articles related to women's education

The Unique Challenges Facing Women in Education

• Posted April 1, 2021
• By Jill Anderson
• Career and Lifelong Learning
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The pandemic has exposed many of the challenges facing women working in education. Yet, Jennie Weiner , Ed.M.'03, Ed.D.'12, an expert who studies how to create a more inclusive and equitable education field, acknowledges that many of the gender disparities in the education profession have long existed. Across the sector, women make up a majority of the education workforce but occupy barely a quarter of top leadership positions. This is not by accident, she says, but by systemic design.

“We've had a highly feminized profession, but feminized means both that women do the work, but also that it's devalued because it is women's work,” Weiner says, pointing to many issues that exist in education, such as underpaid teachers, buildings in disrepair, and even an “inverted” pyramid where men hold far more leadership positions than women.

“Many people would rather believe that hard work and being really good at what you do could outperform bias, and that's a lie. No matter how good you are, if we live in discriminatory system, that discrimination will raise its head," she says.

In this episode the EdCast, Weiner, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut, breaks down the gender issues in the field and suggests ways to push toward equality.

Jill Anderson:    I'm Jill Anderson. This is the Harvard EdCast.

Jennie Weiner knows the pandemic has exposed gender inequities that don't often get talked about in education. It doesn't matter whether women work in early childhood, or higher education, or somewhere in between, these inequities play out similarly across the field. Jennie is an associate professor who studies how to make education more inclusive and equitable through educational leadership. Although females have long made up the bulk of the education workforce, they barely represent a quarter of top leadership roles. She says there's many reasons for how we've ended up with gender inequity in the field and society. I asked Jennie to tell me more about the unique challenges facing women in education.

Jennie Weiner:     There are a number of challenges facing women in leadership generally, and then within the context of K12 specifically. Some of these challenges exist outside of the role, which are really about how our society frames the role of women and socialize us to understand what women should and shouldn't be doing within the space. Right? So for example, the idea that we should be the primary caretakers for our young children, which, of course, then creates complications if you don't have paid family leave, or access to reliable, cheap, and effective care for your children, and are attempting to work full time. Which was true in our context of our society prior to the pandemic, but of course has been exacerbated by the pandemic. We also have issues around who becomes caretakers, even if you don't have children for elderly parents, or for other kind of tasks within the context of a family, or an extended family.

So you have all that external socialization. And then you also have, what I would say is role socialization in leadership specifically, which is the way leadership is constructed in our society, and in education specifically, still really focuses on this idea of a lone hero, or heroic person, and I would argue, a white man, with characteristics that are stereotyped as masculine characteristics. So being very strong, or ambitious, or innovative, or aggressive, right? And we see this through our political cycles and in other spaces. So what happens is women may not be considered the best candidates for these positions because they hold other kinds of stereotyped ideas, right? So if you are more communally oriented, which should be a stereotype female, you're softer, you're emotional, you may not be seen as having leadership potential, right? And there's a lack of female mentors and women who are in charge in the first place to tap people along the trajectory.

But also if you exhibit traditionally, or stereotypically male characteristics that are more aligned with leadership, let's say being quite aggressive, or being innovative, we know that women often get criticized for exhibiting those behaviors. So I talk a lot about this idea of a double bind. So you have these externalized pathway issues and things that keep women from having full access to leadership that exist because of, again, our societal structures, and who gets to do what roles, and why, and how we think about that. But then we also have these internalized structures about how we understand and perceive what leadership is, and hence, who should be able to do it, and be successful, and thrive in the role. So it's a lot to say the least.

Jill Anderson:     It is a lot. I think it's something that you can easily look at and see in K through 12.

Jennie Weiner:    Right.

Jill Anderson:    You look and you see a lot of females, predominantly females in education, but you don't often see them in roles of superintendency or principalship.

Jennie Weiner:     So right now about 83 to 86% range of teachers are women. About 54% of principals are women, predominantly in elementary schools, and that's not an accident because elementary schools don't have after-school activities to the same extent. There's also ideas about women and their ability to facilitate, let's say discipline for older boys, and what they can handle. Also, women's willingness to blend their life and home life with their work life. So if I am a mother, am I willing to bring my kids to a bunch of basketball games, or activities at school consistently? If I'm a man, am I willing to do that?

And then at the superintendent level, it's been around 23% since the last 15 or 20 years. So, if you inverse that it's even more bananas, right? So you have, what is that then? 16% or so of teachers are men, about 50% of them are principals, and about 74% are superintendents. So, it's jarring in either direction, but I sometimes ask people to think in the reverse, right? But you have this teeny tiny pool at the bottom of the pyramid for men who are situated in schools and they're overwhelmingly more than 75% of the superintendents, the people in charge.

Jill Anderson:    Right. And is it the same when you get into higher ed and you start looking at careers [crosstalk 00:05:16].

Jennie Weiner:    Yes.

Jill Anderson:     ... in academia, the same reflection.

Jennie Weiner:     Right. And I think what's important to remember too, is historically it was built this way on purpose, Michael Apple, a scholar who studies the history of the profession, talks a lot about the ways in which we had to fill these common schools with an available workforce, people who could read and didn't have a lot of other options, and that was primarily women. So we've had a highly feminized profession, but feminized means both that women do the work, but also that it's devalued because it is women's work.

So that helps to explain why we have, for example, still issues around teachers being substantively underpaid, why buildings are in disrepair, and why we say we value education, but we consistently underfund it, and do not treat teachers with the respect I think that they deserve. And I think it's partially because it's mostly women who do that work over time, but it's also why we've created elaborate evaluation techniques to watch these women who need to be controlled and evaluated and observed to ensure they're doing the right thing within the context of schools. But teaching itself has been really situated as primarily a profession of women, and also then around caretaking as a primary driver as opposed to let's say high skills, knowledge capabilities. And academia is the same way. So it was created primarily for men, and therefore not surprising that it's very hard to break in, or deconstruct those ways of thinking about the work.

Jill Anderson:    How has the pandemic really shifted this? Because this has been a long existing problem, but now we're hearing about it on so many levels and it's getting a lot of attention.

Jennie Weiner:     Yeah. We're looking at somewhere between 2.5 and 4 million women leaving the workforce between the beginning of the pandemic and February of this year. So just that number is just breathtaking. Now, why? And it's intricately related to the things that we're discussing, right? So if you have professions, and you have, let's say a heterosexual couple, one is a man and one is a woman, and they both were working prior to the pandemic, it is highly likely because of the way discrimination works that the woman was in a lower paid field, or if she was in the same field, she was in a position in which she made less money than her husband.

In addition, many of the caretaking responsibilities within the context of the home that are considered to be stereotype female work, childcare, cleaning, scheduling, cooking, are usually taken up by women. So then the school is closed, there's no caretaking, you have young children, somebody has to give up their work in order to make that happen. If this is the parameters under which we make decisions, who's more likely to leave? Clearly the spouse who makes less money is more comfortable, or has been socialized to take on those roles within the context of the house before. And we see that, right? In fact, we actually saw quite a few women who made more money, or had their own professions and jobs, even those women leaving in favor of staying home.

And then we also, of course, to talk about this without talking about races, not really appropriate because most of the women who lost their jobs are women of color who were also in service industries, primarily in work that was most risk for catching COVID, whether that be home health care, the service industries, restaurants, cleaning services. And now they're also home and are unable to work, or have to put themselves at risk to facilitate their child, and their family having enough money to survive. So it exposed, I think things that were already there, but that we just never talked about in the public space.

Jill Anderson:    There were mothers I know who were working in education, who were working as early childhood educators and decided to leave their jobs to be able to accommodate remote learning, or being home with their kids through this time. So definitely hearing that in my own world.

Jennie Weiner:     Yeah. I think what you're saying is really powerful too, which I think people don't talk about, which is, if you have a profession, both early childcare providers and let's say any kind of childcare provider, and educators who are not childcare providers, but children go to school, is predominantly female. We can imagine that many of them probably have young children themselves. And yet the rhetoric has really been to not discuss that as if these are separate identities. So we say, why aren't the teachers, or the childcare providers doing their job? They should be open, without paying any attention to, if I'm a teacher and I'm supposed to be attending to my class full time, and I have a three-year-old, who's taking care of my three-year-old?

Jill Anderson:     Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jennie Weiner:    And I just feel like in the public discourse around school opening, they're not opening the idea, or understanding that many of these are young women with families who are facing the same challenges that I'm facing is not discussed. And I would just put that to people about how that reinforces our lack of discussion about women's rights and gender equity within the context of our society when we do not attend to that as part of the problem of schools reopening.

Jill Anderson:    Well, since you've mentioned the, what you've just written about, which is your own experience, in a collection of essays being released looking at pandemic parenting, you talk about that experience of juggling the challenges of parenting while working in academia. So what has it been like for you?

Jennie Weiner:     Dislocating, discombobulating. So I have twin nine year old boys, both of whom have been home with me for over a year now, now they've had full-time learning, but not in person. I think one of the things that's been so terribly difficult is so much of the gymnastics that I've had to do over the course of my career to simply persist and thrive in a space that's not made for me. So to constantly be in spaces and having to make really tough choices about, should I go to a conference? And then when I get to the conference, people say, well, who is taking care of your kids? Or I'm missing something that's happening at home, and I'm feeling that's really difficult and hard. And I've made so many, what I perceive to be sacrifices in a system that is not made for working mothers, or for people from non-traditional backgrounds in that space. And then to be home all the time and feel like some of that is slipping away, my identity and my ability to thrive in my workspace just gone.

And even though I think externally there's a sense that everybody's going through it, and I should just not be so hard on myself, I don't believe that the system will actually excuse women who have taken this time. I think that I have a lot of fear that if I don't keep juggling and pretzeling, that's not something I'm ever going to be able to make up, because, again, I've had to fight so hard just to feel like I had a space at the table. It's difficult to lose something that you feel like you've fought so hard for.

Jill Anderson:    Yeah. You raised an interesting point because there have been some predictions made about how far this pandemic will definitely set women off course, and it's alarming. We're talking not just like, Oh, this is going to set women off by a couple of years, this is decades of setbacks from just this one year, year and a half, whatever it ends up being.

Jennie Weiner:     Yeah. Basically like 1970s or something, yeah.

Jill Anderson:    Which is crazy.

Jennie Weiner:    It is really crazy. I think it tells you how precarious everything was, and on whoms back the progress had it been made. So because there haven't been attention to, let's say structural and systemic changes to our policies, to issues a place like the ERA for example, the Equal Rights Amendment never passed. The fact that many black and brown women are in low wage jobs and we can't pass a decent minimum wage. The fact that we don't have universal childcare, or universal pre-K. So what happens? Well, women behind the scenes address all those issues behind the scenes. And so every success to a large degree has been on the backs of the people who have been discriminated against, we've elbowed, and we've worked, and we've suffered, and we've done what we needed to do, but individual hard work is not a way to fix systems of oppression, it helps, but you can see, right? Once that fell down and we didn't have any systems to support us, the marbles all fell out of the bag.

I only hope, perhaps, that people will remember and understand the veil is off, that depending on women to just do more is not a way to create a just society. And we have to fight for these kinds of systemic changes that are going to make things different regardless of what the future holds in terms of calamity, or change, or whatever the fact may be.

Jill Anderson:     We've heard a lot about the glass ceiling, especially even recently with Kamala Harris being elected, and a lot of us have heard of that term before, what is the glass cliff?

Jennie Weiner:    So the glass cliff was brought about by some research by Haslam and Ryan, and they're British researchers. And I read in the newspaper, there was an article about how the FTSE Index, their publicly traded companies, how women were in charge of all the ones that were doing poorly, and therefore women must be poor leaders. They did analysis, and basically what they found was that women were more likely to be leaders within the context of companies that were not doing well, but they were hired once they started to decline. So the idea is that women and people of color, people who are traditionally marginalized from those kinds of leadership opportunities, are given the opportunity to lead, but only when an organization is in decline. And now, of course, that comes with a bunch of other parameters, right? So usually that also means often that you have a highly activist board.

So women who end up taking these positions spend far more time catering and having to deal with activist board members than do men. Additionally, when women start to improve the organization, they're not given credit for that. Alternatively, if something that looks like it's doomed to fail, and then they take over fails, they're blamed, and most often a white man is put back into the position after them. I'm actually studying this within the context of education superintendents, but I noticed, for example, I work in Connecticut, there are very few black women principals in a place like Hartford, but when you look at where they're placed, they tend to be placed in most of the turnaround schools, which are the chronically underperforming schools. April Peter speaks about how they're positioned as cleanup women to come in and mop up and clean up the mistakes others have made, but instead of being lauded for that, even when they have success, they're vilified as being difficult, or hard to work with, or aggressive in ways that are not valued, even when they have success in addressing the problems of the organizations. So it's pretty tricky.

Jill Anderson:     What is the most important thing for a female in education leadership, whether it's K through 12, whether it's in academia?

Jennie Weiner:    I'm often in places with women leaders, I'm often asked to speak and I facilitate a women superintendents group for the state of Connecticut, I'm so proud and privileged to have that opportunity. I think one thing that often happens is people are upset by hearing these truths. At the same time, because we'd all rather believe, or many people would rather believe that hard work and being really good at what you do could outperform bias, and that's a lie. No matter how good you are, if we live in discriminatory system, that discrimination will raise its head. Now, of course, there's exceptions, there's always exceptions, but on average, across, right? Most women are not exceptions. So what's the benefit of doing it then?

