educated girls, a uniquely positive force … is everybody’s human right. this simple fact is at...

2 EDUCATED GIRLS,

A UNIQUELY

POSITIVE FORCE FOR

DEVELOPMENT

Education is everybody’s human right. Thissimple fact is at the core of UNICEF’s commit-ment to girls’ education. It means that no girl,however poor, however desperate her country’ssituation, is to be excluded from school. Thereis no acceptable excuse for denying her theopportunities to develop to her fullest potential.

Education saves and improves the lives of girlsand women. It allows women greater controlof their lives and provides them with skills tocontribute to their societies. It enables them tomake decisions for themselves and to influencetheir families. It is this power that produces allthe other developmental and social benefits.Women’s participation and influence in govern-ments, families, communities, the economyand the provision of services is a commongood. It leads to more equitable development,stronger families, better services, better childhealth. (See Panel on the ‘karate girls’ of Bihar,India, page 25.)

A positive spiral

In addition to its benefits for girls and women,education is a uniquely positive force with awide-ranging impact on society and humandevelopment. Debates continue about whetherprimary, secondary or tertiary education shouldbe the priority when considering funding foreducation. But such debates distract from theessential issue for young girls: their right to abasic education. If they miss out on this, theyinevitably miss out on secondary educationand all the good that goes with it.

Among the many long-term benefits of educat-ing girls are:

� Enhanced economic development. Decadesof research provide substantial evidence ofthe link between the expansion of basiceducation and economic development – and

17THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2004

So

nia

Yeo

/UN

ICE

F/20

03

Through the

achievements

of children such

as these in a

community

school in Egypt,

the eyes of

a remote

community

have been

opened onto

the world.

18

girls’ education has an even more positiveeffect. Regions that invested over the longterm in girls’ education such as South-EastAsia and, at least until the 1980s debt crisis,Latin America, have tended to show higherlevels of economic development. As the pri-mary enrolment rate for girls increases, sotoo does gross domestic product per capita.8

Countries that fail to raise the education levelof women to the same as that of menincrease the cost of their developmentefforts and pay for the failure with slowergrowth and reduced income.9 At the sametime, economic development, and hencehigher income per family, can help in con-vincing reluctant parents to forgo the quickeconomic benefit of their daughters’ work,and instead send them to school, producinglong-term benefits for a country’s economy.

� Education for the next generation. If edu-cated girls become mothers they are muchmore likely to send their children to school,thereby passing on and multiplying benefitsboth for themselves and society in a positive,intergenerational effect. One of the clearestfindings from a recent UNICEF analysis ofhousehold data from 55 countries and 2Indian states is that children of educatedwomen are much more likely to go to school,and the more schooling the women havereceived, the more probable it is that theirchildren will also benefit from education.10

This recent study backs up research that tracesthe way in which literacy and language skillsgained by girls at school not only result inimproved health outcomes for themselvesand their children but also eventually fortheir grandchildren as well.11


PANEL 3

Egypt: Dreams realized

Awatif Morsy will never forget theday she heard that a new schoolwould be opened in her village.

“Someone came to the house ask-ing for the names of the childrenwho weren’t attending class,” sherecalls. “My mother gave themmy name. I was so thrilled.”

Like most eight-year-olds in BeniShara’an village, Awatif’s life until thatday was divided between back-breakingwork in the nearby wheat fields andconfinement at home. To girls like her,the new school – a single classroomon the ground floor of a convertedhouse – was a dream come true.

“We would go and watch thefacilitators decorating the room.Everything was bright and colourful.There were games and pictures,things I’d never seen before.”

Not everyone in the village was soenthusiastic, at least initially. Somefarmers complained that the schoolwould deprive them of the cheap labourthe children provided. Even Awatif’sown stepfather was unconvinced.

“What does a girl need to studyfor?” he would ask.

Happily, that was not the view ofFarouk Abdel Naim, the elderly mer-chant who was persuaded to donatethe premises for the school to use.“I’ve come to believe that a girl’seducation is more important eventhan a boy’s,” says Mr. Abdel Naim.“A man can always make somethingout of his circumstances but a girlcan’t. She needs to be educated inorder to get on in life.”

