improvement Action Committee SIP School Improvement Plan SSRP Secondary School Reform Project SSPE Secondary School Proficiency Examination SME Small and medium sized enterprises TA Technical Assistance TORs Terms of Reference TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training VSO Voluntary Service Overseas


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the provision of two study tours for Headteachers and others from the GEAP schools, Regions 6 and 10 and central Ministry. The first tour will be to other Caribbean states, and the second to the UK. The target groups and the content of the study tours are examined. The context of the tours in education staff development is reviewed and some recommendations made for assessing the integration of staff development, including for education officers. Emphasis is laid on embedding the Study Tours within a Continuous Professional Development framework for all those selected, while further post-Study Tour options are offered for consideration, including a small programme of linking Guyanese and UK schools.


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 This report arises out of a one-week consultancy the aim of which was to determine how

best to provide a distance based professional programme for MoE officials, including study tours as an integral element.

1.2 This aspect of work forms part of Output 4 (Education Management) and Outputs 5 & 6

(Improved Teaching & Improved Learning) of the GEAP project. It was included in the Master Plan and reviewed in the Output to Purpose Review (March 2000). Development of education management within the project includes a range of strategies and inputs: the challenge is to ensure that these form a managed and structured whole which has a demonstrable impact on student achievement.

1.3 As the assignment progressed it became clear that there was general consensus that the

main focus of the professional development should be senior school staff (including Headteachers). These staff should mainly be drawn from the GEAP schools but the groups should also include some Regional MoE officials and a Central MoE Representative.

1.4 A current underlying problem in Guyana is the movement of well-qualified teachers and

other education professionals overseas. There is considerable public and political concern that teachers, having become trained and experienced at Guyana’s expense then take their capabilities elsewhere. In this situation any enhancement of qualification for individual teachers has to be looked at very carefully.

1.5 The overriding view was that it would not be sensible to offer the possibility of a

substantial professional enhancement (for example a Master’s degree) to a very small number of individuals. The expenditure that this would incur would be much better allocated to provide additional professional experience and training to a wider group of individuals. It is thus proposed that a system of action research and individual Continuing Professional Development portfolios be developed to cater for all those involved in the two Study Tours.

1.6 In the light of these points this report focuses mainly on the provision of additional

professional understanding and training gained through study tours, both to the UK and regionally in the Caribbean. The planning for these is described in some detail in this report. If study tours are to be cost effective, the context of the tour is particularly important. In addition to including a strategy for “embedding” the experience of the study tour, some general conclusions were reached during the consultancy about the future integration of Output 4 elements: these are also included in the report.


Terms of Reference

1.7 The Terms of Reference for the consultancy are given in Appendix 1. It became clear at the start of the consultancy that a number of the specific objectives of the consultancy were less relevant once the decision had been taken that a more formal programme of enhancement of qualification was inappropriate (see paragraph 1.5 above). A further problem was that due to a variety of other demands, some key officials were either not available, or were only seen for very brief meetings.

Methodology for the Consultancy 1.8 Pre-consultancy work included a review of documentation and some review also of other

study tour experiences for Caribbean education professionals. The consultant was familiar with most aspects of GEAP, since he has been involved on the Professional Advisory Group since the start of the project. During the consultancy a number of interviews took place with appropriate individuals. These included:

! Ministry officials ! Headteachers ! Project staff for other relevant projects ! GEAP project staff

A list of those interviewed is given in Appendix 2.

1.9 Following the consultancy there was further consultation, some of which was undertaken

by the GEAP Project Director. The outcomes from all these discussions and reviews is included in this report.


2. KEY LEARNING ELEMENTS 2.1 The target group for the proposal includes:

! Headteachers of the GEAP schools ! Senior Staff of GEAP schools (DHM’s, HOD’s, SM’s) ! Regional Education Officers (REdOs)& Counterparts ! Selected Ministry officials

2.2 There was some difference of view concerning the target group amongst those interviewed. Broadly speaking Ministry officials felt that the target group should be restricted to GEAP schools, with perhaps the addition of one or two senior officers. On the other hand, those involved in other projects felt that access to this experience would be beneficial to those working beyond the GEAP schools: concern was expressed that there was relatively little “cross-fertilization” between projects.

