Confidential Report for Restricted Circulation

QPiE Quality Projects in Education c.c. C.K. 987224523

RUMEP BEd PROJECT Extension of Summative Evaluation JUNE 2010

by Quality Projects in Education Hobden,P. & Hobden,S.

commissioned by Zenex Foundation

CONTACT DETAILS

Postal Address: Telephone: Home :031 2662216 Cell :082 5474031 Facsimile: 086 6574067 Email: [email protected]

CONTACT PERSONS: Prof Paul Hobden, BSc, MEd, PhD Dr Sally Hobden, BSc, MEd, PhD

MISSION STATEMENT To contribute to the advancement of education and in particular science and mathematics education through delivery of high quality products informed through experience in the field, awareness of research findings and collaboration with participants. CONTENTS

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.1 THE EVALUATION...... 1

1.2 LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT...... 2

1.3 GRADE 10 PROJECT GROUP...... 2

1.4 ALL TEACHERS WHO DID THE BEd...... 3

SECTION 2 – THE EVALUATION 5 2.1 PURPOSE...... 5

2.2 OVERVIEW OF SUMMATIVE FINDINGS...... 6

SECTION 3 – ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHS TESTS8 3.1 GRADE 10 PROJECT AND CONTROL...... 8

3.2 CHANGE IN NSC OVER YEARS...... 14

SECTION 4 – THE G10 PROJECT TEACHERS 17 4.1 ATTITUDE TESTS...... 17

4.2 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT SURVEY...... 21

4.3 THE MITIGATING CONTEXT...... 26

SECTION 5 : THE FULL COHORT OF BED TEACHERS 29 5.1 TRACKING THE CAREER PATHS...... 29

5.2 NEGATIVES...... 31

5.3 THE RUMEP LEGACY...... 33

APPENDIX 1 CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION SURVEY 37 APPENDIX 2 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT SURVEY 38 APPENDIX 3 SENIOR CERTIFICATE RESULTS 39 Confidential report for restricted circulation

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION © QPIE PAGE ii Confidential report for restricted circulation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report was compiled by staff of QPiE. The report was written by Paul Hobden and Sally Hobden, with professional assistance from Thokazani Mkwanazi and Thelma Rosenberg.

Thanks must be given to all staff at RUMEP who assisted by facilitating access to the schools and provided the many documents and reports; to the teachers who allowed their learners to be tested and to fill in the survey forms. Special thanks also to Mrs Mfani Poho from Fort Hare University who coordinated the fieldworkers for the mathematics testing component of the project.

Distribution of report It is impossible to provide detail descriptions of the project useful for formative evaluation and to keep the identity of the teachers or schools anonymous. In addition, because tests results hold the danger of being potentially detrimental to the confidence and self-image of both teachers and learners, especially in poor communities we strongly recommend that results should not be disseminated to schools or teachers.

Consequently, we ask that this report be restricted and is not circulated in the public domain.

Prof Paul Hobden, BSc. MEd. PhD. Evaluation co-ordinator. July2010

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION © QPIE PAGE iii Confidential report for restricted circulation

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Wow , wow, that one – there is no doubt about that one!” RUMEP took me from a non –Maths teacher to a Grade 12 Maths teacher – I never imagined it” RUMEP teacher 26

1.1 THE EVALUATION

The basic purpose of this extended evaluation is to provide information to ZF and RUMEP about the extent to which the three year project has made a long term contribution to the quality of Mathematics teaching in grades 10 to 12 in the district and to document what can be learned from the process. It must be seen as a continuation of the original evaluation. Basic purpose of this assessment report will be twofold: Assess the long term effectiveness of the teacher development project Assess if the project has an impact on senior certificate results

The findings must be seen in the context of the summative report finding so they are briefly summarised at this point.

We feel that the professional development component of the project was a complete success in that it provided a structured programme which maximised teachers’ opportunities to develop themselves to become effective mathematics teachers taking their context into account.

The improvement in the mathematics was only seen in the basic GET skills but the scores were still very low. While this indicates some progress, it is too little too late, and learners are falling behind with Grade appropriate work. There is no evidence from the maths testing that achievement was better in the project schools in 2008 compared to the control schools..

Learner attitudes do not seem to change easily and the pattern of high agreement that maths is a high status and useful subject, and low agreement with statements related to perceived competence and confidence persist. The teacher affirmation scale seems to be an indicator of a caring teacher, and a scale sensitive to teacher absence and change.

Overall those teachers who participated on the programme created more positive learning environments aligned to the new curriculum than those who were in the control schools.

In general we found that the majority of teachers were able to translate their professional development skills from the degree course into the classroom (such that they could be considered competent qualified mathematics teachers) but this did not necessarily result in improved mathematics achievement. There was also a wide variety of factors which influenced teachers transfer of skills to the classroom most importantly being personal factors and constraints arising from the school context.

In the next sections we summarise the main findings of this one year extension to the evaluation.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 1 Confidential report for restricted circulation 1.2 LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT

Evaluation question: Has the project intervention made a difference to the learners’ mathematics skills?

Basic skills Across all schools tested, the mean marks for the GET basic skills test administered in February remained constant from 2007 to 2009 at around 30%, with the best learners obtaining a mean of around 50%. The mean marks for the retest of the GET basic skills in November were typically slightly better on average, with some individual learners improving greatly.

Grade 10 content The Grade 10 maths content test marks have consistently been under 20% even when the only the best three learners at each school were considered. The learner achievement in the project schools was best in 2007 when the teachers were in the final year of the BEd and were expected to produce portfolios of work and to be observed. In some cases learners had the basic skills to access grade 10 work yet still did obtained poor results perhaps due to the teacher not completing the curriculum for grade 10 or requiring a very low level of cognitive demand in class work to allow the majority to pass internal examinations.

The NSC results Analysis of the NSC results from 2003 to 2009, shows no significant difference in results between project schools and control schools taken as a group clearly indicating that the task of turning the school performance around is beyond the capabilities of individual teachers. Nevertheless, although it cannot simply be claimed that the RUMEP teachers alone managed to increase the number of passes at their respective schools, there are some individual cases where a positive trend is appearing.

1.3 GRADE 10 PROJECT GROUP

Is there evidence that the quality of the project teachers’ classroom teaching has improved?

Attitude to maths The results of the Mathematics Attitude testing in 2009 merely confirmed the findings reported before i.e. that there is generally high agreement that maths is useful and has high status, and lower agreement with respects to their ability in Maths and their confidence. A better picture of the contribution of the teacher to the attitude of the learners is obtained by isolating the Teacher Affirmation scale. Four case studies show that the school contexts and teacher priorities have a strong effect on the learners’ perception of teacher support and RUMEP teacher can have a positive effect. This both confirms the validity of the attitude testing, and points to the generally positive effect that the project teachers are able to have on the attitudes of the learners.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 2 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Learning environment As a consequence of the RUMEP maths BEd programme the teachers do produce more positive learning environments than those teachers who have not done the programme. While the positive differences exist across all scales, they are not very significant. These differences have also decreased once the programme stopped.

When the environments are compared to those of teachers in functioning successful urban schools, they are very similar indicating that the majority of these teachers can create positive learning environments for maths learning. There is evidence that these environments are changed when conditions change e.g. teacher has major admin duties and when new teachers take over the class.

Contextual analysis From this analysis we can say with some confidence that where you have a competent teacher in a functioning school, the chances are high that the marks will improve over time. However, where you only have one or the other the chances of learner success are minimal. So a good project teacher in a non functioning school was unable to improve achievement. A good project teacher in a good school was able to maintain or improve results. It was also revealing that the teachers who had passed the BEd were easily recognized in the classroom as generally being more competent than those who had attended the course but not completed the course work.

1.4 ALL TEACHERS WHO DID THE BED

Evaluation question: What has happened to these teachers professional career path after completing their degree?

Promotion The BEd provided an opportunity to gain promotion and most teachers applied for promotion with a third being promoted.

Mobility Unfortunately, we found that there was a lack of stability in the math teaching cohort with significant movement across the schools with nearly 40% moving schools. Many of the teachers who received the specialist Mathematics BEd degree were no longer mathematics teachers.

Negatives A number of negatives were found that prevented change from occurring. Some were: a) Dissent between the teacher unions and district officials, and within the staff at a school impedes the professional work of teachers and demotivates them. Political decisions sometimes override educationally sound decisions. b) The poor basic mathematics and literacy skills of learners entering the high schools impedes progress and improvement in the FET band. c) The general attitude of the learners who seem to be demotivated and unwilling to engage with the work impedes progress in their school work.

RUMEP legacy

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 3 Confidential report for restricted circulation

The most important positive according to the teachers is what we describe as the RUMEP legacy. The RUMEP programme has left a legacy of competent and confident teachers who reflect on their teaching, continue to use the resources of RUMEP to plan their lessons, act in collegial ways toward each other and overall many are changed people.

