Lessons I Learned

When I first read Greg Mortenson’s book, Three Cups of Tea, I loved it. It was 2007 or 2008, I had just spent a few years beginning our work at PEPY, an organization which had started with our own school construction story in 2005. The story resonated with me. I loved that he was talking about building schools in a place where we had recently only heard about building wars. I was onboard.

Over the past few years though, I have looked back on my own actions when starting PEPY, and realized that we made a big assumption in our work: that school buildings equated to improving education. You’ve heard us say this before at PEPY, but here it is again: We learned that schools don’t teach kids. People do. (And from this recent Mortenson fallout, I’m glad to read that other people feel this way too! “Why Three Cups of Tea Are Not Enough” – TIME Magazine)

We began shifting our focus away from building structures and towards building human capacity. We realized that we’d rather see kids studying under a tree with a great teacher than sitting in a beautiful empty building. Now, if we could have BOTH, that would be fabulous, but focusing on the human aspect of education was where we realized the dearth of effort lay.

As we began to focus on people, I became more judgmental of organizations selling “things” as the educational solutions to donors. Donors, who had grown accustomed to being able to donate a set of books, a uniform, a bike, or a school with their name on it were asking us how they could do the same with PEPY, and I realized that our first few years of selling donors the perceived ability to make changes in human’s attitudes and actions through giving them things was flawed. We were fighting a losing battle by focusing on the wrong investments.

This realization made me question Greg Mortenson’s school building work: although schools were definitely better than guns, weren’t teachers better than schools? In other words, I realized that I admired many things about Greg Mortenson’s work with the organization he co-founded, Central Asia Institute (CAI), but that revering him as infallible hero would not leave room for a view that his work, like all work, could always be improved. I began to realize that some criticism, both from ourselves and from the outside, is always needed to continue to strive towards higher goals.

I was just as shocked as anyone to hear the news of the 60 Minutes report this week about unethical behavior from Greg Mortenson and the CAI team. I had a lot of reactions: I was sad that so many people’s hearts were broken, glad that I had never donated to CAI when I had considered it in the past, angry that so much money has perhaps slipped through the cracks when it too could have been used to further education, and worried about what the impact of this news might mean.

My first reaction though, like so many others, was “If you can’t trust him, who CAN you trust?” And this is when I realized I too had bought too much into the hero worshiping of an NGO rockstar. I had only read the book that he himself had written about his work, yet I somehow believed I had received the full picture of his story. If Pol Pot had written an auto-biography after the Khmer Rouge, I wouldn’t read it and assume it was the only side of the story I should read, but when a person is doing “good” work, or “aid” work, they somehow become beyond question in our mind.

Because someone is “doing good” we assume everything about them is good, and visa versa. I have met a few people over the years who said they liked Pol Pot. One woman told me stories of having lived in the area where he was from and how he was good to them, how he took care of people, and how she had respect for him. When I hear these things my mind immediately refutes them as exaggerations or untruths. How could someone I have categorized in my mind as so “evil” do anything good? “And who cares if he did do some good things, he is still EVIL,” I would think to myself.

Once we have decided if someone is “good” or “bad”, rather than just “medium” and therefore capable of both extremes, it is hard for us to change our opinions.  I have heard many people react to the news about Greg Mortenson with opinions like “but all of the good he is doing still outweighs the bad” and “it must be an exaggeration as there is no way these allegations are all true.” These defensive views were my natural instincts too. Why? Because so many of us had put him in our “hero” category. Because we had mentally stood beside him and checked his name on our ballot for the “good person” poll. And because if we find out that WE were wrong, that he is not 100% good, that he is capable of anything bad and therefore no longer infallible, we don’t want to believe we have made a wrong vote. I believe that part of this reaction is in our own self interest – not wanting to be wrong and not wanting to use the effort it takes to make a mental shift of our own perceived realities. If we had miscategorized one person…. what about the rest? “If we can’t trust him, who CAN we trust?”

The effect of a large collection of people having to make this mental shift can have some far-reaching results. Being disappointed by someone makes it harder to feel as confident in our hero worshiping of others we might have viewed as thoroughly altruistic. I am of two minds about this news: The majority of my initial reaction is worry about the fallout the news about Greg’s fallibility will have on the NGO sector as a whole. Another part of me is glad that we are having to receive this type of news about an NGO “hero” and that we are all forced to go through the arduous task of mental resifting which inevitably leaves us feeling more vulnerable in the future. My fear is that the majority of that vulnerability will translate into inaction: people wanting to “help” when they come across an injustice they see, a goal they have for our world, or a problem they want to see fixed but feeling stuck and unable to take action for fear of being “tricked” again by someone selling a solution they might later find out is flawed. My hope though is that some of this vulnerability will translate into action for self-improvement on the part of donors.

