Part I

After 12 happy (mostly happy) years in teaching, predominantly Special Needs, I have made the transition to the 9 to 5 workplace. No more holidays, but no more marking either! I have been awesomely lucky to find EvaluNet which even although is a big company, still has both feet (and a big heart) firmly planted in the education system.

My decision to leave teaching was not an easy one or a quick process. I was very happy in my school, with my colleagues and with the holidays of course!

I love the act of teaching – the sweet-spot of delivering a lesson well-planned and seeing the penny drop as new concepts are learnt. Nothing beats that – or the special interaction and bond with the individuals in your class. I chose to leave for a number of reasons. Curiosity; where else in the workplace can I use the skills and training I have as a teacher?

• The need for stimulation/personal growth.
• To investigate the possibility of a more financially viable career.
• A change: I was also starting to feel like hamster on a wheel in a very small cage! I spent more time with admin than teaching. Every teacher needs a secretary, but until that happens …

In a nutshell, does “alternative” employment for someone with my skills, training and experience exist, where there is the room for progression in personal growth and finances?  Do such opportunities exist? So began my search.

Had my life taken a different path (kids and a bread-winning husband!), I might have felt differently. I am excited by the change and chance to learn new things and expand my frame of reference. I make this change with the knowledge that the classroom will still be there should I feel the need to leave my cheese and return to the chalk!

There are also serious problems with teachers’ commitment to their tasks, according to a document tabled by the department’s acting director general, Bobby Soobrayan, at a briefing for members of Parliament’s basic education portfolio committee.

“Too many teachers cannot pass tests that their own learners are expected to pass,” the document states.

Soobrayan told MPs that among key interventions needed to tackle this problem was ensuring “all teachers have the required capability, commitment and practice”.

In this regard, the department planned to adopt a two-prong strategy.

“One is accountability, and the other is support through the establishment of a teacher development institute that will look at practical application.”

While huge progress had been made in certifying teachers, the problem related to teaching in practice.

“So this is about practical application,” he said.

Earlier, Soobrayan warned of a crisis in basic education, which covers the period from Grade R to matric.

“We are at a point now in the country, politically and otherwise, where there is a huge consensus that we face a crisis in basic education that requires urgent remediation.

“We recognise that, in terms of the primary objectives, too many schools do not have the conditions required for achieving learning outcomes.

“The problem is worse when you look at poverty levels, you look at race, diversity, and you look at geographic location.”

Soobrayan said efforts since 1994 to tackle these problems had not been as effective as the department had wanted.

“Therefore we need a fundamental shift in how we intervene in the system,” he said.

Among the performance areas that would be closely monitored over the next five years were the numbers of matriculants qualifying for university entry; the maths and physical science pass rates in that examination; and literacy and numeracy levels in Grades three, six and nine.

According to the document, only 38 percent of rade six pupils are currently (2009 figures) functioning at the required level of literacy, while only 35 percent of them are functioning at the required level in maths.

“Over five years [by 2014] it should be achievable to raise the proportion of students operating at the required level to 60 percent,” it states.

Soobrayan said numeracy and literacy were the key to improving educational performance.

“If we don’t get that right, you don’t have what educational psychologists call the… platform on which to build.”

Teachers were the key to solving the problem.

“The improvement of the quality of teachers is a critical thing.”

Sapa

The problem lies not in the actual tool or resource being purchased. The problem lies in the phrase “aggressive marketing tactics” combined with the phrase “lack of aftersales support and training”.

The reality is that many companies have popped up over the years offering educational software and hardware tools that in many cases are actually very good at doing what they were designed to do.

Interactive whiteboards (IWB’s) as an example, are an excellent means to engage learners in a stimulating manner. A Science teacher for example, is able to use the software tools loaded on an IWB to create exciting, interactive presentations of molecules and atoms moving around. Instead of showing learners drawings of an atomic model, the teacher is able to literally show the learners exactly how the atoms move on the IWB, which is infinitely more interesting than looking at a black chalk board.

I don’t think there is anyone who could argue against the benefits that a tool such as an IWB has to offer. It’s obvious that in this day an age, anything that can capture a child’s attention is something that should be expanded upon.

