USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender analysis revised 12 14 by Proyecto de USAID de Educación Superior para el Crecimiento Económico

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis July-August 2015

Revised Version, Submitted December 14, 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis July-August 2015 Contract AID-519-C-14-00004 Period: June 6, 2014–June 5, 2019 Prepared for Sandra Lorena Duarte Contracting Officer’s Representative USAID El Salvador Economic Growth Office Final Blvd., Santa Elena Antiguo Cuscatlán, Depto. La Libertad, El Salvador, Central America sduarte@usaid.gov Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 3,700 provides research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 40 countries in the areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment, and laboratory and chemistry services. For more information, visit www.rti.org. RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 3,700 provides research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 40 countries in the areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment, and laboratory and chemistry services. For more information, visit www.rti.org. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

Table of Contents Page List of Annexes............................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables............................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 1 I.

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 4

II.

Overview of the Activity........................................................................................................................ 5

III.

Background......................................................................................................................................... 6

IV.

Methodology........................................................................................................................................ 7

Data Analysis and Findings................................................................................................................. 9 A.

Analysis of sex-disaggregated data for students in STEM....................................................10

Analysis of sex-disaggregated data for professors in STEM.................................................14

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in STEM-related occupations/jobs.....................................................15

Social and cultural factors affecting course/career decisions................................................16

Faculty teaching & student learning styles............................................................................18

Opportunities for women in STEM........................................................................................ 19

Professional development needs for teachers......................................................................20

Gender in higher education institutions policy and plans......................................................20

Gender dynamics in the Activity target sectors......................................................................21

Violence and security............................................................................................................ 22

K. Social inclusion: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) population and People with Disabilities............................................................................................ 22 VI.

Recommendations............................................................................................................................. 23 A.

General Recommendations:................................................................................................. 23

Component Specific Recommendations:..............................................................................25

Component 1: Qualified Human Capital Improved................................................................25 Component 2: Relevance and Quality of Curriculum and Research Improved.....................26 Component 3: System Effectiveness and Institutional Capacity Heightened........................27 VII. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 27 References................................................................................................................................................ 28

List of Annexes Annex A.

Sex-disaggregated Student Data.......................................................................................... 30

Annex B.

List of Consulted Organizations............................................................................................ 38

Annex C.

University Focus Group List.................................................................................................. 39

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex D.

Focus Group and Interview Questions..................................................................................40

Annex E.

Scope of Work for Gender Analysis......................................................................................42

List of Figures Figure 1. Percent of Female Students in Technology and Engineering Majors.........................................11 Figure 2. Percent of Female Students in Science Majors.........................................................................12 Figure 3. Percent of Female Students in Agriculture and Environment Majors.........................................12 Figure 4. Percent of Female Students in Health Majors...........................................................................13 Figure 5. 10-Year Trend Data on Proportion of Male and Female Students in STEM...............................14 Figure 6. Breakdown of Professors in Salvadoran Universities, by Sex...................................................16 Figure 7. Breakdown of Professors by Field and Sex...............................................................................16

List of Tables Table 1. Most Relevant Majors for the Activityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Clusters (STEM, Agriculture, & Health Fields)...............10 Table 2. Majors in Demand: STEM, Agriculture, & Health Undergraduate Majors....................................15 Table 3. 2013 New Student Enrollment by Major......................................................................................30 Table 4. Total Enrollment of Students by Major......................................................................................... 32 Table 5. Graduates by Major..................................................................................................................... 34 Table 6. Five-Year Enrollment Trends for Female Students (2009-2013) by Major...................................35 Table 7. Consulted Organizations............................................................................................................. 38 Table 8. Focus Group Participation (by University)...................................................................................39

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

List of Acronyms AMCHAM

American Chamber of Commerce

ASI

Asociación Salvadoreña de Industriales (Salvadoran Industrial Association)

ASIPLASTIC

Asociación Salvadoreña de la Industria del Plástico (Salvadoran Association of the Plastics Industry)

CASATIC

Cámara Salvadoreña de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicaciones (Salvadoran Chamber of Information & Communication Technology)

CONACYT

Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de El Salvador (National Council for Science and Technology)

CSW

Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

HEI

higher education institutions

HICD

Human and Institutional Capacity Development

IAB

Industry Advisory Boards

ICT

Information Communications Technology

IDB

Inter-American Development Bank

INCAE

Instituto Centroamericano de Administración de Empresas

information technology

LAC

Latin American and Caribbean

LGBTQI

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and instersex

MINED

El Salvador Ministry of Education

NGO

nongovernmental organization

PfG

U.S. Agency for International Development’s Partnership for Growth

RTI

Research Triangle Institute International

STEM

science, technology, engineering, and math

UCA

Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas

UDB

Universidad Don Bosco

UFG

Universidad Francisco Gavidia

UGB

Universidad Gerardo Barrios

UJMD

Universidad Dr. José Matías Delgado

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

UNICAES

Universidad Catรณlica de El Salvador

UNIVO

Universidad de Oriente

U.S.

United States

USAID

U.S. Agency for International Development

UTEC

Universidad Tecnolรณgica

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth (the “Activity”) identifies gender as a cross-cutting issue and RTI and its partners are committed to promoting gender equity within the Activity. In order to ensure women’s full participation in the Activity, RTI conducted a Gender Analysis during July-August 2015 to identify the critical strategic challenges and practical obstacles that RTI and its partners need to address during implementation. The Gender Analysis sought to analyze: 1) student enrollment and graduation trends in STEMrelated majors across the 40 higher education institutions (HEIs) institutions; 2) faculty and administrative sex-composition across the 40 HEIs; 3) data and perceptions of how students choose their majors and professors their careers; 4) gender-based patterns in teaching and learning strategies; and 4) HEI officials’ (Deans and Rectors/Vice-Rectors) awareness of the relevance and importance of gender integration in higher education, as well as private sector awareness of gender equity issues in the Salvadoran economy. Methodology The methodology used for the Gender Analysis included a literature review, analysis of government-published higher education data, focus groups with students and professors from selected HEIs, and interviews with key informants namely HEI senior administrators and the private sector. Limitations of this Analysis include: focus groups were conducted during a holiday period for schools which resulted in a slightly lower than anticipated turn out; only a limited number of in person interviews could be conducted with HEIs; a small number of HEIs responded to requests for school-level data; and a lack of available data on females in STEM-related occupations. Summary of Key Findings Section V provides details on the findings which have been organized according to data analysis of the sex-composition of students and professors at HEIs; women’s participation in STEMrelated occupations; social and cultural factors influencing education and career decisions; faculty teaching and student learning styles; opportunities for women in STEM; professional development needs of teachers; gender in HEIs policy and plans; gender dynamics in the Activity’s target sectors; violence and security issues; and social inclusion. In summary, findings from the HEI data analysis revealed that women are significantly underrepresented in key STEM-related degree programs (or majors) critical for innovation and growth such as technology and engineering (22 percent student female enrollment compared to 54 percent overall female enrollment in Salvadoran HEIs). Further, five year trend data for female enrollment in technology and engineering majors shows a worrisome decline from 26% to 22% from 2009 to 2013. On the other hand, enrollment data from science programs, such as chemistry and biology shows that females participate at around the same rate as males. With regard to faculty, females account for 36% of all professors, however they make up only 27% of faculty teaching STEM-related subjects. Overwhelmingly, focus group and interviews pointed to a culture of machismo (strong masculine pride) that continues to influence El Salvadoran women’s education and career choices and steers USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

them away at a young age from STEM-related fields especially technology and engineering. Whereas male students never raised the issue of doubt, females often spoke about subtle and sometimes direct instances of objection and/or resistance from their families and teachers in relation to their choice of study. At the same time, focus group discussions point to a changing mindset among young people, both male and female, that believe women need to be more supported in STEM – this new attitude, plus the existence of some women in key university and industry leadership positions – can help break long standing gender stereotypes, ultimately initiating change in higher education systems and the workplace to afford women more opportunities in STEM. Recommendations Women’s participation in STEM education and jobs should be approached as a gender issue and equally important, as a way of promoting scientific and technological excellence. Ultimately, by not engaging women in STEM at a greater rate, El Salvador is losing out on a huge potential of talent and human capital, which is the foundation for the country’s future economic growth and competitiveness. Based on the findings of this Gender Analysis, the following recommendations are offered for the Activity to address gender integration overall and specifically across the three components. General Recommendations: 1. Explore low-cost ways to raise awareness among high school girls about STEM degrees and careers, thereby increasing the pipeline of girls enrolling in STEM-related undergraduate degree programs. 2. Leverage women in leadership positions in both HEIs and industry to raise the profile of females in STEM and higher education. 3. The Activity should encourage industry partners (CASATIC, ASER, ASI and CAMAGRO) to start collecting sex-disaggregated data on their members´ employees, preferably broken down by type of position. 4. The Activity should initiate a dialogue with industry partners to recommend gender integration in job announcements and promotions made by their business members. 5. Provide technical assistance to the leadership of HEIs about the relevance of cross-cutting gender integration strategies, and the importance of promoting access to females for STEM careers in academia and industry. Component-Specific Recommendations Component 1: Qualified Human Capital Improved i.

ii.

Set internal Activity targets and implement specific strategies for women’s participation in Component 1 faculty trainings.

Ensure that participatory teaching approaches and the inclusion of real-world applications is a key focus of professor training. Component 2: Relevance and Quality of Curriculum and Research Improved

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

iii.

Promote greater representation from female members for the Industry Advisory Boards (IAB).

iv.

Encourage greater participation from female faculty members in curriculum development activities, for example, participation in workshops for upgrading/developing new curriculum.

Make gender-focused strategies a key objective of the career centers in order to advise and empower female students to pursue traditionally male dominated fields.

vi.

Collect sex-disaggregated data in future labor market studies the Activity will sponsor in order to get more information about job trends in high growth fields and sex-based composition of occupations in the labor force

vii.

