However, we don’t seem to be able to get it right.  It is not for lack of funding.  Government has been allocating an ever increasing slice of the pie to education.  For that matter so have many organisations through their corporate social investment budgets.  It would probably be true to speculate that the largest percentage of most corporates’ budgets is directed at education.

Maybe it’s time to do things differently.  We haven’t got time to keep throwing good money after bad and getting mediocre returns at best.  We haven’t got time to continue churning out under-educated, unemployable, hopeless, tragic young people. We need hope and excellence, we need to give our youth bright prospects, and we need to do it now.  So how about investing good money, and getting excellent returns.  Let’s not do mediocrity – let’s do excellence.

Imagine a school in a very poor urban area where most of the houses are corrugated iron informal dwellings where mothers nurture their little children, where many men mill around, unemployed, but where children of school-going age are collected by the school bus in the mornings.  They are taken to school where they get a nutritious breakfast before getting down to their lessons.  And when they do, the classrooms are tidy, colourful, festooned with beautiful posters; their teachers are as we expect teachers to be – professional, committed, caring, as well of course as being qualified.  There is a computer room for the primary pupils, and another for the senior pupils.  There is a huge library. There is a sports field and chess sets in the playgrounds.  There is a nursing sister on duty all day and there is a counsellor in attendance because many of these children come from difficult circumstances and have been exposed to disturbing scenes in their young lives.  Their every need is catered for.  They have lunch at school, and when the school day is over, homework and sport is done, the school bus takes them back home – door to door.  The school building itself is compact, contained and ergonomically efficient – it’s warm in winter and cool in summer – and it accommodates 720 pupils from Grade R to Grade 12.  It sounds too good to be true.  It isn’t.

It is an expensive model as you have probably worked out.  But funding is not our problem.  We can find the funding for the right return.  It is a school that plucks children out of their poverty-stricken circumstances and gives them an opportunity at a happy, caring, excellent, and holistic education.  It sets out to give every child the opportunity to reach his or her full potential – and it guides them into tertiary education and/or employment opportunities.  It opens up a whole world of opportunity.  It turns out well-rounded, educated Grade 12 graduates – 80 a year, every year – with the potential to lead bright successful lives.  The return is a more equal, better educated, more successful South African society. 

Expensive, yes, but then I am reminded of the story of the man walking along a beach and picking up the beached starfish.  You know the story.  He made a difference to those that he threw back into the sea.  If we could make a difference to 80 Grade 12 graduates a year, year after a year, in a number of such schools, well we’d be making a difference to those wouldn’t we. 

The post Educating excellently appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

Call for proposal

for the

baseline assessment of the Hotazel Manganese Mine Education Trust’s (HMMET) Primary and Secondary Schools Programme, 2013

Issued by

Tshikululu Social Investments

Date: 2 May 2013

Submission deadline: 14 May 2013

Tshikululu Social Investments is South Africa’s leading social investment manager, and provides a comprehensive service for private sector entities, including the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund, the De Beers Fund, and the FirstRand Foundation, to undertake comprehensive community grantmaking.

Tshikululu focuses on identifying and partnering with champions of social change within the education, health, and social development sectors.

On behalf of the Hotazel Manganese Mine Education Trust, Tshikululu wishes to appoint a consultant to conduct an independent baseline evaluation of its Primary and Secondary Schools Programme.

The Hotazel Manganese Mine Education Trust (HMMET) is managed by Tshikululu Social Investments NPC (Tshikululu). The Primary and Secondary Schools Programme is among the three programmes funded by the HMMET. The overarching goal of the Primary and Secondary Schools Programme is to improve the teaching and learning of literacy, numeracy and mathematics in the Joe Morolong local municipality in the Northern Cape.

In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives have been adopted by the Trust:

• To provide capacity building for grade 5, 6 and 7 educators to improve literacy outcomes of learners in those grades;
• To provide capacity building for grade 9, 10 and 11 educators in mathematics and physical science; and

• To implement extra-curricular programmes for grade 9, 10 and 11 learners in mathematics and physical science.

Tshikululu would like to appoint a service provider that will conduct a baseline assessment to inform a strategy for the programme determining which relevant teacher and learner interventions to invest in and the resources required to achieve such efforts.

 The baseline evaluation should be conducted with a sample of primary schools; intermediate schools; and secondary schools in the Joe Morolong local municipality (formerly known as Moshaweng), Northern Cape.

