4 th International Conference on Language and Education : MLE for All and the Pacific –Policies, Practices and Processes November 6-8, 2013

MDGs 2 & 3 and the EFA Goals 1.Expand Early Childhood Care and Education 2.Achieve Universal Primary/Basic Education (UPE) 3.Provide Life Skills and Lifelong Learning 4.Improve Literacy Rates 5.Achieve Gender Parity and Equality in Education 6.Provide Quality Education MDG 2: All children, complete a full course of primary education by 2015 MDG 3: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education on later than 2015

Gender Equality in Education EFA Goal AccessQuality MDG Goals Labour Market Outcomes 3 Gender Equality in Education

Network launched in 2000 by Kofi Annan to help achieve international goals for gender equality in education EAP UNGEI: 18 partner organizations, welcomes UN agencies, governments, NGOs, CSOs, the private sector, individuals, communities and families Provides stakeholders with a platform for action and galvanizes their efforts to get all girls and boys into school “A world where all girls and boys will have equal access to free, quality education” The UN Girls’ Education Initiative

A platform for partners at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels to promote girls’ education and contribute towards gender equality ‘in’ education and ‘through’ education. A multi-stakeholder partnership consisting of UN agencies, governments, NGOs, INGOs, CSOs, donors and even the private sector who work together with their respective comparative advantages and vast experiences to effect policy change for improving the quality and availability of girls’ education in support of the gender- related Education for All (EFA) goals and the second and third Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Gender Responsive Policy Making and Advocacy Collection and Dissemination of Good Practice Partnerships and Collaboration What we do Strengthen programmes for girls’ education by ensuring national education plans are gender responsive

Contests and calendars Raise public awareness on regional issues of gender equality in education Education on the multiple benefits from gender equality in education GJ KimKWDI Collaborative Seminar, Seoul, 13 Dec 2012

Regional Priorities of UNGEI Strengthen access for girls, and focus on boys who are underperforming Pay due attention to gender equality in curriculum and teaching Investigate the role of gender in links between education and employment Explore gender-based violence in schools Examine gender issues in ethnolinguistic minority communities Strengthen gender analyses in early childhood development

1. School related gender based violence  Girls’ empowerment  Masculinity  Early childhood 2. Marginalization and exclusion  Disability  Language  Migration  Emergencies 3. Transition to secondary education 4. Quality and learning environments UNGEI priorities for

What are the key gender issues in the region?

East Asia and the Pacific The world’s most populous region with diverse political and economic systems, ethnicity, language and culture Rapid decline in poverty accompanied by increase in income inequality Notable progress in narrowing the gender gap. In terms of absolute gender parity the region is doing well A “reverse gender gap” becoming apparent in the relative underachievement of boys (Nauru, Mongolia, Fiji, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines) Disaggregated data reveals significant disparities in access to education exist within countries

Gender issues in EAP Gender inequalities in transition from pre-primary to primary, primary to secondary, and school to work A “reverse gender gap” becoming apparent in the relative underachievement of boys (Nauru, TL, Mongolia, Fiji, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines) Harmful gender stereotyping leading to School Related Gender Based violence (SRGBV) Child marriage. 1 in 5 girls married before the age of 18

Where are we now in terms of achieving gender related goals?

Gender equality in education - on the surface.. looks like we are doing alright 14

Gender Parity in Access to Secondary Education, East Asia Source: UNESCO EFA GMR 2008

16 Gender Parity & Equality Notes: Some important indicators for monitoring EFA are only available at the country level (no regional average). GPI: Gender Parity Index, GER: Gross Enrolment Ratio, ANER: Adjusted Net Enrolment Rate, N/A: Not Available. Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics database, accessed on February 2013.

Gender Parity in Access to Secondary Education, Asia Pacific 17 Gender Parity Index (GPI) for the gross enrolment ratios in secondary education Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics data for 2011 Taken from: UNESCO and UNICEF (2012). Asia-Pacific End of Decade Notes on Education for All – EFA Goal 5: Gender Equality. Countries whereby girls are severely disadvantaged. Countries whereby girls are severely disadvantaged. Only 12 countries have achieved gender parity. Only 12 countries have achieved gender parity.

18 Gender Parity and Equality Gender Parity Index for Primary Enrolment Ratio Note: Data for 2011 or latest year available. Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics database, accessed on February 2013 Gender Parity Index for Secondary Gross Enrolment Ratio

Average number of years of schooling Education poverty Extreme education poverty 0.5 years Cambodia 6 years Education Marginalization: Inequalities Within Countries Richest 20% (8.2 yrs) Poorest 20% (3.4 yrs) Male (6.5 yrs) Female (5.5 yrs) Myanmar (5.6 yrs) Vietnam (8.3 yrs) Indonesia (9 yrs) Philippines (9.4 yrs) Lao PDR (8.2 yrs) Rural (7.8 yrs) Urban (8.6 yrs) Urban (3.8 years) Rural (3.4 years) Male Female Rich, urban boys (9.2 yrs) Rich, rural girls (7.5 yrs) Rich, rural boys (8.2 yrs) Rich, urban girls (8.1 yrs) Poor, urban boys (4.1 yrs) Poor, urban girls (3.6 yrs) Poor, rural girls (2.7 yrs) Poor, rural boys (4 yrs)

NER in Primary Education, (ranked by gender gap) Source: Lao MoE Annual Reports Disparity exists

Source: Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011 Hidden disparities: Socio-economic status have a clear influence on access to education. Girls from poor families are less likely to go to school but parity increases as family income increases Challenges to MDG 3 in Asia-Pacific Access to education by gender and wealth quintile, ages 5-14, Nepal 2011 (%)

