High costs for school construction

School construction unit costs are predominately determined by school design, construction materials, and contract procurement and management. Contract procurement generally varies between centralized international competitive bidding and national competitive bidding (NCB). Contract management can include centralized management, delegation to agencies such as contract management agencies (CMAs), NGOs and social funds, as well as decentralizing management to local Ministry of Education offices, local governments and communities (Theunyck, 2009).

Some examples of the various types of school construction technologies (the materials, design, and engineering) used in Sub-Saharan Africa over the past 30 years include (Theunyck, 2009):

  • Classic classroom model: concrete floors, cement or brick walls, rooves made of modern materials, and modern and classic design technology (described in more detail in the construction materials section below).
  • School shelter model: concrete floor and foundation, roof is made of corrugated iron, the structure is built by a contractor, and the walls by the community using local materials.
  • Local materials and appropriate technology classrooms: uses local materials for construction with methods to improve their durability including compressed earth and gypsum-plaster. Promoted forgotten architectural forms, such as vaults and domes. 
  • Industrialized prefabrication: parts of the school buildings are produced in factories and then assembled on-site.
  • Modern construction model: uses modern, specialized technology and designs, such as rooves of welded metal frames, with soldered iron sheets.

While costs can vary greatly depending on factors such as location, exchange rate, and taxes, $100/m2 is considered to be an average of low classroom construction unit cost, achieved from utilizing the most cost-efficient methods (Leathes, 2009). If unit costs are notably above this figure, then the strategies described below can be investigated to reduce school construction costs. However, if unit costs are notably below $100/m2, then quality and sustainability standards should be examined. It is therefore emphasized that cost efficiency does not equate to poor quality, and while unit costs can be decreased to a certain extent, if a sufficient amount of funds for school construction are not available then other strategies should be pursued (for more on this subject, see Policy page Insufficient budget for school construction). While they can be cost-efficient, schools still need to meet regulatory standards, be accessible, safe, child friendly, have sufficient water and sanitation facilities, and provide a positive learning environment.

References
Theunyck, S. 2002. School construction in developing countries: What do we know? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Theunynck%2520(2002)%2520School%2520Construction%2520in%2520Developing%2520Countires.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School construction for universal primary education in Africa: Should communities be empowered to build their schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

Promising policy options

Procurement and contract management: Community-based management, using small- and medium-sized contractors

Procurement and contract management approaches have the biggest impact on overall school construction costs. While international competitive bidding and international bulk procurement used to be the norm, procurement that is based on national and local competitive bidding to small- and medium-sized contractors has been proven to be significantly less expensive. However, when national competitive bidding procurement is centralized, it can result in delays and poor results.

The need for greater management capacity has led many countries to delegate procurement and contract management to Contract Management Agencies, NGOs and Social Funds (see Annex 1) as well as decentralizing contract management to local Ministry of Education offices, local governments and communities. Overall it has been found that the decentralized approaches are the most cost effective. Delegation directly to communities, whether by CMAs, NGOs, Social Funds, or the local government, results in the lowest costs. For example, it was found the local government delegating management to local communities achieved unit costs that were on average half those of the central government through NCB.

A number of advantages and disadvantages exist for Contract Management Agencies/PPPs- Agencies that specifically created to manage the construction of social infrastructure. Often contracted directly by the Ministry of Education or donors, they provide a private-sector approach, with simpler, flexible procurement methods. It is effective in filling capacity gaps, but more often operate in urban rather than rural areas and it is not isolated from negative behaviour of the environment of the public sector. When using these services, it is recommended to procure construction services from Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) on behalf of the community.

There is also the case of Non-Governmental Agencies, which may be international, national or community-based, private organizations, that use private funds or donor or government funds devoted to management delegation. They typically supply materials, and train community members to construct the school and are effective in filling short-term capacity gaps, but reliance on NGOs is not long-term solution. While it is difficult to scale up NGO supported projects, it is cost-effective when delegating construction management to communities.

The final possibility is the use of Social Funds- Non-profit status, independent of government. It uses bottom-up, demand-driven approaches with targeting mechanisms to reach the poorest. They are well-developed administrative structures to work efficiently in poor and remote areas. They may act as CMAs, procuring construction services on behalf of communities, or may direct resources straight to communities. While effective in quickly and efficiently delivering small-scale infrastructure, with higher proportional benefits to the poorest populations, they only have a cost advantage when support community implementation.

