STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 CLOSE-OUT REPORT 
USAID/GHANA – February 2005
I. BASIC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 
Strategic Objective: Increasing the Effectiveness of the Primary Education System 
SO Numbers: 641-0128 / 641-0129 
SO Approval Date: September 26, 1996 
Performance Period: FY 1996 to FY 20051
Geographic Area: Ghana (countrywide program) 
Initial Obligation: $8,397,000 (FY 1996) 
Last Obligation: $7,223,731 (FY 2004) 
Total Cost: $57,867,000 ($51,867,000 in project assistance and $6,000,000 in non￾project assistance as of September 2004) 
Estimated Host Country 
Contributions: $17,700,000 
Implementing Academy for Educational Development (AED) 
Partners: (1) Educational Development Center (EDC); (2) Catholic Relief Services
(CRS); (3) The Mitchell Group (TMG); (4) Harvard Institute for 
International Development (HIID); (5) International Foundation for 
Education and Self-Help (IFESH); (6) Education Assessment and 
Research Center (EARC); (7) World Education. 
II. HISTORY OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2 (SO2 or QUIPS) 
USAID’s Strategic Objective 2, Increasing the Effectiveness of the Primary Education System, was a 
program designed to help Ghana’s education system progressively address district and school level 
constraints to quality education. SO2 was also known as the Quality Improvement in Primary Schools
(QUIPS) program. QUIPS became a relatively complex program that combined project assistance and 
non-project (i.e., budgetary) assistance to support Ghana’s constitutionally mandated program of free, 
compulsory, universal basic education (fCUBE). QUIPS worked in collaboration with the Ministry of 
Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS)2 and the Ghana Education Service (GES—the implementing 
agency of the Ministry responsible for pre-tertiary education) to achieve the objective of increasing
effectiveness in the primary education system. QUIPS was designed to develop, demonstrate and 
replicate the conditions and processes necessary for improving school standards and ultimately pupil 
learning throughout the education system by establishing Partnership School/Communities (PSCs). 
QUIPS began on September 26, 1996. Program activities ended on September 30, 2004. QUIPS built on 
USAID's prior experience in Ghana in the Primary Education Program (PREP). PREP was a $35 million 
program embarked upon in 1991. It was designed to strengthen the policy and institutional frameworks 
required to improve the primary education system by addressing key economic, financial, institutional, 
and social constraints. Knowledge gained from PREP provided the foundation and rationale for the 
development of the QUIPS program based on targeted interventions at the school and policy levels to 
improve and implement initiatives that support quality education. 
The primary focus of the QUIPS program was on developing school quality standards through a Model 
Schools Program through project assistance that could deliver cost effective quality education replicable 
 1
 Program activities ended on September 30, 2004 but QUIPS will not formally end until June 30, 2005 in order to 
complete evaluation related activities. 2 The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS) changed its name to the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 
January 2005.
on a national scale while at the same time working on national level policy and program reforms through 
non-project assistance to create a more supportive environment for quality primary education. The three 
original key program components included: (1) increasing community participation; (2) improving the 
quality of teaching and learning; and (3) improving education management. As the program evolved, two 
additional components were added to address girls’ education and HIV/AIDS prevention. 
The QUIPS program started out relatively simply as two projects, but soon mushroomed into a complex 
amalgam of several projects, some of which were overlapping. The first two projects included: (1) 
Improving Learning through Partnerships (ILP); and (2) Community School Alliances (CSA). The 
QUIPS/ILP project proposed: (1) improving the learning environment and effective teaching and 
supervision at the school and classroom level; and (2) improving educational policies and programming at 
the national level. The QUIPS/CSA project proposed: (1) improving community participation in primary 
schools at the local level; and (2) training education managers to use data for decision making at the 
district level. 
The ILP project was originally intended to be implemented nationwide by the Academy for Education 
Development (AED) through a five-year contract. The CSA project was originally intended to be
implemented nationwide by the Educational Development Center (EDC) through a five-year cooperative 
agreement. However, when it became clear that it would take too long to reach the 330 anticipated 
schools, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) was provided a grant to operate in the North. Because they 
already had a school feeding program in the northern regions funded through PL-480, they were able to 
jump start operations. 
In addition, the QUIPS program needed assistance in developing the capacity to monitor and evaluate 
primary education programs. The Mitchell Group (TMG), with assistance from their sub-contractor the 
Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), was awarded a two-year contact to manage and 
coordinate the monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of results of the program as well as build 
capacity primarily at the district level to collect and process school information. 
About halfway through the QUIPS program, two additional projects were added to address issues in girls’ 
education and HIV/AIDS. The Strategies for Advancing Girls’ Education (SAGE) project implemented a 
three-pronged girls’ education strategy, including system, school and community support activities. This 
project was implemented by AED. The Strengthening HIV/AIDS Partnerships in Education (SHAPE) 
project worked with local NGOs to strengthen and support HIV/AIDS awareness programs in junior and 
senior secondary schools (JSS and SSS). This project was implemented by World Education. 
Finally, a decision was made to give a grant to International Foundation for Education and Self-Help 
(IFESH) to improve teaching/learning opportunities for improved literacy. IFESH implemented the Primary 
School Teacher Training Project (PSTTP), which provided American volunteers the opportunity to come 
to Ghana to transfer their skills in English language, methodology and curriculum development at Teacher 
Training Colleges in Ghana. 
QUIPS has been succeeded by a new education strategic objective that was approved in May 2003 as
part of the Ghana Mission's Country Strategic Plan for 2004-2010—SO8: Improved quality of and access 
to basic education. SO8 builds on the successes and lessons learned from QUIPS. 
