Monitoring, Evaluation, Evidence & Learning Framework
How the founding programme tracks activity, evidences change, proves contribution, reports honestly and gives the December Decision Gate a credible basis for decision. One Big Change Kenya, September-December 2026.
This Appendix sets out the monitoring, evaluation, evidence and learning framework for the One Big Change Kenya Founding Implementation Programme. Its purpose is to ensure that:
- programme activity is tracked consistently
- school-level change is evidenced rather than assumed
- claims are proportionate to the available evidence
- implementation successes and failures are both captured
- Government receives reliable information at each milestone
- the December Decision Gate is based on evidence rather than enthusiasm
- the founding phase produces useful learning for the proposed Year 1 national programme
The framework builds on Appendix 2 - Results, Outcomes, KPIs & Ministry Performance Framework and Appendix 4 - County & School Selection and Change Lens Methodology.
The programme will distinguish clearly between:
Activity
What was done.
↓
Output
What was produced.
↓
Implementation Change
What changed in practice.
↓
Early Outcome
What changed for the people or system involved.
↓
Longer-Term Impact
What may become visible over a longer period.
The programme will not treat activity as proof of impact. For example:
Activity
A workshop taking place.
↓
Output
A completed implementation plan.
↓
Implementation Change
A teacher changing classroom practice.
↓
Early Outcome
Improved learner participation.
↓
Longer-Term Impact
Improved learner attainment, requiring more time and stronger evidence.
The 90-day founding phase is not intended to provide a definitive national impact evaluation. Its purpose is to answer:
The programme will assess five broad questions.
Relevance
Does the intervention address a real implementation problem?
Effectiveness
Does the programme help schools move from identified barrier to practical action?
Adaptability
Does the model remain useful across different school contexts?
Sustainability
Can schools continue the change when direct external support reduces?
Scalability
Can the model be expanded responsibly and affordably?
The founding theory of change is:
If schools are supported to identify their most important implementation barrier, understand the evidence behind it, select one practical priority, access the right capability and resources, implement a structured response and review the result, then they are more likely to develop stronger local implementation capability and contribute useful learning to the wider education system.
The founding phase will test this theory rather than assume it is correct.
The evidence framework follows the sequence:
Inputs: leadership, funding, expertise, technology, partnerships
↓
Activities: Change Lens, MicroSummits, coaching, resource matching, implementation support
↓
Outputs: baselines, plans, tools, resources, training, evidence records
↓
Implementation Outcomes: improved leadership capability, teacher practice, assessment use, coordination or resource utilisation
↓
School-Level Early Outcomes: changes relevant to each selected priority
↓
System Learning: understanding of barriers, effective support and contextual differences
↓
National Scale Decision: proceed, modify, extend or stop
The programme distinguishes between monitoring and evaluation.
Monitoring
Answers
- Are activities happening?
- Are milestones being met?
- Are schools participating?
- Is money being spent as planned?
- Are risks being managed?
- Are outputs being delivered?
Monitoring occurs continuously.
Evaluation
Answers
- Did anything meaningful change?
- Why?
- For whom?
- Under what conditions?
- Is the change likely to last?
- Is the model worth scaling?
Evaluation occurs at defined points and through structured evidence analysis.
Evidence will be organised into four levels.
Level 1
Administrative Evidence
Examples
- attendance
- contracts
- schedules
- activity records
- procurement records
- meeting minutes
Level 2
Implementation Evidence
Examples
- completed implementation tools
- changed school processes
- teacher practice records
- implementation logs
- resource use
Level 3
Outcome Evidence
Examples
- staff confidence
- learner participation
- assessment practice
- attendance
- parent engagement
- leadership capability
Level 4
Impact Evidence
Examples
- learner attainment
- progression
- sustained practice over time
- wider institutional change
Most founding-phase evidence is expected to sit within Levels 1-3.
Evidence should meet five minimum standards.
Traceable
The source is known.
Relevant
It directly relates to the claim.
Proportionate
The evidence burden is reasonable.
Triangulated
Important claims draw on more than one source where practical.
Honest About Limitations
Uncertainty and gaps are recorded.
Each school will complete a baseline before implementation begins. The baseline should establish:
- current practice
- current capability
- current barriers
- available resources
- existing strengths
- relevant school data
- staff/leadership perceptions
- context
Baseline measures must be agreed before the implementation action begins wherever practical. This reduces the risk of choosing measures retrospectively to make results appear favourable.