Eight years on, it’s hard to find any-one in Beni Shara’an who doesn’t

share that opinion. The school – nowexpanded into three classrooms – istoday seen as a wise investmentfrom which the community is reap-ing tangible rewards.

Take the example of shopkeeperAhmed Abdel Jaber. Himself illiter-ate, he sent his daughter, Rawia, tothe school as soon as it opened.

“Until Rawia went to school, mystore accounts were in a completemess,” he recalls. “But before long,she was taking care of all the booksfor me, as well as helping her eldersister to read and write.”

In a village where illiteracy is aninescapable fact of life, there’s noshortage of stories about how adaughter’s education is makingimportant differences to the qualityof people’s lives and businesses.

� The multiplier effect. Education has animpact on areas beyond learning, extendinga positive influence into most aspects of achild’s life. For example, children who go toschool are more likely to learn what theyneed to stay healthy, including how to pro-tect themselves against diseases. Educationfor girls, who are more vulnerable thanboys to HIV, offers the needed protectionfor those at risk. These benefits cross gen-erations as women with the knowledge ofhow to guard against HIV/AIDS are alsomore likely to send their children to school.12

In addition, an education means thatchildren are less likely to be trafficked orexploited as labourers, and less vulnerableto abuse and violence; and since girls aremore likely to suffer these assaults, educa-tion is especially important to their protec-

tion and carries its influence beyond theclassroom. (See Chapter 4.)

� Healthier families. One benefit to societyof educating girls is a greater balancebetween family size and family resources.When a society ensures that mothers areeducated, children will be healthier andfewer will die. Children of more educatedwomen tend to be better nourished andget sick less often. The effect of amother’s education on her child’s healthand nutrition is so significant that eachextra year of maternal education reducesthe rate of mortality for children underthe age of 5 by between 5 per cent and10 per cent, according to a review ofextensive evidence from the developingworld.13

UN

ICE

F/G

iaco

mo

Pir

ozz

i/200

0

20 EDUCATED GIRLS, A UNIQUELY POSITIVE FORCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

� Fewer maternal deaths. Women who havebeen to school are less likely to die duringchildbirth. The effect of schooling in reduc-ing the number of births means that forevery 1,000 women every additional year ofeducation will prevent 2 maternal deaths.14

Research has shown that maternal mortalityis also reduced by better knowledge abouthealth-care practices, use of health servicesduring pregnancy and birth, improved nutri-tion and increasing the spacing betweenbirths: all factors that are fostered by beingan educated woman.15

The development gap

Although the international community hascommitted itself to girls’ education as a humanrights issue and the benefits of investing in

girls’ education are clear, it has yet to becomea priority for development investments. Thereasons for this are complex and bring intoquestion not just education policy but the his-torically dominant approaches to developmentthat prioritize economic considerations andignore human rights.

Growth models. Many of the early ideas aboutdevelopment were rooted in the belief thateconomic growth, measured by gross domesticproduct, was paramount. It was assumed that asthe total value of goods produced and servicesprovided by any country within one yearexpanded, poverty and inequality would beautomatically, almost magically, reduced.The fruits of economic growth, it was assumed,would fall into the laps of all, whether rich orpoor, male or female.

How the instructions on a doctor’sprescription or on a sack of fertilizersuddenly seemed clear. How educa-tional programmes on televisionbegan to make sense. And – moreimportant still – how the exampleset by the children encouraged manyolder people to begin taking literacyclasses themselves.

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to saythat through the achievement of thesechildren, the eyes of a remote commu-nity have been opened onto the world.

While the drive to get more Egyptiangirls into school was producing bene-fits in places like Beni Shara’an, itwasn’t long before the impetus wasbeing felt nationally. In 2000, Egyptunveiled a Girls’ Education Initiative,within months of the global versionlaunched by United NationsSecretary-General Kofi A. Annanin Dakar, Senegal.

The Egyptian initiative was built onthe success UNICEF and the coun-try’s Government had achieved sincethe early 1990s with the establish-ment of some 200 community

schools and 3,500 one-classroomschools. The aim was to take this‘girl-friendly’ model and project it intoseven rural governorates identifiedas showing the greatest resistanceto girls’ education.

