Independent evaluation of the SAPLER peer counselling programme

Other stakeholders’ perceptions

Method

To obtain an impression of how various stakeholders other than learners view Sapler, interviews were conducted with 21 individuals with an interest in the programme’s success or failure. These included 4 school principals, 4 pioneers, and 9 guidance teachers, as well as Sapler management and several individuals involved in primary health care services.

Overall evaluation by other stakeholders

Stakeholders had overwhelmingly favourable opinions of Sapler - both of the basic idea and of the way in which it has been implemented. Of the very few negative comments, most were concerned with wanting to obtain Sapler’s services on a more regular basis. One responded had some concerns about the pioneers’ training and about its management structure. These are discussed under the relevant headings below.

Guidance teachers and principals presented what they perceived to be the impact of the programme very positively. Several referred to pregnancy rates going down (and up again when the pioneer left), while others spoke of a change of atmosphere in their school. 

One said that the pioneer had "...transformed the attitude of our students - their personal behaviour is more considerate and they’re more committed. Learners now talk more openly to us [teachers] as well." Another described how Sapler had "brought about a revival of guidance at this school".

One principal was very realistic, saying that "it doesn’t just take a year or six months. If there’s going to be change it won’t be overnight - maybe in three years’ time." The same principal however also said that he was "starting to see its [Sapler’s] effects".

Peer counselling

All stakeholders spoke positively of the idea of using young people from the community who would be better able to communicate with learners than older, professionally qualified teachers. Guidance teachers argued that the smaller age gap between pioneers and learners would facilitate open communication. 

Several stakeholders pointed out that learners do not talk about sexual issues to older people such as parents and teachers and instead rely on their peer group for sexual information. The reluctance to speak about sexual issues with older people was variously attributed to cultural taboos, the generation gap and the breakdown of family life. A primary health care official expressed the purpose of the Sapler programme as follows:

Now is the time for us to talk openly and to talk the language of the kids. The kids have been quiet. Getting them to speak is the objective of the whole thing.

The expectation that pioneers would be able to break through the silence appears to have been realised in practice. One guidance teacher said that "I was in a bit of doubt at first. I feared that there was going to be an explosion, particularly since some of the learners are twenty years old - but it all worked out very well."

In some cases there appear to have been initial problems with learners not showing the necessary respect, but such difficulties seem generally to have been rapidly overcome. A pioneer described how "in the beginning they saw me as just one of them" and "some boys thought that they were equal to me." She resolved this by calling out the trouble makers one by one and coming to an agreement about acceptable behaviour with them. 

Although the issue was explicitly raised in most interviews, none of the guidance teachers or principals felt that any inappropriate relationships had formed between pioneers and individual learners. 

One primary health care official mentioned that it had come to her attention that some of the Sapler pioneers had themselves contracted STDs, but none of the other stakeholders communicated any such gossip nor mentioned any other ethical concerns. Guidance teachers saw themselves as a backup and support for pioneers should any difficulties arise. This is discussed in more detail below.

Role of guidance teachers

Guidance teachers were particularly enthusiastic about Sapler. It appears that the role of these teachers has been gradually eroded over the last number of years, with an increasing teaching load being added to their duties. 

At some schools guidance existed in name only and one principal admitted that "we hijacked the guidance periods and introduced library and computer literacy instead." With restructuring and redeployment of teachers there is an acute shortage of teachers at many schools (one principal expected to be short of nine teachers in 2000), and the temptation to neglect non-examination subjects such as guidance is obvious.

Even under ‘ideal’ conditions guidance is experienced as difficult to do properly. As one guidance teacher put it: "A single teacher cannot be effective with one thousand learners." 

The principal at another school agreed, saying that "one guidance teacher for 700 to 800 children is not enough." The consequence can be burnout and a lack of commitment, but even when this is not the case, teachers find it difficult to reconcile subject teaching with their guidance duties. One said:

I punish in English, now suddenly I have to show empathy in guidance. We teachers tend to moralise. I know I have to listen, but end up lecturing. Having to do a teaching subject causes you to move away from the Guidance attitude and fewer and fewer kids come to you for counselling.