Potential sources include:
- Change Lens responses
- leadership interviews
- teacher interviews
- staff surveys
- school records
- attendance data
- professional-development records
- assessment information
- observation
- learner voice
- parent feedback
- infrastructure review
- digital usage data
The exact combination depends on the selected school priority.
Every school implementation plan will define at least one primary implementation measure, one supporting measure, and one qualitative evidence source.
Example
Priority
Improve teacher confidence in CBA.
Primary Measure
Percentage of participating teachers using agreed CBA practice.
Supporting Measure
Teacher confidence score.
Qualitative Evidence
Teacher interviews or observation notes.
The programme will use a mix of indicator types.
Quantitative
Examples
- percentage
- count
- frequency
- completion rate
- attendance
- usage
- confidence score
Qualitative
Examples
- interviews
- observations
- case studies
- reflections
- focus groups
- implementation stories
Neither type is automatically stronger. The value depends on the question being answered.
Each school will have an Evidence Plan containing:
Although school priorities differ, the programme will collect common measures across all ten schools. These include:
- leadership engagement
- school champion participation
- baseline completion
- implementation-plan completion
- implementation activity
- evidence completeness
- peer-learning participation
- resource requirements
- capability requirements
- sustainability confidence
- Hub-readiness indicators
These enable cross-school comparison without ranking schools.
The Change Lens will generate structured data across the programme. Potential data fields include:
- domain
- strength
- barrier
- severity
- evidence source
- priority
- required capability
- required resource
- proposed action
- responsible owner
- evidence measure
- status
The digital platform should support structured aggregation while retaining contextual notes.
Every school will maintain a simple implementation log. It should capture:
- action
- date
- owner
- status
- issue encountered
- support required
- evidence collected
- decision made
- next step
The log is intended to support learning, not create excessive administrative burden.
The programme must establish whether the agreed intervention was actually implemented. This is important because an unsuccessful outcome may mean:
- the intervention was ineffective
- the intervention was not implemented
- the context changed
- the measurement was poor
- insufficient time was available
Evidence of implementation fidelity may include:
- activity records
- observation
- staff confirmation
- completion records
- resource-use evidence
During November, each school will complete a structured implementation review. The review will ask:
Changes will be documented.
Each school will complete a final review in December. The review should assess:
- implementation completion
- changes in practice
- early outcomes
- unexpected effects
- sustainability
- outstanding barriers
- next steps
The final review should not force a positive conclusion. Possible conclusions include:
The founding programme should produce structured case studies. Each case study should include:
Case studies should not become promotional success stories that omit difficulty.
The ten-school analysis will identify:
- repeated barriers
- repeated strengths
- contextual differences
- common capability gaps
- resource gaps
- successful implementation practices
- failed approaches
- potential Hub functions
- national support needs
The analysis should distinguish:
Evidence from the ten sites will be synthesised using a structured matrix. Each finding should record:
This reduces the risk of generalising from one school.
Data quality will be assessed against:
- completeness
- accuracy
- consistency
- timeliness
- validity
- traceability
The Evidence Lead will periodically review data quality. Material weaknesses will be reported.
Checks may include:
- missing-data review
- duplicate-data review
- source verification
- consistency checking
- outlier review
- school validation
- field-team review
Evidence should not be silently amended after collection. Corrections should be traceable.
The founding programme should include an independent evidence or evaluation assurance function. This may be provided by:
- university partner
- independent evaluator
- research specialist
- external evidence adviser
The function may:
- review methodology
- challenge conclusions
- test evidence quality
- review analysis
- identify unsupported claims
- advise on limitations
No external institution should be described as providing independent assurance until formally contracted or agreed.
Where formally agreed, universities may support:
- research design
- baseline methodology
- analysis
- evidence quality
- publication
- knowledge transfer
- evaluation
- research ethics
University participation does not remove programme accountability from One Big Change.
Schools should validate factual information before final reports are completed. They may:
- correct factual errors
- add missing evidence
- challenge unsupported interpretation
They may not require the removal of evidenced findings solely because those findings are uncomfortable.
