Gender bias in education in Burkina Faso: Who pays the piper? Who calls the tune?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, I analyze policies developed by the government of Burkina Faso in order to redress an imbalance in gender education. Girls, in effect, are not getting their fair share of education, whether in quantity or quality. I critique existing policies concerning gender issues in education by first taking stock of different policies launched in favor of the education of girls, the context of their formation, and identify shortcoming therein. It has been found that international organizations, beyond their commitment to reverse the lag in the education of girls, bring with them an agenda that is at times contradictory with the aim of education for all. At the same time that governments are prodded to school all girls, Structural Adjustments Programs that generally bring more poverty and less public spending, are at loggerheads with increased access. Moreover, the policy choices of international organizations seem to be ill-equipped to subvert existing ideological and patriarchal structures. These structures do not allow for the empowerment of women. The government itself is found to have very little leverage on current policies, raising the nagging question of their appropriation. The paper ends with some policy recommendations that go beyond the construction of facilities and resources to address issues of the school experiences of girls, the curriculum-in-use, and overall problem of teacher training and compensation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".