DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing Standards for Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Developing Standards for Quality Basic Education in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Prepared for UNICEF CEE/CIS Regional Office December 6, 2010 Miske Witt & Associates Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota USA By Nancy Clair, Ed.D. and Shirley Miske, Ph.D., with Deepa Patel, M.P.P. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Developing Standards of Quality Basic Education in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States was commissioned by the UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is the result of collaboration between many individuals, and appreciation is extended to each of them. Nancy Clair designed the study and was the lead author of the report. Shirley Miske collaborated with Clair in the overall process, design, and writing. Deepa Patel conducted the initial literature review and contributed significantly to the writing. Country reviews were conducted by Anne Katz, Nils Kauffman, Jane Schubert, Shirley Miske and Nancy Clair. Jane Schubert also contributed to the final report. Sarah Koehler and Nancy Pellowski Wiger of Miske Witt and Associates Inc. provided administrative support to the authors and researchers. Philippe Testot-Ferry was responsible for the overall development and coordination of the project. Petronilla Murithi provided administrative assistance. Education specialists and their assistants from UNICEF country offices organized the field visits and provided valuable insights into quality basic education initiatives. Special thanks are extended to Alvard Poghosyan (Armenia), Kenan Mammadli (Azerbaijan), Sanja Kabil (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Kozeta Imami and Aferdita Spahiu (Kosovo), Liudmila Lefter (Moldova), Fatma Uluc (Turkey), and Yulia Narolskaya (Uzbekistan). Nora Sabani (Macedonia) also offered helpful insights. Developing Standards for Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS 2 ACRONYMS AL Active Learning ALSL Active Learning and School Leadership APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina CARK Central Asian Republics and Kazakhstan CEE/CIS Central and Eastern Europe/Commonwealth of Independent States CEI Center for Educational Initiatives CFS/QBE Child-Friendly Schools/Quality Basic Education CO Country Office (UNICEF) CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child EAPR East Asia and the Pacific Region EFA Education for All ELDS Early Learning and Development Standards EMIS Education Management Information System ERP Education Reform Program EU European Union GE Global Education ISSA International Step by Step Association KMK Kultusministerkonferenz MEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Kosovo) MOE Ministry of Education MoES Ministry of Education and Science (Armenia) MoNE Ministry of National Education (Turkey) MOPE Ministry of Public Education (Uzbekistan) MWAI Miske Witt and Associates Inc. NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NES National Education Standards NGO Non-governmental Organization Developing Standards for Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS 3 OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OMC Open Method of Communication PEDC Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children PEIS Primary Education Institution Standards PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study PISA Program for International Student Assessment PTA Parent Teacher Association REA Regional Education Advisor (UNICEF) RfP Request for Proposals RO Regional Office (UNICEF) SbS Step by Step Association SMIS Standards Management Information System TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene WHO World Health Organization Developing Standards for Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. 2 ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 8 PART 1. BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................10 1. Background and Objectives ........................................................................................10 1.1 CEE/CIS Perspective ............................................................................................. 10 1.2 Child-Friendly Schools ............................................................................................ 10 1.3 Project Objectives .................................................................................................. 10 2. Methodology and Process ..........................................................................................11 2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Field Visits and Country Reports ............................................................................ 12 2.3 Conceptual Framework and Road Map .................................................................. 14 2.4 Methodological Constraints .................................................................................... 14 PART 2. REVIEW OF CFS AND EXISTING STANDARDS ......................................................16 1. The Literature Review.................................................................................................16 1.1 A Global Perspective of Child-Friendly Schools ...................................................... 17 1.1.1 Origins of the Child-Friendly Schools Approach .............................................. 17 1.1.2 Intention of the Child-Friendly Schools Approach ............................................ 19 1.1.3 Child-Friendly School Evaluations ................................................................... 20 1.2 A Global Perspective of Standards Development ................................................... 23 1.2.1 Standards and Their Use ................................................................................. 23 1.2.2 The Development of Standards for Quality Education ..................................... 24 1.2.3 International Step by Step Association: Quality Pedagogy .............................. 25 1.2.4 Creating Standards: Lessons from Early Learning and Development Standards ...................................................................................................................... 26 1.2.5 Academic Content Standards .......................................................................... 27 1.3 A Regional Perspective of Child-Friendly Schools and Standards Development .... 28 1.3.1 Background: Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS ............................................. 28 1.3.2 Development of CFS/QBE System-wide Standards ........................................ 30 Developing Standards for Child-Friendly Schools in CEE/CIS 5 1.3.3 CFS/QBE in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia .............................. 31 1.3.4 Impact of the Lisbon Objectives on CFS/QBE in CEE/CIS .............................. 32 1.3.5 The Promise and Critique of Standards-Based Reform ................................... 34 2. Overview of Standards Development in Seven Countries ...........................................35 2.1 Field Visit Country Context ..................................................................................... 35 2.1.1 Armenia ........................................................................................................... 35 2.1.2 Azerbaijan ....................................................................................................... 37 2.1.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................................. 38 2.1.4 Kosovo ............................................................................................................ 40 2.1.5 Moldova .......................................................................................................... 41 2.1.6 Turkey ............................................................................................................. 43 2.1.7 Uzbekistan ...................................................................................................... 45 2.2 Field Visit Findings ................................................................................................. 46 2.2.1 Definitions and Understandings of CFS/QBE .................................................. 46 2.2.2 Definitions and Understandings of CFS/QBE Standards ................................. 47 2.2.3 Process of Development and Use of CFS/QBE Standards .............................. 48 2.2.4 Monitoring Progress Towards CFS/QBE Standards ........................................ 49 2.2.5 Opportunities for Integrating CFS/QBE Principles into National Standards ...... 50 PART 3. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGION ..............................................52 1. Background and Purpose of the Conceptual Framework ............................................52 2. Definition of Terms .....................................................................................................52
Recommended publications
  • A Review of Standardized Testing Practices and Perceptions in Maine

