careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
**Supplementary Indicators**

**Poverty and Social Injustice**

**Education**



|| **EDU 1: Educational Completion** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ This indicator is part of both global standards regarding educational attainment data, as well as a key indicator included in CARE’s global education programming. It aims to understand how likely students are to complete an educational program- formal and/or informal- so that we better understand the drivers influencing students’ likelihood to stay in or drop-out of these programs.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ __Completion__ is defined as the degree to which enrollees that start an educational program finish it, based on a set of pre-determined requirements (e.g. exit exams) ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Numerator: the number of enrollees that complete a program, based on a set of pre-determined requirements \\ * Denominator: the total number of persons enrolled in a program(disaggregated by the same sex, age and employment status groups) ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Primary data collection: annual completion rates may be tracked by using student-disaggregated enrollment data from the beginning of the year, and comparing it to the completion data at the end of the year, using locally and pre-determined completion requirements (e.g. sitting for a year-end exam).  \\ * Qualitative methods can shed light onto why students may or may not complete a program ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Primary data collection: school-level data, household surveys used in triangulation with school data ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Quantitative data can be obtained by obtaining student-disaggregated school data. Household surveys to validate school-level data would require household surveys to be conducted. Qualitative data will need to be collected by CARE or another partner.  ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * A change in the percentage of students completing an educational program and/or grade.  \\ * An analysis of if/how CARE contributed to this change. ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding student completion rates? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, birth order, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence students’ completion (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)? Are completion rates different for the completion of differing grade levels? \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * School-level data should be examined to look at student-by-student level changes comparing the names on enrollment rosters and completion registers. Care should be taken when interpreting changes in completion, looking at change over time, as short-term improvements may not be indicative of long-term change. Disaggregation should also focus on understanding the nuanced challenges facing the most marginalized.  \\ * This is part of our understanding of educational attainment. Attainment may be measured as the percent of direct targeted beneficiaries that demonstrate a greater mastery of formal and/or non-formal educational curriculum based on predefined benchmarks and/or competencies.  ||
|| **EDU 2: Educational Retention** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Measuring changes in educational retention help us to understand if students are staying in schools/educational programs and progressing from year-to-year. Sometimes this is referred to as students’ persistence through a program. If students are not positively progressing from one year/term to the next, their drop-out rates are high and likely learning rates are low. ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Retention is defined as the degree to which students who are enrolled in an educational program successfully continue to subsequent years, periods, and/or levels. Over time, this is referred to as survival rates in education.  ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Numerator: students enrolled at the beginning of a subsequent year/ term \\ * Denominator: students enrolled at the beginning of an initial year/term ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Primary data collection: retention may be tracked using student-disaggregated enrollment data from the two or more most recent school years/terms. \\ * Qualitative methods can shed light onto why students may or may not complete a year/term and progress to the next year ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Primary data collection: school-level data, household surveys used in triangulation with school data ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Quantitative data can be obtained by obtaining student-disaggregated school data. Household surveys to validate school-level data would require household surveys to be conducted. Qualitative data will need to be collected by CARE or another partner.  ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * A change in the percentage of students retained from one year/cycle to the next  \\ * An analysis of if/how CARE contributed to this change ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding student retention rates? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, birth order, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence students’ retention (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)? Are retention rates different for the completion of differing grade levels? \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * School-level data should be examined to look at student-by-student level changes comparing the names on enrollment registers from year to year, preferably confirming using additional demographic/identifiers that you are indeed comparing the same person over time. Disaggregation should also focus on understanding the nuanced challenges facing the most marginalized.  \\ * This is part of our understanding of educational attainment. Attainment may be measured as the percent of direct targeted beneficiaries that demonstrate a greater mastery of formal and/or non-formal educational curriculum based on predefined benchmarks and/or competencies.  ||
