A Crisis on Two Fronts: How Emergencies Stall Girls’ Education and G7 Progress Towards the Global Objectives

In Part 1 & 2 of this series, we discussed findings from the Third Annual G7 Global Objectives Report, which tracks progress against the G7’s 2021 commitment to get 40 million more girls into school and 20 million more reading by 2026. This post focuses on what the Global Objectives data reveal - and fail to reveal - about girls’ access and learning in crisis contexts, and what must be done to get progress back on track.

Global Objective One: 40 Million More Girls in School

In 2021, the G7 recognised that the most marginalised girls are often the ones left farthest behind. Therefore, this first Global Objective focuses on getting 40 million girls who have dropped out or never enrolled, into school. Unfortunately, progress is far off track. That said, in 2023, the reporting period for this report, the global population of out of school (OOS) girls fell by 1 million amongst the 75 focal countries, which is a positive step given the previous year's increase caused by the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan (see figure 1). However, 100 million girls still remain OOS, which is worryingly above the 2021 baseline. Moreover, to reach the 40 million target for this Objective, 13.6 million girls would need to return to school each year - a pace that would be difficult to achieve.

Figure 1. Historical and forward-looking trajectories for this Objective

Where the OOS Numbers are Concentrated

Four countries alone — India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia — account for nearly half of all OOS girls. Halving the numbers in these countries alone would return 24 million girls to education, covering more than half of this Objective's target. That said, the Global Objectives Report also shows that 9 of the 12 countries with between 40-75% of school-aged girls not in school, were experiencing severe levels of crisis (see figure 2). Harmful gender norms are exacerbated during crises, which results in these percentages, as well as the large gender gaps in favour of boys. In some cases, these gender norms also exclude mothers and women from formal/informal labour markets, thereby putting pressure on boys to supplement family incomes, leading to their drop-out. This points to the need to ensure that EiEPC programming advances gender inequality in, around and through education.

Figure 2. OOS rates in relation to differing degrees of crisis

Hidden OOS Numbers

Unfortunately, the figure of 100 million OOS girls is almost certainly an underestimate. That’s because OOS global data rely on MoE enrolment records, censuses, and household surveys, which are often incomplete in crisis contexts. For example, Somalia was not included in the global OOS data due to missing administrative data, although estimates suggest that 1.8 million girls are indeed OOS. That said, since the publication of this report, UIS has updated their 2023 OOS data to include Somalia, which is a welcomed effort to address some of the limitations. In addition to this, the Education Data and Statistics Commission has convened a Task Force to provide guidance on adjusting country/global estimates of OOS children in crisis-affected contexts.

Global Objective Two: 20 Million More Girls Reading

The second Global Objective is also off track, and again, gaps in the global data may be providing an incomplete picture, particularly in crisis contexts. The 2021 baseline of 74 million girls reading by the end of primary, is drawn from just 33 countries (out of 75) with available reading data, and this number has not changed for two years. One reason for this is because the cross-national assessments used to provide reading data are not conducted in every country and they are only conducted every 3-6 years – making it difficult to monitor progress year on year. That said, even with the 74 million baseline, an increase of 6.6 million girls per year over the next three years would be required to meet the target — another difficult prospect given the issues that are highlighted below.

Invisible Learners in Crisis Contexts

The reading proficiency of children in crisis-affected areas is difficult to ascertain because the cross-national assessments used to provide data are only administered in schools that are open and accessible. Figure 3 illustrates areas of conflict in Burkina Faso in 2019, during which schools were not consistently open or accessible. Therefore, when the PASEC assessment was conducted that year, it excluded children in these areas. This means that the national reading proficiency rates for crisis-affected countries like Burkina Faso, are probably worse than what is being reported, as they do not include children in conflict areas.

Figure 3. Conflict areas in Burkina Faso where children likely did not participate in PASEC

Language Matters

In 22 of the countries with reading data, less than 50% of girls and boys met the minimum reading proficiency level at the end of primary (see figure 4). This means that over half of children in those countries left primary school unable to read. However, it should be noted that these reading results actually reflect children's reading proficiency in a second or third language, as a significant number of the assessments were conducted in English, French or Spanish. This means that reading rates for children’s first language may be better than what is reported and are also underestimated in the cross national assessments. This points to the need to supplement these assessments with additional data sources to provide a more complete picture of who is/isn't reading.

Figure 4. Minimum proficiency in a second or third language

Additional ways crisis skews what is counted

It is clear that operational limitations regarding data collection tend to exclude children in crisis contexts, thereby making them invisible in the OOS data as well as reading data. In addition to this, definitional limitations around what counts as 'school' or 'education' tend to exclude crisis-affected children as well. For example, non-formal education (NFE) — often delivered by Education Cluster partners when MoEs are compromised during crises — can include Accelerated Education Programmes, which very much align with ministry curricula and aim to return children to school. However, NFE enrolments are not captured by ministry data - and by extension UIS, SDG and Global Objectives data - firstly because EMIS systems may be compromised, but primarily because NFE is not considered part of the formal school system. This means that any educational gains made through these programmes are overlooked, which points to the need to reconsider how we define and measure ‘education’ across the board, particularly if we want to acknowledge education in crisis contexts.

That said, Education Cluster partners do collect data on the reach of these NFE interventions in-country and the Global Education Cluster collates these data at a global level. However, these collated data are difficult to incorporate within wider datasets as definitions of reach are broad and data amongst different partners can be fragmented and hard to reconcile. Without stronger and more systematic monitoring, much of what is achieved through EiEPC investments goes unrecognised.

Conclusion

The Global Objectives were designed to accelerate progress on girls’ education. Yet three years on, both are significantly off track. The priorities are clear and are reflected in the Report’s recommendations:

1. Support EiEPC programming that aims to advance gender equality in, around and through education.

   
   

2. Prioritise Education Data and Statistics Commission Task Force work to adjust global-level data to include OOS children in EiEPC contexts.

   
   

3. Go beyond cross-national reading assessments by incorporating additional data sources to provide a clearer picture of which girls are/are not reading.

   
   

4. Invest in better monitoring of the impact of EiEPC investments across humanitarian and development programming and improve the definition of the term ‘reach’.

   
   

5. Advocate to include quality NFE within definitions of ‘education’, so that NFE, and the most marginalised children to whom it caters, are visible within education planning, budgeting and monitoring.

Above all, continued G7 engagement with the Global Objectives is critical. Although, G7 partners have experienced significant changes over the past months, they still retain notable social and political capital to influence ministries, donors and other actors to align with the Global Objectives, so that ownership reaches far beyond the G7. This is the least that could and should be accomplished, to honour a commitment made in 2021, to give millions of marginalised girls a chance to learn.

---

Written by Dr Sharon Tao, Founder and Director of Level The Field. This blog was drawn from a published report prepared by Level The Field, which aims to stimulate dialogue and new ways of thinking around the tensions, debates and challenges facing girls’ education. See report for a full list of references.