 The Primary and Secondary Schools Programme has just been conceived and requires information that enables informed decision making on the relevant intervention projects, resources required, and potential partnerships that could be leveraged to achieve the objectives of this programme. Therefore the objectives of this study are as follows:

• To determine the overall learner performance in the primary and secondary schools of the Joe Morolong local municipality;
• To identify the root causes of poor learner outcomes in the primary and secondary schools of the Joe Morolong local municipality;
• To identify the potential teacher and learner interventions that will improve literacy and mathematics outcomes of the primary and secondary school learners;
• To outline the associated costs of implementing teacher and learner interventions that will improve literacy and mathematics outcomes of the primary and secondary school learners;
• To identify the current interventions that are being implemented in the primary and secondary schools; and
• To identify potential partnerships that could be leveraged in order to achieve the objectives of the programme

The activities required of the evaluators for a successful evaluation to be undertaken include but are not limited to the following:

• Organising logistics with all the relevant stakeholders;
• Coordinating all the logistics relating to the evaluation projects;
• Collecting data from relevant stakeholders in the primary and secondary schools;
• Capturing, collating, and analysing the data;
• Compiling one comprehensive programme report and individual primary schools; intermediate schools; and secondary schools reports; and
• Sharing the reports with both the schools and the trustees

• One comprehensive evaluation report
• Individual schools’ reports

The service provider should have the appropriate knowledge and experience in the field of education and schools development interventions, and specifically have a track record of having conducted evaluations in a similar sector.

Tshikululu is responsible for the following:

• Obtaining permission to conduct the evaluation in the primary and secondary schools from the Northern Cape Department of Basic Education;
• Introducing the evaluators to the primary and secondary schools and the donors; and
• Providing all the necessary information that will facilitate effective evaluation implementation

The evaluation proposal is due on 14 May 2013 and the baseline evaluation report is expected in June 2013.

Tshikululu is responsible for contracting the consultant and paying for the professional fees.

The consultant will work with and report to Tshikululu. Formal reporting by the consultant to Tshikululu shall be on monthly basis during the project’s contractually agreed duration, or as often as directed by Tshikululu during and after the project’s duration.

Proposals will be assessed against the following criteria:

• Quality of proposal

-       Relevance to specified requirements;

-       Clear workplan with realistic milestones;

-       Clear deliverables; and

-       Probability of success

• Details of contractor

-       Expertise;

-       The extent of infrastructure;

-       Project planning and management;

-       Past evaluation experience in education programmes/projects; and

-       BEE credentials: The HMMET gives preference to suppliers with strong empowerment credentials

• Cost

-       Reasonable and competitive; and

• Strategic approach

-       How the outputs and deliverables will be achieved and exceeded

Completed proposals, together with supporting documents, should be sent to Ms Mokibelo Ntshabeleng, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Tshikululu Social Investments, at mntshabeleng@tsi.org.za.

Please submit the proposal; BEE certificate; proof of company registration and profile; and resumes of the team by no later than 14 May 2013 – proposals received after the closing date will not be considered.

Any questions regarding this request for proposals should be directed to Ms Mokibelo Ntshabeleng by email (as above) or telephone 011 544 0300.

Tshikululu reserves the right not to award this contract, in whole or in part.

The post Call for proposal for the assessment of the HMMET Primary and Secondary Schools Programme appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

for the

Outcome evaluation of the First National Bank Fund Community Care Programme, 2013.

Issued by

Tshikululu Social Investments

Date: 15 April 2013

Submission deadline: 22 April 2013

 Tshikululu Social Investments is South Africa’s leading social investment manager, providing a comprehensive service for private sector entities, including the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund, the De Beers Fund and the FirstRand Foundation, undertaking comprehensive community grant making.

Tshikululu focuses on identifying and partnering with champions of social change within the education, health and social development sectors, to greatest effect.

The FNB Fund operates under the umbrella of the FirstRand Foundation, and is managed by Tshikululu Social Investments NPC (Tshikululu). The Community Care Programme is among five programmes funded by the FNB Fund. The overarching goal of the Community Care Programme is to preserve families by reducing their vulnerability through:

• Strengthening the capacity of the family to ensure the safety and well-being of the child;
• Providing support and strengthening community structures that promote care, protection, and developmental programmes to children, women, and their families;
• Strengthening those community initiatives that build social cohesion, prevent social pathologies, promote equality, and provide support to children, youth, women, and victims of gender-based violence, and child-abuse;
• Enhancing research and advocacy, with the main aim of building the capacity of partner organisations to document their evidence and to use the partner organisations to negotiate for better service delivery with government and other stakeholders. This will strengthen the voice of the supported organisations; and
• Integration of faith-based community organisations.

