1

Adapting open, distance and flexible learning (ODFL) strategies to support the educational access and retention of vulnerable children: working with primary schools in high HIV prevalence areas of Malawi

E. Mhlanga & C. M. Jere

AbstractAgainst the context of underlying poverty, HIV and AIDS and an inefficient education system,

many children in Malawi have reduced and sporadic access to schooling and are at risk of

permanent dropout. Evidence suggests that a disproportionate number of these are orphans

and others affected by HIV and AIDS. Despite acknowledgement that EFA goals will not be

realised unless education systems can reach out to and retain these vulnerable children,

little is being done in schools to address their specific needs and support their access to

learning. Whilst parallel, complementary education programmes have gone some way to

offer a second-chance to the educationally marginalised, there is a real and pressing need

for conventional primary schooling to become more open, flexible and inclusive.

Introducing a model of education that uses open, distance and flexible learning (ODFL) to

strengthen and support access to learning within conventional schools, this paper explores

the potential of such approaches to improve educational access and retention of vulnerable

pupils within the context of high HIV prevalence areas of rural Malawi. Presenting findings

from a three-year collaborative research study working within the SADC region (SOFIE

project), which developed and trialled this innovative model, this paper discusses the

successes, challenges and impact of working with schools and communities to implement

simple ODFL strategies - including self-study guides, a buddy system and ‘school-in-a-box’ –

and the experiences of the pupils involved.

1 IntroductionA rights-based approach to access to primary education, as enshrined in the

international goals of Education for All (EFA), goes beyond narrow definitions based

solely on enrolments, but is committed to providing equitable access to learning -

and ensuring completion – for various vulnerable groups (Barrett et al, 2006; Lewin,

2007). Lewin (2007: 33) argues that initial access – measured by enrolment - cannot

be meaningful unless it leads to secure enrolment and regular attendance, equitable

opportunities to learning and resultant progression through the grades at the

2

appropriate age. Conversely, exclusion refers not only to non-enrolment or

permanent dropout from schooling, but can take the form of temporary withdrawal,

irregular attendance, enforced absenteeism and poor performance and participation

due to discrimination or the psychosocial impact of HIV and AIDS (Lewin, 2007;

Pridmore, 2008)

In Malawi, a small, low-income, land-locked country in sub-Saharan Africa,

impressive gains in enrolment achieved since the introduction of Free Primary

Education (FPE) in 1994 (Castro-Leal, 1996), have been undermined by a persistent

pattern of high repetition and dropout, resulting in low completion. (Kadzamira and

Nell, 2004). Household survey data has consistently shown that over 20 percent of

children of primary school-going age are out of school (NSO, 2000; NSO, 2005; NSO

and UNICEF, 2007). Recent government figures estimate the survival rate to

Standard 8 (the final year of primary schooling) at just 30 percent (Ministry of

Education Malawi, 2006). Thus, large numbers of children are denied access in its

broadest sense. Evidence from the region suggests that a disproportionate number

of these are likely to be orphans and other children made vulnerable by HIV and

AIDS. Studies indicate that orphans are significantly less likely to be enrolled in

school, attend less regularly and progress more slowly (Bennell, 2005; Case, Paxton

and Ableidinger, 2004; Evans and Miguel, 2007), although there is also evidence to

suggest this is often highly contextualised and country-specific (Ainsworth and

Filmer, 2006). In Malawi, national household survey data reports lower net and gross

primary enrolment rates for orphans vis-a-vis non-orphans (NSO, 2006) .and findings

from an earlier school-based survey indicated higher absenteeism amongst orphans

and greater likelihood of withdrawing temporarily from school (Kadzamira et al, 2001)

However, parental death is likely to be only one of many difficulties to arise as AIDS

impacts on children’s lives and focusing on orphan status excludes consideration of

the accessibility of schools for children affected by HIV and AIDS in other waysi,

such as those living with chronically ill parents or guardians (Bennell, 2005) Case

studies from the SOFIE project reveal the complexity of economic, social and

psychological factors that impact on the educational access and attainment of

children from households affected by HIV & AIDS, processes which can start long

3

before parental death and place many children, especially girls, at risk of long term

or permanent withdrawal from school (Moleni, 2008).

Evidence from research in Malawi and neighbouring SADC countries suggests that

not enough is being done in schools to support vulnerable children and that ad-hoc

school-level policies and practice can further contribute to their exclusion (Bennell,

2005; Kendall and O'Gara, 2007; Moleni, 2008; Pridmore and Yates, 2006; Robson

and Sylvester, 2007). Pridmore and Yates (2006) note that education sector

responses to HIV and AIDS tend to focus on curriculum-based interventions and

teacher training, rather than direct support for those affected by HIV and AIDS.

Kendall and O’Gara (2007) argue that FPE policies are not sufficient to ensure

inclusion of vulnerable children in the context of HIV and AIDS and that such children

have specific needs that have to be actively addressed by schools and if equitable

access is to be achieved.