    A Review of Standardized Testing Practices and Perceptions in Maine

    A Review of Standardized Testing Practices and Perceptions in Maine Janet Fairman, Ph.D. Amy Johnson, Ph.D. Ian Mette, Ph.D Garry Wickerd, Ph.D. Sharon LaBrie, M.S. April 2018 Maine Education Policy Research Institute Maine Education Policy Research Institute McLellan House, 140 School Street 5766 Shibles Hall, Room 314 Gorham, ME 04038 Orono, ME 04469-5766 207.780.5044 or 1.888.800.5044 207.581.2475 Published by the Maine Education Policy Research Institute in the Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE) in the School of Education and Human Development, University of Southern Maine, and the Maine Education Policy Research Institute in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine at Orono. The Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI), is jointly funded by the Maine State Legislature and the University of Maine System. This institute was established to conduct studies on Maine education policy and the Maine public education system for the Maine Legislature. Statements and opinions by the authors do not necessarily reflect a position or policy of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute, nor any of its members, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred. The University of Maine System does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran's status and shall comply with Section 504, Title IX, and the A.D.A in employment, education, and in all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request.
  • Education for All and Millennium Development

    Education for All and Millennium Development

    EDUCATION FOR ALL AND MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS BEYOND 2015 PRINCIPLES FOR A POST-2015 EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Human rights in general and the right to education The 2015 target date for in particular should be the explicit foundation for a achieving the Millennium new development and education framework Development Goals (MDGs) Rights are not explicit in the current EFA targets and MDGs, yet and Education for All (EFA) they are enshrined in UN agreements, conventions and treaties. is fast approaching. The The state should guarantee the right and access to quality educa- tion for all. Privatization and public-private partnerships are not United Nations (UN) system, the solution to quality education for all states should take their governments, academics , and civil society are already responsibilities seriously and not rely on market forces to solve seeking to define the next problems in education. era of the post-2015 agenda. The UN Secretary General Education is a public good and a basic right; it is also a catalyst has appointed a High-lev- for the achievement of all other development goals. It should el Panel to advise on the therefore be at the centre of any new development framework. global development agenda Access to early childhood primary and secondary beyond 2015, while UNESCO , , has set up an EFA Steering education must be a fundamental goal Committee with a mandate Although progress has been made on access to primary to advise on the post -2015 education, at least 10% of primary-school-age children are still not in school _over 60 million children.
  • EDUCATION in CHINA a Snapshot This Work Is Published Under the Responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD

    EDUCATION in CHINA a Snapshot This Work Is Published Under the Responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD

