youth and skills putting education to work
TRANSCRIPT
EFA GlobalMonitoring Report 2 0 1 2
YOUTH AND SKILLSPutting education to work
United Nations���������� �������� ��
Cultural Organization
UNESCO Publishing
YOUTH AND SKILLSPutting education to work
2
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
2
For more information about the Report, please contact:
Previous EFA Global Monitoring Reports
ED -2012 / WS / 13
3
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
3
4
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
4
5
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
5
■
■
■
■
■
■
6
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
6
7
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
7
Notes: The offi cial age for pre-primary education is 3 to 5 in the three countries. In Nigeria, the poorest 40% are shown for urban areas.Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team calculations (2012) based on Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey data.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Atte
ndan
ce ra
te (%
)
UrbanRural
Poorest 20%
Richest 20%BangladeshRural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Poorest 20%
Richest 20%
Nigeria
Rural
RuralPoorest 20%
Richest 20%
Thailand
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Male
Female
Bangladesh, 2006 Nigeria, 2007 Thailand, 2006
8
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
8
Num
ber o
f out
-of-s
choo
l chi
ldre
n (m
illio
ns)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999
13
17
61
31
108 million
25 million
40 million
42 million
Rest of the world
Sub-Saharan Africa
South and West Asia
14
18
61
29
19
19
74
35
Sources: Annex Statistical Table 5; UIS database.
Number of out-of-school children of primary school age, 1999–2010
9
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
9
Notes: The size of the bubble is proportional to the number of out-of-school children. The numbers in the bubbles show the number of out-of-school children. The 2001 fi gures for Nigeria are from 2000. The 2010 fi gures for India are from 2008.Source: UIS database.
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
India
Pakistan
Ethiopia
Nigeria
2010200720042001
Out-o
f-sch
ool c
hild
ren
(%)
20.3
5.0
6.9
8.7
8.4
6.6
6.1
5.9
3.2
2.4
5.1
7.5
10.5
4.9
2.3
7.1
10
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
10
11
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mal
i
Chad
Gam
bia
Tim
or-L
este
Guin
ea-B
issa
u
Paki
stan
Bang
lade
sh
Nep
al
Côte
d'Iv
oire
C. A
. R.
Mau
ritan
ia
Togo
Papu
a N
. Gui
nea
Ghan
a
Buru
ndi
Suda
n
Mal
awi
Rwan
da
D. R
. Con
go
Cam
bodi
a
Ango
la
Zam
bia
Com
oros
Mad
agas
car
Iraq
Saud
i Ara
bia
Jam
aica
Hond
uras
Swaz
iland
Keny
a
Mau
ritiu
s
S.To
me/
Prin
cipe
Nam
ibia
Leso
tho
Braz
il
Bahr
ain
Boliv
ia, P
. S.
Equa
t. Gu
inea
Mal
aysi
a
Mya
nmar
Adul
t illi
tera
cy ra
te (%
)
1998–2001
Target
In Madagascar, the adult illiteracy rate isprojected to increase from 29% to 35% andin the D. R. Congo from 33% to 34%.
In Chad, the adult illiteracy rate was 74% in 2000...
...and is projected to fall to 61% by 2015...
...well above the target level of 37%.
2015 (projection)
Adult illiteracy rate
Note: The countries shown in the figure are those for which a projection to 2015 was feasible and that had an adult illiteracy rate above 10% in 1998–2001. Sources: Annex, Statistical Table 2; UIS database.
12
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
12
Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team analysis (2012) based on Demographic and Health Survey data.
Lite
racy
sta
tus
(%)
Literate
Semi-literate
Illiterate
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Nigeria Ghana Zambia India Kenya Timor-Leste Cambodia U. R. Tanzania Haiti Nepal
13
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
13
Notes: Only countries with data for 1990, 2000 and 2010 are plotted. If there was no information for a particular year, information was substituted up to two years before or after. Afghanistan and Oman are excluded because they experienced negative trends.Source: UIS database.
