I would like to bounce on this very clear explanation:

PhilipPurnell wrote: This is in recognition of the crucial impact health has on student learning outcomes and the need for deliberate efforts to promote education-health convergence at all levels - from school to district to province/region to national levels.(...) it helps build the capacities of school heads in critical SBM-related competencies such as school-community partnership-building, resource mobilization, school-improvement planning, learning environment management and holistic child development, among others.

Note: SBM = School Business Management= School Based management (cf. explanation below)

The recent developments push toward integration of nutrition. Nutrition also has a crucial impact on student learning outcomes and it is part of the holistic child development.

According to you, what are the opportunities to include nutrition at policy level in a regional program such as Fit for School ? What are the challenges ?

While I agree in general, the area we work in isn't really a "low water environment", but rather even the most simple water supply system is out of the scope of maintenance by the school staff (and their budget for it).

To answer a few of the questions Katrin raised:

Here in the Philippines my impression is that it is mostly a question of who has the funds and is actually able to do something with them (i.e. not being bogged down in bureaucracy and politics).

I think it would help if the local governments would actually get a mandate to supply schools (from the outside) with water and sanitation services, but this has to go hand in hand with the school administrators having a simple way of paying a small monthly fee or such for these services at the local level.

Because usually even if services exist in the community there is a reluctance to connect schools for free (on both sides; the local government complains about electricity bills for running pumps and the teachers about unreliable service) and unless there is a good billing system in place already (only for larger water supply companies) there is just no easy administrative procedure to compensate the local government for their expenses of running a system reliably.

Limited access to WASH infrastructure is definitely a very real constraint in the Philippines and other countries of Southeast Asia. This is not just a problem of rural contexts. Inner-city urban schools, particularly,those which are overcrowded also experience challenges with access to running water and sanitation facilities due to overstressed and/or malfunctioning infrastructure.

In both contexts, however, schools which have been successful in addressing WASH in a sustainable manner have challenged traditional assumptions and paradigms about WASH infrastructure. Traditional Western-inspired WASH models which assume water-based sewage systems, running potable/non potable water, tiled sinks, faucets and toilet bowls as the norm clearly are not going to be feasible, affordable or sustainable in low water/non-water environments. There are, however, promising examples of WASH infrastructure models that use simple, low cost, low water consumption alternatives that are constructed locally using indigenous/locally available materials by school communities as successful and sustainable options. The tippy tap model that makes use of recycled water bottles and a simple drainage system is an example of such a low-cost alternative for handwashing and toothbrushing. More research and investment is needed in these community-based alternatives parallel with efforts to expand access to piped water and traditional sewage systems.

PhilipPurnell wrote: In both the Lao and Philippine cases it is evident that decentralized educational management can be used as an entry point for sustainable and scalable WASH in school implementation. Deepening the impact of WASH in schools, however, does require having an enabling policy environment and a systematic quality assurance system such as the 3 star accreditation model.

I think the Philippine case has to be taken with a grain of salt though. Yes overall you will not find extreme cases of neglect as in some other countries, but the schools are clearly overwhelmed (and have insufficient budget) to deal with WASH related issues where there isn't some outside support structure available. What I mean is that yes in the cities where there is good piped water supply and emptying services for septic tanks, it kind of works.
But in the more rural communities we work in, where usually no such things exists, it doesn't work at all. At most you will see a somewhat working shallow hand-pump, and even that is usually paid (O&M and sometimes even installation) for by teachers and parents from their private money. Everything beyond that more or less works until the first real issues arise, such as the septic tank being full, or the motor of the pump needing a new capacitor or something relatively small in terms of O&M.

