Content uploaded by Elaine Unterhalter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elaine Unterhalter on Oct 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Concept Paper developed for workshop Beyond Parity: Measuring Gender Equality in
Education, London, September 18-19, 2015
1
Measuring Gender inequality and equality in education
2
-
Elaine Unterhalter, UCL Institute of Education
Introduction
Since 1995, considerable expertise has built up in measuring aspects of gender inequality and
equality, and in researching these in education, particularly formal schooling
3
. Existing international
and national measures used for reporting on gender in formal schooling
4
chart gender parity in
school enrolment, attendance, progression, and learning outcomes. Gender parity measures the
number of girls as a proportion of the number of boys. This measure generates some insights
regarding the distribution and use of resources, but it is narrow. However, gender parity as a
measurement technique tells us very little about the institutions which help reproduce gender
inequalities within and beyond education. It also fails to give us a sense of the dimensions of gender
equality, and the processes and investments in schooling which will develop, support and sustain
this. Thus it does not generate sufficiently multi-dimensional insights for policy makers and
practitioners with regard to where gender inequalities and equalities are located in education and
how change in these processes can be evaluated and tracked using quantitative and qualitative
information and a range of strategies for measurement.
The revised frameworks for EFA in the 2030 education agenda and the draft of the SDGs give a
central position to gender equality. The draft SDG Declaration contains an overarching commitment
‘to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls’
(UN DESA, 2015). The education goal includes an aim to develop knowledge and skills of gender
equality (4.7) and upgrading education facilities to make them gender sensitive (4.8). The Incheon
EFA Declaration recognizes ‘ the importance of gender equality in achieving the right to education
for all… supporting gender-sensitive policies, planning and learning environments; mainstreaming
gender issues in teacher training and curricula; and eliminating gender-based discrimination and
violence in schools’ (World Education Forum, 2015). Both of these documents require us to revisit
the question of measuring and evaluating gender inequality and equality in education at the
international, national and local level. They open a space for technical intervention and political and
critical discussion in a range of settings of how and why we construct particular measurement
frameworks, and how we connect from the international to the national and local level.
1
This workshop was co-hosted by UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI), London International Development
centre (LIDC), FHI360, and the MacArthur Foundation
2
This concept paper has been written through an iterative process of discussion. The in depth critical
comments and suggestions of Nora Fyles, Helen Longlands, Jenny Parkes, Shirley Miske, Joan Dejaeghere and
Nitya Rao are acknowledged with thanks
3
For an annotated bibliography of works in this area see separate Appendix 1
4
Throughout this concept paper the term schooling is used to refer to the formal processes of enrolment,
attendance and instruction in schools, generally from early years to the end of senior secondary school.
However, education takes place in many other sites, and when a wider or looser set of relationships is under
discussion, or when a range of learning sites is signalled, the term ‘education’ is used. The only exception is
when specific policy texts are referred to, for example, the education goals of the MDGs.
The aim of this concept paper is:
i) To propose a framework for discussion regarding how gender inequality and equality in
schooling can be understood, and which elements of the framework can be measured
with what possible consequences for policy and practice at different levels
(international, national and local).
ii) To pose some questions regarding existing and projected datasets and approaches to
measurement in relation to this framework and the implications of their use at different
levels ((international, national and local) and why?
The paper is organised as follows: firstly, working definitions of gender inequality and gender
equality in schooling and aspects of education are developed; secondly, some existing measures for
gender inequality and equality are considered in relation to the definitional mapping; thirdly, a
range of questions are posed for reviewing and critiquing the definitions offered and the ways
measurement techniques have been selected to frame the workshop and take this discussion
forward.
Defining gender inequality and gender equality in schooling
How we define gender inequality and gender equality in schooling entails more than a description
of the numbers of girls and boys enrolled in and progressing through stages of instruction.
