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

OVERVIEWon the scale of marginalization within countries andon the social composition of marginalized groups.Despite the progress of the past decade, absolutedeprivation in education remains at extraordinarily highlevels. On any global scale, having fewer than four yearsof education, the minimum required for basic literacy, isan indicator of extreme disadvantage. The DME data setestablishes this as a benchmark for ‘education poverty’,with less than two years in school as an indicator for‘extreme education poverty’. Findings from sixty-threedeveloping countries include the following:Education poverty. In twenty-two countries, 30% ormore of those aged 17 to 22 have fewer than four yearsof education, and the share rises to 50% or more ineleven countries of sub-Saharan Africa.Extreme education poverty. In twenty-six countries,20% or more of those aged 17 to 22 have fewerthan two years of schooling and, in some countries,including Burkina Faso and Somalia, the shareis 50% or more.These averages mask extreme inequalities linked towealth and gender. In the Philippines, education povertyrates among the poor are four times the nationalaverage. In some countries, high levels of marginalizationamong poor females account for a significant share ofeducation poverty. Just under half of poor rural femalesaged 17 to 22 in Egypt have fewer than four years ofeducation and in Morocco the rate is 88%. Socialinequalities also explain some striking cross-countrydifferences. With a per capita income comparableto Viet Nam’s, Pakistan has over three times the levelof education poverty – a reflection of disparities linkedto wealth, gender and region.The factors leading to marginalization in education donot operate in isolation. Wealth and gender intersect withlanguage, ethnicity, region and rural-urban differences tocreate mutually reinforcing disadvantages. Detailed DMEdata for those aged 17 to 22 help identify groups facingparticularly extreme restrictions on education opportunityand highlight the scale of national inequalities.Cross-country analysis reveals complex patterns ofmarginalization. Some social groups face almost universaldisadvantage. Pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa are anexample. In Uganda, which has made strong progresstowards universal primary education, Karamajongpastoralists average less than one year in education.Many countries also show large disparities linked tolanguage. In Guatemala, average years in school rangefrom 6.7 for Spanish speakers to 1.8 for speakers of Q’eqchi’.© Giacomo Pirozzi/PANOSThe DME data set makes it possible to look beyondabsolute deprivation to identify some of the keycharacteristics of those who are being left behind.Using surveys, it identifies people found in the bottom20% of the national distribution in terms of years inschool. The results highlight the powerful influenceof social circumstances, over which children haveno control, in determining life chances. They also drawattention to unacceptable levels of inequality:The wealth divide means that being born into apoor household doubles the risk of being in the bottom20% in countries ranging from India to the Philippinesand Viet Nam.Regional divides mean that living in areas such asrural Upper Egypt, northern Cameroon and easternTurkey increases significantly the risk of falling intothe bottom 20%.Gender, poverty, language and culture often combineto produce an extremely heightened risk of being leftfar behind. In Turkey, 43% of Kurdish-speaking girlsfrom the poorest households have fewer than twoyears of education, while the national average is 6%;in Nigeria, some 97% of poor Hausa-speaking girlshave fewer than two years of education.Time spent in school is just one dimension ofmarginalization. There are also marked gaps in learningachievement linked to socio-economic status. Children ofparents in the wealthiest fourth of the population in Braziland Mexico score 25% to 30% higher in mathematicstest scores, on average, than children of parents in thepoorest fourth. Having a home language that is differentfrom the official language of instruction is also associatedwith lower test scores: in Turkey, Turkish speakers are30% less likely than non-Turkish speakers to scorebelow a minimum benchmark in mathematics.9