2 Addressing constraints on educational access and retention in

the context of HIV and AIDSSince the discovery of HIV and AIDS in 1983, an estimated 25 million lives have

been lost to the pandemic and the majority of these cases were from sub-Saharan

Africa (Carr-Hill et al, 2002). Alarming statistics are reported by various agencies

regarding the HIV prevalence rates of sub-Saharan African countries. The statistics

speak loudly to the extent of economic and social distress communities are suffering

as a result of the pandemic, in addition to extensive, underlying poverty. A small, but

increasing number of households are now child-headed and institutions like schools

are overwhelmed by the increasing number of orphans they have to handle on a

day-to-day basis. Many of these unfortunate children live without adequate care,

without material, social and psychological support. They come to school tired, hungry

and emotionally depressed. Often they are victims of abuse in their homes or

communities and they are marginalized in terms of accessing social services like

health and education. Whiteside and Wood describe the plight of orphans within the

sub-Saharan context:

4

They “…will not be able to afford school fees, uniforms and books; will not be likely to attend school because they will need to work in order to survive, and if they do attend school they will probably perform less well because of the lack of secure home support… they are also likely to drop out of school earlier”. 1

Coombe further informs us that obstacles to schooling in high HIV prevalence areas

include impoverishment due to loss of family income, reduction in farming

productivity, and high costs of health care; school costs, increased family

responsibilities that increase the opportunity costs of going to school, especially if the

quality of education is poor, family scepticism and stigma and trauma of orphans

(Mhlanga, 2008 citing Coombe, 2005)

Thus, in terms of schooling, orphans and other children affected by HIV and AIDS

are often on the brink of dropping out of the formal system due to a myriad of social

and economic factors. It is becoming increasingly widely accepted that this group of

learners cannot be accommodated in the traditional schooling system as we know it

and that a new notion of schooling that is responsive to their unique needs is needed

if they are to be reached (Kelly, 2000). Whilst parallel non-formal and complementary

education programmes have gone some way to offer a second-chance to the

educationally marginalised (DeStefano et al, 2006; Mhlanga, 2008; Streuli and

Moleni, 2007), there remains a growing call for formal schooling itself to become

more flexible, inclusive and accessible (Badcock-Walters et al, 2005; Hepburn, 2001;

Kadzamira et al, 2001; Kelly, 2000; Robson and Sylvester, 2007). Pridmore and

Yates (2006) suggest that, given the seriousness of the threat posed by HIV and

AIDS in the region, together with the instrumental importance of education in

mitigating its impact, a powerful argument can be made for new models of schooling

that reach out to young people who face difficulties in accessing learning. The wider

research on which this paper draws - the SOFIE project - seeks to inform this debate

by exploring the potential of Open, Distance and Flexible learning (ODFL) to

enhance educational access in high HIV prevalence countries.

1 Whiteside and Wood, (1994) cited in (Carr-Hill et al. (2002:51-52).

5

3 What can ODFL offer?As a way of overcoming some of the above stated obstacles and increasing the

participation of marginalised groups in education, innovations have focused on

alleviating the cost of education, making schooling flexible in terms of where to learn,

when to learn and how to learn and improving the quality of education so as to make

it more meaningful and more attractive to vulnerable learners. A recent situational

analysis suggests that ODFL has a potentially important role to play in reaching

educationally marginalised groups in sub-Saharan Africa (Mhlanga, 2008). ODFL

does not only allow for flexibility of learning in terms of time and place, it also

provides an opportunity for those who missed out on formal schooling to realise their

educational dreams.

The use of ODFL to improve access to basic education is not without its challenges,

however. Unterhalter, Hoppers and Hoppers (2000, p. 21) note that whilst the 1990s

was “ a decade of unprecedented international concern with expanding access to

education and using new approaches for the design and delivery of education”, there

was relatively little uptake of ODL strategies for the provision of basic education,

due, at least in part, to concerns about socialisation, supervision and

appropriateness of materials. ODFL has often championed increasing learner

autonomy and independence. A stance which some commentators earlier

questioned in the context of delivering basic education in developing countries,

underlining instead the importance of collaborative learning and better integration

and linkage with school-based systems (Nielsen, 1991; Yates, 2000). The more

recent emergence of Flexible Learning, both as a practice and a concept, offer such

possibilities; with its emphasis on the appropriate use of any of a range of available

teaching methods (including distance education, face-to-face, multi-media and ICT) -

to optimise learning opportunities and best meet the needs of learners (Kember,

2007). However, it is important to acknowledge that, despite much rhetoric

surrounding the use of ICT, current advances in information technology have had –

and are likely to continue to have - little impact on educational provision in low

income countries such Malawi(Yates, 2008b) In such contexts, greater flexibility in

delivery would thus require consideration of low cost and sustainable alternatives.

6

Drawing on lessons learned from their study of ODFL initiatives in South Africa and

Mozambique, Pridmore and Yates (2006) highlight the potential of ODFL strategies

to support young people in the context of poverty and HIV and AIDS. Several of

these relate to the emotional and social needs of children affected by HIV and AIDS,

but they also argue strongly that ODFL can support more flexible approaches to

delivery of curriculum content, so that vulnerable young people do not fall behind in

their lessons when unable to attend school, and can re-entry if already dropped out.

They highlight, as strategies worth pursuing, the use of radio, self-study learner

guides for individual or group study and the use of ‘buddy systems’ to deliver and

collect materials from learners during home visits. They also note the potential for

ODFL materials to improve teachers’ and other service providers’ understanding of,

and empathy with, the needs of young people made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS.

