The document discusses gender equality in education from a rights-based perspective. It analyzes gender equality as a relational process with three interconnected components: rights to education, rights within education, and rights through education. Each component is associated with specific indicators that can measure effectiveness. For example, rights to education focuses on gender parity and is measured by enrollment rates. Rights within education focuses on non-discrimination and quality, measured by factors like subject choice and learning outcomes. Rights through education concerns how education promotes gender equality outside of school, measured by employment and political participation rates. Case studies from countries like Norway, Germany, Canada, and Macedonia are presented to demonstrate how these components and indicators can be applied.

1. International development, trends and
experiences in the field of Gender and Education
Bishkek, March 31
Presentation by Cecilie Orestis

2. Traditionally the focus on how to measure gender equality has been to measure
gender parity . In this presentation, other factors will be analyzed and seen as more
important
• Recent trends analyze gender equality as a 'relational process'
through the educational systems, norms and values are
institutionalised within them
• To demonstrate this relational process, I will break down 'gender
equality' into three connected parts and identifying indicators often
used to measure effectiveness of each component
• The operation of rights is viewed as circular - rights in each of these
aspects linking positively to other rights. These rights are indivisible,
translate into a programme of action to promote both gender parity
and gender equality.

3. The three components:
Rights to education
Rights within education
Rights through education

4. Rights to Education – describes gender parity
(measures quantaty)
• Gender parity means the equal participation of boys and girls in
different aspects of education
• Gender parity has traditionally been high in former Soviet Union,
especially when compared to many African and Asian countries
• Does gender parity mean gender equality ? The very oposite may be
the case
• Educational (parity) indicators do not tell us about processes of
change/reproduction in everyday life. Further, educational indicators
do not bring into focus the actual experience of schooling

5. Indicators of gender parity in education include:
• The numbers of boys and girls enrolled in education and at intake in grade
one
• The numbers of boys and girls who survive up to grade 5 [and thus the
numbers that drop out]
• Regularity of attendance of boys and girls
• The numbers of girls and boys who repeat years of schooling
• The average years of schooling attained for boys and girls
• the transitions of boys and girls between levels of education [pri-school -
primary; primary-secondary; secondary-high school/vocational]
• The number of female and male teachers
• Literacy levels of boys and girls, men and women

6. Rights within education:
• Gender equality or rights within education thus refers to the right of
men and women to non-discrimination in educational opportunities
Main focus :
• Learning content
• Teaching method and process
• Subject choice
• Assessment modes
• Management of peer relationships
• Learning outcomes

7. Rights within education measure
equality/quality
• Educational institutions should function in ways that do not impose or
maintain gender stereotypes or promote institutional barriers to the
range of possibilities that boys and girls, men and women can enjoy in
relation to the education on offer.
• Rights within education relates to equality of treatment, which in turn
is reflected in equality of outcome

8. There are several measures of gender inequalities or
gender-based rights deprivations within education. :
• Performance in examinations: to what extent do girls and boys
convert educational access into educational capital ? How do boys
and girls function within the education system ? How can their
performance signal inequalities that are not being addressed or are
created at school.
• Subject choice: alerts us to whether boys and girls are being streamed
into specific subjects and whether there is any equality in the
representation of boys and girls across different subjects as they
specialise within education systems

9. Interpretation requires contextualisation
• Conflicts over interpretation : Is subject specialisation attributed to
choice or determined explicitly or implicitly by social or institutional
structures ?
• Contextual information can explain the interpretation of ‘choice’, by
clarifying whether the ‘choices’ on offer are being imposed through
the way in which they are offered
• Are the choices imposed by gender stereotypes ?