Inequality is often portrayed as a line, above or below which groups or individuals stand in relation
to resources (e.g. income or years at school). However, drawing on a broader definition of
inequality derived from Sen’s (1999) work on capabilities, we can understand inequality in general,
and gender inequality in particular, as limits or constraints on the opportunities an individual or a
group may have to choose and realise the actions, attributes and relationships of wellbeing they
have reason to value. At the most abstract level, equality can be understood as expanding
freedoms, opportunities, agency and valued outcomes without penalties associated with gender
(Sen, 1999; Sen, 2011; Robeyns, 2007; Nussbaum, 2011).
However defining inequalities and equalities is not a matter of theory and abstraction. Concretely it
requires us to understand the institutional foundations that reproduce inequalities and that can
support equalities. These institutional foundations comprise both political and economic processes,
socio-cultural norms, and policy and management regimes. Some of these institutional foundations
directly underpin education systems, and some have an indirect connection. An analysis and
assessment of gender inequality and equality in schooling needs to take in these institutional
processes which work at international, national and local level, often in un-coordinated ways.
Central themes in a definition of gender equality and schooling include understanding
opportunities, experiences, processes, practices, and outcomes. Each aspect can entail the
discrimination and subordination of individuals, which constrains opportunities, agency, and the
realisation of valued outcomes. These restraints include forms of exclusion, silencing, stereotyping,
marginalisation and violence on the basis of gender. Each aspect also entails understanding the
intersection of gender with other kinds of inequalities (e.g. class, race, ethnicity, location, poverty,
sexuality).
In assessing gender inequalities we need to pose questions about the scope and scale of
inequalities. For example, in how many areas are inequalities experienced? Are inequalities in one
field, for some groups or individuals, mitigated by equalities in another? Are some inequalities
experienced more intensely and irrevocably for some groups and individuals and do these therefore
require more concerted investments to develop institutions which support gender and other
connected equalities? Are inequalities aggravated in particular contexts (e.g. war/conflict), which
may require somewhat different approaches to measurement?
The concept of substantive gender equality put forward by UN Women (2015) in their latest
Progress of the World’s Women report offers a number of components that are useful to
developing a definition of gender equality in education. They define substantive gender equality as
‘redressing women’s socioeconomic disadvantage, addressing stereotyping, stigma and violence;
and strengthening women’s agency, voice and participation’ (p. 57). The definition could be
expanded to include building and sustaining the institutions at international, national and local
levels which support and sustain gender equality in and through education. Thus a working
definition of ‘gender sensitive policy, practices and learning environments’ in schooling and the
broader field of education (using the wording of the Incheon Declaration) for discussion is:
A dynamic connection of institutions (International, national and local) within and outside
the education system that build, support and sustain processes which provide opportunities,
practices and outcomes for gender equality in and through schools. Gender sensitive policy,
practices and learning environments constructing gender equality entail a process which
contributes to transforming unjust structures, including those which reproduce women’s
socio-economic and political disadvantage. These support policies and practices which
address violence, subordination, stereotyping and stigma. They are linked with schools
which help build women’s agency, voice and participation both within and beyond
education.
We can mirror this with a working definition of gender insensitive policy, practices and learning
environments in schools and the broader field of education as:
Those policies, practices and learning environments associated with the combination of
institutions (international, national and local) within and outside the education system
which reproduce or fail to challenge or change gender inequality in and through schools.
These policies, practices and learning environments are particularly associated with the
reproduction of unjust structures and with perpetuating women’s socioeconomic and
political disadvantage, with policies and practices which ignore or support violence,
subordination, stereotyping, and stigma. They are linked with policies and practices which
provide limited or no support in and through schools for women’s agency, voice and
participation.
Working through these definitions in greater detail we can identify seven key areas of policy and
practice in and through education where gender inequality and equality are important and where
there is scope for measurement.
Institutions outside education
Institutions of the education system
Teaching and learning practice
Resource distribution to and within schools and education programmes
Norms
Demographics
Outcomes of education
Table 1 provides further detail on these areas in relation to schooling:
Table 1: Policies and practices indicating gender inequality and equality in schooling
Area or field of
inequality/equality
Reproducing gender inequality in
schools
Supporting gender equality in schools
Institutions outside
education
Laws, policies and practices which
exclude women from political and
economic resources and activities.
