Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgse20

Download by: [Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales] Date: 16 November 2015, At: 19:30

Globalisation, Societies and Education

ISSN: 1476-7724 (Print) 1476-7732 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20

Education and fragile states

Jackie Kirk

To cite this article: Jackie Kirk (2007) Education and fragile states, Globalisation, Societies andEducation, 5:2, 181-200, DOI: 10.1080/14767720701425776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720701425776

Published online: 13 Jul 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 447

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Globalisation, Societies and EducationVol. 5, No. 2, July 2007, pp. 181–200

ISSN 1476-7724 (print)/ISSN 1476-7732 (online)/07/020181–20© 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14767720701425776

Education and fragile statesJackie Kirk*McGill University/International Rescue Committee (IRC), CanadaTaylor and Francis LtdCGSE_A_242461.sgm10.1080/14767720701425776Globalisation, Societies and Education1476-7724 (print)/1476-7732 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis52000000July 2007JackieKirkjackie.kirk@mail.mcgill.ca

Within the fragile states agendas and policies of development agencies and organisations educationis of concern; education is a social service sector in which the impacts of state fragility are significant,in terms of access and quality of provision for children, working conditions and support for teachers,good governance and legitimacy for the society/community as a whole. However, this article arguesthat education should be at the centre of fragile states discussions as more than a basic service; inrelation to fragility, education is at the same time cause, effect, problem and possible solution.Education needs to be part of fragility analysis as well as in the identification of priority stabilisinginterventions. In education – as in other sectors and domains – gender equality and state fragilityare inherently connected and gender equality must be integrated through all analysis and interven-tions. The article ends with some recommendations for moving in this direction.

Keywords: Fragile states; Education; Gender; Fragility analysis; Conflict; Peacebuilding

Introduction

There is now increasing international attention to fragile and failing states. The termi-nology has quickly become part of the defense and development agendas of differentcountries, and specific policy papers on the topic have been developed by a numberof agencies and organisations, including the UK Department for International Devel-opment (DfID) (DfID, 2005b), the US Agency for International Development(2005b) and the Australian development agency, AUSAID (Government of Austra-lia, 2005). The Canadian Government gave substantial attention to failed and fragilestates in the April 2005 International Policy Statement (IPS), and the CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA) subsequently developed draft guidelineson working in fragile states. At a multilateral level too, the Development AssistanceCommittee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-ment (OECD) has also focused attention on fragile states and in 2005 created aspecific Fragile States Working Group. Within this Working Group workstreams

*McGill Centre for Research and Teaching on Women (MCRTW), 3487 Peel Street, Montreal,Quebec, H3A IW7, Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

182 J. Kirk

were established focused on three critical fragile states issues: service delivery, policycoherence and aid allocation. Education was addressed within the work of the servicedelivery workstream and a sector specific paper has been developed (Rose & Greeley,2006), the key points of which were then to be integrated into a synthesis paper alongwith the other priority sectors—health, water and sanitation, and justice and security.The aim of the DAC initiative is to provide practical and relevant guidance to bothdonors and affected countries on how to improve service delivery in fragile stateswithin an overall framework of ‘Principles for good international engagement’(OECD & DAC, 2006).

There are a number of different reasons articulated for this increased attention tofragile states and for the need for strong policies to guide engagement with and inter-vention in fragile states. These include the fact that poverty and hunger are rife infragile states and access to social services is usually very limited; fragile states areunlikely to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Given that estimates of the sizeof the world’s population living in fragile states range from 14% (DfID, 2005) to 30%(USAID, 2005b) this is a serious issue for the global development community toaddress. Another important argument, however, is one which relates fragility abroadto international terrorism and to threats to national security ‘at home’. Fragile statesdiscourses, therefore, are grounded in a recognition of a globalised world, in whichevents and situations in seemingly distant, ‘third world’ locations are in fact verymuch connected to the lives of those in donor countries in North America andEurope. USAID reminds us that the events of 11 September 2001 were a tragicmanifestation of this phenomenon. The Canadian Government makes a differentlinkage between the local and the global, stating that ‘the suffering that these situa-tions [i.e., fragile states] create is an affront to Canadian values’ (Government ofCanada (GoC), 2005, p. 5). Space does not allow for an in-depth critique of thepolitical motivations behind the proliferation of fragile states initiatives, nor for thecurrent discourses to be adequately situated within a historical geo-political dynamic.However, the article draws on more specific analyses of failed and collapsed states(Milliken & Krause, 2002, for example) and acknowledges the problematic nature offragile states policies and positions, not least because of their inherent assumptionsand norms of viable statehood (p. 762) and because of their role as a powerfuldiscourse to perpetuate notions of the existence of unstable countries whose instabil-ity is a national issue disconnected from issues such as global power, trade andrevenue imbalances and. As Anderson writes:

Failed [and fragile] states are perceived as dangerous islands of chaos, anarchy andinstability in an otherwise orderly and regulated sea of international relations. They areseen as states, where—because the Government is unable (or unwilling) to control whatgoes on inside its territory—all kinds of criminal and violent behaviour from terrorism topoppy production and trafficking in arms, humans and illegal goods can find safe havensand operate freely. (Anderson, 2006, p. 2)

Such perceptions translate into fragile and failed state discourses which can serve tojustify and rationalise security and other otherwise questionable measures adoptedunder the ongoing ‘war on terrorism’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 183

Education is mentioned in most fragile states related policy papers. Education isusually considered a critical social service for which delivery in fragile states is a partic-ular challenge. However, as this article argues, education should have prominence inany discussion of fragile states as more than a basic service. As a number of recentstudies indicate, education is in many states intricately connected with—if not a rootcause of—conflict and instability. Education should therefore be part of the analysisof fragility, and in identification of priority stabilising interventions. Conflict analysisin general, and the specific tools that are now being developed for analysis of andengagement with fragile states, all need to address education. Yet they need to gobeyond a narrow concern with service delivery to look at systemic and structuralelements of education provision which may contribute to or perpetuate statefragility—or mitigate against it. In recent years the field of education in emergencieshas developed as a specifically defined subfield, existing at the intersection of policy,programming, research, scholarship and professional training in the areas of educationin development, humanitarian aid, child rights and child protection. Within this fieldthere is a conceptual understanding of the linkages between education and conflict,supported by a number of significant texts (Bush & Salterelli, 2000; Smith & Vaux,2002; Seitz, 2004, for example). But rarely is the complexity of such discussions inte-grated into specific donor policies or programs for education. Discussion of educationin the context of fragile states is greatly nuanced when informed by such perspectives.