III. CHANGES IN THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 
The overarching objective of the SO2/QUIPS program was to increase the effectiveness of the primary 
education system. The strategic objective had the following original seven Intermediate Results: 
• IR 2.1: Improved environment for learning
• IR 2.2: More effective teaching 
• IR 2.3: Greater community involvement 
2
• IR 2.4: Primary education curriculum revised and instructional materials developed and tested
along with assessment standards and procedures 
• IR 2.5: Education personnel management system improved 
• IR 2.6: Capacity and authority of districts and schools increased 
• IR 2.7: School quality information and analysis improved 
Based on the experience of the implementing partners in the first few years of the project, there was a 
streamlining of the intermediate results of the strategic objective. One of the major factors which 
influenced this change was the March 2001 QUIPS Mid-Term Assessment, which recommended 
modifying the implementation of the management component to make it more focused on specific district 
education management improvements that would make the results more sustainable. As a result, QUIPS 
consolidated its original seven intermediate results into the following four intermediate results: 
• IR 2.1: Improved teaching and supervision 
• IR 2.2: Improved education management 
• IR 2.3: Increased community involvement 
• IR 2.4: Improved learning environment 
IV. TOTAL SO2 COSTS 
The figures below show that $53,000,000 was originally obligated under SO2, of which $35,000,000 
(66%) was in the form of project assistance, with the remaining $18,000,000 (34%) consisting of non￾project assistance. Non-project assistance was established to support Ghana’s efforts to reform the 
primary education system and provide encouragement for policy change. However, the MOEYS/GES did 
not have the capacity to absorb all the non-project assistance funds. That is, non-project assistance was 
originally intended to provide financing to the education sector through released tranches based on 
evidence that negotiated benchmarks were being met. Conditions for the release of tranches were to be 
determined annually by MOEYS/GES and USAID through a review process of the mutually agreed on 
benchmarks. However, a high level of turnover of division heads within MOEYS/GES over the life of the 
program meant that this annual review process became non-functional and that senior division heads 
within MOEYS/GES were never fully cognizant of the conditions and requirements for the release of the 
tranches. As a result, through several amendments between 1999 and 2003, $12,000,000 was 
transferred from Non-Project Assistance to Project Assistance. Over the life of the QUIPS program, an 
additional $4,867,000 was added to project assistance. Thus, project assistance rose from 64% to 90% of 
all funds.3
The total cost share contribution of the Government of Ghana was estimated at more than $17,700,000 
and included in-kind contributions. (Figures in the tables below do not include cost share data and are 
current as of 09/30/04.) 
Total SO2 Costs Original 
(FY 1996) 
 Actual 
(FY 2004) 
Project Assistance $35,000,000 66.0% $51,867,000 89.6%
Non-Project Assistance $18,000,000 34.0% $6,000,000 10.4%
TOTAL SO2 FUNDS $53,000,000 $57,867,000 
V. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE PARTNERS AND ACTIVITIES 
Three primary recipients made up the original SO2 partner consortia. They included: the Academy for 
Educational Development (AED); Educational Development Center (EDC); and Catholic Relief Services
(CRS). There were also several contractors who were also SO2 partners and included: The Mitchell 
 3
 See Annex 1 for a more detailed breakdown of the distribution of funds over the life of the project. 
3
Group (TMG) with sub-contractor Harvard; the International Foundation for Education and Self-Help 
(IFESH); and Education Assessment and Research Center (EARC). When two additional components 
were added to the SO2 following the mid-term assessment, AED became involved in addressing girls’ 
education and World Education got involved in the HIV/AIDS prevention component. 
Academy for Educational Development (AED): AED implemented the Improving Learning through 
Partnerships (ILP) project in 86 districts in the south. AED focused on five activities: (1) implementing 
relevant curriculum and using instructional materials at the school level; (2) providing in-service teacher 
professional development; (3) improving district management, instructional management, and school 
administration; (4) helping to improve the school’s physical infrastructure; and (5) administering district 
grants to enable districts to extend QUIPS ‘best practices’ to non-partnership schools and communities. 
When gender was added after the mid-term assessment, AED also implemented the Strategies for 
Advancing Girls’ Education (SAGE) project whose primary activity was to mobilize public and private 
sector constituencies to improve the educational participation of girls. 
Educational Development Center (EDC): EDC implemented the Community School Alliances (CSA) 
project in the same 86 southern districts as AED. EDC focused on three activities: (1) increasing
community awareness, responsibility and advocacy for education; (2) strengthening community school 
support organizations; and (3) enhancing community participation in designing, implementing, and 
monitoring school improvement efforts. Following QUIPS Mid-Term Assessment, EDC added a fourth 
activity: building the capacity of the District Education Office (DEO) to undertake monitoring and 
evaluation of education programs. 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS): In 24 districts in the north of Ghana, CRS implemented both the 
community-based and school-based interventions as well as the district management training component 
of the QUIPS Program. Simultaneously, CRS also implemented a school feeding program in the same 24
districts using PL-480 funding whose aim was the promotion of school enrollment and attendance, 
especially among girls. 
The Mitchell Group (TMG): TMG, with assistance from its sub-contractor, Harvard Institute for 
International Development (HIID), managed and coordinated the monitoring, evaluation and 
dissemination of results of the QUIPS program as well as built capacity primarily at the district level to 
collect and process school information. The Mitchell Group’s Performance Monitoring and Evaluation 
Project (PME) had two objectives: 1) to design and implement a monitoring and evaluation system for 
QUIPS; and 2) to assist the MOEYS in developing capacity for monitoring and evaluating the primary 
education program. 
International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH): IFESH implemented a program that 
was intended to bring experienced teachers from the United States to teach English as a second 
language and promote the use of teaching and learning materials at eight Teacher Training Colleges and 
in the Department of Primary Education at the University of Cape Coast. They had two main activities: (1) 
Teacher Training College based interventions focusing on the provision of skills in English language, 
methodology and curriculum development; and (2) Visiting basic education schools for teaching practice 
observations and providing guidance to teacher trainees. 
World Education: When HIV/AIDS prevention was added as a separate component after the mid-term 
assessment, World Education implemented the Strengthening HIV/AIDS Partnerships in Education 
(SHAPE) project whose primary activity was strengthening the capacity of Ghanaian civil society 
organizations (CSOs) and the MOEYS/GES School Health Education Program (SHEP) to more 
effectively plan, design, and implement innovative activities that mitigate the impact of the AIDS epidemic
on Ghanaian schools. 
