Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper investigates barriers to education access in rural Pakistan based on multi-stakeholder interviews, highlighting contextual socio-economic disparities and challenges to girls’ education. Applying the social exclusion lens, we examine various issues contributing to this heightened lack of education access. Thirty-four participants from multiple stakeholders (students, schools, government, community, and family) from three villages in the Thatta district in Pakistan were interviewed for 60 to 90 min each. Results reveal that several barriers to education, from economic issues such as the non-employment of families, low wages, lacking government support – to sociocultural concerns such as religious and tribal nuances and the gendered role of education, perpetuate a cycle of social exclusion through lack of access to education opportunities. This study found multi-dimensional barriers that have hindered educational opportunities for rural girls in Thatta. The interplay of economic and sociocultural issues forms a multifaceted challenge that hinders the sustainable development of rural girls and exhibits possible educational inequalities beyond the country context.

Keywords

social exclusion access Pakistan barriers girls Sindh

Introduction

Globally, girls’ access to education is a prominent concern for educational and social development. Nearly one billion individuals, primarily girls and women, lack adequate education (World Bank, 2023). Several obstacles, including socio-economic deprivation, insufficient educators, inadequate school infrastructure, and challenges in remote and conflict areas, among others, add to problems in access to education (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2022b).

In Pakistan, access to education also faces significant challenges, hindering progress toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG 2030) targets and where equality and parity in education remain distant aspirations (Government of Pakistan [GP], 2019). Recent data shows over 22.9 million out-of-school children in the country, with a higher proportion of females (62%). Net enrolment rates (ages 5–14) are lowest in rural areas, with the lowest at 17% in Thatta, Sindh (GP, 2018; USAID, 2014).

Pakistan is among the lowest-performing countries in education, with pronounced gender disparities, a situation that perpetuates the cycle of poverty, particularly for girls across provinces (Human Rights Watch [HRW], 2018). Close to 40% of the country’s population lives in poverty, with a monthly income of approximately 3,030 rupees (10.92 US Dollars) (UNESCO, 2019). According to the 2023 census, rural people accounted for 61% of the county’s overall population in 2023 (GP, 2023). Net enrolment in rural areas remains low, for instance, at 28.3% at the lower secondary level (females at 26.09%; males at 30.4%), and even lower for the upper secondary level at 25.2% (females at 22.48%; males at 27.71%). Additionally, approximately 25 million children aged 6 to 16, primarily girls, cannot attend school, making Pakistan the second-highest country globally with out-of-school children (Khan et al., 2021). The most marginalised girls are often found in poverty-stricken rural and remote areas (World Bank, 2023). In regions like the Thatta district in Sindh province, poverty rates are high, with an overall rate of 37% and a significant 75% in rural areas (Ghauri, 2016).

Numerous studies (Mumtaz et al., 2019; Purewal & Hashmi, 2015; United Nations Development Programme, 2018) also emphasise that structural constraints, governance issues, and lack of empowerment, among others, hinder a significant portion of Pakistan’s population from benefiting public services, and education. Power dynamics and cultural norms also influence girls’ lives and access to education. This is heightened by traditional Islamic and local cultural ideologies which shape the experiences of various groups, including ethnic and religious minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and girls’ education (Hasan et al., 2021). A lack of awareness about social, economic, and educational benefits also contributes to challenges in girls’ education, with fewer girls reaching higher levels than boys (Muneer, 2021). The view of parents of schooling as a discretionary choice, as influenced by economic challenges, religious conservatism and caste-based conflicts, among others, further limits girls’ access to education in the country, while entrenched traditions like seclusion (purdah) and prescribed gender roles add to girls’ limited autonomy (Purewal & Hashmi, 2015). Gendered perception of women also results in a lower investment in terms of educational resources, all rooted in negative biases against women’s alleged lower status in society (S. Shah & Shah, 2012). Gender inequality in education has been reported in studies often attributed to weak family support and inequity in education between urban and rural areas (Herskovic & Silva, 2024; Rind & Malin, 2021). Patriarchal structures may also restrict women’s access to education as contextualised in Pakistan (Sanauddin et al., 2016).

Despite massive migration to urban areas in the country, poverty remains a crucial issue in rural areas (S. Shah & Shah, 2012). The Thatta district of Sindh province, located in the southern part of Pakistan and the focus of this research, has been declared the most educationally disadvantaged among all 134 districts in the country by the most recent available government reports. It also has the lowest enrolment rate (for females) of 3% in secondary schools (Government of Sindh [GS], 2015). Available data on Thatta district indicate that the majority (84%) of the district’s population resides in rural areas, where the adult literacy rate stands at 36%. Girls who have ever attended school at any point are 23%, while the female literacy rate in rural areas is only 17% (GS, 2017, p. 20, USAID, 2014). Given this context, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding and investigation of educational access in rural settings, as well as the reasons for gender disparities in access.

Access to education for girls in Thatta district remains a challenge, and attrition remains high. For instance, out of 19,953 girls enrolled in primary schools in 2015 to 2016, only 581 remained at the secondary level (GS, 2015). There is also a significant difference in male (36%–38%) and female literacy rates (17%–23%), though female participation in economic activities is estimated at 39% to 50% (USAID, 2014).

Given such realities, this paper aims to answer the question:

What economic and sociocultural barriers exist regarding educational access for girls in rural Pakistan?

Barriers to education access in Sindh (Thatta) are interrogated based on 34 interviews, highlighting the contextual socio-economic disparities and challenges that make it the country’s most educationally deprived region. Applying the lens of social exclusion, we examine various issues in the district that may contribute to this heightened lack of access to education, with access defined here as the absence of education opportunities and the challenges in continuing studies, which may lead to higher attrition in the sector.

Studies in Pakistan have typically focused on the topics of primary or higher education issues from the perspectives of school drop-out, low literacy rates, and poor learning outcomes, among others. This study contributes to the literature by investigating the multidimensional social exclusion factors relating to rural girls’ access to education, particularly in the country’s most economically challenged region. This research also delves into the contextual factors inherent in education access by rural girls, which may be distinct from that experienced by the general population. This study will help inform policymakers and governments in Pakistan and other countries to make efficient and vigorous policies to understand and mitigate the access to education issues for marginalised groups in their respective countries.

