Presenter:DrMuaviaGallie(PhD)

School Turnaround

Allourlearnerscanandshouldbesuccessfulinourschools.

SAPA-GPExcellentSchools

byDesign

www.slideshare.netRegistertodownload– itisfreeSearch– SAPAGPExcellence

Website:www.schoolturnaroundfoundation.org.za

FacebookPage:SchoolTurnaroundFoundation

Website:www.movingup.co.za

WHY?Theneedtoshiftfrom

DYSFUNCTIONALITYBYDESIGN(Apartheid/ColonialEducation)

toEXCELLENCEBYDESIGN

TIMSS 2003 - Applying Maths

2003

The

Incl

usiv

e G

row

th

and

Dev

elop

men

t Rep

ort

2017

Insi

ght R

epor

t

Janu

ary

2017

Part 1. Rising to the Challenge of Inclusive Growth and Development

14 | The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2017

Part 1. Rising to the Challenge of Inclusive Growth and Development

The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2017 | 15

robust legal and competition frameworks. They help channel

savings efficiently to employment-generating and productivity-

enhancing investment opportunities in the real economy

as well as support consumer demand and small-scale

entrepreneurship through widespread access to financial

services.

Core labor standards, worker protections, and benefits enable

wages and household income to rise roughly in line with labor

productivity, supporting domestic consumption and aggregate

demand. They can also reinforce growth by supporting labor

mobility, adjustment, and skills acquisition. Policies that support

broad access to small business loans, housing finance,

pension savings, and employee ownership help to democratize

the generation of wealth and share the gains in national income

from the economy’s technical progress and its accumulating

capital stock. The accompanying wealth effect similarly

stimulates domestic consumption and demand.

to operate in a self-reinforcing cycle in which rising economic

output and social inclusion feed each other.

Fair and efficient taxation and basic social protections feature

at the beginning and end of a continuing cycle within the

development process. They are important not only for addressing

excess inequality resulting from market outcomes but also for

mobilizing resources to support crucial public services such

as education and physical infrastructure, which are vital to

the creation of economic opportunity, functioning of markets,

and thus inception and ongoing stimulation of the growth

process itself.

Sound legal and competition institutions support efficient

resource allocation and equal opportunity by preventing

corruption, unduly high barriers to entry, and concentration

of rents due to regulatory capture. Investment climate rules,

incentives, and institutional capacity are important for enabling

investors to capitalize on the level playing field created by

Building blocks of human

potential and opportunity

Equitable taxation and

social protection

Sound institutions, business and political ethics

Productive allocation of

financial resources

Good jobs, wages and livelihoods

Pillar 5Asset Building

and Entrepreneurship

Pillar 6Employment and

Labor Compensation

Pillar 7Fiscal

Transfers

Pillar 1Education and

Skills DevelopmentPillar 2Basic Services and Digital Infrastructure

Pillar 3Corruption and Rents

Pillar 4Financial Intermediation

of Real Economy Investment

Rethinking the Nature and Role of Structural Reform

This Framework represents an alternative way of thinking about

structural economic reform and its role in the development

process. Structural reform usually refers to measures aimed at

boosting economic efficiency and macroeconomic stability by

sharpening market signals and improving the health of public

finances, often in response to a recent or looming fiscal or

balance-of-payments crisis. In such circumstances, they tend

to have the effect of squeezing living standards in the short

term. But a systematic, sustained effort to strengthen

institutions and policy incentives across the Framework’s

15 sub-domains – or to address particular weaknesses

identified therein – also constitutes an exercise in structural

reform, albeit one that mixes demand- and supply-side

measures for the express purpose of boosting broad living

standards while reinforcing the rate and resilience of growth.

This rebalanced and enlarged notion of structural reform is

best pursued as a long-term strategy forming an integral part

of the development process rather than as a crash effort to

preempt or recover from a crisis.53 If a society is seeking a

more inclusive model of economic growth, then the deliberate

and progressive cultivation of institutional strength in these

areas must be placed at the heart of its growth strategy,

because these are the frameworks and mechanisms that

constitute its economy’s implicit income distribution system

– the mechanism by which the social benefits of economic

growth are diffused widely in the form of broad-based

progress in living standards (employment, income, security,

and quality of life).

