Report of the Meeting of the UNGEI Global Advisory ... · Report of the Meeting of the UNGEI Global Advisory Committee, Kampala 7 to 11 May 2012. UNGEI GAC Meeting Report, Kampala,

UNGEI GAC Meeting Report, Kampala, May 2012 Page 1

Report of the Meeting of the UNGEI Global Advisory Committee, Kampala 7 to 11 May 2012


List of Acronyms

ASEAN Association for South East Asian Economic Community

ASPBAE Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education

CBO Community Based Organization

CSO Civil Society Organization

DG Director General

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

EAPR East Asia and Pacific Region

ECD Early Childhood Development

EFA Education for All

ET Executive Team

FAWE Forum for African Women Educationalists

GAC Global Advisory Committee

GBV Gender Based Violence

GEM Girls’ Education Movement

GER Gross Enrolment Rate

GPE Global Partnership for Education

GoU Government of Uganda

INEE International Network for Education in Emergencies

KM Knowledge Management

MDG Millennium Development Goals

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoEVT Ministry of Education and Vocational Training

MoES Ministry of Education and Sports

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

RFP Regional Focal Point

ROSA Region of South Asia

SACMEQ Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality

SG Secretary General

SWGS School of Girls’ and Gender Studies

SWOT Strength Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (Analysis)

TAG Technical Advisory Group

ToR Terms of Reference

UN United Nations

UNGEI United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative

UPE Universal Primary Education

WG Working Group


Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Purpose of the meeting ................................................................................................................................ 5

Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 5

Overview of the Meeting Agenda ................................................................................................................. 6

Meeting Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 7

Session 1.1 ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Session 1.2 - Field visit .............................................................................................................................. 8

Session 1.3 - Debriefing after field visit .................................................................................................... 8

Session 1.4 - Courtesy call to the Ministry of Education and Sports ........................................................ 9

Session 2.1 - Opening ceremony ............................................................................................................. 10

Session 2.2 - Business meeting .............................................................................................................. 12

Session 2.3 - Partnership Updates .......................................................................................................... 16

Session 2.4 - UNGEI Global Evaluation Report and Management Response ......................................... 17

Session 2.5 – Collaboration between UNGEI and the GPE ..................................................................... 20

Session 3.1 - UNGEI Uganda evaluation report and management response ......................................... 22

Session 3.2 - Market place on UNGEI partnership experience ............................................................... 24

Session 3.3 - Revisiting the GPE Collaboration ....................................................................................... 25

Session 3.4 – Catalyzing a Shared Agenda ............................................................................................ 26

Session 3.5 - SWOT exercise for the UNGEI Partnership ........................................................................ 26

Session 4.1 – SWOT analysis ................................................................................................................... 29

Session 4.2 – Knowledge Management .................................................................................................. 29

Session 4.3(a) – Knowledge Management Group facilitated discussion ................................................ 30

Parallel Session 4.3(b) - Policy Advocacy ............................................................................................... 32

Session 4.4 - Plenary session for feedback on the thematic discussions................................................ 33

Session 5.1 - Governance issues ............................................................................................................. 34

Session 5.2: Group work on Governance Issues ..................................................................................... 38

Session 5.3 - UNGEI Roadmap ................................................................................................................ 41

Session 5.4 - Final remarks and closing ................................................................................................... 41

Summary of Action Points....................................................................................................................... 43

Annex 1 – List of Meeting Participants ....................................................................................................... 45


Annex 2 – Meeting Agenda ......................................................................................................................... 47

Annex 3 – Summary of participant assessment and feedback on the meeting ......................................... 51

Annex 4 – Remarks by the UNICEF Representative in Uganda ................................................................... 57

Annex 5 – Remarks by the Minister of State for Primary Education .......................................................... 60

Annex 6 – UNGEI Road Map ....................................................................................................................... 63


Introduction The present report summarizes the discussions and deliberations at the 2012 United Nations Girls’

Education Initiative (UNGEI) Global Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting which took place in Kampala,

Uganda, from 7 to 11 May. The meeting brought together members of the Uganda UNGEI partnership,

UNGEI Regional Focal Points (RFP), members and the Co-Chairs of the UNGEI GAC, the UNGEI

Secretariat, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) staff members, and external invitees from the

Global Partnership for Education (GPE). A full list of participants is attached in Annex 1.

Purpose of the meeting This meeting, the only one planned for 2012, was devoted to the future strategic direction of the

partnership. The meeting built on the formative Evaluation of UNGEI which took place in 2011 as well as

on the Organizational Review of UNGEI which was endorsed by the GAC in September 2011. This

meeting was therefore longer than previous GAC meetings to allow for sufficient reflection and

deliberation around key governance and thematic areas.

The purpose of this meeting was to:

Strengthen participants’ understanding of the elements of effective national partnerships

Examine the current situation of the UNGEI partnership

Make recommendations about the future structure, role and operating modalities of UNGEI and

Identify the main components of a roadmap for UNGEI to 2015

An important feature of the meeting was several joint sessions with the UNGEI Uganda partnership.

This, in addition to discussions on the Uganda case study of the UNGEI Evaluation and planned field

visits, afforded global-level partners with important insights into the reality of collaborative work at

country level. Other important sessions were devoted to information sharing on progress by the UNGEI

Regional Partnerships, the collaboration at country level with the GPE; an analysis of the Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) confronting UNGEI; a plenary discussion on developing

a Knowledge Management (KM) strategy for the partnership; and parallel thematic discussions on

UNGEI’s KM and Policy Advocacy (PA) focus.

Summary and conclusions The meeting examined UNGEI’s progress at country, regional and global levels, both from an internal

perspective, as well as through a detailed discussion of the recommendations of the UNGEI Global

Evaluation. The meeting provided an opportunity for information sharing on: progress at country,

regional and global levels, the Global Evaluation of UNGEI, and the initiatives by other partners

(UNESCO, Plan, etc.). Various opportunities for working together were explored and identified, in

particular with respect to the GPE. A working group was put in charge of following up on the

recommendations and ensuring that the collaboration with GPE at country level becomes a reality.


A second key area of debate at the meeting was the future strategic direction for UNGEI. The

presentations and discussion highlighted the importance of focusing on PA and KM and of ensuring that

UNGEI’s choices reflect a solid analysis of the evolving context and of a post-2015 agenda. A SWOT

analysis of the partnership highlighted key opportunities and challenges with respect to UNGEI and

strategic thinking emerged around three themes namely: PA; capacity development of partners and

members; and sharing of expertise and knowledge. Concrete suggestions were made by the participants

on how to move forward on PA and KM. These suggestions will be used by the Secretariat and the

respective working groups in advancing the agenda in both of these areas.

The meeting also reflected on the governance of UNGEI, and on how to prepare UNGEI for a revised role

and approach in a changing global and thematic context. Through a participatory process a number of

suggestions were made around revisions to the governance structures. Two key themes emerged – the

need for UNGEI to be more thematically driven and for UNGEI to work in a more decentralized manner.

A small governance group will be established by UNGEI to examine the suggestions in detail and to

develop a recommended structure for UNGEI. A list of action points that emerged from the meeting can

be found on p 42.

Overview of the Meeting Agenda The meeting took place over a five-day period and started with two parallel field visits to the Girls’

Education Movement (GEM) and Makerere University, respectively. Participants in those field visits had

the opportunity to debrief the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) on the main observations from

these visits at the end of the first day.

The second day of the meeting marked the official opening by the Ministry of Education and the GAC

Co-Chairs, and focused mainly on the regional and global levels of the UNGEI partnership. This included

progress reports presented by all five of UNGEI’s regional partnerships, a presentation and discussion on

the Global Evaluation of UNGEI and the management response to the evaluation, as well as on updates

of other global initiatives which concern girls’ education, namely the UNESCO Director General’s (DG)

Global Partnership for Gender Equality through Girls’ and Women’s Education, Plan International’s

campaign Because I a am a Girl, and the UN Secretary-General’s Education Initiative, and the GPE.

The third day of the meeting was devoted to a detailed presentation and discussion of the Uganda case

study which was part of the Global Evaluation of UNGEI. A “market place” organized by the national and

provincial UNGEI partnerships provided an opportunity for participants to explore the characteristics of

effective partnerships at these levels. Day two also included the beginning of a strategic planning

exercise for UNGEI based on a SWOT analysis of the partnership, which was informed by presentations

on the strategic direction of UNGEI and on the evolving context within which UNGEI operates.

Day four provided an opportunity to finalize the SWOT analysis and to discuss two of the key priorities

that emerged from the Global Evaluation of UNGEI, namely the development of a KM strategy for UNGEI

and a thematic discussion on PA which identified a suggested advocacy agenda as well as terms of

reference for external support to this area.


The last day of the meeting (Friday) was devoted to: a session on governance issues for the partnership

in which participants developed proposals for a revised governance structure for UNGEI; and the

drafting of key elements for a Roadmap to 2015 for the UNGEI Partnership. A detailed meeting agenda

can be found in Annex 2. At the end of the workshop participants were asked to provide feedback on

the meeting. The ratings and comments from this feedback can be found in Annex 3.

Meeting Methodology The meeting methodology focused on allowing all those attending from the different parts of the UNGEI

partnership to have their say. In line with this, the methodology used was interactive and highly

participatory. Participants were asked, at the outset, to set aside differences in background, in type of

organization and in level of seniority and approach the tasks of the meeting as a community of

professionals with a shared concern around the best way forward for the UNGEI Partnership. A variety

of plenary and group-based methods were used in line with the envisaged outcomes for each session.

These included validation discussion for proposals, brainstorming for new approaches and perspectives,

more intense small group discussions for planning sessions, and, finally, creative and unusual ways for

group reporting back that helped both get complicated ideas across and to build group cohesion. The

meeting was facilitated by an external lead facilitator, and two additional members of the Evaluation

team who co-facilitated some of the sessions and were also responsible for leading on the sessions

related to the Global and Uganda evaluations respectively.

A meeting website http://www.ungei.org/uganda/index.html was set up with the main documents for

the meeting. The website allowed participants to have access to the documents prior to the meeting

and also aimed at reducing the amount of paper distributed. Participants received a USB key with the

presentations and related documents that were made at the meeting.

The various sessions produced reflections and recommendations around the key themes which are

recorded in the present report. It is anticipated that smaller sub-groups of UNGEI members (constituted

in working groups) will work with the UNGEI Co-Chairs and with the UNGEI Secretariat to take these

inputs and produce concrete recommendations for the GAC, in particular with respect to the key areas

of focus of the meeting, namely: i) the proposed revisions to the governance structures and processes of

UNGEI; ii) the action plans for moving forward the PA and KM agendas; and the iii) production of a

detailed road map for the partnership moving towards 2015.

The remainder of the report provides a day-by-day account of the meeting proceedings and the main

conclusions and/or action points from each session.

http://www.ungei.org/uganda/index.html


DAY 1: Monday 7th May 2012

Session 1.1

Monday began with a security briefing presented by United Nations (UN) Department of Safety and

Security. From there participants proceeded to two field visits.

Session 1.2 - Field visit

The participants were divided into two groups. One group visited GEM and another School of Women

and Gender Studies (SWGS) at Makerere University.

The School of Women and Gender Studies: Established in 1991, the Department is at the forefront of

academic and community initiatives to address gender and development from an African perspective. In

executing its mandate, the SWGS works through a comprehensive strategy that includes: teaching and

training; research, publication and dissemination; partnerships, networking and gender mainstreaming.

The school offers both undergraduate and graduate courses, in addition to short courses, gender

awareness seminars, debates and public lectures. During the visit there was the opportunity for

interaction with staff and students from the SWGS and an open and constructive discussion on

achievements and challenges around girls’ education and gender equality issues.

The Girls’ Education Movement: Initiated in 2001 as voluntary child-led movement GEM-Uganda

registered as a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) in 2009. Membership in GEM clubs is open to

both boys and girls. GEM uses a variety of activities to support girls’ education. These activities include:

mapping of school children, conducting visits to communities and doing music, dance and drama that

encourages the community members to enroll their children and to keeping them in school. GEM is

implementing a girls’ scholarship program where 1,000 girls from eight of the most underprivileged

districts are supported. A mentoring and guidance component is attached to the scholarship and clubs

to increase girls’ retention and achievement. Some of the achievements of GEM, which were highlighted

during the visit, include:

Establishing GEM clubs in schools: Since its inception in 2001, GEM clubs have been established

in 2,019 primary schools (11% of the primary schools in Uganda) and 147 secondary schools in

45 districts out of a total of 117 districts in Uganda

Returning children to school: In 2011, 5,019 children (1,991 male; 3,028 female) children

returned to school as a result of GEM clubs

Since 2001, over 556,055 GEM members reached over 1,698,165 children who are out of school

and 60% of these children were girls

Session 1.3 - Debriefing after field visit

Upon return from the field work the two field visit groups came together to debrief one another on the

key findings from the visits and to identify key points for the subsequent debriefing with the Ministry of

Education and Sports (MoES). During the debriefing, the participants thanked the organizers for the well

structured program. In both GEM and Makerere University the programme included presentations and

interaction with children and students.