Achieving gender equality is another significant international commitment articu-lated in the Millennium Development Goals. Gender equality in education is seen asboth an aim in itself, and a means towards (and indicator of) greater gender equalityin general. As statistics highlight (UNESCO, 2004, for example), conflict andemergencies have particular implications for girls and seriously compromise thepossibilities for education systems to meet the needs of girls and women. Fragilestates are rarely in a position to provide gender-responsive education; curricula,untrained teachers, minimal resources, lack of support and supervision for teachersand head teachers are all contributing factors to gender inequalities in schooling.Although there is now some momentum towards achieving gender equality in educa-tion, and girls’ education has been prioritised within the education programs of manydevelopment agencies (including DfID, USAID and CIDA), the complex challengesof promoting gender equality in and through education have not been adequatelyaddressed in the context of fragile states policy. Relationships between education,peace-building, stability and gender equality are, however, being tentatively estab-lished in contexts such as Southern Sudan (Kirk, 2005).

In fact, as Baranyi and Powell (2005b) highlight, none of the recent fragile statespolicies systematically incorporates gender considerations, even though the donoragencies have developed impressive policy and programming tools to promote genderequality in other domains: ‘Where gender is addressed, the focus is on narrowpriorities of gender equity in service delivery and education rather than linking genderequality considerations to broader human rights and good governance reform andcapacity-building agendas’. The USAID policy does mention the need to considerhow state fragility impacts differently on men and women but the DfID policy makes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

184 J. Kirk

only one explicit reference to gender issues within fragile states, and that is anexample of how state fragility and insecurity can constrain girls’ enrollment in school.CIDA’s work on fragile states should be informed by Baranyi and Powell’s analysisand their recommendations on bringing gender equality meaningfully into whole-of-Government and multilateral approaches to state fragility.

Drawing on recent policy papers on fragile states, this article explores in moredepth the connections between education and fragile states and makes recommenda-tions for future policy, programming and research. Government and donor agencydevelopment planners and policy-makers need to include education in a gender awareanalysis of fragile states and to prioritise conflict sensitive, service delivery that is crit-ically oriented towards peace-building and gender equality. Key recommendationsfor organisations and agencies working in education and emergencies are: firstly theneed for critical engagement with the broad concept of fragility and it relationshipwith equitable access to education. Secondly, the efforts of different agencies, organ-isation, networks and groups should be coordinated to ensure that concrete examplesand evidence are generated and widely disseminated of how conflict and fragility-sensitive analysis policy and programming can be informed by attention to education.

After a first section which defines and briefly describes fragile states, the articlecontinues with a discussion of the relationships between education, fragility andstability. It highlights two dimensions of education as a force for fragility: educationas omission and education as commission. It also discusses education’s critical role asa force for peace-building and stability in which gender equality is an integratedfactor. Gender equality in education in fragile states is addressed in each section ofthe text. The article ends with some recommendations for moving ahead.

Fragile states: an urgent concern in a globalised world

Defining fragile states

As the DfID policy highlights, there is neither one definition of a fragile state nor onedefinitive list of fragile states. It is a contested term—and especially so by those whoseown country has been labeled as fragile by the international community. At the sametime, there is some consensus around the use of World Bank Country Policy andInstitutional Assessment (CPIA)1 scores to identify poorly performing, low-incomecountries. A working definition of a fragile state used by DfID is a state where theGovernment cannot or will not deliver core functions to the majority of its people,including the poor. The most important functions of the state for poverty reductionbeing territorial control, safety and security, capacity to manage public resources,delivery of basic services and the ability to protect and support the ways in which thepoorest people sustain themselves (DfID, 2005b, p. 7). With this definition, DfIDlists 46 countries considered fragile states, in which 870 million people, or 14% of theworld’s population lives.

Within a broad definition of fragile states, which generally refers to failing, failedand recovering states, USAID made a further distinction between vulnerable states

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 185

and crisis states. Vulnerable refers to states which are ‘unable or unwilling toadequately assure the provision of security and basic services to significant portionsof their population and where the legitimacy of the Government is in question. Thisincludes states that are failing or recovering from crisis’. Crisis states are those where:

… the central Government does not exert effective control over its own territory or isunable or unwilling to assure the provision of vital services to significant parts of its terri-tory, where legitimacy of the Government is weak or nonexistent and where violentconflict is a reality or a great risk. (USAID, 2005b, p. 1)

The Canadian IPS refers to ‘failed and fragile states’ but does not give any specificdefinition of either, rather alluding to countries in or emerging from crisis—and else-where also to those which are at risk of crisis. However, the Statement makes veryclear the link between governance and fragile states and contrasts them with the ‘goodperformers’—that is the states which have demonstrated that they can use aid effec-tively. Special funds were to be assigned to states which are ‘under stress from becom-ing failed states’ and where the ‘need is great but the capacity to use aid effectively isweak’ (GoC, 2005).

Fragile states in a globalised world

From a globalisation perspective there are a number of key issues in relation to fragilestates and to development agencies’ interest in them. These include the statedconcern that fragile states are a major obstacle to the achievement of the global devel-opment targets—the Millennium Development Goals. These are internationalcommitments which are driving policy and programming interventions. Further link-ing fragile states discourses to the concept of globalisation is the recognition withinthe policy statements that individual countries—and their development and/ordefense programs—cannot alone address the complex realities of fragile states. Notonly do the foreign policy and interventions overseas by defense, development anddiplomatic agencies of individual countries have to be more coherent and better coor-dinated, but there is also a need for better international collaboration. Multilateralagencies such as the UN, NATO and the European Union have critical roles to play.As DfID suggests, the presence of too many donors can overload fragile states and aninternational mechanism is needed to decide who does what and where (DfID,2005b, p. 17). This should also avoid the perpetuation of certain ‘donor orphan’countries which are habitually left aside by all donors.

However, it is the USAID strategy which makes the strongest argument foraddressing fragile states as a national security strategy.