Well, the other piece of this is, if you don't have language and understand that there is something systemic happening, then when someone says to you, you don't really have leadership capabilities, or you're not really leadership material, you might believe them. You may actually begin to feel that the problem is you, because you look around and you're not seeing that happening to other people, or nobody's talking about it. And you internalize those feelings of shame and ineffectiveness, and you lay the blame on yourself. And that is terrible. And it's going to get us to come together, it's not going to help facilitate change, it's not going to move us to press, and push, and fight for something better on the horizon for us and other generation of women leaders.

And so I think it's a misnomer to say that liberation comes without pain because facing her truths is painful. It is painful to see that I can't out run discrimination, but I cannot be free. I cannot be liberated if I don't see how the system operates, because individuals cannot by themselves change discriminatory systems, we need each other. And the only way we can find each other is if we own up and talk about these experiences and connect them to something larger than ourselves.

Jill Anderson:     But it doesn't feel like the conversation about gender bias happens as often, which is interesting in lieu of all of the information that we have about females in education.

Jennie Weiner:     I am concerned about the ways in which gender identity and other forms of identity have not been taken up as part of the larger conversation about DEI efforts, and I wonder how we can have an anti-racist society without addressing patriarchy and vice versa, because patriarchy and white supremacy are intricately linked and both need to be addressed simultaneously for justice to come forward. I do not place one above the other, but I do think we can do hard things and we should, and need to talk about them as intricately linked, and when we don't, we miss quite a bit of the conversation.

Jill Anderson:    To just backtrack on that, is that intersectional feminism?

Jennie Weiner:    Part of the critic of the feminist movement was that it was predominantly women like me, upper-middle-class white women, who did not attend to the fact that they have particular privileges regarding that status, right? I'm not a low wage earner. I have documentation, I have particular freedoms and abilities to assert myself in spaces without the same repercussions, and that needs to be owned and understood. So intersectionality is really, really linked with black feminist thought, critical thought, and legal work as well. But the idea is that we have to attend to multiple forms of identity at once, and how that discrimination manifests across the spectrum. So a really concrete example, I think that's useful to think about within the context of education is, we still have very low numbers, but only 6% of principals are black women, which is just crazy, and much of this is actually a result of what happened in the post-brown era when schools integrated and they fired in mass something like 40,000 black educators, because when they integrated schools, they shut down black schools and fired black teachers and administrators, and replaced them with white administrators and teachers, which many people don't talk about, but it's important to our legacy and why we are where we are.

So if I was somebody who was interested in trying to recruit more people of color and women into, let's say administrative ranks, the reasons why they are not accessing those historically are different. So if I try to just do it through a white lens, right? So I'm addressing gender, but if I only do it through a white lens, I may not be attending to the ways in which racial discrimination and this legacy is impacting black women's ability to access, feel successful, and how they're treated in the role, right? So the solutions may look different, and the ways in which I engage and think about them may look different because I understand that both of those things matter as do potentially other things that are the ways in which discrimination operates to allow them to have access and thrive in those positions. So I think the lack of attention to that is really, really problematic. And again, those are just a few, right? We could talk about LBGTQ. We know that immigration status, other things that bring about different ways of interacting with systemic oppression, and then, again, how we might attend to that and think about it if we really want things to change.

Jill Anderson:    So it feels so huge that it can almost feel like it's difficult to know how to take a step toward change. And so even in lieu of the pandemic, which is almost like this dark cloud lingering over it. So what about next steps?

Jennie Weiner:     On one hand you could say, I feel really overwhelmed because of all the things that you just said. On the other hand, you could say, wow, there's so much work to do, and there's so many different, based on my skills, capabilities, orientation, understandings, I could get involved at so many levels, right? I could get involved in my intimate relationship with my partner and discuss about the balance of work and why things are, and start begin to question that, and that would be, I think, a feminist action. There are ways to be engaged in sisterhood to support women in your place of work, for example, here's just a small one. You go to a meeting frequently and your female colleagues said something, and then five minutes later your male colleague says it and everyone says, Bill, that's a great idea. Thank you for sharing that. I think a lot of women, if they're listening to this, may have had that experience.

So you may be with women in your group and speak to them and say, whenever someone says something, we're going to amplify it. So now this time Jill says something wonderful, and then Bill says it, and Bill repeats it, and I said, yes, I loved it when Jill said it five minutes ago. These are small, but I think if we first name things as problematic and situated outside of ourselves, and two, come together around them, right? We can run for office, run for office, if you're listening, run for office, run for your school board, put that in your pocket, understand that issues around fair pay are feminist issues, issues around childcare are feminist issues. Access to healthcare is a feminist issue. Read, study, affiliate, fight.

I'm working really hard to try to imagine a future that doesn't look just like trying to get more women look like men, in the sense of, I don't want our future to have to be that women have to take on the attributes of men to feel successful and gain access. I want us to begin to think about a future that's not imagined, or created yet, but to do that, we have to talk to each other like we are now, and tell the truth about how we feel, and about what's hard about it, and that these things are happening to all of us, and that we're in solidarity, and I think that's where change starts to happen.

Jill Anderson:     Well, thank you so much, Jennie.

Jennie Weiner:     Thank you. It was so fun.

Jill Anderson:     Jennie Weiner, is an associate professor of educational leadership at the University of Connecticut. She authored an essay in the forthcoming book, Pandemic Parenting: The Collision of Schoolwork and Life at Home . She will also teach in the upcoming Women in Education Leadership Program as part of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, professional education. I'm Jill Anderson. This is the Harvard EdCast produced by the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Thanks for listening.

An education podcast that keeps the focus simple: what makes a difference for learners, educators, parents, and communities

Related Articles

Creating Trans-Inclusive Schools

Anti-Oppressive Social Studies for Elementary School

HBCUs, Higher Ed, and Democracy’s Future

Leaving no girl behind in education

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

We know from decades of research that when girls and women are educated, we see faster poverty reduction, better maternal health, lower child mortality, greater HIV prevention and reduced violence. Each additional year a girl spends in school can also boost her earnings as an adult by  up to 20 per cent .

As the world comes together for the  Transforming Education Summit  this September, we must remember that all children deserve to learn and despite great strides made in girls’ education over the last few decades, girls from the poorest households and in rural areas are still being left behind. According to UN Women and UNDESA’s new report,  Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot , even without the COVID-19 fallout, it will take at least another 54 years to reach universal primary school completion for girls.

The report also cites recent data from 29 countries showing that gaps in upper secondary school completion among the poorest rural girls and the richest urban girls can range from 11.5 to 72.2 percentage points.

Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, migratory status and disabilities can also disrupt education. Children with disabilities have less access to early childhood education, according to data from 42 countries, and the disparity is greater for girls (only 18 per cent of girls with one or more functioning difficulties attended an early childhood education programme, compared to 28 per cent of girls without). And pandemic-related disruptions to education have further deepened inequalities in learning for girls and young women.

COVID-19 compounds existing inequalities

Now more than two years into the pandemic, despite most schools being reopened, the disruptions in education will leave lasting impacts, particularly among marginalized and vulnerable girls. For instance, the Gender Snapshot reveals that in rural Pakistan, learning losses are higher among girls than boys across all subjects. In the Mexican states of Campeche and Yucatan, the share of 10-year-old students who can comprehend simple texts declined by 25 percentage points among those with low socioeconomic status, compared to 15 percentage points for those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Worldwide, nearly 130 million girls are not enrolled in formal education, and more than half of them are in crisis-affected countries. In Afghanistan, girls are no longer even allowed to attend secondary school.

To address these problems, time and resources are required, yet fewer than 3 per cent of COVID-19 stimulus funds have gone to education.

COVID-19 also brought increased adolescent pregnancies, which further threaten girls’ education. The Gender Snapshot reveals that in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, 56 per cent of adolescent girls from hard-to-reach populations who dropped out of school early in the pandemic were currently or recently pregnant. The pandemic has also placed girls at greater risk of gender-based violence, mental health disorders and food and economic insecurity.

COVID-19 illnesses and deaths among adult caregivers have also yielded lower educational outcomes. As of October 2021, over 5 million children had lost a parent or primary caregiver to COVID-19. For adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa, such losses increased their risk of sexual violence, exploitation, HIV infection and lower educational attainment.

Missing opportunities in tech and innovation

The report also notes that long-held biased gender norms and stereotypes remain embedded in curricula, textbooks and teaching, derailing girls’ choices of what to study and what careers to pursue. Globally, young women outnumber men in tertiary education, but in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), women make up only 35 per cent of students, and in ICT, women make up just 3 per cent.

Across countries, girls are steered away from STEM. Teachers and parents, both intentionally and inadvertently, perpetuate biases around what work is “suitable” for women and men. In the Philippines, girls as young as 10 lose interest in STEM subjects, perceiving such careers as male-dominated and believing that girls are naturally less skilled in STEM. Without women role models in STEM, these perceptions are continually reinforced. Women make up just 19.9 per cent of science and engineering professionals.

Gaps in STEM education and careers are even larger for women and girls disadvantaged by the intersection of gender and other vulnerabilities. In the United States of America, the report reveals that Black and Hispanic women in STEM earn about $20,000 a year less than the average for STEM jobs and about $33,000 less than their white male counterparts.

With the Transforming Education Summit bringing together so many leaders and experts, its critical that we take this convening as an opportunity to make bold and transformative commitments that advance girls’ education, including by promoting more girls in STEM fields and prioritizes learning and education outcomes of girls from marginalized communities who are most at risk, and then carry that momentum on to next year when the  67 th  session of the Commission on the Status of Women  comes together under the theme “Innovation and technological change and education in the digital age for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls”.

• Gender stereotypes
• Economic empowerment

Related content

Girls who can code and break stereotypes: an interview with Natacha Sangwa

Op-ed: Improving women’s access to decent jobs

Speech: Gender equality – just, prudent, and essential for everything we all aspire to

• High contrast
• Press Centre

Search UNICEF

Girls' education, gender equality in education benefits every child..

• Girls' education
• Available in:

Investing in girls’ education transforms communities, countries and the entire world. Girls who receive an education are less likely to marry young and more likely to lead healthy, productive lives. They earn higher incomes, participate in the decisions that most affect them, and build better futures for themselves and their families.

Girls’ education strengthens economies and reduces inequality. It contributes to more stable, resilient societies that give all individuals – including boys and men – the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

But education for girls is about more than access to school. It’s also about girls feeling safe in classrooms and supported in the subjects and careers they choose to pursue – including those in which they are often under-represented.

When we invest in girls’ secondary education

• The lifetime earnings of girls dramatically increase
• National growth rates rise
• Child marriage rates decline
• Child mortality rates fall
• Maternal mortality rates fall
• Child stunting drops

Why are girls out of school?

Despite evidence demonstrating how central girls’ education is to development, gender disparities in education persist.

Around the world, 129 million girls are out of school, including 32 million of primary school age, 30 million of lower-secondary school age, and 67 million of upper-secondary school age. In countries affected by conflict, girls are more than twice as likely to be out of school than girls living in non-affected countries.

Worldwide, 129 million girls are out of school.

Only 49 per cent of countries have achieved gender parity in primary education. At the secondary level, the gap widens: 42 per cent of countries have achieved gender parity in lower secondary education, and 24 per cent in upper secondary education.

The reasons are many. Barriers to girls’ education – like poverty, child marriage and gender-based violence – vary among countries and communities. Poor families often favour boys when investing in education.

In some places, schools do not meet the safety, hygiene or sanitation needs of girls. In others, teaching practices are not gender-responsive and result in gender gaps in learning and skills development.

Gender equality in education

Gender-equitable education systems empower girls and boys and promote the development of life skills – like self-management, communication, negotiation and critical thinking – that young people need to succeed. They close skills gaps that perpetuate pay gaps, and build prosperity for entire countries.

Gender-equitable education systems can contribute to reductions in school-related gender-based violence and harmful practices, including child marriage and female genital mutilation .

Gender-equitable education systems help keep both girls and boys in school, building prosperity for entire countries.

An education free of negative gender norms has direct benefits for boys, too. In many countries, norms around masculinity can fuel disengagement from school, child labour, gang violence and recruitment into armed groups. The need or desire to earn an income also causes boys to drop out of secondary school, as many of them believe the curriculum is not relevant to work opportunities.

UNICEF’s work to promote girls’ education

UNICEF works with communities, Governments and partners to remove barriers to girls’ education and promote gender equality in education – even in the most challenging settings.

Because investing in girls’ secondary education is one of the most transformative development strategies, we prioritize efforts that enable all girls to complete secondary education and develop the knowledge and skills they need for life and work.

This will only be achieved when the most disadvantaged girls are supported to enter and complete pre-primary and primary education. Our work:

• Tackles discriminatory gender norms and harmful practices that deny girls access to school and quality learning.
• Supports Governments to ensure that budgets are gender-responsive and that national education plans and policies prioritize gender equality.
• Helps schools and Governments use assessment data to eliminate gender gaps in learning.
• Promotes social protection measures, including cash transfers, to improve girls’ transition to and retention in secondary school.
• Focuses teacher training and professional development on gender-responsive pedagogies.
• Removes gender stereotypes from learning materials.
• Addresses other obstacles, like distance-related barriers to education, re-entry policies for young mothers, and menstrual hygiene management in schools.

