The Perivoli Schools Trust Research Project
An interview with the co-Principal Investigators
Findings have been published from a cross-institutional study exploring the experiences of those involved with the Perivoli Schools Trust (PST), an innovative training programme for nursery teachers in Namibia. It was funded by the Perivoli Foundation through PARC
It is a fantastic ‘living example’ of the Africa Charter principles in action, so we decided to interview the project’s three co-Principal Investigators: Dr Vicky Sharley of the University of Bristol, and Professor Janet Ananias and Dr Emma Leonard of UNAM. Also working on the project as a co-Investigator was UNAM’s Dr Elizabeth Ngololo.
The interview is 36 minutes long – listen above, or via Podbean
About the study
The research study explored peoples lived experiences of the PST model and approach in diverse communities, and had some amazing outputs – these included a short film told from community members’ perspectives, local paintings, research reports, and a webpage for accessible and open access dissemination.
Find out more about this, and how the project modelled the principles of the Africa Charter, using the link above. You can also read the transcript below, and find out more on the project website.
I can truly say we really stood for what the Africa Charter advocates, because from conceptualisation to evaluation we were all equal partners.
– Dr Emma Leonard, UNAM
PERIVOLI SCHOOLS TRUST RESEARCH PROJECT INTERVIEW
21 August 2025
Transcript (edited)
Heather
Welcome to this interview, hosted by PARC, on the Perivoli Schools Trust Research Project. This cross-institutional study was conducted by a team of four researchers from the University of Namibia (UNAM) and the University of Bristol, to explore the experiences of those involved with the Perivoli Schools Trust (PST), an innovative training programme for nursery teachers in Namibia.
The project, which ran from 2022-2025, was funded by the Perivoli Foundation through the University of Bristol’s Perivoli Africa Research Centre (PARC), which also supported the development of the proposal.
I’m Heather Child, PARC’s Communications Officer. With me, are the project’s three co-Principal Investigators: Dr Vicky Sharley of the University of Bristol, and Professor Janet Ananias and Dr Emma Leonard of UNAM. Also working on the project as a co-Investigator, but not here today, was UNAM’s Dr Elizabeth Ngololo.
The project’s report and findings have recently been launched. Perhaps I could start with a question for you, Janet, about what you enjoyed most about working on this project?
Janet
Thank you very much, Heather. There were a number of things I enjoyed, but the one I want to share is that this project was driven by – and identified by – the PST. They sought an evaluation of the project after it had been implemented for 10 years in Namibia, since 2012, in all the 14 regions of the country. It has also expanded to neighbouring African countries, so they were curious to know about the impact on the lives and well-being of children, families and communities. Are they on the right track? Are they really making any impact?
We also have key government role players: the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Innovation, and in the Ministry of Gender, Social Equality and Social Welfare. They are the key government role players for early childhood development, and they also have a vested interest in the status, the programme of Early Childhood Development (ECD) in Namibia.
We have an integrated ECD framework that guides early childhood development. But there’s still a lot that needs to be done in the Namibian context. So, to wrap up, what I enjoyed was that it was not the research that we as researchers thought we wanted to embark upon, but a research study that was driven by the key role players. It’s relevant. It’s worthwhile. It’s impactful and the findings will be useful in a Namibian context.
Vicky
For me personally, the most enjoyable aspect was actually the collaboration itself, as opposed to the project, this opportunity that arose to work together again with respected colleagues at University of Namibia. I first met Janet back in 2014 and we were introduced the following year, and then I met Emma as well – we were introduced to each other. We had shared educational and research interests. We were located in the discipline of social work and also much of our work was with communities.
So in fact, all three of us here today are social work practitioners, in terms of our profession. We worked with each other on a range of projects over a decade, focused on children’s welfare and education. And then we were joined by Elizabeth Ngololo later in our relationship.
But what’s most enjoyable is this idea of collaboration – and it’s the process of how we’ve worked together, of actually doing the research. It’s learning about assumptions made in both contexts, in the global North and here in Namibia – so England and Namibia. But this learning always seems to have come from really unexpected exchanges or discussions that we’ve had as individuals or as a project team.
On the flip side, I think the work can often take longer than when you work alone or if you work within your own country context. But the work itself actually becomes much richer together. I think it creates something, something new, something which is enhanced with different ideas, perspectives and positions. And actually that in itself really drives up the quality of our research and our associated project outputs. That, ultimately for me, is about how we become successful at improving children’s overall well-being and welfare as a whole.
Heather
Emma, perhaps I can ask you: how did the strong cross institutional partnership make a difference to the smooth running and success of the project as a whole? Are there any particular things you that you noticed? Or anything you’d like to improve?
