1 / 16

Ghana – 2009 Programme Review

Ghana – 2009 Programme Review. GeSCI Team Meeting Feb. 2010. Current Context –Post Evaluation. General programme implementation literally at a standstill: Changes in senior decision makers Centralised decisions via the DM’s Office

sani
Download Presentation

Ghana – 2009 Programme Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related