The world starts with this family Looking back on the World Starts With Me Learning Forum 2015 Pretoria, 15-17 October 2015
2
Introduction From 15-17 October 2015 master trainers from 9 countries met in Pretoria South Africa to link and learn from each other, concerning the implementation of the World Starts With Me program. We shared our experiences, learned a lot and had much fun getting to know each other.
Topics in this report
In this ‘action minutes’ you will read about the most important issues we discussed: • The exchange of educational materials in the marketplace; • The joined plan of Rutgers and Stop Aids Now to create a pool of master trainers on comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), and a gallery of our current pool of excellent master trainers; • The added value of working with the Whole School Approach (WSA) to upscale and sustain the WSWM programme within schools; • We exchanged experiences of working with the Ministry of Education and Unesco, in order to embed the program within regional and national educational policies; • We explored ways of collaborating in a community of practice, to continue exchanging and strengthening the implementation of our World Starts With Me programs worldwide; • Rutgers showed an adapted version of the WSWM program that offers some improvements to the original version; • And….last but not least this report gives you a taste of the team work we did and the fun we had! This report offers a mix of a selection of actual minutes, some background information and ‘thoughts in progress’ from last weeks after this meeting. In the annexes you will find most of the latter. We have not incorporated all the powerpoint presentations, those are available in the joined Dropbox.
How does it make you feel being part of the World Starts With Me Family? https://youtu.be/0_0QoJCDuUg
Refreshing and informing
This report has the purpose of offering the participants a way of refreshing their minds, so they can use the lessons learned for their coming action plans. Also it offers other people involved in the WSWM programs, like the managers of the implementing agencies, a way of being updated on what has been shared to use that in their plansand strategies.
Strengthening family ties
In Pretoria, after 3 intensive days of linking and learning we had to leave again, but as we have strengthened our family ties, we will stay connected! Thank you all for your enthusiasm and eagerness to share and learn from each other, so we can bring our collaborative work forward and strive for a world of healthy, equal and enjoyable sexuality for all!
Warm greetings, On behalf of the Rutgers team, Laura van Lee, Technical Advisor CSE and WSWM
This forum has been made possible by Rutgers Netherlands and Edukans/Educaids.
3
Content
Marketplace - The World Starts with Us
4
Creating a pool of master trainers
6
May we present you‌. our gallery of master trainers
7
Building a family
8
From barriers to successful implementation strategies - the story of the whole school approach
9
How to build a community of practice on CSE?
14
A new version of the World Starts With Me
17
WSWM as a national curriculum?
18
Annex
22
4
Marketplace - The World Starts with Us On the market place all 9 countries showed their curriculum and additional products: from brochures and shirts, to games, referral booklets and comic books. Most countries have different versions of The World Starts With Me for different target groups (young and old, able and disabled, in and out of school etc).
5
6
Creating a pool of master trainers At the forum we talked about the need and plans to professionalise our pool of master trainers who train and facilitate WSWM (and other CSE programs). This is a ‘project in progress’ that Rutgers is taking up the next year. In this session Yuri showed us the types of facilitators and trainers we have in the WSWM program, and we all gave our thoughts on the capacity, knowledge skills and attitudes our pool of the ‘highest’ level of facilitators: the actual master trainers.
The main objectives and ideas of creating the Pool of master trainers are: 1 We want to create a pool of master trainers who are qualified to train within their own country, and in other African and Asian countries on Comprehensive Sexuality Education in general, and the implementation of WSWM in particular.
2 They should be certified in order to maintain a certain quality standard. To receive this quality label, master trainers need to meet certain criteria, like the ability to demonstrate certain knowledge, attitudes and skills, but they should also show they train on a regular basis to maintain their own skills.
knowledge and professional attitude; direct contact with young learners - Are teachers at school level (depending on target group curriculum: primary school, secondary school, but also at juvenile institution or school club) 2 Teacher Trainers: train teachers on how to facilitate WSWM in class - Are experienced facilitators WSWM and skills on how to train adults - Are teachers or facilitators of WSWM Partner organizations 3 Master Trainers: train Teacher Trainers or others in WSWM curriculum development, facilitation, whole school approach and sustainability - Have specific skills to coach Teacher Trainers and to implement and upscale WSWM. The 3 levels of trainers build onto the previous level: so a teacher trainer needs to have all the qualities of a teacher, and some extra. The mastertrainer needs to have all the qualities of a teacher AND a teacher trainer, AND something extra as well.
3 R utgers wants to facilitate and maintain this pool. And we have even bigger plans: we want to create a more comprehensive SRHR training platform, together with Stop Aids Now. Here we are planning to offer on and offline training modules regarding SRHR, coaching of participants. Being part of this pool can imply that you can be hired as a qualified SRHR trainer by other NGO’s.
Criteria of master trainers:
To involve master trainers present in developing this pool, we need to establish what kind of facilitators the WSWM program entails, and what the criteria are for master trainers specifically. Yuri facilitated this session.
In training WSWM there are 3 types of facilitators:
1 Teachers: facilitate WSWM in class - Have basic WSWM facilitation skills,
Brainstorm: criteria master trainers
Next we focussed on the criteria for master trainers concerning knowledge, attitudes and skills the group came up with. See Annex 1 for the results. Next few months Rutgers will build on this and develop a set of criteria, a training program and a manual of master trainers. Also we will create a system of accreditation. We will consult you for feedback, in our community of practice.