More from UNICEF

1 in 3 adolescent girls from the poorest households has never been to school

Let’s shape tech to be transformative

Gender-responsive digital pedagogies: A guide for educators

Stories of suffering and hope: Afghanistan and Pakistan

Catherine Russell reflects on her first field visit as UNICEF's Executive Director

Where are the girls and why it matters as schools reopen?

School closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic risk reversing the massive gains to girls’ education

Advancing Girls' Education and Gender Equality through Digital Learning

This brief note highlights how UNICEF will advance inclusive and transformative digital technology to enhance girls’ learning and skills development for work and life.

Reimagining Girls' Education: Solutions to Keep Girls Learning in Emergencies

This resource presents an empirical overview of what works to support learning outcomes for girls in emergencies.

e-Toolkit on Gender Equality in Education

This course aims to strengthen the capacity of UNICEF's education staff globally in gender equality applied to education programming.

Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for All

This report draws on national studies to examine why millions of children continue to be denied the fundamental right to primary education.

GirlForce: Skills, Education and Training for Girls Now

This report discusses persistent barriers girls face in the transition from education to the workforce, and how gender gaps in employment outcomes persist despite girls’ gains in education.

UNICEF Gender Action Plan (2022-2025)

This plan specifies how UNICEF will promote gender equality across the organization’s work, in alignment with the UNICEF Strategic Plan.

Global Partnership for Education

This partnership site provides data and programming results for the only global fund solely dedicated to education in developing countries.

United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative

UNGEI promotes girls’ education and gender equality through policy advocacy and support to Governments and other development actors.

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality

About the author.

Amartya Sen, often referred to as the father of the concept of ‘human development’, reminds us of a quote by H.G. Wells, where he said that “human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe”. Sen maintains that “if we continue to leave vast sections of the people of the world outside the orbit of education, we make the world not only less just, but also less secure”. To Sen, the gender aspect of education is a direct link between illiteracy and women’s security.

Not being able to read or write is a significant barrier for underprivileged women, since this can lead to their failure to make use of even the rather limited rights they may legally have (to own land or other property, or to appeal against unfair judgment and unjust treatment). There are often legal rights in rule books that are not used because the aggrieved parties cannot read those rule books. Gaps in schooling can, therefore, directly lead to insecurity by distancing the deprived from the ways and means of fighting against that deprivation. 1

For Sen, illiteracy and innumeracy are forms of insecurity in themselves, “not to be able to read or write or count or communicate is a tremendous deprivation. The extreme case of insecurity is the certainty of deprivation, and the absence of any chance of avoiding that fate”. 2 The link between education and security underlines the importance of education as akin to a basic need in the twenty-first century of human development.

GENDERED EDUCATION GAPS: SOME CRITICAL FACTS

While a moral and political argument can continue to be made for the education of girls and women, some facts speak powerfully to the issue at hand. Girls accounted for 53 per cent of the 61 million children of primary school age who were out of school in 2010. Girls accounted for 49 per cent of the 57 million children out of school in 2013. In surveys of 30 countries with more than 100,000 out-of-school children, 28 per cent of girls were out of school on average compared to 25 per cent of boys. Completion of primary school is a particular problem for girls in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia. 3

Surveys in 55 developing countries reveal that girls are more likely to be out of school at a lower secondary age than boys, regardless of the wealth or location of the household. Almost two thirds of the world’s 775 million illiterate adults are women. In developing regions, there are 98 women per 100 men in tertiary education. There are significant inequalities in tertiary education in general, as well as in relation to areas of study, with women being over-represented in the humanities and social sciences and significantly under-represented in engineering, science and technology.

Gender-based violence in schools undermines the right to education and presents a major challenge to achieving gender equality in education because it negatively impacts girls’ participation and their retention in school. In addition, ineffective sexual and reproductive health education inhibits adolescents’ access to information and contributes to school dropouts, especially among girls who have reached puberty.

The education of girls and women can lead to a wide range of benefits from improved maternal health, reduced infant mortality and fertility rates to increased prevention against HIV and AIDS. 4 Educated mothers are more likely to know that HIV can be transmitted by breastfeeding, and that the risk of mother-to-child transmission can be reduced by taking drugs during pregnancy.

Each extra year of a mother’s schooling reduces the probability of infant mortality by 5-10 per cent. Children of mothers with secondary education or higher are twice as likely to survive beyond age 5 compared to those whose mothers have no education. Improvements in women’s education explained half of the reduction in child deaths between 1990 and 2009. A child born to a mother who can read is 50 per cent more likely to survive past age 5. In sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 1.8 million children’s lives could have been saved in 2008 if their mothers had at least a secondary education. In Indonesia, 68 per cent of children with mothers who have attended secondary school are immunized, compared with 19 per cent of children whose mothers have no primary schooling. Wages, agricultural income and productivity—all critical for reducing poverty— are higher where women involved in agriculture receive a better education. Each additional year of schooling beyond primary offers greater payoffs for improved opportunities, options and outcomes for girls and women.

In the varied discussions on the post-2015 education related agendas, there was strong consensus that gender equality in education remains a priority. Various inputs noted that inequalities in general, and particularly gender equality, need to be addressed simultaneously on multiple levels—economic, social, political and cultural. A response on behalf of the International Women’s Health Coalition maintained that “all girls, no matter how poor, isolated or disadvantaged, should be able to attend school regularly and without the interruption of early pregnancy, forced marriage, maternal injuries and death, and unequal domestic and childcare burdens”.

Other inputs highlighted the importance of ensuring access to post-basic and post-secondary education for girls and women. Referring to secondary education, the German Foundation for World Population noted that the “completion of secondary education has a strong correlation with girls marrying later and delaying first pregnancy.” While access to good quality education is important for girls and women, preventing gender-based violence and equality through education clearly also remains a priority.

Gender-based discrimination in education is, in effect, both a cause and a consequence of deep-rooted differences in society. Disparities, whether in terms of poverty, ethnic background, disability, or traditional attitudes about their status and role all undermine the ability of women and girls to exercise their rights. Moreover, harmful practices such as early marriage, gender-based violence, as well as discriminatory education laws and policies still prevent millions of girls from enrolling and completing their respective education. 5

Additionally, given the extensive and growing participation of women in income generating activities, education for girls and women is particularly important, especially in attempting to reverse gendered patterns of discrimination. Not only is it impossible to achieve gender equality without education, but expanding education opportunities for all can help stimulate productivity and thereby also reduce the economic vulnerability of poor households.

GENDER EQUALITY, EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Equity is the strongest framing principle of a post-2015 rights-based agenda, and underlines the need to redress historical and structural inequalities in order to provide access to quality education at all levels. This heralds what was effectively one of the strongest themes that emerged in the post-2015 education consultations, i.e., a rights-based approach in which rights are indivisible. This implies that all aspects of education should be considered from a rights perspective, including structural features of education systems, methods of education, as well as the contents of the education curricula. Indeed, overcoming structural barriers to accessing good quality education is vital for realizing education rights for all.

In related post-2015 consultations, equity is affirmed as a fundamental value in education. Several inputs noted that inequality in education remains a persistent challenge. This is connected to a focus in the Millennium Development Goals on averages without an accompanying consideration of trends beneath the averages. Many contributions in the education consultation, as well as in the other thematic consultations, highlighted the lack of attention to marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Equal access to good quality education requires addressing wide-ranging and persistent inequalities in society and should include a stronger focus on how different forms of inequality intersect to produce unequal outcomes for marginalized and vulnerable groups. Post-2015 consultations suggest that overcoming inequality requires a goal that makes national governments accountable for providing minimum standards and implementing country specific plans for basic services, including education. Equity in education also implies various proactive and targeted measures to offer progressive support to disadvantaged groups.

Amartya Sen notes empirical work which has brought out very clearly how the relative respect and regard for women’s well-being is strongly influenced by their literacy and educated participation in decisions within and outside the family. Even the survival disadvantage of women compared with men in many developing countries (which leads to “such terrible phenomenon as a hundred million of ‘missing women’) seems to go down sharply, and may even get eliminated, with progress in women’s empowerment, for which literacy is a basic ingredient”.

In the summer of 2009, the International Labour Organization (ILO) issued a report entitled “Give Girls a Chance: Tackling child labour, a key to the future”, which makes a disturbing link between increasing child labour and the preference being given to boys when making decisions on education of children. The report states that in cultures in which a higher value is placed on education of male children, girls risk being taken out of school and are then likely to enter the workforce at an early age. The ILO report noted global estimates where more than 100 million girls were involved in child labour, and many were exposed to some of its worst forms.

Much of the research around women and education highlights the importance of investing in the education of girls as an effective way of tackling the gamut of poverty. This is in line with assertions made in numerous other references, which also point to a strong link between education, increased women’s (as opposed to girls’) labour force participation, the wages they earn and overall productivity, all of which ultimately yields higher benefits for communities and nations. In other words, it pays to invest in girls’ and women’s education.

GENDER SOCIALIZATION

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western feminist stalwarts, such as Simone de Beauvoir, were elaborating the difference between biological ‘sex’ and social gender. Anne Oakley in particular, is known for coining the term gender socialization (1979), which indicates that gender is socially constructed. According to Oakley, parents are engaged in gender socialization but society holds the largest influence in constructing gender. She identified three social mechanisms of gender socialization: manipulation, canalization, and verbalization (Oakley, 1972). Oakley noted that gender is not a fixed concept but is determined by culture through the use of verbal and nonverbal signifiers and the creation of social norms and stereotypes, which identify proper and acceptable behavior. The signifiers are then perpetuated on a macro level, reinforced by the use of the media, as well as at the micro level, through individual relationships.

The concept entered mainstream lexicon on gender relations and development dynamics, and through criticism and counter criticism, ‘gender socialization’ itself became an important signifier. As a tool to highlight discriminatory practices, laws and perceptions (including stereotypes), gender socialization is often identified as the ‘root cause’ which explains various aspects of gender identities, and what underlies many gender dynamics.

In 2007, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) defined gender socialization as “[T]he process by which people learn to behave in a certain way, as dictated by societal beliefs, values, attitudes and examples. Gender socialization begins as early as when a woman becomes pregnant and people start making judgments about the value of males over females. These stereotypes are perpetuated by family members, teachers and others by having different expectations for males and females.”

There is, therefore, a clear interaction between socio-cultural values (and praxis) with gender socialization. This only partly explains why it is that in many developing societies there is a persistent prioritization of women’s ‘domestic’ roles and responsibilities over public ones. Most young girls are socialized into the ‘biological inevitability’ of their socially determined future roles as mothers. This is closely connected, in many relatively socially conservative contexts, with the need to ensure (the prerequisite of) marriage.

Most related studies maintain that women with formal education are much more likely to use reliable family planning methods, delay marriage and childbearing, and have fewer and healthier babies than women with no formal education. The World Bank estimates that one year of female schooling reduces fertility by 10 per cent, particularly where secondary schooling is undertaken.

In fact, because women with some formal education are more likely to seek medical care and be better informed about health care practices for themselves and their children, their offspring have higher survival rates and are better nourished. Not only that, but as indicated earlier, these women are less likely to undergo early pregnancy. Being better informed increases the chances of women knowing how to space their pregnancies better, how to access pre and post-natal care, including prevention of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and family planning in general. The World Bank estimates that an additional year of schooling for 1,000 women helps prevent two maternal deaths.

The World Bank, along with UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund highlight in several of their reports the intergenerational benefits of women’s education. An educated mother is more likely, it is maintained, to attempt to ensure educational opportunities for her children. Indeed, the World Bank specifically notes that “ in many countries each additional year of formal education completed by a mother translates into her children remaining in school for an additional one- third to one-half year”. 6

In short, girls’ education and the promotion of gender equality in education are critical to development, thus underlining the need to broadly address gender disparities in education.

The rhetorical question that needs to be raised here is whether the consistent elements of gender socialization in the region, and the confusing messages for both sexes, can only lead to entrenching processes of gender inequality. At the very least, it is safe to argue that gender socialization, combined with the continuing discrepancies in education opportunities and outcomes not only provide a negative feedback loop, but effectively contribute to entrenching patriarchal norms.

Political events and the endorsement of political leadership are often catalytic, if not necessary determinants, of policy change. In fact, most education reform programmes are often linked to political dynamics. To date, such reforms are typically launched through a political or legal act. In most cases, countries prioritize aspects such as forging a common heritage and understanding of citizenship, instruction in particular language(s), and other means of building capacities as well as popular support for party programmes. All developing country governments have, at one time or another, put special effort into including girls in the education system. While there is a continuous role for policy makers and governments, it is increasingly clear that the socio-cultural terrain is where the real battles need to be waged in a studied, deliberate and targeted fashion.

Influencing the way people think, believe and behave; i.e., culture is the single most complicated task of human development. And yet, in policy and advocacy circles globally, this particular challenge still remains largely considered as ‘soft’ and, at best, secondary in most considerations. What is maintained here is that within the current global geopolitical climate, particularly where an increasing number of young men—and now also young women—are reverting to extremes such as inflicting violence, and where this is often exacerbated by socialization processes which often enforce certain harmful practices (e.g., early marriage) and outdated forms of gender identity and roles, then culture needs to be a high priority.