There is perhaps no more urgent matter facing USAID than fragile states, yet no set ofproblems is more difficult and intractable. Twenty-first century realities demonstrate thatignoring these states can pose great risks and increase the likelihood of terrorism takingroot. At least a third of the world’s population now lives in areas that are unstable or fragile.This poses not only a national security challenge but a development and humanitarianchallenge. (USAID, 2005b, p. 1)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

186 J. Kirk

As highlighted earlier, the geopolitical motivations behind fragile states discoursescannot be ignored. The USAID policy made very explicit links between fragile statesand terrorism and refers to a new level of urgency required to address instability. Itquotes the conclusion of USAID’s foreign aid in the national interest paper: ‘Whendevelopment and governance fail in a country, the consequences engulf entire regionsand leap around the world’ (cited, USAID, 2005b, p. 1). Such statements perpetuateproblematic notions of state fragility being an internal issue, constructed within anation state paradigm without acknowledgement of the external, international factors,including imperialism, which contribute to the success or failure of development andgovernance in different countries. These external, global forces and their interactionswith national and local forces have to brought into meaningful analysis of education’srelationship with state fragility.

Education in fragile states policies

Education is a development priority for the Governments of Britain, US, Canadaand Australia, and not surprisingly, education is mentioned in each of their fragilestates policy papers. Education is referred to as a critical service that Governmentsshould provide for their populations, but in fragile states this is often not the case.Nine of the DfID-listed 46 fragile states have net primary enrolment figures of below50% (and there are no figures provided for an additional 13 countries in which it canbe presumed that enrollment is also very low). As already highlighted, fragile statespolicies are linked to the international imperative to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, one of which is to achieve universal primary school completion.In its assessment of MDG progress in fragile states compared to other low andmiddle income states, DfID points to an average of 70% primary school enrollmentcompared to 86% (MDG 2) and to a lower enrollment ratio of girls to boys too (0.84compared to 0.92) (MDG 3). Within the DfID policy document other references toeducation are usually made alongside health as one the critical services that in a frag-ile state may need to be provided through non-Governmental channels (DfID,2005b).

The USAID policy (2005b) also considers education and health provision as areasof opportunity for strategic programming in fragile states, especially where ‘effective-ness deficits’ are greatest (p. 6). Education is included as an area for social program-ming within a programmatic framework for vulnerable states and states in crisis withfour specific domains: the political, economic, social and security. Assisting theGovernment to ensure the provision of public health and basic education is suggestedas an option for intervention (p. 7).

The DfID fragile states policy makes one passing reference to another dimensionof the relationship between education and state fragility—that is the impact of insta-bility and insecurity on access to education for girls who may be kept away fromschool if there is a fear of rape (p. 20). This reference contrasts with a recent policypaper on girls’ education which articulates a more complex relationship and doeshighlight the fact that ‘conflict hurts girls most’ stating:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 187

Girls are particularly vulnerable to abuse and unequal access to schooling in fragile states.States can be fragile for a range of reasons, including conflict, lack of resources and people,high levels of corruption, and political instability. What sets these countries apart is theirfailure to deliver on the core functions of government, including keeping people safe,managing the economy, and delivering basic services. Violence and disease, as well asilliteracy and economic weakness, are most intensively concentrated in these areas. Of the104 million children not in primary school globally, an estimated 37 million of them livein fragile states. Many of these children are girls. (DfIDa, 2005, p. 11)

The Canadian IPS makes the most explicit reference to education in emergenciesand links education and progress towards stability2. This section of the Statement isnot referring explicitly to fragile states, rather emergency and especially conflictcontexts. Education is identified as one of the five areas for greater Canadian devel-opment aid attention, and ‘education for girls and boys in conflict, post-conflict and/or emergency situations’ is one of the four areas of education focus. The Statementasserts:

In situations of crisis and conflict, it is now better understood that once immediateconcerns are addressed—safety, security, nutrition—one of the best ways to introducestability and protection in emergency settings, including addressing the problems oftrauma for children, their parents and the entire community, is to get schools functioningand get pupils into them. Canadian assistance in post-conflict or post-disaster situationswill take this into account. (GoC, 2005)

The IPS addresses gender equality as a separate but crosscutting focus for all itsdevelopment interventions—and most specifically within education; ‘removing thebarriers that prevent closing the gender gap in education’ is identified as another oneof the four areas of education focus. Subsequent education-specific policy documentswill need to ensure that gender equality priorities are also integrated into each of thethree areas of education focus, including education in emergencies.

Education and state fragility

As highlighted in the attention given to donor support for the delivery of education infragile states, the human and financial resources that may once have been dedicatedto education often disappear in times of crisis. As Graca Machel (1996) points out,during conflict periods in Somalia and in Cambodia, public spending on educationwas virtually zero. Vickers and Sivard both point out that in times of conflict, govern-ments can be spending ten times more on each member of the armed forces than theyare spending on each child in education (cited in Karam, 2001). The incredible resil-ience of schooling to continue or to reestablish in the most difficult circumstances,usually by communities themselves for whom schooling is of strategic and symbolicimportance is recognised (World Bank, 2005). However, in fragile states educationservices are often disrupted or are of such low quality that they fail to remain relevant.This is especially when survival and security concerns become priorities for commu-nities and families. In Somalia, for example, formal schooling opportunities are avail-able to very few children. At 19.9 % gross enrolment ratio (GER) Somalia has one of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

188 J. Kirk

the lowest primary school enrolment rates in the world. Most existing schools areconcentrated in and around urban areas and are mainly supported by parents andcommunities, with some external support (UNICEF Somalia, 2005).

The DfID policy acknowledges the impact of state fragility on school enrolment,however, the relationships between education and fragility are far more complex.As is explored in the following section, education is impacted by fragility buteducation—or a lack of education—can also act as a contributing factor to fragility.In relation to fragility, education is at the same time cause, effect, problem andpossible solution.

Education as omission: a force for fragility

Achieving Education for All, a long standing international commitment, is a collectivegoal of UN agencies, national Governments, international and national NGOs as wellas individual communities. The role of education in promoting individual, family andcommunity health, prosperity and general empowerment is widely acknowledged. Itcan also have national repercussions, contributing to high levels of social cohesion,interpersonal and inter-group collaboration and interdependence. Functioningeducation systems accessible to all children are an important indicator of ‘normalcy’,and a force for ongoing stability at all levels. In fact it is argued that where educationalopportunities are denied to the population—or to certain sections of the population,the risks of instability are high. Adolescents with no possibilities to attend secondaryschool, tertiary or vocational education and therefore limited job opportunities are alatent force for instability; in fact the World Bank’s Conflict Analysis Framework(CAF) lists ‘high youth unemployment’ among its nine conflict risk indicators (citedin World Bank, 2005). As the USAID Education Strategy (USAID, 2005a)highlights:

Postconflict settings and fragile states present problems, such as the presence of largenumbers of illiterate and unskilled boys and young men—including ex-combatants—whose lack of economic prospects make them easy to recruit into rebel armies pursuing‘lootable resources’. (USAID, 2005a, p. 15)

If there is little structure, pattern to their lives and they see no chances to improvetheir lives in other ways, then the temptation to join armed gangs and fighting forcesmay be high. Furthermore, when education and other services for youth such asleisure and recreation activities, representative fora, are not provided or facilitated bythe state, as has been the case in Nigeria and Pakistan, then the vacuum is filled byradical groups who can then create allegiances with poor, marginalised young people(USAID, 2005c).