Makerere University Team: The team appreciated the good practices they observed such as: the

encouragement of public debate on gender; policy within the University (gender vision); introduction to

gender courses (with a high turnout); and having more linkages with community development areas

such as through the nine-month course in gender issues for community development workers). In their

discussion with students, the group also noted that a lot of boys were studying gender.

The Makerere group also identified the following challenges:

Gender is not mainstreamed in the University

There are gaps between policy and implementation

The University continues to have high rates of pregnancy among second year students

A number of female students engage in “cross generational” sex to get money for studies

The group formulated the following recommendations which were shared with the MoES:

Promoting broader knowledge sharing and exchange through the UNGEI platform

Introducing a program of tracking of University graduates and engaging them

GEM Group: the team noted the positive examples of programming, including:

Empowerment through skills and opportunities

Boys as well as girls are integrated into the program (not equal in all elements, but actively

engaged)

The GEM program targets disadvantaged pupils

The involvement of adult women who were themselves beneficiaries of the program as children

and are now part of it as adult facilitators

Despite the very positive experience a number of challenges also emerged during the visit and

discussions, including:

Although GEM has been good at disseminating messages, it was not very good at capturing

messages so that these could be shared externally. Members also questioned how GEM differed

from the initiatives by the Forum of African Women Educationalists (FAWE).

Donor restrictions related to targeting only girls in the Scholarship program places GEM in a

difficult position vis-à-vis parents and communities

The following recommendation was formulated by the team who visited GEM:

Strengthen the ability to capture and disseminate the good practice demonstrated by the

program, perhaps including the stories of the girls, and boys, who participate in the program

Session 1.4 - Courtesy call to the Ministry of Education and Sports

After the debriefing between the two groups, the participants made a courtesy call the Ministry of

Education and Sport. The main observations from the field work were shared with the Ministry team.


DAY 2: Tuesday 8th May 2012

The program for this second day of the workshop included the following sessions:

i) Opening ceremony

ii) Business meeting: Review of meeting methodology, the draft agenda and purpose of the

meeting, review of action points from the prior meeting and 2012 work plan report

iii) Interactive panel presentation on progress in UNGEI’s five regions:

a. East Asia-Pacific (EAP)

b. South Asia

c. East and Southern Africa

d. West and Central Africa

e. Middle East and North Africa

f. Partnership updates on the UNESCO Director General’s (DG) Global Partnership for

Gender Equality, on Plan International’s Campaign on girls’ education, and on the UN

Secretary-General’s (SG) Education Initiative

iv) Presentation and discussion of the Global Evaluation of UNGEI and management response

v) Discussion on the Global Partnership for Education

Details of each of these sessions are presented below.

Session 2.1 - Opening ceremony

The official opening of the meeting took place on Tuesday morning. UNGEI Co-Chair Nitya Rao opened

the meeting and outlined its purpose. This was followed by the official opening by the outgoing UN

Resident Coordinator in Uganda on behalf of the UNICEF Representative and by the Minister of State for

Primary Education, the Honorable Dr. Cos Kamanda Bataringaya.

Remarks on behalf of the UNICEF Representative: The outgoing UN Resident Coordinator thanked the

GAC for choosing Uganda as the venue for its meeting. He described UNGEI as a multi-sector

partnership, with members drawn from Ministries, NGOs (like the Girls’ Education Movement-Uganda),

UN agencies, Education Development Partners like Irish Aid, and other important development partners

and funders, each contributing in complementary ways and bringing in different expertise, skills,

experiences, and funding. The partners lobby, advocate, and fund with the goal of ensuring girls go to

school, stay in school, and perform well.

He also outlined the achievements of the UNGEI partnership in Uganda as:

Successful advocacy for the institution of bylaws to ensure that all girls and boys of school-going

age are able to access a full cycle of primary education.

Ensuring that pregnant girls and child mothers return to school.


The presenter applauded the Government of Uganda (GoU) for its commitment in ensuring gender

parity. He identified Gender in Education Policy, Universal Primary Education and Universal Secondary

Education as some of the efforts of the Government. This has brought Uganda much closer to achieving

the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 2 & 3, and the Education for All (EFA) Goals. In his remarks,

he emphasized the importance of working together to advocate for girls’ education and gender equality

and to ensure no girls are left behind.

He identified completion as the main challenge hindering gender parity. The completion rate of 64%

strongly suggests that ensuring girls (and boys) stay in school, and complete a full course, remains a

challenge. He suggested that this challenge could be addressed by ensuring that quality teaching and

learning become an integral role in a child’s development – from age zero to 18 and ensuring that

education translates into employment so that girls can justify and convince their family of the worth of

the time spent at school. In conclusion, he reiterated the importance of working together to ensure that

the gains so far made in improving girls’ education and gender equality are not lost and that the

investment a girl, family and community make is worth it.

A full copy of the speech can be found in Annex 4.

Remarks by the Minster of State for Primary Education, Uganda: Dr. Cos Kamanda Bataringaya pointed

out that since the launch of UNGEI in Uganda in 2004 the MoES has prioritized the improvement of

gender disparities at all levels of the education system. Working jointly with development partners, the

GoU has taken greater strides towards improvement of capacity in the key areas of planning, policy

development, monitoring and evaluation, and management as well as implementation at all levels in

education and that improving and advocating for policies on girls’ education remain government

priorities. He cited Universal Primary Education (UPE), Universal Secondary Education (USE) and

Universal Post Primary Education and Training as initiatives that have brought positive developments in

education in terms of equitable access, retention and performance at the primary and secondary levels

of education.

The Minister applauded UNGEI for its contribution in the following areas: the attainment of gender

equality in education; effectively providing a platform for broad stakeholder involvement in the

promotion of girls’ education; a concerted effort in advocacy; and the pooling of resources. He reported

that it is through the efforts of UNGEI membership that the Uganda Gender in Education Policy was

successfully developed and launched in 2010. In collaboration with various partners, UNGEI has put in

place several initiatives to support girls’ education such as the Go to School, Back to School and Stay in

School (GBS) campaigns. In addition UNGEI has contributed to a conducive policy environment, gender

responsive budgeting, sexual maturation management, child friendly schools, strategies to fight against

harmful practices, mentoring programs, and enhancing research. The Minister also underscored that as

a pioneer partnership for girls’ education in the country, UNGEI significantly altered the dynamics for

collaboration between the participating partners especially at the district and community levels. To

avoid employment of parallel planning, programming and implementation structures, the UNGEI

partnership is:


Strengthening government systems and local capacities

Enhancing government as well as local community ownership, and

Improving the quality and availability of gender disaggregated data

A number of challenges were also highlighted during the presentation, including:

Disparities in enrolment, retention, grade promotion and learning achievement especially in the

rural and remote areas in the country

Inadequate budget allocation to gender mainstreaming in education programs

Low sense of ownership and collegiality despite being a fairly inclusive multi-stakeholder

partnership

The Minister attributed UNGEI’s success in Uganda to the strong political will from the top leadership of

the Government and from the MoES as well as to the engagement of children and youth in the

partnership process and the multi-sectorial approach. He encouraged UNGEI to continue its continued

support and promised Government of Uganda commitment to work together towards narrowing the

gender gap.

A full copy of the speech can be found in Annex 5.

Session 2.2 - Business meeting

The main purpose of this session was to update participants on the status of UNGEI in the different

regions. The session began with a video which focused on the story of an orphan girl from Northern

Uganda who returned to school. It outlined the challenges girls experience in completing their

education.

Cheryl Gregory Faye of the UNGEI Secretariat reviewed the action points from the previous meeting.

The participants were informed that the following had been achieved:

Finalization of 2012 work plan with a further progress review planned for June 2012

Drafting of the management response to the Global Evaluation of UNGEI

Co-chair arrangement – One of the co-chairs (ASPBAE) was scheduled to rotate off in mid-2012.

GAC has asked Nitya Rao to remain temporarily, pending resolution of issues related to UNGEI’s

governance

Recruitment of facilitators for the Kampala meeting

In her presentation on the review of 2012 work plan, the Head of UNGEI Secretariat highlighted the

progress under the three key outcome areas of UNGEI in implementing the global work plan, including:

National level policy frameworks promote girls’ education: This includes the drafting of a

concept note of UNGEI-GPE collaboration for discussion in Kampala, as well as a high level panel

discussion during the CSW and at a World Bank forum


Good practices known: It was reported that dissemination of the UNGEI evaluation has taken

place. Secondly, analytical mapping of gender tools in development /education with interns

from Harvard has started and is expected to be completed by end of May 2012. Two

publications (gender and skill papers for the Global Monitoring Report (GMR) and E4 companion

report) have been completed

Effective partnership: It was noted that evaluation report is available. Recruitment of the Head

of UNGEI Secretariat is being finalized. Various planning meetings internally and externally were

held. In addition the GAC web portal was launched

The presentation was followed by regional progress reports, presented by the RFP from each region. Key

points from each of the presentations are highlighted below.

South Asia: Raka Rashid presented achievements and challenges in the three outcome areas for this

region. Under Outcome 1 “National level policy frameworks promote girls’ education” the presenter

reported the following:

Release of the 2012 UNGEI Calendar

Launch of UNGEI advocacy cubes, and

Completion of a draft advocacy video

Outcome 2 focused on the institutionalization of best practices. This has involved identifying barriers in

school to work transition, the launch in four countries of a piece of research on how boys’ under-

performance is a barrier to girls’ performance, and the sharing of the report of the Regional Evaluation

of UNGEI. The region has also expanded the partnership with new members, including UN Women and

Girl Guides. It was reported that India did not have a national partnership because of variation in needs

of each geographical area which is a reflection of the complex government structures in the country.

A number of opportunities were highlighted in the presentation:

The Right to Education Act provides an entry point for UNGEI

Many of the countries are developing fast and hence are not able to attract much funding

Key questions from the region include how to expand the partnership to include civil society and how to

impact on behavior.

East Asia-Pacific: The report for this region was presented by Chemba Raghavan. In this region, the

focus of UNGEI reportedly varies from one country to another. In Cambodia the focus is on child friendly

schools and in China work concentrates on Early Childhood Development (ECD). However three issues

have gained attention in the EAP region including:

Gender issues in education and employment: The school to work transition and the role of

education in the preparation of a global workforce


Gender issues pertaining to teachers, and particularly the issue of female teachers

Gender issues in lower secondary education: including boys underperformance at this level,

GBV, school climate/environment, curriculum, and issues around achievement

Key areas for future focus by the region were reported, including the need to:

Accelerate and urgently address issues relating to gender equality in literacy and employment

Analyze the learning environments in lower secondary and urgently accelerate attention to

gender issues pertaining to teachers in this region

Address the relevance of the curriculum

Address gender issues in ECD so as to free youth from sibling care responsibilities

Address the issue of boys underperformance in some of the countries and that of girls in others

Build strong evidence and data management systems for gender in education to press for

upstream advocacy and community level interventions

Generally the region reported pioneering efforts in the post-2015 debate, with several regional partners

already actively engaging in the discussion around priorities for the post 2015 period. UNGEI could be a

part of this at the regional level, but countries were reported to have inadequate capacity to

mainstream/strengthen gender equality efforts as part of this process. Moreover there remains a strong

need in Indonesia and Philippines for strengthening gender components along with existing efforts and

thrust areas in ECD. There is also an opportunity for UNGEI to engage in Thailand as the country

prepares to lead gender equality efforts in the Association for South East Asian (ASEAN) Economic

Community. The rising political instability in some of the countries in the region was highlighted as a key

overarching challenge.

Question and Answer session on the Asia-Pacific regions

Questions from participants centered on how to involve men in ECD and on the need to identify

strategies for involving Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and NGOs in the partnership. In

response to involvement of men, the issue of cultural barriers was highlighted. Nevertheless participants

agreed that it is important to involve men not only in ECD but in all efforts geared towards gender

equality.

West and Central Africa: Nicolas Reuge presented the report on this region. The report highlighted that

UNGEI in this region has concentrated on highly populated countries such as Nigeria and the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (DRC). The region has made significant progress in access at the primary level. 15

countries including Ghana, the Gambia, Senegal and Mauritania stand above the regional average.

Completion rates at primary level, however, range from 45% to 64%. Children living in the poorest

households are the most likely not complete primary education (only 38.5% probability to complete

primary, and a low 30% for girls). At the secondary level the Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) was reported at

39% with girls from poorest rural households having only an 11% probability of completing this level of

education. The presentation illustrated that partnerships at country vary and that many activities are


driven by UNICEF. Key challenges include monitoring of activities in this region and difficulties in

assessing impact due to lack of evidence based activities.

Middle East and North Africa: UNGEI’s experience in the region was reported on by Dina Craissati who

reminded participants that to date UNGEI’s involvement in the region has been limited to Egypt, and

specifically to a project aimed at ensuring that girls go to school. Gender parity in primary and

secondary education has been achieved and a major challenge is that with this achievement a number

of Governments no longer consider gender a priority. UNGEI did not build partnerships or engage with

academia and civil society that would engage government, in this region. The ‘Arab Spring’ has created

an opportunity for UNGEI. For instance, there is open public space to talk about human rights which

UNGEI could get involved in. Further, many organizations working on different areas have sprung up. All

these are potential partners for UNGEI to engage with.