Encourage universities to track sex-disaggregated data for internships and job placement.

viii.

Include gender as a criteria in selecting scholarship recipients (1,000 student target) for stimulating women’s participation in those fields where women are underrepresented.

ix.

Target the participation of female faculty members to be engaged in applied research projects to be supported by the Activity. Component 3: System Effectiveness and Institutional Capacity Heightened

Continue to engage women’s participation in the policy dialogues.

xi.

Look at whether “encouraging more women in science and technology” needs to be raised as a policy topic or dialogue.

xii.

Offer to look at gender policy for HEIs interested in this area as an offering in Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) assessments

Conclusion Given the cultural and other barriers which affect women, targeted and proactive measures are necessary, to increase female participation in STEM education, support more female professors in STEM, and move women into leadership positions in both STEM academic administration and the workforce. As part of a new generation of inclusive, gender-aware development projects, the Higher Education and Economic Growth has an opportunity (and responsibility) to ensure women’s full participation in the implementation of the Activity. Fully integrating gender into the Activity’s three components will help meet important gender equity goals. Moreover, fully engaging women in the process will significantly enhance the Activity’s overall outcome to improve higher education’s contributions to meet targeted sector needs and contribute to the long-term economic growth in El Salvador.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

“The untapped potential of fully trained and credentialed women who might be interested in STEM but choose not to pursue degrees in these fields or who decide to change careers because of obstacles, real or perceived, represents an important lost opportunity not only for women themselves but also for society as a whole” (Castillo, Grazzi, & Tacsir, 2014)

Introduction

The USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth (the “Activity”) identifies gender as a cross-cutting issue and RTI and its partners are committed to promoting gender equity within the Activity. In order to ensure women’s full participation in the Activity, RTI conducted this gender assessment to identify the critical strategic challenges and practical obstacles that RTI and its partners need to address during implementation. Although El Salvador has achieved gender parity in Female students make up 54 percent of the university enrollment (i. e., more than half of university study population at the 40 higher education institutions (HEI). Yet only 22 university students are female), women’s percent of women were studying technology participation in the science, technology, engineering, and engineering majors. and math (STEM) majors, are significantly lower. In Source: MINED, 2013 the technology and engineering fields, women make up only 22 percent of the total number of students. Further, data analysis over a five-year period point to a declining trend from 2009-2013. The low rate of women with STEM-related degrees is not unique to El Salvador. In fact, in countries like the U.S. where there have been focused initiatives to engage more women in STEM, the numbers are still relatively low. According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2009, women accounted for only 25% of employed STEM degree holders (Beede et al., 2011). The disparity between female and males students in STEM higher education consequently results in an underrepresentation of women teaching, working and holding leadership positions in STEM related industries. Ultimately, by not engaging women in STEM at a greater rate, El Salvador is losing out on a huge potential of talent and human capital, which is the foundation for the country’s future economic growth and competitiveness. The key research questions and issues explored in this assessment are the following: 

Analysis of student enrollment trends in El Salvador higher education by sexcomposition, and patterns of gender stereotyping and tracking of males and females into culturally acceptable higher education degree programs/majors



Labor market information in the Salvadoran economy by sex, and access to job/career opportunities for men and women in the Activity’s five priority sectors of (1) information and communications technology (ICT), (2) energy and energy efficiency, (3) light manufacturing, (4) agro-industry and food processing, and (5) health products and services



Analysis of faculty and administrative sex-composition across the 40 HEIs in Salvadoran higher education, and any specific STEM department faculty trends by sex-composition

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015



Assessment of gender-based patterns in teaching and learning strategies (e. g. differences in how female faculty teach vs. male faculty and how female students learn differently from men)



Assessment of HEI officials’ (Deans and Rectors/Vice-Rectors) awareness of the relevance and importance of gender integration in higher education, and private sector representatives’ awareness of gender equity issues in Salvadoran economy and private sector



Assessment of the Activity’s work plan and recommendations for performance indicators and targets for sex-composition

Because of the critical role that science and technology play in promoting economic growth and innovation, the assessment focuses on STEM-related majors1 in higher education. The assessment draws from the existing literature on the status of women in El Salvador to describe potential challenges and opportunities for engaging women in STEM and explore gender considerations in education and career choices through student and professor focus groups, as well as a number of in-person interviews with the private-sector, university administrators, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO). The analysis revealed that, to some extent, a culture of machismo (strong masculine pride) continues to influence Salvadoran women’s career choices and steers them away from certain STEM fields, such as technology and engineering. On the other hand, the focus groups and interviews also revealed young people and women in leadership positions with positive perspectives which are helping to break gender barriers and stereotypes by initiating change in higher education systems and the workplace to afford women more opportunities in STEM. The Gender Analysis begins by presenting an overview of the Activity and a background on the status of women as it relates to STEM education and jobs in El Salvador. The analysis then outlines our methodology for collecting data, including limitations; presents findings and proposes recommendations for the Activity and provides concluding remarks that point to the broader relevance of the Gender Analysis and future research.

II.

Overview of the Activity

The five year Activity was awarded to Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International on June 6, 2014, until June 5, 2019. The Activity is a key element of USAID’s Partnership for Growth (PfG), which represents a framework for deepening and strengthening the U.S. and El Salvador bilateral engagement to promote economic growth. The goal of PfG is “Broad Economic Growth in a Secure El Salvador Expanded”. In support of PfG, the goal of the Activity is to strengthen the science, technology, research, and innovative capacity in El Salvador higher education, with a focus on disciplines that contribute to high-growth economic sectors. To reach the PfG goal, the Activity must achieve the following objectives:

1 “Majors” and “degrees” or “degree programs” are used interchangeably in this document and are equivalent to the term “carerras” in Spanish USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015



Improve the quality of higher education teaching and research relating to the talent and applied research needs of priority economic sectors with high-growth potential



Promote innovation and technological development in priority sectors



Facilitate collaboration between industry and HEIs through Industry-Higher Education Clusters



Establish career centers in HEIs and social media tools for sharing labor market information to prepare Salvadoran students for employment success



Improve the qualifications of faculty through professional development, training, and scholarships for post-graduate studies



Enhance higher education institutional capacity and facilitate higher education policy dialogue

Following are the Activity´s key focus areas: 1. Component 1: Qualified Human Capital Improved. Human capital development, for the purpose of raising the quality of tertiary education, through increasing the qualifications for faculty, academic staff, and researchers. 2. Component 2: Relevance and Quality of Curricula and Research Improved. Curriculum development and applied research, focusing on academic programs’ knowledge creation and skills development that respond to priority productive sector needs2. 3. Component 3: System Effectiveness and Institutional Capacity Heightened. Higher education system effectiveness and institutional capacity building for the sustainability of the changes introduced by the Activity leading to continuous improvements in quality and relevance of higher education.

III. Background

Defining Sex and Gender: Sex is a biological construct that defines males and females according to physical characteristics and reproductive capabilities.

In accordance with USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy outcomes, programs in El Salvador strive to Gender is a social construct that refers to the reduce gender disparities in access to, control over, and benefits relations between and among the sexes, based on their relative roles. from resources; wealth; opportunities; and services, including economic, social, political, and cultural. El Salvador remains far Source: USAID Guide to Gender Integration and Analysis, 2010 from this goal, ranking 84th overall in the World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Gender Gap Report, and 82nd in the Educational Attainment category (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). Female participation in the El Salvador labor force is below the world average, but women’s secondary and tertiary education is high and rising. In 2013, only 26 percent of university aged students were enrolled in tertiary education, representing a total of 157,358 2 Productive sector needs refers to the assistance requests that an economic sector prioritized by the Project has on (1) qualified human capital, and (2) academic curriculum quality and applied research, for improving productivity and competitiveness. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

students (World Bank, 2015). While female students out number their male counterparts by 4. 23 percent (or 13,320 students), only 26 percent of the 85,339 female students enrolled in university are studying STEM (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012). According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), women make up 36. 8 percent of researchers in El Salvador, ranking 15 out of 20 in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012). In the broader El Salvador economy, women represent 45 percent of all professional and technical workers. However, women are under-represented in the STEM workforce representing only 34 percent of the total professionals in the field. Other economic indicators paint a bleaker picture. According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report, women earn less than men throughout Latin America regardless of age, education, type of employment (including selfemployment), or the size of the business. In El Salvador, employed women, on average, earn 11. 5 percent less than employed men and the gap widens as the years of schooling increase (ISDEMU, 2015). The differences reflect both sex-based occupational segregation and wage discrimination. Occupations and professions in which mostly women are employed (e. g. , administration, education, and health care) are paid less on average than occupations dominated by men, and women are significantly more likely to work in small firms, informal firms, and low-wage manufacturing and services. In addition, single mothers face challenges related to child care and securing a wage capable of supporting their family. Women’s participation in STEM education and jobs should be approached as a gender equality issue, and equally important, as a way of promoting scientific and technological excellence. A 2014 IDB report emphasized that a more inclusive workforce provides greater chances for innovation and productivity than one which is less so: Having scientists and engineers with diverse backgrounds, interests, and cultures assures better scientific and technological results and the best use of those results. Gender equality is seen as a way to promote scientific and technological excellence rather than just improving opportunities for women. The untapped potential of fully trained and credentialed women who might be interested in STEM but choose not to pursue degrees in these fields or who decide to change careers because of obstacles, real or perceived, represents an important lost opportunity not only for women themselves but also for society as a whole. Career impediments for women deprive societies of scarce human resources, which is detrimental to competitiveness and development. 3

IV. Methodology We seek to capture and analyze baseline data on the status of women and men in Salvadoran higher education - and where available, trends related to STEM fields - and information on perceptions of the relationships and different experiences for men and women in academia and private sector in high growth industries in El Salvador. To this end, we rely primarily on: (1) The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report, which provides aggregate data on students and professors at the 40 HEIs (detailed below in findings); (2) focus groups with students and 3 Castillo et al., 2014

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

professors in STEM-related fields (See Annex C for list of universities that participated in focus groups and Annex D for list of focus group questions); and (3) key informant interviews with university administrators (Deans and Vice-Rectors), private sector leaders in the activity’s targeted industries, and NGOs (See Annex B for list of consulted organizations and Annex D for list of interview questions) . Field work was conducted during July 2015. See Annex E for the detailed Scope of Work. The key data sources are detailed as follows: 

A literature review focused on the status of women and men in higher education and high growth industries, and on the analysis of the relationships between men and women in El Salvador. The review included reports, assessments, and studies from the government of El Salvador, universities, World Bank, United Nations, IDB, USAID, World Economic Forum, International Labour Organization, and Vital Voices El Salvador (local chapter of the NGO Vital Voices Global Partnership focused on gender integration in El Salvador).