As has been the case with many adolescent boys from southern Sudan who knewthere were no prospects for furthering their education and would otherwise riskrecruitment into the fighting (UNICEF, 2000), youth may also seek to leave theirhomes and take their chance as refugees outside the country. A vacuum is createdwhere there is no development of the country’s human resources and those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 189

available to fill positions of positions of authority and leadership have had noopportunity to develop the necessary skills to do so. A vicious circle is thus perpet-uated. Not only is the intellectual capacity of a generation of young people leftundeveloped, but a denial of education can also mean that the psychosocial effectsof conflict and instability are not healed. It can inhibit learning processes on how tomanage and resolve conflict peacefully, and how to co-exist peacefully with otherreligions and ethnic groups, thus perpetuating conflictual inter-group relations(OECD & DAC, 1997). In socially and economically fragile situations, withoutschooling as a counter-balance, young people may experience difficulties in copingwith stresses such as poverty, urbanisation, migration, unemployment and so on(USAID, 2005c).

Education as commission: a force for fragility

Given the above arguments, the ‘natural’ assumption that education is fundamentally‘good for children and youth’, and the imperative to ensure Education for All, it istrickier to acknowledge the potential that the provision of education has for fuellingor exacerbating conflict and perpetuating instability. A number of recent studies,however, point to the ways in which education systems, structures and processesimpact negatively on ethnic relations, gender equity, and on the distribution ofresources, political and economic power. As Smith and Vaux assert, ‘Simply provid-ing education does not ensure peace’ (2003, p. 10). According to a World Bankstudy, schools are almost always complicit in conflict (2005, p. xv).

Corporal punishment, bullying and sexual violence are examples of very directforms of violence, endemic in schools around the world. Even if not directly harmedthemselves, children socialised in such environments are denied the opportunity livein a peaceful environment free from fear. They also miss out on opportunities todevelop skills and sensitivities to enable them to manage and resolve conflicts and toachieve their goals in peaceful ways. The impacts of such experiences have beenexplored in recent years by a number of academics and agencies, including Leachet al. (2003), Harber (2004), Government of NWFP et al. (2005), UNICEF (2001);the recent report to the UN Secretary General on Violence against Children includesa chapter on violence in schools (Pinheiro, 2006).

More subtle, however, are the ways in which education is a conduit of indirectviolence against children and their communities and a contributing factor in theongoing instability of a country or region. ‘Social and ethnic relations’ are a promi-nent in the World Bank’s conflict risk indicators (World Bank, 2005) and educa-tion systems and institutions have a critical impact on social and ethnic relations.The mobilisation of ethnicity through schooling is a relatively common phenome-non. In their paper, ‘The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: towards a peace-building education for children’ (2000), Bush and Salterelli identify seven distinctways in which schooling has been used to mobilise ethnicity and to exacerbateethnic divisions. These are: uneven distribution of education and educationalopportunities; education as cultural repression; denial of education as a weapon of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

190 J. Kirk

war; manipulation of history for political purposes; manipulation of textbooks;images of ethnic groups in ways which convey dominance and ethnically segregatededucation.

Bush and Salterelli provide numerous examples from around the world to illustratetheir points, including the systematic repression of Kurdish culture and identity inTurkish schools and the processes of identification and separation of Tutsis andHutus used in Rwandan schools. They also highlight the extent to which denial ofeducation has served as a weapon of war in multiple contexts.

Other examples of the negative side of education have been identified in Afghani-stan, where Spink reports:

The return to school in 2002 and 2003 was a double-edged sword. On the one handmillions of students were, in many cases, for the first time going to school and takingadvantage of the BTS [Back To School] drive in Afghanistan. On the other hand, millionsof children, who had never been to school, were for the first time learning the principals ofintolerance, hatred and division. The whole education initiative in 2002 focused only onaccess of children to education, with very little consideration for the quality, or content, oftuition received in the classrooms. (Spink, 2005, pp. 203–204)

Spink explains in some detail how textbooks developed in the 1970s by theMujahedin forces with support from the University of Nebraska were rapidly printedand distributed with only minor revisions.

All subject-based books were revised by a team of Afghans working for USAID to removeany direct reference to violence. References in all the books to the mistrust of the descen-dants of Ali were not removed. There was no representation for non-Sunni, non-Pashtunchildren of their own histories or culture in the books. The US Government stated thatthey would only support the printing of the non-religious textbooks, despite the fact thatall books were full of religious references. As a result religious books, that instructed ‘truebelievers’ to kill all non-Muslims, were not revised as a part of the USAID revisions.(Spink, 2005, p. 201)

This politically and historically charged example demonstrates the complex geo-politics which are operating in relation to state fragility, stability and instability, andillustrate how, as pointed out above, the concept of fragility as constructed exclusivelywithin the state boundaries, is highly problematic. The current and the past contri-butions of the USAID interventions in education have to be integrated into criticalanalysis of education and fragility in Afghanistan. As highlighted in DfID’s definitionof fragile states, and in the listing of fragile states, ethnic conflict or tension is notalways a major factor in state fragility such as it is in Afghanistan. Poverty andeconomic desperation are factors which can contribute to social uprising and to statefragility. Lack of resources, Government dysfunction, including corruption and lowlevels of management capacity, are also factors in state fragility—creating situationswhere there are no social services or safety nets to protect the populations (DfID,2005a). Although there has been much less investigation into the linkages betweeneducation and economic and political instabilities, it is possible to surmise thatineffective and/or inappropriate education systems are also both a result and acontributing factor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 191

Fragility, gender equality and education

As stated above, the linkages between gender, education and state fragility are evenless well explored. However, as highlighted in the USAID fragile states policy(2005), state fragility does impact differently on men and women. Girls and boys,male and female children and youth will also have different experiences of the state’sinability or unwillingness to provide essential services such as education. Eventhough it may not be reflected in the policy papers of bilateral and multilateral agen-cies, gender inequality is certainly a feature of state fragility (Baranyi & Powell,2005b). Evidence of the relationships between conflict and wide gender inequalities(World Bank, 2003, for example) would suggest that there is also a strong relation-ship between gender inequality and state fragility. CIDA’s five priority fragile states,for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, the Palestine Territories and Sudan, all havehigh levels of gender inequality, and the countries listed by DfID tend to be placedlow in the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) (Human DevelopmentReport, 2005). Gender equality in education is also a feature of many fragile states.Of the 46 DfID listed states, the gender parity index3 for net primary school enroll-ment is available for 26.4 Of these 26, 20 have an index of less than 1, and 10 havean index of less than 0.8. Access to education for girls in most fragile states is lowerthan that for boys.

