Project: Bunyole Institute – Model School Assurance

Support six months of PHC Service at Bunyole Institute to turn school needs into practical action and a clear case for further investment. The programme connects local priorities, responsibilities, spending and evidence, giving the school and its sponsors a shared view of progress.

PHC manages the delivery schedule, concerns, actions, locations, people and deliverables, supported by activity records and a financial ledger. Monthly reviews guide delivery; the month-three review defines the next funding requirement and the decision to proceed, revise or pause.

Bunyole Institute provides education in poor facilities. The project establishes a school baseline, identifies urgent priorities and develops a practical route to better learning conditions. Assess pupil and teaching needs, the site, land status, existing buildings, available resources and running costs before selecting a development approach.

Compare repair, replacement and phased construction, including low-cost and 3D-printed options alongside conventional methods. Select against local feasibility, lifetime cost and teaching continuity. Complete the pilot with evidence of authorised actions, a next-stage recommendation and an assurance template that other schools can adapt.

• Bunyole Institute leadership: leads school priorities, authorises local decisions and maintains teaching continuity.
• Blaise Rushikama, project lead: coordinates local engagement, school liaison and access to information.
• Pupils, families and staff: shape priorities, provide feedback and raise concerns.
• Order Efficiency and the PHC team: provide implementation support, practical tools, coordination and reporting. David Winter leads PHC strategy; Abubakr Harakat supports analysis.
• Local participants and trainees: maintain agreed records and carry out assigned actions. Finalise names, responsibilities and hours in the staffing schedule.
• Technical advisers and relevant authorities: support site assessment, design, permissions and supervision through separately scoped work.
• Sponsors: fund agreed activities and review progress, spending and next-stage decisions.

• School baseline: a clear account of pupils, teaching needs, facilities, site constraints, people, resources and operating costs.
• Working Community Assurance: named responsibilities, usable records, traceable spending and six monthly progress summaries, starting with the readiness findings.
• Month-three investment decision: assessed options, indicative local costs, funding gaps and a recorded recommendation to proceed, revise or pause.
• Practical progress: completed, evidenced priority actions within authorised scope and funding.
• Local capability: participants able to maintain core records, coordinate actions and contribute to reporting.
• Transferable model: a six-month evidence and learning pack covering results, unresolved issues and guidance for existing schools and new builds.

Set indicator baselines, targets and responsible owners during setup. Track reporting timeliness, action completion, spending evidence, attendance, teaching continuity and feedback. School construction is a separate investment decision.

• The Story of PHC