In the light of this it is hardly surprising that guidance teachers and principals have welcomed Sapler pioneers at their schools. To an extent this is purely a matter of taking whatever resources are offered in a situation of severe resource shortages. 

Some principals were quite explicit about this, saying ‘we’ll take whatever we can get.’ However guidance teachers and principals do not appear to see pioneers purely as replacement guidance teachers, but instead see guidance teachers as adopting a facilitating and monitoring role relative to pioneers while pioneers do much of the direct teaching and counselling. 

At one school the guidance teacher claimed that "we lay learners’ foundation with a three-month introduction to sexuality course - then for the rest it is up to the pioneer."

Pioneers explained that there was considerable variation among schools. The most pleasant working environments were those where guidance teachers took an active interest in their work and supported their efforts. 

The least pleasant environments were those where teachers essentially used their presence as an opportunity to concentrate on other matters. In no case did pioneers report active sabotage of their efforts by teachers.

Guidance teachers do appear to accept their overseeing role and to be capable of distinguishing between more and less satisfactory performance by the pioneers, for example, explaining in some detail why some of the pioneers who had been at their school were better than others. 

Guidance teachers are expected to sign weekly reports by the pioneers, but this appears to be mainly a formality and it was not evident that specific advice or feedback was given.

Pioneer skills

One guidance teacher who had an advanced university degree explained that "qualification is one thing, but if you don’t have the commitment and don’t speak the language of the learners, you’ll get nowhere." Pioneers thus start out with an advantage, but may easily flounder if they lack the necessary skills to engage learners in a sympathetic but firm manner. 

A fairly wide range of measures appear to be in place to ensure a high skill level among pioneers. The pioneers are drawn from a cadre of community workers in the area who have undergone an array of training programmes, workshops, etcetera presented by a variety of government departments and NGOs. 

Thus they are already quite skilled when employed by Sapler. They are also issued with comprehensive manuals on responsible teenage sexuality and on HIV/AIDS. In addition, training happens in the course of ongoing monitoring by the Sapler field managers.

However, it was not entirely clear whether pioneers received sufficient input on teaching and counselling techniques. One pioneer accurately observed that "to run a group needs certain skills, for example, you have to be more concerned about exercising control when it is a large group." One primary health care official was quite worried about pioneers’ medical expertise and felt that they should be trained by health professionals in primary health care, referral techniques, and the signs and symptoms of STDs.

The role of parents

Various Sapler documents refer to the breakdown in parenting as a precipitating cause for the high level of teenage pregnancies and STD infections. As is evident from Part I of this evaluation, many learners do in fact grow up in single parent or surrogate parent homes. 

At the same time, however, there is apparently a fear that parents will not approve of sexuality education at schools and that they are generally conservative in this regard. Although it was not possible to speak to any parents directly, none of the other stakeholders had any experience of parental disapproval of Sapler or other similar programmes. 

Each principal was specifically questioned on this. Most indicated that parents are generally uninvolved and that there have been no complaints or negative feedback. A few of the principals specifically informed parents of the programme and report that it was well received by them.

Sapler claims that returning the responsibility for sexuality education to parents is their long-term goal. At present neither the pioneers nor Sapler management appear to be directly involved in any such efforts, and it would probably distract from their more immediate concerns if they were to attempt this at present.

Format of lessons

Pioneers have to strike a difficult balance between formal content-orientated teaching and process-orientated discussion and counselling. Too loose a format risks leaving out crucial content (and some evidence was presented in Part I of this evaluation that this occurred), while overly formal presentation inhibits free discussion - which is precisely what peer teaching and counselling is supposed to achieve. 

Practical constraints also limit pioneers’ ability to engage in open debate with learners. Several guidance teachers and pioneers pointed out that typical 30 minute periods were too short for effective group work and that even double periods were often not sufficient. The introduction of outcomes-based education (OBE) may help to remove some of these constraints.

Different stakeholders tended towards different sides of the content-process continuum when discussing how Sapler pioneers do and should proceed. For example one primary health care official said:

Their purpose should be to facilitate and stimulate discussion, not present a fixed curriculum. They’re not teachers. In fact, that may be where teachers and school health nurses have been going wrong.

