“Siem Reap province is a paradox. It is the home to Angkor Wat – a UNESCO World Heritage site drawing millions of tourists from around the world. It also borders Tonle Sap, one of the largest freshwater lakes in Asia, and the most important source of freshwater fish in Cambodia. Thus, the Province contributes greatly to the nation’s wealth and income. Yet, Siem Reap is one of the poorest provinces in terms of the proportion of the population falling below the poverty line.”
- The World Bank
I. Background:
PEPY support for educational development programs in Siem Reap is motivated by the dire state of school buildings, educational facilities and structures within the province. When many people hear the name “Siem Reap” they picture the capital town with its hotels and tourist attractions, but starting just kilometers from the last hotel lies one of the poorest provinces in Cambodia. Deforestation, soil exhaustion from mono-cultural farming practices, a lack of knowledge of modern farming techniques and technology, and a second year of near-drought conditions have rendered Siem Reap province dangerously under productive. Inflation coupled with increased imports of food products from neighbouring Thailand has left many people from rural Siem Reap province in the same conditions as they were five years ago, others have felt their quality of life degrade further. These problems are only compounded by the irony that at the province’s centre is Siem Reap, a tourist city that shows rapid growth but has been ineffective at spreading profits out into the countryside. This poverty has not only left the people of rural Siem Reap province struggling to get by, but has also left the education system lacking both structures and on-going support for teacher development. One of the keys to breaking the cycle of poverty is support for schools and education.
II. Poverty in Siem Reap
Siem Reap is one of the most impoverished provinces in Cambodia. With 51.8% of the population in poverty, Siem Reap has the third highest rate of poverty nationwide with only Kampong Speu (57.2%) and Kampong Thom (52.4%) with slightly higher levels of poverty (See Figure 2.3). These numbers are substantially higher than the national average of 35%. Mean consumption rates in Siem Reap are also well below the national average.
Figure 1: Poverty rates by Province, 2004 Source: CSES 2004
Figure 2: Province Poverty Gap Index (%) Source: Ministry of Planning, 2004
Using indicators beyond the poverty index, offers an even more compelling portrait of the need in Siem Reap. According to the World Bank, in Siem Reap the rates of health-seeking behavior, unmet family planning needs, vaccination, and child malnutrition are significantly worse than those in Kompong Speu, where poverty statistics are higher. Siem Reap’s poor female educational status may be part of the explanation for its worse than expected performance, as much of health behavior can be explained by women’s knowledge about nutrition, hygiene, family planning and disease.
III. Poor State of Education in Siem Reap
Siem Reap has some of the poorest educational indicators in the country. Compared to national averages of retention rates, educator to student ratios, and high school graduation rates, Siem Reap is one of the lowest ranking provinces in terms of the quality of education. The district and commune where PEPY works are no exception. In this area, schools are in an extreme state of disrepair, with overcrowding forcing students either to sit with three students at one desk, or to crowd under palm leaves at outdoor classrooms. The areas in the most need of school buildings have wooden structures which are collapsing and have nearly 1/3 of their wall planks missing. At one school, when it rains or is windy, school has to be closed because the decaying roof tiles have fallen into the classroom and nearly killed students. Almost all of the schools in the area lack toilets, access to clean water, libraries, and teaching materials. Luxuries like computers or English classes (which are recommended by the government curriculum but lack funding for implementation) are nearly nonexistent.
The following chart notes several educational indicators comparing Siem Reap province averages with national averages, Included in this chart are also statistics for several of the schools in PEPY’s target area. All data comes from Ministry information provided through EMIS Statistics for the 2006-2007 school year. The need in rural Siem Reap Province, and particularly in PEPY’s target area of Chanleas Dai, is often even greater than the Siem Reap averages noted below. In Prasat Knnar for example, the teacher to pupil ratio is 1:129, over double the average national rate.
Though governmental and NGO aid has come to Siem Reap, it is not consistent with the need. In Siem Reap, there are 56 schools where the buildings are constructed entirely or partially out of bamboo. There are only 316 such structures in the country, meaning that nearly 20% of such structures are in Siem Reap. Nonetheless, of the 1,147 new buildings constructed in 2006/7, only 80 of these or just around 7% were in Siem Reap Province.
Education Indicators 2006-2007 School Year
Source: EMIS 2006-07, MoEYS (Note: not all statistics are available for specific schools)
| Education Indicators 2006-2007 School Year |
| Source: EMIS 2006-07, MoEYS (Note: not all statistics are available for specific schools) |
| |
EMIS Statistics 2006/7 |
Kralanh District, Siem Reap |
| |
National Goals |
Cambodia |
Siem Reap |
Prasat Knnar |
Hun Sen Ruun |
Preah Lean |
Tram Kang |
| |
| National Average |
| Transition rate to lower secondary |
90% |
78.70% |
76.7% |
n/a |
| Pupil teacher ratio |
01:50 |
01:51 |
1:74 |
0.13194 |
0.11319 |
0.10625 |
0.10764 |
| Primary |
| Pupil teacher ratio Secondary |
01:30 |
01:31 |
1:40 |
n/a |
| Average class size |
|
40.2 |
45.6 |
50 |
44 |
40 |
47 |
| Net Admission Rate |
92% |
85.7 |
|
n/a |
| Net enrolment rate |
|
|
|
| Primary nation wide |
93% |
92.1 |
|
| Promotion Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grade 1 |
92% |
68 |
64 |
65% |
38% |
64% |
53% |
| Grade 3 |
93% |
78.21 |
75.3 |
70% |
|
|
|
| Grade 6 |
93% |
86.1 |
85.1 |
65% |
46% |
|
|
| Repetition rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grade 1 |
5% |
20.2 |
22.5 |
22% |
65% |
24% |
38% |
| Grade 3 |
5% |
11 |
12.2 |
20% |
|
|
|
| Grade 6 |
5% |
2.8 |
3.7 |
4% |
4% |
|
|
| Dropout rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grade 1 |
n/a |
11.8 |
13.6 |
13% |
6% |
12% |
9% |
| Grade 3 |
n/a |
10.7 |
12.5 |
10% |
|
|
|
| Grade 6 |
n/a |
11.1 |
11.1 |
31% |
50% |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For further statistical evidence of Siem Reap’s extreme need, Tables 1 and 2 below show literacy rates by province, and the educational attainment of literate individuals over the age of 15. With the exception of the remote Northwestern provinces (Kratie/Stung Treng, etc), which are sparsely populated, Siem Reap has the lowest literacy rates in the country for both children aged 7 and above and also those aged 15 and above.
