Findings
Digital
Learning Statement
The
Digital
Learning Statement—the government’s current policy document
on the use of learning technologies—was not informed by robust and
comprehensive research and does not make a clear and cogent case for government
investment in learning technologies.
The Statement does not deliver on the directive in the
2008 Blueprint for Education and Early Childhood Development to provide a plan
of action to use learning technologies in teaching and learning. A review of
DEECD’s advice to the Minister for Education shows that the government was not
advised that the Statement did not comply with the Blueprint’s directive to
develop and deliver a strategy.
To date, there has been no accompanying detailed
strategy developed to support the Statement, even though this was originally
planned.
VicSmart high-speed broadband for schools
Planning for VicSmart was underpinned by a robust
needs and options analysis, as demonstrated by its 2005 business case, which
articulated the needs to be addressed and provided a clear rationale for the
purchase of high-speed fibre-optic broadband connectivity. The business case
provided confidence that the project was achievable and could be delivered as
planned.
The VicSmart procurement process was streamlined by
using a mandated
whole-of-government single-source provider. The fibre-optic system is performing
as expected and has been upgraded incrementally to meet emerging data and
connectivity needs across the government school system.
Ultranet e-learning system
The Ultranet project was poorly planned and
implemented. None of its three business cases had a well thought out needs
analysis or gave considered options to deliver the project. The various
business cases did not answer the ‘Why invest?’ question for the Ultranet, nor
did they provide a sound basis for the project’s approval.
Some six years since its announcement as a
government priority, the Ultranet has not delivered its main objectives:
-
to improve responsiveness to individual learning needs
-
to provide better information to parents, the school system and
government
-
to improve the efficiency of the learning environment and school
administration.
Consistent with public sector practice, the Department
of Treasury and Finance (DTF) and the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)
provided advice to government at key decision points over the life of the
Ultranet project.
The project continued despite advice from central
agencies that it should cease or be delayed. Further, there is no trail of
documentary evidence to explain whether or how DEECD addressed the many
critical issues raised by DPC and DTF.
It is difficult to understand why the Ultranet
procurement was able to proceed to contract execution, given the significant
concerns raised by DPC and DTF, as well as the many adverse ratings that DEECD
had received from various Gateway reviews since the project first commenced.
Further, this audit detected a number of serious
process and probity issues in relation to tendering and procurement for the
Ultranet. DEECD has advised that it has commenced a number of actions and
further detailed investigations in response to these matters.
There is little confidence that the financial
management practices relating to the Ultranet were sound and that full costs
have been adequately recorded. VAGO estimates that actual capital and operating
expenditure for the Ultranet was approximately $162 million as at June 2012,
and by June 2013 it is likely to have cost approximately $180 million. DEECD
has advised that it is currently investigating the financial practices in
relation to this major ICT project.
Despite this significant expenditure, no cost-benefit
analysis has been conducted to determine whether the Ultranet provides value
for money, or whether the same functionality could have been delivered more
cost effectively.
Performance indicators for the Ultranet have been
revised down over time and do not provide appropriate measures of whether the
Ultranet is achieving what the government expected when it funded the project.
Use of the Ultranet is low, and declining. On average,
only 10 per cent of students and 27 per cent of teachers logged in on a monthly
basis from July 2011 to May 2012.
An underlying factor which has limited the effective
implementation of the Ultranet is the significant discrepancy between the
original scope of the project and expected benefits and what has actually been
implemented and delivered. This underscores the urgent need for DEECD to review
whether it should continue to invest in this project.
Further, DEECD did not adequately manage the change
processes required to maximise the Ultranet’s acceptance and, therefore, the
state’s return on investment. Teachers and parents were not appropriately
trained and supported to use the Ultranet. Ultimately, the Ultranet is only a
technology tool, and cannot by itself deliver the benefits intended from it.