4
VI. IMPACT OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES 
Overall, QUIPS worked collaboratively with the MOEYS/GES, districts, communities, and schools 
nationwide. QUIPS supported direct interventions in select communities and schools within all districts by 
providing in-service training to teachers, head teachers, circuit supervisors, and district officers. It 
increased community awareness through the support it gave to community school organizations. It 
contributed to improving the management capacity at the district level by providing training in planning, 
budgeting and financial management of resources. It enhanced the school environment by providing 
grants for the implementation of school improvement infrastructure activities. 
Each year approximately sixty schools and communities were selected by MOEYS/GES to participate in 
the QUIPS program. Each grouping or cohort received two years of interventions, which occurred at the 
community, school and district levels. These interventions promoted an enabling environment, improved 
classroom instruction, improved school and district management, and promoted community participation. 
By 2004, QUIPS had provided direct interventions in approximately three model schools and associated 
communities in all of Ghana’s 110 districts.4
QUIPS improved student learning and performance, and operated effectively in the schools and 
classrooms where the QUIPS program had been introduced. There was also an increase in community 
participation and a sense of ownership among community school organizations as well as an increase in 
teacher knowledge and motivation. This “Model School” approach worked in the communities and 
schools where the QUIPS program had been implemented. 
School Management Committees (SMC) became more pro-active in dealing with District Education 
Offices (DEOs) because of QUIPS training. However, although some District Directors of Education 
(DDEs) acknowledged school/community level improvements brought about by QUIPS, DDEs lacked 
initiative to apply recognized QUIPS-induced gains to non-QUIPS schools. They lacked an appreciation
or understanding at the district level of the benefits of building community involvement into school 
improvement endeavors. 
The March 2001 Mid-Term Assessment suggested that the QUIPS program was less effective at the 
district and national levels than it was at the school and community levels. Lack of organizational change 
of District Education Offices under the fCUBE initiative meant that DEO operational interactions with 
schools and community school organizations remained a challenge. At the national level, a lack of 
communication and coordination with the MOEYS/GES resulted in a negligible influence of non-project 
assistance on national policies and programs aimed at nurturing a more conducive environment 
supportive of quality education. The issue of whether changes in implementing partners’ activities 
remedied this condition will be addressed in the final SO2 evaluation.5
VII. SUSTAINABILITY OF SO2 ACTIVITIES 
QUIPS program activities just ended on September 30, 2004. Therefore, it is too early to judge the 
degree to which activities undertaken by USAID’s implementing partners under the QUIPS program were 
sustainable. Some of the activities may not yield results for years, which makes determining sustainability 
at this stage a premature conjecture. However, it is clear from both the QUIPS Mid-Term Assessment and 
implementing partners’ final reports that QUIPS was extremely effective at the community and school 
levels, reaching upwards to the district level. But without the explicit and proactive support of the senior 
leadership of the MOEYS/GES as well as the coordinated support of donors and civil society in the 
financing and reform of basic education, it is difficult to say whether any activities undertaken by 
programs like QUIPS are sustainable at this juncture in the reform of basic education. An issue that the 
final SO2 evaluation will address is whether QUIPS activities may be sustainable given that national and 
district systems and resources for service delivery are not yet fully functional. Successful implementation 
 4
 There are now 138 districts. 
5
 See Annex 2 for a more detailed discussion of the impact of implementing partner projects. 
5
of the fCUBE strategic objective of strengthening management efficiency across all sectors is a critical 
condition for sustaining any donor funded interventions at the district and national levels, including 
QUIPS. But it is beyond the scope of this SO2 Close-out Report to determine whether fCUBE’s 
management efficiency objective has been successfully implemented. This is an issue that requires more 
in-depth analysis that may be more appropriately performed during the final evaluation of the program. 
VIII. SUMMARY AND USEFULNESS OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 
Performance indicators for SO2 were altered after the QUIPS Mid-Term Assessment in March 2001 in 
order to focus explicit attention on measurable change in the four impact areas: teaching practices, 
community involvement, supervision and management, and the learning environment. The following
performance indicators are the final ones developed for SO2.6
• SO2: Increasing the Effectiveness of the Primary Education System
Indicator 1: Percentage of students in partnership schools passing criterion referenced
test in English and mathematics (national/partnership comparison). 
Indicator 2: Percentage of increased pupil learning in mathematics, English literacy and 
spoken English in partnership schools. 
Indicator 3: Percentage of partnership communities demonstrating sustained community 
involvement in education process. 
Indicator 4: Percentage of pupil dropout in partnership schools compared to national rate. 
• IR 2.1: Improved teaching and supervision 
Indicator 2.1.1: Percentage of teachers using pupil-focused instructional practices in
partnership schools. 
Indicator 2.1.2: Percentage of teachers using effective classroom management techniques in 
partnership schools. 
Indicator 2.1.3: Percentage of head teachers using effective supervisory techniques in 
partnership schools. 
• IR 2.2: Improved education management 
Indicator 2.2.1: Number of QUIPS schools that demonstrate the ability to effectively manage 
material resources. 
Indicator 2.2.2: Number of partnership districts that demonstrate the ability to undertake a 
systematic process for planning and prioritizing resource allocations for 
education projects. 
• IR 2.3: Increased community involvement 
Indicator 2.3.1: Percentage of communities active in school decision-making in partnership
schools. 
Indicator 2.3.2: Percentage of communities using participatory methodologies in initiating 
school projects in partnership schools. 
• IR 2.4: Improved learning environment 
Indicator 2.4.1: Number of schools adopting techniques to promote equity in the partnership 
districts.
Indicator 2.4.2: Number of communities and schools in partnership districts implementing a 
community-school improvement plan (C-SIP). 