The follow-up was as swift as it wasdecisive. A series of high-level meet-ings chaired by the First Lady, H. E.Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak, set girls’education as Egypt’s top develop-ment priority for the next five years.Coupled with that pledge was a com-mitment to end the gender gap bythe year 2007 and in the processreach half a million out-of-school girls.

A national task force was established,involving more than a dozengovernment ministries along withnon-governmental organizations andUN agencies. The broad strategywas to ensure that the approach togirls’ education was an integrated one,involving a number of sectors andbuilding solid partnerships betweengovernment and civil society.

Through a consultative process,local task forces emerged in each

of the seven targeted governorates.These were voluntary groups madeup of community members, parents,girls both in and out of school, non-governmental organizations andsome government officials whoseparticipation was meant to guaranteethat the schools truly belonged tothe communities they would serve.

Overseeing the entire processhas been the National Council forChildhood and Motherhood, under itsSecretary-General, Moushira Khattab,and supported by seven organiza-tions of the UN system.* TheCouncil has championed a participa-tory planning process and is now coordinating the implementationof girl-friendly schools. In all, 3,000such schools are to be establishedin 2003. The foundation stone for thefirst girl-friendly classroom was laidby Mrs. Mubarak in May 2003.

According to UNICEF EducationOfficer, Dr. Malak Zaalouk, a keypriority has been to ensure that,to the communities they serve, theschools represent more than just aneducational opportunity.


This view of growth as central to developmentin a country’s productivity was refined andredefined frequently as many years of dismalexperience in developing countries proved themodel’s inadequacy. Growth remained limitedin all but a few developing countries and noconsistent evidence emerged to show that thistype of growth alone would reduce poverty orinequality.

The economics of development at this pointwere also gender blind. There was no attemptto consider if or how the status of women rela-tive to men affected their participation in eco-nomic development. It also ignored areas ofthe so-called ‘unpaid care’ economy, i.e.,domestic, nursing and other nurturing worklargely undertaken by women on whom the‘productive’ sector of the economy depended.

There was also little awareness that any bene-fits accruing to a household may be distributedunequally due to the established power rela-tions between men and women.

In the 1980s, as growth models faltered, theWorld Bank and the International MonetaryFund spearheaded the implementation of struc-tural adjustment programmes aimed at reduc-ing public expenditure and giving more scopefor prices and incentives to find their own levelin the marketplace. Adjustment often entailedcuts in spending on education, health and foodsubsidies that disproportionately hurt the poor.These cuts hit poor women particularly hardsince they had to step up their workload bothinside and outside the home so that theirfamilies could cope.16 Adjustment also failedeven on its own terms, resulting in next-to-no

“Poverty alleviation is the bigger issue,”says Dr. Zaalouk. “For example, schoolmeals are being provided with supportfrom the World Food Programmeand the Ministry of Agriculture. Thenthere’s sanitation and health care,plus a strong element of communityparticipation built into each school.The overall aim is to make people insome of Egypt’s most deprived areasfeel they have a real stake in theschools’ success.”

Over the years, international recogni-tion for the work done in Egypt hasgrown – a process in which AwatifMorsy has played her own part. In2001, Awatif was one of three childrepresentatives sent by Egypt toKampala, Uganda to attend a majorpreparatory meeting for the UNSpecial Session on Children.

She still remembers the excitementof her first trip abroad, and the senseof responsibility that came with lead-ing one of the conference sessions.“If I hadn’t gone to school, I’d neverhave had that chance,” she saysexcitedly.

Now an outstanding pupil at the localsecondary school (not to mention apromising writer of short stories),Awatif is looking ahead to university,and beyond. “Many of the peoplehere in Beni Shara’an want me tobecome a doctor,” she says. “Imyself want to be a teacher, sothat I can pass on some of whatI’ve learned to other children.”

That’s already happening. Awatif hasbecome a role model for other girlsin the village. Eleven-year-old Fatenis one: “I read all Awatif’s stories,”she says. “One day, I want to bejust like her.”

*International Labour Organization, United NationsDevelopment Programme, United NationsDevelopment Fund for Women, UNESCO,United Nations Population Fund, World Bank,and UNICEF.

The schools

represent more than

just an educational

opportunity.


economic growth. As Figure 3 shows, percapita growth in developing countries plum-meted even as adjustment lending by the Bankand the Fund soared. A Bank study in 2000concluded: Growth of per capita income for atypical developing country during the 1980sand 1990s was zero.17

By the 1990s, the assumption that economicgrowth alone would deliver human developmentwas recognized as flawed. The opposite seemsto be true: human development can fostereconomic growth.18 A UNICEF study of 49nations shows that the countries that achievedthe highest average annual growth between1990 and 2000 were those that had a baselinein 1980 of low child mortality and low incomepoverty; while the economies that actuallyshrank in that decade were those that allstarted in 1980 with high child mortality, highincome poverty or both. (See Figure 4: Humandevelopment and economic growth)19

There is now a more general acceptance thatdevelopment, if it is to be meaningful, has totranscend economics. There is also more wide-spread understanding – particularly since thePlatform for Action at the Fourth WorldConference on Women in Beijing in 1995 –that a gender perspective on the economicsof development is essential, and that povertycannot be reduced in any sustainable mannerwithout promoting women’s empowerment.20

Models of universal education. Education policyhas followed a slow path to the realization thatgirls’ schooling is fundamental to a country’s suc-cess in achieving education for all. In the earlyyears of the development movement, whenmany countries were newly independent, therewas general enthusiasm for education as a vitalfactor in a nation’s advancement. But the task ofeducating all children was huge. In 1960, fewerthan half of the developing world’s children aged6 to 11 were enrolled in primary school, and insub-Saharan Africa only 1 child in 20 attendedsecondary school. And by 1980, despite somesuccess (overall primary enrolment had doubledin Asia and Latin America, and tripled in Africa21)

millions of children were still out of school, themajority of them girls. Rapid population growthconsistently frustrated progress, staying ahead ofthe increase in the numbers in school.

In the 1980s, structural adjustment made thingsworse. A study of the sub-Saharan countriesthat underwent adjustment between 1980 and1993 indicates that the average reduction inreal per capita spending was 14 per cent duringthe adjustment period.22 Of the 15 countries inthis group, 12 had a decline in per capitaspending on education.

In 1990, the World Conference on EducationFor All held in Jomtien, Thailand recognized thechronic neglect of children’s right to educationin the poorest countries, especially the neglectof the rights of girls which, under structuraladjustment in the 1980s, was exacerbatedrather than mitigated by international interven-tion and concern. This landmark gathering tooka major step towards refocusing the world’sattention, making high-quality primary educa-tion the cornerstone of its renewed drive to putall children in school. It served to re-establisheducation at the heart of development.

Models for girls’ education. The JomtienConference, and the Education For All move-

FIGURE 3 IMF/WORLD BANK LOANS

VERSUS GROWTH

Source: Easterly, William, The Elusive Quest for Growth, MIT Press,Cambridge and London, 2001.


ment that was born of it, recognized the impor-tance of closing the gender gap and of takingspecial measures to enable girls to go to schooland to stay there. In the laudable drive towardseducation for all, it was assumed that the gen-der gap would be automatically reduced. Inreality, this was not necessarily the case.

The greater attention paid to girls’ educationthroughout the 1990s can be attributed to theintersection of two key movements based onhuman rights: the child rights movement thatgathered steady momentum in the wake of theadoption of the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child in 1989, and the women’s movement,which culminated in the Platform for Action atthe 1995 Fourth World Conference on Womenin Beijing, a platform specifically addressed tothe needs and rights of girls.

In this sense it has taken until the 21st centuryfor girls’ education to receive its due primacy.

The academic evidence and programmatic proofof its efficacy had been there for many years,certainly since the late 1980s and early 1990s.But it was only in 2000, at the UN MillenniumSummit and the World Education Forum inDakar, that the push for girls’ education movedfrom the education sector to centre stage.

Resistance

Beyond these broad international trends areother factors that have stopped girls’ educationfrom garnering the attention it deserves. Localbeliefs, cultural practices and attitudes to gen-der roles, such as whether education improvesor reduces a girl’s chance of marriage, canundoubtedly hold girls back from school.23

Cultural resistance is not always consistent inall countries and may vary in specific parts ofa country or with specific population groups.What’s more, expectations about gender rolesdiffer at different stages of the life cycle, as inmany Latin American and Caribbean countries,where there are marked differences betweenthe early years of primary school and lateadolescence.

But parents’ objections to their daughters goingto school are more likely to be on the groundsof safety or economics than out of a belief thatgirls should not be educated. They may feel thata school is unsafe, or that the journey to schoolis perilous or too long, putting girls at risk ofsexual assault or other forms of violence. Toooften their feelings are right on target.

Alternatively, they may believe that sacrificing adaughter’s work at home or in the fields wouldjeopardize family income and survival. For poorfamilies, bearing the opportunity cost of send-ing a girl to school may not seem economicallyjustifiable in the short term. This is especiallythe case in societies that have not embracedthe idea that women have the right to paidemployment or where jobs for educated womenare scarce. Decisions about whether to senddaughters to school are often taken on thebasis of analysing the costs and benefits tothe whole family.24

FIGURE 4 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH BY LEVEL

OF INCOME-POVERTY

(Average annual growth rate of percapita income, 1990-2000)

Source: UNICEF, ‘Synergies, cost-benefit analysis and child policies’(internal publication), UNICEF, Division of Policy and Planning, GlobalPolicy Section, 2003

High/medium/low refers to income-poverty level.

Education saves

and improves

the lives of girls

and women.

It leads to

more equitable

development,

stronger

families, better

services, better

child health.

24

In these cases the problem is often more on thesupply side – the availability of safe, accessibleand girl-friendly schools; employment possibilitiesfor women; educational information for parents –than with any lack of demand for educationfrom families. The proportion of parents whowould stand against their daughters being edu-cated, once the benefits had been convincinglyexplained and the physical or economic barriersat the local or family level had been overcome,would be small indeed. In Sierra Leone, forexample, in areas where communities havebeen trained to work together on issues ofcommon concern, parents, including very poorones, now send their daughters to school.25

When the Kenyan Government announced in2003 that education fees were abolished, theschools were flooded with 1.3 million childrenand adolescents who had previously been

excluded. Of these, nearly half were girls. (SeePanel on Kenya and school fees, page 35.)

The sense that the primary problem is not withthe lack of demand for education from childrenand their parents is reinforced by opinion sur-veys from around the world. According to arecent global survey by the Pew ResearchCenter, 6 in 10 respondents in Latin Americaand more than one half of Africans see poorschools as a “top national concern.”26 Whenthe polling organization Gallup Internationalinterviewed more than 50,000 people in 60countries, 86 per cent of those surveyedrejected the suggestion that education wasmore important for boys than girls.27 In thesame vein, a recent World Bank comparativestudy of 23 countries carried moving testi-monies from parents in poor families strug-

PANEL 4


The ‘karate girls’ of Bihar, India

The connection between karate andgirls’ education in Bihar – one ofIndia’s most challenging States interms of human development indica-tors – is not immediately evident.But for 18-year-old Lalita Kumari thetwo have come together to changeher life. It started while she wasattending the local Jagjagi or‘Awakening’ centre; a day school forgirls aged 9 to 15 and women fromdisadvantaged communities whohave either not completed or neverattended primary school. The centreoffers lessons in basic literacy andnumeracy six days a week for fourhours a day. Learning materials aregender-sensitive and specially gearedto local conditions and problemssuch as health, legal aid, women’sissues and the environment.

One day Lalita was asked if she’dlike to attend an eight-month course

at the Mahila Shiksan Kendra, a resi-dential education centre for semi-literate women and adolescent girls.The centre offers basic educationand life skills training, and the pos-sibility of continuing to secondarylevel. The course aims to be holistic,and emphasizes the need for a posi-tive self-image. Girls are trained todevelop analytical skills to help themin personal and social situations. Oncompletion of the course, the girlsreturn to their villages and record ina diary their experiences as they tryto apply their new skills in their lives.The main purpose is to develop apool of highly motivated ruralwomen to assume leadershiproles in their communities.