Some people get mugged and then go out into the world with more fear. Others sign up for a self-defense class and perhaps emerge more confident than before. Let’s hope there’s more of the later.

By donor action, my hopes are that this news will result in:

• people taking the time to educate themselves more about the issues they are looking to effect change in and the best practices in those areas
• people becoming less likely to donate simply based on the hero story with less money going into projects whose impacts were overlooked due to more focus on the novel than on the reality of the NGO work
• donors asking more of the NGOs they support, not in terms of more heartbreaking books or more GPS coordinates of the things they give away, but rather more transparency and follow up on the impact of their donations
• board members asking more questions, pushing for audits, and requiring financial transparency from their teams
• and most importantly, more people realizing that NO ONE is a hero all the time (except maybe Mother Theresa…. Oh wait! Woops, hero-worshipping again – she is human!)  and therefore, that each of us are also capable of creating (perhaps obliged to create?) extreme good.

Perhaps it is good to continually remind ourselves that we are all human. By remembering that even Pol Pot was capable of good acts and that a man who helped build schools was capable of using donated funds for chartered flights to book signings for personal gain reminds us that we too are capable of both extremes. Perhaps this is the most difficult part of swallowing this reality. If Greg Mortenson isn’t some kind of “natural born altruist”, if he isn’t innately “good” at his core, if he is flawed like the rest of us and just as capable of self-interested pursuits, then it means he is human, just like us. And it therefore means that he was capable of that selfishness the whole time, yet he choose good very often (and it seems he choose poorly often as well). And if he is capable of that and not a “hero”, therefore, so are we.

He’s just a guy – and he could, and SHOULD, strive to be better. We too should strive to be better. We should strive to ask better questions and not hero worship someone so much that we allow them to go 14 years with only 1 audit. We should give our money to places we research and then follow up on our impact. We should strive to close the feedback loop and know where our money goes. And most of all, most shocking, and most hard to imagine: we should realize that there aren’t “good” and “bad” people. We are ALL capable of choosing heroic, challenging, phenomenal, life-affirming acts EVERY day. Those who choose to act heroically, those who were in our hero vault, were not wired differently than us after all – they are human too. So, you too can be, and are, a Greg Mortenson – capable of all aspects of the work he has done, both the good and the bad.

Choose to do with that what you like. I hope we all choose to dig deeper, aim higher, and strive for our most altruistic self from this news. I hope that each of us, including Greg, continues to strive daily for self-improvement to create our own TRUE hero story and then live out the results with integrity, transparency, and the constant quest for the good we are capable of ourselves.

I have purposely stayed out of the “TOMS Shoes = Bad Aid” campaign that has been going on for the past few weeks and haven’t tweeted about it. It was not because I am not strongly opposed to aid which is about “giving things away”, as I clearly have learned from experience that that is an ineffective model but because I’ve learned through this blog that I need to be better at not just complaining about things and stamping out good intentions, but instead trying to find ways to harness them.

I have come to the realization that, although giving shoes away might be “bad aid” – Blake (the founder of TOMS Shoes) and the TOMS Shoes brand are in a unique position to generate PHENOMENALLY positive impacts now and through the efforts of the next generation. TOMS has opened a door and thousands of young Americans are lining up to walk through it (bare feet and all).

I wasn’t planning on discussing this yet, but then these two things happened:

a) Saundra and the Good Intentions are Not Enough team made this video as an anti-campaign to TOMS Shoes “A Day Without Shoes” called “A Day Without Dignity”

b) I shared the video with some people I know who also care about the issue of fostering responsible development models among the next generation of development workers, and I was quoted in this blog.

So – now it looks like I should write about this, and I want to be clear about two things:

1) TOMS Shoes isn’t an aid organization, they are a shoe company, so I believe we can’t judge them as if they were an NGO. They are opening up a HUGE discussion about doing business better, they are getting kids across America to think about their purchasing differently, and they seem to be very motivated by good intentions.