Conceptualising Social Exclusion

Social exclusion has been widely used in educational policy discourses, where low educational attainment and access perpetuate and generate social exclusion in societies (Sparkes, 1999). The risk of social exclusion comes from a range of factors, from the lack of resources, denial of social rights, limited social and educational engagement, and lack of cultural assimilation. Social exclusion is often considered involuntary and caused by a lack of opportunities or resources (Farrington, 2002, p. 3). That such marginalisation is multidimensional, not only limited to material (economic) but also non-material (social) deprivation and generally to the the “denial or non-realisation of civil (…) social rights of citizenship” (Klasen, 2000, p. 2), which leads further to a disengagement process that impacts the well-being of communities and individuals (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2004).

Operationalising social exclusion may be contested by poverty issues leading to a lack of opportunities (Farrington, 2002) or the role of agency and choice (Barry, 1998). The multidimensional and dynamic features of social exclusion (Hyman et al., 2011) also lead to definitional and value-laden issues, for instance, through its broader link with poverty, where social exclusion stems from the lack of financial opportunities for mobility (Marsh & Mullins, 1998; Randolph et al., 2007). However, others propose a more dynamic take than the static relations of poverty and social exclusion (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007, pp. 13–14). Similarly, Silver (1994) highlights how social exclusion theories may “run the risk of being reductionist” where an oversimplification of theory into an excluded/included binary may further marginalise excluded people. The contentions of agency, the roles of political engagement and cultural acknowledgement, among others (Fraser, 2010), propose a more dynamic take to social exclusion beyond just the economic and material components. A study by Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman (2007) also pointed to two identifiers affecting social exclusion: the distributional dimension, which focuses on the economic aspects of disadvantage in income /consumption, and relational factors such as social norms, participation and engagement. Both issues are said to characterise social exclusion within their proposed model.

Education and Social Exclusion

In education research, social exclusion extends beyond poverty, encompassing many interconnected challenges, including unemployment, discrimination, limited skills, low incomes, and family fragmentation (Hills et al., 2002). Studies point to the importance of education that can mitigate broader social exclusion (Klasen, 2000; Sparkes, 1999) and where schools may act as agents and exacerbate the degree of social exclusion through lack of access. Klasen (2000) points to a need for equal participation in education, which otherwise means an “exclusionary [education], and under such circumstances, the government policies instrumentally promote or fail to stem social exclusion” (p. 9). The disempowerment of individual and structural barriers at the societal level highlights the issues of social exclusion as both a process and a state (Poggi, 2004), with Whitty (2001) further investigating such a two-way process within schools.

A UNESCO report (2012) also emphasises the reciprocal relationship between social exclusion and education and highlights how societal inequity and exclusion contribute to educational injustices. The report expands the definition of exclusion beyond mere “out-of-school” situations to encompass various forms of deprivation. How social exclusion intersects with concerns about learning processes, quality, school, teachers, and textbook availability emphasises the importance of social exclusion in amplifying the voices of those excluded from educational discourse (Obiero, 2012), and where such school exclusion factors contribute to greater social marginalisation in young people (Kane, 2007). The role of emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic also shows how limited access to technology has raised issues of unequal participation of students, the rise in exclusion and dropping out from schools (Tsolou et al., 2021). Relatedly, the lack of adequate facilities is documented in Pakistan, where insufficient road structures exacerbate school attendance and social exclusion factors, and in the Philippines, where the lack of school infrastructure, personnel and violence lead to the exclusion of students from schools and greater marginalisation overall (Symaco & Brock, 2016).

Barriers to Education

Adapting the multidimensional feature of social exclusion (Klasen, 2000), we look at two broad barriers to education in line with distributional (i.e. economic) and relational (i.e. sociocultural) concepts (see Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007), further discussing how such manifestations affect education access and contribute to social exclusion.

Distributional Barriers

Several studies highlight related economic factors as significant barriers to education access (Lewin, 2009). Household wealth and poverty play a central role in these barriers, with education incurring explicit (e.g. school fees) and implicit (e.g. uniforms, transportation) costs. For instance, Chabot (2009) has drawn attention to annual elementary school costs in rural Pakistan, which range from US $50 to $250 per pupil per year, with a family’s yearly income rarely exceeding $500. These fees prevent families from sending their children, especially girls, to school. Lack of technological resources, as evident during the COVID-19 emergency, also affects education access and supported learning resources (UNICEF, 2022a). Other barriers, including inadequate facilities, lack of water, and distant school locations, have also been documented to impact school access and performance (Alam et al., 2016; Sommer et al., 2017).

Economic inequity is a significant barrier to access to education due to disparities in wealth and income, and lack of access to excellent teachers and educational resources (Nawab, 2020). According to Oduaran and Bhola (2006), children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic minorities, and those with special educational needs face increased vulnerability. Young people with illiterate “first-generation learners” parents and those from impoverished backgrounds also face significant educational obstacles (Tilak, 2020). Child labour also hinders education access. Children often juggle household, agricultural, and other wage-earning responsibilities alongside their studies, straining their time and creating challenges for those balancing work and school attendance (Hoque, 2021). In addition, Hutchings (2021) addresses social justice concerns, including restricted seats in reputable schools and denying admission to state schools for over-age children from less privileged families. Khalil et al. (2021) also estimate approximately one-third of the population in remote rural areas in Pakistan lives in severe poverty, leading to educational exclusion.

Through investment in education, governments also play a significant role in determining access to education, where educational budget provision through policies affects both economic and educational attainment results. Allocating resources and implementing effective policies in the education sector are crucial for enhancing student performance and access (Colclough & Al-Samarrai, 2000). Inadequate funding for education also generates several interrelated issues for access to education, for instance, obstacles to transportation, limited access to learning materials, scarcity of trained female teachers, and unsafe commutes, among others (Lewin, 2009).

