A Comparative Study of School-Level Practices in High- and Low-Performing Schools in Cambodia: Evidence from SEA-PLM and PISA

Cambodia has implemented curriculum and assessment reforms to support competency-based education (CBE), yet student learning outcomes remain uneven across schools. Evidence from regional and international assessments highlights substantial variation in school performance, pointing to the need to better understand how school-level practices shape learning. This study examined differences between high- and low-performing primary and lower secondary schools in Cambodia, drawing on evidence linked to SEA-PLM and PISA participation The study adopted a qualitative research design, using semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with school leaders, teachers, students, and education officials, complemented by document review. Sixteen schools were purposively selected to represent low- and high- performing schools based on SEA-PLM and PISA results. Data were analyzed thematically to explore how leadership, curriculum implementation, teaching practices, assessment, and school climate were enacted in practice. Findings indicate that instructional leadership and assessment practices are the most critical factors differentiating high- and low-performing schools. High-performing schools demonstrated strong instructional leadership, coherent interpretation of the curriculum, student-centered teaching, and systematic use of formative assessment to guide instruction. These practices were supported by positive school climates characterized by high expectations, collaboration, and parental engagement. In contrast, low-performing schools emphasized administrative compliance, content coverage, rote teaching, and episodic summative assessment, limiting the use of assessment to support learning. The study concludes that improving learning outcomes in Cambodia requires coherent alignment across leadership, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and school climate. Policy implications include strengthening instructional leadership, institutionalizing formative assessment into classroom assessment, enhancing teacher assessment literacy, and using SEA-PLM and PISA as tools for system learning rather than punitive accountability.