Despite concerted efforts, the 2005 Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on gender parity in education is likely to be missed in over 75 countries. Reasons for failure include direct costs (fees), demand for girls’ labour, socio-cultural norms and traditions, lack of appropriate facilities, and abuse. Teachers’ attitudes and curricula may reinforce stereotypes. Given these multiple constraints, a package of reforms is needed, alongside capacity, commitment and leadership.
This working paper reviews the UK Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) work in education from the perspective of gender equality and women’s empowerment. It is one of a series of rapid reviews produced in preparation for a main evaluation of DFID’s gender policies and practice. DFID’s twin track approach combines focused actions of gender empowerment with mainstreaming gender awareness. Full evaluation of its success requires a framework of indicators covering outcomes; design and implementation; monitoring; and commitment (which includes leadership, capacity and a supportive environment).
Girls’ education is supported by both rights-based and economic arguments and by many different actors. The MDG focuses narrowly on gender parity, and accordingly DFID has focused on girls’ schooling, mainly at primary level. Issues of gender equality, including masculinities and wider system reform, have been neglected.
- Considerable knowledge has been generated regarding constraints to gender equality, but it is not always clear how this is being disseminated and used in country programmes.
- There is considerable variability in how far DFID education projects consider gender. Those which do, often focus on girl-specific initiatives. NGO projects are more likely to prioritise gender.
- DFID is working increasingly through global mechanisms and adopting newer aid modalities in education, which makes it difficult to ensure gender issues are adequately addressed and prioritised.
- Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers give important attention to education and to gender, but usually focus on supply-side factors more than social constraints, and project generalised strategies.
- There is a dedicated gender and education adviser at DFID headquarters, but how this role links with country projects in unclear in the context of devolution.
In DFID’s decentralised operations, variable and arbitrary use of gender mainstreaming methods is likely. Better coordination between country programmes and headquarters in dialogue with Social and Education Advisers is necessary, with new communications, new formats and ways of keeping the discussion alive.
- To broaden the narrow focus on parity in enrolment, project monitoring should be guided by process indicators reflecting on gender equality and empowerment, not just by quantifiable outcome indicators.
- DFID needs a new common approach to gender mainstreaming to take account of the transition to SWAps and budgetary support. This need not be standardised as it can have variations in different contexts.
- The shift to global mechanisms such as the UN Girls’ Education Initiative and the Education for All Fast Track Initiative must be analysed. It is important to ensure gender policy is not lost in practice and to monitor how macro frameworks can deliver.
- Beneath the existing strategy frameworks there is a need for detail through operational guidelines and tools based on demand from country personnel.
- There is a need to analyse how far knowledge generated internationally is informing country programmes.
