The intervention program

Let me start with an obvious statement. Statistics can be misleading. I have seen from numerous sources, Guyana’s literacy rate being at 99%. However, in John Stannard’s report on improving literacy in Guyana, he stated that it was possible that as many as 60% of eleven year old students in Guyanese schools have a literacy level three years below their age. Even allowing for a margin or error, this last statistic is alarming.

Like just about everything it seems, there is a complex web of reasons for this situation. While it will not be an easy mess to untangle, steps are being taken to try to address the issue. One of these steps was the introduction of an intervention program. It ran for the first four weeks of the summer break and targeted students identified as ‘slow learners’ but not involved in any other remedial program.

Students who had been identified for the program in Grades 2, 3 and 4, were required to attend school for the morning, four times a week. They were placed in classes of around fifteen students (although attendance did vary) and participated in a program that focused mainly on reading and mathematics.

I came to be involved in the program just shortly before it started. I assisted with a workshop to prepare the teachers for the program and then I was asked to assist with the monitoring. This involved travelling around to a number of schools in the Bartica area but, unfortunately, no speedboat rides to schools on the other sides of the rivers.

This was the first time the program ran so there were a number of teething issues. Resources provided were not enough for the students and they arrived just as the program started. In fact, quite a few packages arrived while the program was running. This meant we had the always wonderful (yes that’s sarcasm) task of deciding who should get what resources (those of you who did the training with me back in Australia, will remember the task I ran which was along similar lines, although a much less gruesome scenario. That task prepared me well for this situation). Plus, the promised snacks never eventuated for this region. However, the biggest issue was how the program ended – more on that later. (I must point out, the funding for this program was approved quite late, making it a mad rush to get the program up and running – credit must be given to those who did get the resources together and out to the parts of the country that actually received them.)

The program did have a bit of a shaky start as things were sorted out. A syllabus was provided but a number of teachers expressed a concern that they were already days behind in the program (and it was only the first week). Fortunately the syllabus had included a statement saying teachers could modify the program to suit the needs of their students. Reassuring teachers that it was okay to do so and using this statement as backup, they appeared much. (The regular school program is very tight and veering from it is definitely frowned upon.)

Over the next few weeks, my role was to ‘monitor’ the work of the teachers. I had to be very careful doing this, as I was just starting in my placement and it was the first real exposure a lot of these teachers had had to me. It would shape the rest of my stay. My attitude was to be as positive as I possibly could be, especially since these teachers were giving up their holiday time to staff this program (they were being paid $30 000 GUD for the four weeks - $150 USD). I have to say, it was not hard to do that as I saw some amazing displays of teaching. I can remember having a long discussion with the other monitors about all the good things I had seen in different teachers and how that was impacting on the students. It really was ‘best practice’ at work. I made the point of saying how great it would be for teachers to observe each other. I did not expect what happened after that.

Given the classes were so small, it was decided to see if it was possible to combine some classes so some observations happened. The first two teachers to be involved were quite keen to do this. In fact, they decided to team-teach their class the very next day so the students would be familiar with the larger class. When I walked into the area where they were working, my jaw just dropped. The class had really come alive! The teachers were bouncing off each other with their jokes and supporting each other and the students through the work. They were just naturals at it. I wanted to stay in their class to observe all day. It was engaging.

The next day, these two teachers did the peer observation session and it went extremely well. I briefly sat with the teacher observing to discuss with her what she had seen and how she had found the experience. She said it was fantastic because she had never had the opportunity to do this before and it was great to see someone else operate. It also reinforced a lot of what she was doing in her own teaching. I also spoke with the teacher who presented the lesson, who was just beaming after we were able to explain all the great things she had done in the class. For both of them, it proved to be an empowering experience. For me, it was an incredibly powerful to be involved in, as all too often teachers are ridiculed and stigmatized (and that appears to be the norm around the world). It was nice to be able to counter that just a little bit. Also, these two teachers kept team teaching for the rest of the program.

We tried to set up peer observation in another school but the teachers were much more keen to do some team teaching. It was planned we would come back a couple of days later to observe these lessons. Once again, these teachers took to it like ducks to water. The class reading of a book came to life like I had never seen before. The students were literally jumping out of their seats to offer complex and well thought-out out responses to the questions the teachers were asking. Once again, the teachers were able to bounce off each other, especially when humour was involved. It was critical literacy at its best.

In discussions with a number of teachers about the four weeks, it was just about unanimous that they had enjoyed the experience and felt it had been very beneficial for the students involved. They could see good progress had been made with the students who had enjoyed coming to school during their holidays!! The teachers pointed out a number of things that had helped make the program successful, such as having smaller class sizes and flexibility in the program. It had really been great to witness it.

So why did it end so badly? Well the Minister decided that because the program was working so well, it would be extended for two weeks. It seemed this was announced without any consultation with the teachers involved. Teachers had made other plans and generally did not want to give up another two weeks, as they needed a decent break before the start of the new school year. There was the question about whether they would be paid any extra, as well. This was unfortunate as it left a sour taste in the mouths of many teachers I spoke to despite the program having been a very positive experience for them. The point was raised that would have second thoughts about being involved in the program if it was offered again, next year, which is really unfortunate. At this stage it looks like the program will run, so hopefully the lesson will be learnt from this experience and teachers will remember the positives of being involved this time around.