I’m confident now – anyone can come into my Maths class – I know what I am doing. I use my planning files – now I don’t just go into the classroom and page through a textbook. Learners know that if it’s the Maths period, it’s a period to work. RUMEP teacher 22

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 4 Confidential report for restricted circulation

SECTION 2– THE EVALUATION

2.1 PURPOSE

In the original proposal (which should be read in conjunction with this extension for background information) it was stated that “While some significant progress is expected over the three years, more time will be required to gauge the full impact.” Having spent the last three years working in the area we have seen an exemplary professional development project but only small changes in the teachers. This component of the evaluation was based on the premise that if they do benefit from the BEd experience then change will be gradual as they become more confident and settled in their new roles as qualified mathematics teachers. At the same time, as more learners pass through the grade these learners will attempt senior certificate. Consequently an evaluation after two years would provide valuable information about the project impact.

The main problem that the Project sought to address was the poor learning of mathematics amongst learners in high schools, particularly amongst learners from historically disadvantaged areas. The ZF identified the following external indicators of the problem:  The number of learners registered for mathematics at FET level is low.  The senior certificate pass rate for mathematics amongst historically disadvantaged learners is low. The RUMEP Fort Beaufort Mathematics Project (known as the “Project”) identified the following factors that contributed to this problem  Teachers are under or unqualified teachers and consequently lack both the content knowledge and pedagogic skills required  Teachers have poor assessment techniques  Teachers/schools have a shortage of materials and resources to deliver the curriculum properly  Teachers lack an adequate support structure for professional development within the schools and from the Department of Education  Teachers do not have sufficient knowledge of the curriculum

The above factors are believed to impact negatively on learner performance in mathematics. RUMEP solution was to address this problem through the provision of a B.Ed programme to mathematics teachers in high schools. While RUMEP noted that there were other contributing factors to the problem such as physical infrastructure at schools, school management, poverty, etc. the set of problems that they set out to address in the Project related to improving the quality of teaching. Consequently this was the primary focus of the intervention project.

The essential purpose of this phase of evaluation could be summed up as “ to continue with independent and external learner testing and school visits to assess changes in teaching practices at selected grade 10 schools, to track the movements of all the BEd project teachers within and between schools and to monitor the senior certificate results.” The evaluation approach may best be described as realist. It draws on features of objectives-, developmental-,

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 5 Confidential report for restricted circulation and responsive-oriented evaluations. It followed a mixed method research approach using both qualitative and quantitative data to inform its findings .

Because resources were not available to do in depth case studies of all the 34 participating teachers, it was decided to select those teachers who were teaching grade 10. Twelve teachers met this criteria and case studies of their teaching have been compiled over the last few years. These were reported in detail in the summative report. During the three years the teachers had been visited twice and for this current component of the evaluation, they were visited again and their classes tested and surveyed with a variety of instruments in 2009. Consequently we had data from 2006 through to 2009 for analysis.

2.2 OVERVIEW OF SUMMATIVE FINDINGS

This report cannot stand on its own and needs to be read in conjunction with the original summative report submitted in 2009. What follows is a brief summary of the main findings of the summative report. This current report expands on these findings.

1. Is there evidence that the project intervention provided the opportunities for teachers to become competent mathematics teachers? We feel that the professional development component of the project was a complete success in that it provided a structured programme which maximised teachers’ opportunities to develop themselves to become effective mathematics teachers taking their context into account.

2. Has the project intervention made a difference to the learners’ mathematics marks? The improvement in the mathematics was only seen in the basic GET skills but the scores were still very low. While this indicates some progress, it is too little too late, and learners are falling behind with Grade appropriate work. There is no evidence from the maths testing that achievement was better in the project schools in 2008 compared to the control schools..

3. Have attitudes to mathematics improved? Learner attitudes do not seem to change easily and the pattern of high agreement that maths is a high status and useful subject, and low agreement with statements related to perceived competence and confidence persist. The teacher affirmation scale seems to be an indicator of a caring teacher, and a scale sensitive to teacher absence and change.

4. Have RUMEP teachers created classroom environments conducive to effective maths teaching and learning? Overall those teachers who participated on the programme created more positive learning environments aligned to the new curriculum than those who were in the control schools.

5. Is there evidence that the quality of the project teachers’ classroom teaching has improved? In general we found that the majority of teachers were able to translate their professional development skills from the degree course into the classroom (such that they could be considered competent qualified mathematics teachers) but this did not necessarily result in improved mathematics achievement. There was also a wide variety of factors which influenced teachers transfer of skills to the classroom most importantly being personal factors and constraints arising from the school context.

The following comments were made by the evaluators on these findings: i) Why does improved competency of the teacher not result in improved learner performance?

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 6 Confidential report for restricted circulation

No direct link could be found to suggest that competence of the project mathematics teachers would result in the improvement of the mathematics grade 10 scores. It is our contention that basics skills are the major stumbling block. The learners entering grade 10 have very low basic skills in mathematics that despite competent teaching they are not able to access the grade 10 level mathematics and consequently show very little improvement over the year despite having a competent teacher ii) What can be done in a similar situation to improve uptake? It is our considered opinion that a serious intervention is required before or during grade 10 to make sure learners doing grade 10 have basic mathematical skills. Two main initiatives are suggested. Firstly, generating interest in mathematics. We feel some programmes for the school vacations outside of schools in which maths is put forward as fun, exciting and valuable needs to be put in place. Secondly, a parallel curriculum. Our main suggestion is to develop a programme of “alongside learner support”, to remediate for basic skills whilst carrying on with grade appropriate work. iii) Intervening in schools to bring about change is a complex business. We are seeing that there are a number of factors that all need to be addressed at the same time. This evaluation has informed us that having a competent teacher in a functioning school is necessary but not sufficient for mathematics achievement to improve significantly. Unfortunately the solution lies in addressing all three at the same time being school management, teacher competency and learner preparedness.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 7 Confidential report for restricted circulation

SECTION 3– ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHS TESTS

Evaluation question: Has the project intervention made a difference to the learners’ mathematics skills?

There is no clear overall evidence that learners at project schools are performing better either in the GET basic skills test or the Grade 10 maths content test, except in 2007 when the teachers were deeply immersed in the RUMEP programme.

Analysis of the National Grade 12 results from 2003 to 2009, in the project and control schools shows no significant difference. This clearly indicates that the task of turning the school performance around is beyond the capabilities of individual teachers. Nevertheless, although it cannot simply be claimed that the RUMEP teachers managed to increase the number of passes at their respective schools, there are some individual cases where a positive trend is appearing.

Research Notes: The movement of teachers within the district makes simple comparison between our original 12 project schools and the 6 control schools impossible. In one case a project teacher moved to a control school in 2009. In other cases they moved to a different project school, or out of the district. For example, when we returned to the original 12 project schools in 2009 we found that in seven schools the RUMEP teacher was no longer teaching Grade 10.

In order to get some consistency, only seven of the project schools were chosen for analysis of the mathematics marks, both on the trends in National Grade 12 examination and in the 2009 QPiE Grade 10 testing. At these schools, the original project teacher had remained in the school from 2006 to 2009, although not always teaching Grade 10 mathematics but typically teaching some mathematics and in our opinion making a difference to maths teaching in the school in some way. The project teacher had in each case taught the 2008 Grade 12s when the learners were in Grade 10. The six control schools were used for comparison remembering that there was also lots of staff movement within these schools. For example, the grade 10s in one school was taught by a different teacher in each of the four years we tested.

3.1 GRADE 10 PROJECT AND CONTROL

2009 testing Following the procedure of 2007 and 2008, a GET basic skills mathematics test was administered by fieldworkers employed by the evaluators in February 2009. The testing was repeated in November 2009 with an additional section testing the Grade 10 mathematics curriculum content. When the November testing was conducted, the fieldworkers were asked to test just one class per school, where applicable the focus teacher’s class, or otherwise a representative grade 10 class. In February, the entire grade at one of the control schools had been tested (over 100 learners). Table 3.1 shows that we were able to retest approximately half the learners tested in February. (This movement among classes, drop out from schools and absenteeism on the testing days makes comparison testing extremely difficult.)

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 8 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Table 3.1 Matching of grade 10 learners in February and November 2009 m atch

Cum ulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Feb & Nov 290 50.6 50.6 50.6

Feb only 263 45.9 45.9 96.5

Nov only 20 3.5 3.5 100.0

T otal 573 100.0 100.0

By 2009, some RUMEP project teachers had moved schools, and others had changed the subjects or grades they were teaching. This obviously impacted on the initial model of twelve Grade 10 classes taught by RUMEP teachers and a control group of six Grade 10 classes taught by teachers not on the RUMEP programme. This has resulted in the analysis of longitudinal data for each of the project teachers becoming complex and less complete. Nevertheless, the data collected in 2009 informs us of the conditions prevailing in the district in general, and at the 17 schools in particular. The purpose of testing in 2009 was to check for any significant changes in marks, and to extend the longitudinal data available. The 2009 mathematics testing results are not discussed separately since there is little new to report.

Scanning the data reveals that there are many learners at each school who perform very poorly indeed and these have a negative impact on the average mark. Often these are learners who are seldom at school and so their performance is not a true reflection of the teachers’ work, nor of the work done in the classroom. The marks of the more able learners give a better indication of the “opportunity to learn” that prevailed in each teachers’ classroom. For this reason, the mean mark of the top three learners at each school was also computed and considered along with the mean marks of the entire grade 10 group.