10. Other indicators to measure rights within
education:
• Family and social factors relating to the learning environment,
including teacher behaviour and influence of home variables [such as
hours of work after school].
• Social discrimination, for example, inequalities of race, caste, class,
ethnicity are all likely to deepen gendered difference between
students, and give rise to varied experiences of the learning process
for boys and girls of different social groups.
• Multiple discrimination – mostly affect girls

11. Measurable Indicators:
Equal Access to Equality within*
Equality through
- enrolment
- survival
- regularity of attendance
- repetition
- the average years of
schooling attained
- the transitions of boys and
girls between levels of
education
- the number of female and
male teachers.
subject choice
Learning Outcomes
[performance in
examinations]
Teacher-learner ratio
Gender balance within the
classroom
Qualifications of teachers
Level of training of teachers
Factors shaping performance
including:
Health of students
Nutritional status
Child's involvement in family
work
Social discrimination within the
classroom/society [context-specific
indicators would be necessary]
Male/female employment
across different levels of
education by gender
Gender differentials in wages
across different levels of
employment/education
Political participation

12. Measurable indicators
- enrolment
- survival
- regularity of attendance
- repetition
- the average years of
schooling attained
- the transitions of boys and
girls between levels of
education
- the number of female and
male teachers.
subject choice
Learning Outcomes
[performance in
examinations]
Teacher-learner ratio
Gender balance within the
classroom
Qualifications of teachers
Level of training of teachers
Factors shaping performance
including:
Health of students
Nutritional status
Child's involvement in family
work
Social discrimination within the
classroom/society [context-specific
indicators would be necessary]
Male/female employment
across different levels of
education by gender
Gender differentials in wages
across different levels of
employment/education
Political participation

13. Rights through education
• gender equality within education is shaped by, and in turn shapes,
rights and gender equality in other dimensions of life.
• To what extent does education strengthens gender equality outside
the sphere of education ?
• The importance of focusing on 'rights through education' becomes
significant particularly when we review evidence of the inequalities
which continue to face women in the world of employment, work and
political representation - the public arena

14. Case : Norway
• In 2011, 73% of Norwegian women aged 15-64 were employed, about 16
percentage points above the OECD average. The gender gap in labour force
participation has halved over the last two decades to 5 percentage points in 2011
• The Norwegian systems of student financing, parental leave and affordable
formal child care of high quality has played an important role in achieving these
results.
• n Norway, women occupy 40% of parliamentary seats and 40% of board seats in
listed companies, as related to the introduction of the legal requirement in 2006
that both men and women have to make up at least 40% of boards of companies
listed on the stock exchange (and a range of other companies).
• Because of the different educational choices, female employment tends to be
concentrated in fewer occupations than men: in 2009, half of the working women
in Norway were employed in seven occupations while this concerned 14
occupations for men.

15. Gender wage gap
• At median incomes, the gender pay gap in Norway is among the lowest in
the OECD. Wage gaps are narrow at the bottom end of the earnings
distribution but wider at the top: top female earners make on average 17%
less than their male counterpart, suggesting the existence of the so-called
“glass ceiling”.
• Women are a major untapped resource of business creation. The
proportion of individually-owned enterprises owned by women in Norway
was 27% in 2010. In 2008, the Norwegian government launched an
integrated national plan to promote female entrepreneurship. Norway will
achieve further progress in gender equality by finding ways of getting men
and women to take up a broader range of fields of study and occupations.

16. • Those who complete 5 years education after High School : 55 % higher
salary that those without, less likely to be disabled, live longer, less likely to
divorce
• 15 years old do not consider when choosing speciality that; – by 40 years
old, lawyers make 90 % more than a nurse
• Electrician make 45 % more than a hair dresser
• Recent survey shows that the choice of subject/vocational training is made
without careful consideration
• Research shows that girls tend to overestimate their skills in typical “female
subjects”, such as language and social science, boys overestimate their
skills in typical ”male subjects” such as natural science
• Result: Students do not choose what they are best at, but what they think
they are good at based on gender stereotypes