2.3 Accreditation was not seen as particularly important, although longer term arrangements

for developing accreditation schemes to take account of experiential learning (including study visits) were identified as helpful.

2.4 A view was expressed that training for education officers was important and that these

were the “forgotten group”. This seems to be borne out from experience elsewhere in the project and a recommendation of this consultancy is that this issue should be reviewed further. At present, education officer training (where it takes place at all) is mainly alongside headteachers. For the most senior education officers there are a range of overseas experiences, which add considerably to understanding of innovative possibilities.

2.5 The learning needs of each element in the target group vary. Broadly speaking they can

be divided into two sub-groups, which will be reflected in the split between the proposed UK study visit and the Caribbean study visit. In addition, a longer term programme of individual teacher development (incorporating action research) is proposed for which the learning objectives will be broader, as will be explained.

Senior Management Needs (UK Visit) 2.6 These will be addressed during the proposed study visit to the UK. It is considered

important that the experience of the individuals is reflected in subsequent developments in their schools: for this reason they will be asked to give some thought about subsequent implementation before the study visit.


2.7 Interviews revealed that there is considerable variability in experience and expertise

amongst heads and other senior staff in GEAP schools. The aim of this part of the proposal would be to enable participants to observe and learn about positive management of change in schools. Of overriding importance is the need for participants to see the impact of school planning in practice. This builds on the work undertaken by John Hilsum in school development planning. For Regional Officers also, some explanation and understanding of the impact of UK LEA planning is seen to be valuable. In addition the following areas of experience were identified:

! The role of the Headteacher and other managers in the school ! Involvement of the community in schools, including parents, governors and School

Boards ! The development of literacy ! Working with children with special educational needs ! The use and impact of information and communications technology (ICT) ! Management and Development of Continuing Professional Development & INSET

programmes ! Relating schools to the workplace, including work experience and career guidance.

2.8 Participants will themselves influence which areas of activity form the main focus for

their visit. It is envisaged that the group will be together for about half the time, and work in smaller sub-groups for about half the time. Throughout the visit the sub-groups will have time to cross refer, so that experience is reflected on and shared across the whole group.

Curriculum Manager Needs (Caribbean Visit) 2.9 In terms of actual needs there is clearly some overlap with the more senior group. In this

case the aim will be to enable participants to gain a greater understanding of how to deliver educational change in a Caribbean context. By seeing examples of successful change implementation, it is considered that this will act as a considerable stimulus and encouragement.

2.10 The main areas to be covered will be:

! School, Parent & Community Links and School & Employment links ! Literacy and numeracy development ! Industrial arts ! English language work ! Mathematics ! ICT

2.11 Again it is anticipated that participants will themselves influence the areas they focus on. It is proposed that the group works together in Barbados and then splits into three sub-groups, visiting St Lucia and Dominica respectively. The group will reconvene in Georgetown at the end of the visit and exchange experience.


The Learning Strategy 2.12 To be effective, the study tour needs to part of a coherent learning strategy. It is

proposed therefore that in the case of both the UK and Caribbean experience each participant will experience the stages outlined in Fig. 1 below:

Figure 1 Stages in the Study Tour Process UK Study Tour Caribbean Study Tour

1 Identification of key areas of

study Initial Circulation of Information and

seeking expressions of Interest

2 Division of subject areas

amongst the pre-selected group. Confirmation of individuals interest in allotted subject area.