When education systems collapse and schools themselves are destroyed boys andgirls are affected, but the implications can be different for girls than for boys, espe-cially as there tend to have been fewer schools or school places available for girls inthe first place. In Somalia for example, gender-related disparities are a major issue inschool enrollment. Of a GER of less than 20%, only slightly over one third of lowerprimary school pupils are girls (UNICEF, 2005).The barriers to girls’ educationcommon around the world may be equally present in most fragile states; they may beexaggerated due to the state’s inability or unwillingness to implement gender policiesand targeted girls’ education strategies. The specific issue of sexual violence, abuseand exploitation, however, warrants further attention. Pervasive insecurity and thepresence of fighting forces, militaries, paramilitaries and other such groups are char-acteristic of many fragile states. Parents are especially unlikely to allow their daugh-ters to attend school if they fear she will be victim to violence, and especially sexualviolence either in the school itself, or en route to it. In such contexts, early marriageis a strategy for parents to adopt to protect their daughters, but one which usuallyresults in premature school drop out. Another issue common to fragile states and ofconcern to agencies concerned with education and child protection such as Interna-tional Rescue Committee (IRC), Save the Children, the Women’s Commission forRefugee Women and Children, is the impact of inadequate and irregular teachersalaries on students’ well-being, and especially on the safety and security of girls inschool (personal communications, 2006). Ongoing IRC-supported research inLiberia, for example, examines salary-related teacher demoralisation, frustration andapparent lack of motivation to rise to appropriate professional standards andconduct.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

192 J. Kirk

Such challenges can mean that even where it is widely accepted that women’scontributions are needed to the reconstruction efforts for the country, the lack ofeducation for many women and girls is a long-term obstacle. This is the case insouthern Sudan:

Many women are excluded from decision-making processes because of lack of educationand their low status in society. Their voice is seldom heard in public forums, especially inwar-affected communities. As one study succinctly put it: ‘neglect of both primary andsecondary education puts the achievements of the rest of the aid operation in jeopardy’.(Inter-agency Paper, 2002, p. 26)

Although various affirmative actions are being taken in Sudan, women are heldback from positions as leaders, as teachers, community development and healthworkers, all of which are desperately needed throughout the country. It is not onlyliteracy and numeracy that are critical for women to be able to play active roles indevelopment, but also the knowledge and the confidence that they have a right toparticipate and to speak out. Furthermore, as has been shown in research inAfghanistan, where women are denied education, they are not considered by men inthe family and community to be able to participate in decision-making processes(Wakefield, 2004a, b). Access to school is therefore highly significant—symbolicallyas much as practically—in the efforts to ensure that women as well as men cancontribute to positive change, to the strengthening of civil society and to positivechange away from state fragility.

At the same time, however, critical reflection on the ways in which educationsystems typically construct gender identities, masculinities and femininities isrequired in order to move beyond a problematic assumption that access to educationis necessarily empowering to women and girls and necessarily a force to promoteequal participation in peace-building and development processes. Numerousresearchers have identified the overt and ‘hidden’ ways in which schooling usuallyserves to maintain the status quo and to preserve dominant forms of masculinity andfemininity which support the continued domination of men and boys in the publicrealm (Longwe, 1998; Mirembe & Davies, 2001; Davies, 2004) even when there isan official commitment to gender equality (Stromquist, 1996; Leach, 2000). RubinaSaigol (1995, 2000), for example, analyses how the Pakistan national curriculumconsistently promotes a male-dominated culture, glorifies war and culture andconfines the roles of women and girls to the preservation of the home and familyhonor. Davies (2004) discusses the relationships between different constructions ofmasculinity and femininity, and cultures of conflict, violence, militarism and oppres-sion. Education is integral to these identity constructions and may be a source ofviolence in and of itself; at the same time, as she highlights in eight specificrecommendations, holistic, democratic and equitable education can play a part in themitigation of such violence (p. 72). Gender analysis has not been part of studies suchas UNESCO’s review of post-conflict curriculum development (UNESCO Interna-tional Bureau of Education, 2006), but as this article argues, it should be an integralpart of educational analysis, planning and programming and especially so in fragilestate contexts where, as highlighted earlier, gender equality is a critical issue.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 193

Education as a stabilising force

Despite the concerns raised with the regard to the active involvement of education infuelling and prolonging fragility, and in perpetuating gender dichotomies andinequalities, education in general and schooling in particular, are a source of hope forthe future. If a lack of education can be a cause of instability, then there is a criticalimperative to prioritise education in fragile states. There is increasing awareness ofthe particular need for relevant education programs for youth (USAID, 2005c, forexample). Yet this has to done in ways which address the contradictions created wheneducation is assumed to necessarily be a positive force for peace and stability. Noneof the authors who describe the extent of violence in schools, and especially the extentto which this impacts on girls, suggest that schooling be eliminated, rather that thestructures, processes and content of education be revised and reworked and consid-ered from safety, protection and peace-building, perspectives. As the DfID girls’education policy states:

Our work in these environments [fragile states] is a reminder of the need to link educationwith attempts to build democracy, provide better health systems, offer social protection tothe very poorest and develop multilingual and multicultural policies. (DfID, 2005, p. 11)

At the same time, as a recent paper for the German development agency GTZ(Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit) concludes, despite increas-ing attention to conflict and crisis prevention, to early warning systems and so on,little emphasis is placed on the role to be attached to education in preventing conflict,promoting peace and by extension, promoting stability and transformation away fromfragility (Seitz, 2004). As many educators and education advocates point out, thereare multiple entry points that exist in both formal and informal educational settingsfor promoting peace through education. It is significant that Spink (2005), despite herconcern with what has happened with the textbooks in Afghanistan, sees that educa-tion does have a critical role to play in peacebuilding and reconstruction. Bush andSalterelli also conclude that:

