The Girls’ Education Challenge (GEC) is supporting up to 1.5 million of the world’s poorest and hardest to reach girls across 15 countries access an education. The GEC aims to create lasting change by finding more effective ways of getting girls into school, to receive a quality education and to transition appropriately to secondary education or training. We work with families, communities, schools, and governments to change attitudes and policy towards girls’ education to ensure lasting change.
The GEC recognises that girls with disabilities are less likely than girls without disabilities to access education. As such, girls with disabilities have become a focus of GECs work under the Leave No Girl Behind window. The Leave No Girl Behind projects support girls who are the most marginalised, who have dropped out of, or never attended school. Our hope is to not only have a transformative effect directly on girls with disabilities, but also that lessons learned across the GEC regarding disability will provide valuable insights to future education programmes. The GEC ensures this by capturing disability related data in its projects.
In order to collect this data, all GEC projects use the Washington Group questions. The Washington Group questions are designed to identify those who may have difficulty in completing everyday activities, such as washing or walking. The collection of this data in GEC is ongoing at the time of writing, but, at this early stage, using the Washington Group questions across the GEC programme has already generated valuable learning. Here are four key lessons we have learned to date:
1. All education programmes should accommodate disability from the start.
The disability disaggregated data collected so far by GEC projects which do not specifically target girls with disabilities shows 5% of girls have disabilities. As many of the GEC projects did not actively plan or expect the inclusion of girls with disabilities, this finding shows the importance of making all education programmes accessible from the start.
2. Targeted projects increase the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
According to the data currently available, 10.8% of girls across the entire GEC programme have a disability. This is over double the number of girls when comparing with only GEC projects which do not specifically target girls with disabilities. This suggests that it’s only by systematically targeting girls with disabilities that education projects will substantially increase the number included in project activities.
3. Specific impairments are more prevalent in mainstream schools and some settings than others.
Girls who have difficulty remembering or concentrating as well as girls with difficulty seeing are especially prevalent in mainstream schools supported by GEC projects: girls reporting difficulty with self-care are the least prevalent. The lack of global data on disability in children and young people either in school or out of school means we mustn’t take this data at face value. However, anecdotally this raises a number of observations. These differences may stem from ideas around which impairments are more easily integrated by schools, for example, the degree to which adaptations are required to the school infrastructure or teaching. A second observation concerns the high numbers of girls who have difficulty remembering and concentrating found by some GEC projects, which may be a production of personal trauma, insecurity or poor health and nutrition, reflecting the conflict affected or fragile settings in which many of the projects operate. Current global research initiatives focused on the use of Washington Group questions in humanitarian contexts will shed further light on this issue.
4. Using the Washington Group questions increases awareness and engagement with disability.
For those working on GEC projects, using the Washington Group questions has fostered a greater awareness of girls with disabilities and a focus on improving their inclusion. Many GEC projects have actively sought to build their capacity regarding disability:
ChildHope and CHADET, for example, have been on a journey towards mainstreaming disability since the first phase of the GEC (2012- 2017). The organisations have been determined to reach girls with disabilities but had very little initial experience. During the first phase, they increased their own understanding of disability and used the Washington Group questions to get a better idea of the numbers involved (around 5%). They made links with a local disability partner, FANA, who provided training and awareness raising for around 500 teachers. Another main response was focused around the provision of assistive devices to enable the girls to attend and participate in school.
For the next phase of the GEC, ChildHope and CHADET aim to have more of an impact and a much more intentional approach to inclusion. This will include building further organisational capacity and identifying champions in schools and communities to raise awareness. They’re looking at ways in which to make existing project activities accessible and inclusive rather than trying to set up separate interventions and, importantly, working with the girls from the first phase of the GEC to support their ongoing progress.
The GEC is breaking new ground by using the Washington Group questions across such a large education programme. As more projects collect disability related data we will be able to learn and share more lessons of practical importance to the sector. To this end, we will continue to monitor progress and share insights and learning regularly.