1

I’M LEARNING CAMBODIA COUNTRY REPORT

May 2018 Save the Children Cambodia

Prepared by: Cameron Ryall & Lisa Zook

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4

Cambodia’s I’m Learning Project in 3 Sentences ...................................................................................... 5

Project Location and Direct Beneficiaries ................................................................................................... 5

Project Stakeholders and Partners .............................................................................................................. 5

I’M LEARNING PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 6

I’m Learning Development Process .............................................................................................................. 6

Key Components and Interventions ............................................................................................................... 7

Component I: Teacher Professional Development Support .................................................................. 8

Component II: Empowerment of Local School Structures ....................................................................... 9

Component III: School Development ...................................................................................................... 10

Monitoring: ................................................................................................................................................. 11

TOOLS ...................................................................................................................................... 11

EFFECTS AND RESULTS............................................................................................................. 13

Outputs .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Enrolment .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Retention & Repetition.............................................................................................................................. 14

Quality of Learning Environment (QLE). ................................................................................................ 16

Learning Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Advocacy: ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................... 19

Sustainability within intervention schools ................................................................................................. 19

National Scale Up of I’m Learning ........................................................................................................... 20

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT? ....................................................................................................... 21

Country Programme Level Learnings ....................................................................................................... 21

Most Important and Effective Activities ................................................................................................... 21

Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Challenges in Project Components or Activities ...................................................................................... 22

Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Implementing .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................. 23

M&E Tools: Strengths and Challenges .................................................................................................... 23

School-Level Innovations ............................................................................................................................. 23

Components for Future Programme Development ................................................................................. 24

BUDGET .................................................................................................................................... 24

ANNEX A. I’M LEARNING SCHOOL ENROLMENT 2016 / 2017 ................................................ 26

ANNEX B. I’M LEARNING SCHOOL ENROLMENT BY GRADE 2013/14 – 2016/17 ................... 27

ANNEX C. PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN SCHOOL ENROLMENT 2013/14 – 2016/17 ................. 28

ANNEX D. QUALITY LEARNING FRAMEWORK ....................................................................... 30

3

ANNEX E: SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT MODULES ........................................................... 31

ANNEX F. I’M LEARNING INTERVENTION SCHOOL TYPES ....................................................... 34

ANNEX G. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCALING UP I’M LEARNING IN CAMBODIA ................ 35

ANNEX H. I’M LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................. 37

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: I'm Learning Assessment, Design, Implementation and Monitoring Process ............................................ 7 Figure 2: I’m Learning Components and interventions mapped to 4 QLE Guiding Principles ............................... 8 Figure 3: % Change in Enrolment by School Type 2014 – 2017 - Cambodia .................................................... 14 Figure 4: Improved School Grounds ............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5: QLE Achievement by Principle and Year ..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: QLE Assessment Results & Visual Summary of Indicators - posted in Angkor Ban Primary School... 17 Figure 7: Literacy & Numeracy Results by Year for Interventions and Comparison Schools ............................... 18 Figure 9: School Development Committee and associated Taskforces .................................................................... 21 Figure 10: Capacity Building Approach for Scale-Up............................................................................................... 24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: I'm Learning Project School Enrolment Data 2013/14 - 2016/17 ________________________ 13 Table 2: I'm Learning Project School Dropout and Repetition Data 2013/14 - 2016/17 _____________ 15 Table 3: I'm Learning Budget and Expense Summary 2014 - 2017 ______________________________ 25 Table 4: I'm Learning Intervention School Enrolment 2016/17 __________________________________ 26 Table 5: I'm Learning Project Enrolment by Year, Grade & Sex _________________________________ 27 Table 6: I'm Learning Intervention School Annual Change in Enrolment ____________________________ 28

4

Introduction

I'm Learning in Cambodia applied Save the Children International’s (SCI) Quality Learning

Environment (QLE) Framework1 to develop a programme that would enhance primary school learning

environments and thereby improve school enrolment, retention, and children's literacy, numeracy, and

life skills. The project sought to provide empirical evidence that a holistic, rights-based perspective is

more effective in achieving an impact in children’s lives, and positive changes in their learning and

development.

The I’m learning project commenced in Cambodia as a pilot in March 2013 and was implemented

until December 2017. The project was funded through the SCN-NORAD agreement, and is part of an

SCN led pilot project in three countries (Zimbabwe, Uganda and Cambodia). The project was guided

by the following three objectives:

1) Develop and document an effective and sustainable Quality Learning Environment (QLE)-based programming approach for improving the quality of basic education which can be replicated and taken to scale,

2) Develop, test and document specific programme interventions that are responding directly to the indicators in the QLE framework,

3) Establish an evidence base that supports advocacy with the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) about effective interventions that build the quality of the learning environments and impact children’s learning and development.

The pilot project explores and tests how SCI’s QLE framework and the QLE data can be used to

inform programme planning and management. The QLE Framework which has four guiding principles

as follows:

1) Learning environments ensure children’s emotional and psycho-social protection;

2) Learning environments are physically safe;

3) Teachers encourage an active, child-centred learning processes; and

4) Parents and communities actively support children’s learning processes.

The Country Office spent more than a year developing its own contextualized interventions and

activities to assist schools in achieving the four guiding principles and twenty-eight indicators, creating

a unique country-specific programming model. The approach was not pre-determined by Save the

Children, but rather the project used the QLE framework as a guide to work with school stakeholders

to jointly assess, reflect, discuss and experience, enabling a linkage of interventions directly to the

needs, the context and locally relevant priorities. Furthermore, I’m Learning in Cambodia

endeavoured to complement the existing MoEYS policy on Child-Friendly Schools by promoting result-

based programming and monitoring using the QLE framework. The four principles of QLE correspond

with all six components of the CFS which cover (i) children’s access to school, (ii) quality teaching and

learning, (iii) health, safety and care, (iv) gender responsiveness, (v) involvement of children, their

families and community, and (vi) system strengthening.

Simultaneously to piloting the I’m Learning approach, a longitudinal research was also initiated to

explore, monitor and document the correlation between improvements in the learning environment and

children’s improved learning and development. The research went from 2014 – 2017, led by the

University of Oslo (UiO) and implemented through a local research partner, Kampuchean Action for

Primary Education (KAPE).

This report describes the I’m Learning Pilot Project in Cambodia from start to end, the process, the

interventions, and the programme model. It reflects upon the results, experiences, and learning of the

1 See Annex D for a summary of the QLE Framework

5

Country Office, focusing on the programme side of the pilot, thereby complementing the longitudinal

research carried out by UiO and KAPE.

Cambodia’s I’m Learning Project in 3 Sentences

I’m Learning in Cambodia fosters community engagement and creates community structures that help

the school achieve the MoEYS policy for Child-Friendly Schools. The programme empowers community

members, parents, students, and teachers to routinely assess their environment using the QLE assessment

and to plan interventions that enhance the safety, WASH, child participation, child rights, learning aids,

and teaching methodologies within the schools. Partnership with local and national governments

throughout the life of the pilot, coupled with strong evidence of programme effectiveness, has ensured

nationwide governmental uptake and support of the programme, the first step for sustained commitment

to I’m Learning’s approach for children’s learning and development.

Project Location and Direct Beneficiaries

From the start of full implementation in 2014 to the close of the programme in December 2017, I’m

Learning was implemented in a total of fifteen schools, five each from the three provinces of Kampong

Cham, Kampong Chhnang and Kratie. The schools were independently selected by KAPE, ensuring

alignment to the longitudinal research design which included some prescriptive criteria defining five

different school types for each province (see Annex D for details).

The total number of students enrolled in the I'm Learning intervention schools were 5,582 children (girls

49.2%) in 2014, 5,519 children (girls 50.4%) in 2015, 5,669 children (girls 49.6%) in 2016, 5,729

children (girls 50.6%) in 2017. The total direct child beneficiaries of the I’m Learning project is

estimated2 to be 9,353 pupils (48.5% girls). A total of 197 teachers (126 female) participated in the

project. Further details on teacher and student numbers can be found in Annex A.

Project Stakeholders and Partners

From the beginning, the project sought to build an approach that could be replicated and scaled

beyond the pilot phase, with strategic partnerships being used to achieve this objective. Government

was a primary partner for the implementation of project activities, with the Provincial and District

Education Offices (PoE / DoE) taking a leading role. Their engagement included training and

mentoring of teachers and SDCs, improving school procedures like student assessment or school

planning as well as strengthening school accountability to parents and the Ministry of Education. Other

government partners at national and sub-national levels included national ministries (eg education),

commune councils, health centres and police.

In addition to government, there was one other key partnership with Kampuchean Action for Primary

Education (KAPE). KAPE had a dual role, including implementing the longitudinal study in collaboration

with University of Oslo as well as supporting the regular project monitoring. The project monitoring

included producing annual reports detailing progress for each QLE indicator as well as goal level

indicators for learning outcomes and enrolment/attendance. With regard to research, the project’s

interactions with KAPE included collection of research data over a four-year period, but also

contributed to the building of capacity of this local partner to effectively contribute to research and

evaluation for SC projects.

2 This estimated total number of children benefitting from the project was calculated by adding total enrolment of the first year of intervention in a school and adding Grade 1 enrolment for subsequent years up until 2016.

6

I’m Learning Project Description

I’m Learning Development Process As a starting point, the I’m Learning project was to be implemented in line with the following core principles, and the project ensuring capacity within school communities :

These core principles introduced a unique and empowering process to guide the development and

implementation of I’m Learning’s interventions. Firstly, the project introduced the QLE school self-

assessment, a process which enables a step-by-step multi-stakeholder consultation to review the

quality of the school’s learning environment. This introduced an objective and participatory planning

and budgeting process, fostering wider engagement, local ownership and accountability at the school

and community level. Secondly, the QLE assessment results were linked to the school’s annual

planning/budgeting process, ensuring target schools aligned with existing policy, structures and

procedures mandated by the Ministry of Education (MoEYS)3, but also ensured participatory

involvement of all school stakeholders, including children, teachers, head teachers, and SDC members.

While the I’m learning project uses the QLE framework as an assessment tool to measure a school’s

progress toward establishing a quality learning environment, it also acts as a guide for programming,

with gaps found during the assessment pointing toward focal areas for the school to address in annual

planning. Empowering schools to take on the QLE assessment as a tool for generating evidence and

support to planning processes was a central approach to the project, the steps of which are depicted

in Figure 1.

