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).
wiederkehr
cyberagentdevelopers
minamitary
motokoishida
sig
gaussbeam
ncdc
448jp
ashapiro
fumink7
hjmkth
rocio
shlominoach
irinanazarova
bkeepers
phodgson
jacobian
mongodb
eileencodes
maltzj
davidbonilla
lauravandoore
yeseniaperezcruz
