The GEAP Master Plan provides a vehicle to achieve the vision of the MoE and the Goal of the project over the next five years. The primary purpose is to increase access to secondary education in two regions, Linden and Corriverton, as pilot schemes which should inform replication at a national level. Issues of transition will be systematically recorded as will strategies to raise levels of student achievement. These will be fed into a national debate on raising the quality of secondary education for all.
The Plan takes account of the local, regional and national context of education and the management and administrative capability to deliver it.
The MoE vision is "to provide equal access to all Guyanese children and young people to quality education". The project goal supports the vision since it is "to provide sustainable improvements in educational quality and access for all children in Guyana, particularly the poorest". Both statements recognise the right of all to be able to gain access to secondary education, and the need to provide high quality teaching and learning in schools and colleges which are managed and resourced efficiently by teams of well trained staff at all levels.
The plan sets out to achieve the goal and purpose through a series of seven areas of activity or ‘outputs’. Each output has one or more key objectives, and a series of activities to meet the key objective. Each output has an action plan in a format which dovetails with those used in the MoE - targets, activities to be undertaken, responsibility, timescale, key results, risks and assumptions. A separate action plan is included for monitoring procedures.
The seven outputs are:
The plan also includes Gantt Charts to indicate the precise sequence and timescale of each activity. These will be updated as the project proceeds.
This Master Plan has been developed through a participative process with stakeholders. Consultations and discussions have been ongoing since January 1999 to prepare a final draft to be submitted to DFIDC by the beginning of July 1999. To date the process of drafting the plan has included:
This final draft of the Master Plan contains a brief contextual analysis and statement of overall strategy which is followed by:
In the Project Submission PEC (98) 18 para 6.1.1 it is stated that the "level of risk in terms of probability and impact is generally clustered along the low axis and that where impact is high, probability is low or medium."
The risks may have been deemed low but difficulties of implementation are considerable and clearly need addressing in the development and management of this Master Plan. There are four main areas that require attention.
There are three different parties with particular responsibility for decision making and effective delivery:
Mechanisms for ensuring facilitation of inputs and timely implementation of the project will require close and harmonious liaison amongst all of these parties.
There are major initiatives within the education sector being implemented by different donor agencies, those of most relevance to GEAP being:
There is considerable overlap and potential for duplication of efforts with these projects as well as great potential for collaborative work. SSRP and GEAP, for example, have a common goal of preparing for a national transition to GSS and similar inputs are being delivered in different pilot schools except for one school, MacKenzie High School, which is working with both projects. Mechanisms for ensuring complementarity of these initiatives need to be continuously reviewed in order to ensure a smooth national process of replication and sustainability.
GEAP has seven project outputs, all of which are closely entwined throughout the project cycle. However all projects outputs appear to be at risk through a change of policy regarding the Central Tender Board. In para 4.4.2 (opus cit.) it was stated that the GoG " has agreed to waive any requirements for the Central Tender Board to undertake separate evaluation of contract bids." This waiver has been withdrawn and the experience of other donors suggests that this is a possible area of delay in infrastructure development. This in turn has implications for other outputs such as delaying access for a number of students who should be transferred to GSS, teacher recruitment, training and resource provision. It is also likely to dampen the enthusiasm for participation by local communities in school improvement planning.
"There is an adequate state of morale within the teaching service" (para 6.2 opus cit.)
"Supervision seems generally satisfactory and promotion seems to be largely based on merit" (para 6.3 opus cit.)
"There seemed to be few industrial relations problems at the time of analysis" (para 9.10 opus cit.)
Recent events in Guyana have unfortunately contradicted the optimism exhibited in the institutional appraisal of the PEC. Teachers have recently completed a two week strike (21st May 1999) and are going to arbitration to settle their demands, while the GoG and the public service are still in the midst of an eight week strike (22nd June 1999). The political and economic situation is currently impacting on project activities and remains a serious risk for the future.
There are three key and unresolved issues which need to be addressed as part of the overall project strategy.
In spite of the difficulties outlined above there is undoubtedly a high level of motivation and a genuine desire for the change and reforms among education officers, headteachers, parents and communities within the two target regions. The Master Plan contains thrusts to maintain this motivation and expedite the change process:
Key activities and deliverables in the areas of training, provision of learning resources, building community involvement and accessing of mini-project funding are all scheduled to commence at the beginning of the school year 1999/2000. In addition, the initial provision of computer hardware, software and training has been brought forward to January 2000.
Given the time that will be required to enact change at national level, initial concentration in the GEAP change process will be focussed at the school level. Activities will be supported to develop school/community links increase community awareness and appreciation of schools. To further support this, training will be provided in School Improvement Planning in September of 1999 with an emphasis on engaging the community in the process.
Hideki Mori of the World Bank was quoted as saying, "the GEAP scheme is using a lot of the design features of the SSRP" (Guyana Chronicle May 24th 1999). While SSRP and GEAP have similar goal outcomes and GEAP will utilise the Form 1-3 examinations and the SIP approach, GEAP also intends engaging in specific activities that are distinct. These include activities related to special educational needs and the Education Access Fund, and the predominant emphasis will be placed on raising student achievement levels in literacy and numeracy.
Information will be gathered to enhance the understanding of both the ability and social background of those students who will be entering the secondary schools throughout the project cycle. A needs analysis of literacy and numeracy will be undertaken in the top two years of feeder primary schools to help with curriculum continuity and a study will be made of other factors which can help pupils move smoothly from school to school.
The project relies heavily on having a full complement of VSOs in place by September 1999. Should there be a shortfall in VSO placements the project will engage local staff to provide specific training inputs and resources and will support these activities with consultancy time as required.
The Regional Advisers are contracted to the project until December 2001 and the VSOs for a two-year period commencing between March and September 1999. If project activities are to be sustained until December 2003 and beyond the MoE will need to ensure that personnel are in place and ready to take on responsibilities when RAs and VSOs leave the project. This is illustrated graphically in the Activity Charts and has been drawn to the attention of the MoE and the Project Steering Committee.