COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE … curricula and the organisation of teaching and learning in ... with progress through classes. ... COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
239
CHAPTER TWELVE
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE
STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING
How do the books balance?
KEITH M. LEWIN
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the financial and resource aspects of multigrade
approaches to school and curriculum organisation in the context of low
enrolment countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South and West Asia
(SWA). There are several cost and efficiency related reasons to consider
multigrade alternatives to monograde patterns of organisation. First, primary
school curricula and the organisation of teaching and learning in the
overwhelming majority of developing countries are shaped by monograde
assumptions, whereby children are grouped by grade level in separate class
groups. Where school size is small, this can lead to very low pupil–teacher
ratios (and high recurrent costs per child) which may restrict access.
Multigrade can reduce this problem. Second, repetition remains very high in
many systems with low enrolment rates, and increases costs whilst reducing
access. One reason for repetition may be rigid promotion criteria associated
with progress through classes. Multigrade can allow more flexible progression,
which might reduce repetition and also increase female enrolment. Third,
there is scant evidence that quality and pupils’ performance have increased
as enrolments have expanded. If this is in part because monograde teaching
strategies are poorly matched to learners’ capabilities, then multigrade may
offer opportunities to adopt more effective pedagogies and increase the time
pupils spend learning. Fourth, the literature on multigrade schooling contains
few contributions analysing costs and efficiency gains. Decisions to adopt
multigrade need to be informed by estimates of the costs and probable
benefits associated with different modes of multigrade.
This chapter is organised in seven parts. The first elaborates on types of
multigrade organisation to clarify some of the options. The second profiles
the different types of costs associated with educational provision. The third
presents a model which can be used to estimate cost implications of
A.W. Little (ed.), Education for All and Multigrade Teaching: challenges and opportunities, 239–263.
Unless multigrade organisation is adopted, pupils’ time on task may be
very limited as teachers teach several monograde classes alternatively,
leaving class periods where the teacher is not present. A multigrade
curriculum can be designed to provide a full complement of learning
experiences for all pupils in small schools staffed at average PTRs.
Monograde cannot do this. In larger schools choice of multigrade is more
often an option rather than a necessity. If the learning gains it promises are
real, and the costs no greater than multigrade once it is established, then it is
potentially attractive.
SMALL SCHOOLS, MULTIGRADE, AND SOME EFFECTS ON COSTS
The possible advantages of multigrade teaching for staffing small schools
can be illustrated by considering schools with enrolments of 60, 120 and
180, in a system that has six grades of primary schooling. Table 12.1 shows
this. In a monograde school a minimum of six teachers would be required,
one for each grade. In the smallest school this would result in a pupil–
teacher ratio of 10:1 and class size of 10 assuming all teachers taught all
periods. The teaching cost per child would be three times that in a school
with 180 pupils.
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 253
If the school had a multigrade pattern of organisation with a pupil–
teacher ratio of 30:1 (the same as in schools with 180 pupils), the equivalent
school with only 60 pupils would require two teachers teaching all periods to
mixed-grade groups. Simply put, teachers’ salaries in three schools of this
kind could be supported for the same cost as one of the monograde type.
This picture can be refined. Enrolments in many primary schools, where
overall enrolments have been growing and repetition and drop-out remain
significant, are often uneven. Table 12.2 models this for a school with 180
pupils. Here 50 are in Grade 1, declining to 15 in Grade 6. Those in Grade 6
have more than three times as much spent on teachers’ salaries per pupil than
those in Grade 1; if one teacher is allocated to each grade group in a
monograde pattern Grade 1 has a PTR of 50:1 and Grade 6 of 15:1.
Table 12.1 Teachers needed for schools, by school size and monograde and
multigrade class organisation
Monograde Multigrade
School
size
Number of
classes
Averageclasssize
Number of
teachers
PTR Number of
classes
Averageclasssize
Number of
teachers
PTR
60 6 10 6 10 2 30 2 30
120 6 20 6 20 4 30 4 30
180 6 30 6 30 6 30 6 30
Table 12.2 Monograde, multigrade and uneven enrolment patterns between grades
Monograde Multigrade
Pupils Classsize
Teachers PTR Classsize
Teac hers PTR
Grade 1 50 50 1 50
Grade 2 40 40 1 40
3 multigrade
classes
covering
Grades 1 + 2
30 3 30
Grade 3 35 35 1 3530 2 30
Grade 4 25 25 1 25
2 multigrade
classes
covering
Grades 3 + 4
Grade 5 15 15 1 15 30 1 30
Grade 6 15 15 1 15
1 multigrade
class
covering
Grades 5 + 6
Total 180 6 30 6 30
KEITH M. LEWIN254
A multigrade school with the same number of teachers and pupils at
different grade levels might operate differently. Three teachers could teach
Grades 1 and 2, two teachers Grades 3 and 4, and one teacher Grades 5 and
6. This would even up the teaching group sizes so that all pupils would be in
classes of 30. Arguably this would be more equitable and more efficient.
