An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta
Department of Education and Science
Evaluation of Centre for Education
REPORT
The Senior Traveller Training Centre operating as part of
the Youth Development Project
Frank Dwan Training Centre
Stradavoher, Thurles, Co. Tipperary
Date of inspection: 07 December 2006
Date of issue of report: 8 November 2007
EVALUATION OF CENTRES FOR EDUCATION
2 quality of centre management
4 quality of teaching and learning
5 summary of strengths and recommendations for further development
EVALUATION OF CENTRES FOR EDUCATION
This report has been written following an evaluation of the Senior Traveller Training programme, run jointly with the local Community Training programme and managed by the Thurles Youth Development Project. It presents the findings of an evaluation of the work of the STTC element of the centre and makes recommendations for the further development of the work of the centre. Prior to the evaluation visit, an inspector held a pre-evaluation meeting with the co-ordinator and teaching staff of the centre, and a separate meeting with the board of directors. The evaluation was conducted over a number of days during which two inspectors visited classrooms and observed teaching and learning. The inspectors interacted with teaching staff and learners in the centre, examined learners’ work and conducted an interview with a representative group of learners. Structured interviews were also conducted with the centre co-ordinator (manager), and jointly with the CEO and the acting education officer (EO) of Tipperary North VEC. The inspectors reviewed relevant centre planning documentation and teachers’ and tutors’ written preparation. Following the evaluation visit, the inspectors provided oral feedback on the outcomes of the evaluation to the co-ordinator and staff of the centre who were joined by the chairman of the board and the CEO of the VEC. The board of management of the school was given an opportunity to comment in writing on the findings and recommendations of the report, and the response of the board will be found in the appendix of this report.
1 centre context and ethos
1.1 Context
The Youth Development Project in Thurles is a combined Community Training Centre and Senior Traveller Training Centre. The Project was initiated in 1981 to cater for the needs of early school leavers, expanding shortly thereafter to include young Travellers in the area. Since 1988, the Project has operated from a purpose-built centre. This building is owned by Thurles Youth Enterprises, a company established to fund, through a bank loan, the building of the centre. That loan was repaid through the rental repayments for the property made by FÁS and the building has been used rent-free for a number of years. The centre is managed by a voluntary board of management which is registered as a limited company and which is technically the employer of the manager and most of the staff. In 1998, the Department of Education and Science, through the Vocational Education Committees, assumed responsibility for Traveller Training Centres. For the Thurles Youth Development Project (YDP) this meant a re-arrangement of the previous balance of funding between FÁS and the VEC, with both organisations now jointly funding the centre. However, the management structure of the centre remained unchanged. The programme in the centre continues to be run as a single project, with Traveller and non-Traveller participating in the same programmes. There are currently forty-one learners enrolled.
1.2 Distinctive character and atmosphere
The mission statement of the YDP reads: ‘It is our mission to provide a safe and supportive environment where people can train, plan, learn, work and acquire basic skills, make decisions and develop to their full potential. The training, education and development of all the participants will be based on the holistic approach and delivered in an environment of safety and mutual respect’. Other versions of this statement, expressing the same values, exist in a number of the centre’s documents. It would be helpful if one form of words were agreed.
The manager and staff have made the YDP a welcoming, caring and supportive venue for the learners. Beneath the surface, one notes an ethos quite unique to the YDP. It is a blend, and at times a clash, of three distinct cultures, namely those of welfare, training and education. In many aspects of the centre’s activities, one notes the legacy of the past and a certain difficulty in coming to terms with twenty-first century living and what the manager called ‘the changing needs of learners’. The initial impetus of a welfare or charitable nature, to set up a facility for young people who had little prospects of success in life, is still tangible in the manner in which things are done for the learners in the centre. The project’s long and close training involvement with FÁS, and its predecessor ANCO can be felt, especially in the centre’s management style and in the nature and delivery of many of the courses. The thrust of modern, relevant, second-chance education with conscious pedagogical expertise is occasionally hinted at by some staff members. However, many of the programmes are delivered within the residual training and welfare cultures of the past, and managed in an atmosphere of authoritarian yet benign paternalism. The openness, dynamism and collaboration witnessed in much of today’s education delivery are missing.
