1. EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2 0 1 2
YOUTH AND SKILLS
Putting education to work

2. United Nations
(GXFDWLRQDO 6FLHQWL¿F DQG
Cultural Organization
UNESCO
Publishing
YOUTH AND SKILLS
Putting education to work

3. 2
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
2
For more information about the Report,
please contact:
Previous EFA Global Monitoring Reports
ED -2012 / WS / 13

4. 3
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
3

5. 4
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
4

6. 5
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
5
■
■
■
■
■
■

7. 6
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
6

8. 7
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
7
Notes: The official age for pre-primary education is 3 to 5 in the three countries. In Nigeria, the poorest 40% are shown for urban areas.
Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team calculations (2012) based on Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey data.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Attendancerate(%)
Urban
Rural
Poorest 20%
Richest 20%Bangladesh
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Poorest 20%
Richest 20%
Nigeria
Rural
Rural
Poorest 20%
Richest 20%
Thailand
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Male
Female
Bangladesh, 2006 Nigeria, 2007 Thailand, 2006

9. 8
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
8
Numberofout-of-schoolchildren(millions)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999
13
17
61
31
108 million
25 million
40 million
42 million
Rest of the world
Sub-Saharan Africa
South and West Asia
14
18
61
29
19
19
74
35
Sources: Annex Statistical Table 5; UIS database.
Number of out-of-school children of primary school age, 1999–2010

10. 9
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
9
Notes: The size of the bubble is proportional to the number of out-of-school
children. The numbers in the bubbles show the number of out-of-school children.
The 2001 figures for Nigeria are from 2000. The 2010 figures for India are from 2008.
Source: UIS database.
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
India
Pakistan
Ethiopia
Nigeria
2010200720042001
Out-of-schoolchildren(%)
20.3
5.0
6.9
8.7
8.4
6.6
6.1
5.9
3.2
2.4
5.1
7.5
10.5
4.9
2.3
7.1

11. 10
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
10

12. 11
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mali
Chad
Gambia
Timor-Leste
Guinea-Bissau
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nepal
Côted'Ivoire
C.A.R.
Mauritania
Togo
PapuaN.Guinea
Ghana
Burundi
Sudan
Malawi
Rwanda
D.R.Congo
Cambodia
Angola
Zambia
Comoros
Madagascar
Iraq
SaudiArabia
Jamaica
Honduras
Swaziland
Kenya
Mauritius
S.Tome/Principe
Namibia
Lesotho
Brazil
Bahrain
Bolivia,P.S.
Equat.Guinea
Malaysia
Myanmar
Adultilliteracyrate(%)
1998–2001
Target
In Madagascar, the adult illiteracy rate is
projected to increase from 29% to 35% and
in the D. R. Congo from 33% to 34%.
In Chad, the adult illiteracy rate
was 74% in 2000...
...and is projected to fall
to 61% by 2015...
...well above the
target level of 37%.
2015 (projection)
Adult illiteracy rate
Note: The countries shown in the figure are those for which a projection to 2015 was feasible and that had an adult illiteracy rate above 10% in 1998–2001.
Sources: Annex, Statistical Table 2; UIS database.

13. 12
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
12
Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team analysis (2012) based on Demographic and Health Survey data.
Literacystatus(%)
Literate
Semi-literate
Illiterate
0
20
40
60
80
100
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Nigeria Ghana Zambia India Kenya Timor-Leste Cambodia U. R. Tanzania Haiti Nepal

14. 13
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
13
Notes: Only countries with data for 1990, 2000 and 2010 are plotted. If there was no information for a particular year, information was substituted up to two years before or after.
Afghanistan and Oman are excluded because they experienced negative trends.
Source: UIS database.
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
C. A. R.
Chad
Pakistan
Côte d'Ivoire
Niger
Guinea
Cameroon
D. R. Congo
Benin
Mali
Papua N. Guinea
Togo
Djibouti
Mozambique
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Comoros
Burkina Faso
Lao PDR
Sierra Leone
Guinea-Bissau
Algeria
Morocco
Cambodia
Guatemala
Egypt
Tunisia
Burundi
Ghana
India
Iran, Isl. Rep.
Uganda
Gambia
Malawi
Mauritania
Senegal
Gender parity index
Gender
parity
1990–2000 2000–2010 Below 0.90 represents
severe gender disparity.