From the outset of the project in 2013, the project baseline used a contextualized version of the QLE

assessment, translating the 28 indicators and adjusting the scoring rubric to local conditions. The QLE

data in each intervention schools were validated, organized into the I’m learning QLE database and

analysed. The results were presented to local stakeholders including POEs/DOEs, head teachers,

teachers, children and school communities for verification and reflection. Consultative discussion about

gaps or shortfalls, especially for indicators scoring the lowest in the assessment, led to identifying

priority areas to be targeted for improvement. Each intervention school developed a school

development plan, and an action plan for implementation in the school academic year. The action

plans being part of school development plans were used by stakeholders (such as head teachers,

teachers; children; school development committee; POEs/DOEs). Responsibility for implementation was

distributed amongst the school stakeholders, with regular meetings scheduled throughout the year to

3 MoEYS strategic plan outlines three national goals for education: (1) Equitable access for all (2) Improved quality and relevance of learning (3) Effective school management. The current strategic plan is informed by longer term policies such as the Child Friendly Schools policy. I’m Learning project and the QLE framework closely align to these national goals, but introduce a practical approach to guide schools to achieve objectives of policy and the education strategic plan.

• Rights-based approach that establishes of a supportive, inclusive and participatory learning enviornment, fostering a cross sectoral programming approach integrating physical, emotional, social and cognitive aspects of learning and development.

Holistic and Integrated Approach

• School stakeholders conduct QLE assessment of their own school, and collectively work to solve their own problems, planning and implementing actions together.

Self Assessment and Empowerment

• Consultative stakeholder engagement to identify school development priorities

• Locally developed and implemented action plans

Local Solutions and Local Ownership

7

check on progress. At the end of each subsequent school year, the school community would collectively

conduct a QLE assessment, using the results to reflect on achievements and support planning for the

upcoming school year. 4

The process depicted in Figure 1 enabled a linkage of interventions directly to the needs, the context

and locally relevant priorities, and from that starting point the contextualised programme model was

developed.

Figure 1: I'm Learning Assessment, Design, Implementation and Monitoring Process

Key Components and Interventions

The four QLE guiding principles were contextualized and put into action through three implementation

components:

(i) Teacher Professional Development - Including both pedagogical methods, professional

attitudes and behaviour towards children;

(ii) Empowerment of Local Structures – especially school management structures;

(iii) School Development - Improvement of school facilities and learning material

Figure 2 depicts the three programme components and how the key interventions of each component map to the QLE guiding principles. This structure enabled a more integrated design, especially to more closely link the project to the overarching CFS policy in Cambodia. Furthermore, the design support the theory of change SC Cambodia used to transform school learning environments. Beginning in 2014, time was spent developing and refining the interventions with schools. The focus of interventions during this time was on learning outcomes (component 1), which was used to build rapport with parents and community members (component 2). Once the relationship between community members, the school, POE/DOE officials, and Save the Children was strengthened, the programme moved into the next phase which focused on school development interventions (component 3). Throughout this period, SC focused on capacity building of the POE/DOE and SDC to ensure that the programme can be locally owned, self-monitored, and ultimately sustained. During 2017, the project endeavored to transition to the SDC

4 Schools are allocated very small budgets to support annual plans, with a per capita grant of $2.50/child from MoEYS. This had been a significant limitation for school planning and is a very present issue for the success of I’m Learning as it scales up in Cambodia.

8

and POE/DOE fully owning I’m Learning. This is the point at which the SDC can dynamically respond to the needs of the school. Based upon the experiences of implementing the I’m Learning project, a detailed work plan was developed and is included in Annex H.

Figure 2: I’m Learning Components and interventions mapped to 4 QLE Guiding Principles

Component I: Teacher Professional Development Support

I’m Learning’s Teacher Professional Development (TPD) Component aims to shift traditional practice, building teachers’ capacity with new teaching methods for better classroom management and collaboration with fellow teachers, students, parents, and community members. Specifically, the component aims to:

• Improve teacher knowledge on core subjects such as literacy, numeracy, and life skills.

• Strengthen lesson planning and teaching sequences, ensuring linkage to outcomes prioritized in

subject syllabi.

• Produce teaching materials and increase effective utilisation in the classroom.

• Strengthen teacher-student relationships and foster student participation.

• Enhance classroom management through summative and formative assessment.

• Embed self-reflection in to teacher practice through action research.

The project used different mechanisms to achieve the objectives of TPD. As a starting point, Save the Children staff were able to collaborate with MoEYS on two working groups (design working group and core trainer working group) to develop toolkits and training materials. The working groups had a total of 71 members consisting of education officials from Primary Education Department (PED), Teacher Training Department (TTD), School Health Department (SHD), Curriculum Development Department (CDD), Provincial Teacher Training College (PTTC), and Provincial Office of Education, Youth and Sport (POE). The design group of 38 members was responsible for technical consultation on producing teaching materials, while the core trainers of 33 members oversaw training and capacity building of school staff.

Programme implementation of this component began in 2014. During that year, I’m Learning began combination of classroom management as well as pedagogically focused trainings, targeting improvements to teaching and learning in the classroom. For example, a positive discipline workshop was delivered, which led to all schools establishing their own reporting mechanisms (including listing names of people and their contact numbers) through which children can actively report cases of violence; harassment; and issues affecting their physical, mental and psychological health or learning performance in school. Additionally, all teachers participated in a training on action research. Within this training, they were trained on other teaching techniques, such as teaching life skills through science and social studies. Moreover, the project produced various teaching aids to give teachers practical classroom assistance and conducted formative assessment to help teachers advance their

9

professionalism and ultimately their career. Also in 2014, the project provided raw materials and training on how to develop teaching aides. In following years, the school managed this process without raw materials from the project.

In 2015, the capacity of teachers who had received the trainings remained low. This determination was made through analysis of the participatory QLE assessment, which found GP sub-standards like 3.4 (use of teaching aids), 3.5 (lesson planning and 3.10 (learner participation) were still very low. To address this issue, the project staff and government partners (PoE and DoE) provided extra support to teachers. This extra support was in the form of extra orientation, hands-on teaching demonstrations, and additional instructional materials.5 It was also recognized that teachers need continuous cycle of training and coaching to support behavior change in the classroom. This extra work led to an adjusted teacher-training strategy to respond to the different development stages of trainees. This training adjustment came in to effect in 2016 and featured monthly teacher training (technical demonstration). Upon completing training, teachers transition to quarterly technical assistance support.

The project documented TPD components through the development of various training modules targeting areas like numeracy, literacy and formative assessment. Additionally, three modules were also added to the School Based Management (SBM) package as outlined in Annex E.

Additionally, I’m Learning project collaborated with MoEYS to develop five videos demonstrating good teaching practices as contributions to TPD beyond the fifteen target schools. The videos are available on the MoEYS website6 and made available to all teachers.

Component II: Empowerment of Local School Structures

This component strengthens the existing School Support Committee (SSC) structure through training and

links it to a broader network of stakeholders throughout the community, called the School

Development Committee (SDC). An important contribution of the project, inclusion of this broader base

of community engagement supported sustainability of I’m Learning. For instance, SDCs now have one

representative of the local authority (Commune Council), which not only fosters local ownership of the

school, but better enables schools to access funding from the commune development fund, which has

increasing importance in Cambodia’s decentralized governance structure.

This component also seeks to promote good communication between parents and teachers, by bringing them together through Classroom Committees with the unifying goal of improving children’s learning outcomes. Children’s participation is also emphasized through the Children’s Council.

Specifically, the component aims to:

• Re-enforce, support, and train SDCs in their roles and responsibilities, including:

o Enrolment and prevention of drop-out thru Community Household Mapping and

community support to poor households and vulnerable children.

o Establish the ten sub-committees of the SDC. 7

o Guidance and support to parents on how they can support their children’s learning

process at home and in the community.

o DRR planning and drills.

o Child protection and reporting mechanisms linked to the community child protection

networks.

• Train teachers on how to establish, run, and support classroom committees.

5 These materials are not available in English yet. 6 http://youtu.be/Nmft5c4GWoc; http://youtu.be/zPMieVyEYS8; http://youtu.be/1aGM-Bms2k8; http://youtu.be/PyhZ93eEUg8; http://youtu.be/fLTKIyGyUfg 7 The ten SDC taskforces include: (i) Disaster Preparedness & Response; (ii) Social Accountability; (iii) Awareness Raising & Training on Education; (iv) Support on Disadvantaged Children; (v) Child Protection; (vi) Teacher Motivation; (vii) School Catchment Area Statistics; (viii) Community-based Reading Clubs; (ix) Health & Medical Services; (x) School Safety

10

• Rehabilitate, support and train children’s councils to effectively contribute children’s voice to

school decision making.

Throughout the project period there were many interventions that worked together to support the

empowerment of local school structures. As 2014 focused on TPD (Component 1), this component truly

started in 2015. During the first year the project promoted empowerment for local solutions by

supporting stakeholders to have a sense of ownership and participation in identifying local issues,

development initiatives, and decisions that affect the quality of education for their children. A

bottom-up approach to problem-solving was cultivated through the involvement of individuals,

Children’s Councils, teachers, school principals, community leaders, SSCs, and education officials in

self-reflection, self-assessment, and action research.

During 2015, the project revised and developed a new SDC structure with ten sub-committees, each

of which focuses on different issues. To effectively establish this structure, SC trained Core Trainers to

provide training to schools (with to a broad representation from a cross section of the community,

including women and children). Training of SDC members included a focus on school monitoring,

management and leadership, children’s councils and collaboration between teachers and parents. The

revision enabled stronger involvement and accountability for relevant stakeholders. The revised

structure encouraged all members to take on responsibilities beyond their own scope of work.

In partnership with the PoE and DoE, there is a plan for capacity building of SDC which includes

regular follow-ups. In each province, schools are receiving at least two follow-up coaching visits to

help strengthen the SDC. The follow-ups provide real-time support and feedback to schools. In

addition, Save the Children project staff monitored and followed up project activities at least five

times per month.

By the end of the programme pilot, all SDCs in target schools set plans and conducted meetings six

times per year. They each also have at least one member of the local commune council in the SDC

structure. Furthermore, members from the commune council are directly involved in the QLE school self-

assessment process and development of the School Improvement Plan, which they can bring with them

to the Commune Investment Plan.