The guiding principles of the Community Care Programme

The guiding principles of the Community Care Programme are embodied in values that determine the nature and  quality of services for children and their families; respect for the rights of each family member, especially with regard to recognising, respecting and upholding individual rights and responsibilities to promote healthy development; responsible citizenship; and ensuring a safe and supportive environment.

 In selecting projects for inclusion in the Community Care Programme, the following elements were considered:

• Participation

Community participation and involvement during the programme’s development and implementation is a good way to ensure ownership and sustainability. Using this approach, families and communities need to be encouraged to participate in deciding what is good for them and in the best interests of their children. Projects need to create an enabling environment for community involvement.

• Empowerment

Projects need to provide beneficiaries with an enabling environment and with opportunities to build their own support networks to enable them to act on their own choices and according to their sense of responsibility. The model adopted should empower people to have control of their lives and ensure that they are able to make informed decisions. Beneficiary views and opinions need to be recognised and respected, unless parents are making decisions on behalf of their children that are seen as not being in the children’s best interest.

• Partnership

Projects are required to work in collaboration with other stakeholders such as state departments, donors, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders. In the process of providing services to beneficiaries, a multi-disciplinary approach needs to be applied, whereby organisations collaborate with other stakeholders to provide appropriate, efficient and quality professional services in relation to the needs of the beneficiaries. Family preservation services need to be rendered in a coordinated and integrated manner by the various relevant role-players from different sectors.

• Results-based approach

A results-based approach will provide a logical framework for strategic planning and management, using learning and accountability in an organisational environment. Introducing a results-based approach also aims to improve management effectiveness and accountability by defining realistically expected results, monitoring progress toward the achievement of expected results, integrating lessons learned into management decisions, and reporting on performance. Organisation will only be considered based on their track record of delivering community-centred programmes.

The following were the cross-cutting areas that were integrated into the implementation of the programme objectives:

• Capacity building;
• Mainstreaming of disability;
• Partnerships; and
• Monitoring.

 The evaluation of the Community Care Programme should cover the period 2010 to 2013. The programme has nine projects that operate in seven provinces, namely, the Eastern Cape; Limpopo; Mpumalanga; North-West; Gauteng; Western Cape; and KwaZulu Natal. The following are the focus areas of the Community Care Programme:

• Gender-based violence;
• Youth at risk;
• Child abuse; and
• Advocacy, research and capacity building.

 The service provider is expected to establish a pseudo-baseline of the Community Care Programme from the first proposals submitted by projects for funding, and thereafter to conduct a comparative analysis to assess whether the project partners have grown in terms of their programme, and whether they’ve met the programme objectives and their current milestones. 

The Community Care Programme is in its third year of implementation and the trustees of the Foundation have commissioned the evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the projects to implement the Community Care Programme, and to identify strengths, challenges, and lessons that will be useful for future strategy planning and resourcing. Key evaluation questions informing the outcome evaluation are as follows:

 Relevance

• To what extent are the programme’s and the projects’ objectives and activities relevant to the needs of communities, families, women, children, men, youth, and donors?
• To what extent are the programme’s and the projects’ objectives relevant to the policies relevant to community care programme –the cornerstones of the community care sector?
• What is the prevalence of gender-based violence, child abuse and youth at risk within the operating areas of the projects that are participating in the Community Care Programme and nationwide?
• What are the key factors affecting family preservation that might have been overlooked by the strategy, and how can these be aligned in the future strategy?

Effectiveness

• To what extent have the objectives of the Community Care Programme been met?
• To what extent were the projects’ objectives and the implementation of activities compliant with the acts governing the service provision of child care, gender-based violence, and youth at risk?
• What were the contributing factors (both internal and external) to the success or the lack thereof of the objectives of both the projects and programme?

Cost analysis

• What is the total cost per project?
• What is the cost per beneficiary per project?
• Were the expected outcomes reasonable given the financial resources allocated per project?
• Was the financial allocation per project reasonable to enable the projects to achieve the expected outcomes?
• What are the real costs of implementing and achieving the outcomes of the Community Care Programme?