Each Participant to draft a short proposal showing: ! Identification of main areas of

interest ! Description of how one element

will be reviewed within the school on return after visit

3 Initial proposal by individuals

on aspirations of study tour Review of Proposal with GEAP Staff

member 4 One day workshop for participants to develop study agendas for their area. (Confirmed

itinerary for Study Tour received)

5 STUDY VISIT 6 End of Visit Meeting in UK

to establish next steps for each individual

End of Visit Meeting in Georgetown to establish next steps for each individual

7 Workshop to develop Action Plans and Action Research Proposals for each individual

related to Study Tour Sphere of Interest 8 Initial Implementation &

Research phase in Guyana RED’s and Schools

Initial Implementation & Research phase in Guyana schools (3 months)

9 CONFERENCE /WORKSHOP: PAPERS ON THE ACTION PLANS AND ACTION

RESEARCH ARE PRESENTED BY PARTICIPANTS 10 Development of Further CPD Portfolios for all participants of study tours


2.13 For most participants in study tours the most difficult aspect is linking the new

experience with the potential in their home situation. There is always the danger that an unfamiliar professional environment will lead the participant to discount the value of the experience because of its perceived lack of relevance. The programmes are designed to counter this problem.

2.14 A strong view was expressed that tutorial support for the visits was important. In

particular the need for participants to be facilitated in reflecting on their experience in the evenings was mentioned by two of the individuals interviewed. Throughout their UK experience the participants will be accompanied by one or more UK consultants with familiarity of the Guyana education scene. In the Caribbean, there will be a GEAP officer on their arrival, and it is hoped that GEAP team members will be present in some of the subsequent island locations where there might be logistic problems and/or greater difficulty in ensuring that the lessons to be learned from the visits may be less clear-cut.


3. STUDY VISIT STRUCTURE 3.1 A key element in the structure of the visits will be flexibility and responsiveness. Thus

the following outline should be seen as indicative rather than finalised. 3.2 The proposed programme for the UK visit is as follows: DATE TIME ACTIVITY Tuesday March 20th Depart Georgetown Wednesday March 21st Arrive London / Transfer to Hotel (Reading area) 17.00 Introductory meting with QAA & CfBT Thursday March 22nd am Introduction to the UK education scene / Workshop & Question & Answer Session pm Visit to CfBT Literacy Project evening Individual tutorial sessions to review objectives Friday March 23rd am School visit (in groups to focus on specialist areas) pm Review meetings / exchange information / discuss next Week’s programme Saturday March 24th all day At leisure – London area (cultural programme to be offered) Sunday March 25th am Transfer to Bristol Hotel Monday March 26th am Introduction to the programme pm School visit (see below) Tuesday March 27th am School visit (see comment below) pm Workshop: School Development Planning Wednesday March 28th am Special focus day – programme according to pm area of interest Thursday March 29th am Workshop: The Role of the Community in Schools pm Personal work time evening Individual tutorial meetings Friday March 30th am Special focus day - programme according to

pm area of interest evening Theatre visit Saturday March 31st / Sunday April 1st Cultural programme to be offered Monday April 2nd am School visit (see comment below) pm Workshop: ICT in practice evening Study visit dinner Tuesday April 3rd am Review of Action Plans pm Transfer to Gatwick/Heathrow Hotel Wednesday April 4th Depart London Gatwick / Heathrow for Georgetown


3.3 School visits will be undertaken in small groups (6-8) and will be matched to interests

and individual objectives. 3.4 Workshops will be led by specialists in the field who may be Headteachers, Education

Officers, Advisers and/or Consultants. Caribbean Study Visit 3.5 As already noted, the broad structure of the visit will be that participants travel together

to Barbados where they will work together. They will then divide and sub-groups will visit Dominica, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines respectively. The proposed programme is as follows:

DATE TIME ACTIVITY Sunday March 11th Depart Georgetown and travel to Barbados Monday March 12th am Introduction to developments in Barbados (Principal of

Barbados Community College, Chief Education Officer or similar level officer)

pm visit to Barbados Community College evening Individual tutorial meetings with participants to review objectives Tuesday March 13th am School visits with specific interest focus pm Review meeting with senior Barbados colleagues evening Dinner with Barbados guests Wednesday March 14th am Preparation for island visits pm Travel to Dominica, St Lucia and St Vincent &

the Grenadines respectively

Thursday March 15th am Introduction to the education developments in the 3 Individual locations (led by Education Officer Planning,. Chief Inspector or similar)

pm School visits with specific interest focus Friday March 16th am Visit to Community College and/or location of specific