MINED published aggregate data on its 40 HEIs in 2013. We analyzed the sexdisaggregated data pertaining to student enrollment (and graduation) in STEM-specific majors that were relevant to the Activity’s main sector clusters (ICT, energy, agro-food processing, light manufacturing and health products and services). Available sexdisaggregated data on professors was also analyzed. For the Gender Analysis, we also asked 10 HEIs with the most STEM-related degrees to provide HEI-level sexdisaggregated data on students and professors. We obtained information from two universities, and this data has also been analyzed in Section H under data analysis and findings.



The purpose of the student focus groups was to assess the extent of gender stereotyping and tracking of male and female students into culturally acceptable higher education programs. Students were asked a series of questions about how they chose their course of study, including motivational and influential factors, perceived differences between men and women in their learning styles, and impression of post-graduation career opportunities. Student focus groups also sought to understand the extent to which participants had access to services and the perception of inclusivity on campus. We conducted three focus groups, with a convenience sample of 27 students (15 women, 12 men) representing nine universities4. The groups were organized into one male-only, one female-only, and one mixed-sex group so as to allow women (in particular) a safe space to discuss issues freely. We found this to be particularly useful in that the women-only focus group revealed important insights and nuances when describing barriers and obstacles in pursuing STEM-related majors. Despite universities being specifically asked to send students studying STEM, it was interesting to note that three of the participants in the women-only group came from humanities, whereas the male-only group sent only STEM students. Furthermore, participation in focus groups may have been limited because July was a holiday period for HEIs.



Focus groups with professors were conducted to assess career choice, including motivational and influential factors, perceived differences between male and female

4 University of El Salvador did not send student and professor representatives to participate in the focus groups. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

professor teaching styles, and impressions on student learning styles based on sex. We conducted three focus groups with a convenience sample of 22 professors (12 women, 10 men). Similar to the student focus groups, we organized the groups into one male-only, one female-only, and one mixed-sex. 

Key informant interviews were held with administrators (e. g. , Deans, Vice-Rectors, and Rectors) from the Activity’s four “anchor” HEIs: Universidad Francisco Gavidia (UFG), Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas (UCA), Universidad Don Bosco (UDB), and Universidad Católica de El Salvador (UNICAES). Another four partners HEIs (“associate” HEIs) submitted responses to questionnaires: Universidad de Oriente (UNIVO), Universidad Tecnológica (UTEC), Universidad Gerardo Barrios (UGB), and Universidad Dr. José Matías Delgado (UJMD). The interviews and questionnaires assessed the faculty and administrative gender composition and sought to understand university policy and approaches to gender integration, both at a faculty and student level.



Key informant interviews with four private sector industry associations - Asociación Salvadoreña de Industriales (ASI), Asociación Salvadoreña de la Industria del Plástico (ASIPLASTIC), American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM), and Cámara Salvadoreña de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicaciones (CASATIC) - in high growth STEM related industries to assess the gender composition in the workplace and in leadership positions. In addition, the interview questions sought to understand the accessibility and availability of job opportunities for men and women in the Activity’s cluster sectors.



Key informant interviews with NGOs, such as Voces Vitales El Salvador (Vital Voices) and gender experts.

Gender Analysis Limitations 

The Gender Analysis has several limitations. First, the focus groups were conducted during a holiday period for schools and as a result, we had a slightly lower than anticipated turn out. Additionally, the team was only able to conduct half of the HEI interviews in person and only two HEIs provided requested school-level data on enrollment and graduates by degree and sex. Finally, data on women in STEM jobs and occupations did not exist.

Data Analysis and Findings

Findings from the literature review, higher education institutions data analysis, focus groups and interviews are summarized below. Overall, the data analysis revealed that women are significantly underrepresented in key STEM-related majors critical for innovation and growth such as technology and engineering (22 percent student female enrollment compared to 54 percent overall female enrollment in HEI). Further, five year trend data (2009-2013) for female enrollment in technology and engineering majors shows a decline from 26% to 22%. Overwhelmingly, focus group and interviews pointed to a culture of machismo (strong masculine pride) that continues to influence El Salvadoran women’s career choices and steers them away at a young age from STEM majors such as technology and engineering. At the same time, there is USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

evidence of a new generation of young people, both male and female, that believe women need to be more supported in STEM – this new attitude, plus the existence of some women in key university and industry leadership positions – can help break gender barriers and stereotypes, ultimately initiating change in higher education systems and the workplace to afford women more opportunities in STEM.

A. Analysis of sex-disaggregated data for students in STEM Although women make up more than 54 percent (almost 88,000 women) of the total university population in El Salvador, a review of sex-disaggregated data for 2013 new student enrollment, total enrollment, five-year trend data on enrollment (from 2009 to 2013), and graduation rates all point to a significant disparity in women’s participation in some key STEM-related degree programs. For the purposes of this analysis, we emphasize STEM majors and other fields (such as agriculture/environment and health) which the team determined to be of most relevance to the Activity’s main clusters (see Table 1). It should be noted that MINED includes engineering majors under its main category of “Technology”. For the purposes of this Gender Analysis and to clarify for the reader, we have labeled the category as “Technology and Engineering”. Table 1. Most Relevant Majors for the Activity’s Clusters (STEM, Agriculture, & Health Fields) STEM Categories

e. g. of STEM Majors

Activity Clusters

Technology and Engineering

Electrical engineering, computer engineering, industrial engineering, computer science

All clusters (cross-cutting)

Sciences

Physics, chemistry, math

Energy, light manufacturing, agroindustry, and health products and services

Agriculture and Environment

Environment and natural resources, agroindustrial engineering

Energy, light manufacturing, and agroindustry

Health

Medicine, nursing, chemical lab

Health products and services

Other

Logistics engineering and graphic design

All clusters (cross-cutting)

Annex A presents sex-disaggregated data for 1) new students; 2) total students; 3) graduates, and 4) five-year enrollment trends for STEM-related fields using the MINED categories of technology and engineering, sciences, and health. Of the 34,840 students studying technology and engineering (including masters, bachelors, and technician-level diplomas), only 22 percent (7,837) were women (Figure 1). The figure is even lower for the mechanical and electrical engineering fields, where women make up only 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of the total. Women technology majors showed a slight increase when we reviewed graduation data, which stood at 27 percent. Interestingly, women participated in industrial engineering at slightly higher percentages (27 percent); related to this, the focus

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

group discussion revealed that industrial engineering was considered “easy” engineering and therefore more acceptable for women. Figure 1. Percent of Female Students in Technology and Engineering Majors 35% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 800% 800% 800% 800% 800% 800% 800% 800% 900% 900% 900% 900% 900% 900% 900% 900% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1100% 1200% 1200% 1200% 1200% 1200% 1200% 1200% 1200% 30% 31% 30% 29% 25% 24% 23% 22% 20% 21% 20% 15% 10% 5%

6% 1%

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report Women’s engagement in the sciences (Figure 2), however, paints a different picture. Generally speaking, women have achieved parity in these fields. They made up 55 percent (1,759) of the students studying sciences, such as chemistry, physics, statistics, and biology (the percentage increased to 57 percent when only considering new enrollments for 2013 and to 59 percent for graduates). The lowest percentage in the sciences for women was in the field of physics at 33 percent (although absolute numbers are small, women did account for 56 percent of new enrollments and 75 percent of graduates in 2013).

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Figure 2. Percent of Female Students in Science Majors 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200%300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300%400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400%500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500%600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600%700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 700% 70% 64% 60% 50%

56%

55% 46%

49%

45%

40%

33%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report In the agriculture and environment field (Figure 3), women comprised 32 percent (999) of all students; this percentage rose to 39 percent when considering only new enrollments in 2013. The increase appears largely due to the number of women studying agronomy engineering (which jumped to 40 percent of new enrollments). Figure 3. Percent of Female Students in Agriculture and Environment Majors 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200%300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300%400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400%500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500% 500%600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 600% 40% 35% 32% 32% 35% 26% 25% 30% 25% 17% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

In the health field (Figure 4), women students make up 72 percent (23,682) of all enrolled students. They are significantly represented in nursing (85 percent), while for medicine they make up 58 percent of enrolled students. Figure 4. Percent of Female Students in Health Majors 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 300% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 400% 85% 400% 85% 72%

58%

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report In addition to the STEM majors discussed above, we analyzed two additional majors which have cross-cutting importance for the Activity: Logistics Engineering (under Economics, Administration and Business) and Graphic Design (under Art and Architecture). For logistics engineering, we found females made up 45 percent (140) of total enrollment, but only 38 percent of graduates and while five year trend data showed an increase in absolute numbers, the percentage of females in logistics engineering points to a decline. In contrast, for the graphic design major, we found higher rates of women, with females making up 49 percent (880) of the total enrollment, 65 percent of graduates. We also found an increase in five-year trend figures in both absolute numbers and percentages. Ten-year trend data from MINED shows a declining trend in female enrollment in STEM related undergraduate degree programs, see Figure 5 (this does not include health fields such as medicine, nursing, chemical lab, etc.)

