Formerly called the Primary School Development Program (PSDP), the process in which our Cambodian staff engages local communities in taking ownership of and improving their own schools has been renamed. The Sahakoom Apeewaht Sala—literally, "Communities Developing Schools"—program identifies schools that have a certain level of buy-in from their principals and communities and spends three years working with them to identify their needs and priorities, helping them to cultivate their own capabilities and to build strong School Support Committees (SSCs). Rather than swooping in and "fixing" things ourselves, we aim to equip these SSCs with the tools to uncover and address the specific education needs of their own villages. It embodies our commitment to engaging in community-driven, sustainable educational development.

Since this model was initiated in July 2009 through trainings and collaboration with a team from a partner organization, "Schools for Children of Cambodia," PEPY is now supporting three primary schools with this approach. And after two years, SAS has already achieved some remarkable things:

• At Chanleas Dai, community members constructed two shaded learning huts on the school grounds, giving students a place to read and study during breaks or outside of their school shift times. Our only contribution was taking pictures!
• Chanleas Dai's teacher team leaders have led their school in making effective learning resources using minimal materials. The school fundraised over half of the budget for its resource-making workshop.
• Chanleas Dai has been learning how to grow mushrooms! This initiative is the beginning of what the SAS committee hopes will be a life skills program for students that offers agricultural knowledge and income-generating ideas.
• Though not part of the formal "plan," teachers and school administrators at Chanleas Dai have taken action and implemented two new programs at their school—one aims to elicit more parental involvement in education and the other focuses on helping children who come from families with exceptionally low incomes. Both of these programs came about without any PEPY input or assistance.
• At Prasat Knar, the SSC initiated a fundraising campaign in the two main villages nearby and raised over 200 USD to dig out a school pond, providing a much needed water source for toilets and drinking water. Over 70% of the funding came from the community. This is a tremendous achievement considering most families in the community are living on less than a dollar a day.
• As a library was high on Prasat Knar's priority list, PEPY agreed to support the resource needs, but only after the community found a way to sustain ongoing librarian costs. The Prasat Knar SSC meets regularly to brainstorm ways to fund a community librarian, and is writing requests to the District and Provincial offices of education to see if there is any potential for government support.
• Alongside these initiatives, PEPY is also supporting the schools by holding a variety of trainings for teachers and students, and arranging field trips to other model schools.

With the guidance of PEPY’s SAS team, and the continued commitment of the individual schools’ SSCs, we are hopeful that this model will provide long-lasting and sustainable change in education within these communities.

Six Components of the Model

 1. School Selection

 Not every school is ideal for this kind of model—in order to leverage our impact effectively, it is important that the schools where we start are primed for success. That means choosing schools with strong leadership, an involved village chief and community, and honest principals. By beginning with “entrepreneurial schools”—those with staff already going above and beyond the average and a community that believes in the value of education—we increase the likelihood of the program’s success. After that, these model schools can serve to inspire other nearby schools to strive to be considered for inclusion in the program in subsequent years.

2. Participatory Rural Appraisal

 In the case of SAS (pronounced “Saw Aw Saw,” the first three Khmer letters of Sahakoom Apeewaht Sala), ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal’ (PRA) means gathering a diverse group of community members, students, parents, and elders together for meetings aimed at gathering information and beginning a process of community engagement in the program. Various topics are discussed, including the history of education in the village, what problems are most serious, potential solutions to these problems, local sources of income, and perceptions of educational opportunities in the area.

3. School Support Committee

 Community involvement in education is rare in rural Cambodia as parents are busy working to support their families, opportunities for involvement are limited, and corruption can often be seen as a barrier to improvements. While each school is meant to create a School Support Committee (SSC) aimed at oversight and parental input into education decisions, in reality these committees are often ineffective, and are rarely given real ownership or roles in improving schools. In SAS, the SSC is the very heart of our approach. The goal is to create a robust and engaged SSC made up of influential people in the village (identified by the PRA) who will commit to participating for longer than the typical one-year term. The SSC receives training in Ministry policies, education law, Child Friendly Schools, and community advocacy.

4. School Development Plan

 Teachers, administrators, parents, and the SSC work together to develop a three-year plan by identifying the most pressing problems at their school, prioritizing two or three problems to tackle each year, and coming up with potential solutions for each. Planning workshops identify possible solutions to each issue, including potential community involvement—either through collections or in-kind labor and resources. The group decides on its own solutions, and while PEPY might contribute some funds for start-up costs or initial resources, the goal is finding plans that can continue through community and school support and do not need continued outside funding to be successful.

5. Prescriptive Standard Support

 Often it is hard to know exactly what you need, particularly if you haven’t seen positive examples of alternatives before. When we ask teachers and community members to identify school problems and solutions, they often miss things they haven’t seen before or are unfamiliar with, for example: first aid training, advocacy strategies for community leaders, critical thinking workshops for students, and in-service training on new Ministry of Education initiatives. These trainings are provided in addition to the school development plan workshops to give the SSC a broader understanding of their rights and the possibilities that exist for their school.

6. Three-Year Timeline

 This model is designed to be time-bound, though three years is not set in stone. If schools require more support, there are options for small grants after three years, or an additional phasing-out year of support. It is difficult to know what kind of changes we can expect to remain at the end of the process, and what changes will take place after five months or five years. We are aware of the reality that what looks good on paper will not necessarily translate well in practice, particularly since this model has never been tested in this way. Nevertheless, through our past experience and the lessons we are learning during the initial year of implementing SAS, we believe that by focusing on community involvement and accountability, capacity building, and support, this program will have lasting impact in the primary schools and communities involved.