Drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) situation in primary schools of Pakistan: the

impact of WASH-related interventions and policy on children school performance

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF WASH SYSTEMS ON UN SDG 4

(QUALITY EDUCATION) IN SELECTED PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN IBEJU-
LEKKI
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

According to UNICEF (2020), “Growing up in a clean and safe environment is every child’s right.
Access to clean water, basic toilets, and good hygiene practices not only keeps children thriving,
but also gives them a healthier start in life.”
Even though COVID-19 brought attention to the need of good hand hygiene in halting the
transmission of illness, three billion people globally—including hundreds of millions of school-
age children—do not have access to soap and water for handwashing. The most at risk and
impacted are those who reside in low-income nations, rural areas, urban slums, and disaster-
prone places.

The consequences of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) on children can be deadly.
Over 700 children under age 5 die every day of diarrhea diseases due to lack of appropriate
WASH services. In areas of conflict, children are nearly 20 times more likely to die from diarrhea
disease than from the conflict itself.

Safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are fundamental to improving standards of
living for people. The improved standards made possible by WASH include, among others,
better physical health, protection of the environment, better educational outcomes,
convenience time savings, assurance of lives lived with dignity, and equal treatment for both
men and women. Poor and vulnerable populations have lower access to improved WASH
services and have poorer associated behaviors. Improved WASH is therefore central to reducing
poverty, promoting equality, and supporting socioeconomic development. Drinking water and
sanitation were targets in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015; under the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the post-2015 period, Member States of the United
Nations (UN) aspire to achieve universal access to WASH by 2030. The Human Right to Safe
Drinking Water and Sanitation (HRTWS) was adopted in 2010 under a UN resolution calling for
safe, affordable, acceptable, available, and accessible drinking water and sanitation services for
all.
The MDG targets called for halving the proportion of the population without sustainable access
to safe drinking water and basic sanitation between 1990 and 2015. The targets were ambitious.
In 1990, 76 percent of the global population used an improved drinking water source, and 54
percent had access to safe sanitation. The MDG’s drinking water target was met in 2010; yet in
2015, the world remained 9 percentage points short of achieving the sanitation target. The
SDGs for 2015–2030 have broadened from the MDG period to include (1) water-use efficiency
across all sectors, sustainable withdrawals, and supply of freshwater to people suffering from
water scarcity; (2) integrated water resource management, and (3) water-related ecosystems.
The SDG also set ambitious WASH-related targets of universal access to safe water (target 6.1),
adequate sanitation and hygiene, and the elimination of open defecation (target 6.2) as well as
reduced untreated wastewater (target 6.3). In the overall aim of access for all, the SDG language
and spirit emphasizes progressive reduction of inequalities and leaving no one behind, as well
as providing inclusive, quality, and sustainable services—thereby ensuring access for women
and for poor and vulnerable populations.

Globally, the use of improved drinking water sources increased from 76 percent in 1990 to 91
percent in 2015 (WHO and UNICEF 2015b). Regional breakdowns for progress between 1990
and 2015 are shown in figure 9.1. In its 2012 report presenting 2010 estimates, the UN showed
that its MDG target of halving the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking
water had been met (WHO and UNICEF 2012b); however, such global estimates mask regional
disparities and inequities in access between urban and rural populations. As of 2015, 663
million people still used unimproved water sources, compared to 1.3 billion in 1990; 2.6 billion
people have gained access to improved water since 1990. Rural dwellers remain unserved
compared with urban dwellers (16 percent and 4 percent, respectively). In Sub-Saharan Africa,
44 percent of rural dwellers continue to use an unimproved water supply. Water hauling costs
Sub-Saharan Africans, especially women, billions of hours each year. In 2008, more than 25
percent of the population in several Sub-Saharan African countries spent more than 30 minutes
to make one round trip to collect water; 72 percent of the burden for collecting water fell on
women (64 percent) and girls (8 percent), compared with men (24 percent) and boys (4
percent) (WHO and UNICEF 2010).

Urban areas enjoy a higher level of water service, as indicated by the use of piped water supply;
in 2015, four of five people living in urban areas used piped water, compared to two of three in
rural areas. Water sources classified as improved—even piped water—do not guarantee the
safety or continuity of the water supply. Water quality surveys conducted in five countries
showed that microbiological compliance with the WHO guidelines varied between water
sources and countries (Onda, LoBuglio, and Bartram 2012). On average, compliance was close to
90 percent for piped water sources, and from 40 percent to 70 percent for other improved
sources. Extrapolating to global estimates, the authors estimate that in 2010, 1.8 billion people
(28 percent) used unsafe water, more than twice the population of 783 million (11 percent) that
used an unimproved water supply.

The use of improved sanitation increased from 54 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2015, but
those gains fell short of meeting the global MDG target (WHO and UNICEF 2015b). In 2015, 2.4
billion people still did not have access to their own improved sanitation facility, a fact that, due
to population growth, reflects no change in the unserved population of 1990. However, these
numbers mask the fact that since 1990, 2.1 billion people have gained access to improved
sanitation. Regional breakdowns in progress between 1990 and 2015 are shown in figure 9.2.
Globally, the proportion of population practicing open defecation declined from 24 percent in
1990 to 13 percent in 2015. In South Asia, 34 percent still defecate in the open, compared to 23
percent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Globally, 638 million people (9 percent) share their sanitation
facility with another family or families. Comparing rural and urban areas, 51 percent of rural
dwellers have access to improved sanitation, compared with 82 percent of urban dwellers.
Rates of improved sanitation do not reflect the amount of fecal waste that is not isolated,
transported, or treated safely; a study of 12 cities in LMICs found that whereas 98 percent of
households used toilets, only 29 percent of fecal waste was safely managed (Blackett, Hawkins,
and Heymans 2014).

Although the MDG target 7c does not provide a global indicator for hygiene, the data on the
presence of a handwashing facility with soap and water are increasingly collected as part of
nationally representative surveys and will form the basis for efforts to monitor target 6.2 of the
SDGs. Two main sources include nationally representative household surveys and a global
review of published studies (Freeman and others 2014). Research studies suggest that the
global prevalence of handwashing with soap after contact with excreta is 19 percent; rates are
lower in Sub-Saharan Africa (14 percent) and South-East Asia (17 percent), where the most
studies have been conducted (Freeman and others 2014). Proxy indicators for handwashing
practice from nationally representative surveys are not reliable and tend to over report hygiene
practices (Biran and others 2008).

Access to clean water, adequate sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities in schools is essential
for promoting quality education and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). This
study seeks to assess and investigate the impact of WASH systems on quality education in
primary schools within the Ibeju Lekki Local Government Area (LGA) of Lagos State. By
examining the current status of WASH systems, identifying challenges, and assessing the
effectiveness of existing interventions, this study aims to provide evidence-based
recommendations for improving WASH infrastructure and promoting quality education
outcomes.