This paper introduces an innovative school-based intervention that integrates face-

to-face delivery of the curriculum with distance learning resources, flexible learning

support and opportunities for emotional and social support – the SOFIE model.

4 Methodology The aim of the SOFIE project was to support improved access to education for

vulnerable young people in high HIV prevalence areas through developing, trialling

and evaluating a new, more flexible model of education that uses ODFL to

complement and enrich conventional schooling. The project commenced in April

2007 with the preparation of background papers to review factors influencing access

to schooling in high HIV prevalence countries in SSA, provide a situational analysis

of education sector responses to issues of access for vulnerable groups, including

ODFL initiatives, and explores the contexts of Malawi and Lesotho. The empirical

research in Malawi followed a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and

quantitative strategies and methods in two distinct phases. Two rural districts

(Phalombe and Mzimba South) were selected as research sites, according to agreed

criteria that included high HIV prevalence rates, high primary dropout rates and a

contrast in socio-cultural contexts.The first phase was essentially exploratory in

nature - multi-site ‘case-studies’ of four schools and their surrounding communities

to examine the factors influencing the schooling of vulnerable children, with

emphasis on those affected by HIV and AIDS, to inform and contextualise the

7

development of a school-based intervention package, the SOFIE model. In the

second phase, the focus of this paper, the SOFIE model was trialled in 20 schools

(10 in each district), working with grade 6 classes for one academic year. The impact

of the intervention on pupil retention, attainment and attendance was evaluated

using an experimental design: schools were randomly assigned to an intervention or

control group and measures for pupil outcomes taken pre- and post-test. Additional

attendance data was collected during mid-term school visits. Embedded within this

design was the collection of additional quantitative and qualitative data with which to

record and evaluate the processes of implementation, gather perspectives on the

successes and challenges of the SOFIE model from school staff, community

members and pupils and capture any unanticipated outcomes and additional

benefits. This data was collected during post-intervention evaluation workshops for

all participating schools and mid-term and post-intervention visits to the four ‘case-

study’ schools visited previously. During the latter, interviews and focus groups were

conducted with district, school-level and community actors and ‘mini-workshops’ held

for ‘at-risk’ pupils, utilising a series of participatory activities and discussions to gain

insights into their experiences of the intervention.

5 Introducing the SOFIE model The SOFIE model is premised on the rationale that addressing barriers to learning

experienced by orphans and other vulnerable children increases their potential for

greater participation in schooling. Given the deep economic and social deficits these

learners experience, one way to meet their needs is by mobilising social capital that

inheres in the community. As Mhlanga (2008) argues, the importance of social

structures lies in their ability to effectively harness the available social capital in order

to enhance children’s development, particularly through education. The SOFIE

intervention was modelled in such a way that different actors in the community make

concerted effort in meeting the needs of vulnerable learners, and thus motivate them

to remain engaged in their education.

The developed model aims to work with a range of stakeholders at school and

community level to build ‘circles of support’ around vulnerable children ‘at risk’ of

dropping out of school or failing their grade (SOFIE, 2009). Its emphasis is on

8

providing continued access to learning by utilising ODFL strategies and resources to

enrich conventional schooling. Key stakeholders include the class teacher,

responsible for the registration, monitoring and follow-up of ‘at risk’ pupils; class

’buddies’ for ‘at-risk’ pupils; local volunteers responsible for leading study group

meetings (SOFIE clubs) for ‘at-risk’ pupils and school committees involving

community members and staff representatives, with overall leadership and

supervision provided by the school head.

Figure 1: the SOFIE model

� The SOFIE project

In Malawi, within a context of underlying poverty, findings from initial case-studies

revealed the cumulative and dynamic influence of school, home and psychological

factors the educational access of children affected by HIV and AIDS (Moleni, 2008),

emphasising the need for an holistic approach to address constraints faced by

vulnerable children. Findings also highlighted their need for additional learning

support and encouragement during periods of absenteeism and temporary

withdrawal from school. The poor provision of support from schools was confirmed -

compounded by inadequate monitoring and follow-up and potentially exclusionary

9

policies and practices. Key recommendations from research participants to support

greater access to learning and improve retention included the provision of remedial

teaching and/or homework tasks, clubs and extra-curricular activities and extra

learning support. Many acknowledged that workloads of class teachers would limit

their participation and a few suggested using volunteers to help provide such

support. Participants also noted the importance of close community involvement and

sensitisation of parents and guardians.

Overall, the case studies suggested that whilst there were specific needs of children

affected by HIV and AIDS that had to be met, general changes in school policy and

practice to increase accessibility and inclusiveness of schools overall would also

greatly benefit them and other disadvantaged groups. As such, the adaptation and

implementation of the SOFIE model in Malawi can be conceptualised as a ‘core’ of

key ODFL strategies and resources targeting vulnerable pupils within a wider

supportive, enabling school environment.

6 Implementing the SOFIE model

6.1 Key ODFL strategies and resources At each school a small committee of school and community representatives

identified a maximum of 15 pupils in the target grade (Standard 6) as vulnerable and

‘at risk’ of dropping out or repeating their grade. Overall, 259 pupils were registered

as ‘at-risk’, of which a slightly greater proportion were boys (54.8%), with greater

numbers registered in Phalombe in the South. Orphan status appears to have been

a key criterion: 81.2% of girls and 91.0% of boys selected had lost one or both

parents. In Phalombe, almost a third of ‘at-risk’ pupils (30.1%) were double orphans.