Laws which reproduce and fail to
redress historical inequalities. Laws
which do not protect against child
marriage, misogyny, violence against
women etc.
Laws, policies and practices which include
women in political and economic
resources and activities. Laws which
proactively compensate and seek to
redress the impact of historical
inequalities, e.g. laws which protect
against child marriage, misogyny,
violence against women, and which
support sexual and reproductive health
etc.
Education system
institutions
Absence of women at different levels
of decision making and leadership.
Lack of engagement with gender
issues in school management,
administration and with school
boards. Lack of engagement with
gender & inclusion in teacher
education & development Silence on
reproductive rights & sex education.
Silence on gender issues in national
curriculum & nationally selected
learning materials
Lack of codes of conduct or limited or
no enactment of codes to deal with
SRGBV; laws which exclude girls with
early pregnancies from participating
in school; etc. Absence of discussion
of gender inequalities in guidance and
counselling and in extra-curricular
activities (e.g., sport).
Presence of women at different levels of
decision making and leadership.
Promotion of discussion of gender and
equality in teacher education &
development.
Discussion of reproductive rights &
sex/sexuality education. Discussion of
gender and equality issues in curriculum
& learning materials. Concern with
gender equality in examination systems
in use.
Codes of conduct to deal with SRGBV
ensuring knowledge and enactment.
Teaching and
learning practice
Silence on gender issues in curriculum
& learning materials at school level.
Silence on gendered attitudes,
interactions, relationships,
construction of meaning in teaching
and learning (teacher to student(s)
and student(s) to student(s)) in the
content areas. Silence on gender bias
in connecting student learning and
learning outcomes through exams.
Discussion of gender and equality issues
in curriculum & learning materials.
Discussion of gender dynamics in
teaching and learning between teachers
and students, students and students (i.e.,
small group learning) in all subjects.
Strategies for correcting gender bias in
teaching and learning with learning
outcomes.
Resource
distribution
Absence of resources to realise gender
sensitive education: Unequal
distribution of finance e.g. gender &
teachers’ and managers’ pay, or large
investments in areas of education
where women are a minority; lack of
schools, segregated latrines, teachers,
learning materials, water, food,
secure long term finance, which take
account of needs, additional gender
inflected needs of particular girls or
boys
Provision of resources to realise gender
sensitive education: Gender budgeting
and scrutiny of finances in terms of what
is spent on women and men; includes
gender equality in teacher pay and
conditions, schools, adequately trained
teachers, learning materials, water,
transport, food, secure long term finance.
Concern to consider additional resources
for groups of girls or boys with additional
gender inflected needs
Norms
Absence of girls’ and women’s voices
in reflecting on aspects of SRGBV,
reproductive rights, existing
inequalities and connecting exclusions
associated with e.g. stigma and
Presence of girls’ and women’s voices in
reflecting on aspects of SRGBV,
reproductive rights, women’s
participation in transforming inequalities
including identifying stigma and
This framework suggests that both gender inequality and gender equality in schooling are not static
and that any approach to measuring these processes must attempt to capture both the dynamic of
moving and connecting relationships. An approach to measurement would also need to indicate
where resources are needed for which component of this framework and map what outcomes may
be associated with what kinds of interventions. Change over time both in relation to interventions,
the shape of institutions, and a range of outcomes will need to be documented. The framework in
its current form includes fields that can be assessed nationally, and some that need to be assessed
locally.
Measuring gender inequalities and equalities in schooling: A preliminary review of resources and
some questions
In looking at the question of measuring gender inequalities and equalities in schooling, we need to
clarify what we are measuring and why we are measuring. Some approaches to measurement stress
the importance of measuring aspects of resources (teachers, school places), how much is
distributed to whom, and the results associated with these allocations (attendance, progression,
attainment). Other approaches draw on normative assessment, for example, reporting what
participants in surveys say gender equality or women’s empowerment looks like. Some approaches
develop frameworks regarding what a list of important equalities comprises. Thus a range of
different datasets may be useful for measuring aspects of gender inequality and equality in
schooling. These combine what Clark (2014) has called approaches to measurement that stress
resources, preferences, and lists of equalities and wellbeing.