1.2 Study Area Description

1.3 Statement of Problems

A basic human right, access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is essential to maintaining
the general public's health and well-being. Millions of kids worldwide still attend schools
without proper WASH facilities, despite how important they are. The absence of adequate
infrastructure for water, sanitation, and hygiene in educational institutions has a significant
impact on students' attendance, health, academic performance, and overall educational
experience. It is frequently extremely difficult for schools in low- and middle-income nations to
provide running water, working toilets, and handwashing stations. In addition to raising the risk
of waterborne illnesses, this insufficiency disproportionately impacts girls, who may miss school
owing to improper sanitary facilities during menstruation. Moreover, a high absenteeism and
dropout rate can be caused by inadequate WASH facilities, which will have a detrimental effect
on the standard of instruction as a whole.

1.4 Purpose of the study

The major purpose of this study is to assess and understand the impacts of WASH systems on
Quality Education using mixed methods in selected public secondary schools.

1.5 Aim and Objectives

1.5.1 Aims
The aim of this research is to assess and investigate the current school-WASH systems in
selected public and private schools in a low-income Nigerian community using mixed methods
(ANOVA) and to determine its impact on quality education.

1.5.2 Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study are to;

i. To review the existing WASH systems in selected public schools

ii. To investigate the source and type of WASH systems available in the school
iii. To use a cross-section study design to understand the current state of school WASH
across the entire LGA
iv. To provide data and insights that can support evidence-based recommendations for
policy makers, educators in achieving the Sustainable Development goals Target 6.1
and Target 6.2 in 2030, thereby improving WASH facilities in schools.

1.6 Significance of the study

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Contribution to Global Goals: By addressing

WASH in schools, the study supports the achievement of multiple SDGs, including Goal 3
(Good Health and Well-being), Goal 4 (Quality Education), and Goal 6 (Clean Water and
Sanitation).

2. Informed Policy and Program Development:

 Evidence-Based Decision Making: The findings will provide robust data that can guide
policymakers and educational authorities in designing and implementing effective WASH
programs in schools.
  Resource Allocation: The study can help identify the most critical areas in need of WASH
improvements, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.
3. Improved Health and Wellbeing:
 Reduction in Disease Incidence: The study will provide evidence on how improved WASH
facilities in schools can reduce the prevalence of waterborne diseases, which can
decrease student absenteeism due to illness.
 Enhanced Hygiene Practices: Insights from the study can promote better hygiene
practices among students, leading to long-term health benefits.
4. Enhanced Educational Outcomes:
 Increased Attendance: By demonstrating the link between WASH facilities and school
attendance, the study can help schools and policymakers prioritize investments in
WASH infrastructure to keep more students, especially girls, in school.
 Improved Academic Performance: The research can show how improved health and
reduced absenteeism contribute to better academic performance and higher
graduation rates.

1.7 Scope of the study

1.8 Study Limitation.

CHAPTER TWO.

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION
Drinking water pollution is a major contributing factor to a significant number of communicable
diseases worldwide. The global health and death rate is increased by tainted drinking water,
with low- and middle-income nations being the most affected (Shilunga et al. 2018; Bain et al.
2021; Bolatova et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2022). Providing safe drinking
water, properly disposing of waste, and encouraging healthy behavior in those who are affected
are together referred to as WASH (Antwi-agyei et al. 2017;WorldHealth Organization [WHO]
2017; Cronk et al. 2021; Williams et al. 2021). Human dignity, health, and quality of life are
critically dependent on safe WASH facilities (Agol & Harvey 2018; Ngwenya et al. 2018; Morgan
et al. 2021; Bolatova et al. 2021). A crucial component of WASH services in schools is the quality
of the drinking water (Scheili et al. 2015; Wen et al. 2020; Anthonj et al. 2021; Bolatova et al.
2021; Morgan et al. 2021). Schools must create a conducive environment with secure WASH
facilities in order to guarantee students have good health habits and a great quality of life
(Maroneze et al. 2014; Bolatova et al. 2021). Adequate WASH facilities in schools are essential
for students' wellbeing because they spend a large portion of their days on school grounds
(Anthonj et al., 2021). In addition, students spend a greater portion of their formative years in
school, therefore providing them with basic access to sustainable WASH at schools as well as at
home is essential (WHO & the United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF] 2018). The
accomplishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6, is correlated
with the availability of secure WASH facilities in schools (Antwi-agyei et al. 2017). Beyond the
home, institutional settings—including schools—are now included in the global campaign to
achieve SDG 6 by 2030. This has been reaffirmed by global education for all methods, which
highlight how WASH in schools improves learning outcomes and expands access to education,
especially for females, by creating a safe and equitable learning environment for everyone
(WHO & UNICEF 2018, 2021). One of the primary targets of SDG 6 is safe WASH facilities, which
includes providing everyone with access to safe drinking water (Hung et al. 2020). The quality of
drinking water is one environmental health element that should be taken into account when
providing safe WASH facilities. Global indicator 6.1.1, or the usage of well-managed water
services, is linked to the availability of clean drinking water (Bain et al. 2021). Ensuring universal
access to safe drinking water quality remains a concern, even with the notable advancements
made since the announcement of SDG 6 in 2015 (Nanseu-njiki et al. 2019; Winter et al. 2021).
The world's goal to provide everyone with access to clean drinking water by 2030 may be
impacted by the ongoing global problem of drinking water quality (Addisie 2022). (Scheili et al.
2015; Wen et al. 2020; Anthonj et al. 2021; Bolatova et al. 2021). It is widely acknowledged that
the developing world is ill-equipped to fulfill the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
including SDG 6 on guaranteeing universal access to and sustainable management of water and
sanitation (Nanseu-njiki et al. 2019). Having access to potable water that is safe and clean is a
basic human need and a global human right. However, utilization of contaminated water is
increasing particularly in developing countries (Akram 2020). Because it is necessary to make
sure that learners have access to safe drinking water at school, monitoring drinking water
quality is essential during WASH assessments in schools. This is to determine whether water is
safe for consumption and hygienic purposes (Scheili et al. 2015; Wen et al. 2020; Anthonj et al.
2021; Bolatova et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021). In addition, the assessment of drinking water
quality in schools, specifically, microbial quality, is critical since it is linked to the prevention of
infectious diseases. However, it is unclear whether water quality is always assessed as part of
WASH in schools.
The purpose of this article is to examine through systematic literature review, the consideration
of water quality aspects during the assessment of WASH in schools since the declaration of the
SDGs. This study should stimulate a discussion on the subject to highlight the importance of
providing safe WASH in schools in all of its forms focusing on the three objectives which
include; to determine if drinking water quality is included during the assessment of WASH in
schools, to identify the drinking water quality parameters that are mostly included during the
assessment of WASH in schools, and to identify if there are any gaps that need to be addressed
during the assessment of WASH in schools.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
According to Wikipedia , WASH is a sector in development cooperation or within local
governments that provides water, sanitation, and hygiene services to people. The main
purposes of providing access to WASH services include achieving public health gains,
implementing the human right to water and sanitation, reducing the burden of collecting
drinking water for women, and improving education and health outcomes at schools and health
facilities. Water security also includes having access to WASH services. The first two aims of
Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) center on universal, accessible, and sustainable access
to WASH, a crucial issue in international development. In addition to being accessible within
households, WASH must also be made available in non-household contexts such as temporary
use settings, workplaces (including jails), healthcare institutions, schools, and dislocated people.
Facilities for group handwashing can enhance cleanliness in schools. The absence of WASH
facilities in schools frequently keeps female students from enrolling, which lowers their
academic performance. The concept of WASH groups together water supply (access to drinking
water services), sanitation, and hygiene because the impact of deficiencies in each area overlap
strongly. WASH consists of access to drinking water services, sanitation services and hygiene.