Needed cultural shifts require several key conditions. One of these is the importance of bridging the activism around gender equality and doing so by involving both men and women. While this still remains anathema to many women’s rights activists, it is nevertheless necessary that men become more engaged in gender equality work, and that women realize that their rights are incumbent on the systematic partnership with men and on appreciating the specific needs and challenges that young boys and men themselves are struggling with.

Another critical determinant of cultural change is that it has to be from within. Those who have worked with human rights issues more broadly have had to learn the hard way that any change that appears to be induced ‘from outside’, even if responding to a dire need and with perfectly sound reason, is destined for failure in many cases. Sustainable change has to be owned and operated locally. This points to the importance of identifying the ‘cultural agents of change’ in any given society, which include both its men and women activists, religious leaders, traditional and community leaders (in some cases these categories converge), media figures, charismatic community mobilizers, and especially youth themselves, who are the most critical agents of change.

At the same time, it is a fallacy to think that there can be no linkages whatsoever between local ownership and external dynamics. International, especially multilateral, development partners have an important role to play in facilitating the bridge building between and among the cultural agents of change themselves on the one hand, and between them and their respective policymakers on the other. But in this day and age of technology and increasing speed of technology, international development actors, as well as transnational academic actors, are already facilitating the building of bridges between youth. Some of this is already happening through a plethora of fora (including social websites), and the impact remains difficult to gauge.

All this points to the fact that education in the traditional sense of school enrolment, drop-out rates, curricula development, and structural dynamics thereof are in multiple stages of transition. It remains to be seen how, and in what way, new forms of education, knowledge acquisition, and information sharing will significantly change patterns of gender socialization itself. It is too soon to definitely assess the shifting sands we are standing on. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to either overestimate the power of entrenched patriarchy, or to underestimate the capacity of women and men to significantly refashion their realities. At the same time, the changes in the culture of international development goal setting are already producing critical insights and inputs which are shaping the agenda of global, regional and national dynamics for upcoming decades.

The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of any institution, Board or staff member.

1 UNICEF and UNESCO: The World We Want— Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013 . Available at http://www.unicef.org/education/files/ Making_education_a_Priority_in_the_Post-2015_Development_ Agenda.pdf.

3 “Making education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: report of the Global Thematic Consultation on education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda”.

4 All the figures and data herein presented from UNESCO. 2011b. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, Paris and UNESCO . World Atlas of Gender equality in education. Paris, 2012.

5 UNESCO— http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-...

Alger, Chadwick. “Religion as a Peace Tool”, The Global Review of Ethnopolitics , vol.1,4: 94 -109. (June 2002).

Diamond, Larry (ed.). Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner, 1994). Huntington, Samuel. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs , vol.72, No.3, Summer 1993, pp. 19 -23.

Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York , Henry Holt and Company, 2000).

Karam, Azza. Transnational Political Islam: Religion, Ideology and Power (London, Pluto Press, 2004).

Leftwich, Adrian (ed.). Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice (London, Polity Press, 1996).

Macrae, Joanna. Aiding Recovery? The Crisis of AID in Chronic Political Emergencies (London and New York, Zed Books in Association with ODI, 2001).

Pilch, John J. “Beat His ribs While He is young” (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, vol. 23, 3 (1993) pp 101-113.

Tynedale, Wendy. (ed.). Visions of Development: Faith-based Initiatives (UK: Ashgate, 2006).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Arab Human Development Report (New York, 2002, 2004, and 2005).

UNESCO, “Key Messages and Data on Girls’ and Women’s education and literacy” (Paris, April 2012).

UNICEF and UNESCO, The World We Want—Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013 . Available at http://www.unicef.org/education/files/Making_education_a_Priority_in_the... . United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of World Population Report: Reaching Common Ground—Culture, Gender and Human Rights (2008).

Williams, Brett (ed.). The Politics of Culture (Washington D.C., The Smithsonian Institution, 1991).

World Bank MENA report: The Road Not Travelled: Education Reform in the Middle East and North Africa , (Washington D.C. The World Bank, 2008).

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Thirty Years On, Leaders Need to Recommit to the International Conference on Population and Development Agenda

With the gains from the Cairo conference now in peril, the population and development framework is more relevant than ever. At the end of April 2024, countries will convene to review the progress made on the ICPD agenda during the annual session of the Commission on Population and Development.

The LDC Future Forum: Accelerating the Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

The desired outcome of the LDC Future Forums is the dissemination of practical and evidence-based case studies, solutions and policy recommendations for achieving sustainable development.

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

For two centuries, emancipated Black people have been calling for reparations for the crimes committed against them. 

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

This was the struggle for female education in the U.S.

Debate about “coeducation”—and the word itself—emerged only in the 1850s. Image:  Unsplash/Nikhita S

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Livia Gershon

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} SDG 05: Gender Equality is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sdg 05: gender equality.

• Between 1790 and 1870, girls in the US went from being illiterate to outperforming their male counterparts in schools
• From false accusations that learning algebra would harm their reproductive capabilities to gendered classes, this is the tale of women in education

With so many young women succeeding academically, education is becoming feminized, and boys are left out. Or at least, that’s the familiar complaint today, perhaps best known from Hanna Rosin’s 2010 article for The Atlantic , “ The End of Men .” The thing is, this phenomenon goes back at least 150 years , as the education historian David Tyack and political scientist Elisabeth Hansot explain in the journal Educational Researcher .

Tyack and Hansot write that there was a huge influx of girls into public elementary schools in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1790, US men were about twice as likely as US women to be literate. But by 1870, girls were surpassing boys in public schools. At the time, the change wasn’t the subject of much national debate. Rather, local school boards and parents quietly began including girls in common schools that had previously served only boys—a process that the education reformer Horace Mann called “smuggling in the girls.”

Have you read?

How to improve education for ethnic minority women, how education helps women to the top of the career ladder, the relationship between women’s education and fertility.

Debate about “coeducation”—and the word itself—emerged only in the 1850s. Tyack and Hansot write that this was directly related to increased mixing of children of different classes and ethnic groups in urban schools. One report of that era suggested that gender-segregated schools might be useful in shielding girls (presumably middle-class, native born white ones) from the “rude assaults” of boys from inferior social classes. These complaints had little effect. However, coeducation soon stirred up different public fears. Girls began to greatly outnumber boys in high schools, and women came to “monopolize” teaching jobs, especially in cities.

This led to rising worries about women usurping men’s roles. Girls’ success in school made it hard for traditionalists to keep making their old arguments that women were intellectually incapable. Instead, they began relying on new claims that education would harm their health and reproductive capacities. For example, the physiologist Edward H. Clarke made a much-publicized argument against admitting women to Harvard based on the idea that the energy required to learn subjects like algebra would flow from other bodily systems, harming their ovaries.

Meanwhile, Tyack and Hansot write, the popular press began to warn of a “boy problem.” Pointing out that boys were more often held back a grade, and less likely to finish elementary school or continue through high school, critics claimed that the female-dominated education system was ill-suited to masculine energy. A Columbia professor wrote that it was “little short of monstrous that boys during [adolescence] receive almost all their intellectual and moral impulses from women.”

School administrators sought ways to address these complaints. But they generally saw implementing gender segregation as impractical and undesirable. Hiring more male teachers was appealing, but few men were willing to work for the low pay schools offered. Ultimately, the solution many schools settled on, in the early twentieth century, was the creation of new, gendered classes. Boys got vocational classes, while girls got home economics and secretarial courses. Separate physical education classes stressed concerns about women’s health and biology, while encouraging boys to engage in vigorous physical activity.

As we can see today, these changes failed to permanently address worries about the relative success of girls at school.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

5 conditions that highlight the women’s health gap

Kate Whiting

May 3, 2024

It’s financial literacy month: From schools to the workplace, let's take action

Annamaria Lusardi and Andrea Sticha

April 24, 2024

Bridging the financial literacy gender gap: Here are 5 digital inclusion projects making a difference

Claude Dyer and Vidhi Bhatia

April 18, 2024

Weekend reads: Climate inaction and human rights, the space economy, diversifying genetic data, and more

Julie Masiga

April 12, 2024

These 2 internal biases cause us to fall for misinformation - here's why

Alex Edmans

Inclusion in US financial services is at an all-time high – and tech can take us further

John Hope Bryant

April 11, 2024

RSS feed Facebook Twitter   Donate Share -->

• News & blog
• Monitoring guide
• Education as a right
• United Nations
• Humanitarian Law
• International Human Rights Mechanisms
• Inter-American
• Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
• What information to look at
• Where to find information
• Comparative Table on Minimum Age Legislation
• Adult education & learning
• Education 2030
• Education Financing
• Education in Emergencies
• Educational Freedoms
• Early Childhood Care and Education
• Free Education
• Higher education
• Technology in education
• Justiciability
• Marginalised Groups
• Minimum Age
• Privatisation of Education
• Quality Education
• News and blog

You are here

Women and girls, aa_78838_india_girl.jpg.

Today more girls than ever go to school. However, despite progress, women and girls continue to face multiple barriers based on gender and its intersections with other factors, such as age, ethnicity, poverty, and disability, in the equal enjoyment of the right to quality education. This includes barriers, at all levels, to access quality education and within education systems, institutions, and classrooms, such as, amongst others:

• harmful gender stereotypes and wrongful gender stereotyping
• child marriage and early and unintended pregnancy
• gender-based violence against women and girls
• lack of inclusive and quality learning environments and inadequate and unsafe education infrastructure, including sanitation

The international community has recognised the equal right to quality education of everyone and committed to achieving gender equality in all fields, including education, through their acceptance of international human rights law. This means that states have legal obligations to remove all discriminatory barriers, whether they exist in law or in everyday life, and to undertake positive measures to bring about equality, including in access of, within, and through education.

According to the latest available global figures (UIS/GEM Report Policy Paper 27/Fact Sheet 37, 2016: p. 1), 263 million children and youth are out of school—that’s 19% of all girls and 18% of all boys.

At the primary level 61 million children are out of school (a global out-of-school rate of 9%), 32.1 million of whom are girls (53%). Where out-of-school rates are higher, the gender gap tends to be wider. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa 21% of children are out of school—23% of girls do not go to school compared to 19% of boys. Girls are also more likely to be completely excluded from primary education: 15 million girls will likely never enter a classroom compared to 10 million boys.

From a global perspective, as the level of education increases, girls tend to fare slightly better in terms of participation. At the lower secondary level 60 million adolescents do not go to school (an out-of-school rate of 16%), girls making up 48.5% (29.1 million) and boys just under 52% (31.1 million). Of the 142 million youth out of school (an out-of-school rate of 37%) at the upper secondary level, 69.1 million are girls (48.7%) and 72.7 million are boys (51.2%).

These statistics, however, mask disparities at the regional and country level. For example, in Western Asia, 20% of adolescent girls remain excluded from lower secondary education compared to 13% of boys. In sub-Saharan Africa, the female out-of-school rate is 36% compared to 32% for males. Young women are also more likely to be excluded from upper secondary education in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Northern Africa, Southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Asia.

Global figures also neglect the historical exclusion of girls and women from education, reflected in the statistic that two thirds of the world’s 758 million illiterate adults are women .

Despite gains in rates of girls’ enrolment in primary school there are disparities in completion rates. In sub-Saharan Africa, gender parity exists among the richest 20% who have completed primary education but among the poorest 20%, 83 girls completed primary education for every 100 boys, dropping to 73 for lower secondary and 40 for upper secondary ( UNESCO, 2016 ). At current rates, the poorest boys in sub-Saharan Africa will achieve universal primary completion in 2069, but this will take nearly 20 years longer for the poorest girls .

Many countries that demonstrate higher retention rates at the primary levels are failing to transfer these gains toward transitioning of girls to the secondary level. For example, in Tanzania, near universal enrollment for girls at the primary level has been achieved with a retention rate of 89.2%, yet girls’ transition rate to secondary level is only 32.3% ( GPE, 2013 ).

Inequalities and discrimination linked to location, poverty, and gender intersect to compound disparities in completion and transition rates. In 2013 in Nigeria, for example, over 90% of adolescents from rich households, whether urban or rural, boy or girl, were likely to complete lower secondary education whereas only 3% of poor rural young women completed lower secondary school, compared with 17% of poor rural young men ( UNESCO, 2016 ).

Participation, completion, and transition statistics, however, do not tell the whole story and certainly do not capture the ways in which girls are discriminated against within education systems and the myriad barriers that girls must overcome to complete their education, particularly regarding the quality of education they receive.

The right to education on the basis of non-discrimination and equality is a recognised right under human rights law. Provisions relating to gender equality in education can be found in both general and specific international treaties, as well as treaties concluded in most regions of the world.

At this point it may be useful to refer to our page education as a right , which explains the normative content of the right to education, that is what rights-holders are entitled to (education must be acceptable, accessible, adaptable, and available ) and states’ legal obligations to realise that content, including obligations of immediate effect, minimum core obligations, and progressive realisation, which are key to understanding the content laid out below.