2) TOMS Shoes is only relevant as a discussion point in this space of charity models based on “giving things away” because they have been SOOOOO successful in other ways: in their marketing and in their building of a movement. If they were a local shoe store giving away a thousand shoes a year then they would a) not have a big chance of destroying markets through their giving nor would they be a viable source of funding for more large-scale solutions such as building local shoe factories and b) they would not be responsible for indoctrinating such a large populations of American youth with a “giving” model of development work.

Because of TOMS overwhelming success as a brand, Blake is in a very unique position. He, along with other NGO marketing heroes, like Scott from charity:water, have a whole generation of budding young do-gooders drooling over their every word. This is a fabulous platform from which they are now uniquely able to spread education and learning. If they take this generation with them on a development learning journey, if they bring everyone along from the “giving things away” charity model to a model which a) takes in local needs/opinions/input b) requires local buy-in both in terms of strategy as well as funding c) develops and supports local markets rather than giving away products and d) talks about the complexity, flexibility, long-term commitment and investment in human capital (rather than just investment in goods) which it takes to create high impact development programs to even begin to reach some of the goals we see for our world, then they are going to be great heroes.

Failed models of unsustainable charity have been tried over and over again with little large-scale impact, but people don’t know much about it unless they are living it. Why? Because it’s not a closed feedback loop.

Have you ever bought a car? Or a house? When doing so, did you read what Toyota wrote about Toyotas and then go out and buy a Toyota? No! You read that, plus you asked a lot of other people, people who owned them and could tell you if they were good or not, or you read reviews from people who had done the same. If you made a mistake and bought the wrong car, then you knew it a few weeks later when you were already bringing it into the shop to get fixed. You would have been mad at yourself for doing poor research and investing in the wrong thing and then when it came time for your next purchase, you would have done much more research and follow up to prevent making the same mistake.

It is VERY rare that we get a closed feedback loop in our donating. We might talk to other DONORS who have given, but if you have given to a charity researching cancer solutions, have you had a chance to talk to scientists working on the project to see how they think they are progressing? Have you talked to other scientists from a third party who are educated enough on the work to be able to share their findings? If you have written a check to Greg Mortenson’s project, which is getting destroyed on “60 Minutes” tonight for corruption it seems, were you able to speak with people in Pakistan to know a) if the school was wanted b) if it was built well c) if the money was used properly, etc? No…. and so if you DID invest in the wrong thing, it is very likely that you don’t know it. If you did, of course you would change. But since you don’t know, and it’s nicer to feel good about our donations than bad about them, it is rare that we try to really dig deep and find out how the aid work we support could be improved.

We know that we can’t keep giving things away – and that the people who need those things would be better off if they were able to bring in income to have excess funding to purchase those things themselves and decide how best to allocate their resources to support their families rather than waiting for us to give them the things we think they should prioritize.

I came to this stance having giving a lot of things away myself: t-shirts and toothbrushes to kids in the Philippines, volunteer trips throughout Asia, and most recently schools in Cambodia through an organization I started called PEPY. But, we realized we were making a mistake by giving things (schools, books, uniforms, supplies, etc) away. We realized two important things: 1) that schools don’t teach kids – people do and 2) that we would one day be leaving, and if we were, than our inputs needed to create impacts which would continue to bear fruit long after we left.

I had the closed feedback loop most people don’t get to have as I saw the impact of the work we were doing day to day, yet this learning curve still took me the last 5.5 years of living in Cambodia to achieve. I could have done things MUCH more effectively if I had known about failed development efforts and more responsible solutions which had been tried before me.

There is a whole generation of young people out there primed and ready to go out into the world and “help” and we can help THEM be more effective by pointing them in the right direction. Ideally, they could all have a conversation with someone like Ivan Illich, but since that might not be possible, they can learn from those people they are already idealizing and following.

So, Blake and Scott and now Adam (from the speedily growing Pencils of Promise) and the inspired and inspiring Sean from (Falling Whistles) – you hold the keys today. You have the keys to the hearts, brains, and future actions of a whole generation of American youth looking to do good with their money, their time, and their futures. Let’s take them on a path where they are inspired to invest in people – invest TIME in people – and by that I mean give people the skills, connections, capabilities, ideas, and opportunities to solve their OWN problems, set their own goals, and fulfill their own needs. By showing America’s youth a way to positively impact the world through investing in the skill development of others, by taking them with you on your learning curve, and by continuing to rock your marketing so that you can reach more and more people with these messages, you will help prevent some of them from making the same mistakes so many of us made before them. YOU have the ability to speak to this generation and help them to use their power, influence, dollars, and votes to empower, rather than hinder, the communities and markets of the world. We’re all cheering for you to use your exceptional influence to make this generation get the learning curve faster. Close the feedback loop for them.