From a learner perspective, the atmosphere in general could be described as casual. There is no sense of urgency or pressure in the centre. It is obvious that this is a centre catering for a range of learners’ needs. In many ways, the day to day needs of the learners, along with their attendance patterns, dictate what happens. While settled and Traveller learners follow most of the same programmes, and management is rightly proud of this mix, there is little evidence of either active integration or celebration of Traveller culture. This differs from what is generally found in STTCs. It could be argued, however, that such casual co-existence of Traveller and non-Traveller might represent the ideal in integration practice.
1.3 Supports for learners
One is in no doubt that the YDP exists for the benefit of the learners who are supported in a substantial manner. Learners benefit from a caring staff each of whom brings to the role considerable personal charisma, ability, patience and commitment to the learners. The Advocate supports learners in their preparation for work experience, in sourcing and monitoring their work placement and in facilitating where possible, relevant progression from the centre to further education, training or employment. Resources in the areas of computers, tools, equipment and materials are readily available to the learners. Items selected to comply with certification in sewing, wood and metalwork are those that most readily respond in a practical way to the personal and family needs of the learners. In this regard, excellent examples of curtain and cushion making, tables, pieces of furniture and ornaments were seen by the inspectors. Learners benefit from the weekly allowance paid to them and from travel and childcare allowances where relevant. Breakfast at 10.00am and a full, cooked lunch are provided daily. Persons from a range of services in the community are invited to the centre to provide information and support, many occasionally, but with regular sessions from a public health nurse and from a person who conducts fitness and drugs awareness programmes. Learners are happy in the centre where the atmosphere allows them to ‘be themselves’ in a relaxed way. For many, especially young mothers, attendance at the centre is their way of ‘getting out of the house’ and meeting people.
Some questions need to be asked, however, about the need and benefit of certain items of support available to the learners. The matter of the daily cooked lunch will be referred to later in the context of teaching and learning. As a learner support, given that many of the learners are mothers of young children, being served a full lunch in the centre offers poor incentive to them to cook adequately and healthily for their young families when they return home. One must also question the practice of learners expecting to avail of course time and materials to cook unscheduled birthday or celebration cakes for their own use. While this is in line with the facility offered to them to benefit from items made in craft, wood and metalwork classes, it does not as readily fit into lesson planning and course work. On the contrary, it can be a significant hindrance.
1.4 Links with the community
The centre’s links with the community in the Thurles area are wide-ranging and deeply rooted. The town is sufficiently large to be able to offer a variety of services, yet small enough for people to know each other. Whatever input the centre needs, from voluntary or statutory agencies, from local factories or businesses, direct contacts are always possible. A good relationship has been built up with providers of work experience who also at times can provide jobs for the learners. This relationship is carefully nurtured and sustained by the Advocate. It is helped by the fact that the board of management of the centre is representative of many areas of local life.
The centre is conscious of its need to engage constantly with local schools, the Garda Síochána, the Probation and Welfare Service, childcare service providers, the Health Services Executive and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Members of the Order of Malta provide first aid lessons. Trainee and novice gardaí are welcomed on periods of work placement in the centre. External sporting facilities are made available to the centre for its health and fitness programme.
2 quality of centre management
2.1 Role of the Vocational Education Committee and board of management
The role of the Vocational Education Committee (VEC) in Thurles YDP is problematic. In 1998, the Department of Education and Science, through local VECs, took over responsibility for Senior Traveller Training Centres. In the case of Thurles YDP, uniquely in the country, the requirements set out in Circular 48/99 were not put into effect. However, since 1998, North Tipperary VEC has co-funded the project on a fifty-fifty basis with FÁS. It is clear that arrangements made concerning joint management by FÁS and the VEC, along with the complexities arising from management by a limited company, are not satisfactory. In effect, the inspectors found that the VEC is currently in a position of being unable to exercise its legitimate management role within the centre.
While the VEC is now aware of areas of responsibility for which it is answerable, and is attempting to take steps to rectify the situation that has developed over time, the inspectors became aware of different perspectives and stances within the current management body of the centre. Some negativity relating to the VEC was expressed at the pre-evaluation meeting with the board of management. The implications of such negativity were spelled out by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the course of a scheduled meeting as part of the evaluation. Within the centre, its fallout was noted in what would appear to have been incorrect information given to staff concerning possible undesirable consequences for them if the VEC ‘took over’ the centre. Most obvious of all was the obfuscation of internal centre management whenever items touching on management issues were raised by the inspectors. The manager consistently repeated that his employer was the limited company to which he was answerable.