 The activities required of the evaluators for a successful evaluation to be undertaken include but are not limited to the following:

• Organising and coordinating all the logistics relating to the evaluation projects;
• Collecting data from various stakeholders of the Community Care Programme;
• Capturing, collating and analysing the data;
• Compiling one comprehensive programme report and 10 individual project reports; and
• Circulating and presenting the reports to both the projects and the trustees.

 An interim evaluation report

• One final comprehensive evaluation report
• Nine individual projects’ reports

 The service provider should have the appropriate knowledge and experience in the field of social development, and specifically have a track record of having conducted evaluations in the community care sector.

 Tshikululu is responsible for introducing the evaluators to the key stakeholders of these programmes, that is, the donors and the projects; and for providing all necessary information that will facilitate effective evaluation implementation.

 Evaluation proposal is due on the 22 April 2013.

 Tshikululu Social Investments is responsible for contracting the consultant and paying for the professional fees.

The consultant will work with Tshikululu Social Investments and report to Tshikululu. Formal reporting by the consultant to Tshikululu shall be on monthly basis during the project’s contractually agreed duration, or as often as directed by Tshikululu Social Investments during and after the project’s duration.

 Proposals will be assessed against the following criteria:

• Quality of proposal

-       Relevance to specified requirements;

-       Clear workplan with realistic milestones;

-       Clear deliverables; and

-       Probability of success.

• Details of contractor

-       Expertise;

-       The extent of infrastructure;

-       Project planning and management;

-       Past evaluation experience in education programmes/projects; and

-       BEE credentials: The FirstRand Group gives preference to suppliers with strong empowerment credentials

• Cost

-       Reasonable and competitive; and

• Strategic approach

-       How the outputs and deliverables will be achieved and exceeded.

Completed proposals, together with supporting documents, should be sent to Ms Mokibelo Ntshabeleng, monitoring and evaluation specialist, Tshikululu Social Investments, on mntshabeleng@tsi.org.za.

Please submit all proposals by no later than 22 April 2013 – proposals received after the closing date will not be considered.

Any questions regarding this request for proposals should be directed to Ms Mokibelo Ntshabeleng by email (as above) or telephone 011 544 0300.

Tshikululu reserves the right not to award this contract, in whole or in part.

The post Call for proposals for evaluation of FNB Fund Community Care Programme appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

Maths has been the only NSC subject with a stubborn residue of learners who simply do not get it each year. The proportion of learners unable to get 10 per cent for NSC maths is six to 20 times larger than that recorded for any other gateway subject. The obvious answer is tougher differentiation of learners for the Mathematics and Mathematical Literacy options, but the very weak achievements of grade 9 (the year when the choice is made) render informed selection impossible. The supply of inadequately prepared learners from primary into high school will continue to drive the ‘learning lottery’ that most learners experience in their final years of schooling. As the examiners have pointed out, guessing is a key strategy, and an unlucky shot may be all that settles whether a candidate falls into the 10 per cent or 20 per cent band.

The implications are clear – if we want to bridge the gap between the small group of strong learners and the larger group of weak learners that exists in almost every gateway subject, significant learning gains need to be registered earlier in the schooling system. Current learners are attempting high-level study without the basic foundations in language and numeracy. The vast majority of learners who make it to grade 12 are, in effect, fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Further confirmation of this comes in the Annual National Assessments (ANAs), run last year for all learners in grades 1 to 6 and grade 9. The weaknesses revealed in the grade 12 examinations are shown in the ANAs too. Some 7 million learners were assessed in literacy (home and first additional language) and numeracy. Home language scores were higher than in first additional language scores, which in turn were higher than numeracy. As the children advance through the system their mastery of what they are taught each year declines until at grade 6 level, two thirds of all learners failed the numeracy test at the 30 per cent level. By grade 9 the failure rate in numeracy has risen to 90 per cent, with a distressing average mark of 13 per cent. Without mastery of the basics, our children can never be expected to achieve quality marks in the higher-order learning challenges they face at NSC. This limits their ability to access higher study and the world of work.

The education authorities are well aware of the challenges further down the schooling system. Change here however will take time; the numbers involved are of a different magnitude and the level of teacher qualifications very much lower than in high schools. So things are likely to remain as they are. Regarding maths though, we must expect some more setbacks as the curriculum is changing yet again. When the NSC was introduced, the Maths syllabus was deemed to be too hard and areas like Euclidean geometry were moved to an optional course, Mathematics Paper 3. The mainstream learners doing Mathematics received a slimmed-down offering, while fewer than five per cent of learners extended themselves and attempted Paper 3. Generally the results here have been good, but very few schools and even fewer teachers have taught the content. From 2014, Euclidean geometry and all the other difficult bits of the syllabus from Paper 3 are being examined across the piece. For teachers who started to cover the expanded curriculum with grade 10 learners in 2012, the pressures have been immense, even in the better-resourced schools. They are warning of a decline in maths performance again at the NSC from next year.