In a similar vein, a guidance teacher remarked: "You can frighten them with the facts today, but we need to engage them in a process - they need to learn that they have choices." However, others spoke of the need for careful lesson plans and curriculae. 

Pioneers’ weekly reports and some of the discussion with field managers suggest that they are presently tending towards the content view of teaching, particularly as this is more easily monitored. Weekly reports typically list topics covered such as sexual abuse, teenage pregnancy, contraception, and rape, but do not consider the extent to which learners have entered into the discussion, group processes in classes or similar matters to any extent.

It also appears that learners do not produce any concrete learning product, such as portfolios, or completed worksheets. They also do not have or receive attractive learning material from Sapler.

Socio-economic and gender issues

Pioneers clearly work within a very specific cultural context and it is their knowledge of and embeddedness in this context that makes them effective. In part the context is defined by youth culture, in part by the racial and ethnic makeup of the area. 

However, two additional contextual factors appear not to be carefully enough considered. These are the prevailing socio-economic conditions and unequal power relations between men and women, girls and boys.

The particular mix of these factors in the area has a profound impact on how sexuality is experienced and should therefore be central to pioneers’ interventions. One typical pattern involves girls being inducted into semi-coercive sexual relationships by older men, including well-heeled fast living gangsters (genza). 

Such girls and their families are often economically dependent on the boyfriend and the girls are therefore willing to engage in unprotected sex and to bear children at a young age. It is not clear how widespread this practice is in the community, but it is apparently frequently alluded to, for example by boys complaining that they cannot find suitable girlfriends, and it will therefore inevitably emerge in discussions about sexuality.

Other gender issues also shape pioneers’ interaction with learners. For example, boys are invariably described as more unruly and difficult to deal with in class, particularly by female pioneers and guidance teachers. 

Boys and girls also have different perspectives on sexual issues so that debates can become acrimonious. One guidance teacher said: "It’s sort of a war between the boys and girls out there." It was not evident from weekly reports and other Sapler documentation that such issues were being explicitly reflected on.

Broadening the focus of pioneers’ teaching

There was widespread support for the idea that pioneers should not limit themselves to sexuality teaching and counselling only. One principal argued: "Volunteers should focus more holistically. 

One cannot for example focus on sexual issues and leave out crime." A primary health care official agreed: "Sapler counsellors should be more general - they shouldn’t just focus on sexuality, but be prepared to deal with other issues as well." A learner who was briefly interviewed at one school remarked about the pioneer: "He always guides us about sex. Why not guide us about life itself?"

There was much evidence that pioneers were in fact already having to discuss broader issues with learners. This will no doubt require additional expertise from pioneers (for example in areas such as career counselling) and there is a danger that they will be pushed even further towards becoming replacement guidance teachers. 

A primary health care official suggested that one way of dealing with the broadened focus in the types of problems that learners are likely to bring to pioneers while not requiring unrealistic expertise from pioneers, would be to enhance volunteers’ referral skills. 

In this way pioneers will be able to call on others’ expertise when required. That a broadening of focus is inevitable seems clear, however, particularly with the introduction of outcomes-based education where sexuality issues are very much integrated with wider life skills.

Relationship with other sex educators and clinics

Sapler is by no means the only agency engaged in sexuality education in schools. Individuals from advice centres, psychology students from Medunsa, family health and school health nurses were among those mentioned as visiting schools from time to time. 

One principal complained that many of these interventions occurred on an ad hoc basis ("There’s a lack of planning - fixed programmes would be nice"), and Sapler’s relatively greater consistency was therefore appreciated. 

There did not appear to be any overt tensions between Sapler and various other agencies and the general feeling among stakeholders was that the different kinds of input supplemented each other and hopefully had a cumulative impact on learners.

The director of Sapler is interested in the idea of twinning schools with nearby clinics, thus ensuring a more holistic approach to and more careful monitoring of learners’ sexuality problems. In such a scenario pioneers would act as a link between school and clinic. 

This idea was well received and it was pointed out that embryonic linkages already exist between many schools and clinics. Some schools have a practice of sending learners with urgent sexual health problems to the nearby clinic with an official letter from the guidance teacher or principal. 

