A recent global forum on schools and
education for girls was held in New
York, sponsored by a world
renowned school for girls, The Emma Willard School of New York. Successful
programmes, best practices and educational policy were presented by leaders in
education, technology, media and government. The chair persons for the event
were Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mrs Nomalizo Leah Tutu. 

Poverty, structural and cultural barriers prevent
girls from achieving their full capacity for education and empowerment. The
following points of agreement and recommendation emerged from the conference:

1. Schools for girls must first and foremost be safe places, free
   of violence, assault and prejudice.
2. Schools must be accessible with safety and/or transportation
   provided for girls.
3. Schools must be places that provide sanitation facilities for
   girls. 
4. School fees, uniforms and other necessary sanitation items (such
   as sanitary pads) should be easily available or freely provided for
   girls. 
5. Schools for girls should extend beyond primary education with
   secondary and other occupational skills offered to girls as well as boys.

Specific examples of village schools in
developing countries were cited as highly successful when educational policies
and structures are planned and executed within a community and with community
leadership. Ownership of education policies, and implementation and management of
schools is critical. Families may need girls (and boys) to help with work
around the home or the community, and this can and should be recognised within the design of education provision. Educational programmes are more likely to be supported when sensitive to
these needs. 

A unique model of a boarding school, the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for
Girls, was described by Ms Anne van Zyl of Pretoria, South Africa, as a transformational environment specifically designed to educate
and empower women leaders to South Africa. A different model, the AGE Africa programme, provides a curriculum model for girl’s empowerment in the
schools of Malawi. This programme strives to support girls already in schools and
works with teachers to ensure empowerment of the girls attending. Yet another example was the corporate model
provided by Nike.  This programme works
with partners in Uganda, Guatemala, India, the United
States and Afghanistan to deliver programmes that support adolescent girls already in
schools.

Technology was cited as a potentially
revolutionary force for bringing education to normally housebound girls and
women in developing countries.  However,
there are challenges in realising the potential of technology in the field of
education and empowerment due to lack of electricity, the initial expense of
purchasing a mobile phone or computer and training women and girls to use it so
as to enable them to access resources.

Using the radio as a simple and
cost-effective way to reach young people was cited – this may be easier to
implement in the short term. For example, the Mobile4Good project gives young
girls reproductive health education over the radio. Technology provides an
anonymous and safe space to address difficult subjects. The United Nations
Foundation’s Girl Up campaign uses social and digital media to create
innovative online initiatives to engage young girls in photography and video as
story telling tools.

The most controversial issue
discussed was the current high profile given to the education for women and
girls and the danger of relying exclusively on education as a way of solving the problem of poverty. This presentation challenged many assumptions about the projects,
whether NGO, corporation or government led. Corporate programmes investing in
girl’s education and cooperative models of NGOs
with governments and business were reviewed. The question raised is about
social justice and gender fairness: Why has the education of girls become so
popular, and, in many cases, hyped as the “end of poverty” as we know it? Ms Kathryn Zamora-Moeller of the University of California, Berkeley, asked whether or not this focus on female education simply
encourages the feminisation of responsibility and obligation for ending poverty,
with poverty eradication resting on the shoulders of women and girls.

Whilst the value of educating women and girls is broadly supported and
understood, care must be taken not to ‘feminise’ the solution to
poverty.

Lois Beilin

Reporting from the Audacia Forum, New York