Substantial programmatic results were achieved under QUIPS. These achievements were well captured 
by the results indicators associated with SO2. SO2. A major reason for the success of the indicators is
 6
 See Annex 3 for a more detailed discussion of the performance indicators. 
6
that evolved as the SO2 program evolved. The implementing partners were able to continuously measure 
these IRs throughout the life of the QUIPS program. The indicators are useful for assessing performance 
management because they address the key issues related to improving the quality of education in 
schools. They progressively address district and school-level constraints in four areas: classroom 
instruction, school and district management, community participation, and enabling environment. 
IX. LESSONS LEARNED 
The general approach of the QUIPS Model School worked effectively. In the communities and 
schools where the QUIPS program had been involved, the holistic Model School approach resulted in a 
collective school/community vision for education. There was strong community participation and 
ownership as well as increased teacher knowledge and motivation, which led to measurable quality 
results and enhanced pupil learning. Parents felt more confident and acquired a sense of ownership and 
involvement. 
The use of Appreciative Inquiry as a framework for improving educational quality was a key
component in school change. In the Appreciative Inquiry approach, the emphasis is on identifying 
strengths and assets rather than problems, building a vision of what is possible and making a plan for 
change. Teachers, head teachers, parents and pupils were active participants in the creation of their 
schools as places of growth and learning. In this approach all participants had a role to play in creating 
change. 
The school-based INSET (In-Service Education for Teachers) approach was a key mechanism for 
teacher improvement. Applying the Appreciative Inquiry approach to INSET activities had a powerful 
impact on teacher change and school development. Use of District Teacher Support Teams (DTSTs) was 
also important to sustainability. Follow-up visits to schools between in-service trainings need to be built 
into any future teacher improvement strategy. Teacher Training College (TTC) staff provides an important 
resource in developing and conducting in-service teacher professional development. 
Micro-grants are an effective means of improving the school learning environment. The purchase 
of school furniture, textbooks, exercise books and sports equipment had a very positive effect on teacher 
morale and improved the quality of teaching and learning which, in turn, resulted in increased enrollments 
and community support for schools. 
Use of non-project assistance is not an effective means of strengthening the policy/management
environment of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS). Non-project assistance was 
supposed to provide financing to the government budget to support the reform of the primary education 
system and encourage policy changes. However, a lack of sustained policy dialogue between USAID and 
the MOEYS/GES due to the high level of turnover of division heads within MOEYS/GES meant that the 
government was unable to absorb and use the non-project assistance funds either efficiently or 
effectively. This resulted in the need to reprogram funds from non-project assistance to project assistance 
in order to target specific needs related to the QUIPS program in the field. 
Close collaboration with MOEYS/GES staff in materials development was critical to sustainability.
Provision of training and support of MOEYS/GES staff in the use of new materials was an effective part of 
the overall strategy. 
In order to be effective, management training needs to be very practical and applied to tasks at
hand. Using the administration of infrastructure development grants as a mechanism for training the 
District Education Office and District Assembly was important for building senior management teamwork.
School infrastructure improvement projects were most effective when their scope was restricted to 
available resources. Cost-savings were achieved in those cases where a partnership approach through 
community cash and in-kind contributions was used and District Assembly contributions were provided
upfront. 
7
The district grant mechanism provided an important vehicle for developing decentralized capacity
in implementing educational reforms. District grant program resources were most effective when
focused on a limited set of schools and activities. Having regional education offices play an 
oversight/support role in district grant programs was also an important element of success in developing
decentralized capacity. 
Interventions used to build participation, management, organization, budgeting, planning and 
communication capacity among different community groups was critical to sustaining community
involvement and ownership in support of education. QUIPS worked intensively with 439 communities
throughout 110 districts in Ghana, resulting in significant and sustained improvements across all focus 
areas of the project. QUIPS also worked with the GES to provide a modified approach to more than 2,200 
additional communities and management training for School Management Committees (SMC) and Parent 
Teacher Association (PTA) executives from more than 9,000 communities across the country. 
Working with all stakeholders in the community, including teachers, to develop and implement 
School Performance Improvement Plans (SPIPs) provided a realistic roadmap for improving 
school quality in community-identified priority areas. This approach paved the way for capacity 
development training of SMC and PTA executives and the provision of micro-grants to community 
organizations (supplemented by internally generated resources) to support the successful completion of 
SPIPs targets. 
Collaborating with MOEYS/GES education personnel at national, regional, and district levels on 
development of SMC/PTA project materials and intervention strategies led to capacity building of 
MOEYS/GES to replicate and mainstream SMC/PTA initiatives at both the community and district 
level. Over the life of the QUIPS program, there was a consistent transfer of implementation 
responsibilities to MOEYS/GES partners. For example, the GES took the majority of the responsibility for 
the implementation of the SMC/PTA Training Expansion Program and shared responsibility for the 
training delivery of the Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Building Program, which were two activities 
that benefited the entire country. To support this transfer the QUIPS program provided regular and 
targeted capacity building in the areas of community mobilization, SMC/PTA training, and monitoring and 
evaluation. In the last year of the program, for example, more than 14,000 teachers, 2,200 MOEYS/GES 
officers, and 43,000 community representatives received training. 
Building the capacity of local NGOs and working with the National Service Secretariat (NSS) 
strengthened Ghana’s social development professional resource base. The QUIPS program
partnered with the NSS to train and post more than 350 university graduates as community development 
workers with several local Ghanaian NGOs to deliver community-based education improvement programs
and with an education assessment NGO to design and implement a Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity 
Building Program. 
Working with MOEYS/GES to develop innovative, accessible tools and methodologies for the 
design, implementation and assessment of participatory community development and district 
management initiatives developed effective and transportable materials. The materials, which 
included manuals, instruments, and information, education and communication (IEC) tools, have been 
adopted as official documents by the MOE/GES. 