|| **EDU 3: Educational Achievement** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ As part of understanding student attainment, this indicator seeks to track changes in what they are learning. Measuring changes in educational attainment helps us to better understand what students are learning and taking away from a program. If the education is not of high quality and relevant, time spent in school will not provide applicable knowledge and skills.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  \\ Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship  \\ Target 4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ __Achievement__ is defined as the degree to which direct beneficiaries demonstrate attainment and practical application of new skills \\ __Practical application__ is defined as new skills applied in one or more of the following realms after completion: employment/work, home, further education, civic action. ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Learning assessment data should be identified and aligned with the specific subject-matter from which learning achievement is being sought. For example, EGRA or EGMA scores may be calculated to assess changes in student literacy and numeracy learning outcomes attainment.  ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Individual-level student assessments showing changes in knowledge and application of new skills should be developed, calibrated, and assessed.  ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected data collected through individual administration of learning assessment and attainment exams \\ * If standardized, consistent, reliable and valid learning assessments are conducted at the school-level, these may be used to set benchmarks; however, it is recommended that projects calibrate and triangulate this data with a data collection exercise designed to test these results. ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ * Piloted and leveled learning assessments aligned with the content standards students are expected to show improvements regarding ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change students exhibit in their learning outcomes and learning attainment ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding student attainment rates? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, birth order, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence students’ learning attainment (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)? Are attainment/learning outcome rates different for the completion of differing grade levels? Are there specific skillsets that certain sub-groups of students have trouble mastering? Do we see any regression in student attainment? \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * This is part of our understanding of educational attainment. Attainment may be measured as the percent of direct targeted beneficiaries that demonstrate a greater mastery of formal and/or non-formal educational curriculum based on predefined benchmarks and/or competencies.  ||
|| **EDU 4: Communities’ Educational Opportunity Perception** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Better understanding communities’, including parents’, teachers’, traditional leaders’, etc. support for gender equality regarding educational access, relevance, and quality, has shown to be a significant predictor for student engagement in and learning through the educational process. As we better understand the perspectives of key community stakeholders, and build champions and support for education, we can better design ethno-relative and relevant programs for students. ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ __Communities’ Educational Opportunity Perception__ is defined as the degree to which community members believe girls and boys have equal opportunities to participate in and benefit from education in the program area ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative survey items should be included in surveys given to households, and key identified stakeholders (e.g. religious leaders, community leaders, school heads, etc.) \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to understand their nuanced beliefs and barriers preventing equal perceptions regarding girls’ and boys’ educational opportunities ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews with key community and parent stakeholders ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ * Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: ** \\ * Degree of change in communities’ educational opportunity perceptions ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in communities’ educational opportunity perceptions? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * Note: this indicator is often paired with data collection on the indicator measuring “Children’s perception of educational equity and equality” and “Teacher’s Gender Sensitivity”, to triangulate child/adolescent and adult-based perceptions. ||
|| **EDU 5: Teacher’s Gender Sensitivity** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ When teachers treat girls and boys differently, in a non-equality-based or non-equitable approach, students receive different learning experiences. This leads to an exacerbation of gender-based negative effects on student enrollment, retention, progression, as well as learning. ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ __Teacher’s Gender Sensitivity__ is defined as the degree to which teachers are observed to be facilitating equal conditions for girls’ and boys’ learning  ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative survey items should be included in surveys given to households and teachers \\ * Classroom observations may be conducted to gather evidence of patterns in and changes to teachers’ gender sensitivity regarding their classroom practices.  \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples regarding teachers’ gender sensitivities.  ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews with key teacher, community and parent stakeholders (for triangulation) ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ * Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: ** \\ * Degree of change in teachers’ gender sensitivity ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in teachers’ gender sensitivity? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * Note: this indicator is often paired with data collection on the indicator measuring “Children’s perception of educational equity and equality” and “Communities’ Educational Opportunity Perception”, to triangulate child/adolescent and adult-based perceptions. ||
