1. 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

2. Presentation Overview
MER Framework development from 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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.

9. 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

10. Merci beaucoup
Obrigada
THANKS!
Siyabonga