Relational Barriers

Apart from distributional barriers to education, the literature highlights sociocultural factors that affect access to education. These societal and cultural factors include, among others, family/community priorities, parental involvement (Witte et al., 2013), cultural stereotypes, bias and beliefs and religious and cultural practices (Halai, 2011). As aforementioned, family priorities such as domestic chores or economic earnings impede access to education, while the practice of early or forced marriages in a family gives it the foremost social priority among traditional societies, which also impacts access to education. In places where teen motherhood is a major barrier to girls’ education, families are frequently pressured by societal conventions and cultural concerns to marry off their daughters at an early age, which limits their opportunities for further education (Malik et al., 2022).

The restricted movement of females in certain societies also creates hurdles in access to education. Cultural norms, biases, conservative traditions, social pressures, and religious misinterpretations make families and communities hesitate to send girls to schools (Khudadad & Mickelson, 2021). In Pakistan, traditional Islamic and local cultural ideologies shape the experiences of various groups, including ethnic and religious minorities and the economically disadvantaged, where such beliefs influence the access of these groups to education (Hasan et al., 2021). In a broader context, a more conservative society may face restrictions on their children’s access to schools. For instance, Sarangapani and Rekha (2021) reports that schools without boundary walls demotivate parents and families from sending girls to school. Geographical obstacles also frequently prevent rural girls from accessing higher education (Jafree, 2021), where isolated locations can cause long commutes to school and a lack of transport infrastructure deters students from attending classes regularly. Long distances to schools, which may instigate harassment concerns for females, also discourage families from sending their girls (and, to some extent, boys) to school (HRW, 2018). In Pakistan, the majority (82%) of the harassment cases reported in 2021 happened to students (Imtiaz & Kamal, 2021).

Methods

This study investigates the distributional and relational barriers that influence girls’ access to education in Thatta, Pakistan. Interviews were restricted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, follow-up field visits were conducted in January to March 2023 at three girls’ high schools and three villages in the Thatta district of Pakistan. Various stakeholders were interviewed, each lasting 60 to 90 min. Snowball and purposive sampling techniques were utilised to select participants (Burgess, 2002). The study interviewed 34 stakeholders from various groups (i.e. students (ages 14–17 years), teachers, education government officials, family members, and relevant community members) to better investigate the problem at the grassroots level. The diverse backgrounds of the study participants have also contributed to enriching the study findings. Students and teachers from three high schools and villages (enrolled and drop-outs) were interviewed alongside other groups.

All participants had served the purpose of being beneficiaries rather than mere participants in the study. The participants were selected purposely to capture a wide range of views on the issue of girls’ access to education in rural Thatta, Sindh, Pakistan. Each category of participants was formed to bring a unique perspective that contributed to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and influences involved in rural girls’ access to education issues (see Table 1). Interviewees from the schools consisted of teachers and students to investigate related policies, teaching conditions, personal and lived accounts, and experiences of accessing education. Interviewees from the broader community included family members, civil society leaders, local NGOs, and religious leaders, among others, to gain insights into Thatta’s advocacy efforts and support systems for engaging girls in schools. Religious leaders and family members also provided insight into the impact of cultural beliefs and religious interpretations on girls’ education in Thatta. Those interviewed from the government offered perspectives on existing policy, planning, and challenges in educational access. Overall, this multi-faceted approach to integrating multiple groups strengthened the analysis by reflecting the interplay among policy, school practices, culture, and lived experiences.

Table 1.

Interview Details.

Category of interviewees	Number of interviewees	Duration of interview
Schools	9	60–90 min
Government	9	60–90 min
Community (related NGOs, industry/family)	16	60–90 min
Pilot interview (not included in total count)	2 (From schools/government)	60–90 min
Total	34

Interview questions were developed and refined through two pilot interviews. The pilot study results informed adjustments, ensuring the interview guide fostered open, participant-driven discussions on rural girls’ education access. The semi-structured interviews also offered the advantages of flexibility and depth of understanding the experiences and viewpoints (see Walford, 2001) on obstacles to education access. Participants were asked to tell the interviewers about themselves and (i) what they think are the barriers to education in Thatta regarding girls’ education access, highlighting economic and sociocultural barriers, if relevant, and (ii) how educational access in Thatta may be improved or otherwise.

The NVIVO qualitative data analysis software was employed for transcript analysis and coding. The software used the “word frequency check” function to identify frequently repeated terms, offering insights into patterns within the dataset of 34 interviews, including filed and externals, displaying 1,000 words grouping with stemmed words, and minimum length 5. This approach allowed for quick identification of possible codes early in the project. Additionally, we generated themes using thematic analysis after checking the relevance of the codes’ meanings and patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The reliability of themes is checked through code comparison from the generated coding table and sub-themes tables. An initial 14 themes (e.g. early marriage issues, religion-based factors, poverty, unemployment, etc.) were generated. Upon further analysis, we coalesced and synthesised these into two main sections: (i) economic-related issues and (ii) sociocultural issues related to education access. In addition to the interview, government documents were accessed to provide background and contextual data on girls’ access to education in Pakistan, providing the needed triangulation of data. Member checking and peer debriefing, as well as sharing findings with key participants, helped validate the data, wherein feedback from member checks ensured that their perspectives and experiences were accurately represented in the study (see Yin, 2005). Such triangulation and validation measures were integral to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the study. Also, to ensure the accuracy of the data collection and analysis, data (i.e. interview transcripts and related documents) were organised and structured through systematic collation and any relevant issues raised by the participants of the study were also identified (see Jackson & Bazeley, 2019).

The study strictly adhered to ethical research measures, including ensuring anonymity, confidentiality, and obtaining informed consent (Burgess, 2002). Special consideration was given to participants’ vulnerability, particularly rural girls, due to their age, social status, and lack of power. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, voluntary participation, and confidentiality before the interviews. Legal and ethical considerations were paramount, allowing participants to choose their level of involvement or withdrawal at any point.

Findings

The findings below highlight the distributional and relational challenges faced by our respondents (all rural residents) regarding girls’ access to education in Thatta.

Distributional Issues

Several challenges linked to poverty were pointed out by the respondents, which affect missing school, from lack of employment and low wages to hunger and food insecurity. In Thatta, labourers face low earnings due to various factors, including economic conditions, job market dynamics, and limited employment opportunities. Poverty in Thatta also leads to distressing practices like selling girls due to financial hardship, perpetuating gender inequity, and depriving them of education. The COVID-19 pandemic has also worsened inflation, especially in rural areas, burdening resource-limited families and affecting access to necessities. In addition, illiteracy significantly contributes to poverty in the district, limiting employment opportunities and keeping salaries low for those working in industries and agriculture.

