Farmers Field Schools

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents 3
Contents 3
Part I: Introduction of FFSs 8
Formation of FFSs 8
Strategy of FFSs 8
Who are FFSs? 10
Part II: Evaluating Training System in FFSs 11
Scoring FFSs 11
Training Program 13
FFS-Simacai 13
FFS-HEPA 13
FFS-Dong Le 14
Training Contents 14
FFS-Simacai 15
FFS-HEPA 15
FFS-Dong Le 15
Training Modules 16
Courses at FFS-Simacai 16
Courses at FFS-HEPA 17
Courses at FFS-Dong Le 20
Curriculum at FFSs 22
Training Method 30
FFS-Simacai 30
FFS-HEPA 30
FFS-Dong Le 31
Process of Selecting Students 32
Target groups 32
Criteria 32
Selection procedures 33
Course Organization 33
Timing 34
Location 34
Coordination between FFSs and farm sites 34
5 | P a g e
Class Management 34
Evaluation of Students Outcomes 35
Marking system 35
Performance of practical skills, onsite attitude in learning 35
By teachers’ comments 35
Students evaluate Training System 35
Quality of Teachers 36
Evaluate other Factors 38
Continuity in training 38
Strengthening linkages 38
Enhancing inheritance 38
Intergeneration in training 38
Effectiveness indicators (after training at FFSs) 38
Part III: Drawbacks and challenges 39
Drawbacks 39
Training program 39
Executive frameworks 39
Training method 39
Target groups 39
Management and training operation 39
Staff 40
Students’ Innovation Fund 40
Challenges 40
Part IV: Sharing from students 41
Sharing from Lộc Văn Vìn, Sán Dìu minority student 42
Sharing from Giàng A Sử, H’Mông minority student 42
FFS-Simacai 43
FFS-HEPA 43
Part VI: Cooperation in Training 44
Macro level 44
Inside Vietnam: 44
Outside Vietnam: 44
Micro level 46
Within Vietnam: 46
Outside Vietnam: 47
6 | P a g e
Remarks made by collaborators 48
FFSs 48
FFS-Simacai 48
FFS-Dong Le 49
7 | P a g e
Part I: Introduction of FFSs
Formation of FFSs
Through the stages of development, SPERI and sister organizations have maintained long
relationships with grassroots communities including elders, women, farmers, and the young
minorities. The period 2005-2015 is the timeframe that SPERI concentrates on the youths.
SPERI set tied relationship with minority youths through strategic training environment i.e.
Farmers Field Schools.
Periods The development of the relationship between target
groups andSPERI and sister organizations
Target groups
2005-2015 MECOECOTRA & YIELDS
- SPERI -
Young minority groups
are trained in FFSs
1997-2004 MECOECOTRA
- SPERI -
Farmer groups
and community
1989-1999 TEW-CHESH-CIRD Community members including
village elders, the spiritual
leaders of the community, and
different farmers’ interest
groups.
Strategy of FFSs
SPERI give FFSs strategy with long-term vision - desired FFSs will be a space, the
democratic environment to transmit SPERI’s priority issues to the youth groups
(YIELDS
1
). The priority issues include: rights of minority people, working approach
towards empowering minority communities, ways to maintain minority knowledge and
experiences.
FFSs maintain linkages with MECO-ECOTRA’s community development activities in
order to continue enhancing values such as cultural identity, customary practices, and
voices of the youths. Minority youths are the future of the community and the future of
world; therefore, FFSs see its stronger role in keeping closer contact with youth groups to
ensure the maintenance of these values exist by the continuity of intergenerational lengths.
FFSs strategy is implemented, including what has been done:
 SPERI sets up a system of FFSs training environment which allocate at 3 different
provinces, with long term land use right. At each province, FFS has good
relationships with local authorities.
 FFSs training schools are operated by the local human resources. Our training
classes target small sizes of students yet aim at high quality in the outcome and
expecting students return to communities to make the most of applications.
 FFSs sites have different space-scale practiced environment, with the advantage in
the landscape that near areas of early yet sensitive ecosystem resources.
1
Young Indigenous Ethnic Leadership Development Strategies.
8 | P a g e
 FFSs infrastructure systems are relatively fine developed. Currently, FFSs are
refining our attached-farm models (inside the FFSs) to be used onsite examples.
 FFSs’ training sector has operated officially 1 year old; and will in the future
improve the training processes towards professionalize better quality at delivering
our training programs including organization, operation, and management of
outcomes.
All the current FFSs sites have their platform development since the foundation of the old
model CCCDs.
FFS-Simacai FFS-HEPA FFS-Dong Le
CCCD/NIRD HEPA CCCD/CIRD
NIRD/TEW HEPA/CHESH CIRD/CIRD
During the period 2006-08, many of the MECO-ECOTRA community development
activities incorporated the training function and our search for youth resources. See table 1
on the collaborative activities between FFSs and other MECO-ECOTRA thematic
networks.
In the 2008-09, FFSs focus on training functions including training programs and activities.
In the future, FFSs will tight training activities together with development of our farm sites
including varied farm satellites. FFSs aim at do well at the three interrelated functions:
hands-on training, onsite trial and application, and also production aspect of all farms.
9 | P a g e
Who are FFSs?
FFSs is an English acronym for Farmers Field Schools. Vietnamese name is Trường Đào
tạo Thực hành Nông dân Chuyên nghiệp. SPERI has a system of 3 FFSs, allocated at three
provinces in the northern, northern central and central Vietnam.
Some of the current pictures illustrate students are training at different FFS sites.
FFS-Simacai FFS-HEPA FFS-Dong Le
Students of the K6B class
practicing making compost
(Feb, 2009)
Students of the K1A class
practicing group work in
terracing (April, 2009)
Ma Lieng students observing
veggie garden
(March, 2009)

