1 / 20

Inexcusable Absence: Overcoming Exclusion in Girls’ Education

Inexcusable Absence: Overcoming Exclusion in Girls’ Education. Marlaine Lockheed Center for Global Development CIES Gender Symposium, 2007. Schooling trends are improving in the developing world. Girls’ schooling has traditionally lagged that of boys, but girls are catching up

Télécharger la présentation

Inexcusable Absence: Overcoming Exclusion in Girls’ Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Inexcusable Absence: Overcoming Exclusion in Girls’ Education Marlaine Lockheed Center for Global Development CIES Gender Symposium, 2007

  2. Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  3. Schooling trends are improving in the developing world • Girls’ schooling has traditionally lagged that of boys, but girls are catching up • Socially excluded children still lag • Socially excluded girls are the least likely to go to school • Countries with many socially excluded groups are at risk Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  4. Gender parity in primary enrollments rose between 1960 and 2000 Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  5. But 60 million primary school age girls were out of school in 2000 Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  6. Most out-of-school girls come from socially excluded groups Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  7. Who are the socially excluded groups? • Stigmatization • Ethnic differences • Low status • “Involuntary” minority status Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  8. Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  9. Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  10. Laos: Hill tribe girls complete fewest years of school 10 Urban-Male-Lao-Tai Urban-Female-Lao-Tai Rural-Male-Lao-Tai Rural-Female-Lao-Tai 9 8 7 6 Average years of schooling 5 4 3 2 1 0 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Age Rural-Male-Other Rural female- Other Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  11. Laos: Hill tribe girls complete fewest years of school 10 Urban-Male-Lao-Tai Urban-Female-Lao-Tai Rural-Male-Lao-Tai Rural-Female-Lao-Tai 9 8 7 6 Average years of schooling 5 4 3 2 1 0 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 Age Rural-Male-Other Rural female- Other Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  12. Guatemala: Indigenous girls in are least likely to be enrolled in school Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  13. Guatemala: Indigenous girls in are least likely to be enrolled in school Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  14. Gaps in enrollment, attainment or completion for excluded girls • Nigeria • 35% lower probability • Pakistan • 30-55 percentage points lower • Slovak Republic • 45 percentage points lower Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  15. Heterogeneity and male-female differences in primary school completion rates Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  16. The Challenge: Getting and keeping disadvantaged children in school • In all countries disadvantaged children lag behind in school, and girls do so disproportionately: • Enrollment • Completion/Graduation • Performance • But, excluded girls go to school, stay in school and do better than boys when given the opportunity Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  17. Quechua girls outperform Quechua boys in 5th grade, Peru 2000 Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  18. Indigenous girls outperform indigenous boys in Ecuador Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  19. Why does heterogeneity have this effect? • Discrimination in the labor market • Reduces motivation • Discrimination in access to school • Increases direct, indirect and opportunity costs of schooling to families • Lowers school quality • Discrimination within schools • Reduces opportunity to learn • Expectations and “stereotype threat” • Lowers performance Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

  20. Success is possible, with targeted interventions • Examples from developed countries • New Zealand, Canada • Examples from developing countries • Chile, Bangladesh, India Source: Lewis and Lockheed 2006

More Related