In the main then, it seems the 2012 NSC results are likely to be about as good as it gets. Holding the line at these levels will be a good achievement, but will it be good enough?

Part I of this analysis can be found here, while part II can be found here.

The post Commentary on the 2012 NSC results – Part III appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

In general, the Education Department can claim growing stability in the system, but there is still a surprisingly large number of schools where performance fluctuates from year to year. The system rightly celebrates schools demonstrating dramatic positive turnaround, but this is matched by others where results plummet from good to poor in the space of a single year. It is also evident that the number writing the NSC varies hugely from year to year in many schools, suggesting that there is considerable churn amongst learners who remain in the system. In addition, we know far too many learners are lost to education, particularly in the latter years of schooling where attrition levels are disturbingly high. We cannot expect progress to be ongoing until the causes of this flux in learner enrolments are addressed.

There is a ceiling on performance that will be reached shortly. Welcome though they most certainly are, there is a limit to what these administrative interventions can achieve. It is possible for technical reasons that the overall base-level pass rate may continue to improve as these interventions become institutionalised in most provinces, but the bunching of results at just above the pass rate will continue unless more purposeful learning gains are registered across the schooling system.

There is something of a conundrum in the NSC. On the one hand it is relatively easy for some learners to pass. On the other hand, it is also relatively easy for other learners to fail. How is this so? Achieving a basic NSC pass requires a candidate to pass six of their seven subjects, three at 30 per cent and three at 40 per cent. The 40 per cent hurdle is not as challenging as it may seem at first glance – this is because the majority of learners can and do achieve such marks quite easily for Life Orientation, Maths Literacy and their home language. English First Additional language also registers high achievement at the 40 per cent level. Where the challenge comes is at the upper end – for learners taking the ‘killer subjects’ of maths, accounting and physical science. Learners may fail one subject and still pass the NSC (and obtain university admission provided they do well enough in their other subjects). However, two strikes and you are out, a situation which can prejudice learners attempting a combination of the killer subjects. This is certainly a contributing factor to the higher failure rates in the Eastern Cape which has the highest proportion of learners attempting and also failing maths and science. Steps to reduce the numbers taking science and maths would quickly increase the pass rate, but it would do nothing to address learning problems in the province.

A drive for quality has been a feature of government efforts in 2012. However, here ongoing progress will be far harder to record. The gains recorded to date cannot be expected to continue into the future. Admission to university requires a learner to obtain a Bachelor-level pass with marks in four subjects from an approved list of 50 per cent and more. In addition to the ‘killer three’ the list includes Economics, Geography and Life Sciences – in none of which do more than a quarter of learners achieve results higher than the required 50 per cent. And while the bottom end of the curve may have shifted up in 2012, the proportion of learners attaining 50 per cent and higher has hardly budged in most gateway subjects. The exception is History where over 40 per cent of learners did so in 2012 – a quality outcome significantly different from most other big enrolment subjects apart from languages. Even in a subject like Maths Literacy the fall off is dramatic – while nearly 90 per cent of those who wrote in 2012 passed at the 30 per cent level, just over one third made the cut at 50 per cent.

Learners are battling to move up the curve in almost all gateway subjects. Fifty per cent is a hard barrier and this suggests that we are already at the limit of achievement at the Bachelor Level. Administrative interventions cannot change this reality. Further evidence for the hard barrier comes from two sources. The first is the feedback on examination performance in the Learner Diagnostic Report which analyses a cross section of scripts in the 11 most popular subjects. The writers of the review of Physical Science put it most clearly when they pointed out that there were two distinct groups of learners – those who were well prepared and those seriously lacking in knowledge and skills. The spread of marks in most of the 11 subjects confirms this as well as the very wide gap between the two groups. The report makes frequent reference to the handicaps the second group faces through their low levels of literacy which prevent their reading and understanding the questions they are expected to answer. Instead of meaningful content knowledge, it is clear that many learners are drilled on set answers which they regurgitate helplessly in response to a key word they see. The result is that too many learners are answering questions they weren’t asked and questions requiring thinking and application are done badly.