7
May we present you‌. our gallery of mastertrainers Kallol Chowdhury Bangladesh
Syed Md. Nuruddin (Sakhawat) Bangladesh
Jacqueline Nintunze Burundi
Cyprien Ndayisaba Burundi
Yalem Demissie Ethiopia
Meskerem Bedane Ethiopia
Rashid Imoro Ghana
Andreas Susanto Indonesia
Vilmer Nyamongo Kenya
Vidaline Omollo Kenya
Albert Obbuyi Kenya
Pilirani Kamaliza Malawi
Moffat Njatiyamphongo Malawi
Imran Haider Pakistan
Aftab Ahmed Pakistan
Zai Nabateregga Uganda
Winnie Akeso Uganda
Quraish Matovu Uganda
Thilly de Boer Netherlands
Jo Reinders Netherlands
Sanderijn van der Doef Netherlands
Yuri Ohlrichs Netherlands
Laura van Lee Netherlands
8
Building a family
“I had so much fun, we really connected as a team.”
Snapshots from our afternoon of team building
“I really enjoyed the team building, it was one of my personal highlights of the week.”
“It was not just fun, it acquired insight and skill as well: we had to identify the best people for doing the job, we had to collaborate. We should keep on encouraging this in our community of practice.”
“We truly are a family now.”
9
From barriers to successful implementation strategies - the story of the whole school approach In this session…
In this session Thilly taught us the theory underlying the Whole School Approach (WSA) and upscaling, and the potential benefits compared to our current way of working. After that Winnie showed us results of the operational research being done at the moment on applying the WSA in Ugandan and Kenyan WSWM schools. Powerpoints of both are available in our dropbox. Below a selection of insights and lessons learned.
What is the Whole School Approach, and why do we use it?
The whole school approach is a comprehensive way of implementing CSE (in this case The World Starts With Me curriculum), that actively involves all stakeholders in and around a school, and regards CSE as part of a larger educational and health system within a school. By applying this approach the WSWM implementation can be more successful and sustainable than the current strategies we follow, even after the NGO (implementing agency/Rutgers) has stopped supporting the school. This sustainability is crucial to reach more beneficiaries with CSE: schools reach more students, providing maximum effect of our CSE programs on the sexual health and wellbeing of students.
The whole school approach process
During this implementation of the whole school approach the implementing agency within a country (like Schoolnet Uganda or Straight Talk foundation in Uganda) play a central role: they support the schools throughout the process.
The 7 Whole School Approach Assumptions:
Underlying the Whole School Approach are several assumptions or principles: 1 Linking health and education - Healthy children learn more effectively - Children attending school have a better chance of good health - Effective partnership between the health and education sector is the way forward, barriers need to be overcome 2 Participation - Children feeling connected to their school and to significant adults show better wellbeing and better educational performance and are less likely to undertake high risk behaviour 3 Ownership of schools - Schools are complex social structures, that need to be understood, as innovations can be inhibited or promoted - Ownership by the school and the teachers is crucial for any change - School’s resources are the starting point 4 Parents involvement - Parents and family have the main influence on young people’s lives. 5 Key role for teachers - The teacher’s ‘moral purpose’ (the commit ment to make a difference in the lives of students) is a critical factor in addressing and sustaining complex reforms - Teacher education helps to shape teacher’s identities as educators, as a person, as well as ‘subject experts’ - Teachers who provide emotional support, reward competence and promote selfesteem, can decrease the vulnerability of high risk students in response to stressful life events - Teachers need mandate to lead on-going change and initiatives. The WSA offers that. 6 Safe and healthy school environment beyond class room teaching - Social environment: Mental well-being improves other health-related life styles. - Physical environment: Hygiene, safety, food, physical exercise 7 Monitoring and research - Need for close monitoring, reflection, learning and adjusting.
10
“WSA is more than just involving all stakeholders, it is also about guiding and following up the implementation process in school, making it their process, not ours.”
Why are we eager to adopt the Whole School Approach?
A head master is creating his personal logo (being actively involved in the program)
The 5 pillars of the whole school approach:
These principles can be translated into 5 pillars, that are essential in implementing the WSA. The implementing agency are supposed to support all schools in improving these key issues, as part of the action plan each school has formulated during the self-assessment workshop. In this plan all 5 issues are translated into specific actions, like timetabling the WSWM lessons to improve access to SRHR information, or improving school toilets to improve healthy school environment. 1 School Management actively supports Adolescent Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (ASRHR) education in school 2 Access to youth friendly health services and evidence based, comprehensive and Rights based ASRHR information. 3 Parents and community Engagement 4 Increased capacity building teachers + Mentoring & Reflection 5 A healthy and safe school environment In each area several stakeholders play a role: together they work on the Whole school Approach. See below model for illustration.
After the presentations of Thilly and Winnie we shared our thoughts on what we had heard. It seems that the WSA offers some potential benefits to our current way of implementing in most WSWM countries. 1 First and most importantly this approach gives schools truly the ownership of the programs and methodologies they implement, instead of we as NGO’s pushing for the CSE curriculum. This has a massive effect on implementation success, as it creates intrinsic motivation for all parties involved: they see the importance of the curriculum, and want to achieve the goals of the curriculum really badly. Note: the WSA moves beyond the common sensitization meetings (where WSWM is presented = top-down), it really involves all parties in several workshops where the school needs to self-assess on certain indicators, creates an action plan, and is supported in following up this plan. W ho is involved? Teachers, school management, parents, students, religious leaders, but also staff in charge of timetabling, genitor, school guards. They all will see the benefits from the curriculum and will support CSE. T his ownership can lead to prolonged and sustainable implementation and hence reaching more beneficiaries with CSE.