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Figure 5. 10-Year Trend Data on Proportion of Male and Female Students in STEM

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report

Table 2. Majors in Demand: STEM, Agriculture, & Health Undergraduate Majors 5

Rank

Percent Female

Medical Doctor

58%

Systems Engineering

21%

Industrial Engineering

29%

Nursing License

85%

Computer Degree

31%

Civil Engineering

23%

Computer Engineering

20%

Lab Clinic

73%

Electrical Engineering

Degree

5 MINED, 2014 USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Chemistry

64%

Agronomy Engineering

25%

Mechanical Engineering

Chemical Engineering

46%

Systems Degree

32%

Mechatronic Engineering

MINED’s five-year enrollment trend data (from 2009–2013) showed a troubling finding in the technology programs, revealing that computer engineering, computer bachelors, and computer technician undergraduate degree program enrollment decreased in both absolute numbers and percentage of women. In agriculture and environment, while absolute numbers of women increased, their percentage of the total number of students actually decreased two percentage points (from 34 percent to 32 percent). The largest decrease in women’s presence was seen in the Masters of Environment and Natural Resources degree, which dropped from 41 percent to 35 percent in five years (see Annex A for trend data tables). In looking at the most in-demand majors6 (Table 2), STEM and health-related fields comprise about 40 percent of the top 30 majors. Of the most in-demand fields related to STEM and health fields (medicine, nursing, etc.), women make up 41 percent of students enrolled. Yet, a more closer look at those STEM-related majors that do not include health fields, reveals that women are significantly under-represented in important fields for the country’s economic growth including systems engineering (21%), industrial engineering (29%), computer engineering (20%), agronomy engineering (25%), and mechanical engineering (6%). (STEM-related majors are highlighted in grey in Table 2) We received individual school-level data from two institutions (Don Bosco and UFG) and estimated data from another two (UTEC and UNIVO). Female enrollment in STEM-related majors from these individual schools ranged from 21-31 percent and so we didn’t observe any discrepancy or deviation from MINED’s aggregate data across institutions.

B. Analysis of sex-disaggregated data for professors in STEM Out of the 9,300 higher education professors in El Salvador who teach full-time, part-time, or by hour, women make up 36 percent (3,424). This percentage is lower when considering that the majority of teachers teach by the hour (of which women only make up 33 percent) (Figure 6). Although the reviewed MINED report did not disaggregate data on professors by faculty, the school-specific data we received from Universidad Francisco Gavidia showed very low women’s participation rates as professors in engineering departments (20 percent).

6 MINED’s report, Table 56, ranked the majors most-in demand, which was defined as those majors with the most number of students enrolled. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Figure 6. Breakdown of Professors in Salvadoran Universities, by Sex

Professor-LEVEL data

A l l P ro fe s s o rs

F u l l - ti m e

Pa r t- ti m e

1674 4

1225

486

3068

1264

3424 1

Tota l Profes s ors

5010

9303

Fema l e

C l a s s H o u rs

Source: The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013 report According to data from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de El Salvador (CONACYT), women professors make up 27 percent of the faculty teaching STEM-related courses. See Figure 7. Figure 7. Breakdown of Professors by Field and Sex

Proportion of faculty disaggregated by field and sex, 2013 Mujer; 9% Hombre; 24% OTRAS DISCIPLINAS; 67%

Source: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de El Salvador

C. Women’s participation in STEM-related occupations/jobs In the economy, women represent 45 percent of all professional and technical workers. However, women are not engaged in STEM-related careers at the same rate as men. As noted above, women are particularly underrepresented among HEI faculty and, as mentioned in the background section, other economic indicators portray a similar picture. Women in El Salvador USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

are performing similar work to men, yet earn only 54 percent of what their male counterparts make. They are significantly more likely to work in small firms, informal firms, and low-wage manufacturing and services. Unfortunately, there is a limited labor market data on how many women work in STEM occupations. In interviews with representatives of the Asociación Salvadoreña de Industriales (ASI), Asociación Salvadoreña de la Industria del Plástico (ASIPLASTIC), Cámara Salvadoreña de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicaciones (CASATIC), and the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM), we generally were unable to obtain specific data on female workers. ASI shared its perception that women represent a significant portion of supervisory jobs and approximately 40 percent of manager positions in Salvadoran industry, although specific sex-disaggregated occupational data for Salvadoran industry does not exist. ASIPLASTIC noted that women make-up 25-30 percent of workers in the plastic production occupations. Industry association representatives did comment that more labor market and occupational information could be collected relatively easily through existing surveys and their systems for accessing member companies. Although data wasn’t available on the number of women working in STEM-related occupations, one can anticipate that the percent is even lower than that of women who graduated with a STEM-related degree. The reason for this is as research shows, eliminating the gender gap in STEM education attainment only slightly narrows the gender gap in attainment of STEM occupations (Castillo et al., 2014). The issue therefore becomes one about the utilization of the education. According to Voces Vitales a report issued by Instituto Centroamericano de Administración de Empresas (INCAE) business school in Costa Rica found that 60 percent of all women who graduated from university in Latin America were not working after 7 years. This is a concerning number and represents a huge loss of potential to the region and individual economies.

D. Social and cultural factors affecting course/career decisions Focus groups with STEM students and teachers, as well as interviews with representatives of HEIs, industry professionals, and NGOs, all underscored the presence of a “machismo culture” that continues to prevent women from participating in STEM-related education and jobs. The feedback, from teachers and students regardless of sex, indicated that the machismo culture exists both in the home setting and in schools, turning women away from STEM subjects at a very young age. Interviewees noted that science and engineering are predominantly viewed as a Source: Focus Group Discussion man’s career and women are explicitly told it is not for them. Of note is the finding that the machismo culture endures and is propagated not only by men, but also by women (see text box). Women spoke in greater detail about the responsibilities placed on women, for example taking care of the house and raising a family, and how those duties were given more importance over a career. The machismo culture is engendered by not only men, but also by women, e.g., mothers and grandmothers who say to their daughters that engineering is not a job for women.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

When students were asked whether they felt supported in their degree/career choice, regardless of their gender, they responded positively to having received support from both parents, high school teachers, and professors. However, whereas male students never raised the issue of doubt, females often spoke about instances of objection and/or resistance to their choice of study. Students, both male and female, spoke of a professor or parent who would say “this isn’t a career for women” when speaking of engineering (mechanical and systems), computer programming, and automotive degrees/careers. In many cases, the feedback was subtle and less direct in terms of how women were undermined. For example, parents or teachers were reported to have said to a woman who was interested in STEM “give it a try, let’s see how you do” or “are you sure you want to study that?” One female participant spoke about having her father’s support to be an engineer, but needing to convince her mother that it was a good choice. She also explained that teachers made her rethink or question her choice, instilling doubt rather than encouragement. Several young women affirmed her statements and experiences, indicating they could relate to what she had encountered. In a minority of cases, the objection from family or teachers was more direct. One female student was told, “You don’t belong here” by an engineering professor. A female Dean of engineering even explained that her father and older brothers did not allow her to study mechanical and chemical engineering, her top choices, and so she ended up studying agricultural engineering. Two male students recounted the responses of their professors who described a scenario where a female peer at the university reported being harassed. In one instance, they noted that an engineering professor had said there isn’t room for women in mechanical engineering because it is a male dominated field. Mobility restrictions and household duties were also mentioned as barriers by women and stereotypical portrayals in the media of female versus male careers were raised by both male and female participants. Additionally, the focus groups and interviews, regardless of sex, revealed a phobia against math in society and in universities. Parents and especially professors are known to frequently tell children that math is difficult. Students and teachers indicated this caused a trauma throughout youth that sets students up for fear or failure. This negative attitude towards math may discourage girls even more than boys to pursue STEM, especially if combined with the effects of the machismo culture. With regard to influence, participants in the men’s Female students spoke more about being focus group repeatedly said STEM was a personal influenced in their choice of study by a parent, choice, whereas women consistently pointed to a teacher, or sibling than male students. parent, teacher, or a sibling’s impact in their Source: Focus Group Discussion decision to study a STEM subject at university. Negative attitudes about math from parents and teachers or the machismo culture clearly have a negative effect on a young woman’s decision about what they study in university. A male student described an instance where a teacher dissuaded a female peer in his computer programming class, who he believed was an excellent programmer, by saying remarks, such as “you will see a lot of girls in the beginning but only one or two will be left”. The female student eventually dropped out of the programming class. An important note is that a number of focus group professors said they did not initially plan to be a teacher, but became involved in the profession by teaching one class (what is known as class hour teachers), realized they enjoyed it, and were eventually asked to become full-time teachers. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Because women teachers make up a significantly less proportion of the hourly class teachers (33 percent), one can infer they have less chances than their male counterparts to transition to fulltime teaching roles.

E. Faculty teaching & student learning styles Both male and female students overwhelmingly felt that how a class was taught affected whether they liked the subject, especially in math and science disciplines. According to the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), developed by the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), male and female students with the highest science achievement typically attend universities that emphasize academic success with rigorous and participatory curricular and that have well-prepared teachers (Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012). Teaching styles that used creative, dynamic, and practical methods were much better received by students, regardless of sex, and ultimately influenced how they felt about the material. Both male and female students emphasized the need for more practical training and less theory, including visits to companies to see how a turbine operates, class projects that solve real industry problems, and professionals visiting classes to share their experiences. Both male and female teachers displayed an equal appreciation for student-centered approaches, practical learning, and pedagogical techniques, including the role of a professor as a facilitator, integrating real-world examples in the classroom, and making class activities more interactive. There was a great deal of debate in the focus groups on whether teaching styles differed by sex. Generally speaking, with both male and female teachers, there was support for the sentiment that teaching styles differ more by Source: Focus Group Discussion personality and technique than by sex. However, in the women’s only professor focus group, there was significant reflection on how women do see some distinctions between themselves and their male counterparts. These differences, they said, may result in women professors being seen by the class as more supportive of student’s engagement and eventual success. For example, a female professor said she dedicates time and space for a student to understand a certain concept, even if it takes multiple tries, whereas a male professor is more likely to explain a concept only once. Another female professor said students may “fear” their male professors more and view them as less approachable, which can inhibit learning. One female professor explained that she takes the time to understand what might be inhibiting a student from succeeding in her classroom, including challenges at home. In interviews with faculty Deans, it was noted that women professors tend to get evaluated with high marks by their students, possibly because they are more accessible to students. Women professors, more than their male counterparts, described a difference in teaching styles between men and women.