East and Southern Africa: This report was presented by Hind Omer. On Outcome 1: ‘National level policy

frameworks promote girls’ education and gender equality’; she reported active involvement of the

region in revision of the policy framework in South Africa, provision of sanitary pads in Kenya, analysis of

the 2010/11 national education sector budget in Malawi, drafting the School Health Policy in Rwanda

and of the Manual for Gender-Friendly Schools and teacher in-service training in Tanzania. For Outcome

2, ‘Best practices in facilitating girls’ education and gender equality are known and institutionalized’; the

region reported that good practices of Girls and Boys Movement was documented by South Africa,

Kenya had developed gender sensitive materials for training primary school teachers, Tanzania had

developed and adopted guidelines for the re-entry to school after pregnancy while research was

undertaken in Malawi on post primary transition and in Rwanda on effectiveness and impact of

‘Tuseme’ clubs. For Outcome 3, ‘UNGEI facilitates an effective partnership for girls’ education’; the

region reported close cooperation between MOE and FAWEK in mobilizing resources in Kenya, the joint

drafting of the four year action in Malawi, engagement of FAWE in the NGO Coordination Platform in

Rwanda and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between Ministry of Education and

Vocational Training (MoEVT) and FAWE in Tanzania.

Key challenges identified in the presentation include the impact of the financial crises on budgets, low

focus on implementation, impact on manmade disasters on education, continued low participation in

education by girls in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Comoros, Angola and Somalia and boys in Malawi,

Namibia and Lesotho.

Question and Answer session on the Africa and Middle East regions

During the discussion, it was observed that UNGEI had not yet addressed the problem of girls

with disability although ESARO had started the mapping exercise

In Egypt, where FAWE was operating, difficulties of dealing with civil society were reported. In

such a scenario, FAWE was advised to liaise with UNICEF Egypt


In Egypt, open space for UNGEI to debate issues of gender equity, sense of solidarity, freedom

of speech, new forms of organizations by young people was identified as opportunity for UNGEI

Session 2.3 - Partnership Updates

Several partnership opportunities were presented including:

Maki Katsuno-Hayaskikawa provided a brief overview of UNESCO’s Global partnership for Gender

Equality through girls’ and women’s education. The Partnership focuses on culture, communication and

social and human sciences, secondary education and adult literacy and advocacy to promote girls’

education. It engages the private sector, civil society, bilateral and multi-lateral partners, and the media.

The question was raised at the end of this presentation by the presenter as to whether this partnership

could work with UNGEI on girls’ education.

Plan International: Presented by Subhadra Belbase, Country Director, Plan Uganda. The presentation

began by highlighting both the plight of girls and the power of girls, as the basis for Plan’s decision to

focusing its major global campaign Because I am a Girl on securing girls’ rights and ending gender

discrimination. The campaign will be geared at building the human capital of girls through knowledge

and skills, aiming to equip, enable and empower girls of all ages to acquire the assets, skills and

knowledge necessary to succeed in life. Key to this are safe and quality learning environments for girls,

both formal and non-formal. Plan International aims to reach 4 million girls directly, 40 million girls and

boys through awareness creation and gender-transformative programs, and 400 million through policy

change. The theme of the Campaign is: ‘Learning for Life’ and the expected outcomes are that girls (1)

“enroll and complete quality primary and secondary education in a safe and supportive community

environment and acquire the skills they need to access decent economic opportunities”, and (2) “have

time and space to become active citizens and develop safe social networks and life skills.” Finally, the

campaign has as its intellectual foundation, the annual State of the World’s Girls report series, which

provides tangible proof of the inequalities which still exist between boys and girls and will support the

campaign with specific girl-oriented evidence. The report will give concrete recommendations for the

campaign to take forward on ways to tackle gender inequality and ensure that every girl is able to

realise her full potential.

UNICEF: Susan Durston provided an overview of the current development priorities that UNGEI could

take advantage of. First the UN Secretary-General has chosen education as his focus for the next three

years. This initiative has three priority areas:

To put every child in school by providing free basic education

Ensure that there are quality outcomes by filling the teacher gap, enhancing youth learning and

skills development and innovation and

Foster global citizenship by making education more relevant and responsive to contemporary

and emerging challenges


UNICEF is on the Steering Committee for the initiative which will be launched in September 2012. The

Coalition includes UNICEF, the Hewlett Foundation, the Brookings Institution and UNESCO as the start of

a pulsed high level advocacy push.

A second key development is the Global Compact on Learning which is a global, multi-partner effort

facilitated by the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institute. It provides a policy agenda

and series of concrete steps for various actors to take to advance learning for all girls and boys in low-

income countries and focuses on promoting a paradigm shift in the global education agenda from access

alone to access plus learning, in particular to inform the post-2015 global policy discourse. UNICEF

(Geeta Rao Gupta) is one of three co-chairs.

Discussion

On the issue of GPE, the fact neither UNGEI nor GPE were implementing bodies should guide the

discussion on collaboration. It was suggested that UNGEI could lead on policy and contribute at the

country level. It was also noted that GPE encompasses over 45 national partners and that UNGEI and

GPE overlap.

Session 2.4 - UNGEI Global Evaluation Report and Management Response

Muriel Visser-Valfrey, Global Lead Evaluator, provided a brief overview of the Global Evaluation of

UNGEI. The evaluation, commissioned by the GAC in 2010, aimed at documenting achievements and

challenges in the three UNGEI outcome areas: policy and advocacy for girls’ education and gender

equality; good practice identification and dissemination; and an effective partnership. It looked at the

partnership at global and regional (East Asia and Pacific Region - EAPR) levels and in four countries

(Egypt, Nepal, Nigeria and Uganda).

The evaluation found that at country level the UNGEI partnership exists in 33 countries where the

country partnerships goals mirror those of the global partnership. However, less than half of the country

partnerships meet the criteria for a formal partnership. The degree of success in the three outcome

areas of UNGEI varies across country partnerships. The evaluation identified that the ingredients for a

successful partnership at country level are:

Government commitment

Composition and leadership of the partnership

Technical capacity

Outreach to local levels and,

Mechanisms for decision making and operation

The evaluation also identified that overall UNGEI could be more effective in:


Strengthening partnership structures and management

Building capacity

Monitoring and evaluation

At the regional level, in the EAPR, the evaluation concluded that UNGEI has strengthened coordination

of regional partners, and produced high quality products. It also found, however, that it has had little

direct influence on countries in the region. In other regions, UNGEI has had limited success in

establishing regional partnerships. As a resource, the evaluation found that RFPs could be better utilized

for a more consistent engagement in priority areas including strengthening of partnership models, in

country training and support, exchange of experience and knowledge and monitoring and evaluation. At

the Global level, the evaluation underscored the prominent advocacy role that UNGEI has played in girls’

education and gender equality in selected fora and found that UNGEI has constituted a valuable

mechanism for coordination among its members and produced selected recognized resources.

Recommendations from the evaluation were presented around the following main areas:

Making PA a priority

Developing a plan of priority activities and publications aligned with the medium term agenda

on PA

Strengthening the global and national UNGEI partnerships

Enhancing the capacity and relevance of the work of UNGEI at regional level by ensuring RFPs

devote a major portion of their time to UNGEI

The presentation on the Global Evaluation was followed by a presentation of the GAC Management

Response to the Evaluation by Co-Chair Nora Fyles.

The management response focused on PA, support to country level partnership, KM and governance

and management. Specifically the following were accepted as areas for exploration moving forward:

The prioritization of PA

Developing a targeted and focused agenda on PA

Building a strong evidence base to sharpen message and ensure significance and accuracy by

collaborating with academic institutions, establishing an advisory panel of experts and renewing

commitment by all stakeholders to champion UNGEI and joint policy positions

Support to country-level partnerships

Addressing capacity challenges

Strengthening technical knowledge on gender issues, gender analysis, management,

communication

Exploring options for financial resources

Providing tools for building stakeholder commitment

Exploring potential role of UNGEI in LEG and collaboration with GPE and others


Knowledge Management

Exploring options for becoming a leading reference on good practice

Creating an UNGEI knowledge hub

Implementing a strategy for dissemination

Tracking/monitoring use of UNGEI material

Governance and management

Further assessing the current structure and processes

Reviewing membership and functioning of GAC

Introducing institutional level engagement

Confirming expectations of all partners

Providing a greater voice for developing countries in the GAC

Discussion

The discussion after the presentation raised the following issues:

Clarification was asked on the rationale for the proposed country level membership on the GAC.

The lead evaluator explained that one of the findings of the evaluation was that the GAC needs

to have a better understanding of country level realities to support country partnerships and

advocacy. In this context it was underscored from the plenary that UNGEI should find ways to

enable/facilitate a better flow of communication between the GAC and country partnerships

Clarification was also asked as to whether the evaluation was able to establish if UNGEI had

played a leading role in the global discourse. The evaluator explained that this had indeed been

the case, but that the evaluation had found that this role had been mostly played in specific

processes such as the GMR and the GPE and that it had concluded that overall UNGEI could play

this role in a more decisive manner

There was some discussion around dealing with the funding constraints of country partnerships

which the evaluation identified as a key constraint at the level. The evaluator clarified that the

evaluation is not recommending that UNGEI becomes a funding body but the partnership can

support individual partnerships to have access to funding, and that the principle should be that

partners seek to ensure that work plan activities are funded. Further, exchange of experience

between partnerships was identified as likely being useful in this respect given that some

partnerships have been more successful in accessing funds than others

A clarification was asked around enhancing the role of RFPs and the explanation given that the

evaluation is recommending that RFPs spend 50 per cent or more of their time on UNGEI and

that the Terms of Reference (ToR) of RFPs need to reflect this. It was also suggested that RFP

ToR relate tasks to country and regional priorities to strengthen girls’ education


The issue of contribution versus attribution was raised and the evaluator explained that the

evaluation used contribution analysis to systematically establish UNGEI’s contribution to the key

outcome areas by: examining the changes in the overall context, the inputs into that context,

the contribution of UNGEI specifically and making an assessment as to whether UNGEI made a

minor, moderate or significant contribution

A question was raised regarding the baseline and having one done ten years after the start of

the partnership. It was explained that this was part of the ToR for the evaluation and that UNGEI

sees the baseline as a strategic moment for reflection in moving forward to a post-2015 agenda

Finally a question was also raised regarding the difference between institutional and individual

commitment by the GAC members. The evaluator explained that the recommendation of the

evaluation is to clarify the nature of the institutional members’ engagement so as to ensure that

it is accompanied by a real time commitment on the part of institutions’ representatives on the

GAC

Session 2.5 – Collaboration between UNGEI and the GPE

The final session of the day focused on the collaboration between UNGEI and GPE. A presentation by

Nora Fyles (UNGEI GAC Co-Chair) and Douglas Lehman from the GPE Secretariat provided an overview of

the concept note for the collaboration between UNGEI and the GPE. This concept note had already been

made available to meeting participants through the meeting website.

The plenary discussion around the relationship between GPE and UNGEI included the following

points:

A reminder by a number of participants that the discussion on a potential UNGEI-GPE

collaboration has been on-going for a long time and steps should now be taken to operationalize

the partnership between UNGEI and GPE

The need to work out the representation of country-level partnerships in GPE countries within

the local education groups, which could involve having an UNGEI member formally committing

to representing UNGEI in addition to their own institutional representation

The importance of identifying strategies for influencing the education sector plans. It was noted

that in this context Uganda provides a good example and should be studied further to inform

strategizing for other countries

A need to reflect on what resources might be required at the global and country level for UNGEI

to partner with GPE, and how this might impact on the relation with other local partners

A need for greater clarity on the role of the RFPs in the relationship between the GPE and UNGEI

Action points

Following a discussion in groups and in the plenary there was agreement that UNGEI and GPE should go

forward and finalize the arrangements for GPE and UNGEI collaboration along the lines of the concept

note. This should include mainstreaming gender within the appraisal guidelines and including them in


action plans and monitoring reports. Specific agreed-upon action points to move forward on this

collaboration are reflected in item 3.3 where the GPE collaboration was discussed further.