“The success of upscaling WSWM lies not in reaching as many schools and districts as possible, it starts with reaching as many students within a school as possible, creating a critical mass that will speak for you. Only then upscale to more schools within a district.”
11
2 W SA is about health promotion in its most comprehensive form, not only sexual and reproductive health, but also mental wellbeing, through creating a safe and conducive school environment. This has the potential to contribute to more positive school results. Also teachers and staff may find a more enjoyable working environment and team spirit. 3 Because of this: the whole school image can positively benefit from WSA. 4 F rom fear to positive image of CSE: As the team from Pakistan shows, several meetings with teaching, supporting staff, parents, other members of the community and media on WSWM have cleared up misunderstandings about CSE, that normally consist of fears concerning explicit material. Although Pakistan doesn’t strictly speaking follow the Whole School Approach, it shows how this element of engagement of stakeholders can pay off.
5 F lexibility to cope with change of school management and teachers: Also, as parents and teachers are intrinsically motivated by the benefits of CSE for their students, they can carry on with conducting the lessons, even after a change of school management, or relocation of teachers. This is often a high risk factor in current implementation, as support disappears together with the leaving teacher or management. In the whole school approach manual, we will go deeper into these issues, so you can plan and budget your own project well.
What are the potential benefits of the whole school approach?
To give a full overview of all the potential benefits of the WSA, here is a table with current barriers in implementation of WSWM, and the possible solutions that the WSA offers, as found in the operational research project that Thilly de Boer is currently finishing, in collaboration with the Ugandan and Kenyan teams.
Current challenges in implementation of WSWM
Benefits of the Whole School Approach
Low ownership school
High ownership school
In general: WSWM as a NGO-driven program.
General benefit: WSWM as a school-driven program.
School doesn’t feel total ownership of the program, teachers are not always intrinsically motivated and lack support of their management and colleagues. Community and parents are barely involved (or not enough).
All stakeholders in the school are involved, they all discover what the benefits of CSE potentially are, do actively participate in the implementation and think about an action plan to improve implementation success.
Often only a few teachers are involved (or assigned), with some support from school management.
All teachers are involved AND other stakeholders as well: school management, parents, students, religious leaders, but also staff in charge of timetabling, genitor, school guards etc.
WSWM remains a ‘separate program’, is often not adapted to specific school context and challenges.
The implementation of WSWM is tailor-made, by self-assessment workshops and action plans, that are created BY the School, FOR this specific school.
12
Current challenges in implementation of WSWM
Benefits of the Whole School Approach
Low ownership school
High ownership school
The implementing agency has the lead in how a school can adopt the program, often not actively involving all stakeholders in this assessment and decision making process.
All parties think critically about the situation of their own school, and how to improve (selfassessment). Because they create their own action plan, they feel in charge and motivated to improve!
Sensitisation meetings are used as a way of convincing school staff and getting necessary administrative approval.
The WSA works with self-assessment workshops, where all stakeholders are actively involved in the whole process, from start to end of the implementation
Relatively low reach of students within school
Reach of all students in school
WSWM as Club intervention (‘out of school’)
WSWM timetabled and budgeted for
High costs per student
Cost efficient (low costs per student)
Some students benefit, but most don’t
Most students benefit: critical mass. Focus is on enrolling all students of only Form 1 and 2. This way, in a few years all students of a school are educated.
Only a few teachers are involved
All teachers are involved (are informed and/ or implement, cooperate, support), creating a critical mass: it will be easier to continue program as everyone is on board.
Age selective reach: Majority is 16 years and above
Age selective reach: Majority is 16 years and above
All though WSWM is targeted for students from 12-15, in practice often a selection of older students is reached.
Timetable lower forms to reach them at a younger age, they can also benefit from the program and directly apply learning in their own life (body changes, emotional ups and downs, confidence, friendship, sexual violence and the right to stand for oneself.
13
Current challenges in implementation of WSWM
Benefits of the Whole School Approach
Low implementation fidelity
High implementation fidelity
Academic priorities of the school cause low priority for extra-curricular, non-examinable subjects.
School based support by timetabling the lessons and an understanding that the programme contributes to feeling safe and at ease at school (with teachers and among student boys and girls), contributing to better academic performance.
Often logistic limitations, such as lack of/ breakdown of computers, lack of budget and rooms, lack of books, due to lack of managerial and colleague support.
Managerial support secures timetabling, budget, logistical support and support from colleagues, as well as possible ICT/equipment support.
Sensitivity of CSE within school context, as well as teachers’ own values and norms, so teachers may leave out topics/lessons, although having been sensitised and trained themselves.
Teachers are being trained on dealing with sensitive issues within school context, e.g. through practical, applicable methods to facilitate group discussions/excercises on sensitive issues. Support in terms of materials (videos on sensitive issues, reading materials, and the like). This way they feel more support from colleagues to talk about sensitive topics.
Short lived programmes
Sustainability of implementation
Turnover staff (head teacher or trained teacher)-> WSWM stops
Due to intrinsic motivation of staff and full support for the programme, individual staff changes do not cause the programme to stop.
Lack of supporting policies and competition with other life skills based programmes and programmes promoted by NGO’s working with schools, causing short lived programmes
CSE is part of school policies and practices, and being supported on school level (instead of only by teacher) causes continuation of the programme.