By serving as a ‘testing ground’ for the development of innovative strategies for achieving the 
goals of fCUBE, QUIPS influenced operational policies of the MOEYS/GES for improving 
community participation in education. By partnering with the MOEYS/GES in the design and delivery 
of project activities and materials, the QUIPS program generated ownership within the government that 
led to the mainstreaming of the SMC/PTA training program and materials, the adoption of a shared format 
for all school-community level planning, and the creation of a post of Community Participation Coordinator 
(CPC) at the District Education Office (DEO). Through these and other activities, QUIPS advanced the 
dialog on the importance of community participation in education at the national level, garnered the 
support of many top government officials, and changed the way in which GES interacts with the
community. 
8
Incentives are key to adapting new practices. A key assumption of the ILP project was that teachers 
and GES staff would be intrinsically motivated to apply new ideas, innovations, and approaches in 
carrying out their professional responsibilities. QUIPS’ experience under ILP suggests that there were a 
considerable number of teachers and other GES professional staff at the district, regional, and national 
level who were unwilling to put in the extra effort to adopt new practices without the provision of tangible 
inducements, such as additional benefits in the form of higher levels of per diem to participate in training, 
other in-kind benefits (e.g., study tours), awards for outstanding performance, opportunities for further 
formal education, and performance-based promotions. 
Professional commitment and competence leads to system-wide support of teachers’ 
professional development. The ILP strategy relied on strong circuit supervisor and head teacher 
support as mechanisms for ensuring that new teacher practices and school/classroom management 
practices were institutionalized. QUIPS’ experience under ILP suggests that a considerable number of 
circuit supervisors were not able to fulfill adequately this support role. In some cases, the cause was 
attributable to logistical constraints (i.e., transportation or payment of travel costs). In a substantial 
number of cases, however, it appeared that circuit supervisors were not sufficiently committed or lacked
the necessary professional skills to provide professional support to teachers and schools. 
Teacher supervision results in more effective use of instructional time. Experience in the ILP project 
suggests that GES, district education offices, and head teachers should focus more on ensuring that 
instructional time in the classroom is used efficiently and effectively. This is based on impromptu and 
regular school visits which revealed a pattern of teacher absenteeism, lack of punctuality, and inefficient 
use of classroom instructional time. This requires support supervision, as well as a readiness by 
authorities to take necessary disciplinary action when teachers are not performing up to standards. 
High score on sustainability index is a strong predictor of continued growth. The goal of the CSA 
project was that each partnership community show a moderate to high sustainability level by the end of 
the project. The sustainability level represents an estimate of a community’s probability of sustaining a 
process or result. QUIPS developed an index to predict the extent to which changes that had taken place 
within the community would not only be sustained, but that the community would continue to move in a 
more positive direction. QUIPS found that 72% of communities from all cohorts achieved a moderate to 
high sustainability level by the end of project interventions, with more than half scoring in the high 
sustainability range while only 13% were determined to have no sustainability potential. 
National level institutionalization leads to sustainable CSA Intervention Schemes and Tools. At the 
national level, the MOEYS/GES institutionalized many of the materials and processes that had been 
developed over the course of the CSA project. MOEYS/GES adopted the SMC/PTA Handbook as official 
SMC and PTA materials and subsequently conducted training for all school-communities in Ghana using 
GES trained district-level personnel. MOEYS/GES carried out community mobilization activities and 
developed School Performance Improvement Plans (SPIPs) in at least 20 school-communities in each 
district using the CSA developed PLA process. MOEYS/GES established Community Participation 
Coordinator (CPC) positions within each district to facilitate the implementation of community participation 
activities. The National Service Secretariat (NSS) incorporated the CSA Facilitator Community
Mobilization Manual into its training of National Service Volunteers. MOEYS/GES requested NSS to 
assign at least two NSS personnel to each district to support community mobilization activities and 
supported these assignments with district budget allocations. Several District Education Offices (DEOs) 
developed strategies for replicating CSA activities in select school-communities. These DEOs were able 
to identify funding from their district director budgets, district assembly common funds, and donor 
institutions. 
Effective promotion of girls’ education requires a multi-sector approach. In order to be sustainable, 
effective promotion of girls’ education cannot be limited to a single organization or sector of society. 
Several factors impinge on the promotion of girls’ education. To be able to address the issues effectively 
and achieve the objectives of the project, a variety of relevant organizations and sectors must be
engaged. 
9
HIV/AIDS awareness training in education requires strong leadership support. Sustainability 
requires: (1) developing special criteria to identify trainers (e.g., a broad cascade approach); (2) providing 
a series of intensive training activities for those persons who serve as trainers; and (3) providing special 
training to district directors and head teachers of SSS, JSS and primary schools to ensure that they 
provide the leadership support necessary for effective training is in place. 
X. RELATED STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS 
“QUIPS Joint Program Description (Revised Final Copy).” Lisa Franchett, EHRDO, USAID/Ghana. April 
2002. 
“QUIPS Mid-Term Assessment.” Authored by: Margaret Bonner, Cameron Bonner, Joy du Plessis, Ash 
Hartwell, and Celia Marshall. March 2001. 
“Strategic Objective No. 2: Increasing the Effectiveness of Primary Education.” Peter Kresge, SO2 Team 
Leader. USAID/Ghana. September 26, 1996. 
XI. CLOSE-OUT REPORTING INSTRUMENTS 
“Community School Alliances Project Final Report.” Submitted by EDC, Inc. December 1, 2004. Prepared 
by Kay Leherr, Kingsley Arkorful, Jerry Boardman and Ron Israel.
“Strengthening HIV/AIDS Partnerships in Education Project. Final Program Report.” Submitted by World 
Education. December 2004. 
“Close Out Report Quality Improvement of Primary Education (QUIPS).” Submitted by CRS/Ghana. 
December 2004. 
“Quality Improvement in Primary Education Schools. Improving Learning through Partnerships Project 
(QUIPS/ILP) Final Report Cooperative Agreement.” Submitted by AED. November 2004. 
“Strategies for Advancing Girls’ Education (SAGE) Ghana Project. Phase II. Final Report.” Submitted by 
AED. October 2004 
 “Quality Improvement in Primary Education Schools. Improving Learning through Partnerships Project 
(QUIPS/ILP) Final Report.” Submitted by AED. September 2003. 