Our findings are based on an extensive data set for each school and we have tried to interrogate the data in different ways looking for signs of improvement. For example Figure 3.1 contains all the data that is available for one school, presented in this case for school PS3.

This school is used as an illustrative example.  The marks in the basic skills section improve slightly from February to November in each year.  The mean marks of the top three learners, while clearly better than the overall mean, still do not point to mastery of the GET level work. Learners in functioning urban schools score on average about 60%+ with best learners getting in the 90s.  The marks of even the best learners for the Grade 10 level work at year end have been around 10% since 2006 showing little improvement over the years.  The NSC results for this school which indicate that since 2006 no more than 5 learners have passed each year, with a zero pass rate recorded in 2007, is not surprising.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 9 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Schoolcode: PS3 100

60 n a 50 e M

30 55 55 48 45 45 20 42 42 34 30 29 29 31 28 26 10 11 12 10 5 5 4 6 4 0 GET Best GET Best GET Best GET Best GET Best GET Best GET Best Gr10 Best Gr10 Best Gr10 Best Gr10 Best skills GET skills GET skills GET skills GET skills GET skills GET skills GET Maths Gr10 Maths Gr10 Maths Gr10 Maths Gr10 Nov06 skills Feb07 skills Nov07 skills Feb08 skills Nov08 skills Feb09 skills Nov09 skills Nov06 Maths Nov07 Maths Nov08 Maths Nov09 Maths Nov06 Feb07 Nov07 Feb08 Nov08 Feb09 Nov09 Nov06 Nov07 Nov08 Nov09

Figure 3.1 Maths test scores for all grade 10s and the best three learners (striped bars) at PS3.

Basic skills test: When the data is taken from the seven schools that consistently had RUMEP teachers on their staff, and comparing with data from the six control schools the pattern of results persists. The overall basic GET skills test results are around 30% in February but increase slightly by November, and this trend is repeated for the best learners, but up to around 50%. Comparative data from the schools with RUMEP teachers and control schools is presented in Figure 3.2.

The data from the February GET basic skills testing is omitted from the graph to make it easier to read. A full table of data is presented in the Appendix. There is no indication that the learners of the project teachers are doing any better than those at the control schools.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 10 Confidential report for restricted circulation

GET skills Nov06 60 GET skills Nov07 GET skills Nov08 GET skills Nov09

t Best GET skills Nov06 s

e 50 Best GET skills Nov07 t

s Best GET skills Nov08 l l

i Best GET skills Nov09 k s

c i 40 s a b

T E G 30 n

i 57 55 e 53 54 54 53 r 52

o 49 c s 20 % 38 36 n 34 35 a 33 32 32 32 e M 10

0 Rumep project teacher in school Control school School

Figure 3.2 Mean % mark achieved by Grade 10 learners in a GET basic skills test at schools where a RUMEP teacher was working, and at control schools

Grade 10 specific tests We turn now to the grade specific work – i.e. the Grade 10 work that was tested in November. The design of this test has been discussed fully in previous reports but to summarise: the test included items testing content specifically prescribed for grade 10. The level of difficulty was low, and set to test basic competence at Grade 10 level work. The marks in this test have been consistently low in this project (as compared to means of upwards of 50% at urban schools where we have used the same test).

Figure 3.3 shows that the mean scores are very low for both the schools with RUMEP project teachers, and the control schools. The means for the best three learners, while higher than the overall mean, are still well below a passing mark of 30%. There is no evidence to suggest that the Grade 10 work was completed since even the most able learners at the schools performed so poorly on the test.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 11 Confidential report for restricted circulation l

o Gr10 Maths Nov06 o 50 Gr10 Maths Nov07 h c Gr10 Maths Nov08 s

e Gr10 Maths Nov09 h t

Best Gr10 Maths Nov06 t a

Best Gr10 Maths Nov07

d 40

e Best Gr10 Maths Nov08 t

s Best Gr10 Maths Nov09 e t

s r

e Minimum mark for pass n

r 30 a e l

y b

d e v 20 e i h c a

k r a m 10 19

% 17 15 15 14 n 13 12 12 a 11 e 8 8 7 6 M 6 6 6 0 Rumep project teacher in school Control school School

Figure 3.3 Mean % mark achieved by Grade 10 learners in a Gr10 Maths test at schools where a RUMEP teacher was working, and at control schools

Is there any indicator of success? An interesting feature of the graph occurs at 2007 which is the only occasion that the mean of learners at schools with RUMEP teachers is greater than the mean in the control schools. This is the case for the whole class means (green bar), as well as the means of the best learners (red striped bar). The differences are small but were found to be statistically significant when all the project schools were included (see Implementation Report p. 11).

It is surely no coincidence that 2007 was the year when the cohort of RUMEP teachers we were following were completing their degrees. They were thoroughly immersed in the culture of detailed planning, school support visits, lectures to improve their subject content knowledge and regular cluster meetings. Perhaps their compliance with this culture was due to “bureaucratic change forces” which Rogan and Grayson ( 2003 ) characterise by teachers changing just enough to avoid sanction, or in this case to pass the modules, in which the changes were unlikely to persist. Certainly, on average, the marks seem to have equalised between project and control schools once the BEd programme was completed. This is at best anecdotal evidence since the marks are all so low, and although the RUMEP teachers were still in the schools, many had moved away form teaching Grade 10 mathematics. Nevertheless it points to the important role of classroom support and “personality change forces” and is a positive finding.

Do basics skills correlate with grade 10 success? Whilst checking for the top marks in each school some interesting data became evident. It seems that in many cases, the learners improve their scores on the basic skills test in the course of their Grade 10 year (perhaps indicating some instruction in basic GET work) and yet score extremely poorly in the Grade 10 mathematics content (perhaps indicating lack of instruction in the grade specific work). Some specific examples are: At PS4: the 16 year old girl who did best in November basic skills with 75% (improved from 55%), achieved 35% in Grade 10 test. At PS6, a 17 year old boy improved on basic skills from 30 to 70% and yet could score only 4% in Grade 10 work.

One could conjecture that teachers realise the lack of basic skills, and do their best to remedy this at the expense of getting on with the current grade level work. The cycle perpetuates itself,

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 12 Confidential report for restricted circulation because the basic skills needed for Grade 11 are in part the Grade 10 work, which gets done at the expense of the current Grade 11 level until time runs out and the learners are left with totally inadequate skills and knowledge at Grade 12 level ( as is very clear from the abysmal NSC marks).

Across all schools tested, the mean marks for the GET basic skills test administered in February remained constant from 2007 to 2009 at around 30%, with the best learners obtaining a mean of around 50%. The mean marks for the retest of the GET basic skills in November were typically slightly better on average, with some individual learners improving greatly. The Grade 10 maths content test marks have consistently been under 20% even when the only the best three learners at each school were considered. The learner achievement in the project schools was best in 2007 when the teachers were in the final year of the BEd and were expected to produce portfolios of work and to be observed. In some cases learners had the basic skills to access grade 10 work yet still did obtained poor results perhaps due to the teacher not completing the curriculum for grade 10 or requiring a very low level of cognitive demand in class work to allow the majority to pass internal examinations.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 13 Confidential report for restricted circulation

3.2 CHANGE IN NSC OVER YEARS

The matriculation results for the schools in the Fort Beaufort and King Williams town districts were available from 2003 to 2009, allowing for a seven year longitudinal analysis. During this time there was a change in curriculum and assessment. The “new” curriculum from 2008 has no provision for Higher or Standard grade. There are seven levels of achievement, Level 1 (a fail), and Level 2 (30% to 39%) to Level 7 (above 80%).

The “old” curriculum, in place from 2003 to 2007 made provision for subjects to be written on Higher grade or Standard grade, and for failing Higher Grade marks to be converted to Standard grade passes. The categories of pass for Higher Grade (HG) were A (80% and above) to E (between 40% and 50%). Marks between 30% and 40% were condoned to Standard Grade (SG) passes, and anything lower was an outright fail. The categories of pass for SG were A (80% and above) to F (between 33% and 40%) and 50%). Marks below 33% were classified FF, G or H all of which were a fail.

Grades of pass Data for each school includes the number who wrote the exam, the number who passed, the percentage pass rate, and the number of learners obtaining each class of pass. The number of quality passes in mathematics, by which we mean passes that allow access to science and engineering faculties, typically Level 5 or above 60%, is extremely low. Prior to 2008, there were very few learners attempting Higher Grade, and even fewer passing at the required levels. Figure 3.4 is provided to illustrate the context in which the RUMEP teachers worked.