Each ‘at-risk’ learner received a ‘school-in-a-bag’: a small, water-proof back-pack

that contained textbooks, pens & notebooks and a set of self-study guides developed

by staff and student volunteers at the Institute of Education. Financial and logistical

considerations limited these resources to the core subjects of English and

Mathematics. The self-study guides were designed to support continued access to

learning during periods of absence from school. Linked to the national curriculum,

they allowed learners to work through topics at their own pace, and provided

examples and sample answers to questions posed in the textbooks. To address

10

concerns over the poor literacy skills of many of these learners, selected instructions

were translated in the local language Chichewa. Despite initial reservations from

some teachers over the inclusion of answers in the guides and the use of local

language, this resource proved popular with pupils and staff alike. Learners adopted

a range of different ways of working with the guides, although it was generally

acknowledged that they required additional support to benefit from them fully.

Several teachers also acknowledged that they used the guides in their lesson

preparations.

Central to the intervention package was the recruitment of local youth as volunteers

to run after-school clubs for ‘at risk’ learners. All volunteers came from within the

schools’ catchment areas and had a minimum of two year’s secondary education. A

third of the volunteers selected were female. The purpose of the clubs was to

provide additional learning opportunities outside of school, in a friendly and informal

environment. Each club leader received a ‘school-in-a-box’ to set up club activities.

This contained learning materials and a club leader’s manual, as well as games and

supplementary reading materials on issues relating to child rights, gender and HIV &

AIDS. Learners were free to meet, work through their study guides – getting support

if necessary – discuss their problems and join in games and other club activities.

Clubs were held weekly, with an average of 30 meetings over the year. The timing of

the clubs was designed to be flexible, although, in reality, time and location varied

little, with all clubs meeting on school premises either after-hours or at the

weekends. Many pupils when absent from classes still made the effort to attend the

weekly clubs. Although their approaches to leading the clubs varied, generally youth

volunteers were viewed as sympathetic, friendly and supportive by learners.

Further peer support was provided by the set-up of a ‘buddy system’ within schools.

Mentor pupils (‘buddies’) were identified by teachers and recruited to act as a link

between schools and ‘at-risk’ learners. In contrast to the original ‘one-to-one’ model,

each buddy was usually responsible for more than one ‘at-risk’ learner were often

drawn from higher grades. This was primarily to keep numbers attending clubs to a

manageable level and provide meaningful learning support. Buddies joined ‘at-risk’

learners at clubs, helped them work through their study guides and followed them up

when absent - collecting and delivering study guides for marking. When some

11

buddies seemed reluctant to take up their roles because of a lack of perceived

benefit, several schools addressed this by providing them with notebooks.

Clubs and buddy systems were designed as an integral part of schools’ activities and

such class teachers and youth volunteers were expected to work hand-in-hand.

Teachers were responsible for keeping a register of all learners identified as ‘at risk’

and for regularly setting tasks and marking study guides. School heads generally

reported good working relationships between youth volunteers and teachers,

although in reality, the level of teacher support varied greatly. In many cases,

marking of the self-study guides was taken up by the youth volunteers. Reasons for

the limited engagement of some teachers included transfers of trained teachers,

understaffing and high workloads and, in a few cases, poor health.

6.2 Building school capacity and support During the earlier case studies, it was apparent that a lack of monitoring and follow-

up of absent pupils rendered many of the more vulnerable pupils ‘invisible’ within the

school context. School staff also raised concerns about their lack of knowledge and

skills in providing support and pastoral care for vulnerable pupils (Moleni, 2008).

Earlier research into the impact of HIV and AIDS in schools in Malawi also

highlighted the lack of guidance and counselling at schools as a key challenge

(Kadzamira et al, 2001).To counter this, teachers and youth leaders from SOFIE

intervention schools received training in monitoring and record-keeping , as well as

means of identifying and providing follow-up support and counselling for vulnerable

pupils. In addition, teachers and club leaders were provided with sets of monitoring

forms for pupils identified as ‘at-risk’. During implementation, the vast majority of

teachers were conscientious in up-dating class registers and monitoring the

attendance and progress of ‘at-risk’ pupils; a few were not. Many schools put in

place comprehensive strategies to follow-up ‘at-risk’ pupils when absent, including

home visits by youth volunteers, SOFIE committee members and school staff.

Bicycles were provided for youth volunteers to assist in follow-up activities.

Opportunities were often taken to talk to parents and guardians to discuss reasons

for their children’s absence. One issue arising from pupils’ interviews was that fewer

girls had been followed-up when absent compared to the boys. One explanation

12

might be that male club leaders and teachers were reluctant to visit the homes of the

girls in case this may have been misconstrued by others

Counselling and pastoral care provided by the schools ranged from informal group

discussions during club meetings to sessions – either in groups or individually –

whereby pupils were offered ‘advice’ on how to continue with schooling and the

importance of education. With the latter, it appears that child-led, exploratory

approaches to counselling advocated during training had been modified to fit the

more traditional, culturally-familiar practice of ‘advice-giving’ by elders. Despite a

sometimes admonitory tone, ‘at-risk’ pupils tended to perceive this as a form of

‘encouragement’ and several noted how such attention motivated them to take their

schooling more seriously.