“QUIPS/IFESH Annual Report. September 30, 2001 – August 31, 2002. Primary School Teacher Training 
Project Grant Extension for One Year. (New Focus).” Submitted by IFESH. 
XII. HUMAN RESOURCE CONTACTS 
Lisa Franchett, Supervisor Program Officer, USAID/DAKAR/PRM 
Email: lfranchett@usaid.gov. 
Tel. +221-869-6100. Ext. 3502 
Elsie Menorkpor, Education Development Specialist, USAID/ACCRA/EHRD 
Email: emenorkpor@usaid.gov. 
Tel. +233-21-228440. Ext. 213 
William Osafo, Education Development Specialist, USAID/ACCRA/EHRD 
Email: wosafo@usaid.gov. 
Tel. +233-21-228440. Ext. 203 
10
Annex 1: Distribution of Funds between Project Assistance and Non-Project Assistance over Time 
Date
Project 
Assistance 
Cumulative
Total 
Non Project 
Assistance 
Cumulative
Total 
Summary
Obligation per 
Amendment 
SOAG Obligation 
(Cumulative) 
Non Project 
Assistance 
Project 
Assistance 
Planned Life
of Project 
Funding 
 Original 5,897,000 2,500,000 8,397,000 8,397,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
06/26/1997 9,847,000 2,500,000 3,950,000 12,347,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
09/30/1997 9,847,000 6,500,000 4,000,000 16,347,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
09/30/1997 9,872,000 6,500,000 25,000 16,372,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
05/14/1998 14,672,000 6,500,000 4,800,000 21,172,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
09/30/1998 14,672,000 10,500,000 4,000,000 25,172,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
08/13/1999 22,267,000 10,500,000 7,595,000 32,767,000 18,000,000 35,000,000 53,000,000
06/06/2000 27,587,000 10,500,000 5,320,000 38,087,000 14,000,000 39,000,000 53,000,000
09/25/2000 27,587,000 10,500,000 0 38,087,000 14,000,000 39,000,000 53,000,000
03/23/2001 27,587,000 10,500,000 0 38,087,000 14,000,000 39,000,000 53,000,000
06/21/2001 33,444,000 10,500,000 5,857,000 43,944,000 14,000,000 50,750,000 64,750,000
07/17/2002 39,644,000 10,500,000 6,200,000 50,144,000 14,000,000 50,750,000 64,750,000
08/23/2002 44,144,000 6,000,000 0 50,144,000 9,500,000 55,250,000 64,750,000
09/27/2002 44,644,000 6,000,000 500,000 50,644,000 6,000,000 51,867,000 57,867,000
08/22/2003 51,867,000 6,000,000 7,223,000 57,867,000 6,000,000 51,867,000 57,867,000
11
Annex 2: Detailed Discussion of Impact of ILP and CSA Projects 
Impact of ILP—Improving Learning through Partnerships Project 
• Development of Curriculum and Instructional Materials: ILP worked collaboratively with GES to 
develop instructional support materials that complemented the new curriculum and syllabi and helped 
strengthen human resource capacity in these areas throughout the GES system. These materials 
were initially pilot–tested in QUIPS partnership schools and later adopted by non-partnership schools. 
• Promotion of In-Service Teacher Professional Development Program: A total of 275 schools in 
86 districts benefited from the in-service teacher professional development program. The overall 
effect on pupil learning and changes in teacher behavior and head teacher practices was very 
positive. 
• Improvement of Education Management: ILP supported the MOEYS’s commitment to 
decentralization by designing management training programs that built human capacity to plan and 
manage education resources more effectively at the district and school levels while also helping to 
refine and support implementation of policy initiatives at the national level. More than 700 GES 
officers in 86 districts benefited from a series of management training programs and their skills were 
directly applied in preparing district grant work plans. Some 550 trainers were trained to introduce 
supervisory reference manuals to head teachers and circuit supervisors throughout the country. A 
similar number were also trained to introduce GES’s new performance appraisal system from district 
to school level personnel (i.e., DEO staff, head teachers and teachers). 
• Introduction of District Grant Mechanism: The district management training strategy was 
redesigned to focus directly on practical management skills that could be applied in developing plans 
and then implementing, monitoring, and evaluating activities to be funded under the QUIPS district 
grant program. 
• School Infrastructure Improvement: ILP helped improve the school learning environment through 
rehabilitation and construction of school facilities in 275 partnership schools. Specific project activities 
that were undertaken included: the addition of 632 new classroom blocks, rehabilitation of 247 
existing blocks, building of 81 toilet facilities and teachers’ quarters, and the provision of classroom 
furniture. 
Impact of CSA—Community School Alliances Project 
• Community Level Impacts: CSA monitored project impact in the 347 communities where CSA 
operated. CSA worked with communities in six different cohorts, with each cohort receiving an
average of two years of support from the CSA project. Impact analysis of all cohorts indicated that 
significant improvement was achieved in nine focus areas. More than three-quarters of communities 
achieved high performance in the areas of participation (83%), empowerment (78%), gender (78%), 
and partnerships (75%). Almost two-thirds of the communities demonstrated high performance in the 
areas of management (73%) and resources (66%). At least half of the CSA communities achieved 
high performance in the areas of quality (62%), trust (61%), and transparency (50%). 
• District Level Impacts: Following the March 2001 Mid-Term Assessment of the QUIPS program, 
CSA implemented a Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Building program in all 110 districts. Each 
district participated in an 18-month training cycle that had three components: (1) residential M&E 
training; (2) residential computer training; and (3) on-site support training. The program focused on 
enhancing the use of indicators, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination, and 
use of information. Each district also received a computer system to support the implementation of 
M&E activities. Impact analysis revealed that the districts had substantial improvements in 
performance in all focus areas. 