The serious concerns of the VEC, relating to issues of governance, responsibility, accountability and trust have been outlined in various meetings between representatives of the VEC, FÁS and the board of management of YDP. These talks have some way to go before a resolution can be reached and the VEC is allowed to fulfil its functions concerning the centre. Until that time, it is the recommendation of the inspectors that no dramatic changes be undertaken in relation to the centre, particularly in relation to any staff or management appointment. This recommendation does not include temporary substitution for existing teaching or secretarial staff.
2.2 Internal centre management and administration
There is one manager and no middle management in the YDP. The manager sees his main duties and responsibilities to lie in the day-to-day operation of the centre, liaising between staff and board of management, implementing board of management policy, reporting to the board and to the joint funding bodies of the centre and liaising with external agencies. He manages the community Training Centre and the STTC as a single entity with learners from both constituencies participating together in all activities. He is seen to take a keen and warm interest in the welfare of the learners. The manager’s style owes much to the welfare and training models identified above. He deals directly on many levels with the learners for whom he wants their time at the centre to be a positive experience. He admits that adapting to the changing needs of learners, in a changed society, and especially the centre’s changed clientèle, represents a challenge for him. From being originally a centre for young school leavers, there is currently a considerable number of adults, currently aged between sixteen and forty-eight years, in the centre, especially mothers from the Travelling community. The needs of the two groups can be substantially different. The manager is also concerned about the difficulty of reaching potential learners, especially those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years who may be out of school but who do not appear on any official register.
The style of management in operation in the centre owes much to the boss-worker relationships and practices that existed in Ireland in the days of ANCO, the state training authority. Modern collaborative working with staff is not well developed. Staff members appear to accept the manager’s manner of dealing with the learners, even when this appears quite intrusive of work in the classrooms. Several instances of such intrusion were experienced by the inspectors in the course of the evaluation.
One aspect of the day-to-day management of the centre, which is entirely unacceptable, is the re-arranging of the timetable on a daily basis ‘depending on who is around’. On each of the two days of the inspectors’ visit to the centre, the timetable eventually posted close to 10.00am bore no resemblance to that sent on request before the evaluation. Among the effects of such a practice, it was noted that staff sat waiting, not knowing which group they were likely to have at any time during the day. This is not conducive to good class preparation and makes a mockery of their official timetabling for ‘class prep’ from 8.30am to 9.00am on all five days of the week. Further, with ‘tea’ for all at 10.00am, the value of the first of three two-hour class periods in the day is substantially reduced in terms of teaching and learning. Further confusion is caused by the fact that whichever group is selected to do Catering at that first double period (9am to 11am) is the group responsible for preparing, serving, and if time allows, washing up after ‘tea’. The Catering teacher was seen to do most of the preparation herself and then try to gather up from various groups a number of learners to help prepare the tea. While it is accepted that it is difficult to get learners to the centre on time each morning, pandering to their schedules is hardly conducive to developing good habits and preparing them for the realities of twenty-first century living and working conditions. Operating a moveable and unpredictable timetable is a recipe for poor morale and the practice should be discontinued.
The centre benefits from the services of a fulltime secretary who acts as administrator and receptionist. Among her duties, she deals with correspondence, aspects of accounts and financial reports, weekly time sheets and staff and learner ‘wages’, as well as day-to-day administrative support to staff, learners, manager and board of management.
2.3 Organisation of the curriculum
Learners in the YDP are divided in four groups. With widely varying time allocations, all are exposed to the same range of activities in the centre. The four main areas of study are Craft (Textiles), Woodwork, Metalwork and Catering, with less time allocated to Computers, Literacy, and a range of shorter inputs in Health and Fitness, Hairdressing, Drugs Awareness, Childcare, Money Management and other topics of relevance from time to time. It is unfortunate that the loss of an Art teacher from the centre meant that at the time of the evaluation an area of study in which many learners excelled, was not now available to them. It is hoped that this loss to the learners might be temporary.
Learners now have the possibility of achieving certification in areas of interest to them through the Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) and many are encouraged to avail of FETAC Level 3 certification as a base for training or education elsewhere. It was explained by staff in the centre that while learners will willingly engage in an activity that interests them, it is difficult to motivate them to aim for certification. In practice, the content of a module needs to be well progressed before learners can be persuaded that it would take very little more to bring the activity to certification stage. Staff members are to be congratulated for encouraging the learners in this manner. However, their efforts are likely to be negated as long as the management ethos prioritises welfare and training models over the educational one.