The programme will protect evidence integrity. Programme staff, partners or external stakeholders must not:
- alter findings for reputational reasons
- suppress negative evidence
- inflate outcomes
- count unconfirmed resources
- present planned activity as completed
- present connected schools as intensively supported schools
The programme will actively document interventions that do not work. Each failed or weak implementation cycle should record:
This is essential for national scale. A failed intervention that prevents wider waste can be highly valuable.
The founding programme will maintain a learning agenda. Example questions include:
A programme Learning Register will record:
- insight
- source
- context
- implication
- action
- owner
- status
Insights should feed directly into Year 1 design.
The programme will also track whether peer learning contributes to implementation. Evidence may include:
- practice shared
- schools adopting another school's approach
- peer support conversations
- champion networks
- cross-school resource sharing
This helps test the future LocaeHub concept.
Potential Hub readiness may be assessed using:
- leadership stability
- implementation capability
- peer-support willingness
- strong practice
- evidence discipline
- coordination capacity
- geographic relevance
Hub readiness remains provisional during the founding phase.
Traction Partner contributions will be tracked separately. Each contribution should record:
No verbal intention will be counted as secured value.
The programme will calculate an indicative resource-leverage ratio. The ratio compares:
Government programme expenditure
with
additional verified cash and in-kind resources mobilised
The purpose is to test whether the model creates value beyond the public commission.
Financial monitoring will include:
- approved budget
- expenditure
- commitment
- forecast
- variance
- contingency use
- school activation-fund utilisation
Programme finance will be linked to implementation activity where practical.
The founding programme will calculate indicative costs such as:
- cost per founding school
- cost per completed baseline
- cost per implementation cycle
- field cost by context
- support cost by priority type
- evidence cost
- cost of central coordination
These figures will inform Year 1 modelling.
Value for money will be considered through:
Economy
Were inputs procured at appropriate cost?
Efficiency
Were resources converted into outputs effectively?
Effectiveness
Did the programme produce meaningful implementation change?
Equity
Did the model function across materially different contexts?
The founding programme should be cautious about claiming causality. Where change occurs, the programme should ask:
- What else changed?
- What other interventions existed?
- What would likely have happened anyway?
- Did One Big Change contribute?
- How strongly can contribution be evidenced?
The founding evaluation will therefore often use contribution analysis rather than strong causal claims.
For each important outcome, the programme may assess:
Was the expected change observed?
↓
Did the intervention occur before the change?
↓
Is there a plausible mechanism?
↓
Do participants attribute some change to the intervention?
↓
Are there alternative explanations?
↓
Does other evidence support the conclusion?
This produces a more responsible statement such as:
"The evidence suggests the intervention contributed to improved implementation capability."
rather than:
"One Big Change caused the improvement."
The programme lasts approximately 90 days. Therefore some outcomes may not be visible before the Decision Gate. Examples include:
- sustained learner attainment
- long-term retention
- pathway outcomes
- multi-year teacher practice
- long-term Hub sustainability
These should become Year 1 or longitudinal measures.
Weekly Internal Monitoring
Covers:
- milestones
- schools
- activities
- risks
- delivery issues
- evidence gaps
Monthly Government Report
Covers:
- performance scorecard
- milestone progress
- school implementation
- financial position
- risks
- partner mobilisation
- evidence
Milestone Reports
M1
Mobilisation Report
M2
Baseline Completion Report
M3
Implementation Evidence Report
M4
Final Founding Evidence and Decision Gate Report
The Ministry-facing dashboard should include:
Programme Status
Overall RAG.
School Status
10-school progress.
Geography
10-county map.
Evidence
Baseline, implementation and outcome evidence status.
Financial
Budget versus actual.
Risks
Top programme risks.
Partners
Traction Partner pipeline and verified contributions.
Scale Readiness
Decision Gate scorecard.
Public reporting should be proportionate. Potential public outputs include:
- aggregated findings
- lessons
- strong practice
- national implementation themes
- anonymised case studies
- partner contributions
Sensitive school-level weaknesses should not be published unnecessarily.
Each school will receive:
- baseline summary
- implementation plan
- evidence summary
- end-of-phase review
- recommended next steps
Schools should gain practical value from the evidence process.
The programme should maintain a structured evidence repository containing:
- baseline records
- implementation logs
- interviews
- surveys
- documents
- evidence plans
- outcome records
- reports
- approvals
Access should follow role-based controls.