DRINKING WATER SERVICES

The term "safely managed drinking water service" means "one located on premises, available
when needed and free from contamination”. The JMP of UNICEF and WHO created the phrases
"improved water source" and "unimproved water source" in 2002 as a drinking water
monitoring tool. The phrase "improved water source" describes "other improved drinking water
sources (public taps or standpipes, tube wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected
springs, and rainwater collection) as well as piped water on premises (piped household water
connection located inside the user's dwelling, plot, or yard).
Goal 6 (SDG 6): "By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking
water for all" includes access to drinking water as one of its targets (Target 6.1). There is just
one indicator for this target: "Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water
services" is Indicator 6.1.1. 844 million people did not have access to even the most basic
supply of drinking water in 2017.[3]: 3 According to reports, 435 million people drank water
from unimproved sources in 2019; 144 million still relied on surface waterways like lakes and
streams. Drinking water can be sourced from the following water sources: surface
water, groundwater, or rainwater, in each case after collection, treatment, and
distribution. Desalinated seawater is another potential source for drinking water.

GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is a vital source of freshwater, especially in arid areas with low surface water
availability. Over one-third of the water utilized worldwide comes from subsurface sources. For
the sake of maintaining the global ecology and providing drinking water and agricultural
production for society, groundwater is essential in the mid-latitude arid and semi-arid regions
that do not receive enough surface water from rivers and reservoirs. The demand for
groundwater is rapidly increasing with population growth, while climate change is imposing
additional stress on water resources and raising the probability of severe drought occurrence.
Reliance on groundwater is increasing in Sub-Saharan Africa as development programs work
towards improving water access and strengthening resilience to climate change. In lower-
income areas, groundwater supplies are typically installed without water quality treatment
infrastructure or services. This practice is underpinned by an assumption that untreated
groundwater is typically suitable for drinking due to the relative microbiological safety of
groundwater compared to surface water; however, chemistry risks are largely
disregarded. Chemical contaminants occur widely in groundwaters that are used for drinking
but are not regularly monitored. Example priority parameters are fluoride, arsenic, nitrate, or
salinity.
Saskia Nowicki et al (2023) investigated that Sub-Saharan Africa is becoming more dependent
on groundwater as development initiatives aim to increase water access and fortify climate
change resilience. Groundwater supplies are usually supplied without infrastructure or services
for water quality remediation in lower-income communities.
The underlying premise of this approach is that untreated groundwater is generally safe to
drink since it is considered to be less microbiologically hazardous than surface water; chemical
hazards are, however, generally overlooked.
Saskia Nowicki systematically reviews groundwater chemistry results from 160 studies to
evaluate potential health risk in two case countries: Ethiopia and Kenya. Most studies
evaluated drinking water suitability, focusing on priority parameters (fluoride, arsenic, nitrate,
or salinity; 18 %), pollution impacts (10 %), or overall suitability (45 %). The remainder
characterised general hydrogeochemistry (13 %), flow dynamics (10 %), or water quality
suitability for irrigation (3 %). Only six studies (4 %) reported no exceedance of drinking water
quality thresholds. Therefore, there are several chemical pollutants in drinking-quality
groundwaters that are not routinely inspected: 78% of studies found that pollutants exceeded
thresholds, which can have direct health effects ranging from hypertension to impaired
cognitive function and degenerative disease. Additionally, 81% of studies found that aesthetic
parameters exceeded thresholds, which can have indirect health effects by affecting how
people perceive and use groundwater versus surface water.
However, there are significant gaps in the spatiotemporal coverage of the sampling, and the
bias in data availability is caused by two factors: (a) the tendency of research to focus on
locations where recognized water quality issues exist, and (b) analytical capacity constraints.
Enhanced domestic analytical capabilities may facilitate more effective evaluation and
prioritization of water chemistry hazards. Overall, this analysis shows that groundwater
treatment must be widely implemented in order to attain universal and equitable access to safe
drinking water (Sustainable Development Goal goal 6.1). As a result, changes in the planning
and management of water systems are necessary.
SANITATION
According to WHO, "Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the
safe disposal of human urine and faeces. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance
of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal."
Sanitation systems are grouped into several types: The ladder of sanitation services includes
(from lowest to highest): open defecation, unimproved, limited, basic, safely managed. A
distinction is made between sanitation facilities that are shared between two or more
households (a "limited service") and those that are not shared (a "basic service"). The definition
of improved sanitation facilities is: Those facilities designed to hygienically separate excreta
from human contact. With regards to toilets, improved sanitation includes the following kind of
toilets: Flush toilet, connection to a piped sewer system, connection to a septic system, flush or
pour-flush to a pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, ventilated improved pit latrine, composting
toilet.
Goal 6.2 of the Sustainable Development Agenda states: "By 2030, achieve access to adequate
and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention
to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations." This includes access to
sanitation services.[11] There is just one indicator for this target: Indicator 6.2.1 stands for
"Proportion of population using (a) safely managed sanitation services and (b) a hand-washing
facility with soap and water". 4.5 billion people did not have safely managing toilets at home in
2017, despite decades of progress in expanding access to sanitation. Eighty-two million people
perform open defecation, while another 600 million people share a toilet or latrine with other
homes. There are many barriers that make it difficult to achieve "sanitation for all". These
include social, institutional, technical and environmental challenges. Therefore, the problem of
providing access to sanitation services cannot be solved by focusing on technology alone.
Instead, it requires an integrated perspective that includes planning, using economic
opportunities (e.g. from reuse of excreta), and behavior change interventions.
Fecal sludge management and sanitation workers
Without safe fecal sludge management (FSM), which includes the collection, storage,
transportation, treatment, and safe disposal of fecal sludge, sanitation services would not be
complete. Fecal sludge is widely described as material that collects in on-site sanitation systems
(such as septic tanks, pit latrines, and container-based solutions) and is especially not
discharged into the sewage system. At every stage of the sanitation chain, sanitation personnel
are required to clean, maintain, operate, or empty a sanitation technology. (Wikipedia).
HYGIENE
According to Wikipedia "Hygiene refers to conditions and practices that help to maintain health
and prevent the spread of diseases. Hygiene is can comprise many behaviors,
including handwashing, menstrual hygiene and food hygiene. Handwashing with soap and
water is considered to be the most important hygiene practice in the context of WASH and has
been selected as an indicator for both national and international hygiene access monitoring.
"Basic hygiene facilities" are places where individuals can wash their hands with soap and water
right there on the property. A sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy-taps, and portable
basins are examples of handwashing stations.
Two billion people still lack basic hygiene services, including 653 million with no facility at all.
(WHO/UNICEF, 2023). Since 2015, the number of people with basic hygiene services has
increased by over 1 billion, and the number of people without basic services has fallen by half a
billion (from 2.5 billion to 2 billion). (WHO/UNICEF, 2023).
GLOBAL PROGRESS ON WASH IN SCHOOLS
The World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Joint
Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) produces
internationally comparable estimates of progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene
(WASH) and is responsible for global monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
targets related to WASH. The JMP releases updated estimates for WASH in households in odd
years and updated estimates for WASH in schools and health care facilities in even years. This
report presents updated country, regional and global estimates for WASH in schools up to the
year 2023 and includes additional analysis of subnational inequalities and emerging data on
menstrual health among adolescent schoolgirls. It supersedes previous progress updates.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes global goals for water and sanitation
and for education. Goal 4 aims to ensure ‘inclusive and quality education for all and promote
lifelong learning’ and includes targets to build and upgrade education facilities that are child,
disability and gender-sensitive and provide safe and effective learning environments for all
(4.a). This includes providing all schools with access to electricity, computers, the internet,
adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities, and basic WASH services
(4.a.1). Goal 6 aims to ‘ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all’ and includes targets for universal access to safe drinking water (6.1), sanitation and
hygiene (6.2) for all.