Table 1: Literacy Rates by Province (CIPS 2004)
| |
|
|
Province |
Aged 7 and above Literacy Rate |
Aged 15 and above Literacy Rate |
| |
|
|
CAMBODIA |
74.4 |
73.6 |
| |
|
|
Kampong Cham |
72.9 |
70.6 |
| |
|
|
Kampong Chhnang |
67 |
66.4 |
| |
|
|
Kampong Speu |
70.4 |
70.8 |
| |
|
|
Kampong Thom |
71 |
70.8 |
| |
|
|
Kandal |
79.9 |
77.7 |
| |
|
|
Phnom Penh |
89.2 |
88.8 |
| |
|
|
Prey Veng |
74.3 |
73.5 |
| |
|
|
Pursat |
70 |
70.5 |
| |
|
|
Siem Reap |
66.2 |
64.5 |
| |
|
|
Svay Rieng |
80.9 |
79.5 |
| |
|
|
Takeo |
77 |
75 |
| |
|
|
Banteay Meanchey/ Odor Meanchey |
72.5 |
2.4 |
| |
|
|
Battambang/Pailin |
74.5 |
74.4 |
| |
|
|
Kampot/Kep |
75.5 |
73.6 |
| |
|
|
Koh Kong/Sihanoukville |
75.9 |
76 |
| |
|
|
Kratie/Mondulkiri/Stung Treng/Ratanakiri/Preah Vihear |
59.9 |
61.2 |
Siem Reap also has some of the lowest statistics on educational attainment in general, and is significantly lower than the national average in terms of primary school completion, as well as both lower and upper secondary completion (Table 2). As noted below, Siem Reap had the highest number of literate adults (aged 15 and above) who report having no education whatsoever. Though these statistics do not reflect the status of students’ current educational attainment by province, they do provide indicators of the general lack of education in the area. Where parents and communities lack basic education, there is less support for education and more need for community intervention.
Table 2: Educational Attainment by Province
Percentage of Literate Population Aged 15 and above by Educational Attainment (CIPS 2004)
| |
|
Province |
None |
Some Primary |
Primary Completed |
Lower Secondary |
Secondary and Above |
| |
|
CAMBODIA |
2.84 |
50.55 |
28.08 |
12.55 |
5.9 |
| |
|
Kampong Cham |
4.69 |
55.38 |
25.5 |
11.13 |
3.16 |
| |
|
Kampong Chhnang |
5.68 |
59.97 |
25.57 |
6.62 |
2.16 |
| |
|
Kampong Speu |
0.84 |
56.12 |
29.84 |
10.15 |
2.79 |
| |
|
Kampong Thom |
2.39 |
53.29 |
26.36 |
12.3 |
5.51 |
| |
|
Kandal |
1.92 |
48.84 |
30.73 |
13.54 |
4.91 |
| |
|
Phnom Penh |
0.95 |
27.14 |
28.7 |
22.53 |
20.65 |
| |
|
Prey Veng |
2.81 |
56.38 |
28.6 |
8.84 |
3.34 |
| |
|
Pursat |
2.82 |
60.18 |
23.47 |
9.17 |
4.36 |
| |
|
Siem Reap |
6.84 |
56.54 |
23.83 |
8.69 |
4.03 |
| |
|
Svay Rieng |
0.59 |
53.37 |
31 |
11.66 |
2.35 |
| |
|
Takeo |
3.14 |
51.86 |
34.69 |
15.28 |
4.92 |
| |
|
Banteay Meanchey/ Odor Meanchey |
3.09 |
55.34 |
27.18 |
10.95 |
3.32 |
| |
|
Battambang/Pailin |
2.48 |
54.34 |
27.86 |
11.28 |
4.03 |
| |
|
Kampot/Kep |
2.84 |
50.18 |
29.6 |
12.48 |
4.56 |
| |
|
Koh Kong/Sihanoukville |
2.29 |
50.79 |
25.22 |
15.2 |
6.4 |
| |
|
Kratie/Mondulkiri/Stung Treng/Ratanakiri/Preah Vihear |
2.9 |
59.31 |
24.94 |
8.84 |
3.95 |
With its focus on volun-tourism, PEPY believes it is an excellent conduit for addressing the contradictions in Siem Reap province. For a province which is home to one of the largest tourist destinations in SE Asia, Siem Reap has truly appalling poverty and educational indicators. Over 2 million tourists visited the town of Siem Reap in 2007, bringing in significant funding and revenue for the Cambodian economy. However the surrounding rural areas, many less than 100 kilometers from the temples themselves, have the lowest literacy indicators in the country.
We hope that this document has served to further your understanding of the current state of Siem Reap Province. Please feel free to contact us for specific questions or concerns related to our work in Siem Reap province or our volun-tourism programs.
|