In practice the differences between the cases may be larger. If a
maximum class size policy is operated such that teachers are posted
wherever class size exceeds 30 pupils, then the monograde school would
appear to qualify for nine teachers, not six. If this is so, then it would be 50%
more expensive per pupil on teaching costs, though teaching groups would
fall in size in the first three grades (Table 12.3).
If primary schooling curricula are subject-based, and some subjects are
taught by specialised teachers who teach only their subject, more
inefficiencies can appear in small schools. Most primary school curricula in
SSA and SA are subject-based, as are those in lower secondary schools. In
higher grades of primary and in lower secondary teacher specialisation is
common. Thus, a school of 180 pupils where monograde organisation was
used would need at least nine specialist teachers for language, mathematics
and science if each subject accounted for 20% of curriculum time. The
overall pupil–teacher ratio would be at a low level of 20:1 (Table 12.4). If a
class-size maximum were imposed as many as 14 teachers might be needed.
If the school were smaller, with only 90 pupils, then specialist teachers
would begin to have lighter and lighter teaching loads unless they taught
across the curriculum. The PTR would fall to only 10:1 (Table 12.5).
Table 12.3 Monograde and multigrade with a limit on class size
Monograde Multigrade
Pupils Classsize
Teachers PTR Classsize
Teachers PTR
Grade 1 50 25 2 25 30 3 30
Grade 2 40 20 2 20
3 multigrade
classes
covering
Grades 1 + 2
Grade 3 35 18 2 17.5 30 2 30
Grade 4 25 25 1 25
2 multigrade
classes
covering
Grades 3 + 4
Grade 5 15 15 1 15 30 1 30
Grade 6 15 15 1 15
1 multigrade
class
covering
Grades 5 + 6
Total 180 9 20 6 6 30
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 255
Table 12.4 Monograde school with teacher specialisation: 180 pupils
Mono-grade
class size
Language periods
(20% time)
Mathsperiods
(20% time)
Science periods
(20% time)
Other subjects
(40% time)
Teachers
Grade 1 50 8 8 8 16
Grade 2 40 8 8 8 16
Grade 3 35 8 8 8 16
Grade 4 25 8 8 8 16
Grade 5 15 8 8 8 16
Grade 6 15 8 8 8 16
Total 180 48 48 48 96
Teachers needed at
35/40 period
workload 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.7
Rounded 2 2 2 3 9
PTR 20
Table 12.5 Monograde school with teacher specialisation: 90 pupils
Mono-grade
class size
Language periods
(20% time)
Maths periods
(20% time)
Science periods
(20% time)
Other subjects
(40% time)
Teachers
Grade 1 25 8 8 8 16
Grade 2 20 8 8 8 16
Grade 3 17 8 8 8 16
Grade 4 13 8 8 8 16
Grade 5 8 8 8 8 16
Grade 6 7 8 8 8 16
Total 90 48 48 48 96
Teachers needed at
35/40 period
workload 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.7
Rounded 2 2 2 3 9
PTR 10
KEITH M. LEWIN256
Table 12.6 Multigrade with teacher specialisation: pattern one
Combined grades
Multigradeclass size
Language periods
(20% time)
Mathsperiods
(20% time)
Science periods(20% time)
Other subjects
(40% time)
Teachers
1 and 2 45 8 8 8 16
3 and 4 30 8 8 8 16
5 and 6 15 8 8 8 16
Total 90 24 24 24 48
Teachers needed at
35/40 period workload 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.4
Rounded 1 1 1 2 5
PTR 18
Table 12.7 Multigrade with teacher specialisation: pattern two
Combined grades
Multigrade class size
Languageperiods
(20% time)
Maths periods
(20% time)
Scienceperiods (20%time)
Other subjects
(20% time)
Teachers
1, 2 and 3
(two
groups)
31 16 16 16 32
4, 5 and 6 28 8 8 8 16
Total 90 24 24 24 48
Teachers needed at
35/40 period workload 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 3.5
PTR 25
A multigrade organisational alternative for a 90-pupil school could have
several forms. Two are illustrated in Tables 12.6 and 12.7. In the first pattern
specialist subject teachers are retained (Table 12.6). Each multigrade class
would have two grades contained within it. If teachers taught only within the
double grade groups they would be short of a full timetable (average load
about 24/40 periods). In this case five teachers would be needed and the PTR
would be 18:1, significantly better than the 10:1 for the equivalent
monograde case. If teachers taught across the double grade groups the PTR
could be increased to as much as 25:1 and teaching loads would rise.