|| **EDU 6: Children’s Perception of Educational Equity and Equality** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Understanding students’ and children’s perceptions regarding educational equity and equality is key to ensuring we are addressing student’s needs and perceptions of equality. Especially for girls, if there is a perception that education isn’t beneficial to them, and/or that they don’t have the same opportunities as boys, their life choices will dramatically be affected. ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Children’s Perception of Educational Equity and Equality is defined as the degree to which children in the impact area believe girls and boys have equal opportunities to participate in and benefit from education in the program area ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative survey items should be included in surveys given to households and teachers \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples regarding teachers’ gender sensitivities.  ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews with students  ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: ** \\ * Degree of change in Children’s Perception of Educational Equity and Equality ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in Children’s Perception of Educational Equity and Equality? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * Note: this indicator is often paired with data collection on the indicator measuring “Teacher’s Gender Sensitivity” and “Communities’ Educational Opportunity Perception”, to triangulate child/adolescent and adult-based perceptions. ||
|| **EDU 7: Suitable Educational Environment** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Without suitable, quality, and relevant educational and learning environments, students are unlikely to attend and/or learn, increasing the chance for low-enrollment, dropout, and a lack of positive learning outcomes. This is a measure that helps us to understand the quality of education provided to learners. Quality is defined, using UNICEF’s definition, through five dimensions: what learnings bring, environments, context, processes, and outcomes ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  \\ Target 4A: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all  ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Suitable Educational Environment is defined as the degree to which schools and classrooms demonstrate social and physical learning environments that are gender-sensitive, healthy, safe, protective, and include adequate facilities (adapted from UNICEF) ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Classroom observations, using standardized checklists, should be conducted \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples  ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys, classroom observations, and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews  ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in suitable educational environment ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in suitable educational environments? Do we see changes in different aspects of educational environments, but not others (e.g. improvements in the safety of school environments, but not in having adequate and age-appropriate facilities)? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * This is a measure that helps us to understand the quality of education provided to learners. Quality is defined, using UNICEF’s definition, through five dimensions: what learnings bring, environments, context, processes, and outcomes ||
|| **EDU 8: Relevant Educational Content** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ If students are not offered relevant educational content, that is both ethnorelative and inclusive of basic educational skills development, not only will they miss out on learning key skills and knowledge, but the perceived and/or actual irrelevance may lead to lack of attendance, enrollment, progression, and/or learning outcomes.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ As adapted from UNICEF, changes in relevant educational content is defined as the degree to which projects are able to promote regular use of curriculum and learning materials that cover basic skills with pertinent, gender-sensitive and contextually appropriate subject matter. ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Classroom observations, using standardized checklists, should be conducted, paying attention to the curriculum being used \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys, classroom observations, curriculum reviews, and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in relevant educational content ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in relevant educational content? Do we see changes in actual and/or perceived relevance of content being offered, in relation to the local, national, and international environments? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * This is a measure that helps us to understand the quality of education provided to learners. Quality is defined, using UNICEF’s definition, through five dimensions: what learnings bring, environments, context, processes, and outcomes ||
|| **EDU 9: Girl/child centered processes** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ If learning processes are not tailored and respondent to age and gender, students are unlikely to fully engage and benefit from educational opportunities. This indicator represents one dimension of educational processes, which include teacher training, management, assessment, and recruitment systems, and girls and child-centered methodologies (from UNICEF).  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations \\ Target 4A: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Change in girl/child centered processes is defined as the degree to which girl/child centered pedagogies and methodologies are evidenced in practice in the educational environment. \\ Pedagogy is the art, science, and study of teaching methods, including the aims of education and the ways in which such goals may be achieved, including theories about the way in which learning takes place.  \\ Methodology is a body of methods and rules employed by a discipline; a particular procedure or set of procedures.  ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Classroom observations, using standardized checklists, should be conducted, paying attention to the processes, methodologies, and pedagogies being used by teachers \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys, classroom observations, curriculum reviews, and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in girl/child centered processes ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in girl/child centered processes? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * Data from the indicator related to “teachers’ gender sensitivities” and others should be used to supplement results from this indicator to form a more holistic picture of educational processes.  \\ * This is a measure that helps us to understand the quality of education provided to learners. Quality is defined, using UNICEF’s definition, through five dimensions: what learnings bring, environments, context, processes, and outcomes ||