The centre rightly prides itself on the fact that Travellers and non-Travellers work and study together in mixed groupings. However, boys, who constitute one quarter only of the learner cohort form a discrete group and engage in a programme which, according to the official timetable for November, seems rather unbalanced. This group is allocated ten hours per week for Woodwork, six hours for Metalwork, yet only one hour each for literacy and computers. While this programme may reflect the ‘Basic Skills Foundation’, devised, as explained by the manager, ‘to meet the requirements of the learners in the 80s’, it needs some revision to meet the needs of these boys, particularly those with very poor literacy skills. The same may be said for one of the women’s groups, again allocated only one hour each of Literacy and Computers, but working in the Catering area for nine hours per week.
It is recommended that the curriculum on offer in the YDP should be reviewed with a view to re-balancing and making it more relevant to the needs of today’s learners. This does not mean changing any of the main ‘subject’ areas of the curriculum, nor does it mean any essential discommoding of an excellent staff. It does, however, mean that the content, focus and timetabling of certain aspects of the curriculum be updated to better facilitate preparation for certification. This may require a shift away from long periods working, sometimes repetitively, in order to produce particular items, towards developing skills and understanding in ways compatible with more consistent progression along the FETAC route. A much greater emphasis needs to be placed on the development of literacy skills of all the learners. Such an exercise should involve all staff in a thorough and open review of the curriculum on offer and how it might best be delivered. Staff will need to be provided with professional development training (CPD) to support them in guiding the learners towards more targeted outcomes, in developing their own delivery styles and in enabling them to participate more fully in a whole-centre drive for functional literacy. It is such an important issue that it ought to be considered as one of the first items to be undertaken with a facilitator within the Quality Framework Initiative process.
2.4 Staff deployment
The staff of this centre comprises a manager, four full-time and three part-time teaching staff and one full-time secretary. The full-time staff members operate in the areas of Crafts, Metalwork, Woodwork and Literacy. The FÁS Advocate is also a full-time member of the staff of this centre, while sharing work with one other centre. Part-time staff members work in Catering, ICT, and Hairdressing. All except the latter were met by the inspectors and their classes visited in the course of the evaluation.
The overall impression one has of the role of staff in this centre is that of service to the learners. They seem to be allowed to have very little input to the running of the centre, hence they confine themselves to limited boundaries. The work each produces with the learners is excellent and their manner with the learners is admirable. This is despite the fact that they have to reconcile themselves to the extraordinary vagaries of timetabling, the irregularity of learners’ attendance, their poor punctuality and the fact that a number leave the premises in the early afternoon. Discounting eleven on work experience during the inspectors’ visit, learner absenteeism on the two days was at twenty and thirty-two per cent respectively.
Staff members have had the opportunity of some Professional Development courses. However, some difficulties relating to CPD, arising from the dual management structures, are highlighted in the minutes of recent management meetings. This is an item that needs clarification, to the benefit of staff, when agreement is reached in the current management talks. While the inspectors are in no doubt about the excellence of staff commitment and the quality, or potential quality, of their teaching, they lack a certain challenge and one feels they are somewhat confined in their activities and restricted by the management style in the centre. This was expressed by one member as feeling ‘flat’ and needing something akin to life coaching. Another expressed frustration with aspects of the work, a third felt ready for more challenging work while a number have some excellent ideas which would lift the teaching in the centre but feel that such suggestions may not be welcomed. A lid cannot be kept indefinitely on this energy and capacity. As suggested in another context, a first step, not necessarily a panacea, might be an invitation to a QFI facilitator. The true value of such a meeting would be the subsequent collaborative engagement by all staff members in matters identified for review or development.
2.5 Accommodation and resources
The YDP in Thurles operates in the Frank Dwan Centre, a building on one acre erected in 1988 for the delivery of a training programme to young people who had been early school leavers and were unable to find employment. The premises are owned by Thurles Youth Enterprises Ltd. The building is well maintained. It is appropriate and adequate for the delivery of the programme. It has five rooms along with a large kitchen cum canteen area, a large space divided in two workshop spaces for Woodwork and Metalwork, a storage room, dual office spaces and four toilets. All spaces are at ground floor level and are wheelchair accessible. The centre does not have a designated staff room. Such a facility would help to relieve the isolation in which the staff members operate and could support greater openness and sharing of professional expertise.