The JMP benchmarks and compares WASH progress in schools across national borders using
service ladders (Figure 1). The purpose of these school service ladders is to monitor the
advancement of students toward a baseline level of service, which serves as the global indicator
for the SDG targets for WASH in schools. The WASH services encompass more than just the
essential elements required for a secure and welcoming learning environment, even if the
fundamental service indicators are often applicable. The JMP will take into consideration
reporting on other service levels in the future and attempts to showcase instances of other
pertinent indicators from national monitoring systems. The JMP aims to highlight instances of
other important indicators from national monitoring systems and will consider reporting on
additional service levels in future.
For the purposes of SDG monitoring, a basic sanitation service indicates that schools have
upgraded facilities for maintaining sanitation, and a basic drinking water service indicates that
schools have access to an improved water source from which water is available, and a basic
hygiene service indicates that, at the time of the study, schools had access to handwashing
stations with soap and water. The JMP service ladders additionally differentiate between
educational institutions that offer a restricted service that fails to satisfy the prerequisites for a
basic service and those that do not offer any service whatsoever.
 Service ladders for WASH in schools

SERVICE DRINKING SANITATION HYGIENE

LEVEL WATER
Drinking water from an Improved sanitation facilities at Handwashing facilities with
improved source and water is the school that are single- sex water and soap available at
BASIC
available at the school at the and usable (available, the school at the time of the
SERVIC
time of the survey functional and private) at the survey
E time of the survey

Drinking water from an Improved sanitation facilities at Handwashing facilities with

LIMITE improved source but water the school that are either water but no soap
D is unavailable at the school at not single-sex or not usable at available at the school at the
SERVIC the time of the survey the time of the survey time of the survey
E
Drinking water from an Unimproved sanitation facilities No handwashing facilities
NO unimproved source or no or no sanitation facilities at the or no water available at the
SERVICE water source at the school school school

FIGURE Service ladders for global monitoring of WASH in schools

1

The midpoint of the SDG timeframe, 2023, is used to evaluate WASH progress in schools in this
report. Figure 2 illustrates that universal access (>99%) to basic WASH services in schools by
2030 is not on track for the world. It will take two times as long as current rates of progress on
basic drinking water, two times as long as basic sanitation, and four times longer than current
rates of success on basic hygiene services to reach universal coverage. By 2030, only 86% of
schools will have a basic water service, 87% a basic sanitation service, and 74% a basic hygiene
service if current trends continue. Furthermore, 12% of schools would continue to lack water
and 12% will need hygiene services, despite the fact that practically all schools will have at least
some rudimentary sanitation services.
Global availability of data on basic WASH services in schools in 2023
Figure is here… JMP

BENCHMARKING RATES OF CHANGE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS

Around halfway through the SDG period, there's a growing interest in benchmarking the
amount of work needed to meet national and international targets by 2030. A subset of
countries now has strong data on trends from 2015 to 2023, while many still lack adequate data
to make a thorough assessment of trends in basic WASH services in schools. Analysis shows
that the average rate of change needed to obtain >99% coverage by 2030 is substantially higher
for the majority of income levels than it has been since 2015 (Figure 4). High-income nations
have advanced more slowly since 2015, yet the discrepancy between the needed and present
rates of improvement is not significant (less than 0.1 percent points each year). The average
difference is greater in low-income nations (4.6–8.8% pts/yr) and smaller in upper-middle-
income countries (1.2–1.8%) than in lower-middle-income countries (3.4–3.8%).
Basic drinking water (1.7 percent points per year) has advanced far more quickly in low-income
countries since the start of the SDG period than basic sanitation (0.3 percent points per year).
However, the difference between the necessary and current rates of change is highest for basic
hygiene. This emphasizes the necessity for each nation to set ambitious yet doable national
SDG targets that consider the unique circumstances of the nation as well as the historical rates
of change attained by nations in comparable economic or geographic groups.
Figure 4…
References
1. "REACH Global Strategy 2020-2024". REACH program. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
2020.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Goal 6 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge
Platform". sustainabledevelopment.un.org. Retrieved 2017-11-17.
3. Cronk, Ryan; Slaymaker, Tom; Bartram, Jamie (2015). "Monitoring drinking water,
sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: Priorities for policy and
practice". International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 218 (8): 694–
703. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2015.03.003. PMID 25836758
4. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (PDF) (Report). JMP, WHO and
UNICEF. 2014. ISBN 978-92-4-151289-3. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
5. "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017" (PDF). United Nations.
2017. A/RES/71/313. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina (2018). "Measuring progress
towards the Sustainable Development Goals. (SDG 6)". SDG-Tracker.org.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-
2017. Special focus on inequalities. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and
World Health Organization (Report). New York. 2019
8. Wu WY, Lo MH, Wada Y, Famiglietti JS, Reager JT, Yeh PJ, et al. (July
2020). "Divergent effects of climate change on future groundwater availability in key
mid-latitude aquifers". Nature Communications. 11 (1):
3710. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3710W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17581-y. PMC 738246
4. PMID 32709871. Text was copied from this source, which is available under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
9. Nowicki, Saskia; Birhanu, Behailu; Tanui, Florence; Sule, May N.; Charles, Katrina;
Olago, Daniel; Kebede, Seifu (2023). "Water chemistry poses health risks as reliance on
groundwater increases: A systematic review of hydrogeochemistry research from
Ethiopia and Kenya". Science of the Total Environment. 904:
166929. Bibcode:2023ScTEn.904p6929N. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166929
10. "Improved and unimproved water and sanitation facilities". Geneva and New York: WHO
and UNICEF. 2012. Archived from the original on 2015-10-03. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
11. Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines.
Geneva: WHO, UNICEF. 2017. ISBN 978-9241512893. OCLC 1010983346.
12. "Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG
baselines" (PDF). Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF). Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
13. Bhutan (2013). Ministry of Education, UNICEF. Evaluation of WASH in Schools – 2013. 2013.
 14. Sierra Leone (2022). Ministry of Water Resources and Sanitation, UNICEF. WASH National Outcome Routine
Mapping (WASHNORM) Report. 2022.
15. Solomon Islands (2018). Government of Solomon Islands. WASH in Schools Baseline Survey Data Explorer.
2018.

16. United Nations Children’s fund , Progress on Children’s Well-Being: Centering child
rights in the 2030 agenda – For every child, a sustainable future, UNICEF, New York,
September 2023 (https://data.unicef.org/resources/sdg-report-2023/)

WASH IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria, like many other developing nations around the world, a lack of continuous, effective,
and safe services is a typical occurrence, resulting in a high frequency of WASH related diseases,
leading many people, particularly children, to become ill or even die (UNICEF, 1998). Despite
efforts by government parastatals, non-governmental and nonprofit organizations to improve
access to safe water supply and sustainable sanitation in Nigeria's major cities, by supporting
the provision of enhanced water sources and hygiene amenities in rural communities and
schools, thus facilitating the realization of the national mark of 90 percent by 2015 and 100
percent by 2020 (UNICEF, 2007), huge figures of rural and urban schools and healthcare facilities
remain the same. Nigeria is currently among the countries with sanitation coverage rates that
are between 20% and 40% below the MDGs (Aremu, 2012; Banerjee and Morella, 2011). It has
been reported that the majority of Nigerian public secondary schools lack basic water and
sanitation facilities, and hygiene teaching programs are frequently insufficient (Adam et al.,
2009). Studies have shown that the lack of basic school-WaSH services has been proven to be
widespread in Nigeria, contributing considerably to youth and adolescent sanitation and
hygiene practices (Egbinola & Amanambu, 2015; Wada et al., 2020; Wada & Oloruntoba,2021).
According to the World Bank, about 90% of rural Nigerians defecate in the open while 51% of
rural communities lacked access to better water in 2017 (World Bank, 2017). In addition,
improper sanitation and hygiene practices among Nigerian adolescents and youths have been
linked to a lack of information and a negative attitude toward fundamental hygiene practise
(UNICEF, 2015; Azuogu et al., 2016). In a research to evaluate the WaSH in secondary schools in
Ibadan, Nigeria, Egbinola & Amanambu (2015) found that W/C were used in just 24% of the
schools, while pit toilets were utilized in 76% of the schools, with 88 percent of them being
regular pit toilets and only 12% being VIP. But the study also showed that, in 77 percent of the
schools, there were no wash basins, and in 88 percent of the ones that did have wash basins,
there was no soap. A similar study on the WaSH program in public secondary schools in South
Western Nigeria, conducted by Olukanni in 2013, found that the majority of the schools lacked
adequate WaSH practices. Of the 12 public secondary schools surveyed, only 3 (or 25%) had
access to drinking water, and 40% of the schools lacked separate latrines for boys and girls. One
(10%) of the schools had handwashing stations but no soap (Olukanni, 2013). More so, An
empirical study on hand-washing habits among secondary school pupils in Ebonyi, Nigeria,
revealed a significant prevalence of infectious disorders including diarrhea among secondary
schools, which was linked to dirty hands. The study found that washing hands with soap and
water under flowing water stops the transmission of illnesses (Azuogu et al., 2016). Similarly,
Ikogho & Igbudu's (2013) investigation into the accessibility and use of hand-washing facilities
among primary school students in Ughelli North, Delta State, indicated that there are few
facilities available, and usage is hampered by a lack of supplies and a poor maintenance culture.
The study also suggested that if infectious infections were not controlled by practicing adequate
handwashing, they could result in significant morbidity and mortality among schoolchildren as
well as absenteeism. However, with several Nigerians in school, prioritizing school-based
intervention is critical for imparting appropriate sanitation and hygiene knowledge and practices
in future generations (UNICEF, 2012). The evaluation of WaSH practice among students in
secondary school was conducted in Ijebu Ode, the second largest city in Ogun State, Nigeria,
which is located some 60 kilometers north-west of Lagos and has an estimated population of
154,032 (National Population Commission, 2007). (See figure 1).
Figure 1: Ijebu Ode Spatial Map (Otto, 2022)

WASH SERVICES IN LMICs

In many developing-country schools, the situation is appalling. Sanitation is either non-existent
or extremely poor, making it potentially dangerous or a source of a variety of diseases.
According to reports, there is a substantial shortage of WaSH activities in LMICs in Africa’s Sub-
Saharan, with 300 million people lacking access to potable water and 700 million lacking access
to enhanced hygiene facilities. It has been projected that 71 million people will remain without
access to improved water and another 130 million will fail to satisfy sanitation standards set by
the MDGs (World Bank, 2017). However, despite infrastructure investment and partnership with
WHO and UNICEF among LMICs in Africa’s Sub-Saharan, the availability and provision of WaSH
facilities in schools in rural regions has remained a key concern. According to Morgan et al.,
2017 only around 22 percent of schools in rural Uganda, Zambia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda
and Ethiopia satisfy WHO standards for WaSH facilities and adequacy. Similarly, differences in
wealth quantiles are mostly to blame for the rural/urban divide as wealthier households and
greater economic power are more common in urban regions. As a result, there is less political
will in rural areas to provide basic WaSH and social infrastructure (Ojima et al., 2020; Sinharoy
et al., 2019). When compared to the urban poor, rural poor households were 29 times less likely
to have access to better water and 25 times less likely to have access to improved sanitation
facilities, according to another study that tracked progress in WaSH in Africa’s Sub-Saharan
(Armah et al., 2018). In addition, when compared to other rural households, wealthier
households in these areas enjoy superior WaSH services (Chasekwa et al., 2018).