So hunger and poverty are significant issues here. Every morning, I ask children if they have breakfast before coming to school, and many children say no [P, first name initials].

Also, inflation during and after COVID-19 has pushed rural people into absolute poverty. People sell daughters [S8].

Inflation rates are high; people don’t have income sources to educate girls [M1].

Rural families in Thatta struggle with the cost of girls’ education. Government fees for matric and intermediate levels and expenses for extracurricular activities, books, and decor are challenging for impoverished families. Uniforms, transportation, supplies, and other essentials add to the financial burden. Additionally, the distance and accessibility of schools increase expenses. Educating girls is costlier than boys, and the government’s school fees worsen dropout rates among rural girls.

I could not send my girl to school because girls’ education is more expensive than boys’ [S9].

I am educated, and I know our religion teaches us not to differentiate between girls and boys; I prefer education, but what do I do if I don’t have money to support all children, especially girls? Because for girls, I need transportation and other girls’ related expenses for sending them to school. If I am worried about food for children, how can I afford their education, which is costly by all means? [A4].

Recently, the government has raised the exam fees. No, no, Sir, who said education is free? And all students I saw are upset because they know their parents can’t afford such expenses. Many students fear quite their school because of the unavailability of funds [Z1].

Participants’ experiences also reveal that the annual bursary provided by the Pakistani government falls short of covering girls’ educational costs adequately. This limited cash assistance does not fully address expenses such as school fees, books, uniforms, transportation, and supplies. While private schools in Thatta are considered superior to government schools, their high costs deter rural parents from sending their daughters for education, like in other parts of the country. Consequently, rural parents in Thatta have limited options for their girls’ education, reflecting the multifaceted challenges these families face.

The government provides 2000-3000 (8.06- 12.98 USD) annually! This money is not enough for a single day. Private schools are better but are expensive [S6].

Before, tuition and admission were free. Many children from low-income families could at least appear in exams to acquire matriculation certificates since the government started examination and enrollment fees last year. Most people in Thatta are daily wagers and laborers, so many girls have left schools because they cannot pay the enrollment and examination fees [S8].

Rural challenges driven by a declining agricultural sector also contribute to rural girls’ lack of access to education. Issues like low crop prices, water scarcity, inadequate price regulations, and industry dominance have negatively affected agricultural livelihoods in Thatta, which means less income for schooling expenses. As most of the population relies on agriculture, this often leads to debt accumulation and struggles to meet basic needs. The lack of resources for farming, worsened by water scarcity, also hinders families from supporting girls’ education.

Farmers are 50% shareholders in the investment; throughout the year, they don’t have any other sources of income [A1].

Most people are dependent on agriculture. Water is not available in the river for decades. Thatta is the lower riparian district of the Indus River. Thatta gets water through Kotri downstream, which always has a 40-50% water shortage, so most farmers are under debt [S4].

In addition, Thatta has various industries, but they often do not employ locals, leading to economic hardships. Government policies and a lack of education and training programmes limit industry job access. Limited market access is a common economic challenge in rural Thatta, which is impacting parents’ ability to invest in girls’ education (Kaiser & Barstow, 2022). Part-time job opportunities for female matric students are underdeveloped, leaving many financially dependent. Unaffordable transportation further hinders school attendance, and high unemployment rates significantly impact households, particularly in rural areas.

Industries also don’t offer internships or traineeships to young, educated girls and boys [A3].

In Thatta, roads are broken, people don’t have easy access to markets, and public transport infrastructure is entirely damaged, so people are deprived of economic opportunities because of hurdles in mobility problems [A3].

Relational Issues

In addition to the economic issues discussed above, related sociocultural factors contribute to the lack of access to girls’ education in Thatta. Early marriages and dowry practices are intertwined with economic and social dynamics, prioritising it over education due to marriage requirements, creating significant barriers to enrolment and continuity. The financial burden of dowry demands weighs on the bride’s family, prioritising dowries over education. Additionally, early-age marriages significantly impede girls’ education, causing dropouts due to increased domestic responsibilities (P. Shah & Khurshid, 2019). Societal norms prioritise marriage and childbirth over education, confining them to traditional roles. It should be noted that exchange marriages in Thatta and settling tribal disputes often lead to early marriages without girls’ consent, diverting resources from education. Inter-caste and inter-family marriages also worsen the issue by perpetuating the exchange of girls.

In Thatta, people also have a tradition of exchanging marriages. Many young girls just left school due to marriages [R].

Socially, the caste system also hinders girls’ access to education. Some people consider their cast/tribe more worthy and relate their cast honor with females’ marriages and mobility. Like my cast is Brohi, girls face many issues in our cast because our tribe is considered vital and honored among other casts. So, if the girls are from a tribe like mine, they face many exchange marriage issues, inter-family marriages, and hindrances to accessing their education [Z1].

At the tribal level, they don’t want girls to get an education because they think it is against their so-called honor; they solve disputes among tribes by marrying off teen girls as acceptable [P].

Similarly, exchange marriages are encouraged for household duties, discouraging girls' access to education. Families in Thatta resist accepting girls’ earnings, prioritising traditional gender roles and marriage for financial security and undermining the importance of girls’ education. Rigid family-assigned roles limit girls’ access to education.

People have created taboos for girls. If some girls get an education and do jobs, people don’t consider them innocent [S4].

They consider girls’ earnings a shame for males. Managing homes is their (girls) job according to gender [I].

Gender-based challenges in Thatta profoundly affect girls' education, reflecting societal biases and power imbalances, significantly impacting females’ socioeconomic status. Traditional gender roles cast girls as financial burdens, with dowry customs and marriage expenses diverting resources from their education. Gender identity disparities are evident across education, healthcare, economics, and decision-making, further exacerbating educational inequalities for rural girls in the district. Limited school access, travel distances, and cultural biases favouring boys also contribute to lower enrolment rates and perpetuate gender disparities.