DAY 3: Wednesday, 9th May 2012

The program for the third day of the meeting included the following sessions:

i) A presentation and discussion of the evaluation of the Uganda Partnership

ii) A ‘market place’ discussion with the members of the Uganda partnership which focused on

identifying the characteristics of a successful partnership

iii) A session revisiting the collaboration with GPE

iv) A session highlighting the changing context within which UNGEI operates

v) A SWOT analysis of the UNGEI Partnership

The day’s work was preceded by a brief recap of the previous day’s discussions by the UNGEI GAC Co-

Chair who emphasized the need to:

Clearly work out a future vision of UNGEI

Build on the historical collaboration with the GPE and move this forward to a more concrete

level

Have an UNGEI representative who can represent the perspective of the Initiative in

engagements in the local education groups at country level


Session 3.1 - UNGEI Uganda evaluation report and management response

Betty Ezati, the consultant for the Uganda UNGEI evaluation, made a brief presentation of the

evaluation report which highlighted:

The fact that the Uganda partnership has a fourth outcome area, instead of the usual three for

the UNGEI partnership. Teenage pregnancy - the fourth outcome area - was included due to the

major concern this poses in the country for girls’ education

With respect to outcome one UNGEI in Uganda works through gender task force of the MoE

For outcome two there is still no re-entry policy for young mothers but a concept note has been

drafted by MoE. Radio talk shows have been very successful at disseminating key messages at

district level. UNFPA has come back on board to address this issue

For outcome three the UNGEI partnership itself is a good practice, because it has been

successful in tapping into the different areas of expertise of partners in order to further the

agenda around girls’ education and gender equality

With respect to outcome four, the benefit of the partnership is that it uses government

structures; at district level it has successfully liaised with non-education actors (for example in

the organization of immunization campaigns)

The presentation also highlighted a number of important challenges:

Despite the partnership’s revitalization in 2008, there is still a decline in visibility of UNGEI in

Uganda

The lack of secretariat and office space has contributed to the confusion of what UNGEI

represents. At national level the confusion is whether it is the gender task force within MoE and

at the district level on whether it is a UNICEF intervention

A number of recommendations were put forward by the evaluation:

The importance of regularizing the partnership

The need to strengthen linkage between district and national level

The need to broaden the focus beyond primary (and in particular the critical importance of

looking at post primary) - especially to reach child mothers

The need to broaden the partnership for girls’ education, especially when it comes to issues of

violence – including by bringing in the police so that they can effectively address the rape cases

that are reported

The presentation concluded that UNGEI’s main contribution in Uganda has been in policy and

identification of good practices, and that while UNGEI priorities are in line with national development

plans many avenues remain that need to be exploited.


Management Response to UNGEI Uganda evaluation

The presentation of the evaluation’s finding was followed by a summary of the management response

of the UNGEI partnership in Uganda to the evaluation by Martha Muhwezi. She noted that overall the

management response highlights agreement with the recommendations raised in the evaluation and

that work has already begun to tackle some of the concerns. She also noted the reluctance of

NGOs/CSOs to join a ‘UN’ initiative when they are not part of the UN system. Ms. Muhwezi also shared

that a study on teenage pregnancy has been finalized and is currently being reviewed by MoE. The

findings of the study are expected to feed into development of a re-entry policy for young mothers. She

noted that scholarships for disadvantaged girls already exist on the ground and that these can

contribute to strengthening the information sharing between district and national level.

Following both presentations, these key discussion points were raised:

The UNGEI - Uganda example highlighted the solid technical expertise of the UNGEI partnership.

The partnership assisted the MoE to develop the gender plan – so although it is outside the

sector group it still influenced the sector plan. This underscores the importance of capacity

building of partnerships

The evaluation highlighted that the UNGEI partnership dwindled after 2006, however this did

not affect implementation of activities as there are over 30 partners that focus on girls’

education in Uganda

There is a need to mainstream the UNGEI activities into national gender plans/strategies, so that

they can reach more girls – beyond the UNICEF assisted-districts and therefore better sustained.

The experience of the UNICEF South Asia region was shared, where UNGEI is the Governments’

national strategy to address girls’ education and therefore at district level UNGEI is seen as a

government-led initiative

At global and regional level, UNGEI partners need to ensure that there is sufficient support

provided to the selected countries to carry out the activities/interventions needed that can lead

to ownership and contribute to sustainability

The partnership should prioritize developing indicators and monitoring frameworks at country

level

The partnerships should build on and strengthen existing structures/mechanisms. In Uganda the

existence of a strong bottom-up approach can facilitate the collaboration with GPE

It was also noted that partners were not being retained in the partnership and that this calls for

a mapping of partners, and identification of factors that contribute to diminishing interest in

engaging

Lack of communication flow horizontally – especially between districts – as financial constraints

affect the capacity to organize and participate in meetings

It was acknowledged that UNGEI advocacy has contributed to an increased number of child

mothers returning to school at district level. It was also highlighted that there is a need for

further analysis around the impact on the wellbeing of the returning child mother to the school

environment. Furthermore, it was noted that the partnership needs to be more proactive in


disseminating key messages that delay/prevent early pregnancies i.e. addressing the problem

before it happens, rather than when it is already too late

Finally it was noted that UNGEI is not a funding mechanism and there is a need to strengthen

efforts to secure funds from donors within country (bilateral donors, etc.)

Action Points

Suggested action points/way forward/next steps (taking into account the Uganda case study) include the

following:

Explore ways of liaising more directly with development partners for mobilizing resources

For sustainability, mainstream UNGEI activities into national gender plans and strategies

Conduct mapping of partners and identification of reasons for diminishing interest

Add UNGEI as a standing agenda point to quarterly UNICEF district meetings

Conduct a study on the issues around the well-being of child mothers and returning to school

(possibly framing this in the context of whether it might not be better to avoid the pregnancy in

the first place)

Session 3.2 - Market place on UNGEI partnership experience

For this session participants were invited to visit exhibitions by the national and local UNGEI

partnerships. The guiding question for the visits was “What has been the added value to your

organization(s) as a result of working in a partnership?” The table below highlights the main responses

from this session.

Table 1 - National and district level advantages of partnerships

At National Level At District Level

Ability to draw on expertise of partners/ stakeholders and to use this to further inform and develop interventions

Coordination, planning, and joint monitoring

Diversity of the partnership which allows for outreach to a wider audience (at national levels)

Monthly meetings – this innovation has helped partners raise funds to attend the monthly district meetings

Good documentation practices Focus on developing employability skills that can lead to income generating activities.

Complementarity of partners – peer support, joint support and especially the complementarity that FAWE brings to address prevention of teenage pregnancies

The ability to contextualize UNGEI into the realities of the respective district

Ensuring that the voice of children and youth is heard at national level


The following challenges and areas to be strengthened were also highlighted:

The “power of the collective” is

something that needs to be

addressed and is also something

that needs to be tapped into much

more.

It was highlighted that a

communication feedback

mechanism is needed. In this

context the suggestion was made

that the MoE develop a joint work

plan with all its partners that can

then be shared nationally, as well as

at district and local levels.

The partnership needs to liaise more

strongly with the education development partners thereby committing the government to

integrate gender in the budget at national and district level

The partnership should explore how GPE funds might be (further) mobilized to support girl’s

education and gender equality priorities in the sector.

Session 3.3 - Revisiting the GPE Collaboration

The aim of this session was, in the light of the discussion on the Uganda partnership, to agree on

concrete actions that can facilitate UNGEI collaboration with GPE at country level. The collaboration will

focus on countries where gender equality issues are acute and where interventions to advance gender

equality would be strategic.. Further, it was concluded that there is a need to look beyond the UNGEI

partnership countries, to other countries that are affected by conflict and that have poor gender

indicators and where the presence of the partnership is equally critical.

Action points

Specific action points that emerged from the discussion on the GPE collaboration include:

Establish a small task team to include the GPE Secretariat that will finalize the concept note and

take forward the discussions;

Based on previous analyses, list of pipeline countries and those due for allocation in November,

select small number of countries for piloting collaboration approach

Ensure that following issues are addressed through concept note or pilot process: UNGEI

representation at country level, role of RFP, possible resource needs at global and country level

Follow up with UNICEF Uganda on national partnership’s engagement in GPE process

Figure 1 - Detail of the 'market place' discussion


Session 3.4 – Catalyzing a Shared Agenda

Given by Anju Malhotra, this presentation focused on the changing gender and societal terrains and the

need to harmonize UNGEI’s operations in line with these changes, which represent both challenges and

opportunities. The presenter reminded participants of the previous focus (first generation) in the quest

for gender parity including the then wide gender disparities in basic education (hence the emphasis on

universal basic education), as well as the struggle to get gender into the development agenda and to

explain ‘why’ gender parity was worth focusing on. These priorities have now all changed; gender has

gained traction in development and education and this change requires a shift in focus from ‘why’ to

‘how’ (a second generation agenda). In order to influence global, regional and country levels, the UNGEI

agenda should be more specific and nuanced in its approaches. The presenter suggested that UNGEI

should shift its focus to secondary education and to learning outcomes. This requires UNGEI to step up

its PA. It also implies an expanding partnership to accommodate important new actors, and a more

strategic engagement at country level. Finally Ms. Malhotra also underscored that UNGEI needs to

identify clear gender indicators so as to track its progress.

Session 3.5 - SWOT exercise for the UNGEI Partnership

To introduce the SWOT session a destination statement for UNGEI was presented by the Co-Chairs:

By 2015, the UNGEI partnership supports:

- Countries to achieve measurable change in girls’ education and gender equality

- Global and national development agendas to reflect emerging concerns on girls’ education and

gender equality, especially for the most marginalized

The Strategic Planning session continued with a SWOT exercise which took up the remainder of the day.

Working in groups, the participants brainstormed and agreed around issues relating to the four

quadrants of the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats): What are the (internal)

strengths of the UNGEI Partnership? What are the (internal) weaknesses of the UNGEI Partnership?

What are the (external) opportunities for UNGEI in the current environment? What are the (external)

threats facing UNGEI in the current environment?

The issues identified by each of the groups were gathered and clustered, generating a number of topics

for the subsequent planning session. The table on the next page summarizes the key points made with

respect to each of the four areas.


Table 2 - Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the UNGEI Partnership

Strengths Weaknesses

Range of resources available within and between members

Recognized and valued brand of UNGEI

Recognized strong structures

Opportunities for sharing

Diversity and commitment among members

Experience and expertise among members

Uneven coordination

Inadequate information sharing

Confusion between individual and institutional identities

Lack of resources, including funding and time

Skills and capacities lacking

Competing agendas

Lack of clarity of direction and strategic focus

Lack of visibility

Opportunities Threats

Strength of collective voice

Cross-sectoral nature and approach

Knowledge leader in girls ‘education issues

Gender and girls education are high on the global/international agenda

Changing development landscape

Conflicts/emergencies

Issue fatigue

Competition/”turf” issues

Dividing the topics between them, the groups then discussed what action areas UNGEI should focus on

in the coming years, to enhance its strengths and make the best use of the opportunities it is afforded,

and to improve its areas of weakness and lessen the impact of the threats it faces from the current

external environment.

In essence, the discussion outcomes referred to four main areas:

Knowledge Management:

How best to share the expertise,

experience and information around

UNGEI core issues that currently exists

in the Partnership

How to make best use of this expertise,

these experiences and this information

How to improve sharing mechanisms by

mapping the current gaps

How to reconstruct current sharing

mechanisms, especially the Website, to

provide a space for country-level issues

How best to support the UNGEI PA

strategies with the most appropriate

evidence-based information

Figure 2 - Detail of the SWOT Exercise


Policy Advocacy:

How to influence policies around core UNGEI issues

How to leverage current high interest in girls’ education and gender issues

How to ensure broader visibility for UNGEI and its brand

How to influence governments and leverage political will to focus on the disadvantaged

How to leverage political will for systemic change at country level

Capacity development:

How best to map current capacities,

expertise and strengths within UNGEI

members

How best to document what they bring

to the table

How to ensure ease of access to

members’ expertise and information

How to build specific capacities to

support the strategic direction of

UNGEI, e.g. resource mobilization

capacities

How to build members’ capacities

specifically in relation to emergencies –

e.g. tools for analyzing UNGEI-related

issues in times of emergencies, building links with partners specializing in emergencies etc.

Membership issues:

How to increase commitment of UNGEI members – e.g. requiring a commitment statement

How to formalize UNGEI structures and governance at all levels: global, regional and national;

How to broaden the membership – e.g. to include non-education sectors

How to review and engage with other partnerships with the view to possible collaboration

Day 4: Thursday, 10th May 2012

The program for this day of the meeting included:

i) The finalization of the SWOT exercise (reported on above)

ii) A session on Knowledge Management

iii) Thematic discussions in parallel groups on:

a. Knowledge Management

b. Policy Advocacy

Figure 3 - Participants commenting on the components of the SWOT analysis


Figure 4: Framework for Successful Knowledge Management

Session 4.1 – SWOT analysis

The first part of the morning was used to review the SWOT analyses from the different groups.

Participants had the opportunity to place comments on the presentations prepared by the different

groups. These comments were integrated by the group reporters in their feedback on the outcomes of

the group work.

At the end of the session it was agreed that the issues/areas for action which had been raised in the

discussions following the SWOT exercise will be taken up as part of the remit of the small groups to work

on the coming months on the strategic way forward for UNGEI. This includes the KM and PA groups, as

well as the working group on Governance of the partnership (see Governance section).

Session 4.2 – Knowledge Management

This session was presented by Booz Allen Hamilton consultants Walton Smith (lead) and Jay Leask

(support). It began with a presentation by the Booz Allen consultants providing their vision for the “Art

of the Possible” – an introduction of what KM can be. This presentation highlighted:

The United Nations Foundation definition of KM as a baseline: “Knowledge Management is a

wide concept involving the processes of identifying and collecting relevant information and

knowledge currently available, its classification and storage, timely dissemination and updating.”

Booz Allen’s simplified definition of “Getting the right information to the right people at the

right time.”

A focus on People and Process as integral considerations for successful knowledge management

was clearly stated throughout the presentation – that technology was only an enabler and not a

solution on its own.

