Ghana – 2009 Programme Review

1. Ghana – 2009 Programme Review GeSCI Team Meeting Feb. 2010

2. Current Context –Post Evaluation • General programme implementation literally at a standstill: • Changes in senior decision makers • Centralised decisions via the DM’s Office • Fate of GES unknown; no spending on core activities since start of 2009 • Development partners, MoEFP threatening to withdraw funding as no monies are being spent (stand to loose USD 32 million!) • Very politically tense

3. ICTE issues specifically… • OLPC • Dissemination to 30 schools • No money for implementation, training, infrastructure development (pen drives vs. servers!) • MoE threatened by Foundation to be brought to international arbitration • National investigation in local Foundation still ongoing – how funds were spent • Committed funds for teacher training via Intel Teach with drawn by the MoE • ICTE budget not funded

4. ICTE issues specifically… • No computers procured for schools • No immediate plans • Possibility of no EMIS this year • Monies allocated under UNESCO still not released • Servers not paid for • Lost possibility of accessing more via this route

5. ICT issues specifically… • Sole sourced ICT procurement on the increase • ADB schools • Computerized School Placement for Senior High Schools (CSPSS) • Televic • Ncomputing • Little adherence to standards or guidelines met • GeSCI’s technical advise from tech point of view not incorporated into plans • Re-hash of same old plans – no progress ! • In some ways back to Square 1?

6. Output 1 – Baseline study (e-readiness of educational institutions to inform planning) + Baseline implemented + Good lessons and capacity building both for GeSCI and MoE + Good sensitization in house – PBME and GES + Some attempts to use data to plan ( though less by the ICT Unit itself!) • Deployment and costing models to be finalised • Pre-secondary level also needs to be tackled

7. Output 1 – Baseline study (e-readiness of educational institutions to inform planning) • Policy guidelines to be implemented • Framework needed

8. Output 2: Revised Education Sector Plan to include ICTE + Baseline data provided good justification on issues + Feedback into ESP Process as spearheaded by PBME + Gap analysis provided good input for projections • Not all feedback incorporated – still needs to be done in detailed workplan (yet to be developed by the MoE) • Indicators and M&E capacities to be built in house (projected but not yet done) • +/- Link to UIS – how to collaborate to build capacities in PBME

9. Output 3 : Realistic and comprehensive deployment models +/-Baseline data available but under utilized • Deployment model for SHS and other levels not finalised • TCO still to be developed for SHS

10. Output 4: Build capacity at the MoE/GES + Participation in AKE raised general awareness on issues related to ICT and Assessment ( better coordination and collaboration with WAEC) + Some activities consolidated e.g. CRDD; also Division has been implementing what has been learnt • SpED (Inclusive Education) : change of direction by Division, promised deliverables not achieved • ICT Unit : capacity lost through staff transfer; back to the beginning !

11. Output 4: Build capacity at the MoE/GES • Strategy workshop on ICTE and policy to be implemented ( funds secured)

12. Output 5: Transition Country Engagement + Internal review completed • Findings not yet shared with MoE • External review to be done +/- Transition happening by virtue of GeSCI’s involvement in other activities (next slide) • Still needs to be formally agreed • Balance ICTE vs. E ( diversification vs. opportunity) • Funding models (in country staff + external GeSCI staff) • Programmes vs. projects • Expected period of engagement

13. Not projected but… + USAID Support • Internet access for senior high schools • Largest PPP to date on an area within ICTE • USAID USD 1 million over 2 years • GeSCI part of support paid by USAID USD 230,000 over 2 years + WB support re Skills and Technology Development • Multi-sectoral including IT ( skills development – post primary) • USD 32,000 + paid by WB over 4 months + high possibility for longer term extension • Other donor support possible via COTVET : Danida, AfDB, JICA, CIDA • Implications for GeSCI to be discussed in 2010 plan

14. Conclusion… • Limited success : • absorption and planning capacity of the MoE at this time very low • Funds to implement programme activities needed • ICTs remain a priority only in rhetoric • Some interest being shown by DPs but greater support needed if we expect some systematic changes • Number of previous strategies ‘dusted off’ and represented – e.g. Steering Committee on ICTE

15. Conclusion… • Opportunities: • STI (short and long term funding potential) • Focus on education, innovation and research • Parallel to our strategic foci in GeSCI + other DPs e.g. SIDA , AfDB etc. • Tapping into project funding available at the local level • USAID willing to support a number of pillars within the ICTE framework

16. Conclusion… • Reflections around OM • Confession: not as rigorous as I should have been  though did try to reflect within those parameters However noted: • Boundary partners have changed