Improving girls' education in Guatemala

Under the BEST/GEP umbrella several new strategies were tried, most notably mobilizing the private sector on behalf of girls' education and testing targeted interventions to improve the education of indigenous rural girls. BEST faced great challenges: the education system was inequitable, and the number of schools, especially in rural indigenous areas, was inadequate, as was government investment in education. Moreover, the government failed to meet key counterpart staffing commitments and the target of 3% of GNP for education investment, and did not institutionalize and scale up successful models demonstrated by BEST and GEP. Meanwhile, the U.S. government announced a phased pullout from the education sector and shifted its regional priorities from Central America. Nevertheless, BEST and GEP did score some successes. Two approaches -- improving quality and offering scholarships -- improved girls' participation. Evaluations of BEST's Nueva Escuela Unitaria (NEU) project confirmed that the use of participatory learning methods in the classroom, accompanied by motivational materials, increased girls' classroom participation and their persistence in higher primary grades. The improved quality of schooling had greater effects on girls than on boys. Scholarships to sensitize parents to the importance of education increased participation by both girls and boys. On the down side, scholarships are an unlikely long-term strategy to achieve universal basic education. In Guatemala they raised per student costs by 90% and channeled scarce resources to the benefit of a few. But scholarships do effectively reach out-of-school girls, are highly visible, and are attractive to governments as political gestures. By contrast, the NEU program is less targeted and potentially sustainable. Although costs per NEU student per year are 58% higher than in standard government schools, the improved quality of NEU schooling, better student performance, and reduced repetition and dropout rates result in a 15% drop in total per student costs for completing the primary cycle. Two other approaches that were tested as part of a pilot project called Eduque a la Nina (Educate the Girl) -- creating parents' committees supported by social promoters, and providing gender-sensitive educational materials to teachers -- did not in and of themselves improve girls' participation. USAID's efforts with the private sector gave national visibility to issues of girls' education, resulted in visible private sector leadership and advocacy for girls' education, and catalyzed Ministry of Education outsourcing of scholarship management. Private sector advocacy and USAID policy dialogue appear to have contributed to an increase in ministry policy statements pledging commitment to education of rural indigenous girls. Although the overall education sector budget failed to increase as promised, the percent dedicated to primary education almost doubled, and the percent dedicated to rural education more than doubled. Overall, however, the systemic effects of BEST and GEP fell short of expectations. During its history, BEST evolved from a system orientation toward activities that were not tightly integrated and did not build on strong institutional and civil society support. Some of the more ambitious system-level initiatives, such as a project called Franja Curricular or integrated curriculum guidelines, were not implemented. Some effective pilot initiatives, such as NEU, were not replicated and scaled up to the extent expected. Major stakeholders, such as women's and Mayan groups, were not part of BEST/GEP implementation. The program failed to integrate and institutionalize system-wide GEP-sponsored gender-sensitive curriculum and teacher training. The private sector contributed new expertise and resources, but it did not -- and could not -- substitute for public sector engagement. (Author abstract, modified)