In Table 2 some datasets or approaches to measurement at the international or national level are
suggested for the areas outlined in Table 1.
stereotyping. High levels of violence
(sexual violence/harassment, corporal
punishment, bullying); attitudes that
support stereotypes and misogyny.
Absence of attitudes, actions and
symbols that challenge stereotypes,
discriminatory practices and
behaviours.
Absence of work with boys and men
on understanding and seeking to
change gender and other inequalities
stereotyping. Strategies to address high
levels of violence (sexual
violence/harassment, corporal
punishment, bullying), and address
attitudes that support stereotypes and
misogyny. Fostering attitudes, actions
and symbols that challenge stereotypes,
discriminatory practices and behaviours.
Work with boys and men understanding
and seeking to change gender and other
inequalities
Demographics
Gender disparities in enrolment,
attendance, progression, attainment
and learning outcomes, including
knowledge about gender and other
inequalities. Look at gender
intersecting with class, race, ethnicity
and location
Absence or reducing gender disparities in
enrolment, attendance, progression,
attainment and learning outcomes;
knowledge about gender and other
inequalities. Consider in relation to
intersections with class, race, ethnicity
and location
Outcomes
Connections between levels or
relationships of schooling for groups
defined by gender and other
intersecting inequalities and
exclusions or inequalities in relation
to labour market access, conditions of
employment, access to resources,
political participation, and
participation in social or cultural
action, and lack of improvements in
health
Connections or relationships between
levels or relationships of schooling for
groups defined by gender and other
historical inequalities and the building of
equalities in relation to labour market
access, conditions of employment, access
to resources, political participation, and
participation in social or cultural action
and improvements in health.
Table 2 Datasets or approaches to measurement which can assist reporting on gender equality
and inequality in schooling
Reproducing gender inequality in schools
Supporting gender equality in schools
Policies & practices
Measures & data
Policies & practices
Measures & data
Institutions
outside
education
Laws, policies and
practices which
exclude women from
political & economic
resources and
activities. Laws which
do not protect
against child
marriage, misogyny,
violence against
women etc.
SIGI index; African
Women’s Progress
Scoreboard; gender
gap index; global
scorecards or
legislation on child
marriage etc.
Laws, policies and
practices which
include women in
political and
economic resources
and activities. Laws
which protect
against child
marriage,
misogyny, violence
against women etc.
SIGI index; African
Women’s Progress
Scoreboard;
CEDAW and HR
monitoring frames
and information on
women’s
empowerment (e.g.
GEM, GII)
Education
system
institutions
Absence of women at
different levels of
decision making and
leadership.
Lack of engagement
with gender in
teacher education &
development.
Silence on
reproductive rights &
sex education.
Silence on gender in
curriculum & learning
materials.
Lack of codes of
conduct to deal with
SRGBV.
Institutional audits
within schools.
Some data
captured by EMIS
or Teachers’ service
commission or
studies of TTIs.
Some captured by
NGOs. Unevenly
documented at
country level. GPE
Gender stocktaking
of GPE partner
countries; UNICEF
West Africa –
institutional and
political barriers to
girls’ education in 8
countries (2014 and
2015). PISA data on
teacher training
Presence of women
at different levels
of decision making
and leadership.
Gender & inclusion
in teacher
education.
Discussion on
reproductive rights
& sex education.
Discussion of
gender in
curriculum &
learning materials.
Codes of conduct to
deal with SRGBV
and ensuring
knowledge and
enactment of them
Some data exists on
gender budgeting,
but not clear how
much this has been
used in schools;
most other data for
this field not
currently
documented. Some
national surveys?
Data on addressing
gender bias in
national curricula
(IAEA). PISA data on
teacher training
Teaching and
learning
practice
Silence on gender
issues in curriculum
& learning materials
at school level.
Silence on gendered
attitudes,
interactions,
relationships,
construction of
meaning in teaching
and learning (teacher
to student(s) and
student(s) to
student(s)) in the
content areas.
Silence on gender
bias in connecting
student learning and
learning outcomes
through exams.
Classroom
observation data.