Generally speaking, students felt teaching styles were similar between male and female professors. A few students noted differences, but the examples they gave tended to be more in relation to differences in how the professors communicated (or explained) concepts. Findings from a separate, independent assessment with professors from information technology departments also offer insight into teaching practices and knowledge. In April 2015, Activity subcontractor Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW) conducted a needs assessment of ICT sector faculty. CSW consultants completed nearly 40 classroom observations, and they observed and/or interviewed 27 professors (12 female USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

professors and 15 male professors) from six HEI members of the ICT cluster. CSW assessed a number of areas related to teaching practices and knowledge including implementation of active learning, subject area expertise, and use of technology in the classroom, among other areas. The findings showed that student-centered instruction is not practiced nor understood, and many professors teach their courses through instructor-centered methods such as lecturing. CSW did not find any observable initial differences in teaching styles and methods by the sex of the instructor. Rather, both male and female professors appear to have been trained in similar teaching techniques (i.e, instructor-centered approach). Notably, 5 percent of the observed professors had mastered active learning, 37 percent were emerging in this area, and 53 percent were underdeveloped. Many professors indicated they are interested in learning more about student-centered approaches and changing their teaching methods to adopt new ways of educating students. In fact, 85 percent of interviewees had a high interest in learning about student-centered pedagogy. Finally, the Gender Analysis findings seem to suggest that there could be sex-based differences in student learning preferences. In the faculty focus groups, when professors were asked about the learning styles of their students, some male and female professors noted a distinction in learning styles based on sex. For example, a number of professors felt female students, more so than males, would more frequently seek clarification when they had a doubt or question. The professors did not make any distinctions about learning materials and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to relate to topics and material presented, although participants did confirm that illustrations in the curriculum could benefit from having more pictures of women practitioners and learners.

F. Opportunities for women in STEM Despite the social and cultural barriers that were raised, the focus groups revealed that a new generation of youth and gender-sensitized adults can provide opportunities to break gender stereotypes, such as the machismo culture, in STEM undergraduate programs and occupations. Students and teachers interviewed, regardless of sex, believed that males and females have the same potential and capacity to succeed in STEM careers. Some male students spoke about the significant capacity of women in STEM, but noted, in the all-male student participant group, that women had to excel (be the best) in STEM to succeed, whereas men were not held to the same high standards of success. Furthermore, both male and female students in the focus groups had ambitions to pursue a career in STEM, hold senior management positions, and were overall very confident about their job prospects. Men, slightly more than women, articulated ambitions to start their own business whereas women tended to speak more on securing a stable job. Women may decline to study STEM fields because of a perception of low job prospects for their gender. Women have seen that some employers prefer men (i.e., job advertisement that directly ask for men). They are also told that STEM jobs may require traveling far distances and/or relocating, which can be a security issue. One professor noted that male students tend to have more opportunities, with the example given that they are more visible in class presentations, events and conferences.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Participants in the women-only focus group of professors all agreed with the statement that women teachers in STEM do not have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. Although there may be good representation of women in teaching positions, the focus groups revealed this is not the case in certain STEM subjects, especially engineering. Leadership is still not representative, although some examples of women in senior positions were given (e. g. , Dean of Engineering and Vice Rector of Science and Technology). One male teacher spoke about â&#x20AC;&#x153;circles of powerâ&#x20AC;? which limit womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to move into senior positions in academia. Opportunities to become a professor in STEM may prove to be even more difficult for women than men because they do not have many role models. One male professor advised that women may feel intimidated to join a faculty where there are very few women, thereby, limiting their career opportunities. Focus group feedback also revealed that, in general, female and male professors collaborated and the work environment was supportive of women. However, female professors did admit that they had to prove themselves to their peers. One female professor spoke about being continually tested by her peers when she joined the technology department five years ago as the only female teacher. The professor focus groups were also asked about whether professors participated in professional academic and teaching associations. A minority of respondents said they were engaged in such an association and one woman was surprised by the question, because she said there are very few associations to join in El Salvador.

G. Professional development needs for teachers All teachers spoke about the need for a mix of professional development and training, including in technical subjects and pedagogical techniques. Information Technology (IT) came up frequently as an area where professors, both males and females, believed they needed more support to modernize their classroom, engage students, and keep up with technological advancements. One female professor spoke about the need for training on tools and strategies to create/update curriculum and to learn best practices from other countries. A female civil engineer professor spoke about the need for joint research opportunities with the U.S., which she believed would be a win-win proposition for both El Salvadoran and U.S. professors. One female professor suggested that virtual learning might provide women with more professional development opportunities given their (typical) lack of mobility.

H. Gender in higher education institutions policy and plans The Gender Analysis assessed the sex composition of HEI leadership for all 40 HEIs in Salvadoran higher education sector, and found that 10 out of 40 HEIs, or 25 percent, have a female Rector (President). Of the four institutions interviewed, two women are in senior STEM-related leadership positions, the Dean of Engineering at UFG and the Vice Rector of Science and Technology at UDB. UDB was also said to have a progressive Vice Rector who equally valued the participation of men and women as professors and students. In this case, having university leadership support women in management positions and as professors made a difference in the culture and work environment and how women were valued at the university. A Vice Rector of Science USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

and Technology spoke about the challenges women face in progressing to management and leadership positions and engaging in research projects. One of the responses cited that women are not well received when they get promoted to leadership positions. From the eight HEIs interviewed/surveyed, only one institution, UTEC, reported having a formal gender strategy or policy in place. UTEC also reported that they had in place a chair who oversaw gender. All eight HEIs spoke about the need of an inclusive gender policy for both professors and students, with one HEI citing that a formal policy would greatly facilitate promoting gender systematically. One HEI had provided internal training to professors and university staff on gender awareness, and for the first time had selected a female Dean of Engineering. Additionally, some university leaders raised the issue of female student dropouts and the need to provided targeted support for women who face more resistance and difficulty than their male counterparts in male dominated STEM majors.

I. Gender dynamics in the Activity target sectors The industry associations do not appear to have a formal policy or systematic approach to gender integration. For instance, they do not currently collect basic data from their business members on the number of women employed and in what positions. However, all participants of the focus group were eager to discuss gender dynamics, were open to opportunities to discuss gender as part of the industry cluster dialogues, and agreed with the importance of gender integration as a topic for their association and for the Salvadoran overall economy. In speaking with a CASATIC member, the IT workforce is made up of about 30 percent women. The perception is that there is not a gender bias against women in IT and as such it is a sector where there can be many opportunities for women. The association is currently led by a woman and her experience is showcased as a model for aspiring young girls who are looking to join the sector. As an association, CASATIC does not have an explicit gender policy or gender programs. However, several of its members are supporting different initiatives to get more women engaged in the IT workforce. One company initiated a training program for high school and university female students with the commitment to hire them afterward. The program had an applicant pool of 700 people for 30 slots, demonstrating significant interest and demand. Other initiatives include scholarships for women in IT and â&#x20AC;&#x153;hackathonsâ&#x20AC;?7 that celebrate womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s engagement in computer sciences. In meeting with ASI, the leading industrial sector association, the representatives indicated they do not currently have a specific plan to promote gender balance and that gender is not a particular part of the industrial policy. However, ASI promotes gender through a nondiscrimination policy. ASI encourages its more than 380 member companies, which employ more than 400,000 workers (175,000 direct and 234,000 indirect jobs), to implement the nondiscrimination policy to prevent sexual harassment and violence against women. The policy is also promoted through workshops for member organization to support human resources managers in the implementation of policies.

7 A hackathon is an event in which computer programmers and others involved in software development and hardware development, including graphic designers, interface designers and project managers, collaborate intensively on software projects in competition with other teams. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Industry awareness of the need to have more women in leadership positions is gradually growing. ASI shared its perception that women represent a significant portion of supervisory jobs and approximately 40 percent of manager positions in Salvadoran industry, although specific sex-disaggregated occupational data for Salvadoran industry does not exist. A female executive of ASIPLASTIC (Asociación Salvadoreña de la Industria del Plástico) also expressed that women are well-represented in the plastic industry, and there is a perception that “women are more responsible.” Women currently make up 25-30 percent of workforce in the plastic production area. ASIPLASTIC created Fundación para el Desarrollo Integral de los Trabajadores de la Industria del Plástico (FUNDEPLAST) for training talent in the plastics industry, both male and female, to obtain certification on sector-specific processes. In discussions with AMCHAM, which is led by a female executive, there was a perception that women do not progress beyond middle management because of a lack of confidence and career ambition. The issue of “not in education, employment, or training”8 appears to affect women more who study, but then remove themselves from the workforce. AMCHAM does not collect sex-disaggregated data from its 300 plus members, but has been considering including a question about women in the workforce in its Corporate Social Responsibility survey.

J. Violence and security Focus groups were asked about the campus environment, especially for women. Generally speaking, most students and professors felt the environment was safe for women and students in general and that their university had done a good job providing a safe and respectful environment for students. There were a few female students who spoke about security concerns, specifically in regards to transportation to and from university. One woman even spoke about a situation where a young woman had been kidnapped. Female students also spoke openly about the fear of violence in general. One professor commented that female students face a “passive violence” in school.

