Promoting primary education for girls in Malawi

Important features of GABLE I were a fee-waiver program to attract and retain non-repeating primary school girls, and a Social Mobilization Campaign (SMC) to encourage parents and community leaders to send girls to school. GABLE II was designed to increase the long-term financial base for education and to improve the system of primary education and its relevance for girls. GABLE II also continued the SMC and instituted a secondary scholarship program for non-repeating primary girls. Achievements of the GABLE project included the following: (1) Fee waivers under GABLE I (extended prior to GABLE II to boys and girls alike) have helped increase girls" primary enrollments and persistence. Between 1990-91 and 1995-96, girls" primary enrollment almost doubled (from 772,000 to 1.528 million); girls" enrollment as an overall percentage of enrollments rose from 45% to 47% and of grade 8 enrollments from 36% to 39%. Reducing school costs for girls and promoting community mobilization appears to have contributed to the sharp increase. (2) GABLE budget support and conditionalities, along with other donor contributions, have fueled increased funding for education. The government has increased the educational budget from 10% of the total in 1991 92 to 23% in 1997-98. (3) Girls" education is high on the national agenda. Everyone in Malawi seems to have heard of GABLE, and attitudes towards its goals are generally positive. The SMC has very effectively promoted (among chiefs, initiation counselors, teachers, parents, and students) attitudinal and behavioral change about the importance of sending girls to school; fostered development of a cadre of community researchers and the next generation of change agents who are committed to girls" education; and introduced diverse female role models for primary girls. There were also shortcomings: (1) Skyrocketing primary enrollments over the course of the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years, when school fees were eliminated for primary students, attenuated the quality and efficiency of basic education. The flood of students overwhelmed facilities and necessitated recruitment and posting of inexperienced and minimally trained teachers. The supply of instructional materials for students and teachers became inconsistent. (2) Fee waivers and scholarships increase access but may threaten quality and sustainability. The cost of quality universal primary education is beyond the means of the Malawian government. About 40% of costs are donor-supported. Secondary scholarships may be creating pressures for universal free access at the secondary level. Rapid enrollment increases have overburdened the capacity of the education sector to provide adequate services. (3) Policy dialogue has been difficult. Malawi"s transition to democracy in 1994 generated a political rush to implement "education for all" and eliminated the time needed to strengthen and prepare the education sector for expansion. USAID did not respond as flexibly as it might have; it imposed some conditionalities that were not supported by the government, resulting in a strategy, on some issues, of enforcement rather than dialogue. (4) In quality of schooling, demand has outpaced supply. Provision of quality school services has failed to keep pace with community demand stimulated in part by the SMC. This incongruity could threaten the sustainability of girls" increased access to schooling and of community participation. (5) Poor integration among program initiatives, between program and policy initiatives, and of USAID-supported initiatives with other Ministry of Education (MOE) and donor activities resulted in missed opportunities for synergy. (6) Sustainability of program efforts was not maximized. Weak integration, communication, monitoring, and evaluation, as well as the lack of emphasis on strengthening local leadership and institutions may have reduced the likelihood of local ownership and sustained outcomes, especially for the SMC. GABLE taught, among other things, the importance of: policy dialogue and local initiative; working with change agents and with leaders at all levels; reaching beyond the MOE to address gender issues; context and timing; and analyzing the potential adverse consequences of new interventions.