Part I of this analysis can be found here, while part III can be found here.

The post Commentary on the 2012 NSC results – Part II appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

The learners who wrote the National Senior Certificate (NSC) examinations were the fifth cohort of grade 12s to do so, writes Margie Keeton. For the first time, South Africa has the consolidated data needed to assess how the schooling system has fared, both in terms of five years of comparative performance, as well as in terms of the findings of new measures documenting levels of learning from the first years of schooling. We are thus able to make more informed observations about how well the country’s schools have embraced new learning imperatives across the piece and what capacity the system has evolved to identify and address areas of underperformance.

2012 is best described as a year of consolidation. In overall numbers, there are still fewer candidates writing the NSC than there were in 2008, the year the system was introduced. In many important subjects, we have yet to reach the total number of passes produced in 2008, but progress in terms of pass rates has been marked. Most importantly, the system has recovered from the ‘hiccup’ of 2011, when numbers fell significantly, and gains have continued to be registered in improved overall passes – an all-time high of 73.9 per cent – and also in university level passes at 26.6 per cent.

The 2012 NSC results suggest that things have stabilised and in many cases the weakening trend so obvious in 2011 has been slowed and even reversed. The proportion of learners passing at 30 per cent has improved in eight subjects and in six subjects at the 40 per cent mark. Mathematics, Physical Sciences and English First Additional Language marks have moved up sharply. Over half the learners writing Mathematics passed at 30 per cent and over a third at 40 per cent. There is an improvement in the numbers coming through in most gateway subjects although not yet to the levels of 2008 and 2009.

Similar improvements are evident in the performance of certain provinces. These can be attributed to deliberate strategies that many provinces have adopted with the objective of improving total and quality passes. The committed administrator wishing to make a difference in their district and province can draw on a growing toolkit of measures including School Improvement Plans, Pacesetter programmes to improve curriculum coverage, and diagnostic feedback. The attention paid to the provincial announcement of results of top achieving candidates and schools is another first and suggests a significant shift by the DBE to celebrating excellence. Assisting the provinces in their goals is the increased availability of data which has enabled those with the will to do so to target weaker performing districts and schools.

The impact of such programmatic interventions is evident in the significantly improved performance in the overall pass rate in four provinces – Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Northern Cape each managed to raise their base level pass rate by five percentage points. Determined management efforts in KwaZulu-Natal in particular, a province whose performance had seemed to be slipping in 2011, have been rewarded. Shifting outcomes in a large and socio-economically diverse province like KwaZulu-Natal is hard, but strategic measures targeting weaker schools and districts have registered marked gains, as have subject results. A third of the 18 000 additional base level maths passes nationally came from KwaZulu-Natal, which also contributed a third of the additional 40 per cent level passes achieved nationally in 2012 as compared to 2011. Limpopo has also upped its game in Mathematics, reversing the losses of 2011.

The province which lags noticeably behind the rest is the Eastern Cape, where political contestation, power struggles, persistently unfilled teacher vacancies, and corruption have almost completely eroded the capacity of management to drive through any improvements. Almost one in four Eastern Cape schools achieved pass rates of under 30 per cent, the level at which a school is deemed officially to be dysfunctional. This is almost double the proportion of similarly failing schools in Limpopo, the next worst performing province, and two and half times the national average. By contrast, KwaZulu-Natal has driven this down to only eight per cent of schools, and Mpumalanga to 5.7 per cent – evidence of effective management interventions lifting the bottom end of achievement. On every significant measure the Eastern Cape ranks last, and achieved very poorly in Physical Science, Accounting, Mathematical Literacy and in Mathematics, lagging KwaZulu-Natal by 10 percentage points in the latter. There are only 10 school districts in the country that achieved a collective pass rate of under 60 per cent, and all of them are in the Eastern Cape.

Part II of this analysis can be found here, while part III can be found here.

The post Commentary on the 2012 NSC results – Part I appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

Since 2009, the development sector has made a notable shift in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices of corporate social investment (CSI) programmes, says Tshikululu M&E specialist Mokibelo Ntshabeleng.

Trialogue reported, in their 2012 CSI Handbook, that while the sector is still focusing less on evaluations, monitoring of programmes has improved from tracking only expenditure to additionally tracking outputs and outcomes indicators; and conducting site visits of funded projects.

