School WaSH survey IVas carried oul in the primQly schools of Assossa woreda, BGRS, Elhiopia. II was intended 10 assess (he situation and effectiveness of woler supply and sanitation facilities in schools, hygiene aIVarelless of leachers, hygiene knolVledge and praclice of sludents and oUlreaching families. The sludy employed muli-slage sampling melhod and accordingly, 16 schools were selecled Fom Ihe Woreda(35% of Ihe schools) for facililY silualion analysis, and of IVhich Ihree schools were selecled for in-deplh sludy by draIVing sampled sludenls Fom grades 4''', 6'" and 8'h (lO%Fom each grade). Aboul 64 leachers (20% of leachers in all sampled schools) and 166 sludenls (54.2% of girls) IVere considered for in-deplh ' survey. DOlO were collecled by questionnaire, interview, FGD and observation. The dOlO were analyzed by employing statistical melhods and sofiware (S1'SS) along IVilh Ihe chi-square lesl. More Ihan 56% oflhe schools did nol have access 10 IVa IeI' wilhinlheir compound. AbouI56.3% of Ihe schools were nol able 10 gel waleI' all of Ihe limes and 38% of Ihe schools Ihal were /Ising Iheir water for drinking pU/pose were getting their water mainly /rol1l unprotected sOllrces. Almost all rural schools (68.7%) were using unprolecled waleI' sources (p<0.05). Seventy five percenl of Ihe schools did nol make any treatment 10 their waler. The toilet sludent ratio was 1:98 and 1:101 Jar boys and girls respeclively, IVhich is above Ihe limil of national slandard. The schools did nol have clean loilels (47%), and 33% of schools have loilels Ihal IVere smelly 10 Ihe exlenl 11701 made Iheir usage difficull. Only 184% of children were regularly using lalrilles for defecalioll. The main factors for irregular use of 10ilelS IVere poor cleanness (53.7%) and long queue (55.1%). More Ihan 62% of schools had no hand IVash ing facililies. Nearly 41% of sludenls were nol washing Iheir hands due 10 lack of IVa IeI' supplies in Iheir schools, and only 2 1.7% of boys alld 12% of girls IVere using school loilels regularly. More Ihan 18% of sludenlS faced diarrhoea Ihis year 01 leasl once and 15% of Ihe cases were absent Fom school 01 leasl for otie day due 10 Ihe illness. Despile Ihe difference in'localion (urban v rural), sludenls had Ihe same problem 01 all schools. Hand washing behavior of sludenls afier defecalion was poor. The absence of desired behaviors was steamed from lack of knowledge and facilities/resources 10 S/lpport leamed behaviors. Almost 01/ schools had no maintenance plan Jar their WSS Jacilities. Knowledge and attitude 0/ slue/en ts were Significantly differenl across school localilies (low in rural). AI leasl 58.1%, 26% & 68.4% of sludenls in Selamber, Hoha No.4 and Nigal responded respeclively Ihal hands should be washed afier defecalion, and before ealingfoods and Fllils (p< 0.01). There was a Fagile and significanlly varied knowledge & allill/de of sludenls among different grade levels lowards Ihe cleanness of clear water and critical times to wash hands. More than 20% of the sampled students confirmed 10 eat less Jood when they caught with diarrhea (p<0.05). Nearly 96% ofsludenls claimed 10 wash hands with no visible dirt and 31.8% of sIll den Is said that clear water is always clean. More than 73% a/teachers mentioned that they did not get any training on school WaSH The level oj attention given by schools and local government for school WaSH was low. Financial capacity, inter-sector .Gnd stakeholder cooperation and harmonizaliqn were also very weak. This study provides baseline information /01' future interventions and reveals Jut ure research areas in these schools for sanitation and hygiene edllcation program. The results show lhal sanitation and hygiene conditions 0/ the schools are in need of appropriale syslem, dlle allen/ion and comlllilmenllo ensure effeclive school WaSH.