17. Norway compared with Germany and Canada
• In Germany, students choose subject with a certain vocational specialty at the age of 12- both
schools and labor market very gender segregated
• In Canada, students complete High School before choosing vocational specialty – age of 18. The
labor market is less segregated, and gender pay gap less.
• Norway – last year of middle school, at 15 years old. Those who choose regular high school in
mixed classes continue to choose (to a certain degree) gender neutral studies.
• Vocational school extremely gender segregated: 99% of students who choose carpentry are men,
9 out of 10 students who choose at health and welfare studies are female.
• 2010 the proportion of tertiary degrees awarded to Norwegian women was 83% in health and
welfare studies but only 20% in computer sciences
• Structural discrimination: easier to ”build on” and continue with higher education within the male
dominated subjects than the female
• Result: 22 % of women have full time work after end of education. For carpenty and electrician
are the numbers 84 % and 81 %
• .

18. Case: Macedonia - Child Friendly School
• Child-friendliness is defined in terms of these dimensions of
education:
• (1) inclusiveness
• (2) effectiveness
• (3) health, safety and protection in school environments
• (4) gender responsiveness
• (5) involvement or participation of students, parents and community
members in the life and work of the school and the community.

19. • 95 per cent of children attend primary school, with no significant differences
between girls and boys, rural and urban areas, or geographical regions (2008)
• Access to early childhood education is extremely low, at 10.7 per cent
• 40 per cent of teenagers do not finish secondary school.
• Macedonia ratified the CRC in December 1993 and has adopted international
policies that call for inclusive education as a strategy to achieve the Education for
All (EFA) goals. Reforms related to inclusiveness –more policy than practice.
• Local schools and communities do not have a system for tracking enrolment of
local populations or for working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to
ensure EFA at the local level (UNICEF, 2007a).
• Low school effectiveness - Macedonia ranked the lowest on absolute
disadvantage of the nine countries (TIMMS, PISA,PIRLS)

20. Where did the framework and the standards
come from ?
• UNICEF identified a team of individuals from the MoES and from area
universities, including experts in child rights and in child-centred pedagogy,
to be part of Macedonia’s national CFS team. This team built on and used
the materials and experiences of other countries in developing CFS
• Assessing Child-Friendly Schools: A Guide for Programme Managers in East
Asia and the Pacific manual (UNICEF, 2006)
• Macedonian MoE participated in CFS workshop in Thailand. Observed Thai
ministry of education’s strong sense of ownership in the process. CFS
principles are mainstreamed in the country’s education strategy; there is
active family/community participation; CFS components are well
developed.

21. what is a Child-Friendly School in practical terms ? How
can it be achieved and measured ?
• The team began the CFS process by developing and implementing a
Student Management Information System together with the school
self-evaluation.
• The outcome indicators were the broad standards to be achieved in
each of the dimensions; the key performance areas (KPA) were the
specific areas under each of the standards in which the school should
be engaged; and the key process indicators (KPI) provided examples
of products to be developed or concrete activities to be undertaken
at the school level in order to achieve the standards

22. Baseline Study
• The baseline study began with a comprehensive review of existing
laws, guidelines and other documents, including tests, assessments,
strategic considerations
• The researchers explored each of the six dimensions in four to nine
schools. They interviewed key stakeholders (e.g., teachers, students,
parents, principals, school psychologists, school pedagogues)
individually or in groups, administered questionnaires

23. A sample standard (learning outcome) for inclusiveness in a Child-Friendly
School
Dimension 1: Inclusiveness
• Standard 1: Equality among all children in the process of learning – all children
are provided with equal conditions to participate in the teaching and learning
process, regardless of their background or abilities.
• Key performance area 1: All children attend school regardless of their background
or abilities. Key process indicators (five components)
• Component 2: School capacities
• Means of baseline data collection: Visual review of the school.
• Key process indicator, school capacities:
• The school facilities are physically accessible for all children.
• Baseline study findings: Only one of the four schools visited is accessible to
children with physical disabilities. The physical space of this accessible school
(including the toilet) is on the ground-floor level only.