While community based programmes can be very effective and cost-efficient, governments often fear that communities lack the capacity to carry out infrastructure projects and that there are not sufficient accountability measures in place. The World Banks’ Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach aims to address these issues, supporting decentralization and increased community responsibility in project design and implementation. The CDD approach calls for strengthening accountability by defining the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders, and implementing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Capacity building should be supported through the dissemination of manuals and handbooks, and targeted training of community organizations in project management and procurement.

Annex 1

Average Unit Costs per Procurement Method

References
Bonner, R.; Das, P.; Kalra, R.; Leathes, B.; Wakeham, N. n.d. Delivering cost effective and sustainable school infrastructure. TI-UP Resource Center. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67620/del-cost-eff-sust-sch-infra.pdf

Côte d’Ivoire. 2016. Rapport d’état sur le système éducatif national de Côte d’Ivoire: Pour une politique éducative plus inclusive et plus efficace. Dakar: IIPE-UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002470/247040f.pdf

Gershberg, A.I. 2014. Educational infrastructure, school construction, & decentralization in developing countries: Key issues for an understudied area. International Center for Public Policy Working Paper 14-12. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=icepp

Kamano, P.J.; Rakotomalala, R.; Bernard, J.M.; Husson, G.; Reuge, N. 2010.  Les défis du système éducatif Burkinabè en appui à la croissance économique. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://poledakar.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/fields/publication_files/resen_burkina.pdf

Theunyck, S. 2002. School construction in developing countries: What do we know? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Theunynck%2520(2002)%2520School%2520Construction%2520in%2520Developing%2520Countires.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School construction for universal primary education in Africa: Should communities be empowered to build their schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

Considering lifetime costs and maintenance

Focusing on reducing upfront unit costs must not discount the longer-term investments that should be made in school construction. Construction, design and maintenance costs should be considered simultaneously, as poorly constructed or maintained buildings will only result in future expenses that could have been reduced or avoided. To consider long-term consequences of building construction, costs over a building’s lifetime should be examined, which include initial capital cost, building maintenance cost, building repair and remodelling cost, furniture and equipment maintenance cost, furniture and equipment replacement cost, utilities, and staff costs.

Investments in maintenance have been proven to be very cost-effective, though often overlooked by governments. Lack of proper maintenance leads to building decay and subsequent premature renovation and replacement. An effective approach to maintenance management is to delegate responsibilities to communities, complemented by a package of resources exclusively designated to building maintenance.

References
Benyon, J. 1997. Physical Facilities for Education: What Planners Need to Know. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118467E.pdf

Bonner, R.; Das, P.; Kalra, R.; Leathes, B.; Wakeham, N. n.d. Delivering cost effective and sustainable school infrastructure. TI-UP Resource Center. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67620/del-cost-eff-sust-sch-infra.pdf

Leathes, B. 2009.  Briefing note: Key factors in the cost effective design and construction of primary school facilities in low income countries. TI-UP Resource Centre. Retrieved from: https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Briefing%2520Note%2520-%2520Classroom%2520Costs%2520Final%252023%2520Jan%252009.pdf

The World Bank. 2013b. SABER Working paper series Number 2: What matters most for school finance. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/Background/FIN/Framework_School_Finance.pdf

Theunyck, S. 2002. School construction in developing countries: What do we know? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Theunynck%2520(2002)%2520School%2520Construction%2520in%2520Developing%2520Countires.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School construction for universal primary education in Africa: Should communities be empowered to build their schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

School design: Simple but high quality and locally relevant

There exist a number of considerations that need to be taken into account when designing for the construction of new schools. Some of them are:

  • modest and simple design, but safe, durable, and provides a welcoming learning environment;
  • avoid “innovative” designs that are risky and not cost-efficient;
  • the design life must be of at least 25 years;
  • simple but modern technology;
  • uses technology known to the local construction industry, with modern techniques;
  • design relevant to local culture and climate;
  • simple construction that minimizes maintenance costs;
  • acceptable levels of light, heat, and acoustics; and
  • ensures accessibility for all children.

*See “Classic classroom model” below.