Extreme education poverty Multiple exclusions in education: Poor, rural girls in India have fewer years of education than rich urban girls and boys Education poverty India Poorest quintile Richest quintileUrban Rural Urban Rural Rich urban girls Rich urban boys Bihar Poor rural boys Poor rural girls Poor Bihar girls Poor Bihar boys Average years of schooling Challenges to MDG 3 in Asia-Pacific Source: 2010 EFA Global Monitoring Report data for India updated by UNICEF ROSA

Poverty, ethnicity and language fuel education marginalization in Turkey The interaction between language, ethnicity and location is a potent source of marginalization in education. One striking illustration comes from Turkey. In most regions, 2% to 7% of those aged 17 to 22 have fewer than four years of education, but in the eastern region the figure rises to 21%. Young women speaking a non-Turkish home language –predominantly Kurdish – are among the most educationally marginalized. They average just three years of education – less than the national average for Senegal.

Gender Parity in Learning Outcomes (Reading), Asia Pacific Country / TerritoriesDifference in score (Boy – Girl), PISA 2009 Australia –37 Japan –39 ROK –35 New Zealand –46 HK-China –33 Indonesia –37 Kazhkstan –43 Kyrgystan –53 Macao-China –34 Shanghai-China –40 Singapore –31 Chinese Taipei –37 Thailand –38 In all the participating countries in Asia- Pacific, the girls outperformed the boys in reading. 25 Source: OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I)

Gender Parity in Learning Outcomes (Mathematics), Asia Pacific Country / TerritoriesDifference in score (Boy – Girl), PISA 2009 Australia 10 Japan 9 ROK 3 New Zealand 8 HK-China 14 Indonesia –1 Kazhkstan –1 Kyrgystan –6 Macao-China 11 Shanghai-China 12 Singapore 5 Chinese Taipei 5 Thailand 4 In most participating countries in Asia- Pacific, boys outperformed girls in mathematics. 26 Source: OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I)

Gender Parity in Learning Outcomes (Science), Asia Pacific Country / TerritoriesDifference in score (Boy – Girl), PISA 2009 Australia –1 Japan –12 ROK –2 New Zealand –6 HK-China 3 Indonesia –9 Kazhkstan –9 Kyrgystan –22 Macao-China –2 Shanghai-China –1 Singapore –1 Chinese Taipei –1 Thailand –13 In most participating countries in Asia- Pacific, gender differences in science performance tend to be small. Exceptions are Japan, Krygystan and Thailand where girls outperform boys. 27 GJ KimKWDI Collaborative Seminar, Seoul, 13 Dec 2012 Source: OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I)

In 2009, the male-female gap in terms of labour force participation rate for Asia- Pacific was 25.2 percentage points. 28 Gender Parity in Labour Market Outcomes, Asia Pacific (cont’d) Taken from: Women and labour markets in Asia: rebalancing towards gender equality in labour markets in Asia / ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific; Asian Development Bank. Bangkok: ILO,

What role does the language play?

Globally, about 221 million school age children speak languages at home that are not recognized in schools or official settings Indigenous people and ethnic minorities face particularly severe disadvantages in education 50% of the world’s out-of-school children live in communities where the language of schooling is rarely used at home (World Bank, 2005) In some countries ethnic and language minorities account for a large share of the bottom 20%

In Vietnam, more than half of ethnic minorities live in poverty, versus only 10 percent of Kinh. Ethnic minorities account for 11 million of Vietnam's 87 million people, but constitute 44.4 percent of the poor. In Lao, over one-half of ethnic minority girls never attended school at all, and of the other half, most completed only two grades. Areas of marginalization compound each other. In many linguistic-minority communities “it is girls and women who tend to be monolingual, being less exposed through schooling, salaried labour, or migration to the national language” (UNESCO, 2003).

Connections between Language and Marginality (UNESCO 2005) Linguistic boundaries between the dominant group and the dominated are usually quite clear. The elite in any society are invariably speakers of the prestige language used in education, governance and other official domains. Meanwhile, the most marginalized groups have little access to the prestige language; they are speakers of languages or dialects that are not valued, sometimes not even recognized, by formal structures.

Connections between Girls, Language and Marginality (UNESCO 2005) Girls and women from marginalized groups are victims of multiple disadvantages, and their access to schooling is the most limited when schools expect them to have linguistic resources that do not exist in their environment. Corson (1993) finds that the three groups most affected by injustices in language policy and planning in education are women and girls, the poor, and groups with languages not represented in formal structures.

Dutcher (in CAL, 2001) and O’Gara & Kendall (1996) have demonstrated that unless they work in markets or factories, girls and women are much less likely than boys and men to be exposed to the prestige language because their lives are more often restricted to the home and family where the local language is spoken. This means that girls are less likely than boys to understand school instruction.

Differences in language competence often go unnoticed at school, especially where girls are given fewer opportunities to speak and are expected to perform less well than boys (O’Gara & Kendall, 1996). Any reticence on the part of girls to speak may be interpreted as evidence of limited academic ability, rather than lack of exposure to the language of instruction.

Research studies that have looked at differences between boys and girls have found that girls who learn in familiar languages stay in school longer, are more likely to be identified as good students, do better on achievement tests, and repeat grades less often than their peers who do not get home language instruction (Hovens (2002, 2003), Benson (2002a, 2002b), and Sichra (1992)). This evidence suggests that a change in the language of teaching and learning greatly improves opportunities for educational access and attainment for female students.

What can be done?