Youth and skills putting education to work

584 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
584
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Youth and skills putting education to work

  1. 1. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2 0 1 2 YOUTH AND SKILLS Putting education to work
  2. 2. United Nations (GXFDWLRQDO 6FLHQWL¿F DQG Cultural Organization UNESCO Publishing YOUTH AND SKILLS Putting education to work
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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 official 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 Attendancerate(%) Urban Rural Poorest 20% Richest 20%Bangladesh Rural Urban Urban Urban Poorest 20% Richest 20% Nigeria Rural Rural Poorest 20% Richest 20% Thailand Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural Male Female Bangladesh, 2006 Nigeria, 2007 Thailand, 2006
  9. 9. 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 Numberofout-of-schoolchildren(millions) 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
  10. 10. 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 figures for Nigeria are from 2000. The 2010 figures for India are from 2008. Source: UIS database. 0 20 10 30 40 50 60 India Pakistan Ethiopia Nigeria 2010200720042001 Out-of-schoolchildren(%) 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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 Mali Chad Gambia Timor-Leste Guinea-Bissau Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Côted'Ivoire C.A.R. Mauritania Togo PapuaN.Guinea Ghana Burundi Sudan Malawi Rwanda D.R.Congo Cambodia Angola Zambia Comoros Madagascar Iraq SaudiArabia Jamaica Honduras Swaziland Kenya Mauritius S.Tome/Principe Namibia Lesotho Brazil Bahrain Bolivia,P.S. Equat.Guinea Malaysia Myanmar Adultilliteracyrate(%) 1998–2001 Target In Madagascar, the adult illiteracy rate is projected to increase from 29% to 35% and in 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.
  13. 13. 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. Literacystatus(%) Literate Semi-literate Illiterate 0 20 40 60 80 100 Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Nigeria Ghana Zambia India Kenya Timor-Leste Cambodia U. R. Tanzania Haiti Nepal
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. 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).
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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 Poorest 100% 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
  18. 18. 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 Egypt Poorest Richest Female Male Female Male Pakistan RichestPoorest Female Male MaleFemale National average 100% 0%
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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-specific 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 Africa Swaziland Angola Côte d'Ivoire * Kenya Cameroon Lesotho * Ghana Chad Togo Senegal Cape Verde Ethiopia Benin D. R. Congo Niger Uganda Madagascar Gambia Malawi Burundi Mali Burkina 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 Constant2010US$billions Total aid to post-secondary education Total aid to basic education 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 6.9 3.1 1.0 2.8 8.3 4.1 1.1 3.1 8.6 4.0 1.3 3.4 9.6 4.4 1.2 4.0 10.6 4.8 1.6 4.3 11.6 5.0 1.8 4.8 11.5 4.7 1.9 4.9 13.4 5.3 2.4 5.8 13.5 5.3 2.3 5.8
  21. 21. 20 E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2 20 Note: Maximizing natural resource revenue is assumed to take place in two steps: (i) an increase in the share of revenue from natural resource exports to 30% for minerals and to 75% for oil; and (ii) the allocation of 20% of this additional revenue to education. Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team calculations (2012) based on UIS database and IMF Article IV reviews. US$billions 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%.
  22. 22. 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 $36m Open Society Foundations Ford Foundation MasterCard Foundation William and Flora Hewlett Foundation $9m Carnegie Corporation of New York
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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 2007 Kazakhstan 2006 Armenia 2005 Kyrgyzstan 2006 Albania 2009 Rep. Moldova 2005 Azerbaijan 2006 Colombia 2010 Bolivia 2008 Maldives 2009 Tajikistan 2005 Guyana 2009 Brazil 2006 Dominican Rep. 2007 Egypt 2008 Indonesia 2007 Philippines 2003 Kenya 2009 Zimbabwe 2006 Turkey 2004 Ghana 2008 Timor-Leste 2010 Namibia 2007 India 2006 Nigeria 2008 Belize 2006 Nepal 2006 Swaziland 2007 Congo 2005 D. R. Congo 2010 Syrian A. R. 2006 Bangladesh 2006 Zambia 2007 Cameroon 2006 Pakistan 2007 Lesotho 2010 Togo 2006 S. Tome/Principe 2009 Cambodia 2010 Malawi 2010 Sierra Leone 2008 Morocco 2004 Benin 2006 Haiti 2006 Mauritania 2007 Côte d’Ivoire 2006 U. R. Tanzania 2010 Madagascar 2009 Liberia 2007 Guinea 2005 Uganda 2006 Mali 2006 Ethiopia 2005 Senegal 2005 C. A. R. 2006 Burkina Faso 2006 Mozambique 2003 Niger 2006 Rwanda 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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 figure 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$79m US$172m US$887m US$923m US$1 071m US$2 039m Shareofdisbursementstodirecteducation(%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ScholarshipsImputed student costsPost-secondarySecondaryBasic Unspecified
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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. Progressionfromlowertouppersecondaryenrolment(%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Lower secondary gross enrolment ratio (%) Niger EthiopiaUganda C. A. R. Pakistan Yemen 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 Honduras Russian 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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 Youthpopulation(%) Rep.Moldova Tajikistan Albania Mozambique Azerbaijan Egypt Namibia Bangladesh Nepal Malawi Cambodia SyrianA.R. Mauritania Timor-Leste Rwanda Senegal Uganda Morocco C.A.R. Côted’Ivoire Liberia Haiti U.R.Tanzania Madagascar Mali SierraLeone S.Tome/Principe Benin Lesotho Cameroon Pakistan Togo Belize D.R.Congo Nigeria Congo Turkey Ghana Philippines Indonesia Brazil Guyana Colombia DominicanRep. Rural poorest 40% Urban poorest 40% Urban richest 20% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bolivia,P.S. Source: UIS (2012a).
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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 Youthaged15to24(%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Females are at a disadvantage Gender parity Rural male Rural female Niger BurkinaFaso Mozambique C.A.R. Senegal Morocco Guinea Mali Ethiopia SierraLeone Côted’Ivoire Benin Liberia Cameroon Uganda U.R.Tanzania Togo D.R.Congo Zambia Pakistan Malawi Cambodia Congo Mauritania Turkey Nepal SyrianA.R. Nigeria Ghana Zimbabwe BoliviaP.S. Kenya Egypt Tajikistan Azerbaijan Rwanda Madagascar Haiti SanTome/Principe Bangladesh Swaziland Timor-Leste Indonesia Albania Kyrgyzstan Armenia Ukraine Kazakhstan Source: UIS (2012a).
  42. 42. 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 Lesotho Belize Namibia Brazil Philippines DominicanRep. Colombia Maldives Guyana Moldova
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. YOUTH AND SKILLS Putting education to work www.unesco.org/publishing www.efareport.unesco.org United Nations (GXFDWLRQDO 6FLHQWL¿F DQG Cultural Organization UNESCO Publishing

×