6.3 Developing school-community links Community involvement was encouraged through the setting up of SOFIE sub-

committees, which included the School Management Committee (SMC) and Parent

Teachers Association (PTA), the school head, the class teacher and club leader, as

well as additional community representatives and/or local leaders. The majority of

intervention schools took steps to inform and mobilise community members with

regard to the SOFIE project, generally through open school meetings. Key

informants noted that the SOFIE project was warmly welcomed, although high

expectations attached to the project were later to bring challenges. At several

schools the meetings were also used as an opportunity to call for volunteers to sit on

the SOFIE sub-committee and to explain the criteria being used to select the ‘at-risk’

pupils. Community members on the SOFIE sub-committee took part in the selection

of the ‘at-risk’ pupils, often followed up their progress and attendance and, on

occasion, provided some form of counselling or pastoral care. At some schools,

community members made the effort to visit the clubs or classes and meet with the

pupils. Others initiated small-scale fund-raising to support the ‘at-risk’ pupils (e.g.

providing them with soap or maize) – either through making contributions themselves

or through income-generating activities.

13

6.4 Promoting openness and inclusion Looking at education and schooling through an inclusive lens implies a shift from

viewing the child as the problem to viewing the system as the problem (UNESCO,

2009). During training, school management was encouraged to reflect on and

address issues of inclusiveness in their schools, particularly in relation to vulnerable

pupils. Several schools took steps to try and promote greater inclusion by making

changes to existing school policy and practices. For example, the issue of exclusion

from classes for not wearing uniform was a major concern of many pupils and school

dropouts coming from impoverished households (Moleni, 2008). Five of the

intervention schools addressed this issue directly, either by making uniform no

longer compulsory or giving households enough time to buy a uniform without

excluding the child. Some schools also re-visited their discipline policies to ensure

that children were not excluded from class if arriving late – a common problem for

pupils with extensive household responsibilities. With greater awareness of possible

barriers to pupils’ participation, several schools also made attempts to encourage

greater inclusion and participation in class and address issues of discrimination.

7 Preliminary evidence of success Following the one-year implementation of the intervention, evidence suggests that

the SOFIE model had positive educational impacts and additional psychosocial

benefits for vulnerable pupils. In terms of pupil outcomes, preliminary analyses

indicate that target grades in intervention schools had significantly lower drop-out

rates compared to control schools and less frequent absenteeism amongst ‘at-risk’

pupils. During interviews, many ‘at-risk’ pupils emphasised that they were now hard-

working and “taking school seriously”, some noting greater encouragement and

support from guardians and teachers. Evidence suggests several ‘at-risk’ pupils were

able to adjust and re-negotiate their household responsibilities so that they could

attend school more regularly; others used the self-study guides and clubs to ‘catch-

up’ with lessons missed. Several pupils said that they had been considering dropping

out of school, either at the end of the school year or by Standard 8, but now wanted

to continue at least to secondary level. This seems to suggest an important shift in

attitudes towards their schooling.

14

Whilst further analysis is needed to examine the relative significance of the various

components of the SOFIE model and other school-level factors that led to reduced

drop-out, preliminary results indicate that teacher training and school leadership

were critical. This reinforces suggestions that a successful reduction in drop-out was

more dependent on processes that extended to and benefited the whole class (either

by design or through ad hoc dissemination) than those solely accrued to ‘at-risk’

pupils (Jere, 2010).

To examine pupil attainment, the proportion of pupils promoted to the next grade

was analysed. Comparison of mean school-level promotion rates found no significant

difference between control and intervention groups. The lack of impact on pupils’

attainment and promotion is perhaps not surprising given the relatively short length

of time that pupils were engaged with SOFIE activities and learning resources. The

late registration and poor attendance of several of the ‘at-risk’ pupils (from both class

and clubs) may also have contributed to this, as over a third of ‘at-risk’ pupils (34%)

did not register and join SOFIE clubs until the second or third term. It is also worth

noting that promotion was based on a pupil’s average score across all subjects (as

many as 9 separate exams), whilst the SOFIE study guides focused solely on

Mathematics and English.

Whilst there was no evidence of a positive impact on the likelihood of promotion,

those closely involved in implementing the intervention attested that many targeted

pupils had become more capable and confident learners, with teachers noting an

improved participation in classroom activities. Evidence from interviews suggests

that this greater confidence was both a result of pupils’ perception of their improved

competency and knowledge in English and Mathematics and less shyness in class,

the latter linked to pupils’ opportunities to interact and express themselves during

collaborative learning, group work and social activities at SOFIE clubs. One female

‘at-risk’ pupil stated,

My participation has changed because, like, in class Maths and English were difficult subjects for me, but after joining the SOFIE club I am able to do better than before... and also I was a very quiet person so my quietness made me not to be active in class. Whatever was difficult for me, I was not asking for help

15

from my friends, but since I joined SOFIE, I got used to my friends and I started to ask them [about] whatever things were difficult for me.”

Key informants also observed that by providing greater access to resources, in

particular the self-study guides - the intervention had resulted in many ‘at-risk’ pupils’

re-engagement with their education – taking up opportunities for independent study

and revision - and for some at least, a growing responsibility for their own learning.

