## Do teachers use the SFNG for curriculum delivery?

### Questionarie sections I thought might be applicable

This was before heading into the word doc.

- parent.14 [Do you think that the Jala Peo school food garden initiative is a good idea?]
- parent.15 [Please rate how you feel about the school food garden on a scale from 0 to 10]
- principle.24 [Which subjects in the curriculum are taught using the school food garden?]
- principle.25 [Which grades use the school food garden for learning?]
- principle.26 [How many hours per week do learners spend in the school food garden to receive lessons (on average)?]
- teacher.16 [How do you feel about the garden, on average?]
- teacher.20 [Which subjects in the curriculum do you teach using the school food garden?]
- teacher.21 [Which grades use the school food garden for learning?]
- teacher.23 [How many hours per week do your learners spend in the school food garden (on average)?]
- teacher.24 [What are the drawbacks of using the SFNG as a curriculum delivery tool?]
- teacher.25 [What are the benefits of using the SFNG as a curriculum delivery tool?]

### Management

Good garden management is positively correlated with teacher rating of the garden. Good garden management is therefore key to a succesful garden project.

Of course, this might simply be a manifestation of general teacher satisfaction correlating with good school management in general i.e. this is not specifically about the garden but can be broadly applied to anything teacher vs school related. A follow-up to disambiguate here might probe general teacher school rating versus the garden versus management rating.

### Teacher out-of-school involvement

The vast majority of teachers are low-moderately involved in the actual garden, primarily during heavy work-load seasons like harvest time.

Teacher involvement vs management rating does not appear to have any particular correlation. One exception is the very highly involved segment which gives a 9.7 management score - however given the small sample size (3) I suggest caution in associating causation here (this is poorly phrased but you know what I mean).

### Teacher in-school involvement

School 3 is a standout here and tilts the percentage of teachers that teach with the garden from ~57% to 67%. This further highlights the impact good management makes on this project.

### Subjects vs garden

From teacher.20 we see that primarily life-orientation, science and mathematics see the garden as a tool.

Using school 3 as a model, shows that other schools should consider incorporating the garden into science, mathematics and history/culture lessons more.

Note: the numbers don't align here? The subject graph has 16 which do not use it, versus 17 in the yes/no graph. Should double check your data here..

#### Speculations

- agriculture subjects don't feature because they are not taught at all - surely they should otherwise be present?
- life orientation enjoys the highest usage because it is the most flexible subject - the rest have more strict curriculums and established teaching methods e.g. abacus, times tables etc

#### Unknown

It would have been useful to know which subjects a teacher actually teaches e.g. are "I do not use SFNG" all teachers from specific subjects; or do all teachers teach all subjects at this stage still?

### Grades vs garden

Similar as previous year's reports, younger grades interact with the garden on a higher frequency. This might be attributed to a more flexible curriculum and a larger focus on hands-on learning. Alternatively, having a single teacher per class (instead of teacher per subject) might also have an influence ito class flexibility - perhaps having a single teacher allows for incorporating the garden as a common theme across multiple classes.

### Learners

Teachers interpret learners as being overwhelmingly positive about the garden. This suggests that there should be capacity for involving more subjects here as clearly the learners are willing and enjoy it.

The vast majority of learners spend an average of 0-2 hours in the garden (per day? per week?), regardless of school quintile (although almost all data is Q1 therefore meaningless..). School 3 is once again a positive outlier, with most learners spending 1-2 hours, whereas in other schools its more 0-1 hours.

## General notes

Instead of two separate bar graphs (with / without school 3) consider making them a single graph with either 2 bars per stat, or use stacked bar graph. This would make it much easier to interpret at a glance. I favor the stacked bar graph.

## Qualitative

Listing of common themes.

### Support

- additional financing and tooling
- shade nets (this is mentioned **very** often)
- water tanks, purifying
- seeds
- larger garden
- training
- more workers (only teachers mention this)
- more community involvement (teachers only)

### Community benefit

Teachers did not answer this at all it seems.

- produce sold
- produce donations
- home gardens training and supplies (seeds)
- not much (several principles answered this; seems to be gardens are not running / producing)

#### Improvement

- competitions
- home gardens
- parents should work in school garden

### SVVT as a CDT

Teachers only.

#### Disadvantages

- most say none (probably have to cross-check this against school 3)
- time is an issue
- time consuming
- maintaining garden over holidays is an issue
- travel time wastes time

#### Advantages

- learn about self-sufficiency
- knowledge
- practical learning e.g. natural sciences
- food for learners, staff
- fundraising
- no idea / unknown - teachers need to be educated on the project aims

### Parent questions

#### What has the garden changed in your life?

Nothing (7/8) reponses. Small sample size, but not a positive response at all.

Note that the 1/8 positive response was probably a teacher as well as parent.

#### What can be done to improve parent involvement?

Pretty much all said more information & training.