…and let us know how we can help! The development bloggers (myself included) need to throw out a hand and collaborate. We should all be reaching for the same goal. Let’s find a way to get there together – using your marketing genius and engaged following and the lessons learned from development successes and failures to empower today’s youth to make the changes our generations before them have failed to do!

This week I offered a class with my friends Kit & Matt through the new group/learning platform SkillShare. It’s a phenomenal concept: anyone can be a teacher and offer up a skill they have and any of us can be student and pay for a class on topics as varied as Knitting for Beginners and How to Bootstrap your Startup.

Kit, Matt, and I offered a class on traveling around the world responsibly. Kit and Matt presented about the 6 month round-the-world trips they both took and answered questions on how to book your travels, reintegration on return, the most important things they wish they had brought (and what they wished they had left behind), etc.  I followed up with this presentation below about how to have a positive impact when you travel.

I edited the slide deck a bit to make it stand alone without a presenter, but it is the bulk of what I spoke about.  I have realized through 5+ years of living in Cambodia that even though not everyone is looking to “give back” when they travel during the planning stages of their trip, many times once they land in a place, they get interested in trying to “help”. In other words, it’s not just important to share the lessons of responsible traveler’s philanthropy and volunteering (and the dangers of orphanage tourism) with those people looking to engage in those things, but also to share these concepts with your average traveler and it is often times not until they get to their guesthouse and see a flier about volunteering that they decide to try it out. We had a great group out at the beautiful Studiomates office for this class (and many thanks to Wanderfly for their support, for their awesome trip planning platform, and for joining in the event as well!) Take a look at the slides if you are interested.

The best part about the class was that it was a chance for like-minded people to get together to talk about a common interest. It’s a way to meet interesting people and have an instant connection with them – so I would highly recommend a Skillshare class to anyone!  While learning the basics of photoshop or learning how to be better at reading people, you also get the added benefit of meeting other interested and interesting people in your city.  Check it out!

I recently put up a post about a speech Ivan Illich gave to a group of young American volunteers about to head to Mexico to “help”.  It’s one of those speeches that makes you re-question all of your good intentions and perhaps reflect on your past actions with a new light.

And then it can make you stuck, and confused.  If I shouldn’t “go to help”, but I want to HELP, how can I?  I’ve read this speech many times over the last 5 years and continue to struggle with what is right, what is ethical, what ethnocentric, and what is more harmful in the long term even if it makes ME, or others, feel good now.

I read a post a woman named Jody put up using some quotes from my blog.  She called her post “Wrestling” – and I appreciate that.  I hope that, if anything, my blog makes us to continue to wrestle with this stuff until we feel our actions are better inline with our intended impacts…. it’s tricky – so much grey area!

I am re-posting my comments to her blog below.

—-

Thanks!  I don’t know that I have ever been quoted like that before – but I’m glad to see that my words are resonating with you.

Wrestling is a good word to use for the thinking that needs to go into successful traveler’s philanthropy work. I wrestle with this daily – and I know that my attitudes and actions more than five years ago when I first moved to Cambodia were very different than how I feel now and that they are based on a very different perception of reality.  Both, though, were based on good intentions and a desire to “help”, I just didn’t realize before that I had such limited knowledge of how to effectively do so.

I also realize, a) we’re all still learning b) there is no “right” answer c) every situation is different d) short term and long term impacts can sometimes be dichotomous e) creating value for travelers IS valuable as their actions and funding can be strong forces for good or for harm in the future so inspiring people to improve the way they give, travel, and live has value f) aligning that value for travelers with long-term positive impact on the communities/causes being “supported” is really hard.

Wrestling!

But the best I think we can do is to think about these things and be willing to change our actions based on what we learn, even if it means admitting past mistakes, and then talking about those changes so that we can inspire others to do the same.

Great to “meet” you.  Please come visit us in Cambodia some day!

—
Read the original post  here.

Yes, somehow my blog has become an orphanage/orphanage tourism discussion platform for the time being…. so be it!