    EDUCATION IN CHINA A Snapshot This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Photo credits: Cover: © EQRoy / Shutterstock.com; © iStock.com/iPandastudio; © astudio / Shutterstock.com Inside: © iStock.com/iPandastudio; © li jianbing / Shutterstock.com; © tangxn / Shutterstock.com; © chuyuss / Shutterstock.com; © astudio / Shutterstock.com; © Frame China / Shutterstock.com © OECD 2016 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected]. Education in China A SNAPSHOT Foreword In 2015, three economies in China participated in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, for the first time: Beijing, a municipality, Jiangsu, a province on the eastern coast of the country, and Guangdong, a southern coastal province.
  • Ced Education Boilerplate

    Ced Education Boilerplate

    MEASURING WHAT MATTERS Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning A STATEMENT BY THE RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEASURING WHAT MATTERS Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning A STATEMENT BY THE RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Committee for Economic Development. Research and Policy Committee. Measuring what matters : using assessment and accountability to improve student learning / a statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development p. cm. “December 15, 2000.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87186-139-9 1. Educational tests and measurements — United States. 2. Educational accountability — United States. 3. School improvement programs — United States. I. Title. LB3051 .C632 2001 371.26'0973 — dc21 2001017186 First printing in bound-book form: 2001 Paperback: $15.00 Printed in the United States of America Design: Rowe Design Group COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 477 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 (212) 688-2063 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-5860 www.ced.org CONTENTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR CED STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY iv PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 2: MEASURING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 5 Issues in designing direct measures of student learning 5 Setting standards for learning 5 Designing assessments 7 Reporting scores 9 Challenges
  • WISCONSIN STANDARDS for English Language Arts

    WISCONSIN STANDARDS for English Language Arts

    WISCONSIN STANDARDS FOR English Language Arts WisconsinWisconsin Department Department ofof Public Public Instruction Instruction WISCONSIN STANDARDS FOR English Language Arts Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Carolyn Stanford Taylor, State Superintendent Madison, Wisconsin This publication is available from: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 125 South Webster Street Madison, WI 53703 (608) 266-8960 dpi.wi.gov/ela May 2020 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, creed, age, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, marital status or parental status, sexual orientation, or ability and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth groups. Wisconsin Standards for English Language Arts ii Foreword On May 27, 2020, I formally adopted the Wisconsin Standards for English Language Arts. This revised set of academic standards provides a foundational framework identifying what knowledge and skills Wisconsin students in English language arts should learn at different grade levels or bands of grades. The adoption of this revised set of standards was part of a concerted effort led by Wisconsin educators and stakeholders who shared their expertise in English language arts and teaching from kindergarten through higher education. Feedback was provided by the public and the Wisconsin State Legislature for the writing committee to consider as part of Wisconsin’s Academic Standards review and revision process. English language arts is an essential part of a comprehensive PK-12 education for all students. Through English language arts, Wisconsin students learn to use literacy to understand and improve themselves and their worlds.
  • ELCC Standards for Presentation to NCATE (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education) in the Fall of 2010

    ELCC Standards for Presentation to NCATE (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education) in the Fall of 2010

    EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM Recognition Standards: Building Level For institutions undergoing NCATE Accreditation and ELCC Program Review Page | 2 For Advanced Programs at the Master, Specialist, or Doctoral Level that Prepare Assistant Principals, Principals, Curriculum Directors, Supervisors, and other Education Leaders in a School Building Environment November 2011 National Policy Board For Educational Administration (NPBEA) Page | 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 ELCC Program Standard 1.0 4 ELCC Program Standard 2.0 7 ELCC Program Standard 3.0 10 ELCC Program Standard 4.0 12 ELCC Program Standard 5.0 15 ELCC Program Standard 6.0 17 ELCC Program Standard 7.0 19 Appendix 1 Assessments Description 21 Reviewer Evaluation Rubric for Standards 1.0-6.0 21 Reviewer Evaluation Rubric for Standard 7.0 22 Policies for Making Program Report Decisions 24 Appendix 2 Alignment of ELCC Program Standards with 27 NCATE Standard Principles Appendix 3 Commentary and Research Support for Standards 27 References 48 Appendix 4 Glossary 72 Page | 4 INTRODUCTION Rationale The importance of clearly defining what successful learning or performance looks like has become increasingly evident during the past decade. Without a doubt, the better one understands what excellence looks like, the greater one’s chances are for achieving – or surpassing - that standard. Ensuring effective school leadership begins with the following questions: o What do our P-12 students need to know, understand, and do? o What do our teachers and related staff need to know, understand, and do to increase student learning? o What do our school building leaders need to know, understand, and do to support teachers and building-level personnel to increase student learning? Effective use of leadership preparation standards requires multiple, high integrated and highly interdependent variables and assessments.
  • Skills, Not Just Diplomas