Data on teacher &
students gendered
attitudes and
interactions.
Unevenly
documented at
country level.
Discussion of
gender and equality
issues in curriculum
& learning
materials.
Discussion of
gender dynamics in
teaching and
learning between
teachers and
students, students
and students (i.e.,
small group
learning) in all
subjects. Strategies
for correcting
gender bias in
teaching and
learning with
learning outcomes.
Classroom
observation data.
Data on teacher &
students gendered
attitudes and
interactions.
Unevenly
documented at
country level. Some
data from PISA and
SACMEQ
Resource
distribution
Absence of resources:
Unequal distribution
of finance e.g.
teacher pay, schools,
teachers, learning
materials, water,
food, secure long
term finance.
Resources available
for schooling for
different groups of
children (EFA GMR
but granular
enough to capture
different needs?).
Use data on child
health from DHS
and observatory
material? Young
Lives data.
Provision of
resources: Gender
budgeting &
scrutiny of
finances; in gender
equality in teacher
pay and conditions,
schools, adequately
trained teachers,
learning materials,
water, transport,
food, secure long
term finance.
Resources available
for schooling for
different groups of
children (EFA GMR
granular enough?)
Data on child
health from DHS
and other
observatory
material could be
developed? Young
lives.
Norms
Absence of girls’ and
women’s voices in
reflecting on aspects
of SRGBV,
reproductive rights,
existing inequalities
and connecting
exclusions including
stigma and
stereotyping.
Absence of work with
boys and men on
understanding and
seeking to change
gender and other
inequalities.
Data from DHS on
attitudes to GBV;
Program H Gender-
equitable Men
Scale; possibly also
data on women’s
employment and
time use as
measured in the
Gender Status
Index.
Presence of girls’
and women’s
voices in reflecting
on aspects of
SRGBV,
reproductive rights,
women’s
participation in
transforming
inequalities
including
identifying stigma
and stereotyping.
Work with boys and
men understanding
and seeking to
change gender and
other inequalities.
Attitudes from DHS
data and Eurostat;
Program H Gender-
equitable Men
Scale; UNICEF
surveys of
children’s
confidence and
views of schooling;
bullying etc.; PISA
data e.g. ABC &
other material on
autonomy from
PISA; anything in
TIMSS or SACMEQ?
Demographics
Gender disparities in
enrolment,
attendance,
progression,
attainment and
learning outcomes,
including knowledge
about gender and
other inequalities.
Look at gender
intersecting with
class, race, ethnicity
and location.
UNESCO WIDE
database; anything
from learning
metrics task team?
Absence or
reducing gender
disparities in
enrolment,
attendance,
progression,
attainment and
learning outcomes;
knowledge about
gender and other
inequalities.
Consider in relation
to intersections
with class, race,
ethnicity and
location.
WIDE; possibly
considering in more
granular way
whether there are
differences in
which streams
(academic,
vocational,
administrative) girls
and boys are
located, and which
areas they proceed
to work in after
compulsory
schooling (some
version of data
from Gender Status
Index).
Outcomes
Connections
between levels or
relationships of
schooling for groups
defined by gender
and other
intersecting
Longitudinal
studies (e.g. Young
Lives); DHS data;
Women’s
Empowerment and
Agriculture Index.
Connections or
relationships
between levels or
relationships of
schooling for
groups defined by
gender and other
Longitudinal
studies (e.g. Young
Lives); DHS data;
Women’s
Empowerment and
Agriculture Index.
inequalities and
exclusions or
inequalities in
relation to labour
market access,
conditions of
employment, access
to resources, political
participation, and
participation in social
or cultural action,
and lack of
improvements in
health.
historical
inequalities and the
building of
equalities in
relation to labour
market access,
conditions of
employment,
access to resources,
political
participation,
participation in
social or cultural
action, and
improvements in
health.
In highlighting some preliminary sources of data for each of these 7 areas, this analysis has not been
able to consider what the relationship between different areas of gender inequality and equality in
and through education is or should be and how the dynamic interchange between them could be
measured. Some aspects of this are considered below, where we set out a number of key questions
for the workshop, which seek to unpack some features of how to measure and assess the
relationship between the different areas or facets of gender equality and inequality in and through
schooling and the wider field of education.