12
Impact of SAGE—Strategies for Advancing Girls’ Education 
The Strategies for Advancing Girls’ Education (SAGE) project aimed to mobilize public and private sector
constituencies to improve the educational participation of girls. It worked with the education system and 
the community to promote values and skills, such as girls’ self-esteem, leadership, gender equity, safe 
schools and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. It also brought in the business sector and media 
to gain support for helping girls gain access to education, stay in school, and achieve. The SAGE project 
worked with the Peace Corps, Girls' Clubs, and the Girls Education Unit of the Ministry of Education, 
Youth and Sports in mobilizing local communities and to train both government officials and community 
organizations on issues of girls' education in 70 communities. SAGE also helped create a Media Task 
Force that produced a TV documentary on SAGE Ghana. 
Impact of SHAPE—Strengthening HIV/AIDS Partnerships in Education 
World Education’s efforts under SHAPE focused on: (1) building the capacity of the MOEYS/GES School 
Health Education Program (SHEP) and Ghanaian civil society organizations (CSOs) to effectively support 
HIV/AIDS prevention programs; (2) increasing the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of students, 
parents and teachers related to HIV/AIDS; (3) increasing the number of school-based activities related to 
HIV/AIDS education, prevention and support; (4) increasing the capacity of the education sector to 
respond to the epidemic; and (5) increasing the capacity of teacher training colleges to address 
HIV/AIDS. 
13
Annex 3: Detailed Discussion of Performance Indicators 
• Indicator SO2.1: Percentage of students in participating QUIPS schools passing Criterion 
Referenced Test (CRT) in English and Mathematics. 
The Criterion Referenced Test (CRT) was supposed to be a key performance indicator of the quality of 
teaching and learning as a measure of pupil learning outcomes. The CRT was designed to monitor 
national levels of attainment in Math and English among children completing six years of primary school. 
Results from this test were only available for the 1999 and 2000 academic years. MOEYS did not process 
or release data in subsequent years and finally stopped administering the test altogether because the 
results were not considered adequate measures of student progress. The CRT is now being replaced by 
a new minimum national standards test called BECAS, which is supported by USAID and is expected to 
be administered in June 2005. 
SO2.1--CRT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Mathematics
Planned n/a n/a 7.0% 9.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
Actual--National 2.7% n/a 4.0% 4.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Actual--QUIPS n/a n/a 7.7% 6.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
English
Planned n/a n/a 11.7% 13.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7%
Actual--National 6.2% n/a 8.7% 9.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Actual--QUIPS n/a n/a 14.7% 13.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
• Indicator SO2.2: Increased pupil learning in Mathematics, English literacy, and spoken English 
in partnership schools. 
The QUIPS achievement tests are aligned with the goals of the QUIPS program and are designed to 
track pupil learning growth over time. By supplementing the CRT with the QUIPS achievement tests, it 
was possible to evaluate both impact on the system overall and impact on pupil learning effectiveness. 
Test results indicate that the QUIPS program exceeded its targets in math although spoken English and 
English reading were below target. 
SO2.2--QUIPS Achievement Test 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Mathematics 
Planned 28% 33% 60% 60% 60% 60%
Actual 23% 30% 34% 66% 67% 63% 64%
English Reading 
Planned 49% 54% 55% 55% 55% 55%
Actual 44% 51% 55% 54% 54% 52% 53%
English Speaking 
Planned 65% 60% 60% 60%
Actual 58% 54% 49% 53%
• Indicator SO2.3: Percentage of communities demonstrating sustained community involvement 
in education process. 
Sustained community involvement is defined as communities that provide evidence of continued 
involvement with schools after the QUIPS interventions have been completed. This is measured by 
compiling community ratings in 5 focus areas known to be related to sustainable community involvement: 
(1) empowerment; (2) participation; (3) partnerships; (4) resources; and (5) transparency. The QUIPS 
program performed extremely well in promoting greater community participation in schools which has 
14
been shown to contribute positively to teaching and learning outcomes. The level of community 
involvement in schools supported under the program consistently exceeded the target each year. 
SO2.3--Sustained Community Involvement 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 75% 75% 75%
Actual 100% 95% 94% 97%
• Indicator SO2.4: Rate of pupil dropout in partnership schools compared to national rate. 
National dropout rates are based on the annual primary school census conducted by the Ministry of 
Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS). QUIPS school-based data were collected by AED and CRS. Rate 
of pupil dropout is defined as the residual dropout rate, or the proportion of pupils registered in a given 
school year who fail to enroll the following year. Rate of pupil dropout was considered the most
appropriate indicator for monitoring QUIPS impact on pupil participation because Ghana’s policy required 
that primary school pupils are promoted. Even though all schools may not adhere strictly to the “no 
repetition” policy, pupil promotion rates tend to be relatively high (and rates of pupil repetition tend to be 
low). Therefore, pupil dropout was considered to be a more meaningful performance indicator for 
addressing pupil participation. Furthermore, primary school pupil dropout, particularly for girls and 
particularly for rural communities in Northern Ghana is known to be a problem in Ghana. Planned results 
for the QUIPS schools on pupil dropout, though expected to be lower than the National levels, was not 
anticipated to be dramatic because pupil dropout is impacted by a wide range of factors, many of which 
may not be related to the school and community interventions (e.g., family economics and health factors). 
The impact of the sustained community involvement in schools may have been a major factor contributing 
to the low dropout rates of pupils in schools supported by the QUIPS program. Although there was a 
slight upturn in the dropout rate achieved in 2003, the result of 4.2% was still significantly lower than the 
national rate of 9%. 
SO2.4--Dropout Rates 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned--QUIPS
Total 8.0% 7.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Males 8.0% 7.0% 7.0% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
Females 8.0% 7.0% 7.0% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
Actual--National
Total 9.1% n/a 7.2% 5.4% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Males 8.8% n/a 6.7% 4.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
Females 9.4% n/a 7.6% 6.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Actual--QUIPS 
Total n/a 4.9% 3.6% 4.8% 3.0% 4.2%
Males n/a 4.7% 2.7% 4.5% 1.9% 3.8%
Females n/a 5.1% 4.5% 4.8% 3.9% 4.6%
IR.2.1: Improved Teaching and Supervision 
• Indicator 2.1.1: Percentage of teachers using pupil-focused instructional practices in 
Partnership Schools. 