900

9 800 0 0 2

3 700 0 0 2

o 600 r f

s r

e 500 n r a e l

f 400 820 o

r e b

m 300 u n

l a t 200 o T

100 168 94 30 49 31 0 3 7 HGAL7 HGBL6 HGCL5 HGDL4 HGEL3 ConvSG L2 HGGHL1 Level of Pass on Higher Grade (2003 - 2007) or in Core Mathematics (2008-2009)

Figure 3.4 Total number of passes at each level achieved by learners at all project and control schools

This graph shows the total number of learners achieving each grade of pass, calculated over a seven year period. The following observations can be made:  The vast majority of learners who attempted mathematics at this level (68%) failed.  The relatively high numbers of learners achieving HGEL3 and L2 (minimum levels for a pass) is disappointing, and leads one to suspect that many of these passes were actually condoned failures.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 14 Confidential report for restricted circulation

 Only 3% of the learners achieved sufficiently well (HGC or Level 5 or above) to be considered for access to scientific fields for tertiary study, i.e. higher Grade or Core Mathematics,

When the data was disaggregated into project schools where the RUMEP teacher had remained for the duration of the evaluation, and control schools, the pattern of achievement remained the same as described above i.e. mostly failures or marginal passes. The magnitude of the task of bringing the standard of mathematics achievement in this area up to acceptable levels is immense and way beyond the scope of individual teachers.

Number of learners Another indicator of the success of schools could be the number of learners who pass mathematics at Grade 12 level, and this is presented in Figure 3.5. This is obviously influenced by the number of learners in the school but it is not sensible to talk of percentage pass rates at school where less than 20 learners write the Grade 12 mathematics examination. Schools PS5 and CS6 are large schools, but it is nevertheless significant they are able to facilitate many passes. All the data is presented in the appendix including the percentage passes.

Year 50 2006 2007 2008

g 2009

n 40 i s s a p

s r e

n 30 r a e l

f 49 o

47 r e

b 20 40 m u

n 32

l 30 a

t 27 o T 10 20 17 17 16 15 13 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PS5 PS6 PS7 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 Schoolcode Note: PS refers to school where project teacher worked from 2006-2009 and CS refers to a control school Figure 3.5 Total number of learners passing Mathematics (HG, SG or Core Maths) since 2006.

A number of observations can be made from Figure 3.5, and possible explanations offered, based on our knowledge of the schools and teachers involved.  First, there is no striking difference between the project schools and the control schools. Both groups have schools where the number of passes consistently remains 10 or less.  Second, school PS5 seems to be increasing the number of learners passing mathematics. This school has relatively good results in 2008, the first year of the new curriculum, and did not suffer from the “content gap” which caused a sharp drop in number of passes at some schools (for example, PS1 and CS1). There were originally four RUMEP teachers at this school, and two of them remained active at the school throughout the evaluation period.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 15 Confidential report for restricted circulation

 Third, the results at PS3 were very poor indeed. Although there were two RUMEP teachers at that school (one of whom was the principal) and the school infrastructure was good, the school did not seem to function.  Fourth, control school CS5 shows a marked increase in the number of passes in 2009. This coincides with the appointment of a very competent RUMEP teacher as HOD of mathematics and Science at the beginning of 2009.

Analysis of the NSC results from 2003 to 2009, shows no significant difference in results between project schools and control schools taken as a group clearly indicating that the task of turning the school performance around is beyond the capabilities of individual teachers.

Nevertheless, although it cannot simply be claimed that the RUMEP teachers alone managed to increase the number of passes at their respective schools, there are some individual cases where a positive trend is appearing.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 16 Confidential report for restricted circulation

SECTION 4– THE G10 PROJECT TEACHERS

Is there evidence that the quality of the project teachers’ classroom teaching has improved?

School observations: The school visits and observations made in 2009 do not suggest a need to change our original finding. In general we found that the majority of teachers were able to translate their professional development skills from the degree course into the classroom (such that they could be considered competent qualified mathematics teachers) but this did not necessarily result in improved mathematics achievement. Attitude to maths: The results of the Mathematics Attitude testing in 2009 merely confirmed the findings reported before i.e. that there is generally high agreement that maths is useful and has high status, and lower agreement with respects to their ability in Maths and their confidence. Classroom environment: As a consequence of the RUMEP maths BEd programme the teachers do produce more positive learning environments than those teachers who have not done the programme. While the positive differences exist across all scales, they are not very significant. These differences have also decreased once the programme stopped. Mitigating context: Three contextual factors were considered namely functioning school, resources for teaching and teacher maths teaching competence. From this analysis we can say with some confidence that where you have a competent teacher in a functioning school, the chances are high that the marks will improve over time. However, where you only have one or the other the chances of learner success are minimal.

4.1 ATTITUDE TESTS

As part of our pluristic approach to evaluation, a number of instruments were used to gather data about the teaching and learning in the grade 10 classrooms of the project teachers. The attitude test construction and analysis is fully described in earlier reports and is not discussed here. Figure 4.6 on next page is provided as confirmation that the overall trends noted from 2006 to 2008 (and reported in detail in previous reports) persisted into 2009 i.e. high agreement that mathematics is a useful and high status subject, low agreement that they are competent at maths, and little change in the means from February to November except for a slight and understandable decline in perception of competence, and a slight decrease in the perception of teacher affirmation.

Of the five attitude sub- scales (perception of ability, perception of confidence, perception of status of maths, perception of usefulness of maths and role of the teacher), the most directly linked to the teacher is the latter. This sub-scale is a composite of the four items on the questionnaire as outlined below:

Role of teacher - My teacher affirms me 6 My maths teachers have been interested in my progress in mathematics 10 Maths teachers have made me feel I have the ability to go on in mathematics 22 My teachers think I’m the kind of person who could do well in mathematics. 25 I have found it hard to win the respect of maths teachers (I have found it easy to win the respect of my maths teacher) Item25 was reverse coded and so the italicised statement is relevant.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 17 Confidential report for restricted circulation

1.50

1.00

n 1.16 1.10 a

e 0.50

M 0.82 0.80 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.63 0.67 0.56

0.32 0.19 0.06 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 -0.06 -0.13 -0.14

-0.50

s r e s v b e s v b v s b v v b b b h c e n h c s o t e o e o e h o t e e o e n h t o n e a i F F a F N N F F N F c N t e N a

e n

t l M a a e e M n e s s e d n e s

e e M

i u c e d c f o f h h f d c o s h c t m p f i t t i t n t u n r o n e t u n d n f i o t

a a t a r e i f m a e s i o a e t e o f t s t t a s t o c u t M M d M d e a u m e

i m i s c n a f f r a f f f w r f f p

a i p

i e l f o t f l o o n o o f o l n o i l f

f t t n m o s m o

l a o a

a n s s n a s p r o f r

o e u n C s C o u o r u f r e e o i i e t d C t C o

t e t e c e v e i v a u a t r n p n p t s h t t h l i O p e O o e e c t u c S i u S t

e p t c f c a f a

r r a c p e e

o e r n e e l

i s e l T

T e p p n c a

U e p r r o

n n i g e i i e t n

i n p v p

e e a o e e n g g h i c g

n n n r C n e a a o e i a g

h h P h n e C C a g C h n a C h C

Figure 4.6 Attitudes scores form all learners tested in 2009

The mean scores on the composite scale “my teacher affirms me” are presented in Figure 4.7 in order to provide an overall view. In 2006 and 2007 (the blue and green bars) the RUMEP project teachers were mostly still teaching Grade 10 at their original schools. It can be seen that the perceptions of teacher affirmation differs from school to school, and from year to year.

2006 1.500 2007 2008 2009 n

o Agree- my teacher affirms me i

t 1.000 a m r i f f a

1.3 r 1.2 1.2 e

h 0.500 c 0.9 a 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 e 0.7 0.7 t 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 f 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 o 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 t 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 n 0.2 0.2 e 0.1

m 0.000 0.0 e e r g a -0.

n 6 a e

M -0.500

-1.000 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PS5 PS6 PS7 PS8 PS9 PS10 PS11 Schoolcode

Figure 4.7 Mean agreement with teacher affirmation at all project school from 2006 to 2009

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 18 Confidential report for restricted circulation

In order to provide a fine grained viewpoint four school have been chosen to illustrate how attitudes change depending on the teacher and the context. The four schools selected for discussion are shown in Figure 4.8.

2006 1.5 2007 2008 2009

1.0

1.31 1.19 1.22 0.5 0.83 0.85

n 0.65 a 0.56 0.52 e 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.37 0.38 M 0.27 0.0 0.08

-0.62

-0.5

-1.0

PS1 PS2 PS4 PS9 Schoolcode

Figure 4.8 Mean agreement with teacher affirmation at selected project schools from 2006 to 2009

Project school 1: At PS1, the same project teacher has been Grade 10 for the four years and yet the perception of his supportive behaviour differs in learners in successive years. This teacher did not complete the BEd and works at a school that we have noted is fast falling into disrepair.

Project school 2: Similarly at PS2, there was continuity of teacher. Although this teacher was not doing the BEd, he attended all the workshops and was showing pleasing improvement in his learner support up to 2009. The number of learners in this school is small which probably increases the learners’ perception of support and affirmation.

Project school 4: At PS4, the same high achieving teacher was involved with Grade 10s for 2006, 2007 and 2008. The learners’ perception of teacher affirmation at his school were considerably higher than any of the other project schools in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the degree completed it seems that the focus of this teacher shifted to new management responsibilities in the school and there was a marked drop in the perception of teacher support from his learners. This trend was reversed in 2009 with the arrival of a new teacher.