10 | P a g e
FFS-Simacai
- official year of training 2006
- area for training: ~ 4 ha/9.27 ha
- Simacai district, Lao Cai province
FFS-HEPA
- official year of training end of 2007
- area for training ~ 15-20 ha/400 ha
- Huong Son district, Ha Tinh province
FFS-Dong Le
- official year of training end of 2007
- area for training 14.7 ha
- Tuyen Hoa district, Quang Binh province
Part II: Evaluating Training System in FFSs
Scoring FFSs
The FFSs have serious look and evaluate scoring. Retrieved SPERI philosophy as standard
and used strategic focus on ecological agriculture training as a measure in a range of 0-
100% (0%: lowest performance, 100%: highest performance); below is our internal
evaluation marks (period 2006 – June, 2009):
Internal assessment of the FFSs education system
FFS-Simacai FFS-HEPA
FFS-Đồng Lê
INDICATORS
Term 1 Term 2
Training program


Rationale? 50% 70-80% 60%
Practical operation? 50% 65-70% 90% 60%
Holistic training contents



Relevance to context? 60-65% 65-70% 80% > 80%
Interdisciplinary approach? 40% 50-60% 90% 95%
Indepth level? 60% 60% 90% 70%
Training modules?


Quality of content? 50% 70-75% 80% 80%
Quality of curriculum? 50% < 50% 90% 90%
Training methodology



Students based approach 75%
Implementation of students based
approach; 30-40% 75% 80% 80%
Divide between theory and practical 70% 70% > 80% 80%
Students intake



Target groups? 100% 75% 100% 100%
Criteria? 60% 60% 50%
Based on
context
Selection approach? 70% 70% 30-35% No selection
Course organization



Timing? 80% Average Relevant Relevant
Location? 80% A bit fixed Crises Relevant
Coordination between FFSs and farm
sites 20% 20-30% Not yet Not yet
Students management




Self management 80% 60% Yes Yes
Class rules 80% Yes 50% 70%
In line with FFS regulations 90% 60-70% 70% 70%
With respect to SPERI rules 90% 60-70% 70% 70%
Evaluation of students outcomes?
11 | P a g e


Through marking system? 15-20% Not yet
By onsite real works
(performance of practical skills,
attitude in learning) 50-60% 90% 80%
Through teachers’ comments? 50% Not yet 100%
Quality of teachers? (farmers group, development workers, and outsource teachers)
Farmers
Specialization, experiences? Good Very good 90%
Training method? 50% 80% 90%
Development
workers
Specialization, experiences? Tốt 75% 60% 80%
Training method? 50% 70%
Outsource


Specialization? 90% Not much 70%
Experiences? 40% 70%
Training method? 50% 70%
Other factors







Continuity 90%
No so well,
35% 40%
- rotation between modules
- seasonal training
- from one course to the next
Linkages with thematic networks 60%
35% with
handicraft, and
customary lw
networks
20%

Inheritance from community
development lessons learnt
K5A did better
than K6B
Below medium,
but potential is
large
0%