Three types of knowledge were discussed:

o 40% of knowledge is explicit, or structured

content, is the knowledge that we know

exists in white papers, proposals,

research studies and other

structured content

o 40% of knowledge is tacit, or

unstructured content, is the

knowledge that exists in

ourselves, but is most often lost

especially when employees leave

organizations

o 20% of knowledge is newly created and

therefore not yet well disseminated

Social Networking technologies were introduced

as part of a knowledge management

platform in that they aid in the collection


of tacit knowledge and also in the dissemination of newly created and existing structured

knowledge

Community management, communications and PA were identified as key driving processes for

successful knowledge management (Figure 4: Framework for Successful Knowledge

Management)

Adoption practices need to focus on clear user benefits, education, visibility and existing

communities and successes

A short video of a social-based knowledge management community, APAN, which went live after the

2010 earthquake in Haiti, was then presented. This video spotlighted what out-of-the-box thinking

could accomplish when combined with process and technology. The discussion was opened to

reflection after the video on what they had learned so far and what they thought this could mean for

UNGEI.

Next the presenters walked the GAC members through a table-based workshop where they presented a

series of questions and, without definition or specific guidance, asked each table to answer what they

felt was important at various levels. The questions included:

What Strengths and Opportunities are there for UNGEI partnerships towards growth and

collaboration? This focused at three levels: global, regional, and country.

What technical limitations and opportunities will serve as barriers for successful collaboration?

This focused again at three levels: global, regional, and country.

How do we contextualize knowledge management down to the district and local level? This

question focused at two levels: local and district.

The open-ended questions allowed for a variety of thoughts on how to approach knowledge

management. Each table discussed and documented their thoughts to these questions, providing

various levels of knowledge and experience to the conversation. This information will be reviewed by

the Booz Allen team and considered in the strategy delivery.

Session 4.3(a) – Knowledge Management Group facilitated discussion

This session took place in parallel to a PA session, reported on below. Again led by the Booz Allen

Hamilton consultants Walton Smith and Jay Leask, the afternoon breakout session started with a short

presentation. This presentation reviewed some of the key concepts from the morning:

KM is about getting the right information to the right people at the right time.

KM requires the collection of information both explicit and tacit. Some of this information can

be gathered through structured networks providing detailed, documented, known information.

Other information, the uncollected information, is best found through the social interaction of

subject-matter-based Communities of Practice and other social networking tools.


The UNGEI global partnership is focused on three levels: global, regional, and country. The group

discussed the strengths and weaknesses associated with all three of these levels and how UNGEI

provides a natural solution for these levels.

Based on the Booz Allen Knowledge Management Framework, a KM Platform focuses on four

things: Organizational Strategy, Process, Content, and Infrastructure.

Throughout the afternoon discussions it was clear that the KM system must provide a framework to

support PA throughout the global partnership. It is clear that UNGEI partners have successes at many

different levels but the ability to share these successes across the partnership is limited based on known

networks and often one-on-one interactions. While the ability to support technology at the local or

district level can be limited, at the country level and up it is imperative we get as much information to

each partner as possible. Each partner, then, can choose the best means to disseminate the information

to those who need it. Likewise, as the partners begin to see the value of a knowledge management

system they can use their local and district networks to collect more lessons learned and push that new

knowledge back into the global system.

A final point that came out of the afternoon KM group work was that the collection and dissemination of

knowledge alone was not enough. It is key that a framework for KM support the gathering of

measureable and meaningful statistics. We must understand the impact of shared information and in

order to do that we must know where the information is going and how it is being used.

Figure 5 - Representation of the KM Platform


Parallel Session 4.3(b) - Policy Advocacy

This session took place in parallel to the KM session, reported on above. The purpose of the policy

advocacy session was to:

Briefly reflect on UNGEI’s advocacy work, on UNGEI’s image, and on the changing context

Identify elements for a priority PA agenda for UNGEI moving forward

Identify suggested next steps to move PA agenda forward

Identify elements for terms of reference for an external PA strategy consultancy

The PA session was facilitated by Muriel Visser-Valfrey and Betty Ezati. The first part of the session

consisted of a joint discussion on the characteristic features of PA. UNIFEM’s definition of PA as “a

process in which a set of activities are directed at those in authority to influence decision making on

policy around girls’ education and gender equality” was considered to encompass most of these

elements.

Three brief interventions followed focusing on the emerging advocacy agenda (Anju Malhotra), on the

different types of advocacy organizations and the implications for UNGEI (Malin Elisson), and on the

experience of ASPBAE in PA at regional and country level. In this context, Anju Malhotra provided a brief

reminder of the importance of the changing global agenda and of moving from a first generation to a

second generation agenda. She also highlighted the need for ensuring that PA has aspirational goals

rather than focusing on problems or challenges.

Malin Ellison provided a brief diagrammatic overview of different types of organizations and their

charitable focus, highlighting how this has an impact/consequence for the kind of advocacy that an

organization can expect to do and the image that it projects towards its audience.

Raquel Castillo underscored the importance of a collective definition of PA, of building awareness

among agency of members, and of creating opportunities for joint action. She cautioned that setting

such an agenda requires a significant amount of internal buy-in which might not easily be achieved

through an external (consultancy) intervention.

Following these presentations the group split into two sub-groups. Each group developed a suggested

PA agenda. In addition, one of the groups drafted inputs into ToR for a consultancy to further develop

the PA strategy, and the other group developed a road map of priority activities to move this agenda

forward. A summary of these components of the group work is provided below.

Suggested PA agenda

Both groups brought up suggestions for a PA agenda. The following four priority areas emerged from the

discussion where participants felt that UNGEI could have a particular added value:

Keep focus on the marginalised

Target girls learning

Progress beyond basic education

Look forward to links with livelihoods and employment


Conflict and fragility were identified as crosscutting issues affecting the above, as well as the need to

take into account boy’s underperformance as part of the gender agenda.

Other topics that were considered important by both working groups include:

Gender Based Violence

Reproductive health and life skills

Cost as a barrier to education for girls

Non-formal education

Lack of early childhood facilities

Girls and sports

Suggested input into ToR for the development of UNGEI’s PA strategy

The role of the consultant was defined by the group as being that of a facilitator, and it was considered

essential that the potential consultant comprehends the partnership at all levels in order to operate in a

consultative manner, and to support UNGEI in developing an agenda that resonates with the full

partnership (and not just the global level).

The main task for the consultant will be to identify a PA strategy for the partnership. The focus of the

consultancy should be on validating the choice of these core areas which should be based on a clear

understanding of the overall context for PA (including by examining other actors and agendas,

considering UNGEI’s strengths and its added value within the broader context). Key suggested tasks for

the consultant that emerged from the group discussion thus included:

Map the competencies and skills within the partnership, as well as the potential social capital

within the UNGEI network in the area of advocacy. This would include identifying ‘doors’ that

are open to the UNGEI partnership or that could be opened, as well as implications for the

membership of UNGEI (in terms of attracting new partners, e.g. 10x10)

Develop a PA strategy around the three core areas of UNGEI, ensuring that the PA priorities that

are identified resonate at all levels of the partnership (i.e. explore the relevance to different

contexts)

Identify the existing opportunities that are ‘low hanging fruit’

Analysis of the potential ‘returns’ of different platforms/opportunities

Identify appropriate advocacy tools, including from other sectors/agendas that can inform

UNGEI’s work in this area

Session 4.4 - Plenary session for feedback on the thematic discussions

Both the KM and the PA groups reported back to the plenary. The following main points were retained

from the issues raised and from the questions for clarification that were put forward:


The need to ensure that all levels of the partnership (global, regional and national) are involved

and can identify with the PA discussions’ outcomes. It was underscored that the process through

which these priorities are identified therefore needs to be facilitative and consultative

The importance of ensuring that for its PA role, UNGEI aligns with and considers the current

movement toward learning achievements and outcomes (in particular as this is being led by the

Global Compact for Learning and the Secretary General’s Initiative)

The importance of ensuring that UNGEI’s PA focus and prioritization reflects a post-2015

agenda, lest the partnership become redundant

There is a clear overlap between the two exercises in the sense that KM outcomes could feed

the PA discussions. It was agreed that close links need to be maintained between the work that

is being done by the external consultants on KM, and the consultant that will provide support to

the PA process

There is a strategic advantage in using national Education Policy Agendas (sector wide) as a

reference as these provide a holistic platform for girls’ education and gender equality

Action Points

There was a request for clarification on the next steps and expected time frame for the KM and PA work.

In this context Cheryl Faye explained that the KM work will take place over the next three months; the

strategy should be available by the end of July 2012. The PA work will likely span the second half of

2012. The following specific action points were agreed upon:

Finalize TOR based on the outcomes of the Policy Advocacy thematic discussion

Recruit consultant(s) to develop a Policy Advocacy Strategy for UNGEI

Establish small task team to serve as reference group for Policy Advocacy strategy development

Draft UNGEI KM Strategy based on inputs from Kampala meeting, reference group and other

sources

Ensure close links between Policy Advocacy and Knowledge Management processes

Day 5: Friday, 11th May 2012

The last day of the meeting was devoted to the following sessions:

i) A presentation and group work around the future Governance structure and arrangements for

UNGEI

ii) Presentation around a road map for UNGEI to 2015

iii) Closing remarks and thanks

Session 5.1 - Governance issues

This session started with a presentation by Cheryl Gregory Faye on the Governance of UNGEI. Cheryl’s

presentation covered:


The current governance situation of UNGEI

A review of the main recommendations from the UNGEI evaluation

A proposal how to take the governance agenda forward

The proposal was then discussed in four participant working groups.

The current governance situation

In terms of the current situation, the organizational chart of UNGEI was presented; this includes the

GAC, the UNGEI Secretariat, two Co-Chairs, five regions with RFPs, and line-up of countries under each

of the regions. Strengths of current governance situation were summarized as including:

A good mix of actors in the GAC who are comfortable working together

Co-chairs doing ‘heavy lifting’

A Secretariat which is equipped to move the UNGEI agenda forward between GAC meetings

RFPs who have a solid understanding of what goes on at country level and provide technical

support

A wide range and diversity of country mechanisms which are relevant to the particular contexts

in which they operate

The presentation also highlighted a number of disadvantages of the current arrangement including:

Static membership of GAC

Co-Chair fatigue (especially among bilateral members)

Working Groups that have not functioned optimally

A Secretariat which is viewed by some as overstepping its mandate and which spends much

time preparing and reporting meeting

Inconsistent time allocation by RFPs to the UNGEI work

Ineffective link between country and global levels

Main recommendations from the Global Evaluation of UNGEI

The key evaluation recommendations with regard to Governance were reviewed by the presenter, and it

was highlighted that this included: recruiting a number of country-level members to the GAC; reviewing

the GAC membership to achieve the right ‘mix’; creation of a PA advisory group to set future direction in

this area; a more empowered Secretariat, with one additional professional staff member to support a

strengthened PA agenda. At the regional level the evaluation recommended: that the EARP continue to

focus on PA with some country support and that the other regions focus primarily on the country level.

In all cases the evaluation emphasized that the RFPs’ time allocation should be at least 50 % and that

each of the regions should develop a multi-year Work Plan. Finally, at the country level the evaluation

highlighted that funding was viewed as one of the greatest constraints and that the main governance

difficulties relate to defining and making partnerships function.


Suggestions on how to move forward

The final part of the presentation focused on a concrete proposal for addressing UNGEI’s governance

challenges. At the global level the proposals included:

Expanding the GAC (up to 30 members) with constituencies that would represent bilateral

partners, multilaterals, the private sector, academia and Civil Society Organizations (CSO)

Membership should be achieved through an application and acceptance process

At the global level the GAC would populate WG / Task Teams and selected members would

serve on an Executive Body – annual meetings of the GAC (as is currently the practice) would not

be needed

The Executive Body would replace the current Co-chairs – and would include one member of

each constituency group. The role of the Executive would be to approve the Global Work Plan

and oversee its implementation

Task Teams would address specific issues e.g. PA, KM, Capacity Building, Corporate Social

Responsibility – with a view to expand reach into private sector

The PA Advisory Group would meet once a year and propose a PA focus for the coming year

The Secretariat would develop and implement global work plan based on:

o Proposal from PA Advisory Group

o Capacity development needs of countries

o Budget accountability through UNICEF

The Secretariat would also monitor and assess the work of Task Teams

At the regional level the following was recommended:

RFPs would develop annual regional work plans, largely focusing on knowledge and data

management

Provide quarterly reports on progress against work plans to feed into Secretariat’s reporting to

the Executive

Allocate at least 50% time to UNGEI

Finally at the country level the focus would be on PA with MoE and Government

Identification of Knowledge Gaps through situation analyses

Capacity development (according to identified needs)

KM

The presenter suggested the reporting relationship should be to the regional level and not to global level

and that there would be a need to clarify the relevance to the country level of the M&E framework for

UNGEI as it stands currently.


Discussion

A lively discussion followed the presentation. In response to the issues raised during the plenary the

following observations were made and clarifications provided:

Asked whether the task team should focus on Corporate Social Responsibility or should rather

be concerned with funding or resource mobilization more generally, Cheryl explained that

Corporate Social Responsibility represents an agenda that private members can relate to and

which may leverage future funding for national partnerships.