A health and safety statement is in place and a safe and healthy environment is maintained. This is particularly noticeable in the workshop areas and in the kitchen where the spaces are kept tidy, and where learners are aware of the equipment they are allowed to use and how to use it. Resources are adequate to implement the programme. They are readily accessible and well maintained. The bare walls could, however, be used to promote a word-rich environment, thus supporting the drive towards functional literacy and enlivening the general atmosphere in the centre.
3 quality of centre planning
3.1 Centre plan and policies
The YDP has a range of policy documents, prepared by the manager and accepted by the board of management, but with minimal input and ownership by staff and none by the VEC. Included are policies on staff recruitment and selection, staff behaviour, various procedures and codes of practice for learners, equality, substance use, internet use, work experience, security of the premises and many more.
The issue of child protection was discussed with the management and staff of the centre. Evidence was provided to confirm that management and staff have taken appropriate steps to develop policies in line with the provisions in Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children (Department of Health and Children, 1999). A designated liaison person has been appointed in line with the requirements of these Department of Health and Children guidelines.
It is advised that the policies of the centre be reviewed and updated. This should be done with the active participation of all staff members, ideally with external facilitation. This might be supported by the VEC. They should then be signed and dated by the relevant authority.
3.2 Planning process
Staff members in Thurles YDP plan their own individual work, and follow prescribed procedures for submission of learner modules for FETAC recognition. They are not involved in collaborative centre planning. Neither, anomalously, is the VEC.
It would appear that planning in relation to the centre is largely the preserve of the centre manager, the chairman of the board of management and FÁS. Because evaluation of FÁS and of Community Training Centres (CTCs) is not within the brief of the Department of Education and Science, the inspectors in this evaluation were conscientious in respecting boundaries, clarifying that our evaluation concerned only the STTC element of the centre. However, given the partnership role of the VEC in this operation, it is recommended that it and the staff of the centre insist on engaging actively in the planning process.
3.3 Implementation of plan
The YDP operates essentially as a CTC, as outlined above. Once a management structure in compliance with Department requirements is put in place, collaborative work on the development of a centre plan is recommended.
4 quality of teaching and learning
4.1 Planning and preparation
Most teaching and learning activity in the YDP is centred on the four main areas of Crafts, Woodwork, Metalwork and Catering. These, at least theoretically, are carried out within the FÁS training ethos. Learners are shown how to make certain items, they develop a set of skills which, in the past, served as a basis for earning a living. While this ethos exists in the YDP, the centre’s involvement in the FETAC certification process has given rise to some new thinking by staff members in relation to the preparation of learners’ portfolios for some modules, mainly at level 3. Some excellent planning of modules by individual teachers is in evidence in the centre. This is based, for the most part, on the Specific Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for a particular module. However, inspectors witnessed examples of keen understanding not only of the subject being taught, but also of the preparation, supports, skills targeted and assessment techniques needed for effective delivery of the lesson. In the planning for particular modules, where learners enjoy participation but are reluctant to do the work required for certification, the creativity, ingenuity and persuasiveness of staff members are to be commended. The excellence noted operates, for the most part, at the level of the individual teacher, who functions in a narrow field, with small numbers of learners who are given substantial individual attention. The level of thoroughness witnessed at the level of the individual teacher needs to be shared. In fact a longing to share and to collaborate in the delivery of the programmes was observed among many of the teachers, but they find that the prevailing culture in the centre does not encourage such sharing. Again, through engagement with the QFI, staff may be able to identify mechanisms that would inject new dynamism into the functioning of the centre and enable them to achieve greater success for the learners and increased fulfilment in their own work.
Clearly, this centre has a number of learners who, for a variety of reasons, may not be interested in, or capable of achieving substantial levels of certification. Many of these would benefit from having detailed individual education plans (IEPs). For the most part, they are learners with low literacy levels, little interest in progression or poor attention spans who need more immediate and more achievable evidence of progress in order to maintain motivation. However, to be effective, these would need to be seen within the overall context of a centre that is primarily about ‘second chance’ education which has clear goals and expectations and is not perceived by the learners as merely or primarily a drop-in activity centre.