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 257
In the second pattern it is assumed that grades could be grouped into two
Grades 1–3 classes, and one Grades 4–6 class. Mathematics and science
would be covered by 1.4 teachers who would contribute 0.6 teaching to other
subjects, and 0.7 language teachers who would cover 0.3 teaching of other
subjects. Staffing with three such teachers would leave a shortfall of 0.5
general teaching, which could be covered by an additional teacher (allowing
all to have some free periods) or by a part-time teacher or part-teaching
principal. The PTR would then be about 25:1.
HOW DO THE BOOKS BALANCE?
It is clear that there is no simple answer to the question of whether
multigrade approaches to learning are more or less costly than monograde.
In the case of small schools some patterns of multigrade teaching can be
very cost-effective. More generally for larger schools multigrade teaching
is probably cost-neutral once development costs have been paid and it is
established across a school system. The case for medium and large schools
then depends on whether or not the potential for more effective learning, and
less repetition, can be turned into a reality in particular systems. The
complexity of alternative multigrade strategies makes it daunting to identify
simple general conclusions. Table 12.8 attempts to capture some of the
possible differences in costs that may arise with common types of
multigrade.
Table 12.8 Probable effects of multigrade on costs
School costs Probable effect of multigrade on costsTeaching salary
costs
Teachers’ salaries per pupil should fall in multigrade schools
when compared to fully staffed monograde schools where
enrolments are small. In large schools the effect may
disappear and teachers’ salaries per pupil for multigrade and
monograde may become similar.
Non-teaching
salary costs
Multigrade should not be more expensive than monograde in
relation to non-teaching salaries; if it is, it is more likely to be
a small-school effect than a consequence of multigrade.
Teaching
materials
purchase costs
Multigrade may benefit from additional teaching aids but the
costs of these are unlikely to be much more than those for
adequately resourced monograde.
(continued)
KEITH M. LEWIN258
Table 12.8 continued
School costs Probable effect of multigrade on costsLearning
materials
purchase costs
Multigrade may require more learning materials (e.g. if
multigrade practice involves more periods of self-study);
however, multigrade is not necessarily more expensive than
adequately resourced monograde. Learning materials are in
any case usually a very small proportion of cost per pupil.
Training costs The costs of training teachers to use multigrade approaches
fall on pre-service and on in-service training. There may be
some initial costs in setting up new programmes, but the
recurrent costs are likely to be similar to those for supported
monograde (see below).
Assessment
costs
Multigrade school-based assessment may need more time and
resources than conventional monograde if learning progress
is monitored at the individual level; once systems are
established there is no reason why assessment should be
more than marginally more expensive.
Teachers’ time
and application
Multigrade may be more demanding on teachers’ time in
terms of preparation, and in terms of managing classroom
activity when compared to monograde whole-class teaching
of standard content; if more and better learning takes place
there is a productivity gain.
System level costs Training of
inspectors/
advisers
Inspector and advisers may need training to evaluate
multigrade; this is a once-only development cost after which
it should be integrated into training of all new inspectors.
Assessment
costs
Multigrade may have no significant cost implications for
external national examinations if these are only held at the
end of primary school as a summative assessment of
competences judged against stated criteria. If educational
outcomes are intended to be different for multigrade schools
than for monograde, then parallel assessments may be
needed.
Revised initial
teacher
education
Including multigrade competences in initial teachers training
should be a once-only development cost after which it would
have few additional costs over current practice.
In-service
training and
support
Offering in-service training to support multigrade may be an
additional cost if it is in addition to normal INSET
programmes. INSET costs would depend on the proportion of
teachers who receive it, the length and intensity of what they
receive, and the extent to which it continues over time.
(continued)
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 259
Table 12.8 continued
Development of
curriculum
materials
The development of multigrade materials may be an additional
cost, especially if multigrade materials are produced alongside
monograde curriculum materials. If curriculum revision
produces new materials which can be used in both multigrade
and monograde schools and classes the additional costs may
be marginal.