In response to a question as to whether the number of focus areas could be expanded at

country level it was highlighted that UNGEI does not want to be prescriptive regarding the focus

areas at country level which should rather be a reflection of the local realities

Clarification was asked about the rationale for having constituencies given that the evaluation

has recommended a more inclusive partnership. Cheryl underscored that the constituencies are

intended as a source from which to populate UNGEI’s proposed advisory body/executive and

task teams. Nevertheless, a number of persons from the floor objected to having constituencies

given that UNGEI needs to find ways of working with partners – such as Plan International – who

are currently not part of GAC. It was felt that a closed partnership would not achieve this

The observation was made by a number of participants that longer time frames for regional

reporting as quarterly reports are too frequent

A question was raised whether MoEs should be represented on the GAC. It was clarified that

ASPBAE (Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education) and FAWE play the role of

representing MoE at the GAC level and that bringing in MoE will add huge cost and that it could

take some time to get them briefed on the global partnership

In response to requests for clarification, Cheryl Gregory Faye underscored that the proposal that

was put forward to the plenary is her own proposal to serve as a basis of discussion during this

meeting, that the time frame for the proposed governance changes is up to 2015, and that the

governance decision-making needs to take place in the current year (2012)

This discussion was followed by a brief overview by Nora Fyles of the International Network for

Education in Emergencies (INEE) Working Group on Fragile States as an example of a different kind of

partnership, and as an input to the subsequent group discussion.

The presentation highlighted that the network is similar to UNGEI, but that it has a very precise way of

functioning. In terms of Governance structure this includes:

- A Secretariat with 2 full time staff (2 year contracts)

- Chair or co-chair (elected for 1 year)

- A consultative committee

- 3-4 persons to make up an executive of 5

- Decisions are made by entire working group

- Two meetings annually


Membership of the INEE WG is governed by very tight terms of reference. The membership is voluntary

and consists of members who are interested in and committed to the goals. Membership is also on an

institutional basis and chosen on the basis of expertise and positions. The regulations specify that

member organizations must ensure that the person representing the organization can commit to an

average of two days per month to the INEE.

Session 5.2: Group work on Governance Issues

Four different groups were composed and each group was asked to reflect on the proposed governance

changes and to come up with a revised/modified proposal which reflected their views on the issue

Team 1:

The proposal by the first team included:

Having an Executive Director and an Executive Team (ET) which makes all the decisions

The ET would include three to five representatives from the larger constituency which would

give advice on decision-making. The final decisions would be made by the Executive Director

and the final decisions vetted by ET. The ET would represent different skills – reflecting the skills

sets that are needed to inform decision making

Two Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) would be established as follows:

o Policy Advocacy TAG – A 15 member team supporting PA

o KM TAG – Also 15 member committee selected by the executive team

Members of each of the TAG would be selected through an application process for executive

membership and selection would be based on having skills that match the needs and

requirements of the respective groups

Task Teams would also be constituted. These would be:

o “Always on the move”, not permanent, time-bound, meant to focus on specific needs

and would be drawn from the broader

membership

o Membership of the TT would be completely open

The creation of a position of Regional Co-Chairs who

together with the RFP would jointly take responsibility

for the work in the region

Team 2

Team 2 focused on the governance structures and noted

that they were generally comfortable with the principles

suggested during the presentation

The team highlighted that they were in favor of

expanding the partnership so UNGEI is not just the GAC,

Figure 6 - Governance proposal by Team 2


and also to expand the scope of the partnership to include Latin America in order to get that

region’s perspective on girls’ education and gender equality issues

The team suggested that the establishment of an overarching Policy Advocacy Advisory Group

to ensure that UNGEI is not too inward looking/focused. The membership of this group would

not be by application but rather by invitation to individual members based on their expertise.

The Policy Advocacy Advisory Group would be the sounding board of UNGEI and would identify

priority advocacy messages. Under this proposal the Secretariat would continue to exist and

would still be hosted by UNICEF and responsible for the implementation. The Executive Team

would be constituency-based and rotational and would be in charge of decision-making

Task Teams would be discrete and time-bound. They would be in charge of the implementation

of the AWP

The team highlighted that at regional and country level the structures need to be flexible and

evolving (based on need of the region). The team noted that content areas are a good starting

point but should not be prescriptive. Regions and countries should be able to decide

Team 3

This team proposed that the GAC be the supreme

body for UNGEI.

A Steering Body/Team would take decisions and play

a governance role

Thematic groups would fall under the Steering Body.

Three groups were suggested by the team to cover

the key areas of PA, KM, and Partnership. To be

shared by members of the Steering Committee.

Task teams would be put in place along the lines

suggested by the other groups for time bound issues

The Secretariat at global level would be charged with

coordination of activities and exchange of

information.

The team also suggested the establishment of a

Secretariat at regional level for each of the regions as

well as a similar structure at country level – with

secretariats in each country

To keep the cohesion of the partnership the team suggested “Reflection Conferences” which

would take place every 2-3 years and where there is representation of each body

Figure 7 - Governance proposal Team 3


Team 4

Team 4 developed a governance proposal around

the key concepts of:

- Flexibility

- Decentralization

- Non-hierarchical

- Smaller center

- Thematic focus

For the country level this team proposed a

structure which is not rigid, and in which countries

have the leeway to develop other activities in

addition to those proposed globally

The team suggested that a key role for the RFPs

would be to engage with the countries in a spirit of

partnership, but guided by work plans and M&E

frameworks which would be developed in a

consultative manner. “Commitment to the cause”

would be central to a country’s engagement but

the structure of partnership would vary from country to country and RFPs and countries would

define the terms of engagement at country level

At regional level the team suggested that the RFPs should not be bound by a certain percentage

of time and that reporting would take place every six months. The reports would be shared with

country partners and other RFPs

For the global level the team suggested unlimited membership. However, membership would be

constituency-based and intentionally ‘pushed’ to ensure a representative mix

The partnership would be managed by an Executive Circle or “Kibina” which would oversee the

implementation plans

The partnership would have task teams and Co-Chairs. The Secretariat would provide guidance

and help with capacity building together with RFPs. Each region would have its own Advisory

Committee, however work plans and reporting would be required

Action Points

The session ended with an explanation that the various suggestions made by the groups will be used by

a smaller working group to formulate recommendations for the revised governance structure for UNGEI.

Common themes that emerged from the presentations include the need for a more thematically driven

UNGEI and a more decentralized ‘flat’ structure.

Figure 8 - Governance proposal by team 4


The following concrete action points emerged from the plenary discussion for follow up in the coming

months:

Establish a task team to work on specific areas of strategic direction, governance and on a

roadmap for UNGEI. The task team will communicate its suggestions to the GAC

Feed the regional and country evaluation outcomes into the follow-up work on strategic

direction and governance

Integrate the outcomes from the SWOT groups into the decisions on strategic direction

Tease out common features emerging from the new thinking on governance that emanated

from the groups at the Kampala meeting, e.g. structures that are more decentralized, those that

are more theme-driven

Based on these common features, develop a draft structure to share with GAC

Session 5.3 - UNGEI Roadmap

Cheryl Gregory Faye presented a diagram of UNGEI’s road map moving forward (see Annex 6). She

explained that UNGEI partner inputs in the roadmap will be based on comparative advantage and will

support activities in the area of PA, KM and Capacity Development (represented as three wheels in the

diagram). These three focus areas will be underpinned by a Governance and Leadership structure, as

well as by M&E components. The Governance, Leadership and M&E have a feedback loop to the inputs

value added for partners. In the diagram outcomes were represented in terms of global, regional and

country/local level outputs.

Action points

Based on the main elements discussed the Roadmap task team will develop a roadmap to guide the

Partnership’s work through 2015, with detailed annual planning to follow. The task team will need to

ensure that the work on strategic direction, governance, KM and PA, is reflected in the proposed road

map.

Session 5.4 - Final remarks and closing

The final session of the workshop included a summary by the lead facilitator, Nora Godwin, of the main

sessions, their key outcomes, and how these will feed into decision making by the partnership on its

future direction. The presenter highlighted that the meeting had focused on information sharing at the

beginning, with regional situations and other partners initiatives (UNESCO, the SG’s Initiative, etc.) being

presented and discussed. This had been followed by work around the strategic direction for UNGEI, in

which the SWOT analysis is an important input. She highlighted the convergence that had emerged in

the strategic thinking around three themes namely: PA; capacity development of partners and

members; and sharing of expertise and knowledge (within UNGEI, sharing experience and information

around core UNGEI issues, and making best use of expertise of members). She also highlighted the

considerable amount of feedback which participants had provided around UNGEI governance, and on


how to avoid competing agendas. It was noted that these reflections and contributions will feed into the

work by the PA and KM groups which will pick up the outcomes of the workshop. With respect to the

governance session the facilitator highlighted the useful “amazing new thinking” from which two

themes appeared to have emerged – the need for UNGEI to be more thematically driven and for UNGEI

to work in a more decentralized manner. She underscored that a small group will look at suggested new

structures and will develop a recommended structure. Finally reference was made by the facilitator to a

number of issues which had been placed in the “parking lot” (awaiting discussion) and that these had

been noted by the meeting and would feed into the work by the PA group.

The meeting was closed by UNGEI GAC Co-Chairs Nora Fyles and Nitya Rao with thanks to the

participants and the organizers (the Uganda partnership and MoES, UNICEF and the facilitators) for a

very productive meeting and also extended a word of special thanks to Cheryl Gregory Faye who is due

to retire, for her tireless support and engagement with UNGEI. Susan Durston also thanked Cheryl on

behalf of UNICEF.


Summary of Action Points

Action Responsible Time Frame

Strategic Direction, Governance, Roadmap

1. Establish smaller, follow-up task team to work on specific areas of strategic direction, governance and roadmap and communicate to GAC

Co-Chairs, Secretariat Head

8 June

2. Regional and country evaluation outcomes to feed into follow-up work on strategic direction, governance and roadmap

Roadmap Task Team

End August

3. Take outcomes from SWOT groups and incorporate into strategic direction/roadmap

Roadmap Task Team

End August

4. Tease out common features emerging from the new thinking on governance that emanated from the groups at the Kampala meeting, e.g. structures that are more decentralized, those that are more theme-driven


8 June

5. Based on these common features, develop a draft structure to share with GAC

Roadmap Task Team

End August

6. Based on the main elements discussed on Day 5 in Kampala (captured in the one-slide visual), develop a Roadmap to guide the Partnership’s work through 2015, with detailed annual planning to follow

Roadmap Task Team

End June

Policy Advocacy and Knowledge Management

7. Finalize TOR based on the outcomes of the Policy Advocacy thematic discussion

Secretariat Head, Co-Chair Nora

8 June

8. Establish small task team to serve as reference group for Policy Advocacy strategy development


End June

9. Recruit consultant(s) to develop a Policy Advocacy Strategy for UNGEI

Secretariat Head

End August

10. Draft UNGEI KM Strategy based on inputs from Kampala meeting, reference group and other sources

Booz Allen Hamilton, Secretariat

End July

11. Ensure close links between Policy Advocacy and Knowledge Management processes

Secretariat, Co-Chairs

Throughout

Collaboration with Global Partnership for Education

12. Establish a small task team to include the GPE Secretariat that will finalize the concept note and take forward the discussions;

Co-Chair Nora, Secretariat Head

8 June

13. Based on previous analyses, list of pipeline countries and those due for allocation in November, select small number of countries for piloting collaboration approach

Co-Chair Nora, Secretariat Head

Mid June

14. Ensure that following issues are addressed through concept note or pilot process: UNGEI representation at country level, role of RFP, possible resource needs at global and country

GPE Task Team End August


Action Responsible Time Frame

level

15. Follow up with UNICEF Uganda on national partnership’s engagement in GPE process

Secretariat Head

8 June

Country partnerships (to be communicated, but not monitored, by Secretariat)

16. Explore ways of liaising more directly with development partners for mobilizing resources

Country partnerships

TBD

17. For sustainability, mainstream UNGEI activities into national gender plans and strategies

Country partnerships

TBD

18. Conduct mapping of partners and identification of reasons for diminishing interest

Uganda partnership

TBD

19. Add UNGEI as a standing agenda point to quarterly district meetings

Uganda partnership

TBD

20. Conduct a study on the issues around the well-being of child mothers and returning to school (possibly framing this in the context of whether it might not be better to avoid the pregnancy in the first place)

Uganda partnership

TBD


Annex 1 – List of Meeting Participants

Organization Representative Title Email

1 ANCEFA Adelaide Sosseh Chairperson, Gambia EFA Coalition [email protected]

2 ASPBAE Nitya Rao Sr. Lecturer/Co-editor, University of East Anglia, & UNGEI GAC Co-Chair [email protected]

3 ASPBAE Raquel D. Castillo Asia Policy Advocacy and Campaigns Coordinator [email protected]

4 CAMFED Lucy Lake Deputy Executive Director [email protected]

5 CIDA Nora Fyles Education Team Leader & UNGEI GAC Co-Chair [email protected]

6 Commonwealth Secretariat Florence Malinga Adviser, Education

Div. of Social T ransforation Prog.