The interaction of ‘at-risk’ pupils with buddies and fellow club members was also said

to have helped ‘at-risk pupils build supportive social networks, promoted greater

unity amongst pupils - a sense of ubuntu – and, subsequently, reduced

discrimination. Several ‘at-risk’ pupils also mentioned that their involvement with

SOFIE meant that they thought less about their worries and, as one boy put it, were

“no longer focusing on being an orphan.” Others noted pupils’ enhanced self-esteem.

One club leader commented,

Vulnerable pupils have come to realise that losing a parent to HIV and AIDS is not a punishment, they can do just whatever other pupils can do.

8 Challenges in implementation and design Despite a strong consensus during evaluation workshops that the distribution of

‘school-in-a-bags’ had been fair and targeted needy pupils, the process of identifying

and selecting pupils to be on the ‘at-risk’ register was seen as a major challenge by

many. For both budgetary and logistical reasons ODFL inputs for this pilot

intervention were limited to a maximum of 15 pupils per school. Larger schools found

this restrictive and complained that other vulnerable children had been excluded.

Conversely, in some smaller schools in Mzimba, there were difficulties selecting this

maximum number of pupils within the target class and resources remained unused.

Of concern is that significantly fewer girls were registered in Mzimba district than

boys (just 38.7% compared to 61.3%), with some schools registering no girls at all.

Whilst no specific stipulations were made with regard to gender, this is surprising

given schools’ frequent referral to the greater vulnerability of girls and their higher

risk of dropout during earlier case studies (Moleni, 2008). This might be because

fewer female orphans - the main criterion used by many schools in the selection

process – were present in Standard 6, having already left school in earlier gradesii,

but it also raises questions about stakeholders’ perceptions of vulnerability and need.

16

There is also an implicit danger that when real benefits are seen to accrue to a few

targeted pupils, that the act of their selection in itself becomes exclusionary. Several

school heads and committee members complained that some community members

expected the intervention to be extended to other grades and/or were putting

pressure on them to include their wards, and that if they did not they were being

accused of favouritism.

Community involvement is often seen as critical to the success of educational

innovation and reform, although it often brings its own tensions and challenges.

Many communities in Malawi are familiar with the rhetoric of community participation

as a key strategy to improve educational quality, although such involvement has

been criticised for being largely extractive rather than building sustainable ownership

and accountability (Rose, 2003). In recent years, communities’ increasing

experience of large-scale, NGO-led development work - programmes frequently

using incentives to procure community participation – has led to high initial

expectations of material gain from any new ‘project’ and - when this is not

forthcoming - disappointment, ennui and even hostility. In this case, rather than

deflecting such false expectations, some schools inadvertently compounded the

problem by calling for large, public meetings to inform communities about SOFIE,

thus increasing the anticipation of widespread benefits. The inactivity of some SOFIE

committee members, particularly in the latter half of the year, was blamed on the

absence of any perceived incentive or material benefit. Similarly, some club leaders

noted that ‘at-risk’ pupils also had expectations of additional material support, such

as soap or clothes, and, in their absence, attendance at clubs waned.

Paradoxically, although the SOFIE model was designed to accommodate and

support vulnerable pupils unable to attend school, absenteeism amongst ‘at-risk’

pupils was still perceived as a key challenge by many teachers and school-level

stakeholders. Despite considerable testimony to the improved attendance and

engagement with schooling of many of the ‘at-risk’ pupils, some continued to face

difficulties attending school, often required to assist impoverished households with

chores or piecework for money or food, or escort ill relatives to healthcare facilities.

Compounding this, some schools still maintained strict school policy, so that pupils

made late for classes by the need to attend to household chores or work in the fields,

17

or those without a clean uniform, would be sent home as a punishment. Several

workshop participants noted that inclusion of a few basic necessities (e.g. laundry

soap) in the ‘school-in-the-bag’ would further assist in reducing absenteeism,

although, as noted earlier, some schools took up the responsibility of providing such

items. Clearly further opportunities for training, reflection and discussion would have

been useful to help a greater number of schools to acknowledge and address their

own exclusionary practices. The absence of regular, localised supervision also

contributed to the sometimes patchy uptake of the principles and processes of

implementing the SOFIE model.

9 Conclusions The case of the SOFIE intervention and its apparent success in reducing dropout

and raising attendance rates in target classes highlights the potential of more open

and flexible approaches to primary schooling to improve access and retention in

context of HIV and AIDS and underlying poverty. Low-tech distance learning

resources (‘school-in-a-bag’ and self-study guides) were of immediate practical

benefit to learners, reducing the burden of school costs, offering opportunities for

independent learning and leading to a perceived improvement in basic skills,

although these had yet to translate into an increased likelihood of promotion. Current

consensus on the use of ODFL to deliver education in developing contexts stresses

the importance of effective tutoring and student support, including both teacher-

student interaction and interactions between fellow students (Perraton, 2007). In

SOFIE schools, peer support and guided collaborative learning in less formal

settings– led by youth volunteers rather than teachers –appears to have enhanced

the learning experiences of many vulnerable pupils, as well as providing additional

psychosocial benefits, resulting in more confident and motivated learners. As

innovation, the SOFIE model also offers positive experiences in the use of youth

volunteers as an alternative to making additional demands on teacher time in rural

schools already understaffed and poorly resourced, although more research is

needed into the sustainability of such an approach. Studies to examine other basic

education projects that utilise volunteers and para-professionals could offer some

useful comparative insightsiii.

