Using the Capacity Approach to improve the sustainability of teacher inservice training 8 Occupational valued functioning #1: Being able to participate in training

During focus group discussions, ‘kujiendeleza’ was the Kiswahili term used to describe the concept of upgrading (it means, ‘to develop myself’); however, it was clear that this phrase is used to describe being able to upgrade practice through in-service training courses. One teacher commented on her valuing of this functioning by stating:

To get new teaching methods is important because things are changing now and then. It is important to get trained. For example, we did not have certain technologies when I was training. And in the case of these Maths subjects, pupils are doing very poorly because teachers did not have seminars or short courses in order to be good academically (Rural Male Teacher).

With regard to constraints on teachers being able to upgrade through in-service training, the primary conversion factor is that workshops and short courses are generally not available, or, if they are available, they are not offered to all teachers. For example, intensive cascade workshops allow only a small number of teachers to participate, and those teachers who do participate do not often go on to train colleagues, leaving the weakest teachers overlooked. In addition to this, the costs associated with workshops make them difficult for District Education Offices or Ministries of Education to sustain in the long-run.

Given these problems, what are the implications for a sustainable EGR in-service training intervention? Considering the extent to which a majority of teachers valued being able to participate in training, reducing constraint would entail a modality of training that would allow all teachers to participate. For example, School-Based EGR training is a modality that involves teachers studying EGR modules as a group and engaging in peer observation on application of new skills1 With such a modality, teachers do not have to travel to ward or district workshops (thereby saving money and time), and teachers can very immediately try out new strategies in their classrooms. Training can occur on a consistent basis (every two weeks) so that new content can be digested gradually and the application of new skills can occur on a continuous, sustained basis (which is difficult to achieve with intensive workshops).

However, with such a school-based modality, there are many risks involved, primarily ensuring the understanding of new technical concepts and ideas (as there are no ‘master trainers’ involved), and ensuring teacher engagement and attendance. With regard to the former, risk mitigation occurs during the development of modules whereby EGR content must be designed to be clear, concise, user-friendly, contextual and activity-based. Pre-testing draft modules with teachers allows for a rigorous assessment of these characteristics. With regard to the latter, it is imperative to develop a rigorous monitoring system and support structures that use system actors (such as school-based INSET Co-ordinators, Head Teachers, Ward Education Co-ordinators and District Inspectors) to ensure attendance and application. In addition to this, incentives can also be embedded whereby teachers sign an agreement (that outlines their roles and responsibilities for training) with the proviso that upon successful completion of training, they will receive a certificate of completion issued by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT).