The Jaslika Director, Sheila Wamahiu was privileged to deliver this talk at the launch of the research report on “Creating impact at the local level for girls: Learning from girls’ education interventions in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda”. The Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya, Hon Martha Koome represented by Hon Njoki Ndungu, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya, launched the report at a dinner event on 17 April 2024. The launch was the highlight of the 3-day regional conference organized by Jaslika in partnership with RELI Africa convened under the theme “From data and commitment to action: Creating a regional movement for girls’ education”.
Introduction
It has been over three decades since the word ‘girl-child’ was coined. At the time, Africa and Asia - more specifically, South Asia - came together to successfully advocate for the recognition of the girl-child as distinct not only from the boy-child, but also from women in terms of their special needs, demands and evolving capacities. Those of us who were around at the time, we had big dreams - we did research, came up with activities, projects and programmes, established organizations that we hoped would help us to actualise those dreams. These were vibrant organizations like the League of Kenya Women Voters (LKWV), Coalition on Violence Against Women (COVAW), and though I am not sure when FIDA was born in the region, I do remember the powerful women who led it in the 1990s’. In the education sector, there was the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) and Women Educational Researchers of Kenya (WERK), and a little later, Girl Child Network (GCN). These organizations are still there, but the dream of the 1990s’ of a more gender equal, more gender transformative world remains elusive. Progress has been painfully slow, including in the education sector, especially for girls living in adversity in urban informal settlements and pastoral communities of East Africa.
The research study that we are honored to have you launch later this evening focuses on the educational experiences of girls in adversity in selected pastoralist communities and urban informal settlements, framed within intersectional feminism. Using a qualitative design, we talked to over 400 individuals,( 65% female), across 16 organizations in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. We dug deeper in 11 of the 16 organizations. The study participants included learners, teachers, community members, parents, and representatives of sample organizations among others - I am happy to note that some of them are here with us today. We also did a comprehensive desk review, deliberately seeking out ‘fugitive’ literature on girls’ education and gender equality written since the 1990s’, and triangulating the findings from the various sources with our experiential knowledges as researchers and girls’ rights advocates through the successive decades.
The data collection and analysis centered around the following three questions:
How do diverse stakeholders understand empowering education for girls?
What are the underlying barriers to education for girls living in adversity?
How are these barriers being addressed at the policy and practice levels?
In the interest of time, let me get straight to the findings:
Findings
A. How do key stakeholders understand Empowering Education for girls?
Genesis of the girl-child
The girl-child as a concept came into currency in the 1990s’ when the girl first became a valid subject of development focus and discourse. In 1990, the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children: A Plan of Action spearheaded by UNICEF, singled out the female child as a particularly vulnerable group requiring urgent attention. About the same time, in the Education sector, the UNESCO led Jomtien Education for All (EFA) Declaration, in its Preamble, highlighted gender disparities worldwide in access to primary schooling to the disadvantage of girls. In article III.3, it called for the urgent prioritization of access and improved “quality of education for girls and women”, and the removal of “every obstacle that hampers their active participation” including the elimination of all gender stereotyping in education.
Girls’ rights advocates, largely from South Asia and Africa, pushed for identifying girls’ needs as distinct from women’s in the lead up to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (PFA) of 1995, culminating in the inclusion of the girl-child as one of its twelve strategic areas of focus. A large part of the second area of focus and strategic objective highlighted issues relating to girls’ education. In 1994, a year prior to the Beijing PFA,the African Declaration and Platform for Action, reiterated the identity of the girl-child as distinct from women, with her special physical and psychosocial needs and rights that needed to be addressed, taking into consideration her evolving capacities. Since then, empowering education for girls has been at the center of the discourse, with strong arguments made for its incorporation into the definition of quality education for all.
Study participants’ perspectives on empowering education for girls
Figure 1. Perspectives on empowering education for girls.
From the data, three perspectives on empowering education for girls may be discerned. Two of these, indicated by the green arrows pointing upwards, are positive and interlinked. The third, with the arrow pointing downwards, is negative.
Holistic education for all learners
A section of those interviewed emphasized the importance of a holistic education for all children, irrespective of gender, that goes beyond academic outcomes to embrace the ‘heart’, ‘mind’ and ‘soul’, and facilitates ‘mindset change’. In the words of a key informant, who was among one of the first to be ‘forced’ from his community to go to school during colonial times, the development of critical thinking skills, the ability to ‘instill wisdom and common sense’ is an essential characteristic of holistic education. In his view, these characteristics are ‘uncommon’ in learners from many schools today, where the emphasis is on academic outcomes at the expense of other dimensions of holistic education.
Targeted education for vulnerable girls
While there was a broad consensus around the need for holistic education, some study participants talked of the importance of providing education that is targeted to the special needs of vulnerable girls. Recognizing that playing field is not level, with boys usually having the upper hand, they proposed curricula, pedagogical and contextual interventions that include
Psychosocial life skills, like assertiveness, confidence building, self awareness and self image;
Property rights, financial literacy, income-generation skills;
Human rights education with a special focus on sexual and reproductive health rights and education (SRHRE); and
Leadership skills.