Project school 9: Lastly, PS9 provides interesting data on the effect that different teachers can have on learners’ attitudes at a school. In 2006, the project teacher was away for 5 months on maternity leave and when she returned was under great pressure to work with the Grade 12 learners. The substitute teacher had apparently not done much work with any of the grades. The Grade 10 learners at PS9 were unable to agree that the project teacher had supported them at the end of 2006. In 2007, the project teacher again missed a lot of school due to family problems but the learners rated her teacher support a little higher. Not surprisingly due to all these problems, the teacher failed the BEd and was excluded on academic grounds. In 2008, a different teacher took over the teaching of the grade 10s and these learners expressed strong disagreement that their teacher affirmed them. On 2009, it is yet another teacher. On a more

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 19 Confidential report for restricted circulation positive note, this project teacher changed schools and so when we tested her Grade 10 learners at the new school, they scored 0.67 on the teacher affirmation scale. This indicates that when settled she is able to achieve a situation where her learners can agree that she affirms them.

The results of the Mathematics Attitude testing in 2009 merely confirmed the findings reported before i.e. that there is generally high agreement that maths is useful and has high status, and lower agreement with respects to their ability in Maths and their confidence. A better picture of the contribution of the teacher to the attitude of the learners is obtained by isolating the Teacher Affirmation scale. Four case studies show that the school contexts and teacher priorities have a strong effect on the learners’ perception of teacher support and RUMEP teacher can have a positive effect. This both confirms the validity of the attitude testing, and points to the generally positive effect that the project teachers are able to have on the attitudes of the learners.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 20 Confidential report for restricted circulation

4.2 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT SURVEY

Another instrument that we used to provide evidence of the teaching environment was the classroom environment survey. This was administered at the end of each year to see the learners’ perceptions of the learning environment created by the project teacher. The survey instrument and description of scales is described fully in the summative report and in Appendix . In the current study, the survey was given to all learners in grade 10 who were taught by the teachers on the programme. This was done at the end of grade 10 in 2006, 2007, 2008 and for the extension in 2009. This allowed comparisons to be made. Note that these are not the same learners but rather the classroom environment perceived by different cohorts of learners of each of the teachers on the programme. The control schools were also given the survey.

Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire Previously we had reported that : Overall those teachers who participated on the programme created more positive learning environments aligned to the new curriculum than those who were in the control schools..

In previous years, an analysis was done to see if there were differences between the control and project schools. In the first year 2006 there was a statistically significant difference between groups only for the scale of teacher support which was seen as higher in the project schools. In the final year of the project 2007, a number of positive differences were recorded and it looked as if the teachers were establishing significantly more positive environments for the learning of mathematics than their colleagues in the control schools (see Progress report). In 2008 these differences lessened and the original gains had decreased. The same general trend can be reported for 2009 with 4 of the 6 scales again decreasing.

Table 4.2 Comparison of means for each scale of the classroom environment survey from 2006 to 2009 for the project and control schools.

Scale SCT TST INT TOT COT EQT

Project 2006 28.4 25.7 26.7 33.7 27.6 29.9

Project 2007 30.6 27.6 27.6 33.2 28.5 30.4

Project 2008 30.0 27.3 27.3 31.7 28.2 30.5

Project 2009 29.3 26.6 27.2 34.9 28.8 29.8

Average 29.6 26.8 27.2 33.4 28.2 30.1

Scale SCT TST INT TOT COT EQT Control 2006 28.0 24.6 25.8 34.1 27.7 30.5 Control 2007 29.2 24.5 26.5 32.7 28.8 29.6 Control 2008 29.5 26.5 26.5 32.6 27.3 28.5 Control 2009 28.4 25.5 26.3 33.4 28.0 29.6 Average 28.8 25.3 26.3 33.2 27.9 29.5

Note that max score is 40 representing Always while a score of 8 represents Never.

It would appear that the classroom environment was most positive in the final year of the teachers study at RUMEP and formal participation in the project i.e. 2007. Once the project ended, there has been some indication of a decline, which has continued into 2009. However,

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 21 Confidential report for restricted circulation the project schools are still in general better than at the start and continue to be more positive across all scales that the control.

Project over the years Project 2006 Project 2007 40 Project 2008

Project 2009

32 t n e m e e r

g 24 a

f o

l e v e L

8 SCT TST INT TOT COT EQT Scales

Figure 4.9 Comparison of mean classroom environment scales for the project schools from 2006 to 2009

When the mean scores for each scale are compared, there is a difference on all scales between the control and the project teachers classroom environments across the years. Project teachers’ learners are more positive (by about 3 or 4 %) about the environment. However the differences are not statistically significant

Com paris on of Averages

40.0

Control

Project

32.0 t n e m e e r g

a 24.0

f o

l e v e L

16.0

8.0 SCT TST INT IVT TOT COT EQT Scales

Figure 4.10 Comparison of mean classroom environment scales for the control and project schools from 2006 to 2009

There is further evidence that the RUMEP BEd project teachers do make a difference to the learning environment. In some of the project schools a different teacher took over the teaching of the grade 10 class. Where a teacher has been teaching grade 10 for three consecutive years

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 22 Confidential report for restricted circulation and then departs there are changes. In some cases particular aspects go down such as teacher support but in other cases it goes up.

40 Initial year 2006 Interm ediate 2007 Final year 2008 36 New teacher t

n 32 e m e e r

g 28 a

f o

l e v

e 24 L

16 SCT TST INT TOT COT EQT

Environment scales

Figure 4.11 Classroom environment: Negative changes in scales as a new teacher takes over.

This is not always the case. Every case has to be examined because contextual factors make a difference. In the following example we had a teacher who changed dramatically as a consequence of his involvement with RUMEP. This resulted in a very positive classroom environment. It appears this change was recognized by the school and he was given many administrative duties in 2008 and had to act as deputy principal. While doing this the classroom environment changed with decreases on all scales. When a new teacher arrived and took over the scales improved as the teacher obviously had more time to spend on maths teaching and did not have the admin duties. We can see from this that a strategy that promotes mathematics teachers in the classroom is required. A good teacher was lost to administration and the evidence is in how the learners perceived the maths learning environment.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 23 Confidential report for restricted circulation

E n v i r o n m e n t i n 2 0 0 6 40 E n v i r o n m e n t i n 2 0 0 7

E n v i r o n m e n t i n 2 0 0 8 36 N e w t e a c h e r t

n 32 e m e e r g

a 28

f o

l e v

e 24 L

16 SCT TST INT TOT COT EQT

Environment scales

Figure 4.12 Classroom environment: Positive changes in scales when new teacher takes over.

Classroom communication survey

During our fieldwork visit in Sept 2009 we also used a classroom communication instrument to gather additional data. This instrument is described in Appendix This instrument was useful in confirming our analysis of the teaching and learning environment. This instrument had been used in other schools which are described as good schools i.e. functioning schools which achieve consistently high results and in most cases were urban ex model C schools. Overall the RUMEP grade 10 teachers had similar profiles to those reported in these good schools. In fact the learners see the teachers as being more understanding and helpful. The only area of concern is that the learners still consider these teachers a little more uncertain in their content knowledge and teaching methods than those in good schools. Overall this is a positive result indicating that these teachers are able to create good learning environments for the teaching of mathematics similar to colleagues in good functioning schools.

It is also illustrative when two different teachers from the RUMEP cohort are compared, one good and one considered weak by the fieldworkers. The learners of the weak teacher have reported that he is often not satisfied with their work, has a tendency to admonish them all the time and not give them responsibility for their own learning. These are all negative factors which research has indicated will impede mathematics learning. Fieldwork observations are confirmed / triangulated by use of these instruments giving us confidence in our findings.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 24 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Good project teacher 25 Rumep Mean

Successful schools Always

Never

Categories of classroom communication

Weak project teacher 25 Rumep Mean

Successful schools Always

Never

Categories of classroom communication

Figure 4.13 Comparison between profiles of a good teacher and a weak teacher

As a consequence of the RUMEP maths BEd programme the teachers do produce more positive learning environments than those teachers who have not done the programme. While the positive differences exist across all scales, they are not very significant. These differences have also decreased once the programme stopped. When the environments are compared to those of teachers in functioning successful urban schools, they are very similar indicating that the majority of these teachers can create positive learning environments for maths learning. There is evidence that these environments are changed when conditions change e.g. teacher has major admin duties and when new teachers take over the class.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 25 Confidential report for restricted circulation 4.3 THE MITIGATING CONTEXT

A closer look at the overall context within which the study took place is revealing. It provides a number of possible pointers as to why these teachers were not able to turn the maths achievement results around and improve the NSC.

For the evaluation, 12 schools were selected as project schools. These were the teachers who were teaching grade 10 mathematics at the start of their studies. Teachers moved from two of the schools leaving 10 for most of the four years. Over the years, the evaluation team has visited these teachers’ schools about three times. This has been in about August each year. During the visit, a team of two evaluators have spent about three hours at the school and have attempted to observe classroom teaching, examined all the teacher files, asked for a selection of the learners best work and interviewed the teacher. In addition, where the principal has been available we have interviewed the principal and had a good look at the school organisation. In all cases the teacher has been aware of the impending visit and was asked to prepare examples of best learner work. Over the four year period, we have been able to make observations about how the school and teacher has changed either for the better or for the worst. Much of this information is provided in the summative report where we have given descriptive case studies of the teachers.