… by looking at both faces of education, we develop a clearer understanding of the positiveand negative impacts of education in areas prone to ethnic violence. There are verydifferent operational and policy implications of this two-faceted optic. On the one hand, itsuggests that by identifying which initiatives do harm we might be better able to ‘stopdoing the wrong thing’. In contrast, by developing a better understanding of positiveimpacts of educational initiatives, we can continue to nurture and ‘do the right thing’.(Bush & Salterelli, 2000, p. 35)

A number of recent case studies have highlighted the importance of the reestablish-ment of education activities as quickly as possible after crises such as the genocide inRwanda (Obura, 2003, for example) and of the importance of such initiatives in stabi-lising the situation and creating the much needed sense of normalcy. The World Bankreport on post-conflict education (2005) recommends prioritising education as a crit-ical post-conflict intervention for ‘reshaping the future’ and identifies the need tofocus on (re)establishing a functioning school system as a ‘peace dividend’ that willfoster confidence in the period of transformation towards peace. An important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

194 J. Kirk

concern for post-conflict reconstruction is preventing a relapse into violence; educa-tion should certain be planned in such as way so as not to contribute to such a relapse.It also has a crucial, proactive role to play. According to the World Bank’s ConflictAnalysis Framework (CAF) there are four key characteristics of a society that is resil-ient to violent conflict: political and social institutions that are inclusive, equitable,and accountable; economic, social, and ethnic diversity rather than polarisation anddominance; growth and development that provide equitable benefits across society; aculture of dialogue rather than violence. Education has a relationship with all of thesecharacteristics and may arguably constitute the most effective vehicle for promotingeach of them; gender equality is also implicit in each. This being said, as has beenarticulated by authors mentioned above, the record of public schooling with regardto these characteristics is poor. Specific efforts, strategies and approaches need to bedeveloped in order to develop education systems and processes which are truly a forcefor peace and stability.

Fragility sensitive education approaches

There is recognition of the need for conflict-sensitive education, particularly in post-conflict contexts. The World Bank report (2005), for example, identifies the need forsensitivity to conflict and the concept of conflict prevention have to be systematicallyintegrated into World Bank instruments and analyses. The GTZ report (Seitz, 2004)also recommends the development and implementation of instruments and processesfor conflict analysis and conflict impact analysis for the education sector. This article,however, suggests that conflict prevention and analysis are part of a broader sensitivityto fragility that is required for and of the education sector. This is recognised by a groupof policy-makers, technical advisers and researchers from different organisations andagencies, who, with official closure of the DAC sub-team on education, are nonethelesscommitted to further analysis and enquiry on education and fragility and are nowestablishing a specific Education and Fragility Working Group linked to the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) structure, and informing thenew DAC workstream on state-building. This demands tools and processes whichcapture and unpack the interrelationships between social, economic and political insta-bilities and education and guide the provision of education in ways which serve tostrengthen the social, economic and political fabric of the society. An initial educationand fragility assessment tool has been developed, initiated by USAID, which will soonbe piloted in specific countries and then further refined over time. Research and prac-tice discussed above would indicate that there are at least three dimensions of fragility-sensitive education provision; the equitable and effective delivery of education, thecontent of the education (i.e., the curriculum and materials used to convey thatcurricula) and the processes through which education takes place (that is the teachingmethods employed, the management and administration systems and relationships).

The USAID Africa Bureau fragile states matrix (2005) highlights the importanceof interventions to impact both the effectiveness and the legitimacy of state andcommunity institutions and to contributing to improved governance at all levels and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 195

in all sectors. This has important implications for the education sector on two inter-connected accounts; in terms of providing students with the knowledge, skills andattitudes for good governance, education should be able to make a significant contri-bution (content and methods). At the same time, the imperative is there to ensurelegitimacy through equitable service delivery and resource sharing and to promotegood governance of the institutions of the education system (program provision andprocess). As far as possible, schools and education institutions should be models ofdemocratic processes and structures in their communities. This imperative was takenup by the Sudan Basic Education Program, for example, where the peace educationstrategy identified financial management training for Parent Teacher Association(PTA) and Board of Governor (BOG) members as well as for the administrators ofteacher training institutions, as critical steps towards the legitimisation and the effec-tive functioning of the governance structures in education and therefore as forces forthe stabilisation of the peace in southern Sudan (SBEP, 2005).

Education, gender equality and stabilisation

As highlighted through this article, gender matters greatly in education—and shouldalso be an integral conceptual tool for analysing state fragility and for designing strat-egies and programs aimed towards peace and greater stability; women, men, girls andboys have much to contribute to transforming the dynamics of state fragility (Baranyi& Powell, 2005). They can contribute to building alternatives at the community level,to challenging state fragility at the national level, and to linking with efforts in neigh-boring states. Attention to gender equality in and through education should be apriority for donor interventions in fragile states, and the tools and processes developedto support fragility sensitive education should necessarily be gender responsive andattuned to the task of creating schooling systems and processes which promote newforms of masculinity and femininity—and which challenge rather than perpetuatedominant gender regimes. Such work is challenging, with a number of inherenttensions to overcome, not least the tendency of schooling to reproduce genderinequalities and male-dominated cultures which promote physical, economic andcultural dominance over women. Machel (1996) states that young people are keycontributors in planning and implementing long-term solutions for peace and youthengagement in peace-building is being promoted by various organisations. Such initi-atives usually include girls, and may be sensitive to the general challenges of child andyouth participation in ‘adult’ activities, but as yet little work has been done to specif-ically and critically address youth participation from a gender perspective (Kirk &Garrow, 2003); this is even less so in fragile or conflict contexts. Protection and partic-ipation imperatives for girls and women provide another tension to be addressed inschools and more broadly within the education system (Kirk & Winthrop, forthcom-ing). Already highlighted are ways in which education exposes girls and women toincrease risk of violence and exploitation; protection measures are needed to ensuresafe access to school as well as in school itself, but measures which allow for ratherthan compromise opportunities for participation. It is significant that although UN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

196 J. Kirk

Security Council Resolution 1325 recognises the vulnerability of and the need toprotect women and girls from sexual violence in conflict contexts, when it comes toparticipation in peace-building processes (the second part of the Resolution) girls arenoticeably absent (GPWG & WC, 2006). From a gender equality perspective thepotential of education to promote personal development and well-being for individualwomen also has to be leveraged with its potential for collective empowerment throughbroad shifts in gender ideologies, patterns and possibilities. This is a significanttension and/or potential to be strategically addressed at all levels in the system andespecially so in fragile states, where active participation for girls in education and indifferent school-based activities may be a starting point from which to foster the skills,knowledge and attitudes to promote ongoing, active participation in civil society andto inspire and empower them for more positive and peaceful individual and collectivefutures. The stark reality, however, is that the education systems in fragile states arehardly able to provide access to even the most basic schools and learning experiencesfor girls; in many of the most challenging contexts, EFA targets and MDGs for genderequality in education are unlikely to be met, even by 2015. Although there are exam-ples of progress made, for example in Rwanda, where gender equality has been seri-ously addressed in recent educational developments, enormous challenges remain.