Because the content of the practical modules is geared towards learner interests and needs, a high level of involvement and work satisfaction is guaranteed in the classroom or workshop. Resources are appropriate, varied, up-to-date and accessible, as required, to staff and learners. In most cases observed, the pace of work is dictated by a number of factors, hence flexibility has to be the hallmark of all planning. This allows learners to proceed at their own pace. The centre offers a great deal of flexibility to learners. It is important that this flexibility be channelled to productive outcomes and not undermined by certain negative factors in the centre. Among the factors that adversely affect optimum performance in the centre are the high rate of learner absenteeism, their poor punctuality and the early departure of many from the centre. These factors are common to many STTCs. In addition, the operation of an ad hoc timetable is extremely destructive of initiative, professionalism and staff morale.
The division of the day in two-hour time slots is appropriate for the main study areas – craft, woodwork, metalwork, catering. Some way of accommodating other areas in shorter periods should be considered within a fixed timetable. This is particularly necessary in the case of literacy where ‘little and often’ is required to optimise learning.
The centre has the services of a full-time teacher for literacy and already good work is being done for certain groups and individuals. Maximising the literacy skills of learners, who frequently come to centres for education with poor reading skills, is one of the key elements underlying all training for work and living in the twenty-first century. Given the importance for these learners of the development of literacy skills, careful whole-staff planning is advised to reinforce and maximise learners’ literacy development. Most learners in the centre could benefit from direct literacy teaching by the designated teacher. This might be supported by functional literacy aids throughout the centre, including a word-rich environment, wall posters made by the learners, regular reading time allocation and informed, active engagement by all staff in supporting literacy development in their own subject areas. Such planning should include collaboration between the literacy teacher and all other staff members, as well as setting targets that enable the learners to take advantage of future training offered to them in Templemore or elsewhere.
One area in which immediate remedial measures need to be taken is in what is designated on the timetable as ‘catering’. The task as given is unworkable, expectations of centre management are unrealistic and the teacher is forced to respond to immediate needs in a chaotic environment at the expense of the programme she should be teaching. It is normal that the staff member in the role of catering or home economics teacher in a Senior Traveller Training Centre should prepare learners for a range of FETAC modules such as Food and Cookery and Food and Nutrition. It is also widespread practice that the same teacher supervises the preparation and serving of food on a daily basis. A plan, prepared by the teacher to deliver such a programme in YDP is reported to have been deemed unacceptable, even though it still went beyond what is normally delivered elsewhere. A number of elements make delivery of the programme unworkable in the current situation. The numbers enrolled in the YDP, and requiring meals, exceed those of the regular STTC. Provision of a daily ‘cooked lunch’, following ‘tea’ served at 10.00am, and including all preparation and washing-up does not allow time for study of other items of the relevant FETAC modules. Neither does it allow for the range of practical activities required in the modules. The teacher’s planning of the meals are further frustrated by the fact that she does not know which group to expect for preparation, serving and clearing-up at any given time due to the ad hoc re-adjustments of the timetable. Added to this is the dual difficulty of a group to prepare ‘tea’ arising from the fact that many of them arrive late and then may not expect to be on duty, while for after-dinner clean up they may have left the building. Even if an alternative group is sent to do canteen duties, they do so reluctantly and at the cost of disruption to the group and teacher to whom they too may originally have been unexpectedly assigned.
This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. It appears that the proposed modifications originally submitted by the teacher exceed what is possible to deliver because of the numbers involved and the general lack of certainty of a particular cohort to help as well as other underlying matters of organisation. The food provision and service for learners, staff and visitors in centres for education are normally less than what is expected in YDP. Inspectors generally find a number of items for self-service – bread, fruit, cheese, with an occasional full meal service designed to fit the requirements of the learners’ course. A suggestion made to the inspectors by some staff members mentioned the part-time employment of a caterer. How this issue is to be resolved should involve the entire staff, cognisant of the fact that readjustments in this area could allow for additional valuable FETAC certification relevant to many of the learners.
4.2 Classroom management and teaching methodologies
The main programme areas of Woodwork, Metalwork, Crafts and Catering are delivered for the most part in conventional training mode. Learners are shown how to do or make things. Teachers patiently offer much individual support. While a range of products may be produced, processes are often repetitive and skills gained, while valuable, may be limited and not easily transferable.