While we see that the professional development programme was exemplary, we are attempting to determine why there has not been a significant improvement in the school learner results both in senior certificate and in grade 10 where we tested. We have found that the teachers are competent, that they produce positive learning environments and attitudes etc. but we do not see the accompanying improvement of results. In this section, we have decided to try and quantify some of our observations and look for relationships among the qualitative data. To this end, we have produced a profile for each of the project schools and the evaluation team has scored them on each of the different factors. These factors were obtained from the literature and from our own personal experiences. An influential source of ideas was the articles by Rogan & Grayson (2003 ) and Rogan (2007). The rubric used is provided in the appendix.

We determined that three main areas needed to be functioning for any chance of change to occur in the schools. Firstly, the school had to be functioning allowing lessons to occur and for the maths teacher to teach. Secondly, there had to be resources for teaching and learning albeit basic such as a classroom and blackboard and thirdly the teacher had to have the skills of being a good math teacher. For each of the areas we identified between 7 and 9 contributing factors e.g. do the learners have access to a maths textbook was a single factor of the resources area. Each factor was scored from +2 to -2 with a positive indicating improvement over the years and a negative representing a deterioration. A zero would represent no change over the years. We considered a score of at least one per factor to be desired i.e. if 7 factors then a total of 7 would indicate a positive environment.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 26 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Table 4.3 project school profile for mathematics teaching

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Sum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Is this a functioning school? 3 Management 0 0 -1 2 2 1 -1 -2 1 1 9 School infrastructure -1 -1 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 Teachers missing or in staff room -1 1 0 2 0 1 -1 -2 0 1 Acceptable classroom for maths 12 teaching -2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Does it look as if teaching and 4 learning is happening? -1 1 -1 2 2 1 -1 -1 1 0 Positive toward rumep project 9 teacher 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 Does school have capacity to 4 support change? -1 1 -1 2 2 1 -1 -1 1 0 Max score of 14 -6 4 1 14 11 8 -3 -3 7 4

School Resources

14 Classroom blackboard etc 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 N/

Maths instruments -1 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 8 9 Learner textbooks -1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 4 Study guides / aids etc -1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 -3 Functioning Library -2 -2 -2 2 -2 -1 0 2 5 RUMEP resources -1 0 0 2 2 1 1 -1 0 7 Storage of textbooks -1 -1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2

Max score of 14 -6 0 1 14 5 8 3 2 11 0

Teaching of maths

5 Curriculum coverage 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 -1 -1 1 7 Learner regular work 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 -1 -1 2 4 Assessment 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 Learner feedback / marking 0 1 -1 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 0 Grade specific level 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 -1 2 8

Teacher rumep file -1 0 -2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

4 Variety including investigations -1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 -1

Are resources the teacher controls 5 well managed? -2 0 -1 2 2 0 1 0 1

6 Ability from BEd -2 1 2 1 2 1 -2 1 Max score of 18 -3 7 -3 16 15 2 9 -3 -7 7

Total out of possible 46 -15 11 -1 44 31 18 9 -4 11 11 Not Not Not com com com RUMEP degree BSc BEd BEd BEd BEd BEd BEd plet plet plet e e e

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 27 Confidential report for restricted circulation

1. Is this a functioning school: Four of the schools scored 7 or more indicating a well run school in which there were conditions conducive to teaching and learning. However, for three schools we gave negative scores indicating that conditions were getting worse as the years passed and in our opinion it would be very difficult to organise teaching and learning. For example, in the one school PS1, which was scored as -6, the NSC results have got worse each year going from 72% in 2006 to 57, then 19 and in 2009 they were 14% pass rate.

2. Teaching and learning resources: Three of the functioning schools scored over seven with the other scoring five. The schools who were considered non functioning also scored the lowest for the resources. It would appear that the resources and their management is directly related to the management of the school.

3. Maths teaching ability. In our opinion five of the ten teachers showed evidence during our visits of being competent and good maths teachers. Four of the teachers scored below zero indicating that they were actually getting worse each year we observed them. Interestingly three of these four did not complete the BEd. The other had passed and was promoted out the classroom to be principal!

We then examined these scores with a view to trying to make sense of them in relation to how well the learners achieve. Only two teachers scored above seven in all three categories. In both case the NSC scores in the school were improving. E.g. PS5 improved from 2006 about 19%, 2007 improving slightly to 22% and then 2008 and 2009 about 44% pass rate. At the opposite end of the scale we had a school scoring highly on both functioning and resources but the teacher scoring a minus 7. The school results were about 12% and when this teacher changed schools the result at the new school was 11%.

From this analysis we can say with some confidence that where you have a competent teacher in a functioning school, the chances are high that the marks will improve over time. However, where you only have one or the other the chances of learner success are minimal. It was also revealing that the teachers who had passed the BEd were easily recognized in the classroom as being more competent than those who had done the course but not completed.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 28 Confidential report for restricted circulation

SECTION 5: THE FULL COHORT OF BED TEACHERS

Evaluation question: What has happened to these teachers professional career path after completing their degree?

The BEd provided an opportunity to gain promotion and most teachers applied for promotion with a third being promoted. Unfortunately, we found that there is a lack of stability in the math teaching cohort with significant movement across the schools with nearly 40% moving schools. Many of the teachers who received the specialist Mathematics BEd degree were no longer mathematics teachers.

A number of negatives were found that prevented change from occurring. Some were: a) Dissent between the teacher unions and district officials, and within the staff at a school impedes the professional work of teachers and demotivates them. Political decisions sometimes override educationally sound decisions. b) The poor basic mathematics and literacy skills of learners entering the high schools impedes progress and improvement in the FET band. c) The general attitude of the learners who seem to be demotivated and unwilling to engage with the work impedes progress in their school work.

5.1 TRACKING THE CAREER PATHS

It was hypothesised that in order for the programme to impact on the senior certificate results and mathematics teaching in general in the area, the teachers should continue to teach, to teach mathematics and to teach in the area. However, we have already seen from earlier evaluation reports that the BEd provides further opportunities e.g. to become principal of a junior school, or now be employable in the big city township schools. This could impact on the results for the area and the long term viability of investing in such programmes without teaching contracts being in place.

The purpose of this component of the extended evaluation was to trace these teachers’ careers now they have a BEd. We would want to find out if they have changed the classes they normally teach e.g. used to teach grade 10 but now qualified they have been given grade 12 for first time; if they have suddenly got increased mobility and have moved to a better resourced school or ; if they have moved from the area and perhaps from teaching mathematics. The findings are presented below in Table 5.1.

Attempts were made to contact all 34 mathematics teachers who originally started the BEd programme. A visit to the area was conducted and a number of the teachers visited. We provided them with a written questionnaire and a promise of R50 for a completed questionnaire. We then posted questionnaires to schools and individuals where we had addresses. This was followed up by cell phone sms and a R100 voucher to be interviewed over the phone. In this way we contacted 27 of the teachers and asked then a set of questions either verbally or through the questionnaire. We were unable to trace or get responses from 7 teachers despite repeated attempts. The table below summarises three aspects of the information obtained.

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 29 Confidential report for restricted circulation

Table 5.4 Overview of teachers promotion and movement

Started Ed 34 Graduated 27 Did not complete 7

Promoted 11 Position? Where? Subject advisor 1 New schools 3 Principal 2 Internal 6 Deputy 2 Department 1 HOD 6 Movement 14 Retired 2 Promoted to new school 3 Promoted to Dept 1 School closed 1 To EL or PE 3 Studying 1 Transport problems 1 New ICT project 1 No reason 1 Maths teacher Maths teacher 16 Unknown (likely still maths) 5 No longer maths teacher 13 Teaching only one Maths class 3 Studying 1 Sick 1 Promotion out field 1 Principals 3 Teach other subjects 2 Retired 2

Personal professional growth:

The Bed provided an opportunity to gain promotion and most teachers applied for promotion with a third being promoted.

Eleven of the original 34 were promoted. Given that one teacher was already a principal that leaves 11 of 33 or one third, gaining promotion of some description directly after obtaining their BEd. According to the teachers, it was not possible to be promoted until they were officially qualified. The BEd was a gatekeeper and once this degree had been obtained promotion posts became accessible. Most were promoted to become Head of Department with one becoming HOD of another learning area!

Movement across schools:

There is a lack of stability in the math teaching cohort with significant movement across the schools with nearly 40% moving schools.

Fourteen of the teachers were not in their original school in which they had started the project. Teachers moved out of their schools into other schools for a variety of reasons. Main reasons included promotion to a post at another school and obtaining a post at a school in one of the

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 30 Confidential report for restricted circulation nearby cities. For the rest there were diverse reasons from retiring and leaving the system to moving because they had transport related problems.

Classroom mathematics teacher:

Many of the teachers who received the specialist Mathematics BEd degree were no longer primarily mathematics teachers.