K. Social inclusion: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) population and People with Disabilities When LGBT people are denied full participation in society because of their identities, their human rights are violated, and those violations of human rights are likely to have a harmful effect on a country’s level of economic development (World Bank, 2013). In the 2014, USAID co-sponsored the study, The Relationship between LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies, which reported El Salvador has one of the lowest and least progressive score on Global Index on Legal Recognition of Homosexual Orientation (GILRHO) revealing the legally discriminatory environment in which students may be living, and eventually working (Badgett, Nezhad, Waaldijk, & van der Meulen Rodgers, 2014). LGBTQI students face some level of discrimination in HEIs by teachers and other students, which may hamper their learning and may trigger some students to drop out, in turn reducing 8 A Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) is a young person who is not in education, employment, or training. The acronym NEET was first used in the United Kingdom but its use has spread to other countries including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

their skills and knowledge related to the workplace (World Bank, 2013). The RTI team took the opportunity during the focus groups with students and teachers, as well as interviews with university administrators, to ask about inclusion of students in the LGBTQI community. Overall, the responses indicated that universities espouse to be inclusive environments for students of all backgrounds, including transgendered students. However, some students reported harassment of LGBTQI students by campus security guards and other students. Several students and professors did note that Salvadoran society’s perception of men who choose careers in traditionally “female jobs”, such as nursing or hairdressing, are labeled as homosexual. In interviews and focus groups, several university staff and professors acknowledged there are open members of the LGBTQI community working on campus. While the LGBTQI community is present for both students and staff, there was only one university with an anti-discrimination policy for sexual orientation. The RTI team took the opportunity during the focus groups with students and teachers, as well as interviews with university administrators, to ask about inclusion of students with disabilities. Some universities have provided easy access to facilities, such as ramps to buildings and modified toilets. Access to second floor classes did get raised as a challenge, but school officials indicated that in the case where a student was unable to access the class due to a disability, they would move the class to the first floor.

VI. Recommendations Women’s participation in STEM education and jobs should be approached as a gender issue and equally important, as a way of promoting scientific and technological excellence. Based on the findings of this Gender Analysis, the following recommendations are offered for USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth, to address gender integration for the overall Activity and specifically, across the three components. In order to obtain the desired impact from these recommendations, they should be gradually implemented throughout the life of the Activity, whereby specific gender initiatives are identified to be undertaken in each yearly Activity work plan. Given the previously mentioned cultural perceptions on women in STEM, collaboration between private sector and HEIs is critical to effectively implement the Activity´s gender approach. In this context, the industry-academy cluster model becomes highly important element to channel the Activity´s cross-cutting gender approach.

General Recommendations:

1. Explore low-cost ways to raise awareness among high school girls about STEM degrees and careers, thereby increasing the pipeline of girls enrolling in STEM-related undergraduate degree programs. Given the Activity’s ability to address long-term gender equity at the university level, especially for STEM-related fields, the Activity should start career awareness efforts earlier in the student pipeline. Students who decide to pursue science or technology degrees make their decisions in high school. Therefore, establishing linkages with secondary schools and reaching students in high school, as well as, their teachers and parents is critical to change attitudes and behaviors. USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

The findings from this Gender Analysis should guide the creation of gender-tailored messages within the Activityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social media communication campaign in order to encourage more young women to pursue education and careers in STEM and other high growth fields of study. In addition, the Activity should encourage private sector ally organizations and companies to undertake complementary promotion initiatives to achieve the common goal of motivating young women to study STEM careers, including the promotion of existing job opportunities for women in specific fields. The Activity should also promote participating cluster HEIs to undertake other low-cost measures. HEIs should be encouraged to promote women enrollment in STEM careers through their own specific campaigns in high school centers. In coordination with existing USAID projects and MINED training/workshops for teachers and parents, HEIs can also promote their own STEM careers where messages produced by the Activity could be incorporated. Based on the findings from the focus group, the Activity should promote participating cluster HEIs to coordinate with existing career awareness high school programs to provide more detailed information to all students, girls and boys, about the nature of courses and course work and career prospects for different STEM-related undergraduate programs. The Career Development Centers (CDC) to be created at Cluster Anchor HEIs should include a gender focus beginning in the start-up phase in order to stimulate confidence in female students to ask for orientation. In further steps the CDC should offer female STEM student support such as coaching and mentoring to prevent them from dropping out or switching majors. The mentoring program for specifically targeting girls who would be paired up with successful women from industry might be supported by other organizations such as Vital Voices, which has a strong mentorship module and curriculum. Further, the Activityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scholarship program should contribute to increasing women enrollment in STEM careers and other high growth fields of study. HEIs will be encouraged to set gender targets for scholarships to increase more women in STEM fields. This effort could also be accompanied by participating cluster private sector companies offering additional scholarships and promoting job opportunities for women. 2. Leverage women in leadership positions in both HEIs and industry to raise the profile of females in STEM and higher education. Representation of women in HEI leadership and teaching positions is increasing. The Activity found that from the 11 participating HEIs in the four clusters, seven have women in Rector and Vice Rector positions. However, women leadership in STEM subjects especially engineering needs to be further promoted. Three women in unique leadership positions: a Vice Rector of Science and Technology, a Dean of Engineering, and a President of a private sector association were interviewed. These women, and others, should be engaged to champion the issue of gender integration in STEM education and careers. The Activity should consider, with the help of Voces Vitales, the creation of an informal (or formal) network of professional women in STEM to support women in leadership positions and to provide role models for aspiring women.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

3. The Activity should encourage industry partners (CASATIC, ASER, ASI and CAMAGRO) to start collecting sex-disaggregated data on their members´ employees, preferably broken down by type of position. At the present, industry partners do not have any formal policy or approach to gender; therefore, they only collect the total number of employees of their company members. However, information on men and women employed in diverse positions of an industry is essential to promoting more women in management and leadership positions in STEM related fields. Besides sensitizing industry leaders on the gender approach, the Activity should encourage private sector partners to request their members to begin provide them with employment data, disaggregated by sex and classified by type of position. 4. The Activity should initiate a dialogue with industry partners to recommend gender integration in job announcements and promotions made by their business members. The objective is to avoid inadvertently discouraging or restricting women applicants, and instead, explicitly encouraging women applicants when applicable. The Activity should recommend industry partners to build awareness among business members to prevent discrimination of women in job opportunities, position announcements, and recruitment and promotion processes 5. Provide technical assistance to the leadership of HEIs about the relevance of crosscutting gender integration strategies, and the importance of promoting access to females for STEM careers in academia and industry. It is critical that HEIs promote and facilitate women access to STEM careers and other academic programs, and also, ensure a gender integration environment on their campuses. In this context, the HEIs’ leadership and faculty need to be sensitized on gender equality as a way to promote scientific and technological excellence rather than just improving opportunities for women. The Activity’s should provide training to anchor and associated HEI senior leadership on ways they can formally integrate gender integration within existing school strategies and policies. The Activity should explore suitable ways (as part of the HICD initiative, dialogue rounds, workshops, seminars, etc.) for its implementation.

Component Specific Recommendations:

Component 1: Qualified Human Capital Improved i. Set internal Activity targets and implement specific strategies for women’s participation in Component 1 faculty trainings. The overall target during the life of the activity is 1,000 teachers trained (the revised M&E plan has set a target of 30%). As a baseline, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce’s pilot faculty 21st Century Pedagogy training in June 2015 with 70 professors included 27 percent women. While equal participation should be sought as much as possible, it is important to note that reaching 50 percent targets may prove to be difficult given that women make up only 37 percent of all professors and much less for STEM fields. In terms of strategies, the team offers the following: build awareness among HEIs authorities for USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

including more female faculty for Project training opportunities; request HEIs promote women participation in training opportunities; and promote trained female professors to replicate acquired knowledge to other HEI male and female faculty and HEIs female students. ii.

Ensure that participatory teaching approaches and the inclusion of real-world applications is a key focus of professor training.

Component 2: Relevance and Quality of Curriculum and Research Improved iii. Promote greater representation from female members for the Industry Advisory Boards (IAB). Currently, the IT IAB has three women out of a total of 12 members. iv.

Encourage greater participation from female faculty members in curriculum development activities, for example, participation in workshops for upgrading/developing new curriculum. In this area especially, and because of low female participation in the Activity’s first two workshops, extra steps need to be taken, for example, encouraging HEIs to include women professors in workshops/training involving curriculum design.

Make gender-focused strategies a key objective of the career centers in order to advise and empower female students to pursue traditionally male dominated fields. For example, these career centers should offer female STEM students support (coaching and mentoring) to prevent them from dropping out or switching majors. Female students dropping out or switching majors was raised a number of times in the focus groups as a concern, or even, an accepted occurrence. Additionally, career tests were raised by focus group participants as a good way for both males and females to understand where they excel and what they have an aptitude for. These tests could be especially empowering for girls who are currently studying sciences and may be disregarding majoring in, for example, mechanical engineering, even though they have a strong aptitude for the discipline. Finally, career centers could look to set up a female mentorship program, specifically targeting young women, where participants would be paired up with successful women from their industry. The need for more women role models for younger women featured prominently in all the focus group discussions. Voces Vitales has a strong mentorship module and curriculum and could be a good partner to potentially engage in this effort.

vi.

vii.

Encourage universities to track sex-disaggregated data for internships and job placement.

viii.

Include gender as a criteria in selecting scholarship recipients (1,000 student target) for stimulating women’s participation in those fields where women are underrepresented (e. g. technology, especially the engineering fields). Create alliances with pipeline programs that target young women (e. g. , Don Bosco’s “Science Camp for Girls”) for a ready pool of female high school students that can benefit from scholarships.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

ix.

Target the participation of female faculty members to be engaged in applied research projects to be supported by the Activity. Encourage women professors to take on leadership of research projects.

Component 3: System Effectiveness and Institutional Capacity Heightened x. Continue to engage women’s participation in the policy dialogues. In the first dialogues, women made up about 30 percent of the participants. Encourage “women in leadership” as an area for discussion when seeking to improve the institutional leadership capacity and practices of HEIs. Consider partnering with Voces Vitales in this policy dialogue. xi.