In partnership with the MoEYS, the Cambodia office developed four School Based Management

Modules for the Empowerment of Local Structures component. The modules are outlined in Annex E.

Component III: School Development

I’m Learning’s School Development Component aims to raise awareness and understanding of the QLE Framework, facilitate and support QLE Assessments two times per year, and support the development and implementation of school improvement plans. The School Development Component aims to:

• Raise awareness and understanding of the QLE Framework among teacher, head teachers,

communities, children and the local government by:

o Translating and producing printed materials on QLE to share at the school level

o Provide orientation meetings

o Display QLE messaging in the school through posters

• Facilitate and support QLE school self-assessments 2 times per year by:

o Training head teachers in the school self-assessment methodology as part of regular

quality assessment and assurance

o Supervising and facilitating QLE school self-assessments

• Support the development and implementation of school improvement planning based on the

QLE self-assessments by:

o Supporting and guiding the planning process

o Supporting implementation of the School Improvement Plan related to:

11

▪ Teaching / Learning Materials

▪ School Facilities Improvement

▪ Advocacy for schools’ needs for more teachers to be extended to full primary

schools with the DOE and POE\

Programme implementation of this component began in 2014. During this year, all head teachers in intervention schools received training from I’m Learning on school supervision, leadership and management, school administration, establishment of school statistics, and QLE concepts.

After baseline and consultation sessions with grassroots stakeholders, such as POE, DOE, head teachers, teachers, local authorities, and School Support Committees (SSCs), all 15 intervention schools developed 4-year improvement plans (2014-2017) and annual School Improvement Plans (SIP) for school year 2014-2015. The School Improvement Plans focused on achieving the four guidance principles of QLE.

By the end of the 2015, 11 of the 15 intervention schools were passing all 4 guiding principles. By the end of 2016, 14 of the 15 schools were passing all 4 guiding principles. Guiding Principle 4 provide the most difficult to achieve. To support this, the project decided to implement more frequent monitoring and support. Findings suggest a 3-year timeline for programme implementation can support achievement of the objectives of this component, assuming strong support mechanisms are provided to the schools.

Monitoring:

Monitoring undertook two different forms within I’m Learning intervention schools. Firstly, the project supported activity monitoring, which involved following up trainings, checking progress with construction and ensuring school-led activities such as committee meetings were moving forward smoothly. This monitoring was conducted by PoE / DoE officials (2-3 times per month) and Save the Children project staff (10-12 times per month in the first year, 8-10 times in second year, 6-8 times in third year, and 4-5 times in the fourth year). Secondly, output/outcome monitoring was also conducted by KAPE who visited schools three times a year, completing the QLE assessment twice (mid & end of school year) and learning outcome assessments twice (start and end of school year).

Tools

All tools are available in this dropbox folder.

Tools Description of usage

1. QLE Assessment Tool The QLE Assessment Tool is used by the following stakeholders to measure

the school’s status regarding the 28 sub-standards within the QLE

Framework:

• MOE Staff: PoE/DoE

• SDC

• Head Teacher

• Teachers

• Youth and Children’s Council

The tool was used for monitoring and evaluation, then being used to inform

monthly SDC meetings, action plans, and school development plans.

Depending upon the stakeholders and purpose of data collection, the tool

may be used in different contexts: self-assessment, MoEYS monitoring, or

focus group discussions.

12

2. Literacy Assessment

Tool

The literacy tool includes to skills: reading and writing. Reading consists of

5 competencies: phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and

comprehension. The tool was adapted from EGRA, but more closely aligns

to Curriculum Standards and covers Grades 1 to 6 (as opposed to Grades

1 to 3). The tool was developed by Save the Children.

3. Numeracy Assessment

Tool

The numeracy tool is curriculum-based and, similar to the literacy

assessment, is knowledge based. The tool covers Grades 1 to 6. The tool

was developed by Save the Children.

4. Life Skill Tools This tool is used for supporting children activities during project

implementation. The tool was developed by research partner, KAPE. The

tool was designed after review of the national curriculum, curriculum

standards, as well as the core textbooks of all relevant grades. Tool items

were developed and then tested for reliability and validity.

5. Children Self-

Assessment Tool

This tool is used for children to self-assess their interactions with teachers

and fellow classmates. The country office uses it to supplement the QLE

assessment tool, linking it to Guiding Principles 1,2, and 3.

6. School Based

Management Modules

To facilitate scaling I’m Learning’s practices throughout Cambodia, this

package of tools was developed jointly by Save the Children and the

MoEYS. The thirteen modules are organized in to four categories:

1. School Administration Management and Communication

2. Teaching, Learning, and Implementation of Core Curriculum

3. Teachers’ Professional Development and School Inspection

4. School Development Planning and Budget Management

A complete list of the modules is included in Annex E.

7. School Improvement

Plan Template

Schools use this template for the development of School Improvement

Plans. The template helps schools apply the four guiding principles to the

improvement plan.

8. Activity Menu This menu was used as sample activities for establishing the school

improvement plan. These activities could help the target schools to achieve

each principle of QLE framework.

9. Teaching Sequence A packet of materials (in Khmer) that assist teachers on the development

of their own teaching sequence. It includes examples.

10. Implementation

Guide

Over-arching guidance document for Cambodia’s contextualized QLE-

based programming model. It outlines the QLE conceptual framework,

monitoring framework, and planning tool. Then provides step-by-step

guidance for the implementation of I’m Learning within Cambodia.

11. Contextualization

Report

The Contextualization Report documents the process of developing

and contextualizing I’m Learning, in Cambodia. Firstly, it discusses

how Save the Children Cambodia worked in close partnership with

government and stakeholders in developing, implementing, and

monitoring I’m Learning. It then examines the successes and

challenges of implementing the project model in terms of school-

level innovation, as well as ownership and sustainability at the local

and national levels. Finally, it outlines plans for scale-up and

provides recommendations for the future of I’m Learning in

Cambodia.

13

Effects and Results

Outputs The total number of children who directly benefited from the I'm Learning Pilot Project in the fifteen

intervention schools is estimated to be 9,353 students (girls: 4,536, boys: 4,817). This estimated total

number of children enrolled in the intervention schools was obtained by adding the total enrolment in

year 2013 plus the number of children enrolled in grade 1 for each of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

The number of teacher engaged by the programme grew over time as interventions changed. In

2013/14 the project worked with 142 teachers (85 Female; 59 Male). By 2016/17 this number had

grown to 177 teachers (117 Female; 60 Male). Throughout the project, 55 new teachers joined the

interventions schools due to teacher transfers and growth in student numbers.

Each of the 15 schools evolved their governance structure from an SSC to an SDC. This process

necessitated training and coaching support to capacitate 129 school development committee (SDC)

members (36 Female) to fulfil their responsibilities.

Many outputs were achieved by the project, with training of PoE/DoE/PTTC, teachers, pupils, parents

and community in a range of topics from improving children’s reading through effective school

planning to positive discipline. Numbers of unique individuals benefitting from training is difficult to

track, but figures for other outputs are as follows8:

Teaching and Learning materials: 341 educational games, 302 teaching material packs, 69 book

cabinets and 4,593 story books provided to schools.

WASH Facilities & Supplies: 8 handwashing stations constructed; 12 Water purifiers and 5 water

systems installed; 8 latrines constructed.

Learning Environment: 27 classrooms and 10 playgrounds received renovation support

Outcomes The project aimed to improve the learning environments of the fifteen intervention schools, examining

whether doing so leads to improved school enrolment, attendance, and retention as well as learning

outcomes. This section describes the main findings associated with the enrolment, attendance, retention,

the quality learning environments and learning outcomes that resulted from the pilot project.

Enrolment

Enrolment in the fifteen interventions over the four years of the project is summarized in Table 1. The

table is split by province, showing the much higher enrolment in Kampong Cham (one school in

particular had very high enrolment, accounting for 50% of this province’s enrolment).

Table 1: I'm Learning Project School Enrolment Data 2013/14 - 2016/17

Province 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy

Kampong Cham 1,323 1,376 1,374 1,335 1,403 1,445 1,523 1,448

Kampong Chhnang 745 788 735 723 742 786 723 755

Kratie 681 669 674 678 668 625 654 626

Total 2,749 2,833 2,783 2,736 2,813 2,856 2,900 2,829

8 The figures for outputs do not include 2017 contributions.

14

Stakeholders believed that improved school facilities as well as learning outcomes increased

enrolment in the schools. That was certainly the case for some schools, especially schools in more

disadvantaged circumstances. The fifteen intervention schools were divided into five types, as outlined

in Annex F. Two types of schools, C and E, were the most deprived settings and it is these two

categories of schools where enrolment clearly benefitted from the project’s interventions, as shown in

Figure 3. The most prominent example is a Type E school from Kampong Cham, Toul Beng Primary

School. From 2014, enrolment increased each year by more than 50%, taking enrolment from 63

students in 2013/14 to 211 students in 2016/17.

Figure 3: % Change in Enrolment by School Type 2014 – 2017 - Cambodia

While two-thirds of Type C & E schools experienced positive enrolment growth, there were also

schools that experienced decreasing enrolment. One Type C school in Kratie province, Khnorng Pos,

saw enrolment reduce by 18% from 164 to 135 children. This school is located in an area where

households are frequently migrating for economic opportunity, a likely explanation for the falling

student numbers. Importantly, the enrolment changes in other school types is within the tolerance of

usual demographic changes (thus no effect).

Finally, from 2013/14 to 2016/17 the total annual enrolment in the fifteen implementation schools

increased by 147 children from 5,582 to 5,729. Interestingly, the increased enrolment is due to higher

number of girls, whom in 2013 represented 49% of learners, but by the end of the project they are

the majority at 51%. See the section below for analysis on why girls benefitted for enrolment and

retention.

Retention & Repetition

The dropout rate has significantly decreased across 15 intervention schools since the commencement of

programming in 2013/14, with the greatest impact being made in year two of the project, as the

effects of the improved learning environment and teaching quality was beginning to take hold.