First of all, in our society, gender equality is an issue in Thatta. Parents who can only take one child from a family to school prefer boys, not girls [A1].

Religious restrictions, community restrictions, family restrictions, and restrictions from individuals like brothers, husbands, etc., have collectively made females victims of gender inequality [A1].

Apart from cultural restrictions on girls, such an issue is also apparent among the female teaching staff. Husbands often hinder female teachers (i.e. wives) from empowering and engaging with rural communities about the importance of education for girls, thus hampering efforts to heighten awareness about education’s significance and address barriers. Limited support and freedom for female teachers prevent them from playing a crucial role in raising awareness and tackling access obstacles for rural girls’ education in Thatta.

Female teachers are bound by their husbands. They are not allowed to go to rural communities and talk to them about girls’ schooling [Z3].

Thatta’s strong societal emphasis at home levels on girls’ privacy, rooted in cultural norms, consistently hampers their access to education. This emphasis limits girls’ mobility due to concerns about modesty, honour, and gender separation, ultimately constraining school attendance for girls. Honour killings, tragically prevalent in Thatta and Pakistan broadly, involve the murder of females for family honour, severely impacting girls’ education. Such killings target those believed to have dishonoured their families or communities, rooted in deeply entrenched cultural beliefs tied to family honour. Data shows at least thousands of females are killed in honour killing each year in Pakistan (UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2021).

If anything happened to the girl’s name, they killed them without enquiring about the facts [S7].

If, incidentally, someone has seen school girls talk with boys, then all think girls’ character is not good, and even they kill her. For example, on the way, if boys follow girls, and even girls don’t know them, again, all will blame girls. They will speak about parents by pointing out the names of parents [K].

Tribal and caste customs in the district also contribute to limitations on girls’ education. These cultures enforce traditional gender roles and strict norms that curb girls’ mobility and autonomy. Such constraints hinder their access to schools and engagement in educational activities beyond their immediate surroundings.

Some castes, like Sayed, Baloch, etc., restrict females from leaving home [I].

Some people consider their cast/tribe more worthy and relate their cast honor with females’ mobility [Z1].

High illiteracy levels, especially among parents, also hinder girls’ education in Thatta. Illiterate parents lack awareness of education’s benefits for girls, leading to limited support, inadequate homework assistance, and minimal involvement in their daughters’ education.

They (rural people) don’t have an education, so they can’t guide children to education [Z3].

My daughter is ten years old and studying in the fifth class. I always try to keep my girls at home [N].

Fear of possible abuse also limits girls’ mobility and access to education in Thatta. Apprehensions about associated risks and negative societal consequences make parents hesitant to send their girls to schools near boys’ schools. Also, safety concerns during girls’ school commutes are prevalent, with fears of harassment, abduction, and social unrest posing risks.

Also, besides we have boys’ schools, girls face issues due to this. Our girls are young, so boys stare at them [R].

Families fear sending girls to school because of sexual harassment and abuse because the girls will not be able to marry once they are abuse victims. Many cases of rape with little girls have also occurred [Z3].

Discussion

The study’s findings reveal a gender disadvantage in educational access in Thatta. Economic deprivation is not just an indicator of social exclusion but could also be a potential contributing factor. These “risk factors” or “material contributors” reveal that economic poverty issues have led the girls of rural families to educational deprivation through interlinked issues of income hardships. We found that these include limited employment, inflation, lack of skill education, and other job market dynamics for labourer families. From our data, economic problems caused by material deprivation of communities and families in the district have significant implications for rural girls’ access to education, which is an essential consideration for other similar communities.

As earlier discussed, such economic factors may invariably be beyond the control of the individuals/families affected (Barry, 1998). For instance, the predominantly agrarian population, mainly composed of farmers and labourers in Thatta, faces economic hardship due to the decline in the agricultural sector (World Bank, 2017). Over 90% of Thatta’s residents rely on agriculture, leaving them vulnerable to unpredictable crop prices, water scarcity, and the dominance of sugar mills and cotton production, disrupting their economic stability (Memon & Asim, 2015). Water scarcity severely impacts Thatta’s agricultural sector and rural economy, leading to lower income, poverty, food shortages, and inflation (Dahri et al., 2021). This economic vulnerability is connected with related aspects of material deprivation, which exacerbate debts and create hardships for rural families to bear such school costs for their girls.

Inflation also exacerbates social exclusion by making education less accessible for economically marginalised families. The absence of part-time job opportunities for young female students hinders skill development, perpetuating poverty and reinforcing their social exclusion. Thatta’s rural families face considerable obstacles when paying for their girls’ education. Many low-income families find paying for books, uniforms, extracurricular activities, government school fees, and other necessities challenging. Families are additionally burdened by the fact that teaching girls generally comes with higher costs than educating boys. Unaffordable transportation costs exacerbate the issue, limiting girls’ ability to access schools and deepening educational inequalities, forcing families to prioritise daily survival over long-term educational investment.

On the other hand, the government’s annual bursary programme falls short of adequately covering the educational expenses, and private schools, considered superior to government schools, are often too costly for rural parents to afford. Consequently, the financial challenges parents face in Thatta result in limited options for their daughters’ education, contributing to the multifaceted challenges these families face. These intricate challenges have revealed a structural exclusion of rural families that directly impacts girls’ access to education (Mughal et al., 2019). Rural girls’ access to education is further hampered by the complex problem of viewing education as a commodity since their families do not perceive the financial benefit of sending their daughters to school. Cultural restrictions such as early marriages add to this problem, where about half of Pakistani girls marry by the age of 19, 40% marry by the age of 18, and roughly 13% marry before turning 15 and move out of their parent’s house. It is a common belief in Pakistani society that girls are “others’ property,” and parents are reluctant to invest because their money will never be returned (Jamal, 2016). We can characterise this phenomenon as a “passive exclusion,” which is distinct from mere poverty position (Wang, 2012, p. 423).