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
C. A. R.
Chad
Pakistan
Côte d'Ivoire
Niger
Guinea
Cameroon
D. R. Congo
Benin
Mali
Papua N. Guinea
Togo
Djibouti
Mozambique
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Comoros
Burkina Faso
Lao PDR
Sierra Leone
Guinea-Bissau
Algeria
Morocco
Cambodia
Guatemala
Egypt
Tunisia
Burundi
Ghana
India
Iran, Isl. Rep.
Uganda
Gambia
Malawi
Mauritania
Senegal
Gender parity index
Gender parity
1990–2000 2000–2010 Below 0.90 represents severe gender disparity.
14
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shanghai, China Finland
Rep. of Korea Hong Kong, China
Singapore Macao, China
Canada Estonia
Japan Chinese Taipei
Switzerland Netherlands
New Zealand Australia
Iceland Denmark Norway
Germany Belgium
Poland United Kingdom
Slovenia Ireland
Slovakia Sweden
Latvia Czech Republic
France Hungary
United States Portugal Austria
Luxembourg Spain
Italy Lithuania
Russian Federation Greece Croatia
Malta Israel
Serbia Turkey
Bulgaria Uruguay Romania
Mauritius Mexico
Chile United Arab Emirates
Trinidad and Tobago Thailand
Costa Rica Miranda, Venezuela, B. R.
Montenegro Kazakhstan
Malaysia Rep. of Moldova
Argentina Jordan
Albania Brazil
Georgia Colombia
Qatar Peru
Tunisia Indonesia
Panama Tamil Nadu, India
Kyrgyzstan
15-year-olds scoring at or above level 2 in mathematics (%)
Poor girls Poor boys
Rich girls Rich boys
Notes: Of countries and economies that participated in the 2009 PISA, Azerbaijan, Himachal Pradesh (India) and Liechtenstein are not included. Poor/Rich refers to the bottom/top quartile in the PISA economic, social and cultural status index. Sources: Altinok (2012b), based on 2009 PISA data; Walker (2011).
15
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
15
16
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
16
Egypt, 2008
Jordan, 2009
Pakistan, 2007
India, 2005
Nepal, 2011
Bangladesh, 2007
Maldives, 2009
Niger, 2006
Poorest100% 0%
Richest
Mali, 2006
Sierra Leone, 2008
Benin, 2006
Guinea, 2005
Madagascar, 2009
Ethiopia, 2011
Ghana, 2008
Nigeria, 2008
Côte d'Ivoire, 2005
Liberia, 2007
Senegal, 2010
U. R. Tanzania, 2010
Malawi, 2010
D. R. Congo, 2007
Uganda, 2006
Zambia, 2007
Rwanda, 2010
Lesotho, 2009
Swaziland, 2006
Congo, 2009
Kenya, 2009
Namibia, 2007
Sao Tome and Principe, 2009
Zimbabwe, 2010
National average
17
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
17
Poorest Richest
Female Male
Female Male
Niger
EgyptPoorest Richest
Female Male
Female Male
PakistanRichestPoorest
Female Male
MaleFemale
National average100% 0%
18
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
18
19
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
19
Note: * indicates that a country-specifi c share of aid on budget was estimated from country documents; for the other countries, an average of 60% of aid was assumed.Source: UNESCO (2012b).
Sub-Saharan AfricaSwaziland
AngolaCôte d'Ivoire
* KenyaCameroon
Lesotho* Ghana
ChadTogo
SenegalCape Verde
EthiopiaBenin
D. R. CongoNiger
UgandaMadagascar
GambiaMalawiBurundi
MaliBurkina Faso
Guinea* Rwanda
Eritrea* Mozambique
Zambia
Government and donor education spending (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
In Mali, aid accounted for 25% of the total education budget over the period 2004–2010.
Source: OECD-DAC (2012b).