18

The SOFIE model follows an integrationist approach to the use of ODFL strategies to

improving educational access, with conventional schools required to become more

responsive and flexible to address the needs of those educationally marginalised

(Yates, 2008b). Lessons learnt from the implementation of the SOFIE model in

Malawi suggest that the success of integrating ODFL strategies to improve access

and retention is dependent on building a more open and inclusive philosophy within

schools and promoting a wider enabling environment. Indeed, preliminary findings

suggest that positive impact on drop-out rates occurred, at least in part, through

strategies and actions that extended to and benefited the whole class (Jere, 2010).

Thus, whilst this study demonstrates how schools can utilise ODFL to reduce

barriers to learning, it also raises questions as to the relative importance of specific

strategies that target those identified as vulnerable vis-a-vis a more general stance

that incorporates wider capacity-building, support and inclusiveness. Reflecting on

discourses of equitable access and inclusive education (Dei, 2005; Hoppers, 2006;

Inoue and Oketch, 2008; Kendall and O'Gara, 2007), one might argue intuitively for

both: greater flexibility and affirmative action to redress inequities and additional

strategies to tackle wider constraints linked to school ethos and environment (Jere,

2010). However, in the case of SOFIE more thorough research is required to

‘unpack’ and evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of the various model

components, possibly as a series of small-scale action research studies working

closely with local schools and communities. Findings from these could also make

available a ‘toolkit’ of ideas and practices for schools to adapt to their own specific

contexts and needs. Further research is also needed to explore the interactions and

impact of gender, socio-cultural background and location on pupils’ experiences and

outcomes, and examine the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of ODFL inputs. In

Malawi, recent years have seen both a shift in the policy landscape towards

consideration of alternative approaches to improving educational access and

addressing the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children and the still limited,

but increasing, adoption of ODFL strategies to improve primary educational quality.

Thus, questions addressed and posed by the implementation of the SOFIE model

provides a timely opportunity to inform ongoing policy debate and practice.

19

AcknowledgementsThe SOFIE research project was funded by the UK Government Department for International

Development (DFID) and the UK Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC).The

study was carried out from 2007-2010 by six researchers working together as a team

directed by Dr. Pat Pridmore, (Institute of Education, University of London) in collaboration

with her colleague Mr. Chris Yates, who also developed the self-study learner guides. The

case studies in Malawi were designed and conducted, and the intervention model adapted,

implemented and evaluated by co-researcher Mrs. Catherine Jere (formerly Moleni) in

Malawi (Centre for Educational Research and Training (CERT), University of Malawi) and in

Lesotho by co-researcher Dr. Thabiso Nyabanyaba (Institute of Education, National

University of Lesotho). Dr. Ephraim Mhalanga (South African Institute for Distance

Education) provided expertise on open, distance and flexible learning initiatives in the

African Region. Dr. Matthew Jukes (Graduate School of Education at Harvard University,

USA) designed the quantitative evaluation and carried out the multi-level modelling and

analyses of the data sets.

ReferencesAinsworth, M. and Filmer, D. (2006). 'Inequalities in children's schooling: AIDS,

orphanhood, poverty, and gender'. World Development, 34 (6), 1099-1128.Badcock-Walters, P., Gorgens, M., Heard, W., Mukwashi, P., Smart, R., Tomlinson,

J. and Wilson, D. (2005). Education Access and Retention for Educationally Marginalised Children: innovations in social protection. University of KwaZulu-Natal: Mobile Task Team (MTT), Health Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD).

Barrett, A., Chawla-Duggan, R., Lowe, J., Nikel, J. and Ukpo, E. (2006). Review of the 'international' literature on the concept of quality in education. University of Bath, University of Bristol: EdQual.

Bennell, P. (2005). 'The impact of the AIDS epidemic on the schooling of orphans and other directly affected children in sub-Saharan Africa'. Journal of Development Studies, 41 (3), 467-488.

Carr-Hill, R., Katabaro, K. J., Katahoire, A. R. and Oulai, D. (2002). The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Education and Institutionalizing Preventive Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Case, A., Paxton, C. and Ableidinger, J. (2004). 'Orphans in Africa: Parental Death, Poverty and School Enrolment.' Demography, 41, 483-508.

Castro-Leal, F. (1996). Who benefits from public education spending in Malawi? results from the recent education reform, World Bank Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Dei, G. J. S. (2005). 'The challenge of inclusive schooling in Africa: a Ghanaian case study'. Comparative Education, 41 (3), 267 - 289.

DeStefano, J., Hartwell, A., Schuh-Moore, A. and Balwanz, D. (2006). Meeting EFA: Reaching the underserved through complementary models of effective schooling: Academy for Educational Development (AED).

20

Evans, D. K. and Miguel, E. (2007). 'Orphans and Schooling in Africa: a longitudinal analysis'. Demography, 44 (1), 35-57.

Hepburn, A. E. (2001). Primary Education in Eastern and Southern Africa: increasing access for orphans and other vulnerable childern in AIDS-affected areas.Durham: Duke University,

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.Hoppers, W. (2006). Non-formal Education and Basic Educational Reform: a

conceptual review. Paris: UNESCO, IIEP

Inoue, K. and Oketch, M. (2008). 'Implementing Free Primary Education Policy in Malawi and Ghana: Equity and Efficiency Analysis'. Peabody Journal of Education, 83 (1), 41-70.