This ensures that the learner is immediately seen to and can avoid the embarrassment of having to wait in the waiting room with adults. With some additional planning and effort these linkages can be extended to include for example regular exchange of information between schools and clinics about learners’ sexual health.

Some stakeholders felt that medical staff from clinics could perhaps have a weekly consultation time at schools with which the clinic has been twinned. Another area of possible closer co-operation mentioned was the provision of condoms which it is felt are currently not easily enough accessible to learners.

Length of placement

A very frequently mentioned source of frustration with the Sapler programme was the practice of moving pioneers from school to school. In particular it was felt that a six month period was far too short. One principal complained:

We have them just for a short spell. The minute he was being productive and reaching the children, he had to leave. Then the same thing again with the next pioneer - worse even, because he had a very short spell.

Another said: "Sapler was nipped in the bud at this school." Pioneers also found moving to a new school and having to adapt to different teachers and different school rules quite traumatic. Learners may also find that they have just learned to trust and confide in a particular pioneer when he or she is removed.

Frequency of contact with learners

Another source of frustration for pioneers was that in some cases they did not gain sufficient access to learners. Although part of their effectiveness and the acceptance they enjoy among learners are due to the fact that they are not part of the official school structure, this has a down side in that they are not officially accommodated on the timetable. Guidance periods, as already mentioned, are frequently hijacked for other purposes.

In addition, there have of late been numerous disruptions to normal teaching. Pioneers’ weekly reports are littered with references to cancelled classes due to community meetings, public holidays, tests, exams, SADTU mass meetings, teachers’ meetings, etcetera. 

At one school the guidance teacher explained how the pioneer took the initiative to negotiate teaching time within these difficult circumstances by determining free periods (for example, due to teacher absenteeism) in the early morning and then announcing her timetable to learners during morning assembly.

From observations made during visits to schools where Sapler pioneers are to be placed for the first time, timetables are routinely negotiated (along with accountability issues and other matters) by the Sapler field manager at a very early stage. However, it seems that such agreements are difficult to keep to.

Community relations

Sapler field managers and pioneers are well established and prominent members of the community. Mr. Edward Mabunda is particularly well known and highly regarded, but it is clear that other pioneers are also community leaders in addition to working for Sapler. 

For example, two pioneers present weekly programmes on two different local community radio stations. Another is chairperson of a local arts committee. Several stakeholders were complimentary about the way in which Sapler is embedded in the community and has avoided "stepping on toes."

Sapler’s peer teaching model arose organically from engagement with the community when a previous intervention failed to take root. It may be that there are residual animosities dating from this period, although no evidence of this was encountered. Some of the pioneers also have a history or political activism, but this seems to be handled appropriately and in a low key manner.

A prominent member of the management team, the director, is not stationed in the area. One stakeholder mentioned this as a potential source of difficulty. She felt that the director’s visits to the area, sometimes not more frequently than once a month, resulted in a lack of proper supervision and control. She felt that it was impossible to manage such an operation "by remote control". 

From the director’s perspective, there appears to be an acknowledgement that day to day monitoring and control may not have been sufficiently aggressively implemented, but there is also an awareness that management has to be increasingly delegated.

Sustainability

The impression was gained that Sapler periodically found itself in a precarious financial position. At times pioneers’ and the director’s salaries were delayed by several months while funding was awaited. The Sapler field office is not well resourced, lacking a computer, telephone and transport facilities. 

The field managers consequently work under difficult conditions, for example continually having to negotiate with the clinic where the office is located for telephone usage. Pioneers and field managers have to use public transport to reach schools, some of which are in outlying areas.

A number of stakeholders (but not the pioneers or field managers themselves) suggested that pioneers’ and field managers’ salaries were inadequate. Some pioneers also have additional sources of income and would not be able to make ends meet unless these were available to them. 

Part of the Sapler philosophy is that pioneers should be young people from the area who gain a foothold in the world of employment through Sapler and it is therefore felt that overly generous salaries will exclude such youngsters from employment and instead attract a professional, more established type of individual. 

However, it was not clear whether sufficient consideration had been given to the further career paths of pioneers after the initial two or three years of employment with Sapler.

[ Home ] [ Introduction ] [ Learners' Perception ] [ S. perception ] [ Conclusion ] [ Appendix 1 ]