While the attention on more and more accountability for the results of social investments increases, we are yet to see significant strides on the evaluation part of M&E.

Within our sector, evaluation refers to a periodic process of gathering data and then analysing it appropriately to determine to what extent a CSI programme is effectively carrying out planned activities, fulfilling stated objectives and achieving anticipated results.

By taking stock of CSI programmes through evaluation, we learn about the contributing factors to both ineffectiveness and effectiveness of programmes, and account for the monetary investment made by relating that to the impact of the CSI programme on its intended beneficiaries. This information then informs decision making and strategy adjustments as the programme continues.

CSI managers must consciously manage the emotions that might be at play when evaluation results are finally available. The following elements should underpin the use of commissioning and using the evaluation:

The willingness and readiness to accept and internalise evaluation results, both ‘the good’, ‘the bad’, and ‘the ugly’

Have you ever heard the saying ‘the mistakes are the proof that something was happening; and only those who are doing something are likely to make mistakes’? This is exactly what happens when CSI managers, together with development champions on the ground, tackle development issues. There is every likelihood that they will not achieve results as initially envisaged due to various factors. When evaluation results are received, think of them as an opportunity to reflect on what works and what does not, and learn about the contributing factors to both revelations. Evaluation results are a diagnosis tool, used to keep strategies relevant and appropriate.

Do not use evaluation results as a punitive measure

Perhaps the worst use of evaluation results is to ‘punish’ those considered ineffective in delivering the projects, even withdrawing funding from projects following unanticipated and disappointing results. In order to learn constructively from evaluation results, the following guidelines should be explored:

• Share evaluation results with the projects concerned, reflecting on both the effective and ineffective strategies that contributed towards the achievement or failure to meet objectives and goals;
• Consider variations in strategy that need to be adopted to improve the ‘grey’ areas and further strengthen areas that are successful;
• Identify the short-, medium- and long-term actions required to achieve the desired results;
• Identify the strengths and limitations of each partner –  both the CSI manager or funder and the project in terms of implementing the identified strategies;
• Agree on the actions required, resources, timeframes and the envisaged results expected; and
• Implement and continuously reflect on the revised activities to assess whether there is a change in the results now received.

Be prepared to do business unusual

Evaluation results may suggest changes in implementation strategies and focus areas for funding, especially when the strategies under review prove unsuitable to addressing a particular challenge in the community. In these instances, the CSI funder and funded organisation should be prepared to part ways with the familiar manner of operating their programme. There will always be reluctance and anxiety towards change as it takes everyone out of their comfort zones, so how change is managed is critically important. The changes to programme structure or objectives or personnel or whatever else they may be can be introduced in phases instead of overhauling the whole programme at once. Setting short-, medium- and long-term actions might prove less overwhelming for those involved in implementation. Communication of proposed changes with a project is important, as is the assessment of the strengths and willingness of each partner to adapt to these changes.

The post Effective CSI programmes need evaluation appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

After all, while South African companies, trusts, and foundations have typically reported on their developmental inputs – how much they’ve given, and who they’ve given it to – they are increasingly being asked about the results of that giving:  whether it has had a positive summative impact on beneficiaries and on the development of the country as a whole, and how much.

Tshikululu defines impact as ‘positive and negative changes produced by a developmental intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended’.

This is a higher level objective to which the outcomes of social investment programmes are expected to contribute, and suggests if, and by how much, an intervention has influenced a community or society, over time. It asks, for example, not just if an intervention helped improve learner test scores, but whether improved test scores helped those learners earn better-paying jobs, and contribute more to the economic development of their communities. Of course, this also means that we sometimes need to be patient in understanding what our impact truly has been.

It goes without saying that we’d prefer social investment impact to always be positive, producing lasting change for the direct beneficiaries of a programme, and ultimately also for their families and wider communities. Our intention is that the social investment strategies that we implement maximise the positive value to both the investor and beneficiaries.

With some careful forethought and planning, we believe that any social investor can achieve meaningful, lasting, and positive impact. But development is not like dominoes; it is not as simple as making a donation, and setting action a sequence of events.

Rather, Tshikululu believes achieving impact is a cyclical process that requires funders to be proactive and engaged in the initiatives that they support, and to promote a culture of continuous learning amongst their development partners:

Planning

At the outset of each programme cycle, both the funder and beneficiary organisation should undergo a thoughtful process of planning and calibration: What exactly are they trying to achieve? What are the best ways to get there? Are those modalities aligned to their strategies? Are there other models that might work better?