Some critical questions:
i) In documenting these 7 areas of gender inequality and equality, do we wish to build up
a composite picture, so that over given periods (say every 5 years) we will be able to
show this is what our multi-faceted view of gender inequality and gender equality in
schooling looks like for each country, possibly each region and each bloc of countries
(e.g. high, middle and low income or Southern Africa, Eastern Africa etc.)? We need
further discussion on how they inter-relate, conceptually and empirically.
ii) Will a composite index mash all the information together so that we are not able to see
the nuance of the constituent parts? Or could we construct an index that is both
composite and where we could look separately at each of the 7 constituent parts? Or
could some of them be grouped (e.g. are teaching and learning practices at
school/classroom level part of the same domain/field as education institutions or are
they different and is it difficult to form a national measure?
iii) Is it feasible or desirable to create a composite index to include the 7 fields for all
countries, and what can we learn from experiences of multidimensional measurement
of poverty or other kinds of inequalities?
iv) Would countries, communities, blocs have to show progress in developing equalities
and addressing inequalities in all the 7 areas? Or would we (variously defined) consider
it acceptable if there is gender equality in some areas, but not all? For example, if there
was gender equality in basic education (as measured through demographics), but
gender inequality in two other areas – say education leadership and in laws relating to
women owning property and participating in national government – would we say one
kind of equality could be traded off against another? This question raises the issue of
who the audience/user group of this measure is. Women’s participation in politics is
linked to the work of UNGEI, UNESCO and the education sector, but is not their core
business. To make measurement of processes in education realisable UNGEI
recommends focusing on the education sector, but perhaps other agencies might
measure more broadly. Would we require gender equality in all 7 areas or three or four
out of seven, and how would we decide which? Would we confine our attention to the
education areas or is this too narrow? Who would set these benchmarks and what
would be the process of discussion and accountability?
v) Do we need a separate measure of equality and inequality at international, national and
sub-national level? Or do we think equality looks the same everywhere, but there are
different combinations of inequalities? Or is equality also contextual and inequality
looks the same everywhere? How can we take account of local conditions and
relationships of participation and accountability in developing our approach to
measurement? Is it feasible/desirable to develop an equalities measure in education at
national level using the processes CASE developed in UK developing lists of valued
equalities and critically reviewing these with vulnerable and excluded groups (Burchardt
and Vizard, 2007)?
vi) Who is best placed to gather the data mapped in these different areas and to whom are
the data gatherers accountable? In many countries school collect EMIS data, often
gender disaggregated, but this is not analysed or used to consider implications
regarding gender inequalities or equalities. Current education sector planning needs
much more attention to gender responsive processes, using data collected for planning,
programme design, implementation and monitoring. What are some of the current
obstacles to using data in this way?
vii) Some data is routinely gathered already through a well-established relationship
between international and national teams (national ministries of education and
departments of statistics, UIS, DHS). Some is gathered through national census offices
or other reviews (e.g. CEDAW review process). But there is considerable variation
between countries in their capacity to collect census data, and sometimes findings are
disputed. Not all countries accede to review processes e.g. CEDAW and CRC. How do we
develop a good enough and accountable process of data gathering and review?
viii) The framework contains data collected and assessed nationally, and some that requires
local classroom observation. What sampling process would guide the selection of
classrooms for observation, and how could methods for this be robust?
ix) Is it useful to develop some shorthand gender inequality measures considering the
depth of lack of education for particular populations, e.g. the numbers of women by say
ethnicity or class who lack literacy and numeracy, fail to complete a basic education
cycle, and have no access to post school education and training. Could we say that
women who fall below a cut off line in all 3 areas experience a more severe form of
education inequality, than if they fall below the line in just one area? WIDE has begun
to offer this, e.g., severe education disadvantage: numbers of girls and boys from
different groups who have less than 2 years of schooling (education disadvantage below
4 years). Can this be extended to identify individuals or groups with additional
education disadvantages?