    Skills, Not Just Diplomas

    Restoring and sustaining growth in Eastern Europe and Central Asia requires reforms to Managing Education for Results in Eastern EuropeSkills, and Central Not Asia Just Diplomas boost competitiveness and increase labor productivity. Among the required changes are reforms to education. In surveys conducted immediately before the economic crisis, companies in the region reported shortage of skills as one of the most significant bottle- necks in their operations, suggesting that education systems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia— with a reputation for high enrollment rates and well-trained teachers—still need to improve their performance. In fact, international test results show that many students—outside of a handful of coun- tries in the region—are failing to acquire more than the most basic literacy and numeracy skills. Anecdotal evidence also indicates that the rapid expansion in higher education has led to a decline in the quality and relevance of education provided. At the same time, there are few opportunities for adults to retrain, upgrade, or acquire new skills—the life-long learning needed for employability. As Skills, Not Just Diplomas suggests, the shortage of skills is a wake-up call to reform education and training systems to provide higher quality education with the flexibility for students and training institutions to better respond to market signals. Such deep reform will have to center on the following: DIRECTIONSINDEVELOPMENT • Focusing more on measuring whether students learn and graduates find jobs, and Human Development using this information to actively improve teaching and learning. • Using incentives across the education system, including granting greater autonomy to institutions on curriculum, teaching methods, resource use and institutional mission, and increasing accountability for learning.
  • Standards, Equity and Cultural Diversity

    Standards, Equity and Cultural Diversity

    Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory A Program of The Education Alliance at Brown University Cultural Diversity Equityand Standards, Mary AnnLachat Standards, Equity and Cultural Diversity Mary Ann Lachat Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory At Brown University (LAB) The LAB, a program of The Education Alliance at Brown University, is one of ten federally supported educational laboratories in the nation. Our goals are to improve teaching and learning, advance school improvement, build capacity for reform, and develop strategic alliances with key members of the region’s education and policy making community. The LAB develops educational products and services for school administrators, policymakers, teachers, and parents in New England, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Central to our efforts is a commitment to equity and excellence. Information about LAB programs and services is available by contacting: LAB at Brown University Education Alliance 222 Richmond Street, Suite 300 Providence, RI 02903-4226 Phone: 800-521-9550 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.lab.brown.edu Fax: 401-421-7650 The Center for Resource Management (CRM), based in South Hampton, New Hampshire, is a LAB partner organization. About the author: Mary Ann Lachat is president of CRM and program leader of the LAB’s Standards, As- sessment and Instruction Initiative. Copyright © 1999 The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University. All rights reserved. This publication is based on work supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RJ96006401. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda- tions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the U.S.
  • Role of Teacher Education in the Achievement of Mdgs

    Role of Teacher Education in the Achievement of Mdgs

    International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) Vol.3, No.2, June 2014, pp. 125~132 ISSN: 2252-8822 125 Role of Teacher Education in the Achievement of MDGs Amardeep Kaur 1, Kulwinder Singh 2 1 M and M College of Education, Nagri (Distt. Sangrur), India 2 Department of Education and Community Service, Punjabi University, Patiala, India Article Info ABSTRACT Article history: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which include eight goals have been framed to address the world's major development challenges by 2015. Received Jan 21, 2013 In India, considerable progress has been reported to be made in the field of Revised Aug 20, 2013 basic universal education, gender equality in education, economic growth Accepted April 26, 2014 and other human development related aspects. Even though the government has implemented a wide array of programmes, policies, and various schemes to combat these challenges, further intensification of efforts and redesigning Keyword: of outreach strategies are needed to give momentum to the progress toward achievement of the MDG-2 (Achieve Universal Primary Education) and Role MDG-3 (Promote Gender Equality).To universalize elementary education, Teacher education Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is one of the major schemes introduced by the Achievemeny government in 2002. Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and Alternative MDGs and Innovative Education are the components of SSA. Universal enrolment is one of the specific objectives of SSA. The strategy of implementation of Mid-Day Meal Scheme has also played a role in enhancing the enrolment and retention of the students. To focus on girls’ education, several schemes have been incorporated within SSA.
  • The Right of Roma Children to Education