Activities are selected to accommodate the interests and needs of the learners. In this way, many learners are meaningfully involved in the work and much of it is carried out in a self-directed way. Selecting items of use or of interest to the learners encourages them to produce what they see as good quality work, given that the curtains, cushions, tables, lockers, ornaments or candlesticks are being made for their own homes. Many items produced are of high standard and sometimes would indicate that submission at a higher FETAC level might be more appropriate. However, teachers realise that learners’ motivation and difficulties in allied skills result, of necessity, in compromise. From the learners’ perspective, coming to the centre is seen as work for which they receive payment. Many of the Traveller learners have little interest in progression or certification, so it requires ingenuity on the part of staff to build on the practical work and encourage the learner to take that extra step to compile the relevant portfolios covering the specific learning outcomes for a particular module. The time taken to reach this stage varies from learner to learner. That stage may not be reached by some, especially by more senior Traveller women who are and have always been homemakers, who have no intention of engaging in other employment, whose literacy and numeracy levels are extremely low, and for whom attendance at the centre is primarily an outlet which enables them to have some social and financial independence.
In more recently developed areas of the programme, specifically in ICT, the methodology used, and the skills targeted, are not limited by traditional training requirements embedded in other areas of the centre’s programme. Neither is the training confined to merely getting through the SLOs. Activities are in place to provide evidence of learning, to ensure that the theoretical content of lessons is understood. Consciousness of methodology, of skills development, of use of resources and assessment for learning, of supporting basic literacy and numeracy skills, all combine in an unobtrusive way to give the learner a sense of achievement. Elements of such excellence are in evidence in a number of subject areas in the centre. It would be to the advantage of both learners and staff if that kind of expertise could be shared in an open and collaborative manner.
The one outstanding feature that characterises work in the classroom at all levels in this centre is the relationship that exists between staff and learners. Through their support for individual learners, by giving them time, understanding and respect, staff members are succeeding in developing the personal and social skills of the learners. It is good to see that learners, however subconsciously, respond positively to such role modelling.
4.3 Assessment of learners’ progress
Staff members have a good appreciation of the ability, progress and achievement levels of the learners in their group. With an emphasis on showing learners how to do or make things, systematic, progressive recording of individual progress has not been general practice in most training environments. The progress of learners preparing to submit portfolios for FETAC certification is charted mainly by means of the specific learning outcomes (SLOs) for the particular module. Overall, learners in this centre engage in activities in a relaxed way, supported but never hurried by a staff that is confident of supporting the learner through whatever might be considered progress for that learner at any given time. There are some learners who may be able to respond to further demands if they could be convinced of the merits of a particular endeavour. On the other hand, the centre has a number of learners who would need carefully devised IEPs, constructed after consultation with all relevant staff and support workers and meaningfully followed up by a staff member designated as mentor.
4.4 Outcomes and standards
As in other centres, outcomes and standards in an STTC can be difficult to quantify. This is so especially in areas such as the development of personal self-esteem and of social skills of the learners. The inspectors hear this development expressed by the learners in the YDP and see such progress in the tangible difference in maturity between those who have recently enrolled in the centre and those who have had the benefit of time here.
Learners in the centre successfully achieve certification in a number of modules of FETAC Level 3, with a few successes at Level 4. On average, candidates from the Traveller community submit and are successful in the acceptance of 1.6 portfolios per person per year. These include all the main disciplines of the centre as well as Personal and Interpersonal Skills, Caring for Children, and Health Related Fitness. Achieving certification in Maths is difficult and quite an achievement for the few who do. The centre is to be complimented on the inclusion of Communications among their successes. This is the module which proves almost impossible for those learners with poor literacy skills in centres where dedicated teaching in that area does not take place.
It is clear that learners in the centre have a sense of achievement arising from their ability to produce tangible products in a helpful environment. Others express satisfaction at learning to read, or to read at a level they had not mastered in previous education. Those who see the possibility of future work and are willing to prepare for it, have confidence in reaching that goal through the support of the FÁS advocate and the centre staff.
However, a number of issues concerning progression being experienced in all STTCs will need creative thinking on a national level in an attempt to maximise services to the learners in a meaningful and viable way. These include the desirable length of stay of individual learners in a centre, levels of attendance and punctuality, desired achievement and progression. There is currently, in this centre, as in others, a mis-match between on the one hand what the centre is capable of offering learners and the expectations of outcomes, and on the other hand a considerable number of learners who simply need a few hours for themselves during the day, for whom a future role in the workplace is irrelevant and who are happy to spend time in an STTC, be paid to do so, but complain about the organisation of the day, week and year not suiting them.