Lalita jumped at the chance that wasoffered her but her father opposedher going on the grounds that girlsshould stay at home. He also

strongly objected to the teachingof karate as part of the course;he thought this would spoil hername in society.

Lalita hails from a caste traditionallylooked down upon as ‘unclean’; sothe women at Mahila Shiksan Kendrastressed the hygiene-educationaspects of the course, presenting itas an opportunity to rid her family ofany stigma. Her father was won overand Lalita eventually graduated in2001, having reached grade 5,though her aim is to completeher education up to grade 10.

“I was doing nothing but cuttinggrass, fetching firewood, cleaningand cooking,” says Lalita of her lifebefore the course. “Today I teachkarate to batches of 40 girls in fourMahila Shiksan Kendra in Bihar andJharkhand.”

gling with the decision as to whether to investin their children’s education – and from othersalready making heartbreaking sacrifices inorder to do so.28

An extensive UNICEF survey of children andadolescents in East Asia and the Pacific askedthose not attending school for their reasons.Only 19 per cent responded that they did notwant to go to school or did not like school.Some 22 per cent had stopped school so theycould work. While 43 per cent reported beingout of school due to lack of money, 22 per centcited the necessity of helping at home and 4 percent said there was simply no school available.29

Furthermore, by far the most popular priorityin the Say Yes for Children campaign, whichamassed nearly 95 million votes of support

from adults and children worldwide from 2001to 2002, was “Educate every child.”

Given this demand from the grass roots, themain ‘cultural resistance’ may be the reluc-tance of national and international policymakers to make education a priority and toimplement measures that have been shownto work on the ground. The special situationof girls and women has traditionally been‘invisible’ to predominantly male policymakers and girls’ education as an issue is onlynow being brought into the light. In somepowerful quarters there will still be overt dis-crimination and determined resistance to theidea of giving girls an equal chance. Manypoliticians, administrators or aid officialswho pay lip service to the principles of genderequality remain uncomfortable with pro-

© U

NIC

EF/

HQ

03-0

371/

Am

i Vit

ale

grammes that have a specific gender focus,and passively fail to implement them.

Any drive to get all girls into school has to besensitive to the local context. It has to squarelyface up to the realities of gender discrimina-tion, wherever it exists. ‘Traditional culture’is often used as an excuse to explain whyexpected results in girls’ education have notbeen achieved.30 Increasingly, that excusedoes not stand up to scrutiny.

Poverty’s double edge for girls

A recent report on the extent and depth ofchild poverty in the developing world31 foundthere to be some 135 million children between7 and 18 years old without any education at all,with girls 60 per cent more likely than boys (16

per cent compared with 10 per cent) to be so‘educationally deprived’ (see Figure 5: Doublejeopardy). Practically all children who aredeprived of an education also suffer otherdeprivations. Thus, the stark disparity betweengenders relative to education translates intothe probability that girls are more likely thanboys to endure other manifestations of poverty,such as being deprived of food, safe drinkingwater, sanitation facilities, health, shelter orinformation.

What’s more, although the gender disparity ineducation is apparent for both the poor andnon-poor alike, it is significantly greater forchildren living in poverty (12 per cent of boysand 17 per cent of girls) than for those livingabove the poverty threshold (3 per cent of boysand 5 per cent of girls). Thus, girls are in dou-

This sense of empowerment isfundamental to the success of theMahila Samakhya (usually translatedas ‘Education for Women’s Equality’)programme, which since 1992 hasbeen an integral part of the BiharEducation Project. When the projectwas launched Bihar had, at 23 percent, the lowest female literacy ratein the country, a figure that hassince risen to 34 per cent. MahilaSamakhya, which now covers 2,063villages in 10 districts of Bihar, recog-nizes the central role education canplay in promoting equality for women.It aims to change not only women’sideas about themselves, but alsosociety’s notions about their tra-ditional role.