Our findings also point to sociocultural dimensions, such as early or forced marriages, restrictions in female mobility, honour killings, and tribal and family customs of female submissive roles, among others, which significantly impede the rural girls’ of Thatta’s access to education. Such restrictions further isolate the girls, reducing their opportunities for social engagement. The findings emphasise that within the context of Thatta, various stakeholders are aware of the issues related to rural girls’ access to education. However, they often do not perceive education as an inherent right; instead, they view it as an optional choice for girls, or they may not prioritise taking action to address the issue. This issue may prove relevant to other communities with prevalent religious and cultural restrictions. When rural girls are denied access to education due to social and cultural factors, their educational failure hampers their individual growth. It contributes to their increasing exclusion from broader social opportunities (Utsumi, 2022). One of the findings in this study points to unequal provision and view of genders, where discrimination and segregation are apparent (e.g. girls are obliged for household chores or family care). Religion/culture-based social isolation, customary practices at family levels, discriminatory practices at community levels, and other hidden discriminative factors were found. Such challenges were deeply rooted in traditional norms, customs, and practices, mirroring the perpetuating cycle of social exclusion through lack of access to education, as mentioned in the literature ( Khan et al., 2021).

The prevalence of abuse, gender-based violence, and honour killing of innocent girls, which also comes from families and communities, not only denies education access but also threatens girls' safety and contributes to their broader social exclusion (Malik et al., 2022; Shahriar, 2021), as evident in Thatta, such realities further push girls into the margins. Such violence also deters families from sending their daughters, as well as female teachers, to school due to concerns about harassment and abuse or family shame. These honour tendencies reinforce the perception that education is risky for rural girls (Saleem, 2020). The fear of girls becoming abuse victims and losing marriage prospects is also a critical deterrent to education, further deepening their exclusion from educational and social mobility opportunities. Early and exchange marriages also affect attrition rates, as our findings show. These early and exchange marriages, often without consent, show the isolation girls face and the lack of educational opportunities, all encapsulated within traditional gender roles. Such challenges severely restrict rural girls’ mobility and reinforce existing inequalities in earning and social status in similar communities. Also, a lack of understanding of the importance of education at home levels among parents and male siblings perpetuates gender stereotypes and biases, which in turn leads to the social exclusion of girls. Similar to Durrani and Halai (2018), the social restrictions, including tribal customs and caste-based restrictions stemming from local culture, were found to obstruct girls’ access to education and perpetuate their social exclusion by limiting their freedom of movement and autonomy.

The issue of school safety and possible abuse concern was also highlighted in the interviews, where proximity to boys’ schools and other public places discourages the family from sending girls to school. The “disintegration” (Klasen, 2000) brought forth by issues mentioned above (i.e. gender biases, religious, community and familial norms) create a multifaceted barrier to rural girls’ education in the district. Such disintegration promotes greater disengagement (Sparkes, 1999) and withdrawal from educational opportunities, potentially resulting in wider social exclusion.

Closing Remarks

This study discussed the distributional and relational barriers that have hindered educational opportunities for rural girls in Thatta. The interplay of economic and sociocultural issues forms a multifaceted challenge that hinders the sustainable development of people, reinforces structural disparities, and deepens the educational inequalities rural girls globally may face. These factors collectively restrict girls’ access to education, leaving families, communities, and rural girls at a higher risk of lifelong social exclusion. The barriers discussed here push for further disengagement, which has profound consequences for educational opportunities, broader social integration, and the well-being of rural girls. Deep-seated social taboos at family and community levels that arose from structured religious and cultural nets further confine girls’ education by restricting their behaviour, mobility, and interactions. While such structured social realities may be challenging to eliminate, this study highlights probable obstacles faced regarding education access for children under the same conditions. Issues highlighted in this study would be informative to similar communities or draw rough the complexities of sociocultural dimensions affecting education achievement.

This study investigated the distributional and relational issues of access to education aligned with the social exclusion framework, which may be limiting in terms of a more nuanced discussion of exclusion relations. Further studies may look at the ontological aspects of exclusion to provide a more in-depth discussion and reflection. It should also be noted that given the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, most of the interviews were done online, proving some challenges in terms of connectivity and possible limits of impersonal conversations (De Villiers et al., 2022) in discussing issues of educational access.

In the existing literature, most research studies have sought to address educational issues in Pakistan at the higher education and primary levels, focusing on teacher training, teacher shortages, poverty, and broader educational concerns (Chabot, 2009; Mughal, 2018). This current research contributes to the literature through a more nuanced investigation of the most educationally deprived region in Pakistan, examining girls’ access to education through close investigations, including interviews and site observations. The study employs a social exclusion lens contextualised within the socio-economic and cultural realities of the research site. For instance, as highlighted in this paper, the vulnerability of families to unpredictable crop prices, water scarcity, and other factors that disrupt economic stability contribute to the inability of families to send their children to school. The cultural implications of favouring boys over girls also mean restricted access to schooling for the latter should there be the need to choose to send children to school. This study has also found that educating girls generally comes with higher costs than (educating) boys due to transportation and related school expenditures, requiring a more cautious means of sending girls to schools due to cultural restrictions. In addition, this research finds that similar to other education and access issues, prioritising daily survival over long-term educational investment by families in a rural setting, inadequate and corrupt government bursaries, customary practices, and policy failure are causing further exclusion of rural girls from schooling. The distinct focus on actual initial access over school dropouts (Ali et al., 2021; D. Shah et al., 2019) in a developing context also highlights one of the contributions of this paper. In addition, this paper has looked at girls’ access to education in rural communities, notwithstanding challenges that boys may face in related situations (Mughal et al. 2019). Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires goals and a practice-based holistic policy approach that combines economic and social support, educational reforms and strategies to ensure that all children, regardless of gender, financial circumstances, or social background, have equal access to quality education.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hemoon Kalani

Lorraine Pe Symaco

Ethical Considerations

Our institution does not require ethical approval for reporting individual cases or case series.

Consent to participate

Consent to participate was done verbally with participants and ensuring that all information are anonymised.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Alam

Warren

Applebaum

(2016). Closing the gap: Adolescent girls’ access to education in conflict-affected settings. The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.

Ali

Yaseen

M. R.

Makhdum

M. S. A.

Quddoos

Sardar

(2021). Socioeconomic determinants of primary school children dropout: A case study of Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(6), 1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2021-0144

Barry

(1998). Social exclusion, social isolation and the distribution of income (Case No. 12). London School of Economics.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burgess

R. G.

(2002). In the field: An introduction to field research. Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203418161

Chabot

G. W.

(2009). A case study of educational needs, obstacles, and opportunities for girls, women, and teachers in remote Pakistan. Montana State University.