To summarise, all provisions related to non-discrimination carry immediate obligations and are considered a minimum core obligation, which means states must take immediate action as a matter of priority. Provisions related to achieving substantive equality, if they are not concerned with eliminating discrimination, and achieving the right to quality education for all ( with some exceptions ) are subject to progressive realisation . This means that states have an obligation to take deliberate, concrete, and targeted steps, according to maximum available resources, to move expeditiously and effectively towards the full realisation of the right to education.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979, CEDAW) is the only legally binding treaty at the international level focusing exclusively on women’s rights. It interprets and applies the right to education in a way that considers the specific needs and circumstances of women and girls. Article 10 of CEDAW is the most comprehensive provision on women and girls' right to education in international law. It sets forth the normative content in relation to the elimination of discrimination against women and ensuring equal rights with men in the field of education, including:

• the same conditions for access to studies and diplomas at all educational levels, in both  urban and rural areas

the same quality of education

the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women (see below)

the same opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other study grants

the same access to programmes of continuing education, including literacy programmes, particularly those aimed at reducing the gender gap in education

the reduction of female student drop-out rates and programmes for women and girls who have left school prematurely

the same opportunity to participate in sports and physical education

access to educational information on health, including advice on family planning

A number of other CEDAW provisions are also relevant to gender equality in education.

Article 1 defines discrimination against women as:

any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

Article 2 sets out the legal and policy measures states should undertake to eliminate discrimination against women and therefore applies to the totality of rights found in CEDAW. This includes legal and policy measures related to the implementation of the right to education on a non-discriminatory basis.

Article 3 requires states to take all appropriate measures in the political, social, economic, and cultural fields to ensure that women can exercise and enjoy their human rights on a basis of equality with men.

Article 4 sets out the conditions for the use of temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality between men and women.

Article 5 requires states to take appropriate measures to eliminate gender stereotyping (see below), prejudices, discriminatory cultural practices, and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

Article 7 is on the right to participate in public and political life. These rights are fundamental in ensuring that gender perspectives and issues are considered when laws, policies, and other measures affecting gender equality in education are designed, formulated, and implemented.

Article 11 (1) (c) provides for the right to vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training, and recurrent training.

Article 14 (d) sets out the right to education of rural women, which includes the right to obtain all types of training and education, formal and non-formal, including that relating to functional literacy.

Lastly Article 16 sets out the rights of women with respects to marriage and family life. Article 16 (2) expressly prohibits child marriage and requires states to set a minimum age of marriage (see below). 

The UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960, CADE) prohibits all forms of discrimination in education, including on the basis of sex. CADE defines discrimination in Article 1, which is more specific than CEDAW’s definition, as it applies solely to education, for example, it refers to discrimination in both access to and quality of education and to gender-segregated schools.

Article 2 (a) of CADE permits the establishment or maintenance of gender-segregated educational systems or institutions, provided they offer equivalent access to education, teaching staff with the same standard of qualifications, infrastructure and equipment of the same quality, and the opportunity to study the same or equivalent subjects. Article 2 (c) permits the establishment or maintenance of private education institutions as long as the ‘object of the institutions is not to secure the exclusion of any group’.

A number of other international human rights treaties also guarantee girls’ and women’s right to education combining general provisions on non-discrimination with specific provisions on the right to education.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966, ICESCR) guarantees the right to education of everyone on the basis of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 13 and 14) and expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (Articles 2 (2) and 3). In its general comment on the right to education , the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights applies obligations under Articles 2 (2) and 3 to the right to education, clarifying, inter alia , that temporary measures to bring about de facto equality between the sexes in relation to education are legitimate as long as such affirmative action does not lead to the ‘maintenance of unequal or separate standards for different groups, and provided they are not continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.’ The Committee also provides that states ‘must closely monitor education–including all relevant policies, institutions, programmes, spending patterns and other practices–so as to identify and take measures to redress any de facto discrimination. Educational data should be disaggregated by the prohibited grounds of discrimination.’

Article 2 (2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, CRC) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex. When read with Articles 28 and 29 on the right to education and the aims of education, respectively, there is a clear legal obligation to ensure equality and non-discrimination in education. In addition, the aims of education, provided for under Article 29 (1), include: ‘The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes , and friendship among all peoples’.

Article 6 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006, CRPD) recognises that girls with disabilities can be subject to multiple discrimination and obliges states to ‘take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development, advancement, and empowerment of women’ regarding CRPD rights, including the right to education , guaranteed under Article 24. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its interpretation of Article 24 in General Comment 4 provides that states must identify and remove barriers and put in place specific measures to ensure that the right to education of women and girls with disabilities is not hampered by gender and/or disability-based discrimination, stigma, or prejudice. Article 8 (1) (b) recognises that gender stereotypes can intersect with stereotypes about people with disabilities, and requires states to: ‘adopt immediate, effective and appropriate measures to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life’.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996, ICCPR) has an autonomous non-discrimination clause (Article 26) which applies to ‘any field regulated and protected by public authorities.’ The Human Rights Committee has explained that: ‘when legislation is adopted by a State party, it must comply with the requirement of article 26 that its content should not be discriminatory. In other words, the application of the principle of non-discrimination contained in article 26 is not limited to those rights which are provided for in the Covenant.’ On this interpretation, under the ICCPR, there is an obligation to ensure that education laws and regulations do not discriminate against women and girls.

Women and girls face different barriers in relation to their education in different regions of the world. The right to education, although universal, takes on specific meanings when interpreted and applied in light of shared regional customs, traditions, cultures, values, etc. Regional human rights treaties, therefore, guarantee the right to education in an adapted form–one that acknowledges the barriers common to the region, as well as reflecting the universal and region-specific aims of education.

Africa is the only region that has a human rights treaty dedicated specifically to women and girls. Article 12 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003) tasks States parties with eliminating all forms of discrimination against women in education, including obligations to:

eliminate gender stereotypes in textbooks, syllabuses, and the media

protect women and girls from all forms of abuse, including sexual harassment in schools and other educational institutions, and provide for sanctions against the perpetrators of such practices

provide access to counselling and rehabilitation services to women who suffer abuses and sexual harassment

integrate gender sensitisation and human rights education at all levels

Under the Protocol states must actively promote:

literacy amongst women

education and training at all levels, in all disciplines, particularly in the sciences and technology

enrolment and retention of girls in formal and non-formal education settings, including fundamental education programmes

The Protocol also commits States parties to taking action on a number of issues affecting women and girls' right to education, including to:

eliminate discrimination against women (Article 2)

ban female genital mutilation (Article 5 (b))

set the minimum age of marriage for girls at 18 (Article 6 (b))

ensure the effective participation and representation of women in decision-making (Article 9 (2))

guarantee reproductive and health rights (Article 14)

​ The right to education of girls is also comprehensively protected by a number of other African treaties.

Article 13 of the African Youth Charter (2006, AYC) sets out the right to education as applied to African youth (defined by the AYC as every person between the ages of 15-35 years), including provisions:

requiring that curricula include information on cultural practices that are harmful to the health of young women and girls (Article 13 (3) (f))

that girls and young women who become pregnant or get married have the opportunity to continue their education (Article 13 (4) (h))

on the introduction of scholarship and bursary programmes to encourage entry into post-primary school education and into higher education for outstanding youth from disadvantaged communities, especially young girls (Article 13 (4) (l))

to establish and encourage participation of all young men and young women in sport, cultural and recreational activities as part of holistic development (Article 13 (4) (m))

to promote culturally appropriate, age specific sexuality and responsible parenthood education (Article 13 (4) (n))

Article 11 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990) requires States parties to take special measures to ensure equal access to education for girls (Article 11 (3) (e)) and to take ‘all appropriate measures to ensure that children who become pregnant before completing their education shall have an opportunity to continue their education on the basis of their individual ability’ (Article 11 (6)).

For further information, see the African Union Commission’s and OHCHR’s Women’s Rights in Africa (2016).

In the Arab region, the Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004) guarantees equality between men and women and non-discrimination in Article 3 and the right to ‘compulsory and accessible’ primary education without discrimination of any kind in Article 41.

In Asia , the non-legally binding ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012) guarantees the right to education in Article 31 and non-discrimination as a general principle, but not as a human right.

In Europe , the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) guarantees the right to non-discrimination in Article 14 which read with Article 2 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (1958) on the right to education, prohibits discrimination in education on the basis of sex. In addition, Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (2000) prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of any legal right as set out in national laws.

The European Social Charter (revised) (1996) prohibits discrimination under Article E, provides that the state takes all necessary measures to provide for free primary and secondary education and encourage regular attendance under Article 17, and the right to vocational guidance (Article 9) and training (Article 10).

The Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (2011, Istanbul Convention) identifies education as a key area in which to take measures to eliminate gender-based violence and its causes, and requires states to take:

the necessary steps to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non‐stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non‐violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender‐based violence against women and the right to personal integrity, adapted to the evolving capacity of learners, in formal curricula and at all levels of education.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010), which applies to EU institutions and bodies and EU member states when they are acting within the scope of EU law, guarantees the right to education (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 21), and equality between women and men (Article 23).

In addition, the Council of Europe has a non-legally binding Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on gender mainstreaming in education (2007).  

In the inter-America region the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 'Protocol of San Salvador' (1988) prohibits discrimination under Article 3 and the right to education under Articles 13 and 16.

Articles 34, 49, and 50 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (1948) guarantee various aspects of the right to education.

The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (1994, Convention of Belém do Pará) states that all women have the right to be free from violence which includes the right to freedom from all forms of discrimination and the right to be ‘educated free of stereotyped patterns of behavior and social and cultural practices based on concepts of inferiority or subordination’ (Article 6).

Lastly, the Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) calls for the elimination of gender discrimination (Article 9) and states that ‘a quality education be available to all, including girls and women’. (Article 16).

When a state ratifies a human rights treaty which guarantees the right to education, without discrimination of any kind (see the three sections above), they are under a legal obligation to implement these provisions in their jurisdiction. This means that states cannot just ratify a treaty guaranteeing human rights without taking the necessary steps to make it a reality for its’ citizens. Such steps include administrative, legal, policy, and economic measures. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s General Recommendation 36 on girls’ and women’s right to education elaborates such measures and lays out precise and actionable legal and policy recommendations that would bring states into compliance with obligations flowing from Article 10 and other relevant provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

States’ legal commitment to CEDAW, the Unesco Convention against Discrimination in Education (CADE), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)—the four foremost treaties guaranteeing the right to education of women and girls—is relatively widespread. As of December 2017, 189 states have ratified and acceded to CEDAW which is 96% of UN Member States, CADE has 101 States parties , ICESCR has 166 States parties , and the CRC has 196 States parties . According to our research (forthcoming), which classifies states by level of legal commitment to gender equality in education based on the treaties they have ratified, nearly half of all states (87; 44%) have the highest possible legal commitment and the majority of states cluster around the two highest levels (out of six levels) (144; 73%). However, despite this, universal domestic implementation of the right to education for all women and girls is far from being achieved, which represents a major structural barrier to the realisation of gender equality in education. Below is a map showing which states constitutionally protect the right to education of women and girls.

For more information on the legal status of the right to education of girls and women in specific countries, see:

RTE’s background paper for the Global Education Monitoring Report’s 2017 Gender Review which includes information on how legally committed each state is to achieving the right to education of women and girls free from discrimination

UNESCO’s global database on the right to education (searching by the themes ‘non-discrimination’ and ‘gender equality’)

In addition, UNGEI has produced useful guidance aimed at country and regional-level education planners to assist in developing gender-responsive Education Sector Plans.

Women and girls are rights-holders and as such are entitled to the full exercise and equal enjoyment of the right to education. However, in addition to being a fundamental right in and of itself, the right to education is a ‘multiplier right’ and is, therefore, instrumental in enabling them to benefit from and claim other key rights, such as those related to work, property, political participation, access to justice, freedom from violence and health, including sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Girls who receive more education are less likely to marry as children and to become pregnant and young mothers. According to Plan, a girl in a low income country receiving seven years of education marries four years later on average, and has fewer and healthier children. According to UNESCO, children of literate mothers are over 50% more likely to live past the age of five . There are also significant health benefits for girls and women, with considerable evidence that an increase in a mother’s education reduces the likelihood of dying in childbirth .

Ensuring quality education for all girls also increases how much they can earn and counters the continued feminisation of poverty. According to the World Bank Group (WBG), one year of secondary education for a girl can mean as much as a 25% increase in wages later in life. The benefits of this are passed on to their children as women tend to reinvest 90% of their income in their families.

Studies have consistently shown that educating girls leads to significant and wide-reaching benefits not only to women themselves and their families but also to their societies and economies. Girls’ education is proven to have a powerful impact on economic growth. According to WBG a one percentage point increase in the proportion of women with secondary education raises the average gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3 percent . Education can improve the opportunities for women to work, which in turn can impact on poverty reduction. For example, in Latin America, when women’s participation in the labour market increased 15 percent in just one decade, the rate of poverty decreased by 30 percent (WBG). 

Girls and women face specific forms of discrimination in accessing education, within education systems, and through education. The accordions below explain the most common barriers woman and girls encounter around the world. Each of these obstacles is underpinned by harmful gender stereotypes about the role of women and men in society.

Although sex is an expressly prohibited grounds of discrimination under international human rights law, it is important to recognise that women and girls are highly heterogeneous. Gender inequality and discrimination to, in, and through education is experienced in varying forms and at all levels by women and girls, depending on their personal, local, and national context. But every woman and girl who has attended school has likely encountered some form of discrimination in education at some point in her life.