Emma
I should probably just add that we had inter and intra institutional collaboration. Let me just explain what I mean by that. The inter collaboration was between the University of Namibia and the University of Bristol. But within the University of Namibia Janet and I are from the same department, which is the Department of Psychology and Social Work, and Elizabeth is from the multidisciplinary research standard, which is the research wing of the university. So besides us being from two different institutions, within the institution of Namibia we also had a bit of diversity and that really added to the complementary aspects that this project brought to life.
Elizabeth is the expert in early childhood development. Vicki, myself and Janet are within the space of child welfare and psychosocial care, and that really helps us in complementing each other’s expertise and competencies. Also, with Elizabeth coming from a research unit, she brought the research component to the team.
Other than that, an added value of the collaboration was the innovation and creativity. That came with working together. Just as when we started this meeting, we would always talk about ‘how are things in the UK? How are things in Namibia?’ We met almost monthly, and constantly kept in contact. We had a very non-formal type of engagement with each other, which made the collaboration easy to be part of and to work as colleagues and partners in this process.
Like I said, we are from diverse backgrounds. We really encourage brainstorming: what do you think would work within that context? If there are problems collectively, how can we overcome that? Because as much as the three of us, Elizabeth, Janet and myself, are from Namibia, it is a big country, very diverse. The three of us come from different and diverse backgrounds, culturally ethnic and so on, and even the areas within which we collected our data are very diverse, and hence that called for us to constantly come together and compare notes, simple things like a word, a concept: ‘What does that mean? But I have never heard of that word!’ Somebody else would come in, because between the three of us we could also speak different local languages and all of that really added to the beauty of this collaboration.
I should also say that as much as it was a global North-South collaboration we never could feel that divide. We were partners from the onset of the programme until the conclusion thereof, and that really was the complementary aspect of this collaboration, and through this we could learn from each other. We could assist each other. Strengthen each other’s strengths and, where there were challenges, the next person could easily step in.
I mentioned about the diversity of the country. Vicky also had an opportunity of visiting Namibia. We travelled to the western part of the country and the Namibian researchers gained an appreciation of what the Perivoli Schools Trust is all about and what they offer – we learned a lot through this as well. So this collaboration was really a good learning opportunity in terms of our own cultures, but also as partners in the research process.
Heather
That’s brilliant, Emma. There is such an advantage in having three Co-principal researchers at UNAM from diverse areas of Namibia. It’s a project that really models Africa Charter principles. There’s been great dissemination of the results of the project within Namibia, for instance. Would you like to say anything about any other principles that you think it modelled well?
Emma
Yes, I looked at the Africa Charter principles that really advance the transformative mode of research collaborations between the global North and South, specifically Africa, in terms of knowledge production and dissemination. And having reflected on this research project from the conceptualisation until evaluation, I can truly say we really stood for what the Africa Charter advocates for, because from conceptualisation to evaluation we were all equal partners.
The development of the tools, for example the data collection tools, was a collaborative effort. We would sit around, brainstorm, do a pilot here in Namibia, come back and try and strengthen areas that needs to be strengthened, informed by the local knowledge, the recipients, or the target community where data would be collected. We did not really enter there as experts, neither was the partner university, the University of Bristol, joining this collaboration with: ‘This is how it must be done, this is how it needs to be done’. Whatever was done was co-created by the team and informed by those communities in which the data was to be collected. So decision making was joint decision making, inclusion of all partners in what needs to happen, how it must happen. Like I said, from conceptualisation until the evaluation.
Regarding funding, there was a funder for the project, but whenever there were needs for engagement with the funder, we would also meet as a team and say, ‘These are the challenges that we have, we need to engage the funder, what is it that we are going to talk about? How are we going to approach that?’ So even if Vicky had the advantage of being in the same context or the same locality as the funder, whatever she would be discussing with him would first be agreed upon by the research team, and that was really a strength for me in terms of this collaboration that everything that was done was decided on by the team, including division of labour.
In the practical arrangements there was nothing like ‘I cannot be doing data collection’ or ‘I will only be focusing on the development of the tool’. It was all equally divided amongst us, and we would all travel to the data collection site. I think the first site was Otjiwarongo. It was in the heart of winter – 35°! But as a team we all went out there. We collected data, starting with the children, to the parents and whoever else was needed. The tools, as I said, were co-created.
Also the division of labour was really equally spread in terms of knowledge production. What was also outstanding for me is that we allowed the participants to use their local languages to express themselves. And the advantage that we had as a team is that we are competent in a number of local languages. Where we were not able to interpret, we sourced the services of those who could speak the languages. But the beauty of that is our participants were able to express themselves, and in a way I find that empowering. English is considered the official language for the country, but this project said, ‘what we want to gain is the insight of the participants, not their ability to express themselves eloquently in English’. Looking at the Charter again, that’s what the African Charter also advances in terms of research: that the language that we use needs to be appropriate for the context in which the study is conducted.
