Monitoring and Evaluation Systems,Tvet/Moe Policy Guidelines and Utilisation of Physical Infrastructural Facilities by Learners With Disabilities in National Polytechnics in Kenya

Abstract

Effective Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems can promote utilisation of physical facilities by enabling decision-makers to identify gaps and initiate appropriate corrective interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of M&E systems on utilisation of physical facilities by learners with disability in Kenyan national polytechnics. The study adopted cross-sectional survey and causal-comparative designs, with both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Data were sourced from 2 principals, 282 teaching staff, 4 officers from Ministry of Education (MoE), and 2 officers from National Council for Persons Living with Disability (NCPLWD). A census and purposive sampling procedures were applied to select participants. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were applied to process and analyse data. Descriptive analysis generated frequency distributions and percentages, while inferential analysis obtained Chi square statistic (χ2), Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, as well as Beta coefficients (β) and Odds ratios [Exp(β)], among others. Qualitative data were organised under thematic areas, described and analysed thematically to identify emerging themes and patterns. The study found that significant and positive correlations between utilisation of physical facilities and all the four indicators of human resource capacity for M&E, including access to training on M&E of disability programmes (rs = 0.608 & ρ-value = 0.004), participation in M&E activities (rs = 0.383 & ρ-value = 0.016), level of experience in M&E practices (rs = 0.475 & ρ-value = 0.003), as well as frequency of reading M&E resource materials (rs = 0.569 & ρ-value = 0.004). In addition, participants grading their capacity in M&E as ‘high’ had about 6.4 times the odds of positively influencing utilisation of physical facilities by learners with disability as their colleagues describing their capacity as ‘low’ (ρ-value = 0.022, β = 1.854, OR = 6.385, C.I. = 2.097-19.439). The results show significant correlations between utilisation of physical facilities and the three indicators of M&E work plan, including frequency of measuring learning aspects (rs = 0.487 & ρ-value = 0.012), frequency of M&E work plan formulation (rs = 0.320 & ρ-value = 0.045), and frequency of participation in the M&E of various disability forms (rs = 0.618 & ρ-value = 0.000). Besides, participants stating that M&E work plan indicators were ‘always’ formulated in their institutions were about 2.6 times as likely to cause a positive influence on utilisation of physical facilities by such learners as their colleagues who felt that such indicators were ‘never’ formulated (ρ-value = 0.014, β = 0.938, OR = 2.555, C.I. = 1.375-4.746). Besides, the adjusted regression model predicted up to 37.5% of variance in utilisation of physical facilities by learners with disability, which was a fair estimation of M&E system factors influencing utilisation of such facilities by learners with disability. The study concludes that improving M&E systems support and supervision; human resource capacity for M&E; consistency of programme monitoring; as well as M&E work plan indicators’ formulation, is likely to strengthen M&E systems in the institutions, thereby, improve utilisation of physical facilities. The study recommends the need for stakeholders to: allocate more resources to develop the capacity of teaching staff on M&E of disability programmes; and improve content of M&E training curriculums to make them more responsive to the needs of all learners with disability. Stakeholders should also strengthen disability-mainstreaming committees through training and funding; as well as integrate disability aspects in institutional timetables to ensure that provision of necessary support and services to learners with disability become part of routine operational activities.