For this discussion someone was considered a maths teacher if the majority of their teaching involved mathematics. Sixteen of the teachers continued to primarily teach mathematics. This was despite moving schools, or promotion. However, 13 were no longer mathematics teachers. Three of these were teaching a class of mathematics but majority of time was spent teaching other subjects like accounting and geography. There were a variety of reasons provided for not teaching mathematics. Some were obvious such as three principals. There was also natural attrition with two retiring and one being chronically sick. The concern is the 3 who taught one class and three who were simply allocated other subjects. In two cases teachers were removed from higher grades and given lower grades to teach because of the poor school SC results. In another case the teacher was replaced by a new employee specifically allocated to a maths post displacing the incumbent.

5.2 NEGATIVES

The following three themes arose out of the interviews and questionnaires with the teachers, as factors which impede their professional progress: problems at union and district office level, the poor basic academic skills of learners and negative work ethic of the learners. (Note: Teachers are coded as RT being RUMEP teacher. Project Schools are PS)

Union, staff infighting and district official issues Dissent between the teacher unions and district officials, and within the staff at a school impedes the professional work of teachers and demotivates them. Political decisions sometimes override educationally sound decisions.

A teacher who had been active in the continuing teacher workshops (RT20) and was a keen mathematics educator reported that she had been asked to move out of maths teaching to make way for a “foreigner” who had been appointed to one of the departmentally created maths posts. This does not seem to accord with the rationale of creating extra maths posts at the schools to boost the teaching of maths.

Dissent between the District Office and teachers had left to a policy of non-cooperation which was hindering the programme of school visits and support by district officials (RT 21, RT 22). A visit to PS5 in August 2009 was curtailed when the school closed early for the SADTU teachers to go to the district office to protest against the indefinite suspension of a district director who had been chased away by clerks for alleged financial embezzlement. The teachers were protesting against the clerks’ actions because professionally they have worked well with the suspended district director.

RT 22 was made to relinquish her promotion post due to internal staff dissent as she described in her questionnaire:

As an experienced educator, I've been promoted to a senior post ie: post level 2, as an HOD for Maths. Have not changed the school but after a month one teacher in my school started to make strike, influencing other teachers to demote me because the

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 31 Confidential report for restricted circulation

teacher was jealous of me due to personal problems. This teacher was temporary with Eng. and Geography as her major subjects. She said how can I be promoted whereas she is not yet appointed as a permanent teacher. She said I will not get the senior post until she is appointed as permanent. The department advertised the post and she said in writing to the district office that the post must freeze for next year.

T8 was struggling at PS14 where internal strife and instability had led to a demotivated and disgruntled school community where no meaningful learning and teaching is occurring. There is huge pressure within the school for him to move on due to internal problems and politics

Lack of basic skills in learners The poor basic mathematics and literacy skills of learners entering the high schools impedes progress and improvement in the FET band.

The principal of PS5 indicated that learners lack basics and those in grade 8 cannot even write their names. They should have been retained in grade 7 and the school cannot hold a learner back in grade 8 or 9 so the wheels come off in grade 10. He also blamed a lack of discipline in the home as learners show no respect for adults and do not greet in the streets. His puzzle is “when our learners are taken from our schools to Model C, they bend. With us, they break – we produce drop-outs, criminals. Why is this so?”

Demotivated learners The general attitude of the learners who seem to be demotivated and unwilling to engage with the work impedes progress in their school work.

The teachers reported that the learners are not motivated and do not study. Despite the fact that the teachers are doing their best – for example holiday teaching is happening, the learners are not serious about their work. RT 24 suggested that they need a careers day to get a vision of what they could do. This idea was supported by RT 22 who felt that the learners need exposure to motivating talks – they need to meet people who could inspire them. As they “don’t see more than the end of the world where they live”.

5.3 THE RUMEP LEGACY

Questionnaire or interview data was available for 25 of the original BEd cohort, and this was imported into a qualitative data analysis programme (NVivo 8) and coded for emerging themes. The teachers often referred back to skills they had learnt at RUMEP, people they had met through the RUMEP contact sessions and habits they had acquired. We termed this the “RUMEP legacy” being “that which is a direct result of a period of history or an event, and continues to exist after it is over’ (Collins Cobuild Dictionary). As the data was coded, different aspects of the RUMEP legacy were identified. These are discussed here with relevant extracts from the original data.

Table 5.5 RUMEP legacy coding nodes

Sources References Tree Node RUMEP colleague help 10 11 Tree Node RUMEP confidence 9 11 Tree Node RUMEP diversity 4 4

Tree Node RUMEP NCS help 1 1 Tree Node RUMEP preparation 16 20 Tree Node RUMEP promotion prospects 1 1 Tree Node RUMEP reflections 4 5 Tree Node RUMEP resources 12 14 Tree Node RUMEP subject content 7 11 knowledge Tree Node RUMEP teaching style 14 14

A legacy of competent and confident teachers The subject content modules of the RUMEP programme were designed to improve the subject content knowledge of the teachers. RT 22 reported that prior to the RUMEP programme she was simply using her Grade 12 knowledge to teach. Now I can identify where learners are having misconceptions and I know better why it happens and I can tackle it. RUMEP has helped in every aspect of my profession.

Some teachers were reskilling as maths teachers for example RT25 was an Afrikaans teacher prior to the RUMEP BEd. She reported that she now teaches maths with confidence whereas before she had a tendency to bunk class if I was not sure of the content. Now I want more classes.

Teachers also reported that they had adopted some o f the teaching styles advocated in the RUMEP programme. These include more learner –oriented lessons rather than talk & chalk all the way, involving learners in knowledge construction through activities and active engagement and interacting with learners more in class as a result of RUMEP philosophy (RT11). RT10 became an advocate for groupwork which she says “gives me an opportunity to engage with my learners, ask probing questions that I would otherwise not be able to ask in a larger class and also identify struggling learners in these small groups”. She indicated that this was the central lesson she had learnt from RUMEP.

This aspect of the legacy is well summed by the following quote from TR 26: “When I teach, I think of what I did at RUMEP”

A legacy of planning teachers Sixteen teachers referred to the fact that they were continuing with the planning that had been a feature of their BEd programme, often using their “RUMEP file” year after year. In addition to the planning of the term or weeks work, they referred to the use of the RUMEP materials as a resource for individual lesson preparation, and the value of consulting several sources. RT11 reported that he plans weekly using all available sources such as DOE pace setters, but predominantly RUMEP designed resources and templates. Several teachers mentioned that they are now in the habit of using multiple sources for planning lessons as a result of the policy in the RUMEP course. The detailed planning has for T(monese) become a routine – “it’s second nature now”, indicating that he has changed.

Previously we were just fumbling around – using only one textbook. Now I use the NCS and more than one textbook. Because Rhodes taught me you cannot take one textbook and go to class; if you do, then you are unprepared (Interview report, RT6).

A legacy of reflective teachers A requirement of the RUMEP programme was a record of personal teaching reflections, and a system of eliciting and responding to learners’ reflections. RT 22 reported that in her own portfolio, she keeps reflective notes after her lessons of learners’ mistakes (e.g. ‘double 2’ and ‘square 2’ which gives them problems) so that she knows how to tackle that problem in the following year. T7 also reported that he learners now do reflections so that she is able to understand what they have grasped and have not then I do something about it. Her colleague,

©QPiE RUMEP BEd Project Extension July 2010 33 Confidential report for restricted circulation an English teacher is now also using learner reflections to improve her teaching. Learner reflections are also used by RT 25 to develop a better understanding of the learners . I read their reflections and they are more open in their communications to me. They reflect about my teaching and also about their home circumstances.

A legacy of good resources for teaching and learning During the school visits in August 2009, we were on the look out for the RUMEP resources provided in the course of the programme. While we cannot say with confidence that the resources like textbooks, calculators, blackboard instruments are in all cases intact and in use, that was an intended legacy of the RUMEP project. We often saw the RUMEP co-ordinate axes grids in use, and teachers spoke of using the activities from the RUMEP course materials. For example, T10 reported that she now introduces trigonometry through using RUMEP generated guidelines and uses the RUMEP worksheets on data handling. RT 26 said she has methods and strategies to use, and can always refer back the RUMEP notes which she finds a good resource.

A legacy of collegial relationships The experience of regular meetings in the clusters, a feature of the RUMEP programme, seems to have convinced the teachers of the important support to be gained from their colleagues. Teachers who moved away from the area say that they miss the contact, or otherwise phone colleagues and arrange to meet RT 26 . She also mentioned that she could ask the RUMEP staff for assistance which helps to build confidence, in comparison to non-RUMEP teachers who have nobody to turn to with their problems. During our visit to the area in August 2009, we met with a group of teachers who had organised themselves into an informal teacher association as explained by one teacher (RT 23) I do meet with other Maths teachers. It is a teacher association for maths in Fort Beaufort area. I'm facilitator for Maths in grade 7 - grade 9. We meet on Tuesdays for 2 hours. First week of month is for intermediate phase, second Tuesday is for Senior phase, third Tuesday is for FET phase, fourth Tuesday is for all phases to come and report what they have done. During our meeting we select the next topics to be discussed for next classes (Questionnaire T ).

The idea of cluster meetings has been extended by TR25 who reported that she had initiated a cluster group with the primary feeder schools to “identify barriers in the primary school”. The intention is for Grades 6 and 7 teachers to meet with Grades 8 and 9 teachers once a week. They will look at their lesson plans together to try to improve the barriers they see when learners come to them in Grade 8. This is for all learning areas so that the RUMEP influence in this case, is spread beyond Maths.