However, the sad reality is that when I visit schools who have previously purchased IWB’s, I am given account after account of how the IWB is hardly used by any of the teachers. Many schools are sitting with IWB’s that cost anything from R10,000 – R25,000 per board. If not used, then certainly a BIG white elephant. The number one reason given: the teachers don’t know what to do with the board.

The example of the ‘redundant interactive white board’ can be applied to many other products that ruthless educational vendors irresponsibly market to schools. From curriculum-based software to skills development tools, anything that a school buys and then doesn’t use is a waste of precious school funds.

Blame the school! The teachers are lazy.

This is one of the first excuses an educational vendor will give you when asked why some schools buy their products and then hardly use them. Another one of my favourite excuses are: the teachers are not willing to learn anything new.

If you’re selling something, the probabilty is that you think it is the best thing since sliced bread. What you must remember, is that educational vendors have convinced themselves that their product is going to benefit anyone who purchases it. They love their product. They’re passionate about it. They see the value and they know EXACTLY how they would implement it if they were you (the customer).

At the end of the day, the bottom line for the vendor is their profit. This is understandble – they’re running a business, not a charity. And that’s OKAY. You shouldn’t point fingers at them.

However, it is grossly irresponsible to sell a product to a school when you know that the product requires ongoing training and support , and you cannot afford to offer that ongoing training and support. To sell a product to a school, and expect them to implement it on their own without assistance, is just not cricket.

There is probably nothing a principal hates more than being romanced into a sale through a well delivered sales pitch, only to discover that the product they purchased actually requires ongoing support that the vendor is just not willing to give.

Beware of: The Box Droppers

Many good educational software and hardware products on the market require ongoing support from the supplier. Beware of vendors who sell you their products and then disappear, only to resurface some time later with another “amazing” product that is going to cost more money and “solve all your problems”.

If you are the one signing that quotation, make sure that the vendor is willing to put in writing that (a) the product is so easy to use that it requires absolutely no training or support, OR (2) the product does in fact require training and support and that the vendor is, firstly, capable and willing to train you to use the product and, secondly, will help you implement it at your school.

Beware of: The Trainers

Most good educational software and hardware vendors do offer training on the use of their products. “Great!” you may say. Yes sure, I agree with you, but put it this way:

You’re learning to drive for the first time. You hire a driving instructor to teach you how to drive. He shows you which pedals to push, how to use the indicators, where to put the fuel and how to start the engine. And then he leaves and sends you an invoice for a few hundred rands.

What he has failed to do is help you get into the car and make it move forward. And he could only have done this by giving you the keys and putting you in the drivers seat, guiding you and instructing you as you go.

Many vendors train teachers where to click. Few train then how to implement.

Do you think that a teacher knows exactly how to implement an interactive white board after a 60-minute point and click training session? I don’t think so.

Try and find: The Customer Service-orientated Gems

As a school making a decision about what educational software or hardware to purchase, you should ask yourself: “Does this vendor care about my school?”

Vendors who offer service and implementation plans – in writing – are the vendors you can normally count on to deliver on their promises and the expectations set during their sales pitch.

Service and implementation plans are relatively unheard of in South Africa. However it’s a simple concept where a company promises to deliver ‘product implementation’ as opposed to simple ‘product training’. And the implementation plan should obviously always be shown in writing.

Where does the buck end?

There is an ongoing debate as to who is ultimately responsible to ensure that a product is properly used by a school.

Some will say that it is entirely up to the teacher to use a product to it’s maximum benefit. So what they’ll do is train the teacher where to click, and then expect the teacher to come up with a plan of implementation, i.e. you’ve had your training, now it’s up to you.

Others say that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education to ensure that teachers are well versed in the use of products made available to them. The problem is that there are thousands of educational software and hardware products available to teachers, so how is the department expected to keep up with it all while trying to deal with other issues of their own?

I say that it is entirely the responsibility of the educational vendor to ensure that schools use their products effectively. As the vendor, you should know your product inside out, and more importantly, you should know exactly how to implement it and make ongoing use of it. Vendors should be legally required to share this knowledge and provide product implementation plans to school customers.

Vendors should use their initiative and setup workshops, user groups, online resources and in every way possible make sure that their school customers are shown the respect that they deserve.

Vendors should stop selling to schools, and rather start investing in them. Schools – hold vendors accountable. You are, after all, the customer.

What do you think? Add your comments below.