Colclough

Al-Samarrai

(2000). Achieving schooling for all: Budgetary expenditures on education in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. World Development, 28(11), 1927–1944. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00065-6

Dahri

G. N.

Mangan

Nangraj

G. M.

Talpur

B. A.

Jarwar

I. A.

Sial

Nangraj

A. N.

Aamir

(2021). Socio-economic impact and migration due to water shortage in District Badin, Sindh Province of Pakistan. Journal of Economic Impact, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.52223/jei3012101

De Villiers

Farooq

M. B.

Molinari

(2022). Qualitative research interviews using online video technology – Challenges and opportunities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(6), 1764–1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2021-1252

10.

Durrani

Halai

(2018). Dynamics of gender justice, conflict and social cohesion: Analysing educational reforms in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.010

11.

Farrington

(2002). Towards a useful definition: Advantages and criticisms of social exclusion. In Coursework components of that degree of honours arts (Geography) (No. 1).

12.

Fraser

(2010). Injustice at intersecting scales: On “social exclusion” and the “global poor.” European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431010371758

13.

Ghauri

(2016, July 16). Poverty afflicts 75% people in rural Sindh. Daily Tribune English News Paper. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1135227/alarming-stats-poverty-afflicts-75-people-rural-sindh

14.

Government of Pakistan (GP). (2018). Pakistan – National Education Policy Framework November 2018. Ministry of Federal Education & Professional Training.

15.

Government of Pakistan (GP). (2019). Pakistan’s implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals: Voluntary national review. In Ministry of planning, and development. SDG Section Islamabad.

16.

Government of Pakistan (GP). (2023). Announcement of results of 7th population and housing census-2023 “the digital census.”Bureau of Statistics.

17.

Government of Sindh (GS). (2015). District education profile Thatta 2014-15. Rerform Support Unit, Sindh Education Managment Information System (SEMIS).

18.

Government of Sindh (GS). (2017). Sindh school education statistics 2016–17. Planning & Development Department, Government of Sindh.

19.

Halai

(2011). Equality or equity: Gender awareness issues in secondary schools in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.06.012

20.

Hasan

S. M.

Rehman

Zhang

(2021). Who can work and study from home in Pakistan: Evidence from a 2018–19 nationwide household survey. World Development, 138, Article 105197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105197

21.

Herskovic

Silva

(2024). The rural-urban divide in transitions to higher education in Chile. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 13(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2024.13.1.0913

22.

Hills

Grand

J. L.

Piachaud

(2002). Understanding social exclusion (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199251070.001.0001

23.

Hoque

M. M.

(2021). Forced labour and access to education of Rohingya Refugee Children in Bangladesh: Beyond a humanitarian crisis. Journal of Modern Slavery, 6(3), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.22150/jms/ppjy4309

24.

Human Rights Watch. (2018). Shall I feed my daughter, or educate her? Barriers to girls’ education in Pakistan. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/11/12/shall-i-feed-my-daughter-or-educate-her/barriers-girls-education-pakistan

25.

Hutchings

(2021). Accountability, social justice and educational research. In Educational research for social justice: Evidence and Practice from the UK. In Ross

(Ed.), Educational Research for Social Justice (pp. 45–78). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62572-6_3

26.

Hyman

Mercado

Galabuzi

G.-E.

Patychuk

(2011). A critical review of social exclusion and inclusion indicators: Implications for the development of a Canadian Framework. In Kilbride

K. M.

(Ed.), Immigrant integration: Research implications for future policy (pp. 139–167). Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

27.

Imtiaz

Kamal

(2021). Sexual harassment in the public places of Pakistan: Gender of perpetrators, gender differences and city differences among victims. Sexuality & Culture, 25(5), 1808–1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09851-8

28.

Jackson

Bazeley

(2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO ( Jackson

Bazeley

(ed.); 3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/114916_book_item_114916.pdf

29.

Jafree

S. R.

(2021). The need for cultural interventions to improve girls’ education during COVID-19 and beyond. ISA Symposium of Sociology, 1–10.

30.

Jamal

(2016). Why he won’t send his daughter to school – Barriers to girls’ education in Northwest Pakistan: A qualitative Delphi Study of Pashtun Men. SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016663798

31.

Jehoel-Gijsbers

Vrooman

(2004). Social exclusion in the Netherlands: Construction of a model of key risks on poverty and social exclusion. In Third round table on poverty and social exclusion (Workshop No. 8). Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP), The Hague, Netherlands.

32.

Jehoel-Gijsbers

Vrooman

(2007). Explaining social exclusion: A theoretical model tested in the Netherlands. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.

33.

Kaiser

Barstow

C. K.

(2022). Rural transportation infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries: A review of impacts, implications, and interventions. Sustainability, 14(4), 2149. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042149

34.

Kane

J. E.

(2007). School exclusions and pupil identities. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences, University of Glasgow.

35.

Khalil

I. U.

Hena

Ghani

Ullah

Jan

Rauf

Rehman

Abbas

Jingdong

(2021). Development and sustainability of rural economy of Pakistan through local community support for CPEC. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020686

36.

Khan

F. Z.

Kamran

Saeed

A. A. R.

Faizi

W. U. N.

(2021). Barriers responsible to females’ low literacy at the primary level in Balochistan Province of Pakistan: Social and economic barriers. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9(3), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9318

37.

Khudadad

Mickelson

R. A.

(2021). School built environment, gender, and student achievement in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, Article 102503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102503

38.

Klasen

(2000). Social exclusion, children, and education: Conceptual and measurement issues. Department of Economics University of Munich.

39.

Lewin

K. M.

Akyeampong

(2009). Education in sub-Saharan Africa: Researching access, transitions and equity. Comparative Education, 45(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060902920492

40.

Malik

M. I.

Nadeem

Adil

S. M.

(2022). Exploring the determinants of female early-age marriages in Pakistan. Women’s Studies International Forum, 92, Article 102594. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2022.10259

41.