Bad school image
Positive school image
CSE as a liability to the school: parents, religious leaders and untrained staff may protest against the program, because of explicitness program
All stakeholders, incl. parents see benefit from teaching their children CSE, including better school results, more positive school climate and better health. CSE and WSA even become an asset for the school, attracting new students.
How to get on board of the Wild Whole School Approach ride? • Get yourself acquainted with the basic steps of the WSA (see also powerpoints of Thilly and Winnie in the Dropbox) • Start promoting WSA in your new workplans and share your enthousiasm with your management. To help you: Thilly from Rutgers Netherlands will develop a manual on how to implement WSA step
by step, starting with a timeplan to facilitate your own planning of activities. The manual will be available in the first quarter of 2015. • Rutgers colleagues will provide TA in applying the WSA when needed! More information: T.deboer@rutgers.nl
14
How to build a community of practice on CSE? Being part of the WSWM family also means that we want to collaborate more, and keep on linking and learning after this event. How can we do that best? Thilly presented what a community of practice actually is, and what the conditions are for it to be successful. After that we applied that to our own needs and context of a Community of Practice for master trainers WSWM/CSE and one for schools and teachers.
What are the potential benefits? - Develop innovations, policies, strategies - Solve problems, overcome bottlenecks - Share best practices - Foster professional competencies - Create commitment of talented, innovative people
What is a community of practice (CoP)? A group of people, who strengthen and deepen their knowledge and expertise on a shared field of interest (domain), by means of regular interaction and reflection on their implementation experiences and emerging questions.
Example of Community of Practice: a group of teachers peer mentoring each other
What are the main characteristics?
Key concepts Community of Practice Community
Group of people
Domain
Specific, defined field/topic of interest
Practice
Learning on the job, implementation, action
Interaction
Online Offline(face2face)
Learning
As a social participation process
Knowledge, both ‘explicit knowledge’ and ‘tacit knowledge’
Explicit knowledge consists of:figures, facts, scientific reports, concrete and documented information. Tacit knowledge consists of: Intuition, built up experiences, learned lessons, available with practitioners
15
In order for a community of practice to work, participants need to feel some sense of ‘belonging’, being part of this community. These are the conditions to build such a community:
Conditions for building a Community of practice Technical architecture
Supports (not complicates!) the communit, i.e. technologies, a software platform.
Social architecture
Enlivens the community roles, refers to relation building, knowledge sharing, action.
Set a rhythm
Predictability on how and when to participate.
Combination of live and f2f events and web environment
Continued facilitation and regular encounters.
Mutual respect and trust
Willingness to share ideas, expose one’s ‘ignorance’, ask difficult questions and listen carefully.
Combination of sharing ready products and deeper learning
Products like tools (ready product), as well as new joint learning experiences.
New joint initiatives
Cases, effective practices, lessons learned, models, data.
In our project, we can define 3 levels in communities of practice. 1 Rutgers and implementing partners: on the level of organisations that implement WSWM/CSE, licensing, governance, implementing strategies within a country. 2 Master trainers: a community that enables linking and learning on CSE and training. Rutgers may be a linking pin. 3 Teachers and school staff: within a country schools may want to link and learn from each other’s implementation activities, how to deal with practical barriers on school level. The implementing agency may be the linking pin.
16
Overall conclusions group work:
After this introduction, Albert showed us results of a needs assessment for a CoP amongst schools in Kenya (see dropbox). Schools seem to be positive towards such a community. After that in group work we defined criteria for level 2: a CoP of mastertrainers, and level 3: teachers and school staff: what do we think a community of practice should look like, and how should it function? Below the main conclusions. See Annex 4 for full overview of results. - Go for it: Participants were motivated to think over how a Community of Practice could work for Master trainers and Schools/teachers respectively. - Towards more homogenous communities: It became clear that defining the purpose and the audience of the CoP are crucial for further determination of the methods and design of the communities. This asks for a new focus compared to what most participants are used to.
What is different?
The platforms that most people are familiar with so far (district coordination committee, school committees, Alliance Steering committee), mostly aim at bringing together various stakeholders, sharing a common aim, though having its own agenda and responsibilities. To establish a functional Community of Practice however, a more professionally homogeneous group is a condition. Otherwise we can’t meet principles like mutual trust, sharing comparative practical working experiences, predictability in contact moments and the like. Therefore, sharper choices have to be made on the purpose and the audience.
What kind of tool for online linking and learning?
Concerning the ways/methods used, it was mentioned that Facebook would offer a low threshold and easy entry point, though it would need clear ground rules in order to avoid misuse (loads of selfies and pictures). It should be a closed group and give the opportunity to pose questions and instructional pictures only. The working group CoP will see whether this is indeed the best platform of interaction, or whether other online platforms are more effective.
Insights specifically on the CoP for teachers and schools:
It was observed that the audience for the CoP of teachers and schools as described is a broad group (Teachers, school management, District officials , health workers, parents) - Would you really like to have all groups (eg the government) in your CoP, considering the principle of trust and dare to show your ‘ignorance’? - Are all topics relevant for all members? Participants referred to the Alliance Steering Committee or the School Committees, that bring together various stakeholders for exchange. It was suggested that each group of users (teachers, parents, government) could have their own space on the CoP website.
Insights specifically on the CoP for mastertrainers: - T he possibility of regular F2F events can only function at a regular basis at national scale and with neighbouring countries. (Uganda, Kenya eg). - Can the coordination be done by a group of individuals? It should be master trainers working for an organization. It can be at rotation basis, like the Steering Commmittee of the Alliance. Though, is this also relevant for a CoP? Don’t you lose important capacities and built up experiences? - Who are the CSE experts? Can you guarantee the confidentiality? - Also in this plenary discussion, the importance of defining your purpose and audience group appeared to be crucial. Participants refer to forums most people are familiar with.