At the core of the Mahila Samakhyastrategy in Bihar is the local women’sgroup. There are now over 2,000 ofthese with a total of more than50,000 members. Their activitiesmight range from helping familiesmeet their daily basic needs to seek-ing influence in the political sphere.Among the successes of thesegroups over the past decade havebeen an increased demand for liter-

acy among adult women; greaterrecognition and visibility for womenwithin their families and communi-ties; and the election of hundredsof women to the local governmentbodies, the Panchayati Raj.

One of the prime concerns of thewomen’s groups is how to ensureeducational opportunities for theirchildren, especially their daughters,and the centres offer girls – almostall from disadvantaged groups offi-cially notified by the Indian govern-ment as ‘scheduled castes’ or‘scheduled tribes’ – a fast track notonly to education but to empower-ment. Girls in these centres learnhow to take decisions, assume lead-ership and develop collective strate-gies to change their own destinies.At some centres this involves learn-ing karate or some other sport aspart of a holistic curriculum.

Lalita describes her joy in teachingkarate. “Initially the girls are nervousthat they might break a leg so I reas-sure them that they will be safe.Gradually they get into the swing ofthings and they say that they want

to be strong like me. This makesme feel really happy.”

Lalita’s four older brothers stronglyoppose her teaching karate and thinkit is high time she got married.Thankfully, her father is today herbiggest supporter and approves ofthe way she manages her life. Shebehaves, he says, far better thanany of his other children. Lalita noweven travels alone by bus betweenthe four Mahila Shiksan Kendraswhere she teaches.

“There have been instances on thebus where men have tried to pushme out of my seat and even threat-ened me not knowing that I am akarate blue belt,” she says. “Karatehas been useful in making sure I getmy seat back!”


27

ble jeopardy: because of their gender andbecause of their poverty.

The alternative: A human rights,

multisectoral model for development

There is an alternative approach to developmentthat will allow girls their right to education,meet the commitments of the internationalcommunity and maximize the multiplier effectsof investing in girls’ education – a humanrights, multisectoral model.

Human rights

The successful efforts to have the UnitedNations adopt such an approach were led byUNICEF, whose work and mission are basedon two fundamental human rights treaties:The Convention on the Rights of the Child andthe Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination against Women. Since 1996,UNICEF has been guided by the principles ofthese two treaties, linking the rights of childrenwith the rights of women in all its programmesof cooperation.

Within this context, it is understood that chil-dren’s rights cannot be realized nationally orglobally without addressing discrimination in allits forms, especially the specific situation of girlsand gender-based discrimination. And further,when the human rights principles of universality,equality, non-discrimination and participationare applied in economic approaches to develop-ment, the result is more equitable, democraticand sustainable growth for all.

Multisectoral

Many, some would say most, of the obstaclesthat keep girls from enjoying their right tocomplete their education are found far from theschool room. In towns without access to water,in communities sieged by HIV/AIDS, and in fam-ilies caught in poverty’s grip, girls are often keptat home to fetch daily rations, care for siblingsor serve as domestic workers. In the face ofsuch challenging realities, no new curriculum,

gender-sensitive lesson plan or culturally appro-priate textbooks will get them to school.

Solutions must come from outside education’sstandard framework – from an approach thatintegrates planning and action across multiplesectors. For example, interventions in healthand nutrition, although initially designed toimprove a child’s chances of survival andsound development, will also contribute tobetter performance in school. Providing schoolmeals will improve a child’s nutrition, and alsoprovide an incentive for youngsters to enterand stay in school. Logically and inevitably, amultisectoral approach will yield the greatestresults for girls’ education.

Promise

The Millennium Development Goals have seta seal on this more rights-based, multifaceted,human-centred vision of development. As oneof their principal foundations, the Goals linkprogress on education, health, poverty reliefand the environment with girls’ right to equal-ity in schooling. Now this new approach andthese Goals hold promise for the lives of girlsand the fate of nations.

THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2004

FIGURE 5 DOUBLE JEOPARDY

% of children age 7–18 who have neverbeen to school of any kind

Source: Gordon, D., et al., ‘The Distribution of Child Poverty in the DevelopingWorld: Report to UNICEF’ (final draft), Centre for International PovertyResearch, University of Bristol, Bristol, July 2003.

educated girls, a uniquely positive force … is everybody’s human right. this simple fact is at...

Documents