5 summary of strengths and recommendations for further development
The following are the main strengths identified in the evaluation:
· The YDP offers its learners a caring and respectful environment.
· Many supports are in place for the learners.
· Traveller and non-Traveller learners share common programmes. Without specific efforts at integration or celebration of Traveller culture, one might ask if this is the integrated ideal.
· Learners benefit from the talents and dedication of a committed staff.
· The centre is well resourced in terms of equipment, computers, and machinery needed to support the programme
· The building is adequate and well maintained.
As a means of building on these strengths and to address areas for development, the following key recommendations are made:
· As an immediate priority, the management structures of Thurles Senior Traveller Training Centre should comply with the Department of Education and Science letter of 16 April 1998 and its accompanying ‘Memorandum of Agreement on changeover of Senior Traveller Training Centres to Education Sector from 6 April 1998’.
· Management should note the ‘Procedures in respect of Youthreach/Senior Traveller Training Centres’ issued by Vocational Support Services Unit, January 2004.
· Should the current talks between the centre management, FÁS and the VEC not produce an outcome consistent with Department of Education requirements, it is recommended that the VEC should engage with the Further Education Section of the Department with a view to clarifying its options.
· Until the management structure is regularised, no major changes should be made in the centre, particularly in relation to any staff or management appointments.
· Immediate engagement with the Quality Framework Initiative is recommended for all centre staff and management.
· A culture of openness and collaboration needs to be developed at all levels within the centre. Staff members should have a greater involvement in the running of the centre with a view to improving morale of both staff and learners.
· While the core curriculum is essentially sound, it needs to be reviewed by staff with a view to a certain re-balancing to meet the needs of today’s learners. This should include substantial development of learners’ literacy skills, and a greater emphasis on outcomes and achievement.
· The practice of ad hoc daily re-adjustment of the timetable should cease immediately.
· Catering arrangements need to be reviewed in the light of training requirements and certification in this area of the curriculum.
· The centre may find it useful to engage with other STTCs in a common search for ways to improve the attendance of learners.
A post evaluation meeting was held, attended by staff, internal centre management, chairman of the board of management and CEO of the VEC.
Appendix
School Response to the Report
Submitted by the Board of Management
Area 1 Observations on the content of the inspection report
The Board acknowledges the report and the many positive elements and comments it contains, including the opinion that the “casual co-existence of Traveller and non-Traveller might represent the ideal in integration practice” (para. 3, Section 1.2). The Board also accepts the various criticisms in the spirit in which they were offered. The Board is proud of the unique nature of the Centre and feel that this might have been given greater emphasis.
Some of the points made which we would question are:-
· Sections 1 and 2 – the statement that the “openness, dynamism and collaboration witnessed in much of today’s education delivery is missing” is linked to a number of statements reiterating that opinion, as well as stating that the management style emanates from the Centre’s “long and close involvement with FÁS”. While we are not aware of the inspectors’ experience of FÁS management style, and examination of the minutes of staff and planning meetings would refute the assertions, but this was not requested. In a number of places in the report, the commitment, dedication and team spirit of the staff is highlighted, along with the Centre being described as a “welcoming, caring and supportive venue for the learners”. This surely represents a positive endorsement of the collaboration inherent in, and the effectiveness of, the management style.
· Para. 2, Section 2.1 – The use of the word “obfuscation” is misleading. The manager was unequivocal in his opinion that he is employed by the Board of Management, which represents the Company. This, in fact, is the case for the manager and all of the staff with the exception of a single VEC employee. The Board also recognises the manager’s disappointment at being identified individually and singled out for criticism.
Area 2 Follow-up actions planned or undertaken since the completion of the inspection
activity to implement the findings and recommendations of the inspection.
The Centre had engaged in the FETAC QA and the QFI processes prior to the inspection, and two days staff training in ICE and CDP with an approved facilitator have since taken place.
Work on Individual Learning Plans for all learners was well underway at the time of the inspection and will continue to be part of the programme.
Regarding overall Centre structures, an outcome consistent with DES requirements has been achieved. The core curriculum will be examined, while substantial progress, with the assistance of NALA, has been made on a Literacy Integration programme, initiated prior to the inspection.