24. examples of the findings for each of the six CFS dimensions
from the analysis of data from the school site visits:
• Dimension 1: Inclusiveness. Some special provisions or activities to accommodate and
encourage attendance among vulnerable groups, such as children with disabilities.
schools lack inclusive education policies, do not create conditions to accept children with
special needs and do not have cooperative relationships with the community to keep
children with special needs in school.
• Dimension 2: Health, safety and protective environments. Lack of schools with indoor
water taps, toilet paper and soap. Schools with security guards perceived as safer by
parents and community, guards may be unfriendly to children. High tolerance of
corporeal punishment among students, problems of sexual harassment and abuse not
discussed. There is an implicit understanding of violence in schools, but there are no
policies to define violence and proper student-teacher interactions
• Dimension 3: Effectiveness. Some teachers practise child- centred teaching and have
attended some type of in-service training. Learning processes are not child-oriented.
Teachers plan for teaching but not for children’s learning outcomes. Traditional teaching
predominates. Low-achieving students are seldom encouraged, and students are rarely
encouraged in individual thinking and problem solving.

25. • Dimension 4: Gender responsiveness. Boys and girls have access to free school in Macedonia, and
girls usually have better marks than boys. Textbooks and learning materials are marked by gender
stereotypes, no attempt to identify or correct gender insensitivities and bias in the materials.
Teachers have not been trained to provide teaching with gender-sensitive content and
approaches, absence of role models for girls and boys at different levels of schooling.
• Dimension 5: Participation. Schools use little written communication, so decision-making and
decisions can be difficult to trace. Parents sometimes participate in school activities and,
technically, children may express their views in schools. Schools do not have mechanisms that
encourage parents and children to express their opinions and participate in schools. Students are
not trained in democratic ways of expressing their opinions, and teachers often punish students
who are perceived to express negative views.
• Dimension 6: Multiculturalism and respect for children’s rights. Despite the existence of a CRC
curriculum and training for teachers on how to use it, confusion remains among children about
their rights. Instruction is biased towards the ethnic group delivering it, and Macedonian children
have the least opportunity to learn about the culture, tradition and history of other ethnic groups
living in Macedonia.

26. Curriculum development
• New, nine-year compulsory education structure developed
• Revision of curricula in all subjects and the addition of new subjects
reviewed all curricula to ensure consistency with the CFS principles and
dimensions.
• National CFS team participated, ensured individualized approach in
teaching and learning while taking into account each child’s potential based
on her or his age and intellectual, physical, social and emotional
competencies
• Topics are included correcting gender stereotypes and contributing to the
dimension of gender responsiveness. This especially applies to history, -
position of women throughout the country’s history is planned as a theme
of discussion and more space for making historically important women
more visible

27. Working groups responsible for implementing
activities in schools
• Setting ground rules in the classroom, which were directed towards ensuring
mutual respect between teachers and students and motivating children for
learning. Once teachers and students had agreed on the rules, the rules were
displayed in the classroom and remained on display throughout the school year.
• Other activities included teachers’ identification of learning styles of children;
examining textbooks for gender bias; and studying gender bias in physical
education classes.
• teachers’ and students’ examination of textbooks revealed few female role
models, students made posters with photographs, illustrations and information
about well-known women painters, writers, scientists and others.
• healthy, safe and protective environments; children and teachers decided on a
means of expression; drawing or writing. Children mapped places or object
considered unsafe in school. Schools boards used to express students opinion.
Peer monitoring of violence during breaks

28. Overall Outcome: CFS infused into policies and
legislation
• IMPACT OF THE CFS INITIATIVE at school level : The results of the SSE data,
the CFS national expert team concluded that all stakeholders were giving a
more critical analysis of their schools.
• In the first year, teachers rated the schools very positively in terms of the
child-friendly dimensions, but students rated schools quite negatively.
• In the second year teachers’ and pupils’ scores moved closer, which
suggests that children are feeling more positive about the school
environment and teachers are willing to be more critical. Teachers and
students had worked on activities related to the standards during the
school year, they had come to understand the categories more clearly, and
they had learned from working with the team that honest answers would
yield positive benefits rather than blame