Belinda raises an important point about the institutional capacity of school heads to take on responsibility of WASH implementation in schools and whether this is an approach that can be institutionalized. The experience in the Philippines may be shed some light on this question. The Philippine Department of Education has been seeking to decentralize educational management through school-based management for over 15 years. This approach recognizes that one of the core accountabilities and expected competencies of school heads is ensuring that the school environment is conducive to learning and holistic child development. WASH in schools is thus not viewed as an external program that school heads must take on as an added burden, but rather an integral part of their responsibilities as managers of instruction, student learning and development. While initially the FIT for school approach was supported with technical assistance from GIZ and an external NGO (now no longer operational)in a single province, over the past decade the Philippine Department of Education has fully integrated the approach as part of its nationwide essential health care program. WASH school-level implementation is institutionalized and scaled-up nationwide and the remaining technical support provided by GIZ is only at the national level focused on helping the government strengthen its WASH quality assurance mechanisms through the 3 star approach to monitoring and evaluation. By leveraging on existing operational management and decision-making structures the groundwork for sustainability of WASH implementation has been laid. While there is certainly variability in the quality of implementation across the country there is a consensus re: the critical convergence between health and learning outcomes and the importance of WASH as an education strategy and accountability.

In Lao PDR a somewhat different model to scale up of the FIT approach is being supported. While school heads are certainly still playing critical roles in ensuring integration of the FIT approach to WASH in their schools, the scale-up process is being spearheaded by the district level of the Ministry of Education. District level supervisors are acting as catalysts of change and scale-up using existing structures such as the school cluster system to engage and support school leaders as WASH champions within a Lao contextualized approach to change management. This process is being driven,financed and managed by the Lao Ministry of Education. The limited Technical Assistance provided by GIZ is again focused on helping the MOE strengthen its WASH in school quality assurance system through the 3 star approach.

In both the Lao and Philippine cases it is evident that decentralized educational management can be used as an entry point for sustainable and scalable WASH in school implementation. Deepening the impact of WASH in schools, however, does require having an enabling policy environment and a systematic quality assurance system such as the 3 star accreditation model.

Dear all,

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion so far! For those of you who joined the discussion late, I would like to provide a short summary of the issues and questions raised.

The guiding questions were:

- How is the education sector taking WASH on board?
- How can the WASH sector support the education sector?
- What does it take for better-managed WinS?
- What shifts are necessary to see the situation change?

The main discussion points up to now:

1. There is a lack of cooperation; especially at higher levels

Semi-official cooperation (e.g. between school employees and local government) can work at the local level but stops at higher levels due to bureaucratic struggles and a lack of accountability/responsibility

Questions that emerged:
- How can policy at national or even global levels address this? Is it even possible?
- Can we urge people, let alone institutions, to 'talk' with each other?
- What sort of incentives would get institutions to communicate and work together?
- Is it a question of money/sufficient funds or rather who has the money?

2. Schools constitute a major part of the community’s infrastructure and are integrated into daily community life. Schools should not be seen as separate entities managed by the education sector

3. There is a lack of knowledge and capacity on the part of teachers to promote the benefits of WASH facilities within the school community and to in fact put those facilities in place.

4. WASH-related Key Performance Indicators should not only be applied to the WASH sector but also to the education sector (e.g. access to WASH by number of students).

5. The education sector places too strong of an emphasis on educational issues. Nutrition, health and WASH facilities are equally important for achieving positive educational outcomes but are neglected. These have to be integrated in general education policies as well. However, they should all receive the same amount of attention. There should not be an exclusive focus on WASH. Incorporation of all aspects is essential.

6. Local customs and local knowledge have to be respected by the WASH sector in order for policies to be truly successful.

7. Example Fit For School

(1) Support the Ministry of Education, which acts within a multi-stakeholder context and on different levels (e.g. Ministries of Health, Local Governments,private sector and school-communities), to take leadership regarding the promotion of WinS.

(2) National policies that decentralize school management can offer great opportunities for WinS
(i) Empowered school heads and decision-makers are able to incorporate WinS according to local conditions
(ii) Related community-partnerships increase teachers’ general school-based management competencies (partnership-building, resource mobilization, planning, etc.)

What are your thoughts on the issues raised so far? What experiences have you had regarding the implementation of WASH facilities in schools? Have you engaged in partnerships with the education sector before and what were your experiences ?

I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject and welcome any additional questions you might have!

Kind regards,
Katrin

I posted this under the implementation group, but also would like to share it to you for your opinions.