Development of
learning aids
These costs are unlikely to be significant when compared to
teaching costs unless expensive technologies are introduced.
ISSUES ARISING
This paper has considered some cost-related aspects of multigrade
approaches to learning and teaching. A number of broad issues emerge
which can help shape debate over methods, and their costs and benefits.
First, multigrade teaching has to be understood as a strategy for
improving quality and access that will succeed only if there is commitment
to its introduction and support. In much of SSA and SWA multigrade
teaching is seen as an option of last resort. It is associated with poor quality,
remote schools which are under-staffed and unpopular. This image is
prevalent and powerful. It is unjustified. Multigrade teaching is a pedagogic
innovation which has many potential advantages. It could be the method of
choice (as in the Escuela Nueva programme) if enough teachers and Ministry
staff were convinced of its benefits. It is neither old-fashioned nor
necessarily a last resort. These issues of perception are important if hearts
and minds are to be converted into commitment and application. Multigrade
class organisation is consistent with much progressive pedagogy and
curriculum analysis. Paradoxically multigrade is also consistent with many
traditional learning systems in civil society and elsewhere. It is clear that in
some circumstances multigrade is the best option, and the most cost-
effective.
Second, it is important not to see multigrade simply as a way of
increasing PTRs in rural schools. It is a strategy to increase access at lower
costs than monograde can provide. If PTRs are low because of small school
size and monograde assumptions, then more could be enrolled at affordable
costs if multigrade was introduced. If PTRs are high because there are too
few teachers to staff small rural schools, then multigrade is desirable since it
will offer more structured learning time than monograde is likely to do (if
KEITH M. LEWIN260
there are not enough teachers to cover all grades in a monograde school
some will be untaught, unlike in a multigrade school).
Sophisticated multigrade teaching may be more expensive than poor
quality monograde. Multigrade organisation is virtually a necessity with
small primary schools if learning time is to be maximised and costs kept
within reasonable limits; otherwise it is a choice with probable pedagogic
gains (Little, 2001). With multigrade more can be enrolled at similar or
better quality for the same costs and teacher supply constraints can be eased.
It is often forgotten that multigrade can be mixed strategically with
monograde.
Third, multigrade will be difficult to implement without appropriate
curriculum reforms. At the first level organisational changes and pedgagogic
reform can make a multigrade reality out of a monograde curriculum base.
Some patterns of multigrade learning and teaching can and do use
monograde learning materials. This is necessary and it would be counter-
productive and impractical to insist that multigrade could not be introduced
without replacing the existing stock of learning materials which are
themselves in short supply. The invitation is that subsequent curriculum
reform related to EFA should always have multigrade patterns of use as one
of its terms of reference. There are no good reasons why learning and
teaching materials cannot be designed to support both mono- and multigrade.
If there are additional costs they are marginal.
Fourth, teachers do need support and training to adopt new practices.
Where multigrade organisation is adopted school level support is essential
from principals who understand multigrade. In-service training is desirable,
and appropriate teacher manuals are essential. Pre-service training rarely
devotes much time to the acquisition of multigrade skills. There is no good
reason for this and it would cost little to address this deficiency.
Fifth, for many teachers and parents the most convincing demonstration
of the value of multigrade lies in its practice. The role of properly conceived
and managed pilot programmes designed with the possibility of going to
scale cannot be over-emphasised. If they offer quality learning, are
manageable by ordinary teachers, and popular with pupils and parents they
will spread. If they are imposed without demonstrating that they work, and
without advocates with real experience of their advantages, they may well
fail. Successful innovations are generally driven by demand, not pushed by
advocacy lacking concrete demonstration of success. The cost of
implementation of reforms that are welcomed by teachers is much less than
that of those which are resisted.
Sixth, the gains available from adopting multigrade teaching as a
complementary strategy for EFA depend on all the above observations. They
also require persistence and consistency in approach, and an adequate
resource base. To deliver benefits new practices require time to mature and
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 261
be refined to suit different local circumstances. Innovations of scale need
medium-term commitment to embed themselves and deliver gains greater
than initial costs. There is a challenge to leadership to follow through
multigrade strategies for a sufficient length of time to realise the benefits.
