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 Now…Evolving… -1 st :MoE -2 nd :GES (and Agencies) -3 rd : Development Partners - 1 st : Development Partners -2 nd : MoE -3 rd : GES (and Agencies)