Conversely, the repetition rate has stayed high, increasing for both boys and girls. One reason

proffered by the project staff for the persistently high repetition rate is the improved (more rigorous)

testing of students, such that schools now have better records of student achievement. Moreover, with

the intensive TPD interventions, teachers have improved knowledge, skills and equipment to support

children’s learning. With higher pedagogical capacity and stronger awareness on learning, teachers

are likely also more cautious about the learners actually achieving the learning standards before

moving on to the next level. Teacher’s improved awareness and understanding of children’s individual

learning progress has increased and this is used to inform their lesson planning and overall teaching

strategies, as is their assessment of children’s achievement of required knowledge and skills.

15

While the details above are generally true, delving deeper into the repetition data shows the acute

problem is in grade 1. Reviewing the data available in Annex A, a high repetition rate persisted for

grade 1, averaging 19% in 2016/17, higher than the 2013/14 school year. While the project’s

results for learning outcomes steadily improved during the project positive, this data indicates a gap

in the foundational year of grade 1. One explanation could be school readiness of grade 1 children,

and the need for schools to be better equipped to support the transition to school.

Table 2: I'm Learning Project School Dropout and Repetition Data 2013/14 - 2016/17

Indicators

Achievements

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Repetition 9.10% 12.70% 9.50% 12.70%

Male 10.40% 16.20% 11.40% 14.20%

Female 7.80% 9.20% 7.60% 11.10%

Dropout 11.14% 2.92% 2.19% 2.09%

Male 12.21% 3.25% 2.91% 1.94%

Female 10.04% 2.59% 1.46% 2.20%

Retention 88.74% 97.08% 97.81% 97.91%

Male 87.63% 96.75% 97.09% 98.06%

Female 89.89% 97.41% 98.54% 97.80%

I’m Learning’s approach appears to have had the biggest effect on retention for the most

disadvantaged schools – the small satellite schools. In 2013/14, retention rates for girls at two of the

schools was below 70%. By end of the project, retention rate across the three schools averaged

above 90%, with two of the school’s achieving 100% retention. This is a significant achievement for

low resourced schools. A likely contributing factor is the significant improvement in the quality

learning environment, including changes in the teaching quality, reduction in physical punishments,

better WASH infrastructure and improved facilities such as displayed in in Figure 4. Additionally, it is

likely that the democratic principles promoted by I’m Learning, empowering all stakeholders to

participate in school development, is likely to have had a flow on effect, all factors combining to

create a more encouraging, gender sensitive and amenable school environment for girls.

Figure 4: Improved School Grounds

16

Quality of Learning Environment (QLE).

Schools were assessed on the Quality Learning Environment (QLE) using the six QLE survey tools as

desribed in the section on Tools. A school achieved a given Guiding Principle (GP) if the school

achieved greater than or equal to 50% of the GP’s sub-standards. The Overall QLE shows the

proportion of schools that achieved all four GPs for that year9. QLE Assessment results were collected

twice a year by KAPE to support project monitoring. The first occasion was in February - March,

halfway through the school year, as a means of checking progress and informing any necessary

implementation plan changes. A second assessment took place in August, and this assessment was used

to produce annual results which are displayed in Figure 5.

As shown in Figure 5, in 2013, at the commencement of I’m Learning, there was very low achievement

amongst the intervention and comparison schools for the 28 QLE indicators. By 2016/17 school year,

fourteen of fifteen intervention schools (93%) have achieved all four QLE guiding principles. Results

started slowly, but achievement grew dramatically in the 2015/16 school year. Such that by the end

of the project fourteen of fifteen schools were achieving the target result for all 28 QLE indicators.

One interesting feature of the QLE results is that all school stakeholders knew their results. They were

prominently displayed in the schools and were used as a tool to garner support within the schools for

further development of the quality learning environment. Figure 6 provides an example of the

visibility of QLE results the project fostered amongst the intervention schools. In this case, a display

board showing QLE results side by side with a visual explanation of each of the 28 QLE sub-

standards was located outside the School Directors office, available for all school stakeholders to

review. The location of the board was also important, demonstrating the willingness of the School

Director to be accountable for results to all school stakeholders.

9 The indicators forming each of the guiding principles are outlined in Annex D. The four principles are: GP 1: emotional and psycho-social protection; GP 2: physical protection; GP 3: active learning process and improved learning outcomes; and GP 4: close collaboration between school and parents/community

Figure 5: QLE Achievement by Principle and Year

17

Learning Outcomes Children’s literacy and numeracy outcomes were assessed annually at the beginning and end of the

school years for both intervention and comparison schools. The assessments covered all grades and

covered a range of sub-skills. The reporting of the data aggregates the results of the different sub-

skills tests and all grades to arrive at a percentage of children achieving the target level. For grades

3-6, children had to score at least 50% on the test to be counted as passing. For grades 1-2, the pass

level was 40%. Sub-tests for literacy included letter knowledge, common words and reading

comprehension, while for numeracy it included number recognition, place value and basic computational

functions like subtraction and addition (as appropriate to the year level). The programme began

assessing samples of children from all schools at each grade level at the start of the 2013/2014 school

year and continued to the end of the 2016/2017 school year.

Figure 7 shows the percentage of primary school students passing minimum competencies for literacy

and numeracy has risen dramatically over the project period, with intervention schools out-performing

comparison schools in literacy and numeracy each year. Results for literacy and numeracy show

increasing performance year on year for both intervention and comparison schools, with a tapering of

performance for intervention schools in the final year of the project.10 Another prominent trend is the

difference in performance between boys and girls, especially with literacy results.

10 SCI-C staff and KAPE made the reflection that the literacy and numeracy assessments were altered in 2017 (where a grade level test had been the same test from 2014-16). The tests were altered because intervention schools had been coaching children in the lead up to the tests. It is instructive that test scores for comparison schools continued to increase in 2016/17.

Figure 6: QLE Assessment Results & Visual Summary of Indicators - posted in Angkor Ban Primary School

18

Figure 7: Literacy & Numeracy Results by Year for Interventions and Comparison Schools11

In addition to the project’s own assessment of learning outcomes (carried out independently by KAPE), the Ministry of Education through the Education Quality Assurance Department was invited to externally validate I’m Learning’s by conducting an assessment of grade 3 & 6 using the government’s standardized tests for literacy and numeracy. These results were very positive, showing the majority of grade 3 (61%) and grade 6 (68%) of children achieving literacy benchmarks. Similar results occurred

for numeracy. 12

Overall, the project had a positive effect on children’s learning outcomes, supporting I’m Learning’s hypothesis that improving the quality of the school’s learning environment will have a flow impact to children’s learning outcomes.

11 Source: Project Annual Evaluation in Aug 2017 by KAPE. Each grade at all schools had a random sample of approximately 25 students. Life skills data is not available. Although the project intended to collect monitoring data on life skills, only the longitudinal research study compiled this information. 12 An important note about these results. The EQAD Director said these results are not reliable and shouldn’t be compared to national results. The reason for this is the sample size of the assessment. Due to SCI budget constraints, EQAD only sampled five I’m Learning intervention schools. As a means of mitigating this, EQAD recommended to SCI that one way to validate the results would be to conduct a follow up assessment in 2017. However, internal SCI procurement mechanisms prevented that from going forward.

19

Advocacy:

While starting the project, Save the children involved designed team and core trainers from seven

departments13 within MoEYS in project design, planning, implementation and monitoring. In this

regard, MoEYS has been engaged with different project experiences and learnings to influence it’s

understanding of how to improve and monitor the quality learning environment in schools. This

experience has included contextualisation of school-based curriculum, practical implementation of

school inspection, classroom-based student assessment and enabling schools to translate policies/

guidelines into their daily task. In particular, this engagement of MoEYS has also contributed to the

curriculum reform process (curriculum framework and syllabus).

The results and best practices from the I’m learning model were disseminated at national and sub-

national level within government and civil society forums. One such forum included presenting to the

annual NGOs Education partnership (NEP) conference where representatives of over 200 NGOs were

present. Additionally, some of these NGOs also participated in a training on the SBM modules,

enabling the project to influence how NGOs are supporting QLE in schools. Furthermore, the Minister

of Education Youth and Sport hosted civil society partners such as USAID, Plan international, Sovann

Phoum and others in a visit to I’m Learning intervention schools to learn about how the approach is

supporting quality of teaching literacy and school management structure.

Save the Children engaged the Education Quality Assurance Department (EQAD) to conduct literacy

and numeracy assessment for grade 3 and 6 in a sample of I’m Learning schools using the national

assessment tools. The results were positive, details of which are outlined in the results section of this

report. Along with the Director of EQAD and project partner KAPE, Save the Children presented these

results to the Minister of Education Youth and Sport. This success contributed to a MoEYS decision to

adopt the I’m Learning approach as guidance for schools to effectively implement the CFS policy. The

I’m Learning package of support was written up into 13 modules and renamed School Based

Management “SBM”. MoEYS has printed the modules and distributed to all provinces and

incorporated targets for school adoption of the model in its sector plan.

Additionally, MoEYS has initiated development of new Primary School Standards to improve the

quality of education. Education sector stakeholders have been invited to provide inputs to the

standards. The I’m Learning programme team has made use of this opportunity to include QLE

elements to the draft standards, incorporating lessons learnt from the I’m Learning project. The focus

of these inputs included guidance on contextualizing school-based curriculum, practical implementation

of school inspection and classroom-based student assessment methods.

Sustainability

Sustainability within intervention schools The I’m Learning pilot project was completed at the end of 2017. Intervention schools are now capacitated to fulfil the requirements of establishing and maintaining a quality learning environment. As a means of ensuring the sustainability, the project designed and developed a phase-out plan/sustainability plan, to be implemented in 2018 with funding extension from NORAD. Key strategies for embedding local ownership and replicability include:

(i) Transition responsibility of Save the Children managed activities to MoEYS at national level. This includes supporting required resources for full day teaching and the monitoring of School Based-Management is being effectively implemented.

13 The Departments involved with the I’m Learning project included: Primary Education Department (PED), Teacher Training Department (TTD), School Health Department (SHD), Curriculum Development Department (CDD), Provincial Teacher Training College (PTTC), and Provincial Office of Education, Youth and Sport (PoE).

20

(ii) Integration of school improvement plans into Commune Investment Plan (CIP), as well as advocating at district and provincial level for more government funds to be released to target schools through the CIP.

(iii) Development and implementation of “School-based operational plans”, focusing on sustaining the quality learning environment over the next five years.