Classroom observation data were collected by AED and CRS Teacher Trainers in all QUIPS schools at 
baseline and at the end of each school term during the 2-year QUIPS interventions. Remarkable progress 
was made in terms of introducing teachers to new teaching methodologies and approaches and 
supporting them to improve their lesson preparation and delivery skills. The percentage of teachers using 
learner centered approaches exceeded the planned targets. Increases in teachers using pupil-focused 
instructional practices were associated with the increase in math. However, it remains unclear why these 
15
trends in improved instructional practices did not carry over to the results of spoken English and English 
reading achievement. 
Indicator 2.1.1: Pupil-Focused Instruction 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 20% 35% 55% 62% 62% 62%
Actual 15% 37% 47% 71% 57% 69% 73%
• Indicator 2.1.2: Percentage of teachers using effective classroom management techniques in 
Partnership Schools. 
The classroom observation instrument scoring criteria were associated with five items that measure 
teacher’s ability to productively manage the classroom: (1) effectively use physical space; (2) minimize 
use of classroom time for routine tasks; (3) maintain control and discipline in a fair and consistent manner;
(4) use productive grouping strategies; and (5) facilitate pupil-teacher interaction in the classroom. 
Although the aggregate result indicates that the overall target for the last reporting period was exceeded 
by six percentage points, results from 3 out of the 6 cohorts did not met the target set. Thus there 
remained a significant number of QUIPS schools where the practices associated with the indicator had 
not been sufficiently mainstreamed. 
Indicator 2.1.2: Effective Classroom Management 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 20% 35% 55% 50% 50% 50%
Actual 7.6% 46% 50% 53% 44% 56% 56%
• Indicator 2.1.3: Percentage of head teachers using effective supervisory techniques in 
Partnership Schools. 
Effective head teacher supervisory practices were measured by ratings on two Supervisory and 
Classroom Management Instrument (SCMI) items: (1) number of visits paid to teachers for observation; 
and (2) number of staff meetings held. As in all years of the program the indicator target of 61% was not 
met by the program in the reporting year (FY 2004). A number of factors including the non-detachment of 
head teachers from classroom teaching responsibilities in a number of QUIPS schools could have 
affected the performance of the program on the indicator. 
Indicator 2.1.3: Effective Supervisory Techniques 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 65% 70% 75% 61% 61% 61%
Actual 60% n/a 69% 64% 34% 33% 39%
IR 2.2: Improved Education Management 
• Indicator 2.2.1: Number of QUIPS schools that demonstrate the ability to effectively manage 
materials resources. 
Schools that demonstrate the ability to manage materials resources are defined as schools that provide 
evidence of keeping up-to-date and accurate records which track the flow of construction materials, texts 
and other teaching/learning materials. 
Indicator 2.2.1: Manage Material Resources 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 80 135 183 239 239 
Actual 1 81 114 151 224 235 
16
• Indicator 2.2.2: Number of District Education Offices that demonstrate the ability to improve 
the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of education programs. 
This indicator is based on District Education Office (DEO) applications and work plans for accessing 
District Grant funding and progress reports on the implementation of District Grant activities submitted to 
USAID by AED and CRS. For a district to be counted as meeting the result, it would have had to prepare 
an acceptable work plan, and a progress report linked to the District Grant Mechanism. This indicator 
presupposed the training of District Education Office staff in a system of utilizing available and relevant 
information to prioritize, plan and allocate resources to the implementation of activities linked to improving 
teaching and learning. 
Indicator 2.2.2: Planning, Implementation, Monitoring
and Evaluation 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a n/a n/a 14 23 46 
Actual n/a n/a - 12 48 38 
IR 2.3: Increased Community Participation 
• Indicator 2.3.1: Percentage of communities active in school decision-making in Partnership 
Schools. 
Communities judged to be active in school decision making are defined as communities that reach high 
performance in the Empowerment focus area, as measured by the Best Practices Assessment 
Instrument. 
Indicator 2.3.1: Communities Active in School Decision￾Making 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned 65% 70% 70% 65% 65% 65%
Actual 11% 87% 78% 80% 78% 70% 85%
• Indicator 2.3.2: Percentage of communities using participatory methodologies in initiating 
school projects in Partnership Schools. 
Communities using participatory methodologies in initiating school projects are defined as communities
that reach high performance in the Participation focus area as measured by the Best Practices 
Assessment Instrument. 
Indicator 2.3.2: Communities Using Participatory
Methodologies 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned 50% 70% 70% 70% 65% 70%
Actual 19% 74% 86% 78% 80% 71% 71%
IR 2.4: Improved Learning Environment 
• Indicator 2.4.1: Number of schools adopting techniques to promote equity in the Partnership 
Districts. 
Schools where the majority of teachers (=>75%) encourage all children to participate, particularly girls, 
are considered to have successfully adopted techniques to promote equity. Teacher performances were 
based on ratings on the two items: (1) encouragement given to girls to participate; and (2) all learners are 
encouraged to participate.
Indicator 2.4.1: School Adopting Equity Techniques 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned n/a 35 50 120 183 239 239 
Actual 23 32 55 157 246 331 331 
17
• Indicator 2.4.2: Number of communities and schools in Partnership Districts implementing 
Community School Improvement Plans. 
Community-School Improvement Plans are a planning tool to assist the school in developing and 
achieving targets in the areas of: teaching and learning; school management; infrastructure/access; and 
community participation. Schools/ communities that were successful in the following two areas were 
considered as successful implementers of the C-SIP: (1) meeting annual targets; and (2) modifying 
targets annually to meet the changing requirements of school improvements. 
Indicator 2.4.2: Implementing CSIPs 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Planned 36 75 125 183 239 239 
Actual - 40 80 124 140 158 176 
18