References
Benyon, J. 1997. Physical facilities for education: What planners need to know. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118467E.pdf

Bonner, R.; Das, P.; Kalra, R.; Leathes, B.; Wakeham, N. n.d. Delivering cost effective and sustainable school infrastructure. TI-UP Resource Center. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67620/del-cost-eff-sust-sch-infra.pdf

Leathes, B. 2009.  Briefing note: Key factors in the cost effective design and construction of primary school facilities in low income countries. TI-UP Resource Centre. Retrieved from: https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Briefing%2520Note%2520-%2520Classroom%2520Costs%2520Final%252023%2520Jan%252009.pdf

Ministry of Education (Rwanda). 2009. Child Friendly Schools and Infrastructure Standards and Guidelines. Retrieved from : https://www.preventionweb.net/files/15377_ rwandachildfriendlyschoolsinfrastru.pdf

Theunyck, S. 2002. School construction in developing countries: What do we know? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Theunynck%2520(2002)%2520School%2520Construction%2520in%2520Developing%2520Countires.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School construction for universal primary education in Africa: Should communities be empowered to build their schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009d. Child friendly schools manual. New York: UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Child_Friendly_Schools_Manual_EN_040809.pdf

Construction materials: Low cost in the local market, can be mass-produced

When choosing construction materials, it is important to choose materials that have the greatest potential for mass production at low cost in the local market, while being locally available and not requiring excessive transport costs. Materials must already have been proven to be effective, climate-appropriate, and readily accepted by the community.

For instance, the “classic classroom model” is the design predominately used in classrooms in Africa. The advantages of this model are that it utilizes technology already commonly used by housing contractors which allows scaled up classroom construction, meaning classrooms are durable and comply with national standards. This, in turn, aids the development of the local construction industry and it is politically and socially accepted. It has proven to be the most cost-effective while retaining acceptable quality, unlike other attempted models described in the introduction (local materials and appropriate technology classrooms, modern construction model industrialized and classroom pre-fabrication), which have been shown to be more expensive and less effective. In general, the “classic classroom model” includes:

  • concrete floor;
  • cement block or fired-bricked walls, with load-bearing or non-load bearing walls with concrete columns;
  • corrugated iron or asbestos-cement roofs, on steel or wooden trusses; and
  • ring-beams in concrete.
References
Benyon, J. 1997. Physical Facilities for Education: What Planners Need to Know. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118467E.pdf

Bonner, R.; Das, P.; Kalra, R.; Leathes, B.; Wakeham, N. n.d. Delivering cost effective and sustainable school infrastructure. TI-UP Resource Center. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67620/del-cost-eff-sust-sch-infra.pdf

Leathes, B. 2009.  Briefing note: Key factors in the cost effective design and construction of primary school facilities in low income countries. TI-UP Resource Centre. Retrieved from: https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Briefing%2520Note%2520-%2520Classroom%2520Costs%2520Final%252023%2520Jan%252009.pdf

Ministry of Education (Rwanda). 2009. Child friendly schools and infrastructure standards and guidelines. Retrieved from: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/15377 _rwandachildfriendlyschoolsinfrastru.pdf

Practical Action. 2009. School buildings in developing countries. Warwickshire: Practical Action. Retrieved from: http://www.worldwidehelpers.org/wwhweb/uploads/files/School%20Buildings%20in%20Developing%20Countries.pdf

Theunyck, S. 2002. School construction in developing countries: What do we know? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: https://humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/Theunynck%2520(2002)%2520School%2520Construction%2520in%2520Developing%2520Countires.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School construction for universal primary education in Africa: Should communities be empowered to build their schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

Policy options for improving Equity and Inclusion

Gender-responsive policies

Although all of the previously recommended policy options apply for this section, decision-makers should make sure to mainstream gender throughout them. Design, planning and construction phases should ensure that accessible, gender-responsive facilities are being built (e.g. schools with accessible separate toilets). Mobilizing existent resources is essential for such a purpose. Nevertheless, in cases where building or modifying school infrastructure to make it gender-responsive represents an additional cost, it should be perceived as a necessary one, as it is an essential factor to guarantee all children’s access, attendance and retention in school (GPE and UNGEI, 2017; Steinfeld, 2005).

*For precise information on inclusive, gender-responsive school infrastructure and facilities consult Policy page School buildings are not ready

References
GPE (Global Partnership for Education), UNGEI (United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative). 2017. Guidance for Developing Gender-Responsive Education Sector Plans. Washington D.C.: The Global Partnership for Education. Retrieved from: https://www.globalpartnership.org/ content/guidance-developing-gender-responsive-education-sector-plans

Steinfeld, E. 2005. Education for All: the Cost of Accessibility. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/03/01/000310607_20 070301144941/Rendered/PDF/388640EdNotes1August2005CostOfAccess12.pdf

Policies for children with disabilities

Promising policy options

Conceive accessible inclusive infrastructure from the outset

The question of accessibility should be incorporated from the onset of the planning phase. This is a cost-effective measure as it ‘requires additional costs of approximately one percent if incorporated from the outset of a project’ (Snider and Takeda, 2008: iii). For example, incorporating accessibility into a South African school design represented 0.78% of the total construction cost (Metts, 2000, cited by Bolton, 2013). In comparison, five percent –or more— is needed to make existent schools accessible (Snider and Takeda, 2008). This can be done by applying the concept of Universal design and its underlying principles –known as goals– to each new construction.