I recently met a video editor named Regina who had also been living in Siem Reap, Cambodia.  As she was starting a video education program for youth in the area, she became aware of the problems of profiteering orphanages in the area and she was inspired to make this PSA video:

I agree with the video, but I feel like I’m sure many of you do, that there needs to be a “Call to Action” at the end.  The good intentions people have who want to donate to orphanages can end up being harmful if the money and time these travelers give goes to the wrong places…. but what can they do instead? Clearly, they want to help – so what should this video tell them to do?

I know that many of the people who read this blog are working with children and have a variety of ideas on this topic. I have received emails from a range of people including people working in orphanages, people working in large INGOs and UN organizations, people who have donated to places they believe in, and people who have realized that they donated to places which were causing harm.  All of you have ideas for this, I’m sure – please share!

What should the call to action be?

In the comments on the video site, Regina links people to information about a recent UNICEF report about Cambodian orphanages. What other resources do you think should be shared?

Some ideas might be to encourage people to:

LEARN MORE: Please add comments to this blog with links to places where people can learn more about these issues (such as Friends International’s page “Myths and Realities about Orphanages in Cambodia” and Child Safe).  What other resources should people read up on?

GIVE BETTER: As Regina’s videos suggests, many agree that family care is a much better option as well as day care education and transitional support facilities which allow kids to return to a family home and avoid institutionalizing as many children.  Friends International has supported this type of work in Cambodia and there are programs like M’lop Tapang, but what other programs do you believe in? And why?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and reading through your list of resources.

Oh how I wish that I had heard Ivan Illich give this speech in 1968.

I imagine myself as one of the students about to be sent off to Mexico to “volunteer”, eager to “help the poor people”, smiling proudly as I shine in my own self-worth. And then I imagine hearing him start out by proclaiming his “increasing opposition to the presence of any and all North American “dogooders” in Latin America” and wondering why this guy was raining on my parade. I might start to wonder why he was invited to speak, and then he says “you might have invited me here hoping that you would be able to agree with most of what I say, and then go ahead in good faith and work this summer in Mexican villages. This last possibility is only open to those who do not listen, or who cannot understand me.”

I’d start to get angry!  BUT I WANT TO HELP, my brain would yell, and he would respond back in his speech, “I did not come here to argue. I am here to tell you, if possible to convince you, and hopefully, to stop you, from pretentiously imposing yourselves on Mexicans.”

But I’m DIFFERENT, I would think. I WILL be able to help…. yet his speech would respond saying “All you will do in a Mexican village is create disorder.”

He’d go on to say “You start on your task without any training. Even the Peace Corps spends around $10,000 on each corps member to help him adapt to his new environment and to guard him against culture shock. How odd that nobody ever thought about spending money to educate poor Mexicans in order to prevent them from the culture shock of meeting you?“

But I will LEARN from this experience, I would want to tell him. And his speech would respond “The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have been volunteers in the first place.”

But… but…I’m so PRIVILEGED, I’d say. I want to give back!  And he would respond with “I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce exercising the power which being an American gives you. I am here to entreat you to freely, consciously and humbly give up the legal right you have to impose your benevolence on Mexico. I am here to challenge you to recognize your inability, your powerlessness and your incapacity to do the “good” which you intended to do.”

My heart would break a little.

And then he would conclude with, “I am here to entreat you to use your money, your status and your education to travel in Latin America. Come to look, come to climb our mountains, to enjoy our flowers. Come to study. But do not come to help.“

And maybe then, just then, after I had heard this Illich speech in person, and listened to his passion for these words, would I have been able to walk away, having learned these lessons without living them.

And I’d re-hear a part of his speech: “Perhaps there is also something to the argument that young men should be promiscuous for awhile in order to find out that sexual love is most beautiful in a monogamous relationship. Or that the best way to leave LSD alone is to try it for awhile -or even that the best way of understanding that your help in the ghetto is neither needed nor wanted is to try, and fail. I do not agree with this argument.”

And I’d realized that someone should have told me this earlier, but I couldn’t have absorbed it unless I lived it myself, OR heard someone as knowledgeable on this subject speak so directly – so honestly – without caring about hurting my feelings or sugar coating his words to avoid making me feel bad because he knew my intentions were good. I would have maybe then realized I should walk away, because he told me directly, and I realized that he was right: “The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have been volunteers in the first place.”

Read the full Illich speech here: http://bit.ly/hkJN17

Layheng Ting is PEPY‘s new Director. Here is a piece she recently wrote for the PEPY newsletter which I thought I would re-post here.  Thanks Layheng, and welcome to the team!