The essential measure of the inclusiveness of a society’s

growth model is the extent to which it produces broad gains

in living standards before fiscal transfers. For this reason, six of

the Framework’s seven main pillars relate to structural policy

and institutional factors that influence the composition of

private-sector activity and the distribution of outcomes within

the market itself. In particular, because wages and returns to

self-employment and small-business ownership constitute

a very high percentage of the income of all but the wealthiest

households, factors that shape these elements of national

income figure prominently in the indicators that have been

assembled.

At the same time, since the focus of this exercise is inclusive

growth and development rather than social inclusion per se,

the set of policies and institutions it highlights and the specific

benchmarking indicators it chooses must be consistent with

the promotion of economic dynamism and growth. An inclusive

If these key enabling factors are in place, a strong entrepreneurial

and investment culture takes hold, fostering competitive

industries and quality employment opportunities that in turn

support domestic demand. Coming full circle, robust domestic

demand spurs further investment and stimulates increases in

growth via an efficient and fair tax system that generates the

additional public resources needed to increase investment in

the quality of the country’s basic services, infrastructure, and

social safety net – widening economic opportunity and output

still further.

To help governments and stakeholders understand the extent

to which this policy and institutional ecosystem has been

optimized in their country, a database of cross-country statistical

indicators has been compiled in each sub-pillar, permitting

comparison at the pillar, sub-pillar, and individual indicator level

within peer groups. These Policy and Institutional Indicators

(PIIs) yield a distinct profile of each country’s institutional

strength and utilization of policy space relative to its peers.

These country profiles of benchmarking data are like diagnostic

scans of each country’s structural policy and institutional

enabling environment as it relates to their capacity to capture

the synergies between growth and social inclusion. They

illustrate the distance from best practice in their peer group in

areas that particularly matter for driving broad-based progress

in living standards. The results are presented in four groups of

countries based on level of economic development as

measured by national income.

Tables 13-16 display the four groups of countries, comparing

the pillar and sub-pillar scores of each country via a traffic-light

shading scheme that ranks countries relative to their group.

Red corresponds to the lowest relative performance within the

group, yellow to the median, and dark green to the best

performance. Since this color scheme ranks countries only

within each comparator group, colors are not comparable

across income groups. However, the absolute numerical score

values (on a scale of 1 to 7) that are displayed in each data

field are largely comparable across the entire sample of 109

countries. When countries are missing data, this is indicated by

white shading and a numerical value of N/A. If data is missing

for more than 30% of indicators, the sub-pillar score is also left

blank. See Part 3 for a full description of the methodology. In

addition to the cross-country sub-pillar tables presented in this

Report, the version of the Report available online includes full

individual country data profiles (wef.ch/igd17). These Country

Profiles list the score for every indicator within every sub-pillar

for each country covered by the Report. An example of a full

country profile is included below in Part 2.

Figure 5: Virtuous Circle of Inclusive Growth and Development

WEF

Fig.6: Varying Role of redistribution in Reducing Inequality

Current‘through-put’inEducationComparing Grades 1-12 from 1999 to 2016 Gap Now %Learner Gap Trace %Learner

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Gr1 & 12 Retained Years Years

1999 1 318 932 1 223 529 1 194 425 1 167 683 1 087 829 998 705 937 741 1 043 067 917 239 840 803 738 220 571 848 747 084 43%

2000 1 055 397 1 090 765 1 178 712 1 167 949 1 088 836 1 009 782 936 454 1 039 547 922 566 836 962 724 192 549 203 506 194 52%

2001 1 150 637 944 961 1 087 675 1 175 860 1 098 863 1 023 269 932 151 1 068 479 916 280 846 655 709 508 488 352 662 285 42%

2002 1 286 591 1 012 892 949 721 1 076 107 1 142 806 1 038 679 958 932 936 392 1 089 404 876 175 719 952 486 786 799 805 38% 430 453 53%

2003 1 277 499 1 111 858 1 003 331 952 465 1 035 707 1 101 740 987 876 976 750 902 129 1 096 214 736 720 475 069 802 430 37% 567 998 46%

2004 1 303 016 1 109 201 1 081 956 985 139 916 911 997 365 1 050 554 1 010 710 914 729 1 057 935 829 137 505 392 797 624 39% 432 349 54%