Finally, if the commitment by development partners to support EFA is
real, and the pledge to provide resources to any country with a plausible plan
to achieve universal enrolment and gender equity is made, then action should
follow ambition. Resource questions are critical. Multigrade teaching does
offer methods of reaching those currently excluded from primary schooling
at affordable costs with reasonable quality. Monograde does not in many of
the poorest countries. Achievement of EFA is a problem of the margin. It
does involve deciding whether the last 20–30% to be enrolled can be
enrolled at sustainable costs in conventional monograde schools within 3 km
of households, and if they are enrolled considering how best to organise their
learning. Multigrade looks a better option. It also looks to have potential in
meeting the learning needs of nomadic communities, refugees and displaced
people, migrants, and other groups with characteristics that may militate
against monograde solutions to their schooling needs.
In conclusion, multigrade appears to have a range of attractions which
includes opportunities to:
• improve quality for those enrolled in different types of school
settings
• enhance access for those out of school in areas where schools are
small, remote, uncongenial, and under-resourced
• capa
cities which vary widely and are often largely ignored in monograde
teaching groups
• management of class groups
• manage learning progression more effectively, make greater use of
readiness to learn and successful mastery as criteria for progression,
and reduce repetition rates where these are high
• make more use of peer learning where pupils learn from each other
and from older children
• deploy teachers more efficiently, reduce the range of class sizes, and
improve the quality of learning in both small and larger schools
• create possibilities for greater community involvement in primary
schooling
• control and in some cases reduce costs of delivering effective
learning to marginalised populations.
-restructure learning tasks to reflect learners’ capabilities and
-reduce age ranges within classes through more effective
KEITH M. LEWIN262
Realistic appraisals of costs and benefits and comparative advantages of
different kinds of multigrade approaches are needed and are widely lacking.
Multigrade teaching may offer higher quality at lower cost in some
circumstances (especially in small schools). It is not of itself a solution to
oversize classes. The development costs may be significant, but probably
little more than those for quality learning and teaching in monograde classes.
Multigrade approaches to reorganising primary provision are not a
panacea which can resolve all the obstacles that surround achieving EFA.
They do open up a range of options that can complement monograde
approaches and which promise real gains if selectively applied. Multigrade
challenges orthodoxies of how pupils learn, how curricula are designed, how
learning materials are presented, how teachers teach, and how schools are
organised. Multigrade is best seen as part of a package of interventions that
could improve access, efficiency and quality across all schools. It will
develop alongside monograde. It has real potential which is under-utilised,
under-promoted and under-developed. It is a way forward that cannot be
neglected and needs systematic development and application with due
attention to its costs and benefits.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Levitt, K., Block, M. and Soumare, A. (1994) Inside Classrooms in Guinea: Girls’ experiences. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Bray, M. (2000) Double Shift Schooling: Design, operation and cost effectiveness.
Paris and London: International Institute for Educational Planning and
Commonwealth Secretariat.
Bruns, B., Mingat, A. and Raktomalala, R. (2003) A Chance for Every Child:Achieving universal primary education by 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Colclough, C., Al Samarrai, S., Rose, P. and Tembon, M. (2003) Achieving Schooling for All in Africa: Cost, commitment and gender. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Colclough, C. with Lewin, K.M. (1993) Educating All the Children: Strategies for primary education in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Lavy, C. (1992) Investment in Human Capital: Schooling supply constraints in rural Ghana. Working Paper 93. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lewin, K.M. (2004) Mapping the Missing Link. Financing secondary schooling in Sub Saharan Africa: An overview of key issues for secondary education in Africaand their implications for resource allocation and finance. Secondary Education
in Africa Programme (SEIA). Washington, DC: World Bank. Online. Available
HTTP: http://www.worldbank.org/afr/seia/docs_conf_0604.htm (24 January
2005).
Lewin, K.M. and Caillods, F. (2001) Financing Secondary Education in Developing Countries: Strategies for sustainable growth. Paris: International Institute for
Educational Planning.
COSTS AND FINANCE OF MULTIGRADE STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING 263
Little, A. (1995) Multigrade Teaching: A review of research practice. London: ODA
Research Serial 12.
Little, A.W. (2001) Multigrade teaching: towards an international research and
policy agenda. International Journal of Education and Development, 21:6, 481–
498.
Mingat, A., Rakotomalala, R. and Tan, J.P. (2002) Financing Education for All by 2015: Simulations for 33 African countries. Africa Region Human Development
Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Thomas, C. and Shaw, C. (1992) Issues in the Development of Multigrade Schools.
World Bank Technical Paper 172. Washington, DC: World Bank.
United Nations (2000), United Nations Millenium Declaration. New York: UN.
UNESCO (2000) A Framework for Action. Dakar: World Education Forum, and
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2002) Education for All: Is the world on track? Global Monitoring
Report, 2002. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2003) Gender and Education for All: The leap to equality. Global