Conclusions and moving forward

The above discussion highlights the need for the complex relationships betweengender equality, education and state fragility to be closely examined in specificcontexts and especially so in relation to bilateral and multilateral interventions tosupport educational development in fragile states. As Davies writes, the link betweenconflict and education is a ‘grossly-underanalysed area’ (2004, p. 7) and this is as trueon a broad conceptual scale as at the more specific level of community, region ornation. This is perhaps even more so in relation to the multiple dimensions of statefragility. The international community has a critical role to play in supporting educa-tional interventions but also in ensuring that these are fragility sensitive and orientedto stability and peace-building. Such approaches require addressing governanceissues such as corruption and transparency, safety and security which are somewhatoutside of the traditional parameters for education policy and planning; they maytherefore require new partnerships.

This article ends with two broad recommendations; firstly that attention is requiredto the nature and quality of education service delivery in the challenging environ-ments of different types of fragile states. Education should be part of any fragilityanalysis and the findings from such analysis fed into the design and implementationmodel of any service delivery intervention. Secondly, there is progress being made onbringing together the different complementary perspectives and agendas of servicedelivery of education in fragile states, financing mechanisms to support education infragile states, education in emergencies, and gender equality in education. Theseshould be further channeled to develop more concrete programs and case studies offragility-sensitive education, to be shared amongst practitioners and policy-makers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 197

Service delivery is important but has to be designed carefully and sensitively tocontribute to stability, peace-building and gender equality, for example, withattention to equitable access, with careful choice of curricula, teacher training that isgrounded in principles of children’s rights, non discrimination, of teachers’ roles asagents of child protection. Complex situations require complex educational responsesand it is clear from the example of Afghanistan (Spink, 2005), that printing textbooksalone does not ensure that the potential of education to contribute fully to peace-building and stabilisation processes is fulfilled. Education interventions cannotremain neutral; they have to be designed in ways which challenge some of thedriving forces of state fragility, such as discrimination, violence, misogyny and themaintenance of elite privileges (Baranyi & Powell, 2005). Education needs to beoriented to challenging the current fragility factors and also to building resilience toconflict and other crises.

As Machel (2000) states, ‘the principles of gender equality and inclusion arefundamental values on which every attempt at democracy and peace-building mustbe based’. Education in fragile states has to protect and promote the rights ofwomen and girls, and has to work to deconstruct harmful and limiting gender rolesand stereotypes; education has the potential to promote a reworking of the genderstatus quo (Manchanda, 2001) that is apparently so critical to the transformationprocesses from state fragility towards stability. Efforts to mainstream critical issuessuch as peace-building and gender equality into education programming in emer-gency, chronic crisis and early reconstruction contexts are ongoing, and are coordi-nated through the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE).5

The recently developed minimum standards for education in emergencies, chroniccrisis and early reconstruction6 are an important means to systematically enhancethe quantity and quality of education, and to ensure that far as possible it can helpto reshape the futures for crisis-affected young people, their families and communi-ties. With attention given, for example, to community participation, to sensitivechoice of curriculum content, to careful and transparent teacher selection processesand ongoing teacher training and supervision, the minimum standards go farbeyond guidelines for acute emergency situations and offer substantive guidance foreducation provision in fragile states, and for ensuring that the service is delivered inas fragility-sensitive way as possible. Gender equity strategies are also integratedinto the minimum standards, and not only in student enrollment but also forteachers, PTA members, curriculum content. Future roll out and evaluationprocesses for the INEE minimum standards, and for any complementary toolsbeing developed by the Education and Fragility Working Group, should providemore examples and more reliable evidence of how sensitive education planning andimplementation can make positive impacts in fragile state contexts.

Notes

1. Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA): The CPIA index groups 20 indicatorsinto 4 broad categories: economic management, structural policies, policies for social inclusion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

198 J. Kirk

and equity, and public sector management, and institutions. Countries are rated on theircurrent status in each of these performance criteria, with scores from ‘1’ (lowest) to ‘6’(highest). This index is updated annually. (From www.worldbank.org.)

2. The IPS was developed under the previous Liberal Government of Canada. IPS priorities arenow taken up in a new CIDA policy document: Sustainable Development Strategy 2007–2009.

3. Gender parity index for net enrollment is a numerical measure of girls’ enrollment expressedas a proportion of boys’ enrollment. Any value of less than 1 is an indication of a disparity inenrollment to girls’ disadvantage.

4. Statistics from 2001, in the 2005 UNESCO EFA Monitoring Report.5. See www.ineesite.org.6. See http://ineesite.org/standards/default.asp.

Notes on contributor

Jackie Kirk is an advisor for the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and aResearch Associate at the McGill Centre for Research and Teaching on Women.Her work focuses on education in emergencies, conflict, post-conflict and fragilestates with a particular focus on gender and teachers.

References

Anderson, I. (2005) Fragile states: what is international experience telling us? (Canberra, Governmentof Australia).

Anderson, L. (2006) Security sector reforms in fragile states, paper prepared for GEPPAConference on Power, Politics and Change in Weak States, Schaeffergaarden, Denmark, March.

Baranyi, S. & Powell, K. (2005a) Bringing gender back into Canada’s engagement in FragileStates: options for CIDA in a whole of Government approach (Ottawa, The North-SouthInstitute).

Baranyi, S. & Powell, K. (2005b) Fragile states, gender equality and aid effectiveness: a review of donorperspectives (Ottawa, The North-South Institute).