x) Is it feasible/desirable to construct a measure for education like the OHPI women’s
empowerment in agriculture index with two components of empowerment: i.e. aspects
of women’s empowerment proxies taking say from DHS or SIGI databases and then a
gender parity component built from education databases?
xi) Different countries have different histories of discrimination and subordination for
particular groups and these persist even though official laws do not sanction this. How
will we address/monitor a country having a law or policy in place but not acting to
implement this? Can we use/adapt some existing measures and approaches to training
(e.g. USAID measure on SRGBV currently under discussion.
xii) It is a moot point whether girls’ and women’s rights are always expanded and protected
as an outcome of education. We know that gender parity or equality in schooling does
not always translate into gender equality as an outcome of schooling, but the literature
on this relationship is limited (Unterhalter et al, 2014). There are many permutations of
this relationship and much research remains to be done. For example, in some regions,
women lack opportunities to access the labour market, even though girls may have
education. In others, women can access to the labour market, but encounter
discrimination in the kinds of work available, conditions and pay. This has little
connection with their education levels. In some societies women have good education
and work opportunities, but there is deep misogyny, evinced in violence against
women, and ingrained resistance to change, e.g. cultures of management or the
structures of pay. It is important to understand a range of pathways through education
to different kinds of outcomes with regard to gender equality and women’s rights. The
existing composite measures, e.g. GEM, GDI, and Gender Gap index, push this
information together, and while they give some useful information ranking countries,
further research is needed on what these pathways are. In countries where longitudinal
data has been collected (e.g. Young Lives (Peru, Vietnam, Ethiopia, India), UK, Sweden,
or where there is good panel data (e.g. South Arica) some of these trends can be
mapped. Some key questions at the country and local level in building an extended
research programme in this area are:
Is there a relationship between levels of women’s and girls’ participation in
different forms and levels of schooling, areas of employment, and mean pay for
women in particular occupations?
Is there a relationship between whether women have completed primary,
junior secondary, senior secondary or tertiary education and their political
participation at all levels (local i.e. school, ward, district, national)?
Is there a relationship between the numbers of women reaching particular
levels of schooling and women’s capacity to mobilise to address unjust
structures and norms?
These and other questions for further research can help explore causal pathways, possibly with a
view to feeding back some of this information into the approaches to measuring gender inequality
and equality in schooling outlined above.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to outline for discussion and critical review some working definitions of
gender inequality and equality in education, and particularly in schooling. The intention is to open a
discussion that can contribute to steering policy and practice away from the narrowness of gender
parity as a proxy for gender equality. One of the intentions of the broader definitions offered here is
to look both at gender in the distribution of opportunities and outcomes in schooling, and to review
the institutions which might perpetuate aspects of gender inequality, despite gender parity in
distribution. The discussion aims to try to build the connections for equality between education and
other economic, political and social sectors, and to open up for scrutiny the question of who
generates, discusses and uses the data, and how local processes, which inform policy and hold
decision makers to account, can be built.
References
Burchardt, T. and Vizard, P. (2007). Definition of Equality and Framework for Measurement: Final
Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement. LSE STICERD Research
Paper No. CASE 120.
Clark, D. (2014). ‘Defining and Measuring Human Well-Being’, in B. Freedman (ed.) Global
Environmental Change: Handbook of Global Environmental Pollution. New York: Springer.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Robeyns, I. (2007). ‘When will society be gender just?’, in J. Brown (ed.) The Future of Gender.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2011). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
UN DESA. (2015). Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, online at:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal (accessed on 10.09.2015).
UN Women. (2015). Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016: Transforming Economies, Realizing
Rights. New York: UN Women.
Unterhalter, E., North, A., Arnot, M., Lloyd, C., Molestane, R., Murphy-Graham, E., Parkes, J. and
Saito, M. (2014). Interventions to Enhance Girls’ Education and Gender Equality: A Rigorous Review
of Literature. London: DFID.
World Education Forum. (2015). Incheon Declaration: Education 2030: Towards inclusive and
equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all, online at: https://en.unesco.org/world-
education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration (accessed on 10.09.2015).