Intersectional discrimination recognises that women and girls face discrimination in different ways. The interaction between gender and other factors, such as poverty, living in rural areas, and/or characteristics, such as physical or mental impairment, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity often exacerbates the discrimination women and girls face regarding their right to education.

For example, according to the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report’s 2016 Gender Review (p. 19), in 2011 in India, upper secondary completion rates of rich urban girls and boys averaged 70%. For poor rural males the average was 26% but the rate was much lower for poor rural females, suggesting it is not their gender or wealth status or where they live that affects their enjoyment of their right to education but the intersection of being female, identifying as a women or girl, coming from a low income family, and living in a rural area.

Girls and women can face discrimination in all areas and throughout all stages of their life. Eliminating discrimination in education is an important start, but women and girls will often continue to face discrimination upon leaving school. Discrimination, in all its forms, whether it happens in public or private , needs to be tackled in a comprehensive and holistic manner (cross-sectorally and through various measures that take into account how discrimination and inequality aggregate throughout a woman’s life) and at all levels in order to ensure that women and girls enjoy and benefit from their education. Common challenges include:

the gender pay gap–women, on average, earn less than men ( 59% according to the World Economic Forum )

unequal political participation and representation (according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union only 23% of parliamentarians and 5.7% of world leaders are women)

under-representation in certain fields, such as in science, technology, engineering, maths (STEM), as well as sports, in particular in leadership positions

lack of flexible working arrangements, parental leave, and maternity benefits

lack of access to healthcare and enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights

exposure to gender-based violence against women, including harmful practices

paid and unpaid care work which continues to be disproportionately borne by women and girls ( ActionAid report that a woman will do an average of four years extra work compared to her male peers over her lifetime)

Gender stereotypes and gender stereotyping underpin or exacerbate many of the obstacles faced by women and girls in enjoying their right to education. Ideally, education systems should be focal points for action to combat gender stereotypes and gender stereotyping. However, in some cases, the education system, and particularly the curriculum, textbooks , and teachers, play a role in perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes, which has wide ranging effects on girls throughout their lives, from the course options and subjects they take, which influences their employment prospects, to their ability to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health.

According to Cook and Cusack (2010, p. 9) a gender stereotype is a generalised view or preconception about attributes or characteristics that are or ought to be possessed by, or the roles that are or should be performed by women and men. According to a OHCHR report (2013, p. 18), a gender stereotype is harmful when it limits women’s and men’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and make choices about their lives and life plans.

Gender stereotyping is the practice of ascribing to an individual woman or man specific attributes, characteristics, or roles by reason only of her or his membership in the social group of women or men. Gender stereotyping is considered wrongful when it results in a violation or violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Harmful gender stereotypes and wrongful gender stereotyping can affect girls before they step into a classroom and may even prevent girls from going to school. For example, stereotypical views that girls are domestic, homemakers, and caregivers may lead families to question the point of sending their daughters to school if they are to become wives and mothers, whilst the stereotype that men should be breadwinners means that boys are prioritised when it comes to education. Even when girls do go to school, some are still expected to juggle domestic responsibilities, such as cleaning, cooking and fetching water, on top of their school work.

Harmful gender stereotypes and wrongful gender stereotyping also affect girls in the school environment. For example, stereotypes about the different physical and cognitive abilities of girls and boys, leads to certain school subjects and teaching methods being gendered. Boys are considered better suited to maths, technology, the sciences, and sports whereas girls are considered better suited to the arts and humanities. This has the effect of excluding girls and boys from certain subjects (sometimes, particularly in gender-segregated schools, certain subjects are not even offered to female students) but also has a detrimental effect on girls’ further educational and employment opportunities, as girls and boys go on to study different subjects at university, where ‘male’ subjects tend to lead to more lucrative and influential careers. Gender inequality is then perpetuated through hiring practices that further disadvantage women .

International human rights law imposes specific obligations on states to eliminate harmful gender stereotypes and wrongful gender stereotyping. See our legal factsheet on gender stereotypes and the right to education for further information.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (the Committee) defines gender-based violence against women (GBV) as ‘violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately’ ( General Recommendation 19 , para. 6). Such violence takes multiple forms, including: ‘acts or omissions intended or likely to cause or result in death or physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, threats of such acts, harassment, coercion and arbitrary deprivation of liberty’ ( General Recommendation 35 , para. 14).

The Committee considers GBV to be a form of discrimination, under Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979, CEDAW). The Committee’s legal interpretation of GBV as a human rights violation can be found primarily in General Recommendations 19 and 35 .

Gender-based violence against girls , for instance, rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment and assault, corporal punishment, and harmful practices such as child marriage (see above) and female genital mutilation can keep girls out of school temporarily or indefinitely. Evidence collected by the World Bank Group (2015, p. 1) shows that in Nicaragua, ‘63% of the children of abused women had to repeat a school year and dropped out of school on average four years earlier than others.’ And in Zambia, ‘girls who experienced sexual violence were found to have more difficulty concentrating on their studies, some students transferred to another school to escape harassment, and others dropped out of school because of pregnancy.’

GBV often occurs in schools, known as ‘school-related gender-based violence’ (SRGBV), which Unesco defines as: ‘acts or threats of sexual, physical or psychological violence occurring in and around schools, perpetrated as a result of gender norms and stereotypes, and enforced by unequal power dynamics’ (2016, p. 13). SRGBV can often lead to girls under-performing and/or dropping out of school altogether.

SRGBV commonly affects girls on the journey to and from school, where there is little to no supervision, for example, in Japan female students have reported being sexually assaulted on public transportation . The World Bank Group report that parental fears for the safety of girls in traveling to school impact female enrolment rates in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.  

SRGBV also occurs on school premises making the school environment unsafe and not conducive for learning. It can be perpetrated by both teachers and other students. A 2010 survey in the Côte d’Ivoire found that 47% of teachers reported initiating sexual relations with students. In Kenya, after a confidential helpline was set-up, over 1000 teachers were dismissed for abusing girls , mostly in poor, rural areas. Examples of SRGBV also includes bullying by fellow students . SRGBV is not confined to primary and secondary education. At universities and colleges around the world, female students are victims of physical and sexual violence including rape, bullying, and harassment. End Violence Against Women report that 1 in 7 female students in the UK experience serious physical or sexual assault during their time as a student.

SRGBV is increasingly taking place online, through digital technologies, for instance, instant messaging and social media. Gender-related forms of cyberbullying and harassment include being sent inappropriate photos and being coerced into sending sexual images.

SRGBV also includes attacks on girls for accessing education , motivated by ‘fears surrounding the potential role of education as a catalyst for social, cultural, economic and political transformation’ (OHCHR, 2015, p. 4). Prominent examples include the abduction of nearly 300 schoolgirls in April 2014 by Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria and the 2012 shooting of education activist Malala Yousafzai by members of the Taliban in Pakistan (p. 3).

International human rights law prohibits GBV in all settings, including in education. This includes acts or omissions by state actors and bodies, such as public authorities and officials, as well as by non-state actors, for example, partners, family members, teachers, etc. States have specific responsibilities under human rights law dependent on the perpetrator which are well explained in paragraphs 21-6 of CEDAW General Recommendation 35 .  

See our legal factsheet for specific provisions of international and regional law relating to gender-based violence against women . 

For further reading, see Unesco and UN Women (2016) Global guidance on school-related gender-based violence . See also Global Education Monitoring Report’s blog Teachers are central to any effective response to school-related gender-based violence ( part 1 and part 2 ).

Child marriage is any formal marriage or informal union where one or both of the parties are under 18 years of age. According to Girls Not Brides , every year 15 million underage girls get married. Globally, it is estimated that there are 720 million women alive today who were married before the age of 18—that’s 10% of the world’s population. Child marriage happens everywhere but is most prevalent in south Asia (45% of girls married by 18; 17% married by 15), sub-Saharan Africa (39%; 12%), and Latin America and the Caribbean (23%; 5%).

Child marriage violates multiple human rights , including the right to education, making it a particularly egregious practice. Children who get married are more likely to drop out of school and children who are not in school are more likely to get married. Statistics from the World Bank and International Center for Research on Women reveal that 10-30% of parents, depending on country, reported that their child dropped out of secondary school due to child marriage and/or pregnancy. Their research also indicates that for every year a girl marries before the age of 18, the likelihood she completes secondary education decreases by 0.22 years on average. In Latin America and Asia, girls who marry before the age of 12 have a reduced likelihood of 21% of completing their secondary education.

Although permissible under international law, marriages that occur after the age of 18 may also affect a girl’s education, particularly her ability to access higher education or other forms of tertiary education.

Linked to child marriage is early and unintended pregnancy. Girls Not Brides report that 90% of adolescent births in low and lower-middle income countries are to married girls. Pregnancy and motherhood often has profound impacts on girls’ education. Pregnant girls are often banned from attending school and sitting exams, and mothers often lack access to bridging programmes which allow girls to catch-up on their missed education in order to reenter mainstream education. Further, lack of free early childhood care and widely held beliefs that child rearing is the primary responsibility of the mother, means that women and girls often do not reenter education.

Pregnancy and motherhood can also occur independently from child marriage, as a result of rape, which is particularly common during conflict and other emergencies (see the case of Sierra Leone which saw an increase in teenage pregnancy during the ebola crisis due to the closure of schools). Teenage pregnancy and motherhood is also a product of a lack of information about sexual and reproductive health and a lack of access to contraception (birth control). See for example, our photo essay on the right to education of pregnant girls in Kenya . 

So what does international law say about child marriage and what obligations do states have to ensure the right to education of married and/or pregnant girls?

The Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women have stated, in a Joint Recommendation , that the minimum age for marriage should be 18 for both men and women. However, the committees take the view that a balance must be struck between recognising that child marriage is a harmful, discriminatory practice and respecting that in exceptional cases some children may be mature and capable enough to make informed decisions for his/herself regarding getting married, provided the child in question is at least 16 years old and such decisions are assessed by a judge ‘based on legitimate exceptional grounds defined by law and on the evidence of maturity, without deference to culture and tradition’ (para. 20).

This limited exception, however, does not in any way dilute states’ obligations to eliminate child marriage and early or unintended pregnancy, and to protect the human rights of child brides and mothers, including the right to education.

In order to prevent child marriage states must establish and enforce a minimum age of marriage of 18. Often, minimum legal ages for marriage are set, but the law is inconsistent (see Tanzania , for example), customary law, such as Shari’a or tribal law applies, or the law allows girls to be married in certain situations, for example, if she is pregnant or has parental permission. Under international law, exceptions such as these are prohibited.

In Africa, regional human rights law is strong and mandates that states enact legislation that sets the minimum age of marriage at 18 without exception (Article 6 (b), Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa [2003]; Article 21 (2), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child [1990]. For further information on the interpretation of these articles, see the Joint General Comment of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on ending child marriage ). 

The map below illustrates that very few states have set the minimum age of marriage at 18. This is particularly true of the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and South East Asia—all regions with high child marriage prevalence rates. It should also be pointed out that child marriage is permissible by law in a number of ‘global north’ countries, notably the US .

Under international law, states are not allowed to refuse access to school by expelling girls on the basis of marriage, pregnancy, or having given birth as this would constitute discrimination. This includes a prohibition of mandatory pregnancy testing, which has been documented in various African states , including: Tanzania, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

Further, in order to rectify the negative impacts of child marriage and early pregnancy on the right to education, for example, if a girl misses any of her primary education, states must provide fundamental education, that is education that replaces missed primary education for girls who become married or pregnant at primary school age (Article 13 (d), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). However, most child marriages and early pregnancies occur during secondary education. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979, CEDAW) adapts the fundamental education provision to include obligations to make efforts to keep girls in school and to organise ‘programmes for girls and women who have left school prematurely’ (Article 10 (f)). Programmes that allow girls to re-enter education are known as ‘re-entry programmes’. Successful examples of reentry programmes include Zambia and Uganda.

Given the prevalence of child marriage and pregnancy in African countries, African human rights law also makes provision for fundamental education and reentry programmes but protections are inconsistent.

The African Youth Charter (2006) requires states to: ‘Ensure, where applicable, that girls and young women who become pregnant or married before completing their education shall have the opportunity to continue their education’ (Article 13 (4) (h)).

Article 12 (2) (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa is less specific and urges states to ‘promote the enrolment and retention of girls in schools and other training institutions and the organisation of programmes for women who leave school prematurely’.

Article 11 (6), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, requires states to take ‘all appropriate measures to ensure that children who become pregnant before completing their education shall have an opportunity to continue with their education on the basis of their individual ability.’ Although this provision would seem to provide for re-entry programmes, the caveat that such opportunity is based on ‘individual ability’ falls short of international standards.

International law also seeks to empower girls to make decisions for themselves regarding unintended pregnancy and requires that sex, reproductive health, and responsible parenthood education is given to both boys and girls. See, for example, Article 10 (h), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Article 13 (4) (n), African Youth Charter. Below is a video explaining the importance of comprehensive sexuality education.

Lastly, international law requires states to dismantle the social, economic, cultural, and political conditions that facilitate the pervasive nature of this practice. A holistic approach is required to eliminate child marriage and pregnancy because its causes are varied and deeply entrenched. However, evidence suggests that any approach must include efforts to ensure girls enjoy and can exercise their right to education. Girls Not Brides states that girls with a secondary education are six times less likely to marry than a girl with little or no education.

