Why do we Educate Girls?
Examining the Basis of Girls’ Right to Education: A commentary by Emily Bishop*

 There are a variety of ways to approach girls’ right to education, and there is one dichotomy that exists on a larger scale in the context of women’s rights as a whole and, even more broadly, of the rights of any group within wider humanity: equality or specificity. In terms of girls’ education, the question is whether girls are entitled to education on the basis of equality amongst all humans, and that to advance humanity education should be universal, or whether they deserve to be educated specifically because they are girls, and educating them will redress gender inequality, and promote development.

Kofi Annan said in 2004: “…there is no tool for development more effective than the education of girls.” James Wolfensohn, former World Bank President, used similar words at the opening of the 1995 Beijing United Nations Conference on Women, and quoted an African proverb: “If we educate a boy, we educate one person. If we educate a girl, we educate a family – and a whole nation.” This philosophy makes no apology about educating girls explicitly because they’re female – and implies very specific expectations of their future role, as mothers. The Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) refers to this specific expectation in point H of article 10: to provide “access to specific educational information to help ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning”. Prioritizing girls’ education on the basis of development brings in such considerations as contraception and HIV/AIDS prevention, a greater propensity towards vaccinating children, and prioritizing nutrition and healthcare when making household decisions.

Conversely, the Education for All movement, spearheaded by UNESCO, relies on egalitarian principles, and bases much of their current advocacy and initiatives on supporting the achievement of the second Millennium Development Goal, universal primary education. This approach does not necessarily preclude focusing on girls, considering the major imbalance that there is to address in education rates between boys and girls in much of the developing world. However the emphasis is different – girls are entitled to the same opportunities as boys, and on that basis, initiatives established according to egalitarian principles are more likely to offer the same facilities, curriculum and support systems to girls and boys.

The intent, it might be argued, matters less than the end result – ultimately, the MDGs commit to both universal primary education and the elimination of gender discrimination in education by 2015. The worldviews that the different frameworks encapsulate, however, merit further analysis.

The egalitarian viewpoint could be described as aspirational. It strives for a future where gender divides in society are eroded, and men and women have the same opportunities in every area of life where discrimination currently prevails. Educating boys and girls as equals aims to promote equality in households, employment and politics as these children grow up into decision-makers in those spheres. The gender-specific viewpoint might be termed realistic or pessimistic, but it starts from the premise that gender roles are, and will remain, different. Where it might be deemed optimistic is that it acknowledges the power – soft power, but power nonetheless – held by women as mothers and caregivers.

Arguably, one might expect this framework to eventually yield to an egalitarian model, if the original intention of furthering development by educating girls is fulfilled in some measure. The emphasis would evolve from survival tools – which girls require to a greater extent for themselves because of the discrimination they face, and for their families because of their assumed care-giving responsibilities – to tools for success, which girls are less likely to receive because of the aforementioned expectations, and therefore merit a gender-specific approach to make up for existing inequality of opportunity. 

Different initiatives with different approaches don’t necessarily engage communities at chronologically different points of the development process, where survival needs or aspirations to succeed are respectively more or less acute. Neither set of tools is obsolete at any given point – survival is an ongoing consideration, and ambition is never out of place, even in the midst of humanitarian crises where education might hardly be available at all. The basis, however, of education initiatives must be identified and evaluated as much as any other aspect of the undertaking, to ensure that girls’ – and boys’ – right to education and the benefits they derive from it are fulfilled.

*Emily Bishop
MS Candidate in Global Affairs
Center for Global Affairs, SCPS, NYU