and reproductive approx. average health and rights (i.e. of 35% of girls correct answers to able to give questions about correct answers pregnancy or condom to questions use) about SRH knowledge] % of school board Pre and post - +60% Replacing indicator members trained training 3.3 demonstrating questionnaires improved knowledge (inc. questions on of teachers code of appropriate conduct reporting mechanisms for GBC) % of teachers trained Pre and post - +60% Replacing indicator able to demonstrate training 3.4. understanding of questionnaires gender responsive (inc. questions on pedagogy and self-reported code of classroom teachers’ conduct practice and GRP techniques) Additional Output and Intermediate Outcomes for Output 4 Indicator Source Baseline Milestones/ Notes Targets % of schools using the Project Monitoring 0% 50% To replace logframe score-card with data and indicator 4.1 positive change on at reporting least one indicator as a result of students’ voices and actions # of changes in Qualitative - - Not easy to school/local by-laws, reporting through establish targets education policy or score-card based on robust policy implementation process, interface data but will be in support of meetings, case monitored girls’ education and/or studies and regardless children with project reports disabilities Evaluation Approach The evaluation will take a quasi-experimental approach, with a control group (as described in Section 1) to allow for difference-in-difference analysis as well as looking at and post-test changes in key outcome indicators. A longitudinal survey will be employed to track changes of individuals surveyed. Future waves will return to the same respondent using the re-contact data from the household questionnaire, GPS coordinates and written descriptions. However, a degree of respondent attrition is inevitable and this has been factored in to the sample size. Plan is committed to the independent evaluation of the project and the transparent and active dissemination of the final results.
and reproductive health and rights (i.e. correct answers to questions about pregnancy or condom use) approx. average of 35% of girls able to give correct answers to questions about SRH knowledge] % of school board members trained demonstrating improved knowledge of teachers code of conduct Pre and post training questionnaires (inc. questions on appropriate reporting mechanisms for GBC) - +60% Replacing indicator 3.3 % of teachers trained able to demonstrate understanding of gender responsive pedagogy and teachers’ code of conduct Pre and post training questionnaires (inc. questions on self-reported classroom practice and GRP techniques) - +60% Replacing indicator 3.4. Additional Output and Intermediate Outcomes for Output 4 Indicator Source Baseline Milestones/ Targets Notes % of schools using the score-card with positive change on at least one indicator as a result of students’ voices and actions Project Monitoring data and reporting 0% 50% To replace logframe indicator 4.1 # of changes in school/local by-laws, education policy or policy implementation in support of girls’ education and/or children with disabilities Qualitative reporting through score-card process, interface meetings, case studies and project reports - - Not easy to establish targets based on robust data but will be monitored regardless Evaluation Approach The evaluation will take a quasi-experimental approach, with a control group (as described in Section 1) to allow for difference-in-difference analysis as well as looking at and post-test changes in key outcome indicators. A longitudinal survey will be employed to track changes of individuals surveyed. Future waves will return to the same respondent using the re-contact data from the household questionnaire, GPS coordinates and written descriptions. However, a degree of respondent attrition is inevitable and this has been factored in to the sample size. Plan is committed to the independent evaluation of the project and the transparent and active dissemination of the final results.