National Scale Up of I’m Learning

I’m Learning made significant achievements for supporting the replicability of the QLE approach within Cambodia’s education system. This has included adoption of the model as an officially endorsed curriculum package to support School-Based Management (SBM) and inclusion in the national sector plan. Currently, the package has 12 modules, with Save the Children continuing to work with MoEYS to expand and refine these modules. Additionally, during 2017-18, Save the Children has supported national forums, learning visits and trainings to raise awareness and understanding of the SBM package with MoEYS, and development partners (eg multi-laterals, donors, NGOs).

Although SC Cambodia has made extensive progress to embed I’m Learning (SBM) within MoEYS system, including incorporation into the sector plan, there are some further steps to take to ensure its success (rather than just name recognition). For instance, MoEYS is currently working with partners on at least five separate initiatives for enhancing school-based management. These initiatives tend to be siloed, with NGOs, donors and government departments needing to better coordinate to enable the school system to effectively absorb improvements to SBM and raise the level of performance across all schools. Moreover, given the education system seeks out donors and readily adjusts interventions/priorities in accordance with the specifications linked with donor funds, change will require high quality leadership14 to harmonise all stakeholder interests and provide coherent direction.

Sustainability toward supporting replicability is also at a tipping point with in-service teacher training. I’m Learning’s approach to teacher training aligns to the government policy to upgrade teacher qualifications and provide a system of school-based in-service training.15 A key feature of enabling this to work well is having capable trainers and mentors available within PoE, DoE, TTCs and school directors. However, as was the experience of I’m Learning while supporting only 15 schools, sourcing capable people within the system to support these functions is a challenge. Other development partners like JICA & UNICEF have been trying to establish a school-based training and mentoring system for 12 years, and although they have had pockets of success, significant questions remain about the capacity of the education system to take it on at scale.

With such realities in mind, for the scale-up or replication of the I’m Learning/SBM approach to be successful (sustainable), SC Cambodia will need to expand its role with advocacy and quality assurance at national and provincial levels (rather than supporting direct implementation). There is consensus from stakeholders at intervention schools, PoE, Directors of Departments within MoEYS (national), and other development partners (eg KAPE), with the following being articulated by all:

• Stage the Scale Up of I’m Learning (SBM) methodology: Cambodia’s education system doesn’t have the resources (financial and human) to scale to all school’s. Work with MoEYS to stage expansion in a way the system can meaningfully absorb it. For the three current provinces, the expansion into new schools can be more extensive than new provinces, given the significant capacity already built in the first three provinces. New provinces will need a period of learning and trialling out the model, and developing ownership for their local circumstances.

• Head Teacher Selection: All stakeholders agree that the critical selection criteria for schools to participate in the scale up of I’m Learning is the capability and commitment of the head teacher.

14 Cambodia’s education system has made significant advancements in the past four years under the leadership of the current Minister of Education. In particular, Dr Naron has brought important changes to MoEYS, including appointments to senior positions and cultural change. However, the consensus is he needs another 5 years to ensure the trickle down to school level happens. A national election in July 2018 will significantly influence whether this happens or not. 15 By 2030, the Teacher Policy Action Plan seeks to upgrade the qualifications of more than 70,000 school teachers from two to four year trained (bachelor equivalency). A curriculum for the upgrading has been designed and approved, for which I’m Learnings modules align.

21

• Build an Evidence Base: how to scale-up of I’m Learning in a much lower resource environment needs to be documented, as does impact on learning outcomes (and other QLE dimensions) using a meaningful sample size and rigorous methodology.

What have we learnt?

Country Programme Level Learnings Bottom-Up Not Top-Down: One of the strengths of the I’m Learning programme is that it empowers

SDCs to identify local solutions to problems within the school. Each school faces its own challenges,

whether with teaching methodology, violence, or school management. Through planning meetings,

each school prioritizes what problems can be addressed in a year, roles and responsibilities of the

various stakeholders, and sources of funding.

School Resourcing: The project introduced several mechanisms to support increased resourcing to

schools. For instance, a key adaptation to the budget template and guidance for the annual school

improvement plan introduced the option for detailing other funding sources, including from partners

(eg NGOs). Within this paradigm, I’m Learning is a valued funding source, but one that can be

replicated, not situated as a one-off opportunity for intervention schools. This is just one of the

contributions to sustainability of I’m Learning approach the project made.

Most Important and Effective Activities Planning

School Improvement Planning: I’m Learning worked with target school communities to change annual school planning to a consultative and inclusive process engaging the broader community, parent body and students. MoEYS mandates that the school five-year development plans and annual improvement plans (SIP) should align with the three national goals for basic education. Common practice has been for head teachers to complete these plans with little or no consultation with the parents/community. The project changed this process, starting with a guided QLE assessment to review the school’s status, then undertaking a consultative planning process involving an array of school stakeholders, supporting local ownership of school development.

Implementation Taskforce Groups in the School Development Committee: Much of the activity for improving the quality learning environment in schools was taken up by the SDC, with ten sub-committees, or taskforce groups, taking responsibility for particular actions. Figure 9 displays the structure of the SDC on the left and the ten taskforce groups on the right. The taskforce groups each developed terms of reference to guide activity for the year, based upon the relevant action points prioritized in the School Development Plan. The structure also enabled SDC members with specific skills to contribute that expertise to the school community (eg local health centre director chaired the Health Safety Taskforce). Each taskforce comprised community members, parents, teachers and children.

Figure 8: School Development Committee and associated Taskforces

Classroom Committee

22

Exchange visits: Save the Children facilitated exchange visits for head teachers and teachers to show

them what is possible within their school, especially given similar starting points in terms of finances

and resources.

Student Learning Assessments. Teachers conduct weekly formative and monthly summative tests.

Summative assessment results are posted publicly to ignite conversations with parents and build

mechanisms of accountability. Teachers were also trained in linking monthly assessment to the syllabus,

thereby encouraging an intentional focus on learning outcomes.

Fostering Transparency and Social Accountability: I’m Learning strongly encouraged head teachers to

display income/ expenditure information as well as results for QLE assessments and children’s learning

outcomes to build confidence and accountability with parents/community.

Monitoring

Classroom Committee: the innovation encouraged parental engagement in their children’s classes,

enabling positive collaboration with the class teacher to use monitoring activity to improve outcomes

for children’s attendance and learning. To establish the committee, the teacher meets with and trains

parents to provide support and monitor classroom activities. Support includes problem solving for

gaps in materials (eg class has 15 desks, but needs 20 – how can 5 more be purchased), checking the

teacher’s progress through the syllabus and ensuring learners are regularly attending (and follow up

with parents if there is absenteeism. Parents had always wanted to have stronger involvement in their

child’s learning at school – membership of the classroom committee and undertaking the different

monitoring roles has enabled that as well as contributing to important outcomes for their child’s

education.

PoE/DoE Support Visits: The project supported provincial and district education offices to fulfill their

mandate for quality assurance in schools. PoE / DoE usually visit schools 1-2 times per year, but with

I’m Learning’s support, these monitoring visits increased to 2-3 times a month. The significant increase

in frequency of visits built relationships between the PoE/DoE and teachers, shifting interactions from

‘school inspection’ and teachers feeling intimidation, to an empowering mentoring approach. School

monitoring visits enabled PoE/DoE to engage with head teachers, teachers, children and community

for problem resolution and follow up of activities for school. Results of this change in monitoring

approach benefitted teaching and learning outcomes in intervention schools, but also encouraged

PoE/DoE to extend the mentoring approach to other schools in their areas.

Challenges in Project Components or Activities

Planning

Community participation: All stakeholders (except for SDC members) stated that Principle 4 is the

most challenging component because it involves shifting the mindset of parents and community

members. Significant efforts were required from project staff and head teachers to mobilise

community support for I’m Learning, with GP 4 taking the longest for all schools to achieve the target

level. Fittingly, when stakeholders identified keys to success (above), all touched upon how they have

been able to change the mindset of parents and community members over time. In this regard it has

been a key success of the project. However, it is unclear how this component of I’m Learning can be

effectively established as the programme scales up in Cambodia.

Implementing PoE/DoE do not have the capacity to carry out teacher trainings, despite ongoing training from Save

the Children. As a result, the programme has decided to primarily engage the PTTC for trainings.

While there is anecdotal evidence that SDCs are functioning well, further investigation is necessary to

ensure that all SDCs can respond to the dynamic needs of the school. Furthermore, Save staff alluded

to the idea that involving local government is essential, yet involving them too much will work against

23

the programme, perhaps giving the (false) impression that Save is aligned with the governing political

party.16 Again, further investigation into how the relationship with the local government is built and

maintained is needed.

Monitoring School-Based Monitoring of Children’s Learning: teachers required more capacity building and

classroom level coaching for effectively developing and using formative and summative assessments.

The project supported this area with significant input from PoE/DoE, PTTc, and Save the Children, but

the same support will not be available to intervention schools, nor to schools involved in any scale up.

M&E Tools: Strengths and Challenges

KAPE, the M&E and research partner, raised questions around tool reliability. With regard to the

literacy and numeracy assessments, KAPE noted in 2016 while undertaking the assessment at a school

that children had been practicing the tests prior to taking them. KAPE brought this to the attention of

SCN and UiO, and collective action was taken to change the content of the tools to ensure no bias.

One other factor the literacy assessment carried out as a part of the midterm assessment found

higher rates of reading comprehension than letter knowledge. This was due to a test administration

error in which the enumerator was told to read to the child if the child was unable, but there was no

way to differentiate readers from non-readers in the dataset.

The success of the project relied heavily on the close follow-up of activities by a dedicated and

committed partnership between SC and PoE/DoE officials, who were collectively monitoring each I’m

Learning intervention school 3-5 times in a month. Complemented with the monitoring activity of KAPE,

I’m Learning spent 20% of its budget on monitoring activity. This was one of the major influencing

factors on the achievements with school’s achieving QLE GPs, enrolment/retention improvements and

gains with children’s learning outcomes. However, it is highly unlikely that such support will be the norm

as the programme scales to new schools. While the close monitoring was a strength of the project, it is

a challenge for scaling the I’m Learning approach to new schools, where the monitoring support will

be at a much lower level. See Annex G for more recommendations on this point.

