The quality issue also has a gender dimension. Certain stereotypes lead to girls’ concentration in particular subjects with sciences still considered as a male domain. The recent New York Times article ‘Bias Called Persistent Hurdle for Women in Sciences,’ citing AAUW report, points toward continuing cultural bias for women in science. In developing countries the issue is far more complicated with more extreme forms of cultural biases, norms and taboos which impact girls’ education in varied ways. But the issue of empowering women as professionals and persons in their own right cannot be left on the back burner until we have solved the problems associated with parity in primary, secondary and tertiary education. There has to be a multi pronged approach. So far, policy documents, at least the national ones, have failed to address the gender dimension of quality in education.

I am a senior policy analyst on the team who wrote the 2010 Global Monitoring Report. In this, we highlight the fact that the costs of schooling often keep more girls out of school than boys. In northern Nigeria, for example, only 12% of primary school age Hausa girls from poor families attend school – far fewer than boys from these same households. Household deprivation hurts girls’ education in particular, as poverty intersects with social and cultural practices, beliefs and attitudes.

As the report shows, a difference can be made where countries carry out reforms that cut the costs of schooling for girls from poor households, accompanied by reforms to address stereotypes in the curriculum and adverse attitudes and practices outside the school environment. The “inclusive education triangle” developed for the report provides a framework for linking these three policy areas.

Further information on educational marginalization from a gender perspective that was included in the 2010 GMR can be found in our Gender Overview (available on the GMR website).