Marsh

Mullins

(1998). The social exclusion perspective and housing studies: Origins, applications and limitations. Housing Studies, 13(6), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039883047

42.

Memon

Asim

(2015). Access to education in Sindh: District Profile Ranking ( Sayed

, Ed.). Manzil Pakistan.

43.

Mughal

A. W.

(2018). Investigating the issue of out-of-school children in rural Pakistan: implications for policymakers. Loughborough University.

44.

Mughal

A. W.

Aldridge

Monaghan

(2019). Perspectives of dropped-out children on their dropping out from public secondary schools in rural Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 66, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.02.004

45.

Mumtaz

Sivananthajothy

Bhatti

Sommer

(2019). “How can we leave the traditions of our Baab Daada” socio-cultural structures and values driving menstrual hygiene management challenges in schools in Pakistan. Journal of Adolescence, 76, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.07.008

46.

Muneer

(2021). Women empowerment, and access to education in Pakistan: Barriers within Home. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 58(2), 32.

47.

Nawab

(2020). Monitoring and accountability in the professional development of teachers in rural Pakistan. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE), 9(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2020.9.2.1205

48.

Obiero

J. A.

(2012). Can free primary education achieve universal primary education? A study of the intersections of social exclusion, gender and education in Kenya. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

49.

Oduaran

Bhola

H. S.

(2006). Widening access to education as social justice: Essays in honor of Michael Omolewa (pp. 149–164). In UNESCO & Springer (1st ed.). Springer Netherlands.

50.

Poggi

(2004). Social exclusion in Spain: Measurement theory and application. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

51.

Purewal

Hashmi

(2015). Between returns and respectability: parental attitudes towards girls’ education in rural Punjab, Pakistan. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(7), 977–995. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.883274

52.

Randolph

Murray

Ruming

K. J.

(2007). Defining social exclusion in Western Sydney: exploring the role of housing tenure. In Social exclusion (No. 10, pp. 1–46). City Futures Research Centre.

53.

Rind

G. M.

Malin

(2021). Achieving access and equity in education: An analysis of higher education reforms in Pakistan. SSRN Electronic Journal, 16(4), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3936444

54.

Saleem

(2020). Barriers to girls education in rural Pakistan. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

55.

Sanauddin

Chitrali

J. A.

Owais

(2016). Public patriarchy: An analysis of women’s access to education, work and politics in Pakistan. Humanities and Social Sciences, 23, 27–37. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:164650988

56.

Sarangapani

P. M.

Rekha

(2021). Handbook of education systems in South Asia (1st ed.). Springer Nature Singapore Private Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0032-9

57.

Shah

Haider

Taj

(2019). Causes of dropout rate at primary level in Pakistan. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11(2), 38–74.

58.

Shah

Khurshid

(2019). Muslim womanhood, education, and empowerment: Ethnographic reflections from Pakistan and India. Gender and Education, 31(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1543859

59.

Shah

(2012). Girl education in Rural Pakistan. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 180–207. https://doi.org/10.4471/rise.2012.10

60.

Shahriar

(2021). Stepping outside home culture: Stories of three women from rural Pakistan in pursuit of identity. Asian Journal of Social Science, 49(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajss.2020.12.002

61.

Silver

(1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133(5), 6.

62.

Sommer

Figueroa

Kwauk

Jones

Fyles

(2017). Attention to menstrual hygiene management in schools: An analysis of education policy documents in low and middle-income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 57, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.008

63.

Sparkes

(1999). Schools, education, and social exclusion. (LSE STICERD Research Paper No. CASE029). Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

64.

Symaco

Brock

(Eds.). (2016). Space, place, and scale in the study of education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652443

65.

Tilak

J. B. G.

(2020). Universal secondary education in India. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5366-0

66.

Tsolou

Babalis

Tsoli

(2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education: Social exclusion and dropping out of school. Creative Education, 12(3), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.123036

67.

UNESCO. (2019). UNESCO Pakistan country strategic document 2018–2022. UNESCO Office in Islamabad.

68.

United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Human development indices and indicators – Statistical report summary. SDGs.

69.

UNESCO. (2012). Addressing Exclusion in Education: A Guide to Assessing Education Systems Towards More Inclusive and Just Societies. Paris, France: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000217073

70.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2022a). Brief on learning Covid-19 school closures in Pakistan country profile and Covid-19 ( van Kalmthout

Ed.). UNICEF Pakistan.

71.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2022b). Reimagine education. https://www.unicef.org/reimagine/education

72.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime. (2021). Gender-related killings of women and girls (femicide/feminicide): Global estimates of gender-related killings of women and girls in the private sphere in 2021 Improving data to improve responses. UNODC & UN Women.

73.

USAID. (2014). Pakistan emergency situational analysis district Thatta ( Iqbal

, Ed., 1st ed., pp. 1–161). IMMAP & Solutions in Time.

74.

Utsumi

(2022). Armed conflict, education access, and community resilience: Evidence from the Afghanistan NRVA Survey 2005 and 2007. International Journal of Educational Development, 88, Article 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102512

75.

Walford

(2001). Doing Qualitative Educational Research: A Personal Guide to Research Process (1st ed., pp. 1–224). London & New York: Continuum.

76.

Wang

(2012). Social exclusion and education inequality: Towards an integrated analytical framework for the urban-rural divide in China. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(3), 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.659455

77.

Whitty

(2001). Education, social class, and social exclusion. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930110054308

78.

Witte

K. D.

Cabus

Thyssen

Groot

Brink.

H. M. v. d.

(2013). A critical review of the literature on school dropout. Educational Research Review, 10, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.002

79.

World Bank. (2023). Literacy rate, adult female (% of females ages 15 and above) Pakistan. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.FE.ZS?locations=PK

80.

World Bank. (2017). The World Bank implementation status & results report of Sindh Global Partnership for Education Project (P146451).

81.

Yin

R. K.

(Ed.). (2005). Introducing the world of education: A case study reader. Sage Publications

Access to Education of Rural Girls in Pakistan

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptualising Social Exclusion

Education and Social Exclusion

Barriers to Education

Distributional Barriers

Relational Barriers

Methods

Findings

Distributional Issues

Relational Issues

Discussion

Closing Remarks

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References