For more information on preventing child marriage and early and unintended pregnancy through education, see Unesco’s Early and unintended pregnancy: Recommendations for the education sector (2017).

A bad school environment can deter girls from attending school and also negatively impact on the quality of education girls receive. The school environment refers not just to the physical infrastructure of the school premises but also the wider learning environment.

According to international human rights law, the school environment must not impair the right to education and it must also contribute to the aims of education and the right to a quality education by creating an inclusive and quality learning environment (see paras 10, 19, and 22 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment 1 ).

Common barriers regarding the learning environment, include:

discriminatory curricula, learning materials , and teaching methods (pedagogies) (see above sections on international human rights law and gender stereotypes)

a culture of bullying (see above section on gender-based violence against women and girls)

school regulations and sexist dress codes , including the banning of religious symbols in schools

Perhaps one of the most significant barriers to an inclusive and quality learning environment is the lack of female teachers particularly in low and middle income countries, which is itself a manifestation of the historical lack of access to education and harmful gender stereotypes about the role of women. A Unesco brief highlights (2008, p. 1-2) that increasing the number of women teachers has a positive impact on girls’ education, because:

in some conservative communities, parents will not allow their daughters to be taught by a male teacher

the presence of women in schools can impact positively on girls’ retention in school and on their achievement

at the school policy level, women teachers may act as advocates for girls, representing their perspectives and needs, and promoting more girl-friendly learning

women teachers provide new and different role models for girls, breaking down harmful gender stereotypes

In respects to the physical school environment, inadequate and unsafe infrastructure, particularly the lack of toilets, gender-segregated toilets, changing facilities, and access to safe drinking water may discourage girls from attending school. Lack of toilets and in particular gender-segregated toilets affects both girls and boys, however given the specific needs of girls, the impact disproportionately falls on girls.

Girls require toilets for menstrual hygiene purposes, this includes access to sanitary products, without which girls often miss school because of the social stigma of menstruation, they are unable to concentrate during classes, amongst other reasons. For example, the Guardian reports that girls from low income families in the UK often miss schools because they cannot afford sanitary products and do not ask for them because of the social stigma attached to menstruation .

Within the school premises, toilets, especially non-gender segregated toilets, tend to be where girls are most vulnerable to school-related gender-based violence because they are often unsupervised.

Poverty is the biggest factor determining whether a girl accesses education. According to the Global Education Monitoring report , in all regions except sub-Saharan Africa, children from rich families, whether boy or girl, will most likely attend all levels of basic education. However, girls from poor families in sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Africa and Western Asia, and Southern Asia, which are less likely than their male peers to attend school and this lack of participation increases at higher education levels (2016, p. 10).

A number of factors contribute to girls from poor families not being able to attend school, the biggest of which is the lack of free education , particularly in the formative years. This may be because governments do not have legal and policy frameworks in place to make free education a reality or they do but it is not effectively implemented, or it may not be adequately resourced, or there may be corruption which draws resources away from their intended use.

Lack of free education results in an added financial burden on families, which may come in the form of school fees (or other direct fees) or indirect fees such as for school uniforms, exam fees, security, school transportation, etc. Such fees are a direct barrier to school attendance for many girls, either because families cannot afford these costs or the costs may force families to select which of their children to send to school. In such instances, it is usually boys who are favoured because of the low social and economic value placed on the education of girls. To mitigate this, international human rights law requires states to guarantee free and compulsory primary education, progressively free education at all other levels, and targeted measures for groups at risk of dropping out (for instance, school transportation for students living in rural areas). Human rights law, however, neglects the importance of free or accessible early childhood care and education (ECCE)/pre-primary education. ECCE has positive impacts on child development and targeted ECCE interventions ‘can compensate for vulnerability and disadvantage, regardless of underlying factors such as poverty, gender, ...’ (EFA Global Education Monitoring Report 2007: Strong foundations , p. 113). For further information on states’ human rights obligations, see our page on free education .

Lack of free education is closely linked with government priorities reflected in fiscal policy. Ostensibly because of the 2008 financial crisis, there has been a trend in governments reducing spending on public services, including education, by decreasing the amount they collect through taxation. Such austerity measures have had a disproportionate impact on women and girls, particularly as it is the most marginalised in society who tend to benefit from public services.

One of the consequences of austerity and the failure of states to effectively formulate, implement, resource, and enforce free education legal and policy frameworks as per their human rights obligations is the growth of private education providers, mainly in low and middle income countries, but the phenomenon has increasingly been observed in high income countries (see for example, the UK , US , and Sweden ).

The privatisation of education poses several human rights concerns that may negatively impact girls’ education , for instance: it may encourage further divestment in public education, gradually eroding the public education system and its capacity to reach the most marginalised, particularly girls with disabilities and private providers can indirectly discriminate against girls by levying fees which have a disproportionately negative impact on girls’ participation in education, due to parental favouring of boys’ education.

International human rights law imposes obligations on states to ensure that private providers do not impair the right to education. See our page on the privatisation of education for further information.

Finally, global action to tackle poverty through sustainable development has also focused on gender inequality and education. The international community has, through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , recognised the importance of inclusive and quality education ( sustainable development goal 4 ) and gender equality and women’s empowerment ( sustainable development goal 5 ) in achieving sustainable development and has adopted various goals, targets, and indicators that are largely aligned with human rights law. See our page on Education 2030 for more information. See also our contribution to the Global Education Monitoring report 2017-8 Gender Review (forthcoming).

International

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  (1979, Article 10; General Recommendations 19, 25, 28, 35, and 36)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right s (1966, Articles 2 and 13; General Comments 13 and 16)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child  (1989, Articles 2, 28 and 29; General Comment 1)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (1966, Articles 2, 3, 24, 25 and 26; General Comment 28)
• UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education  (1960, Articles 1-4)
• African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights  (1981, Articles 2 and 17)
• African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child  (1990, Article 11)
• Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa  (2003, Article 12)
• African Youth Charter  (2006, Article 13)
• European Convention for the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms  (1948); Optional Protocol 1  (1952) and Optional Protocol 12  (2000) (Article 14 of the Convention, Article 2 of the First Protocol and Article 1 of the Twelfth Protocol)
• European Social Charter (revised)  (1996, Articles E, 7, 10 and 17)
• Recommendation on Gender Mainstreaming in Education  (2007)
• Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union  (2000, Articles 14 and 23)

Inter-America

• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol of San Salvador  (1998, Articles 13 and 16)
• Inter-American Democratic Charter  (2001, Article 16)
• Arab Charter on Human Rights  (2004, Article 41)

For more details, see International instruments - Girls and women's right to education

Other Issues

How our education system undermines gender equity

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, and why culture change—not policy—may be the solution, joseph cimpian jc joseph cimpian associate professor of economics and education policy - new york university @joecimpian.

April 23, 2018

There are well-documented achievement and opportunity gaps by income and race/ethnicity. K-12 accountability policies often have a stated goal of reducing or eliminating those gaps, though with questionable effectiveness . Those same accountability policies require reporting academic proficiency by gender, but there are no explicit goals of reducing gender gaps and no “hard accountability” sanctions tied to gender-subgroup performance. We could ask, “Should gender be included more strongly in accountability policies?”

In this post, I’ll explain why I don’t think accountability policy interventions would produce real gender equity in the current system—a system that largely relies on existing state standardized tests of math and English language arts to gauge equity. I’ll argue that although much of the recent research on gender equity from kindergarten through postgraduate education uses math or STEM parity as a measure of equity, the overall picture related to gender equity is of an education system that devalues young women’s contributions and underestimates young women’s intellectual abilities more broadly.

In a sense, math and STEM outcomes simply afford insights into a deeper, more systemic problem. In order to improve access and equity across gender lines from kindergarten through the workforce, we need considerably more social-questioning and self-assessment of biases about women’s abilities.

As soon as girls enter school, they are underestimated

For over a decade now, I have studied gender achievement with my colleague Sarah Lubienski, a professor of math education at Indiana University-Bloomington. In a series of studies using data from both the 1998-99 and 2010-11 kindergarten cohorts of the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we found that no average gender gap in math test scores existed when boys and girls entered kindergarten, but a gap of nearly 0.25 standard deviations developed in favor of the boys by around second or third grade.

For comparison purposes, the growth of the black-white math test score gap was virtually identical to the growth in the gender gap. Unlike levels and growth in race-based gaps, though, which have been largely attributed to a combination of differences in the schools attended by black and white students and to socio-economic differences, boys and girls for the most part attend the same schools and come from families of similar socio-economic status. This suggests that something may be occurring within schools that contributes to an advantage for boys in math.

Exploring deeper, we found that the beliefs that teachers have about student ability might contribute significantly to the gap. When faced with a boy and a girl of the same race and socio-economic status who performed equally well on math tests and whom the teacher rated equally well in behaving and engaging with school, the teacher rated the boy as more mathematically able —an alarming pattern that replicated in a separate data set collected over a decade later .

Another way of thinking of this is that in order for a girl to be rated as mathematically capable as her male classmate, she not only needed to perform as well as him on a psychometrically rigorous external test, but also be seen as working harder than him. Subsequent matching and instrumental variables analyses suggested that teachers’ underrating of girls from kindergarten through third grade accounts for about half of the gender achievement gap growth in math. In other words, if teachers didn’t think their female students were less capable, the gender gap in math might be substantially smaller.

An interaction that Sarah and I had with a teacher drove home the importance and real-world relevance of these results. About five years ago, while Sarah and I were faculty at the University of Illinois, we gathered a small group of elementary teachers together to help us think through these findings and how we could intervene on the notion that girls were innately less capable than boys. One of the teachers pulled a stack of papers out of her tote bag, and spreading them on the conference table, said, “Now, I don’t even understand why you’re looking at girls’ math achievement. These are my students’ standardized test scores, and there are absolutely no gender differences. See, the girls can do just as well as the boys if they work hard enough.” Then, without anyone reacting, it was as if a light bulb went on. She gasped and continued, “Oh my gosh, I just did exactly what you said teachers are doing,” which is attributing girls’ success in math to hard work while attributing boys’ success to innate ability. She concluded, “I see now why you’re studying this.”

Although this teacher did ultimately recognize her gender-based attribution, there are (at least) three important points worth noting. First, her default assumption was that girls needed to work harder in order to achieve comparably to boys in math, and this reflects an all-too-common pattern among elementary school teachers, across at least the past couple decades and in other cultural contexts . Second, it is not obvious how to get teachers to change that default assumption. Third, the evidence that she brought to the table was state standardized test scores, and these types of tests can reveal different (often null or smaller) gender achievement gaps than other measures.

On this last point, state standardized tests consistently show small or no differences between boys and girls in math achievement, which contrasts with somewhat larger gaps on NAEP and PISA , as well as with gaps at the top of the distribution on the ECLS , SAT Mathematics assessment, and the American Mathematics Competition . The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear, but what is clear is that there is no reason to expect that “hardening” the role of gender in accountability policies that use existing state tests and current benchmarks will change the current state of gender gaps. Policymakers might consider implementing test measures similar to those where gaps have been noted and placing more emphasis on gains throughout the achievement distribution. However, I doubt that a more nuanced policy for assessing math gains would address the underlying problem of the year-after-year underestimation of girls’ abilities and various signals and beliefs that buttress boys’ confidence and devalue girls, all of which cumulatively contributes to any measured gaps.

More obstacles await women in higher education and beyond

Looking beyond K-12 education, there is mounting evidence at the college and postgraduate levels that cultural differences between academic disciplines may be driving women away from STEM fields, as well as away from some non-STEM fields (e.g., criminal justice, philosophy, and economics). In fact, although research and policy discussions often dichotomize academic fields and occupations as “STEM” and “non-STEM,” the emerging research on gender discrimination in higher education finds that the factors that drive women away from some fields cut across the STEM/non-STEM divide. Thus, while gender representation disparities between STEM and non-STEM fields may help draw attention to gender representation more broadly, reifying the STEM/non-STEM distinction and focusing on math may be counterproductive to understanding the underlying reasons for gender representation gaps across academic disciplines.

In a recent study , my colleagues and I examined how perceptions on college majors relate to who is entering those majors. We found that the dominant factor predicting the gender of college-major entrants is the degree of perceived discrimination against women. To reach this conclusion, we used two sources of data. First, we created and administered surveys to gather perceptions on how much math is required for a major, how much science is required, how creative a field is, how lucrative careers are in a field, how helpful the field is to society, and how difficult it is for a woman to succeed in the field. After creating factor scales on each of the six dimensions for each major, we mapped those ratings onto the second data source, the Education Longitudinal Study, which contains several prior achievement, demographic, and attitudinal measures on which we matched young men and women attending four-year colleges.

Among this nationally representative sample, we found that the degree to which a field was perceived to be math- or science-intensive had very little relation to student gender. However, fields that were perceived to discriminate against women were strongly predictive of the gender of the students in the field, whether or not we accounted for the other five traits of the college majors. In short, women are less likely to enter fields where they expect to encounter discrimination.

And what happens if a woman perseveres in obtaining a college degree in a field where she encounters discrimination and underestimation and wants to pursue a postgraduate degree in that field, and maybe eventually work in academia? The literature suggests additional obstacles await her. These obstacles may take the form of those in the field thinking she’s not brilliant like her male peers in graduate school, having her looks discussed on online job boards when she’s job-hunting, performing more service work if she becomes university faculty, and getting less credit for co-authored publications in some disciplines when she goes up for tenure.