Applying the concept of Universal design and its underlying principles can also reduce maintenance costs (the buildings have fewer stairs, walking surfaces are more durable, etc.) (Steinfeld, 2005).

*For precise information on accessible and inclusive infrastructure and facilities consult Policy page School buildings are not ready

References
Bolton, L. 2013. Helpdesk Report: Universal design of schools and classrooms. Oxford: Health & Education Advice & Resource Team (HEART). Retrieved from: https://www.heart-resources.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Universal-design-of-schools-and-classrooms.pdf

IIEP-UNESCO. 2019. Technical Round Table: Inclusion of children with disabilities in education sector planning in French-speaking Africa. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO. [Unpublished document]. 

Snider, H.; Takeda, N. 2008. Design for All: Implications for Bank Operations. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/ Resources/Universal_Design.pdf

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2014. Access to School and the Learning Environment I – Physical, Information and Communication: Webinar 10 – Companion Technical Booklet. New York: UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_ Webinar_Booklet_10.pdf
WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. ‘Chapter 7 Education’. In: World Report on Disability (pp. 227-256). Malta: WHO. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf

Upgrade existent schools’ infrastructure to make it accessible

When no new schools are to be built, performing accommodations and adaptations to existent ones is of utmost importance. Review the overall design plans instead of adding accessibility features (Steinfeld, 2005). In order to make existent schools accessible, no additional space is necessary, just a rearrangement of existing facilities. Performing accommodations and adaptations to existent mainstream schools are much more cost-effective than building new specialized schools. For example, in South Africa, building a new special school in 2012 represented $9 million, whereas performing accommodations to mainstream settings to welcome children with disabilities would have represented $366,337 (Human Rights Watch, 2015, cited by IIDC Education Task Team, 2016).

*Note: accessibility is not just a matter of infrastructure, it is also a matter of teaching and learning techniques, of school climate, among others. All of these features must be taken into consideration so that children are not just physically accessing schools, but also actively learning and participating.

References
Homem de Gouveia, P.; Morais, N. ; Miranda, A. 2006. Accessibility Programme and School Restoration in Lisbon. OECD. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/387204514583.pdf?expires=1564058023&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8F309515111B278B9DDD389EA32831BF

IDDC Inclusive Education Task Team (International Disability and Development Consortium). 2016. #Costing Equity: The case for disability-responsive education financing. Brussels: IDDC. Retrieved from: https://iddcconsortium.net/sites/default/files/resources-tools/files/iddc-reportcostingequity_fr_accessible.pdfhttps://iddcconsortium.net/sites/default/files/resources-tools/files/iddc-report-short_16-10-17.pdf

Design factors for cost control

The following technical design factors proposed by Steinfeld (2005) can be implemented to control costs:

  • Carefully select the site to take advantage of its topography. Steeper grounds are easy to access. Work with paths which are parallelly oriented to the lands’ slope, instead of perpendicular to the slope. Avoid changes of level within the buildings to eliminate the need for ramps. If this is not possible, keep changes of level changes below 15cm to remove the need for handrails.
  • Ensure large sites to build one-story schools. If this is not possible, build ramps within the different levels instead of stairs. Remove steep thresholds and steps at doorways as this would require ramps and/or separate accessible entries. Instead, ensure a gradual and low transition from the exterior to the interior. Avoid installing elevators and lifts, and provide more space for wheelchairs is not always necessary, it is only a matter of using available space efficiently.
References
Steinfeld, E. 2005. Education for All: the Cost of Accessibility. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/03/01/000310607_20 070301144941/Rendered/PDF/388640EdNotes1August2005CostOfAccess12.pdf

Construction factors for cost control

Identify locally available products and construction techniques (Bolton, 2013; Snider and Takeda, 2008; Steinfeld, 2005). For example, use community resources to build wooden ramps and provide technical assistance throughout the construction process. Educate builders about accessibility practices before the construction process begins, and implement close quality control procedures to ensure accessibility practices are being respected and the budget is being used correctly.

