Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

001CHAPTER 32Education for All Global Monitoring ReportFigure 3.14: Language often predicts risk of being in the bottom 20%% of selected language groups in the bottom 20% of the educationdistribution, selected countries, latest available yearGambia: PulaarGuinea-Bissau: BalantePakistan: SaraikiGuatemala: Q’eqchi’Mexico: indigenous*Nepal: MaithiliTurkey: KurdishNigeria: HausaFigure 3.15: Some regions face acute education deprivation% of selected regions* in the bottom 20% of the education distribution,population aged 17 to 22, selected countries, latest available yearCambodia: Mondol Kiri and Rattanak KiriKenya: North-easternGuatemala: north-westernUganda: northGhana: Upper eastAzerbaijan: AranProportionin populationProportion inbottom 20%Swaziland: LubomboSierra Leone: EastCongo: SouthZambia: EasternC. A. R.: Mambéré-KadeïMongolia: KhangaiGambia: Lower riverGuinea-Bissau: EastLiberia: north-centralGuinea-Bissau: northBurundi: NorthViet Nam: Mekong River DeltaTurkey: EastEgypt: rural UpperGhana: NorthernNigeria: north-westCameroon: Extreme North0% 20% 40% 60%* Regions presented in the graph are the first level of administrative division,except those in italics which are geographical areas.Sources: UNESCO-DME (2009); census, calculations by Harttgen and Klasen (2009).Proportionin populationProportion inbottom 20%0% 20% 40% 60%Note: The ‘bottom 20%’ is the 20% of 17- to 22-year-olds with the fewest years of education.* The indigenous language category in Mexico consists of those who speak indigenouslanguages only and do not speak Spanish.Sources: UNESCO-DME (2009); Mexico census, calculations by Harttgen and Klasen (2009).for three-quarters of the population in the lowesteducation quintile. In Nigeria, 86% of the lowesteducation quintile is in two regions – the north-westand north-east, which account for 43% of thepopulation.The disadvantages that drive people into thebottom 20% in education do not operate in isolation.They intersect and magnify the wider socialinequalities that restrict opportunities in education.This is illustrated in Figure 3.16, which uses DMEstatistics to look at the impact of two or threeoverlapping dimensions of deprivation. The impactof clustered disadvantage is evident from thecombined effects of poverty, gender and othermarkers for disadvantage. These effects can becaptured by reference to the ‘extreme educationpoverty’ benchmark of fewer than two years ineducation and the more recent disadvantagesreflected in the school attendance rates forprimary school age children:Being a rural girl in the Cambodian hill provincesof Mondol Kiri and Rattanak Kiri increases therisk of not being in school by a factor of five.Three-quarters of the group have fewer thantwo years in school, compared with a nationalaverage of 12%.In Guatemala, girls from poor households ofIndian ethnicity have primary net attendancerates of 60% compared with a national averageof 82% and they are over three times more likelyto have fewer than two years in school.In Turkey, one of the most marginalized groupsis Kurdish-speaking girls from the pooresthouseholds. Around 43% at ages 17 to 22 havefewer than two years of education, while thenational average is 6%.In Nigeria, poor Hausa girls face some of theworld’s most severe education deprivation.Some 97% of 17- to 22-year-olds have fewer thantwo years of education and just 12% of primaryschool age Hausa girls attend primary school.Each of these examples involves a relatively largepopulation group. They represent a statisticallysignificant national policy challenge. But combatingmarginalization is also about identifying smallgroups facing intensive deprivation. Figure 3.17uses the DME data set to illustrate the high levelsof marginalization experienced by a number ofsmall population groups. To take one case in point,almost 90% of the Mushahar community in Nepal,a largely landless low-caste group, is in the bottom20%. The average time spent in school for thoseaged 17 to 22 in this group is less than threemonths, and only 29% of girls and 41% of boysattend primary school. Similarly, in Viet Nam152