Bush, K. & Saltarelli, D. (Eds) (2000) The two faces of education in ethnic conflict: towards apeacebuilding education for children (Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre).

Davies, L. (2004) Education and conflict: complexity and chaos (London, Routledge).Department for International Development (DfID) (2005a) Girls’ education: towards a better future

for all (London, DfID).DfID (2005b) Why we need to work more effectively on Fragile States (London, DfID).Gender and Peacebuilding Working Group (GPWG) & Women’s Commission for Refugee

Women and Children (2005) Adolescent girls affected by violent conflict: why should we care?(Ottawa, GPWG).

Government of Canada (GoC) (2005) A role of pride and influence in the world, in Canada’sInternational Policy Statement, Ottawa, Government of Canada.

Government of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), UNICEF & Save the Children (2005)Disciplining the child: practices and impacts (Pakistan, Government of NWFP).

Harber, C. (2004) Schooling as violence: how schools harm pupils and societies (Oxford, Taylor &Francis).

Inter-agency paper (2002) The key to peace: unlocking the human potential of Sudan (Nairobi,CARE).

Karam, A. (2001) Women in war and peace-building: the roads traversed, the challenges ahead,International Feminist Journal of Politics, 3(1), 2–25.

Kirk, J. (2005) Gender, education and peace in southern Sudan, Forced Migration Review, 24.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Education and fragile states 199

Kirk, J. & Winthrop, R. (forthcoming) The International Rescue Committee’s Healing ClassroomsInitiative: teacher development for student well-being—preliminary findings (draft title) (New York,IRC).

Kirk, J. et al (2005) The MoE/SBEP Gender Equity Support Program (GESP): an early impactassessment. Draft briefing, Nairobi, Sudan Basic Education Program (SBEP).

Kirk, J., Ogango, M. & Pia, P. (2005) Sudan Basic Education Program (SBEP) Peace EducationStrategy: strengthening local capacities for peace through education activities, Unpublished manu-script, Nairobi, SBEP.

Kirk, J. & Garrow, S. (2003) ‘Girls in policy’: challenges for the education sector, Agenda, 56,4–15.

Leach, F. Fiscian, V. Kadzamira, E. Lemani, E. & Machakanja, P. (2003) An investigative study ofthe abuse of girls in African schools. Education research report, No. 54 (London, DfID).

Longwe, S. (1998) Education for women’s empowerment or schooling for women’s subordination,Gender and Development, 6(2), 19–26.

Machel, G. (1996) UN study on the impact of armed conflict on children. Available online at:www.unicef.org/graca/a51-306_en.pdf (accessed 11 November 2005).

Machel, G. (2000) The impact of armed conflict on children. A critical review of progress made andobstacles encountered in increasing protection for war-affected children. Available online at:www.waraffectedchildren.com/machel-e.asp (accessed 11 November 2005).

Manchanda, R. (2001) Ambivalent gains in South Asian conflicts, in: S. Meintjes, A. Pillay & M.Turshen (Eds) The aftermath: women in post-conflict transformation (London, Zed Books).

Milliken, J. & Krause, K. (2002) State failure, state collapse and state reconstruction: concepts,lessons and strategies, Development and Change, 33(5), 753–774.

Mirembe, R. & Davies, L. (2001). Is schooling a risk? Gender, power relations, and school culturein Uganda, Gender and Education, 13(4), 401–416.

Obura, A. (2003) Never again: education reconstruction in Rwanda (Paris, IIEP UNESCO).OECD & DAC (1997) Guidelines on conflict, peace and development cooperation (Paris, OECD).Pinheiro, P. S. (2006) World report on violence against children (Geneva, United Nations). Available

online at: www.violencestudy.org (accessed 16 March 2007).Rose, P. & Greeley, M. (2006) Education in fragile states: capturing lessons and identifying good

practice. Draft paper prepared for the DAC Fragile States Working Groups, Service DeliveryWorkstream, Sub-team for Education Services.

Saigol, R. (1995) Knowledge and identity: articulation of gender in educational discourse in Pakistan(Lahore, ASR Publications).

Saigol, R. (2000) Symbolic violence: curriculum, pedagogy and society (Lahore, Society for theAdvancement of Education).

Seitz, K. (2004) Education and conflict: the role of education in the creation, prevention and resolution ofsocietal crises—consequences for development cooperation (Eschborn, Deutsche Gesellschaft furTechnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)).

Smith, A. & Vaux, T. (2002) Education, conflict and international development (London, DFID).Spink, J. (2005) Education and politics in Afghanistan: the importance of an education system in

peacebuilding and reconstruction, Journal of Peace Education, 2(2), 195–207.UNESCO Global Monitoring Team (2003/4) Gender and education for all: the leap to equality

(Paris, UNESCO Publishing).UNESCO International Bureau of Education (2006) Curriculum change and social cohesion in

conflict affected societies. Available online at: www.ibe.unesco.org/conflict/ConflictSCohe-sion.htm (accessed 26 July 2006).

UNICEF (2000) From survival to thrival: children and women in the southern part of Sudan (Kenya,UNICEF).

UNICEF (2001) Corporal punishment in schools in South Asia (Kathmandu, UNICEF, ROSA).UNICEF Somalia (2005) Education: issue. Available online at: www.unicef.org/somalia/

education_56.html (accessed 11 November 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15

200 J. Kirk

US Agency for International Development (USAID) (2005a) Education strategy (Washington, DC,USAID).

US Agency for International Development (USAID) (2005b) Fragile states strategy (Washington,DC, USAID).

US Agency for International Development (USAID) (2005c) Youth and conflict (Washington, DC,USAID Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation).

US Agency for International Development Africa Bureau (2005) Fragile states matrix (draft),(Nairobi, USAID).

Wakefield, S. (2004a) Gender and local level decision-making: findings from a case study in Mazar-eSharif (Kabul, Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU)).

Wakefield, S. (2004b) Gender and local level decision-making: findings from a case study in Panjao(Kabul, Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU)).

Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children (2001) Against all odds: surviving the waron adolescents (New York, Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children).

World Bank (2003) Breaking the conflict trap: civil war and development policy (Washington, DC,World Bank).

World Bank (2005) Reshaping the future: education and postconflict reconstruction (Washington, DC,World Bank).

World Vision International (2001) Every girl counts: development, justice and gender (Ontario, WorldVision International).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Facu

ltad

Lat

inoa

mer

ican

a de

Cie

ncia

s So

cial

es]

at 1

9:30

16

Nov

embe

r 20

15