Tshikululu also believes that programme plans should incorporate, or be accompanied by, monitoring and evaluation plans, which define an initiative’s goals and objectives, define the indicators that will be used to measure the programme’s success, and establish ‘best-case’ targets for what they can be achieved.

Tshikululu recommends applying the ‘SMART’ principle when developing objectives, selecting indicators, and establishing targets. They should be:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Realistic
• Time-bound

Implementation

As a beneficiary organisation implements a programme, it should also be monitoring its work and collecting data that documents its performance.

While this information will be reported to the funder on a periodic basis, the results should have immediate value to the implementing organisation as a management tool to track the pace and progress of the programme’s activities. A few key pieces of data to collect:

• Who participated in each activity?
• What was each activity?
• When did they take place?
• Where did they take place?
• How many activities & participants?

Assessment

At the conclusion of each programme cycle – and at the end of the programme – Tshikululu encourages all development organisations to engage in a formalised, self-critical assessment of their work. Assessments should compare outputs and outcomes against the targets they set at the outset, as well as highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the programme, and identify areas for improvement going forward.

For longer-term initiatives, funders and beneficiary organisations should undertake rigorous, structured programme evaluations at regular, pre-determined intervals – typically every two to three years. Often implemented by an independent third-party, evaluations seek to contextualise performance, identify and understand impact, and recommend corrective action, where necessary.

Reporting

At the close of the programme cycle, both funder and recipient should document their achievements and lessons learned as a basis for improving implementation going forward.

Great reports are as forward-looking as they are retrospective, capturing key lessons and making recommendations to improve the overall programme.

An effective report should be:

• Self-Critical: How did programme performance compare to programme plans?
• Inclusive: What do relevant constituents and beneficiaries say about the programme? Both positive and negative?
• Diagnostic: What inhibited programme performance, and what can be done to improve it?
• Prescriptive: What changes or inputs are necessary to improve the programme or make it more effective?

Reports are often treated as an end-point: the end of a programme year, the fulfillment of a grant obligation, and the close of a relationship. In the case of once-off grants, this attitude may be appropriate. But generally, Tshikululu believes that multi-year, programmatic relationships demand a different kind of report.

In geometric terms, Tshikululu believes that a report should not serve as an endpoint, but a node – a point at which direction changes. It is a step in a multi-year cycle of project planning, implementation, assessment and review – and ultimately a process of revision and renewed planning. Beneficiary organisations’ narrative reports should be the result of their internal assessments, and serve not only to document what has occurred in the past, but to help plan for renewed and enhanced programming in the coming year.

The purpose should not be to bring unnecessary or undue attention to programme shortcomings. Rather, the purpose should be to inform and improve programme planning, with the goal of improving the effectiveness and maximising the development impact of the initiative going forward.

Every development project can be improved. Tshikululu believes that by institutionalising a culture of meaningful planning, active monitoring, and introspective re-calibration, both funders and their beneficiary partners can maximise the effectiveness of their work and their impact on South Africa.

The post Impact is a process, not a destination appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

The Sowetan headline was shocking: “28% of schoolgirls are HIV positive”. Variations of the story were tweeted and retweeted, posted and reposted hundreds of times on social networking sites Twitter and Facebook. But the story was fatally flawed; an uncritical rehashing of a half-heard statement made by the minister during a “taking Parliament to the people event” in Carolina in Mpumalanga province.

The website JournAIDS.org – which monitors media reporting on HIV and AIDS – has sharply criticised the Sowetan saying its misinterpretation of Motsoaledi’s comments “points to an urgent need for a culture of fact checking in journalism”.

Africa Check is a non-profit organisation which promotes accuracy in public debate. The organisation, devised by the AFP Foundation, the non-profit media development arm of the international news agency AFP, tests claims made by public figures around the continent, starting in South Africa, using journalistic skills and evidence drawn from the latest online tools, readers, public sources and experts, sorting out fact from fiction.

Read more:

• The full article can be found here.
• Visit the Africa Check website.
• Past news headlines can be found in our News archive.

The post Media mis-reporting HIV rate among SA schoolgirls appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.

So said activist and fundraiser Dan Pallota at the February 2013 TED conference, while arguing that too many nonprofits are rewarded for how little they spend — not for what they get done.

View his talk here and then let us know if you agree with him in the comment section below:

The post Think about charity like you think about business appeared first on Tshikululu Social Investments.