During the 1990s the numbers of girls enrolled in primary school improved in most of the developing world. Yet in many countries there are still strong disparities in favour of boys, especially in terms of dropout, repetition and completion rates, and levels of achievement. These disparities explain the global consensus on the need to enhance girls’ education, particularly through improved coordination and partnerships.

A recent book, Partnerships for Girls’ Education, examines partnerships in a range of contexts, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Peru and the Philippines. Although the partnerships are diverse in terms of ideology, scale, intentions and achievements, their experiences provide useful lessons regarding the factors that hinder effective partnerships, and those that make them successful.

Power relations

Understanding partnerships – and developing effective ones – requires taking into account the power relations between different groups and institutions in society. In Bangladesh, for example, the government’s desire to control civil society organisations often hinders the functioning of education institutions run by NGOs.

In any partnership involving organisations with large power differences, there is a risk that the largest partner may co-opt the smaller, less powerful ones. But such collaborations also have considerable potential. Small organisations are often better at implementing innovative education programmes, for example, while the larger, more powerful partners can offer economies of scale and resources to invest in them. Northern-based coalitions must develop ways of working that reflect the priorities of Southern members, and be willing to put their human and financial resources at their disposal.

Success also depends on the nature of such partnerships. Loose alliances tend to work better than tight, bureaucratic arrangements. One example is the Global Campaign for Education (GCE), which brings together NGOs and teachers’ unions in over 150 countries. The GCE has been effective in promoting policies for girls’ education, although its work has not always been easy. Within the GCE, tensions developed about how to prioritise multiple interests, such as those of teachers and the needs of poor communities. In this case, flexibility proved to be important, requiring that partners give up their individual identities, if only temporarily, in the process of working towards a mutually negotiated plan.

The closer the members of an alliance are in terms of the values they hold, the smoother their functioning promises to be. Common values can also provide the impetus for innovative interventions. In Peru, for example, indigenous peoples formed a federation to assert their right to be consulted about their children’s education. The process has led to new alliances to promote intercultural education.

Leadership and resources

Several cases highlight the importance of strong leadership and mediation in partnerships. In Egypt, UNICEF played this role in a partnership involving local communities, NGOs and the government, working together for girls’ education.

Another lesson, perhaps the most obvious, is the necessity for all partners, especially the best endowed, to be willing to invest time, funds and people. They must also nurture partnerships by supporting innovation, and replicating best practices. This message emerged clearly from the experiences of the community alliances for girls’ education supported by the Campaign for Female Education (CAMFED). Operating in Ghana, Zambia and Zimbabwe since 1993, CAMFED enables girls to complete their schooling and encourages them to move on to become leaders of change in their communities. By 2003, CAMFED had helped 56,208 girls to remain in school.

Finally, it is important that partners for education work not towards the ‘lowest common denominator’, but to the highest standards and with a clear vision. Even the Millennium Development Goals, according to the Women’s Environment and Development Organization, are only a ‘set of minimal goals that are necessary, but not sufficient, for human development’. Although the deadline for the first target of Goal 3 – the elimination of gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and at all levels by 2015 – has been missed, this is not a reason for abandoning partnerships for girls’ education. Rather, it should be an impetus for revitalising them to ensure that the 2015 target is met.

Links

Campaign for Female Education (CAMFED)

Global Campaign for Education (GCE)

Oxfam Education

UN Girls’ Education Initiative (GIE)

UNICEF Basic education and gender equality

Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)

Further reading

S. Aikman (2005) Partnerships from below: indigenous rights and girls' education in the Peruvian Amazon, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

World Education Forum (2000) Dakar Framework for Action, WEF, Dakar, Senegal.

A. Igboemeka (2005) Flying high: The Partnership on Sustainable Strategies for Girls' Education, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

L. Lake and L. Mugwendere (2005) Seeds of change: community alliances for girls' education, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

A. Mia (2005) Complementary provision: State and society in Bangladesh, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

R.R. Raya and R.G. Castillo (2005)Emerging partnerships in the Philippine EFA process, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) (2005) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

K. Tomasevski (2003) Education Denied: Costs and Remedies. London: Zed Books.

UN Millennium Project (2005) Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality andEmpowering Women. UNDP (2004) Millennium Project: Task Force on Education and Gender Equality. New York: Earthscan/UNDP.

UNICEF (2003) Information Note on Recent Developments in Efforts to Accelerate Progress on Girls’ Education. Email communication.

P. Watt (2005) Keeping education on the international agenda: The Global Campaign for Education, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.

WEDO (1998) Mapping Progress: Assessing Implementation of the Beijing Platform of Action. New York: Women’s Environment and Development Organization.

World Education Forum (2000) Dakar Framework for Action. WEF, Dakar, Senegal.

M. Zaalouk (2005) Innovation and mediation: The case of Egypt, in N. Rao and I. Smyth (Eds) Partnerships for Girls’ Education. Oxford: Oxfam.