people and planet

14
The parity index must be interpreted cautiously, for
various reasons. For education indicators ranging from
0% to 100%, its value tends to depend on the level of
the indicator, with low inequality being recorded when
the level is high, approaching the ‘ceiling’ (Mingat and
Ndem, 2014). Thus it risks offering limited information,
as knowing the level of education development (e.g. the
level of the primary completion rate) can predict, to a
large extent, the level of inequality.
Plotting the primary completion rate against the wealth
parity index illustrates this (Figure 14.5). It would be
misleading to compare the value of the index of two
countries, such as Honduras and Mauritania, at different
completion rate levels and conclude that the latter
country is more unequal. However, the index is useful to
analyse inequality between countries at similar levels of
education development: for example, the wealth parity
index of the primary school completion rate was only
0.27 in Pakistan, compared with 0.56 in the Gambia.
Also, the parity index, by comparing two groups, only
uses a small part of available information. To show how
an education indicator is distributed in a population
ranked by a characteristic such as wealth (from poorest
to richest), the concentration index can be used (Figure
14.1d). Its calculation is based on the area between
the concentration curve (which shows the actual
distribution) and the diagonal line (which shows perfect
equality): the farther a line is to the right of the diagonal,
the higher the inequality.
For example, with respect to the distribution of the lower
secondary education completion rate in sub-Saharan Africa
by wealth in 2000 and 2010, the poorest 40% of young
people represented less than 20% of lower secondary
school completers. According to this measure, inequality
fell overall between 2000 and 2010, as the curve moved
closer towards the diagonal. However, the two concentration
curves intersect, showing that the middle classes
benefited most, while the poorest did worse (Figure 14.6).
Many governments have insufficient understanding
of the need to monitor, report and act on education
inequality. However, it is expected that the 2030
Agenda’s focus on leaving no one behind will lead to a
FIGURE 14.5:
The parity index as a measure of education inequality needs to be interpreted cautiously
Primary education completion rate and wealth parity index, selected low and middle income countries, 2008–2014
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Wealth parity index
0.6
0.5
0.4
Gambia
Honduras
0.3
0.2
Mauritania
Pakistan
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Primary completion rate (%)
Source: GEM Report team analysis (2016) based on household survey data.
2016 • GLOBAL EDUCATION MONITORING REPORT 261