Pushback on empowerment and empowering education for girls
We discerned an element of discomfort in some that we interviewed at providing support to girls at the expense of boys. Such individuals, comprising a mix of learners (mainly boys), teachers, community members and even a few implementing partners, were convinced that the playing field was tilted against boys, and that they were being unfairly excluded from enjoying the same benefits as girls. Given that our sample was drawn largely from the girls’ education and gender equality space, it was not surprising that study participants holding this view were in the minority.
The study found conflation of issues, misunderstanding of basic gender equality / empowerment concepts by the study participants, widespread misinformation and myths, contributing to the pushback against girls’ empowerment and gender equality initiatives.
B. What are the underlying barriers to girls’ education?
In the mid 1990s’, FAWE, in a background paper to the Inter Ministerial Consultation on School Girl Pregnancy and Drop-Out argued that the complex interplay of in and out-of-school factors combined to exclude girls from participating in schooling. We would like to take this a bit further by arguing that many of the in and out-of-school factors identified then - some thirty years ago -and emerging from this study, are but symptomatic of the deeper, underlying barriers. The table below categorizes the in-school and out-of-school barriers by four underlying barriers highlighted in our conceptual framework, namely, PATRIARCHY, POVERTY, POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT and HUMANITARIAN CRISIS as figure 2 illustrates.
Figure 2.
Unless we address these with surgical precision, we shall still be talking about the same issues thirty years from now.
It is important to note the following points:
Not all the identified factors apply equally across all contexts. For example, ‘booking’ of young girls for marriage and FGM are practices that are common in pastoralist communities across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda but rarely practised in in urban informal settlements.
Some of the listed barriers are not specific to girls; they also affect boys. For example, boys are more likely than girls to drop out of school or face disciplinary issues, and they are more susceptible to recruitment into criminal gangs. The motivations for joining the criminal gangs may be different for girls and boys.
Not only is the extent to which some barriers apply to girls and boys differ, but the implications of these barriers on the participation of each gender in education may also vary. For example, even when an underaged boy is prematurely married off, gender norms are less likely than girls to force him out of school. Similarly, within the school setting, girls’ education as compared to boys’ education is more likely to be disrupted through sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence perpetrated by both male teachers and peers.
Teachers
The study found that not only the learners but also teachers come into schools with patriarchal socio-cultural practices and attitudes, rationalized and reproduced through gender socialization and norms at home and in the community. Gender discriminatory messaging emanating in both traditional and contemporary cultural practices, finds itself in the ‘hidden curriculum’ within the school setting, frustrating the achievement of the official education goals. These negative attitudes and norms, as reflected in policy formulation, implementation, classroom practices and in the teaching-learning materials, contribute to the exclusion of girls from the education systems, especially those already on the fringes, living and learning in situations of adversity.
C. How are the barriers being addressed?
Figure 3. Interventions by thematic areas of focus
Key Learning Points
From the study findings, we distilled eight key learning areas, as synthesized below:
Learning #1: The dream of the 1990s’ of achieving gender equality in and through education remains unfulfilled for girls living in adversity. The progress made in the provision of education for girls living in adversity in pastoralist areas and urban informal settlements in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda is painfully slow as testified by available data on out-of-school girls and completion rates in the three countries.
The data above shows that there are still far too many girls who are out of the school system in the East African region. Though the out-of-school rate and completion rate vary from one country to another, the pattern of exclusion remains the same. As one goes up the education ladder, the percentage of girls who are out of school increases, while those who complete school, reduces. The data also reveals a higher out-of-school rate for girls than that of boys in all the countries under consideration.
Learning #2: Misunderstanding of fundamental women’s and girls’ rights concepts like gender equality, equity and affirmative action frustrates achievement of gender equality in and through education. The research findings suggest a shallow understanding of these concepts among teachers, education administrators, project implementers and designers. While some of the teachers may be well-intentioned, many do not have the knowledge or the skills to implement gender responsive lessons, and as suggested by the emerging findings, training on gender responsive pedagogy, when offered, tends to be inadequate. Review of literature reveals the persistence of gender stereotypes and bias in textbooks and other curricula materials, as well as the teaching and learning processes. There is a common misconception that as long as a teacher calls on girls and boys an equal number of times, the teacher is gender sensitive. Or a textbook is gender sensitive if the illustrations depict male and female characters in equal numbers without regard to the context.
Learning #3: Popular narratives of ‘giving’ ‘too much empowerment’, and ‘too much equality’ to girls and women are often intentionally fueled, to silence feminist voices for change. ‘Empowerment’ cannot be ‘given’ and there is no such thing as ‘too much equality’. While it may be argued that conceptual misunderstanding is due to a lack of investment in gender transformative capacity development of key education personnel and other stakeholders, the underinvestment itself suggests low prioritization of this area by policy makers and those holding the budget strings. However, underlying this low investment and replication of these popular narratives is the ‘politics of pushback’, driven by patriarchy, which is resulting in hostility towards women and girls. At its extreme, provoked by popular culture transmitted through multiple communication channels, the consequences are serious; increasingly, sexuality of girls and women are being commodified and commercialized, making them vulnerable to sexual exploitation and insecurity. Conversations on the unjust treatment of girls and women, and efforts at leveling the playing field are often silenced by a counter question, ‘what about boys?’