|| **EDU 10: Supportive Strategic Relations** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Children’s and adolescent’s developmental opportunities are largely shaped by the positive and/or negative influence of those surrounding them. If these adults and decision makers do not make decisions that are supportive of their rights, their opportunities to learn and develop are largely stymied.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Changes to supportive strategic relations is defined as the degree to which formal and informal decision makers exercise their ability to make decisions in favor of girls’ and children’s right to development ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Classroom observations, using standardized checklists, may be conducted to understand the extent to which teachers and head teachers act and create environments that are supportive to students \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples \\ * Policy and/or normative analysis may be conducted to understand the formal and informal norms and policies which are supportive and/or unsupportive of students, girls, and/or any traditionally marginalized population. ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative surveys, classroom observations, and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews, policies and laws ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in supportive strategic relations  ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in supportive strategic relations? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Are there oppositional groups that are more or less supportive? Do specific marginalized groups receive more or less support? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * The data from this indicator helps us to understand a dimension of empowerment ||
|| **EDU 11: Girls’ Agency** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ Individual agency, and the skills, beliefs, and knowledge that come along with it, is an important determinant factor for the degree to which an individual’s journey to empowerment is successful.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes  ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Changes in girls’ agency is defined as the frequency with which girls exercise their rights and/or their rights are recognized in the law. It should be noted that this indicator goes beyond the knowledge of rights and laws, and focuses on tracking the exercise of such.  ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in the exercise of agency at the individual/girl level  ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in girls’ agency? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Does changes in agency act as a continuum, changing at different life stages, and/or with different exogenous shocks? Do specific marginalized groups receive more or less support? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * The data from this indicator helps us to understand a dimension of empowerment ||
|| **EDU 12: Structural Environment for Girls** ||
|| **Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ The environment in which girls, children, and adolescents live, largely provides or constrains their opportunities for development. This indicator is focused on tracking changes in the structural environment that prohibits or supports the access and exercise of basic services and rights.  ||
|| **What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\ Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations ||
|| **Definitions and key terms** \\ Changes in the structural environment for girls is expressed in whether girls have equitable access to basic human services and rights. \\ Basic human services should be contextually specific, chosen in conjunction with communities, and reflect critical services available to the general population in a given target area.  ||
|| **Data and information required to calculate the indicator** \\ * Sample quantitative survey items to understand changes in this may be found in CARE’s Common Indicator Framework, found here:[[http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CARE-CIF-Toolkit-FINAL-WEB.pdf]] ||
|| **Suggested method for data collection** \\ * Quantitative surveys may be collected from key informants (e.g. students, parents, teachers, etc.) \\ * Qualitative data should be gathered from the stakeholders mentioned above to triangulate data regarding perceptions and examples ||
|| **Possible data sources** \\ * Project-collected quantitative and qualitative focus group discussions and/or key informant interviews ||
|| **Resources needed for data collection** \\ Both quantitative and qualitative data will need to be collected by the project at multiple points in time to assess any perceptions in change ||
|| **Reporting results for this indicator: number of people for which the change happened** \\ * Degree of change in the structural environment for girls  ||
|| **Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * What trends do we see regarding changes in the structural environment for girls? Are there significant differences based on disaggregating between demographic factors such as: gender, geographic location, ethnic group membership, type of respondent, etc.? Do specific marginalized groups receive more or less support? Are there exogenous effects that influence this (e.g. new drought, change in policies, change in school availability and/or quality, etc.)?  \\ * How has CARE contributed to the change? What were CARE's main strategies for contributing to this change? ||
|| **Other considerations** \\ * The data from this indicator helps us to understand a dimension of empowerment ||
careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
