Written by Trialogue Managing Director Nick Rockey, this article is published in the 2024 Teacher Internship Collaboration South Africa (TICZA) Practice & Research Digest.
Introduction
To be considered sustainable, extended student teacher internship (ESTIs) must meet three broad criteria:
- Stakeholder value: Key stakeholders – including schools, learner teachers, educational institutions and other invested groups – must all benefit through their participation in ESTIs. Any party involved in the implementation that does not extract value through their participation will in time inevitably withdraw support.
- Sustainable funding: A sustainable funding model is necessary, where the costs of learning and placement are funded from within the learner teacher ecosystem. This excludes funding sources that are exceptional, external, not directly invested in the system or subject to ongoing review.
- Formalisation: ESTIs need to be formalised and embedded within the learner teacher ecosystem. Practices should become part of day-to-day routines, creating interdependence between learner teachers, schools and educational institutions. This includes routine processes for mentoring, classroom instruction, study schedules and competency recognition (see TICZA, 2024).
Meeting these sustainability requirements is simpler at a micro level, covering an individual school or a small cluster of schools. High-profile private schools, for example, have programmes designed to cultivate their own future teaching needs which are relatively easy to fund through the schools’ finances. Programmes covering small clusters of schools have successfully accessed Funza Lushaka bursaries to cover academic costs while securing relatively reliable funding flows to support other programme elements (Shiohira et al., 2022).
Implementing partners running programmes at this micro level have met the sustainability criteria to varying degrees. However, despite successful outcomes reported, these programmes reach relatively few individuals and can be costly to implement (Shiohira et al., 2022). For ESTIs to impact the broader education system, the model needs significant scaling to include under-resourced schools, where the need is greatest, in an affordable manner. At a macro or systemic level, where ESTIs operate as a viable mainstream pathway for initial teacher education, the sustainability model changes completely.
This article views the sustainability of ESTIs at a systemic level, using the three outlined criteria and considering the transitional process being run by TICZA as a phase leading to more formal institutionalisation.
Stakeholder value
At a systemic level, stakeholders in ESTIs include relevant national and provincial government departments, tertiary education institutions and various other role-players. The value proposition for each stakeholder differs according to the stakeholder’s mandate and how well the ESTI model supports the mandate in an accessible and implementable manner. Significant effort and time are required to engage in the process of systemising ESTIs, and barriers of any change management process will apply. To ensure support during the transition, the end value must be compelling. Affordability and quality of outcomes are likely the most fundamental and common value drivers for all stakeholders.
The formation of and role fulfilled by TICZA is critical to ensuring the active participation of stakeholders during the transitional phase (see Trialogue, 2023). The transition process has limited time and needs to reach a point where institutionalisation has gathered enough momentum to continue independently once TICZA is disbanded.
During this period, the value proposition must be tested and confirmed, and ongoing support for the change process must be maintained, overcoming the inertia that inevitably arises when time and effort beyond day-to-day commitments are required.
The ultimate value that ESTIs bring to each stakeholder was examined during an outcomes mapping process in 2021 which outlined the abilities and ambitions of different stakeholders (Shiohira et al., 2022), not to be repeated here. However, revisiting the value proposition for implementing partners at this point is worthwhile, given the critical role these organisations play during the transitional phase. ESTI implementers, like most non-profit oraganisations, were formed to make a positive impact on teacher development. The extent of their impact has been confined by resource availability and programme size, but it is safe to assume that most implementers aim to achieve the
greatest impact possible. Therefore, implementers would, in principle, aspire to be part of a process that leads to the systemisation of ESTIs as a means of improving educational outcomes in South Africa (see Mlachila & Moeletsi 2019; Spaull 2023).
However, achieving systemisation of ESTIs poses a sustainability risk for implementer organisations if the scaled ESTI model no longer accommodates their individual solutions. Every organisation has self-preservation interests. Examining sustainability through a value proposition lens for implementers ensures they have a future role in the provision of ESTIs while accommodating their interests during this transition period.
Sustainable funding
A sustainable funding model requires securing funds from within the teacher development system, whether through government or institutional sources. During the transition phase, the economic and value case for ESTIs needs to be determined.
The scaling and systemisation of ESTIs depend on the model’s economic viability.