2005 1 233 581 1 118 690 1 078 001 1 061 770 951 372 898 493 972 542 1 052 499 930 797 1 069 494 839 009 538 909 694 672 44% 459 796 54%

2006 1 185 198 1 081 652 1 099 319 1 072 780 1 026 031 919 487 872 051 1 020 734 970 946 1 093 297 890 564 568 664 616 534 48% 519 165 52%

2007 1 171 323 1 050 103 1 066 796 1 090 762 1 035 449 1 001 687 896 138 930 019 957 450 1 115 961 920 102 625 809 545 514 53% 462 020 54%

2008 1 122 114 1 031 821 1 017 656 1 050 860 1 043 012 1 001 852 964 345 926 603 902 656 1 076 527 902 752 595 216 526 898 53% 599 209 50%

2009 1 106 827 1 004 311 1 004 585 1 019 886 1 009 370 1 012 619 970 902 991 093 926 531 1 017 341 881 661 602 278 504 549 54% 621 251 49%

2010 1 116 899 994 410 972 668 1 002 645 978 983 978 016 980 747 1 001 180 1 009 327 1 039 762 841 815 579 384 537 515 52% 739 548 44%

2011 1 177 089 1 003 353 957 209 974 860 957 203 946 427 941 291 1 008 110 1 049 904 1 049 189 847 738 534 498 642 591 45% 520 899 51%

2012 1 208 973 1 074 788 967 373 966 349 939 025 935 446 912 528 971 509 1 096 113 1 103 495 874 331 551 837 657 136 46% 598 800 48%

2013 1 222 851 1 116 427 1 025 185 964 630 923 562 909 095 902 099 942 345 1 073 060 1 146 285 834 611 597 196 625 655 49% 689 395 46%

2014 1 235 901 1 149 894 1 073 447 1 036 378 929 735 894 517 875 311 935 624 1 048 823 1 139 872 897 342 571 819 664 082 46% 705 680 45%

2015 1 244 208 1 164 050 1 106 895 1 088 804 979 360 899 799 884 994 931 766 950 512 1 112 604 928 983 687 230 556 978 55% 615 786 53%

2016 1 208 992 1 182 132 1 118 913 1 126 128 1 026 674 947 015 899 622 952 628 905 066 1 104 749 901 697 704 533 504 459 58% 529 048 57%

Ave. 1 201 446 1 081 380 1 054 659 1 054 503 1 009 485 973 000 937 571 985 503 971 307 1 034 629 834 352 568 557 Diff Trace

DifferencebetweenSchoolImprovementandSchoolTurnaround

RedefinitionThecreationofnewapproaches,goals,processesand

tasks,previouslyinconceivable.

ModificationSignificantredesign ofapproaches,goals,processes,and

tasks.

AugmentationSubstitution ofcurrentapproaches,goals,processesand

tasks,withfunctionalimprovement.

SubstitutionSubstitution ofcurrentapproaches,goals,processesand

tasks,withnofunctionalchange.Improvem

ent

TurnaroundDoing

Diffe

rentlyDoing

More&

Better

FromUnderperformancetoExcellence

1.Under-PerformingSchools

2.HighFunctioningSchools

3.SchoolsofExcellence

8SchoolReadinessComponents(Planning)Attendance Teacher Info Learner Info Annual Plan TimeTabling TLASchedule Organogram TLSM

Ownership

50SchoolOperationalSystems

Academic(11) Administration(14) Communication(6) ICT(7) PastoralCare(12)

Planning Planning

CM- MonitoringandEvaluation

CCR- SupportandDevelopment

60SchoolQualitySystems(6x10)Leadership Strategic Planning Human Resources Learning & Teaching Assess & Feedback Monitoring & Evaluate

CCR- SupportandDevelopment

CM- MonitoringandEvaluation

Ownership

Sustain- Institutionalisation Sustain- Institutionalisation

Scho

olTurna

roun

dStrategy(5

Pha

ses)–3-5Years

Sustaina

bility

3–6Mon

ths

Cultu

re,C

limate,

Relatio

nships

6-9

Mon

ths

Curriculum

Man

agem

ent

1.5–2.5Years

Plan

ning

6–9Mon

ths

Owne

rship

3–6Mon

ths

10

15CurriculumManagementAreasTeaching Schedule(5) LearningSchedule(5) AssessmentSchedule(5)

3Years

5Years

TheWHAT,HOWand WHEN of

SchoolTurnaroundMethodology

ExcellentSchoolsby

Design

ZWELETHEMBAHIGHSCHOOL

QUESTION:AssumealearnerfromGrade7comestoyourSecondaryschool,withanaverageof40%,andisindicatingtoyouthatshe/hewantstobecomeanEngineer/Doctor:1.Whatwillbeyourresponse?2. AndWhy?