Jere, C. M. (2010). Developing, Implementing and evaluating the SOFIE model: supporting increased educational access for vulnerable pupils in rural Malawi (draft report). London: SOFIE project Institute of Education.

Kadzamira, E. C., Banda, D. M., Kamlongera, A. and Swainson, N. (2001). The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Primary and Secondary Schooling in Malawi: Developing a Comprehensive Strategic Response. Lilongwe: Ministry of Education Science and Technology; University of Malawi.

Kadzamira, E. C. and Nell, M. (2004). Potential Programmes for Out-of-School Youth: exploring the interface between Basic Education and Vocational Education and Training. Lilongwe: GTZ Malawi Basic Education Programme (GTZ-MBEP).

Kelly, M. J. (2000). Planning for education in the context of HIV/AIDS. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Kember, D. (2007). Reconsidering Open and Distance Learning in the Developing World: meeting students' learning needs. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kendall, N. and O'Gara, C. (2007). 'Vulnerable children, communities and schools: lessons from three HIV/AIDS affected areas'. Compare: a journal of comparative education, 37 (1), 5-21.

Lewin, K. M. (2007). Improving Access, Equity and Transitions in Education: Creating a Research Agenda. Brighton: University of Sussex, Centre for International Education.

Mhlanga, E. (2008). Review of interventions used in different contexts to enhance access to education and attainment, SOFIE Discussion Paper.

Ministry of Education Malawi (2006). Education Statistics 2006. Lilongwe: Ministry of Education Malawi

Moleni, C. M. (2008). Factors influencing access and retention in primary schooling for children and young people affected by HIV and AIDS: Case studies from rural Malawi. SOFIE Opening Up Access Series No 6: Institute of Education, University of London.

Nielsen, H. (1991). 'Using Distance Education to extend and improve teaching in developing countries'. In IDRC (Ed.), Perspectives on Education for All. Ottawa: IDRC Social Sciences Division.

NSO (2000). Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2000. , . Calverton, Maryland: National Statistical Office (Malawi) and ORC Macro.

NSO (2005). Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2004 Calverton, Maryland: National Statistical Office (Malawi) and ORC Macro.

NSO. (2006). Welfare Monitoring Survey. Zomba: Malawi National Statistics Office (NSO).

21

NSO and UNICEF (2007). Malawi Multiplier Indicator Cluster Survey (MCIS): Preliminary Report: National Statistics Office, Zomba; UNICEF.

Perraton, H. D. (2007). Open and distance learning in the developing world. (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Pridmore, P. (2008). Barriers to accessing conventional schooling for children and young people affected by HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-national review of the research evidence, SOFIE Opening Up Access series. London: Institution of Education.

Pridmore, P. and Yates, C. (2006). The Role of Open, Distance and Flexible Learning (ODFL) in HIV/AIDS Prevention and Mitigation for Affected Youth in South Africa and Mozambique. Researching the Issues 61. London: DFID.

Robson, S. and Sylvester, K. B. (2007). 'Orphaned and vulnerable children in Zambia: the impact of HIV/AIDS epidemic on basic education for children at risk'. Educational Research, 49 (3), 259-272.

Rose, P. (2003). 'Community Participation in School Policy and Practice in Malawi: Balancing local knowledge, national policies and international agency priorities'. Compare: a journal of comparative education, 33 (1), 47 - 64.

SOFIE. (2009). 'SOFIE school-based Intervention'. SOFIE Newsletter: 3, Institute of Education.

Streuli, N. and Moleni, C. M. (2007). Education, HIV and AIDS in Malawi: the role of open, distance and flexible learning. SOFIE project: Institute of Education, University of London.

UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris: UNESCO.Unterhalter, E., Hoppers, C. O. and Hoppers, W. (2000). 'The elusiveness of

integration: policy discourses on open and distance learning in the 1990s'. In C. Yates and J. Bradley (Eds), World Review of Distance Education and Open Learning: volume 12. London: Routledge Falmer.

Yates, C. (2000). 'Outcomes: what have we learned?' In C. Yates and J. Bradley (Eds), Basic education at a distance. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Yates, C. (2008). Keeping children in school: a review of open education policies in Lesotho and Malawi, SOFIE Opening Up Access Series no. 5. University of London.: Institute of Education.

NOTES:i An assumption of this paper is that orphan status alone is not necessarily a useful criterion for exploring the challenges to equitable access presented by HIV & AIDS. For the purposes of this paper, the term ‘children affected by HIV and AIDS’ includes, but is not limited to, those having lost a parent or guardian to AIDS; children with parents or guardians who are in poor health or chronically ill as a result of AIDS-related illness, children living in households affected by HIV& AIDS or those who themselves are HIV positive.ii For example, at one of the schools where no female pupils had been registered as ‘at-risk’, 17.0% of the pupils enrolled in Standard 6 were male orphans; just 4.3% were female orphans. This in turn begs the question as to why fewer female orphans were enrolled. Discussions with teachers in suggested that many had already dropped out of school, before reaching Standard 6.iii In Malawi, for example, the USAID –funded Primary School Support Project (PSSP-SFP) and the GTZ/MOE Complementary Basic Education (CBE) programme.