School-Level Innovations All interviews sought to identify school-level innovations. However, given that the schools were using

the QLE Framework indicators to guide planning discussions, it seems that schools are all carrying out

similar programming. Comparing stakeholder groups across the schools, all described having similar

goals, responsibilities, and ways in which they addressed problems. Staff were asked to reflect upon

the schools in which they are working and identify any innovations that stood out as unique to one

school or another, but were unable to do so.

The goal of the programme is to create a group of stakeholders that can dynamically respond to the

needs of a school. Given that most schools have similar needs right now, it is difficult to isolate school-

level innovations. Furthermore, given the small number of schools in the pilot project, any new ideas or

innovations very quickly spread from one school to another for replication. However, as the SDC

becomes stronger and can address more issues (moving beyond the concerns they have focused on

recently), it is likely that schools will begin to find more creative solutions to their problems. It will be

important to continue carrying out research among these initial pilot schools to track the strength of

their SDC and, in doing so, any school-level innovations that arise.

16 Save the Children’s vision, mission, and values mean we act to protect the basic principles of humanity. We do not align

with any political party, and staff are not permitted to use their positions for political or personal gain.

24

Components for Future Programme Development

SC Cambodia has been working closely with MoEYS to scale the I’m Learning programme nationally,

which will be done under the title of School-Based Management Manual. To achieve scale-up

objectives and long-term sustainability, SC Cambodia must build capacity of the government at

national level and sub-national level. To do so, the Country Office has started with building capacity

of the SC team. Those team members work directly with the government TOTs. The capacity building

approach for scale up is depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Capacity Building Approach for Scale-Up

Recognizing that getting I’m Learning fully functional in the pilot schools has taken significant support

from SC staff, it will be necessary to embed specific tasks into existing structures. One approach

being taken by SC in one province (Kampong Cham) is for SC staff to take one topic (one module of

the 13) with a government counterpart and work on that topic applied to one school. This will ensure

that government capacity is built to fully embed the programme within government operations.

However, this model only extends to SCs operational provinces and it doesn’t answer the critical issue

of resourcing government counterparts for I’m Learning support to schools. There are various avenues

open to SC & MoEYS for ameliorating the resourcing gaps over time. One option is to have schools

take greater responsibility for quality assurance through self-monitoring (eg through classroom

support committee), with PoE/DoE checking in with school visits 1-2 times per year. Effectively

establishing such a model is yet to be done and will require further attention to ensure the benefits of

I’m Learning are maintained at scale.

A full set of recommendations for adjusting I’m Learning for scale are outlined in Annex G.

Budget

Table 3 displays the breakdown in I’m Learning project costs into four components of Thematic, Cross-

Thematic, Non-Thematic and research costs. Thematic costs are those directly linked to the

implementation of the model. Cross-thematic costs are those for broader programme management

costs and monitoring and evaluation. This includes support of Country Office education staff. Non-

thematic costs during development included country overhead costs and supports of finance and HR

departments. Research costs were independent of any programming, being allocated to the KAPE &

UiO to undertake the longitudinal study.

25

Budget expenditure for the four years of 2014 – 2017 totalled $2,271,542. Expenditure was closely

aligned to planned budget throughout the project, with a 1.5% over-expenditure by end of project.

Annually, budget expenditure started at $471,236 in 2014, shifting to a higher level for the final

three years of the project, fluctuating either side of $600,000, peaking at $625,721in 2015.

The longitudinal research study comprised a 9% of the overall budget, and when deducting this

amount, I’m Learning programmatic costs amounted to $2,038,122 over the four years. For each

intervention school, programmatic expenditure totalled $138,139 or an average annual per school

expenditure of $34,535 for the life of project. Breaking this down to an annual cost per child

beneficiary, this ranged from $$77.29 to $104.18, which is significantly more than government’s

$2.50 annual per child contribution to the school’s annual operating budget.

Table 3: I'm Learning Budget and Expense Summary 2014 - 2017

Cambodia Budget/Expense Summary 2014-2017 (USD)

Year Total

Budget Total

Expenditure

Programme Budget Research Expense

Programme Cost Per School Thematic

Cross Thematic

Non Thematic

2014 $476,567 $471,236 $244,028 $105,996 $81,396 $39,816 $28,761

2015 $627,147 $625,721 $349,046 $122,204 $102,289 $52,182 $38,236

2016 $594,837 $606,645 $326,462 $121,173 $105,321 $53,689 $36,864

2017 $539,030 $567,940 $300,421 $126,240 $87,507 $53,772 $34,278

Total $2,237,581 $2,271,542 $1,219,957 $475,613 $376,513 $199,459 $148,598

Cambodia Budget/Expense Summary 2014-2017 (NOK)

Year Total

Budget Total

Expenditure

Programme Budget Research Expense

Programme Cost Per School Thematic

Cross Thematic

Non Thematic

2014 3,061,752 3,027,503 1,567,782 680,982 522,937 255,802 184,780

2015 5,160,040 5,148,307 2,871,881 1,005,470 841,613 429,343 314,598

2016 5,001,271 5,100,550 2,744,827 1,018,798 885,518 451,406 309,943

2017 4,439,667 4,677,781 2,474,388 1,039,763 720,743 442,888 282,326

Total 17,662,730 17,954,141 9,658,878 3,745,013 2,970,811 1,579,439 1,158,840

The biggest cost areas after staffing was teacher training, taking up 14% of programme costs and construction (especially for WASH) contributing to 10% of costs.

Cross thematic costs for Cambodia are high due to the partnership with a local NGO (KAPE). In total, this partnership cost $457,104, comprised of 199,459 for the longitudinal study costs and $257,645 for project monitoring. With international benchmarks17 recommending 5%-10% of project budget be allocated to monitoring and evaluation, the total for KAPE monitoring costs alone exceed those recommended parameters. When other project monitoring costs are factored in, monitoring takes 20% ($408,908) of the total programme budget.

17 Although actual M&E spend should be linked to purpose, global standards observed by agencies like the World Bank or USAID recommend 5%, with an upper limit of 10% of the project spend.