References
Bolton, L. 2013. Helpdesk Report: Universal design of schools and classrooms. Oxford: Health & Education Advice & Resource Team (HEART). Retrieved from: https://www.heart-resources.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Universal-design-of-schools-and-classrooms.pdf

Snider, H.; Takeda, N. 2008. Design for All: Implications for Bank Operations. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/ Universal_Design.pdf

Steinfeld, E. 2005. Education for All: the Cost of Accessibility. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/03/01/000310607_20 070301144941/Rendered/PDF/388640EdNotes1August2005CostOfAccess12.pdf

Social factors for cost control

Strive to community involvement to build cost-effective infrastructure. Engage and gain the support of local stakeholders throughout the design, planning and construction phases. For instance, local builders, local product suppliers, children with disabilities and their families, the local community, Disability People’s Organisations, teachers, school leaders, local education planners, among others (UNICEF, 2014). 

Universal Design is meant to benefit the entire population. ‘Educate designers, builders, and citizens about the purpose and benefits of universal design for the whole community so that they understand its value and work to find good solutions to problems’ (Snider and Takeda, 2008: 6). Take cultural aspects into account when designing an accessible infrastructure (Steinfeld, 2005).

References
Bolton, L. 2013. Helpdesk Report: Universal design of schools and classrooms. Oxford: Health & Education Advice & Resource Team (HEART). Retrieved from: https://www.heart-resources.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Universal-design-of-schools-and-classrooms.pdf

Snider, H.; Takeda, N. 2008. Design for All: Implications for Bank Operations. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/ Universal_Design.pdf

Steinfeld, E. 2005. Education for All: the Cost of Accessibility. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/03/01/000310607_20 070301144941/Rendered/PDF/388640EdNotes1August2005CostOfAccess12.pdf

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2014. Access to School and the Learning Environment I – Physical, Information and Communication: Webinar 10 – Companion Technical Booklet. New York: UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_ Webinar_Booklet_10.pdf

Policies for displaced populations and host communities

Contents under review

References
Practical Action. 2009. School Buildings in Developing Countries: technical brief. Warwickshire: Practical Action. Retrieved from: http://www.worldwidehelpers.org/wwhweb/uploads/files/School %20Buildings%20in%20Developing%20Countries.pdf

Building Peace Foundation. Over 3000 Syrian Refugee children will now have a school at Za’atari camp. 2017. Retrieved from : http://www.buildingpeace-foundation.org/over-3000-syrian-refugee-children-will-now-have-a-school-at-zaatari-camp/

UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees). n.d. Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees. UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/550a9eb99.pdf

The Abidjan Principles. 2019. The Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education. Adopted on 13 February 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.abidjanprinciples.org/en/principles/overview

Ewan Watt. This amazing beehive building is a classroom for refugees, built by refugees. Published in theirworld. Dated February 28, 2018.  Retrieved from: https://theirworld.org/news/beehive-classroom-for-syrian-refugee-children-jordan

Hailombe, O. 2011. Education equity and quality in Namibia: A case study of mobile schools in the Kunene region. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24256/Complete.pdf?sequence=10&isAllowed=y

Policies for minority populations

Contents under review

References
Alkire, S.; Bebbington, A.;  Esmail, T.; Ostrom, E.; Polski, M.; Ryan, A.; Van Domelen, J.; Wakeman, W.; Dongier, P. 2001. Community-Driven Development. Retrieved from: https://www.intussen.info/OldSite/Documenten/Noord/Internationaal/WB/PRSP%20Sourcebook/22%20Community-Driven%20Development.pdf

Gershberg, A.I. 2014. Educational infrastructure, school construction, & decentralization in developing countries: Key issues for an understudied area. International Center for Public Policy Working Paper 14-12. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020 &context=icepp

Kayumba, E.; Ginoulhiac, L.; Hirano, S. 2009. ‘Child Friendly Schools Infrastructure Standards and Guidelines’ Primary and Tronc Commun schools. Kigali: Rwanda Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://education4resilience.iiep.unesco.org/en/node/752.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2014b. Effectiveness, efficiency and sufficiency: an OECD framework for a physical learning environments module. Draft. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/education/LEEP-Conceptual-Framework-2014.pdf

The Abidjan Principles. 2019. The Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education. Adopted on 13 February 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.abidjanprinciples.org/en/principles/overview

The World Bank. 2009b. Community-Driven Development: Delivering the Results People Need. Washington: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/IDA/Resources/IDA-CDD.pdf

Theunynck, S. 2009. School Construction for Universal Primary Education in Africa: Should Communities Be Empowered to Build Their Schools? Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/109291468007863249/pdf/488980PUB0prim101Official0Use0Only1.pdf

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009f. ‘Location, design and construction’. In: Child Friendly Schools Manual. New York: UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/devpro/files/CFSManual_Ch03_052009.pdf

Updated on 2021-10-08

Related Articles

Back to top