Way forward
Volunteers who like to contribute to a Community of Practice for Master trainers: Rashid (Ghana), Meskerem (Ethiopia), Sakhawat (Bangladesh), Aftap and Imran (Pakistan), Yuri, Laura, Thilly (Netherlands). They will coordinate our first experimental steps in creating a CoP for mastertrainers, and possibly also in CoP’s on organisation (level 1) and school level (level 3).
17
A new version of the World Starts With Me
In 2013 Rutgers has revised the World Starts With Me curriculum, based on critical reflections on the program. This version was adapted to Malawian context. What has changed in comparison with the old version? - Smaller amount of lessons (from 14 to 11), but same topics. - Smart combination of gender and rights (L3), instead of two separate rather theoretical lessons. - Gender and HIV+ integrated in lessons. - More focus on social support (friends of the peer educators) and referral to youth friendly services. - More focus on choosing safe strategy of coping with your sexual urges (big 3 choices: 1 abstain; 2 you can have sex, but delay intercourse; 3 and have safe intercourse) - In depth info on influence of media + uniqueness of everybody (and literally ‘every body’) - More interactive games, incl paper versions of games. More factsheets with background information
A bigger role for the peers of the main characters (social support + role modelling by a variety of peers, so every student can recognise himself)
- Presentations are easier and more fun to read, and more interactive (cartoon elements). More use of illustrations and modelling behaviour of peer educators and other illustrations. - Better support of teachers with ‘facilitation skills’. - Finally also a paper workbook for students!
Education about ‘dealing with sexual arousal’, offering a step by step model (Big 3 choices) that young people can adhere to more easily than in the old WSWM
18
WSWM as a national curriculum? Lessons to be learned from collaborating with the Ministry of Education, Unesco and other government bodies. We looked at three levels of integration and collaboration with national level: 1 Bottom-up approach from Ethiopia 2 Bottom-up approach from Uganda 3 Top-down approach Burundi Also we looked at how to deal with resistance (Kenya)
Ethiopia: Unesco as a partner
The Ethiopian presentation highlighted that despite a pluriform Advisory Committee at national level, they still face opposition for implementation at the Addis Abeba level by the Education bureau and were forced to stop the programme here. It appeared that working with the departments was more feasible, though did ask for a contextualized approach in each department. It was very helpful that UNESCO joined for departmental meetings with the State Bureaus.
Although schools were forced to withdraw the My World My Life manuals, in practice they currently work with another manual that is still 90% MWML. Thanks to the whole school approach teachers felt they should continue with the program and creatively thought of a solutions to do so: changing the name of the manual, and removing some explicit pictures. The toning and wording are crucial for getting accreditation. Straight Talk Foundation (STF) will start this process again. At the same time STF has built up good working relations with the Ministry of Education and is a respected partner.
Burundi: our first program that started on national level
The Burundi presentation showed an approach that has been developed in full partnership with the Burundi government and will cover most colines (departments) based on the structure of the Ministry of Health with colines’ health centers. The Burundi government has approved the WSWM as the government lesson package. Other partners are EKN, CARE, UNFPA and Rutgers. While originally there was competition between EKN and UNFPA, it has turned out in a fruitful partnership. The involvement of thematic SRHR expert Maaike van Vliet at the Dutch embassy in Burundi has been crucial.
How to deal with a ‘scandal’?
Photo: Advisory board meeting in Amhara region Ethiopia (with Unesco as invite)
Uganda: the whole school approach pays off The Ugandan presentation underscored the experience that working at district level was successful and created full support of the district officials. The accreditation process of the MWML lesson package at national level was a hasty process that did not succeed unfortunately. The lesson here is that it is crucial to adjust to the procedures and timeline of the ministry and that this process cannot be forced or sped up.
Many of us will at some point meet resistance in implementing the WSWM curriculum or other forms of CSE. It is important to be prepared for that so you can successfully counter these attacks. At the same time these steps are crucial for making your program sustainable anyway. TIPS: - Most importantly you have to show that your CSE program is not solely your NGO’s initiative (that may be accused of being infected with Western values), but that the program is being endorsed by several government bodies, within your country AND internationally. - During attack: form an alliance with those ‘allies’, the parties that also support (and have supported) the implementation of CSE. In the case of Kenya CSA could team up with Unesco. - Show the impact of your program.
19
(but under a different name), as they are intrinsically motivated to do so.
In preparation + to work on sustainability of your program anyway: - Make sure in the process of implementation your material is validated by important parties like Unesco and local states. They can show the accusing party this program is endorsed from international and national government bodies.
- The last lesson with the exhibition helps to involve the community in the program. It shows the growth of students, and explains the different topics, making them less sensitive and scary.
Validation from the Ministery of Education can also be helpful, but make sure this is not just a matter of one person endorsing (not sustainable because of turnover staff). CSA was able to show approval of the MoE in a signed letter.
- Organise exchange visits to schools or other countries that have applied a successful approach in sexuality education, may be very fruitful: these may help the Ministery to reach their (health) goals. Seeing it in practice is much more convincing than talking about it.
