clarifying the key questions: Questions in the main part of the TOR were compared with those provided in the annex As there were a large number of general questions in the annex, the most appropriate were prioritised These were then developed into a structure which could support a logical line of investigation for the evaluators and demonstrates a clear progression for stakeholders. Based on feedback from DFAT, the table below clusters the questions from the TOR against the DAC/DFAT criteria. Table 3: TOR Questions, clustered by evaluation criteria Criteria TOR questions - clustered against the criteria which are to be used for scoring Relevance To what extent is KEIP the thing to and contributing to higher ‘right do’ level objectives of the aid program outlined in country and thematic strategies? Do the goals and objectives remain relevant and should they be retained for a third phase? Does KELP align with, and contribute to, the objectives and outcomes of KEIP? Effectiveness To what extent is KEIP on track to achieving its objectives: is it making the difference we expected? is it doing so equitably across the islands and atolls of Kiribati? Is it pursuing inclusion of children with disabilities? Is the ambition of adopting a sector-wide approach still realistic and desirable? What progress has been made towards a SWAp over the first two phases of the program? Does KELP represent the best way to have teachers meet minimum English language proficiency standards, at the same time as ensuring teachers are equipped to help implement the Language in Education Policy (particularly in supporting of students into English from ‘bridging’ year 3 using a two-languages model)? Has KEIP had any unintended consequences, positive or negative, on its intended beneficiaries? Efficiency Is KEIP being managed in such a way to get the most out of its resources?
clarifying the key questions: Questions in the main part of the TOR were compared with those provided in the annex As there were a large number of general questions in the annex, the most appropriate were prioritised These were then developed into a structure which could support a logical line of investigation for the evaluators and demonstrates a clear progression for stakeholders. Based on feedback from DFAT, the table below clusters the questions from the TOR against the DAC/DFAT criteria. Table 3: TOR Questions, clustered by evaluation criteria Criteria TOR questions - clustered against the criteria which are to be used for scoring Relevance To what extent is KEIP the ‘right thing to do’ and contributing to higher level objectives of the aid program outlined in country and thematic strategies? Do the goals and objectives remain relevant and should they be retained for a third phase? Does KELP align with, and contribute to, the objectives and outcomes of KEIP? Effectiveness To what extent is KEIP on track to achieving its objectives: is it making the difference we expected? is it doing so equitably across the islands and atolls of Kiribati? Is it pursuing inclusion of children with disabilities? Is the ambition of adopting a sector-wide approach still realistic and desirable? What progress has been made towards a SWAp over the first two phases of the program? Does KELP represent the best way to have teachers meet minimum English language proficiency standards, at the same time as ensuring teachers are equipped to help implement the Language in Education Policy (particularly in supporting ‘bridging’ of students into English from year 3 using a two-languages model)? Has KEIP had any unintended consequences, positive or negative, on its intended beneficiaries? Efficiency Is KEIP being managed in such a way to get the most out of its resources?