26

Annex A. I’m Learning School Enrolment 2016 / 2017

Table 4: I'm Learning Intervention School Enrolment 2016/17

Provinces School

2016-2017

Students Teachers

Girl Boy Total Female Male Total

Kampong Cham Angkor Ban 148 143 291 11 2 13

Kampong Cham Svay Teab 763 694 1,457 23 12 35

Kampong Cham Sambo 143 125 268 3 2 5

Kampong Cham Kang Taneung 363 381 744 11 4 15

Kampong Cham Tuol Beng 106 105 211 4 3 7

Kampong Cham Sub-Total 1,523 1,448 2,971 52 23 75

Kampong Chhnang Trapaing Chann 93 115 208 7 2 9

Kampong Chhnang Seb 372 395 767 11 7 18

Kampong Chhnang Phsar Trach 55 51 106 5 1 6

Kampong Chhnang Propich Changvar 189 174 363 5 9 14

Kampong Chhnang Krabao 14 20 34 1 2 3

Kampong Chhnang Sub-Total 723 755 1,478 29 21 50

Kratie Chrouy Ampil 118 113 231 11 4 15

Kratie Keng Kampong Dor 243 229 472 12 6 18

Kratie Khnorng Pos 75 60 135 3 3 6

Kratie Roka Thom 170 173 343 9 1 10

Kratie Kvan Cheal 48 51 99 1 2 3

Kratie Sub-Total 654 626 1,280 36 16 52

I'm Learning Project Total 2,900 2,829 5,729 117 60 177

27

Annex B. I’m Learning School Enrolment by Grade 2013/14 – 2016/17

Table 5: I'm Learning Project Enrolment by Year, Grade & Sex

Year

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total

Enrolled

Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys

2013/14 570 601 468 481 463 475 401 405 453 451 394 420 2,749 2,833

2014/15 598 668 474 495 439 408 427 398 421 389 424 378 2,783 2,736

2015/16 558 699 520 568 440 442 444 390 436 413 415 344 2,813 2,856

2016/17 630 631 572 555 468 512 409 425 416 339 405 367 2,900 2,829

28

Annex C. Percentage Change in School Enrolment 2013/14 – 2016/17

Table 6: I'm Learning Intervention School Annual Change in Enrolment

School Name Province SCHOOL ENROLMENT

Year Girls Boys Total Change % Change

Angkor Ban Kampong Cham 2014 139 141 280

Angkor Ban Kampong Cham 2015 129 133 262 -18 -6.43%

Angkor Ban Kampong Cham 2016 131 121 252 -10 -3.82%

Angkor Ban Kampong Cham 2017 148 143 291 39 15.48%

Svay Teab Kampong Cham 2014 735 775 1510

Svay Teab Kampong Cham 2015 735 775 1510 0 0.00%

Svay Teab Kampong Cham 2016 696 777 1473 -37 -2.45%

Svay Teab Kampong Cham 2017 763 694 1457 -16 -1.09%

Sambo Kampong Cham 2014 97 82 179

Sambo Kampong Cham 2015 110 74 184 5 2.79%

Sambo Kampong Cham 2016 126 113 239 55 29.89%

Sambo Kampong Cham 2017 143 125 268 29 12.13%

Kang Taneung Kampong Cham 2014 323 344 667

Kang Taneung Kampong Cham 2015 349 309 658 -9 -1.35%

Kang Taneung Kampong Cham 2016 372 363 735 77 11.70%

Kang Taneung Kampong Cham 2017 363 381 744 9 1.22%

Toul Beng Kampong Cham 2014 29 34 63

Toul Beng Kampong Cham 2015 51 44 95 32 50.79%

Toul Beng Kampong Cham 2016 78 71 149 54 56.84%

Toul Beng Kampong Cham 2017 106 105 211 62 41.61%

Trapaing Chann Kampong Chhnang 2014 94 124 218

Trapaing Chann Kampong Chhnang 2015 96 109 205 -13 -5.96%

Trapaing Chann Kampong Chhnang 2016 98 110 208 3 1.46%

Trapaing Chann Kampong Chhnang 2017 93 115 208 0 0.00%

Seb Kampong Chhnang 2014 391 399 790

Seb Kampong Chhnang 2015 381 366 747 -43 -5.44%

Seb Kampong Chhnang 2016 360 384 744 -3 -0.40%

Seb Kampong Chhnang 2017 372 395 767 23 3.09%

Phsar Trach Kampong Chhnang 2014 46 56 102

Phsar Trach Kampong Chhnang 2015 43 54 97 -5 -4.90%

Phsar Trach Kampong Chhnang 2016 72 98 170 73 75.26%

Phsar Trach Kampong Chhnang 2017 55 51 106 -64 -37.65%

Propich Changvar Kampong Chhnang 2014 201 182 383

29

School Name Province SCHOOL ENROLMENT

Year Girls Boys Total Change % Change

Propich Changvar Kampong Chhnang 2015 200 170 370 -13 -3.39%

Propich Changvar Kampong Chhnang 2016 193 172 365 -5 -1.35%

Propich Changvar Kampong Chhnang 2017 189 174 363 -2 -0.55%

Krabao Kampong Chhnang 2014 13 27 40

Krabao Kampong Chhnang 2015 15 24 39 -1 -2.50%

Krabao Kampong Chhnang 2016 19 22 41 2 5.13%

Krabao Kampong Chhnang 2017 14 20 34 -7 -17.07%

Chrouy Ampil Kratie 2014 124 119 243

Chrouy Ampil Kratie 2015 113 121 234 -9 -3.70%

Chrouy Ampil Kratie 2016 117 120 237 3 1.28%

Chrouy Ampil Kratie 2017 118 113 231 -6 -2.53%

Keng Kampong Dor Kratie 2014 257 251 508

Keng Kampong Dor Kratie 2015 270 265 535 27 5.31%

Keng Kampong Dor Kratie 2016 256 238 494 -41 -7.66%

Keng Kampong Dor Kratie 2017 243 229 472 -22 -4.45%

Khnorng Pos Kratie 2014 85 79 164

Khnorng Pos Kratie 2015 84 73 157 -7 -4.27%

Khnorng Pos Kratie 2016 87 61 148 -9 -5.73%

Khnorng Pos Kratie 2017 75 60 135 -13 -8.78%

Roka Thom Kratie 2014 176 194 370

Roka Thom Kratie 2015 171 175 346 -24 -6.49%

Roka Thom Kratie 2016 173 162 335 -11 -3.18%

Roka Thom Kratie 2017 170 173 343 8 2.39%

Kvan Cheal Kratie 2014 39 26 65

Kvan Cheal Kratie 2015 36 44 80 15 23.08%

Kvan Cheal Kratie 2016 35 44 79 -1 -1.25%

Kvan Cheal Kratie 2017 48 51 99 20 25.32%

30

Annex D. Quality Learning Framework

31

Annex E: School Based Management Modules

In partnership with MoEYS, the I’m Learning project developed the following SBM modules which reflect the interventions, experience and learning generated during the project. The modules will support MoEYS scale up the I’m Learning approach throughout primary schools in Cambodia. The details below outline each of the modules, as well as including a preamble explaining the details of the work with MoEYS.

Modules are colour-coded as a guide to which project component they support:

(i) Teacher Professional Development - Orange

(ii) Empowerment of Local Structures - Green

(iii) School Development - Blue

Preamble

The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) has been paying high attention on the

development of the human resource toward building an intellectual society with prosperity. To reach

this goal, school principals and teachers must play key roles in strengthening quality education.

School is a unit that is directly in charge of developing local human resources. The school-based

management becomes a popular agenda in last decade. The decentralization is a system which

bases on a school autonomy, aiming at upholding implementations of legal framework, policy,

guideline, and principle to achieve targets of the National Educational Strategy.

In response to the above context, the MoEYS collaborates with Save the Children Organization to

develop guiding documents on School-Based Management at primary level, by focusing on four

important aspects—(1) School administration management and communication with community, (2)

Teaching and learning and implementation of core curriculum, (3) Teachers’ professional

development and school inspection, (4) School development planning and budget management—

which are foundations to support school principals and teachers in school development, by mobilizing

and using local existing resources with creativity; and to address the issues that occur in local

community to make students’ learning more effective and quality in order to better improve the

livelihood of people.

The MoEYS would like to profoundly thank all education personnel, relevant units and development

partners, especially Save the Children Organization that provides technical, material and financial

support in developing guiding documents on the School-Based Management at primary level.

The MoEYS hopes that relevant units, development partners, local communities, and stakeholders will

actively engage in disseminating, supporting and encouraging these School-Based Management

documents at primary level to strengthen school leadership and management successfully.

Phnom Penh, …… March, 2017

Minister of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

32

Module 1: School Policy and Management

- Developed to help the school management committee reach a complete development, aiming at increasing participation and quality study of students that addresses the current needs of the society, aligning with the reform policy of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS).

- The module outlines the principles of school development which align with perspective, mission, goal, and school management structure focusing on: (1) Teaching-Learning Techniques and Implementation of Core Curriculum, (2) School Administrative Work and Community Participation, (3) School Development Planning and School Budget Management, and (4) Teacher Training and School’s Achieved Result Assessment.

Module 2: School Development Committee

- Developed to support the school leadership and management, aiming to promote the quality and effective educational services with participation from local community to address the needs of local knowledge-based development.

- The module outlines: (1) how to set-up the SDC, including structure, roles and tasks; and the process of setting up the SDC; and (2) the activities of the SDC, including the preparation of the activity plan, plan implementation and the evaluation of the SDC’s activity plan.

Module 3: Classroom Committee

- Developed to help establish the Classroom Development Committee which enables teachers to work closely with students’ parents/guardians and communities to support their children’s study.

Module 4: Youth and Children’s Council

- Developed to establish the School Youth and Children’s Council, which supports the school and gives the opportunity to children to take leadership roles within the school. Additionally, it helps students develop responsibility skills, critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication.

Module 5: Teaching and learning Sequence

- Developed to help teachers of grade 1,2, and 3 with their writing of teaching sequence for lessons based on different topics/themes in the textbook.

Module 6: Inquiry-Based Teaching Sequence

- Developed to help grade 4-6 science and social studies teachers write better lesson plans using the textbook, linking it with inquiry-based life skills for improving learning outcomes.

Module 7: M&E System

- A supplementary aid for implementation, management, and utilization of assessment results. In addition, aims to strengthen capacity of all implementing officials at school level to create school assessment test standard.

Module 9: Teachers’ Capacity Building

- Aimed to help teachers with their continuous professional development. The module enables teachers to discover new teaching methods and to exchange experiences with each other, ultimately targeting improved student learning outcomes.

Module 10: School Statistic Management

- Develops a school network (group, household, village, and school levels) for school mapping (household, village, and school) and the management of children’s enrollment and retention rates within the school’s catchment areas.

Module 11: School Self-Assessment

- Aims to support the school principal to take a lead of a regular school self-assessment to identify areas of success and areas needing more work.

33

Module 12: School Development Plan

- Developed to assist school leaders and managers to develop a plan that focuses on results. Implementing this work enables schools to reflect policies, guidelines, or various legal letters to understand the levels of school management and the extent to which those levels address the strategic plan of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.

Module 13: School Budget Management

- Developed to train schools in budget management, an important part to support schools to reach development plan, ensure school enrolment of students, and improve learning outcomes.

34

Annex F. I’m Learning Intervention School Types

Type A School Criteria

School Type Teacher Background

Core School x Certified (70% +) x

School size (number

of students enrolled) Student-Teacher Ratio

101 to 300 x 1:45 or less x

Location Socio-economic status (as

indicated by MoEYS)

Rural x Disadvantaged x

Type B School Criteria

School Type Teacher Background

Core X Certified (70%+) x

School size (number of

students enrolled) Student - Teacher Ratio

301 or more X 1:46 or more x

Location Socio-economic status (as

indicated by MoEYS)

Semi-rural X Not disadvantaged x

Type C School Criteria

School Type Teacher Background

Satellite x Certified (70% +) x

School size (number

of students enrolled) Student-Teacher Ratio

101 to 300 x 1:46 or more x

Location Socio-economic status (as

indicated by MoEYS)

Rural x Disadvantaged x

Type D School Criteria

School Type Teacher Background

Satellite x Certified (70% +) x

School size (number

of students enrolled) Student-Teacher Ratio

301 or more x 1:46 or more x

Location Socio-economic status (as

indicated by MoEYS)

Semi-rural x Not disadvantaged x

Type E School Criteria

School Type Teacher Background

Annex x Certified (70% +) x

School size (number of

students enrolled) Student-Teacher Ratio

Less than 100 x 1:45 or less x

Location Socio-economic status (as

indicated by MoEYS)

Rural x Disadvantaged x

35

Annex G. Recommendations for Scaling Up I’m Learning in Cambodia

Adjusting implementation approach for scale18

While the pilot project showed true potential for parental engagement and local ownership of school

improvement, there are a few areas which need further development in preparation for scaling the

project, as discussed in this report. It is recommendation that the areas and topics listed below are

addressed or considered prior to scaling up I’m Learning:

• Review and Completion of School-Based Management modules. All stakeholders found that

the details outlined in the School-Based Management Modules were excellent and provided

easy to follow instructions for implementation. The modules will be taken through a review

and finalization process involving other partners in the education sector to build buy-in.

• Add a training on school-based fundraising. One of the identified best practices was

around building capacity of SDCs to fundraise from the community for school improvements.

Some of the field staff have being doing this ad-hoc, but a formalized training to SDCs on

how to split costs across entities, set up donation boxes, and apply for grants would be

beneficial to ensure that SDCs have independent capacity to fundraise.

• Examine reliability of the contextualized QLE assessment tool. By contextualizing the QLE

assessment tool the scoring format changed considerably from the original English version.

There are some reliability concerns to ensure that the tool is meeting global standards. Refer

to Appendix F for further details.

• Align contextualized QLE assessment to MoEYS standards. Review the current version of the

contextualized QLE assessment criteria in light of MoEYS standards. For example, ensure that

indicator 3.2 (teacher qualification) criteria follow MoEYS policy that differentiates 2-year

trained and 4-year trained teachers.

• Further investigate the 'two types' of schools. As discussed in Section 2, staff identified two

types of schools: those who picked up the QLE programming quickly and those who needed a

greater amount of coaching and guidance. Further investigation to identify the characteristics

of schools that are correlated with faster and slower uptake could help the programme tailor

support and allocate limited resources during scale-up.