T his is also the purpose of an advisory board. Make active use of them, not just to inform them, but also to really support and advocate for the program. Be sure to also keep in contact after adaptation phase of the project. - If a country has local states/districts, make use of them: it is often easier to have them support the CSE program than national level, they are closer to the ground and actual implementation in schools. If they endorse the program, national level will be more convinced to accept as well. Local states will advocate and speak for you instead of you as a ‘suspicious NGO’. At least analyse the governing structure in your own country and use that. In smaller countries like Burundi working from districts is not most effective. - Speak the language of each Ministry department: you may be involved with several ministeries (Health, Education, Youth). They all have a different perspective on sexuality education, so make sure you adapt your message in such a way it speaks to them. For health, talk about sexual health problems and how your program can reduce those. For Education you may stress the improvement of school results and quality of education as a whole as teachers improve their facilitation skills. - U se the Whole School Approach: even at times of resistance and official rejection of the curriculum, teachers and school staff will look for creative solutions to still teach the principles and content of the manual
Photo: An exchange visit was organized by CARE and Rutgers to Kenya (to CSA) to see how they address SRH for youth in the school using WSWM
- Be persistent: you need to invest and have patience to move these slow bureaucratic bodies. - Timing matters & use momentum: your government may have rounds of educational reviewing you can use to advise them in making their programs more CSE-proof - Take enough time. You can’t implement CSE in one or two years, 3-5 years is much more realistic. - Be member of national curriculum developing committee (influence from ‘within’) - Work from a broader vision, than just pushing your CSE project (it’s a process, not a project). A program plan with a larger vision makes it more attractive for governing parties than just implementing your project. - Adapt your terminology and avoid sensitive words (reframe the message).
20
I n finding support and convincing others it is helpful to focus on these activities: • What are the local sexual health problems
of young people? Often ministries are sensitive for numbers, and everyone wants to decrease rates of teenage pregnancy, maternal mortality, HIV+ and sexual violence. So this is a joint objective for everyone: we want our young people to be safe and healthy. No discussion there. (‘health’ often is a better entrypoint than ‘rights’, who may be seen as western values)
• Show that (because of this) existing
(abstinence only) campaigns and activities obviously have not payed off unfortunately. This means we need another approach, one that includes abstinence only (so don’t reject this!) but also meets the needs of young people that are sexually active. When you can back this up with extra stats this is even better: how many YP are sexually active? At what age?
• Show and explain what CSE actually is.
Perhaps even reframe it and not stress the ‘sexuality’ part. Focus on the topics you know your government is in favour of too. • Show that sexuality is more than having sex. Stress the importance of selfesteem for young people, this includes the knowledge of your own body and development, supporting your friends and feeling supported, knowing what pregnancy and sex is and how you can prevent this when you will become sexually active. • The importance of discriminating between facts vs opinions. • Address gender-equality.
• Make clear: CSE is age-appropriate and
follows the natural sexual development of young children, without being too explicit. It is based on their needs and development.
You can even start on toddler age, and then focus on topics that fit their sexual develop-ment. Make it tangible so everyone recognizes your examples: 3 year olds ask where babies come from, children touch their genitals, are curious about differences between boys and girls etc. Normalise this, not make it a problem.
• Show: CSE is a solution on how to deal with
this natural behaviour instead of punish and reject.
• Show evidence of the positive effect of CSE
programs in your country! • Collect M&E data on sexual health, • A nd also on more neutral non-sexuality issues like positive school results, feelings of safety on school campus etc (see WSA-presentation Winnie). Not only in numbers, but also quotes from teachers and students. Let them speak for you! • Show international literature that CSE does not increase rates of sexual activity, but actually decrease (Kirby). This general myth should be busted.
• Is there evidence available on the needs
of young people in sex education or Youth Friendly Services? Then show that.
21
Background of the Kenyan example: The Kenyan experience shows that despite full partnership with the Ministry of Education, opposition against CSE (and the WSWM/MWML) can arise again and that implementing agencies and Rutgers need to be prepared for that. Often this is politically inspired. In Kenya the present opposition comes from the National Council of Catholic churches Kenya (NCCK) and seems to be related to the upcoming visit of the Pope to Kenya. As 60% of the schools are Catholic founded, the Ministry of Education is weary not to get into serious disputes with the NCCC and might scapegoat a NGO in this process. When collaborating with the MoE, is CSE still ‘comprehensive’? There is a tension between working topdown (securing scale) and securing comprehensiveness in sexuality education. Working top-down makes it sometimes difficult to keep the program comprehensive, as we are often challenged to ‘tone down’ the explicitness of the curriculum. Experiences seem to show that a decentralized way of working is a better entrance for government support and room to work, including contextualization and comprehensiveness. This is in line with scaling up principles, that depending on the innovation
that you want to scale up, a hierarchical/topdown or a relational/bottom up approach is more convenient. Considering CSE, for which contextualization is crucial, a relational way of scaling up has advantages. Participants mentioned that you cannot avoid to accept government policies and that adjustments should be seen as contextualization, instead of compromising. Contextualization was said to be mainly a matter of ‘wording and toning the content’. Our work should also be seen as a process instead, instead of a one-moment introduction of a comprehensive sexuality education lesson package (a ‘project’): by working closely with implementing agencies and schools, the quality of implementation, including the comprehensiveness, will gradually increase, as well as the sustainability of implementation.
Future plans In the last session we all applied our lessons learned to new action plans for an even better implementation of our WSWM programs. Not only you as our country representatives will be busy, also Rutgers is fully energized: In January 2016 Rutgers will meet with the managers of your implementing agencies to discuss more on the pool of mastertrainers, licensing and community of practice. Together we will surely create a world full of love, peace and much needed sexuality education. Keep updated and follow our Facebook group ‘WSWM community of practice’. Thank you all very much for joining and participating with your heart and soul. See you soon!