[email protected]

7 FAWE Oley Dibba-Wadda Executive Director [email protected]

8 Global Partnership for

Education (GPE)

Douglas Lehman Sr. Education Specialist [email protected]

9 Global Partnership for

Education (GPE)

Renu Jain Sr. Education Specialist [email protected]

10 ILO Akky de Kort Chief Technical Advisor, ILO-IPEC [email protected]

11 ILO Jackie Banya ILO-IPEC [email protected]

12 ILO Valentina Actis-Danna Intern, IPEC [email protected]

13 Norad Randi Gramshaug Advisor, Education Section [email protected]

14 Sida Malin Elisson Lead Policy Specialist, Education/Former UNGEI Co-Chair [email protected]

15 UNESCO Maki Katsuno-

Hayashikawa

Chief, Section for Basic Education [email protected]

16 UNFPA Florence Apuri Auma Team Leader for Gender, UNFPA Kampala Office [email protected]

17 UNGEI RFP-EAPR Chemba Raghavan Regional Focal Point, UNGEI [email protected]

18 UNGEI RFP-ESAR Hind Omer Regional Focal Point, a.i. UNGEI [email protected]

19 UNICEF Dina Craissati UNICEF Regional Education Advisor [email protected]

20 UNGEI RFP-SAR Raka Rashid Regional Focal Point, UNGEI [email protected]

21 UNGEI RFP-WCAR Nicolas Reuge Regional Focal Point, UNGEI [email protected]

22 UNICEF Susan Durston Associate Director, Education [email protected]

23 UNICEF Jim Ackers Regional Education Advisor [email protected]

24 UNICEF Kathleen Letshabo Evaluation Specialist [email protected]

25 World Bank Oni Lusk-Stover Operations Officer, Education [email protected]

26 World Vision Alisa Phillips Education Sector Technical Specialist [email protected]

27 UNGEI Secretariat Cheryl Gregory Faye Sr. Education Advisor & Head of UNGEI Secretariat [email protected]

28 UNGEI Secretariat Aarti Saihjee Education Specialist [email protected]

29 UNGEI Secretariat Desmond Doogan Communiation Specialist [email protected]

30 Consultant Muriel Visser-Valfrey Consultant, UNGEI Evaluation [email protected]

31 Consultant Nora Godwin Strategic Planning Facilitator [email protected]

32 Consultant Betty Ezati Consultant, UNGEI Evaluation [email protected]

33 Booz Allen Hamilton Jay Leask Booz Allen consultant [email protected]

34 Booz Allen Hamilton Walton Smith Booz Allen consultant [email protected]

35 Ministry of Education Rita Kyeyune Girls Education/Chairperson UNGEI

36 " Harriet Ajilong Gender Focal Person

37 " Rosette nanyanzi Education Planning and Policy

38 " Christine Sizomu Guidance and Counselling

39 " Daniel Nkaada Commissioner Basic Education

40 " Resty Muziribi Pre-Primary Education

41 " Richard Minze Education Planning Department

42 " Kedrace Turyagenda Directorate of Education Standards

UNGEI Global Advisory Committee Meeting

7-11 May 2012

Kabira County Club Hotel

Kampala, Uganda

List of Participants


Organization Representative Title Email

" Martin Omagor Commissioner, Special Needs Education

KYGEI Kyenjojo District Gertrude T ibakanya KYGEI Chair/DEO

Irish Aid Carol Kego Laker

FAWE Uganda Martha Muhwezi Co-Chairperson UNGEI Uganda

FAWE Uganda Joshephine Pedun

GEM Uganda Florence Kanyike

Humphrey Mutebi

GEM Uganda Fatuma Wamala

Save the Children, Uganda Els Heijnen

Makerere University Dr. Consolata Kabonesa

Dr. Florence Ebila

Ministry of Gender, Labour

and Social Development

Maggie Kyomukama

Ida Kigoonya

Ministry of Finane, Planning

& Economic Development

Margaret Kakande

Maggie Kasiko

Plan Uganda Margaret Akello

Belgian Embassy Sonia Van Loo

Hannah Nayoga

Education Development Partners Coordinator

Abim District George Walter Ochero District Inspector of Schools

KAGEI - Kasese District Kulthum Masika Moshi KAGEI Chair

Lira District Bosco Bwonyo District Inspector of Schools

Forum for Education NGOs

in Uganda

Fred Mwesigye National Coordinator

UNICEF Uganda Margo O'Sullivan Chief of Education

UNICEF Uganda Rosaria Kunda Education Officer

UNICEF Uganda Emmi Pakkala Education Specialist

UNICEF Uganda Hajara Ndayidde ECD Specialist

UNICEF Uganda Rosemary Rugamba-

Rwanyange

Education Specialist

UNICEF Uganda Esther Akwi Consultant, UNGEI Evaluation

UNICEF Uganda Berna Babugura Programme Assistant

UNICEF Uganda Cotilda Mugenyi Consultant, UNGEI Evaluation


Annex 2 – Meeting Agenda

Time Title Details Participants Responsible

Monday, 7 May

08:30 – 09:00

Security briefing

Presentation by UN Department of Safety and Security on security in Kampala

All participants UNICEF Uganda

09:00 – 12:45

Field visits Parallel visits to partner sites

Girls’ Education Movement (GEM)

Makerere University Transportation provided

GAC members, RFPs, CFP(s), Secretariat

UNICEF Uganda, Secretariat

13:15 – 14:15 Lunch Break

14:30 – 15:30

Field visits Debriefing on field visits GAC members, RFPs, Secretariat

Secretariat team1

15:30 – 17:00

Courtesy call on UNGEI Uganda

Debriefing on field visits and initial briefing with national partnership at the Ministry of Education and Sports offices Transportation provided

GAC members, RFPs, Secretariat team, GEM, Makerere Univ.

MoES and FAWE Uganda (respectively chair and co-chair of UNGEI Uganda)

Tuesday, 8 May

08:30 – 09:30

Opening ceremony

Introductory remarks by GAC Co-Chair (TBC)2

Self-introductions

Welcome remarks by outgoing UN Resident Coordinator3

Opening remarks on behalf of the Minister of Education and Sports4

Group photograph

GAC members, RFPs, Uganda partnership

Mistress of Ceremonies5

09:30 – 10:00 Coffee Break

1 Secretariat team: Cheryl Gregory Faye (Secretariat head), Aarti Saihjee (Education specialist), Des Doogan

(Communication specialist), Berna Babugura (Programme Assistant) and Esther Akwii (Admin. Assistant) 2 Co-Chairs: Nitya Rao, ASPBAE, and Nora Fyles, CIDA

3 Théophane Nikyema, outgoing UN Resident Coordinator, on behalf of Sharad Sapra, UNICEF Representative

4 Minister of State for Primary Education, the Honorable Dr. Cos Kamanda Bataringaya

5 Kedrace Turyagenda, Commissioner, Directorate of Education Standards, MoES



10:00 – 12:30

Business Meeting

Video screening Review of meeting methodology Review of Draft Agenda and Purpose of Meeting Review of Action Points from prior meeting 2012 work plan report including new web portal Interactive panel presentation

Report on East and Southern Africa

Report on West and Central Africa

Report on Middle East and North Africa

Report from East Asia-Pacific

Report on South Asia


Facilitation team6 Co-Chairs UNGEI Regional Focal Points and UNICEF Regional Education Advisors

12:30 – 13:00

Partnership Updates

Advocacy report on girls’ and women’s education with a focus on secondary education and literacy under the DG’s Global Partnership for Gender Equality through girls and women’s education Plan International campaign on girls’ education, Because I Am A Girl Secretary-General’s Education Initiative


UNESCO7 Plan Uganda8 UNICEF9


14:00 – 15:30

UNGEI Evaluation

Presentation of Global evaluation of UNGEI and management response


Evaluation team10, M&E working group


15:45 – 17:45

Working at Country Level

Collaboration with Global Partnership for Education


Co-Chair and GPE Secretariat

18:00 – 20:00

Cocktail reception

Hosted by UNICEF Uganda; opportunity to interact with wider country partners

All UNICEF Uganda

Wednesday, 9 May

08:30 – UNGEI Presentation of UNGEI Uganda case study GAC members, Evaluation

6 Facilitation team: Nora Godwin, Muriel Visser-Valfrey and Betty Ezati

7 Maki Katsuno-Hayashikawa, UNESCO Chief of Basic Education Section

8 Subhadra Belbase, Country Director, Plan Uganda

9 Susan Durston, UNICEF Global Chief of Education

10 Evaluation team: Kathleen Letshabo, Muriel Visser-Valfrey and Betty Ezati



10:00 Evaluation and country partnership response and discussions

RFPs, Uganda partnership

team


10:15 – 11:45

UNGEI Evaluation

Conversations with the Uganda Partnership GAC members, RFPs, Uganda partnership

Lead Facilitator

11:45 – 12:30

Working at Country Level

Collaboration with Global Partnership for Education in light of Uganda case study discussions


Co-Chair and GPE Secretariat


13:30 – 15:30

UNGEI Strategic Direction

Vision for UNGEI including Organizational Review framework and SWOT exercise

GAC members, RFPs, representatives11 of Uganda country partnership

Lead Facilitator


15:45 – 17:30


Continued GAC members, RFPs, representatives of Uganda country partnership

Lead Facilitator

Thursday, 10 May

08:30 – 10:00


Feedback on SWOT exercise GAC members, RFPs, representatives of Uganda country partnership

Lead Facilitator


10:15 – 12:15


Knowledge Management strategy development – presentation and group work

GAC members, RFPs, representatives of Uganda country partnership

KM experts12

12:15 – 12:30


Briefing on afternoon group work As above Lead Facilitator


13:30 – 15:30


Parallel thematic discussions:

Policy Advocacy

GAC members, RFPs, representatives

Lead Facilitator

11

Christine Sizomu, Senior Education Officer, MoES, Chair of UNGEI Uganda, and Martha Muhwezi, National

Coordinator, FAWE Uganda, Co-Chair of UNGEI Uganda 12

Walton Smith and Jay Leask



Knowledge management of Uganda country partnership


15:45 – 16:30


Continuation of parallel thematic discussions As above Lead Facilitator

16:30 – 17:30


Reporting back on thematic discussions As above Lead Facilitator

18:30 – 21:00

Dinner An evening of Ugandan cultural music and dance at the Ndere Centre at the invitation of the Uganda partnership Transportation provided

All participants and invited guests

Master of Ceremonies13

Friday, 11 May

08:30 – 10:15


Governance issues GAC members, RFPs, representatives of Uganda country partnership

Lead Facilitator


10:30 -12:30


Continued As above Facilitator


14:00 – 16:00


Roadmap to 2015 for the Partnership As above Lead Facilitator


16:15 – 17:00


Continue As above Facilitator

17:00 – 17:30

Close Review of action points Review of expected meeting outcomes Closing of meeting

GAC members, RFPs, representatives of Uganda country partnership

Co-Chairs

13

Martin Omagor, Commissioner, Special Needs Education, MoES


Annex 3 – Summary of participant assessment and feedback on the

meeting14

5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = neutral; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree

1. The objectives of the meeting were clear

4.3

2. I have an increased understanding of the current context of the UNGEI global/regional partnership and some of its challenges

4.3

3. I have an increased understanding of the elements of an effective national partnership

3.8

4. (Please respond if you attended the Knowledge Management discussion group): a) I have a better understanding of the role KM can play in strengthening the

partnership b) I have better understanding of how I can support the proposed KM strategy

a) 4.1 b) 3.2

5. (Please respond if you attended the Policy/Advocacy discussion group): a) I have a better understanding of the role Policy Advocacy can play in

strengthening the partnership b) I have better understanding of how I can support the proposed Policy Advocacy

strategy

a) 4.1 b) 3.7

6. I have a better understanding of the future possibilities of the structure, role and operating modalities of UNGEI

3.8

7. I have a better sense of how member organizations can support UNGEI an d contribute to achieving its collective objectives by 2015

3.7

8. The meeting was well planned and the presentations and activities helped meet the meeting’s objectives

4.3

9. During the meeting, we spent our time on what matters most to UNGEI 4.4

10. The atmosphere was friendly and encouraged interaction and participation; all GAC 4.7

14

18 people completed and returned the Evaluation form


members had the opportunity to be heard

11. The facilitators were effective in managing the interaction between participants and helped meet the objectives

4.6

Comments from the participants

1. Most Useful

Specific sessions:

“Session on Policy Advocacy Strategy with actual output”

“The working session on Governance”; “Governance session and the creation of new models for

the structure/roles of UNGEI” (2)

“The Knowledge Management session”; “The session on Knowledge Management opened my

eyes/lenses to the diversified ways in which KM can be a useful tool in carrying out our work “(2)

“Uganda experience”

“To hear country and regional level presentations”

“Overview of Regional Partnerships”

“The discussion around opportunities and threats”

Knowledge/Understanding:

“Concrete understanding of how a country-level partnership operates – its strengths and

weaknesses and the challenges that persist”; “Live experiences of partnerships that work

especially at Uganda country level” (2)

“Raised issues not discussed before; the context for these <issues> that was created by the

evaluation was more important than the evaluation findings themselves”

“Better knowledge about UNGEI”; “A deeper understanding of the potential of UNGEI”; “The

unpacking of UNGEI as a movement and not another NGO” (3)

“The presentations were very informative”


Networking:

“Participation of National participants – also the advantage of having the meeting in a

(programme) country”

“Networking opportunities”; “Networking with other members”; “The opportunity to network

with the other members and interact with them” (3)

“Mixing with people and the interesting discussions”

“Experience sharing”

Methods and Management:

“Room for discussion”; “The many interesting discussions”; “The interactive sessions, especially

the discussions.” (3)

“The presentations interspersed with group work and innovative forms of reporting back really

helped”

“The groupwork exercises”

“Focused discussions, groupwork, participatory <activities> combined with fun”

“The participatory nature of the meeting made it very interactive”

“The good time management and varied facilitation methods/approaches used”

“Well-planned and structured with each session logically flowing into the next”

2. Missing/Could have been done differently

Specific sessions/topics:

“More space should have been given to discussions from regional and country level perspectives,

especially in discussion on governance issues”

“The discussion on GPE that followed the Uganda partnership discussion didn’t work so well”

“<More about> situation of girls’ education and gender, especially at a) global level and b)

regional level”


“Most of the issues on empowerment and transformation that targets changing the status quo

(e.g. prevention of teenage pregnancy, sex education etc.) were shelved to the Parking Lot, and

not handled at the end of the workshop. Let’s work beyond the numbers and address gender

equality and empowerment for more sustainable solutions”

Next steps/Future directions:

“More <group> discussions needed on UNGEI’s positioning and role in the ongoing discussions at

both global and regional levels on the post 2015 and EFA 2015 assessment. What is the future of

UNGEI beyond 2015?”