Intergeneration (elderly, mid-age, and
youths) 40% 45% 10% 20%
Evaluation of effectiveness (after graduation)?
only be
evaluated after
5 years time
only be
evaluated after
5 years time
only be
evaluated after
5 years time
only be
evaluated after
5 years time
12 | P a g e
Training Program
Training program is assessed at 2 sub-indicators: rationale of the training framework, and
its actual operation.
 Basis of the rationale strongly reflects the volume and quality in rich in 15 years’
experiences that SPERI has long worked with ethnic minorities. The training
framework shows interests and desires in designing subjects as well as training
method which are most relevant and closely feasible to students’ concerns and
needs. The training program, at both rationale and practical levels, well integrate
the community aspect in development and the development value based strongly on
the community.
 Designing the training program aims at addressing the current issues and give
training towards finding solutions to the problems that are of worldwide attention.
For example, the program search for local solutions to the global issues, local
innovations on green and clean agricultural practices, and the ability to mobilize
optimal local resources to solve local problems.
All FFSs have the training program in which have ensured factors that uniformly respect
SPERI’s philosophy yet still reflect each school’s specialize features, specific
circumstance, and actual operation.
If taken by SPERI philosophy as standard and content-oriented priorities in training in
FFSs of ecological agriculture as a measurement point with 0-100% (0%, worst, and is
100% absolute), then, the difference now between 3 schools is:
Training program FFS-Simacai FFS-HEPA FFS-Dong Le
Rationale? 50% 70-80% 60%
Actual operation? 50% 65-70% 60%
FFS-Simacai
The program is influenced by the framework set up by Lao Cai State-based Vocational
College. Therefore, the rationale is only limited at 50% both at design and operation stages.
The ability for SPERI to make influences is too minor. The running of the program is
heavily dominated by resources from Lao Cai vocational college including curriculum,
training content, training method, evaluation system, and also human resources.
FFS-HEPA
Designing training program for FFS-HEPA has a different foundation and involves mainly
SPERI members. The program is designed to be a SPERI pioneering initiative that plays as
a strategic step in transforming the 15 years of community development experiences to
now become lessons for the community youths. Basis of the program reflected an approach
in incorporating the 'macro vision' with local contexts, knowledge and practices to address
many aspects of emerging issues concerning human environment, human behavior with
nature, and the future sustainability of the Earth and humanity.
13 | P a g e
Attempts in designing the training framework have reached 70-80% as the program does
feature aspects of inheriting good, unique, and successful stories/lessons and advantages
from SPERI’s 15 years’ working experiences. As 2008 is the 1
st
year to run this trial
program so chances of successes are only at 65-70%. Many colleagues at FFS-HEPA still
find the training program as the new front to be challenged with.
FFS-Dong Le
FFS-Dong Le is known as a centre for strengthening community capacity (CIRD);
however, operate as functional depth of a training center to meet many demands is still
limited in capacity. In 2008, FFS-Đồng Lê ran a training program specific for Ma Lieng
minority youths and the program was divided into two terms. For self-assessment purpose,
only 60% success rate at the program design and the actual deployment is about at similar
rate.
Training Contents
This indicator is assessed by the three sub-indicators: relevance of the topics taught with
relation to the context of community, the interdisciplinary approach among varied courses’
contents, and the level of depth of each unit course.
 The relevance of topics taught is reflected through the content at teaching, timing to
teach, and teacher resources whose knowledge and experiences expected to be
profound. Teaching content put high focuses on practical aspects of ecological
agriculture training (which existed from long tradition). Hands on practical units are
conducted with good seasonal timing and in a closed to nature environment that
allow students easily absorb knowledge. Open air teaching landscape also allows
students create the more dynamic part of their learning process. Teacher resources
are mainly experienced farmers and spiritual village elders whom are familiar with
students, making students feel less strange in language they perceive and contents
they wish to learn.
 Interdisciplinary approach among courses’ contents is assessed at the very low
level. To train at quality-focus of ecological agriculture training, the training
contents must incorporate an interdisciplinary approaching i.e. linkages between
livestock raising, fruit and vegetable gardening, and other necessary farm
components. The nature of ecological agriculture is a system that includes
components be linked together logically and interconnected. Therefore, training
content in the future needs to improve this section.
 The level of depth of each unit course is addressed at low level. This mainly dues to
the teaching staff do not have a strong background in agricultural farming. Their
attendance at teaching is also low particularly with courses that are seasonal
farming.
14 | P a g e

Xem chi tiết: Farmers Field Schools