Look at whether “encouraging more women in science and technology” needs to be raised as a policy topic or dialogue.

xii.

Offer to look at gender policy for HEIs interested in this area as an offering in Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) assessments (the HICD assessments are demand driven)

VII. Conclusion Enrollment trends have not shown any significant advancement over the past five years and, in some cases, have revealed declines in women’s participation in undergraduate degree programs. Given the cultural and other barriers which affect women, targeted and proactive measures are necessary, to increase female participation in STEM education, support more female professors in STEM, and move women into leadership positions in both STEM academic administration and the workforce. As part of a new generation of inclusive, gender-aware development projects, the Higher Education and Economic Growth has an opportunity (and responsibility) to ensure women’s full participation in the implementation of the Activity. Fully integrating gender into the Activity’s three components will help meet important gender equity goals. Moreover, fully engaging women in the process will significantly enhance the Activity’s overall outcome to improve higher education’s contributions to meet targeted sector needs and contribute to the long-term economic growth in El Salvador. Two future research areas are suggested for the Activity and USAID: 1. Data collection and analysis of women in STEM-related occupations. Given the high rates of women studying sciences, it would be particularly valuable to understand their career trajectory. 2. Analysis of whether women drop out of STEM-related degree programs at a higher rate than men at university

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

References Badgett, L.M.V., Nezhad, S., Waaldijk, K., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2014, November). The relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: An analysis of emerging economies. Washington, DC: US Agency for International Development. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/lgbt-inclusion-and-developmentnovember-2014.pdf Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011, August). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf Castillo, R., Grazzi, M., & Tacsir, E. (2014, February). Women in science and technology: What does the literature say? Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/6047/CTI%20TN%20Women %20in%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf?sequence=1 Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., Bekhouche, Y., & Zahidi, S. (2014). The global gender gap report 2014. Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR14/GGGR_CompleteReport_2014.pdf Instituto Salvadoreño para el Desarrollo de la Mujer. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.mtps.gob.sv/images/stories/Boletines/boletin-estadistico-primer-semestre2015.pdfhttp://www.isdemu.gob.sv/ Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G.M. (2012). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center and Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/timssandpirls/timss2011/downloads/T 11_IR_Science_FullBook.pdf The Salvadoran Ministry of Education’s (MINED). (2014, November). Resultados de La Información Estadadística de Instituciones de Educación Superior 2013. San Salvador: El Salvador: MINED. Retrieved from https://www.mined.gob.sv/jdownloads/Informacion %20Estadistica%20de%20Educacion %20Superior/resultados_de_la_informacin_de_ies_2013.pdf UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012, December). Women in science [Fact sheet, No.23]. Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/FactSheets/Documents/sti-women-in-science-en.pdf USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

World Bank. (2015). 2.11 World development indicators: Participation in education [Data file]. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.11 World Bank. (2013). Inclusion matters: The foundation for shared prosperityâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;overview. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/10/10/00033303 7_20131010180516/Rendered/PDF/817480WP0Inclu0Box0379844B00PUBLIC0.pdf

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex A.

Sex-disaggregated Student Data

Table 3. 2013 New Student Enrollment by Major9 New Student Enrollment in Technology and Engineering, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

5265

1392

6657

21%

Civil Engineering

403

125

528

24%

Electrical Engineering

271

283

Computer Engineering

178

236

25%

Systems Engineering

783

153

936

16%

Industrial Engineering

731

270

1001

27%

Mechanical Engineering

204

222

Computer BA

271

104

305

34%

Computer Technician

423

137

560

24%

Systems Technician

582

256

838

31%

Automotive Technician

334

337

Electrical Technician

273

283

New Student Enrollment in Science, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

427

559

986

57%

chemical engineering

138

39%

math

111

50%

chemistry

171

272

443

61%

physics

56%

9 Data for this category and subsequent categories is only included for those majors where there was a sufficient number of students (over 200).

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

New Student Enrollment in Science, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

biology

100

163

61%

statistics

58%

New Student Enrollment in Agriculture and Environment, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

397

259

656

39%

Masters in Environment and Natural Resources

30%

Agro ecological Engineering

28%

Agro industrial Engineering

34%

Agronomy Engineering

192

130

322

40%

Agronomy Technician

19%

New Student Enrollment in Health, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

1536

3822

5358

71%

Doctorate in Medicine

382

539

921

59%

Nursing License/Degree

109

466

575

81%

Nursing Technician

137

741

878

84%

New Student Enrollment in Other STEM-related Majors, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

Logistics Engineering

35%

Graphic Design

160

129

289

45%

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Table 4. Total Enrollment of Students by Major Total Enrollment Students in Technology and Engineering, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

27003

7837

34840

22%

Civil Engineering

2258

672

2930

23%

Electrical Engineering

1672

1764

Computer Engineering

1763

442

2205

20%

Systems Engineering

5387

1471

6858

21%

Industrial Engineering

4578

1842

6420

29%

Mechanical Engineering

866

924

Computer BA

2167

996

3163

31%

Computer Technician

1610

508

2118

24%

Systems Technician

1553

656

2209

30%

Automotive Technician

771

778

Electrical Technician

726

749

Total Enrollment Student in Science, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

1450

1759

3209

55%

Chemical engineering

353

299

652

46%

Math

205

168

373

45%

Chemistry

490

871

1361

64%

Physics

33%

Biology

213

267

480

56%

Statistics

178

49%

Total Enrollment Student in Agriculture and Environment, 2013 MALE

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

Total Enrollment Student in Agriculture and Environment, 2013 TOTAL

2103

999

3102

32%

Masters in Environment and Natural Resources

107

35%

Agro ecological Engineering

123

26%

Agro industrial Engineering

204

300

32%

Agronomy Engineering

984

334

1318

25%

Agronomy Technician

275

332

17%

Total Enrollment Student in Health, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

9375

23682

33057

72%

Doctorate in Medicine

3610

4969

8579

58%

Nursing License/Degree

585

3387

3972

85%

Nursing Technician

547

3035

3582

85%

Total Enrollment Students in Other STEM-related Majors, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

Logistics Engineering

170

140

310

45%

Graphic Design

921

880

1801

49%

Table 5. Graduates by Major Graduates in Technology and Engineering, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

3677

1334

5011

27%

Civil Engineering

171

239

28%

Electrical Engineering

112

116

Computer Engineering

151

196

23%

Systems Engineering

356

192

548

35%

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Graduates in Technology and Engineering, 2013 Industrial Engineering

343

158

501

32%

Mechanical Engineering

Computer BA

272

179

451

40%

Computer Technician

501

209

710

29%

Systems Technician

562

256

818

31%

Automotive Technician

238

241

Electrical Technician

118

126

MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

141

239

59%

Chemical engineering

54%

Math

43%

Chemistry

123

65%

Physics

75%

Biology

63%

statistics

41%

Graduates in Science, 2013

Graduates in Agriculture and Environment, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

266

353

25%

Masters in Environment and Natural Resources

17%

Agro ecological Engineering

17%

Agro industrial Engineering

57%

Agronomy Engineering

103

27%

Agronomy Technician

102

116

12%

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Graduates in Health, 2013

MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

TOTAL

887

3139

4026

78%

Doctorate in Medicine

211

249

460

54%

Nursing License/Degree

352

385

91%

Nursing Technician

195

1206

1401

86%

Graduates in other STEM-related Majors, 2013 MALE

FEMALE

TOTAL

% FEMALE

Logistics Engineering

38%

Graphic Design

108

65%

Table 6. Five-Year Enrollment Trends for Female Students (2009-2013) by Major 2009 Technology and Engineering

2010

2011

2012

2013

TOTAL

8384

26%

8107

25%

8067

24%

8032

23%

7837

22%

Civil Engineering

545

23%

568

22%

565

22%

603

22%

672

23%

Electrical Engineering

Computer Engineering

917

23%

847

22%

834

21%

820

20%

442

20%

Systems Engineering

1264

30%

1234

28%

1253

27%

1204

25%

1471

21%

Industrial Engineering

1551

30%

1596

30%

1626

29%

1742

29%

1842

29%

Computer BA

1352

38%

1329

37%

1251

36%

1162

34%

996

31%

Computer Technician

1069

32%

834

30%

777

28%

620

25%

508

24%

Systems Technician

305

38%

244

34%

213

32%

198

32%

164

32%

Automotive Technician

Electrical Technician

Mechanical Engineering

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

2009 Sciences

2010

2011

2012

2013

TOTAL

1523

58%

1525

56%

1535

54%

1690

55%

1759

55%

chemical engineering

239

45%

246

45%

259

46%

293

48%

Math

104

44%

120

44%

143

41%

166

45%

168

45%

chemistry

815

67%

824

67%

741

66%

817

64%

871

64%

Physics

30%

26%

34%

32%

33%

Biology

257

59%

233

57%

247

54%

267

55%

267

56%

statistics

56%

58%

49%

50%

49%

2009 Agriculture and Environment

2010

2011

2012

2013

659

34%

777

34%

825

32%

896

32%

999

32%

Masters in Environment and Natural Resources

41%

36%

38%

37%

35%

Agro ecological Engineering

19%

24%

30%

26%

Agro industrial Engineering

26%

33%

37%

34%

32%

Agronomy Engineering

235

29%

292

30%

275

27%

314

27%

334

25%

Agronomy Technician

20%

16%

14%

16%

17%

TOTAL

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Health

TOTAL

17388

73%

18526

73%

20218

72%

21849

72%

23682

72%

Doctorate in Medicine

4104

59%

4220

58%

4365

58%

4701

57%

4969

58%

Nursing License/Degree

2287

88%

2388

88%

2632

87%

2967

87%

3387

85%

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

2009 Nursing Technician

2646

2010

88%

2819

2009

87%

2011 2838

2010

2012

86%

3015

2011

85%

2013 3035

2012

85%

2013

Other STEM-related majors

Logistics Engineering

37%

101

44%

140

45%

427

54%

473

56%

630

53%

766

50%

880

49%

Graphic Design

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex B.