Learning #4: Deeply embedded patriarchal mindsets are among the most insidious challenges to the promotion of gender equality in and through education. Though a majority of the organizations participating in the study addressed patriarchy as a barrier to the achievement of girls’ education and gender equality goals, most viewed patriarchy to be the preserve of traditional African cultures, overlooking the role of East African colonial history, post-colonial experiences and religious ideologies in shaping mindsets, influencing, creating and reproducing gender discriminatory attitudes and practices in and outside the classroom. A perspective that views traditional cultures as retrogressive, obfuscates the fact that there were positive elements in traditions that provide opportunities to promote girls’ education and gender equality, in both informal urban settlements and pastoralist communities.
Learning #5: Existing policies safeguarding girls’ right to education must be owned and enforced by diverse stakeholders to have an impact. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have enacted a raft of legislation and policies that, though not perfect, are well-intentioned and safeguard girls’ right to education. However, our research indicates that few stakeholders, including school administrators, teachers, parents, and communities, let alone learners, are aware of them. Despite civil society’s engagement in policy advocacy, government investment of resources in policy formulation, dissemination and enforcement remains inadequate and largely donor driven, weakening ownership by the government and communities, restricting impact.
Learning #6: Positive attitudes of school leaders reduce the stigma against pregnant school-girls and girl mothers and restore their self-confidence. Policies permitting pregnant girls to return to school after a mandatory maternity leave or to continue attending classes until the baby’s birth, exist in all three countries. This notwithstanding, fear of being stigmatized, ridiculed and labeled by peers and teachers prevent many pregnant girls and girl mothers from continuing with their schooling. However, the study found examples of schools where the school administration and teachers created an environment that was accepting, friendly and encouraging for the girls, and built their self-confidence. In such schools, stigma was replaced by empathy and consideration for the girl mothers and pregnant girls.
Learning #7: Gender-friendly facilities for girls with disabilities, lactating girl mothers and female teachers, and a safe and secure school environment is a right, not an option. The research took us to schools that are ‘not ready for girls’, reflecting low prioritization of girls’ education by governments as well as school administration. Many schools do not follow government specifications for the building of gender-friendly water and sanitation facilities that include washrooms for girls with facilities for the safe disposal of sanitary pads, and urinals for boys. Also missing are disability friendly facilities in general that disadvantages both girls and boys. For girls with disabilities there is the added exclusion through the absence of disability toilets; when they do exist, they tend to be unisex. Gender unfriendliness is also manifest in the absence of creches in or near the school and safe spaces for lactating mothers (both learners and teachers). Sometimes, healthcare facilities, which are far away from the school, exacerbate the difficulties these young girls encounter. The long commuting distance of schools from home puts girls at risk of physical and sexual assault more than boys. For girls with disabilities, this is a double jeopardy.
Learning #8: Girls’ education is the business of all but silos prevent inter-sectoral, multisectoral and multilevel collaborations which are essential for sustainable impact. The potential for improved collaboration among various stakeholders working within different sectors, across multiple sectors and at various levels,both national and sub-national, exists. There is also an understanding that collaboration is a good thing and beneficial for all, but this understanding remains at the rhetorical level. In practice, the lack of collaboration and coordination between the various stakeholder groups lead to duplication of efforts and inefficient resource utilization. For example, the importance of parents to the education of their children is a truism, but teacher-parent relationships are often characterized by hostility. Similarly, CSOs, despite having complementary areas of strength, may prefer to work on their own. Additionally, distrust between policy and implementation level contributes to the slow progress in achieving girls’ education and gender equality goals. There is an urgent need to break down the silos, joining forces to work together with and across sectors, and at all levels, to push the girls’ education and gender equality agenda forward.
Recommendations
Revitalize the movement for girls’ education by amplifying the voices of/for African Girls at the local, national, and regional levels to meaningfully impact their lives and transform society. Building this movement will involve stakeholder mapping at multiple levels (regional, national, and sub-national).
Review what exists and build on them, paying attention to the critical gaps that emerge. The map should be a living document to be updated on a regular basis.
Use the findings of the mapping to create a database to include networks, CSOs (NGOs, think tanks, CBOs, FBOs,) and individual experts.
Undertake critical analysis of the stakeholders to determine not only who is doing what but also who gets funded? What is their gender capacity? Who controls? Are indigenous women’s rights organizations (WROs) included? Do their girls’ education and gender equality agenda reinforce that of mainstream education focused organizations, and vice versa? The critical analysis should also gauge the level of commitment of organizations to the gender equality and justice agenda in and out of education.
Identify focal points at regional, national, sub-national levels for girls’ education/gender equality issues, utilizing existing structures/networks for movement building.
Be intentional about meaningfully involving organizations serving minority groups that include, but are not limited to, ethnic and religious minorities and people with disabilities.