CHAOSBYDESIGN• AllormostLearners,TeachersandPrincipalsdon’thaveaspecificTargettheyneedtoworktowardseveryyear;

• Ifyoudon’thaveatarget,youdon’tneedtobeAccountable!

EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN1.TARGETSETTING

Everyone intheschoolhasatargetfortheyear:• Learners – uniquelyidentified,andlinkedtotheirownpreviousperformance,ineverysubject;

• Teachers – linkedtotheindividualandcollectivelearnerstheyteach;

• HoDs,Deputies&Principal.

PromotionSchedule

TargetSetting1

TargetSetting2

AdequateYearlyProgress=5%

CONSEQUENCE:• Everyoneisworkingtowardstargets;• Allassessmentsare’compared’withthe’targets’– measuringprogress,ornot;

• Encouraging’growmindset’(improving):– 40%inGrade8:5%x5years=25%à 65%– 40%inGrade8:8%x5years– 40%à 80%

• ’Effort’and’Commitment’oflearners–heutagogy (self-driven/directedlearning);

Question:• Fromthetotalnumberofschoolsdaysperyear(about200),howmanydaysshouldbespenton‘teaching,facilitationoflearning,learningandformativeassessment’?

• Thisisexcludingtheexaminationdays,aswellasallotherdaysnotutilised forteachingandlearning,suchasAthleticsday,etc.;

• Identifytheoriginofthe‘numberofdays’,suchaspolicydocuments,etc.

CHAOSBYDESIGN• Mostschoolsareonlyofferingbetween100to150schooldaysofteachingandlearning,despiteCAPSrequiring170days;

• AverageinSouthAfricais82days(Chisholm,2005)

EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN2.170DAYSOFT&L

Oftheaverage200schooldayspercalendar,weallocate:• 170DaysforTeachingandLearning(includingtheFATsandRevision);

• 27DaysforExaminations;• 3DaysforSports,etc.• Anyother’timeneeded’withbeonSaturdays,holidaysand’afterteachingtime’.

15

DifferentiationduetoLearnerneeds1

3

4

2

5

DifferentiationduetoLearnerneeds

170days

150days

130days

110days

90days

CONSEQUENCE:Teaching&LearningDays

MissingDaysperYear

MissingDaysperPrimary

MissingDaysperSchooling

MissingDaysin

Years(12)

90Days 80 560 960 5,64yrs

110Days 60 420 720 4,23yrs

130Days 40 280 480 2,82yrs

150Days 20 140 160 0,94yrs

160Days 10 70 80 0,47yrs

QUESTION:• Whatisthetimeperiodofyourfirstperiod– beginningandendingtime?

• Whatisthetimeperiodofyoursecondperiod–beginningandendingtime?

CHAOSBYDESIGN• The’beginning’and’end’timesofperiodsonthetimetablearethesame;

• No’transitionaltime’intimetable

• Schooldaysendbefore15h00 mostdays

EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN

3.TIMETABLETRANSITIONALTIME

• Thereisa5-8minutes’transitiontime’betweenperiods;

• Givelearnersand/orteacherstochangeclasses;

• Orgivenfoundationphaseteachersto’packaway’theirthingsbeforestartingwithanewarea;

• Ensuresthatteachers’get’theirfulltimeasindicatedonthetimetable.