List of Consulted Organizations

Table 7. Consulted Organizations Organization Type

Organization Name

Donor

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), El Salvador Mission

NGO

Voces Vitales El Salvador La Asociación Salvadoreña de Industriales (ASI) The American Chamber of Commerce in El Salvador (AMCHAM)

Private Sector Cámara Salvadoreña de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicaciones (CASATIC) Note that this meeting took place with a CASATIC Member and IT Cluster Manager, in lieu of the Director, due to illness. Universidad Francisco Gavidia (UFG) Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas (UCA) Universidad Don Bosco El Salvador (UDB) Universidad Católica de El Salvador (UNICAES) University Universidad Tecnológica (UTEC) (via questionaire) Universidad de Oriente (UNIVO) (via questionaire) Universidad Gerardo Barrios (UGB) (via questionaire) Universidad Dr. José Matías Delgado (UJMD) (via questionnaire) Experts

Josefa Viegas Professor of History, University of El Salvador

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex C.

University Focus Group List

Focus groups with students and professors were conducted with participants from the following universities (note that the University of El Salvador was also invited to participate in the focus groups but were not able to send participants): Table 8. Focus Group Participation (by University) University 1

Universidad Don Bosco

Inst. Escuela Especializada en Ingeniería ITCA-Fepade

Universidad Francisco Gavidia (UFG)

Universidad Capitán General Gerardo Barrios (UGB)

Universidad Dr. José Matías Delgado (UJMD)

Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas (UCA)

Universidad Tecnológica (UTEC)

Universidad Católica de El Salvador (UNICAES)

Universidad de Oriente (UNIVO)

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex D.

HEI Students (STEM majors)

HEI Professors (STEM majors)

Focus Group and Interview Questions 1. 2.

Why did you choose to study the subject you did? What were ways in which you were encouraged (or discouraged) to learn STEM (think most recently in high school)? 3. Who encouraged you to take these subjects? Teachers? Parents? Guidance counselors? Older Sibling? Peers? 4. How are you currently supported (or not supported) in your career choice? 5. What about the courses and teaching style do you like? What would you change? 6. Globally, boys participate in STEM courses/degrees at a much higher rate than girls. Why do you think this is also the case in El Salvador? 7. What do you think can be done to encourage more girls to enroll in STEM subjects at university? 8. What type of job are you hoping to secure when you finish your degree? 9. [GIRLS ONLY GROUP] Some research shows that girls learn differently than boys. What is your reaction to this statement? (for example, girls learn better when there is an emphasis on collaboration and hands on learning) General (non-STEM) related questions: 1. What do you think about the campus environment, especially for female students? 2. Does your university provide an environment that is supportive for all students, regardless of gender, sexual identity and/or disabilities?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

What were the main reasons you decided to become a teacher in a STEM subject? Who encouraged (or discouraged) you to pursue this career path? How do you approach teaching? Or how would you characterize your teaching style? What would you propose could be done to encourage more women professors in STEM and women in leadership/management? Do you feel male and female teachers approach their lesson plans/teaching differently? How so? Consider participatory teaching styles. What is your perception about the relations (communication, collaboration, etc) between male and female professors in STEM? What types (format and content) of professional development are you most interested in receiving? (mentoring, shadowing, on the job training, training workshop) (pedagogy, leadership, technical)

Student-Related Questions 8. Do you think the current curriculum you are teaching is relatable to girls? For example, math and science problems, do they relate to circumstances and experiences of girls (and not just boys). Does the science text show girls as often as boys doing experiments? 8. Do you notice different learning styles between your male and female students? 8. Do you notice different levels of participation between your male and female students?

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

HEI Administrators

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Industry Associations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Does your school have a gender policy or plan? How do you approach gender issues? Does your school collect sex-disaggregated data on students and teachers? If yes, does the data inform policies/procedures to encourage better gender balance, especially in STEM subjects? [COLLECT HARD/SOFT COPY OF STUDENT AND TEACHER DATA] What does the data say (or in case that they don’t have data, what is your opinion) about the gender composition of students and teachers in your school? STEM specifically? Why do you think men participate more in STEM subjects, both as students and teachers? What in your opinion can be done to encourage more women professors and female students in STEM subjects? Have you done any studies/surveys that provides insights on the different teaching styles of male and female professors? What is your perception of the relations between male and female professors in STEM subjects? How does your school approach inclusivity, including underrepresented or marginalized groups (for example disabled or LGBTI)? Do you have a gender policy or approach to gender issues in your sector? In what ways are your members aware of or addressing gender issues, concerns? Do you have data about the gender composition of your member’s employees, including job positions (e. g. women engineers, women in management, etc) What is your perception about why women do not participate at a higher rate in your industry? What jobs are in most demand in your sector, and where women’s participation can be better promoted? What can be done to encourage more women to participate in the workforce in your sector?

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Annex E.

Scope of Work for Gender Analysis Gender Analysis, El Salvador SOW for RTI STTA (June-August 2015)

Background RTI’s Higher Education for Economic Growth in El Salvador is the new generation of inclusive, gender-aware development activities, promoted by USAID’s gender strategy and our own commitment to gender equity across our technical practice areas. Gender has been clearly identified as a cross-cutting issue in the contract. In order to ensure women’s full participation in the proposed activities, RTI will conduct a gender analysis to identify the critical strategic challenges and practical obstacles that RTI and its partners need to address in the Activity. In doing so, we seek to understand the different roles and relations of women in higher education and the various barriers men and women face in seeking, receiving, or participating in higher education services. The analysis will also include an assessment, to the extent possible, of gender equity in the priority industries identified by the Activity (ICT, manufacturing, energy, logistics and agro-food processing). The analysis will serve as a planning tool and be the basis for integrating gender concerns throughout the Activity and fostering the equitable participation of both male and female academic staff, faculty, and students. Some key questions and issues that the gender analysis will address are as follows: 

Analysis of faculty and administrative gender composition in the Activity universities (this includes aggregate level data available from the MOE of the 40 HEIs in El Salvador as well as more detailed data from the five HEI anchor institutions as available)



Gender stereotyping and tracking of males and females into traditionally acceptable higher education programs (e. g. STEM subjects)



Access to job opportunities for men and women in priority sectors



How teaching strategies in the classroom impact gender inequity (e. g. differences in how female faculty teach vs. male faculty and how female students learn differently from men)



Awareness of gender equity at HEIs (Deans and department chairs) and within the private sector



Assessment of workplan and M&E indicators (including application rates for entrants, scholarship recipients, industry employment and placement, gender composition of industry-related major choices in universities); and recommendations to ensure gender equity is being integrated appropriately in both.

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

Tasks 

Data and information for this assessment will largely be sourced from MOE, existing reports and focus groups and interviews with key informants such as Activity staff, Deans, department chairs, industry professionals (and professors and students as feasible). Methodology and questionnaires will be developed to conduct focus groups and structured interviews.



Conduct data review on the status of women in higher education and high growth industries in El Salvador and on the analysis of the relationships between men and women in El Salvador. The data review and literature review can include reports, assessments, and studies from the following illustrative sources: the government of El Salvador, universities, World Bank, United Nations, USAID, World Economic Forum, International Labor Organization, Vital Voices El Salvador, and local nonprofits focused on gender integration in El Salvador.



Analyze the data and qualitative findings from existing reports and studies to present an analysis of status of women in higher education and high growth industries in El Salvador, as well as the relations between men and women in these sectors and their different experiences and challenges.



Identify individual Activity stakeholders and targeted beneficiary groups that can be contacted by HEA staff to conduct a qualitative analysis through focus groups and informant interviews with women and men to capture baseline data on the status of women and information on perceptions of the relationships and different experiences for men and women in academia and private sector in El Salvador.



Prepare a comprehensive report outlining research methodology, analysis, and findings from the data and literature review.



Provide recommendations to the Activity gender analysis team on the strategic gaps and practical obstacles that RTI’s HEA activities will need to address and recommended strategies to adopt in the implementation of the Activity.

Deliverables: 

Comprehensive gender analysis report due August 30, 2015 of estimated length of 15 pages, including appendices. Contents include literature review, data analysis and qualitative findings on status of women in higher education and the relations between men and women in this sector, and recommendations for a gender integration strategies for HEA.



Gender integration recommendations will be shared with key staff through a verbal presentation and power point document.

RTI STTA RTI proposes Ms. Ami Thakkar to conduct the gender analysis. Ms. Thakkar comes with 15 years of work experience with leading development institutions, including RTI, the World Bank, the International Youth Foundation and the US Department of Labor. Her expertise include youth development, skills and human capital development, workforce development, private sector engagement and gender. At the World Bank in Lao PDR (2010-2013), Ms. Thakkar USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015

served as the Technical Advisor to a women’s economic empowerment project, called STEPS. The project had two goals, one was to increase women’s participation in micro and small business start ups (through training and finance) and the second was to improve women’s job career support and job placement through the establishment of first of their kind career centers at the National University of Laos and Pakpasak Technical College. She engaged regularly with career center staff, professors, department Deans and university administration around both strategic and operational goals of the Activity. Ms. Thakkar also created a database of genderrelated impact evaluations in the Southeast Asia to promote learning, gender awareness and gender integration across the Bank’s work in the region. Ms. Thakkar will be supported by the HEA team devoted to the gender analysis work for HEA. Period of Duration and Estimated Effort: The assignment is anticipated to start in June-July 2015 with an approximate length of 30-35 working days, broken down by: 1. Questionnaire/study prep: 6-8 days 3. In-country meetings/interviews: 7-9 days 4. Analysis and report writing: 10-12 days 5. Workshop preparation: 3 days 6. Workshop delivery: 3 days

USAID Higher Education for Economic Growth Gender Analysis, July-August 2015