    The Right of Roma Children to Education

    THE RIGHT OF ROMA CHILDREN TO EDUCATION POSITION PAPER The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities or the delimitations of its frontiers. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement using the following reference: UNICEF, 2011, The Right of Roma Children to Education: Position Paper. Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS). For further information and to download this or any other publication, please visit the UNICEF CEECIS website at www.unicef.org/ceecis. All correspondence should be addressed to: UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS Education Section Palais des Nations CH 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Copyright: © 2011 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Design: Printing: ATAR ROTO PRESSE SA Photos: For more details about enclosed photos, kindly contact the UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS. © UNICEF THE RIGHT OF ROMA CHILDREN TO EDUCATION: POSITION PAPER 1 THE RIGHT OF ROMA CHILDREN TO EDUCATION POSITION PAPER I II III IV V FOREWORD Across Central and Eastern Europe, discrimination and non-inclusive school systems systematically deprive children from Roma communities of their right to education. In most countries, only about 20% of Roma children ever complete primary school, compared with more than 90 percent of their non-Roma peers.
  • Mdg 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

    Mdg 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

    i FOREWORD Minister TJ Radebe, the Minister in the Presidency: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation This is the sixth and final Millennium Development Goals report (MDGR), since the adoption of the MDG’s in 2000, and it reflects on the achievements made by the people of this country in dealing with the scourge of extreme poverty in all forms. It also highlights the challenges that still remain. The MDGs was a natural fit for South Africa as it aligned seamlessly with our own development agenda as expressed through the Freedom Charter and was endorsed by successive Governments since 1994, while the basic rights espoused by the MDGs were already entrenched in our Constitution. Thus implementation of the goals was a confirmation of the developmental path South Africa embarked on and gave further impetus to the endeavours of post-apartheid South Africa. Although the MDG processes are coming to an end, there are still challenges in achieving the goals that remain, we continue to be committed to the journey that we embarked on a few decades ago. As we move to the next fifteen years of the global development agenda through the Sustainable Development Goals, we take note of the fact that our National Development Agenda, Vision 2030 as espoused in our National Development Plan reflects our commitment to improving the lives of the poor and marginalised in society: “By 2030, we seek to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality. We seek a country wherein all citizens have the capabilities to grasp the ever- broadening opportunities available. Our plan is to change the life chances of millions of our people, especially the youth; life chances that remain stunted by our apartheid history.” (National Development Plan, p5).
  • Education from a Gender Equality Perspective

    Education from a Gender Equality Perspective

    EDUCATION FROM A GENDER EQUALITY PERSPECTIVE MAY 2008 This report was developed for USAID’s Office of Women in Development by the EQUATE Project, Management Systems International (Prime Contractor). This report was developed for USAID’s Office of Women in Development by the EQUATE Project, Management Systems International (Prime Contractor). This report was contracted under GEW-I-00-02-00021-00, Task Order #1, EQUATE: Achieving Equality in Education. Cover photos: Top left: Children at a school in Kazakhstan participate in a national reading day. Sapargul Mirseitova/ Kazakh Reading Association, Courtesy of USAID Top right: Young students in India look on as their teacher uses a chalkboard to explain a lesson. © 2007 Rabin Chakrabarti, Courtesy of Photoshare Bottom right: A girl in Guatemala waits for her mother after school. © 2003 Antonieta Martin, Courtesy of Photoshare Bottom middle: Boys in Egypt reading books provided through USAID-funded educational programs. Ben Barber, Courtesy of USAID Bottom left: A young girl in Eritrea works on her studies. © 2006 Konjit B. Ghebremariam, Courtesy of Photoshare EDUCATION FROM A GENDER EQUALITY PERSPECTIVE DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 THE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE .....................................................................................