A legacy of changed people Marton, Dall'Alba and Beaty (1993) provide a hierarchical list of conceptions of learning reproduced below in increasing order of quality:  Learning as increasing one’s knowledge  Learning as memorising and reproducing  Learning as applying  Learning as understanding  Learning as seeing something in a different way  Learning as changing as a person

The sixth conception is identified when a person, having developed insights into the phenomena dealt with the learning material has developed new ways of seeing those phenomena, and seeing the world differently means that you change as a person. It is in many ways the integration of all the conceptions of learning.

Several of the teachers expressed the opinion that they were changed by the experience of participating in the RUMEP programme. This was even obvious to their colleagues whom TR 25 report say to her “wish I could see this Rose – we can see the improvement in you”. RT 27 reported in his questionnaire that A lot has happened within myself. Contact sessions during my studies have had a positive impact on my approach and presentation of Mathematics in my classes.

This section concludes with the words of two teachers, recorded verbatim from their telephone interviews, in response to the question as to whether the RUMEP BEd had helped them in their teaching.

“Wow , wow, that one – there is no doubt about that one!” RUMEP took me from a non –Maths teacher to a Grade 12 Maths teacher – I never imagined it” RT26

REFERENCES

Davidson, E.J., (2005). Evaluation Methodology Basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. London: Sage.

Hobden, P. & Hobden, S. (2008). Summative evaluation of RUMEP BEd Teacher Professional Development Project. Johannesburg: Zenex foundation

Hobden, P. & Hobden , S. (2007). Interim evaluation of RUMEP BEd Teacher Professional Development Project. Johannesburg: Zenex foundation

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of Learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300.

Pawson, R. and Tilley, N., (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage

Reddy, V. (2006). Mathematics and Science Achievement at South African Schools in TIMSS 2003. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171-1173.

Rogan, J. (2007). How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone of feasible innovation. Science Education, 91(3), 439-460.

US Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Prepared for the Institute of Educational services by the coalition for evidence based policy. Washington

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.

APPENDIX 1 Classroom Communication Survey A number of instruments were used to determine the classroom teaching and learning environment. One of these was the questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI). The QTI is used to obtain the perceptions of interpersonal behaviour by students. This refers to the perception of the students of the behaviour of the teacher toward the students as a class. According to students the best teachers are stronger leaders, more friendly and understanding and less uncertain, dissatisfied and admonishing than teachers on average. Research has shown that students’ cognitive outcomes were positively associated with teachers that demonstrated greater levels of strict, leadership and helping friendly behaviours in their interactions with students. Conversely when student responsibility and freedom, uncertain and dissatisfied behaviours were high there was a negative association with student achievement. (Fischer & Rickards, 1998)

Learners are given a questionnaire with about 32 short one line statements about the classroom interaction e.g. This teacher helps us when we ask or this teacher gets angry with us etc. Learners tick one of five choices from Never to always on a 5 point scale. The scores from four related questions are aggregated to produce 8 scales which are then reported.

Table 5.6 Scale descriptions of the Questionnaire of Teacher Interaction

Scale The extent to which the teacher

Leadership Leads, organises, gives orders, determines procedures and structures the classroom situation

Helping Shows interest, behaves in a friendly or considerate manner and inspires confidence and trust

Understanding Listens with interest, emphasises, shows confidence and understanding and is open with students

Student responsibility Gives opportunities for independent work, gives freedom and responsibility to students

Uncertain Behaves in an uncertain manner and keeps a low profile in classroom

Dissatisfied Expresses dissatisfaction, looks unhappy, criticises and waits for silence

Admonishing Gets angry and upset, expresses irritation and anger, forbids and punishes

Strict Checks, maintains silence and strictly enforces the rules

APPENDIX 2 Classroom Environment Survey Student perceptions of their classroom learning environment are important as they provide another part of the picture of project learners’ adjustment to the school and the environment created by their teachers. The WIHIC survey instrument has been used extensively to determine learners’ perception of their classroom learning environments. It is very valuable for highlighting change over time and for highlighting problems in learners’ perceptions allowing teachers to adapt and improve their environments. In this study The What is Happening in this Classroom (WIHIC) questionnaire was used to measure the project learners’ perceptions of their environments across a range of scales such as teacher support and involvement, scales which might change or be factors in determining improved achievement. Table 5.2 provides an overview of the questionnaire scales.

Table 5.7 Descriptive overview of the WIHIC scales

Scale name Description of scale Student cohesiveness SC extent to which students know, help, and are supportive of one another Teacher support TS extent to which the teacher helps, befriends, trusts, and shows interest in students

Involvement IV extent to which students have attentive interest, participate in discussions, perform additional work Task orientation TO extend to which it is important to complete activities planned and to stay on the subject matter Co-operation CO extent to which students co-operate rather than compete with one another on learning tasks Equity EQ extent to which students are treated equally by the teacher

Learners respond to eight items on each scale. Each item could be scored Almost never 1, Seldom 2, Sometimes 3, Often 4, Almost always 5. Adding these responses for one scale such as Teacher Support TS gives a score between 8 (all eight items scored 1) and 40 (all items scored 5). Consequently for the scales a mean of 24 would represent mostly “sometimes” while a score of 28 would represent somewhere between “sometimes” and “often”. A score of 32 would represent mostly “often”.

APPENDIX 3 Senior Certificate results over the years

Year Number Passed Failed Percentage pass AMAJINGQ 2003 51 10 41 20 2004 47 4 43 9

2005 34 2 32 7

2006 35 2 33 6

2007 42 0 42 0

2008 27 4 23 15

2009 18 3 15 17 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass ELUKHANY 2003 12 5 7 42

2004 20 10 10 50

2005 15 8 7 53

2006 22 7 15 32

2007 25 11 14 44

2008 22 7 15 32

2009 25 8 17 32 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass EYABANTU 2003 12 8 4 67

2004 13 8 5 62

2005 7 4 3 57

2006 18 13 5 72

2007 21 12 9 57

2008 26 5 21 19

2009 29 4 25 14 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass GOBIZEMB 2003 21 2 19 10

2004 17 2 15 12

2005 23 4 19 17

2006 36 4 32 11

2007 11 10 1 91

2008 11 2 9 18

2009 24 12 12 50 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass HECTOR P 2003 106 33 73 32

2004 96 61 35 60

2005 73 42 31 57

2006 109 47 62 45

2007 113 40 73 35

2008 109 49 61 45

2009 168 32 136 19

Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass HOHO 2003 18 5 13 28

2004 17 10 7 59

2005 35 21 14 60

2006 50 33 18 66

2007 47 22 25 47

2008 22 6 16 27

2009 37 4 33 11 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass IMITSHIZ 2003 11 7 4 64

2004 12 7 5 58

2005 16 5 11 31

2006 18 4 14 22

2007 14 8 6 57

2008 27 4 23 15

2009 20 8 12 40 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass INYIBIBA 2003 6 3 3 50

2004 4 0 4 0

2005 6 5 1 83

2006 12 5 7 42

2007 12 8 4 67

2008 13 7 6 54

2009 16 4 12 25 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass JABAVU ( 2003 41 9 32 22

2004 37 6 31 16

2005 43 8 35 19

2006 43 10 33 23

2007 57 16 41 28

2008 31 12 19 39

2009 37 9 28 24 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass JOSI MAR 2003 22 1 21 5

2004 20 3 17 15

2005 29 2 27 7

2006 18 0 18 0

2007 19 2 17 11

2008 15 2 13 13

2009 9 0 9 0 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass KAMA (17 2003 93 9 84 10

2004 47 8 39 17

2005 57 10 47 18

2006 27 5 22 19

2007 30 5 25 17

2008 34 5 29 15

2009 61 20 41 33 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass MASIZAKH 2003 12 5 7 42

2004 9 4 5 44

2005 4 3 1 75

2006 10 5 5 50

2007 3 3 0 100

2008 9 1 8 11

2009 8 5 3 63 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass NGANGELI 2003 11 1 10 9

2004 11 7 4 64

2005 21 8 13 38

2006 21 8 13 38

2007 26 11 15 42

2008 25 4 21 16

2009 50 0 50 0 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass NOMPENDU 2003 15 12 3 82

2004 24 13 11 54

2005 69 17 52 25

2006 72 17 55 26

2007 52 15 37 29

2008 22 7 15 32

2009 38 11 27 29 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass NOZALISI 2003 23 6 17 26

2004 18 3 15 17

2005 18 5 13 28

2006 20 0 20 0

2007 23 5 18 21

2008 15 10 5 67

2009 13 6 7 46 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass NTABENKO 2003 29 11 18 38

2004 48 7 41 14

2005 79 12 67 15

2006 71 12 61 17

2007 80 17 63 22

2008 68 30 38 44

2009 61 27 34 44 Year Percentage Number Passed Failed pass TEMPLETO 2003 9 1 8 11

2004 13 5 8 38

2005 2 0 2 0

2005 20 1 19 5

2006 7 6 1 86

2007 8 4 4 50

2008 7 6 1 86

2009 13 10 3 77