On behalf of the Rutgers team, Laura van Lee
22
Annex Annex 1 - Criteria for master trainers, collected by participants
Knowledge Basic information on sexual terminology Comprehensive SRHR Context: legal, health care, education, culture Different cutural norms and values Facts & evidence about sensitive issues Institutional development Parent-child communication Principles of CSE Sexual development from child to adult Single and double loop learning Updated information on current curricula & approaches Variety of facilitation methods Whole School Approach Attitude Appreciate diversity Gender sensitive Gender transformative thinking Non-controlling towards participants Non-discriminative Non-judgemental Non-possessive towards participants Open minded Passionate about Young People’s Issues Positive attitude toward CSE Positive disposition towards participants Respect for self and others Taking initiatives to further develop the program Willing to contribute to a WHA Willing to support YP’s sexual rights Willingness to learn & unlearn Willingness to relate to young people and their challenges
Skills Ability to reflect on his or herself Ability to use a variety of methods Advocacy skills Apply knowledge about adult learning Coaching of schools in WSA Coaching of teacher trainers Coaching skills Communicate sensitive issues in sexuality Conflict resolution skills Creative in choosing appropriate methodology Emotional intelligence Facilitation Flexibility to different learning situations Handling cases of sexual bullying and abuse Linking up with important stakeholders Listening skills Managing participants with different characteristics Mentoring of teacher trainers Mobilize support for CSE Moderation Monitoring Motivation of participation Negotiation skills Planning & Coordination Prioritisation of important issues Separate personal from professional values Skills of giving feedback Skills to change attitudes of participants towards supporting to CSE Staying focused Using participatory teaching
23
Annex Annex 2 - Barriers and Solutions - First session Thursday afternoon, 15-10-2015
Introduction In implementing WSWM every country encounters specific barriers. In this session we all thought of barriers and solutions to overcome them. Yuri introduced the topic and showed a powerpoint with the main categories for barriers. Group work: 4 groups discuss the different barriers:
I Developing curriculum Barriers Government leadership
Solutions MoU with Ministry/Ministry of Education (MoE) Facilitator accreditation Sustained Advisory Board
II Training and Coaching Barriers Tights schedules for training Lack of motivation
Solutions Enabling environment (full involvement) Incentives for teachers, Certificates, Support from local administration, Quality trainings
III Technical challenges Barriers Inadequate ICT resources, Computer failures, Resistance to use ICT
Solutions Paper version, School concept papers, Involvement
IV Facilitation of Lessons Barriers Not time-tabled Available teachers Methods Program Fidelity
Solutions Involve the school administration and the local ministry Train more teachers within schools using WSA Adoption to the local context Use MoE, Quality assurance teams for M&E, Develop M&E tool incorporating CSE quizzes
V Ministries Barriers Involvement of Ministries Bureaucracy Lack of commitment
Solutions Sensitization of and cooperating with Ministries Find the right person Continuous Lobby and Advocacy
24
VI School Management Barriers Cultural and Religious values of School Leader Perception of CSE/WSWM/MWML as an additional task (a burden rather than an advantage Transfer of school management
VII Religious/Community Leaders
Solutions Involve them in the assessment of the school, Orientation to the School administration (assign roles), Get support by the link of education and benefits for SRHR Get support by the link of education and benefits for SRHR, Involve the local Education Office in the inclusion in the M&E and the SRHR program MoU with the school
Solutions Identify and exploit religious teaching and contextualize to SRHR needs of young people Identify and work with religious/community leaders with positive attitudes Appropriate use of the holy books Present SRHR evidence of young people Contextualize sensitization seminar Sensitizing religious and community leaders to get their support
VIII Parents Barriers Parents and community think CSE encourages sexual activities Young people to abandon their culture
Solutions Present the SRHR challenges of young people and present CSE as solution Use media such as radio for a wider discussion and sensitization of community
IX Competing CSE programmes or initiatives
Solutions Approval from national organ, Integration of MoE and MoH, Be the leader in quality CSE
X Other challenges Barriers No adoption of CSE program
Solutions Tailor program to educational outcomes (Indonesia tried!), Present the SRHR challenges of young people and present CSE as solution
Maaike’s advice regarding recommended perspectives for UN, embassies, ministries: 1 Try to move from a project to a program approach 2 Work towards sustainability right from the start 3 Scaling up with maintenance of quality, comprehensiveness and explicit vision
4 Cost effectiveness and financing And as effectiveness principles (Paris, Dacca, Busan): 1 Harmonisation 2 Alignment 3 Ownership 4 Partnership
25
Annex Annex 3 - More background information on the Whole School Approach
Frequently asked questions about the whole school approach and upscaling Why does it take time to apply the Whole School Approach and why is that worth it? (3 years)
The Whole School Approach is not realized overnight: it needs attention and a gradual integration in all the school systems and policies. As schools do have their own dynamic, it is needed to adjust to these dynamics and count for a period of about two, ideally three years for schools to fully adopt the Whole School Approach in all its aspects. Once adopted and integrated, the sustainability of CSE has greatly increased, as well as the number of beneficiaries reached. This makes the WSA worthwhile investing in.
This sounds intensive and costly, how is this compatible with improving scaling uppower?
