Monitoring and Evaluation isn't Enough for Measuring the Sustainable Success of TVET Reform
I often get asked: "How can TVET reform really be measured as a sustainable success?"
It's a question that comes up in meetings with ministries, in workshops with teachers, and in discussions with donors. The quick answer is usually: "Well, we'll measure it through Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E)." But if I'm honest, that's where I start to get concerned.
The Comfort Zone of Monitoring and Evaluation
For years, M&E has been the go-to solution. Donors appreciate it because it generates clear, concise reports with charts and numbers. Governments rely on it to demonstrate accountability. Consultants use it to showcase the activities they have delivered.
However, here's the catch: M&E typically measures inputs and outputs, things like the number of people trained, the gender split, the number of workshops held, or the number of policies drafted. These are easy to count. They give the impression that something is happening, or at least that a consultant has ticked off their agreed Terms of Reference.
The harder questions for me are: Did it stick? Did it change behaviour? Will it last? Too often, these remain unanswered. Because in the end, it's not about delivery. It's about sustainability, and that, in my view, is how a good consultant truly makes their mark in the world.
And this is where the danger lies. When success is reduced to counting activities, we risk mistaking motion for progress. A project can appear busy, with numerous workshops, reports, and new policies, yet remain unchanged at its core. True reform isn't about proving something happened during a project; it's about ensuring it continues to matter long after the project ends.
Why This Matters: I've seen projects where, on paper, everything looked perfect. Institutions were trained, curricula were updated, and new systems were launched. Yet within two years of the donor's exit, those reforms were either shelved, underfunded, or simply forgotten.
The reality is that many countries rely so heavily on donor funding that the very idea of self-sustainability feels like a luxury. Before one project has time to embed, attention shifts to fiscally sourcing the next.
And this is where the problem lies. Too often, reforms are measured as "successful" only within the project cycle. Nobody stops to ask whether they are financially sustainable, politically embedded, or socially owned.
The Myth of Sustainability in TVET
There's a common assumption that if something has been "monitored and evaluated," it must therefore be sustainable. That's a dangerous myth. Sustainability isn't about ticking boxes at the end of a project cycle. It's about whether reforms are truly anchored in a system and capable of surviving change.
Real sustainability comes down to five big questions:
Ownership: Do local actors genuinely believe in the reform enough to keep it alive once the consultants are gone? Without ownership, reforms become donor projects rather than national priorities.
Financing: Is there a budget line in the national system to support it after donor money stops flowing? Too often, new systems or initiatives die quietly because nobody pays to maintain them.
Policy Lock-in: Has the reform been written into law, regulation, or accreditation frameworks? If not, it risks being dismantled with every political reshuffle or new minister.
Human Capacity: Are teachers, assessors, and administrators not only trained but supported to continue applying the reform? Sustainable reform lives or dies on the people who deliver it on a daily basis.
Adaptability: Can the reform evolve as the world of work changes? Today's digital and green transitions are proof that systems must keep moving, not just freeze in time when a project ends.
Until these questions are answered, no amount of Monitoring & Evaluation can claim a reform is truly sustainable.
Monitoring and Evaluation versus Reality
M&E might tell you that 500 teachers were trained. But it won't tell you whether those teachers are still applying new methods five years later, or whether they have the ongoing support to keep improving. Without follow-up, training often risks becoming a one-off event rather than a lasting change in practice.
M&E might report that 10 new qualifications were developed. But it won't reveal if employers are actually using them to hire, promote, or recognise workers. Too often, employer participation in the TVET reform ecosystem is treated as an afterthought or a tick-box exercise. Yet this is the critical link: skills only matter when they translate into meaningful contributions to the workforce. Qualifications are not just pieces of paper; they are tangible evidence of an individual's ability and skill set, and when trusted, they are invaluable to both the learner and the employer.
M&E might indicate that a range of new TVET qualifications and systems were introduced. But it won't ask whether they are being updated, maintained, or trusted once the donor-funded support has disappeared. A database that looks impressive in the final report is meaningless if nobody is trained, or paid, to keep it alive.
A Better Way to Think about Success
If we really want to measure reform, we need to look for evidence that goes beyond activity counts and donor reports. True success is visible when:
Employers remain engaged and continue to shape curricula. Engagement isn't about showing up at a consultation meeting; it's about employers taking real ownership of qualifications, standards, and training design. When businesses recognise the value of TVET, they invest their time and resources, knowing it directly improves their workforce.
Young people trust TVET enough to enrol and stick with it. Enrolment numbers rise when TVET is viewed as a genuine pathway to opportunity, rather than a second-choice option. Retention rates improve when learners believe the system will actually lead to decent jobs and future prospects. Trust is the real currency of reform.
Teachers feel proud, skilled, and supported. TVET reforms live or die in the classroom and workshop. If teachers have the training, resources, and recognition they deserve, they pass on not only technical knowledge but also motivation and confidence to learners. Sustainable reform is impossible without teachers at its core.
The system is resilient to political changes or donor fatigue. A reform is only truly successful when it continues to function despite shifts in government or the end of external funding. If structures, policies, and practices are so deeply embedded that they persist beyond the political cycle, then the reform has transitioned from a project to an institution.
That's the real test of reform: not the number of workshops delivered or reports submitted, but the difference made to lives, institutions, and economies long after the project closes.
Closing Reflection: So yes, Monitoring and Evaluation has its place. It helps track deliverables and outputs, providing accountability. But let's not kid ourselves, this is not the same as measuring sustainable success.
And let's be honest: global donor funding for TVET reforms needs to be far more accountable. With the decline of traditional players like USAID, governments shifting resources towards military spending, and the growing uncertainty caused by economic and political unrest, every dollar or euro invested in skills has to demonstrate lasting value. We can no longer afford reforms that collapse the moment external funding dries up.
In my view, we need to start asking harder questions. Not just "Did we deliver?" but "Will it last? Will it grow? Will it matter in ten years?"
That's the difference between a TVET reform that looks good on paper and a reforming project that genuinely changes the future of skills and work.
And that's exactly why, in my next blog, I'll explore the key indicators that really show when TVET reform is delivering for the long term.
