IN CONTEXT
Building too fast
Keywords: speed, poor oversight, development, EFA
Community-based construction does not eliminate
poor construction. In fact, if done quickly and without
appropriate technical input, the results may be unsafe
or unusable schools.
In one South-East Asian country, 400 schools were built
in rural communities under the Education for All FastTrack Initiative. The MoE, in partnership with development
actors, initiated school projects across the country using
a community-based construction framework. In their
newly decentralised school construction process, the
MoE provided practical design templates but tasked
the districts with project implementation. The districts
passed the responsibility to local communities who
mobilised their members to provide much of the unpaid
construction labour and construction materials, despite
extensive poverty in the area.
The MoE provided little technical support or
construction administration. Parents and grandparents
of students had to decipher the technical design
documents, often even though they had limited or no
formal education. While they did know how to build their
own homes, the school construction required using
unfamiliar materials. Neither the MoE nor the district
conducted regular construction inspections.
While the schools built by local communities were
devoid of any reference to the rich cultural heritage of
the country, at completion they appeared well built.
However, many were later found to be structurally
unsound and functionally deficient.
A team of engineers and architects hired to assess the
schools after their completion found many were built in
locations exposed to multiple hazards. Some were built
near landslide-prone hills, and some had difficult or
inaccessible pathways between the schools and villages.
In the Planning Stage, neither communities nor
technical experts engaged in a hazard assessment and
site inspection. Communities who were responsible for
construction were not provided any training or oversight
on why and how to build using hazard-resistant design
and prevention techniques. Upon technical review of
the completed roof structures, engineers found every
school to be inconsistent with the technical drawings
provided to construction teams. With such poor
execution, the roofs would blow off in the frequent high
winds or even collapse under their own weight.
Proper water and sanitation facilities were also lacking.
All schools were built without running water and latrines.
Without water, children could not wash their hands.
Without safe latrine facilities, students were likely to
contract worms, diarrhoea and other communicable
diseases that could result in preventable illnesses,
missed school, and even malnutrition leading to stunting.
The speed and scale of the project, coupled with
a lack of effective technical oversight, created a
poor environment for successful community-based
construction. Immediately after completion, school
buildings and roof structures had to be retrofitted to
achieve minimal levels of structural strength, hazard
resistance and functionality.
Key takeaways
• Although swift construction is valuable when
communities lack schools, it cannot come before
proper oversight and training.
• Community-based school construction may not be
appropriate for every context.
SECTION III: CONSTRUCTION
School safety club members reach out to the community to teach risk awareness and to search for hazards that might affect the community.
Photo: NSET.
75