The programme will define:
- what data is retained
- why
- for how long
- who can access it
- when it is deleted or anonymised
Detailed requirements belong in Appendix 6.
Where learner voice is collected, it must be:
- relevant
- proportionate
- ethically collected
- appropriately consented
- safeguarded
Learner participation should not be used merely to make programme communications more appealing.
Teacher and staff perspectives are important because implementation quality often depends on daily practice. The programme should create safe opportunities for staff to describe:
- confidence
- workload
- barriers
- training needs
- practical experience
Where appropriate, aggregated reporting should protect individual identities.
Where relevant to the selected priority, parent/community evidence may be collected. Potential areas include:
- CBE understanding
- pathway understanding
- communication
- participation
- confidence
- barriers to engagement
Parent involvement should be targeted, not automatically required for every priority.
The programme will assess whether change is likely to continue. Possible indicators include:
- named internal owner
- continued leadership support
- embedded process
- staff capability
- available resources
- peer support
- funding requirement
- dependence on external expert
Each school implementation cycle should identify:
Low Dependency
School can continue largely independently.
Moderate Dependency
School can continue but requires periodic support.
High Dependency
Change depends substantially on external resource or expertise.
This information is important for Year 1 costing.
The Decision Gate must examine evidence across four scale dimensions.
School Level
Does the method work?
Hub Level
Can schools support peers?
Programme Level
Can One Big Change coordinate delivery efficiently?
National Level
Can the model reach wider networks without losing quality?
Evidence should support decisions on:
- staffing ratio
- Hub size
- implementation intensity
- digital versus in-person support
- expert requirements
- school activation funding
- evidence workload
- travel
- partner mobilisation
- cost per school
The Year 1 target distinguishes between:
The programme will never combine these categories into a single inflated participation figure. Reporting will identify the level of engagement separately.
The December Decision Gate will receive:
The evidence may support four outcomes.
Proceed
Evidence supports wider implementation.
Proceed with Modification
Evidence supports expansion but the model needs adjustment.
Extend Founding Evidence
Promising evidence exists but more testing is required.
Do Not Scale
Evidence does not justify further investment.
No single KPI automatically triggers national scale. Government should consider the overall evidence across:
- effectiveness
- adaptability
- cost
- governance
- capacity
- sustainability
- evidence quality
- resource leverage
- scale feasibility
Where the programme proceeds, the founding evidence will become the basis for the Year 1 measurement framework. The Year 1 framework should define:
- 50 Hub outcomes
- 500 core-school outcomes
- 6,000 connected-school engagement
- teacher capability outcomes
- learner outcomes where measurable
- resource mobilisation
- sustainability
- partner leverage
Longer-term measures may include:
- learner attainment
- learner progression
- pathway participation
- teacher retention
- attendance
- sustained implementation practice
- Hub performance
- school-to-school support
- cost effectiveness
These measures require longer observation than the founding phase.
Where appropriate, programme learning may be published through:
- implementation reports
- research papers
- case studies
- LocaeFest
- policy briefings
- school learning resources
Publication must protect confidentiality and evidence integrity.
LocaeAwards should not operate as a popularity competition. Recognition should be grounded in evidence. Potential criteria include:
- implementation progress
- improvement
- sharing practice
- inclusion
- teacher leadership
- learner wellbeing
- community engagement
- innovation
- sustainability
The awards framework should be developed separately and tested before Year 1.
LocaeFest may provide a national learning platform where:
- schools share practice
- learners contribute appropriately
- teachers present implementation lessons
- partners demonstrate support
- researchers share findings
- Government receives implementation intelligence
The event should function as a learning mechanism, not solely a celebration.
Evidence collection must not:
- create unnecessary burden
- expose learners
- pressure staff to provide positive responses
- publish sensitive school information
- misuse consent
- manipulate findings
Detailed ethical controls appear in Appendix 6.
The evidence framework will be considered successful if, at the end of 90 days, Government can clearly answer:
One Big Change Kenya will not ask Government to scale on the basis of activity, enthusiasm or anecdote. The founding phase will generate a structured body of implementation evidence showing what changed, what did not, why, at what cost and under what conditions.
That evidence will form the basis of the December Decision Gate.