ASSESSMENT OF WASH PROGRAMS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN-

WESTERN NIGERIA

David Olukanni (2020) demonstrated that providing safe water, hygienic conditions, and
sanitation in schools will enhance health, increase academic performance, and advance gender
parity, all of which will benefit society as a whole. Finding out how the WASH program is doing
in public secondary schools in South-Western Nigeria is the goal of this pilot project. Twelve
schools were chosen, spanning three Local Government areas and two States (Ogun and Lagos)
in South-Western Nigeria. The UNICEF standard for WASH in schools served as the foundation
for assessing the suitability of the various WASH components. Of the twelve public secondary
schools that were inspected, only three (or 25%) had boreholes for drinking water, and forty
percent of the schools had separate restrooms for girls and boys or for protecting the privacy of
older females. Just one school (10%) had a hand washing station, but it was soapless, and there
was no strategy in place for the schools to advance the WASH program. This study shows that
many schools' current WASH practices are insufficient. David Olukanni (2020) came up with the
responses on WASH related matter in the states below;
Importance of WASH in schools
Several studies reported that improved WASH in schools is crucial in improving health and
education efficiency in schools (Olukanni 2013; Appiah-brempong et al. 2018; Cronk et al. 2021;
Ahmed et al. 2022; Akoteyon 2022; Toleubekov et al. 2022). Facilitating the implementation of
WASH interventions in schools settings is of particular importance because most of the hildren’s
time is spent in school and they are more susceptible to various WASH-related diseases than
adults (Agol & Harvey 2018; Banu et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2020, 2022; Bolatova et al. 2021).
Therefore, to reduce the prevalence of WASH-related diseases, effective interventions for
adequate safe WASH in schools should be implemented (Patel et al. 2014; Chard et al. 2019;
Pandey et al. 2020; Wada et al. 2022). Furthermore, safe WASH inclusive of water of good
quality in schools is not only a prerequisite to health but contributes to livelihoods, school
attendance, and dignity (Bolatova et al. 2021; Ahmed et al. 2022). Several studies have
demonstrated an important exposure pathway between WASH services and health outcomes
(Jordanova et al. 2015; Ahmed et al. 2020, 2022; Cronk et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021;
Sangalang et al. 2022). The assessment and monitoring of water quality, particularly the
microbial and chemical quality, is necessary for preventing potential human risks associated
with exposure to contaminated water. To protect learner’s health, it is recommended that water
quality, particularly microbial quality, monitoring be included in schools’ WASH or routine water
quality monitoring studies (Ahmed et al. 2020; Hung et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2022).

Role of WASH in education

This review identified few studies that support the role of safe WASH in school’s primary role of
providing education and essential life skills to children (Chard et al. 2019; Cradock et al. 2019;
Komarulzaman et al. 2019; Tadesse & Hagos 2019; Bolatova et al. 2021; Toleubekov et al. 2022).
Approximately 443 million school days are lost each year due to water-related illnesses, making
this a leading factor for school absences in the developing world (Karon et al. 2017; Agol &
Harvey 2018; Chard et al. 2019; Komarulzaman et al. 2019). Tadesse & Hagos (2019) suggests
that access to adequate WASH services in schools may contribute to improved education and
health of children by reducing the number of days missed in schools due to menstrual periods
or illness. Moreover, poor provision of WASH in schools can result in lower enrolment,
absenteeism, and dropout among girls (Jordanova et al. 2015; Habtegiorgis et al. 2021).
Therefore, the provision of safe WASH in schools is not only a prerequisite to health but also to
promote educational performance (Karon et al. 2017; Chard et al. 2019; Komarulzaman et al.
2019). A correlation between water quality and educational outcomes has been shown in
several studies (Ahmed et al. 2020; Bolatova et al. 2021; Buajitti et al. 2021; Cronk et al. 2021).
These studies have demonstrated that providing schools with improved water quality can
contribute to improved educational performance (Hood et al. 2014; Borges-pedro et al. 2018;
Ribeiro et al. 2018; Rahman & Hashem 2019; Hu et al. 2021; Kouame et al. 2021; Yani et al.
2021; Ahmed et al. 2022; Bah et al. 2022; Hossain et al. 2022).

Global WASH provisioning in schools

A global initiative has focused on improving access to WASH by increasing access to drinking
water and sanitation (Erhard et al. 2013; Karon et al. 2017; Cronk et al. 2021). Yet, studies also
revealed that a lot of people in developing countries still do not have access to potable water
and sanitation services (Ohwo 2019; Ahmed et al. 2020; Bolatova et al. 2021; Wada et al. 2022).
While WASH provision has improved significantly over the world, progress in Sub-Saharan Africa
has lagged that of other regions since Sub-Saharan Africa’s rural areas have lower rates of
access to WASH services and poorer health outcomes than metropolitan areas (Winter et al.
2021; Zerbo et al. 2021). This is because only 6% of the urban population in SubSaharan Africa
uses unimproved sources of drinking water compared to more than 25% of the rural population
(Winter et al. 2021; Zerbo et al. 2021; Wada et al. 2022). Consequently, many schools in low-
income countries, especially sub-Saharan Africa, have inadequate access to WASH provision
(Ohwo 2019; Akoteyon 2022). A study conducted in 14 low- and middleincome countries
(Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), revealed that not all schools have all three WASH facilities. Of
the 2,690 rural schools, only 4% of schools had all basic water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities
in all 14 low-and middle-income countries (Bolatova et al. 2021; Cronk et al. 2021).