Another focus of the Charter is funding. From the onset, we as a team had identified areas and activities that would require funding. UNAM allocated its budget in terms of the activities that it was supposed to undertake. I’ve worked in the past with many international funders and I should say we really had autonomy on spending the budget in the way that worked for us. If there was some diversion, obviously we would come back to the team and say, ‘as a result of that, we need to perhaps do a few divertings of funds from here to there’. But it was all in agreement, and as UNAM we would produce the reports, the financial report, and without any challenges the funds were dispersed or the funds would be released, and that was also really the beauty of it – that trust which was there in managing the funds. And it’s also something highlighted by the Charter and that’s why I say we were really a living example of what the African Charter is advocating for, without knowing it. I was not really aware it was the case – it was only afterwards that I realised.
But what we’ve been doing, it’s really in line with the Africa Charter in terms of dissemination of the findings. We had a conference at the University of Bristol; we had equally organised a dissemination conference here in Namibia. In terms of publication, we have plans to have it published in both the University or in the global North as well as the global South, and authorship of the publications we would also change every time. So for one publication I could be the first author, for the next it would be Vicky, the other would be Janet, so that we can really show this balance in terms of our partnership.
This collaboration is also in line with UNAM’s strategic pillar of internationalisation. We as a university are striving to strengthen our collaboration with universities outside the continent and really skills transfer and knowledge building – co-creation of knowledge. All of that. And it’s a way of taking Namibia to the world and the world to Namibia, and once again this project was a living example of it. We had a wonderful conference in Bristol and our presentation got a lot of applause to say it was wonderfully done. People really had an appreciation of what we did, and even back home in terms of the publication, the EDC centres – we shared the information with them. Some perhaps did not even know about the Perivoli Trust and its approaches. So back home it is also a learning opportunity.
Perhaps the few challenges at times were due to our work schedules. At times it was a bit challenging to keep to the targets that we set ourselves, but what we would do is, again, open communication. We would meet and look at the schedule and see how we could rearrange things, and the flexibility with the funding also was that, if we do those changes, we could always write to the funder and say ‘as a result of this we have to balance or make these minor changes’ and most of the times it was approved. We were able to move a few things around but still managed to keep within the time frame the project was allocated.
Heather
It is really interesting to see all of the things that you’ve done in this project, and innovation and creativity has been mentioned. Is there anything else that you’d like to add before I move on?
Vicky
And there’s that’s one other thing. I mean, Emma’s given a really comprehensive answer, but I just wanted to – from the Bristol side – sort of connect my experience. Janet earlier in this interview started talking about how the project itself was rooted within UNAM’s strategic priorities as well as Bristol’s. But also I think our project, in relation to the usual power imbalance of the development frame, was in its conception aligned with Namibia’s strategic priorities as a country, and more broadly also the continent’s. So we think about Namibia’s fifth national development plan, we think about these two pillars, and our project was rooted to social transformation in relation to the strengthening of existing ECD programming. And also environmental sustainability – and that really connects with the PST approach in terms of how sustainability is valued and this idea about repurposing and upcycling waste or rubbish materials for developing educational resources for children.
So it’s really these strategic priorities drove the design of our study and the writing of our proposal to our funder. Before we were successfully funded, we undertook, as Janet mentioned, a number of stakeholder consultations in Namibia, in the ECD sector. So those sort of key messages were really embedded into our study’s proposal and throughout the three-year project; it really guided how we delivered the project at key milestones.
Heather
Yes, I did think it was very fascinating, the use of the waste materials and the sustainability angle. Perhaps I could just ask, Janet, are there any other particular outcomes of the project that that you were proud of and interested in?
Janet
Yeah, we had actually a number of outcomes as a result of the use of waste material. A highlight for me is the environmental gains, the fact that waste material is being collected in the community. People don’t throw materials away, they bring them to the schools, and children learn from a tender age about the importance of keeping the environment clean, as well as the importance of being proud of your environment. Because I recall in the Erongo region, which is close to the coast of Namibia, children learn about the ocean and preserving the ocean, as well as in up north, the Kavango region where there’s also the cultural ways of living, the children also learn to be proud of and embrace another aspect.
Another outcome is the fact that people are saving money, especially with impoverished communities where the Perivoli approach has been very valuable, where parents do not have money to pay even school fees. So the fact that they do not have to buy educational toys, the toys are from the materials that they use from home, that they could just bring to the school.
Another outcome was stimulating the curiosity of the children through the creating of educational ‘corners’. The teachers created educational ‘corners’, displayed in the classrooms, allowing the children the freedom to choose what they are interested in, in what they want to explore and try out. So through that the children learned to develop some toys or learn what their interests are.
I also want to mention what we have produced in terms of a film on the education, on the Perivoli practices, that will be displayed on our websites, the University of Namibia, University of Bristol. In the film you see what we found from the research, what was displayed by the children and what the children have been doing and creating in the classrooms.
