WUNRN
By Stephanie Psaki - 08 August 2014
Ranging from viral celebrity videos by Alicia Keys or Susan Sarandon to
declarations of support from political leaders like Michelle Obama or Graça
Michel, there’s definitely a global momentum for supporting girls’ education.
This widespread attention has led to greater
recognition of the importance of the issue, as well as the dividends it can
reap. Globally, girls who attend school during adolescence begin having sex,
marry and have children later, are less likely to get HIV or have other
reproductive health problems, engage in fewer hours of domestic labor, and
experience greater gender equality.
Despite all these potential gains, 17 countries — 13 of
them in
More work is needed to translate schooling into
lifelong success for girls in developing countries. To date, very little
attention has been paid to investigating what kinds of investments have an
impact on girls — what specific programs or actions are effective in keeping
girls in school, helping them learn, and empowering them to transition to
healthy and productive lives after leaving school.
In fact, research is so limited that, in a pivotal publication about the state of girls’ education, Our researcher Cynthia Lloyd found that girls’ education interventions fell into 12 main categories. Out of those, only two — hiring female teachers and scholarships and cash transfers — had been proven effective. The remaining ten approaches, while promising, were not supported by evidence despite widespread adoption.
We often hear the phrase, “We know what works; we just have to do it.” And
the value of insight and intuition gained through work with girls and in their
communities can’t be overstated. But interventions that are popular and appear
to have a positive effect in the short-term, while often valuable for other
reasons, do not always have the impact we’re expecting in the long-term. What
works for one girl might not work for all—or even most—girls. And what works in
one location might not work in another.
For example, some development practitioners and
researchers have found that menstrual hygiene management interventions — which
are often focused on providing adolescent girls with sanitary products and
information about menstruation — are well received by girls and their
communities. Some research indicates that these interventions alleviate the
anxiety caused by menstruation in adolescent girls, and many advocates point
out that girls have a right to these services. However, the impact of menstrual
hygiene management programs on schooling — and success after school — has yet
to be shown.
So far there is little evidence indicating that
provision of sanitary products leads to better school attendance or improved
school performance by girls. A recent systematic review on the topic concluded
that “there was no quantitative evidence that improvements in [menstrual] management
methods reduce school absenteeism.” Despite the lack of evidence, perhaps due
in part to an insufficient number of rigorous studies on the topic, advocacy
campaigns and interventions are based on the assumption that distribution of
sanitary products will lead to improved school attendance, performance, and
progression for girls.
As this global movement evolves, donors and
organizations that work with and on behalf of girls should demand a higher
standard of evidence to guide our efforts. Investments should be focused on
programs that have been demonstrated to be effective in achieving clearly
stated goals, or on evaluating promising interventions that lack sufficient
evidence to date.
Girls around the world deserve no less.
_________________________________________________________________________