15. 14
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shanghai, China
Finland
Rep. of Korea
Hong Kong, China
Singapore
Macao, China
Canada
Estonia
Japan
Chinese Taipei
Switzerland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Australia
Iceland
Denmark
Norway
Germany
Belgium
Poland
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Ireland
Slovakia
Sweden
Latvia
Czech Republic
France
Hungary
United States
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Lithuania
Russian Federation
Greece
Croatia
Malta
Israel
Serbia
Turkey
Bulgaria
Uruguay
Romania
Mauritius
Mexico
Chile
United Arab Emirates
Trinidad and Tobago
Thailand
Costa Rica
Miranda, Venezuela, B. R.
Montenegro
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Rep. of Moldova
Argentina
Jordan
Albania
Brazil
Georgia
Colombia
Qatar
Peru
Tunisia
Indonesia
Panama
Tamil Nadu, India
Kyrgyzstan
15-year-olds scoring at or above level 2 in mathematics (%)
Poor girls
Poor boys
Rich girls
Rich boys
Notes: Of countries and economies that participated in the 2009 PISA, Azerbaijan,
Himachal Pradesh (India) and Liechtenstein are not included. Poor/Rich refers to the
bottom/top quartile in the PISA economic, social and cultural status index.
Sources: Altinok (2012b), based on 2009 PISA data; Walker (2011).

16. 15
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
15

17. 16
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
16
Egypt, 2008
Jordan, 2009
Pakistan, 2007
India, 2005
Nepal, 2011
Bangladesh, 2007
Maldives, 2009
Niger, 2006
Poorest
100% 0%
Richest
Mali, 2006
Sierra Leone, 2008
Benin, 2006
Guinea, 2005
Madagascar, 2009
Ethiopia, 2011
Ghana, 2008
Nigeria, 2008
Côte d'Ivoire, 2005
Liberia, 2007
Senegal, 2010
U. R. Tanzania, 2010
Malawi, 2010
D. R. Congo, 2007
Uganda, 2006
Zambia, 2007
Rwanda, 2010
Lesotho, 2009
Swaziland, 2006
Congo, 2009
Kenya, 2009
Namibia, 2007
Sao Tome and Principe, 2009
Zimbabwe, 2010
National average

18. 17
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
17
Poorest Richest
Female Male
Female Male
Niger
Egypt
Poorest Richest
Female Male
Female Male
Pakistan
RichestPoorest
Female Male
MaleFemale
National average
100% 0%

19. 18
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
18

20. 19
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
19
Note: * indicates that a country-specific share of aid on budget was estimated from country documents; for the other countries, an average of 60% of aid was assumed.
Source: UNESCO (2012b).
Sub-Saharan Africa
Swaziland
Angola
Côte d'Ivoire
* Kenya
Cameroon
Lesotho
* Ghana
Chad
Togo
Senegal
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Benin
D. R. Congo
Niger
Uganda
Madagascar
Gambia
Malawi
Burundi
Mali
Burkina Faso
Guinea
* Rwanda
Eritrea
* Mozambique
Zambia
Government and donor education spending (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
In Mali, aid accounted for 25% of the total
education budget over the period 2004–2010.
Source: OECD-DAC (2012b).
Total aid to
secondary
education
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2002 2009200820072006200520042003 2010
Constant2010US$billions
Total aid to
post-secondary
education
Total aid to
basic education
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6.9
3.1
1.0
2.8
8.3
4.1
1.1
3.1
8.6
4.0
1.3
3.4
9.6
4.4
1.2
4.0
10.6
4.8
1.6
4.3
11.6
5.0
1.8
4.8
11.5
4.7
1.9
4.9
13.4
5.3
2.4
5.8
13.5
5.3
2.3
5.8