From ToCT 07h30 07h40

60Min1 07h40 08h402 08h45 09h453 09h50 10h50

B1 10h50 11h20 Break1Read 11h20 11h30 Reading

4 11h30 12h305 12h35 13h35

B2 13h35 13h55 Break26 13h55 14h557 15h00 16h00

CW 16h00 17h00 Classwork

From ToAssembly 07h30 08h30

50MinCT 08h30 08h401 08h40 09h302 09h35 10h25

B1 10h25 10h55 Break1Read 10h55 11h05 Reading

3 11h05 11h554 12h00 12h505 12h55 13h45

B2 13h45 14h05 Break26 14h05 14h557 15h00 16h00

CW 16h00 17h00 Classwork

CONSEQUENCE:• Additional45minutesperdaytothe’closingtime’;

• Teacherscanfollowtheir50-60minutesdailylessonplans,perminute;

• Learnersgettheirfull5,5hoursperdayor27,5hoursperweekor935hoursperyear;

• ThepotentialofdecentCLASSWORKcanbestructured,ratherthangivingHOMEWORK,whichIbelieveshouldbebannedfromschools.

CHAOSBYDESIGN• Timetableperiodsof30-40minutes;

• Givenmostofthetimeto’teaching’,andverylimitedtimeto’facilitationoflearning’;

• Learnersaregiven’tons’ofhomework,withoutacentralmanagementprocessfromtheoffice.

EXCELLENCEBYDESIGN4.NOHOMEWORK

• CAPScurriculumisdividedinto140chunks,coveredindailylessonplans;

• 30lessonsareusedforFATSandRevision/Reviews;

• Dailylessonplansare50-60minuteslong;

• Atleast15-20minutesclasswork,whichcanbecompletedwithinclass.

Question:1. Howdoyou(astheprincipal)

moderate yourquestionpapers,withspecificreferencetothe’weighting’ofthepapersinrelationtothecontentareasandtopicscoveredduringthedifferentterms(1,2,3&4)?

2. Writedownyoustepsinchronologicalorder.

Example:MathematicsGr8

P.11

1- NOR2- PFA3- SPG4 - Mea5- DH

HowtoVerify’Topic’inContentAreas• AcrobatReaderà Edità Find• Typeinthe’topic’,andpressNEXT

1

Page74

1

1

2

2

2

2

22

3

3

3

11

4

4

4

5

55

222

3

3

5

No ContentArea

TopicslinkedtoContentAreasandTimeTERM1 WEIGHT1 TERM2 WEIGHT2 TERM3 WEIGHT3 TERM4 WEIGHT4 TOTAL G.TOTAL

1 NOR

2 PFA

3 SPG

4 Mea

5 DH

TOTAL

24 1315 12 18

25 1315

10.5 4.5

39 37 38.5 35.5

374538

1515

150

24,7%30,0%25,3%

10,0%10,0%

100,0%

No ContentArea

TopicslinkedtoContentAreasandTimeWhataboutTerm1,2and3?

TERM1 WEIGHT1 TERM2 WEIGHT2 TERM3 WEIGHT3 TERM4 WEIGHT4 TOTAL TERM4

1 NOR 24 13 37 24.7%

2 PFA 15 12 18 45 30,0%

3 SPG 25 13 38 25.3%

4 Mea 15 15 10.0%

5 DH 10.5 4.5 15 10.0%

TOTAL 39 37 38.5 35.5 150 100%

24/39

15/39

61.5%

38.5% 32.4%

67.6%

33.7%

39.0%

27.3%

50.7%

36.6%

12.7%

No ContentArea

TopicslinkedtoContentAreasandTimeTerm2

TERM1 WEIGHT1 TERM2 WEIGHT2 TERM3 WEIGHT3 TERM4 WEIGHT4 TOTAL TERM4

1 NOR 24 13 37 24.7%

2 PFA 15 12 18 45 30,0%

3 SPG 25 13 38 25.3%

4 Mea 15 15 10.0%

5 DH 10.5 4.5 15 10.0%

TOTAL 39 37 38.5 35.5 150 100%

24/7631.6%

19.7% 15.8%

32.9%

15/76 12/76

76

25/76

35.5%

No ContentArea

TopicslinkedtoContentAreasandTimeTerm3

TERM1 WEIGHT1 TERM2 WEIGHT2 TERM3 WEIGHT3 TERM4 WEIGHT4 TOTAL TERM4

1 NOR 24 13 37 24.7%

2 PFA 15 12 18 45 30,0%

3 SPG 25 13 38 25.3%

4 Mea 15 15 10.0%

5 DH 10.5 4.5 15 10.0%

TOTAL 39 37 38.5 35.5 150 100%

20.9%

13.1% 10.5%

11.4%

114.5

23.6%

21.8%

9.2%

13.1%

32.3%

Conclusion

ThankYou!