—-

Sustainability has been a buzz word in development work for a long time, but how to actually make a project sustainable still remains a big challenge. At PEPY, the challenge is no different from elsewhere. This is the second year in a row that PEPY has focused on helping schools become sustainable using a borrowed model called SAS (Sahakum Aphiwat Sala), or “Communities Developing Schools” in English. This model was originally developed at the Schools for Children of Cambodia, in which one of our consultants, Andrea Messmer, was involved with its development and implementation. I personally believe in the model, as it has so much potential to help schools be self-sustainable if implemented correctly. Like any other sustainability model, it comes with its own challenges.

From my interactions with the SAS team during my first month at PEPY, I can say that the model is now gaining momentum. Our team has worked to form active School Support Committees (SSCs) in each of the three schools we are implementing the model with. Each SSC has identified the problems that need to be fixed and has developed an annual development plan. Last year’s main projects included community initiatives like building shade structures for students to study in, life skills training from community members, and effective teaching and learning (ETL) workshops for teachers. This year, one project that has been recently accomplished is school land filling. This project involves filling low areas at school with soil to raise land levels in order to avoid flooding during the rainy season. A second project, building a school garden, is on its way to success as well.

Two main income generating projects, fish raising and mushroom growing, have been identified by the SSC in their development plans, and our SAS team has been working very hard to help them figure out if these programs could provide the schools with a decent income. If these two projects are successful, next year schools can continue these projects by themselves without any intervention from our team. For the mushroom growing project, one difficulty the SSC faces is the lack of expertise in mushroom spore making. For fish raising, it is a completely new experience for the SSC, but according to the business plan, it would be a worthwhile project for the school to try out this year.

To improve the capacity of SSCs, the SAS team has so far provided SSC proposal-writing classes, which were attended by many committee members. Through proposal-writing trainings, the SSCs can gain the ability to find various sources of income by themselves after PEPY moves to a new target area, as SAS is aimed to provide transitional community support for 3-5 years.

The SSCs were so enthusiastic about the trainings. While the momentum is high, the SSCs’ ability to grasp the contents of the training varies, and thus the SAS team is now trying to figure out the best strategy to make the proposal training most effective. The most recent school visit to two model schools was a great learning experience for the SSC, and the team was able to bring back new ideas to develop their schools.

Despite signs of success, some challenges remain. From our past experiences, we realized that in order for the schools to be more sustainable, we need more in-house technical staff. This would allow more capacity building of teachers and leadership training for school directors and the school support committee, which is key to improving the quality of education offered at our partner schools. In the past we hired technical experts external to PEPY to offer training to the teachers, and that is not enough. We have so far interviewed a number of candidates for these technical expert positions. When we have technical experts on our team, we will start a rigorous training for teachers and management.

In the first month I have spent with PEPY, here are some lessons I have learned from being involved closely with SAS program:

1. Lack of teacher motivation might hamper the entire SAS process. We can only do so much if teachers do not have the motivation to teach well. To help fix this, it is important for the SAS team to learn how to ask the right questions to the SSC, so that everyone understands that a teacher’s motivation is important, and that low salaries might hamper motivation. Thus, in their next school development plan, they should focus on raising community support for teachers’ salaries if they see it as a problem.

2. The community can only do so much to help schools with their stretched pockets and their doubts regarding the usefulness of education. To respond to this, PEPY’s next step would be to focus even more on community mobilization through brain gain and encouraging educated community members to continue to be involved at the local level. With this in mind, PEPY should work more closely with the Junior High School to ensure a quality education, so that students who graduate from Junior High can do well in High School, pass the high school exit exam, and can continue on to higher education. I believe when students from the community continue to succeed in their schooling, get a job, and give back to the community, they will set a good example for the next generation to follow and the community will have more belief in education.

3. PEPY should continue to find ways to involve the community in all the programs that it has been implementing. One of the biggest outcomes I have seen from PEPY’s programs is the VCD initiative.  Students from Chanleas Dai have created their own organization called “Volunteers for Community Development” and they are taking action to improve their own communities, which is exactly the type of initiative we want to foster.

I can’t see any better model than SAS in helping such a marginalized population to be able to achieve what they deserve: a quality education. Community involvement is the best solution to making schools successful in such a circumstance.  I look forward to continuing to work with the PEPY team to try to find the best ways to provide communities with the skills, models, and motivation to forge ahead in making improvements to their schools.