21. 20
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
20
Note: Maximizing natural resource revenue is assumed to take place in two steps:
(i) an increase in the share of revenue from natural resource exports to 30% for
minerals and to 75% for oil; and (ii) the allocation of 20% of this additional revenue
to education.
Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report team calculations (2012) based on UIS database
and IMF Article IV reviews.
US$billions
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Burkina Faso
+23%
+49% +42%
+10%
+98%
Lao PDR Niger U. R. Tanzania Uganda
Potential extra funding from natural resource revenue
Total education budget in 2010
In the Niger, extra
funding could increase
the education budget
by 42%.

22. 21
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
21
Notes: Around two-thirds of the US$15 million annual average from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation originally came from the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation.
In most cases, the amount of support to education in developing countries had to be estimated using aggregate data from foundations.
Sources: Annex, Aid Table 2; Carnegie Corporation of New York (2011); Ford Foundation (2011); MasterCard Foundation (2010); William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2010);
van Fleet (2012).
$61m $13m$21m $15m
United Kingdom United States Netherlands
Switzerland New Zealand Finland Luxembourg
$911m $888m
$567m
$61m $59m $52m $36m
Open Society
Foundations
Ford
Foundation
MasterCard
Foundation
William
and Flora
Hewlett
Foundation
$9m
Carnegie
Corporation
of New York

23. 22
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
22

24. 23
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
23

25. 24
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
24
Pathways to Skills

26. 25
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
25

27. 26
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
26
Source: UIS (2012a).
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
Ukraine 2007
Kazakhstan 2006
Armenia 2005
Kyrgyzstan 2006
Albania 2009
Rep. Moldova 2005
Azerbaijan 2006
Colombia 2010
Bolivia 2008
Maldives 2009
Tajikistan 2005
Guyana 2009
Brazil 2006
Dominican Rep. 2007
Egypt 2008
Indonesia 2007
Philippines 2003
Kenya 2009
Zimbabwe 2006
Turkey 2004
Ghana 2008
Timor-Leste 2010
Namibia 2007
India 2006
Nigeria 2008
Belize 2006
Nepal 2006
Swaziland 2007
Congo 2005
D. R. Congo 2010
Syrian A. R. 2006
Bangladesh 2006
Zambia 2007
Cameroon 2006
Pakistan 2007
Lesotho 2010
Togo 2006
S. Tome/Principe 2009
Cambodia 2010
Malawi 2010
Sierra Leone 2008
Morocco 2004
Benin 2006
Haiti 2006
Mauritania 2007
Côte d’Ivoire 2006
U. R. Tanzania 2010
Madagascar 2009
Liberia 2007
Guinea 2005
Uganda 2006
Mali 2006
Ethiopia 2005
Senegal 2005
C. A. R. 2006
Burkina Faso 2006
Mozambique 2003
Niger 2006
Rwanda 2005
Youth aged 15 to 19 (%)
No education Dropped out (primary) In primary Dropped out (lower secondary)
In lower secondary Dropped out (upper secondary) In upper secondary or higher

28. 27
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
27

29. 28
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
28

30. 29
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
29

31. 30
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
30

32. 31
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
31
Note: This figure shows only direct aid to education; it excludes aid to education from general budget support.
Source: OECD-DAC (2012).
All donors Germany France Japan Canada
US$103m
US$392m
US$79m
US$172m
US$887m
US$923m
US$1 071m
US$2 039m
Shareofdisbursementstodirecteducation(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ScholarshipsImputed student costsPost-secondarySecondaryBasic Unspecified