Interest focus pm Review meeting with senior official(s), Headteachers, etc Saturday March 17th Return to Georgetown 3.6 More details of the individual island activities will be negotiated and made available

after the consultant’s planning visit in early February. 4. POST STUDY TOUR ACTIVITIES


4.1 Study Tour & Continuing Professional Development 4.1.1 As already explained, it is important to see the Study Tours as a component of a Continuing Professional Development Programme for all members of the target group. Figure 1, in Section 2 / page 8, outlines a 10 stage sequence which makes up the overall programme. The Study Tour, albeit a crucial ingredient, is but one of these stages, which each individual tour member will be contracted to complete in return for the investment made. To a certain extent, the culmination of the programme is Stage 9, the Education Conference/Workshop, where participants will present papers, based on research and action plans stimulated by the Study Tours. 4.1.2 Table 1 below comments on key stages within the overall programme, with the stage numbers referring to those in Figure 1 on page 8 of Section 2 above. Table 1 – Commentary on key stages in the CPD Programme

Stage Description 4

(One-day preparation workshop)

For UK Study Tour members, this will be an opportunity to develop their own study agendas within the known itinerary of the visit. For those participating in the Caribbean Tour it will be a chance to revise the research / study proposals that they prepared as part of the presentation for interview under Stage 3. For both groups, individuals will identify key issues to investigate, agree questions to have answered on completion, and identify areas relevant to their own working situation. There will be an individual, school and regional/national component to each aspect of an individual’s study agenda

6

(End of visit

meeting)

This stage will allow ST members to review their study agendas to see how far they have managed to achieve their goals. This will also be the first chance to look at action plans that each member might develop in terms of changes in their own environments and in disseminating new found knowledge to colleagues at school and regional/national level.

7

(Workshop to develop

Action Plans)

As a result of the study tour all participants will be expected to develop full action plans based on the activities in Stage 6. There will also be a piece of Action Research that should, if possible, derive directly from the study tour. (this Action Research could be part of a needs analysis for an action plan; a series of monitoring activities in relation to an action plan; or it could focus on another area of interest that developed out of the study tour).

8

(Initial implementa

-tion)

This involves a period of implementation and research based on the workshop. There would be a set period for the submission of the research programme and then there would be ongoing monitoring of the activities decided under the action plans. Tutorial style support from the RA would be available, though report outlines for research would have been supplied and developed as part of the workshop under Stage 7.

9

(Conf. / Workshop)

After a period of 3-6 months (TBC) the research papers and results of action plans will form the central focus of a workshop/conference. Short papers on each participants activities both at the study tour and research/action planning phases of the CPD programme will be presented to a wide cross section of the education community of Guyana.

10

(Further CPD /

portfolios)

Further opportunities for self-study might be identified by participants, both in the form of action research proposals funded by GEAP and/or training opportunities for individuals. Applications for such funds will be reviewed on their individual merit and acceptance will be contingent on the availability of project funds.


4.2 School linking 4.2.1 4.2.2

An additional outcome of the Study Tours programme could be to set up long term links between some of the GEAP schools and schools in the UK. The objective of these links would be to provide continuing professional contact between teachers in the UK and in Guyana. This was seen as potentially valuable by those interviewed. During the period of the study visit to the UK, each pair of schools would work together to identify an action plan for future activity. (In some similar exercises, these links have eventually led to small numbers of school pupils visiting each other, although this is not seen as the main objective). It is proposed that six such links are initiated. Schools in Guyana will be invited to identify themselves to take part in this part of the programme. Once the individual GEAP schools have been identified, prior to the visit, arrangements will be made in the UK to identify schools with some measure of commonality in terms of size and age range of pupils. In both Guyana and the UK, it will also be very important to identify schools who are enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term connection.