• Further investigate the 'two types' of teachers. As discussed in Section II, Component 2, staff

described quicker and better uptake of TPD among ‘younger’ teachers (those teaching less

than 10 years). Further investigation in to the uptake of TPD, quality of teaching practice, and

experience/age of teacher may lead to powerful insights enabling programme

implementation to be better tailored to varying approaches.

• Research long-term sustainability in 15 pilot schools. The 15 schools in the pilot received

considerable hands-on support from Save the Children staff. As described in the report,

ongoing sustainability of the programme has not been examined yet. It is important to carry

out future research in the original 15 pilot schools that assesses the ongoing functionality and

agility of the SDCs. Also, a comparison to the reduced support model in the NORAD

programme should be incorporated into this research.

18 These recommendations are taken from the I’m Learning Contextualisation Report completed for SC Cambodia in December 2017 by the same consultants completing this report (InformEd International).

36

• Research ‘at scale’ model. The approach to scale I’m Learning requires a different

implementation strategy (housed in the MoEYS) than the pilot. This is a critical and immediate

concern for I’m Learning given the comments of the Minister of Education at the National

Workshop on SBM in October 2017.19 Further research should be carried out to examine the

effectiveness of this strategy.

• Generate a coalition of partners. Since Cambodia already has the Child-Friendly School

Policy, it is possible that people will interpret I’m Learning as a competitor to the CFS, despite

the pilot showing that I’m Learning better enables schools to put their assessment results in to

action. During the scale-up phase, Save the Children can generate support for I’m Learning by

building a coalition of partners, including government officials and other NGOs, that come

alongside the project to provide peer review. This should be initiated with the external review

of the SBM modules.

19 Amongst the comments of the Minister of Education, is the following remarks:

Primary Education Department and Teacher Training Department will print SBM (I’m Learning) for selection schools in 25 provinces. Provincial Education Directors will work with NGOs partners to implement SBM schools.

Whilst this is a good development, there are issues for resourcing as well as aligning stakeholders to this directive. In particular, it isn’t clear how the quality supports for the model will be managed.

37

Annex H. I’m Learning Implementation Plan

I'm Learning Work Plan: Guidance for Field Implementation

Key Activities

Phase 1 - Building Foundations for

Learning Outcomes

Phase 2 - Equipping Stakeholders for

School Development

Phase 3 - Sustaining Quality Learning

Environment SBM Module

Linkage to QLE Indicators

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1. Teacher Professional Development

1.1 Design/revise in-service teacher training programmes with support from external technical resources (literacy, numeracy, life skills, TLM)

5A; 5B 6A; 6B 7A; 9C

1.2

Work with MoEYS/PoEs to incorporate knowledge and awareness on how to create and support a quality learning environment in the teacher training curriculum and build capacity at TTCs on QLE

1.3 Train and coach core trainers (PTTC, DoE, PoE) to

teaching literacy, numeracy, life skills

5A; 5B 6A; 6B 9C

3.3: Teachers are provided with continuous support to improve their practice in key areas specific to their role

1.4 In-service training to teachers to teach literacy, numeracy & life skills and provide customised teaching and support to all children.

3.2: Teachers have specialised training and qualifications where they exist

1.4.1

Support the training and mentoring of head teachers on management and leadership for creating a quality learning environment in their school

1A; 9A; 9B

3.1: Teachers are present for their class

1.4.2 Support the training of teachers and head teachers on content knowledge and effective teaching practice for Khmer & math

5A; 5B 6A; 9C

3.5: Teachers develop, follow and adapt lesson plans to the needs and abilities of learners in their classes

1.4.3 Support the training of head teachers and teachers on social and emotional learning and effective practice with strengthening children's life skills.

6B 2.6: Learners participate in regular skills based health education in school

1.4.4 Support training on creating and using teaching and learning materials for Khmer and math classes, as

3.4: Learning is supported through the use of relevant visual aids and other teaching materials

38

I'm Learning Work Plan: Guidance for Field Implementation

Key Activities

Phase 1 - Building Foundations for

Learning Outcomes

Phase 2 - Equipping Stakeholders for

School Development

Phase 3 - Sustaining Quality Learning

Environment SBM Module

Linkage to QLE Indicators

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

well as enhancing the print environment in classrooms.

1.4.5 Support training on formative and summative assessment for Khmer and Math (grade 1-3; grade 4-6)

7 3.8 Teachers use some form of informal or formal learning assessment either an ongoing basis or specified times of the year

1.4.6

Support training on inclusive classroom practices to effectively respond to needs of children with a disability and slow learners and encourage child participation.

3.7: Teachers ask individual questions and interact with the learners 3.10: Learners participation is ensured during development and implementation of teaching and learning activities.

1.5 Enhance capacity of teachers to respond the emotional / psychological needs of learners (child safeguarding / positive disciplinary measures)

1.5.1

Training of head teachers and teachers on positive discipline and child rights, including child -centered approaches for managing student behaviour in classes.

3.9: Teachers are trained on child rights and child protection 1.4: The teacher interacts with all learners in a positive and respectful manner regardless of their background

1.5.2

Support training and mentoring of teachers to engage parents for improved emotional and psychological supports to children, including interactions through the class committee

3.12: The learning environment encourages expression of child rights and learners are knowledgeable about their rights

2. Empowerment of Local Structures

2.1

Design/revise school-based management training modules and implementation guidance with support from external technical resources for the areas of SDC roles & responsibilities; leadership and management; my school as a quality learning environment; cross thematic areas.

2A; 2B

39

I'm Learning Work Plan: Guidance for Field Implementation

Key Activities

Phase 1 - Building Foundations for

Learning Outcomes

Phase 2 - Equipping Stakeholders for

School Development

Phase 3 - Sustaining Quality Learning

Environment SBM Module

Linkage to QLE Indicators

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2.2

Increase the capacity of Core Trainers and head teachers to establish and empower effective and representative stakeholder engagement in school

development committees

1A; 1B; 2A; 2B

2.3

Support the establishment and training of school development committee on roles and responsibility (including operational teams), leadership and management, and cross thematic areas.

2A; 2B

4.1: PTA/SDC includes representatives from a cross-section of the community

2.4

Support training and mentoring of local structures (SDC, CCWC and other community network groups) to engage with establishing and sustaining a quality learning environment in their school.

4.3: Parents and communities are trained in how they can support the children’s learning process.

2.5

Support establishment and capacitating Children’s Council to represent children's voice in the school community, including in planning, decision making, fostering a quality learning environment and activities in cross thematic areas (eg conduct anti-bulling/violence campaign)

4A; 4B;

4C; 4D; 4E

1.3: Learning environments are free of

discrimination, violence, intimidation, bullying and harassment

2.6 Strengthen capacity of School Support Committees to assist parents on how they can support the children’s learning process (especially slow learners)

3A; 3B

4.2: Teachers and parents collaborate on key issues affecting learners, such as sickness, absenteeism, performance or discipline.

2.7 Support establishment and capacitating of a parent-led class committee to support teachers and children to improve learning outcomes.

3A; 3B

4.2: Teachers and parents collaborate on key issues affecting learners, such as sickness, absenteeism, performance or discipline.

2.8 Capacitate school management (head teachers and SDC) to coordinate with health centres to provide a minimum package of health-services to students

2.2: Safe drinking water is available to all learners and staff 2.3: Adequate sanitation facilities are available for all learners 2.7: A minimum of health services is provided to all learners

40

I'm Learning Work Plan: Guidance for Field Implementation

Key Activities

Phase 1 - Building Foundations for

Learning Outcomes

Phase 2 - Equipping Stakeholders for

School Development

Phase 3 - Sustaining Quality Learning

Environment SBM Module

Linkage to QLE Indicators

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2.9

Support schools to engage with local partners such as OEC to identify children with disabilities so they receive special care and services from heath centres /

hospitals / rehabilitation centres to better enable school attendance & learning.

2.1: An area of space for learning exists that is safe for all learners

2.11 Train and equip school management to establish a protective environment for children

1.1: Child safeguarding Policy/ Code of conduct for learners and teachers ensuring wellbeing is in place 2.1: An area of space for learning exists that is safe for all learners

2.12 Train and equip school management to plan for and respond to disasters (DRR)

2.8: A School Disaster Management Plan, addressing disasters with the strongest likelihood is in place.

3. School Development

3.1 Develop and revise assessment / monitoring tools for learning outcomes (literacy, numeracy and life skills) and school development (QLE assessment).

11A; 11B 11C. 12D 7

3.2

Design/revise school-based management training modules and implementation guidance with support from external technical resources (including link to MoEYS requirements) school policy and procedures; school planning; budget management; statistical management.

1A; 1B; 10A-C 12A; 12B; 12C; 13A; 13b; 13C

3.4

Train and equip local structures (SDC, PoE, DoE) on school policy and procedures as well as on school development planning, including linkage of QLE assessment, consultative planning processes, planning templates and monitoring progress.

1A; 1B 12A; 12B; 12C; 13A; 13b; 13C

41

I'm Learning Work Plan: Guidance for Field Implementation

Key Activities

Phase 1 - Building Foundations for

Learning Outcomes

Phase 2 - Equipping Stakeholders for

School Development

Phase 3 - Sustaining Quality Learning

Environment SBM Module

Linkage to QLE Indicators

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

3.5

Train and equip local structures (SDC, DoE, PoE) to use tools (eg QLE assessment, school mapping, literacy assessment) to generate reliable and accurate

data on children's learning outcomes and learning environment, to inform school planning and decision making.

7A-C 10A-C 11A; 11B; 11C

3.6

Undertake project monitoring with Education Government partners (MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs, PTTCs) to support and sustain quality reaching and learning, effective school management / governance and school development.

3.7 Conduct project assessment/evaluation on key indicators of net enrolment, retention rate, literacy, numeracy, life skills and QLE items.

7

3.8

Document the QLE based programming approach,

process, methods and results of programme interventions

11C; 12D

3.9

Strengthen school mechanism for receiving and responding to complaints from fellow learners and teachers related to discrimination, violence, intimidation, bullying and harassment.

1.2: School has mechanism in place for receiving and responding to complaints from fellow learners and teachers 1.3: Learning environments are free of discrimination, violence, intimidation, bullying and harassment

3.10

Improve school/classroom facilities (such as fixing classroom floors, windows, latrines, wells, playgrounds) to ensure they are safe and healthy for

children