Each of the examples here and throughout this post reflects a similar problem—education systems (and society) unjustifiably and systematically view women as less intellectually capable.

Societal changes are necessary

My argument that policy probably isn’t the solution is not intended to undercut the importance of affirmative action and grievance policies that have helped many individuals take appropriate legal recourse. Rather, I am arguing that those policies are certainly not enough, and that the typical K-12 policy mechanisms will likely have no real effect in improving equity for girls.

The obstacles that women face are largely societal and cultural. They act against women from the time they enter kindergarten—instilling in very young girls a belief they are less innately talented than their male peers—and persist into their work lives. Educational institutions—with undoubtedly many well-intentioned educators—are themselves complicit in reinforcing the hurdles. In order to dismantle these barriers, we likely need educators at all levels of education to examine their own biases and stereotypes.

Related Content

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

July 10, 2018

Jaymes Pyne

July 30, 2020

Seth Gershenson

January 13, 2016

Education Access & Equity Higher Education K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Katharine Meyer

May 7, 2024

Jamie Klinenberg, Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino

Thinley Choden

May 3, 2024

• Frontiers in Education
• Teacher Education
• Research Topics

Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Education

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Current scholarly literature shows that gender inequalities are still present in the process of curricular decision making and teacher practices. These inequalities are expressed through the selection of educational content, the application of methodological strategies, the selection of teaching resources, ...

Keywords : Gender Equality, Teacher Training, Gender Representation, Gender Stereotypes, University Education, Primary and Secondary Education, Early Childhood Education

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK
• Men's Basketball
• Women's Basketball

Virginia Women's Lacrosse Scores Record 21 Goals in First Round Win Over LIU

Matt newton | 0 minutes ago.

Any concerns about how the Cavaliers would respond after their humbling loss to Syracuse in the ACC semifinals two weeks ago were eventually answered. After taking one quarter to shake some of the rust off and identify points of weakness in their opponent, Sonia LaMonica's team delivered a second-quarter knockout. No. 5 Virginia women's lacrosse (15-4) used a dominant10-1 second-quarter burst to seize control of the game and ultimately posted a single-game NCAA Tournament school record 21 goals in a dismantling 21-6 victory over Long Island University (11-8) in the first round of the 2024 NCAA Women's Lacrosse Championship on Friday at Klockner Stadium.

Though it would eventually be a record-breaking day for the UVA offense, it didn't start off that way, as the Cavaliers didn't score until more than nine minutes had elapsed and trailed 2-1 late in the opening quarter. Kiki Shaw and Kate Miller both scored unassisted goals to get the Hoos going and then Miller scored again to put Virginia in front 4-3 at the end of the first quarter.

Clearly, Virginia figured something out offensively in the final few minutes of that first period because the second quarter wound up being an offensive clinic for the Cavaliers, who put 14 of their 15 shots on cage and had 10 of those shots find the back of the net. Miller continued her big day with two more goals in the second and Katia Carnevale and Mackenzie Hoeg each scored twice in the second as well. LIU scored only once in the second quarter, a goal that served as the lone reprieve during a 14-1 Virginia run that went from the end of the first quarter to the late stages of the third.

“I think we stayed the course. I thought that in the first quarter LIU obviously were going to come out firing. It’s the tournament so everyone is excited to be there," said UVA head coach Sonia LaMonica after the game. "I thought we were a little bit slow and a bit hesitant. We weren’t activating off-ball on offense as well as we could, but we talked through that and pushed through that. The second quarter was huge. That’s where we really started to play our game and opened the game up, so I was really pleased with that…Now that we’ve got that game under our belt, I think we will continue to grow our confidence to turn around and see a great contest on Sunday.”

Virginia led 14-4 at halftime and that lead only grew, as LIU scored only twice for the remainder of the game and the Cavaliers cruised to a 21-6 victory. UVA outshot LIU 36-15, putting 28 of those shots on goal. The Hoos caused nine turnovers, while turning it over only six times themselves and going a perfect 12/12 on clears.

On to round ✌️! 🔥🔥🔥 #GoHoos pic.twitter.com/zhS6aP1mLn — Virginia Women's Lacrosse (@UVAWomensLax) May 10, 2024

Kate Miller led the way with five goals on seven shots and Katia Carnevale was even more efficient, scoring four goals on five shots. Kiki Shaw and Mackenzie Hoeg each had a hat trick and Morgan Schwab had one goal and six assists, leaving her just seven assists shy of UVA's single-season assist record, currently held by Lindsay Sheehan with 66 in the 1986 season. The 21 goals broke the program's single-game NCAA Tournament scoring record of 20 from 1999 and 2002. The victory gave the Cavaliers 15 wins on the season, their first time reaching the 15-win threshold since they reached the national title game in 2007.

The win advances the Cavaliers to the second round, where they'll face Florida (18-2), who defeated North Carolina 17-8 in the second game of Friday's doubleheader, on Sunday at 1pm at Klockner Stadium.

MATT NEWTON

Managing Editor and Publisher, CavaliersNow Email: [email protected]: @mattynewtssWebsite | LinkedIn | Instagram Matt Newton is the managing editor and publisher at CavaliersNow. He has been covering UVA athletics since 2019 and has been the managing editor at CavaliersNow since launching the site in August 2021. Matt covers all things UVA sports, including Virginia basketball and football news and recruiting, former Wahoos in the pros, and coverage of all 23 of the NCAA Division I sports teams at the University of Virginia. A native of Downingtown, Pennsylvania, Matt grew up a huge Philadelphia sports fan, but has also been a UVA sports fanatic his entire life thanks to his parents, who are alums of the University of Virginia. Matt followed in his parents' footsteps and attended UVA from 2017-2021, graduating with a degree in Media Studies and a minor in Economics in May of 2021. 

Follow mattynewtss

Q&A: Why investing in girls’ and women’s education is a smart move

The most recent data reveal that currently fewer girls are out of school than boys, and that more women are enrolled in higher education than men worldwide. But there is still a long way to go to achieve gender equality in education globally. 

Here is what you need to know about the latest data and why investing in girls’ and women’s education is crucial.

What are the latest trends in girls’ education?

Despite progress, a staggering 122 million girls remain out of school globally.  Girls’ disadvantage is exacerbated by several factors. One important factor is poverty. In Côte d’Ivoire, for instance, there are 72 young women in school – but only 22 poor young women – for every 100 young men.

Another factor is location. In Mozambique, for example, there are 73 young women in school for every 100 young men. But while there is gender parity in urban areas, there are 53 young women in school for every 100 young men in rural areas. 

There are also regional differences. In sub-Saharan Africa, gender parity in enrolment has not been achieved at any level of education. 

While girls have caught up and even surpassed boys in the completion of secondary education, only 94 young women complete secondary school for every 100 young men in Central and Southern Asia. Disparity also remains in sub-Saharan Africa, where despite progress only 88 young women complete secondary education for every 100 young men. 

Girls fare better than boys in reading. Globally, for every 100 proficient boys, there are 115 proficient girls in reading at the end of lower secondary education. Boys have a small advantage over girls in mathematics in primary education, but this is reversed in lower secondary education. Yet, boys tend to have a considerable advantage over girls in mathematics at the higher end of performance.

While young women are outnumbering young men at university globally, only 9% of young women enrol in tertiary education when primary and secondary education is neither compulsory nor free.

Where is progress most needed?

Nine of the 10 countries with the highest out-of-school rates for girls are in sub-Saharan Africa, the tenth country being Afghanistan. In 8 of these 10 countries, at least 50% of school-age girls are not in school; in Afghanistan, 75% of girls are not in school.  These rates are staggering and must urgently be addressed. 

What are the benefits of investing in girls’ education?

Globally, the loss in human capital due to gender inequalities is estimated to be around US$160 trillion, which is about twice the value of global GDP.

Educating girls has huge societal impact. It enhances women’s agency and their decision-making. It increases their living standards. It has benefits for the health and nutrition of their children. Education can help to end child marriage and early and unintended pregnancy. 

It also increases women’s access to decent work and sparks economic development.

There is an urgent need to transition to a green economy. Why is investing in girls’ and women’s education crucial to doing so successfully?

Investing in girls’ and women’s education is indeed a smart investment for the green transition. We know that women are more likely to start businesses focused on sustainability. Yet, girls and women are less well prepared for and represented in green jobs. Green jobs require science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills and knowledge. But gender is one of the strongest determinants of the likelihood of pursuing education and careers in STEM. 

In 30 out of 121 countries, fewer than 20% of graduates in engineering are women. In 61 out of 115 countries, fewer than 30% of computer science graduates are women. We cannot afford to lose out on the innovative ideas of women.  And we also know that where education opens leadership opportunities for girls as adults, their participation in national politics can lead countries to adopt more environment-friendly policies.

What can we do to improve girls’ education further?

Governments and partners need to invest in several critical areas to ensure that all girls’ right to complete a full cycle of basic education is met. Following the Incheon and Paris Declarations, governments shall allocate at least 4-6% of GDP and at least 15-20% of total public expenditure to education. As highlighted in the Call to Action on financing education, issued at the Transforming Education Summit, education investment needs to target the most marginalized. 

This includes investment in the collection, analysis and use of data on girls’ education and in the development of gender-transformative learning systems. 

The latter entails among others, gender-transformative teaching and learning materials and teacher training on gender-transformative pedagogy. Governments also need to invest into nutrition, sanitation and hygiene at school. The prevention of school-related gender-based violence and the provision of comprehensive sexuality education are also critical to keep girls in school. Importantly, governments need to provide 12 years of free, publicly funded, inclusive, equitable and quality education, without discrimination, including making school affordable, reducing the direct and opportunity cost of schooling through cash or in-kind transfers for poor families. 

• ‘Her Education, Our future’ fact sheet
• UNESCO’s work in  gender equality and education
• Her Atlas, UNESCO’s interactive tool on educational rights of girls and women

Related items

• Gender equality
• Girls education
• International Women’s Day
• Topics: Display
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent news

News Summit on AI and the media: UNESCO in partnership with the AUB calls on the African media to seize technological advances 2 April 2024

Cincinnati Enquirer: UC students win Flying Pig races

3 current students win championships in full, half marathons.

University of Cincinnati students won championships in the 2024 Flying Pig Marathon , including the women's marathon and men's and women's half marathons, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported .

Olivia Anger

Olivia Anger, a fourth-year doctoral candidate in management in the Carl H. Lindner College of Business,  won the women's full marathon  in 2:43.22.

Her time of 2:43.22 is the second-fastest winning time in women's Flying Pig Marathon history.

“I can see how running and getting a PhD can go hand in hand because we need to have determination,” Anger said. “Long-distance running takes a lot of patience, a lot of hard work, time to get done, like completing a PhD and completing your dissertation.”

Juliana Madzia

Juliana Madzia, a sixth-year MD/PhD candidate in the medical scientist training program in the College of Medicine, who also is pursuing a doctorate in sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences,  won the women's half marathon  in 1:19.50.

Madzia, who competed for the UC cross country and track and field teams, previously won the 2014 Flying Pig women's half marathon.

“The first time I won it, I was a freshman in college at UC, and I've been in school at UC ever since, and I'm actually starting my last year on Monday,” Madzia said. “So it feels kind of like this beginning and end of my time in Cincinnati and my time as a student at UC.”

Jonathan Harley

Jonathan Harley, a graduate of the College of Arts and Sciences and a second-year student in the College of Medicine,  won the men's half marathon  in 1:10.40. He also competed for the Bearcats' cross country and track and field teams.

“I didn't know exactly what to expect,” Harley said. “I just had to trust my training and trust that all the work that I put in was gonna pay off. I knew the half marathon was going to be tough. I'm super thankful for my friends, family and teammates here at Cincinnatus Elite.

“This experience is just phenomenal. Cincinnati brings so much energy. Running on Seventh Street, the spectators were hyping me up. It's been a great weekend.”

The Flying Pig, whose course travels through Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky,  was ranked No. 1  in USA Today’s 10 Best list of top-rated marathons.

See more from the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Featured image at top: Runners cross the finish line at the Flying Pig Marathon. Photo/Kelly Bennett

Impact Lives Here

The University of Cincinnati is leading public urban universities into a new era of innovation and impact. Our faculty, staff and students are saving lives, changing outcomes and bending the future in our city's direction. Next Lives Here.

• Alumni Association
• In The News
• College of Medicine
• College of Arts and Sciences
• Student Experience
• Lindner College of Business

Related Stories

'unforgettable weekend': gameday, homecoming help bearcats make memories.

November 9, 2021

The University of Cincinnati was in the national spotlight with ESPN’s College GameDay and Good Morning America featuring the UC Bearcat football team's rise in football ranking. UC defeated the University of Tulsa on the football field during Homecoming.

May 6, 2024

University of Cincinnati students won championships in the 2024 Flying Pig Marathon, including the women's marathon and men's and women's half marathons, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

UC takes center stage in Amazon Prime series

January 19, 2022

Filmed in July 2021, UC’s episode is a crash-course in being a Bearcat, starring a few of the university’s best and brightest students and alumni. Some are lifelong Cincinnatians; others are from across the globe. But they’re all excited to show viewers why they've called UC home: From its beautiful spaces and state-of-the-art facilities to co-op and campus life.