The drinking water quality in schools WASH

The deterioration in the drinking water quality in schools is mostly related to microbial water
contamination. Several studies showed that schools in low and middle-income countries are
often deprived of microbial safe water (Banu et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2020, 2022; Bolatova et
al. 2021; Cronk et al. 2021; Hossain et al. 2022). Some studies highlight that the supply of safe
drinking water quality in schools has been compromised by the absence of adequate sanitary
infrastructure (Cronk et al. 2021; Kouame et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021). Whereas safe and
adequate drinking water supply in schools is prerequisite aspects of the right to basic education
for learners. Because contaminated drinking water poses health risks and lower level of
academic success among learners (Meschede et al. 2018; Hung et al. 2020; Kouame et al. 2021).
Six of the selected studies (Borges-Pedro et al. 2018; Ahmed et al. 2020; Hung et al. 2020;
Hossain et al. 2021; Kouame et al. 2021; Alam & Mukarrom 2022) demonstrated through
regular monitoring, poor water quality in schools. According to these investigations, the
drinking water quality test results from the schools showed microbial contamination, primarily
with E. coli and total coliforms. A safe and adequate drinking water supply in schools is crucial
(Antwi-agyei et al. 2017) and is essential for health and assisting learners in maintaining daily
water intake. Several studies have shown that increasing water intake may improve hydration
and cognitive performance among learners (Hood et al. 2014; Borges-pedro et al. 2018; Cradock
et al. 2019; Rahman & Hashem 2019; Ahmed et al. 2020; Bolatova et al. 2021; Hu et al. 2021;
Moreno et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021; Sangalang et al. 2022). To ensure a safe water supply in
schools, drinking water quality should be included during the evaluation of WASH provision
(Bolatova et al. 2021). However, this study showed that there has only been a limited amount of
research on drinking water quality in schools and that drinking water quality has not been fully
researched in the context of WASH (Meschede et al. 2018; Cradock et al. 2019; Sangalang et al.
2022). Some studies have focused on the availability of water without determining the water
the safety quality (Cronk et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021). However, it is necessary to make sure
that students have access to safe drinking water at school. As mitigation intervention to improve
drinking water quality, Ahmed et al. (2020), Hu et al. (2021), Cronk et al. (2021) and Bah et al.
(2022), suggested that schools establish a routine water quality monitoring programme, as well
as the implementation of cost-effective drinking water treatment methods such as solar
disinfection and chlorination. Ahmed et al. (2022) suggested that Educational Monitoring and
Information System (EMIS) should be implemented in schools to improve WASH. In addition, the
assessment of drinking water quality in schools, in particular, microbial quality, is critical since it
is linked to the prevention of infectious diseases. However, this study showed that in high-
income countries, chemical analysis is given a greater priority than microbial and physical
analysis. Since drinking water is a source of Pb exposure in North America, Pb has been
primarily monitored in these schools. Leaching from plumbing system components has been
identified as the main contributor to Pb water contamination in educational facilities (Al-saleh
1996; Bouchard et al. 2011, 2018; Patel et al. 2011; Ekenga et al. 2018; Buajitti et al. 2021)
Challenges associated with WASH in schools
Population growth and challenges in terms of water infrastructure coverage and portable water
supply reliability, access to WASH provisions is lacking or limited, particularly in schools in rural
areas in most developing countries (Ngwenya et al. 2018; Bolatova et al. 2021; Kouame et al.
2021). Poor availability and access to water and sanitation are major health concerns and
constitute a principal barrier to the achievement of quality education in schools (Agol & Harvey
2018). A study by Ngwenya et al. (2018) found that the three surveyed schools in northwest
Botswana’s Ngamiland District had unreliable water supply issues because they depended on
the local water authority for water supply which also supplied water to many other educational
institutions, small businesses, and residential areas. As a result, the three schools that were
surveyed suffered from poor sanitation and hygiene. Moreover, a study by Garn et al. (2017)
revealed a slight decline in the sustainability of the WASH programme in Mali over the 3-year
period covered by the study (2012–2014) as evidenced that some of the schools appeared to
face some challenges in sustaining their WASH programmes over time, and thus indicating the
need for further improvements in ensuring that schools have the motivation and resources to
maintain their WASH systems over time. Gaps in several vital aspects ofWASH in schools, such
as accessibility, maintenance, operation, lack of knowledge, and poor hygiene practices are
noted occurrences (Bolatova et al. 2021). These gaps affect the achievement of SDGs, especially
SDG 6, which focuses on ensuring ‘the availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all’ by 2030 (Bain et al. 2021; Cronk et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021; Asumah et al.
2022).

Successes and lessons learnt on WASH in schools

Significant global improvements in WASH access have been reported in some studies in the past
two decades (Garn et al. 2017; Appiah-brempong et al. 2018; Winter et al. 2021). Efforts to
increase access to improved water, sanitation, and hygiene globally including in rural areas have
been noticed (Appiah-brempong et al. 2018). Since the 1990s, prior to the first adoption of
WASH in 2001, a study by Al-Saleh (1996) revealed that learners in schools were at risk of
ingesting chemically polluted water, and early intervention was suggested for remedial action.
Even now during the 2020s, a study by Winter et al. (2021) has also reflected a significantly
increased percentage of people worldwide who have access to improved water sources and
adequate sanitation. It is noted however, the efforts have been primarily focused on WASH in
the household or community, rather than at the institutional level, particularly in school settings
(Cronk et al. 2021; Morgan et al. 2021; Winter et al. 2021). One of the successes of WASH is that
WHO and UNICEF have produced the ‘Surveillance of water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools’
tool which could be used at the local and national level to monitor the holistic view of access to
WASH and consequently could be used to cover SDG 6 in schools (Garn et al. 2017; Bolatova et
al. 2021). The tool has primarily been used by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme
(JMP) to provide ongoing updates on the provision of WASH in schools around the world and is
also available for use by researchers at the local level (Winter et al. 2021; Toleubekov et al.
2022). The JMP developed WASH service ladders for monitoring WASH services in schools
around the world, classifying them as basic, limited, and no service. The service ladders are
beneficial even locally, as researchers utilize them to evaluate the WASH status of schools
(Toleubekov et al. 2022).

Role of WASH education in schools

Schools as learning environments have the potential to be places where pupils learn safe WASH
practices (Morgan et al. 2021). WASH services alone are often not sufficient, they need to be
combined with educational programmes (Mushota et al. 2021). Although often taken for
granted, hand washing education is the most simple, effective, and inexpensive measure for
interrupting the transmission of micro-organisms and slowing the spread of diseases (Ngwenya
et al. 2018). Hence, most school-based WASH programmes are to increase student knowledge
and practice of behaviours such as washing hands with soap (Winter et al. 2021). However,
evidence of good WASH-related practices and knowledge at schools is scarce (Kouame et al.
2021). This discrepancy of knowledge and practice might arise due to the lack of handwashing
facilities or the unavailability of clean water. A study by Kouame et al. (2021) in the south-
central part of Côte d’Ivoire revealed that, although learners had knowledge about WASH,
however, they do not practice hygiene. Therefore, effective hygiene education should be
incorporated into the school curriculum, as this will help promote long-term positive
behavioural changes among pupils (Mogaji et al. 2018). According to a study conducted by
Egbinola & Amanambu (2015) and Thakadu et al. (2018), despite the fact that hygiene
education was incorporated into the curriculum, learners did not practice hygiene.