Total aid to secondary education
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2002 2009200820072006200520042003 2010
Cons
tant
201
0 US
$ bi
llion
s
Total aid to post-secondary education
Total aid to basic education
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6.9
3.11.0
2.8
8.3
4.1
1.1
3.1
8.6
4.0
1.3
3.4
9.6
4.4
1.2
4.0
10.6
4.8
1.6
4.3
11.6
5.0
1.8
4.8
11.5
4.7
1.9
4.9
13.4
5.3
2.4
5.8
13.5
5.3
2.3
5.8
20
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
20
Note: Maximizing natural resource revenue is assumed to take place in two steps: (i) an increase in the share of revenue from natural resource exports to 30% for minerals and to 75% for oil; and (ii) the allocation of 20% of this additional revenue to education.Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team calculations (2012) based on UIS database and IMF Article IV reviews.
US$
billi
ons
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Burkina Faso
+23%
+49% +42%
+10%
+98%
Lao PDR Niger U. R. Tanzania Uganda
Potential extra funding from natural resource revenue
Total education budget in 2010
In the Niger, extra funding could increase the education budget by 42%.
21
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
21
Notes: Around two-thirds of the US$15 million annual average from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation originally came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In most cases, the amount of support to education in developing countries had to be estimated using aggregate data from foundations.Sources: Annex, Aid Table 2; Carnegie Corporation of New York (2011); Ford Foundation (2011); MasterCard Foundation (2010); William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2010); van Fleet (2012).
$61m $13m$21m $15m
United Kingdom United States Netherlands
Switzerland New Zealand Finland Luxembourg
$911m $888m$567m
$61m $59m $52m $36mOpen Society Foundations
FordFoundation
MasterCard Foundation
Williamand Flora Hewlett
Foundation
$9m
CarnegieCorporation of New York
22
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
22
23
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
23
24
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
24
Pathways to Skills
25
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
25
26
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
26
Source: UIS (2012a).
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
Ukraine 2007Kazakhstan 2006
Armenia 2005Kyrgyzstan 2006
Albania 2009Rep. Moldova 2005
Azerbaijan 2006Colombia 2010
Bolivia 2008Maldives 2009Tajikistan 2005
Guyana 2009Brazil 2006
Dominican Rep. 2007Egypt 2008
Indonesia 2007Philippines 2003
Kenya 2009Zimbabwe 2006
Turkey 2004Ghana 2008
Timor-Leste 2010Namibia 2007
India 2006Nigeria 2008
Belize 2006Nepal 2006
Swaziland 2007Congo 2005
D. R. Congo 2010Syrian A. R. 2006Bangladesh 2006
Zambia 2007Cameroon 2006
Pakistan 2007Lesotho 2010
Togo 2006S. Tome/Principe 2009
Cambodia 2010Malawi 2010
Sierra Leone 2008Morocco 2004
Benin 2006Haiti 2006
Mauritania 2007Côte d’Ivoire 2006
U. R. Tanzania 2010Madagascar 2009
Liberia 2007Guinea 2005
Uganda 2006Mali 2006
Ethiopia 2005Senegal 2005C. A. R. 2006
Burkina Faso 2006Mozambique 2003
Niger 2006Rwanda 2005
Youth aged 15 to 19 (%)
No education Dropped out (primary) In primary Dropped out (lower secondary)
In lower secondary Dropped out (upper secondary) In upper secondary or higher
27
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
27
28
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
28
29
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
29
30
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
30
31
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
31
Note: This fi gure shows only direct aid to education; it excludes aid to education from general budget support.Source: OECD-DAC (2012).
All donors Germany France Japan Canada
US$103m
US$392m
US$79mUS$172m
US$887mUS$923m
US$1 071m
US$2 039m
Shar
e of
disb
urse
men
ts to
dire
ct e
duca
tion
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ScholarshipsImputed student costsPost-secondarySecondaryBasic Unspecifi ed
32
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
32
33
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
33
Notes: The rate of progression to upper secondary school is a proxy indicator for progression from lower secondary to upper secondary. It is measured by the proportion of upper secondary to lower secondary gross enrolment ratios. In an ideal system where all lower secondary students continue to upper secondary, the ratio equals 1. Honduras has a lower secondary gross enrolment ratio of 75% and an upper secondary gross enrolment ratio of 71%. The rate of progression is calculated to be 95%, indicating that most of those who have the chance to go to lower secondary are likely to continue to upper secondary. In Egypt, the gross enrolment ratio at lower secondary level is 94%. With a gross enrolment ratio of 51% at the upper secondary level, Egypt’s progression rate from lower to upper secondary is estimated to be about 0.54 (51/94). This suggests that, while most young people have the opportunity to participate in lower secondary education, only around half are able to continue to upper secondary. Source: Annex, Statistical Table 7.