It is true that at first the WSA asks for close guidance and coaching of the schools by the implementing partner organisation, especially during the start-up (self-assessment workshop) and first year of implementation. However, as the whole school approach taps directly into the motivation of staff and available resources at schools, the project becomes much more sustainable and easier to upscale, once the program starts running (year 2-3). Moreover, the success of the WSA can spread quickly within schools, and to other schools within the district: when having reached a critical mass of stakeholders in a school (teachers, students, parents, management, board) it is much easier to upscale to even more students and teachers within the school. As quality of education and school climate tend to improve, upscaling power to neighbouring schools in the district will also greatly improve: everybody wants to get on board.
more beneficiaries in a year and over the years, than in our current approach. In other words: the whole school approach pays off well. In terms of actual costs: the costs made within the WSA are largely for hiring external support (guidance, facilitation and training in CSE), and only to a minimal extent to actual financial support (just a small grants-fund within the school). This I because the success of the sustainability of the WSA lies in the fact that that maintenance and running the programme needs to be included in the budget and systems of the school. Budget for implementing agency: budget for staff to train the teachers, as well as for staff to guide the schools. One programme officer might be able to guide 10-20 schools: in the start-up phase more guidance is needed, than in the third year, when schools can run the programme and only need some advice and guidance on specific issues. The implementing agency also needs to budget for a support structure for schools, that are not part of the project anymore, though still need to be fed with new ideas, experiences and materials to maintain the programme and keep up the positive motivation. In the whole school approach manual, we will go deeper into these issues, so you can plan and budget your own project well.
Is adopting and applying the Whole School Approach expensive? Not really. When expenses per pupil/student are calculated, these are lower when a school applies the whole school approach by reaching
An example of a ‘self-assessment flower’: ranking on each of the five indicators (step 2: self assessment workshops), from the presentation of Winnie’s.
26
Annex Annex 4 - Community of practice (CoP):
Group Work 1: a community of practice for teachers and schools
Group Work 2: a community of practice for (international) Mastertrainers
1 What is the name of our CoP? SRHR CoP; SRHR Worldlink; Linking and Learning
1 What is the name of our CoP? CSE Master Trainers Forum
2 Who is our audience? • Teachers • School management • District officials , health workers, parents (Though, different sites are foreseen) 3 Which tools/methods/ways do we use? • Online and F2F and Newsfeed • Factsheets on different topics • Trigger videos • Quizes, Q&A • Best practice sharing • Instructional videos 4
Who should coordinate? • District/region/province • National level (CSO and government) • International level (Rutgers)
5
What are our burning issues? • Facilitation skills • Principles of CSE • YP SRHR challenges • Sensitive issues/controversial issues • Linking and referral methods
2 Who is our Audience? Master trainers and CSE experts 3 Which tools/methods/ways do we use? Online: Facebook, Discussion Groups (D-groups) Offline: Regional level (eg neighbouring countries like Uganda and Kenya) and country level meetings 4 Who should take the coordination role? Form a committee of moderators: • Coordination • Moderators • Analysers • Documenter 5 What are our Burning issues? • Training methodologies • Controversial issues • Policies • Strategies • Global commitments
27
Annex Annex 5 - Participants
Name
Country
Organisation participant/trainer
Kallol Chowdhury
kallol@dskbangladesh.org
Bangladesh
DSK Bangladesh
participant
Syed Md. Nuruddin
smdnur@yahoo.com
Bangladesh
PSTC Bangladesh
participant
Jacqueline Nintunze
Jacqueline.Nintunze@care.org
Burundi
Care Burundi
participant
Cyprien Ndayisaba
Cyprien.Ndayisaba@care.org
Burundi
Care Burundi
participant
Yalem Demissie
yalemm@decethiopia.org
Ethiopia
DEC
participant
Meskerem Bedane
meskerem.damene@icco-cooperation.org Ethiopia
ICCO
participant
Rashid Imoro
rashid@savsign.org
Ghana
Savana Signatures
participant
Andreas Susanto
andre.susanto@rutgerswpfindo.org
Indonesie
Rutgers Indonesia
participant
Vilmer Nyamongo
vbnyamongo@gmail.com
Kenya
CSA
participant
Vidaline Omollo
vidalyneo@yahoo.com
Kenya
CSA
participant
Albert Obbuyi
obbuyi@csakenya.org
Kenya
CSA
participant
Pilirani Kamaliza
pkamaliza@yahoo.com
Malawi
TUM
participant
Moffat Njatiyamphongo
mhnjati@yahoo.com
Malawi
EEDF
participant
Imran Haider
imran.haider@rutgerswpfpak.org
Pakistan
Rutgers Pakistan
participant
Aftab Ahmed
aftab.awan@rutgerswpfpak.org
Pakistan
Rutgers Pakistan
participant
Zai Nabateregga
xytoon@gmail.com
Uganda
Straight Talk Foundation
participant
Winnie Akeso
akesow@gmail.com
Uganda
SchoolNet Uganda
participant
Quraish Matovu
quintomat21@gmail.com
Uganda
RHU Uganda
participant
Jo Reinders
j.reinders@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
trainer
Sanderijn van der Doef
s.vanderdoef@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
trainer
Laura van Lee
l.vanlee@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
trainer
Herman Kruijer
herman.kruijer@educaids.nl
NL
Educaids
participant NL
Jos Dusseljee
j.dusseljee@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
participant NL
Yuri Ohlrichs
y.ohlrichs@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
trainer
Thilly de Boer
t.deboer@rutgers.nl
NL
Rutgers
trainer