Slide 34
Slide 34 text
presented by Interactive Things
Existing Visualization
26
R E AC H I N G T H E M A RG I N A L I Z E D
M e a s u r i n g m a rg i n a l i z a t i o n i n e d u ca t i o n
1 5 1
Who are the bottom 20%? Household survey data
make it possible to group people aged 17 to 22
on the basis of accumulated years of school. Data
analysis can also be used to decompose group
membership by identifying social characteristics
such as household wealth, gender, ethnicity and
location. Unlike the thresholds of deprivation used
in the previous section, the ‘bottom 20%’ provides
a relative national scale. People at the lowest end
of the distribution in, say, the Philippines or Turkey
have more years of school than their counterparts
in Chad or Mali. What they share is the experience
in childhood of restricted opportunity relative to
other members in their country.
Household surveys have been widely used to
chart overall inequality in education. The new
data analysis prepared for this Report makes it
possible to look beyond overall inequality to the
characteristics of the ‘bottom 20%’. The data can
be used to assess both the weight of discrete
variables such as income, language and gender
and – with limitations – the cumulative effects
of these variables.
Household wealth. Being born into the poorest 20%
of households in a country is strongly associated
with heightened risk of being at the bottom end
of the distribution for educational opportunity
(Figure 3.13). In Colombia, Mongolia, Nicaragua,
the Philippines and Viet Nam, the poorest 20%
account for twice their population share in the
bottom 20% of the education distribution.
Ethnicity and language. In some countries, ethnic
and language minority groups account for a large
share of the bottom 20% (Figure 3.14). In Nigeria,
over half the ‘education poor’ are Hausa speakers –
a group that makes up one-fifth of the population.
Reflecting the legacy of disadvantage experienced
by indigenous Q’eqchi’ speakers in Guatemala,
membership of this language group more than
doubles the risk of being in the bottom 20% for
years in school.
Region and location. Regional differences in
years spent in education are often far larger than
differences between countries (Figure 3.15).
Areas such as northern Kenya, eastern Turkey,
rural Upper Egypt and northernmost Cameroon
are heavily overrepresented in the lowest 20%
of the education distribution for their countries.
Single region figures can understate the level of
disadvantage. In Cameroon, three regions with
just one-quarter of the overall population account
Venezuela, B. R.
Madagascar
India
Mongolia
Viet Nam
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Colombia
Philippines
Nigeria
Pakistan
Ghana
Jordan
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Poorest 2nd poorest Middle 2nd richest Richest
In countries such as India,
Madagascar and the
Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, the poorest fifth
children make up more
than half of the bottom
20% by years in school.
In many countries,
the poorest two-fifths are
heavily over-represented
in the bottom 20%
by years in school.
Composition of ‘bottom 20%’
Figure 3.13: The poorest households are more likely to be left behind in education
Decomposition of the bottom 20% of the education distribution by wealth quintile, selected countries,
latest available year
Note: The ‘bottom 20%’ is the 20% of 17- to 22-year-olds with the fewest years of education.
Source: UNESCO-DME (2009).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Average years of education
Ukraine
Cuba
Bolivia
Indonesia
Turkey
Honduras
Cameroon
Bangladesh
Chad
C. A. R.
Richest 20% Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Poorest 20%
Poor Kurdish male
Poor Kurdish female
Kurdish
Male
Female
Education poverty
Extreme education poverty
Figure 3.12: Poverty, ethnicity and language fuel education marginalization in Turkey
Average number of years of education of the population aged 17 to 22 by wealth, location,
gender and Kurdish language, 2005
Source: UNESCO-DME (2009).