33. 32
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
32

34. 33
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
33
Notes: The rate of progression to upper secondary school is a proxy indicator for progression from lower secondary to upper secondary. It is measured by the proportion of upper
secondary to lower secondary gross enrolment ratios. In an ideal system where all lower secondary students continue to upper secondary, the ratio equals 1. Honduras has a lower
secondary gross enrolment ratio of 75% and an upper secondary gross enrolment ratio of 71%. The rate of progression is calculated to be 95%, indicating that most of those who
have the chance to go to lower secondary are likely to continue to upper secondary. In Egypt, the gross enrolment ratio at lower secondary level is 94%. With a gross enrolment ratio
of 51% at the upper secondary level, Egypt’s progression rate from lower to upper secondary is estimated to be about 0.54 (51/94). This suggests that, while most young people have
the opportunity to participate in lower secondary education, only around half are able to continue to upper secondary.
Source: Annex, Statistical Table 7.
Progressionfromlowertouppersecondaryenrolment(%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lower secondary gross enrolment ratio (%)
Niger
EthiopiaUganda
C. A. R.
Pakistan
Yemen
Nigeria
Mauritania
Swaziland
India
Egypt
Kenya
Syrian A. R.
Ghana
Algeria
Mexico
TunisiaTajikistan
Turkey
Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States
Rep. of Korea
China
Venezuela, B.R.
Bolivia P.S.
Ecuador
Honduras
Russian Fed.
Group 1:
Very low enrolment
Group 3:
Medium enrolment,
good progression
Group 2:
Medium enrolment,
poor progression
110 120 130 140
Group 4:
High enrolment,
poor progression
Group 5:
High enrolment,
good progression

35. 34
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
34

36. 35
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
35

37. 36
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
36
Rural poorest are at a greater disadvantage
than urban poorest
Urban poorest are at a greater
disadvantage than rural poorest
Youthpopulation(%)
Rep.Moldova
Tajikistan
Albania
Mozambique
Azerbaijan
Egypt
Namibia
Bangladesh
Nepal
Malawi
Cambodia
SyrianA.R.
Mauritania
Timor-Leste
Rwanda
Senegal
Uganda
Morocco
C.A.R.
Côted’Ivoire
Liberia
Haiti
U.R.Tanzania
Madagascar
Mali
SierraLeone
S.Tome/Principe
Benin
Lesotho
Cameroon
Pakistan
Togo
Belize
D.R.Congo
Nigeria
Congo
Turkey
Ghana
Philippines
Indonesia
Brazil
Guyana
Colombia
DominicanRep.
Rural poorest 40%
Urban poorest 40%
Urban richest 20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bolivia,P.S.
Source: UIS (2012a).

38. 37
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
37

39. 38
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
38

40. 39
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
39

41. 40
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
40
Youthaged15to24(%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Females are at a disadvantage Gender parity
Rural male Rural female
Niger
BurkinaFaso
Mozambique
C.A.R.
Senegal
Morocco
Guinea
Mali
Ethiopia
SierraLeone
Côted’Ivoire
Benin
Liberia
Cameroon
Uganda
U.R.Tanzania
Togo
D.R.Congo
Zambia
Pakistan
Malawi
Cambodia
Congo
Mauritania
Turkey
Nepal
SyrianA.R.
Nigeria
Ghana
Zimbabwe
BoliviaP.S.
Kenya
Egypt
Tajikistan
Azerbaijan
Rwanda
Madagascar
Haiti
SanTome/Principe
Bangladesh
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Indonesia
Albania
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Source: UIS (2012a).

42. 41
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
41
Males are at a disadvantage
Lesotho
Belize
Namibia
Brazil
Philippines
DominicanRep.
Colombia
Maldives
Guyana
Moldova

43. 42
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
42

44. 43
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
43

45. 44
E D U C A T I O N F O R A L L G L O B A L M O N I T O R I N G R E P O R T 2 0 1 2
44

46. YOUTH AND SKILLS
Putting education to work
www.unesco.org/publishing
www.efareport.unesco.org
United Nations
(GXFDWLRQDO 6FLHQWL¿F DQG
Cultural Organization
UNESCO
Publishing