“I felt that the SWOT <exercise> was left before closure. Perhaps a summary would have been

useful. I am somewhat disappointed that that we were not quite finished with the next steps”

Decisions:

“Not to be so timid about reaching decisions/conclusions in order to make members more clear

on actual deliveries from each session”

“There could have been more clarity on the decisions made (and their follow up)”

“Summarizing key decisions at the end of each session”

Others:

“The country representatives/partnerships could have participated more, especially <those

from> other agencies”

“<More focus> on the objective of each session”

“Brief papers for each session to be digested in the <evenings>; not just slides that are

distributed at the end”

“<More?> energizers during the sessions to keep us lively”


3. General Comments

Overall:

“The workshop was well organized and overall successful“; “Many thanks! “; “A very useful and

interesting meeting “; “Excellent workshop!”; “Good workshop!” (5)

“Good workshop with very open discussion, with the facilitators and Secretariat open to

discussion, including criticism”

“The GAC Meeting gave us, the National membership, a wider <perspective> on the issues, and

clearly spelt out what we need to do to be visible as UNGEI at national level”

Interactions/Participation:

“Interactions between GAC members were fruitful”;

“Thanks a lot for considering how to include the other stakeholders. We shall be glad to enrich

the partnership at country, regional and global levels”

“The very good interactions and discussions among members should have been more moderated

into summaries”

“The only slightly disappointing aspect was that some people came in and out of the discussions

and seemed somewhat disengaged”

Length:

“The structure of the workshop could have been reviewed to reduce the number of days”

“The workshop could have been condensed to 3-4 days”

Facilitation:

“Having an <external> facilitator was good”

“Fabulous to have a professional facilitation team and rapporteurs. It made all the difference to

have a skilled team to manage the process”

“Fantastic facilitator – she made the meeting interactive”


“The facilitator was warm and kept us on track which meant we used our time optimally”

Others:

“Hotel arrangement was not very pleasant”

“Too many loose ends: without concluding remarks, it gave the impression that the actual next

steps are put forward by an exclusive group, leaving the others as audience/spectators”

“Thank you very much for the “flowers” – a flash drive with all the presentations”


Annex 4 – Remarks by the UNICEF Representative in Uganda

REMARKS BY UNICEF REPRESENTATIVE AT THE MEETING

OF THE UNGEI GLOBAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KAMPALA,

TUESDAY MAY 8, 2012

The Minister of State for Primary Education, Hon. Dr. Cos Kamanda Bataringaya

The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education and Sports, Mr. Francis Lubanga

The Director of Basic and Secondary Education, Dr. Yusuf Nsubuga

The Chairpersons and Co-Chairs, UNGEI

Members of UNGEI Uganda

Representatives of the Education Development Partners in Uganda

Representatives of Civil Society,

Members of the Media,

Colleagues, Ladies, and Gentlemen:

I’m honored to welcome you all to the UNGEI Global Advisory Committee meeting. Let me begin by

thanking the UNGEI GAC for choosing Uganda as the venue for this important meeting.

UNGEI in Uganda is a multi-sector partnership, each contributing in complementary ways, each bringing

in different expertise, skills, experiences, and funding.

Chaired by the Ministry of Education and Sports, this partnership is made up of Ministries, NGOs (like

the Girls’ Education Movement-Uganda, which became an NGO here), UN agencies, Education

Development Partners like Irish Aid, and other important development partners and funders.

Together we lobby, advocate, and fund with the goal of ensuring girls go to school, stay in school, and

perform well.

We work to improve awareness of the importance of girls’ education at the community level, and we’ve

successfully advocated for the institution of bylaws to ensure that all girls and boys of school going age

are able to access a full cycle of primary education here.

We work together to ensure no girl is left behind. For instance, through the UN Joint Programme on

Gender, we’re helping ensure pregnant girls and child mothers are going to school.

It is significant that the Government of Uganda and implementing partners have actively promoted girls’

education through policies like the Gender in Education policy, and through Universal Primary Education

and Universal Secondary Education. This has brought Uganda much closer to achieving the Millennium

Development Goals 2 & 3, and the Education For All Goals.


But every success leads to a new set of challenges.

At the Primary level, Uganda has succeeded in achieving gender parity in reaching a net enrolment rate

of nearly 97%. But retention is a challenge; Ensuring a high quality of teaching and learning is a

challenge.

With a low completion rate of 64%, ensuring girls (and boys) stay in school, and complete a full course, is

a challenge.

How do we address these challenges?

We must ensure quality teaching and learning can become an integral role in a child’s development –

from age Zero to 18.

From Zero to 18, there should be a continuum of competencies – at each successive level of a child’s

development.

A girl leaving ECD will have a core competency level – helping her enrol at the right age to Primary; and

succeed there;

When she leaves Primary she has a core set of competencies, that give her the building blocks to

succeed in Secondary school; When she graduates at 18, she should have a core set of competencies

that are a preparation for the next stage in her life.

Right now, what we’re seeing is that education is not translating into employment. And if there isn’t a

viable, sustainable opportunity at the end of that continuum, then how can that girl manage to convince

her family that the time spent is worth it?

If you’re poor, time is one of your most valuable resources. And free primary education can be

expensive – in terms of time investment, for example.

Low retention and completion rates are reflective of families having trouble continuing with that

investment. If we’re seeing competency levels in literacy at P6 level at about 50% -- half of students

competent in literacy at the end of Primary – how can we ensure a parent or caregiver will value the

education a daughter is receiving, and be her champion in continuing through years of school?

By ensuring a girl has a safe school environment with quality teaching, we’re helping ensure she stays in

school and finishes.

By strengthening this continuum of competencies running from Zero to 18 years: strong ECD;

Preparedness in Primary; Enroling at the right age; High quality of teaching; Skills training – we make

leaps forward towards guaranteeing a girl, a family, a community will make the investment.


By giving her a voice in her own education – GEM is helping girls develop that voice;

By giving her a voice in the development of her own country, because she’s a citizen – here in Uganda,

we’re doing that with U-report – she’s inspired to go further and further. Armed with that voice, she’ll

be less inclined to drop out because of pregnancy, or child marriage.

Together we share the challenges in ensuring that the gains we’ve made in improving girls’ education

and gender equality are not lost.

But we also share the challenges in ensuring the investment a girl makes – a family makes – and a

community must make – is worth it in the end.

Thank you very much.


Annex 5 – Remarks by the Minister of State for Primary Education

SPEECH BY

DR. COS KAMANDA BATARINGAYA

MINISTER OF STATE FOR PRIMARY EDUCATION

AT THE

UN GIRLS EDUCATION INITIATIVE MEETING

AT

KABIRA COUNTRY CLUB

TUESDAY 8TH MAY 2012


Chairperson UNGEI Global Advisory Committee

Members from the UNGEI Global Advisory Committee present;

Country Representatives of Education Development Partners

Commissioner basic Education

Colleagues from the Education Fraternity;

Distinguished Participants;

Ladies and Gentlemen;

On behalf of the Government of Uganda, the Ministry of Education and Sports and on my own behalf, I

am privileged to welcome you all to Uganda to the UN Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI) Global Advisory

Council meeting whose main focus is to review progress on the status of girls’ education.

I am happy to note that UNGEI programme which was launched in December 2004 has key objectives of;

advocating for Policies that promote girls’ education and gender equality; sharing of good practices

among key stakeholders in girls’ education; and effective partnership for girls’ education and gender

equality.

Since the launch of the UNGEI programme in 2004, MoES’ strategy has been to prioritize the

improvement of gender disparities at all levels of the education system. The Government of Uganda

together with development partners has taken greater strides towards improvement of management

capacity in the key areas of planning, policy development, monitoring and evaluation, management as

well as implementation at all levels in education. Improving and advocating for policies on the

promotion of girls’ education remain our focus.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is important at this forum to note that the introduction of the UPE and

Universal Secondary Education programmes in 1997 and 2007 in Uganda respectively brought about

positive developments in education in terms of equitable access, retention and performance at the

primary and secondary levels of education. However, Gender disparity in terms of low participation of

girls in education interventions has continued to manifest itself in Uganda’s education system. At

national level, the statistics indicate that there is gender parity at primary level whereas in reality

disparities still exist in terms of enrolment, retention, grade promotion and learning achievement,

especially in the rural and remote areas in the country.

I wish to extend my appreciation to UNGEI for its contribution towards that attainment of gender

equality in education. The Government of Uganda together with other partners will continue to work

towards narrowing the gender gap.

The Government of Uganda applauds the UNGEI initiative for effectively providing a platform for broad

stakeholder involvement in promotion of girls’ education, a strategy for a concerted effort in advocacy,

and for the pooling of resources. For example, it was through the efforts of UNGEI membership that the

Gender in Education Policy was successfully developed and launched in 2010. It has also been

disseminated throughout the country.. Uganda is indeed, on track in terms of achieving MDG 2 and 3

and EFA goal 5


Ladies and gentlemen, UNGEI Uganda partners recognize education as a human right and therefore,

ensure all children including child mothers continue to access education. In collaboration with various

partners, UNGEI has put in place several initiatives to support girls education such as ‘Go to School’,

Back to School and Stay in School (GBS) campaigns, conducive policy environment, gender responsive

budgeting, sexual maturation management, child friendly schools, strategies to fight against harmful

practices, mentoring programs as well as enhancing research.

As a pioneer partnership for girls’ education in the country, UNGEI significantly altered the dynamic for

collaboration between the participating partners especially at the district and community levels. To

avoid employment of parallel planning, programming and implementation structures, the UNGEI

partnership is;

strengthening government systems and local capacities;

enhancing government as well as local community ownership; and;

Improving the quality and availability of gender disaggregated data.

I am glad to note that UNGEI activities in Uganda have been a success due to a number of reasons that

include; the strong political will from the top leadership of Government, the Ministry of Education and

Sports in support of girls education; the engagement of children and the youth in the partnership

process which promotes the convention on the rights of the child and the multi-sectorial approach

undertaken to address the many problems relating to girls’ learning within and without the education

system.

Challenges

Ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned about the challenges that continue to daunt our progress in girls’

education such as:

Inadequate budget allocation to gender mainstreaming in education programmes;

Low sense of ownership and collegiality despite being a fairly inclusive multi-stakeholder

partnership

As I conclude my remarks, I wish to encourage UNGEI to continue their support towards addressing the

overall Education and Sports objective of ensuring equitable access for quality Education provision for

all.

Once again welcome you to Uganda and wish you fruitful deliberations. May I now take this opportunity

to declare the meeting open.

FOR GOD AND MY COUNTRY


Annex 6 – UNGEI Road Map

FEEDBACK LOOP AND VALUE ADDITION FOR UNGEI PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

Policy Advocacy

Capacity Building

Knowledge Management

Global

Regional

Country/ local

Destination 2015

ENABLING GOVERNANCE & LEADERSHIP

MONITORING & EVALUATION

STRATEGIES / OUTPUTS OUTCOMES SHORT-TERM GOAL

UNGEI PARTNERSHIP VALUE ADDITION

UNGEI PARTNER INPUTS(Global,Regional& Country)BASED ON THEIR COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

Documents

Report of the Meeting of the UNGEI Global Advisory ... · Report of the Meeting of the UNGEI Global Advisory Committee, Kampala 7 to 11 May 2012. UNGEI GAC Meeting Report, Kampala,