Prog
ress
ion
from
low
er to
upp
er s
econ
dary
enr
olm
ent (
%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lower secondary gross enrolment ratio (%)
Niger
EthiopiaUganda
C. A. R.
PakistanYemen
Nigeria
Mauritania
Swaziland
India
Egypt
Kenya
Syrian A. R.
Ghana
Algeria
Mexico
TunisiaTajikistan
Turkey
Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States
Rep. of Korea
China
Venezuela, B.R.
Bolivia P.S.Ecuador
HondurasRussian Fed.
Group 1:Very low enrolment
Group 3:Medium enrolment,
good progression
Group 2:Medium enrolment,
poor progression
110 120 130 140
Group 4:High enrolment, poor progression
Group 5:High enrolment, good progression
34
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
34
35
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
35
36
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
36
Rural poorest are at a greater disadvantage than urban poorest
Urban poorest are at a greater disadvantage than rural poorest
Yout
h po
pula
tion
(%)
Rep.
Mol
dova
Tajik
ista
n
Alba
nia
Moz
ambi
que
Azer
baija
n
Egyp
t
Nam
ibia
Bang
lade
sh
Nep
al
Mal
awi
Cam
bodi
a
Syria
n A.
R.
Mau
ritan
ia
Tim
or-L
este
Rwan
da
Sene
gal
Ugan
da
Mor
occo
C. A
. R.
Côte
d’Iv
oire
Libe
ria
Haiti
U. R
. Tan
zani
a
Mad
agas
car
Mal
i
Sier
ra L
eone
S. To
me/
Prin
cipe
Beni
n
Leso
tho
Cam
eroo
n
Paki
stan
Togo
Beliz
e
D. R
. Con
go
Nig
eria
Cong
o
Turk
ey
Ghan
a
Phili
ppin
es
Indo
nesi
a
Braz
il
Guya
na
Colo
mbi
a
Dom
inic
an R
ep.
Rural poorest 40%
Urban poorest 40%Urban richest 20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Boliv
ia, P
. S.
Source: UIS (2012a).
37
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
37
38
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
38
39
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
39
40
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
40
Yout
h ag
ed 1
5 to
24
(%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Females are at a disadvantage Gender parity
Rural male Rural female
Nige
rBu
rkin
a Fa
soM
ozam
biqu
eC.
A. R
.Se
nega
l
Mor
occo
Guin
ea
Mal
iEt
hiop
iaSi
erra
Leon
eCô
te d
’Ivoi
reBe
nin
Liber
ia
Cam
eroo
nUg
anda
U. R
. Tan
zani
aTo
goD.
R. C
ongo
Zam
bia
Pakis
tan
Mal
awi
Cam
bodi
aCo
ngo
Mau
ritan
iaTu
rkey
Nepa
lSy
rian
A. R
.Ni
geria
Ghan
aZi
mba
bwe
Boliv
ia P.
S.Ke
nya
Egyp
tTa
jikist
anAz
erba
ijan
Rwan
da
Mad
agas
car
Haiti
San
Tom
e/Pr
incip
eBa
ngla
desh
Swaz
iland
Timor
-Les
teIn
done
siaAl
bani
aKy
rgyz
stan
Arm
enia
Ukra
ine
Kaza
khst
an
Source: UIS (2012a).
41
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
41
Males are at a disadvantage
Leso
tho
Beliz
eNa
mib
iaBr
azil
Phili
ppin
esDo
min
ican
Rep.
Colo
mbi
aM
aldi
ves
Guya
naM
oldo
va
42
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
42
43
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
43
44
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
44
YOUTH AND SKILLSPutting education to work
www.unesco.org/publishingwww.efareport.unesco.org
United Nations���������� �������� ��
Cultural Organization
UNESCOPublishing