There is a prima facie case for ESTIs based on the logic that students from distance learning facilities, when placed within a supportive schooling environment, will be more committed to their studies (resulting in higher throughput rates), will learn the art and joy of teaching (resulting in better and more committed teachers), and are likely to stay in the profession longer after graduation (Shiohira et al., 2022). However, to date, there is no evidence to show whether pass or retention rates of ESTI programmes are significantly different, so there is no real sense of the immediate economic return.
As with many micro-programmes, costs are relatively high compared to those incurred when an intervention is systemised or implemented at scale. Many current programmes are deliberately positioned at the high-quality end of the spectrum, including formalised and extensive mentorship, stipends, accommodation and up to four years of support (Shiohira et al., 2022). At scale, this level of support is unlikely to be affordable if costs are compared to existing programmes. Assuming that the benefits of ESTIs stemming from high-end solutions can be demonstrated, it is necessary to test the extent to which these benefits can be sustained with reduced duration or levels of support. This sensitivity analysis is critical to positioning an ESTI programme for scale.
A cost-effectiveness analysis is being initiated to start uncovering evidence on the immediate economic costs and how these compare with established teacher development processes. Additional, deeper analysis will then be required to understand the comparative costs, taking into account the quality, retention and progression of teachers within the system who come through the ESTI pathway, other distance education programmes, and in-person higher education institutions.
Formalisation
Formalising systems and processes is essential for ensuring sustained and collective outcomes. While existing implementing partners do share practice examples and system collateral to some extent, most have developed their internal processes to suit their individual circumstances, focusing on self-sustainability rather than collective sustainability.
Systemising ESTIs to ensure delivery at scale requires developing systems and processes at a sector level rather than an organisational level, which are then accepted and adopted by all relevant parties. This approach allows for multi-party participation on a consistent basis, leading to efficiencies and improved measurability. TICZA has begun standardising certain ESTI processes, setting up working groups and running communities of practice (see TICZA, n.d.). However, considerable time and effort are required for such standardisation. It is important to consider what is realistically achievable and necessary for the transitional phase when testing the viability of the ESTI model versus what is ultimately needed once ESTIs are formally institutionalised.
For example, developing a competency framework is an essential long-term measure. While it certainly holds value in measuring teacher development during the transition phase, completing and applying this framework will likely require a longer timeline. On the other hand, formalising monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes to track throughput rates of learner teachers is a more immediate need and can be relatively easily achieved.
Conclusion
The collective impact process coordinated by TICZA is built on an ESTI model that has demonstrated some degree of sustainability at a micro level (see Kania & Kramer, 2011; Trialogue, 2023). While this model, applied by various implementing organisations, shares the same fundamental design, it is not uniform. There are varying levels of system formalisation, reliance on third-party funders and monitoring practices. While there will always be room for innovation and tailored approaches, systemic sustainability requires greater collaboration.
The transitional process, spearheaded by TICZA as the collective impact ‘backbone organisation’ (Kania & Kramer, 2011), has secured funding for a limited period. This process has successfully engaged key stakeholders, based on the expectation that the ESTI model offers a compelling value proposition. Some progress has been made in formalising systems and processes, but much of the work in finalising collective processes and ensuring broad application will need to be completed once the decision to scale is formally made. The funding model, which is critical to any scaled or system-wide solution, remains uncertain. To solidify formalisation, it is essential to fully examine the viability of scaling the ESTI model as well as the conditions and characteristics necessary for its success. This work is necessary to reaffirm the value proposition assumed thus far.
It is also crucial to provide a compelling case that will enable the necessary policy shifts and mobilise institutional funds required to move this process forward.
References
Kania, J. & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41.
Mlachila, M. & Moeletsi, T. (2019). Struggling to make the grade: A review of the causes and consequences of the weak outcomes of South Africa’s education system. IMF Working Paper 19/47.
Shiohira, K., Lefko-Everett, K., Molokwane, P., Mabelle, T., Tracey-Temba, L. & McDonald, Z. (2022). Training better teachers, An implementation brief for improving practice-based initial teacher education. Johannesburg: JET Education Services.
Spaull, N. (2023). Background report for the 2030 Reading Panel. Cape Town: Reading Panel.
TICZA. (n.d.). The Teacher Internship Collaboration South Africa (TICZA).
TICZA. (2024). Sustainability and scale in the context of extended-teacher internships (ESTIs): Perspectives of funders and implementers. TICZA Community of Practice (CoP) Series, 13.
Trialogue. (2023). Case study: TICZA: A collective impact strategy for transforming education.