4.2.3 Funding has been identified from the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers (LECT) to enable UK staff from the participating schools to visit Guyana at a later date. The funding envisages that the teachers will stay mainly in the homes of their Guyana colleagues and they will therefore be expected to offer some measure of introductory hospitality to Guyana colleagues whilst the latter are in the UK (although it is envisaged that the Guyanese visitors will continue to live in their hotels whilst in the UK). Hopefully it will be possible for teachers to maintain their contact mainly by e-mail.

4.2.4 In order to take this proposal further forward, more details of what will be involved will be provided to the GEAP professional team so that they can seek to identify participants from within Guyana.


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A key element in GEAP is the construction of new schools. The original conception of

the project was that along with new buildings in the GEAP regions would go a transformation of childrens’ educational experience. This would require substantial advances in education management and changes and innovations in classroom practice. The purpose of the study visits is to contribute to these changes.

• Study visits, however effective and stimulating in themselves, can however only be part

of the development. To take one example, the Ministry of Education Chief Planning Officer indicated that she thought some experience of the UK’s school inspection system (OFSTED) would be valuable. Clearly the UK inspection experience over the last few years is of very considerable interest. However the critical question this raises (and will be raised by visiting Guyanese professionals) is: what is the Guyana context and, in particular, what is the context for the GEAP schools? In other words, is the understanding of OFSTED simply academic or will there be some proposal at some time in the future to develop Guyana education inspection systems? If so, how and when?

• The example of inspection is only one area where the general education development

strategy for the GEAP schools and more widely in Guyana is unclear. To some extent this is inevitable, given the limited resource of GEAP and the inevitable (and necessary) emphasis on getting the new schools built. Nevertheless, until it becomes more explicit and agreed between stakeholders it is likely that progress will be limited.

• A particular concern, raised earlier in this report is that there appears to be no strategy

for education officer training, either within GEAP or more widely. Until education officers are “brought into the loop” and their specific training needs addressed, it is likely that professional education development of the system as a whole will be slow and hesitant.

• Throughout this consultancy there was reference to low morale amongst the education

profession in Guyana. Morale is a strange and elusive concept: there are few teachers anywhere in the world who describe themselves as having high morale although, somewhat paradoxically there are many who would say that they enjoy working with children and feel they do a useful job.

• There is now a considerable body of material about the factors that contribute to low

morale amongst professionals of particular groups. There is also evidence to show that low morale leads to poor performance and disappointing outcomes, in turn contributing to a “downward spiral” of negativity. There is, however, also much experience of the steps that can be taken to reverse this process. These are not necessarily either difficult or expensive and a very good time to start is when there are palpable infrastructure developments – such as new schools being built. This is why GEAP has a particular opportunity to contribute towards a positive change in morale for Guyana teachers as a whole. It is also true that – even before new schools are opened – there are good and exciting things going on in the Guyana education system. All this needs making explicit (celebrating) and building together. To achieve this requires a national action plan, agreed at Minister level, but in which GEAP could well take a lead. The opportunity is there to be taken.


Recommendations 1. That the Study Tours as described in the main body of the report are implemented, in the

context of a planned pre- and post-tour programme which places emphasis on an individually-based CPD element

Action: QAA Consultant and GEAP Team

2. The MoE is encouraged to review staff development across projects and more widely, to establish how far there might be some common strategy

Action: MoE, DFID and GEAP Team

3. Some analysis takes place of the specific needs of education officers and steps are taken to investigate how these needs may be addressed

Action: GEAP Project Director and PAG

4. The proposed school linking programme be implemented Action: QAA Consultant and GEAP Team

5. Some analysis take place of how specific school and regional education management strategies link in to overall plans for development in Guyana

Action: MoE, supported by DFID, GEAP Team and PAG

6. An action plan be produced identifying the necessary steps for raising teacher morale in

Guyana Action: MoE, supported by DFID, GEAP Team and PAG


Appendix 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT Draft Terms of Reference for a consultancy on:

PLANNING A DISTANCE-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMME FOR KEY MoE OFFICIALS, TO INCLUDE STUDY TOURS AS AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT

Wednesday September 20th to Friday September 29th 2000

Section 1 – Title of consultancy

Planning a distance-based Professional Development Programme for MoE officials, to include Study Tours as an integral component

Section 2 - Background 2.1 The Guyana Education Access Project aims to pilot full access to secondary education in its

two target zones within Regions 6 and 10. Inputs are focused on:

• Provision of new / refurbished schools • Increasing access and participation • Improving teaching & learning • Improving educational management • Procurement of support resources (computers, books and teaching/science materials)

2.2 Improving the management capacity of MoE officials, particularly at Regional level, is a key

GEAP objective (see Output 4 of the Logframe). Developing management skills has begun at both school and regional office levels through consultancy visits, workshops & the development of SIPs (John Hilsum & Pat Murgatroyd – late 1999) and through on-going support by the GEAP Regional Advisers in each of the project target zones. A further round of workshops with John Hilsum as Facilitator is planned for October / November of this year.

2.3 There is a view amongst the key project stakeholders, however, that a more formal training

programme, at an advanced level, is needed for a select number of officials in order to develop a cadre of well trained officials who are fully equipped to carry through Guyana’s long-term education reform programme, in particular at the secondary level.

2.4 There seems to be general acceptance that a distance-based format would be the best way to

deliver such a professional development programme. However, several important issues concerning the organization and delivery of a PDP need to be examined and relevant decision made. Areas which need review include (at least):

• course content / outline schedule of studies


• provider institutes • level of course in terms of qualification (or levels if an ‘incremental’ programme can be

devised) • identification and number of course members • issues surrounding the background qualification levels of potential course members

(including the • possible need to screen candidates) • selection of personnel • delivery modalities • the timing and role of Study Tours as an integral element of the programme

2.5 Decisions on all the above must be seen within the larger framework of costs, (both in and

outside Guyana), a likely time-frame and, very importantly, other MoE-led strategic & planning initiatives within the area of human resource capacity building & development.

Section 3 – Specific objectives of the consultancy The consultant will:

• meet appropriate MoE / officials (central & Regional) • review advanced / qualification-oriented training programmes already delivered to MoE

staff (eg. by other donor-agencies) • meet and interview nominated / potential candidates for a PDP • discuss objectives, modalities and other issues with MoE officials and the GEAP team,

with a particular focus on how different areas of specialisation can be incorporated within a single programme

• plan the content, implementation and integration of the Study Tours within the larger framework of the distance-based PDP

• draw up a range of scenarios for a distance-based PDP, including options for the programme to lead to different levels of qualification (eg. Certificate, Diploma, MA/MEd)

• lead a briefing session with key officials (perhaps in the form of a special Project Monitoring Committee Meeting ) at the end of the visit to outline key issues and agree a way forward

Section 4 - Report & recommendations The consultant will produce a draft report within three weeks of the completion of the consultancy visit. The report must include clear recommendations as to the way forward, including (at least):

• an outline course content (or content permutations, if appropriate) • an outline time-frame for the delivery of a full distance programme • a detailed costing, showing the unit cost per course member over different • cohort numbers (this will be of importance if it is agreed that a larger number • of course members is desirable over the original idea of 4 only) • a plan outlining how the Study Tours will be incorporated within the programme • an outline of expected roles / inputs of the in-country GEAP team


Appendix 2 List of Persons Interviewed Mrs Evelyn Hamilton, Chief Planning Officer, Ministry of Education Mr Hector Patterson, Special Adviser to the Minister of Education Mrs Whyte-Nedd, Deputy Chief Education Officer (Development) Mr Samuel Small, Director, IDCE Ms Jan Draper, Project Manager, GBET Project Ms F Dalgetty, GUIDE Project Ms Yvette Phillips, Headteacher, Linden Foundation School Ms Miriam Gilles, Headteacher, New Silver City School, Linden Mr Hydar Ally, Permanent Secretary


Appendix 3

GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT

Programme for consultancy visit by: Mr Frank Courtney

On: Planning a distance-based professional development programme for Key MOE

officials, to include study tours as an integral element & facilitating a GEAP logframe review session

