Sustainability of Sufficiency-Based Schools
759
(SC1). PS1 appointed the heads of each class grade and the heads of each subject
area to be new SEP teachers’ leaders, whose skill was developed via presenting to
external visitors who came to visit the school.
However, problems still persisted at PM1 and SC4, where the number of SEP
teacher leaders dwindled. At PM1, there was development of new members by working with the SEP teacher leaders and other teachers. But this was not sufficient, since
in the last 3–4 years, six (out of ten) teachers, who drove SEP in the school since
the beginning, retired. At SC4, after the second new principal retired, some teacher
leaders at the subject group level withdrew, since they were not truly interested in
integrating SEP into the subject. Those staying were not truly leaders and were not
participating in the activities of the SEP learning center.
In PM4, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, PS1, all teachers attended annual SEP development workshops, conducted by SEP teacher leaders. Other development channels
included training with the Educational District Authority (PM3, SP1); training with
the Foundation (SP1); and the second new principal encouraging all teachers to create
innovations in SEP (SC2).
There was a variety of developmental approaches for new teachers. New PM3 and
PM2 teachers attended workshops by the foundation or took students to the foundation’s student camps. Other new teacher development approaches included training
by SEP teacher leaders (SC2); workshops by the Educational District Authority
(PM3); training by the SEP regional network (PM2); and existing teachers developing Knowledge Management and acting as role models and coaches (SP1).
5. Network expansion
In most cases, the new principals continued the school’s relationship with the local
community, with the exception of PM1 and PM2. The second new SC1 principal
increased visits to the community, took teachers and students to do a study tour of
community learning centers, and invited people with local wisdom to be trainers at
the school. The third new SC4 principal established the new SEP subject for Grade
seven and invited people with local wisdom to be trainers.
The new principals of six schools continued to expand the cultivation of the
SEP mindset within the school network, especially increasing study tour visits from
network members. There were also instances of the school principal and teachers
being guest speakers (PM3, PM4, SC1, SC2, SC3, PS1) and assessors in the SEP in the
education movement (SC1). An exceptional case was found with the third new SC4
principal, who developed members of the school’s network in the district authority to
be 100% SEP accredited. However, four new principals reduced the opening time for
visits for various reasons. For example, the PM1 principal felt that the school’s SEP
learning stations were not ready. The PM4 principal lacked understanding of SEP at
first, thinking that it was only an agricultural matter. The PM2 and SP1 principals
followed the pressure of the ministry policy, such as requiring students to spend time
preparing for exams.
In sum, the majority of the schools in the study sustained their key processes in
cultivation of the SEP mindset in students, especially in the SEP curriculum process
759
(SC1). PS1 appointed the heads of each class grade and the heads of each subject
area to be new SEP teachers’ leaders, whose skill was developed via presenting to
external visitors who came to visit the school.
However, problems still persisted at PM1 and SC4, where the number of SEP
teacher leaders dwindled. At PM1, there was development of new members by working with the SEP teacher leaders and other teachers. But this was not sufficient, since
in the last 3–4 years, six (out of ten) teachers, who drove SEP in the school since
the beginning, retired. At SC4, after the second new principal retired, some teacher
leaders at the subject group level withdrew, since they were not truly interested in
integrating SEP into the subject. Those staying were not truly leaders and were not
participating in the activities of the SEP learning center.
In PM4, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, PS1, all teachers attended annual SEP development workshops, conducted by SEP teacher leaders. Other development channels
included training with the Educational District Authority (PM3, SP1); training with
the Foundation (SP1); and the second new principal encouraging all teachers to create
innovations in SEP (SC2).
There was a variety of developmental approaches for new teachers. New PM3 and
PM2 teachers attended workshops by the foundation or took students to the foundation’s student camps. Other new teacher development approaches included training
by SEP teacher leaders (SC2); workshops by the Educational District Authority
(PM3); training by the SEP regional network (PM2); and existing teachers developing Knowledge Management and acting as role models and coaches (SP1).
5. Network expansion
In most cases, the new principals continued the school’s relationship with the local
community, with the exception of PM1 and PM2. The second new SC1 principal
increased visits to the community, took teachers and students to do a study tour of
community learning centers, and invited people with local wisdom to be trainers at
the school. The third new SC4 principal established the new SEP subject for Grade
seven and invited people with local wisdom to be trainers.
The new principals of six schools continued to expand the cultivation of the
SEP mindset within the school network, especially increasing study tour visits from
network members. There were also instances of the school principal and teachers
being guest speakers (PM3, PM4, SC1, SC2, SC3, PS1) and assessors in the SEP in the
education movement (SC1). An exceptional case was found with the third new SC4
principal, who developed members of the school’s network in the district authority to
be 100% SEP accredited. However, four new principals reduced the opening time for
visits for various reasons. For example, the PM1 principal felt that the school’s SEP
learning stations were not ready. The PM4 principal lacked understanding of SEP at
first, thinking that it was only an agricultural matter. The PM2 and SP1 principals
followed the pressure of the ministry policy, such as requiring students to spend time
preparing for exams.
In sum, the majority of the schools in the study sustained their key processes in
cultivation of the SEP mindset in students, especially in the SEP curriculum process