There were also some portraits that developed as an outcome, capturing what children have been doing, how they’ve been engaged with developing educational toys. Another aspect that I also want to highlight was involving the parents in collecting of waste material and making educational toys. They spend quality time with their children and connect with them in a special way, and they also learn about the importance of cleaning up and not littering and not throwing things away but seeing materials still being used in the classrooms.
Heather
I know one of the outputs of the project was a policy briefing. Perhaps I could ask you, Vicky, about how you see the early education landscape in Namibia developing as a result of your recommendations being put into place?
Vicky
Thanks, Heather. I think it’s important to start by saying our study was not a formal evaluation or evaluative study and nor was it a formal curriculum review. But the study really focused upon investigating people’s lived experiences of the Perivoli Schools Teacher Training Programme: what is it as an approach? What does it do? What can it achieve and what can we learn from it?
We found that it’s creative, as you said, it’s innovative. In fact, a key recommendation was around how unique it was in the way it actually models and shows Educarers – also known as nursery school teachers – how to apply activities in the classroom. So that really was something new to the landscape of ECD, of early years education in Namibia. It’s about the way it not only teaches, but puts in place support for Educarers. They are supported on site in their existing early years centres by trainers as well. So based upon that, one of our key recommendations from this study was that the training modules, the Perivoli modules should be formally reviewed. You know, to investigate, perhaps in a larger, more substantive project, their alignment with Namibia’s national unit standards for Educarers.
In Namibia, it would also be fantastic if the PST modules could be consequently integrated into the Ministry of Gender’s curriculum framework for children in Namibia, and we would hope that this could be done perhaps with a future view to accreditation of the Perivoli approach or the principles of Perivoli and how that approach as a whole could potentially be adopted by the ministries themselves into early years provision and programming.
I think a second key recommendation, again that we set out in our report, was to really try and draw upon the key principles of using waste materials, this idea of building educational resources and toys, these Perivoli ‘corners’. Taking these principles and ideas beyond the Perivoli programme and approach and using them and embedding them at national level to strengthen existing national provision across the country.
We found that particularly this approach used by Perivoli so the how, the applied nature and use of waste materials was really valued by participants in under-resourced or underfunded areas in the country. So Educarers were able to create resources and teach young children with really no cost, with waste materials which are fully accessible and free, and they can create play-based learning activities. Whilst, as Janet says, it was simultaneously promoting environmental sustainability and keeping what would be rubbish in use, repurposed and upcycled in use as long as possible, which is again aligned with one of Namibia’s strategic priorities.
I think just to conclude, the broader principles in that regard, like the focus on green environmental education, were really centred in the Perivoli approach and these were considered a valuable asset to ECD education as a whole, broadly. And again aligned with one of our recommendations set out in our reports, these sort of green principles which really focused on the way that Perivoli’s approach really utilised, or let me say focused upon, children’s connection to – or their independence with – the environment, or their love of the environment. This idea around human flourishing within the environment. And we would hope broadly that that these ideas again would be formally embedded in the national curriculum framework for children in Namibia.
Heather
Creating your own resources and strengthening a connection to the environment. That’s a really powerful output. Janet, is there anything you’d like to add to that?
Janet
Looking at how our research has influenced the education landscape – and I’m reflecting back to the status quo of our children accessing early education we when we started this research – many people, when asked the questions, looked at you and asked, ‘What approach?’ So I believe our research also made people realise that we need to take early education of our children seriously and as a priority, because there are still so many children, if we’re looking at the statistics, who do not access early childhood education. They start primary education and they are behind and struggling to complete their educational career. So our research, in terms of the early education landscape, is to advocate and raise awareness about the importance of our children studying, making a good start and gaining access to early education, because so many of them are falling behind.
There is also the issue of the Educarers being trained, looking at the statistics of Educarers who received the training. Despite Perivoli being in existence for so long, there is still a big number of educators who are still not receiving any training, who do not have the competencies, so the realisation for us is that there’s still a lot that needs to be done to develop the competencies of Educarers.
And as we said, the research found that there’s a lot of creativity, innovativeness that happens in in those centres where Perivoli has been introduced, so children start primary education and there’s a need for continuity of that innovativeness in the primary education sector. So this approach should be continued in primary education sectors, and we have got our policy framework that also makes provision on early childhood education, to ensure that we are moving along with that, to where we are supposed to be, seeing how we could really make early childhood development the priority that it needs to be.
Heather
I’d like to say a huge thank you to Emma, Vicky, Janet, for joining us. For more information about this project, please do visit its web page, PSTproject.blogs.bristol.ac.uk. We’ll share this link alongside the interview. Thank you all.
Intro/outro music by DIMMYSAD from Pixabay
Header image: Jonathan Velasquez on Unsplash