Wednesday 20th September to Wednesday 4th October 2000

DAY/TIME ACTIVITY

Wednesday 20th September 10.00 Meeting with Mrs E. Hamilton, Chief Planning Officer 11.00 Meeting with Mr H. Patterson, Special Adviser 12.30 Meeting with Ms D. Chapman, ACEO (Sec) 14.00 Meeting with Mrs Whyte-Nedd, Ag. CEO

Thursday 21st September 09.00 Meeting with Mr Hydar Ally, Permanent Secretary 10.15 Meeting with Mr S. Small (IDCE) 11.00 Meeting with Ms Jan Draper, GBET 12.00 Meeting with Ms F. Dalgetty (GUIDE) 15.00 To Linden – with PD

Accommodation at Watooka

Friday 22nd September Morning Meetings as arranged with GEAP RA (to fit in with Site Visit for Linden

Foundation School) Afternoon Return to Georgetown – with PD & Andrew Borthwick

Saturday 23rd and Sunday 24th September Week-end – no appointments

Monday 25th September 09.00 Meeting with Mr T. Thomas, Principal Personnel Officer 10.15 Meeting with Mr R. Mangar, Chairman, Teaching Service Commission 11.00 Meeting with Dr Ken Hunt SSRP


Appendix 4: Draft Letter of Application

NCERD Compound 3 Battery Road, Kingston Georgetown, GUYANA

Tel: +592 (0)2 38145 Fax +592 (0)2 38146

Email: [email protected] To: Appropriate MoE personnel Ref: GEAP/???

Regions 6 & 10 November ?? 2000

CARIBBEAN STUDY TOUR – INFORMATION, APPLICATION PROCEDURES and APPLICATION FORM

Background - GEAP is planning a study tour to Caribbean countries for a selected group of Deputy Headteachers, Heads of Department and Senior Teachers from the GEAP secondary schools. It is envisaged that the tour will take place in March 2001, for a period of approximately 7 days. The maximum number of places available on the Study Tour will be 12. Purpose of tour - Study Tour members will visit a range of educational establishments in order to evaluate good practice in the following curriculum areas: Industrial Arts, English, Mathematics, Literacy and School-Community-Business Links (with particular reference to Employment Related Education and Training). The overall purpose of the visit is to inform and benefit work that MoE / GEAP personnel are doing in the project areas within Regions 6 & 10. Criteria for selection - for your application to be successful, you will: (a) have been involved with GEAP activities in your region (b) have demonstrated a commitment to the MoE’s long-term objectives for Secondary

education (c) show that you understand key issues relating to your special area of interest (d) commit yourself to any follow-up requirements that MoE/GEAP may attach to the Study

Tour, including the writing of a post-Study Tour Report and the preparation of a mini-Action Plan which will ensure that the benefits of the Study Tour are passed on

Costs and general preparations for the Study Tour - GEAP will cover all Study Tour expenses. However, participants will be expected to obtain their own passports. Application procedure - if you are interested in applying for a place on the study tour, please complete the application form attached and return the form to Project Director, GEAP (Study Tours), NCERD Complex, 3 Battery Road, Kingston, Georgetown by no later than December 22nd 2000. Selection interviews for short-listed applicants will be held in each GEAP Region in late January / early February, with decisions ratified by central Ministry. Please note the limited number of places (12) available. S Bradley / PROJECT DIRECTOR


GEAP Caribbean Study Tour - Application Form

Name: School: Qualifications: Number of Years in Teaching: Curriculum Area: Why are you interested in joining the study tour? How will involvement in the study tour benefit your own personal professional development? How will involvement in the study tour benefit your school?

Please provide any other comments / information in support of your application:

To be completed by the applicant’s Headteacher Please make comments in support of the application

Applicant’s signature: Date: Headteacher’s signature: Date:

GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) · GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) Ministry of...

Documents

Transcript of GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) · GUYANA EDUCATION ACCESS PROJECT (GEAP) Ministry of...