WASH in light of SDGs

Several studies are done and as reviewed here contribute to information and practices towards
the achievement of SDGs 3, 4, and 6, which are essential for ensuring safe WASH in schools
(Karon et al. 2017; Agol & Harvey 2018; Appiah-brempong et al. 2018; Ngwenya et al. 2018;
Bolatova et al. 2021;Cronk et al. 2021; Kouame et al. 2021; Toleubekov et al. 2022). The SDGs 4
and 6 have to address the provision of safe water and sanitation for schools and increase
schools’ ability to offer an effective learning environment, including essential drinking water,
sanitation, and hygiene (Appiah-brempong et al. 2018; Ngwenya et al. 2018; Bolatova et al.
2021; Cronk et al. 2021). SDG 3 aims to ensure healthier lives and encourage well-being at all
ages to achieve sustainable growth. While Goal 4 seeks to improve the proportion of education
facilities with access to an appropriate learning environment, including essential WASH. At the
same time, Goal 6 aims at achieving access for all to potable water, sanitation, and hygiene
(Karon et al. 2017; Ngwenya et al. 2018; Bolatova et al. 2021; Kouame et al. 2021; Toleubekov et
al. 2022). One notable strategy for achieving the related SDGs to safe water supply and
sanitation by 2030 is to provide schools with sustainable, safe WASH (Agol & Harvey 2018). A
study by Kouame et al. (2021), indicates achieving SDG 6 will be difficult to reach by 2030 in 20
schools surveyed in the Taabo health and demographic surveillance systems in the south-central
part of Côte d’Ivoire. This is because the findings of their study revealed that the drinking water
of the surveyed schools did not comply with the set water quality standards, and sanitation
infrastructure is lacking to a large extent and inadequate. Moreover, there was no provision of
hygiene infrastructure such as handwashing stations, soaps, and menstrual hygiene
management facilities.
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
The approach used for the study, "Comparative Study of the Impact of WASH Systems on UN
SDG 4 (Quality Education), in Selected Private and Public Schools in Ibeju-Lekki," is presented
in this chapter. It describes the study population, sampling strategies, data gathering tools, data
processing procedures, and ethical issues. The objective is to provide a transparent and
methodical framework for carrying out the research in a trustworthy and repeatable way.

Study Area
Sampling
3.6 Field Sampling Method

3.6.1 Sampling Procedure

1. A total of six ( three public and three private ) schools were selected from the 20 and 40 public and
private secondary secondary schools respectivey. An aggregate of sixty (60) students were selected
through random numbers from the six randomly selected schools ( three public and three private ),
representing total student population of 350.

2. This sampling is based on sociodemographic characteristics , WASH-related knowledge and attitude.

3. WASH practices were conducted to know the status in the schools. A suitable questionnaire was
administered to the selected random schools to conduct these findings.

4. Residents were surveyed to gather baseline data on WASH Systems.This was done via interviews with
stakeholders, residents, and management.

SCOPE

The study centers primarily on assessing the comparison of present state of WASH program in
public and private secondary schools in IBEJU LEKKI. The research focused on gathering key data
on all components of WASH program that includes water, sanitation and handwashing facilities;
hygiene knowledge and practices; and operation and maintenance systems in the public
secondary schools by a user-based data collected through school surveys. The assessment was
based on number-, condition- and usage of WASH facilities (Reed and Shaw, 2008; Aremu,
2012).

DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS

Questionnaires
1. Teachers Questionnaire: Assessing teachers' perceptions and experiences regarding the
impact of WASH on quality education. Questions may include:
How do you perceive the importance of WASH facilities for quality education?
What challenges, if any, do you face in promoting hygiene practices among students?
Have you noticed any differences in academic performance or attendance rates since the
implementation of WASH initiatives?
Students Questionnaire: Gathering students' perspectives on WASH facilities and their influence
on learning outcomes. Questions may include:

Are you satisfied with the cleanliness of the school toilets and handwashing facilities?
How often do you wash your hands during school hours?

Do you feel that having access to clean water and sanitation facilities positively affects your
ability to concentrate and learn?

2. Administrators Questionnaire: Exploring the administrative aspects of WASH

implementation and challenges faced. Questions may include:

What measures have been taken to ensure the maintenance and sustainability of WASH
facilities?
How do you allocate resources for WASH initiatives in the school budget?
Have you observed any improvements in student health or academic performance after WASH
interventions?
Key Informant Interviews:

1. Government Officials: Interviewing officials from local government authorities

responsible for education and health to understand policy perspectives and support for
WASH initiatives in primary schools.
2. NGO Representatives: Discussing with representatives from NGOs working in the WASH
sector to gain insights into best practices, challenges, and opportunities for
collaboration.
3. Community Leaders: Engaging with community leaders to explore community
perceptions of WASH and potential barriers to implementation.

Observational Surveys:
Conducting physical surveys of WASH facilities in primary schools to assess their adequacy,
functionality, and cleanliness.
Observing students' hygiene behaviors, such as handwashing practices, during school hours.
Documenting any visible signs of water, sanitation, or hygiene-related issues within the school
premises.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs):

Organizing FGDs with teachers, students, and parents to delve deeper into specific topics
related to WASH and quality education.
Facilitating discussions on perceived benefits of WASH, challenges faced, and potential
solutions.
Encouraging participants to share personal experiences and insights regarding WASH practices
and their impact on learning outcomes.
Document Review:

Reviewing existing documents, reports, and policies related to WASH and education in the study
area.
Analyzing school records, budget allocations, and previous assessments or evaluations of WASH
initiatives.
Examining academic performance data and attendance records to identify trends or correlations
with WASH interventions.

DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

A. Descriptive Statistics
Utilize descriptive statistics such as mean, median, mode, and standard deviation to summarize
quantitative data collected from surveys and questionnaires.
Calculate frequencies and percentages to present the distribution of responses regarding WASH
facilities, hygiene practices, and educational outcomes.

B. Inferential Statistics

Conduct inferential statistical tests to explore relationships between WASH variables and
educational outcomes. This may include:
1. Correlation analysis: Assess the strength and direction of relationships between WASH
indicators (e.g., access to clean water, sanitation facilities) and educational indicators
(e.g., academic performance, attendance rates).
2. Regression analysis: Determine the extent to which WASH variables predict variations in
educational outcomes while controlling for other relevant factors (e.g., socio-economic
status, school infrastructure).

3. T-tests or ANOVA: Compare mean scores of educational outcomes between groups

based on different levels of WASH access or adherence to hygiene practices.