PNGEI Research – an exercise in patience;
my greatest virtue!
For August and September I have official
permission from the Department of Education to be working on the ETTR
(Elementary Teacher Training Reform) project. I have been working on this
project since I got here but as travel is planned it becomes full time and so
following protocols VSO sought and received official permission.
PNGEI were given the project to manage by
the DoE at the end of last year and when I arrived in January it was one of the
first things I became involved in although it was never certain whether or not
the capacity was there for it ever to get off the ground. I remain determined
that it will.
There are two outcomes within the project
that must be completed before the end of the year;
1.
Policy makers understand the
workforce and cost issues surrounding elementary pre-service teacher training
and can make informed decisions about reform
2.
Elementary teacher training
reform plan agreed by all stakeholders
Over the last six months the ETTR working
party split into three groups to complete the three research studies in order
to fulfil outcome 1;
Group 1: Tracer study of graduates of both
CET (Certificate in Elementary Teaching) programmes run by PNGEI
Group 2: Workforce study of lecturers and
trainers on the CET programmes
Group 3: Cost analysis of both CET
programmes and the CETT (Certificate in Elementary Teacher Training)
Proposals for all three studies have been
completed and accepted by the DoE and AusAid representatives which was considered
by all to be a major achievement but it now appears that was the easy part
compared to getting out into the field.
There have been and still are many hurdles
to be negotiated.
The greatest of which is accessing the
funding through the current DoE systems. In order for cheques to be released
for any necessary expenditure within the project 3 quotations must be obtained.
This includes transport for researchers and participants (flights, PMVs, boats
and car hire), accommodation for researchers and participants, venue hire, food
(morning tea, lunch, and afternoon tea) and stationary. This is an arduous task
when planning activities throughout the country in 12 different provinces and
involves reliance on support from provincial authorities where there are yet
more protocols to follow.
Once all paper work is in place the
approval letter signed by the secretary of education, first assistant secretary
of education and the superintendent for elementary education must be attached
and all documentation is passed to the accounts department of the DoE. At this
point the paper work is checked by the DoE and AusAid accountants before being
sent for processing. Time then becomes the biggest enemy as quotations become
out of date and then the paper work is rejected and the whole process begins
again as flights, hotels and venues have to be re-booked.
Unsurprisingly, hotels become irritated
with an organisation that makes bookings it never fulfils and are reluctant to
give further quotes. Provincial authorities also become less cooperative in
finding venues and organising transport for participants when activities are
constantly postponed. Therefore with every set back the challenge increases.
I suppose the point I am making here is
that when I first doubted the capacity of PNGEI to run this project I was
thinking of academic capabilities, inexperience in research, admin support and
practicalities such as power cuts, no phone/fax, toner for the
printer/photocopier etc. All of these things have played their part but DoE
processes are the killer blow. It is six weeks now and there have been times
when my frustration levels have hit very dizzy heights. I know that the DoE
will soon ask for my support to write the project quarterly report for AusAid
and we will have to declare that for the third quarter this year no donor money
has been spent. There is every possibility that because of this AusAid will
withdraw their funding from the project altogether.
Morale is very low in the PNGEI Elementary
unit. Fingers are pointing from many directions and the lecturers within the
unit feel as though they are shouldering much of the blame for the current
state of Elementary education (which nobody would argue is anywhere near good).
The last thing they need is to be made to feel even more inadequate by not
being able to carry out a research study.
I wonder now wether I was wrong to support
my colleagues in this endeavour in the first place. I think it’s a very
exciting piece of research and changes to elementary education and particularly
teacher training are essential. On a micro level though the whole process has
contributed to making the most
experienced people in elementary education feel even more frustrated, down
trodden and inadequate than they did before. This is not a desirable outcome
for anyone. Was I wrong to push this project along and motivate people into
doing something they perhaps don’t have the capacity to do?
As usual these are my thoughts as I
continue to wade through the mud any inspiration would be very welcome peeps J
Well on a happy note I am posting this on
Independence Day! Happy birthday PNG!!!