Here it is . . . .

I am very aware of the success of the Fit for Schools model, but I would like to play Devil’s Advocate in its replicability in other contexts.
From the comments from Fit-for School Manilla, Laos, Phillip from SEAMEO INNOTECH, the idea of having head teachers or other members in school as WASH champions is good idea but not a new idea. However when we speak about institutionalisation, we should not speak about individuals but rather a systematic approach to giving head teachers or district teams incentives to include WASH in schools in their monitoring or daily affairs.
The Fit for School model does offer a template for Education to take on WINS and in some cases it is scaled up nationally. However, it still requires significant an external support, i.e. a small team of dedicated individuals only on this subject working with Education officials to keep things in order, monitor and pull schools along if they are falling off track. In essence, the Fit-for School models presents an external support to Ministry of Education for WINS . . .no?
In this line, there was an earlier proposal for privatized model for WASH in schools. Are we expecting too much of education to take on WASH in schools fully?
Beyond the Fit for School model, what other models that might work? Education officials increasingly have a more responsibilities and expectation- looking at any EMIS will tell you . . . psychosocial care, child protection, nutrition, health, capacity development, building, playgrounds for pay, etc.. Are we asking too much for them to assume hats as WASH managers?

I work for SEAMEO INNOTECH one of the Regional Centers under the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization umbrella. We are currently partnering with GIZ and Ministries of Education (MOEs) in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Indonesia and the Philippines on a regional wash in schools project known as FIT for School. The primary goal of the FIT program is to support MOEs to take a leadership role in promoting Wash in Schools within the context of multi-stakeholder partnership involving Ministries of Health, Local Governments, private sector and schol-communities. This is in recognition of the crucial impact health has on student learning outcomes and the need for deliberate efforts to promote education-health convergence at all levels - from school to district to province/region to national levels.

What is emerging is the great opportunities for promoting effective wash in schools implementation provided by national policy reforms that decentralize educational management (DEM). DEM (also known as school-based management) helps empower school heads as WASH champions and decision-makers ensuring interventions are contextualized according to local conditions and realities. At the same time the community-partnership efforts supporting these local wash in school initiatives helps build the capacities of school heads in critical SBM-related competencies such as school-community partnership-building, resource mobilization, school-improvement planning, learning environment management and holistic child development, among others. Thus we see a mutually reinforcing dynamic at work with highly beneficial results. It would be interesting to hear if other countries have similar experience of SBM as both a catalyst and beneficiary of effective wash in school implementation.

Education policies, in developing and developed countries focus on educational aspects which is normal but tend to minimize or to forget other aspects which are equally important to educational achievements of children: health, nutrition and facilities.

These aspects should be integrated to any education policy. It is equally important that children have access to adequate sanitation and hygiene facilities in schools but also that they are provided with a proper meal, that classrooms are adequately furnished and that they get regular health check ups linked to learning abilities.

If we decide to tackle WinS, then it should not be treated individually but together with the other components from policy, planing, institutional share of responsibilities and budgeting.

Kindly take my note into consideration that the local customs regarding waste management need to be understood. The policy makers can't take those customary actions which rule out the options of schools with sanitation facilities. as per my experience in India, we have none of the customs which deny those policy which deals with WATSAN at any educational institutes. What I mean to state is that policy makers have to consider the local customs and take the best out of those.

Lack of coordination is often cited as a problem- for many years in WINS! How can policy at national or even global levels address this? Is it even possible? Can we make people 'talk' together, let alone institutions? What sort of incentives would get institutions to talk and work together? Is it about more money or who has the money????

If we viewed policy as a ‘framework’ to allow things to get done, in your scenario of balancing local customs with overall national policy, what could work? It is a question of balancing local autonomy to manage schools but at the same time providing an overall framework or structure at national level to ensure equity. Why should a child in one area suffer because the local customs do not support schools as in another area? How can policy incorporate local customs and also ensure sustainability and equity? I would like to state again, what happens if local customs do not support equity, sustainable sanitation- then is it not possible for national or international policies to provide the framework or structure or at least basis for development?