Review of CSTL MER Framework Over the last few days we have been learning and sharing about successes and challenges in our efforts to provide care and support to children and youth within the education sector. I think we are all in agreement that care and support, particularly for vulnerable children and youth, bolsters education outcomes. However, feelings and good stories are not sufficient evidence to say that the CSTL approach is improving enrolment and progression rates. Therefore, part of the CSTL story has been the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework for CSTL that guides member states in the integration of CSTL indicators into their education management information systems. On Monday, we had a sharing session with the current countries to discuss progress on implementing the MER framework, identifying challenges and lessons learnt. SADC CSTL Sharing Meeting 20 November 2014 Southern Sun Hotel, Johannesburg South Africa

Presentation Overview MER Framework development from 2009-2012 phase National MER Customization Core indicators for CSTL Challenges in mainstreaming CSTL into M&E units Emerging Issues & Lessons learnt Today I will review the process of developing the CSTL MER Framework, and its customization at member state level, and then identify some of the major challenges that were raised in our discussions on Monday. After this presentation, there will be a presentation by South Africa on their new school information management system called SA-SAMS.

CSTL MER framework: Purpose Guides and informs implementation and monitoring at regional, member state and school level. Outlines guiding programme logic, objectives, activities, outputs, outcomes, and how we should measure success Monitors the extent and coverage of care and support services provided via the education sector. Allows us to test the assumption: Care and Support for Teaching and Learning will improve the enrolment, retention and achievement of vulnerable learners.

CSTL MER Framework: Process CSTL Logframe (October 2008) MIS review in 5 countries (October to November 2009) CSTL MER drafted, presented at a regional meeting (February 2010). Validation in Member States: discussion with National Coordinating Units, Ministry of Education, EMIS and M&E (July 2010 to January 2011). Revisions Alignment with SADC regional M&E frameworks. Approval and adoption of CSTL MER framework by CSTL steering committee.

Mainstreaming MER Framework in MS’s Reviewed and modified MER Framework for national objectives/context Initiated alignment of country EMIS and CSTL indicators. Strategized how to integrate CSTL M&E into M&E activities and functions. E.g. establishing CSTL M&E task teams and assign CSTL M&E coordinators to ensure CSTL data is collected and reported. Monitor CSTL implementation in minimum 15 schools

Core CSTL Indicators: School Level Data % of children who are orphans (C1) % of children who are vulnerable (C2) # of out-of-school children (P1) Age specific enrolment rate (P2) Drop-out rate (P3) Repetition rate (P4) Pass rate (P5) Completion rate (P6) The MER Framework outlined a long list of indicators – categorized as context indicators, input indicators, output indicators and outcome indicators. There were also indicators at the regional level, programmatic level, and school level. The next two slides list just the core school level indicators (there are many other school level indicators)

Core CSTL Indicators: School Level Data # (%) of schools providing a daily meal to vulnerable Learners (S10) # (%) of schools where annual health screening takes place (S6) # (%) of schools with PSS provided by trained personnel (S13) # (%) of schools facilitating access to bursaries to assist with education related costs (S17) # (%) of schools that have adopted and communicated a code of conduct related to physical safety, stigma, discrimination, sexual harassment and abuse (S19) # (%) of schools with sufficient safe water to meet the needs of the school population (S21) # (%) of schools with sufficient sanitary toilet facilities to meet the needs of the school population (S22)

MER Framework - Challenges Budgetary constraints Integration of CSTL indicators into EMIS Standards and definitions Flexibility of EMIS system Political will and appreciation of value of data Capacity regarding record keeping and data collecting Duplication of efforts However, mainstreaming CSTL into existing M&E activities, particularly integrating cstl indicators into EMIS has posed some challenges.

Emerging Issues & Lessons Learnt EMIS units don’t own the data – they are warehouses. Ownership should be shared by programme directors and various departments Need for greater advocacy by EMIS units regarding what data is available and value of data for planning Strengthen M&E task teams and advocate at all levels on importance of record keeping and reporting Integrate across sectors/initiatives, to minimize duplication Value of sharing best practice and technical skill

Merci beaucoup Obrigada THANKS! Siyabonga